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
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and