Who's firmer toward China

[abomvubuso]

With their latest string of controversial actions, from Hong Kong, to the violence against the Uighurs, to the constant accusations of espionage, China seems to be doing their best to ensure that the US would never ever return to their previous cordial relations with the Big Tiger. Moreover, the more the November presidential election in the US approaches, the more both contenders will be pushing toward a firmer stance on China. Probably to a point where, whoever of them wins, the approach to China would hardly be softened. Not least importantly, because a firmer stance enjoys a lot of support within the US itself.

Trump's campaign is trying to present Biden as too soft on China, arguing that he has underestimated the imminent threat. Biden's camp, on the contrary, claims Trump has demonstrated almost loving feelings to his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, and has no desire of real confrontation with him on trade or the Covid pandemic.

Most analysts tend to believe the Chinese rather prefer to wait and see if the current approach would go on after the election. Some think the Chinese prefer Trump to win because he has done nothing but weaken America's positions during his first term, while Biden would likely be more uncompromising on human rights and other related subjects. But the fact is, a mere election, and a potential change of guard in the White House probably wouldn't be enough to end the dark period of Sino-American relations.

It's normal to expect the relations with China to be a significant topic during the election campaign. There are of course other, more pressing matters, like the pandemic, and the economy. But it seems Trump's camp is trying to turn relations with China into a major distinguishing theme between him and Biden. He wants to position himself as the candidate who is more opposed to Chinese influence, and attack his opponent for being "too soft" on China. In reality, this distinction might prove too difficult to sell, since Trump has been on record having praised Xi Jinping, and advocating for a trade deal - that is, before deciding to play the anti-China card harder in more recent times. We should note that the Chinese question hasn't affected the way US voters perceive the two candidates, though.

The so called "hawks" in Trump's circle have been trying to steer the president toward a more confrontational line now as the election is looming. Last month State Secretary Mike Pompeo described the Chinese government as the greatest threat to world democracy. The anti-China headliners outside Trump's administration, including some who are planning to support Biden, are concerned that he could be less prone to confrontation with China, and would rather seek cooperation in areas such as climate change.

Biden's camp is countering with three arguments. Firstly, they argue he'd restore America's moral authority by holding China accountable for its human rights violations. Secondly, he'd work with America's allies to pressure China into changing its behaviour. And thirdly, he'd invest into the economy back home, making the US more competitive in areas like 5G. While trump has evidently weakened America's standing on China on all three fronts. We should note, though, that Biden's campaign is subject to criticism for arguing that Obama's administration was firmer on China. Which potentially gives more weight to the argument that Trump, while surrounded by hawks, is himself not a hawk, and feels free to ignore their advice more often than not - while Biden might not be prone to such frivolity.

Biden might have the chance to restart America's policies on China, but the question is, what would it look like after the restart? For example he could start with refraining from belligerent rhetoric, and seeking more coordinated diplomatic relations, including multilateral ones involving other countries if necessary. Second, he'll likely try to avoid fanning the flames on Hong Kong and Taiwan, at least initially. I suppose his administration would be content with the Two State approach to Taiwan, where both parts are considered Chinas but separate.

Similarly to Obama, Biden would likely be concerned about China's territorial expansion in Asia, and its conflicts with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam. He'd try to mitigate the tensions there while maintaining a significant naval presence for America in the region.

The way he'd deal with the trade issue would likely be very similar to Trump's approach, in a sense that he'd make sure the US benefits from the trade links that China is exploiting. He'd want to protect jobs at home, and he'd try doing that by encouraging US producers and consumers to buy US-made rather than Chinese goods. This could lead to pressure on the customs policies, which brings him closer to Trump than Obama.

As for Hong Kong and human rights, I expect Biden to be compelled to take a firmer stance. His tone might be softer than Trump's, of course, and he'd likely make more effort for efficient diplomacy, especially on North Korea, where China could be of great help. But the overall policies toward China would not be significantly changed.

And yet, the potential for cooperation with China should not be neglected. In a Thomas Wright analysis for The Atlantic, the Director of the Center for the US and Europe at the Brooking Institution argues that Biden cold achieve that not though compromising the US values and interests, but rather by working alongside allied democracies to pressure and negotiate with China from the position of power. Which won't be easy of course, but Xi Jinping's actions demonstrate that this is more than urgently necessary.

Comments

[dancesofthelight]

What does 'firmness' to China mean exactly when the Chinese have happily let the rest of the world farm off their industrial production to them by becoming a global sweatshop and when the companies, if they wanted to pay the price to work in the 'First World' would never have come to China in the first place? The Chinese are focusing on expanding a global empire of their own by the same military means the USA does. Who's going to bell that cat and make them stop by military means? Who would be credible in so doing?

[abomvubuso]

Probably no one in the short to mid term, but that's not the subject here, is it?

[dancesofthelight]

Since we're talking about the USA, a society that's incapable of collectively reasoning approaches less subtle than 'do as we tell you to do as we tell you to do it or canned sunshine goes off and may you enjoy the view' and how it'd react, I think it a mite bit relevant.

Even a rational USA has a lot of problems facing a potential actual rival world empire, and I'm not sure Biden with a strong GOP Congress, which I suspect is going to happen due to vote rigging assuming Biden both wins the Presidency and this means anything, would be rational in any real sense.

And absent the USA? Good luck getting European states to take major rational elements, economically, to assert power against China. Also in making the EU function on that basis. At the points where the smaller economies that had major issues started becoming bigger problems, the EU ran into a buzzsaw of its own making, and that issue will hobble any broader EU element, and that's without whatever BoJo and his circlejerkers think they'll be doing.

Ask Iran and Russia how well economic elements without any further teeth to them work to deterring bad behavior. I'm sure the millions of dead Syrians and the Afghan boys blown up to fight Iran's wars as 'martyrs' would be glad to inform people on how well that works.

[abomvubuso]

So does this imply the US could irrationally jump into a hot military confrontation with China (ie being "firm")? Of course these are a lot of "if"s that we've been tossing around here, but still.

The subject is still a comparison of Biden's and Trump's approach to China, by the way.

[dancesofthelight]

That is exactly what the implication is, yes.

Not that Biden would have more to do with it than say, Mitch McConnell or company. It'd require far more stars than usual to align for the good guys for that not to be the case. And the GOP's approach to geopolitics is one that even Genghis Khan would dignify as.....unsubtle.

[fridi]

Believing that issues with China would have to be resolved through military means would be rather naive. China has its own vulnerabilities, some of which have started to get exposed recently, and the West is still calling the shots and has all the tools to exploit them if need be. It's just that right now it's more beneficial (read: profitable) not to.

[dancesofthelight]

Issues collectively, no.

Things like the Chinese establishing bases in Somalia, and telegraphing the intent to build a global empire of bases to rival that of the American Empire? That's a directly military approach and economic approaches have had at best an inconsistent approach on military aggression in the last 100 or so years. Certainly didn't and haven't stopped Iran or Iraq, and China is far more powerful than either.

The West has that for now, for sure. The way Trump is eroding the American Empire and the reality that the EU has next to no actual power projection abilities capable of deterring Libyan sixth-rate forces, let alone the Chinese, short of the French nuclear arsenal, as well as the willingness to outsource its economies and next to no means to get back what was sold to China without major and painful changes that most of the West has no real willingness to make and the USA can't without blowing its own balls off, well....

Time will tell if the PRC is a rising juggernaut or about to run into a buzzsaw, or multiple buzzsaws, of its own making.

[asthfghl]

There's this adage that whenever a Democrat is president, the US foreign policy focus tends to be on the Balkans, and democracy-related nation-building; and when it's a Republican, the focus shifts to the Middle East, and energy-related nation-building. Now with China the US is in a unprecedented situation, where their nation-building efforts will have to converge on both fronts. They'll have to counter both China's promotion of an autocratic model, and their economic muscle-flexing. This is going to be interesting, as the US seems to be on decline both in the high-horse pontificating department and the economic/military-influence one.

[dancesofthelight]

Anyone relying on Trumpian or post-Trump America to actually stop or slow down the PRC might as well bet on learning Mandarin and to bow before All Under Heaven. The USA is hemorrhaging soft power and its hard power would only work with the PRC if it brought out the nukes. To be fair Russia probably wants that given this'd save it from the prices it's paid to be able to wage its wars and let it off scott free with that the way it did when the USSR just went 'fuck you, we're not giving you any of that money back'.

And frankly, after the entire gallery of failures in the Middle East and Africa, who precisely is going to take the USA as a credible alternative? Especially if Trump wins another term and the USA becomes Chavezian Venezuela but stupider?

[ex_flameandsong751]

I think that a second Trump administration is much more likely to get us into a hot military confrontation with China; China seems to be to Trump what the Middle East was to the Bush family. Not saying that the conflict is inevitable, but it's a real concern of mine.

I don't think that Biden would ignore things like the human rights issues, which I think *are* a problem (while I also acknowledge the human rights issues in the US and think we look hypocritical wagging our finger at other countries), but I think he's more likely than Trump to handle things diplomatically - firm, perhaps, but not Trump's "bomb the shit out of 'em" tactics.

Now, whether or not China will actually slow down is another story...

[johnny9fingers]

Apparently there is unrest among the party echelons:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/china-xi-jinping-facing-widespread-opposition-in-his-own-party-claims-insider

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/cai-xia-chinese-insider-hits-out-at-xi-jinping-he-killed-a-party-and-a-country

Time for a purge or time for retirement? If Xi Jinping decides the latter I'd guess he will wait until the US election is done and dusted. It depends if he wants power or glory. Many leaders who step down after bringing their nation to the vanguard get mythologised and become the heroic grandparent of the nation ever after. History might just be tempting. Who knows?

But a purge of the Party is another stain on the Party's escutcheon. Of course a Communist Party cannot have honour by it's very nature; but it can have honesty and integrity and human decency. In fact, if a Communist Party ever adopted such principles and put them in to practice I would happily dispense with any notion of honour whatsoever and join them.

Fat chance.

Until we have honesty integrity, and human decency, I'll settle for pride and overweening self-worth keeping me in check. Being this haughty takes work.

[tcpip]

The great tension between the two Chinas continues.

1) The evil communist totalitarian China that we hate.

2) The economic powerhouse that we love.

Fascinating that the two things seem to have some sort of correlation.

Maybe something to do with labour rights in China itself?