Where ‘removing the foreigner’ is preferred to embracing change
Unesco produces a tool to counter the fake news era

A new Cold War unfolds – and the US is at a disadvantage

Replenishment at sea
Aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis conducts a replenishment at sea with ammunition ship USNS Charles Drew on 13 November (Nick Bauer, US Navy via Reuters)


CANBERRA - Amid the chaos of the Trump presidency, vice president Mike Pence’s declaration of a new Cold War with China on 4 October 2018 is by far the administration’s biggest departure from ‘business as usual’.

The declaration came after Trump’s tariff war was well underway and the US Treasury had issued regulations to screen inward investment tightly, pursuant to the new Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernisation Act.

For good measure, the US Commerce Department will also screen corporate technology flows destined for China, pursuant to the updated Export Administration Act.

Economic sanctions are the front line of the new Cold War, unlike the US–Soviet confrontation of yesteryear. But military escalation cannot be far behind.

Since the United States and China already possess enough intercontinental nuclear missiles for ‘mutually assured destruction’, and since the United States would be hopelessly outnumbered in conventional land battles, military escalation will focus on naval power and hypersonic short-range missiles.

This should be good news for shipyards in both countries. The United States will build submarines, destroyers and aircraft carriers to prevent Chinese dominance of the South China Sea, and China will enlarge its fleet to defend its claimed islands and assert sovereignty over the seas within the nine-dash line.

Meanwhile the United States will ramp up its economic war with China, with the goal of securing a commercial divorce from China. The immediate provocations are China’s persistent merchandise trade surplus with the United States, and China’s appropriation of US technology as the price of admitting US corporations to the Chinese market.

But if these provocations were the whole story, US trade and investment tactics would be different — sabres, not sledgehammers.

The underlying provocation of economic war is Trump’s fear that China will overtake the United States, economically and technologically. The 21st century ‘Thucydides Trap’ is unfolding. [The ‘trap occurs when a the rise of a second power causes anxiety in an established power and there is an escalation towards conflict.]

In terms of sheer GDP, China’s overtaking seems almost inevitable, even if its growth slows to 4% from the currently advertised 6%. At best, the US economy will grow at 3% over an extended period. So it’s just a question of arithmetic whether China’s overtaking of the United States will happen in 2030 or 2050.

Technology is another matter. If the United States embraces sensible steps, it could maintain a technological lead for the indefinite future. One step, unfortunately not aligned with Trump’s agenda, would put out the welcome mat for scientific talent from abroad. Another step would significantly enhance federal funding for basic science and related education. A third step would enlarge tax credits for private research and development outlays.

Instead of these steps, the Trump administration, with enthusiastic support from Congressional Democrats, decided to stress the interruption of technology flows to China.

A prevailing myth is that China’s technological prowess depends almost entirely on theft from the West. Before long, Americans will discover that China excels at home-grown technology. By that time, China’s technological overtaking will be nearer reality than fantasy.

The new Cold War is not being fought on trends favourable to the United States. For sure China will suffer, but it will respond by building alliances in the immediate Asian neighbourhood through institutions like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and through its own Belt and Road Initiative.

China may also choose to cement its relations with Russia, and reach out to advanced nations — Europe, Japan and South Korea. Whether the Trump administration or its successor will reinvigorate traditional US alliances remains to be seen.

Two other basic questions must be asked. Is the new Cold War necessary? No. Instead of a cold war, either the Obama or the Trump administration could have created a powerful but informal entente with China — a ‘G-2’ arrangement.

Was the new Cold War inevitable? Probably yes, once Hu Jintao stepped down from the Chinese presidency in 2013.

His successor Xi Jinping is turning back the clock on market-oriented reforms and fostering state control of the economy, centralising political power and driving domestic technological advancement through the Made in China 2025 plan.

This direction and its consequences for China’s dealings with the United States over the past several years set the stage for conflict.

En route to the November 2018 APEC summit in Papua New Guinea, Pence told Chinese leaders that it is China’s responsibility to avert a Cold War by dramatically revamping its economic model and abandoning its territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Speaking at the Shanghai Import Exposition conference earlier in November, Chinese President Xi Jinping defended the world trading system and outlined China’s reforms in broad strokes. His remarks, welcome as they were, came nowhere close to meeting Trump’s demands.

The 2016 US presidential election proved that blaming foreigners generally, and China specifically, was a vote-catching theme with bipartisan appeal. Democrats envied Donald Trump for so successfully capturing this piece of political thunder.

Since the election, many senior Democrats have applauded Cold War themes, in substance if not in name. Come 2021, a Democrat in the White House is not likely to reverse Trump’s policy. Nor is President Xi likely to pursue conciliation rather than confrontation.

During the years ahead, pleasant phrases and smiling photos will be interspersed with hostile rhetoric. Whatever the distractions, the new Cold War promises to be an enduring feature of the world economy and the political landscape, and a lasting legacy of presidents Trump and Xi.

* Gary Clyde Hufbauer is a non-resident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Arthur Williams

Just read the interview that Hufbauer gave on 10 July 2018 reported at
He was asked: ‘What do you think about the role of APEC?

His reply perhaps put into perspective some of the views on the recent APEC 2018 in PNG.

"APEC has become a bit like the G7 (which the US walked out of and thus devalued).

"The best thing APEC does is that the leaders meet and actually talk to one another and that reduces tension. But it will never be a rule-making body or an organisation giving much guidance.

"It is kind of an umbrella organisation that publishes useful things, a little like the OECD but not as strong. But it won't be a meaningful trade or investment rule-making body. It tried that in the beginning, but that hasn't transpired."

John Greenshields

Maybe not. Other opinions suggest:

A. China will grow old before it grows rich.

B.China reportedly spends 40% of GDP on "security" [this is a serious economic disadvantage compared with USA].

C. China is losing appeal as nations wake up to its debt trap diplomacy.

D. China cannot feed itself, in food or commodities.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)