US President Donald Trump spent the first three years of his tenure balancing the demands of hardliners who wanted a crackdown on China against his own desire to pursue a trade deal and cultivate a stronger relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
The unexpected order on Wednesday last week to close the Chinese consulate in Houston made one thing clear: The hawks are now in charge.
Eager to blame China for the COVID-19 pandemic, and fed up with what US officials call a history of espionage and intellectual-property theft, Trump has allowed a small group of advisers led by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to push the nation’s China policies toward its most antagonistic in decades. The result is a series of sanctions, restrictions and condemnations that culminated in the Houston decision.
Illustration: Yusha
“Despite the overall message that the administration was tough on China, we saw very much the opposite until we had a pandemic to contend with,” said Mira Rapp-Hooper, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, a US-based think tank.
“They actually pursued a very narrow China policy up until spring,” Rapp-Hooper added.
The battle has now been opened on a range of fronts: China’s tightening grip over Hong Kong, its treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang, its infiltration of technology and the theft of intellectual property. In nearly every policy realm, the US is pushing back harder. It is banning Chinese academics and expelling Chinese journalists, and warning that the US needs to cut its dependence on Chinese products.
Pompeo’s team, along with US Deputy National Security Adviser Matt Pottinger, are the key architects of the change. They are finding a more willing audience in the White House for their argument that the US needs to strike back after what they see as decades spent ignoring China’s behavior, criticizing both Republican and Democratic administrations for being naive.
According to one person familiar with internal discussions, Pompeo and his advisers have come to conclude that a capitalist, democratic US and a Communist, unelected leadership in China are fundamentally at odds and cannot coexist.
“America is engaging in a response to Chinese Communist Party and aggression in a way that America has not done for the past 20 years. We responded to their military, use of military force, by moving back. We responded to their use of diplomatic coercion via retreating. Donald Trump is not going to permit that, and we made that clear,” Pompeo said in June.
With the Oval Office offering little restraint, Pompeo’s team has orchestrated an unprecedented roll-out of attacks on Beijing, calling on every senior official in the executive branch to join the fray. That has included speeches by US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Christopher Wray and US Attorney General Bill Barr, who lambasted Hollywood and companies such as Apple for succumbing to China’s will. Pompeo has even given more latitude to his spokeswoman, Morgan Ortagus, to call out China in unusually harsh terms, as she did last year in referring to the country’s “thuggish regime.”
The Chinese embassy in Washington urged the US on Wednesday last week to show restraint, comparing the administration to a car going the wrong way down the road.
“It’s time to step on the brakes and return to the right direction!” the embassy tweeted.
Pompeo has taken the campaign on the road, with trips to the UK and Denmark last week aimed at coalescing a global coalition to oppose China. On Thursday, he visited the presidential library of former US president Richard Nixon — who was responsible for the re-opening with China in 1972 — for a speech that cast the US-China fight as the ultimate clash of civilizations.
Fueling the new hawkishness is a group of advisers around Pompeo who have laid out a China approach in far more aggressive and confrontational terms. They include US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Stilwell and two China-born US scholars pulled from the world of academia: Miles Yu (余茂春) and Mung Chiang (蔣濛).
Yu is a history professor who has focused on China’s military at the US Naval Academy and has long flagged concerns about Beijing’s efforts to expand its capabilities and influence. Chiang is on leave from his post as the dean of the college of engineering at Purdue University.
Both bring skepticism about previous efforts to engage China in order to get it to embrace Western values. They are joined by a key outside adviser, Hudson Institute Center on Chinese Strategy director Michael Pillsbury, who wrote a 2015 book titled The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower.
The group is not winning all its arguments: A proposal to undermine Hong Kong’s dollar peg got little traction, and a recommendation that the US pursue a free-trade agreement with Taiwan — a move which would infuriate Beijing — has gone nowhere. Trump also has not given his sign-off to another idea to bar entry to the US to members of the Chinese Communist Party.
Yet the days of Trump heaping praise on Xi, even as COVID-19 began to spread, are gone, replaced by an atmosphere of unrelenting negativity. According to numerous people familiar with the conversations, even moderate voices are ignored in administration meetings. US Vice President Mike Pence vetoed the idea of serving as a back channel to China, wary of getting in the middle of an unstable and bifurcated policy, according to a person familiar with the proposal.
The newly hawkish tone, while shared in the US Congress, has sparked concern from Democrats and Republicans outside the government who argue that it was largely a fiction given the revelations of former White House national security adviser John Bolton’s book, The Room Where it Happened. Bolton, who left the White House last year, argues that Trump only saw China through the lens of his own electoral chances, never cared about human rights in China and did not mind if Xi locked up Muslims in Xinjiang.
“This is partly electioneering. Clearly China creates a lot of problems for the United States, but this is the wrong way to handle it. If Pompeo thinks he is going to quote change Chinese behavior, he is gravely mistaken. Statements like his and others very much weaken the hands of reformers in China and very much strengthen the hands of hardline hawks in China,” said US Senator Max Baucus, who served as US ambassador to Beijing under former US president Barack Obama’s administration.
Several former diplomats as well as more centrist Republicans and Democrats argue that the US needs to cooperate with China to get things done on all sorts of matters, including counter-terrorism, climate change and nuclear non-proliferation. They also worry the new tougher strategy would cause Chinese officials to dig in their heels even further.
“The worry that I have is that only Xi Jinping could bring the Republicans and Democrats together in the American Congress. My worry is we’re going to move too far toward hostility,” former US secretary of defense Robert Gates told the Council on Foreign Relations last week.
Many in Beijing see the tougher US moves as a last-ditch, and hopeless, attempt to halt the progress of a country that has been catching up to the US, in terms of overall economic might.
“If anyone in Washington believes that applying more pressure to China will force China to succumb, they are indulging in fantasy,” said Gao Zhikai (高志凱), a former Chinese diplomat and translator for former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平).
“Washington needs to come to terms with a China which will eventually outgrow the size of the United States in about 10 to 15 years,” Gao added.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s