US-China COnflict

· Trade war since 2018/ Cold war? Future world order as main actor US, China, Russia

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cold War

Reasons of Cold War II

Difference from the Cold War

Facts

Countries Taking Sides

Policies

China and US interdependence

Cold War and Pakistan

Reasons

· It has been noticed from the past that whenever there exists a bipolar system in the
international arena, peace is not possible until one side is collapsed.

· Former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster maintains that China is a threat
“because its leaders are promoting a closed, authoritarian model as an alternative to
democratic governance and free-market economics.”

· When a new great power emerges to challenge the status quo, disturbance is inevitable
— so it was only a matter of time before the US and China clashed.

· While China was open to trade and entrepreneurship, the US and Chinese governments
differed greatly on democracy and human rights.

· China’s divergence from the US is therefore ideological, economic and increasingly

military too.

Ideoloical Battle on Governancce Model

· While not a struggle between capitalism and communism, the current rivalry over
 governance models is no less ideological in nature or important to the world. The Biden
administration has elevated the concept of rivalry over governance models, which was
first formulated by the European Union (EU) to define one component of its relationship
with China, as a fundamental difference over core values, from respecting human and
democratic rights to abiding by the rules-based international order.

· Those basic differences were publicly displayed at the Anchorage meeting. Specifically,
the United States criticized China for its actions in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan;
aggression in the East and South China seas; and cyberattacks against the United States
as well as economic coercion against US allies. Furthermore, the United States made a
change in Chinese behavior a precondition to an improvement in the relationship,
stressing that these actions are not merely a matter of China’s internal affairs (as Beijing
often claims) but rather of grave concern to the international community.

· China attacked the United States for interfering in China’s internal affairs, accusing
Washington of threatening its security and development interests and not respecting its
sovereignty. Furthermore, Chinese diplomats and spokespeople painted the United
States as condescending in lecturing other countries on how to behave while not being
able to put its own house in order. China emphasized that it will defend its core interests
to the utmost.

· Besides promoting sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs as the foundation

of international relations—a principle popular among developing countries—China has
offered a proven governance and development model: combining political control
reinforced by digital authoritarianism with market mechanisms encouraging foreign
direct investment and exports. It is, in other words, a model of authoritarian state-led
capitalism as opposed to one of open-market democracy. Compared with the largely
theoretical promises of communism, China’s real-life achievements with its development
model appeal to many developing countries. Meanwhile, democracy and freedom have
been on a sustained decline around the world over the past fifteen years. One could say
that China has helped make the world safe for autocracies.

The power of alliances

· US President Joe Biden’s approach of dealing with China from a position of strength by
building alliances seems to be bearing fruit. Right after the meeting in Anchorage, the
United States, the EU, the United Kingdom, and Canada imposed coordinated sanctions
on Chinese officials and entities for the treatment of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang.
Australia and New Zealand expressed support for the sanctions even though they did
not impose any on their own. It is astute of the United States to focus on rallying like-
 minded countries to hold China accountable for violating international rules and norms,
while pledging not to push allies to choose sides.

· China has also strengthened its partnerships. Its cooperation with Russia has grown, it
has signed a twenty-five year strategic partnership agreement with Iran, and it has built
support from a wider range of countries, mainly among participants in its Belt and Road
Initiative. In this endeavor, China has not aimed to foster revolution and regime change
—as the Soviet Union did—but worked with ruling elites, offering trade and investment
opportunities without criticizing them for violations of human rights, corruption, or lack
of transparency as the West does. This hands-off approach seems to have worked: Many
developing countries came to China’s defense when it was attacked by developed
countries for human-rights violations at the United Nations.

· The world is gradually coalescing into two broad groupings, espousing different
governance values. And while there have been no armed conflicts or proxy wars
involving China, hostility in cyberspace has already started—with Russia and China
spreading online disinformation to destabilize many Western countries and conducting
large-scale hacking operations against Western governments and businesses.
Furthermore, US-China tension in the Asia-Pacific has risen significantly, risking
escalation to armed conflict through accidents, mistakes, or miscalculations.

Economic competition

· The global economy has become more integrated, with China’s economy growing strongly—
poised to soon take over the United States at market exchange rates and having already done so
in terms of purchasing power parity. More importantly, China has become the top trading
partner and creditor/investor for many countries. The size and penetration of the Chinese
economy have rendered a strategy of containing China impractical and costly to all sides, and
makes the US-China contention more protracted and difficult.

· The West thus faces a dilemma: Efforts to decouple from China in order to limit its influence
would hurt not only China but also Western countries and the global economy more broadly, but
striking a trade deal with China to reduce tensions will likely help the Chinese economy perform
better, making the strategic competition with Beijing more intractable.

· The rivalry has slowly led to a bifurcation of the global economy, most discernible in high-tech
areas such as the tension between digital authoritarianism and digital liberalism, artificial
intelligence and surveillance technologies, satellite-based navigation for civilian and military
uses, and 5G/6G telecommunications.

Difference from the Cold War:

 · While the Soviet Union’s economy was not linked with that of the West, China’s is hard-
wired into the international economic system.

· The original Cold War between the Western and Soviet blocs was defined by an arms
race and proxy military stand-offs across a series of borders throughout the world.
Although this new power struggle has the potential to become military, it is mainly
about economic influence.

· Soviet Union, during the World War II was a smaller economy than Japan. Its main focus
was on military development rather than their economy. China decided to pursue a
different road to development. They did not fell in the trap of unsustainable and rapid
military growth; instead they focused on their economy and build sophisticated military
technology along with their economy. China is more focused on economic and
diplomatic dominance unlike Soviet Union.

· Unlike the USSR which was also encircled by the US in the past, China does not have any
ideological friends. Beijing did not claim to lead the international proletarian revolution
and made no effort to support any radical change against the capitalist world. So, it
ended up having friends but not comrades or close allies that are ready to sacrifice their
own interests for the lofty ideological mission of the global working class. For instance,
Cuba took a great risk by allowing the USSR to install missiles on its soil.

· Columbia University professor Thomas Christensen argues in Foreign Affairs that the
current US-China strategic competition cannot be labeled a cold war as it lacks three
essential and interrelated elements that defined the US-Soviet Union conflict: 1. the
United States and China are not engaged in an ideological struggle to win the hearts and
minds of third countries; 2. the United States and China are not leading alliances that
could foster proxy wars and precipitate nuclear crises; 3. the global economy has
become so integrated that it cannot be separated into blocs, and thus a containment
strategy will not work. Consequently, writes Christensen, “the voices calling for a cold
war containment strategy toward China misunderstand the nature of China’s challenges
and therefore prescribe responses that will only weaken the United States.”

Facts
 · The Chinese rise on the global scene as an economic and military power is perceived as a
direct threat to the US domination.

· The military doctrine of the China has aggravated the concerns of the regional countries.
The People’s Liberation Army focuses on keeping the country’s shores and airspace clear
of the US military intrusion.

Countries Taking Sides

· The South East nations — Japan, South Korea, Australia — are supportive of US in its
policy to keep political and economic pressure on China. India is fully backing President
Trump’s China policy as it coincides with its conflict in the Himalayas. But the economies
of all these countries are so closely intertwined with China that no one country would
like tensions to rise to a stage where its economy would suffer.

· In the latest Sino-American conflict, while the US is fully backed and supported by Japan,
India, South Korea, the UK and Australia, it faces fair resistance from France, Germany,
and Italy as they are heavily dependent on China for their exports.

Policies:

· It is a multifaceted attack that challenges China’s economic policies as being exploitive

and against World Trade Organization (WTO) standards that are harming US interests.

· On the political front Washington is denouncing Beijing’s recently enacted Hong Kong
national security law.

· At the strategic level it is persuading Russia to bring China in the negotiations of the
arms limitations treaty.

· Britain’s announcement on Tuesday to ban equipment from the Chinese technology

giant Huawei has made matters worse.

· The main and persisting dispute between both superpowers is the dominance over
South China Sea and the race of acquiring sophisticated technology like 5G.

· The China-US relationship was rocked once again when the US claimed that two Chinese
hackers were trying to steal information from the websites of American companies
working on virus research. As a drastic result, the US recently ordered to shut down
 China’s Houston consulate. China strongly condemned the US actions calling them
unprecedented escalation and vowed to retaliate. Later, Beijing also ordered Washington
to shut Chengdu consulate.

· The expulsion of journalists and other media workers was also carried out by the two
countries.

· China’s attempt to control the South China Sea has been a growing concern by the
Trump administration. Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State has said that China’s
claim of the South China Sea is completely unlawful.

· Initiating trade war by imposing sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports, labeling China a
currency manipulator, passing a bill supporting Hong Kong protesters, soaring tensions
on Covid-19 and starting diplomatic escalation by closing consulates were measures
reflective of Trump’s anti-China drive

China and US interdependence:

· In the globalized world all countries, big or small, are interdependent on each other in
one way or the other. China and United States being the biggest economies share a huge
chunk of their trade with each other. American automobile giants have production units
in China and Chinese manufactures are doing huge business in American markets.

· America is the world’s largest importer and interestingly China is the world’s largest
exporter. America is the biggest importer of Chinese electrical machinery and china’s
biggest import from America is soybean. The contrast is striking and almost funny

· Another aspect of this interdependence can be seen in the educational field. Almost
360,000 Chinese students study in American Universities in comparison to 11,000
American students residing in China. Here, the codependence can also be noticed. It will
not be an easy decision to pull out all the students and send them or call them to their
homes. There was no such sharing of resources back in the Soviet Union days

Cold War and Pakistan:

· Though in fight of two big elephants, grass suffers however, because of its geography, it
is inescapable for Pakistan.

· At first, US would try to dissuade Pakistan from operation of CPEC with mix of incentives,
 waivers, grants and investment.

· In case, Pakistan does not show amenability, it would apply stick. This may include
IMF/other world financial institutions, international watchdogs/media, threats of
terrorism and insurgency in Balochistan particularly, against CPEC, domestic polarization
and escalation on LoC/working boundary/troops mobilization on border by India.

· If all this fails, it may even go for exerting pressure on Pakistan through Arab countries
where a large number of Pakistani people work. Some of these countries may do so
because of their huge dependence on the US. Besides, relationship of Pakistan with Arab
world is another dimension to be taken into account for formulating our policy. In the
Gulf, there is no Chinese military presence.

· For Pakistan, above needs to be considered seriously to ensure interests of the country
first and last before opening trade through CPEC.

· However, Pakistani policymakers need to avoid placing all their eggs in one basket.

Conclusion

With or without the label “cold war,” the United States and China are locked in a protracted conflict over
core national values, including economic and geopolitical interests. The fact that the Chinese economy is
stronger than the Soviet Union’s decrepit economy, playing a key role in integrated global supply chains,
while many Western countries suffer from internal divisions, makes the strategic competition more
challenging for the West than the Cold War of the late twentieth century was. Of particular concern is
the fact that the United States has suffered a steep fall in its Freedom House “Freedom in the World”
score since 2010, denting much of its soft power. Consequently, the contestants in today’s conflict
appear to be more evenly matched, making for a difficult struggle ahead—whatever you want to call it.