It’s been a few months since I have written, which has been due to helping my family back in the States with some things, but in that time I have been back and forth between Asia and the U.S. and filled with many thoughts I had hoped to explore here.

It was not until I read Heather Long’s piece in today’s Washington Post about how China is winning the economic war and the U.S. is not doing enough about it that I felt compelled to write. Perhaps it’s also the steady stream of news out of the current administration that seems to day-by-day undermine all the great things about being American and this country that drew me back in. Regardless, while I think Long provides some good analysis and insights from some of our country’s foremost experts on China, the general tone is defensively combative. The case she builds is one in alignment with Bannon’s views on the U.S. – China relationship, which is that we are engaged in a economic war with China in which we must do more to ensure we win. However, the way to “winning” seems to be by launching fusillades against China in the form of punitive trade actions. Gordon Chang, who Long cites in her piece, explicitly calls for the U.S. to “defend” itself against China.

Fundamentally, what is wrong with this viewpoint is that it automatically assumes a zero-sum game of war where one side wins and the other loses. What this viewpoint leaves out, but what Long touches on when she mentions Bannon’s detrimental thoughts on immigration and quotes James Andrew Lewis is all of the things the U.S. can be doing to outperform China. A rational and fair immigration system, increased innovation through investments in R&D and education, meaningful worker retraining programs, a 21st century infrastructure including universal broadband access, universal health care, and pro-growth tax reform would be a few of the things that could help get the U.S. on the right track to come out ahead of China.

Now to be fair, trade rules exist to ensure a level playing field between nations and if China is engaging in unfair trade practices whether by subsidizing SOEs or stealing IP and other trade secrets, then they should be held to task for such anti-competitive behaviors. However, I would argue that such actions represent a defensive posture on the part of the U.S. To truly “win” or ensure that we stay ahead, we must also remember that it’s important to play offense and put in place the policies and conditions necessary for America’s long-term economic well-being that will be able to see off China or any other country with whom it may be competing.

Advertisements

Steak and Distractions

April 8, 2017

Trump and Xi Jinping just concluded two days of supposedly tough discussions at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida club where he goes to get away from the troubles of Washington. It’s unclear what exactly came out of the two days’ worth of meetings, but from press reports they allegedly discussed North Korea and the trade deficit, two items Trump had flagged as priorities. And as a delightful welcome around the time they were finishing dinner the first evening, Trump authorized US military strikes on a Syrian airbase in a stunning reversal of his “America First” policy that wasn’t supposed to include such actions. Putting aside whether the strikes were warranted in light of Assad’s horrific attack on his own people using illegal chemical weapons, much has been made about the timing and message that Trump was sending to his guest. Was the rapid reversal in Trump’s approach to Syria merely a reaction to the gruesome images of dying babies or was it also motivated by some bigger picture thinking about the kind of message he wants to send to Xi and others about the US’ future role in conflicts around the globe. It would be generous to think Trump truly understands the implications of his attack and actually has a plan for bringing the Syrian conflict to an end. I mean this was the man who told us throughout the election that he had a plan to defeat ISIS, but it was so good that he did not want to share it before he could implement. Upon taking office, we quickly learned that plan never existed.  It was a similar pattern with health care, though in a rare admission, Trump acknowledged in the midst of the health care debacle that it was “complicated”.  So here we are with Syria, a foreign policy quagmire that has gone on pretty much unabated for six years or so and we’d be naive to think that Trump has an actual plan to bring about a resolution to this seemingly intractable problem.  But I digress.

Back to the Xi-Trump meetings in Florida and the two of them enjoying their Dover sole and steak dinner as missiles were fired at a Syrian air base. It’s curious that this meeting, which was built up quite a bit in the press in spite of all of the other distractions facing Trump, turned out to fade quickly from the front pages of the news. And most of the stories about the meeting were in relation to the Syrian missile strike trying to understand how it would impact US-China relations. It’s clear the chemical weapons Assad used were inhumane and gruesome, but the reaction from a man who earlier in the week said getting rid of Assad was not a priority and as far back as 2013 advised Obama not to bomb Syria seems slightly off. Even attributing it to his unpredictability and penchant for chaos is not enough of an explanation. I think the attack was partially a response to Assad’s chemical attack, but I do think it was a way to both send a message to Xi that he could do the same in North Korea and more importantly (and perhaps a bit cynically), did it to boost his standing among those calling for a more robust response to Syria and already incredibly critical of Trump. Trump is a man who craves popularity and doesn’t particularly care from who he receives it. He is a man who attacks unfavorable polls as fake news precisely because he cares way too much about those polls.  So now with his popularity plummeting and the support he relied on not doing much to boost those numbers, he’s ready to try something to boost the top-line number so he doesn’t go down as the most unpopular president this early on in their tenure. Once again, I get distracted.

So where does that leave this meeting between the leaders of two of the most consequential countries on the planet. We got a pledge to do something within 100 days about the trade deficit, which is about as meaningful to long-term policy as China sending us another panda for the National Zoo. While cute and a good sound bite, it does nothing to constructively deal with the issues affecting relations between the two countries. We heard nothing about North Korea, human rights, Hong Kong, the South China Sea, climate change, or any of the other myriad issues that the countries could possibly work on. Perhaps Xi got a nice photo-op with the palm trees in the background and Trump showed a bit more respect for decorum as he greeted Xi, including an actual handshake, but no tangible progress was made in dealing with problems that are only going to grow in magnitude. I guess it’s not so much of a surprise when many senior roles related to Asia remain unfilled and even when Obama was operating at full capacity, he was unable to do much to move the dial when it came to China and Asia. Unfortunately Americans are not paying enough attention to this part of the world at a time when it’s ever more important that they do and we have a government woefully underprepared to give it the attention is needs and deserves.  It may take a crisis of epic proportions to get everyone to wake up and take the requisite notice, which could be more frightening than anything we’ve seen yet.