“Today we’re in one era, and tomorrow we’ll be in a different era,” US President Donald Trump loudly proclaimed from the White House Rose Garden, as he hiked US tariffs to their highest level since 1909. “No one’s done anything quite like this.”
Not true.
On Oct. 1, 1949, then-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) chairman Mao Zedong (毛澤東) stood atop the Tiananmen, the entrance gate of Beijing’s Forbidden City, and declared China’s own “liberation day.” The CCP thenceforth divided the 20th century into two eras: “before liberation (解放以前),” under Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), and “after liberation (解放以後),” under Mao, who threw China into three decades of political and economic chaos. Now Trump’s “Liberation Day” promises similar tumult and disruption, but on a global scale.
For Europeans, in particular, it is as if the sun had suddenly burned out: The geopolitical system has lost its coherence and predictability, as planets begin careening from their orbits. Once reliant on the US, even as they sometimes looked down on its crudeness and naivete, Europeans now find themselves on their own, without gravity and forced to confront a US leader who is the ne plus ultra of baseness and ignorance.
Now that the old geopolitical order has been canceled, China and Russia are ready to step into the vacuum and create their version of order. However, one is a deracinated Marxist-Leninist regime with lots of military hardware, geography and natural resources, but an economy smaller than Canada’s, and the other is a rejuvenated Leninist one-party state with a massive economy, a thin-skinned leader and a vibrant global tech hub. Does Europe really want a world made safe for autocracy?
Instead of remaining a “dish of loose sand (一盤散沙),” as Sun Yat-sen (孫中山) once said of post-dynastic China, Europe must not only crank up its military industries to defend itself, but also seek to restore a modicum of democratic global order.
EUROPEAN RESOURCES
After all, Europe is not without important resources it could share with others. There is the French-British nuclear arsenal that could become an umbrella of deterrence for the continent; Germany’s Rheinmetall-like arms producers; Ukraine’s drone technology expertise; the UK’s BAE; France’s Airbus; and the Netherlands’ ASML, with its monopoly on the extreme ultraviolet lithography technology needed to produce advanced microchips.
However, Europe has yet to launch an effort to adopt the alliance structure that the US has now abandoned. By reaching out to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, New Zealand and Australia, Europe would let CCP leaders know that the world without the US at the helm is not theirs.
Given Trump’s hostility to NATO, Europeans and Asians who care about democracy and world order need to awaken to the dangers of their dependency on the US militarily and on China economically, and build new kinds of a partnerships among themselves and like-minded countries. An ever-prickly India certainly agrees with that, and could become a cooperative partner as well.
Such a new structure is exactly what Charles de Gaulle once advocated for France. In the 1950s, after France joined NATO, De Gaulle feared that the US might not come to Europe’s aid if the Soviet Union attacked, even bluntly telling the Americans he doubted they would ever sacrifice New York to defend Paris.
So, De Gaulle developed France’s own nuclear force de frappe and then, in 1966, withdrew from NATO’s military command (though France remained a member of the alliance). At the time, many regarded De Gaulle’s move as mere petulance — but his logic now suddenly looks prescient.
RACE TO THE TOP
More negotiations, dialogue, trade agreements, cultural exchanges and public diplomacy — the usual stuff of EU foreign policy over the decades — will not transform the likes of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) or Russian President Vladimir Putin. They are not seeking partners for ensuring global peace and stability; they want to replace the US atop the world order — and then change the order itself.
Mao once said: “Without destruction there can be no construction (不破不立),” and there is some truth to this adage. Trump is also an agent of destruction; but if Europe can rise to the occasion, Trump could paradoxically become, malgre lui, an agent of construction, the midwife of a new non-US-centric world order.
However, lest Europeans forget, the US already tried a strategy of accommodation, not only with post-Soviet Russia, but also with China, as 10 presidents since 1972 (including the first Trump administration) supported different versions of “engagement” with the government in Beijing.
Alas, these efforts all failed, because CCP leaders remain wedded to their belief that the US is fundamentally bent on overthrowing its one-party rule, no matter what US presidents say. They regularly recall that then-US president Dwight Eisenhower’s secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, declared in 1953 that “liberation” from Soviet rule might better occur through a “process short of war,” namely, by peaceful “internal pressures ... bound to alter the character of the communist regimes.” And in 1958 Dulles counseled US diplomats to “accelerate [such] evolution within the Sino-Soviet bloc” through peaceful means.
Mao was alarmed by what he called “peaceful evolution (和平演變).” He saw it as a “much more deceptive tactic” than open warfare, because it sought to corrupt, and finally overthrow, China’s Communist system. Xi, too, has always perceived the US as an inalienably “hostile foreign force (敵對勢力).”
So, Europeans must not delude themselves about China. The best guarantee of peace in a world of emboldened autocracies is deterrence through military strength, alliance unity and economic influence. With the US no longer willing to lead the world’s democracies in this endeavor, Europe must step up. No one else can.
Orville Schell, director of the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society, is a coeditor (with Larry Diamond) of China’s Influence and American Interests: Promoting Constructive Engagement.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS