- Hi, everybody,
Ian Bremmer here.
Still in New York, still really hot,
still in the middle of coronavirus.
But today got to talk
about US-China,
'cause so much is going on.
I mean the latest headlines,
you've got fire department showing up
at the Chinese consulate in Houston
because they're burning
all of their papers
in containers outside.
This is following the
United States government
telling them they have a few
days to close their consulate,
claiming that Chinese
officials have been involved
in espionage out of
that consulate facility.
The Chinese response is
that this is unacceptable,
sudden escalation from the US side.
They're almost certainly going to close
an American consulate
in return, tit for tat.
It sounds like the consulate in Wuhan.
There five us consulates in China.
There's also Hong Kong,
but it's very hard to believe that they'll
cut out Hong Kong.
That would be a much more
significant escalation.
And you know, most of
the direct escalation
on things like tariffs,
on things like diplomatic
hits and the rest,
those are coming from the United States,
but pretty much everything
is getting worse
in the US-China relationship.
No matter what you look
at, the Uighurs, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, South China
Sea, technology, Huawei,
economic trade, investment,
intellectual property,
openness to media and journalists,
student visas, blamed for the coronavirus,
and of course the borders between
the two countries are closed.
Now, some of that is because
the Trump administration
has taken a tougher line on preexisting
and continuing Chinese behavior
that no one's much happy about.
I mean, the behavior, not the Chinese,
the American response,
and some of it is
because the Chinese have,
themselves, taken escalatory policy steps,
like ramping up suppression
with these million plus
Uighurs in forced reeducation
camps in the country,
or the unilateral decision to implement
a new national security law in Hong Kong,
ending Hong Kong government autonomy
as had been committed to
and provided by the Chinese government.
Now, the interesting thing
is that the response to China
is broadly supported.
When I say broadly supported
I mean first of all,
that the massive backlash against China
is not just about Trump.
I mean I've been talking to most of
Biden's senior advisors
on the foreign policy,
national security side,
and the economic side,
and they don't like Trump, obviously.
And they don't like his mode of diplomacy.
They don't think he executes well.
But when you ask them about the actual
content of policies on all
of the issues I just raised,
they don't really have
significant disagreements.
So that is between Biden and Trump
and their foreign policy teams.
They're pretty aligned.
Between Democrats and
Republicans in Congress,
on China, on almost all of these issues,
they're quite aligned.
Between the American
corporate special interests
with a lot of influence, of course,
over the US regulatory
and foreign policies
and the government, they
were much less aligned five,
10 years ago, not wanting to
say bad things about China,
because they were trying to
get more business themselves.
Many of those companies now
feel like their own businesses
in China are less sustainable.
They are much more willing publicly
to come out against China
and ask for government help.
That's particularly true
with the tech firms.
And as you know,
the tech firms in the US
are economically dominant,
they've got a lot more influence,
they're critical to national security.
And so that really matters.
And then you've got other countries.
I mean, if this is just
the US-China fight,
then you would expect
that other countries,
many of whom are not happy
with President Trump at all,
would be trying to stay on the fence.
That's not happening.
I mean, the response to
the Hong Kong decision
led to a very sharp reaction
from the United Kingdom.
In fact, sharper than
the American reaction.
The coronavirus coverup in China
led to stronger calls for
an independent investigation
from Australia than it did
from the United States.
And that wasn't coordinated.
The Indian government
has decided to ban TikTok
and 58 other Chinese apps.
That had nothing to do with the US,
that was a response to the Chinese
sending troops to contest the territory
in the Himalayas and responsible
for killing some 20 plus Indian soldiers
in that border region.
So, I mean, the fact
that so many countries
around the world, most of
which are American allies,
but not all, are engaged in backlash
against Chinese policies,
implies that Xi Jinping is doing a lot
that's wrong at this point.
That either his policies are bad
or he's implementing ineffectively.
And I would argue that both of these case
have been problematic for him.
Now there's a question, can we fix it?
And certainly that's
going to be challenging
because it's President Xi
that's largely been
moving in this direction.
I mean, if you ask where the
broader changes are in the world,
are they in the US foreign
policy, in reality, or China,
most of the changes have been from China.
The consolidation of power
under a single leader,
the anti-corruption campaign,
which was partially about anti-corruption
and partially about
stronger authoritarian rule,
the unwillingness to engage
in continued economic
and political reform inside China,
the buildup of Belt and Road,
the decision that they
want to be global leaders
in artificial intelligence by 2030,
the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Now look, the fact that
China's just the reality,
China's gotten bigger
and they're not aligning
with American or Western values,
no one should be surprised
that there is backlash against that.
And that is not all China's fault at all,
but a lot of the assertive,
heavy-handed use of Chinese
political, economic,
and in some cases, military
and technological influence
over countries that need them a lot,
that has certainly led
to a lot of backlash
that has nothing to do with the Chinese
versus the American system.
It has to do with a country
throwing its weight around.
The United States has been
on the wrong side of that
on many occasions, historically.
Secondly, not only is Xi Jinping
moving in this direction,
but the United States is
not prepared to compromise.
I mean, again, the fact that
this is broadly bipartisan,
that the US is looking for scapegoats
and not just President Trump,
but a lot of people are saying,
why are things not going the
way we'd like them to go?
A lot of people are
blaming China for that.
Coronavirus makes it worse,
but it's not just about that.
And then third, even if
there was a willingness
to engage in a climb down
between the two countries,
and again, both sides are not moving
in that direction right now,
you'd have to be able to convince them
that the US was sincere
and was really prepared
to engage with the Chinese,
really prepared to compromise.
And it's hard to see that given
how badly the trust is
broken on both sides.
I mean, for example, when the Chinese,
I mean, the big moment when
China to turn to the West
was when they joined the
World Trade Organization
under President Clinton.
And that was basically the
Chinese government saying,
okay, if we accept
Western based trade rules,
we're going to do a lot better ourselves.
And that meant they also believed
that they would be truly
allowed to join the WTO,
and if they did align
with Western trade values,
they would be able to benefit.
And indeed it did work out that way.
They did open their markets
to a much greater degree,
and China's growth self evident
over the course of the decades,
just rocket ship since they joined
that Western-led organization.
Now, could that happen for data?
For technology?
If the Chinese government
was willing to adapt
to a Western rule set in
terms of the treatment
of data and surveillance
and allow their private sector companies
to actually run with rule of law
and not be controlled by the government,
would it be credible that
there would be an organization,
a regime that the Chinese
could join and align with?
And would they actually see benefits?
Would they be allowed to?
I mean, number one,
that doesn't exist in the West right now,
such an organization.
Number two, the President Xi
is moving in the opposite direction.
I would argue you would
need a change of leadership.
And number three, the United States
is driving a lot of this unilaterally
through its dominant tech firms.
So I think for that to happen,
two things would have to occur.
One is you'd have to
see much more alignment
on multilateral values and standards
between the Americans and the Europeans.
That's not happening right now,
but it could happen, could happen.
Certainly Biden, much more pro Europe,
if he were to win in November elections.
And the Europeans were able to continue
in a stronger pro European
track with Merkel, Macron,
but also with strong
technocrats running Brussels,
as we've seen now on climate,
on tech, that's possible.
But the other piece of this is Xi Jingping
would probably need to go.
And that's interesting, right?
Because if he's seen his
failing over the next year,
he's was supposed to only get two terms.
He forced through the end of term limits,
just like Putin just did in Russia.
And could potentially
be president for life.
But that doesn't mean it's a slam dunk.
And if there's a belief
among Chinese elites,
that Xi Jingping is
actually driving the country
in the wrong direction
and you got rid of him
you actually moved him aside
for a more technocratic,
a more pragmatic, a less overtly
nationalist Chinese leader,
you could see a pathway
for a WTO type moment
between the Chinese and the
West on technology and data.
That would be a really big thing,
but we are on none of those issues
heading in that direction right now,
we're heading in the opposite.
In the interim, since we're
not heading in that direction,
what could we do?
Well, we need to try to
guard against mistakes
and overreach, and we still
do need to work together.
Let's keep in mind that we
do a lot of trade with China.
We buy a lot of goods from China.
We don't want that to stop anytime soon
because it will cost
Americans and others dearly
in our pocket books at a time
when massive unemployment
and the economy is contracting.
Our universities get lots of money
from Chinese international
students that pay full freight.
We don't want to kick them out.
I mean, it's one thing them coming to MIT
and studying artificial intelligence.
We probably don't want them to do that
as long as tech is on this path,
but we probably do want them coming to
second and third tier universities,
paid for by wealthy parents,
so these universities can keep running
and don't have to fall apart.
That's a useful thing and
benefits the United States.
And certainly in the
context of a pandemic,
in the context of climate change,
do you want the world's
largest emitter of carbon
to be working cooperatively
with the United States and
Europe, of course you do.
The alternative is much
worse for everyone.
Do you want the country that
has the greatest amount of data
on coronavirus and is driving ahead
in some of the vaccine and
treatment developments work
and is also producing the lion's share
of the world's personal
protective equipment
for frontline healthcare workers,
do you want them working on
supply chain with the West?
Of course you do.
So if those things break,
we're all going to get hurt.
So we have to recognize this is not like
a Cold War with the Soviets,
where we wanted them to lose.
And there wasn't,
there really was very
little interdependence
between the United States and the Soviets,
between the West and the East block.
In the case of the US and China,
Europe and China, Japan and China,
there's actually a lot of integration.
These are the world's
two largest economies,
and breaking that would be a
real problem for all of us.
So a really tough one, when
I think about an awful lot,
hope you found this worthwhile,
and I'll see you guys all real soon.
Have a good weekend and avoid people.
