Well, I’d love to write a nice, in-depth and thoughtful post on the third U.S. presidential debate, but honestly, I have nothing of substance to talk about. The debate, which was supposed to include a whole section on “the Rise of China,” did indeed touch on the subject, but there was zero substance to the discussion. A couple of minutes of the usual trade/currency related China bashing, then some weird tangents, like how much everyone loves teachers. I am not making that up.

I love teachers too (I am one), but that really didn’t seem like an appropriate thing to bring up during the “foreign policy” debate.

Romney did go off on IP infringement for a few seconds, talking about some valve company whose products were copied. Not really sure what the point was since he was referring to imports into the U.S. If the products were covered by a patent or design, then the valve guys could go to court, the ITC or Customs. If there was no real IP protection, then there’s a technical legal term we lawyers like to use when referring to that kind of activity: not illegal. {sigh}

Maybe the candidates simply ran out of China bashing rhetoric? After you complain about trade, currency and IP infringement 12,395 times, what more can be said? Sure, there’s always China’s leadership change, tensions with Japan and Southeast Asia, the slowing Chinese economy, environmental issues, etc. But let’s face it, Jon Huntsman wasn’t on the stage tonight, and this was the result. There was simply no interest in talking about real China issues, and the moderator didn’t seem to give a shit one way or the other. I’m going to reach for a little bit of positive news here and call this debate the beginning of the end of all the campaign China bashing.

For what it’s worth, the whole debate sucked big time. It was supposed to be about substantive foreign policy issues but much of it was about domestic policy and how much everyone loves Israel. Oy. No mention of real China issues that might have an effect on bilateral relations, no discussion of Asia regional problems that directly effect U.S. national security, no talk about some of the recent Chinese investment and cybersecurity issues. Shit, no mention of Europe, Africa, Mexico, India — pretty much most of the world. I think about 80% of the thing covered the Middle East and how super cool Israel is.

Both of them said they support illegal assassinations from the sky (i.e. drones), though, so there is that bit of testosterone-generated murderous clarity which, like the cheerleading for Israel, is super cool.

My suggestion for any future debate that is supposed to involve China is to frame all questions in a way that is sure to attract the attention of the moderator and the candidates. Here are a few suggestions:

Question 1: If China agreed to sign off on a multilateral plan to reduce carbon emissions and Israel signed on, would the United States support its staunch Middle East ally in this endeavor?

Question 2: China has complained that the U.S. “Asia pivot” is really a containment policy. Contrast and compare this with the situation of the Arab states surrounding Israel.

Question 3: What can and should the U.S. do to support political reform in China such that the PRC adopts many of the same institutions as, say, Israel?

Question 4: (Hypothetical) If the President of China called you at 3:00am to inform you of an imminent conflict with Japan, would you immediately call Israel to give their leader Bibi Netanyahu the news or would you conference him in on the call?

Question 5: (Hypothetical) You are in a lifeboat out at sea with only four seats, all of which are full. You happen across Bibi treading water and in need of help. Who do you kick out of the lifeboat to save Bibi? Choices: the leaders of China, India or Russia.

Makes me proud to be an American Jew, I can tell you that. My chest is swelling with pride as I write this. Check that; could be bile. I’ll get back to you on that.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: