Today however, it seems like we're all moving the same direction, if at different paces. China opened up its economy and commenced a profitable march towards capitalism with Deng Xiaoping in the early 1980s. Russia did the same in 1991, albeit with far less success.
At a recent summit, both Chinese and Russian delegates extolled the virtues of low trade barriers, while Secretary Clinton called for stronger trade ties with Moscow.
What might be the international security implications of trade integration among these three, once very different, political economies? Why?
The security implications I think of trade between these three countries could be a sort of moral dilemma for the US. In China there is essentially no minimum wage or any sort of workers rights organizations. In Russia sure there is probably better working conditions but they are still not up to United States standards. So essentially I think it is a security dilemma of human rights because this will bolster commerce in China and Russia.
ReplyDeleteClayton Christian
FYI, China has regulations for minimum wage. For the city of Beijing, beginning July 1, 2008 is 800RMB/month for full-time employment; 9.6RMB/hour for part-time jobs. For Shanghai, beginning April 1, 2008 is 960RMB/month for full time, 8RMB/hour for part-time. Tianjin, beginning April 1, 2008 has a minimum wage of 820/month for full time, 7.6RMB/hour for part-time. For other provinces, minimum wages vary from 720-520/month.
DeleteChina has laws to protect workers and ensure their working conditions. The ministry of labor and social security of the PRC announced on June 29, 2007: "Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China" by the twenty-eighth session of the Tenth National People's Congress Standing Committee of the PRC are hereby promulgated and shall come into force on January 1, 2008.
Trade integration benefit all parties, and I hardly believe the US government will make a fuss on "human rights" if it sees interest in the Chinese market. I think there is no absolute justice in international relations, like Professor Mathewson said in class: countries are like groups of gangsters, I think only interest and power matter in this anarchic system, everything else is used as tools to achieve one's goal, that is gaining more interest and power.
Chinese workers' working conditions probably are inferior to that of American workers, and Chinese people's average living standard is as high either. But working conditions of Chinese workers have improved significantly in the past few years. There is still a number of people living in the very rural areas don't know how to use law to protect their rights, but the number is very small and decreasing. Companies and employers violating workers' rights would be brought into justice once the media expose them to the public. Speaking of human rights, I want to point out that the People's Republic of China under the communist government, in 20 days, will be 63 years old. The United States of America, declared its independence in 1776, didn't grant free men of color the right to vote until 1870 (the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution); didn't prohibit state or federal sex-based restrictions on voting until 1919 (the Nineteenth Amendment).
I meant "Chinese workers' working conditions probably are inferior to that of American workers, and Chinese people's average living standard ISNT as high either"
DeleteVery good points, Andy, thank you.
DeleteWhile APEC is normally a talk fest of what each of the nations should do with one another, there is indication that this year's Vladivostok APEC might really reflect what is happening inside Russia at the moment. Russia doesn't just want increased economic integration with the Pacific region, (although vitalization the Far East Region has become a pet project of the current Russian government at the moment,) but with the world. Russia was in an unnatural state of weakness after the fall of the Soviet Union, and unless it somehow further disintegrated it was clear that the Russian Federation would not always have less annual GDP than the Netherlands. Russia today is resurgent as a regional and global power, and it's recent joining of the WTO and hosting of global economic events show a Post-Petrine desire for wanting to be among the distinguished global economic players. The effect that this has already had on security is that Russia is now able to exert its influence in its near abroad of the Post Soviet States. Already central European countries, worried by Russian actions have expressed the need for NATO support and Poland has even called for a Visegrad battlegroup in response to increasing security moves by Russia, while Georgia and Uzbekistan are rabidly anti-Russian with their defense policies. But the important detail in a time of renewed Russian expansion is that few people outside of Russia's periphery seem to care. Russia's relation's with France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea and other members of the former Capitalist block have are currently the best Russia has had in a long time. Many of the countries under threat by Soviet expansion during the Cold War no longer feel they are threatened by a powerful and overtly hostile Russia. This leaves the US in an awkward position internationally, as our policy makers teeter between supporting greater economic ties with Russia, despite its great flaws, or remain hawkish towards Russia for being fundamentally at odds with US interests. Their decisions will have long lasting consequences for relations not only for Russia, but for our security policy regarding Europe and Central Asia. If we support a powerful Russian state or at least acknowledge institutions like the Customs Union and Eurasian Union as beneficial for the region at large, then, by some degree we also acknowledge that the interests of other emerging world powers are also beneficial to our economy and global politics at large. And so, if America does choose to support a greater Russian interaction in the world, it places hope in a multipolar system, as well as the spread of liberal democracy and free trade across the globe with mutual understandings between countries.
ReplyDeleteChina, Russia, and the United States are three of the most powerful countries in the world at this point. Two decades ago, the Soviet Union collapses leaving society there in shambles. Now in 2012 the Russian Federation is growing and is gaining more and more power. Things are a lot different now compared to the Cold War. In reaction to the change in distribution of power in the international system, the United States want integrate itself with the other two powers in order to insure if China or Russia enhances beyond the sphere of the United States, that the U.S. would not be left behind. It is similar to what we talked about to in class. The United States integrated Europe in order to insure that no rivals and dominant powers sprung up. I believe it is the same situation here. The United States has already predicted that a shift in power is coming in the international system. I believe it is impossible to predict when, but it is coming. With that in mind, the United States is integrating themselves in the two important countries to insure the prosperity of America.
ReplyDeleteDuring WWII Secretary Hull extolled the virtues of low trade barriers between nations because, he claimed, nations who trade together do not fight each other. "If soldiers are not to cross international borders, goods must do so," he said. Russia, the United States, and China are three immensely powerful, yet drastically different culturally and economically: conflict, or, at the very least, friction, is likely between these nations. For years, China has been heralded as the next superpower, and American-Russian cooperation is often shaky at best. However, increased trade integration will increase the cooperation and dependence of these three nations with each other and decrease the likelihood of conflict according to Hull's hypothesis.
ReplyDelete--Morgan Smathers
I believe that increased trade between these three nations will do nothing but help their relations. On one hand, this would help decrease misunderstandings about and increase communications between the three. A more transparent relationship would develop, which will help to subdue mistrust - one of the largest causes, I believe, of international tension today.
ReplyDeleteAlso,economic interdependence will make it more impossible for these three super powers to every enter into conflict. As of now, China and the US depend so much on each other for economic purposes, that a really dramatic event would have to occur for conflicts to arise. If we continue to only increase in these types of relationships, war will recede farther and farther from possibility.
I also agree that human rights should not play a role in whether or not we enter into trading policies with China and Russia. If anything, as international trade became more prevelant, ideals and norms would transfer over, only helping to increase quality of life. By definition, trade will only increase wealth, meaning every country will automatically have the opportunity for higher qualities of living.