Humanity finds itself in the inherent conflict between rising and declining powers that has often, as in World Wars I and II, culminated in catastrophic wars. The U.S.-Chinese trade war undermines their economies and jeopardizes their peoples’ and world security. Accidents and miscalculations could trigger a calamitous war.
We now live with the possibility of U.S.-Chinese Mutually Assured Economic Destruction as well as Mutual Assured Nuclear Destruction (MAD.) Before the October Trump-Xi temporary trade truce, each side demonstrated its stranglehold on the other’s economy. China mines70% of the world’s rare earths and refines 90%. Rare earths are essential for producing cell phones, computers, fighter jets, nuclear submarines, Predator drones, and Tomahawk missiles. [i] Access to the U.S. market remains essential for Beijing’s export economy, and thus Chinese political stability. Early October’s ill-conceived US technology export controls aimed at China led to Xi Jinping’s threat of a total ban on rare earthers and rare earth magnets and exports. Trump responded with an additional 100% tariffs. Facing the economic abyss, during the APEC summit, both countries agreed to what will likely prove to be a temporary economic ceasefire.
This is not a contest that the U.S. will win. Nobel economist Paul Krugman writes that “China has overtaken America” with its larger economy, its annual graduation of four times as many engineers, and its generation of twice as much electricity. Krugman observes that the US is “in danger of being permanently overtaken by China’s technological and economic prowess.” Trump’s assaults on science and education systems further undermine the U.S. future.[ii]
Trump’s responses to China have been chaotic and contradictory. He condemns its “’unheard of’ controls on rare earth minerals” as ‘sinister and hostile.” Reversing course, he asserts that, “it will all be fine.” He was to meet Xi Jinping in Seoul, then he wasn’t, then he did. The New York Times reports that Trump has “repeatedly seesawed between retaliation and reconciliation, leaving questions about whether he has a larger strategy.”
Trump, the would-be monarch, emulates ancient and current Chinese models to compete with Beijing. In the tradition of the Tang Dynasty, in addition to selling $800 billion in bitcoin influence, he has used trade negotiations to exact nearly a trillion dollars in tribute from Japan and South Korea to fund rare earths production, the U.S. energy infrastructure and other benefits for his cronies. (This doesn’t include the estimated $800 million secretly funneled to the Trump family via bitcoin corruption.) Emulating today’s Chinese state capitalism, Trump tilts away from free markets, taking government stakes in companies that produce national security resources. That list begins with chip maker Intel, U.S. Steel, and MP Materials, a rare-earth mining company. Elsewhere, in Venezuela, Gaza, Panama, Greenland and the Arctic, Trump favors “smash and grab” imperialism, while China, except for the South China Sea, employs more subtle economic strategies to extend its regional and global influence.
There is also the classical imperial competition for Asia-Pacific dominance. At the end of the 19th century, driven by White Christian manifest destiny, the US launched its overseas empire by conquering stepping stones to the China market: the Philippines, Guam, and Samoa, as well as Cuba and Puerto Rico. Its Asia-Pacific empire expanded with Japan’s WWII defeat and the transformation of the Pacific Ocean into an “American Lake.” Hundreds of US military bases from Korea and Japan to the Philippines, Guam, Australia, and Diego Garcia enforce the imperial domain.[iii]
Before the Opium Wars, China’s empire was the world’s most advanced society. Its tributary system, beginning in the 8th century, required those wishing to engage with the Middle Kingdom to kowtow to the emperor. The 1860s Taiping Rebellion and its 20th century revolutionary civil war were devastating, but China last fought a war against Vietnam two generations ago. Beijing’s primary strategy has been to surround, isolate, and demonstrate overwhelming power to bring military rivals to heel without resorting to mass murder. We see this in its reunification campaign for Taiwan, its South China Sea territorial claims, and in its massive military buildup.
Nuclear MAD hangs over U.S.-Chinese military competition. An accident, incident, or miscalculation as U.S. and Chinese naval and air forces confront one another – at times within 20 feet – around Taiwan and in the South China Sea could trigger escalation to great power – even nuclear – war. Biden and Trump have attempted to “contain” China with Indo-Pacific alliances, military bases, and intermediate range missiles and missile defenses on China’s periphery. China’s greatest vulnerability has long been a possible invasion from the sea. Thus, to protect its coastal cities, Beijing’s military enforces claims to 80% of the South China Sea – claims contested by five other nations.
China can’t forget U.S. nuclear threats in 1955, ‘58, and ’96, or Russia’s in1969. Beijing has been adding an estimated 100 nuclear warheads per year to counter the perceived growing U.S. threat. Beijing’s smaller minimum deterrent nuclear arsenal is vulnerable to U.S. first strikes, and China apparently seeks nuclear parity with the U.S. and Russia. Human survival thus depends on the actions of the three nuclear scorpions in a bottle (U.S., Russian, and Chinese.)
The U.S. Indo-Pacific alliance system is now also challenged by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization neo-alliance, which is led by the Chinese Russian-North Korean alliance at its core. When its leaders commemorated the 80th anniversary of Japan’s and Germany’s defeat at the end of World War II, Trump responded with contempt, posting: “Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against the United States of America.”
Elbridge Colby, Undersecretary of Defense, drives U.S. Indo-Pacific military policies. He hedges on whether to defend Taiwan, but he is deeply committed to doing everything possible to reinforce US Indo-Pacific hegemony. To augment the U.S. pivot to Asia and the Pacific, he advocates reducing U.S. support for Ukraine and has begun reducing US troop levels in Europe and the Middle East.[iv]
Like Colby, Trump prioritizes Taiwan’s self-defense over U.S. intervention if Beijing seeks reunification by force. Colby wrote, “To make Taiwan defensible, America must focus on preparing for Taiwan’s defense and Taiwan must do more.” Yet Trump holds to strategic ambiguity and has expressed continuing commitments to defending Taiwan. This despite Biden concluding that Taiwan can ultimately only be defending by risking human survival via a U.S. nuclear first-strike threat against China. Alternatively, Taiwan may be forced to assume complete responsibility for its defense, with the U.S. simply selling it more advanced weapons.
One analyst observes that Trump has no strategic vision, and that we should not “discount Trump’s transactionalism as an opportunity for diplomatic openings. He compensates for lack of strategic vision, hence with his focus on tariffs.” Trump hedges with demands that Taiwan’s strategically vital chip industry invest in production facilities in the US and questions the “freeloader” island’s military dependence on the US.
Divisions within the administration reflect Trump’s contradictions. Some “America First” officials advocate returning to regional blocs reminiscent of the 19th century Concert of Europe which maintained a fragile European peace for a century. These officials are less committed to Indo-Pacific US alliances. We saw their influence in the massive tariffs imposed on India, despite successive US presidents having courted New Delhi as a potential ally to offset China. This clique also forced what proved to be an unsuccessful review of the AUKUS alliance and the commitment to provide Australia with nuclear submarines.
Traditional military imperialists retain greater influence. In Asia for the APEC summit, Trump reaffirmed the “Golden Alliance” with Japan and the alliance with South Korea. Earlier, Secretary of War Hegseth and Secretary of State Rubio signaled their commitments by traveling to South Korea and Japan and by sending a U.S. warship to the Taiwan Strait.
China’s priorities are, in fact, domestic and international stability. Beijing wants to take, not destroy, Taiwan to limit casualties and infrastructure damage and to seize not decimate Taipei’s advanced chip making facilities. Beijing would likely seek a quick victory to avoid instability. Thus, its preference is to win Taiwanese hearts and minds, primarily via Taiwan’s economic dependence on the world’s largest economy. Invading Taiwan would mean loss of international markets, diplomatic isolation, and possible long-term resistance. And, while most Taiwanese no longer identify as Chinese and favor future independence, few will fight for it.[v]
As we face a potentially spiraling new Cold War, we still have the paradigm that ended the last one: common security diplomacy. When preparations for thermonuclear war spiraled almost beyond control, in 1982 Swedish Prime Minister Palme convened senior Soviet, European, and US officials to devise an off-ramp from nuclear Armageddon. It came via the concept of Common Security, the recognition that no nation can be secure if it threatens its rival. Through difficult negotiations, Washington and Moscow ultimately agreed not to deploy the fearful, highly accurate, and decapitating intermediate-range nuclear-armed missiles that drove the dangerously escalating nuclear arms race. Addressing one another’s fears, common security laid the foundation for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, which ended the Cold War before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Then, from the Paris Treaty through the NATO-Russia Founding Act, common security secured the first two decades of Euro-Atlantic post-Cold War peace.
The 2024 Common Security in the Indo-Pacific Region report illustrates that the paradigm can be applied today.[vi] Tensions in the Taiwan Strait, it urges, must be reduced with shared recognition that Taiwan’s future cannot be determined by military means, that provocative military actions by all parties should cease, and that the One China doctrine must be respected.
The South China Sea can be demilitarized and denuclearized. As former U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman has remarked, resolution of the Sea’s territorial claims doesn’t require Washington’s intervention, the US should “Let the people of the region sort it out. We shouldn’t.” Provocative military operations should cease, as should the construction of new US and Chinese military bases. The region’s nations can engage in bilateral and multilateral negotiations for a South China Sea Code of Conduct. No First Use nuclear doctrines and a regional nuclear weapons-free zone must be negotiated.
There are alternatives to sleepwalking into catastrophic war. As the Biblical Proverb teaches, “A people without vision will perish.” Vision exists. Is there the will?