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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath