solana117_NICOLAS ASFOURIAFP via Getty Images_us china

Averting a Cold War of Choice

Jun 18, 2020 Javier Solana , Óscar Fernández

Although the COVID-19 crisis has further fueled talk of a looming Sino-American confrontation, it is not too late to salvage the situation. De-escalation is undoubtedly in every country's long-term interest, not least that of the United States and China.

MADRID – Western societies are currently gripped by the ominous idea that we are entering a new cold war, this time between the United States and China. This narrative started coming to the fore as a result of the Sino-American trade dispute, and now the COVID-19 crisis has given it the final nudge to center stage. Better to brace ourselves, the argument goes, than naively to ignore the hegemonic clash that will define the “new normal.”

But these intended wake-up calls disguise fatalism as realism, and choices as facts. America and China may be rival superpowers, but they are not necessarily reenacting the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.

Today, however, even official documents contain implicit cold-war references. United States Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China, a report issued by US President Donald Trump’s administration in May, states that, “Beijing openly acknowledges that it seeks to transform the international order to align with CCP [Chinese Communist Party] interests and ideology.” The Chinese system, adds the report, “is rooted in Beijing’s interpretation of Marxist-Leninist ideology and combines a nationalistic, single-party dictatorship; a state-directed economy; deployment of science and technology in the service of the state; and the subordination of individual rights to serve CCP ends.”

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Javier Solana

Writing for PS since 2004
125 Commentaries

Javier Solana, a former EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, secretary-general of NATO, and foreign minister of Spain, is President of EsadeGeo – Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics and Distinguished Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Óscar Fernández

Writing for PS since 2020
1 Commentary

Óscar Fernández is Senior Researcher at EsadeGeo – Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 in all 11 Comments on this article

abid Khan Jul 5, 2020

Informative
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jun 21, 2020

Javier Solana and Óscar Fernández says a Sino-American “cold war” would be a war of “choice, not necessity. And it would be “dreadful” to choose sides, because the global consequences of such a war would be even more severe than those of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. While the Soviet Union was a declining power with a failing economic model, China is an economic superpower. Whereas the US and the Soviet Union traded little with each other, China is fully integrated in the global trading system, and deeply intertwined with the US.
George Orwell, author of classics like “Animal Farm” and “1984” showed his prescience in a 1945 essay: “You and the Atomic Bomb.” A cold war ” was a “peace that is no peace.” He predicted that Soviet Russia would possess an atomic bomb within a few years. “So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them. It has been rather hastily assumed that this means bigger and bloodier wars, and perhaps an actual end to the machine civilisation.”
The “Cold War” ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Orwell, however, had projected that a cold war might involve a third party. “The haggling as to where the frontiers are to be drawn is still going on, and will continue for some years, and the third of the three super-states — East Asia, dominated by China — is still potential rather than actual. But the general drift is unmistakable, and every scientific discovery of recent years has accelerated it.” His prediction gained little attention until decades later.
Following Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, and Deng Xiaoping’s market-oriented economic reforms in 1978, the US and a rising China pursued economic involvement and a measure of diplomatic collaboration. China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001 enabled the country to achieve double-digit growth and overtake Japan as the world’s second largest economy in 2011. Since Xi Jinping came to office in 2013, China had strayed from the path of liberalisation and cooperation with the US.
The US blames China for the tensions. Since joining the WTO, China has reaped the benefits of free trade, while failing to meet its obligations and restricting market access for foreign businesses. Americans accuse China of gaining an unfair advantage through intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, subsidies for domestic firms and other instruments of state capitalism. At the same time, its government is becoming increasingly authoritarian, transforming China into an Orwellian surveillance state, and flexing its military muscles abroad – like in the South China Sea.
The authors say Trump’s “United States Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” last month is a “misleading characterization” of China that is “liable to induce overreactions and false comparisons. For starters, despite its leaders’ socialist rhetoric, China has long embraced capitalism.” But the report is right about the regime being “rooted in Beijing’s interpretation of Marxist-Leninist ideology and combines a nationalistic, single-party dictatorship; a state-directed economy; deployment of science and technology in the service of the state; and the subordination of individual rights to serve CCP ends.”
Despite different political systems and competition, the “ideological influence has flowed mostly from the West to China ever since Deng Xiaoping launched his reform and opening-up policy in 1978. The Soviet Union’s ideological footprint, by contrast, was much larger. Like any major rising power, China will seek to shape the global landscape according to its interests. It will also seek the favor of certain population groups beyond its borders. But it will not attempt to reshape other countries in its own image, as the Soviet Union did, and as the US still often does.”
The authors dismiss any fear of China ruling the world. Due to a century of humiliation at the hands of foreign imperial powers, Beijing tends to “reject unbridled interference in other countries’ domestic affairs. Moreover, while some traits of the Chinese system may appeal to proponents of illiberalism in the West and elsewhere, China’s soft power in fact remains relatively limited.”
China – unlike the Soviet Union in its heyday – lacks “a sphere of influence; North Korea and Pakistan are arguably its only current allies.” But the authors have underestimated Xi’s ambition to dominate the world by 2049, the centennial of China's Communist revolution. Although Xi in December 2018 said in a speech marking 40 years since Deng introduced major economic reforms, that despite his country's economic achievements, China would "never seek global hegemony". His assurance rang hollow, because actions count more than words, and they tell a different story.
Being wary of China’s power to bend other countries to its will, the international community has to strike a balance between Beijing and the US. “De-escalation is undoubtedly in every country’s long-term interest.” While the rivalry between the two superpowers will not go away, it is still possible to explore paths to collectively tackle global problems, like climate change and an economic downturn in the post-Covid-19 era. Unfortunately we have currently two leaders who, buoyed up by hubris and nationalism, opt for a zero-sum game.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jun 19, 2020

[moved below]
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Jun 19, 2020

Western capitalist ideals of personal wealthy have led elite Western capitalists to invest capital in China for superior profits to the denigration of their own nations' citizens wealth and strengths, leading to the development of the Chinese economy and its technological growth primarily through the support of American capital.

China's strategy to achieve their own ends has been to keep their cost of labor (and value of their currency) low as compared to the West, so as to lure Western Capitalists (originally the English Nobility that invested in American and Indian colonies) into supporting Chinese manufacturing for Elitist profits.

Both the English and the American capitalists strategies to support what is fundamentally a colonialist tactic by their nobility to accumulate wealth notably failed to create wealth of average citizens within their own nations. At the height of the English Empire the average English citizen did no better that he/she did under Queen Elizabeth I, and it was only the English noble international capitalists who controlled the English military that enforced the wealth of their nobility (well paid, which led to the knighting/nobility of their best military leaders) who became consonant Knights with the wealthy rulers of the English Empire.

The above is similarly true of the wealthy rulers of America today. They, though proclaiming independence from the English Empire, only wanted to accomplish the same feat, and have. Many are still subservient to English and European banks for their support.

There is no difference between colonial European Elites and American Elites today in their willingness to sacrifice the welfare of their national citizens for their personal wealth and international power. Europe, however, is far ahead of Americans politically, in their Elites' understanding of the limits to which they can sacrifice the interests of their own nationalistic citizens just to serve the wealth and power of their Elites.

Europeans are therefore much less in political turmoil over the competition of their financial Elites with their average citizens for power. Consequently, the European Financial Elites are doing much better at moderating their own power based on their historical understanding of the power of the will of their majority citizens.

Americans can only supersede the power of previous European States, by being more military brutal than were the English in the spread of their own power. Note American Generals and a former Secretary of Defense are warning Americans that this brutality to spread American influence is potentially ineffective.
- Elizabeth Pula Jun 19, 2020
  
  RE:"so as to lure".
  The Chinese really didn't do any "luring" of anyone, anybody, or anything.
  
  China is smart enough to keep ownership of Mainland China under the proprietary control of the state, and Chinese leadership. The struggle of peoples' conceptualizations of their mutual state of humanity and inhumanity VS acceptable and tolerated behaviors is the paramount struggle within China's boundaries. The conflicts over the transition and type of state Hong Kong will become, and the type of nation China will become can actually be a very internal positive for China, and the Chinese population, if not and up to possibly other nations, globally. However, the flip side is that a type of totalitarianism that functions outside of all national boundaries becomes the law of the land. Pray that is not the eventual conclusion.
  
  US politicians need to really review just what "luring" behavior, especially by certain key players/fishermen, really is, and who/what really gets hooked in the process. Of course, it helps if you kinda know how to fish, and you are in the boat, and in control of the boat, and the boat isn't sinking, and you don't get tangled up in your own lines.
  
  Does the real captain of the boat go down with the boat, or jump ship first?
  
  A little allegory will not change the reality of the real black hole that the immediacy of time factors present, when human beings actions cannot replicate the immediacy options that electronic communication networks allow. Right now, we are dealing with various aspects, especially certain manufactured events, that perhaps can offset that "time dilemma in the real world".
  
  RE:"Europe, however, is far ahead of Americans politically, in their Elites' understanding of the limits to which they can sacrifice the interests of their own nationalistic citizens just to serve the wealth and power of their Elites."
  
  They are, and hopefully will create a level of balance during the ongoing struggles. The key is not in the EU though.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Public Jun 19, 2020
  
  American influence reached its peak in the 1960, because they were 32% of the World economy back then. Now they are about half that and their share keeps dropping because almost every country outside Africa is now developed, at least in the city populations. Like the aging boxer who can no longer just 'Mike Tyson' their opponents - the US needs a new strategy based on finesse and cunning - but they have chosen rather to appoint Trump and figuratively speaking 'bite Lennox Lewis' ear off'.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Jun 18, 2020

There may be some hope within the WTO.
Although this quote from Bloomberg, today, June 18,2020- belies any honest hopeful note, the EU and some other nations may be able to offset the US con-messaging:

"“Current WTO rules have perversely institutionalized a system of unfair and non-reciprocal tariffs that severely penalizes American workers and manufacturers even as non-reciprocal tariffs spike the U.S. trade deficit and act as a drag on growth,” said Peter Navarro, the director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy."

The WTO rules have not perversely institutionalized any of the system that severely penalizes American workers and manufacturers at all. The WTO rules have not perversely institutionalized any of the system to severely penalize any other workers anywhere else either across the globe. People penalize other people quite effectively and deliberately. People use the systems, any systems to accomplish penalizing other people as their deliberate goal and task.

The real rules have been broken by many people globally that are in positions of power to break, ignore, obfuscate, deny any and all rules of accountability globally by the monetized transactions within specific MNE groups, and corporate entities. The real rule breakers are doing whatever they want regardless of any WTO rules, and any laws of any states, and they can get away with breaking all the rules, because these very same people make the rules.

2 tid-bits/ clues to make-a-stab-at-creating-real- Solutions:
1. Establish transparent ACCOUNTABLE systems with real accountability at differing levels of responsibility by all actors, contributors, workers, distributors, and receivers at critical juncture points that reveal and confirm critical accountability measures at timely intervals.
2. At present, Port Authorities globally are the most vulnerable juncture points that are affected by inbound and outbound shipping of all goods globally.

Those two tidbits mean in other words, don't just establish numeric dumps of financial data, that are just labelled "OTHER", with no tracing possible of where the money came from, where the money went to, when, where, why, how and especially what for.

And, that last sentence means, establish some GAAP current accounting reports that reflect production, and labor costs that reveal more than the word "NONE".
Of course, these already exist, however, what is significant is the reports are not publicly available when they are really relevant. Only a few have access to the real scoop, regardless of any and all the WTO rules

Whose rules count, any old MNE or any old state, or any workers that make all the stuff? Start posting labor costs for each product on each product, where product was made, what tariff was paid for item. Start posting labor costs on Wikipedia, and wages of workers as a comparative to CEO's etc. What percentage of returns are distributed to workers anywhere? There are all kinds of critical worthwhile data that can easily avert a cold war without creating a real hot war. Start revealing rather than concealing where it really counts, throughout the production cycle to product final delivery.
- Michael Public Jun 19, 2020
  
  " ...establish some GAAP current accounting reports". I wasted 10 years of my life learning this garbage. GAAP has nothing to do with 'fair accounting' and everything to do with allowing the rule makers (major US MNE's) to create a system that allows true results to be obfuscated to all but their largest shareholders - who use inside info (from appointed board members and revolving door managers) to profit on both short term movements in addition to long term trends.
  - Elizabeth Pula Jun 19, 2020
    
    Totally agreed, and you have reconfirmed what I wrote. Part of my narrative stepped away from just the central fact of the misuse/obfuscation/concealing of critical accounting within corporate entities/elitiists/top corporate hierarchical position-decision makers/stakeholders etc..
    
    Part of the problem is that most if any of those above folks only use any data just to "line their purses" (now that's a good ,pun in three words too) instead really utilizing the data, which is all they are really wallowing around in, not really doing anything to further any real enterprising activity.
    
    If you want anybody to serve you dessert, you better give/allow/let them share in some of the food. Now, I could add-or else/or IT don't work too good for anybody especially the ones who "assume" they deserve all the earthly rewards without doing anything themselves, and I mean anything!
    Some of the top characters in the charades couldn't write 50 intelligent words if you put the pencil in their hand, and a piece of paper under their hand on a table or desk.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Public Jun 19, 2020
  
  "...don't just establish numeric dumps of financial data, that are just labelled "OTHER", with no tracing possible of where the money came from, where the money went to, when, where, why, how and especially what for."
  
  The solution is blockchain money of some sort. However, just like the internal combustion engine or the atomic bomb - the technology brings new challenges - basically others can view your financial transactions and potentially abuse this power. What you want is transparency for the big and strong and privacy for the little guy - which is hard to get right.
  - Elizabeth Pula Jun 19, 2020
    
    True.
    Part of the problem is really presented quite well by George Gilder, in Chapter 7 , Law of the Telecosm, in "Telecosm", in his words PSTN: "The network was designed so that the people who run it dictate how it can be used." A lot of physicists and other folk have forgotten that little aspect about DUMB design!
    It is very important for you to recognize that I am not suggesting that PSTN, is a dumb design at all. I'm not being a cutesy wuzz either.
    
    It's very easy to misinterpret the full context of what a person writes or says at any time while reading written words, and while listening to spoken words.
    
    He concludes the paragraph on page 20 of that book, with these two sentences:
    "The PSTN is supremely intelligent and robust. For any other purpose it is paralytic." A lot of physicists and other folks, primarily men, do not know how to do IT at all. Their conceptual awareness, and a lot of "action" can be extremely DUMB.
    
    The book is a real jewel. If you read it, read it carefully, and slowly. Or read it more than once, It's kind of like the Bible, and intelligent design.
    
    Individual reads can totally mis-cons-true the complete communicating process.
    
    As always.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/E9x6ad4

Cookies and Privacy

Averting a Cold War of Choice

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

China’s Soft and Sharp Power

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Averting a Cold War of Choice

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification