Yes! This book provides a comprehensive overview of how China operates on the world stage, and at home too.

http://www.peternavarro.com/comingchinawars.html

Yet another whinge piece about China.

If the author cares to check his History of the Twentieth Century, he might find some substantial parallels in stories of the rise to economic prominence of the United States. The post-war expansion of US-based multinational companies, repatriating their profits to eager shareholders at the expense of their overseas outposts, was a significant factor in that country's dominance of world trade.

And if he went back further, he might also take a quick sideways glance at the methods of Cecil Rhodes and de Beers in South Africa, and before that the operations of the East India Company in India and China.

These - and others - had a substantial impact on the economy of the UK, and on that of their "target" countries. Had Mr Lewis been a commentator in those days, I wonder whether he would have exhibited the same level of disapproval at their antics.

And if he claims that he would indeed have been equally critical of their ventures, what alternatives might he have proposed, one wonders, to those European empire-builders? And whatever that advice might have been, I can't imagine anyone taking the slightest notice. Can you?

We live in the realities of today, not some kind of airy-fairy, if-only world of abstract idealism. And when you analyse it, the article is composed of little more than a long string of dog-in-the-manger gripes, caused by the realization that others behave today, precisely as we behaved yesterday and the day before.

Every day that passes lifts the veil on our collective hypocrisy just a little further, does it not. No bad thing, I'd say.

Pericles, answer no.

While i am well aware of wrongdoings of past, I am offering a Western perspective in accordance to what I believe in.

I do not look forward to living in a world ever dominated by authoritarian China, so i will keep on whinging while you may want to celebrate its success.

The other thing. i am not opposed to the rise of new economies and the decline of the old.

If one believes in fairer trade, then lower cost economies should have some advantage to close the gap.

However, free trade is being affected by major distortions caused by mercantile China, and the current policy orthodoxy which is allowing China to benefit most.

Until I am convinced otherwise, i do not see how the rise of mercantile and authoritarian China is good for the world, or the concept of freer and fairer trade.

So, again, i will whinge, whinge, whinge.

Chris
The arguments for free trade do not assume an imaginary state in which everyone else is also practising free trade. If Australia trades freely (or more freely) with another which is more protectionist, all it means is that the protectionist country (state) is, in effect, taxing its own citizens to provide free handouts to us.

China's history as an authoritarian state goes way back and I don't see it changing any time soon, but if there is one thing more than any other that can influence it towards freedom and away from authoritarianism is is free trade.

There's no point in getting snotty about it Mr Lewis.

>>I do not look forward to living in a world ever dominated by authoritarian China, so i will keep on whinging while you may want to celebrate its success.<<

Celebration does not come into the equation, any more than disapproval. Or vituperation, come to that. You may apply your value judgments as much as you like. You won't alter the facts.

And quite frankly, it matters not a tinkers damn whether you "look forward" to a world in which China has greater influence on affairs than it does today, or not. Instead of your "whinge, whinge, whinge", would it not be smarter to begin to consider how we might better prepare ourselves for the changing balance in economic power?

The point about observing the history of previous economies has nothing to do with colonial guilt, and everything to do with learning the lessons. The concept that what China is doing is somehow unfair, simply because it is not in our own narrow interest, has no resonance. And your complaint that what they are doing is somehow "not good for the world" is fundamentally shallow - what scenario do you suggest should replace it, and what would be the consequences of your alternative to a) the Chinese people and b) the world economy?

Your chosen role appears to be analogous to that of Canute's courtiers. Get with the programme. The tide's coming in.

When Austraia has no non renewable resources (ie Coal, Iron etc) to trade with China we will have to accept the same standard of living as the Chinese.

Peter Hume, i wish (and hope) you are right, but i have my doubts that unilateral action is enough to achieve goals.

Perikles, i do agree with your sentiment of the need to adapt to changes in the world. After all, i am a realist.

As the EU does, it is increasing protectionist measures against some 60 Chinese products, but i assume the entity is still committed to freer trade in general terms. That is the approach I would like to see all Western nations adopt, including Australia.

I think this trend will be inevitable as Western nations increasingly realise that severe economic restructuring is inevitable, regardless of wishful thinking on Aust's part.

Perikles,

I also agree that China has important considerations and needs.

However, i do not believe that we should merely accept our demise, or we should merely support policies which are now essentially a China benefit (especially for the Communist party, its elite and wealthy class that have the best of all worlds - cheap labour and a govt which can do just about anything it likes in terms of the direction of vital resources).

The West can retain its commitment to freer trade, but be increasingly insistent that China adheres to the same rules that Western economies allow. If China wants to place immense barriers on Western companies, then their companies should also face similar barriers.

In other words, the West's past toleration of China's practices, which did deliver it immense economic gain, should now be at a point of greater limitation and less generosity.

Worst case scenario, assuming that all parties remain peaceful, is that China will have to look to alternate strategies to boost its domestic economy rather than attracting more and more production away from other nations.

You still seem to view this in apocalyptic terms, Mr Lewis.

>>However, i do not believe that we should merely accept our demise<<

International trade is not, and never has been, a zero-sum game. China's future prosperity does not mean that we will be concomitantly poorer - except, of course, in relative terms. China becoming richer is inevitable, but certainly not an indication of any "demise" on our part. That's Tea Party talk.

>>i do not believe that we should... merely support policies which are now essentially a China benefit (especially for the Communist party, its elite and wealthy class...<<

Hmmm. Are you equally vocal when discussing Wall Street bonuses, or the salaries-and-perks of our own home-grown "elite and wealthy class", I wonder? Your observations on Ralph Norris' $16.5m (he earns Australia's average annual wage every day of the year) Ian McLeod's $15.6m, or Marius Kloppers' $11.6m might be of interest in this context. What is the major difference between the "elite and wealthy class" in China, and our own pigs-in-the-trough?

http://m.news.com.au/TopStories/pg/0/fi823709.htm

"...the average chief executive's total pay in Australia's top listed companies increased 131 per cent over the decade and the median bonus rose 190 per cent. Average workers' pay increased 52.3 per cent over the same period and returns to shareholders only rose 31 per cent."

>>If China wants to place immense barriers on Western companies, then their companies should also face similar barriers.<<

And these "immense barriers" are...?

Perhaps you could be a little more specific about the action you see us taking. That would help cut through the somewhat emotional rhetoric, and assess your arguments against the realities.

Chris Lewis.
I'm blowed if I can how you can see "free trade" as anything more than a misnomer, in historical-practice or even ideally.
The "principles" of free trade you seem to want to sanctify have only ever been hypothetical, and indeed are evocative of government regulation to keep them free, which instantly invalidates them. In the real world these principles have been deferred, circumvented, creatively interpreted and ignored since forever. Indeed it's fair to say that free trade does not, has never, and cannot exist. Free trade is on par with talk of utopia.
Which begs the question as to your hostility towards China. It has its self-interests and an ideology to push, and it does so by whatever underhand means are at hand (the true principle of capitalism) in this realist dispensation. Are you saying that the West is inhibited by scruples(rofl)?
Free trade is as close as you can get to natural evolution, and just as principled!
China's authoritarianism can on the other hand be seen as principled; it doesn't patronise its population with a false sense of security, nor encourage egotism the way the West does. It's been forced by the dominant paradigm to get down and dirty, but maybe it's taken the old parable to heart about lying down with dogs? Maybe it's determined to suffer the humiliation to a point but no further..
China's an unknown entity and we can only speculate as to its intentions. But to foster the ludicrous premise that the West is somehow above resort to whatever underhand means present themselves, that it doesn't have a hatefully-violent and authoritarian history itself that "goes way back", or to imagine that it wouldn't in an instant resort to violence and authoritarianism again, should it prove more "economic", or that its methods are not or have not always been entirely opportunistic and beneath contempt, is frankly naive.
China's rulers do authoritatively what the West does by deceit, manipulation and stealth.
None of which is to say I'm not nervous about China, but better the devil you don't know than the devil you know.

Pericles, these 'immense barriers' come in many forms.

I'll try to list some specific issues with references.

1) Foreign firms operating in China find themselves under much more scrutiny than Chinese firms. They can't adopt the same practices as local firms. This is advice from a law firm operating in China.
http://www.chinalawblog.com/2011/09/how_to_conduct_business_in_china_lay_low_make_friendsfollow_the_law.html
The point is, that while Chinese law is actually much clearer than most people think, enforcement is spotty. It used against foreign companies much more readily than local.

2) The lack of an independent judicial system means that those in power, namely the central government, are capable of subverting or ignoring the legal system. This is a disadvantage for many smaller businesses, true. But for large, state owned enterprises, it means they lack accountability. A definite advantage when they're competing against multinationals who generally need to at least abide by the laws of where they're based. For more, this case is rather enlightening:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/making-a-public-spectacle-of-proceedings-could-ensure-justice-in-china-20110808-1ij38.html

3) Foreign companies wishing to operate in China tend to find themselves needing to use one of a variety of corporate structures. In the past, Variable Interest Entities (VIEs) have been popular. (More on those here: http://www.businessinsider.com/reuters-china-vie-company-structure-under-threat-2011-9)
These days, it's more common for investors to find Chinese partners. These deals often involve all kinds of clauses, such as technology or IP transfers. Essentially, this means that if you want access to the Chinese market, you have to do it with a Chinese business and often give them your hard earned branding or R&D.

4) The media as a cudgel. It's easy to see when it's used politically. Take this snitty piece on Gary Locke: http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/676399/Lockes-lifestyle-and-new-mission.aspx
It's harder when it's being used against corporates, but there's more on that here: http://www.chinahearsay.com/china-attempts-ugly-friend-gambit/

5) Ownership restrictions.
Name one foreign media network with a significant slice of any of the Chinese media. There aren't many, because that's restricted. I'll grant you, Baidu is foreign owned and controls most of the online search market. It however, has been coming under sustained attack from the Government owned CCTV network, which has also launched their own search engine. Funny that.
http://chinarealpolitik.com/2011/08/22/whats-really-behind-the-dispute-between-cctv-and-baidu/

One area overlooked in the article is China’s low rating in the Environmental Performance Index, at 121 in 163 countries.

http://epi.yale.edu/Countries

Australia has little to celebrate either, at 51.

Should China be doing more with its massive monetary surplus to improve its environmental performance?

Yes.

Are countries who export to China also reducing their own Environmental Performance Index figure, by speeding up the depletion of their natural resources?

Quite possibly.

Now let's see.The USA and NATO have invaded 7 countries for oil and resources,then creates a monetary crisis and Mr Lewis accuses China of being aggesssive? The imperialists are on our side.

Fair points, Mr Lewis.

Although I personally wouldn't categorize them as "immense barriers", there are certainly pitfalls to be avoided. I remember doing the research myself many years ago when setting up an agency operation to deal with China through Hong Kong. Having a trustworthy local partner was absolutely essential, if one wanted to avoid disaster.

But I found that there were equally complex issues to overcome when dealing with India. The bureaucracy there, coupled with the still-rife requirement to grease palms (although they never called it that), needed to be studied and planned for.

So do you fear the rise of Indian economic power in the same way that you fear the Chinese? It is just a feeling I get, but you seem to have more of a problem coming to grips with China than with anyone else, even though the problems tend to be universal, rather than restricted to the Chinese.

Would I be right?

Pericles, i don't know as much about India, probably because i have much less concern with India.

I recognise that it is important that we have a trading system that does allow poorer nations to develop and use their various advantages.

My belief is that if all participant nations behave in a similar way, within reason given different levels of wealth and strategies, then the extent of decline in the West will be less so as we have more time to adapt and adjust through appropriate reform. Then there is more likely to be a win-win situation which has less to do with our reliance on debt and the Chinamaerica dependence.

As i suggest, the time may have come for the West to be more assertive in its expectations from China. I am not against freer trade, although there will always be some concerns.

Pericles, I think we all agree that fairness, corruption and transparency (of rules, regulations and opportunities) are all issues that need to be addressed in terms of the behaviour of any nation seeking to benefit from interaction with the international economy.

BTW, there are many aspects of policies by Western nations which are also problematic, including ridiculous wages for CEOs. I just feel that pluralist societies are most capable of bringing attention to domestic and foreign issues with a hope of them being more adequately addressed

Pericles, further to Chris's comments regarding differences between China and India. One of the key differences, is accountability. This, in essence is the key function of democracy. I don't tend to think it actually functions as a way to choose the best leaders, rather, it works as a release valve. Leaders are restricted to a short time in power and when the public grows annoyed with them they can be fired.

The Chinese government operates under a distinctly different set of principles. It's not just the democracy issue, I think that comes second to the fact that there isn't really any rule of law.

Take the recent imprisonment of the famous Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei. When he was arrested, the Chinese government breached their own constitution, but it didn't really matter.

http://www.englishpen.org/writersinprison/wipcnews/chinaprominentartistandcriticaiweiweidetainedfearsforsafety/

Since then, the Chinese government has set about remedying this, so people can be arrested at any time and held without charge, for charges as nebulous as subverting state power. Ok, so you may want to draw parallels with American anti-terrorism laws. I'd argue that the American laws are more explicit in relation to there needing to be some kind of violent intent, but I concede there's room for disagreement there.

This does lead however, to the example of Liu Xiaobo - imprisoned for 11 years, for authoring a document, Charter 08, which suggested a gradual separation of powers and the rule of law.

India on the other hand, does have the rule of law. Granted, corruption is rife, but the government does not hold all of the cards in the same way the Chinese government does.

It's instructive to compare the case of Anna Hazare and Liu Xiaobo. Hazare remains free in India, lauded by many.

Liu Xiaobo remains unknown to most Chinese citizens, because the government has blocked out all news relating to him - despite the fact that he's China's first recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Quite a feat.

A well-researched article, Chris. You raise some good points. Without venturing to disagree, I’d observe that you’ve taken a very much ‘glass half-empty’ stance on China. I wonder if the ‘glass half-full’ position doesn’t also have merit.

Back in 1976, China was only just winding up the Cultural Revolution. The country was hungry, exhausted, and technologically backwards. Schools taught Mao Thought, not reading or maths. Tens of millions had died. The Red Guards had been particularly fierce on ‘intellectuals’: those with skills and education. Economically, politically, and ethically, China was a basket case. And any Chinese who suggested so was doomed.

Fast forward a few decades, and -- mirabile dictu -- China has discovered capitalism. They’ve become self-sufficient in many areas, net exporters in others. Rigid state control has been replaced by a complex patchwork of local initiatives. From the Great Famine of the 1960s, they’ve dramatically lifted the standard of living of their people. Tienamen Square MAY have bgeen the last desperate gasp of a failing authoritarian episteme.

The Chinese economy is plagued by corruption, of course. The nomenklatura suck blood from those with initiative, the poor and powerless are displaced, ignored, abused. Still, they’re better off than at any time in their history. The so-called Western World endured similar periods; our current rights emerged, for the most part in the 20th century; China’s may be blossoming soon. The authoritarian One Child Policy is obsolete; China now faces the very Western challenge of supporting an ageing population with fecundity at below replacement rates.

Perhaps most importantly, China now has skin in the game. Economic crises in the EU and US are bad for Chinese exports; the Red Tide is ebbing. War would be bad for business. China in 2011 is doing what Japan did in the 1950s/60s: joining the global marketplace, and learning how to prosper from peace.

Which guarantees absolutely nothing, of course. Still, you ask ‘How long can Western nations ... afford to accept the rise of authoritarian China?‘ I’d say: as long as it takes for them to become like us.