In China's case there are special circumstances that must be taken into account. And trade isn't always good.
A lot of the time "China" screws itself up with some of the kakamaime schemes they want the world to buy into. Taiwan is supposed to be a 'terrorist group'? The people in Tibet or Western China have no legitimate gripe?
"China" cannot be lumped into one big single body all with the same opinion. Neither can the CCP, yet as a whole the CCP falls on the side of a bunch of con artists and people I don't like very much. There are a whole lot of elements (and beliefs) in both "China" and the CCP that make trade with China as a whole often detrimental.
If it is just between us and those elements, I would say cut them all off, but its not. There is a large group, maybe you can say 'the silent majority' that are friendly. They don't want to blow anyone up, and they are not threatened by America.
The latter group are the only real reason to trade at all. I think those people should be in charge, which now they are only in limited numbers in positions of power. If China stops threatening people then they would not be threatened nearly as much. China often places itself in positions of conflict and contrarian thought then blames the world for being wrong. The latter group is capable of leading China into a better state and actually bring respect to the place. This group can end the conflict with Taiwan on equal and beneficial grounds.
The former group though resist change. They want ONLY the CCP to have control over EVERYTHING. They don't like America. They want to attack Taiwan. They run people over with tanks and abuse their power. All that is just a start. The whole way they even took power, and maintain power, I don't like. Preaching propaganda helps no one. All this "we are going to surpass America and take over Asia" talk, or get revenge on Japan, or conquer Taiwan talk has got to go.
Trade is a mixed bag at best. We cannot help just one of those groups. Although in a trading environment the radical thinkers are limited in what they can do therefore overall trade falls slightly in favor of the "nice crowd". If it ever starts to fall in favor of the "bad crowd" I have a problem with that.
Those friendly elements should be in charge and declare that the CCP is on its death bed. They should voluntarily open the country to outside thought and reform the government into a new system. There is no dignity lost in that at all. Yet, never forget Tian An Men in 1989.
Keep in mind the process has already started and there have been a whole lot of improvements. I am not really suggesting a new path. I am suggesting to continue to follow the path of reform and not digress back into some emperial dynasty. There are a lot of folks resistant to change and getting rid of the CCP and all its corrupt ways, thoughts, ideologies, and systems though. By trade, we help empower those people who can and want to make positive change. We have to put up with a lot of BS in the process, but hopefully the end goal will be accomplished.
If China starts to get too big for itself and starts running its military all over the place threatening wars, or preaching anti-Americanism, then I have a problem with that.
China didn't say that.
>>"China" cannot be lumped into one big single body all with the same opinion.
Different opinions don't mean disintegration of the territory.
>>The latter group are the only real reason to trade at all. I think those people should be in charge, which now they are only in limited numbers in positions of power.
The real reason why the US wants to trade with China is that the trade is in the American interets.
>>If China stops threatening people then they would not be threatened nearly as much.
The Qing dynasty was so weak that it in no way could threaten anyone. However it was constantly threatened by the foreign powers.
>>This group can end the conflict with Taiwan on equal and beneficial grounds.
If you mean "split Taiwan from China" by "end the conflict with Taiwan", I won't think you are right. That group wont do that either.
>>All this "we are going to surpass America and take over Asia" talk,
Who said that?