On December 4th, the U.S.
presidential candidates from the Democratic Party debated each other in Iowa. A fairly large
chunk of time was spent talking about China. Not all of it constituted
classic batshit China
bashing, but it is fair to say that there was sufficient demagoguery going on
to warrant this special edition of Panda Punchers.

As an aside, I find it interesting that after listening to the audio of
the debate, Fons
(China Herald) found it fairly benign.
I wonder if the transcript makes it look worse than it was, or maybe I'm just
very sensitive to this rhetoric.

This is about 3,000 words, so I'm breaking this up into a few posts.
First installment is below, and the full
transcript can be found here. Note that "Norris" "Inskeep"
and "Siegel" are the moderators. All other statements being made are
from candidates.

SEN. BIDEN: We need a doctrine
of prevention. The role of a great power is to prevent the crises. And we don't
have to imagine any of the crises. We know what's going to happen on day one
when you're president. You have Pakistan,
Russia, China, the subcontinent of India. You have
Afghanistan.
You have Darfur.

Since when did merely having
bilateral relations with China
constitute a crisis?

NORRIS: And that's where we'd
like to start, and I'd like to pose a question to many of you. Given China's size, its muscular manufacturing
capabilities, its military buildup, at this point — and also including its
large trade deficit — at this point, who has more leverage, China or the U.S.? And I'm going to begin with
you, Senator Edwards.

Military buildup? That sounds ominous. Wonder why she said it? The
question about leverage, by the way, is pretty stupid for a short-answer
debate. Calls for a complicated and thoughtful answer, doesn't it?

MR. EDWARDS: I think that
what's happened with the last seven years with the Bush administration is
America's faced over the long term with two very serious challenges, one of
which they've been a bit obsessed with, which is the issue of terrorism. The
other is the rise and strength of China, which they've done virtually nothing
about on any front, I mean, ranging from China sending dangerous toys into the
United States to our trade relationship with China to, as Robert just
mentioned, their buildup of their military, which they're doing opaquely. We
know very little about what they're actually doing.

On top of that, they're
obsessed with their own internal economic development, and that results in them
propping up bad regimes, like Sudan,
like Iran.
They're doing incredible damage to the environment. So the answer to the
question is, America
continues to have serious economic leverage with the Chinese — and diplomatic
leverage with the Chinese.

Why should the U.S.
"do something" about the "rise and strength of China"?
Just asking. And there's that reference to the military again. We also have
this interesting statement that China
is obsessed with its internal economic development. That's pretty close to
idiocy — when would a country not
be obsessed with its economic development?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, there are
three issues that we have to deal with. Number one is we've got to get our own
fiscal house in order. Our leverage is weakening when we run up enormous
deficits funding a war that should have never been authorized, and we then are
taking out the credit card with the Chinese. That gives us less leverage.

Number two, when I was visiting
Africa, I was told by a group of businessmen that the presence of China is only exceeded by the absence of America in the
entire African continent. And it indicates the unwillingness of our
administration to think strategically about other countries beyond the war on
terror.

Number three, we have to be
tougher negotiators with China.
They are not enemies, but they are competitors of ours. And on the economic front,
on trade issues, on issues in importation, we have not been the best
negotiators, and oftentimes we're negotiating on behalf of — on behalf of Wall
Street, as opposed to on behalf of Main
Street.

Kudos to Obama on that response – not bad.

SEN. DODD: Well, I want to go
back to the characterization of the relationship. Obviously it's a strategic
one, but this is not a competition. If we're a competition, competition implies
that people are playing by the same rules. We're not playing by the same rules
here.

This is an adversarial
relationship today. That needs to change.

But when you manipulate your currency
as they do, in violation of the World Trade Organization here, to the tune of
40 percent, you've immediately created a huge disadvantage for our country.
When you employ slave labor in the production of your manufactured goods, when
you deny access on your shelves to the products and services we produce, it is
not a competition. It's adversarial.

Forty percent? Economists that I've read put the figure at anywhere
from 10 to 40 percent. Nice of Dodd to choose the largest figure possible and
not qualify the statement. Great characterization of the trading relationship,
too. Sounds like a nightmare, no wonder people are pissed off. Also, did you
catch Dodd's legal opinion on WTO law? I don't think I would hire him as my
attorney if I had an international trade transaction.

Part II and III later.

Powered by ScribeFire.