Dr Qaisar Rashid
President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump is now in the process of formulating his future cabinet. Reportedly, he has selected Congressman Mike Waltz as the would-be National Security Adviser and Senator Marco Rubio as the would-be Secretary of State. Both nominees are widely known as anti-China hawks.
Congressman Waltz considers that China has been trying to revive a 1930s era of Nazi Germany by mounting a military build-up to advance Chinese interests in the Pacific. Perhaps Waltz is overlooking the fact that, during his tenure (2009–2017), former US President Barack Obama attempted to establish an East Asia strategy known as the Pivot to Asia. In his famous book The Pivot: The Future of American Statecraft in Asia, published in 2016, Kurt Campbell elaborated on the philosophy of the pivot, heralding a shift in US foreign policy away from worn-out spheres such as Europe, South Asia, and the Middle East, towards the Asia-Pacific hemisphere, assuming it to be a dynamic region where the history of the 21st century would be written. However, the pivot remained an over-ambitious plan, divorced from ground realities.
On the other hand, during his previous presidential tenure (2017–2021), Trump’s major achievement on the war front of US foreign policy was his ability to disengage US forces from Afghanistan, thereby ending two decades of war expenditures. The question arises: does Waltz think that Trump would be ready to open another confrontational front in the Asia-Pacific?
The probable answer is negative. The US must calm the ME and end the Ukraine-Russia war to make room for opening a new dimension. During his presidential tenure (2021–2025), outgoing US President Joe Biden failed disastrously on the war front, proving that the Democrats (such as Obama and Biden) were incapable of making bold foreign policy decisions. Owing to their incapacities, the local economy suffered. For Trump, two prime challenges will not only be to introduce peace into Europe and the ME but also to participate in post-conflict efforts to reconstruct war-ravaged areas and rehabilitate refugees. Certainly, these efforts require money, which may deter the US from intervening in the Pacific.
Senator Rubio holds the view that, in the 21st century, the success or failure of the US will be determined by its capability to decouple the US economy from China’s. Rubio believes that China’s economy has gained an edge over the US economy. Similarly, over the years, China has influenced American society through cheap products and services, which serve as lobbying tools for China.
It is apparent that Rubio wants Trump to pick up the threads of the past. On 13 December 2019, and signed on 15 January 2020 in Beijing, during his previous presidential tenure (2017–2021), Trump negotiated a bilateral trade deal with China’s President Xi Jinping. The deal was intended to halt the escalation of the trade war by decoupling the US economy from China’s. The agreement committed China to purchase $200 billion of additional US exports over 2017 levels before 31 December 2021. This was called phase one of the trade deal. China had to buy at least $228 billion of US exports in 2020 and $275 billion in 2021 for a total of $502 billion over the two years. The primary focus of the deal was to facilitate the US manufacturing sector, especially autos and aircraft.
However, China could not go beyond 60 per cent of its commitment for 2020 and 2021. Similarly, the deal failed to convince China to remove technical barriers to US farm exports, respect intellectual property rights, and open its financial services sector. One reason for the failure of the deal was the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused the US manufacturing sector to underperform, while another was the accidents involving two Boeing planes, offering sufficient excuse to Chinese importers to pull out. An added factor was the slackness of the Biden administration, which failed to initiate phase two of the trade deal with China. Apparently, the Biden administration exercised leniency towards China, to the detriment of the US economy.
At this juncture, a point of conflict emerges between the approaches of Waltz (anti-China in the political domain) and Rubio (anti-China in the economic domain). While Waltz seeks the revival of the Asia-Pacific pivot, which will provoke China, Rubio advocates the renewal of the US-China trade deal for the next phase, benefiting the US economy. The choice for Trump depends on which path he chooses. The first option may revive the pivot but at the cost of increased expenditure, further straining the US economy. The second option may revive the trade deal to the benefit of the US economy but leave Taiwan in the status quo.
Most likely, by disappointing Waltz, Trump may opt for the second option: starting phase two of the trade deal with China to revive the US economy and avoid a confrontation in the Asia-Pacific.
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com
