Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label Trade War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trade War. Show all posts

Thursday, May 21, 2020

The Second Cold War Has Begun

Getting our China policy right is the most significant US national security challenge of the 21st Century

By —— Bio and Archives--May 19, 2020

The People’s Republic of China hides its motives in a cloak of mystery.  However, their contempt and disregard of others in the Coronavirus pandemic has now torn away the shroud and made their ugly intentions clear.  China has signaled its defiance to the international order and its willingness to overturn it.  They are implementing a strategy to supplant the United States as the world’s dominant power, and to do so by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the PRC. 

Tyranny of the People’s Republic of China

Throughout the First Cold War, it was up to the United States to stand up for vulnerable nations and help those being set upon by the Soviet Union’s brutal force.  Now that the Second Cold War is upon us, it is time to do it again against the tyranny of the People’s Republic of China.

Following World War II, the United States was transformed into a world superpower.  World leadership had been thrust upon us in a way we could not avoid.  It came to the US not only because of his preeminent military and economic power but because of the generous way we had employed that power in the world of desperate need and threat of Communist expansion.  These principles remained true throughout the First Cold War.  Today, no major issue of global peace or stability can be resolved without involvement by the United States.

For more than 40 years, the US has played a benevolent role in helping the Chinese government build a booming economy and taking its place on the world stage.  We believed that China’s rise would bring us cooperation, diplomacy, and free trade.  In the past year, however, it has become clear that China’s goal is to replace America as the dominant global power.  By mid-century, their GDP may surpass that of the US, and hence gaining a commanding position.

Unlike Americans, whose time horizon rarely extends beyond the next election, China plays the long game.  The Chinese are willing to wait out difficulties as long as trends are moving their way.  They seek victory through incremental moves designed to gradually improve their strength, by both legal and lawless means, until it grows into an overwhelming advantage.  They wish to avoid a hot war by winning it without firing a shot.

American consumption of Chinese products has grown to the point we are now financing their entire annual defense budget

...........To Read More....

The U.S. Must Stand with Australia against China

By

We owe as much to our long-time ally as it faces threats from a nearby adversary.  The mega-trend in U.S. foreign policy in the past decade is the consensus view that the post–Cold War continuation of the Nixon/Kissinger policy of engagement with and accommodation of the People’s Republic of China has failed.

Successive presidents of both parties extended the policy in the hope that the U.S. could help China as it lurched forward from the Maoist revolutionary era to a modern, engaged, liberal market economy.

The Cold War policy had endured despite the growing awareness across the U.S. political spectrum of the PRC’s role in the first rank of global human-rights abusers, its increasing appetite for regional military confrontation, its bullying of democracies across Asia and the Indo-Pacific, and its abuse of the privileges afforded it through membership in global forums such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, and others.

During this accommodationist era, many U.S. policymakers largely ignored or downplayed China’s boorish and abusive behavior because of perceived economic opportunities its market offered and the hope that economic engagement would lead to political reforms.

That perception is changing. U.S. supply chains are being diversified away from China, with some returning to the United States’ own shores. China’s own economy is fragile, unstable, and in constant need of government intervention. There is skepticism about — if not downright hostility toward — Chinese direct foreign investment in the U.S. and in U.S. companies.

And there is a lack of confidence in China’s public companies — such as Huawei — because of their relationship with the Chinese government. The recent push by the Trump administration not to permit the federal employee defined-benefit program to include an emerging-market benchmark fund that included Chinese equities reflects these facts...........To Read More....

Friday, August 30, 2019

The Right Road to Ending the Trade War

Editorial of The New York Sun | August 28, 2019

The summer squall over a suggestion that the Federal Reserve join the resistance against President Trump is certainly music to our ears. That’s because the specter of a self-financed agency of the American government running a campaign to defy the voters will help put the debate over monetary reform into sharp relief. And none too soon, in the view of The New York Sun.
 
This contretemps was touched off by a former president of the New York Fed, William Dudley. Writing for Bloomberg, Mr. Dudley suggests the central bank should “refuse to play along” with “President Donald Trump’s trade war” with Communist China. “There’s even an argument,” he writes, “that the election itself falls within the Fed’s purview.” He wants the Fed to explicitly oppose Mr. Trump in 2020. ...........Dudley’s idea is that it is so contrary to the Constitution.

That parchment doesn’t grant any monetary powers to the Fed. The central bank didn’t exist when the Constitution was framed. When it was framed, it granted all of America’s monetary powers — to tax, spend, borrow on the credit of the United States, coin money, regulate its value and that of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures — to the Congress.............To Read More......

Sunday, May 19, 2019

China Has Already Lost the Trade War

Consumers might still feel the pinch, but ultimately Beijing needs our surplus more than we need their trade.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Peter Zeihan on Geopolitics: My Way or the Huawei

Geopolitics  with Peter Zeihan

On May 15 the U.S. government put Chinese telecoms giant Huawei and nearly all its affiliates and subsidiaries on an export black list, which prohibits American firms from selling them high-tech products. Much has been made of Huawei’s position in global telecoms and the role it might play in Chinese surveillance of, well, everyone. The American decision largely ends the concern.

To this point I’ve tried to stay out of the Huawei battles for a pair of reasons. First, the people who really know what is going on when it comes to global data surveillance either do not talk publicly about it or have a vested interest in lying. In the former camp sits the United States National Security Agency, the institution responsible for monitoring global electronic communications. In the latter is the Chinese intelligence directorate, who would like to monitor global electronic communications.

Some background:

Back in the 1960s, the American government started collaborating with the U.K. government on a global monitoring system known as Echelon, a sort of semi-public codename for the series of satellites, towers, fiber optic taps, server farms and software backdoors that span the planet. Echelon soon expanded to include the Anglophone allies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, becoming the core of what is known today as the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. Echelon’s original raison d’etre was to battle the Soviets, and in time it found new life in the Global War on Terror. According to informed scuttlebutt, if a communication is transmitted using electrons, Echelon sees it.

Or at least it used to. Telecoms have evolved radically in the past half century. Even before the recent fascination of all parties with encryption, the simple fact the United States is no longer the middleman in all telecoms traffic means Echelon is more a tool of yesterday than today, much less tomorrow. Regardless, the ability to scan, read or listen for key words remains essential to America’s tech-heavy intelligence gathering networks.

Enter the Chinese, who found themselves behind the Americans by several decades, and that before considering China lacks the alliance system to create anything of Echelon’s depth or scale. Beijing’s bid to catch up is Huawei, a massive telecoms firm which produces everything from the fiber optic cables and telecoms towers of the physical internet to the phones and computers needed to connect.

While the internet is an infamously unorganized mass of connections, the modern network has central exchange points where the tributaries of information coming from all over the world become torrential flows. Such “core” systems are what Huawei is after. Control the cores and a spy is wired into everything that passes through it.

Huawei’s corporate strategy – which is to say, the strategy of China’s intelligence services – is to grant massive discounts on the installation of a network’s less critical bits on the condition that Huawei can also install and maintain the cores.
Beyond the not-so-minor technical fact that there are people beyond China who understand how the internet works and so might object to handing over all their communications on principle, the plan has an amusing political flaw. Like nearly all of China’s tech industry, Huawei is not technologically self-sufficient. It remains heavily dependent upon tech imports from none other than the United States. Which is the second reason why I’ve never taken the Huawei talk all that seriously: The Chinese not only expect the world to pay them to monitor global communications, they expect the Americans to enable the scheme.

At first the Americans didn’t take the Huawei plan all that seriously, mostly because it was a seriously stupid plan. Then Huawei had some success using heavy subsidies to convince some countries to install their gear. That generated a diplomatic reaction in Washington. American bureaucrats started warning countries not simply of the dangers they seemed willingly oblivious to, but that any country who used Huawei in their cores could kiss any intelligence sharing with the Americans good-bye.

That was enough to shut Huawei out of New Zealand and Australia outright. (The Brits got cute and accepted Huawei gear for their system’s edges, but not their cores, a smug near-miss which undoubtedly infuriated the Chinese to no end.)

But three things have changed that have sparked stronger action out of the Americans.

First, the transition from fourth- to fifth-generation cellular technology blurs the line between core and non-core systems. Huawei penetration into any part of a cellular system now generates complications and vulnerabilities.

Second, despite the risk of communications exposure, enough countries have decided to proceed with Chinese equipment that the Americans can no longer just let it roll. In particular, China’s targeting of Five Eyes members – most notably Canada – has snapped the Americans to attention.

Third, after seventy years of expressly keeping economic and strategic issues separate in American foreign policy, a more standard intermingling is now occurring – and that puts everything Chinese in the Americans’ crosshairs.

Bilateral trade talks with China more or less collapsed last week. I can’t say I’m shocked. At the talks' onset the Americans laid out a series of non-negotiable demands including an end to cybertheft, an end to forced tech transfer, an end to the hyper-subsidization of Chinese industry, an end to functional prohibitions on American firms’ access to the Chinese market, granting the Americans the right to impose any investigation at any time on any issue without any consultation complete with the ability to impose any desired punishment on any Chinese economic sector.

The fact the Chinese even began talks with those swords hanging over them indicates just how weak the Chinese knew their hand was. China exports over four times as many goods to the American market as vice versa and China is completely dependent upon American global security commitments for access to raw materials, energy and end markets. There is no modern China without active American involvement.

Last week it became apparent to the lead American trade negotiator – one Robert Lighthizer – that the Chinese were backing off what commitments he had previously convinced them to make. It was Lighthizer’s recommendation to Donald Trump that American tariffs on China be more than doubled May 10. He then put an even bigger set of tariffs in the pipeline to be applied within a few weeks.

The Americans’ Huawei announcement has the feel of Lighthizer’s work: he likes to throw the odd sharp elbow and knows his boss is particularly fond of bold, direct, splashy actions that cut to the heart of the issue.

That issue is pretty straightforward. The Americans may be done managing the world, but that doesn’t mean they are going to help someone else do it – especially someone who doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of pulling off such a feat without deep and active American collaboration. Better instead to put China in its place.

The Chinese, understandably, have proven less than enthusiastic about accepting that message.

So the Americans decided it is easier to simply end China’s global surveillance ambitions by killing Huawei’s international position outright. It isn’t very subtle, and if it doesn’t generate the desired Chinese cave-in in the trade talks it makes me wonder what Lighthizer will take aim at next. I’ve got lots of ideas.

I’m certain Lighthizer has more.

BOOK PETER FOR YOUR NEXT EVENT
BUY A SIGNED COPY OF THE ABSENT SUPERPOWER