Connect with us

Americas

From Economics to Politics: Growing Frictions Between China and the U.S.

Published

on

Authors: Yao Jiahui &Yang Yizhong

Chinese consulate in Houston ordered to close the U.S. in Houston, Texas, by July 24, in only three days. Different departments from both China and the U.S. have speculated on the reasons for this confusing move, yet the international media statements on its trigger are also disparate. The move was described as “political provocation” by Beijing, while according to the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the decision was taken because China was “stealing” intellectual property. Shortly after a U.S. government closure order for the mission took effect at 4 p.m. Central Time (2100 GMT), a group of men accompanied by a US State Department official was seen forcing open a door at the Chinese consulate in Houston on July 24.

In response, China ordered the United States to shut its consulate in Chengdu on July 24, Friday, which was described by The Washington Post as “another escalation in the dispute between the world’s two largest economies”.[1] The Chengdu consulate of the United States opened in 1985, while the Houston Consulate of China opened as one of the first consulates in the U.S. Regarding its location in southwest China, Chengdu Consulate’s service targets include Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, Tibet and Chongqing. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China stated at a press conference on July 24 that some personnel of the U.S. Consulate General in Chengdu engaged in activities that were incompatible with their status, interfered in China’s internal affairs and harmed China’s security interests, which is well aware by the US.

Such “diplomatic reciprocity” raised by the U.S. are not unheard as Mike Pompeo officially announced on the 23rd that the US-China Engagement Policy has “failed” and proposed a “distrust and verification” strategy to encourage The “Free World” joins forces against “Communist China”, in front Nixon Library, of whom was the 37th US President to break the ice of Sino-US relations and stimulate the Policy of Engagement with China. Although it was certain that Nixon had a good reason to start contact with China in the past, and claimed that Nixon’s goal was to “lead China’s transformation,” Pompeo insisted that Nixon’s engagement policy “would benefit China more than the United States.” The engagement pursued did not transform China as the kind of Nixon hoped, but the opposite. Regarding the Trump administration’s new strategy, Pompeo took Reagan’s “Trust, but verify” treatment of the Soviet Union as an example, and proposed to “distrust and verify” China. He believes that the “free world” should guide China’s behavior changes in a “creative and decisive” way.

In recent years, China’s rapid development in the realms of technology, economy, and diplomacy has been witnessed by western countries. On July 23, China’s Tianwen-1 mission launched atop a Long March 5 rocket from Wenchang Satellite Launch Center at 12:41 a.m. EDT (0441 GMT), and the probe is expected to reach Mars in February 2021. As the second-largest economy in the world, such achievements are regarded by the United States as a great threat to its “world hegemony” status.

Therefore, the current US-China situation is often described as the “Thucydides trap” of the 21st century. According to the defense correspondent Johnathan Marcus, it is clear that the Trump administration is determined to step up its very public calling out of Beijing. In the midst of a presidential re-election campaign and with the US economy and society battered by the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump has determined that there is a political advantage in playing the China card.[2]

Currently, rising protectionism and global market contraction become obvious. therefore, the developing mode of economic circulation between domestic and international becomes a significant way to participate in the economic globalization. A brand new development pattern between China and the U.S. is considered to emerge, is the new “Thucydides’s trap” inescapable? Thucydides’s Trap here refers to the dynamic between rising and ruling powers that drive events toward war.[3] However, the connection between China and the United States is different from other cases and there is a great opportunity for both sides to avoid the “destined war”. Considering the various aspects of economy, politics, military and technology and so on, United States is the strongest ruling power, and China is the most spectacular rising power. The rivalry between the two is like a rising state accelerating towards the most comprehensive and determined ruling power, or an unstoppable force accelerating towards an immovable object. Anticipate the grandest collision of all time.

Nobody in Washington thinks they can achieve their goals by having a war with China, nor decision-makers in Beijing. But if the drama ends in a war, there must be some factors from the following three dynamics.

First, the material reality of the seesaw between the U.S. and China shifts to an insatiable position that one side may feel blundering. What if China’s economy continues to grow while the United States keeps stagnation? What if the United States economy reblooms while China slides into a middle-income trap? Second, perceptions and misperceptions, understandings and misunderstandings politics may result in a war, “the historical record has demonstrated that the cause of the war between rising and extant dominant powers is much more complex than the neo-realists have explained. There is nothing foreordained about such a war. Some of them were mainly the result of misperception and the failure of statesmanship, as even the arch-realpolitik practitioner”, argued Henry Kissinger.Third, Third-party action is possibly an inducement for the final war, as discussed before, when one party feels the responsibility to respond to the defiant provocations, the two parties will be dragged into a war that both don’t want. When taking care of US-China competition, both sides should look carefully at potential third-party provocations.

Under these three dynamics, U.S. and China are taking care of the fragile relationship cautiously. How could the US and China escape Thucydides’s trap and avoid a possible collision? The following two juxtaposing approaches are believed apposite and feasible for both sides.

On the one hand, both United States and China should recognize the fact that systematic vulnerability of the international system that a possible destined war may be the end of the relationship between the status quo state and the rising state. Therefore, it is reasonable for both to reinforce their communication on many levels, including Head Summit, Ministry level and dialogues between armies. Both the United States and China should possess joint scenarios for the coming crisis, so that they could prevent the crisis from happening, and even if the crisis is unavoidable, they could manage those crises immediately. The two great powers shall be very much cautious about a possible third party that could drag them into a war, like Taiwan province, Korean peninsula, East or South China Sea countries, etc..

On the other hand, aside from externalizing problems and communication, a rivalry partnership is almost certain for both sides to deal with the intricate and complex relationship. They have to acknowledge that their relationship is a mutually beneficial connection, and necessary competition is inevitable. But they need to collaborate on their common interest.


[1]China tells U.S. to shut consulate in Chengdu, in retaliation for Houston closure, ByAnna Fifield, Carol Morello and Ellen Nakashima. July 24, 2020, The Washington Post.

[2]Chinese consulate in Houston ordered to close by US, 23 July 2020. BBC News

[3]Allison, Graham T. 2017. Destined for War : Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

B.A of Public Administration and Spanish, Rutgers University, Specialist at International Department, China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Weakness or calculation? How the pandemic undermined the US world leadership

Published

on

Anyone watching the numerous doomsday movies, happily churned out by Hollywood, will see American doctors saving the planet from space-borne viruses and the plague epidemic that turn people into zombies. However, the very first serious test in a decade has shown that the US healthcare system is actually inferior even to the Russian one, created during the Cold War years. And this despite the fact, that for the past 30 years, the Russian medical system has been suffering from “optimizations,” cuts and underfunding. Moreover, while the Kremlin, even for propaganda reasons, has managed to provide real assistance to a number of European countries, and has been the first to launch a vaccine on the market, Washington’s actions can be regarded as a sign of weakness, and a very dangerous one to its allies at that.

More than a year after the start of the global lockdown, we can already sum up the initial results, which look disappointing to Washington. The US healthcare system has collapsed under the pressure, thus laying bare the country’s inability to bring the outbreak of a less-than-deadly disease under control. As for Russia, despite its lack of America’s vast resources, it still managed to win the vaccine race and become the first to come up with a viable antidote.

More importantly, Moscow has also come out on top in the information “war” with the West, with its Sputnik V vaccine proving to have far fewer side effects than its Pfizer and Moderna counterparts. Therefore, the US and British lobbying of their own vaccines, and their attempts to close the European market for the Russian vaccine look unethical, to say the least, all the more so amid numerous European media reports about people having  died from side effects after being inoculated with Western vaccines. At the same time, there are simply no reports about similar complications caused by the Russian vaccine, even though the European Commission and Brussels have been keeping a close eye on the effects of its use in European countries, including Serbia and Hungary, which have already taken the first deliveries of the Sputnik V vaccine.

What is the reason for the US demonstrating its weakness? How come that in the midst of the epidemic Washington was unable to find the resources to demonstrate its readiness to lend a helping hand to its European allies? Unfortunately, one of the reasons was that the Americans simply freaked out. The truth is, the US healthcare system is rather decentralized and unorganized. People with good health insurance have little to worry about. However, in a situation of a pandemic, the US medical facilities are pretty hard to manage, so one has to do it manually. Compounded by the general atmosphere of panic and the fact that the poorest strata of society, who have no health insurance and constitute the main risk zone (obesity due to malnutrition, advanced chronic diseases and other COVID-inducing conditions), the system simply collapsed. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Trump administration tried to keep maximum resources at home. Moreover, the businessman-turned-president, who had openly spoken about “exporting security,” never missed a chance to make it clear to his allies that US assistance is never free. As a result, he was replaced by Biden, a Democrat who advocates maximum support for all democratic forces. However, Democrats usually provide moral or military support, but they have proved equally unprepared to line up any serious assistance to the countries hit the hardest by the pandemic.

Moreover, it was actually at the suggestion of the United States and the UK that the COVAX system, a global initiative aimed at providing equitable (but not free) access to COVID-19 vaccines for countries in need, stalled. It turned out (who might have guessed?) that both the US-developed Moderna and the British AstraZeneca vaccines are primarily needed by their own electorates, and only then by countries that need them, but are unable to produce their own vaccine. Meanwhile, India with a population of over 1 billion, managed to fulfill its obligations, and Russia is ready to launch the production of vaccines in Europe. However, bending under Washington’s pressure, the European Union has banned the import of Russian, Indian and Chinese vaccines, without bothering to explain the reasons for this ban.

A country, claiming world domination cannot lead in everything, of course.  Therefore, it is not surprising that the healthcare systems of many European countries, like Sweden and Switzerland, are way better that what they now have in the United States. That being said, the world leader still bears full responsibility for its allies and cannot leave them to their own devices, not only in the event of a military conflict, but also in the midst of a pandemic. However, this is exactly what it did…

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Americas

The legacy of 2020, and 2021 in the prospects of the United States and China

Published

on

usa-china
image source: cnn.com

2020 was a crucial year because of Covid-19, which disrupted the evolution of the world order in the direction of differentiation and transformation. This is the most severe crisis the human world has faced since the Second World War.

As of 10 May 2021, According to the Hopkins University Global New Crown Epidemic Statistics Report, as of May 10, 2021 there have been 158,993,826 confirmed cases worldwide and 3,305,018 deaths.

The pandemic is like a fatal global social test. On the basis of a world order that has already undergoing a crisis, it has not only caused a pause and thus a deceleration of economic development, but it has also stepped up social division and the transfer of power from the political to the technical sphere.

Although the most experienced analysts and leading research institutions have published various reports, currently none of them can accurately predict in detail the huge impact of the pandemic on the history of the 21st century.

The pandemic, however, will bring about major changes in four areas.

Firstly, it will accelerate the general trend of global economic recession and differentiation. This is due to the currency over-issue policies adopted by several countries and to intensified domestic social polarisation. Since 2018 the global economic and financial crisis has not yet been solved. On the contrary, the crisis has only been concealed by the short-term response of monetary policy.

Secondly, the pandemic will speed up internal changes and the reorganisation of the international political and economic order precisely due to internal social differentiation. Owing to the turbulent influence of domestic and international policies, economic and political risks in fragile regions of the world will intensify or have knock-on effects.

Thirdly, the pandemic will strengthen the digital society and competition between countries in building new technologies will become more intense. The most significant impact of digital society is the silent arrival of a transparent society that exists but has no human contacts.

Fourthly, the pandemic promotes the rise of vaccine nationalism and accelerates the revival of the community value of East Asian countries, which has epochal significance from the perspective of the history of world civilisation.

The most influential political and economic event in 2020 was the US elections and the related change of Administration. The US elections represented the sharpest but also the most frustrating change in US history. Although Donald Trump lost the election, 74,216,154 citizens voted for the outgoing President.

For the United States, the change in direction cannot be seen as the advent of a resolute and determined policy along one single line, as the basic reality of the highly divided American society was not changed, but indeed strengthened due to the general election. The huge impact promoted the spread of political violence and protests in the United States.

Source: The US Crisis Monitor, Bridging Divides Initiative, Princeton School of Public and International Affairs’, Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination.

First of all, Donald Trump lost the election, but the spectre of Trumpism has remained in the United States and even in Europe, which is generally not conducive to advancing the strategy of developing relations with China.

Secondly, the “antagonism” of the US strategy towards China has not changed radically. Trump hadopened a political-economic dispute with China. Itisparticularlynoteworthythat the younger generation of the Republican leadership isgraduallybecominghostile and negative towards China, and exertsgreatinfluence in Congress.Thisdoesnotfavours world peace.

Thirdly, if this attitude is not contained, it will lead to negative long-term impacts between high-tech decoupling and ideological competition. Finally, China’s policy towards the United States has been perfected and refined: although the government is still adopting a wait-and-see attitude, the voice of seeking cooperation and being rational and pragmatic is still the mainstream in China.

Besides the issue that China will reduce its dependence on the world and increase world’s dependence on China itself, China will reduce its dependence on traditional growth models and increase its care for social, green and environmental sustainability.

The year 2021 is proving that the focus of the analysis of global political and economic trends will still be competition between China and the United States. President Biden’s Administration still regards China as its main strategic competitor, but the methods of addressing the issue are quite different from those of Trump’s Administration. The main difference lies in the fact that President Biden focuses on solving domestic problems and does not exclude the most important issues with China.

President Biden’s Administration has adapted its strategy for China as the influence of major lobbies and interest groups – such as the US finance and military industry – on policy is constant compared to the previous Administration. Nevertheless, the Chinese factor in the chain of global interests keeps higher levels.

Indeed, voices from both parties in the US Congress calling for curbing China’s rise are also increasing.

In short, in terms of China’s policy direction, President Biden’s Administration is expected to oppose a trade war because it harms the core interests of the US business community. However, there are likely to be problems for Taiwan, Xianggang (Hong Kong), Xinjiang Weiwu’er (Uyghur), South China Sea, Xizang (Tibet), as well as other issues.

The possibility of renewed trade negotiations between China and the United States is expected to increase significantly in the future and the US strategy of constructive competition will be reformed.

Regardless of changes in Sino-US relations, China will certainly promote greater bilateral and multilateral investment cooperation, while seeking new development and shaping new models of cooperation.

The key areas which are currently the most important and noteworthy are, firstly, China’s joining the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and seeking to adhere to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which shows that China’s top leadership has decided to continue the reform strategy of internal and external promotion.

The RCEP is a free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region between the ten States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Brunei, Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) and five of their free trade partners: Australia, China, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Japan and New Zealand. These Member States account for approximately 30% of world’s population and GDP, thus making it the largest trading bloc.

The CPTPP, instead, is a draft regional investment and regulatory treaty in which negotiations, until 2014, twelve Pacific and Asian countries participated: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the USA and Vietnam.

Indeed, between the RCEP and the CPTPP, there is not only the interconnection of the industrial chain and commonality -and more reasons for unity than differences – but also the influence of great powers’ strategic factors.

The main difference between the two is that the CPTPP has higher economic quality requirements, while the RECP is more inclusive. Secondly, the China-EU trade and investment agreement is likely to be signed, which has clear short-term interests for Europe and long-term strategic interests for China. China, however, still needs to take a cautious attitude towards European policy and its legal systems based on double standards. Thirdly, China and Russia are strengthening comprehensive strategic cooperation and there will be new opportunities for their cooperation in the energy and military sectors.

Continue Reading

Americas

Why Congress should be rough on Chris Miller at his testimony on Wednesday

Published

on

FBI director Chris Wray’s weak congressional testimony in March left most of the Capitol attack questions unanswered and most of us scratching our heads: if the chiefs of the intelligence agencies don’t know, then who does?

As I argued back in March, before Senate Wray picked the low hanging fruit questions — such as confirming that the Trump mob that stormed the Capitol was indeed Trump’s mob and not some other people — while conviniently glazing over the real questions.

This is why the congressional testimony by former acting Secretary of Defense, Chris Miller, this Wednesday matters. The national guard mystery is still the elephant in the room that’s still sitting in the corner in loud, deafening silence.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee has been looking for answers from federal intelligence agencies on Trump’s role in the Capitol insurrection since day one. They have knocked on pretty much any door they could think of, requesting information from sixteen offices in total. That brings us to Wednesday when the Committee will hear from Chris Miller, as well as Jeff Rosen, former acting Attorney General, and Robert Contee III, District of Columbia Police Chief, in a hearing titled “The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions.”

Back in March, when Senate grilled Wray, the FBI director could not answer why the national guard was not sent in to quell the attack. Wray vaguely put the decision on local policy makers, conveniently circumventing federal responsibility.

Then months later, defense officials actually stated that the national guard was delayed for reasons of “optics” and worries over how it would look if Trump’s mob was pushed out forcefully, as they should’ve been. Miller dragged his feet for hours before giving the green light, as he wanted to imagine what exactly the national guard’s intervention will look like. The actual deployment took only 20 minutes, logistically speaking.

Miller has already spoken about Trump’s “cause and effect” words responsible for inciting the Capitol attacks. And some commentators like Sarah Burris at Raw Story already predict that Miller is about to throw Trump under the bus on Wednesday.

But that’s not enough. Where was Miller back then? The delay was his decision and no one else’s. The Congressmen and Congresswomen of the House Oversight and Reform Committee chaired by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, should not go easy on Miller only because now, after the fact, he is willing to speak up against Trump. Now it’s easy. Now it doesn’t count.

Trump removed Secretary of Defense Esper over his objection to sending the national guard on the Black Lives Matter movement that sparked up exactly one year ago. That’s why Trump replaced Esper with Miller. Miller could have also said no to Trump but he played along. That’s why Miller doesn’t get to play hero now. There are no heroes in the Trump Administration’s aftermath. Some “cause and effect” talk and hypocritical outrage after the fact don’t count. Now doesn’t count. The House Oversight and Reform Committee shouldn’t buy this. The time for cheap spins and late awakened conscience is up. Now is the time for real answers. Miller and Rosen should get a rough ride on Wednesday. Anything else would not be acceptable.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Africa7 mins ago

Hydro-projects in Africa: Interview with Vladislav Vasilyev

As widely known, Russia plans to hold the second Russia-Africa summit in 2022, as a further step to make inroads...

Europe1 hour ago

Belgrade and Pristina: Will a territorial exchange really happen?

The European Union is dialing up pressure on Serbia and Kosovo in an effort to convince Belgrade and Pristina to...

Americas6 hours ago

Weakness or calculation? How the pandemic undermined the US world leadership

Anyone watching the numerous doomsday movies, happily churned out by Hollywood, will see American doctors saving the planet from space-borne...

Defense10 hours ago

Prospects for a Settlement of the Libyan Conflict: Three Scenarios of the Mid-Term Forecast

More than ten years ago, in February 2011, the Arab Spring began in Libya. The armed uprising quickly escalated into...

New Social Compact12 hours ago

Discerning the Human Element Amid the Pandemic

“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” – Pierre Teilhard de...

Arts & Culture14 hours ago

“Kharibulbul” festival represents a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional and multicultural Azerbaijan

As a country of multiculturalism, Azerbaijan promotes the cross-cultural dialogue inside the country, but also at the regional level. The...

Europe16 hours ago

A leaderless ship: The Bulgaria’s political crisis and the storm to come

Internal and international tensions Politics tends to develop in a complex conundrum in all Balkan countries. Thus, never can observers...

Trending