Comment by croes
4 months ago
> And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China without a local partner at all. So I don't see the irony - everyone practices protectionism, some are just more subtle about it than others.
And the west always said that China is bad for doing it.
That’s the irony part.
> And the west always said that China is bad for doing it.
"The west" criticizes China because the ruling regime imposes a series of arbitrary restrictions to foreign companies, including outright banning them, while demanding that Chinese companies should have unrestricted access to foreign markets.
You are now faced with an exceptionally rare event where a member of "the west" enforces restrictions that are similar to the ones China broadly imposes on foreign companies, but does so on an isolated incident. And you call that irony.
"enforces restrictions that are similar to the ones China "
No; the restrictions the West places on Chinese companies are not remotely comparable in proportionality or form.
But worse - China does not just have the opportunity to operate in the West in an asymmetrical fashion, but they're fairly aggressively openly stealing intellectual property etc., not just as a matter of 'national security' but as a matter of normal business operations.
The Chinese government operates police stations in foreign countries to surveille and oppress local citizens of the Chinese diaspora, and to coordinate activities.
There are always geopolitical shenanigans, but the West acted in roughly good faith inviting China into the WTO and was happy to play by some reasonable set of rules.
It's fair to use the label 'hypocritical' for what seems like arbitrary action in the West, but it's not truly arbitrary because it's a reaction to what was lack of good faith at least on the terms that were understood, and the term 'hypocritical' could be used tenfold in the other direction.
Also - even if everyone was playing roughly fair according to their own competitive advantages, the imbalances in some areas would be so problematic that there would have be some kind of reckoning anyhow.
The terms need to be reset, capital flows need to be adjusted, the USD cannot maintain such a high ranking position if they don't want to import, vast offshore tax shelters need to be shut down. Dubai is 'Mos Eisley' on Tatooine it's really just bad money.
The comment chain is saying that the west does the same thing and China criticizes them for it. This is both ways and it's hypocritical.
We‘ll see how rare and isolated this is will be.
Beware of the beginnings.
> We‘ll see how rare and isolated this is will be.
Why do you presume this is bad?
3 replies →
It’s not ironic. The Chinese are engaging in this behaviour, while they have had full access to western markets, arguably detrimental to the west.
So now Europe are doing the same thing.
and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other
> and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other
Not really. Everyone was extending courtesies to China, but China opted to unilaterally reject the notion thay others could receive the same benefits they were enjoying. Now you're seeing this sort of courtesies being pulled for the first time. And you opt to frame this as hipocricy?
2 replies →
It’s ironic. China just did it first. I can’t call something wrong and then to the same.
If, for instance, we call out China for surveillance of their citizens and then start doing the same, isn‘t that ironic?
I can, if someone assaults me I'm either running away or swinging back. We gave them access to our markets, they didn't give us access to theirs. What this is is just "playing even".
This is not the same as surveillance, that's internal affairs. This is external affairs.