Connect with us

Americas

U.S. versus China, and U.S. versus Russia

Published

on

The main ideological conflict in the world used to be between capitalism versus communism. After the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, that became replaced by the ideological conflict being between imperialism and anti-imperialism. With the expansion of America’s NATO military alliance against Russia, after 1991 — after the communist dictatorship there ended — to include as new members all of the Soviet Union’s former Warsaw Pact allies in Europe, and with America’s aim now being to bring into NATO the former Soviet allies to the south of Russia, such as Azerbaijan and Georgia, American imperialism is viewed in Russia increasingly as an existential threat, which it certainly is. 

The basic difference between the U.S. Government and its allies, on the one hand, and between Russia and China and their allies, on the other, is the same difference in either case: whereas the U.S. and its allies require other Governments to follow their instructions, and consider their own instructions to be moral demands (and thereby binding, actually commands instead of mere suggestions), Russia and China and their allies reject — on principle — any country’s dictating to another. They don’t consider it to be moral, at all, but instead profoundly immoral — they consider it to be imperialistic, dictatorial, bullying, hostile toward international democracy — and they simply won’t accept it; they reject it morally, outright. Iran, too, feels that way about the matter. So, too, do many other countries. That’s the basic difference: the imperialists versus the anti-imperialists.

In other words: the U.S. and its allies consider imperialism — the supposed right of a nation to command another nation — to be something that should be within the bounds of, and accepted by, international law. The U.S. Empire doesn’t call itself an “Empire,” but it is one, and its empire is therefore called instead “the Washington Consensus”, which is a “consensus” in hostility against whatever countries the U.S. Government wants to become regime-changed — to turn into an American colony. The “Washington Consensus” is actually an imposed ‘consensus’. It is a consensus against nations that disobey that ‘consensus’.

The very concept of the “Washington Consensus” was created in 1989 when Mikhail Gorbachev, President of the communist Soviet Union, was unwilling to apply the amount of force that might hold the Soviet Union together, and the anti-communist Revolutions of 1989 in the Soviet Union and in China made clear that communism was about to end in at least the Soviet sphere, and that consequently the American rationale for the Cold War — anti-communism — would soon end. So, America, having perpetrated many ‘anti-communist’ (but actually anti-independence, and in some cases even boldly anti-democracy) coups in Thailand 1948, Syria 1949, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, and many other lands, needed a changed ideological excuse, in order to continue building-out its Empire (not yet called “the Washington Consensus”); so, the “Washington Consensus” became, itself, the new excuse. This ‘consensus’ of the U.S. and its allies consists in the imposition of “libertarian” or “neo-liberal” economic policies, as being an international obligation for countries in the “developing world” to accept and apply (often called “austerity,” because it is austerity for the masses of that underdeveloped country’s citizens, so that foreign investors can reap the profits from it). This ‘consensus’ became the new ideological excuse to extend the American Empire. However, as the appeal of “neo-liberalism” began to wane (as a result of its increasingly bad international reputation), a new excuse was increasingly needed. “R2P,” or “Responsibility to Protect” the residents in other lands, became introduced, especially after around the year 2000, as the new, ‘humanitarian’, excuse for America and its vassal nations (‘allies’) to apply sanctions against, and even to invade and occupy, countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Venezuela — countries that, ‘just by coincidence’, happened to reject the Washington Consensus. This new excuse for America’s spending approximately half of the entire world’s annual military costs was more clearly putting forward the Washington Consensus as constituting the ‘real’ United Nations — the one that had a military force (and that didn’t have Russia, China, or any other recalcitrant nation, on any “Security Council”). The U.S. regime champions R2P as being a ‘humanitarian’ motivation behind such sanctions, coups, and invasions, for ‘regime-change’ against recalcitrant countries, such as Iraq, Syria, and Venezuela. The American anti-‘communist’ organization, Human Rights Watch, and the British anti-‘communist’ organization Amnesty International, now became especially prominent, as public endorsers of R2P. Often, however, subversion by the U.S. succeeded at conquest, without there even being any need to apply sanctions (or worse). R2P isn’t necessary for those types of operations — subversion. An example is Brazil, in regard to the ending of any functional democracy in Brazil and the imprisonment of the popular democratically elected President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (“Lula”) and replacment of him by a far-right regime. The U.S. regime, prominently including Joe Biden, did it, so as to extract from Brazil’s poor the money to pay to foreign investors to buy and strip that nation, in accord with the dictates of the IMF and the rest of the Washington ‘consensus’. By the time of 19 July 2017, the U.S. Justice Department publicly admitted “It is hard to imagine a better cooperative relationship in recent history than that of the United States Department of Justice and the Brazilian prosecutors” who had rigged the ‘evidence’ that got President Lula thrown into prison. A remarkable article at Brasil Wire — which has been copied many times to the web archives — “Hidden History: The US ‘War On Corruption’ In Brasil”, documents (with 77 links) U.S. subversion, which had regained U.S. control of that country, by means of a coup that was a cooperative effort by the aristocracies of both the United States and Brazil. Subsequently, on 15 June 2019, The Intercept bannered “Glenn Greenwald Explains the Political Earthquake in Brazil Caused by Our Ongoing Exposés” and linked to, and described, how the anonymously supplied evidence that they had published had laid bare the rigging of the case against Lula that had transformed Brazil from being a budding democracy, into its present fascist regime — again into being a country that U.S.-and-allied billionaires can exploit virtually without limit.

The U.S. regime’s emphasis upon ‘corruption’ had been central to the ‘justification’ of ousting Lula. This is an example of another excuse that the U.S. and its allies employ in order to ‘justify’ their imperialism: it’s America’s global ‘anti-corruption’ campaign. Agents of U.S. billionaires had actually established Transparency International at the very same time as they did the Washington Consensus, as a means to rig the corruption-rankings of countries, so that the World Bank would be able to ‘justify’ charging higher interest rates to countries that America’s aristocracy aim to conquer (regardless of whether that conquest was by subversion — such as in Brazil — or else by sanctions, or by coup, or by military invasion).

Consequently, the American Empire started, on 26 July 1945, in order to ‘conquer communism’ (U.S. President Harry S. Truman, on that date, got sucker-punched into that support of imperialism, and he remained so); and, then, after 24 February 1990, that ideological excuse morphed into the “Washington Consensus” imposition of “libertarian” or “neo-liberal” economic policies; and, then, it morphed yet again,into ‘responsibility to protect’ (or, as one of its champions put it, ‘Sovereignty is an anachronistic concept’ and should therefore be ignored); and, then, the alleged motivation came increasingly to rely upon ‘anti-corruption’. Regardless of the excuse, however, the actual intention has remained unchanged, ever since the Cold War started on 26 July 1945. Basically, America would impose its own world-government, and only the excuses for it were changing, over time — new paint on an old building — and, “To hell with the U.N.!” Billionaires’ greed was never being presented as the motivation behind their empire (just as the aristocracy’s greed has been behind every empire). But, after the time of Ronald Reagan’s election to the U.S. Presidency in 1980, the idea that “Greed is good” has been advocated by some U.S. officials; and some Americans even use that idea (such as “capitalism”) in order to argue for the Washington Consensus.

The U.S. and its allies believe that the English Empire is okay; the U.S. Empire is okay; the Spanish Empire was okay; the Italian Empire was okay, the French Empire was okay, the Dutch Empire was okay, the Portuguese Empire was okay; the German Empire was okay; the Russian Empire was okay; the Japanese Empire was okay; the Chinese Empire was okay, and so forth. And, this imperialism-accepting view of morality is profoundly contrary to the morality of today’s Russia, China, and their allies, all of which believe, instead, that imperialism by any nation is evil, because each nation’s Government is sovereign over only its own land, and because national sovereignty consists in the right of each nation’s Government to rule over all of the internal matters within its own land-area. No national government, or alliance of national governments, should be able to dictate anything of the internal affairs in any other country. This is democracy between nations; it is international democracy. Democracy (or not) within a nation is no valid concern of international law, but is inevitably and entirely a matter of national law: the nation’s Constitution, and the entire national legal system. Foreigners should not be dictating that. To do so is international dictatorship.

Though all nations share a view that international matters require international agreements and international laws which are based upon international agreements, and therefore they all share the view that an international government, of some sort, is required, in order to enforce international agreements, the imperialistic countries believe themselves actually to be such international governments, or else that they are being ruled by such an international government (“the Empire,” “the Washington Consensus,” or whatever they might call it). The anti-imperialist countries believe that that’s not true, and that imperialism is what leads to interference in the internal affairs within other countries, and thereby produces wars, which are especially evil wars — ones that are of the aggressive type, aiming to expand the attacking nation’s control, to extend over additional lands. That’s international theft. Russia, China, and their allies, refuse to accept it.

Whereas anti-imperialist countries believe that any violation of a nation’s sovereignty — other than in response to an invasion from that country — is evil, pro-imperialist countries believe that it’s good, if one country agrees to be ruled by another country. (In the view of pro-imperialists, the agreement of one country to be ruled by another is alleged to be sometimes voluntary, and not to be the result of invasion and conquest or other means of external control — it’s alleged to be a ‘voluntary’ empire. Normally, the imperial country demands each of its ‘allies’, or vassal-nations, to say that their ‘alliance’ is ‘voluntary’. This myth is part of the imperial system.)

What politically divides the world today is precisely this difference: imperialism versus anti-imperialism — NOT capitalism versus socialism. (In fact, some countries, such as the Scandinavian ones, blend capitalism with socialism, and maintain higher levels of democracy than do the more ideologically rigid and more purely capitalistic countries such as the United States do.) So, there isn’t (and there never really was) any necessary correlation between democracy on the one hand, and capitalism versus socialism on the other: it was a figment of U.S.-allied propagandists’ imaginations — a lie — to suggest that capitalism goes with democracy. Nazi Germany was capitalist; fascist Italy was capitalist; imperialist Japan was capitalist, but they all were dictatorships, not, at all, democracies. For example: the Italian dictator Mussolini — the founder of fascism — said that fascism is “corporationism,” and he rejected both socialism and democracy. You can read here Mussolini’s essay on “Capitalism and the Corporatist State”, in which he was defining “fascism,” or his synonym for it, “corporationism,” and what he said in that essay describes the U.S. and its allied Governments today, as they actually are: today’s U.S. and its allied Governments are “corporationist” or “fascist,” as Mussolini described that, in 1933. Earlier, in 1914, Mussolini had said that “I shout it loudly: anti-war propaganda is a propaganda of cowardice.” He said that every nation seeks to expand, and that there is nothing wrong with this: “Imperialism is the eternal and immutable law of life. At bottom it is but the need, the desire, and the will for expansion, which every living, healthy individual or people has in itself.” He wasn’t similar to America’s leader in the 1930s, but he was similar to most American leaders of today. (For example, Barack Obama — though silk-tongued, unlike the less-deceptive and more forthright Mussolini — said repeatedly that every nation except America is “dispensable”: only America is not.) On 2 October 1935, Mussolini announced his war on Ethiopia, as providing a way for Ethiopians to share in Italy’s glory: “For many months the wheel of destiny, under the impulse of our calm determination, has been moving toward its goal; now its rhythm is faster and can no longer be stopped. Here is not just an army marching toward a military objective, but a whole people, forty-four million souls, against whom the blackest of all injustices has been committed – that of denying them a place in the sun.”

Basically, what Truman started on 26 July 1945 was America’s becoming, itself, a fascist nation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was deeply anti-fascist, and had hoped to start the U.N. as the international democratic federal republic of nations, but Truman shaped what the U.N. became instead, which is a mere talking-forum that can do only what there exists virtual unanimity to do. So, effectively, “international law” has become, and now is, whatever the U.S. regime wants to do. Tin-pot invading dictators can be prosecuted, but America’s invading dictators (who lead vastly more mass-murdering and  destructions of nations than the tin-pot ones do) can’t. FDR and the allies (especially Russia, which wasn’t even a democracy) defeated the fascists, but Truman (largely by mistake, instead of by intention) led the fascist resurgence and post-WW-II victory.

First, this difference, between the U.S. and the countries that it attacks, will be exemplified here in the case of U.S. versus China, and then it will be exemplified in the case of U.S. versus Russia. In each instance, the example applies also with regard to each of those two countries’ allies:

On October 9th, America’s Public Radio International (PRI) bannered “Biden says he’ll make China quit coal. Can he deliver?”, and sub-headed “China is on a coal spree, financing and providing technical expertise to roughly 60 new coal-fired power plants outside its borders.” But China (unlike the United States) is actually committing itself to reduce, instead of to expand, its usage of coal, and that fact is simply omitted from the PRI article, because PRI (like all of America’s major news-media) is an agency of U.S. Government propaganda — indoctrination. How, then, can their article claim “China is on a coal spree?” Is it simply a lie? No. The article isn’t about that (China’s domestic coal-usage). It is strictly about China’s building coal plants in other countries, because this is the issue that provides U.S. propagandists an opportunity to present the Chinese Government as being in need of regime-change. That’s essential, in order to maintain public support for the U.S. Government’s anti-China sanctions and other hostile policies toward China. It’s propaganda, for sanctions, subversion, and maybe later a coup, or even an outright U.S.-and-allied invasion, against China.

As regards China’s domestic usage of coal, an article was published, on September 30th, in the significantly less propagandistic (because not so beholden to the U.S. or any Government) Asia Times, headlined “China’s carbon neutral pledge – pipe dream or reality?”, which sub-headlined “Xi’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2060 clashes with China’s geopolitical interests,” and that article noted how extraordinarily dependent, upon coal, China — a coal-rich nation — is, and has been while its economy has been growing at a breakneck pace. This article also noted: “The US, the world’s largest economy, and second largest carbon dioxide emitter, for its part, is the only major world power that has not announced plans to go carbon neutral.” That fact, of course — America’s refusal to go carbon-neutral, and its 4 November 2019 abandonment of the 2016 Paris climate agreement, which both China and Russia remain committed to — somewhat punctures the U.S. Government’s case against China as being a global-warming villain. The U.S. doesn’t even have plans to restrict its CO2-emissions. 

Furthermore, this news-article opened:

China is trying to spearhead a new climate change agenda that has the potential to dramatically reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by next decade and beyond and help the world’s second largest economy and most populous nation become a global climate change leader.

Last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping surprised his listeners at the virtual UN General Assembly in New York when he announced that China would be carbon neutral before 2060, and ensured that its greenhouse gas emissions would peak in the next decade.

This is a severe contrast to the U.S. Government. Nothing was said about it in the PRI article.

The PRI article deals with this problem for U.S. propagandists by falsely insinuating (which is the way that propaganda usually works) that the Chinese Government’s publicly announced plans are not to be taken seriously but are only communist propaganda:

Inside China, those overseas coal plants are often portrayed as benevolent. Jingjing Zhang, one of China’s top environmental lawyers, said that “from the Chinese government perspective, it is a way of giving. ‘We are helping the developing world … helping those countries have a better economy.’”

And if its smoke-spewing projects drive up the world’s temperatures?

“The argument from China’s government,” Zhang said, “is that it’s not the Chinese government’s responsibility. It is the host government’s responsibility.”

Actually, that view, which is expressed by China’s Government, is a basic operating principle of that Government’s foreign policies. It isn’t just propaganda; it is, instead, ideology — it is China’s, Russia’s, Iran’s, and many other countries’, ideology: anti-imperialism (versus America’s imperialism, America’s moralistic ‘regime change’ con, like “Saddam’s WMD”). Just as imperialism has become America’s ideology, anti-imperialism is the ideology of the countries that the U.S. propaganda-media attack.

The anti-imperialist ideology (supporting international democracy among and between nations — rejection of international dictatorship — instead of supporting international conquest and occupation or control over nations) was stated privately by U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the closing years of World War II — he blamed both of the two World Wars on imperialism, and was passionately committed to ending imperialism, by means of the United Nations. That’s an institution he actually invented, and even named (but all of this was done privately, not publicly, because he wanted buy-in from both Stalin and Churchill, and the latter, Churchill, argued feroociously with him against it, because Churchill was — and had always been — a champion of continuing, and even expanding, the British Empire). But FDR died on 12 April 1945, just before the U.N. would be organized. And his immediate successor, Harry S. Truman, shaped the U.N. so as for imperialism to be able to continue, in order for America to become the world’s first global empire, by means of sanctions, coups, and outright invasions, in order for the U.S. Government to be able to spread its influence and control. After WW II, America developed the biggest empire the world has ever had.

FDR’s concept of international law was that only a democratic global federation of nations, which he planned to be the “United Nations,” would, or even could, be the source for international law, because, otherwise, the history that had produced the two world wars — contending and competing gangs of nations, imposing their ‘laws’ upon their conquests, and trying to expand their empire — would continue. And that ancient system, of empires, has been continuing, despite what had been FDR’s hopes and plans. The U.N. that was created, was designed by Truman’s people, not by FDR’s.

I have written elsewhere about how crucial this difference of moral viewpoints is between Putin and the U.S. Government, which also explains why the U.S. and its allies also want to regime-change him and grab Russia. In terms of domestic policies, Putin is determined that the State not be controlled by the nation’s billionaires; and this, too, is a principle that the U.S. Government and its allies cannot tolerate. (The Washington Consensus instead endorses it, in principle, as part of “the free market.”) The U.S. and its allies refuse to accept any nation’s leader who is unalterably opposed either to being controlled from abroad, or to being controlled by his/her own nation’s billionaires. FDR refused for America to be controlled by America’s, or by any country’s, billionaires.

FDR was correct; Churchill was wrong; but Truman sided with Churchill (who got backed up by General Eisenhower, who seems to have clinched Truman’s decision because Ike was an American). And, on 24 February 1990, G.H.W. Bush made the equally fateful decision to continue Truman’s Cold War. And all the rest is history. Truman and G.H.W. Bush shaped it. We are living in it. It did trillions of dollars worth of good for the investors in corporations such as Lockheed and Exxon. That decision, by the U.S. Government, has been the choice of the people, America’s international billionaires, who, behind the scenes, have controlled the U.S. Government after FDR died, on 12 April 1945. It’s the new America: the imperial America. And it’s done not only by America’s Presidents, but by almost all members of the U.S. Congress. For a typical example of this: the 2017 “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act”, against Russia and against Iran, passed by 419 to 3 in the U.S. House, and then 98 to 2 in the U.S. Senate. Imperialism is just about the only issue on which there is virtual unanimity in today’s Washington. It is truly bipartisan, there. Both of the billionaires’ Parties are war Parties. This is especially remarkable for a country that no country even threatens to invade (much less has invaded, since 7 December 1941). Its military Department is called the “Defense Department,” instead of the “Aggression Department.” Is that name dishonest? Should it be changed, to something more honest? Maybe it should be changed back, again, to being called the “War Department.” But, unlike when it was called that, it now is 100% the Aggression Department. So, shouldn’t it be called that, now? Shouldn’t a spade be called a “spade,” instead of just “a gardening tool”? If it’s the Aggression Department, why don’t they call it that?

Author’s note: first published at Strategic Culture

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Possible Directions for U.S. Policies in the Biden Era

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Authors: Chan Kung and He Jun

On January 20, 2021, a new page will be turned in the history of the United States when Joe Biden becomes the 46thPresident. What will happen to U.S. domestic and foreign policy as a result of the transition from the “Trump Era” to the “Biden Era”? What will be the impact of this on the U.S., the world, and China? After the tumultuous Trump Era, we believe that this is an issue of great concern to international governments and markets.

The “ANBOUND 100+” high-end discussion platform and the macro team have been continuously tracking the news of the imminent Biden Era and possible policy changes. To this, we have made a number of key predictions. In the historic moment when Joe Biden is about to take office, it is important to review and summarize the relevant research to understand the changes that the new U.S. President will bring.

First, we shall look at the American political landscape in the Biden Era.

An overall judgment is that Democrats are taking control, but “Trumpism” is still unlikely to disappear from U.S. politics any time soon. The ANBOUND team had judged on November 11, 2020, that Donald Trump’s various policies had in fact left Biden with a number of political and diplomatic “legacies”, and that Biden actually had considerable autonomy over whether to “inherit” these “legacies”. Objectively, whether inherited or not, these “legacies” can be used as a bargaining chip for the Biden administration. On the issue of Trump himself, ANBOUND once said on December 20 that Trump will be in trouble because he had “gone too far” and that the future Biden team might carry out a complete reckoning with Trump and his team. Judging by the fact that Trump is facing a second impeachment and the investigation into the storming of the Capitol, such a reckoning is happening. In this regard, ANBOUND has summed up Trump’s influence remains and its trajectory to be: Trump -> Trumpism -> Trumpism without Trump.

In the Biden Era, the two-party political landscape in the U.S. will be unbalanced, with the Democrats dominating U.S. politics and rapidly gaining the upper hand, and the Republicans facing an internal split, as ANBOUND judged on January 10, 2021. On this basis, we believe that there is a clear trend towards “bipartisanship”, with the Democrats becoming the dominant party in this cooperation. In this context, the Biden administration is likely to complete domestic integration faster and turn its focus to foreign policy sooner. It is also possible that with less resistance at home, the Democrats will give more focusat home, and the U.S. society will become more integrated than in the past, with some of the major domestic issues, such as welfare and environmental protection, to likely make significant progress over the next four years.

Then, there are the U.S. economic issues and economic policies in the Biden Era.

The United States faces many problems in the economy, but the core problem lies in the distribution of wealth, which is the cause of many social problems. The research team of ANBOUND pointed out in November 2019 that the wealth of the United States is still in the process of being accumulated in large quantities, and the real problem of American society lies in the distribution of wealth. Part of the backlash against globalization in the U.S. is also related to the distribution of wealth in American society. On this basis, we believe that welfare will be an important aspect of U.S. economic policy that needs to be addressed in the future. On November 22, 2020, we further pointed out that the transition to a welfare state could usher in a new super-boom for the United States. Contrary to the view of many that welfare is a “simple spending” policy, we believe that welfare, if properly used, will create new consumption space. In terms of health insurance, education, and consumption in the United States, we expect that a full-scale welfare transition in the U.S. would create a USD 10 trillion mega-consumer market that would potentially bring the U.S. into a new phase of rapid development while resolving social tensions.

Based on the above analysis, we believe that the core of the so-called “Bidenomics” is about the distribution of wealth and the “welfarization”. From what has been observed so far, the basic logic of “Bidenomics” is to solve the public health crisis, save jobs, reconfigure the industrial chain, overhaul infrastructure, promote an environmental agenda, build a better social security system, and promote social equality. This logic is likely to be the “core” of economic policies in the Biden Era. There were similar signals that emerge before Biden officially took over the presidency. Biden has proposed USD 1.9 trillion stimulus package to deal with the impact of the pandemic on the U.S. economy and society. Biden’s Treasury Secretary nominee Janet Yellen also called on the U.S. Congress to act more aggressively to deliver economic aid without worrying too much about the debt. “Neither the president-elect, nor I, propose this relief package without an appreciation for the country’s debt burden. But right now, with interest rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act big,” Yellen said. “I believe the benefits will far outweigh the costs, especially if we care about helping people who have been struggling for a very long time,” Yellen added. Yellen also stressed the need to rebuild the U.S. economy “so that it creates more prosperity for more people and ensures that American workers can compete in an increasingly competitive global economy.”

Concerning the foreign policy issues in the Biden Era, as mentioned above, Biden will not completely abandon Trump’s diplomatic “legacies”, rather he would build on it with some kind of “pullback”. In this process, institutionalization and systematization will be the most prominent characteristics of American diplomacy in the future. A top foreign policy priority for the Biden administration will be to rebuild relations with its allies, particularly Europe, restoring stability to the transatlantic alliance and healing the rifts that have emerged over the past few years. We believe that such rapprochement will certainly play a role and the U.S.-EU strategic alliance will not change, but it will be difficult to fully restore to the levels of the past. On many issues, such as economy and trade, market space, security, and digital sovereignty, the EU will have a stronger “sense of autonomy”. As for U.S.-China relations in the Biden era, we have argued that we should not expect the U.S. government to adjust its hardline position on China, but that the Biden administration would be more predictable in its approach to policy games, returning to the character of “the establishment”. In fact, as early as October last year, the ANBOUND’s research team pointed out in its outlook on U.S.-China relations in the Biden era that the Biden administration’s approach to several aspects of domestic and foreign affairs would generally differ from that of the Trump administration, and that while its strategic positioning of China and the policy of inhibiting the rise of China in the long term would remain unchanged, in terms of specific approaches, the Biden administration would seek a certain degree of order and geopolitical discipline to implement and enforce its policies.

In regard to the Korean Peninsula issue, we believe that in the Biden Era, it is possible for the United States and North Korea to reach a phased nuclear abandonment agreement. On Iran, the main concern is still the Iranian nuclear issue. We believe that the United States will amend Trump’s extreme policies on the issue of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear agreement, and some adjustment will take place. However, even if the United States can return to the Iran nuclear agreement, Iran may have to make certain concessions on the 2015 version. One of the key points may be that Iran needs to further restrict its support to the militia in the Middle East on the basis of the original version. This means that Iran’s influence in the Middle East will be significantly reduced. Regarding the issue of returning to Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), we believe that returning to CPTPP is quite attractive to the Biden administration, but it is also quite difficult. Fluctuations in U.S.-China relations will affect the process of the United States returning to CPTPP; the worse the U.S.-China geopolitical relationship gets, the less resistance the United States will have to return to CPTPP.

In addition, ANBOUND’s researchers also believe that looking from the standpoint of historical development, the Biden administration may be a transitional period for the United States to return to “normal” from the Trump Era. From Biden’s personality, age, situation and environment, we tend to think that the Biden administration is likely to be a “presidential accountability system under the leadership of Secretaries”. In such a government, it is the Secretaries of various departments, the Department of State, and the new cooperation pattern of the two parties in Congress that play a key role, rather than relying mainly on the President. In particular, Janet Yellen, the new Treasury Secretary who had served as the Chairperson of the Federal Reserve, could very well have crucial impact on the U.S. economic policy in the Biden Era.

Final analysis conclusion:

With the transfer of executive power, the United States will bid farewell to the “Trump Era” and usher in the “Biden Era”. The United States under Joe Biden will undergo considerable adjustments and changes, which are reflected in many aspects of the United States’ domestic politics, international geopolitics, economy, and foreign policy. The world will watch the new changes in the United States, and China will see a new pattern of U.S.-China relations. Changes in the United States will not only affect the world but also China’s development strategy.

Continue Reading

Americas

Removed Diplomacy: Why U.S. Sanctions Against Russia Have Gone Stale

Published

on

Since 2014, Russian and American diplomacy has been defined by economic sanctions. This has become the default, expected option for U.S. policymakers—but Russia has refused to concede, repent and ask for forgiveness. The U.S. had hoped Russia would experience just enough economic hardship that they would revert their course, retract their reunification with Crimea, and end any involvement in Eastern Ukraine. Almost seven years later, there is no evidence to suggest that Russia has any intention of buckling under the pressure and denying its national interests.

What the United States has failed to realize is that sanctions work on highly dependent countries. Russia is an independent country and has become more economically autonomous as a result of U.S. sanctions. The Russian domestic industry has flourished since sanctions were first imposed. Sanctions imposed by the United States are predicated on some combination of the following: either the United States has enough of an economic relationship prior to sanctions, so the loss of the United States as a trade partner alone is hugely detrimental to the target economy, or the United States can influence other countries who share a more extensive economic relationship with the target country to carry out the same policies.

Venezuela is a country that has been grievously affected by U.S. sanctions, as one would predict, given the country’s dependence on the exportation of crude oil, particularly to the U.S. With oil comprising roughly 95 per cent of exports and their petroleum industry making up 25 per cent of overall GDP, Venezuela is considered very resource dependent when engaging in international trade. Venezuela has also been plagued by Dutch Disease, which has largely prevented its economy from diversifying for the past century. In 2013, the United States brought in 29.5 per cent of Venezuelan exports and delivered 23 per cent of the county’s imports. Strangely, despite the sanctions imposed in 2014, Venezuela has grown more dependent on the United States. By 2018, 39.2 per cent of Venezuelan exports and 52.9 per cent of Venezuelan imports were in trade with the U.S. With this increased dependence on the United States after the implementation of U.S. sanctions. It is no wonder that Venezuela has been increasingly devastated beyond comprehension since sanctions were first imposed in 2013. Venezuela’s trade balance through this period has consistently been in surplus. However, the volume of trade has shrunk USD 101.9 billion, from USD 143.76 billion in 2013 to USD 41.86 billion in 2018. The country has been rocked by astronomical inflation, reaching as high as 344 509 per cent. Is it the same case for Russia? No, which is due, in part, to Russia’s Soviet legacy. The vast territory and harsh climate have also helped the Russians develop a much more diverse and independent economy. Additionally, the United States is simply not one of Russia’s main trade partners.

As illustrated by data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity, Russia and Venezuela couldn’t be more unalike. Russia’s largest trade partners for the past 20 years have been Germany and China. In 2014, when the sanctions were first imposed, Russia’s economy and international trade figures were at an all-time high. In that year, Russia exported USD 454 billion and imported USD 296 billion, a trade surplus of USD 158 billion. This year, the United States only accounted for 5.58 per cent of Russia’s imports and 3.87 per cent of Russia’s exports. In 2018, with even stricter sanctions imposed, Russia exported USD 427 billion and imported USD 231 billion, increasing the trade surplus from USD 158 billion in 2013 to USD 196 billion in 2018. Russia’s trade balance from 2013 to 2018 still experienced a shrink of USD 92 billion. A key difference between Russia and Venezuela is that from 2014 to 2018, Russian trade decreased by just 12 per cent, compared to Venezuela’s loss of 71 per cent. What does Russia have working to its advantage that Venezuela is lacking? Remember, for sanctions to work, they require high economic dependence from either the country issuing the sanctions.

Russia and Germany have an interesting codependency on one another. The Nord Stream project has been a source of tension between the U.S. and Germany; a recent Bloomberg article points out that there is an anticipated clash between newly elected president Biden and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The German chancellor openly supports the completion of the second pipeline because the project is a means for securing German influence over Western Europe, as they will maintain their status as energy distributors once the pipe project is complete. Merkel also understands that the German economy depends on Russian energy. Nord Stream has become the only option since the Ukrainian pipelines have gone cold. Merkel has received criticism from those close to her, including from Norbert Röttgen, the head of the foreign affairs committee in German parliament. In September of 2020, he is quoted saying, “We need to respond with the only language that Putin understands, the language of natural gas,” Meaning the one thing that Germany has at its disposal is the ability to back out of the Nord Stream deal to pressure the Kremlin into correcting their behaviour to satisfy western leaders. The only problem is that Germany is dependent on Russian natural gas. Germany has been falling behind other European countries in environmental efforts and has grown more dependent on coal power to supplement energy demand when renewable sources fail to meet the needs of the German people.

It’s important to consider is the continuation of oil trade between the Netherlands and Russia. If the West is so concerned about preserving its ideals, why hasn’t this trade been pressured? Likely because Nord Stream 2 is a relatively recent development, but the arrangement between the Dutch and Russia has been around for some time. What is odd, however, are the numbers. Between the Netherlands and Russia, there is hardly a difference in the dollar value of Russian exports in various petroleum products. It has maintained an average of about USD 33 billion for the past decade. This spans time both before and after sanctions. How does the West expect itself to be taken seriously if it is hyper selective about the battles it chooses to fight even when concerning sanctions. What is more comical about this particular deal is that the Netherlands supplies much of Western Europe’s oil. Henceforth, further defending the point of Western Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.

In conclusion, Russia has proven to be very resilient over the past six years. It shouldn’t be implied that the sanctions have not affected the Russian economy. However, Russians have faced pervasive negative externalities, such as inflation and decreased average national income, despite the sanctions having been designed only to affect a select group of individuals. Even so, the Russian economy is growing and proving to be insulated and resilient against increased trade barriers. At first, the sanctions appeared to have a tremendous effect on the Russian economy, shrinking it by 44 per cent from USD 2.292 trillion in 2013 to USD 1.272 trillion in 2016. Since 2016, however, the GDP has steadily stabilized and gained back 42 per cent of losses from 2013 figures at USD 1.7 trillion as of 2019. It can be surmised that if the U.S. continues to impose sanctions on Russia for years to come, the Russian economy will continue to grow, develop, and become more independent.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Americas

The World Should Get Rid of “Trump Inertia”

Published

on

By

Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Authors: He Jun and Chan Kung

A new chapter is about to begin for the politics of the United States as the “Trump Era” will soon give way to the “Biden Era”. As the United States still has major global influence, any shift in the American politics would therefore inevitably change the global geopolitical landscape as well as international investments and the trade environment. After four years of extreme policies in the Trump Era, coupled with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world hope to see change and a return to relative normalcy.

However, the end of the Trump Era does not spell the end of “Trumpism.” The many marks, characteristics, and ideological trends brought about by Donald Trump will continue to influence the world for some time. However, in the real economic field, countries may need to startridding itself of the environment characterized by unilateralism, America First, and the politicization of economic issues. Researchers at ANBOUND call these remaining Trumpist characteristics and their effects on countries’ behavior “Trump Inertia”.

“Trump Inertia” has many specific manifestations. The deterioration of the relationship between Australia and China is a clear example of this. Australia followed the Trump administration’s side by choosing and adopting many extreme politicization practices against China despite China being Australia’s largest trading partner, largest export destination and largest source of imports. In 2019, Australia-China trade volume totaled approximately US$158 billion; Australia’s trade surplus with China was approximately US$48.83 billion, and its exports to China totaled US$103.90 billion, accounting for 38.2%

During the Trump Era, Australia followed the United States in adopting antagonistic approaches against China, which is understandable. Yet, though the Trump Era is coming to an end, Australia’s attitude towards its largest trading partner is still considerably arrogant and hostile. While it is true that there are differences in ideology and values, such paranoia is still unreasonable and there is a lack of political insight in recent shift of international exchanges.

China too, has retaliated against Australia. On the one hand, it has adopted countermeasures in economic and trade, and imposed trade restrictions on the import of coal and a variety of agricultural products. On the other hand, China has also adopted tit-for-tat approaches against Australia in diplomacy.

With the withdrawal of Trump from the political arena, it is puzzling as to why there are lingering disputes between Australia and China as theirrelationscontinue to deteriorate. Trump might even feel proud if he sees that the two countries are still at odds even after he steps down. For China and Australia, this means that they have fallen into the quagmire of “Trump Inertia”.

Though being a member of the Five Eyes alliance (FVEY) like Australia, New Zealand’s approach is far different. Damien O’Connor, New Zealand Minister of Trade and Export Growth and Minister of Agriculture, stated that strong global demand for dairy products, especially in the Chinese market, will offset the adverse effects of weak dairy prices. It is estimated that in the year ending June 2022, New Zealand’s dairy products export revenue is expected to reach NZ$ 20.1 billion. At the same time, forestry exports are showing a recovery trend. The New Zealand Government’s Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries (SOPI) report predicts that in the year to June 2021, the export revenue of primary industries will exceed NZ$47.5 billion; in the year to June 2022, this figure will reach the NZ$ 49.2 billion record. It is worth noting that New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta also publicly stated that New Zealand is willing to help China and Australia achieve peace talks.

The policies and flexibility shown by New Zealand which differs from Australia’sreflect a normal response of a rational country. This is also something that China should learn from. In the current situation, geopolitical relationship between China and Western countries is tense, and this is seen as the most “successful” part of the Trump administration, all due to “Trump Inertia”. For both Western countries and China, it is necessary to get rid of “Trump Inertia” as soon as possible.

Though the attitudes of other countries cannot be controlled by China, China is able to adjust and change its own actions. As the Biden Era is approaching, all countries need to adjust to the new changes and find new consensus points in terms of diplomacy, trade, multilateral cooperation, and global climate change. China is a major power with huge national interests. For that reason, it should have long-term visions and goals. China will need to adjust certain foreign policies and practices in accordance with the overall national situation and long-term interests to pave the way for its future development.

Final analysis conclusion

The Trump Era is about to end, but Trumpism will still linger for some time to come. In the face of the “political switch” in the United States, China and many Western countries need to adjust their strategies, get rid of “Trump Inertia” as soon as possible, and return their diplomacy to a rational and normal track.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending