I. Two Centuries of U.S.-China Relations
 
In Chinese history, the U.S.-China relations spanned only about two hundred years. The U.S. was founded in 1776, less than two hundred and fifty years ago. In the 19th century, the United States was a young rising power. She echoed the colonialism of West powers and followed the British Empire's lead in colonial aggression in Asia. By joining the colonial power, the U.S. had gained a lot of benefits in China, access to ports, commercial trade with no tariffs, etc. The U.S. was a country established by Protestants and was keen on preaching Christianity. Therefore, there were quite a number of American ‘New Christian’ missionaries in China, making a greater influence than other Europeans. In the 20th century, Chinese people awakened and launched a revolution overthrowing the corrupt Manchurian Qing government and founding the Republic of China (ROC) with unofficial assistance from some Americans. The U.S. had proposed the Monroe Doctrine (1823) to oppose the colonization by Britain, France and Spain in Americas. Therefore, the United States did not vigorously participate in colonialism in Asia. After the founding of ROC, unfortunately China was in civil war. The Colonial powers, especially Japan and Russia took the advantage to encroach China. Thus, ROC was in a dare situation facing the humiliating consequences of the unequal treaties. In 1931 Japan started its encroachment of the Northeastern part of China and in 1937, Japan eventually launched its comprehensive plan to conquer China. China resisted with eight years of bitter war. As the Japanese aggression in Asia became a part of WW II, the U.S. and Russia became allies of China in fighting Japan, their common enemy, but with their own interests. China had no choice but to accept foreign aid to fight the industrialized Japan. After WWII, the U.S. and Russia competed for world leadership (behavior of hegemony) and the war-torn China eventually evolved into two parts till today, PRC (People’s Republic of China, CCP in mainland) and ROC (KMT in Taiwan) as a result of foreign support (or interference) from Russia and the U.S., respectively.
 
II. The Origin of U.S.-China Competition
 
In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) unified the mainland and established the PRC and the ROC (KMT) retreated to Taiwan. The development of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait took two different paths, one under sanction from the West and self-reliance and one dependent on U.S. aid and foreign technology, but with similar objectives (at least initially) to build their economy and improve their standard of living so as to unite the other side with a proven better political system. However, two decades later in 1971, a great change occurred, the United Nations voted and recognized (Resolution 2758, 10/25/1971) the PRC as the only legitimate government representing China with sovereignty over Taiwan. The U.S. also implemented the strategy of luring China for opposing the Soviet Union. This idea had been brewing while the U.S. was supporting the ROC in the UN (Kissinger's secret trip to China was in July 1971 and Nixon’s visit to China was from 2/21-28/1971). In 1979, U.S. President Carter formally recognized the PRC as the only China. The world finally witnessed the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1990. Then, the U.S. sprouted its new strategy targeting China. (As a military superpower, her military-industry power seems to need a target enemy to justify her huge military spending. With the Soviet Union gone, the rising China became the next target.) Under a pragmatic foreign policy, the U.S. left Taiwan but did not abandon it entirely, still using Taiwan as a pawn in the confrontation with China till today. With political independence, China had been focusing on her development of economy and trade, pursuing independent R & D in science and technology, and modernizing her military. PRC had gone from an ‘experimentation and correction’ phase to maintaining a steady double-digit economic growth. After 60 years (1949-2010), China became the world's second largest economy. Through vigorous military R & D, China's navy, army and air forces were advancing fast, notably also with advances in nuclear and space technology, rockets, satellites, and automatic control. These enabled China to achieve her three goals: pushing China to the status of world power with nuclear missiles, suffering no more threats and oppression, and gaining political and diplomatic autonomy. With large economic and trade power, multilateral cooperation and win-win trading strategy, China gradually gained international voice and influence making the U.S. feeling uneasy. On the other hand, Taiwan, after abandonment by the UN and U.S., failed to adhere to China's historical mandate: national reunification, strengthening the nation and enriching the people. Politicians in Taiwan maintained a narrow vision and sought political power for personal gain. The KMT gradually abandoned the goal of reunification, and the emerging party DPP was instigating ethnic divide and promoting independence. The current regime in Taiwan is blindly adhering to the U.S. and its ally Japan diplomatically, losing self-esteem and willingly acting as a pawn in the U.S.-China Chess-like competition.
 
III. U.S.-China All-Out Competition
 
After the 2008 world financial crisis, the U.S.-China competition began to sprout in all directions as China’s financial and economic power became substantial. The Obama Administration began to lay out a plan to contain China. Pivot to Asia-Pacific is its strategic policy. In the Trump era, competition with China had become fierce because of Trump's eager to win attitude and willingness to use all tactics, trade, technology, and financial wars all employed. Then Biden, self-mandated to outperform Trump, directly and officially announced that China was a serious strong competitor. The U.S. was insufficient alone and needed to build an alliance to compete with China. Thus, in addition to continuing with Trump’s anti-China wars above, the Biden team is engaging diplomatic maneuver, human rights accusation and military threats, for example conducting alliance military exercises in East China Sea (ECS) and South China Sea (SCS).
(to be continued)
 
Ifay Chang. Ph.D., Inventor, Author, TV Game Show Host and Columnist (www.us-chinaforum.org) as well as serving as Trustee, Somers Central School District.
 
 
 
 
 

 
The US 2020 presidential election is probably the most eventful one in American history. The anxiety and sharp division among voters could not be attributed entirely to the Coronavirus, which of course did make the U.S. death toll topping the world record. The partisan conflict has existed for decades, but the continued economic stagnation, the decay of the US international reputation and a gloomy future for better living for citizens are actually the main reasons for unrest in the society. Biden, eventually being confirmed as the winner, has assembled a decent cabinet staff based on identity politics, meaning with due consideration of race, gender, sex orientation and professional background. He selected many public servants from the Obama Administration, thus familiar to him. As a seasoned politician, Biden has acted quickly with his team first focusing on the domestic issues and then international problems especially the US-China relations.
 
Focusing on the pandemic and revitalizing the economy have to be his top priority, but the high-tension US-China relation is also demanding his attention as seen from the Senate confirmation process. The responsibility of managing US-China relations falls on Antony Blinken, confirmed as the Secretary of State, Jake Sullivan as the National Security Adviser and Kurt Campbell the White House AP Coordinator. They have kept a cautious and conservative stand publicly, but they have been busy formulating a strategy since confirmation. First, an Interim National Security Guidance Report was published on March 3, 2021, China was named as a serious competitor, calling for a strategy to form alliances with allies to counter the rise of China. No action on US-China trade yet even though a Chinese American, Katherine Tai, a distinguished law professional, very well versed in international trade regulations was confirmed as the new US Trade Representative. The Biden Administration seems to want to bundle the trade disputes with the national security issue, even though resolving trade conflict through trade regulation talks may seem to be a more sensible approach. China was not badly hurt by the US-China trade war. During the COVID-19 impacted 2020, China gained even more confidence by emerging out as the only country with a positive GDP growth
 
Although the U.S. just defined China as a serious competitor, but the U.S. foreign policy had always been practical. The U.S. has always taken a fuzzy position, for example, on the Taiwan issue, to allow practical bargaining for interest exchange. The Shanghai communique was born out of an exchange for China’s support in US sanction against the Soviet Union. The U.S. is now contemplating a ‘Quad+’ (Quad+ means  US-Japan-S. Korea-India+Australia and others) alliance against China, Biden has kicked off a ‘quad’ leaders video conference on March 12, but it is only a strategy at this point, far from materializing into a little ‘NATO’ for certain. India has long held the position of no-alliance so to be independent in her foreign affairs. China is the largest trading partner with Japan, S. Korea, and India, thus their economic ties would not necessarily welcome a hostile ‘quad+’ idea. However, Blinken, Sullivan and Floyd Austin (Secretary of Defense) had followed up with a series of high level talks to solidify the Quad strategy by visiting Japan (March 15-16, the joint press conference stated that: the U.S. is still under policy review [hence no solid commitment] and Japan essentially reiterated the US-Japan mutual defense treaty and her desired 'applicability' to Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands) and S. Korea (March 16-17, the joint press conference made mention of the Atlanta anti-Asian hate crime with no mention to China by S. Korea.). The Austin's three-day visit to India (March 18-20) was completely shadowed by the 2+2 meeting (March 18-19), where the two top diplomats of China, Yang Jiechi, Central Committee Member for Foreign Affairs and Wang Yi, Foreign Minister, were invited by Blinken and Sullivan for a strategic dialogue at Anchorage.
 
First, from the tight multiple 2+2 meeting schedules, we can deduce a few significant points. The U.S. seems to be anxious to figure out whether such a ‘Quad+’ alliance can really pan out. (Note: The above U.S. under policy review statement) The U.S. must ascertain what Japan, S. Korea and India really think about the 'Quad' idea. News has reported that the Anchorage meeting with China was suggested by Japan and/or S. Korea, if so, it would mean that they perhaps like to figure out China’s reaction towards 'quad' before they make any serious commitment. Thus, understandably, Blinken and Sullivan would like to have a 2+2 meeting with China as soon as possible. Gaining high level information directly from China to guide their policy review process and to verify their assumptions made in the formulation of a workable quad+ strategy would be useful. Judging from their Asia press releases, the quad+ strategy is far from assured in fulfillment.
 
The invitation to have a 2+2 talk with Chinese top diplomats was sincere but the execution was messed up. The acceptance of 2+2 invitation by the Chinese delegates is consistent with their usual belief that having communication and dialogue is always good for resolving differences. However, on the day before the talk, the U.S. issued a sanction against a group of Hong Kong (HK) officials for their application of the National Security Law to deal with the HK unrest. This provocative move before the 2+2 meeting negated any sincerity of having a productive meeting. The Chinese delegates could simply cancel their trip to make a protest, but they chose to come to Anchorage and express their displeasure in person. That is why after hearing more accusations from the U.S. at Anchorage, they decided to unload their steam. Perhaps that was the U.S. intention to provoke China to get reactions to appease the U.S. allies. However, the U.S. misunderstood and underestimated China’s hard-earned self-confidence. So at the first open meeting with the presence of press, we witnessed an unprecedented diplomatic performance of Chinese diplomats, speaking from their hearts with justice and passion without reading from notes to tell the U.S. delegates that they have violated the basic decency of diplomacy and began to refute each false accusation and counter attack the U.S. with her own human rights violations and double-standard hypocrisy .
  
The Chinese delegates expressed their anger with no reservation because they knew they were right. Indeed, HK, Xinjiang and Taiwan are China’s internal affairs. HK was legitimately returned to China as a part of China. The HK protests turned into violence and criminal acts were worse than what happened in the U.S. including the latest Congress Capitol building break-in. Yet the U.S. holds a double standard, arresting U.S. protesters as criminals but calling HK criminals as hreedom fighters. On the Xinjiang matter, the U.S. deliberately ignored many Muslim countries, UN and international groups' commendation of China’s effort in protecting her Muslim minority from terrorists by providing them education, training and jobs; and maliciously fabricated a 'genocide' story against the Chinese government. China has tried to maintain a policy of one country two systems to allow Taiwan to proceed with a peaceful reunification. This policy has been held consistently for past 50 years, granting Taiwan the most favorable trading partner and making her export to Mainland China reaching $100B (43.8% of total). At the U.S.-China 2+2 meeting, we witnessed a rare phenomenon that the Chinese diplomats spoke from their hearts when they could not stand the false smearing any more.
 
After the closed sessions, the Chinese press release seemed to still offer a hopeful sign. As a U.S. citizen, I sincerely hope that this unusual 2+2 meeting has given the U.S. some food for thought. The U.S. and China are two great nations on equal footing. We must accept a true co-competition or co- cooperation relationship for mutual benefits and the welfare of the world. Rhetoric and fake news should never be tolerated in democracy and international relations.




​

 
Prior to his inauguration, Biden said China was not a competitor, but after occupying the White Hose, Biden says China is a serious competitor. In Biden’s first 100 days in the U.S. Presidency, he became more and more assertive in confronting China. He led a team to build a foreign policy centered around China. Some political analysts say that Biden has a doctrine - Competition of governance system with China. The U.S. does not spread democracy nor promote it at gun point but shows that she can deliver democracy at home and abroad (by success!). Of course, Biden’s challenge is to bring his Administrative team (which may have different ideas), the entire nation (which has a broad political spectrum) and the U.S. allies (which have geopolitical differences and complex bilateral economic relations with China and with each other) together to embrace his doctrine in U.S. foreign policy - Competing with China in efficacy in governance. This competition, if conducted peacefully and gracefully, may be good for the two great nations and the world. However, if conducted unruly, it may bring disaster to the two nations and the world.
 
There are plenty of essays published warning both the U.S. and China not to engage in a hostile confrontation, a new Cold War or worst in a Hot War. This author makes a bold assumption that the two nuclear-powered nations with plenty of experience in wars and strategical exercises in war prevention will refrain from engaging in any Hot War. Based on what has been happening lately, we may not rule out a Cold War being stimulated between the two nations. Again, there are plenty of analyses of the previous Cold War between the U.S. (and NATO) and the Soviet Union (and Warsaw). Even though the Soviet Union collapsed (out of its own economic failure) but there was no true winner judging on the U.S. current well-being and Russia’s struggling economy. What the Cold War taught us was that arms race led to nowhere but mutual destruction if the Cold War turned into a Hot War. Cold War is just a broad competition included all aspects, economy, trade, technology and military. Since military competition can only lead to mutual destruction, it is logical to conclude that any serious competition between two great nations, such as the U.S. and China, should exclude military competition simply because it is a purposeless and disastrous competition. An easy to understand analogy would be an Olympic competition allowing two contestants using any deadly defensive and offensive weapons to battle each other. Such a suicidal competition is meaningless.
 
If the above logic is incorporated in Biden’s China policy or foreign policy doctrine - Competition with China in governance efficacy, there may be very good reasons to welcome such a competition as a Cool War (not Cold War), a competition without arms race for the purpose of proving whether or not a democracy system can be successful, superior to all other political systems and suitable as a universal governance system. Under such a condition, a serious competition between the U.S. and China can be a productive one. The title question, Can Biden’s China Policy prove (in)efficacy in democracy, becomes the most intellectually interesting debatable political question. The author cannot claim as a political scientist with expertise in government system, however, from a common-sense point of view, any citizen can pick facts and make analytical arguments to answer the title twin questions. The facts may include history and current events and the analytical arguments can be based on case studies on any existing political system including the U.S. government and the Chinese government. In the following, the author attempts to answer the above twin questions by comparing China with democracy in terms of the efficacy and inefficacy issue.
 
Efficacy in Democracy
 
Using China (her government system) to prove efficacy in democracy is an upstream exercise against time. Historically, when People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, it adopted the Stalin’s Communist System which didn’t work well at all for China. The great philosopher and revolutionary Mao Tze Dong tried very hard but failed to lift China’s economy except united the nation with a strong one-party (CCP) tightly controlling the government system. Economically based on a citizen’s welfare standard (prior to 1980), China was in no comparison with democratic country big or small, such as the U.S., Japan and the four little dragons in SE Asia. The West eagerly attributed China’s poor GDP per ca-pita to the CCP governance, however without seriously differentiating its governing system versus policies nor carefully excluding the sanctioning effect the West imposed on China. It was too convenient to use China (prior to 1979) to prove efficacy in democracy before China's inclusion into the West economic system. When China was finally admitted to the UN and recognized by the U.S., she opened up to the West learning nearly everything except accepting the one-person-one-vote democracy. China began to improve in her economy with her rigorous five-year economic development plans continuously for several decades till today being the world’s second largest economy and world’s largest purchasing power. This achievement was all under the governance of the CCP. Of course, CCP has been evolving and adapting but it has remained as the only dominant party in the Chinese government system.
 
Inefficacy in Democracy
 
China’s rapid rise was a surprise to many people around the world but it had dawned on many politico-economists and a few political analysts that it deserved to be studied. Many China watchers including the author have tracked the progress that China has made across many areas, agriculture, manufacturing, trade, technology, even financial system. The conclusion is clearly leaning towards not just her correct economic development policies but also, to a very significant extent, her efficient government system. For example, China has 15,500 miles of high speed railroads and 100,000 miles super highway crisscross in a grid system, whereas California could not, in ten years, get a single high-speed railroad built from Sacramento to Los Angeles mainly due to civil protests and activists sabotage condoned and abused under a democracy system. China made a national mandate to lift her people from poverty and indeed 900 million extremely poor people were lifted above poverty level so the CCP could claim on its 100th anniversary that China is lifted from poverty. China is the principal trade partner of 130 nations enjoying a surplus to finance the U.S. national debt. The U.S. has gradually descended from a ‘can do anything’ pedestal to ‘nothing gets done’ bickering bipartisan government.
 
There are numerous examples demonstrating the rise of efficacy in the CCP system (over the past half century) versus the inefficacy of democracy caused by partisan split (the more democratic the worst the government efficacy, India is an example). In defense of democracy, politicians resort to rhetoric to smear the ever evolving Chinese governance system, using job stealing, human rights abuse even genocide to discredit her efficacy. This tactic may convince a certain number of people for a short time, it eventually will peter out. Biden is an experienced politician with fifty years of political career, the author sincerely hope that he is able to honestly accept the facts in formulating his China policy. If he truly believes that democracy can be improved and can deliver domestically and abroad, then targeting China as a serious competitor may be the right thing to do to motivate Americans to reform. Biden is certainly aware that Hot War and Cold War are out of the question between China and the U.S. In a Cool War, however, Americans must remain cool, must revive their can-do spirit and evolve the current democratic system so that the U.S. will have a democracy with better efficacy than her competitor’s governance system. Biden must steer his China policy in this direction.




​