Follow Up to Huiyuan & the US Election
Just a quick explanatory note to my earlier post on the Coke-Huiyuan deal, protectionism, and the US election. Seem to be a lot of links floating around out there to that post, and for some reason (Will Lewis, I’m looking in your direction and shaking my fist in a sardonic, Jon Stewart-esque mock anger gesture), I am being touted as the guy who thinks that the announced acquisition will dampen the enthusiasm in the US for China bashing.
Not exactly. I do think that the U.S. has very little credibility when it comes to criticizing China about M&A protectionism in the wake of UNOCAL and 3COM, not to mention deals involving other countries like the Dubai Ports fiasco. However, the risk of being labeled a hypocrite has never stopped a politician before, and it certainly won’t now.
No, I fully expect that if Coke runs into trouble with the AML, the entire Georgia Congressional delegation, among others, will be up in arms about how awful the Chinese are.
As far as the presidential election is concerned, the only reason why we could miss criticism from McCain and Obama is that the AML review might occur too late in the election cycle. With less than 60 days left to go, I think that everything will be over in the US before the government here has time to do anything. Otherwise, I would have fully expected both Obama and McCain to bash China repeatedly over the head about this issue. Plays well in Ohio and a lot of other swing states.
OK, clarification over.
I apologize Stan. I thought the “suggests” and the “may” would insulate you from having the appearance of a strong stance. I also misinterpreted the scope of what you meant by: “this would have been a great opportunity for the candidates to show how “tough” they can be against China.” By great opportunity I thought you meant the remainder of the presidential election or until notice of AML review whichever came first, not just AML review of the Coke deal. It is gone, and again sincere apologies. (In celebration of feuding “news” men I realize that a more appropriate response would’ve been some good ‘ole O’Reillyesque belligerence, but I just can’t stand that guy)
Now that the deal is up for review, how long before our temperate and wise politicians get knee deep in hypocrisy and Pacific mud? It’s 12:47 am PST where I’m at, does 5-6 am PST sound too early?
I’m glad Will apologized. I have been accused of many things, but when someone says that I have a strong stance on something — that’s hitting below the belt.
I have a reputation as a fiercely mellow and non-opinionated blogger to uphold.
I was just trying to be as generous as possible, but the flippant sarcasm invites a response. The subject of the sentence at issue was presidential election and, very tenuously, notice of AML review. “Great opportunity for the candidates to show how “tough” they can be against China” refers to the subject, the election AND maybe notice of AML review. I tried to hint at this in the comment above without being explicit. It is a blog, which shouldn’t be held to too many standards, I have plenty of grammatical errors in my blog that I don’t want to be held to, and since it’s not what you meant I have no problem with change. I’m just getting a little pissy for being publicly called out in front of a small community by someone miles higher in the power structure for seemingly misconstruing your words when I properly construed what you wrote. I respect and admire the path of life you have taken, and I generally respect and admire what you write in your blog (and I’m about as close to the bottom of the power structure of the community, if I’m even a member) which is why I was being so conciliatory.
Sorry for the touchy-feely crap at the end, but I’m under the impression you thought I was being sarcastic.