At the conclusion of the Cold War, Western leaders embraced the hope that an economically empowered China would gradually but inexorably embrace the gospel of democratic capitalism. More than three decades later, Beijing’s adoption of the transactional and regulatory ethos of the global market economy has proven nothing but a chimera. There is a growing awareness among Western leaders that the health of the world economy now depends upon a complete rethinking of China’s role within it.
The actions of China’s own leaders have induced this rude awakening. Beijing’s enthusiasm for draconian COVID lockdowns, endorsement of Russian belligerence, and aggression toward its Indo-Pacific neighbors have revealed its genuine character. Many who once sought to coax China into the rules-based international system now view it as an economically empowered, technologically advanced, and militarily capable communist state determined to undermine that very system in favor of a new global order centered in Beijing.
To counter this clear and present danger, the twin pillars of NATO have repurposed their national security agenda. Washington now identifies the People’s Republic of China as its primary security threat, while Brussels defines its relationship with the PRC as one of “systemic rivalry.” Furthermore, Beijing’s neighbors are hurrying to strengthen economic, political, and security arrangements tailored to meet the China threat, including the Quad security dialogue, the AUKUS trilateral partnership, and myriad other mutual defense arrangements. Relationships formerly transactional in nature are now explicitly political and ideological.
That China can play a constructive role in today’s global economic order without adhering to the principles of democratic capitalism is an illusion deserving of its rightful place in the dustbin of history. To ensure its permanent placement there, Western policymakers must be guided by an awareness of three immutable characteristics of the Chinese system.
First, China is a non-market economy (NME). To insist otherwise is to willfully disregard reality. As such, all anti-dumping measures and tariffs on Chinese imports are worth considering in the interests of equal opportunity and reciprocity in commerce. For decades Beijing has attempted to manipulate pricing, the value of its currency, and its access to world markets. For decades Beijing has lobbied the WTO and other Western forums for unfair trade and tariff advantages. It is imperative that the West engage Beijing with a full understanding of its NME status, insisting it comply with established international trade regulations and divesting from China if it refuses to do so.
Second, China is a communist country. The state reigns supreme in all economic operations. Constitutionally guaranteed property rights do not exist. China’s enormous economic growth of the past several decades has come almost exclusively from non-state sectors that access the international free trade system at the mercy of the state. But these non-state actors, wealthy as they may be, lack guaranteed legal protection. If the state so chooses, it can gut them in the service of the bureaucracy or of the world’s largest armed forces. Further, Beijing subjects all Chinese businesses to widespread espionage and surveillance efforts, endangering all foreign investments inside China. Leaders of the global free trade system should reconsider engagement with the PRC until it no longer demands compliance with a pervasive regime of espionage and repression.
Third, China desires to create a new global economic system that takes its marching orders from Beijing. Western leaders should not indulge the self-serving fantasy that they can change the fundamental nature of the Chinese government. The only global actor that can ensure China’s participation in a free and fair system of international trade is China. Surrendering to Beijing’s non-market practices and unyielding demands for indefinite concessions is an exercise in poor statesmanship that only impedes the progress of democratic capitalism.
For decades Western leaders embraced the hope that China’s economic potential could be harnessed to serve their own interests. They would do well to remember that their counterparts in Beijing serve only themselves.
Miles Yu is a senior fellow and director of the China Center at the Hudson Institute. He is also a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow at the Institute of Project 2049. Mr. Yu served as the senior China policy and planning advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during the Trump Administration.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS