As the old Chinese saying goes, "When the city gate is on fire, the fish in the moat will suffer." In the past couple of decades, the fires of the US presidential elections have been making Chinese fish warmer and warmer.
Like clockwork, every four years the elections held on the other side of the Pacific Ocean turn China into a target of criticism. Even a recent Wall Street Journal report referred to China as a favorite punching bag for US presidential candidates.
The China ploy was already obvious by the time when Bill Clinton was campaigning in the early 1990s. Right now, both George W. Bush and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry are both upholding this not-so-fine old tradition. Since the race began last year, the Bush administration has repeatedly responded to Kerry's trade-policy shoving by turning around and taking a swing at China. The administration has provoked disputes concerning imports of Chinese textiles, furniture and color televisions. It filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging unfair trade practices for taxes assessed on foreign-made semiconductors.
Actually, China and the US reached consensus on a number of issues after some mutual effort, especially when Vice Premier Wu Yi led a high-level Chinese delegation to the 15th session of the China-US Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade held in Washington on April 21. With disputes abating, trade between the two countries is already showing signs of an upturn.
In his April 26 election-rally speeches, Kerry lashed out at the Bush administration's China trade policy. On April 28, the administration rejected the workers' rights petition calling for trade sanctions against China that had been submitted by the AFL-CIO and the 14 unions of the Industrial Union Council. The decision added fuel to Kerry's fire.
Analysts have pointed out that Kerry's attacks, to a great extent, emanate from his own campaign needs. As the rivalry between Kerry and Bush escalates, Kerry lunges for every administration weakness in an attempt to strike a telling blow.
Employment has remained Bush's biggest headache since he took office four years ago. Kerry blames Bush for the long slide into joblessness, and on many occasions has made it clear that the economic recovery achieved by the Bush administration without obvious employment growth is not a real recovery at all. Kerry claims that employment will be given top priority in his economic plan, promising that if elected, he will create 10 million new jobs in his first term. To exert more pressure on Bush, Kerry even boldly predicted that his economic policy would lower the unemployment rate from the current 5.6 percent to 4.1 percent by 2009.
It is fact that the US does have an unfavorable balance of trade with China, and Chinese products can be found everywhere in the US market. This has, to an extent, affected US manufacturing. Kerry has spared no effort to use that to condemn Bush for his trade policy. So far, the strategy has produced notable results for Kerry.
As he has traveled the campaign trail this year, the Democratic presidential candidate has made China the scapegoat for the high US unemployment rate. The tactic is reminiscent of a Bill Clinton who was running frantically for the presidency a dozen years ago. While campaigning for the 1992 election, Clinton vehemently attacked Bush Senior's position on the China human rights issue. But once in office, he was even chummier with China than his predecessor. This may be a broad hint as to the direction of Kerry's trade policy if he makes it to the White House.
After all, trade ultimately creates a win-win situation, benefiting both the US and China. China's global economic status cannot be ignored, and no one underestimates the strength of China-US trade ties.
(China.org.cn by Shao Da, May 25, 2004)
