Cold War II, Not So Fast

This is probably not going to make your day, but, alas, it is still worth reading. We already know that the Communist regime in Beijing is the root of all world evil, and that it needs to be crushed ignominiously. We also know that China has never really built anything over the past four decades, that it is a Potemkin backwater filled with ignorant people. 

As it happens, and as a commenter on this blog reminded us the other day, Communist built military equipment has tended to malfunction, more often than not. And thus, when Pentagon war games make China appear to be a formidable opponent they are not to be trusted. Of course, the iPhones that China builds seem to work well. And the telecommunication infrastructure that China has built around the world also seems to work well.

Anyway, the last time Americans were beating the war drums over China was in 1989. As you recall, the Chinese authorities, facing crippling strikes and a mutiny in the army, broke up student pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square-- by running down the students with tanks. It was not their finest hour. At the time American foreign policy was being conducted by George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker.

As you recall, they managed to defuse the situation, to the chagrin of many and the relief of some. This counts as background as we read today’s Wall Street Journal op-ed by Baker deputy, Robert Zoellick. Of course, Zoellick is merely speaking for himself, but one suspects that he consulted with some former colleagues. 

He wrote his column in order to warn us off an overly belligerent attitude toward China. One understands that much of the belligerence is being played out for political reasons, but still, inflammatory rhetoric is not always that easy to control. And this especially because China tends to counterpunch. It’s one thing to attack China. It’s quite another to bring down the world economy. 

For the record, your humble blogger has also found the rhetoric overly hostile and counterproductive. Starting a new Cold War against China seems like a very bad idea.

Zoellick opens:

The proponents of a “New Cold War” have declared their objections to China, but not what they plan to accomplish. When I worked with Secretary of State James Baker during the closing years of the old Cold War, we focused on what we wanted to get done—results, not mere expressions of dissatisfaction.

Yes, indeed, in many cases those who are beating the drums for Cold War II are following therapy-culture advice-- they are expressing their feelings. And yet, Zoellick explains, we ought to care more about results than about full-throated and impotent expressions of rage.

I said the same when radical feminists were indulging in tantrum of politics.Why not be consistent?

Zoellick asks what Cold War II can really accomplish:

The New Cold Warriors can’t contain China given its ties throughout the world; other countries won’t join us. Nor can the U.S. break the regime, though the Communist Party’s flaws could open cracks within its own society. The U.S. can impose costs on China, but to what end, and at what price to Americans? After three years of bluster and tariffs, President Trump negotiated a narrow trade deal with China. Even before the pandemic the deal was unlikely to be fulfilled, and now it looks fanciful.

But then, Zoellick notes what we have gained from a cooperative relationships with China, a cooperative relationship whose foundation was laid by Richard Nixon in 1972.

The New Cold Warriors expunge the successes of past U.S. cooperation with China. Beijing was once a wartime enemy, a supplier of proxy foes in North Korea and North Vietnam, and the world’s leading proliferator of missiles and nuclear weapons technology. Beginning in the 1990s, China reversed course and worked with the U.S. to control dangerous weapons. It turned from proliferation partnerships with Iran and North Korea to helping the U.S. thwart their development of nuclear arms. From 2000 to 2018, U.S. diplomacy prodded Beijing to support 182 of the 190 United Nations Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on states. China also assisted U.N. peacekeeping and helped Washington end the genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

China became the largest contributor to global economic growth. Beijing cut its current-account surplus from about 10% of gross domestic product to near zero, which drove world-wide expansion. For 15 years China was the fastest-growing destination for U.S. exports. It stopped manipulating its exchange rate. During the financial crisis, Beijing pushed the largest and quickest stimulus and helped stave off global depression, while cooperating closely with the U.S., the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

China is also a leading innovator in non-fossil-fuel technology, though it is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. and its allies successfully pressured Beijing to ban sales of elephant ivory, but China still permits illegal trafficking in rare species. This pandemic will likely prompt China to change its treatment of wildlife.

In other words, the advantages gained were not nothing.

And now, needing to recover from the coronavirus shutdowns as quickly as possible, we should understand that we can only do so by cooperating with major powers like China:

The U.S. and its partners face a staggering set of challenges. We need to find medical solutions to Covid-19. We must learn how to protect ourselves against future epidemics more quickly. America also needs a strong recovery, which will require a growing global economy, including China. Washington must anticipate financial weaknesses from mountains of debt and experimental monetary policies. Environmental and energy risks will require international cooperation and innovation. We have begun a huge digital transformation. Terrorists have not retired, and dangerous would-be regional hegemons still seek weapons of mass destruction. And we need to deal with China.

So, one suspects that Zoellick will be dismissed as a weak-kneed remnant of a failed past administration. And yet, when it came to China policy past Republican administrations did have a track record that can be defended. One does well to take such thinking seriously.