Donald Trump appears to be “going where no US president has gone before” on policies relating to China, risking a trade war with China with a 30% anti-dumping tariff on solar panels and considering a 24% or higher duty on aluminum and steel products. But appearances can be deceiving.
Trump also appears to be more “tough” on China in geopolitics: Labeling it a “revisionist power” along with Russia, Iran and North Korea. Nominating Pacific Command leader Admiral Harry Harris, a fierce China critic, US ambassador to Australia. Signing the National Defense Authorization Act, allowing US and Taiwanese naval vessels to visit each other’s ports.
These are not so unsubtle signs that Trump intends to be “tough” on China, perhaps as ways to pander to the hawks, his support base and campaign-fund contributors.
Who’s who list of China hawks
The senior government and military officials surrounding and advising Trump on China are unquestionably the most anti-China group in US history.
Admiral Harris warns that the US should prepare for a war against China. He accuses China of “illegally” building islands and installing military assets on waters within the “Nine Dash Line” in the South China Sea. In doing so, Harris claims China is blocking “freedom of navigation and overflight operations” and threatening the postwar US-imposed security arrangement that he (and some other US security experts) said “has served the region well.”
The problem with Harris’ charge is that China did not build the South China Sea islands until Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama made his “pivot to Asia.” Vietnam and the Philippines built islands first, though considerably smaller and less durable, and the Chinese islands were built inside the territory China has claimed since the Ming Dynasty if not earlier.
What’s more, the Chinese navy never stopped any commercial vessels on “freedom of navigation and overflight operations.” Why would it? most the the trade transiting that body of water is China’s, after all.
Parroting Harris’ words is Southern Command chief Admiral Kurt Tidd, testifying before the Senate Armed Forces Services Committee in February 2017 that the Belt and Road Initiative in Latin America posed a “national-security threat” to the US. But how China is “threatening” US security by investing in Latin America and helping it develop unclear.
Moreover, Tidd should not be surprised that the “Monroe Doctrine,” which was designed to prevent European colonialism in Latin America, is unsustainable. Nations, like children, do grow up and choose their own destinies.
According to the Brooking Institution’s David Dollar, Chinese investment and trade, both exceeding $200 billion as of 2016, have played a pivotal role in Latin America’s economic development, for which it is thankful. But unlike the US building military bases to surround and threaten China, Beijing has not built any military bases in the Americas to surround the US.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray went further, claiming that Chinese scholars, students, tourists and businesspeople might be spying for China, when answering a question from US Senator Marco Rubio on Chinese influence in US universities. His answer is as ridiculous as it is dangerous, potentially creating racial tensions between Asian-Americans and the wider American community.
According to the Committee of 100, a group made up of prominent Chinese-Americans, most of the “espionage” cases against Chinese-American spies were largely racially based, only to be dismissed at a later date. For example, a Chinese-American hydrologist was cleared of the charge that she was sending “secrets” to a former colleague in China.
In any event, the hawks’ claims are nothing new and have never been substantiated, explaining why past presidents did not act on their campaign rhetoric. Bill Clinton, calling Chinese leaders “tyrants” and promising to be “tough” on them during his bid for president, made a remarkable U-turn once elected, traveling to China to improve relations. George W Bush’s labeling China as a “competitor” was more window dressing than real, as he scolded then Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian for unnecessarily provoking Beijing with calls for de jure independence. Trump is likely keeping that tradition.
No ‘Thucydides trap’
Scholars such as the University of Chicago ‘s John Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Graham Allison are wrong in predicting that war between China and the US is inevitable. The assumptions and historical data they used jumping to that conclusion do not apply to the US-China narrative.
First, China is not challenging US hegemony. On the contrary, it might be happy that the US has taken on a leadership role, freeing up resources to develop China’s economic and social institutions.
Second, the speculation that China is building a strong military to supplant US hegemony is to some extent based on America’s own history. It could be argued that the US spends lavishly on defense while neglecting its own domestic economic and social interests is to protect if not strengthen its “global leadership” role.
Third, a military conflict with China would be fought with intercontinental ballistic missiles each carrying multiple nuclear warheads. There is no reason to believe that any US president would risk mutual assured destruction just to promote the interests of the few or keep China in its place.
Trade war threat is just that, a threat
Trump fully realizes the harm a trade war with China could do to America’s economy. Indeed, his 30% tariff on Chinese-made solar panels has cost between 23,000 and 40,000 US jobs, according to the American Solar Industries Association. What’s more, one of the two US panel-manufacturing companies that the anti-dumping tariff protects is owned by Chinese interests.
The 50% tariff on washing machines and dishwashers is in fact also protecting another Chinese-owned company. A majority stake in Whirlpool, maker of KitchenAid, Maytag and other white goods, was sold to a Chinese manufacturer Haier.
The Trump administration’s consideration of imposing a 24% or higher tariff on aluminum and steel would unlikely have a significant impact on China. For “national security” reasons, these Chinese-made products account for a small percentage of US imports. Canada might be more harmed because 60% of the US aluminum and steel imports are from that country.
To that end, Trump’s “tough” trade policies have little impact on the Chinese economy or hurt America’s more. Perhaps their real purpose is to preclude a full-blown trade war that could derail Trump’s “America First” policies.
Further, China can and has retaliated, mounting anti-dumping measures against US feed. More Chinese retaliatory measures can be expected if and when the US follows through with the tariff on aluminum and steel.
China has a formidable trade arsenal it can use against the US, such as not buying soybeans, beef, chicken parts, Boeing aircraft, General Motors and Ford automobiles, or other goods. Even US professional sports organizations – the National Basketball Association and the National Football League – are looking to China for growth. Moreover, China is merely a “contractor” for US brand-name consumer products such as Apple’s iPad. Those who think a trade war would hurt China more than it would hurt the US should think again.
There is no reason to believe that Trump, like his predecessors or successors, will mount a military or trade war against China. Indeed, he has already shown signs of fence-mending, inviting President Xi Jinping’s closest adviser, Liu He, to discuss trade issues. What’s more, Trump needs China’s cooperation in addressing the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue.
The anti-China rhetorics and actions are caused by desperation and panic on the rise (inevitable) of China and not being top dog will be devastating to the psyche. Articles have been written before, now and years ago that China cannot be contained economically. Now from latest developmets in the past one or two years, it looks like China will also not just be cowed and intimitated militarily, but has sufficient conventional muscles to fight to a draw or at least inflict unacceptable losses to the US in the East or South China Seas, if forced to.
As much as I appreciate Ken Moak’s insight in America vs China matters, I disagree with his opinion that officials within the present Trump Administration are the most anti-China group history has seen. There have been, for example, Harry Truman, John Dulles, Jesse Helm, Barry Goldwater, Nancy Pelosi, Chrisopher Cox, Chuck Shumer, etc. etc., all stout anti-China hacks, just to name a few. Trump’s team was selected on ‘yes-man’ basis with no track records of ability, and they are given the mic to sound off more often due to anxiety overflowing among both elfs in politics and elfs in MSM. But disdain against Chinese has been in American genes since the 19th century.
Shooting off the mouth is actually a sign of inner insecurity. It reflects the scare and ineptitude felt within. Dogs bark loudest behind the fence. It is posturing allright. I would wipe this smirk off my own face and pay these dudes due respect if they would be bold enough to bomb another Chinese embassy. Marco Rubio, why don’t you go ahead and introduce a bill in the Senate to switch diplomatic recognition from China to Taiwan?
Somebody has to counteract China’s aggressive posture against smaller and weaker nations and only US and Allies have the capability to do it. China’s bold moves by unilaterally occupying and building military installations on the disputed territories in the South China Sea is too alarming. This need to be contained.
What is this "China’s aggressive posture against smaller and weaker nations" are you referring to? China and its Asean neighbours are getting on rather well. China’s military installations are concentrated in one tiny spot close to home. US’s military installations are spread all over the globe and you’re wilfully blind. And pretty dumb too.
A fair and just trade system is in the interests of everyone. No country can claim special privileges for itself, nor can they treat foreign countries and their nationals without respect and understanding. PRC is vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the rest of the world, hence it is inconceivable that PRC could commence any war as it will end up losing. The leadership of the PRC is not so naive that it could court such a possibility. Already there have been provocations such as the occupation and enlargement of disputed islands in order to claim the South China sea, which is an act of hubris which the PRC could ill-afford. The peaceful development of the world economy and the scaling down of expenditure on weaponry to make it possible is a necessity. Brute force does not invite respect. On the contrary it promotes disdain. The leadership of the PRC have a tough job keeping restive territories under their control and the best way to have diverse ethnic groups share the vision of the leadership is by treating them with compassion and trust. Trust is built by altruism, not selfishness. The leadership should abandon the iron fist within the velvet glove as it is entirely out of place in an enlightened world.
NC Chew – Any US military installation that are present in other countries are mutually agreed by the host country/s. On the other hand China unilaterally construct military installations on the disputed territories like West Phl Sea which are thousands of mile away from Chinese shores. There lies the difference.
Saying the entire world is against CHina is what the West and it’s bias media like to conjure up and portray, and lowlife nationalist Hindoos simply jump on this bandwagon to push this line to serve it’s own agenda hoping to take China down because China is making India looks bad in the eyes of the world. How, you ask ? Well, China and India pretty much start off from the same base and same era after WW2 where India become independent from Britain and civil war in China ended. China in fact was behind India during the Mao years of experimenting with Communist orthodoxy up until the ’80s. But look at where each is today — size of China’s economy is 4x that of India ! China has reduced it’s poverty rate to less than 10% and decreasing. India still has the highest poverty rate in the world with gigantic slums in almost every major cities. Now if these nationalist Hindus tell you they aren’t infuriated, jealous or envious they are only lying to themselves. So what do they do ? Conjure up narratives about how evil China is and feed it to its people to get them to hate China and also distract them from thinking how incompetent and inadequate they actually are in governing, managing the economy and bringing wealth and prosperity to the people viz-a-viz China.
If you want evidence how the world views China, just look at the world’s opinion on the SCS case… >60% of nations worldwide agrees and support China’s position and action. If anything this debunks the Hindu naitonalist line that the world is against China. The only ones against is US (& its western allies) and India. I rather view this as a geopolitical chess game in the rivalry and competition between US and CHina which Trump finally now openly acknowledges to be the case. India is just used as a pawn in this game which it allows itself to be willingly to further its own agenda. So stop pushing your silly & nonsensical write-ups around narratives about how China is not liked or respected worldwide. If its envied, I can fully understand.
Carlito Lopez , don’t be naive ! You don’t think if Philippines can afford to financially do so earlier it would have done the same ? why does it then ran aground an old navy ship in one of the reefs ? Don’t Vietnam also built airfields that can land military planes there too ? China does this on a much larger scale based on what it is financially capable of and as a measured reponse to what the other claimants has done. This put a stop on any further moves the other claimants is thinking of doing ‘cos they now know what China’s response will be like.
Mutually agreed to bases …. really ? you don’t think that there’s a little bribing and arm-twisting of the leaders as well behind the scene. Just that your President Du30 finds Chinese bribes more "swallowable" as it comes with no strings attached.
Kkng Ng Please excuse me for refraining from responding to a comment from someone who is incognito. Rational arguments are possible between two individuals, not between an individual and a troll. A troll is incapable of understanding that rational individuals are free thinkers who are willing to engage in debate with utmost courtesy and with the intention of arriving at the truth no matter how unpalatable.
Ranjit,
I wish to enlighten you about the East China Sea and the South China Sea disputes. And it is truly insidious and deceitful that you play on the vacant or unknowing minds of an audience in the sense that most have never been to the Orient or have any idea of the history of China and some of the nations involved in the South China Sea dispute that have arisen from what used to be former colonies of European powers like Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia.
Before I continue let us agree to leave aside the Westphalian International Law or Diplomatic Law circa 1648 AD and also tUNCLOS or Law of the Sea effective 1994 for in factual and historical terms we are shall I say dealing with time before 1648AD.
Paracels and Spratleys
Until the white man came as colonisers in the Orient it happened that China ‘controlled’ the East China Sea and the South China Sea. Unlike the Europeans China did not believe in conquering people that were not Chinese. This was because only the Chinese can belong to the Middle Kingdom (whose boundaries were delineated by the geographics of the Himalayas, the Northern and Western deserts and the Seas to the East) and therefore the people and the lands of ‘foreign devils’ (I do not mean to be offensive but this is translation of an ancient language) can never be part of the Middle Kingdom. It is like not everyone can be a Jew nor any land be Israel! The Chinese solved this problem however through a tribute state system called ‘suzerainty’ where the ‘foreign devils’ neighbours retained their sovereignty but they would pay a token homage or tribute, which in ancient times, was an annual ‘gold leaf’ or ‘daun emas’ in Bahasa. Sometimes the local kings were forced to marry a Chinese princess (sort of to make them foreign in-laws). But China mainly just policed the peace by controlling the seas or the maritime trade routes.
Then the European colonisers came and took whatever they wanted. Even China itself was close to being colonised or ‘sliced up like a water melon’. It could have ended up like British India. But India was a divided sub-continent with people divided into different religions, castes, languages, and even under different kings. China was however the Middle Kingdom, and you guessed right, only the homogenous Chinese can belong to the Middle Kingdom!
The European Colonisers with their God-anointed superiority complex against pagans and heathens would unilaterally draw up its borders with China (like the British unilaterally drawing up the MacMahon Line through the Himalayas) or others would have treaties just to be civil.
To be continued …..
Ranjit K. M. Nair
Continued from earlier ….
The French in the Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary Convention 1887 excluded the Paracels and Spratleys from Vietnam. But in 1932, under a more imperialistic and different party in Government France declared the South China Sea ‘terra nullis’ and in 1933 seized the Paracels and Spratleys. China and Japan protested. Japan was then in occupation of Chinese Taiwan. Japan forcefully in 1938 seized the Paracels and Spratleys from the French and incorporated them into Taiwan. But Japan lost in WW2. Under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed in San Francisco on 8/9/51 (the San Francisco Treaty), Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Paracels and Spratleys. Under the Treaty of Taipeh in 28/4/52 the above Japanese occupied territories were released to the Republic of China (that is China under Kuomintang control as distinct from the Mainland under Communist control). And this is the obvious blatant omission by you – not divulging the fact that China whether Communist or Democratic both claim the same ‘9 dotted Lines’ in the South China Sea. The false impression given by you is that it is only a containment of the excesses of Communist China!
And on 14/9/58 Vietnam’s Premier Pham Van Dong on a written communique to China’s Premier Chou En-Lai confirmed that Vietnam has no claim to the Paracels and Spratleys.
Now the other major claimant in relation to the Paracels and Spratleys is the Philippines. When Spain ceded Philippines to the U.S. after losing in the Spanish-American War under the Treaty of Paris 1898 it did not include the Paracels and Spratleys. When the U.S. granted Philippines independence under Treaty Of Manila on 4/7/46, it limited Phillipines territory to east of Longitude 116.9 only. Then out of the blue the Philippine claimed that they ‘discovered’ the Paracels and Spratleys in the 1960’s!
As to China’s historical claim please read for yourself –
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-does-China-offer-to-substantiate-its-claims-of-sovereignty-in-the-South-China-Sea/answer/Pengcheng-Zhang-2?share=9579c6ec&srid=YlBl
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-does-China-offer-to-substantiate-its-claims-of-sovereignty-in-the-South-China-Sea/answer/Xiao-Chen-32?share=60507f11&srid=YlBl – this one is about a written confirmation by the Premier of Vietnam that it has no claim over the Paracels and Spratleys.
To sum up – this is what the former U.S. Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.) said at a Seminar on 10/4/15 at the Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University on ‘Diplomacy on the Rocks: China and Other Claimants in the South China Sea’
"In practice, as some in the region recall, long before the United States turned against them as part of its “pivot to Asia” in 2010, America had supported China’s claims in the Paracels and Spratlys. The U.S. Navy facilitated China’s replacement of Japan’s military presence in both island groups in 1945 because it considered that they were either part of Taiwan, as Japan had declared, or – in the words of the Cairo Declaration – among other “territories Japan [had] stolen from the Chinese” to “be restored to the Republic of China.” From 1969 to 1971, the United States operated a radar station in the Spratlys at Taiping Island, under the flag of the Republic of China.."
Read the full lecture on –
http://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-on-the-rocks-china-and-other-claimants-in-the-south-china-sea/.
To be continued ….
Ranjit K. M. Nair
Continued from earlier ….
As to the Diaoyu Islands (to China) – the Senkaku Islands (to Japan) – in the East China Sea – read this articles for yourself and find out for yourselves the historical facts. The best way to sum it up objectively and impartially is that it is a huge messy problem because these tiny islands are at the juxtaposition of what China, Japan and Taiwan are claiming respectively as their territorial waters. And this salient point is almost not made open knowledge that it is not Japan v Communist China but Japan v Communist China and Democratic Taiwan, which itself is an ally of the United States. The U.S. itself is caught between its two allies Japan and Taiwan! If the U.S. had difficulty getting involved, I opine that the rest of the world should follow suit. As China’s Deng Hsiao-Ping said that it is so cumbersome that we should leave it for future generations to sort out the impasse!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute
https://www.quora.com/Which-country-do-you-think-the-Diaoyu-Senkaku-Islands-belong-to-China-or-Japan/answer/Li-Jianxi-%E9%BB%8E%E5%BB%BA%E7%86%99?share=ee712bef&srid=YlBl
https://www.quora.com/Which-country-do-you-think-the-Diaoyu-Senkaku-Islands-belong-to-China-or-Japan/answer/Darryl-Snow-1?share=3146d35f&srid=YlBl
As to the ‘Building of Artificial Islands’ read for yourself who started it all.
The Philippines and the Vietnamese – refer – http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-philippines-making-big-mistake-the-south-china-sea-13480. Remember the historical background explained earlier!
How Japan made an island out of a very very tiny rock to show the way to China how to do it – refer – https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-Americans-think-of-Chinas-reclamation-activities-in-the-South-China-Sea-and-their-governments-stance/answer/Robin-Daverman?share=f8c02e20&srid=YlBl
And of course, before Japan it was the United States who showed Japan how to do it – refer – https://www.quora.com/Has-the-US-built-artificial-islands-for-military-purposes-like-China-has-been-doing-in-the-South-China-Sea/answers/25512824?share=0ae9d52f&srid=YlBl – Johnston Atoll
Vincent Cheok
Vince Cheok Your perspective is interesting. Do complete your comment so that once you are done I may offer my response.
???