In March, US President Donald Trump signed the Memorandum Targeting China’s Economic Aggression and fired the starting gun on the US-China trade war.
In contrast to previous steps taken by Washington, the memorandum adopts an all-encompassing approach to US national security considerations.
It marks perhaps the most significant turning point since the idea of a constructive and cooperative US-China relationship was floated between the two countries.
Ever since then-US president Richard Nixon initiated formal diplomatic relations and cooperation with Beijing in the 1970s as a way to contain the then-Soviet Union, China’s economy has gone from strength to strength.
At the time, Washington hoped to use economic cooperation as a means to transform China into a market-economy democracy. Things did not go according to plan.
Decades of stratospheric economic growth has instead solidified the Chinese Communist Party’s autocratic form of government. As the nation’s financial situation became more robust, the party consolidated political power and poured the proceeds of economic growth into building up military might.
The essence of the trade war is the Trump administration’s labeling of China as a “strategic competitor.”
The US administration’s National Security Strategy and three associated strategic reports refer to China as challenging US national interests and as a revisionist power that employs a state-run economic model and seeks to drive the US out of the Indo-Pacific region.
China’s strategy of economic coercion weaponizes trade to force competitor nations to compromise or give in to its demands.
Like a bully, China acts to intimidate its rivals and the intimidation stops only when they give in to Beijing’s demands.
Since July, Washington has slapped 25 percent tariffs on US$50 billion of Chinese goods. A further US$200 billion of Chinese imports are subject to 10 percent tariffs. On Jan. 1 next year, this will rise to 25 percent.
If Beijing retaliates, Washington has threatened to slap an additional US$267 billion of tariffs on Chinese goods. At present, the US punitive duties levied against Chinese goods total US$250 billion, equal to nearly half the value of total Chinese exports to the US last year.
In retaliation, China imposed 10 percent tariffs on US$60 billion of US imports. To date, China has imposed or threatened to impose tariffs on a total of US$110 billion of US goods, equal to 70 percent of US exports to China last year.
Washington is mulling whether to adopt additional measures that would exert further pressure on China. Options include incorporating a so-called “poison pill” clause into trade deals to freeze China out of creating its own deals with US trading partners, or moving to blacklist China as a currency manipulator.
The tactical goal behind Trump’s trade war is to balance the US trade deficit, while the wider strategic goal is to weaken the foundations of China’s rise and its economic expansion.
A rebalanced trade relationship would put a brake on China’s economic growth and its military expansionism, but would also completely eliminate jitters in the US over the national security implications of China’s rise.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has jettisoned former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) policy to “conceal one’s ability and bide one’s time” and instead is seeking to forcefully oust the US from its dominant position in the Indo-Pacific region.
Xi would do well to heed a lesson from ancient China: “Although the Zhou Dynasty’s power is waning, they have yet to lose the mandate of heaven. It is too early to inquire the weight of the nine tripod cauldrons.”
Perhaps Xi’s so-called “China dream” is just that: a dream — and it might yet turn out to be a nightmare.
Lin Tai-ho is the director of National Chung Cheng University’s Institute of Strategic and International Affairs.
Translated by Edward Jones
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry