Main Edition
US
FR
May 5, 2021 - 10:56am
When the world’s two great powers, the United States and China, normalised relations in 2000, it was heralded as liberalism’s crowning triumph. That China, an authoritarian country with no democratic history to speak of, could accede to the WTO and acquiesce to a rules-based system underscored the belief that the arc of history bended towards democracy.
“When China joins the W.T.O., by 2005 it will eliminate tariffs on information technology products, making the tools of communication even cheaper, better and more widely available,” announced president Bill Clinton. “We know how much the Internet has changed America, and we are already an open society. Imagine how much it could change China. Now there’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the Internet. Good luck! That’s sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.”
As the last few years have shown, China did manage to nail Jell-O to the wall; it is now a surveillance state with an iron grip on the Internet and its population. So it was curious to see Hillary Clinton, considered one of the architects of the neoliberal era, talking in rather different terms at a Chatham House talk yesterday. With no mention of her own involvement in the China policy of the past 30 years, she now only stresses the need to reshore supply chains and “take back the means of production”:
I would add that more and more businesses are seeing that unless they are low-cost producers of retail clothing which will probably never come back. But if they are producing anything more sophisticated, increasingly the Chinese government — through coercion, unfair regulation, enforced partnerships or royalty agreements — is slowly stealing that intellectual property anyway. So we have got to get smarter about how we deal with the economic threat. For people who say “but that disrupts the market!” — China has disrupted the market. China is not a free market economy — we tried! We let them into the WTO; we sent the our businesses over there; we made trade deals. They are a controlled top-down economy. You will never compete and win against them unless you take back the means of production. It is way past due for us to do that.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnd will she be handing back the money she made the from globalist, neo-liberal Goldman Sachs etc? Will the Clinton Foundation be compensating the families of the tens of thousands of Americans who died from opioids at least partly due to NAFTA.
I thought not. The Clintons make Trump look like Mother Theresa. And having got rid of him they are copying his policies. By God these people are evil.
Sounds like a rip off of Trumps America First agenda to me. America has given their power and influence away to China in less than 30 years. I dont see it coming back any time soon.
Yes they seem to be lurching from one policy to the next, first cancelling the pipeline and creating a lot of unemployment , then stating they must put America first. I don’t know how Hilary Clinton fits into this new regime as I thought she had lost fairly conclusively in 2016? I suppose she is younger than Biden-perhaps there might be a Trump v Clinton 2024 run for President?
This sad yet evil woman so desperately wants to remain relevant.
With no mention of her own involvement in the China policy of the past 30 years Were you really expecting self-awareness from Herself? China represents a vision of the fantasy US that she and other leftist control freaks have always wanted.
The economic logic of re-shoring would seem to hurt the Democrat’s middle class voting base. However, I suspect they’ll mitigate its impacts, by turning a blind eye to illegal immigration and using government money to pump up asset prices, for the asset owning classes, who vote for them.
It will sow the seeds of a future crash but will win elections, so they don’t care.
The economic logic of re-shoring would seem to hurt the Democrat’s middle class voting base.
The Dems have no use for such a voting group, as those people tend to have jobs and are not dependent on govt handouts. They’re not victims, they don’t go around breaking things and screaming.
You have a strange notion of who votes for Democrat candidates. For example, over 81 million Americans voted for Biden — is it your claim that they are all victims that go around breaking things and screaming?
I’ll answer this. Yes, because those who are breaking things and screaming are acting in what is held by the Bidens of this world (and their supporters) to be a ‘noble cause’, that is, of erasing the individual and his ‘rights’ and replacing them with duties towards the ‘collective’.
H Clinton lacks the moral gyroscope without which it is not possible to become a woman worthy of respect, let alone President of the USA. The fact that she failed, twice to become President. says much for the democratic system. I would not pay attention to, let alone follow, one word from this woman.
I’d have thought a lack of moral gyroscope would make one almost over-qualified for high office.
And what would the appalling Hillary Clinton, who has never done a day’s useful work in her life, know about ‘the means of production’? Of course, given her involvement in Libya and other similar ventures she knows quite a lot about ‘the means of destruction’. Will these people ever go away?
“Maybe some unintended consequence of war down the road.”
Clinton makes it sound so trivial.
She is like a flag in the wind. Where is the humility? She can say – we got it wrong . I made a mistake. I could listen to that. But this pure plagiarism of Trump policy.
I don’t even like Trump, I like her even less.
Hello, welcome to just that choice that most Americans made in that election.
Given Clinton is likely heavily involved in giving orders to Biden and well connected in Globalist circles, this is very important. I thought it was just me, but as others have said this is practically Trumpian.
Beggars belief that the only recent Clinton reference on publically funded BBC News is her exortation to throw more good money and American children at Afghanistan in the name of Who Knows What. As a preference to saying “We Screwed Up”, perhaps.
(As an aside, I agree with Clinton’s concerns about “many thousands of Afghans” who had worked with the US and Nato during the conflict and short of her proposal for “a large visa programme should be set up to provide for any refugees” – please God she means just the USA – I’ve no solution).
Anyway, well done Unherd in picking this one up.
I very much hope that Biden pays no attention to HC, and that the Clintons are not allowed anywhere near the White House.
Free speech forever, sure, but there was no need to rebroadcast anything this appalling woman extruded. Bad judgement, Unherd.
Is she basically saying Trump was right?
Somebody earlier made a not unreasonable point that there is not much love being shown to Clinton in the comments.
My question to those that view her positively (and so follow her speeches more closely) is this – how do you square what she has said here, with your understanding of her position up to this point?
Then on to your point which is in what way does this materially differ (taking for granted that style and tone are very different) from what Trump has been saying since GE2016?
Looks as though Hilary Clinton has few admirers on this site.
From their vehemence I’d be suspicious of how detached or neutral their viewpoint..
So people ignorant of all her years in the public eye should voice their viewpoint? This lady has a very public record to come to anyone’s conclusions about her.
Yes, it’s good not to presume what a person will say, but it is also good to listen to what they say, and what they have said, and to which audience.
Many days late and even more dollars short. Thanks, neoliberals!
When the facts change, the lady changes her mind. Which is entirely sensible. Well done, Hillary
Unfortunately she is always wrong.
How naïve of Ronnie Ray-Gun and Tatcher to believe that the consequences of their moronic neoliberalism would be any different. Their governments never played fair in international trade, so expecting the Chinese to do it is downright pathetic.
It would be interesting to compare the economic cost of reestablishing western manufacturing systems to the obscene profits made by the “liberal industrialists” that were set free by Ronnie & Tatcher to sell the whole system overseas.
Even more amusing is the “cover” this ridiculous narrative that trade would liberalize China gave to the Americans who enriched themselves by offshoring industrial production at the expense of their fellow citizens in the working classes. Revolting.
I would like to have my interview at the Pearly Gates just behind Hillary, just to eavesdrop on the codswallop she would spew. I would be waiting quite the while through her hearing. Ha. Then I would be sent down as well for my mirth and eye rolls, surely.
Was that really Hillary saying that? Does she not know that our country was given to China by absolute power-seeking-regardless-of-cost-globalists? That would include David Rockefeller and every administration from Bush-Reagan until today with but one exception. That exception had his place taken, and I mean taken, by one who bragged about having the most fraudulent voting system in United States history at work for him. Orwell knew.
One of the rew things I can go along with her on. See Nikki Haley – the first woman destined to be US President! – on PragerU extolling the same point. We minimised trade with Soviet Russia in order to frustrate their world domination attempt, with success. We now need to reverse our trade dependence on China for the same reasons.
In the 90’s Bill Clinton tried to bring them into the fold as did Bush and Obama. That failed. Problems could be big if Biden really does have interests in China. It is a relevant matter for investigation. The US security services need to get back to the day job.
Haley says, “Making America dependent on China for critical supplies didn’t happen by accident. It’s part of a strategic plan.” She then proceeds to insinuate that it’s entirely the fault of the Communist Party of China, when US companies were happy to stop producing these critical supplies, or to produce them in China, whenever they saw it as profitable. These Western companies are as much responsible for China’s edge over the West as the CPC, and they are equally as responsible for this strategic plan.
Not what she said in the vid. But her over riding point is that we need to treat the CCC like we treated the USSR. That means a total reversal of a great deal that has been accepted by all Western Democracies. It has massive implications across the board. And she is right.
If we’re talking about the same PragerU video, China – Friend or Foe, then “Making America dependent on China for critical supplies didn’t happen by accident. It’s part of a strategic plan” is exactly what she said, according to both the subtitles and my ears (01:42-01:50). She may be right about the need for Western disengagement, but her implication that China is solely responsible for this strategic plan is ridiculous. Western companies were not forced to cease production or move to China, and if the West continues to allow these companies free rein to pursue profits regardless of social costs, further problems can be expected.
Kick China out of the WTO, impose huge sanctions (like happened to South Africa with apartheid) that’s just for starters
Reshoring supply chains and taking back the means of production are a long way from challenging the economic model of “everything is a market” and things are only valuable if someone can make a profit from them.
Still, perhaps Ms Clinton is “on a journey” as they say. We must allow even those disliked by UnHerd to change.
Change begins by saying “I was wrong,” and you will never hear those three words coming from that evil person.
Unless she changes, perhaps?