The Flawed Logic of China Fearmongering: A Rebuttal to Phillip Inman

 Phillip Inman's recent article, "World must be more wary than ever of China’s growing economic power," recycles tired Western anxieties about China's rise while ignoring the hypocrisy and self-interest driving these concerns. His arguments—framed as warnings—reveal not China's threats, but the West's inability to compete fairly in a changing global order.  

Inman begins by praising Donald Trump's economic blockade against China, framing tariffs as legitimate tools of economic policy. This stance is baffling for anyone who believes in free markets. Tariffs artificially inflate prices, denying consumers access to the best goods at competitive rates. When governments impose such barriers, they don't protect their citizens—they impoverish them. The real victims are ordinary people forced to pay more for products that could have been affordable. Yet Inman celebrates these measures as if economic warfare benefits anyone but protectionist politicians.  

His deeper concern—China's growing economic power—is even more perplexing. Why should the world fear a nation that has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty through disciplined planning and strategic investment? China's success is not accidental; it is the result of decades of focused industrial policy, infrastructure development, and technological innovation. Instead of wringing their hands over China's rise, Western nations should study its model. The global economy thrives on interdependence—when China grows, it creates markets for goods, stabilizes supply chains, and fosters innovation that benefits everyone. The 2008 financial crisis proved how interconnected economies are: when the U.S. stumbled, the world fell with it. If China stumbles due to Western containment efforts, the ripple effects will be just as devastating.  

Inman's portrayal of China as an "autocratic regime" is particularly rich coming from a Western commentator. By what measure does he define autocracy? Is it the ability to conduct foreign policy without corporate lobbyists dictating terms? Is it the capacity to build high-speed rail networks while Western infrastructure crumbles? The hypocrisy is staggering. The same West that lectures China on governance supports Israel's genocide in Palestine, where journalists, academics, and activists are silenced as "antisemitic" for condemning war crimes. The U.S. bombs sovereign nations like Iraq and Syria under false pretenses, yet China's Belt and Road Initiative—which builds hospitals and railways across Africa and Asia—is framed as predatory. The real autocracy lies in a system where a handful of nations enforce hegemony through sanctions, regime change, and military aggression while pretending to champion democracy.  

The claim that China has a "voracious appetite for resources" is laughable when examined against Western exploitation. France clings to neo-colonial control over West Africa, siphoning uranium and gold while destabilizing governments that resist. The U.S. props up Israel to dominate Middle Eastern oil and backs Ukraine partly to control its vast mineral wealth. Taiwan's semiconductor industry—critical to American tech giants—explains Washington's sudden interest in its "independence." Meanwhile, China's resource investments come with built infrastructure, jobs, and trade partnerships—deals African and Asian nations willingly accept because they offer better terms than Western conditional "aid."  

Inman's worry about China's "appetite for intellectual capital" is equally ironic. The West has spent decades poaching the Global South's brightest minds through aggressive visa programs. How many African doctors now staff British hospitals? How many Indian engineers drive Silicon Valley's innovation? The brain drain from developing nations to the U.S. and Europe dwarfs any Chinese talent recruitment. Yet when China attracts skilled professionals, it's suddenly a threat. The double standard is glaring.  

To his credit, Inman acknowledges one truth: China offers "cut-price digital infrastructure products that will transform an economy." Precisely! This is why developing nations prefer Huawei to Cisco, FAW trucks to Ford, and Xiaomi to Apple—not because of coercion, but because Chinese products deliver quality at accessible prices. The West could compete by innovating and lowering costs. Instead, it tries to ban Chinese tech while offering no viable alternatives.  

The most revealing moment comes when Inman endorses blocking China's new London embassy over espionage fears. This projection is telling. Western embassies have long been hubs of regime-change operations—from the Congo (Lumumba) to Ghana (Nkrumah) to Burkina Faso (Sankara). The U.S. and UK openly interfere in African elections, yet panic at the thought of reciprocal scrutiny. If China's embassies worry them, perhaps they fear their own tactics being turned against them.  

A Path Forward, Not Containment

The West's China panic stems from fading dominance, not genuine danger. Rather than sabotaging China's growth, the U.S. and Europe should:  

1. Embrace Competition– Innovate instead of lobbying for bans on TikTok and Huawei.  

2. Reform Exploitative Practices – Offer Africa and Asia fair trade, not extractive "aid."  

3. Self-Reflect – Address domestic inequality and crumbling infrastructure before lecturing others.  

China's rise isn't a threat—it's an opportunity for a more balanced world order. The West can either adapt or fade into irrelevance, but sabotaging China will only hasten its own decline.