US foreign exchange
Sign up for myFT Daily Digest to be the first to know about US foreign news.
A major concern of the negotiations for the new Cold War is that it brings excitement. The first one ended peacefully in 1991 when the Soviet Union pitched its tent. The US-USSR ideological race means that one side can win if the other systems fail, and that is what happened. Cold War 2.0 presents the challenge – escalating political rivalry between the two largest powers in the world with no results.
It is possible that Joe Biden’s “continuous conversation” promised the UN this week he can work in China. He should still have important talks with Beijing who are growing rapidly. In contrast, Biden is making rapid progress in an alliance that could lead to China’s war of attrition. Last week Aukus Alliance and Australia and the UK, followed by Friday’s Quad summit with Australia, India and Japan and the vibrant shoots of China’s growing war.
Biden’s vision is to work with China where American goals are being met – such as combating global warming and preventing the next epidemic – and meeting where they are affected, such as human rights, Taiwan, freedom of movement and technology competition. A very strong wind, there is coming controversy. Two appear. Most important is the hawkish family union in the US in China.
Much has been said about the so-called blob in Washington DC. Instead, the US foreign trade group has been divided over the years due to the strategic and strategic needs of the US, including Afghanistan. In China, Washington has one idea. Biden will not win the brownie points by reaching his left. Real anti-American extremists after 9/11 adventurism fired the Aukus testament last week.
The second is America’s threat to trade and commerce. It was no coincidence that China last week applied for a full-fledged agreement with the Trans-Pacific Partnership – the world’s largest trading group, at first with the American idea – the Aukus were announced. It is unlikely that China will be accepted into the club anytime soon despite the absence of America. It takes one CPTPP member, such as Japan or Australia, to ban its use.
Long term is another story. Beijing’s economic failure to punish or reward its neighbors is greater than in the United States, given the growing Chinese trade. The US can address this by joining CPTPP, or by opening discussions on data standards and digital services. This will meet the growing demand for Asia in US trade. Unfortunately, US politics – especially the left-wing Democratic Party – is as opposed to digital events as it is to business people. Silicon Valley skepticism hinders Biden’s proliferation despite doing this.
This is in contrast to Cold War 1.0 – America today has no interest in leading the way in the global integration that has taken place in recent years of war. The fact that Washington is happy to use its Pentagon scepter but abandoning its trade arms on the one hand pushes a dispute between the US and China in a way that is counterproductive.
Of all China’s shortcomings in its Belt and Road work, even the United States or its allies are not prepared to match China’s use of foreign power. All of this reduces a significant amount of silver in the current Cold War – US-China economic interdependence. The Soviets and the Americans traded in different businesses. Today Washington wants to leave China.
Nothing in Biden’s view means that he would want to settle disputes with China. Her priorities are at home. In addition, he has a deep conviction that the American concept will always succeed. Aukus came in response to a request from Australia, sponsored by Brexit UK. Biden did not want to take over France and no doubt tried to repair the relationship. But in the end it is a movement. The main driver of our future will be the US-China opposition.
Many survivors of the First World War taught the United States that it was wise to go deep into Soviet affairs and see the world as they see it. There is not much Chinese awareness in DC today. Grief experts are less on the ground. Efforts to establish a telephone line between Beijing and Washington do not bear fruit. Wrong boundaries are not good. The more Biden accepts the possibility of a collision with US-China – accidentally or unknowingly – the less likely he is.