What Does Washington Want From China?

olitics P

What Does Washington Want From China? Pique Is Not a Policy

by Christopher R. Hill

During one of the Balkan wars in the 1990s, a group of senior officials met in the White House Situation Room and listened to a proposal for bombing Serbia yet again in retribution for the latest outrage by its dictator, Slobodan Milosevic. As the officials, almost all civilians, discussed the options, they turned to the U.S. military representative at the meeting for his view of the proposed new bombing campaign. He answered with a question: “And then what?”

In this file photo taken on June 2019 ,28, China’s President Xi Jinping (R) shakes hands with US President Donald Trump before a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Osaka. (Getty)

Policy and strategy should be tethered to answering that question. That simple fact is especially true in great-power relations, when one country’s ability to affect internal change in the other is at best proscribed, and efforts to do so may backfire. Newtonian laws apply to foreign policy and national security matters as much as they do to the physical world: every action does indeed lead to an equal and opposite reaction. Rarely does the receiver of the action simply turn the other cheek and carry on.

If the United States were instead to resume its role of leadership and keep a clear mind about China, it could help shape the global environment that the Chinese leadership must navigate.

There is no question that China grossly misbehaved in not being transparent with the rest of the world about what was happening in Wuhan. But although China seemed to be covering up the outbreak during those chaotic days in December, it is also very possible that Chinese health and security agencies simply didn’t know what they were dealing with in Hubei Province as thousands of citizens descended on an overmatched health system. The question of who knew what and when they knew it will in time be answered, largely because that question is being asked the world over—especially by the shaken Chinese public, for whom the effects of this virus are very raw even as the government claims to be achieving victory over it. The novel coronavirus that appeared in late 2019 has caused carnage that will most likely be etched in the world’s collective memory for many decades. For some countries, the pandemic will bring enormous changes to social habits and mores; for others, it will bring political upheavals as citizens assess how capably their governments responded. The United States has suffered especially catastrophic losses—of lives to disease and of livelihoods shattered by a collapsing economy. These losses raise the question of whether the country’s political leadership, with its attitude of contempt for institutions and expertise, was even remotely up to the task. Clearly, the Chinese have followed these developments. Not surprisingly, and not for the first time, the focus of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has been on finding someone to blame. That is the administration’s instinctive response to every problem it encounters. In this case, China, with all its afflictions, is the obvious choice. The question, of course, is how China will react. In recent decades, China has not managed its international relationships well. The world rightly gave a rapidly developing China membership and appropriate status in a panoply of international financial and economic institutions, hoping—never a sufficient foundation for decisions of this kind—that China would become a responsible stakeholder in an international system that made it a beneficiary. But those hopes have been repeatedly dashed as China has, among other transgressions, pursued aggressive trade practices that include predatory pricing and extorting intellectual property, even as the world trading system has been, in the view of many, excessively patient in giving China the time and space to reform. To some extent, China’s rise has suffered from poor timing. Its emergence coincided with increasing automation among its partners, and China, rather than technology, was blamed for the inevitable job losses. China could have surrounded its growth with an envelope of political and social sustainability, whether through improved factory working conditions, consumer advocacy, environmental protection, or general liberalization measures, but it did no such thing. Even its anticorruption drive, once popular with a frustrated domestic audience, began to seem corrupt when politicians went after one another within the gridiron of the communist system. These shortcomings have tarnished the luster of

olitics P

China’s model, despite the country’s extraordinary gains in lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.

The Chinese have a well-deserved reputation for thinking ahead, and what they see ahead is a world increasingly skeptical of China: one that, for starters, wants to shorten its supply lines, so as not to have to place overseas orders for such desperately needed goods as personal protection equipment (PPE). The growing ranks of severe critics of China—including those within the White House—have talked about “decoupling” from the Chinese economy as a solution to the economic woes of the United States, as if the cure for economic transition is to cut back trade with one of the world’s most formidable manufacturing centers. Now, that dream has a chance to become at least a partial reality, as the pandemic has greatly expanded the scope of strategic needs and weakened the arguments for free trade.

China is aware of such sentiments, which are widespread among its trading partners, and of the fact that the pandemic is bringing them closer to realization. If China cannot achieve status as a responsible stakeholder in the international system, perhaps, its leadership may be thinking, it can at least repair and retain its role as a responsible manufacturing partner and mitigate the global desire to make products closer to home. Within weeks of the pandemic’s spread, the country began to send its PPE products to the four corners of the world, as if to demonstrate that it is a reliable supplier of manufactured goods.

But although China seemed to be covering up the outbreak during those chaotic days in December, it is also very possible that Chinese health and security agencies simply didn’t know what they were dealing with in Hubei Province as thousands of citizens descended on an overmatched health system.

But even China’s efforts to reassert its role as a dependable manufacturer may be too little and too late. The world, not to speak of the flailing Trump administration, is in no mood to give China the benefit of the doubt. China’s effort to supply PPE to countries in desperate need of such equipment was greeted with suspicion in some quarters as a new effort to gain preeminence and broaden China’s malign and nefarious influence in the world.

That offers to supply hospital equipment should be subject to such scepticism is a testament to the weakening of the international order that the Trump administration’s inconsistent and retrenching foreign policy has wrought. Fear and

A security guard checks the body temperature of a woman in Wuhan in China’s central Hubei province on May ,11 2020. (Getty)

To some extent, China’s rise has suffered from poor timing. Its emergence coincided with increasing automation among its partners, and China, rather than technology, was blamed for the inevitable job losses.

loathing of China is no substitute for self-confidence and unity of purpose in dealing with it. U.S. foreign policy under Trump and his dyspeptic secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, aims less to broaden coalitions and forge effective policy than simply to marshal fear by ascribing malicious motives to a country that is more likely trying to protect what it has. The administration has made little effort to chart a way forward with a China that will neither disappear nor give in to diktats from the United States. The United States once built an international order that all but assured its own primacy. Yet of late, it has changed jobs from that of chief architect and builder to chief arsonist. The new U.S. narrative is one of victimization—at the hands of everybody, but especially the Chinese—and Washington seems to want to burn the whole edifice down. If the United States were instead to resume its role of leadership and keep a clear mind about China, it could help shape the global What China looks like in the future will be up to the Chinese. They will determine what role they believe is sustainable for themselves in the world. The United States, however, must contemplate a policy toward China that is practical and sustainable in its own right. Does the United States really seek lasting enmity with China? Is that in the American interest? Anyone who has visited the Great Wall might ask, do we really want to get into a fight with a people who built a thing like that? American actions of late have a ring of righteousness, and certainly of rightful indignation. But where is this posture leading? What does Washington hope to gain from it? The United States’ often clumsy management of bilateral relations in East Asia (the Korean Peninsula comes to mind) suggests that its policy is designed to confer on China the status of a regional hegemon even while simultaneously trying to weaken it and reduce the scope of its global influence. This approach is inconsistent and the same will likely be true of its results. Pique is no substitute for policy. For all that China has to consider in the months ahead, perhaps it is the United States that needs to calm down and ask itself what it wants next and how to get it. This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

environment that the Chinese leadership must navigate.

pinion o

Germany and Hezbollah

by: Elie Fawaz

Former US ambassador to Germany and current Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, has been working closely with German authorities these past few years to counter Hezbollah’s network in Germany. His efforts paid off as Berlin soon added the organisation’s military and political wings into its list of designated terror groups. This development cannot be understated as the Secretary General of Hezbollah recently made a live appearance where he denied any group activity in Europe. In his speech, Nasrallah made a reference to the institutions that were raided by German authorities earlier this month, as several individuals linked with the group were arrested throughout the country. Naturally, the Secretary-General denied any links between Hezbollah and these institutions, but the leader’s lies and denials are futile now. This is because German law enforcement, unlike its counterpart in Lebanon, is not a corrupt institution, this means that Hezbollah cannot bribe, blackmail or force German authorities to fabricate or redact case files that highlight its illicit activities. Furthermore, Germany has always had a history of cautious diplomacy meaning that it strays away from policies of cutting off communications with states or institutions that it disagrees with. This is the reason why for the longest time it tolerated Hezbollah’s political wing, and only considered its military wing a terrorist group. As such, Berlin’s recent decision to ban the group in its entirety means that it has gathered conclusive evidence that shows the group and its affiliates of undertaking a number of activities, which undermine German law. Hezbollah claims that Germany’s decision has to do with the group’s position on the Palestinian issue, but such claims are fallacious to say the least, since it implies that the German government has never stood on the side of the Palestinians. For instance, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has been one of the most passionate politicians who stood for the Palestinians, and in many cases he has been more ardent on the Palestinian issue than even Hezbollah itself. Furthermore, the German Foreign Minister has been vocal about his opposition of the US’s “confrontational” policies towards Iran, and he has supported the facilitation of trading channels with Iran, in a manner that does not violate US sanctions, of course. Many terrorist groups have found a safe haven in Germany since its authorities fear accusations claiming that they are targeting a group because it attracts members who are not of German heritage, or ethnicity. One mustn’t forget that the atrocities, which Jews faced at the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust, are still entrenched in German collective memory. However, these relaxed laws have come at a cost, case in point the formation of the Hamburg Al Qaeda Cell, which a young Lebanese student by the name of Ziad Jarrah was a member of. Eventually Jarrah became one of the hijackers that caused the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York. It is no surprise that Hezbollah has a presence in Germany considering the fact that the country’s laws gave it relative freedom to operate. Moreover, residing in an Schengen country like Germany gives groups like Hezbollah the opportunity to move throughout the rest of Europe. Germany’s decision to place Hezbollah on the terror list will undoubtedly have financial implications for Hezbollah. These German-based, Hezbollah-linked institutions served the group both in terms of security and finance. In addition to their banking facilities, these institutions were exempted from paying taxes. This was because German law exempts religious organisations from paying taxes, and these institutions were guised as such. This development will, of course, hinder many of Hezbollah and Iran’s actions and the raided institutions will surely be added to the sanctions list. Today, US pressure is shifting towards France in hopes that it, and other European countries, will follow Germany’s suit and add Hezbollah to their lists of designated terror groups. Such actions would deny Hezbollah, its institutions and businessmen access to the European banking system. Undoubtedly that would be a huge blow to Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. What is happening with Hezbollah is somewhat reminiscent of the fate of Pablo Escobar, the leader of the World Medell Indión. The group had a massive monopoly over the world’s cocaine production, as it possessed 80 per cent of the global cocaine production. Additionally, the group had massive stakes in the illicit US drug market (75 per cent) and that, of course, became the primary reason for its demise. Escobar attempted to improve his public image as he took part in politics and charity work, however his success in illicit activities could not be ignored and he was eventually executed. One could say he was a victim of his success. If Hezbollah and Iran continue to confront the US, pursue expansionist projects and attempt regional destabilisation, then they must prepare for a colossal retaliation, the likes of which they have never seen before.

A Weekly Political News Magazine Issue 1800- May - 15/05/2020

Kim Yo-jong: North Korea›s Most Powerful Woman and Dictator in Waiting