Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Anti-China Crusade. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Anti-China Crusade. Afficher tous les articles

mardi 10 septembre 2019

Anti-China Crusade

China is the new evil empire, and President Trump is using Reagan's playbook to defeat it
By Harry J. Kazianis


The Trump administration, despite constant criticism at home and overseas, has made the right decision in taking on China. 
And yet, very few pundits and so-called experts understand President Trump’s strategy, the stakes involved and how America will implement it.
I can sum up President Trump’s China strategy in one word: containment
And considering it brought down Soviet communism for good, Beijing should be shaking in its boots.
But let’s step back for a second. 
This isn’t your father’s version of containment meant to pull back the iron curtain and deliver freedom to hundreds of millions of people. 
China is clearly not the land of Gorbachev, and it is not a nation that, while large in size and military might, is economically weak and technologically backward.
No, China is a much more cunning and sinister opponent. 
An oppressor at home and a bully abroad, Beijing, now at the height of its economic power with a GDP worth more than $12 trillion and a military budget as high as $250 billion, possesses a one-two punch that the old Soviet Union could only dream of possessing. 
Beijing threatens America’s economic livelihood through mercantilist policies while also building weapons systems designed to attack and destroy our aircraft carriers, cyber infrastructure and more.
The good news is that President Trump is clearly borrowing the playbook from a past and beloved American president who took on the “evil empire” of his time and was largely responsible for its demise.
You guessed it: Ronald Reagan.
Amen.
You shouldn’t be surprised. 
If you consider how Reagan took on the Soviets and compare it to President Trump’s approach on China, the similarities are shocking.
Consider the times in which both men inherited the great power challenge in front of them and how both responded. 
First, just like Reagan, President Trump inherited a crumbling U.S. military that was in desperate need of rebuilding thanks to progressive policies that damaged its ability to deter our enemies. 
Both President Trump and Reagan passed large defense budgets focused on taking on their principal rivals, making key investments that were sorely needed to not only stay ahead of the threat curve, but ensure military dominance. 
And just like Reagan, President Trump seeks to ensure that if a conflict were to break out, America would have the tools to fight — and to win.
We also can’t forget the way each man uniquely communicates the dangers posed by the threats of their era — with great impact, done in a way that America’s foes can’t easily rebut. 
For Reagan, the act of calling Soviet Russia the "evil empire" in 1983, while mocked by Democrat liberals, was a simple but effective way of calling Moscow out. 
It was that simple play on words that gave Russia a label that would stick and made it clear America was on the right side of history.
While President Trump hasn’t labeled China the evil empire just yet, his use of Twitter to constantly convey the state of trade negotiations, to call out Xi Jinping — both positively and negatively — or to convey his anger at Beijing is, just like Reagan, using his own unique style of communication to box his opponent in and force it to respond to something it can hardly refute. 
Unless Chinese dictator Xi Jinping gets on Twitter to rebut President Trump — technically he cannot as Twitter is not allowed in China — China has no effective means to respond. 
What a shame.
Next, both Reagan and President Trump realized that the core foundation of any nation is economic strength, with both doing all they could to ensure that America’s financial foundation is as strong and as vibrant as ever. 
Both leaders passed tax cuts that led to economic growth and higher wages, while reversing the anti-business and burdensome regulations their predecessors enacted. 
And while both men share a similar challenge in growing U.S. debt, the Soviet Union was bankrupted by the time the Cold War was over and China faces a staggering total national debt of over 350 percent to GDP when shadowy loans and faulty financial instruments that Beijing works hard to keep off the books are factored in.
But here is where Reagan and President Trump diverge — and for good reason. 
Soviet Russia was not tied into the global economy like Communist China. 
With Beijing stealing trillions of dollars in U.S. intellectual property, closing off markets and providing illegal subsidies to domestic industries to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, President Trump confronts an economic juggernaut that Reagan did not.
Thankfully, the administration has made leveling the playing field its mission, slapping hundreds of billions of dollars of potential tariffs on Chinese goods unless Beijing not only abides by its obligations under international law but also stops taking advantage of America’s open markets and consumers. 
President Trump is determined to ensure that no more factories or blue-collar jobs leave for China, a practice that essentially transfers economic wealth to our top geopolitical foe.
And then, perhaps most important of all, were the sacrifices both men knew and expected Americans would have to make in order to win such a struggle. 
The good news is that both men get the idea that such threats, if left unchecked, will only grow. 
And in the case of China, nothing could be worse than a rogue state with an economy someday larger than America’s that has the military prowess to defeat Washington both economically and militarily.
Combine that with China’s ability to stifle its own people’s human rights — and sell the technology to do it to other rogue states. 
America must continue to ensure China’s vision for the 21st century, with a totalitarian Beijing atop the global pecking order, does not come to pass.



mardi 27 août 2019

Anti-China Crusade

President Trump and Europe must work together to confront China
By Josh Rogin

World leaders take part in a working session on the second day of the Group of 7 summit in Biarritz, France, on Sunday. 

BIARRITZ, France — The clear imperative for the Western world to come together and confront China’s rising internal repression and external economic aggression should have been enough to overshadow any differences between strained allies at this weekend’s Group of 7 meetings. 
But no such luck.
The members of the G-7 — which includes the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan — created this multilateral mechanism to bring to bear their joint economic power on the solution of great challenges. 
China’s economic expansion, fueled by various unfair trade practices and directly linked to the Chinese Communist Party’s political and strategic objectives, is unquestionably the free world’s greatest test.
But with blame assignable to both the Trump administration and European members of this once-vaunted group, the best anyone hopes for this weekend in this scenic French retreat is that the G-7 summit won’t devolve into another diplomatic disaster akin to what took place in Canada last year.
President Trump hammered home his criticisms of China’s economic aggression before he even got on the plane, ordering U.S. companies to start looking for ways to leave China, raising tariffs on Chinese goods and calling out Beijing on its rampant intellectual property theft.
On Friday, President Trump referred to his confrontation with China over its economic aggression as “more important than anything else right now — just about — that we’re working on.”
Here in France, most media reports focused on President Trump’s offhand remark that he has had “second thoughts” on everything, including his trade war with China. 
But President Trump was not expressing regret or signaling a change in policy. 
In the same series of questions, he said about the trade war: “It has to happen.”
The president is escalating pressure on China even though that puts his economic accomplishments at risk. 
Make no mistake, he’s committed to seeing this through.
President Trump’s confused messaging is counterproductive. 
But his basic thrust is on point. 
China must change its predatory economic and industrial policies, by persuasion or pressure. 
If the Chinese government won’t play by basic international rules, Western free-market democracies will have no choice but to defend themselves through disengagement and decoupling that will undoubtedly have negative collateral economic consequences.
Any honest analysis must acknowledge that the Chinese government has not yet changed its behavior and that therefore President Trump’s strategy has not yet worked. 
But it’s obvious the chances of success would rise dramatically if European allies were on board.
Yet despite the fact that Europe faces the exact same threat from China’s economic aggression, European leaders here in Biarritz are saying that the onus for ending the trade war is on Washington, not Beijing.
French Emmanuel Macron said he wanted to persuade G-7 leaders (meaning President Trump) to “avoid this trade war” and reduce tensions. 
British Boris Johnson said he didn’t like tariffs and wanted “trade peace.” 
European Council Donald Tusk warned that President Trump’s use of tariffs “as a political instrument” could cause a global recession. 
None of them mentioned China’s role in the dispute or its resolution.
President Trump could blunt criticism of his China tariffs by backing off his concurrent tariff threats on our allies. 
The administration should focus on persuading European countries to join the pressure campaign against China, which is the real trade priority.
Privately, many European officials hope their countries’ stagnant economies might benefit from the U.S.-China fight, as companies from third countries pick up the business American companies leave behind. 
Also, European countries that want money from China’s One Belt, One Road initiative don’t want to anger the Chinese Communist Party before their checks clear.
A more diplomatically savvy Trump administration might point out to Europeans that China’s economic aggression comes at the expense of Europe’s own goals and interests, including confronting climate change, promoting sustainable development and protecting free markets.
The Trump administration also needs to offer European countries more real alternatives to Chinese development funds, which almost always come with political strings, corruption and ecological consequences.
According to White House read-outs, Trump discussed Hong Kong and the technology giant Huawei with his G-7 counterparts. 
What’s missing is a Trump administration explanation of how China’s crackdown on dissent and its predatory economic expansion are two parts of the same Chinese Communist Party strategy, namely to undermine and eventually supplant the free and open international order the United States and European economies depend on.
The bottom line is that President Trump and Europe must make up and find a way to get along, at least for the next year and maybe for four more years after that. 
There will be no joint statement at this year’s G-7 because there’s no consensus on what the G-7 stands for. 
But China’s economic aggression is exactly the kind of generational challenge the G-7 was designed to confront.


samedi 24 août 2019

The Anti-China Crusade

What tools could President Trump use to get treasonous firms to quit China?
By Andrea Shalal, Joel Schectman, Jason Lange, Eric M. Johnson and Jan Wolf

WASHINGTON  -- Hours after China announced retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods on Friday, President Donald Trump ordered U.S. companies to “start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.”.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters as he meets with Romania's President Klaus Iohannis in the Oval Office of the White House In Washington, U.S. August 20, 2019.

The stakes are high: U.S. companies invested a total of $256 billion in China between 1990 and 2017, compared with $140 billion Chinese companies have invested in the United States, according to estimates by the Rhodium Group research institute.
Some U.S. companies had been shifting operations out of China even before the tit-for-tat tariff trade war began more than a year ago.
But winding down operations and shifting production out of China completely would take time. Further, many U.S. companies such as those in the aerospace, services and retail sectors would be sure to resist pressure to leave a market that is growing.
Unlike China, the United States does not have a centrally planned economy.
So what legal action can the president take to compel American companies to do his bidding?
President Trump does have some powerful tools that would not require approval from U.S. Congress:

MORE TARIFFS
President Trump could do more of what he’s already doing, that is hiking tariffs to squeeze company profits enough for them to make it no longer worth their while to operate out of China.
President Trump on Friday boosted by 5 percentage points the 25% tariffs already in place on nearly $250 billion of Chinese imports, including raw materials, machinery, and finished goods, with the new higher 30% rate to take effect on Oct. 1.
He said planned 10% tariffs on about $300 billion worth of additional Chinese-made consumer goods would be raised to 15%, with those measures set to take effect on Sept. 1 and Dec. 15.
In addition to making it more expensive to buy components from Chinese suppliers, tariff hikes punish U.S. firms that manufacture goods through joint ventures in China.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY
President Trump could treat China more like Iran and order sanctions, which would involve declaring a national emergency under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
Once an emergency is declared, the law gives President Trump broad authority to block the activities of individual companies or even entire economic sectors, former federal officials and legal experts said.
For example, by stating that Chinese theft of U.S. companies’ intellectual property constitutes a national emergency, President Trump could order U.S. companies to avoid certain transactions, such as buying Chinese technology products, said Tim Meyer, director of the International Legal Studies Program at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville.
President Trump used a similar strategy earlier this year when he said illegal immigration was an emergency and threatened to put tariffs on all Mexican imports.
Past presidents have invoked IEEPA to freeze the assets of foreign governments, such as when former President Jimmy Carter in 1979 blocked assets owned by the Iranian government from passing through the U.S. financial system.
“The IEEPA framework is broad enough to do something blunt,” said Meyer.
Using it could risk unintended harm to the U.S. economy, said Peter Harrell, a former senior State Department official responsible for sanctions, now at the Center for a New American Security.

FEDERAL PROCUREMENT CURBS
Another option that would not require congressional action would be to ban U.S. companies from competing for federal contracts if they also have operations in China, said Bill Reinsch, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.
Such a measure might be targeted specifically at certain sectors since a blanket order would hit companies such as Boeing, which is both a key weapons maker for the Pentagon and the top U.S. exporter.
Boeing opened its first completion plant for 737 airliners in China in December, a strategic investment aimed at building a sales lead over its European arch-rival Airbus.
Boeing and Airbus have been expanding their footprint in China as they vie for orders in the country’s fast-growing aviation market, which is expected to overtake the United States as the world’s largest in the next decade.

1917 TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
A more efficient measure would be to invoke the Trading with the Enemy Act, which was passed by Congress during World War One.
The law allows the U.S. president to regulate and punish trade with a country with whom the United States is at war. 
Invoking this law because would sharply escalate tensions with China.
That would amount to an overt declaration, while IEEPA would allow the Trump administration to take similar actions without as large of a diplomatic cost.

jeudi 22 août 2019

The President's Anti-China Crusade

President Trump: 'I am the chosen one' to take on China
By Jeff Mason


WASHINGTON -- U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he was “the chosen one” to address trade imbalances with China.
President Trump told reporters his life would be easier if he had not mounted a trade war with China. 
But he defended his actions and said he believed a trade deal between the world’s largest economies was still possible.
I am the chosen one ... so I am taking on China. I’m taking on China on trade. And you know what? We’re winning,” President Trump said, claiming a title often used to refer to religious figures such Jesus and Mohammed.
President Trump acknowledged for a second consecutive day that the trade war with China could harm the U.S. economy, although he insists a recession is not on the horizon.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday became the latest independent institution to warn about the consequences of tariffs Trump has ordered imposed against China and a host of other countries.
The CBO said changes in U.S. and foreign trade policies since January 2018 will reduce inflation-adjusted U.S. gross domestic product by 0.3 percent from what it would be otherwise in 2020.
President Trump on Tuesday told reporters he had to confront China over trade even if it caused short-term harm to the U.S. economy because Beijing had been cheating Washington for decades.
China’s Foreign Ministry appeared to downplay the comments, emphasizing the need for dialogue to resolve differences on trade issues but threatened to retaliate if Washington proceeded with an $8 billion arms sale to Taiwan.
Washington on Tuesday formally announced approval of a possible sale of 66 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan.