China and the United States under the Trump Administration have an opportunity to improve upon the competitive, often contentious, relationship between the two giants. Although elections in the US always offer a chance to improve bilateral relationships with the changing of the guard, Donald Trump campaigned on a highly confrontational, anti-China platform. China, of course, spent much of the Obama years aggressively pursing territorial claims, which angered its neighbors, led to a partial military buildup of the South China Sea, and opened Asia to greater US influence. The issues behind the South China Sea and East China Sea Crises persist, while trade issues and North Korea’s nuclear ambition must still be addressed, but the Trump Administration appears to be warming up to Beijing’s calculating pursuit of balanced. Beijing, however, struggles to deal with the many quirks of the US government.
While these quirks perplex other nations as well, they arise, in part, from the democratic nature of the United States and partisan politics. Since before the Cold War, Russia has most noticeably been troubled by Washington’s erratic nature to the point reversals in US policies and unfilled promises, e.g. the expansion of NATO, by US leaders are taken as evidence of American dishonesty. In reality, they are consequences of political shifts, political leadership making promises they cannot guarantee, and a failure to be honest about American interests. Beijing has demonstrated an ability to cope with the political quirks of the US, but it finds US interference in the domestic affairs of other nations particularly troublesome. The US can try to avoid sensitive topics when it comes to domestic affairs in order to foster a constructive relationship, but there are limits as the US must be true to its nature. In recognizing these limits, China, and others, can improve relations with the US.
Comments
The US strike against a Syrian airbase in response to the use of chemical weapons has inspired two kinds of conversations. Due to the lack of a meaningful Russian response and broader US military intervention against the Assad regime, professional media outlets have turned their childlike attention to the shiny, big bombs being used from Syria to Afghanistan. Absent irrefutable evidence and the completion of an independent international investigation demonstrating Assad forces were undeniably responsible for the chemical weapons attack, a significant number of Americans and other Westerners are questioning the legitimacy of the Trump Administration’s actions. These critics believe someone may have engineered a “false flag” to justify a direct assault on the Assad regime. Although no one can say which, if any, of the conspiracy theories are correct, it is clear that the US intelligence community is no longer seen as a credible source of information.
Regrettably, rogue elements within America’s national security apparatus and military are known to have repeatedly fabricated evidence and engineered schemes in order to make war more palatable to the American People and discontented populations of countries that have run afoul of the US. They has also pressed forward with their agendas based on faulty intelligence reports lacking critical details. Colin Powell’s emotion-based plea for UN to support the invasion of Iraq, because the Saddam regime had wanted nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons can kill lots of people, serves as a notable example. Utilizing it and the justifiable fear of an expanding US campaign in Syria, the Russian government was able to help further erode trust, in the Trump Administration, i.e. punishment. As the government, and subsequently the Press, are often the primary sources of information on a number of issues for most people , this leaves the public unable to trust what is true and what is misinformation. The President of the United States is constantly under heavier scrutiny than any other national leader in the world. When POTUS and the team behind the President make a mistake, members of professional media outlets and the vast armies of the political industry are poised to force the issue down the throats of the American People. Even media darling President Barack Obama had to contend with the classic narrative that a lack of leadership was causing his Administration to implode. With the early ouster of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, as well as the future of high profile figures like Chief Strategist Steven Bannon, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer in doubt, the unraveling of the Trump Administration is a story the Press is waiting to break.
Trump’s willingness to fire, reassign, or promote subordinates based on their performance can, however, be seen as a positive. In politics, the fear of looking incompetent often leads public officials to maintain the status quo and retain under-performing officials. Given Presidential terms are only four short years, Trump’s lack of paralysis might be a very helpful thing. On the other hand, the reasons Mr. Trump might retain or terminate a particular subordinate are questionable. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration appears to prioritize loyalty to the President above all other qualifications, which means he is likely to fire and retain the wrong subordinates. Instead of purging government of weak links, the Trump Administration will be busy fighting a “Deep State” of dissenters. China has offered the Trump Administration trade concessions in order to avert a trade war. China has agreed to lift a 2003 import ban on American beef, which helps China feed a massive pollution with a growing taste for beef, and allow foreign investors to own a majority stake in Chinese businesses, which helps break Chinese nepotism, yet is also needed to stabilize China’s financial markets. These alleged concessions would significantly benefit the agricultural sector and the financial services sector of the US economy. Unfortunately, the agricultural sector does not provide massive numbers of Middle Class jobs while the financial services sector offers high paying, yet relatively, few jobs. As the trade deficit with countries like China has helped decimate the manufacturing sector, which has traditionally provided a massive number of jobs, these concessions do little to solve America’s beef with China.
Because the manufacturing sector demands innovative thinking, large sums of capital, and lots of labor, all of which have long been abundant in the US, it was the perfect vehicle for distributing America’s wealth to the masses. This is also why the manufacturing sector must be the focus of policy shifts. First, the American People are not against the Chinese People. China just happens to be the largest nation on Earth with the largest population and the second largest economy. The size of China alone forces the US, as well as most other nations, to tread carefully when it comes to trade. Even if Chinese policies provided equal access to Chinese markets, the vast disparities between the Chinese economy and most others place domestic businesses and workforce(s) at a disadvantage. Under added scrutiny, the aggressive and predatory policies of the oligarchical “Communist” government make China the biggest target for Americans worried about the state of the US economy. “No means no,” when it comes to the use of chemical weapons, is the message sent by the US strike against the Assad regime-controlled Shayrat airbase, which is believed to be the origin of the Idlib chemical weapons attack. The fairly restrained, and thus far limited, military response will discourage the Assad regime, as well as other military powers, from utilizing weapons of mass destruction. Although the strike does not actually mark a shift way from America’s supporting role in the Syrian Civil War or devastate the tyrannical Assad regime, which has fed support for terrorism through its use of violence against dissenters, it does demonstrate the preference of the Trump Administration for military options over the diplomatic and economic options, including the agreement to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile, preferred by the Obama Administration. More importantly, it changes the state of world politics.
In the broken territory of Syria, which used to be a sovereign nation, opposition forces may feel a boost in morale. Terrorist groups will see no tactical benefit as Putin and Assad target moderate factions more than actual terrorists. The Assad regime will either feel compelled to provoke a greater US response in order to garner greater Russian protection and/or eventually abandon the use of chemical weapons. In the US, backlash for Trump’s Putin-friendly campaign remarks will ease. War hawks will see another opportunity to push the US into a costly, ill-advised war that would move beyond the destruction of Assad’s air power. In Europe, Putin friendly politicians will likely see their popularity undermined. Vladimir Putin, who is suspected of utilizing nuclear chemical weapons in England, will either risk an armed conflict with the US or reveal Russia is a Paper Bear under his leadership. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|