Anthony L.’s Post

H/T to Shannon Brandao Undoubtedly, great powers like the United States and the PRC should work together to address global challenges like #climatechange effectively. However, it's quite evident that there is an apparent disconnect between what is being said and what is being done. For instance, indirectly enabling Russia to prolong the invasion of #Ukraine through civil-military fusion and economic support, ongoing expansionist, #greyzone provocation in the #SouthChinaSea and #IndoPacific, as well as sophisticated and malignant #disinformation and #influence campaigns to undermine #democracies, are all actions that contradict the words from Xi and his apparatchiks. Successful collaboration and cooperation require both sides to uphold integrity, transparency, and trust. Additional excerpt, Jennifer Hansler and Simone McCarthy, CNN: //Xi’s comments come as Chinese officials bristle at actions Washington has taken in the name of #nationalsecurity in the face of an increasingly assertive China, but which Beijing sees as meant to suppress its development. Those have included US controls on the export to China of high-tech goods that could have military uses, as well as curbs on US investment in specific high-tech sectors in China. Wang was also clear about sharp tensions that still exist between the world’s two superpowers. As their meetings got underway, Wang said China and the US face a choice between stability and a “downward spiral.” During a closed-door meeting later, Wang accused the US of “taking endless measures to suppress China’s #economy, #trade, #science and #technology” and over-hyping recent concerns about China’s industrial “overcapacity” flooding global markets. “(US measures are) not fair competition, but containment, and it is not removing risks, but creating risks,” he said, according to a readout from Chinese state media.// #news #geopolitics

US does not want to share the world. It says that it is willing IF China plays by its rules. Which is to be a Big Japan. (Sit down, shut up, follow the program, be seen and not heard.) "China-US relations deteriorated around late 2017. Around that time, there were two major reports in Washington – one was in December by the State Department, in December 2017, the other was by the [Department of Defence] in the following months, in January 2018. These two documents argued that the previous engagement policy with China failed and did not yield the results as the US had planned or expected." Of course, China finds this unbearable. The US does not subject itself to its own rules, so why should China? This is not to say that China is blameless or occupying SCS is justified, just because. "Therefore, the geopolitical challenges should now return to the centrepiece. Between China and Russia, Russia is a regional power and China is a global power. So therefore, China is the most formidable challenge or even an enemy. That’s the policy change." Not true. It is one major dynamic, but as Oct 7th, the closure of the Red Sea, and last week's concert hall terrorist act in Moscow shows - non-state actors are also active - and can throw a spanner in the works. But all these tensions arise from the fact that China is a new global power. Akin to Germany rising to challenge the British Empire at the turn of the last century. "[T]he US has never, since the end of World War II, confronted a rivalry so comprehensive and all-rounded like China. China’s challenge includes its economic, military, science and technology, and now you see – [the] ambassador said – also ideological or even political power. Some people in the US even talk about culture challenge. While I disagree with the view of a cultural or an ideological challenge, it’s comprehensive." "Now, the second reason is US domestic reasons. If the United States is in a good shape – if the American political system, the economy, society, political culture and many other things are in a good shape – then we don’t care about China’s different political system, different ideology, different economic model." This is also important. US does not even view Russia as a major threat - a threat to regional stability; because relatively speaking Russia vs USA in 2024 is not the same as USSR vs USA in 1984. And finally, the outsourcing to China hollowed out America - creating MAGA. Again, it was the scale, the speed and the greed of corporations driven by profit maximisation - that caused that to happen (along with the lobbied politicians). (con't)

Here's my new editorial in South China Morning Post #scmp following Yellen and Blinken's visits to #beijing, "Delusions of detente: how US-China ties are hurtling towards cold war." Some of opening paragraphs, link below: President Xi Jinping has characterised America’s strategy towards China as containment, encirclement, suppression and a technological blockade, producing “unprecedented severe challenges” that aim to forestall China’s post-pandemic recovery and kneecap its modernisation and rejuvenation, undermining peaceful regional development. These concerns were alluded to in a recent call with President Joe Biden – ahead of visits by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Secretary of State Antony Blinken – when Xi referred to growing “negative factors” in the relationship. More dramatically, China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, has warned against a “return to a downward spiral”. While China-US ties are being described as being “more stable” (Yellen) or “beginning to stabilise” (Wang), this is only when set against last year’s instability. This includes US provocations over Taiwan, more anti-China rules and legislation, cancelled official visits, increased military encounters in the South China Sea, and a brouhaha over an errant Chinese weather balloon. Indeed, the balloon incident was a nadir. The US insisted it was a spy balloon and ordered it shot down; Nato began expanding its remit to include China as chief Jens Stoltenberg asserted the balloon incident confirmed China as a risk to Europe. The Pentagon later conceded the balloon did not collect any intelligence but the damage was done. In a meeting last November, Xi and Biden committed to more high-level meetings and communication, including between their militaries. Described as both a detente and a delusion of a detente, the summit nevertheless encouraged “guard rails” to improve stability. But many also see these developments as aiming to prevent unintended clashes that could spiral out of control, particularly during a difficult presidential election year in the US that could herald even more instability if Donald Trump returned to power, all while Washington rushes to build and deploy its strategy in the region and globally. In short, however stabilising, these guard rails seem to have little to do with principles, respecting “red lines” or improving relations. Rather, they are being used by the US to manage a steady erosion of ties and position itself to dominate future conflicts. As shown last year, the price for not talking is simply too high. Both sides have an interest in maintaining the illusion of stability. For the past half decade, Chinese state media have criticised US policies as decoupling, warmongering, hegemony-seeking, imperialist and dangerous meddling. While Biden claims there’s no effort to contain China, the evidence indicates otherwise and Biden’s ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, is explicit: the US seeks to isolate China in Asia and beyond...

🚨New RUSI and Chatham House report, ‘Transatlantic China Policy: In Search of an Endgame’ by Ben Bland, Andrew Cainey and Philip Shetler-Jones is out now! Over the past decade, China policy in North America and Europe has shifted dramatically from seeing Beijing primarily as an economic partner of choice to framing it as an economic, technological, diplomatic and security challenge. Understanding the challenges posed by China requires a coordinated and comprehensive response. However, despite high hopes at the beginning of the Biden presidency, the transatlantic approach to date remains more reactive and ad hoc than systematic and cooperative. The challenge China poses looks different on each side of the Atlantic. The US is concerned about threats to its technological, military, and economic leadership. Europe is focused primarily on the risks of economic dependency, with some concern about China’s agenda for global governance. There is though also significant difference and divergence between European countries which make even a common European position challenging. Our new paper argues that an effective and coordinated transatlantic China approach requires the governments concerned to have a clearer view of an ‘endgame’ for the future relationship with China. The paper explores the limits and possibilities of transatlantic cooperation by examining the current state of China policy in key areas of mutual interest. It then explores the extent to which transatlantic partners’ objectives are truly shared and considers how to best manage divergent interests within a broader frame of cooperation. Head over to our website now to read the full report and its findings!

Richard Verma, the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, addressed concerns from China and Russia regarding the strengthening India-US relationship during his remarks at the Hudson Institute. He highlighted that this partnership promotes values such as inclusivity, peace, and the peaceful resolution of disputes, reflecting diverse voices in society. Verma attributed China and Russia's concerns to the transformative nature of the India-US alliance, which contrasts with the operational styles of adversaries and is recognized by President Joe Biden as the "defining relationship of this century." Verma also reminisced about a past remark from Biden, who suggested that if the US and India became close partners by 2020, global safety would improve. He indicated that their partnership is valuable not only for its military and economic components but because it stands for principles that are significant to people worldwide. Furthermore, Verma addressed the upcoming Quad summit, stating that it aims to enhance peace, security, stability, and prosperity in the region. In his remarks on the Quad, Verma emphasized its commitment to positive technology uses and core principles, such as energy transition and a rules-based order, without adopting a military approach. He noted that India does not support a militarized focus for the Quad and expressed confidence that other platforms exist for addressing military issues. Verma characterized the Quad as a collaboration of like-minded countries, facilitating a novel framework for cooperation and security in the Indo-Pacific. Looking ahead, the fourth in-person Quad leaders summit will take place at President Biden's Delaware residence next week, furthering its significance in international relations. India is set to host the summit next year, reflecting the ongoing commitment to this initiative, which is a key aspect of President Biden’s foreign policy legacy. #AsiaRisk #GeopoliticalConflictandDisputes #India Follow us for daily updates on risk and operations in Asia! https://lnkd.in/gCxE8ggW

Has a ‘Thucydides’ Trap’ been set? Political scientist Graham Allison gauges risks that could send US-China tensions into armed conflict | South China Morning Post - In a recent interview, you said that if Thucydides were still alive, he would probably say that China and the US are still following the playbook that leads to war, despite the efforts...by both sides. What do you think both sides should be doing right now that they aren’t? Why are the Chinese and American leaders failing to prevent a military conflict that would have...disastrous consequences for both sides? That is a topic that requires a lecture – but let me try to be brief. The primary reason why I think Thucydides would say that at the largest level we’re still more or less on track is that the US and China are indeed classic Thucydidean rivals. Seventy-five per cent of that is baked into the reality of a situation in which on the one hand, Xi Jinping and his colleagues are determined that China should be all that it can be – and very understandably so. But on the other hand, the US as a colossal ruling power is committed to the structure of the international order, including the Asian order, that it created in the aftermath of World War II, and it believes has provided a stability that has enabled all the parties to focus on their own development and to deliver to their citizens greater improvements in their well-being than in any analogous period in their history. In your book, you discuss intensified competition for scarce resources: “When a growing economy forces the rising power to go further to secure important products, including some that are under the control or protection of the dominant power, competition can sometimes turn into a scramble for resources.” Washington argues that it is expanding sanctions on China’s access to semiconductors...How does this situation compare to the sanctions that led to war between Japan and the US in the 1940s, and what lessons should both sides draw from that...? It certainly is the case that historically, a number of Thucydidean rivalries have come to focus on resources. And certainly I don’t think we can study what happened in the run-up to Pearl Harbour too carefully because I think that reminds us that if we forced a competitor to choose between sure strangulation over a period of six months or a year and taking a wild chance, even a chance to win a war. Remember – the designer of it believed Japan would not win if it became a long war. Nonetheless, it can become rational for an adversary to choose war. So we can certainly look at that case. Now I think in current tech rivalry, of which the chip rivalry is right in the front, but you’re going to see something similar in other advanced technologies. https://lnkd.in/gt755Gfg

"Chinese President Xi Jinping met with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday afternoon. ... Planet Earth is only this big, and humanity is faced with so many common challenges. As an old Chinese saying goes, 'Passengers in the same boat should help each other,' he said. 'Today, as I see it, dwellers of the same planet should help each other. We live in an interdependent world and rise and fall together. With their interests deeply intertwined, all countries need to build maximum consensus for win-win and all-win outcomes. This is the basic starting point for China to view the world and the China-U.S. relationship,' President Xi said. President Xi underlined his view that major countries should behave in a manner befitting their status and act with broad-mindedness and a sense of responsibility. ... 'China is willing to cooperate, but cooperation should be a two-way street. China is not afraid of competition, but competition should be about progressing together instead of playing a zero-sum game,' President Xi said. ... 'China welcomes a confident, open, prosperous and thriving United States, and hopes the United States will also look at China's development in a positive light', said the Chinese President. President Xi stressed that as a Chinese saying goes, 'No progress means regress,' it also applies to China-U.S. relations. ... Secretary Blinken conveyed President Biden's greetings to President Xi. He noted that since President Biden and President Xi met in San Francisco, the United States and China have made good progress in their cooperation in such areas as bilateral interactions, counter-narcotics, artificial intelligence and people-to-people exchanges. Blinken said the multiplicity and complexity of the challenges the world faces require the United States and China working together, adding that the Americans from all walks of life that he met during the visit all expressed the hope to see U.S.-China relations improve. The United States does not seek a new Cold War, does not seek to change China's system, does not seek to suppress China's development, does not seek to revitalize its alliances against China, and has no intention to have a conflict with China, said Blinken. The United States adheres to the one-China policy, Blinken said, adding that the United States hopes to maintain communication with the Chinese side, follow through on what the two presidents agreed in San Francisco, seek more cooperation, avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations, responsibly manage differences, and achieve stable development of U.S.-China relations. President Xi asked Secretary Blinken to convey his regards to President Biden." Huaxia, President Xi meets U.S. secretary of state, 𝘟𝘪𝘯𝘩𝘶𝘢 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘈𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺, 26 April 2024, https://lnkd.in/g8bmb3XB

It’s great that US President Biden started the Quad Leaders meetings, with four since the first in March 2021. But this meeting has not produced much in substance. It looks more like a farewell meeting for Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida. US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said before the meeting that: “The purpose of the Quad is not to come together around China or any other country. It’s to come together around how to construct a free and open Indo-Pacific.” That sounds high minded, although the problem with this formulation is that China’s aggressive power is the major threat to a free and open Indo-Pacific where countries can make their own decisions without coercion and where their territory and sovereignty is not threatened. So, for the Quad to succeed, it must help deter China from aggression – and that means getting practical and helping nations like the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan prevent China’s military and heavily armed Coastguard from controlling and seizing their sovereign territory in the South China Sea. There can’t be a free and open Indo-Pacific while China is acting this way, getting success and territorial expansion from it, cowing and silencing nations in the region, and showing no sign of slowing any of this down. But we shouldn’t pretend that vaccine production, maritime domain awareness, scholarships and Coastguard sea riders on each other’s ships are really going to do enough to keep the Indo-Pacific “free and open” while Xi Jinping’s China and its military continues on their current path of aggression in the region. Thank goodness for Joe Biden’s “hot mic” moment when he accidentally told the truth about why he, Narendra Modi, Fumio Kishida and Anthony Albanese were together, saying: “We believe [Chinese President] Xi Jinping is looking to focus on domestic economic challenges and minimise the turbulence in China’s diplomatic relationships, and he’s also looking to buy himself some diplomatic space, in my view, to aggressively pursue China’s interest”. “China continues to behave aggressively, testing us all across the region." You can't solve a problem if you can't name it. Read the article here: