Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

Can the desire for peace win over American warlifers?

USA VS CHINA / The US foreign policy elite practices anti-Chinese rhetoric and has cut diplomacy in favor of demands.




(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

Over the past two years, US foreign policy elites have increasingly portrayed China not only as a competitor to the United States, but as an enemy in line with the Soviet Union. Although anti-Chinese rhetoric is nothing new in the United States, President Donald Trump's administration has greatly sharpened and expanded it. This is happening despite the strong economic ties between the two countries, a multitude of science and education cooperation projects, and China's consistent policy of not interfering with US affairs.

demonizes

Prominent anti-China figures in Washington (DC) include FBI Chief Christopher Wray, Peter Navarro, the White House head of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, Senator Marco Rubio, and Derek Scissors of American Enterprise Institute. As an echo of the Cold War language, they demonize China as a totalitarian state that threatens to overthrow the US-led world order. Furthermore, the Trump administration is trying to use a tactic to limit China's economic and geopolitical progress by using strong pressure, such as advising allies not to buy Chinese technology or sell advanced technology to China.

These critics remain hostile to China no matter what China does. It is reminiscent of the 1980s and 1990s, when the United States treated an economically powerful Japan as a serious threat to the security of the kingdom – even though Japan was a democracy that had not been accused of widespread human rights violations. Similarly, as long as Americans label China as an "equal competitor," the United States will treat the country as a threat, even if the Chinese leaders cling to the United States.

The ongoing US-China trade negotiations are a good example. If the Americans do not get what they want, they simply introduce tariffs and sanctions. One could say that the United States has largely cut off diplomacy in favor of claims that are not subject to negotiation.

world Dominance

Such an attitude is shared by both Democrats and Republicans and reflects the underlying view that the United States must maintain its world domination at all costs. When the Cold War ended, many in the US foreign policy establishment concluded that hostility to the Soviet Union had secured victory. The United States, therefore, became even more inclined to use military force, and identified itself as an "indispensable nation" with the authority to act when, where and how it finds it best.

The American elites are champions of a grand strategy for "liberal hegemony". But while advocating liberal values, this strategy is largely revisionist as it seeks to recreate its domestic politics everywhere. The result is that the United States has fought a host of meaningless wars that have led to broken states (as in the case of Libya) and protracted occupations (as in Afghanistan).

The administration of President Donald Trump has greatly tightened
the anti-Chinese rhetoric.

As Janine R. Wedel argues in her book Shadow Elite, US foreign policy elites depend on this agenda, since it strengthens their self-esteem, increases their status, and even makes them rich. So-called experts who have been on US television and talked hotly for regime change often have hidden conflicts of interest, for example, they are shareholders in private companies that earn contracts with the US military.

Today, the United States is the world's leading arms exporter and spends just under a trillion dollars a year on the military, more than the next nine countries combined. And that number does not include the actual cost of warfare, which amounts to several trillion dollars.

threats

Interventionism is sold to the American public and the United States allies by means of artificial intimidation. Supporters of this policy know that by creating fear, insecurity and an image of vulnerability – with the support of uncritical media – they will be mandated to fight these alien "enemies". And they have perfected this technique by forcing deviants in the US foreign policy environment to join their war-promoting narrative.

Those with dissenting opinions, such as American economist Paul Craig Roberts, are often denied access to traditional media and excluded from important meetings. Critics can also become victims of character killings. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, for example, has been called anti-Semite for pointing out that Israeli supporters succeed in influencing US foreign policy.

It would be a big mistake for the US to take a cold war stance against China. Such a policy would damage the global economy by restricting trade and stimulating a violent arms race, which in turn would raise the "Thukydid trap" [referring to the fact that an emerging power creates the fear of an established power escalating against war. and lead to war on a growing China. Enmity between the two powers could also destroy the global cooperation needed to address common issues such as the climate crisis.

A new paradigm for international relations is needed to avoid such an outcome. Today, US foreign policy is based on the principle that the United States has no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Fair enough. But unless US politicians decide that it is of permanent interest for the United States to help the world reach common goals, such as sustainable development, such a stance will have disastrous consequences. The United States is facing a crucial decision on how to relate to China's growth. With realism, creativity and willpower, American leaders can be the precursors to a new era in international relations, where the necessity of peace trumps the war lifts. But don't bet on it.


Translated by Lasse Takle

Ann Lee
Ann Lee
Lee is Professor II and author of, among other things, What the US Can Learn from China (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2012). © Project Syndicate, 2019

You may also like