CDZ Trump, Biden, Bolton & China

[Tom Paine 1949]

The new Bolton book attacking Trump apparently has some juicy sections on Trump’s chumming it up with XiJinping and even telling him he thought building camps for Uighur Muslims was a good idea! Trump’s well-known, hardline anti-China trade negotiator Lighthouser apparently internally criticized the “stage one” trade agreement as inadequately deep-going, though he is now defending his boss.

It is normal to have disagreements in any administration over China-related issues. The general view of “China experts” as a group has hardened dramatically over recent years, as China’s economy has not faltered and XiJinping has introduced reactionary hardline policies on censorship. Trump, however, has had a remarkable inability to hold a steady course at the helm in regard to China relations.

Trump’s instinctive love for tough leaders like Xi and Putin, his transactional approach, his desire to get immediate benefits for Midwest farmers to help the U.S. economy for his election prospects, his deep disdain for adopting political/moral and multinational approaches to undermining the CCP, all have weakened the U.S. position. Of course after Covid-19 spread to the U.S. and hurt the U.S. economy so seriously Trump has sought to scapegoat China and now talks of totally “decoupling” the two economies.

Meanwhile Biden and the Democrats are determined to run with an only slightly more sophisticated anti-China line, denouncing Trump for his softness and vacillation. The American people, as opposed to Trump’s supporters, seem undecided on this issue.

At the same time the Chinese leadership has apparently decided that whoever wins the U.S. election, relations are sure to worsen. There is reason to believe they may now actually prefer a Trump victory, as at least some leaders there seem to think Trump will end up being no worse than Democrats, and will divide the West and weaken chances for a united front opposing them. While they prefer a stable international trade environment, they are certainly happy that the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement fell apart.

Here are two short articles dealing with these developments:
China warms to the idea of Trump's reelection in 2020
Biden seizes on Bolton book to hit Trump’s record on China

 

[The Irish Ram]

Bolton is a liar with an axe to grind.
Trump ~ 2020

 

[Olde Europe]

Meanwhile Biden and the Democrats are determined to run with an only slightly more sophisticated anti-China line, denouncing Trump for his softness and vacillation. The American people, as opposed to Trump’s supporters, seem undecided on this issue.

At the same time the Chinese leadership has apparently decided that whoever wins the U.S. election, relations are sure to worsen. There is reason to believe they may now actually prefer a Trump victory, as at least some leaders there seem to think Trump will end up being no worse than Democrats, and will divide the West and weaken chances for a united front opposing them. While they prefer a stable international trade environment, they are certainly happy that the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement fell apart.

In my view, "China", as a foreign policy issue, will play a minuscule role in the upcoming election. Biden, if he wins, will assemble a capable foreign policy team advising him on China, and he'll (re-)strengthen international institutions that might serve as coordinating nodes for any international response to China. That's probably not in China's interest. Trump does as Trump usually does, twitters foreign policy from the hip according to his PR needs of the moment, and pursuant the question, "What is in it for me?" Remember when Republicans howled, "Don't do stupid shit!" is not a plan? I, for one, fondly remember the times when it was occasionally remembered as a guardrail, or something.

A waning and an upcoming empire colliding usually does not end well. The smart approach would probably adopt something like this - "The Global Fragility Strategy":

To address these threats, U.S. officials, even as they try to flatten the curve of coronavirus infections at home and abroad, are developing the first U.S. global fragility strategy. Required by the 2019 Global Fragility Act,(GFA) passed by Congress, the strategy is an opportunity to reduce violence — and vulnerability to it — in a way that positions America to secure its interest in the stability of the countries affected, compete with its geopolitical rivals, restore democracy’s legitimacy, and address the fallout from the pandemic.​

In essence, and very simplified, it says that, in order to hold the fort, good governance at home and abroad is key. China is not the problem - the growing populist authoritarianism along with the accompanying de-legitimization of institutions is, along with "good governance" becoming a four-letter word, not least in the U.S. itself. Of course, in the age of Trump any such initiatives are sure to go nowhere, and really fast. The goddess of history will look at that one with particular irony.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

This interesting article by an associate professor of international relations at Vladivostok University argues in RT that China-U.S. tensions may be more dangerous than Soviet-American relations during the Cold War. He also argues that the Chinese regime may see Trump as preferable to Biden. Of course it is impossible to know if this accurately reflects XiJinping’s view..

Why China would vote Trump

If Beijing got to vote in the US presidential election, who would it prefer – Donald Trump or Joe Biden? Despite all his nastiness and impulsiveness, for China, Trump is easier to deal with. As one Chinese recently suggested to me: “Trump is better because he is more eager for economic deals.”

This might well be true. Trump is about money rather than pure power. Money, by its very nature, is relatively easy to share and divide whereas power, in international politics, is much harder to share and compromise on. Trump’s priority is America’s wealth. He is much less concerned about keeping America as the world’s hegemonic power. His “America First” principle emphasizes the US as a sovereign and prosperous nation-state rather than a global quasi-empire which it has been since the end of World War II.

China wants its share of global political power. Trump, if he stays in the White House for another term, may be willing to accommodate Beijing’s drive for geopolitical influence and prestige in exchange for a more profitable economic relationship with Beijing. In other words, Trump is ready for a grand bargain with China that would seek to increase America’s wealth, even at the expense of America’s predominance in world politics.

In contrast to Trump’s pecuniary approach, Biden's foreign policy philosophy is about power. If elected, he will continue Washington’s established bipartisan strategy of maintaining US global hegemony, which almost inevitably means a clash with China...

China-US tensions are now ideological & a potential conflict could be far more dangerous than Soviet-American Cold War

 

[Olde Europe]

This interesting article by an associate professor of international relations at Vladivostok University argues in RT that China-U.S. tensions may be more dangerous than Soviet-American relations during the Cold War. He also argues that the Chinese regime may see Trump as preferable to Biden. Of course it is impossible to know if this accurately reflects XiJinping’s view..

Oh my... What nonsense, Tom.

China will play next to no role in the upcoming elections. Foreign policy usually doesn't, and some faraway country, with which the U.S. is not at war, even less so.

Next, "conflicts over universal ideas and values" are said to be particularly vicious. There has never, ever, been a conflict over universal ideas and values. Conflicts between states are about power. End of. All else is just shouting and keeping the cannon fodder agitated.

As to Putin, the other "non-ideological world leader": That one made me chuckle. Putin is an ultra-nationalistic cleptocrat. Probably a lot richer than Trump, his ideology is expanding the Russian empire and restoring its former glory, guaranteeing Moscow a seat at the table in world affairs. That's ideology squared. Compared to that, Trump has no ideology, and he is neither capable nor willing to have his momentary, ADD-urges constrained by one. He wills it, and his underlings are then supposed to make it happen. That's Trump's foreign policy. Throw in his peculiar kowtowing to vicious autocrats, and that's the sum total of it.

Heavens, Tom, this is such a transparent piece of Russian propaganda masquerading as analysis, how is it you don't see through it? The USSR and the U.S. stood, several times, right on the edge of MAD. How much more dangerous are Sino-American relations going to get? I mean, this was all nicely put phraseology, but any effort to play off China and the U.S. against each other could use a bit more effort, and a more capable mouthpiece with more of a stature than a scrawny "associate professor" in Vladivostok.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Olde Europe —

Earlier I quoted a Bloomberg piece on evolving views in China on who would be a more effective opponent in what they see as a developing new Cold War, and the drift to seeing Trump as less effective. This, were it just “propaganda,” one could argue benefits Biden. I don’t believe it is just propaganda, and of course the Russians and Putin clearly prefer Trump, so your argument here would seem counter-logical. Of course anything that appears in RT is likely to be a musing more or less acceptable to Putin.

As for Putin, of course he is a Russian nationalist, but I think he is more realistic than you give him credit for. He knows that “restoring the Russian Empire to its former glory” is out of the question in the next period.

The Chinese-U.S. conflict Is not merely economic, though that is at its root. China makes an easy target for U.S. enemy status because it is in name “communist” (really authoritarian state capitalist). Its ambitions are far lower than “world supremacy” via replacing the U.S. de facto empire. But U.S. paranoia at losing status is nothing to ignore. A real, complicated Cold War does seem to be developing, and economic ties won’t necessarily prevent war, anymore than they did in WWI or WWII.

As for this election, I think Trump and Republicans are trying to make it an issue, and the DNC and liberal U.S “Exceptionalists” will respond by accusing Trump of softness. It is a bad and dangerous dynamic, even if in electoral terms it is a wash.

 

[Olde Europe]

Olde Europe —

Earlier I quoted a Bloomberg piece on evolving views in China on who would be a more effective opponent in what they see as a developing new Cold War, and the drift to seeing Trump as less effective. This, were it just “propaganda,” one could argue benefits Biden. I don’t believe it is just propaganda, and of course the Russians and Putin clearly prefer Trump, so your argument here would seem counter-logical. Of course anything that appears in RT is likely to be a musing more or less acceptable to Putin.

As for Putin, of course he is a Russian nationalist, but I think he is more realistic than you give him credit for. He knows that “restoring the Russian Empire to its former glory” is out of the question in the next period.

The Chinese-U.S. conflict Is not merely economic, though that is at its root. China makes an easy target for U.S. enemy status because it is in name “communist” (really authoritarian state capitalist). Its ambitions are far lower than “world supremacy” via replacing the U.S. de facto empire. But U.S. paranoia at losing status is nothing to ignore. A real, complicated Cold War does seem to be developing, and economic ties won’t necessarily prevent war, anymore than they did in WWI or WWII.

As for this election, I think Trump and Republicans are trying to make it an issue, and the DNC and liberal U.S “Exceptionalists” will respond by accusing Trump of softness. It is a bad and dangerous dynamic, even if in electoral terms it is a wash.

Did I say Putin expects to restore the former Russian empire's glory in, say, five years? I don't believe he does, but he puts in every effort to get closer to that aim.

Of course, Putin is not pro-Trump. He is is favor of a weaker U.S., less international coordination, less by way of U.S. influence, and insofar as Trump brings that about, and makes Putin's nationalistic aims easier to accomplish, he's fine with Trump in the Oval Office - even while he probably holds the dunce in utter contempt.

Rest assured, I am looking at the China hawks with as much suspicion as you do, and the world really can ill afford yet another cold war consuming the world's resources. Though, I do believe China's aim is to replace the U.S., in the long haul, at least pushing the U.S. so far off China's shores as to have a free hand in pursuit of their economic interests. They still have hundreds of millions to lift out of poverty and destitution, and, once that's mostly accomplished, they will be a powerhouse to be reckoned with at the world stage. About the only thing preventing war, in my firm opinion, is that all involved expect to lose. That's what made MAD a game changer in regards to main-power conflicts. The same scenario might develop with China, if it hasn't already. And that points toward either consistent diplomacy in conjunction with good-governance initiatives (to hold the "Western" world together and protect its political health), or proxy conflicts if the former fails.

Lastly, I was just about to type there is very little taste in the U.S. for yet another full-blown cold war to be found. Thinking about it, that assertion should be downgraded to a hope. Maybe one against hope.

 

[Olde Europe]

Meanwhile Biden and the Democrats are determined to run with an only slightly more sophisticated anti-China line, denouncing Trump for his softness and vacillation.

Aw, I think I see whence your worries about Biden are coming. It's a campaign ad, Tom. Even while it has the liberal intelligentsia hyperventilating about Biden dragging the U.S. into the next cold war, it is still just a campaign ad. We're in silly season - when everyone treats everybody else as if they were stupid - and the ad isn't the last word on a President Biden's China policy. In reality, it's hardly the first, without Foggy Bottom chiming in, without the intelligence community providing analysis, without a gaggle of foreign policy advisors haggling over the details, with objectives like depicting Trump as the self-serving, dithering moron he is, which are somewhat different from those guiding the conception of a rational, possibly successful China policy.

 

[jwoodie]

The USSR and the U.S. stood, several times, right on the edge of MAD.