胡锡进：被点名“台独顽固分子” 家族财路将被断
11/06/2021
中国大陆昨天点名台湾行政院长苏贞昌、立法院长游锡堃、外交部长吴钊燮三人为“台独顽固分子”，并宣布惩戒措施，《环球时报》总编辑胡锡进指出，大陆的措施是很有震慑力度，会断掉“台独顽固分子”和他们的家族很大一部分财路。
大陆首次公布对“台独顽固分子”的惩戒措施，包括禁止本人及家属进入大陆港澳，禁止其关联企业和金主在大陆谋利，终身追究刑事责任等，被点名的苏贞昌昨天回击指“中国无理干预我国事务”，非常让人可笑、唾弃，并称以此为荣。
胡锡进昨天（11月5日）在个人微博发文说，大陆方面的措施是很有震慑力度的，苏贞昌的反应属于色厉内荏。
他指出，台湾经济与大陆及港澳的关联度很高，大陆禁止“台独顽固分子”本人和家人前往大陆和港澳地区，尤其是限制其关联机构与大陆有关组织、个人进行合作，绝不允许其关联企业和金主在大陆谋利，将产生威慑扩散，极大限制台湾企业和社会组织与他们和他们家人发生联系的积极性。
他认为，只要目前或有计划今后在大陆发展的机构，都将躲“台独顽固分子”远远的，从而“断掉他们和家族很大一部分财路”。
另外，他认为大陆宣布对“台独顽固分子”终身刑事追责也会产生威慑力，“两岸统一是迟早的事，这些人在有生之年因鼓动‘台独’而坐牢服刑的可能性越来越高”。
胡锡进说，他为国台办的最新措施点赞鼓掌，并呼吁建构更多打击“台独顽固势力”的杠杆。
首次公布惩戒措施 大陆对“台独顽固分子”终身追究刑责
11/06/2021
大陆公布的惩戒措施，包括禁止本人及家属进入大陆港澳，禁止其关联企业和金主在大陆谋利，终身追究刑事责任等，并点名台湾行政院长苏贞昌、立法院长游锡堃、外交部长吴钊燮三人。
（北京／台北综合讯）中国大陆首次公布对“台独顽固分子”的惩戒措施，包括禁止本人及家属进入大陆港澳，禁止其关联企业和金主在大陆谋利，终身追究刑事责任等，并点名台湾行政院长苏贞昌、立法院长游锡堃、外交部长吴钊燮三人。
根据新华社报道，大陆国台办发言人朱凤莲昨天在应询有关大陆是否在研究针对台独顽固分子的惩戒措施时说，大陆对清单在列的台独顽固分子实施惩戒，禁止其本人及家属进入大陆、香港和澳门，限制其关联机构与大陆有关组织、个人进行合作，绝不允许其关联企业和金主在大陆谋利，以及采取其它必要的惩戒措施。
朱凤莲也说，一段时期以来，苏贞昌、游锡堃、吴钊燮等“极少数台独顽固分子”极力煽动两岸对立、恶意攻击诬蔑大陆、谋“独”言行恶劣、勾连外部势力分裂国家，严重破坏两岸关系，严重危害台海和平稳定。她并警告，大陆将依法对台独顽固分子追究刑事责任，终身有效。
针对美国官员近期接连喊话“支持台湾参与联合国系统”，朱凤莲回答说，联合国是由主权国家组成的政府间国际组织。台湾是中国的一部分，不是主权国家，理所当然不能成为联合国成员或包括世界卫生组织等在内的联合国下属专门机构的成员。
她说，奉劝民进党当局放弃“倚美谋独”“倚外谋独”的幻想。
台海两岸紧张近期不断升温，北京继续派出军机绕台，同时通过描绘两岸统一后的景观加强促统心理战。
台湾方面，继蔡英文10月10日声称“坚持中华民国与中华人民共和国互不隶属”之后，外长吴钊燮10月下旬在斯洛伐克演讲，呼吁全球合作对抗威权。大陆外交部发言人赵立坚随后批评吴钊燮是“典型的台独分裂分子”，“鼓吹台独分裂主张”“制造‘一中一台’假象”。
苏贞昌回击： “中国无理干预我国事务”
另一被点名为“台独分子”苏贞昌昨天在立法院回击，指“中国无理干预我国事务”，非常让人可笑、唾弃。苏贞昌称：“我们一定会坚定捍卫台湾的主权，我们更以此为荣”。
民进党立委陈亭妃说，谁能被列入大陆的制裁名单，代表很爱台湾，被列入清单是光荣与骄傲。
台湾教授谈台海战争：美国进不来 怎么协防台湾？
来源：观察者网
11/06/2021
·两岸是否真有可能开战？
陆媒：上周末，“台湾民众开始存储求生物资”一度冲上大陆微博热搜第一，实际上什么情况？
赖岳谦：网络上突然出现这样一个新闻，台湾民众都很纳闷，说怎么没有看到这种现象，彼此间问“你们有屯粮吗？有没有屯泡面？”大家都说没有。我们也到卖场去看了一下，没有见到物质短缺，也没有看到民众挤着买粮买油囤积物资的行为。所以很明显，这是一则假新闻。
陆媒：目前岛内关于两岸不断攀升的军事风险都有哪些看法？特别是普通市民怎么看待最近的台海动向？
赖岳谦：有很多记者到街上去采访一些年轻人，大部分年轻人认为若真要打仗，让“台独”去打就好了；防务部门的负责人说要战到最后一兵一卒，东沙岛的官兵说要死守住这地方，有的年轻人就说“你死了，台湾就活了”。很多年轻人跟妈妈辈的表示，“要去你自己去，或叫你孩子去，我们为什么要去？”
所以我们可以看到，台湾民众对于目前两岸打仗的可能，绝大部分是不以为然的，他们觉得是有人故意要搞坏两岸关系；对于打仗，大家都不愿意打，而且绝大部分都认为台湾的军队不太能打。
当下台湾社会仍很稳定，也因为台湾人有一种很特殊的习性，就是随遇而安。一旦出现危机，在台湾有两本护照的人，比如两党那些政客，可以通过美国大使馆溜走，有钱人也可以快速飞走，留在台湾的就剩我们这种无权无势或对外国不感兴趣的人，大家仍会照常过日子，不然能怎样呢？
陆媒：那您认为两岸爆发军事冲突的可能性大吗？
赖岳谦：目前来讲可能性不大，未来就不一定了，我觉得关键点是2024年。
习近平总书记在10月9日纪念辛亥革命110周年大会上的讲话已经讲得很明白了，“祖国完全统一的历史任务一定要实现，也一定能够实现”，而解放军之前也表示过，军队有强大的战略定力，但当军队要动的时候，就是霹雳手段。换言之，若《反分裂国家法》没有被触碰，解放军会不动如山；《反分裂国家法》一旦被触碰，民进党一旦敢宣布台湾独立，那解决军绝对会使用霹雳手段。
大陆已经把态势讲得很明白了，所以2024年台湾地区领导人选战如果成为民进党的“台独”与国民党的“反台独”之战，而台湾民众选择继续把票投给民进党，我想这时候和平统一的路径可能就会有所修正。因此，台湾民众在2024年投票做决定时要非常慎重。
陆媒：现在舆论场上有观点认为，蔡英文在赌大陆为了追求经济发展，不会真的对台动武。
赖岳谦：讲这些话的人很明显不懂军事。你看美国人攻打伊拉克、阿富汗，期间美国经济有一落千丈吗？其实对美国国内经济是没有影响的，因为它们是一个局部性战争，且战场在外面。今天这两场战争对美国造成负面影响，主要是因为美军在伊拉克待了近10年、在阿富汗20年，长期驻军损害了美国的财政能力。
台海之间若发生战争，战场只会局限在台湾。中国大陆有核武，谁敢攻击中国大陆本土？日本(专题)若提供军事基地给美国，让美国去攻击中国大陆本土，日本的军事基地一定会被摧毁，日本本土一定遭殃；美国的战机敢攻打中国大陆的任何一寸土地，美国本土就一定会遭受中国大陆的导弹攻击。所以哪个国家敢打中国大陆？没有的，战场一定局限在台湾。
即使打仗，中国大陆的工业、商业活动整体仍会照常运转。此外，如今中国大陆的经济总量约为15万亿美元，按购买力平价来算已超过美国，从中拿出一部分财政用在台海战争中，而且战争短期内就结束了，这怎么会影响中国大陆的经济发展呢？
陆媒：那您怎么看待美国承诺的“协防”台湾？
赖岳谦：美国是在说大话，因为他们根本做不到。台湾离大陆太近了，台湾海峡平均宽度不过180公里，一旦开战，中国大陆会第一时间掌握整个区域的制空制海权，届时美国的航母根本靠近不了台湾，美国的军队也无法抵达台湾，美国靠近台湾的运兵船会被击沉，靠近台湾机场的战机会被击落。美国进都进不来，怎么协防台湾？
陆媒：台湾防务部门在28日质询中表示，台湾将于2022年3月完成“战时民众求生避难手册”的制作。这算是在为可能的战争做准备吗？
赖岳谦：这是绿营媒体的新闻炒作，编所谓手册实质上是要消耗军事预算。
9月份台当局开始要编列军事预算，因为每个部门都要编预算，不能让人以为没有做事，所以防务部门的军医局就编了3个方案，希望能在战时“快速、有效治疗伤病患”。这些防卫手册是后勤动员处写的，告诉大家战时应该做些什么。其实台湾很早以前就有这手册了，他们如今只是把过去的手册拿来印制一下，消耗掉一些预算。
3个方案的预算总共41亿台币，而今年台湾的军事预算编得特别庞大，特别预算就高达2400亿台币，41亿台币占全部预算的比重微乎其微，但这新闻被绿媒炒作得很大。
陆媒：近段时间大陆军机绕台次数不断创纪录，这某种程度上可视作“切香肠”，也含有震慑台军的意味，不过我看台湾一些网民、政客评论称“麻木了”，您怎么看待这一行动？
赖岳谦：老百姓无所谓，但军队有所谓，因为飞行员一定要起飞跟着。
由于军队招不到人，因此目前台军的飞行员人数不足，过去一架飞机配3个飞行员，现在大概只能配1.4人。当解放军的战机过来，台军就要跟着起飞，这就要求必须有人值班。战机在空中飞一个小时左右就要回来，飞行员们一下来就疲惫不堪，但解放军很快又来了，另外一批又要上去，所以他们几乎一直在值班中。飞机回来后要维修保养，连带着维修人员也疲倦的很。
频繁跟飞，也打乱了飞行员原有的训练计划。比如说原本要花100个小时练习空中缠斗、编队飞行等不同战技，现在都不能做了，只能等着解放军战机过来，跟在旁边飞，而这些技术并不高明。
再就是战机及其发动机是有使用寿命的，每飞一次，就会有损耗，频繁上天，使用寿命相应就少了，台湾就要再编预算去买新发动机或新战机。而且战机非常耗油，一上去就要花费几百万台币，一年下来，军费预算要多编好几亿。
据台媒报道，10月29日，台空军紧急起飞战机打算拦截当天进入“西南空域”的解放军军机时，反遭解放军军机广播驱离：“台湾地区飞机，台湾地区飞机，我是中国人民解放军，你已危及我飞行安全，立即离开，立即离开！” （图自台媒）
·惠台政策为何未能成功让台湾广大民众拥护统一？
陆媒：蔡英文为何这段时间猛推“入联”议题？美国“支持台湾有意义地参与联合国系统”与蔡英文设想的“入联”是否存在差异？
赖岳谦：陈水扁的大军师邱义仁在接受陈水扁的广播访问时曾说过，台湾要搞“台独”是假的，因为要看背后的老板美国同不同意——有美国的支持，台湾才敢搞；美国不支持，台湾根本不敢搞。
按照邱义仁这说法的逻辑，目前蔡英文推“台独”推得那么积极，背后肯定是有指示者的。也就是说，应该不是蔡英文一厢情愿想做就敢做，她一定是背后得到美国的默许、纵容或首肯。我们也看到，相应地，美国国务卿布林肯在10月26日就特别谈到对联合国大会第2758(XXVI)号决议有意见，要“支持台湾有意义地参与联合国体系及国际社会”。
其实对蔡英文来讲，只要能在不用坚守“一个中国”原则或“九二共识”的前提下参与联合国体系及其他国际组织，她的目的就达到了。台湾在马英九执政期间是在接受“九二共识”的前提下以观察员身份参加世界卫生大会，所以蔡英文的主要目的是要告诉台湾民众及世界，民进党即使拒绝接受“九二共识”也能够参与。她的阴谋、动作其实很明显，而美国在帮蔡英文走这一步路，帮她铺这个局。
但是我们也很清楚地看到大陆马上就有回应了，外交部发言人赵立坚就讲了，美继续打“台湾牌”将给中美关系造成颠覆性风险；其后，我注意到《人民日报》钟声也传达了同样的信念——“正告美方务必恪守承诺慎重行事”。而布林肯在10月31号急急忙忙跑到中国代表团在罗马G20峰会的下榻处跟王毅见面，王毅当面告诉布林肯“台湾问题是中美之间最敏感的问题，一旦处理失误，将对中美关系造成颠覆性、全局性破坏”。
我想美国应该听得很清楚了，对于台湾问题，大陆的态度是强硬的，而且不存在一丁点让步的可能性；没有美国的纵容、支持，蔡英文根本不敢搞“台独”，所以美国最好是舍了这个心，不要在台湾后面当一个影武者。
陆媒：蔡英文这些年的一些操作，按大陆网络用语来形容就是“在‘台独’边缘疯狂试探”，而她还在“双十”演讲中说“我们不会冒进”。难以理解她是怎么定义“冒进”这个词的。
赖岳谦：在台湾，我们会把民进党的讲话叫做“平行时空的讲话”，或称为“外星人的讲话”。
民进党在野的时候反对美国“莱猪”进台湾，而现在他们要台湾民众吃“莱猪”。大家就问民进党，为什么当初反对、现在支持？她说这是国民党的阴谋。民进党在野的时候说一定要保护岛礁，绝对不能破坏生态；结果现在，要破坏岛礁。大家问为什么前后不一致？她说这是中国大陆的阴谋。
这样你就可以理解，为什么没有人听得懂蔡英文在讲什么。而且大家都知道她惯于讲谎话、两面话，当初反对是对的，现在支持也是对话，永远都是这一套，反正嘴巴长在她身上，她怎么说都是对的。因此她说“不冒进”的时候，你可以理解成她就是在说“冒进”。
陆媒：10月底蔡英文在接受CNN采访时证实目前有美军驻台。这算“冒进”吗？
赖岳谦：这就是蔡英文的话术了。一般来讲，美国零星的非建制的军事人员在台湾存在，这其实不影响战争大局，也不影响主权问题。例如他们通常不着军服，过来向你介绍F-16战机操作时要注意哪些事项、平时怎么维修等等，这些基本不会构成很敏感的问题。如果是建制驻军，比如让美国一个师驻守在台湾，或美国在台湾有自己的军事基地，像过去美军在台湾、在台南机场囤放一些核武器，台军都不能靠近，这情形就完全不一样了。
蔡英文就是在故意玩弄文字游戏，故意引导外媒说美军驻台，故意要去刺痛大陆的《反分裂国家法》。所以我们可以看到，美国赶快出来管控危机，说只是零星的军事顾问，没有部队进驻。
陆媒：就这些年蔡英文当局的行径及台湾社会的发展来看，可以说大陆的惠台政策未能完全有效发挥其设想的作用，坦白说仍存在一定的改进空间。当下的对台政策如何改进，您有什么建议吗？
赖岳谦：大陆的惠台政策本来的目的是希望台商赚到钱，再把赚到的钱跟员工们分享。但实际上那些台商把赚到的钱只放在自己的口袋里，并未相应提高广大员工的待遇。而这些企业主满口袋的钱，怎么处理？他们就在台湾买房地产，使得台湾的房价被抬高了。而台湾的房价一旦被抬高，台湾的物价也跟着升高。房价、物价升高，但员工的薪水没有增加，相对来讲他们就被剥削了。换言之，所谓的惠台政策并没有让台湾底层民众得到实实在在的好处，反倒让他们成为间接的受害者。
大陆民众为何拥护共产党的领导？很大的一个原因就是共产党领导下的改革给人民群众带来了实实在在的获得感。同样的道理，若希望台湾民众支持大陆的对台政策，进而拥护两岸统一，必须也让大陆的惠台政策能真正给予台湾民众实实在在的获得感。当下的惠台政策若要改进，就要想办法突破这一难题，不能只惠及台商，要让这些企业家将得利同广大民众分享。
陆媒：不知道您有没留意国台办副主任刘军川在10月29日的一个会议上表示，统一后“台湾的财政收入尽可用于改善民生”。
赖岳谦：我有看到这句话，不过我认为台湾民众对这话应该是无感的。
台湾的税收很大一部分来自于企业和收入大户，而广大台湾民众，尤其是年轻民众，月收入很低，只有两三万台币，在免税额范围内，所以他们大部分几乎不交税，也因此对财政税收无感。
而且，台湾民众有一种特殊的认识，就是认为公共部门的钱不是钱。所以你会看到台湾的执政者，不论是国民党执政时期时还是民进党时代，都会乱花钱，不是买烟花放掉，就是公共工程偷工减料，之后不断追求预算，把钱烧光。
在台湾民众看来，反正不论哪个政党执政，台湾的财政收入都会被浪费，老百姓不会从中得到好处，因此大家很难被国台办副主任的这话打动。
Tel: 551-580-4856 | Email: F.WINNIE.S@GMAIL.COM
北美法律公益讲座安排
时间：周二到周五 晚间
5:30-7:00(西部)
8:30-9:30(东部)
重播：第二天
上午9:00(西部时间）
中午12:00(东部时间)
周二: 遗嘱和授权书（Lisa讲）
周三: 数据泄露和个人身份保护&事业机会说明会
周四：北美常见法律问题(讲员Irene )
周五：小企业法律和员工福利（晶旌）
Zoom 6045004698，
密码：请扫码进群
另外：周三6:30（西部时间）美国专场
定期邀请美国律师联合讲座
Zoom 951 9092 9213
密码：请扫码进群
A Taiwan Crisis May Mark The End Of The American Empire
By Niall Ferguson
7/09/2021
In a famous essay, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin borrowed a distinction from the ancient Greek poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”
“There exists,” wrote Berlin, “a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to … a single, universal, organizing principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance” — the hedgehogs — “and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory” — the foxes.
Berlin was talking about writers. But the same distinction can be drawn in the realm of great-power politics. Today, there are two superpowers in the world, the U.S. and China. The former is a fox. American foreign policy is, to borrow Berlin’s terms, “scattered or diffused, moving on many levels.” China, by contrast, is a hedgehog: it relates everything to “one unchanging, all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary inner vision.”
Fifty years ago this July, the arch-fox of American diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, flew to Beijing on a secret mission that would fundamentally alter the global balance of power. The strategic backdrop was the administration of Richard Nixon’s struggle to extricate the U.S. from the Vietnam War with its honor and credibility so far as possible intact.
The domestic context was dissension more profound and violent than anything we have seen in the past year. In March 1971, Lieutenant William Calley was found guilty of 22 murders in the My Lai massacre. In April, half a million people marched through Washington to protest against the war in Vietnam. In June, the New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Kissinger’s meetings with Zhou Enlai, the Chinese premier, were perhaps the most momentous of his career. As a fox, the U.S. national security adviser had multiple objectives. The principal goal was to secure a public Chinese invitation for his boss, Nixon, to visit Beijing the following year.
But Kissinger was also seeking Chinese help in getting America out of Vietnam, as well as hoping to exploit the Sino-Soviet split in a way that would put pressure on the Soviet Union, America’s principal Cold War adversary, to slow down the nuclear arms race. In his opening remarks, Kissinger listed no fewer than six issues for discussion, including the raging conflict in South Asia that would culminate in the independence of Bangladesh.
Zhou’s response was that of a hedgehog. He had just one issue: Taiwan. “If this crucial question is not solved,” he told Kissinger at the outset, “then the whole question [of U.S.-China relations] will be difficult to resolve.”
To an extent that is striking to the modern-day reader of the transcripts of this and the subsequent meetings, Zhou’s principal goal was to persuade Kissinger to agree to “recognize the PRC as the sole legitimate government in China” and “Taiwan Province” as “an inalienable part of Chinese territory which must be restored to the motherland,” from which the U.S. must “withdraw all its armed forces and dismantle all its military installations.” (Since the Communists’ triumph in the Chinese civil war in 1949, the island of Taiwan had been the last outpost of the nationalist Kuomintang. And since the Korean War, the U.S. had defended its autonomy.)
With his eyes on so many prizes, Kissinger was prepared to make the key concessions the Chinese sought. “We are not advocating a ‘two China’ solution or a ‘one China, one Taiwan’ solution,” he told Zhou. “As a student of history,” he went on, “one’s prediction would have to be that the political evolution is likely to be in the direction which [the] Prime Minister … indicated to me.” Moreover, “We can settle the major part of the military question within this term of the president if the war in Southeast Asia [i.e. Vietnam] is ended.”
Asked by Zhou for his view of the Taiwanese independence movement, Kissinger dismissed it out of hand. No matter what other issues Kissinger raised — Vietnam, Korea, the Soviets — Zhou steered the conversation back to Taiwan, “the only question between us two.” Would the U.S. recognize the People’s Republic as the sole government of China and normalize diplomatic relations? Yes, after the 1972 election. Would Taiwan be expelled from the United Nations and its seat on the Security Council given to Beijing? Again, yes.
Fast forward half a century, and the same issue — Taiwan — remains Beijing’s No. 1 priority. History did not evolve in quite the way Kissinger had foreseen. True, Nixon went to China as planned, Taiwan was booted out of the U.N. and, under President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. abrogated its 1954 mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. But the pro-Taiwan lobby in Congress was able to throw Taipei a lifeline in 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act.
The act states that the U.S. will consider “any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.” It also commits the U.S. government to “make available to Taiwan such defense articles and … services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capacity,” as well as to “maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”
For the Chinese hedgehog, this ambiguity — whereby the U.S. does not recognize Taiwan as an independent state but at the same time underwrites its security and de facto autonomy — remains an intolerable state of affairs.
Yet the balance of power has been transformed since 1971 — and much more profoundly than Kissinger could have foreseen. China 50 years ago was dirt poor: despite its huge population, its economy was a tiny fraction of U.S. gross domestic product. This year, the International Monetary Fund projects that, in current dollar terms, Chinese GDP will be three quarters of U.S. GDP. On a purchasing power parity basis, China overtook the U.S. in 2017.
Read More…
傅立民文章：中美竞争最终将如何收场
5/12/2021
核心提示：文章指出，如果美国被中国和“世界其他国家的崛起”逼下台，那也是因为自满的美国人未能让一种曾经成功过的制度去适应解决政治和经济积弊，并为新突破奠定基础。中国和其他国家与此毫不相干。
参考消息网 5月11日报道 俄罗斯《全球政治中的俄罗斯》双月刊网站5月3日发表题为《中美对抗将如何收场》的文章，作者为美国布朗大学沃森国际与公共事务研究所客座研究员、美国前助理国防部长傅立民。全文摘编如下：
现在，美国在所有方向上开始与中国竞争，人们不清楚这种竞争将把我们带向何方。在我们开展深入探讨之前，应当先思考几个关键问题：中美的赌注有多大？双方在已开始的斗争中将动用哪些现有战术能力和未来战略能力？长期竞争会对双方造成何种可能的影响？这场斗争最终将如何收场？
中美各有核心利益诉求
那么，让我们把过去视为客观现实并努力专注于未来。
中国政治精英认为，有五样基本的东西值得一赌：
一是彻底打消欧洲和日本帝国主义肢解中国的企图，以及美国以冷战方式实施干涉并策动台湾独立的念头；
二是为弥补过去中国国家尊严所受屈辱而争取地位和尊严；
三是严格防范可能破坏中国稳定并损害中国利益和领土完整的行动以及外国军事干预的发生；
四是让中国顺利重返其在遭受欧洲帝国主义干涉前所占据的经济和技术高地；
五是在地区和全球事务中扮演符合中国体量及其日益增强的国力的角色。
美国的政治精英也在五个方面投下赌注：
一是让美国维持其在全球和地区的政治、军事、经济和金融领先位置；
二是保住美国作为印太等地区中小国家可靠军事保护国的所谓“声誉”；
三是维护美国在所谓“世界秩序”中的优越性；
四是通过降低对不受美国及其盟国控制的供应的依赖来获得经济安全；
五是实现再工业化、提高高收入岗位的就业率，并恢复国内平静的社会经济形势。
现在，中美两国间的力量平衡正在迅速变化，而且趋势对美国不利。今天的中国拥有比美国更广泛的国际联系。它已成为包括欧盟在内的世界上大多数经济体的最大贸易伙伴，在全球贸易和投资中的领先优势不断扩大。中国在全球科技创新中发挥的作用越来越大，而美国的阵地却越来越小。
盟友未必唯美马首是瞻
中国崛起首先带来的是经济而非军事方面的挑战。自冷战结束10年后至今，我们从未在中美关系中看到过类似今天的敌对状态。今天的中国军队有能力保卫自己的国家免遭任何外国攻击。
值得庆幸的是，中国依旧竭力通过谈判而非军事手段的方式解决台湾问题。而这样的谈判可以确保和平的延续。目前，中国的战略目标是提高美国向亚太地区投射力量的成本，但并不直接威胁美国。
拜登承认：为了有效与更加强大的中国开展协作，需要强化自己的立场并争取别国的帮助。为此，他在政府测试国会有关消除美国自身弱点的意愿并与盟友及伙伴进行磋商前，迟迟未出台有关对华政治经济和军事路线的决策。
但如果美国当局听从那些希望与中国对抗的人士的意见，那么它会意外地发现，并不是很多人赞成这么做。拜登可能面临复杂的政治选择：要么弱化对中国的敌意以争取第三国支持，要么坚持对抗立场而不惜疏远大多数欧洲和亚洲盟国。
现实情况是：欧洲人感受不到来自中国的所谓“军事威胁”，而东南亚和南亚国家认为台湾问题是中国人的内部事务并竭力置身事外。甚至像日本这种对台当局“地位”有着直接战略关切的国家也不想冒险介入冲突。
实力对比正向中国倾斜
中美实力不对称状况的转变可能让形势变得更复杂，过去长期为美国带来优势的经济、技术和军事力量对比现在正向有利于中国的方向发展。
在社会转型初期，迎来了基于科学的新产业浪潮。这些产业包括人工智能、量子计算机、云分析、数据库、安全区块链等等。中国向科研和教育设施及开发和应用这些技术的劳动力资源投入巨资。相反，美国目前则面临长期预算赤字，因为政治僵局和没完没了的战争让华盛顿背上沉重的财政负担。这种局面如不扭转，中国和其他国家将很快令美国失去一个世纪以来在科技和教育领域的全球主导地位。
即使美国克服当前政治机能失调和财政赤字，中国在科技、工程和数字领域的崛起也将对美国全球和地区主导权构成挑战。这是一个多方面的问题，美国在解决这个问题时，有时会弄巧成拙。比如，将北京排除在国际太空合作之外，结果，中国发展自己的航天能力。
今天，美国极力阻止中国在5G网络占据优势，反倒促使中国建立有竞争力的半导体产业。人类历史表明，任何技术突破迟早都会以这样或那样的方式被复制，而且成果只会比原先更好。
最大威胁并非来自对手
付出的大量战略努力扩大和升级了中美之间不可调和的矛盾。双方都认为对手是其崩溃的可能原因。然而，最大威胁实际上来自国内趋势和事件，而非外国势力的行动。中美的世界地位取决于它们在国际舞台上如何行事，而非对手的行动。
如果美国被中国和“世界其他国家的崛起”逼下台，那也是因为自满的美国人未能让一种曾经成功过的制度去适应解决政治和经济积弊，并为新突破奠定基础。
美国在全世界的声望下降和追随者减少，与美国的国内政治事件、战略失误、对盟国和伙伴的公然蔑视、虚伪专断的制裁、作为主要外交工具的胁迫和低效外交有关。中国和其他国家与此毫不相干。
现在，为了与中国竞争，美国在很多方面也在借鉴北京建立的制度。华盛顿呼吁实行工业化政策，大幅增加科研开支，以及设立基础设施投资的特别银行和基金等。
Sino-American Antagonism: How Does This End?
Remarks to the Confucius Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
Visiting Scholar, Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, Brown University
By video link from Washington, D.C.
15 April 2021
Fifty-three years ago, as a young foreign service officer, I helped ensure that Taipei rather than Beijing continued to represent China in the United Nations Security Council and elsewhere internationally. Since then, I have seen relations between China and the United States evolve from mutual ostracism based on stereotypes that bore little resemblance to reality to varying degrees of cooperation and mutual understanding and back again. Now we’re once again off to the races in all sorts of struggles with China with nary a clue where any of them will take us.
It seems to me that before we get too far along this path, we ought to pause to think a bit about a few key questions. These have been strikingly absent from our policy debate. Specifically:
- What are the stakes for China and for the United States respectively?
- What current tactical and future strategic capabilities does each bring to the fight we’ve now begun?
- What are the likely consequences for each side of protracted struggle with the other?
- How are these struggles most likely to turn out?
So, in my remarks today, I’ll take the past as given and try to focus on the future.
The Chinese political elite appears to believe that five main things are stake:
- A final reversal of the carve-up of China by European and Japanese imperialism, warlordism, the Chinese Civil War, and America’s Cold War intervention to separate Taiwan from the rest of the country.
- Status and “face” (self-esteem fed by the deference of others) that offset past foreign insults to national dignity.
- Assured defense against foreign “regime change” operations or military interventions that could threaten the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, China’s return to wealth and power, or the consolidation of China’s claimed frontiers.
- China’s uninterrupted return to the high economic and technological status it enjoyed before its eclipse by European imperialism.
- A role in the management of the affairs of the Indo-Pacific region and the world commensurate with China’s size and burgeoning capabilities.
The American political elite also appears to believe that what’s at stake[1] is five things:
- U.S. retention of global and regional politico-military, economic, technological, and monetary primacy.
- America’s reputation as the reliable military protector of lesser states in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere.
- American paramountcy in a world order guided by the liberal democratic norms professed by the European Enlightenment and the American Revolution
- Economic security through reduced dependence on supply chains not controlled by the United States or countries beholden to it.
- Reindustrialization, higher levels of well-paying employment, and the restoration of domestic socioeconomic tranquility.
The People’s Republic of China came into being seventy-two years ago. For over one-third of its existence, the United States has been actively committed to the overthrow of its “Communist” government. That appears once again to be a hope, if not an explicit objective, of U.S. policy.
China and the United States have never been evenly matched except in self-righteousness, unwillingness to admit error, and a tendency to scapegoat each other. But, in many respects, the balance between the two countries is now rapidly shifting against America. The world expects China to regain its historical position as one-third to two-fifths of the global economy. China already has an economy that produces about one-third of the world’s manufactures and that is – by any measure other than nominal exchange rates – larger than that of the United States. President Trump’s trade and technology wars convinced the Chinese that they had to reduce reliance on imported foreign technologies, develop their own autonomous capabilities, and become fully competitive with America.
China is now in some ways more connected internationally than the United States. It is the largest foreign trade partner of most of the world’s economies, including the world’s largest – the European Union (EU). Its preeminence in global trade and investment flows is growing. The 700,000 Chinese students now enrolled in degree programs abroad dwarf the less than 60,000 students from the United States doing the same American universities still attract over one million foreign students annually but nearly half a million international students now opt to study in China. China’s role in global science and technological innovation is growing, while America’s is slipping. Chinese have come to constitute over one-fourth of the world’s STEM workers. They lead the world in patent applications by an increasingly wide margin.
Only four percent of American schools offer classes in Mandarin, but (with increasing competence) all Chinese schools teach English – the global lingua franca – from the third grade. America’s xenophobic closure of Chinese government-sponsored “Confucius Institutes” promises to cripple even the current pathetic level of student exposure to the Chinese language in U.S. schools. Meanwhile, the increasingly unwelcoming atmosphere on U.S. campuses has reduced applications by Chinese and other foreign students to American universities, especially in the physical sciences and engineering.[2]
The challenges posed by the rise of China are clearly more economic than military, but China and the United States are now locked in a level of armed hostility not seen since the first decade of the Cold War. Back then, U.S. forces dedicated to “containing” the People’s Republic and championing the rival Chinese regime on Taiwan were incomparably more modern and powerful than the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Chinese forces were arrayed to resist an anticipated American attack they knew they could not defeat. The U.S. Cold War policy of containment blocked China from effectively asserting ancient claims to islands in its near seas, while opening the way for other claimants to occupy them.
The Chinese military can now defend their country against any conceivable foreign attack. They also appear to be capable of taking Taiwan over American opposition – even if only at tremendous cost to themselves, Taiwan, and the United States. It is disquieting that Beijing now judges that intimidation is the only way to bring Taipei to the negotiating table. But it is reassuring that China still strives for cross-Strait accommodation rather than military conquest of Taiwan and its pacification. The U.S. forces deployed along China’s coasts are there to deter such a conquest. But their presence also has the effect of backing and bolstering Taiwan’s refusal to talk about – still less negotiate – a relationship with the rest of China that might meet the minimal requirements of Chinese nationalism and thereby perpetuate peace.
The danger is that, with the disappearance of any apparent path to a nonviolent resolution of the Taiwan issue, China could conclude that it has no alternative to the use of force. It would not be surprising for it to calculate that to hold America at bay, it must match U.S. threats to it with equivalent threats to the United States. This is, after all, the strategic logic that, during the Cold War, led the Soviet Union to match the missiles the United States had deployed to Turkey with its own in Cuba. No one should rule out the possibility that Sino-American relations are headed toward an eventual reprise of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
America has long been in China’s face. The way things are going, in the future, China may also be in America’s. In the meantime, the aim of Chinese strategy is to raise the costs of American trans-Pacific power projection against it, not to threaten the United States.
President Biden has recognized that to deal effectively with an increasingly formidable China, the United States must strengthen itself as well as enlist the help of other countries. He has therefore deferred immediate decisions about what politico-economic and military China policies he should adopt until his administration can test the willingness of Congress to redress American weaknesses and can consult with allies, partners, and friends abroad. But, if Washington listens to those it seeks to recruit as auxiliaries in its opposition to China, it will discover that few of them share the all-out animus against China to which so many Americans have become committed. President Biden may well find he faces a hard political choice between whether to moderate American hostility to China to garner third country support, or to stick with confrontational policies that separate the United States from most of its European and Asian allies.
The awkward reality is that Europeans do not feel militarily threatened by China. Southeast and South Asians see Taiwan as a fight among Chinese from which they should keep their distance. By contrast with Taiwanese, they fear intimidation, not conquest by China. Even those countries, like Japan, with a direct strategic interest in the status of Taiwan don’t want to risk being drawn into a fight over it.
The Taiwan issue is a legacy of the Chinese civil war and U.S. Cold War containment policies. America’s allies look to Washington to manage it without reigniting conflict between the island and the rising great power on the Chinese mainland. If the U.S. does end up in a war with China, America is likely to be on its own or almost so.
To further complicate matters, past asymmetries are in the process of reversing themselves as balances of economic, technological, and military power that long favored Washington shift in favor of Beijing. The Greeks invented the concept of a “Europe” distinct from what they called “Asia.”[3] Chinese connectivity programs (the “Belt and Road”) are recreating a single “Eurasia.” Many countries in that vast expanse see an increasingly wealthy and powerful China as an ineluctable part of their own future and prosperity. Some seem more worried about collateral damage from aggressive actions by the United States than about great Han chauvinism. Few find the injustices of contemporary Chinese authoritarianism attractive, but fewer still are inclined to bandwagon with the United States against China.
By 2050, China is predicted to have a GDP of $58 trillion – almost three times larger than America’s today and more than two-thirds greater than the then-projected U.S. GDP of $34 trillion. China’s rapidly aging population leaves it with no apparent alternative to Japanese-style domestic automation and the offshoring of labor-intensive work to places that still have fast-growing working-age populations, like Africa. China is investing heavily in robotics, medicine, synthetic biology, nanobot cells and other technologies that can enhance and extend the productive lives of the aged. It is also adjusting and expanding its social security and public health systems. The United States faces analogous challenges, aggravated by increasingly xenophobic immigration policies, acceptance of mediocrity in education, crumbling infrastructure, and the pyramiding of national debt to finance routine government operations as well as correctives to damage from past self-indulgence. Americans talk about these problems but have yet to address them.
A wave of new science-based industries is in the early stages of transforming human societies. Examples include artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cloud analytics, blockchain-protected databases, microelectronics, the internet of things, electric and autonomous vehicles, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, biopharmaceuticals, 3D/4D and bio-printing, virtual and augmented reality, nuclear fusion, and the synergies among these and other emerging technologies.
China is making major investments in the scientific and educational infrastructure and workforce needed to lead the development and deployment of most of these technologies. By contrast, at present, the United States is in chronic fiscal deficit, immobilized by political gridlock, and mired in never-ending wars that divert funds needed for domestic rejuvenation to the Pentagon. America’s human and physical infrastructure is already in sad condition, and it is deteriorating. If these weaknesses are not corrected, China and others will soon eclipse the century-long U.S. preeminence in global science, technology, and education. Or, as President Biden put it, China “will eat our lunch” and “own the future.”
Even if the United States overcomes its current political dysfunction and fiscal malnutrition, the upsurge in Chinese science, technology, engineering, and mathematics capabilities promises to challenge America’s retention of global as well as regional primacy. The competition is not limited to the Asia-Pacific region. It is multifaceted, and, in attempting to deal with it, the United States has sometimes been too clever by half – for example, excluding Beijing from international cooperation in space. This has led to an increasingly robust set of indigenous Chinese space-based capabilities, many of which are of military relevance.
Similarly, the U.S. effort to head off Chinese dominance of 5-G communications is now spurring the creation of a globally competitive semiconductor industry in China. In the short term, the Chinese microelectronics manufacturing sector faces great difficulties. It is always easier to buy things than to learn to make them. But, in the longer term, China has the will, the talent, the wherewithal, and the market to succeed. Human history is full of proofs that, one way or another, sooner or later, every technological advance can and will be duplicated, often with results that surpass the original.
The PLA has copied American practice by harnessing commercial technological innovation to military purposes. Its 军民融合 or “military-civil fusion” program recognizes that market-driven research and development and university-led innovation frequently outpace in-house efforts by the military establishment. As the United States did before it, China is linking industry and academia more closely to its national defense. The pace at which China develops innovative military applications from civilian-developed technology now promises to accelerate.
In response to U.S. military dominance of its periphery, China has invested in anti-ship, anti-air, counter-satellite, electronic warfare, and other capabilities to defend against a possible American attack. Some Chinese weapons systems break new ground – among them terminally-guided ballistic missile systems to kill carriers, quantum communications devices, naval rail guns, and stealth-penetrating radar. In the event of armed conflict, the PLA can now effectively block U.S. access to China’s near seas, including Taiwan.
The PLA Navy has many more hulls than the United States, its ships are more modern, some of its weapons have greater range, and its home-based battlefield support is much closer to the potential war zone. Chinese industry’s surge and conversion capacities now vastly exceed those of the United States. In any future war with China, the U.S. armed forces cannot expect to enjoy the technological superiority, information dominance, peerless capacity to replenish losses, and security of bases and supply lines they have had in past wars.
The strategic effects of the broadening and escalating antagonism between the United States and China have already been considerable. Let me cite some examples.
- It is dividing the world into competing technological ecospheres that are beginning to produce incompatible equipment and software, a reduction in globally traded goods and services, and an accelerated decline in American dominance of high-tech industries.
- It is generating an active threat to the U.S. dollar’s seven-decade-long command of international trade settlement. Increased use of other currencies menaces both the efficacy of U.S. sanctions and the continued exemption of the American economy from balance of trade and payments constraints that affect other countries.
- It has distorted and possibly destroyed the global “rules-bound order” for trade, helping to proliferate sub-global, non-inclusive free trade areas and forcing the development of ad hoc rather than institutionalized multilateral trade dispute resolution mechanisms.
- It is hampering global cooperation on planetwide problems like pandemics, climate change, environmental degradation, and nuclear non-proliferation. (For a time, scapegoating of China served to divert attention from a pathetically ineffectual U.S. domestic response to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
- It is pushing China and Russia into a broadening entente (limited partnership for limited purposes). It may now be driving Iran into affiliation with this dyad.
- It has helped to replace diplomacy with offensive bluster, blame games, and bullying that lower respect for both China and America in other countries, while imposing painful collateral damage on nations like Canada and Australia.
- It has brought about an alarming rise in the danger of a war over Taiwan, while accelerating both conventional and nuclear arms races between China and the United States.
There is no sign that either side intends to change course. Nine-in-ten U.S. adults are now hostile or ill-disposed toward China. Chinese hostility to the United States has risen to comparable levels.
To be sure, popular views are both ill-informed and fickle. And at least as many things could go wrong as go right for both China and the United States. The January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol is a reminder that scenarios that once seemed preposterous can yet occur. Both China and the United States face internal as well as external challenges. This is a moment of fragility in the life of both countries. Game-changing events are not impossible to imagine.
In the near term, for example:
- A reversal of progress in countering the global pandemic could bring about a collapse in the global economy and lead to widespread unemployment and political unrest in both China and the United States.
- The death of the Dalai Lama could destabilize Sino-Indian relations. Beijing might find itself at war with New Delhi, which lusts to reverse its 1962 humiliation by the PLA, and which is once again aggressively probing the de facto border between the two countries. A Chinese defeat in the Himalayas could catalyze a disruptive change in China’s leadership. A victory could lead to Chinese strategic ebullience as well as Indian abandonment of nonalignment in favor of entente with the United States.
- A war in the Middle East or a crisis in Korea could challenge America while offering China an apparent opportunity to strike at Taiwan with relative impunity.
- The emergence of less prudent leadership in Taipei could lead to decisions there that impel Beijing to invoke its 2005 anti-secession law and use force to recover Taiwan despite an expectation that the United States would intervene.
- Other events involving Taiwan, such as a return of U.S. forces and installations to the island or the revelation of yet another Taiwanese nuclear weapons program, could trigger a Chinese use of force.
- The division, disorder, demoralization, partisanship, political gridlock, and uncontrolled immigration now troubling the United States could force Washington to focus on restoring domestic social order at the expense of attention to foreign commitments.
- The death or incapacitation of the top leader in either China or the United States could lead to disputes over succession that weaken government authority and decision-making, distracting and inviting miscalculation by one or the other side.
Of course, none of these things may happen, but the fact that they are not unimaginable underscores the shakiness of current strategic realities.
In the somewhat longer term, still other developments could alter the course of the contest. For example:
- Chinese “wolf warrior” diplomacy and economic bullying may so thoroughly alienate other countries that, to the extent they can, they turn their backs on China and join the United States in opposing it.
- Beijing’s obsession with political control could – not for the first time in China’s long history – suffocate its private sector and stifle innovation.
- China’s semiconductor, artificial intelligence, and robotics companies will either succeed or fail in their drive to outperform their American, Taiwanese, and other competitors. If they succeed, their competitors’ industries could be hollowed out and China could dominate cyberspace and related domains. If they fail, China will fall behind.
- Aging in China and a reversion to xenophobic immigration policies in the United States could reduce working-age populations, damage productivity, slow growth, and increase the welfare burden in either or both societies, forcing reductions in “defense” outlays and generating pressure for mutual disengagement from military confrontation.
- Chinese and other experiments with digital currency trade settlement could dethrone the dollar from its post-World War II global hegemony, force the United States to bring its balance of payments and trade into equilibrium, lower U.S. living standards, and greatly reduce American international power.
- Beijing’s brutal efforts to assimilate minorities to Han culture may not only fail but alienate Muslim and other foreign partners, while remaining a cause célèbre in the West, and empowering a broad international effort to ostracize China.
- The cognitive dissonance between Washington and allied capitals about China and other issues could effectively gut America’s alliances, leaving the United States isolated in its hardline decoupling from China.
- Japan might go nuclear, altering the calculus of deterrence in Northeast Asia, and enabling it to declare strategic autonomy from the United States without forgoing American non-nuclear protection.
- The United States and the Russian Federation could replace their current mutual hostility with an entente directed at balancing and constraining Chinese power.
- Climate change could not only inundate major Chinese and American coastal cities (like Shanghai and New York) but also lead to natural disasters like crop failures, super storms, floods, forest fires, and the devastating displacement of populations, leaving little enthusiasm and fewer resources in either country for competition with the other.
- Conversely, disunity at home could lead demagogues in either China or the United States to rally patriotic support by pursuing aggressive policies abroad.
- A failure to reforge mechanisms for international cooperation on public health issues could allow new pandemics to overwhelm national capacities to resist them.
- The PLA Navy could match the U.S. Navy’s deployments along China’s coasts with its own deployments along America’s, deterring U.S. intervention in China’s near abroad while creating the preconditions for an agreement by which each side would pull some or all of its forces back to its own side of the Pacific.
Few or none of these game-changing developments may happen. But they reveal the stakes both sides and the world at large have in finding ways to wind down the adversarial antagonism that has now gripped Sino-American relations.
Each side has come to see the other as the possible cause of its downfall. But each is actually more menaced by trends and events in its homeland than by what any foreign power might do to it. The position of each in the world depends more on how it conducts itself internationally than on how the other does. In a world in which power and influence are unevenly distributed not just between the U.S. and China but also among lesser players in world affairs, neither China nor the United States can expect to exercise unchecked dominance at either the regional or global level. China will not displace America from international primacy, but neither will America be able to retain primacy.
If China falters, it will not be because the United States has opposed it but because Beijing has adopted self-corroding policies and practices that obviate the successes of “reform and opening,” alienate foreign partners, and impair further progress. Mao’s China was a failure in terms of returning China to wealth and power but laid the basis for Deng Xiaoping to set aside ideological rigidities and sponsor the eclectic adaptation of international best practices to Chinese circumstances. Changes in Beijing’s domestic policies, the entrepreneurial energy these released, and the foreign relationships they enabled explain the differences between China from 1949 to 1979 and China from 1979 forward. Policies can determine outcomes.
To develop, Beijing has declared, China needs a “peaceful international environment.” It is bordered by 14 countries, four of which are nuclear-armed and four of which harbor unresolved territorial disputes with it. Its civil war with recalcitrant forces on Taiwan has not concluded. Japan and the United States, two countries with which China has been at war in still-living memory, are unreconciled to its renewed wealth and power. These factors place China on the defensive and constrain any impulse on its part to project its power beyond its periphery. To practice market Leninism successfully, China needs friends.
Deportment helps determine friendships. “Friends” are either (1) the rare comrades you would yield your own life to save and whom you expect would do the same for you; (2) partners who will go out of their way to do you a favor as you would for them; (3) companions whose presence you enjoy but with whom you share no real commitment; (4) sycophants who want something from you and strive to ingratiate themselves with you to get it; and (5) parasites who seek cunningly to exploit their association with you for their own interests without regard to yours.
The Chinese people are widely admired abroad. But there is no enthusiasm for either global or regional leadership by China’s government. Others acknowledge its accomplishments, but few find it appealing. As the Chinese phrase puts it, 笑里藏刀—their smiles conceal daggers. Insincere attachments that rest on sycophancy or parasitism are flattering but do not embody respect and are neither reliable nor steadfast. They can conceal disdain, create liabilities, and invite perfidy.
If China continues to allow its security services and diplomats to browbeat foreigners and treat other countries in the arrogantly abrasive and bullying manner it has recently adopted, the only international relationships it will have will be hypocritical, scheming, and untrustworthy. Many abroad will fear China, but none will faithfully support it, few will follow it, and some will opt to oppose it. China will “lose face.” And, when “face” is at stake, China has a well-established record of irrational reactions that make it its own worst enemy.
Similarly, if the United States is eclipsed by China and “the rise of the rest,” it will be because Americans, mired in complacency, failed to adjust a once brilliantly successful system to address accumulated politico-economic problems and lay a basis for resumed advance. China can neither compel America to reform nor stop it from doing so. Americans alone can reaffirm their constitution, fix their broken politics, restore competence to their government, strengthen their society by reducing its economic and racial inequities, rejuvenate the competitiveness of their capitalism, abide by the norms of international conduct they seek to impose on others, respect international diversity and other countries’ sovereignty, and discard militarism in favor of diplomacy.
The ongoing slippage in U.S. prestige and followership internationally owes far more to self-disfiguring American domestic developments, strategic blunders, open contempt for allies and partners, sanctimoniously high-handed sanctioneering, offensively coercive foreign policies, and self-implemented diplomatic disarmament than it does to an imagined onslaught on the preexisting global order by China or others. The Punch and Judy show put on by senior American and Chinese diplomats at Anchorage played well back home in both countries. It did not inspire foreign confidence in the wisdom or capacity for empathy of either side.
China achieved much of its post-Mao developmental success by applying ideas learned from America. In many respects, in the name of competing with China, the United States is now turning to copying elements of the resulting Chinese system. Politicians in Washington are calling for industrial policies; major ramp-ups in spending on science and technology; the creation of specialized banks and funds dedicated to infrastructure investment; national security-derived protectionism, subsidies; and preferential licensing for key technologies and national champion companies; and what amounts to currency manipulation to produce a cheaper dollar.
The United States also appears to be progressively adopting aspects of Beijing’s intolerant and intrusive definitions of political correctness and “national security,” even if Washington still leaves internet censorship and the manipulation of public opinion to corporate oligopolies rather than imposing government controls. But there is no need to point this out to those attending this session of the Confucius Institute at the University of Idaho. Some of you have personally experienced the “cancel culture” built into the latest round of Sinophobia in the United States.
American populism’s strategic dementia now competes with Chinese exceptionalism’s imperious demeanor. To one degree or another, in both countries, groupthink has become the enemy of constructive engagement. Each side’s resentment of its alleged past or current victimization at the hands of the other adds bitterness to the equation. Only Beijing’s habitual risk aversion now averts a bloody U.S. rendezvous with Chinese nationalism in a war over Taiwan.
All things being equal, if there is no war over Taiwan or other game-changing event, current trends – American protectionism, decoupling from supply chains connected to China, and cognitive dissonance with allies and partners – seem more likely to continue than to halt. This suggests a future in which:
- China’s neighbors and the many dozens of countries participating in its Belt and Road Initiative draw steadily closer to Beijing economically and financially. Brave talk notwithstanding, the United States no longer has the open markets, financial resources, or engineering capabilities to counter this. Washington has shown no capacity to sustain the level of diplomatic engagement with the countries of the Indo-Pacific, Central Asia, East Africa, Russia, or EU members states needed to match Beijing. It is failing to do so even in Latin America. You can’t best something with nothing other than rhetoric and, for now, that’s effectively all the United States is offering.
- As the division of the global market into separate trade and technological ecospheres proceeds, China will take the global lead in a widening list of consequential new technologies. Its scientific and technological achievements will attract foreign investors and corporate collaborators regardless of their misgivings about China’s political system. Where markets remain open to them, Chinese companies – state-owned and private – will compete successfully for market share with American, European, Japanese, and Korean companies.
- The growth in Chinese power – combined with persistent concerns about erratic behavior by America’s wounded democracy – will cause major regional powers like India, Indonesia, and Japan to develop regional coalitions, defense industrial cooperation projects, and collaborative diplomacy designed to balance China — with or without the United States.
- As its naval and air power expand, China will consolidate its military dominance of its periphery. Americans will be forced to think twice about intervening to protect Taiwan from PLA coercion or controlling China’s near seas. Armed clashes with the Chinese Navy, Air Force, and Rocket Forces are conceivable. These could either undermine or stiffen American willingness to escalate hostilities with China.
- The domestic and foreign purchasers of U.S. government debt could conclude that it is backed by little more than “modern monetary theory” and cease to buy it. This alone would end the “exorbitant privilege” of the United States, deprive Washington of the ability to enforce unilateral sanctions, and make the American dominance of the Indo-Pacific economically unsustainable.
- Taiwan’s increasing military vulnerability and dependence on mainland Chinese markets for its continued prosperity could compel it to negotiate a relationship with the rest of China sufficient to appease the demands of Chinese nationalism.
China seems confident that some of these or similar scenarios will unfold in the decades to come. Its strategic confidence and resolve contrast with a lack of similar conviction in America, where short-term cluelessness, enforced by fiscal fecklessness, still rules the day. The challenges to American status and presuppositions from China are real. They will not be overcome with fantasy foreign policies based on unrealistic assessments of current and future circumstances.
A deeply imbedded faith in liberal democratic ideology led some Americans to theorize that, given enough exposure to the United States, Chinese political culture would inevitably evolve into a version of America’s. That this did not happen was not a failure of “engagement,” as American Sinophobes would have it. China’s retention of its own authoritarian political culture reflects its system’s delivery of results that more than satisfied the material needs of the Chinese people while restoring their pride in their nation. What’s happened in China may or may not disprove theories about the inevitability of political liberalization in middle-class societies. This deserves reflection. But so does the thesis that, without fundamental domestic reform, the United States can outcompete a China that is rising on its own terms, not America’s, in a world in which the United States no longer calls the shots.
The future of China will be made or unmade in China. The future of the United States will be made or unmade in America. Neither is foreordained.
[1] See, e.g., Senator Tom Cotton’s articulation of U.S. objectives vis-à-vis China: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/210216_1700_China%20Report_FINAL.pdf
[2] https://www.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimonies/116-session-1/maintaining-us-leadership-in-science-and-technology
[3] https://chasfreeman.net/the-challenge-of-asia/
Source: https://chasfreeman.net/sino-american-antagonism-how-does-this-end/
China beating US by being more like America
Cultivating human capital will be essential if the US rather than China is to be the base of the next industrial revolution
By BRANDON J WEICHERT
4/25/2021
The United States transitioned from an agrarian backwater into an industrialized superstate in a rapid timeframe. One of the most decisive men in America’s industrialization was Samuel Slater.
As a young man, Slater worked in Britain’s advanced textile mills. He chafed under Britain’s rigid class system, believing he was being held back. So he moved to Rhode Island.
Once in America, Slater built the country’s first factory based entirely on that which he had learned from working in England’s textile mills – violating a British law that forbade its citizens from proliferating advanced British textile production to other countries.
Samuel Slater is still revered in the United States as the “Father of the American Factory System.” In Britain, if he is remembered at all, he is known by the epithet of “Slater the Traitor.”
After all, Samuel Slater engaged in what might today be referred to as “industrial espionage.” Without Slater, the United States would likely not have risen to become the industrial challenger to British imperial might that it did in the 19th century. Even if America had evolved to challenge British power without Slater’s help, it is likely the process would have taken longer than it actually did.
Many British leaders at the time likely dismissed Slater’s actions as little more than a nuisance. The Americans had not achieved anything unique. They were merely imitating their far more innovative cousins in Britain.
As the works of Oded Shenkar have proved, however, if given enough time, annoying imitators can become dynamic innovators. The British learned this lesson the hard way. America today appears intent on learning a similar hard truth … this time from China.
By the mid-20th century, the latent industrial power of the United States had been unleashed as the European empires, and eventually the British-led world order, collapsed under their own weight. America had built out its own industrial base and was waiting in the geopolitical wings to replace British power – which, of course, it did.
Few today think of Britain as anything more than a middle power in the US-dominated world order. This came about only because of the careful industrial and manipulative trade practices of American statesmen throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th century employed against British power.
The People’s Republic of China, like the United States of yesteryear with the British Empire, enjoys a strong trading relationship with the dominant power of the day. China has also free-ridden on the security guarantees of the dominant power, the United States.
The Americans are exhausting themselves while China grows stronger. Like the US in the previous century, inevitably, China will displace the dominant power through simple attrition in the non-military realm.
Many Americans reading this might be shocked to learn that China is not just the land of sweatshops and cheap knockoffs – any more than the United States of previous centuries was only the home of chattel slavery and King Cotton. China, like America, is a dynamic nation of economic activity and technological progress.
While the Chinese do imitate their innovative American competitors, China does this not because the country is incapable of innovating on its own. It’s just easier to imitate effective ideas produced by America, lowering China’s research and development costs. Plus, China’s industrial capacity allows the country to produce more goods than America – just as America had done to Britain
Once China quickly acquires advanced technology, capabilities, and capital from the West, Chinese firms then spin off those imitations and begin innovating. This is why China is challenging the West in quantum computing technology, biotech, space technologies, nanotechnology, 5G, artificial intelligence, and an assortment of other advanced technologies that constitute the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Why reinvent the wheel when you can focus on making cheaper cars and better roads?
Since China opened itself up to the United States in the 1970s, American versions of Samuel Slater have flocked to China, taking with them the innovations, industries, and job offerings that would have gone to Americans had Washington never embraced Beijing.
America must simply make itself more attractive than China is to talent and capital. It must create a regulatory and tax system that is more competitive than China’s. Then Washington must seriously invest in federal R&D programs as well as dynamic infrastructure to support those programs.
As one chief executive of a Fortune 500 company told me in 2018, “If we don’t do business in China, our competitors will.”
Meanwhile, Americans must look at effective education as a national-security imperative. If we are living in a global, knowledge-based economy, then it stands to reason Americans will need greater knowledge to thrive. Therefore, cultivating human capital will be essential if America rather than China is to be the base of the next industrial revolution.
Besides, smart bombs are useless without smart people.
These are all things that the United States understood in centuries past. America bested the British Empire and replaced it as the world hegemon using these strategies. When the Soviet Union challenged America’s dominance, the US replicated the successful strategies it had used against Britain’s empire.
Self-reliance and individual innovativeness coupled with public- and private-sector cooperation catapulted the Americans ahead of their rivals. It’s why Samuel Slater fled to the nascent United States rather than staying in England.
America is losing the great competition for the 21st century because it has suffered historical amnesia. Its leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as its corporate tycoons and its people must recover the lost memory – before China cements its position as the world’s hegemon.
The greatest tragedy of all is that America has all of the tools it needs to succeed. All it needs to do is be more like it used to be in the past. To do that, competent and inspiring leadership is required. And that may prove to be the most destructive thing for America in the competition to win the 21st century.
Source: https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/china-beating-us-by-being-more-like-america/
Feb 18, 2021
Aug 4, 2020