By: Azhar Azam
*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "One World":
http://oneworld.press/?module=articles&action=view&id=1340
For the past few weeks, Donald Trump has weirdly been convivial and ductile toward China. The reason is quite obvious – the phase one trade deal – which would wheel up the exports of American goods and services to the Mainland significantly in the coming years.
Lately, the US president described Washington’s affairs with Beijing “perhaps the best relationship we have ever had with China, including with President Xi” – boasting that the landmark agreement will defend the American workers, protect its intellectual property, bring billions into the treasury and open new markets for the US products.
But his genial and well-bred tone vis-à-vis China is yet to be echoed by or kindle a pervasive change in the posture of other US top officials as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently warned the state governors to be careful of China in their business deals lashed out at Chinese communist party and President Xi Jinping for their repression, unfair competition, predatory economic practices and aggressive military stance.
Incongruent remarks by the US president and one of his closest aides unequivocally specify that the Trump administration had lately overhauled its China strategy and decided to peddle a renewed politically-angled approach over Beijing ahead of a fierce American presidential campaign.
Trump’s double-bladed policy overtly centers on filching trade advantages from Beijing by drumming a mannerism and at the same time, distillates on the implementation of the vital US national security objective to dismantle American strategic competitor by putting forward his top advisors upfront.
It sounds as if he has the conviction that the twofold China-idea would assist him in gaining a significant political mileage before the election canvassing gets into wild phase and with both perspectives at his disposal, he could be able to manipulate American voters including public, farmers and businessmen who maintain pro- or anti-China sentiments.
Unlike prior presidential campaign when he roasted China in almost his every speech, Trump would ostensibly be pretty tongue-tied on Beijing as far as it continued to fulfill its purchase commitments. In the meantime, Pompeo will assume the lead role and spearhead his political rhetoric on China.
While Trump has groomed himself in realpolitik and repeatedly bragged about his friendly relationship with Xi, Pompeo’s haphazard criticism on Xi and Chinese communist party as well as the revelation the US had started to focus China heavily after the cold war ended – implied the resurrection of late-1970s and early-1980s brawl between the US and former Soviet Union.
Pompeo’s cavalier reproach again established that Washington was engaged in an ideological feud with Beijing soon after the fallout of USSR and has since been trying to haul China into a cold war fray by seeking reforms in Chinese political system and declaring the ruling communist party as a predominant threat to its foreign policy objectives.
Recalling that in the cold war with USSR, the US had a strategic ally in the form of Pakistan that contemplated Russian invasion of Afghanistan a profound risk to its national security as well as discovered Afghan Mujaheddin to fight its Sputnik-era battle with Soviet Union – Washington’s goals about walling China are idealistic and overambitious.
About 31 years after the windup of cold war, the US lacks the wit that time has changed and the days of its global dominance are over. It is no more an era of 1970s or 1980s when America was thought to be sole military and technological power in the world and could have swayed the smaller and weaker nations to succumb to its directives.
In addition, the US China-strategy is destined to breakdown since unlike Soviet Union; Beijing has strictly confined itself in protecting its sovereignty and is firmly following its policy of non-interference in other countries. Pakistan, on the other hand, has repeatedly cautioned the US that it will not become a part of any greater game in the region and given its deep ties and economic and military reliance, China is indeed out of question.
Although Taliban-US peace agreement obliges the insurgent group not to allow Afghan land for terrorist activities in other lands, Washington could still be wanting Taliban to provide support to the militants in Chinese province of Xinjiang. Detecting the threat, Beijing has already improved its ties with the Afghan armed group.
The US has looked at India and some Southeast Asian countries to confront China but all of them truly lack the capability to challenge Beijing and also because of their growing economic interests. All at once, Beijing has patched up its deteriorating relations with some of the neighboring countries.
Chinese diplomatic and political reconciliation with the regional countries and influential armed groups is perhaps frustrating for the US and it might be the reason why it has delayed the announcement of its peace treaty with Taliban and the commencement of intra-Afghan dialogue that is critical for a peaceful and stable Afghanistan.
In short, though Trump may gain politically through his placatory eloquence toward China to pocket some trade benefits but the task of confining the US near-peer competitor, by dragging it into a cold war, is emphatically too distant.
*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "One World":
http://oneworld.press/?module=articles&action=view&id=1340
For the past few weeks, Donald Trump has weirdly been convivial and ductile toward China. The reason is quite obvious – the phase one trade deal – which would wheel up the exports of American goods and services to the Mainland significantly in the coming years.
Lately, the US president described Washington’s affairs with Beijing “perhaps the best relationship we have ever had with China, including with President Xi” – boasting that the landmark agreement will defend the American workers, protect its intellectual property, bring billions into the treasury and open new markets for the US products.
But his genial and well-bred tone vis-à-vis China is yet to be echoed by or kindle a pervasive change in the posture of other US top officials as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently warned the state governors to be careful of China in their business deals lashed out at Chinese communist party and President Xi Jinping for their repression, unfair competition, predatory economic practices and aggressive military stance.
Incongruent remarks by the US president and one of his closest aides unequivocally specify that the Trump administration had lately overhauled its China strategy and decided to peddle a renewed politically-angled approach over Beijing ahead of a fierce American presidential campaign.
Trump’s double-bladed policy overtly centers on filching trade advantages from Beijing by drumming a mannerism and at the same time, distillates on the implementation of the vital US national security objective to dismantle American strategic competitor by putting forward his top advisors upfront.
It sounds as if he has the conviction that the twofold China-idea would assist him in gaining a significant political mileage before the election canvassing gets into wild phase and with both perspectives at his disposal, he could be able to manipulate American voters including public, farmers and businessmen who maintain pro- or anti-China sentiments.
Unlike prior presidential campaign when he roasted China in almost his every speech, Trump would ostensibly be pretty tongue-tied on Beijing as far as it continued to fulfill its purchase commitments. In the meantime, Pompeo will assume the lead role and spearhead his political rhetoric on China.
While Trump has groomed himself in realpolitik and repeatedly bragged about his friendly relationship with Xi, Pompeo’s haphazard criticism on Xi and Chinese communist party as well as the revelation the US had started to focus China heavily after the cold war ended – implied the resurrection of late-1970s and early-1980s brawl between the US and former Soviet Union.
Pompeo’s cavalier reproach again established that Washington was engaged in an ideological feud with Beijing soon after the fallout of USSR and has since been trying to haul China into a cold war fray by seeking reforms in Chinese political system and declaring the ruling communist party as a predominant threat to its foreign policy objectives.
Recalling that in the cold war with USSR, the US had a strategic ally in the form of Pakistan that contemplated Russian invasion of Afghanistan a profound risk to its national security as well as discovered Afghan Mujaheddin to fight its Sputnik-era battle with Soviet Union – Washington’s goals about walling China are idealistic and overambitious.
About 31 years after the windup of cold war, the US lacks the wit that time has changed and the days of its global dominance are over. It is no more an era of 1970s or 1980s when America was thought to be sole military and technological power in the world and could have swayed the smaller and weaker nations to succumb to its directives.
In addition, the US China-strategy is destined to breakdown since unlike Soviet Union; Beijing has strictly confined itself in protecting its sovereignty and is firmly following its policy of non-interference in other countries. Pakistan, on the other hand, has repeatedly cautioned the US that it will not become a part of any greater game in the region and given its deep ties and economic and military reliance, China is indeed out of question.
Although Taliban-US peace agreement obliges the insurgent group not to allow Afghan land for terrorist activities in other lands, Washington could still be wanting Taliban to provide support to the militants in Chinese province of Xinjiang. Detecting the threat, Beijing has already improved its ties with the Afghan armed group.
The US has looked at India and some Southeast Asian countries to confront China but all of them truly lack the capability to challenge Beijing and also because of their growing economic interests. All at once, Beijing has patched up its deteriorating relations with some of the neighboring countries.
Chinese diplomatic and political reconciliation with the regional countries and influential armed groups is perhaps frustrating for the US and it might be the reason why it has delayed the announcement of its peace treaty with Taliban and the commencement of intra-Afghan dialogue that is critical for a peaceful and stable Afghanistan.
In short, though Trump may gain politically through his placatory eloquence toward China to pocket some trade benefits but the task of confining the US near-peer competitor, by dragging it into a cold war, is emphatically too distant.