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

The New York Times editorial staff published an article last weekend showing a worrying bias towards America’s greatest foe, the Chinese Communist Party.

The piece is called “Who Benefits From Confrontation With China,” This is a masterclass of misdirection, falsehood. It wouldn’t be published in America. “paper of record,” It would be the same at home in China Daily.

Argument that Americans should avoid a “glib” And “misguided” Cold war narrative. The editorial seeks to establish a policy for “emphasizing competition with China while minimizing confrontation.” This line mimics CCP agitprop but ignores geopolitical reality. 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.

The U.S. has not been too hard on China during the 21st century. Each president administration did its part. Former President George W. Bush welcomed China into the World Trade Organization. Barack Obama avoided any conflict with the CCP. Ex-President Donald Trump placed trade pressure on Beijing, while simultaneously praising the life tenure of Chinese President Xi Jinping. President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden have financial ties with 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. As cover for its military operations, it has used civilian fishing boats. It waged a brutal war against Indian soldiers in order to take control of disputed territory high up in the Himalayas. It has covered up the source of the Covid-19 pandemic. At worst, it deliberately released it from a virus lab. The spy balloon was also flown across the entire United States including our military bases. This isn’t friendly competition.

The editorial employs various tropes commonly used by CCP apologists. All are meant to downplay the evil actions of the Chinese government and shift attention in Beijing’s favor.

First, the editorial board states that the U.S. should reduce tensions with China as the relationship is economically beneficial for both countries. The United States is not as fortunate as China. China misuses its economic power in order to suppress competition, and encourages 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.

The editors also mention that the United States needs China to fight climate change or the entire planet will be doomed. The editors assume Beijing will act with good faith, even though climate change science has been ignored. 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 previously criticized Republicans for not being more concerned about climate change while overlooking China’s actions.

Dritten, the editors argue for China “continues to show strikingly little interest in persuading other nations to adopt its social and political values.” The Soviet Union is considered a greater threat than China.

But Xi has consistently sought to export the “China model” abroad, specifically stating as much in official communiqués. Experts from the USA, such as Elizabeth Economy from the Council on Foreign Relations have shown that China exports its ideology. The totalitarian control of information that the CCP exercises at home is a magnet for budding authoritarians all over the globe. However, it still advances the basic standards of living necessary to prevent popular rebellion.

Fourth, the editorial board asserts that anti-American sentiment doesn’t unite Chinese political leaders. This is a departure from the pro Iran playbook. “moderates” And “hardliners.” China is not in the same boat as Iran. Xi’s increasing personal rule has affirmed this fact. Just before the editorial’s publication, Xi was given a third term as Chinese dictator — effectively making him ruler for life. It was obvious that Xi would win the election, as well as his nominations to key positions in China’s government. There are no “moderates” The New York Times would be well advised to mention that China is in their charge.

The fifth and last argument for engagement that the editorial board made is that the U.S. could not “pull back from forums where it has long engaged China,” The World Trade Organization. Strangely, the editors selected the international institution China has most misused. It has repeatedly ignored or intentionally broken WTO rules since day one, continuing to follow prohibited policies and refusing the orders of trade courts. China also captured the World Health Organization which did not investigate Covid-19’s source.

American politicians finally see the threat posed by the CCP to the U.S. The New York Times sees the CCP’s threat to the U.S. as a growing bipartisan consensus against China. 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.

Although there are many reasons for the editorial board’s pro CCP bias, most of them revolve around profit. The NYT spent years taking money from China to produce more than 200 propaganda advertisements. In 2020, the NYT removed these propaganda ads from its website. These articles were read by millions of Americans. The paper did not profit from the immoral editorials even though it was paid hundreds of thousand dollars by the CCP. Subscriber revenue is the main profit motive that reinforces the proCCP bias.

The NYT maintains and grows its subscriber base by appealing to the professional-managerial class. This class is the most closely connected to China’s economy. They would lose the most from an escalation or decoupling, so the editorial board defends the status quo and thus its readership’s bias

The American people view China as a threat and reject it as a partner, contrary to the NYT. American public opinion has shifted dramatically in the negative direction since 2020. People in both parties now see Beijing as a threat and not a partner. Congress has begun to reflect these concerns with the establishment of the House China Committee and efforts to counter CCP influence.

The China challenge is now being faced by Americans and their representatives. It is far beyond time we reject the naïve idea of engagement with China and The New York Times editorial board with it.