As US President Donald Trump destabilizes the post-war global economic order, much of the world is collectively holding its breath. Commentators search for words to describe his assault on conventional norms of leadership and tolerance in a modern liberal democracy. The mainstream media, faced with a president who might sometimes be badly uninformed and yet really believes what he is saying, hesitate to label conspicuously false statements as lies.
Some would argue that beneath the chaos and bluster, there is an economic rationale to the Trump administration’s disorderly retreat from globalization. According to this view, the US has been duped into enabling China’s ascendency and one day Americans will come to regret it.
Economists tend to view the abdication of US world leadership as a historic mistake.
It is important to acknowledge that the roots of the deglobalization movement in the US run much deeper than disenfranchised blue-collar workers.
For example, some economists opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — a 12-nation trade deal that would have covered 40 percent of the global economy — on the questionable grounds that it would have harmed US workers.
The TPP would have opened Japan far more than it would have affected the US and rejecting it only opens the door to Chinese economic dominance across the Pacific.
US populists, perhaps inspired by French economist Thomas Piketty, seem unimpressed by the fact that globalization has elevated hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in China and India into the global middle class.
The liberal view of Asia’s rise is that it makes the world a fairer and more just place, where a person’s economic fate does not depend so much on where they happen to have been born.
A more cynical view permeates populist logic, namely that in its excessive adherence to globalism, the US has sown the seeds of its own political and economic destruction.
Trumpism taps into this sense of national mortality; here is someone who thinks he can do something about it. The aim is not just to “bring home” US jobs, but to create a system that will extend US dominance.
“We should focus on our own” is the mantra of Trump and others. Unfortunately, with this attitude, it is hard to see how the US can maintain the world order that has benefited it so much for so many decades. And make no mistake: The US has been the big winner. No other large country is nearly as rich and the US middle class is still very well off by global standards.
Yes, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders was right that Denmark is a great place to live and does many things right. However, he might have mentioned that Denmark is a relatively homogeneous country of 5.6 million people that has very low tolerance for immigration.
For better or for worse, the globalization train has long since left the station and the idea that one can turn it back is utterly naive. Whatever might have been done differently before then-US president Richard Nixon visited China in 1972 is no longer possible. The fate of China, and its role in the world, is now in the hands of Chinese and their leaders.
If the Trump administration thinks it can reset the clock by starting a trade war with China, it is as likely to accelerate China’s economic and military development as it is to slow it down.
So far, the Trump administration has only sparred with China, concentrating its early antitrade rhetoric on Mexico. Although the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Trump reviles, has likely had only modest effects on US trade and jobs, he has attempted to humiliate Mexicans by insisting that they pay for his border wall, as if Mexico were a US colony.
The US is ill-advised to destabilize its Latin American neighbors. In the near term, Mexican institutions should prove quite robust; but in the long term, Trumpism, by encouraging anti-US sentiment, will undermine leaders otherwise sympathetic to US interests.
If the Trump administration tries such crude tactics with China, it will be in for a rude surprise.
China has financial weapons, including trillions of dollars of US debt. A disruption of trade with China could lead to massive price increases in the low-cost stores — for example, Wal-Mart and Target — on which many Americans rely.
Moreover, huge swaths of Asia, from Taiwan to India, are vulnerable to Chinese aggression. For the moment, China’s military is relatively weak and would likely lose a conventional war with the US, but this situation is rapidly evolving. China might soon have more aircraft carriers and other advanced military capabilities.
The US cannot “win” a trade war with China, and any victory will be Pyrrhic. The US needs to negotiate hard with China to protect its friends in Asia and deal with rogue state North Korea.
The best way to get the deals Trump is seeking is to pursue a more open trade policy with China, not a destructive trade war.
Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University and recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, was the chief economist of the IMF from 2001 to 2003.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new