By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a Southeast Asian tour, Chinese President Xi Jinping advocated for free trade, portraying China as a stabilizing force amid global economic uncertainty. In Vietnam, he met with President Luong Cuong and General Secretary To Lam, emphasizing bilateral cooperation to maintain global trade and supply chains. Agreements were signed focusing on supply chain cooperation and agricultural exports, while Xi also addressed the ASEAN free trade agreement in Malaysia. The timing of the trip, coinciding with recent US tariff disruptions, allowed China to position itself as a reliable economic partner in the region.
Read the original article here
Xi Jinping’s recent emphasis on free trade positions China as a beacon of stability and certainty in a world increasingly characterized by economic volatility. This assertion rests on the premise that predictable trade policies, even within an authoritarian framework, are more valuable to global commerce than the often unpredictable nature of democratic systems.
The argument suggests that the perceived unpredictability of the current US administration, with its seemingly arbitrary tariff policies, inadvertently elevates China’s comparatively consistent approach. This is particularly true given the sweeping nature of recent US tariffs, which have impacted nearly every nation except for Russia and North Korea. The implication is that China offers a less volatile, more reliable trading partner in comparison.
However, this image of unwavering stability requires closer scrutiny. China’s history of abrupt actions against perceived adversaries, such as the trade restrictions imposed on Australia, challenges this notion. While China might present a veneer of consistency in some areas, the potential for sudden shifts in policy, driven by geopolitical objectives, remains a considerable risk for trading partners.
The assertion that China is a source of stability also overlooks the inherent risks associated with doing business within an authoritarian system. The lack of an independent judiciary, the potential for arbitrary government intervention, and the pervasive influence of state-owned enterprises create significant uncertainties for foreign businesses. The absence of a truly level playing field casts doubt on the long-term sustainability of any supposed stability.
Furthermore, the perception of stability might be influenced by a comparison to the current state of the US political climate, which is characterized by significant internal divisions and policy shifts. This comparison, while perhaps accurate in the short term, does not negate the inherent risks of doing business under an authoritarian regime. The lack of transparency, rule of law, and the potential for arbitrary decisions are fundamental challenges that go beyond simple comparisons to alternative systems.
Nevertheless, China’s immense internal market and its sustained economic growth offer substantial allure to global businesses. The potential size of this consumer base, fueled by the growth of a burgeoning middle class, presents a significant incentive for international engagement, despite associated risks. This internal market size and potential are key arguments for China’s proposition of being a stable trade partner.
However, this doesn’t erase past concerns about China’s use of economic leverage for political ends. Past instances such as the pressure tactics applied against Canada regarding canola imports demonstrate that even within the framework of promoting free trade, China will not hesitate to use economic tools for geopolitical advantage. This inherent ambiguity makes the long-term stability of this “certain” trade partner questionable.
Xi Jinping’s presentation of China as a source of stability and certainty should be approached with a degree of caution. While the relative consistency of China’s policies compared to the current volatility of US policy might be valid in the short-term, inherent risks within the Chinese system remain significant. The lack of judicial independence, the dominance of state-owned enterprises, and a history of using economic coercion for political gain should temper any overly optimistic assessments of the stability and certainty that China offers as a long-term trade partner. The image portrayed is thus a nuanced one; there is a relative stability, but only relative to a current point of comparison, not a true, consistently reliable model for long-term stability.