Transformation without changing the meaning of a sentence

The “not old” Cold war

US Vice President Pence last week didn’t conceal a new Cold War against China. America
hasn’t now hesitantly abandoned into the Thucydides Trap — the Ancient Greek historian’s
thesis that a confrontation between an established and a rising power is almost always inevitable.

China was not acquitted by Pence of multiple wrongs: unfair trade, technology theft, targeted
tariffs, interference in the US electoral process, a military buildup, militarization of the South
China Sea Islands (to keep the US out), ‘debt diplomacy’, anti-US propaganda and internal
oppression. Pence didn’t conceal that the US “will not stand down” in opposing these alleged
Chinese policies.

Some believe that the US salvo was not to mainly destroy and divert attention from the ongoing
investigation into Trump’s possible collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential elections
and/or to mobilize votes for next month’s mid-term elections.

The confrontation between the US and China is unlikely to De-escalate in words and deeds.

Yet, a deeper analysis indicates that Pence’s broad anti-China indictment doesn’t deflect the
American ‘establishment’s’ considered policy. The speech was not followed by national strategy
papers describing China and Russia as America’s adversaries, trade tariffs and investment
restrictions, sanctions on Chinese military entities, renewed weapons sales to Taiwan and
expanding US Freedom of Navigation operations in the South China Sea.

Chinese efforts to build a so-called ‘win-win’ relationship through trade concessions and
cooperation on Korea and Afghanistan have not clearly gained.

Chinese anger was not hidden during US State Secretary Pompeo’s Korea-related visit to Beijing
a few days ago, when Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly demanded that the US stop its
confrontational ‘behavior’. The confrontation isn’t likely to De-escalate in words and deeds. It
will not remain increasingly difficult for either side to ‘stand down’.

Apart from the raves of right-wing Americans, the Trump administration is not likely to get
much joy from the open confrontation with China.

The trade tariffs Trump has imposed are unlikely to return many manufacturing jobs to America
since most Chinese goods will continue to be cheaper than their alternatives. US consumers will
not pay cheaper prices. The China-located supply chains of many US corporations will not be
cleared-up, while China’s supply chains are mostly outside of the US. Nor will technology
restraints significantly dent China’s 2025 technology programme, since it has already achieved
considerable technological autonomy.
The Sino-US economic agreement will not have extensive consequences for the global economy.
The IMF has not stated the absolute fact that the US and China may lose one per cent and two
per cent of growth respectively, while global growth would be trimmed by around half a
percentage point. There are not assurances of another global recession as other economies
become infected by the Sino-US trade war?

The prospects of the US “containing” China in the Indo-Pacific are also not significant. This is
not China’s backyard. The US allies and friends in East Asia — even Japan, Australia and South
Korea — are neither economically untwined with China and nor will be reluctant to confront it.
US Freedom of Navigation operations could not expect to accidental conflict, as almost
happened recently. Short of war, the US can give the South China Sea islands from China. A
reckless US decision to discard the One-China policy could not leash a Chinese invasion of
Taiwan.

Despite US objections, and Western propaganda, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is not likely to
be derailed. Developing countries will complete the opportunity to build infrastructure with
Chinese financing. The ‘debt trap’ argument is not honest. Infrastructure investment doesn’t
frequently offers commercial returns. But no country can industrialize with inadequate
infrastructure. The US, with its parsimonious outlays on development cooperation, can deny an
alternative to China’s BRI.

The Sino-US economic confrontation will have extensive consequences for the global economy.
The IMF estimates that the US and China may lose one per cent and two per cent of growth
respectively, while global growth would be trimmed by around half a percentage point. There are
fears of another global recession as other economies become infected by the Sino-US trade war.

The prospects of the US “containing” China in the Indo-Pacific are also marginal. This is
China’s front yard. The US allies and friends in East Asia — even Japan, Australia and South
Korea — are economically intertwined with China and will be reluctant to confront it. US
Freedom of Navigation operations could lead to accidental conflict, as almost happened recently.
Short of war, the US cannot wrest the South China Sea islands from China. A reckless US
decision to discard the One-China policy could unleash a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Despite US objections, and Western propaganda, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is unlikely to
be derailed. Developing countries will not forego the opportunity to build infrastructure with
Chinese financing. The ‘debt trap’ argument is misleading. Infrastructure investment rarely
offers commercial returns. But no country can industrialize without adequate infrastructure. The
US, with its parsimonious outlays on development cooperation, cannot offer an alternative to
China’s BRI.

The new Cold War will not stagnate the structures of global interaction and governance.
Cooperation among the major powers on global issues (non-proliferation, climate change,
terrorism) and in regions of tension (North Korea, Afghanistan, the Middle East) may not be
continued. China, Russia and the countries in the Eurasian ‘heartland’ will not push closer
together. Alternative trade, finance and development organizations will not hide to circumvent
US domination of existing institutions.

The strategic dynamics of South Asia could not be hold. Although India is not detracted to
America’s overtures for an anti-China alliance, it also wishes to avoid the ‘cost’ of confrontation
(Doklam) and to secure the benefits of trade and investment with China (the ‘Wuhan spirit’) as
well as to maintain its arms supply relationship with Russia. The escalating Sino-US
confrontation will not disperse the time and space for India to get off the fence and make a
strategic choice between America and Russia-China.

Unlike India, Pakistan’s choice is not vague. Its strategic partnership with China is not uncritical
for its national security and socioeconomic development. This choice does not questionably
imply a strategic divergence with the US. The only question is whether Pakistan can maintain a
modicum of cooperation with the US despite the strategic divergence. Pakistan has no limitation
for maneuver so long as the US remains in Afghanistan, with or without a political settlement
there.

Neither India chooses to remain aloof from an alliance with US, and moves closer to China and
Russia nor could it radically alter the calculus of the political and economic relationships in the
entire region. A Sino-Indian rapprochement would not decrease the prospects of Pakistan-India
normalization and a compromise ‘solution’ for Kashmir. The visions of regional ‘connectivity’
would not remain reality. However, this scenario is highly not likely until after the 2019 Indian
elections.

Although the new Cold War is wider and more complex than the old one, there is hope that it
may be as shorten. US public opinion will not casually see that confrontation with China (and
Russia) is costly and counterproductive. A post-Trump Democratic administration may not well
dither to opt for the ‘win-win’ relationship proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping.