Beijing is angry about the US placement of the THAAD missile
system in South Korea. With valid reason they view it as a threat and one
pointed more at them, than the North Koreans. The rulers of China have decided
to punish South Korea through business sanctions.
Beijing is not yet prepared to punish American businesses in
this way. Few American products are sold in China so a boycott like this
wouldn't be effective. China could severely cripple US business interests if
they shut-down trade and blocked the export of parts and goods. And yet doing
so would harm the Chinese economy.
If tensions continue to escalate Beijing might start to pick 'winners
and losers' and use 'blocking' power to punish domestic businesses and players
who are non-compliant with the CPC's dictates. Though once again, it's a
dangerous game.
Punishing South Korea through a boycott is far less painful
and yet it sends a clear message to both Seoul and Manhattan. Both Kia and
Hyundai (the latter owning the former) employ thousands of Americans and not a
few US dollars are invested in these companies. From institutional investors to
hedge and pension funds, the West is deeply invested in Hyundai and the rest of
the South Korean economy.
The relationship is reciprocal. Just earlier this year,
Hyundai committed to a $3bn investment in US research and manufacturing
facilities.
South Korea is not only a US ally, for most of its short
history it has functioned as a client-state or satellite. While Washington has
not always exercised direct control, it has often ruled through strong-men and
has deep and controlling connections to both the South Korean military and the
KCIA, the intelligence organisation founded by and patterned after the American
agency based in Langley. The South Korean Deep State (as it were) is in
substantial part managed by elements based in Washington. The Wall Street
masters do not control the chaebol (the family business conglomerates) but they
can and do exert influence. If China declares an economic war on the chaebol,
it has to be understood as an asymmetrical move against US power centres.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.