Why Is The New York Times Urging America To Buddy Up With Communist China

The New York Times editorial board published a piece last weekend that shows a worrying bias for America’s greatest foe: the Chinese Communist Party.

The piece, titled “Who Benefits From Confrontation With China,” is a masterclass in misdirection and falsehood. If it were not published in America’s “paper of record,” it would be just as at home in China Daily.

Arguing that Americans must avoid a “glib” and “misguided” cold war narrative, the editorial seeks a policy of “emphasizing competition with China while minimizing confrontation.” The line mimics CCP agitprop and ignores geopolitical realities. The editorial board frames the rising tensions between China and the United States as primarily the fault of American politicians — particularly in the Republican Party — who are hyperbolizing the danger from the CCP.

In reality, the U.S. has been far too soft on China throughout the 21st century, with each presidential administration doing its part. Former President George W. Bush brought China into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Former President Barack Obama studiously avoided conflict with the CCP. Former President Donald Trump put trade pressure on Beijing while simultaneously praising Chinese President Xi Jinping’s life tenure, and President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and his family have financial ties to the Chinese regime.

Despite two decades of favorable or neutral treatment, China has consistently provoked and aggrieved its neighbors and the U.S.-led world order. China has militarized the South China Sea — an international waterway. It has used civilian fishing fleets as cover for military actions. It has waged brutal battles against Indian soldiers for control of disputed territory high in the Himalayas. It has, at best, covered up the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and, at worst, deliberately released it from a virology lab. And, most recently, it floated a spy balloon across the entirety of the continental United States, including our sensitive military sites. This is not mere friendly competition.

The editorial uses various tropes commonplace among CCP apologists, all meant to downplay or excuse the malign actions of the Chinese government and shift the narrative in Beijing’s favor.

First, the editorial board claims the U.S. must reduce tensions with China because the relationship economically benefits both countries. But the United States does not benefit like China does. China abuses its economic power to stifle competition, promotes the “digital fentanyl” of TikTok to America’s youth, and steals important intellectual property — most often in the military realm. The New York Times-owned magazine published an incredible exposé on Chinese government industrial espionage only a few days before this major editorial.

Second, the editors mention that the U.S. needs China to combat climate change, or else the whole planet is doomed. Setting climate change science aside, they presume Beijing will act in good faith. China has massively accelerated its construction and use of coal-fired power plants — a fuel source that activists including Swedish truant Greta Thunberg protest against in nations like Germany. The editorial board has previously excoriated Republicans for not doing enough on climate while ignoring China’s actions.

Third, the editors argue that China “continues to show strikingly little interest in persuading other nations to adopt its social and political values.” They claim, then, that China is not a threat on par with the Soviet Union.

But Xi has consistently sought to export the “China model” abroad, specifically stating as much in official communiqués. American experts, including Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations, have proven that China exports its ideology. Budding authoritarians the world over salivate at the totalitarian information control that the CCP exerts at home, while still advancing the basic standard of living to forestall popular revolt.

Fourth, the editorial board claims that anti-American sentiment does not unite Chinese political leaders. This is a page torn right from the old pro-Iran playbook, in the purported split between “moderates” and “hardliners.” As with Iran, the dichotomy does not apply to China. Xi’s increasingly personal rule has cemented that fact. Just before the editorial’s publication, Xi was given a third term as Chinese dictator — effectively making him ruler for life. The vote was a foregone conclusion as were the appointments of his allies to all key positions in China’s government. There are no “moderates” in charge of China, and The New York Times would do well to note that.

The editorial board’s fifth and last pro-engagement argument is that the U.S. cannot “pull back from forums where it has long engaged China,” such as the World Trade Organization. The editors oddly picked the international institution that China has most abused. It has ignored or deliberately broken WTO rules from day one by continuing prohibited policies and refusing to comply with the judgments of trade courts. China has also captured the World Health Organization, which failed to investigate Covid-19’s origins.

American politicians are finally seeing the CCP’s threat to the U.S. But The New York Times views the growing bipartisan consensus on opposing China as the provocation. This purposeful reversal of cause — Chinese malfeasance — and effect — the building bipartisan consensus on China — follows CCP propaganda and aims at turning U.S. policy and public opinion toward a non-confrontational posture.

The editorial board’s pro-CCP bias has many causes, but most revolve around profit. For years, the NYT took money from the Chinese government to run more than 200 propaganda advertorials. The NYT scrubbed those puff pieces from its website in 2020. The articles reached millions of Americans. The immoral editorials did not drive the paper’s profits, though the CCP paid several hundred thousand dollars for them. The key profit motive, subscriber revenue, reinforces the pro-CCP bias.

The NYT maintains and grows its subscriber base by appealing to the professional-managerial class. And that class has the most direct and intricate economic links to China. They would lose the most from an escalation or decoupling, so the editorial board defends the status quo and thus its readership’s bias

Unlike the NYT, the American people are rejecting China as a partner and seeing it as the danger that it is. Since 2020, American public opinion on China has drastically shifted in a negative direction, with most people in both parties viewing Beijing as a threat instead of a partner. Congress has begun to reflect these concerns with the establishment of the House China Committee and efforts to counter CCP influence.

The American people and their representatives have woken up to the China challenge. It is far beyond time we reject the naïve idea of engagement with China and The New York Times editorial board with it.

Mike Coté is a writer and podcaster focusing on history, Great Power rivalry, and geopolitics. He blogs at rationalpolicy.com, hosts the Rational Policy podcast, and can be found on Twitter @ratlpolicy.


Trump Was Right On Tariffs, And Biden Knows It

Trump Was Right On Tariffs, And Biden Knows It

Free traders on the left and the right routinely excoriated Donald Trump for his willingness to implement tariffs on foreign imports. With the election of Joe Biden in 2020, many hoped the incoming president would reverse the former president’s “protectionist” trade policies and return to free trade orthodoxy. This, however, never happened. In fact, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, just two weeks ago, pushed back against claims made by the World Trade Organization that the Trump-era tariffs violated international trade rules: The WTO is on “very, very thin ice.”

President Biden has, time and time again, skirted the issue of tariffs. Instead, he has opted to quietly continue his predecessor’s America-first tariff hikes, despite having forcefully criticized Trump’s trade policy with China in 2019: “President Trump may think he’s being tough on China. All that he’s delivered as a consequence of that is American farmers, manufacturers and consumers losing and paying more.” Biden must have conveniently forgotten this previous stance. By keeping in place the Trump tariffs, he has successfully frustrated economic liberals in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

In July of 2022, the Biden administration mulled over the prospect of lifting billions of dollars worth of tariffs on Chinese goods. The rationale was that in doing so, inflation, which has adversely affected American consumers for the past two years, would be eased. This, however, was an economic fallacy. Even the Peterson Institute for International Economics, whose sole mission is to fight for trade liberalization, conceded that the proposed tariff reductions would have a mostly trivial effect on inflation: “The direct effect of removing tariffs on imports from China could lower consumer price index (CPI) inflation by 0.26 percentage point — only marginally reducing inflation.”

Forgotten Factory Workers

After months of silence from the administration, it eventually came to a decision: to do nothing. When push came to shove, Biden’s team realized that, though the tariffs may not be economically sound, they were a political winner. The fact of the matter is that tariff implementation and economic nationalism more broadly are popular with the electorate.

Trump, to his credit, tapped into a very real feeling that economic liberalism and free trade deals do not positively affect rank-and-file American workers in the flyover states. For decades, American cities, once home to booming industries, have been hollowed out by free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Workers in the manufacturing industry have, undoubtedly, been forgotten about. They are told to enter into worker retraining programs and learn new skills. In other words, “suck it up and find something else to do.”

Trump, in echoing some of Pat Buchanan’s rhetoric about free trade, offered the “forgotten man” a little bit of hope that he would no longer fall victim to the global economy. In doing so, Trump was tirelessly lambasted as protectionist, isolationist, and reactionary. What’s more, he was frequently accused by the free-trade elite of inciting trade wars with China and other countries.

This aside, workers in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania applauded Trump for his economic nationalist tendencies. The United Steelworkers union, for instance, has praised President Trump’s tough-on-China trade policy on multiple occasions. The union’s president, Kameen Thompson, has credited the tariffs with reinvigorating the steel industry and allowing for plants to hire more workers. While some may see this as trivial, it is emblematic of a notable boon to domestic manufacturing. Everyone, both on the right and left, should celebrate this development. 

Biden Keeps Tariffs

When Biden assumed office in 2021, the future of American trade policy seemed uncertain. Interests that benefited from the Trump-era tariffs, though, were quick to urge Biden not to go back to the old tariff regime. Steel groups were especially vocal. In a letter written to the administration in May of 2021, a conglomerate of steel interests stated that “the tariffs have been a success” and that “eliminating the steel tariffs now would undermine the viability of our industry.”

In an attempt to placate both sides of the trade issue, Biden considered only modestly reforming Trump’s tariff policies. Ultimately, though, he smartly kept the tariffs in place.

As for the future of America’s tariff policy, it looks as though not much will change. Tai, in an interview given to Marketplace just last week, signaled that the Trump-era tariffs are probably here to stay: “if you’re looking at a future where the U.S. no longer produces steel or aluminum anymore, the question I would pose to anyone on the street is, would you feel safe?”

Whether the administration’s rationale for keeping the tariffs is national security or protecting domestic industry from foreign competition (or perhaps a confluence of both), one thing is clear: Trump was right on trade, and Biden knows it.

Frank Filocomo is a graduate student at New York University and an intern at the National Review Institute.


Threat Of Nuclear War Reminds Us Why Selling Out Manufacturing To China Was A Horrible Idea

Threat Of Nuclear War Reminds Us Why Selling Out Manufacturing To China Was A Horrible Idea

A new report confirms former President Bill Clinton was delusional about the long-term effects of trade with China on American workers and the U.S. economy. 

In 2000, then-President Clinton deployed much of his political capital to help China become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Clinton promised the American public that economic engagement would be a “win-win” for both the U.S. and China because free trade would “move China faster and further in the right direction.” Later that year, Clinton signed a trade bill granting permanent normal trade relations to China and allowing Chinese goods to enjoy the same low-tariff access to the U.S. market as many other nations did. China joined the WTO in 2001 and began two decades of double-digit economic growth. 

Now we can see that the economic engagement failed to make Communist China more open and democratic. Instead, China transitioned from a poor authoritarian regime into a rich and powerful one at America’s expense.

Thanks to low-tariff access, inexpensive made-in-China goods flooded the U.S. market. In “The China Shock and Its Enduring Effects,” researchers at the Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions define the China shock as a period between 2000 and 2012, reaching “peak intensity in 2010.”

Massive Job and Income Losses

The researchers found that the China shock was responsible for nearly 60 percent of all manufacturing job losses in the U.S. between 2001 and 2019. The job loss hit workers who worked in “narrowly specialized, labor-intensive manufacturing (e.g., furniture making)” and those without college degrees the hardest. A succession of U.S. administrations did little to provide the necessary training to help these workers transition to other growth sectors. Consequently, researchers found that “manufacturing job losses caused by the China trade shock converted nearly one for one into long-term unemployment.”

Traditionally, manufacturing had been a pathway for scores of working-class Americans to move up to the middle class. But the shrinking manufacturing sector and the job losses essentially removed that economic ladder for many Americans. Researchers estimate that “6.3% of the U.S. population experienced absolute declines in real incomes” because “the gains from trade with China — primarily lowered consumer prices” and the government’s welfare benefits were insufficient to cover their income loss. The income decline was especially severe among men. According to a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “the median income of men without secondary school diplomas fell by 20% between 1990 and 2013; for men with secondary school diplomas or some college, median income fell by 13%.”

Researchers compared the economic impact of the China shock to other events that had caused great economic distress in U.S. history, including the 2008 financial crisis. They concluded, “while the impacts on employment, earnings, and population from import competition with China were qualitatively not unique relative to these other shocks, the large magnitude of the China trade shock and the extreme variation in labor market outcomes were without precedent.”

As John Mitchell, president and CEO of IPC, a global trade association representing electronic equipment, wrote in The Hill, “for more than three decades, the United States government has prioritized globalization while deprioritizing the strength and resiliency of its industrial base.” Meanwhile, many American businesses shut down their factories and relocated them to China in pursuit of lowering costs and maximizing profits.

Even after learning about the economic pain many American workers endured due to these shortsighted decisions, certain globalization advocates still refuse to budge. At an event organized by the Cato Institute, Adam Posen, head of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a D.C.-based think tank focusing on free trade issues, said that a focus on domestic manufacturing is simply a “fetish for keeping white males with low education in the powerful positions they are in.”

Posen couldn’t be more wrong. A robust domestic manufacturing industry is crucial for our economy and American workers’ well-being and is vital to national security.

Lack of Industrial Base Weakens U.S. Security

Probably for the first time in decades, the United States is getting dangerously close to engaging in a war with one or two major powers in the world. In Europe, the Biden administration is sleepwalking the U.S. into deeper involvement in the Ukraine war. Both Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal reported that the Biden administration has sent Ukraine weapons worth billions of dollars and depleted the U.S. military’s inventory of ammunition and weaponry. Yet the Pentagon reportedly has been very slow to replenish arsenals and has sparked concerns that the shortage could jeopardize American military readiness. Poor planning and incompetency of those in charge probably contributed to the arsenal shortage. Also, ramping up production takes workers and time. The U.S. manufacturing industry faces a persistent skilled labor shortage. According to The Wall Street Journal, even if the industry has all the workers it needs, “In the U.S., it takes 13 to 18 months from the time orders are placed for munitions to be manufactured. … Replenishing stockpiles of more sophisticated weaponry such as missiles and drones can take much longer.” 

But Communist China will not wait for the U.S. to restock ammunition and weapons. After years of military buildup, China’s invasion of Taiwan is no longer a question of “if” but “when.” Suppose President Joe Biden meant what he said about sending U.S. troops to Taiwan if China invades the island. Will the U.S. military have all it needs to protect itself and defend our allies?

Hal Brands, a military strategist, wrote, “Modern war is prodigiously costly. … It consumes epic quantities of missiles, artillery shells, and other munitions; it can wreck hard-to-replace planes, tanks, and warships in large numbers.” He points out that the U.S. and its allies won World War II partially due to the United States’ “industrial-age, mass-production economy that was well-suited to making the tools of global war.” Our nation essentially out-produced Germany and Japan and kept the U.S. and its allies in the war long enough to win. 

Yet after decades of decline of the U.S. manufacturing industry, Brands said, “America lacks even the basic building blocks, such as adequate machine tools and a trained labor force, that it would need for wartime mobilization.” Meanwhile, China’s “shipyards and factories are spitting out warships and munitions at an astounding rate.” According to economist Noah Smith, “China can manufacture enough to sustain both itself and Russia” in a global armed conflict with Western democracies.

The research on the China shock’s economic toll on America’s economy and workers, the ongoing Russia and Ukraine war, and China’s continued military threat to Taiwan should all serve as a reminder that for the sake of America’s peace, prosperity, and security, we must refocus and revive our domestic manufacturing industry.  


Reports of Finland and Sweden Likely to Join NATO Highlight Global Financial Cleaving Underway

Reports of Finland and Sweden Likely to Join NATO Highlight Global Financial Cleaving Underway

The Financial Times is reporting {link here, paywall} that Finland and Sweden are likely to join the NATO alliance.  According to the reporting {also in Reuters} the application from Finland is expected in June and Sweden shortly thereafter.

Adding Sweden and Finland would be a major escalation in both the western conflict and provocations against Russia, obviously, justified by western leaders as a consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  However, in the big analysis, the global financial system appears to be the larger issue.

From the outset of the Russian military operation into Ukraine, it was obvious the western alliance was intent on an almost ‘all or nothing‘ confrontation with Russia. The only limits to what the alliance was willing to do was trigger a nuclear showdown through direct military action against Russia to protect the non-NATO country of Ukraine.

The NATO and western government response was a fast system of financial sanctions intended to cripple the Russian economy.  However, Russia responded to those actions with countermoves on the trade front, beginning to establish the first ever non-Euro and non-dollar-based trade system.  In essence, a financial trading system created by the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

Therefore, if we think about the current status of geopolitics and international finance, the NATO response now involves a priority of controlling and protecting the previously established financial structures of global trade.  A NATO effort to avoid the cleaving is now underway as an outcome of the sanctions against Russia.

As one person put it, “This is a fight for the dollar as reserve currency. Imagine trying to maintain our debt when nobody wants treasury notes. If BRICS succeed, US collapses as an economic power. On the other hand, if we win, Klaus Schwab’s nutty world wins.”  I tend to agree with this outlook because it parallels something we see domestically in the U.S.

In the United States, the people behind Biden and the extreme leftists are rapidly advancing their ideological quest toward the “Green New Deal.”

Coal, oil, and gas exploration/development have been slowed, stymied and halted as the administration chases clean renewable energy goals.

However, the current problem is there’s no intermediate system of energy production to support their push.  This is driving energy costs through the roof, and that problem is magnifying inflation created by prior spending.

During their collective pandemic response, western governments all followed the blueprint laid out by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which was, in essence, to shut down human activities, lock down economies and then spend massively to fill the void.  Almost all western leaders followed this exact advice and spent tens-of-trillions in direct subsidies to people and businesses during their lockdowns and COVID mitigation efforts.

At the end of this interventionist rainbow, the collective was instructed to “build back better,” where the economies they destroyed would be rebuilt through the priority prism of ‘climate change.’  However, just like the absence of any U.S. energy transition, the WEF program also did not have a mechanism to bridge the change from ‘dirty’ to ‘clean’ energy.

All of the western government spending during their COVID plan has created two big issues (crisis):

♦ First, massive inflation in every nation who followed the government spending approach. Not coincidentally, the national rate of inflation in every nation directly correlates to the scale of their spending in relationship to their GDP.   Global inflation is raging amid the nations that locked down and then subsidized the missing economic activity with government spending.

♦ The second crisis is simple.  All of that unsustainable spending has created massive government debt, that has to be paid back.  The debt level within the western nations has skyrocketed.

However, if you take the outlook that WEF instructions were based on forethought this inflation and debt was going to be a natural consequence, a crisis created by following the plan, then it’s also likely the way out of the debt was going to be a global digital currency.  How else could the World Economic Forum members possibly expect to pay for their: (a) current spend level, and (b) grand “build back better” agenda?

That global banking system and multinational financial outlook puts a very important context to how the west would look at the BRICS financial trade mechanisms as a threat.

Additionally, if this financial and banking issue is the true motive of western government, then suddenly a lot of our internal conservative political pro-Ukraine anti-Putin commentary starts to make sense.

People have wondered why folks like Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro and other conservative voices have been pounding the table demanding U.S. military involvement and more punitive actions against Vladimir Putin.  In the U.S., people have wondered why suddenly a major section of the Republican establishment have aligned with the position of the WEF, UN, NATO, World Bank, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, etc.

If you accept the global banking system and international financial system is at risk, due to the strategies of Russia to avoid the sanctions, then suddenly the severe position of those voices makes sense.  Follow the money.

Arguably, this global economic problem (debt and inflation) was directly caused by the collective western government response to COVID.  However, now there’s another aspect that makes the debt and inflation seem small by comparison.  If there was an alternative to currencies deliberately devalued by the collective western approach to government spending, wouldn’t you want to own that?

If the financial systems, central banks, and global financial mechanisms are fractured by an entirely new system to pay for trade, i.e. the BRICS approach, we end up with two distinctly different currencies (still undetermined) to pay for trade.

This outlook puts Sweden and Finland essentially in a position of choosing banking sides.  NATO supporting the maintenance of Euros and Dollars, and the BRICS group, representing almost two thirds of the world population, fighting to go in another direction.

That is the bigger conflict.

WEF -vs- BRICS over trade currency….

…. is also NATO -vs- Russia

…. is also Climate Change -vs- Oil use.

…. is also Globalism -vs- Nationalism

…. is also Feudalism -vs- Freedom


Blackrock CEO Advances Proposal for Global Digital Payment System and Digital Currency

Blackrock CEO Advances Proposal for Global Digital Payment System and Digital Currency

When CTH outlined the ‘Destination Handbasket’ framework {Go Deep}, we had no idea Blackrock CEO Larry Fink was essentially going to confirm the premise of our prediction.  Keep in mind, any digital currency can only work if there is a digital identity attributed to it – what some have called a digital passport which then creates a crypto wallet.

I have based the framework, of what appears to be over the horizon, on a set of inevitable geopolitical outcomes if the current path is continued.  The letter by Blackrock CEO Larry Fink [LINK] seems to affirm the strongest likelihood of a western-inspired digital currency eventually replacing the dollar.

NEW YORK, March 24 (Reuters) – BlackRock Inc’s (BLK.N) chief executive, Larry Fink, said on Thursday that the Russia-Ukraine war could end up accelerating digital currencies as a tool to settle international transactions, as the conflict upends the globalization drive of the last three decades.

In a letter to the shareholders of the world’s largest asset manager, Fink said the war will push countries to reassess currency dependencies, and that BlackRock was studying digital currencies and stablecoins due to increased client interest.

“A global digital payment system, thoughtfully designed, can enhance the settlement of international transactions while reducing the risk of money laundering and corruption”, he said.

[…] In the letter on Thursday, the chairman and CEO of the $10 trillion asset manager said the Russia-Ukraine crisis had put an end to the globalization forces at work over the past 30 years.

[…] “While companies’ and consumers’ balance sheets are strong today, giving them more of a cushion to weather these difficulties, a large-scale reorientation of supply chains will inherently be inflationary,” said Fink.

He said central banks were dealing with a dilemma they had not faced in decades, having to choose between living with high inflation or slowing economic activity to contain price pressures.  (read more)

You see that problem, that “dilemma” Fink mentions in the last paragraph above.  That is what we have been talking about on these pages for more than two years.   It is a dilemma western government created when they all joined together and followed the exact same financial path during the pandemic.

When western governments used the justification of the global pandemic to shut down their economies, enforce lockdowns and all of the subsequent rules, restrictions and economic pains as a direct result of those decisions, they put us on a crisis path that was always going to bring us to this “dilemma.”  Quite frankly, I do not see that unity of action as accidental, nor do I see it as organic.

All of the western leaders followed the same monetary and financial policy that was being advanced by the World Economic Forum.  They all spent like crazy, and provided tens-of-trillions in bailouts, subsidies and cash payments to cover the economic losses created by their COVID lockdowns.  They all did exactly the same thing, and that collective action is why we have ‘global inflation.’

Perversely, while inflation crushes the working class, global inflation works to their benefit by lowering the cost of the debt the politicians created, which the central bands and federal reserve facilitated.  We the citizens are suffering under inflation, but the governments that created the inflation actually benefit from it.

I will say with great deliberateness, these western governments want inflation.  Sure, it provides a political challenge for those who need to get reelected by voters, but in the bigger of big pictures, they need inflation.  Think about it in very simple terms.  If they did not want inflation, those same central banks and federal reserve policy makers would have raised interest rates six to eight months ago.

None of what is happening in supply chains and inflation is a surprise to them; they might pretend not to know, but these are not stupid people.  This is by design.  Media covers for them because, well, I’ll accept the PR firms for the regimes are idiots. However, the people who constructed these policies to take advantage of COVID-19 are not dummies.  They knew what all that intervention, manipulation and govt spending would lead to.

Where we are going now is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a destination that is a result of specific action the guided policymakers have taken.

Yes, in hindsight, all of it does seem planned to a long-term eventual conclusion.  However, I’m not going to make that specific affirmation just yet; there are still strong elements of ‘not letting a crisis go to waste’ as the leading driver.  Did these governing bodies create the underlying crisis?  We can debate that, but the point is essentially moot.  We are where we are.

The vaccination protocol created the Vax-Passport.  That has opened the door to the digital identity, “digital id.”   Any government created digital currency is going to need a digital id from the outset.

There are a lot of people asking where this is going, and what can be done to stop it.  I’m pretty certain we have accurately identified “Where This is Going,” and I’m a lot more confident now about that aspect than I was even just 24 hours ago.  However, knowing that, now we need to look closer at what they would do to stop us from disrupting it.


EU Launches World Trade Organization Case Against Communist China over Lithuania Blockade

The European Union has launched a dispute with the World Trade Organization against Communist China over its “discriminatory trade practices” against Lithuania.

Following the bold move from Lithuania to open up a defacto Taiwanese embassy in Vilnius last summer, the Chinese Communist Party has attempted to use its considerable economic weight to punish the small Eastern European nation. China has not only blockaded all products made in Lithuania from its market but has also prevented imports from other EU member states if any components were produced in the Baltic state.

On Thursday, the EU Commission announced that it has filed a case with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the communist regime, claiming that its actions against Lithuania are unlawful and that they threatened the integrity of the bloc’s Single Market.

Executive Vice-President and Commissioner for Trade, Valdis Dombrovskis, said: “Launching a WTO case is not a step we take lightly. However, after repeated failed attempts to resolve the issue bilaterally, we see no other way forward than to request WTO dispute settlement consultations with China.

“The EU is determined to act as one and act fast against measures in breach of WTO rules, which threaten the integrity of our Single Market. We are in parallel pursuing our diplomatic efforts to deescalate the situation.”

The Commission said that it had built up evidence against “various types of Chinese restrictions” since Beijing began imposing restrictions on Lithuanian goods in December — shortly after a delegation of Lithuanian and other Baltic politicians visited Taiwan.

Aside from launching the dispute with the WTO, the EU has put forward an “Anti-Coercion Instrument” which it says is aimed at alleviating economic pressure imposed by foreign actors such as China.

Responding to the move, Beijing’s chief ‘Wolf Warrior’ diplomat, foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said that the dispute between Lithuania and China was a bilateral one and therefore should not affect EU-Sino relations, adding that the EU needs to “distinguish right from wrong and be alert to Lithuania’s attempt to kidnap China-EU relations.”

However, seemingly contradicting the official line, the state-run communist mouthpiece The Global Times claimed that German and Chinese companies are “abandoning Lithuania” in the wake of the “Baltic country’s mistake on the Taiwan question continues to spark tension with China and pose risks for global businesses.”

In an interview with Breitbart London conducted earlier this month, Lithuanian MP Matas Maldeikis said that while his country anticipated China to react with sanctions against Lithuania for opening the Taiwanese Representative Office, it was not expected that Beijing would target other nations, particularly Germany.

“It’s a very big challenge for us, I won’t lie, because German business is very important to us, but we hope that our stance on China won’t affect our business relationships within the European market,” he said.

German companies have reportedly begun pressuring Lithuania to back down from its support of democratic Taiwan, with the German-Baltic Chamber of Commerce calling on the Baltic state to come to a “constructive solution” with the CCP.

It is believed that German car companies have been particularly impacted by the blockade against Lithuanian goods, which is said to have cost the industry hundreds of millions of euros in profits. High-profile car manufacturers such as Volkswagen and BMW are deeply integrated with the Chinese market, with both facing accusations of profiting off of slave labour in the concentration camp region of Xinjiang.

Ultimately, Maldeikis said that the “European Union has to move their production chains back to the European Union, and the United States should do the same.

“What Trump was talking about, he was right, you have to have to take back production to your country, it’s jobs but it is also a question of national security.

“Russia doesn’t work by itself, China doesn’t work by itself, we are feeding those guys and we are giving money to them to build tanks and build rockets to fight against us, I don’t understand this logic, it has to end.”

Mattas said that authoritarian regimes such as China are like “iron”, in that they may appear to be strong from the outside but are incapable of bending to meet challenges and therefore “just break”.

He argued that China’s actions against Lithuania were born out of fear rather than a position of strength, saying that the communist regime likely realises the precarious nature of its rule, in light of the looming disasters, such as an impending demographic collapse and the possibility of the real estate bubble finally bursting.

The move from the European Union on Thursday is just the first step in triggering a WTO dispute, calling for a “request for consultations” in which China will be asked to provide information on the restrictions it has imposed on Lithuanian products.

Should the CCP fail to come to a “satisfactory solution” to the dispute within sixty days, the EU said that it “may request” for the WTO to make a ruling on the matter.

Under the leadership of the Clinton and Bush administrations — and supported by then-Senator Joe Biden — China entered the WTO in December of 2001. It was argued at the time that by allowing the country to have full access to global markets, the influx of capitalism would liberalise the communist nation. However, some, including former President Donald Trump, have argued that China only used the West’s trading systems to enrich itself and had no intention of ever becoming a free nation.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on Twitter here @KurtZindulka


Chamber of Commerce Cheers New China-Backed Head of World Trade Organization

Chamber of Commerce Cheers New China-Backed Head of World Trade Organization

The United States Chamber of Commerce is cheering the newly confirmed head of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Nigerian economist Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who has the backing of China.

Okonjo-Iweala, who was opposed by the Trump administration for the top WTO spot, was supported by the Biden administration and received praise on Monday from China’s Commerce Ministry, which said they have “full confidence” in her appointment.

Former U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer previously suggested that the Trump administration did not support Okonjo-Iweala because of her lack of experience with trade issues — the core function of the WTO.

“We need a person who actually knows trade, not somebody from the World Bank who does development,” Lighthizer told the Financial Times last year.

The Chamber of Commerce praised Okonjo-Iweala’s appointment to lead the WTO in a statement. The Chamber’s Myron Brilliant said:

The U.S. Chamber congratulates Dr. Okonjo-Iweala, whose appointment comes at a critical time for the WTO. The U.S. business community strongly supports the WTO, and we are committed to backing efforts by the U.S., other member states, and Dr. Okonjo-Iweala to reinvigorate this vital institution.

Okonjo-Iweala’s appointment comes as Biden administration officials split into two camps: Free traders, who back the job-killing consensus favored by business, and economic nationalists who back tariffs and a revitalization of American manufacturing favored by U.S. workers, domestic producers, and unions.

Already, German officials are urging Biden to “abolish all tariffs on industrial goods” between the U.S. and the European Union (EU). The Chamber has lobbied the administration to take similar actions, specifically ending Trump’s tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum.

Thus far, Biden has kept the tariffs in place.

Late last year, the WTO ruled against the U.S., claiming 2018-imposed tariffs on China were illegal and that China has not engaged in harmful trade practices. Lighthizer, at the time, said the decision proved Trump correct that “the WTO is completely inadequate to stop China’s harmful technology practices.”

Since 2001, U.S. free trade with China has eliminated at least 3.4 million American jobs. In 1985, before China entered the WTO, the U.S. trade deficit with China totaled $6 billion. In 2019, the U.S. trade deficit with China totaled more than $345 billion.

The Washington, D.C., free trade consensus has delivered devastation to America’s working and middle class communities for decades. A report released by Public Citizen in January revealed that free trade, while gutting working class white areas, has also wrecked black American and Hispanic regions of the country.

Since China’s entering the WTO and the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), black Americans lost nearly half a million manufacturing jobs. In the electrical and appliances industry as well as the textiles industry — three sectors that have been gutted due to free trade — Hispanic Americans have lost more than 305,000 jobs.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here


Donald Trump Criticizes ‘Die Hard Globalist’ Joe Biden in Ohio

President Donald Trump on Monday warned workers in Ohio that former Vice President Joe Biden was a “globalist” who would return to selling out the country if he was elected president.

“Biden is a die-hard globalist,” Trump said at a speech to Ohio workers in Dayton on Monday. “You know globalists are out. You know that right? Globalists helped destroy this country.”

If Biden was elected back into power, Trump said, more manufacturing jobs would be lost.

“It’s not that he wants to crush America, but he will, just out of gross incompetence,” Trump continued. “Biden will surrender to the virus, just like he surrendered to China and just like he surrendered to the radical left, including his own running mate, who is running the show.”

He noted that Biden’s support for international trade deals and his support of China to join the World Trade Organization helped destroy 60,000 factories and 4.5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States.

“Joe Biden should not be asking for your support, he should be begging for your forgiveness,” Trump said.

Trump noted that Biden was always criticizing him for failing to take certain actions during his presidency.

“He always says ‘Why didn’t the president do this and why didn’t the president do that?’” Trump said. “The guy’s been there for 47 years but he just left like three and a half years ago!”

“I keep saying, ‘Uhh, why didn’t you do it?” Trump continued.



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)