In his first few months, President Biden has had to focus on settling in his new administration and beginning to tackle the extremely challenging domestic issues he has inherited – especially Covid 19. His new team has begun to flesh out the general themes of foreign and defence policy set out in his election campaign. Biden has insisted on a cautious and systematic approach to the development of policy towards China and North Korea – for which the Anchorage meeting has been an important step.
Biden inherited a complex bilateral relationship with China. From the outset, he has declared that, while defence strength in the region was fundamental, he wants a “whole of government” policy with a key role for diplomacy. He was also committed to mend fences with allies while promoting a foreign policy that resonates with Middle America. Recent Pew polling has confirmed that the American public holds deeply negative attitudes towards China – in no small part provoked by the heightened Trumpian invective against Beijing. Some 89% of US adults currently consider China as a competitor or enemy with 49% seeing limiting China’s power and influence as the top foreign policy priority – up from 32% in 2018. And all of this with a wafer-thin majority in the US Senate where the Republican filibuster seems set to impede Biden policy objectives.
On the defence front, Biden instructed the new Secretary of Defense Austin to undertake urgently a new global Forces Posture Review with key policy implications for US forces in North Asia – as well as elsewhere. This will be in addition to Indo Pacific Deterrence Initiative approved by the Trump Administration in its last year ( “ US Indo Pacific Deterrence Initiative – What’s really going on?” P&I 17 January 2021) but with considerable input from the relevant Democrat-led House Committee. This identified the increasingly obvious deficiencies in US defence capability and recommended top priority be afforded to the strengthening of US alliance relationships in that region.
A crucial first step in the policy development process was Biden’s telephone call with President Xi on the eve of Chinese New Year – their first since the Biden inauguration. Details of that conversation were closely held but both sides saw it as having set out a path for exploring the possibilities of a new relationship between Washington and Beijing. Though for domestic reasons the US side was keen to emphasise that it did not represent any diminution of its serious concern on a number of major issues like Hong Kong, the Uighurs, Taiwan. Broadly speaking, it set the background for the following discussion at the Ministerial level of the long list of issues of contention between Beijing and Washington – as well as for those where the potential for cooperation exists.
The next was the decision to stimulate the Quad arrangements by elevating them to a Zoom Summit involving Japan, India and Australia. Much has been written about that meeting but the key objective for the US was to have it engender a growing collectiveness among the participants in their various concerns about China – but without presenting it as an anti-China initiative. Secretary of State Blinken argued that discussion about China was not “fundamental” to the meeting – though there can be little doubt that China was the elephant in the room! Similarly, American briefing also was pointed out that the Quad was not a military alliance – likely in deference to Indian wishes.
In an effort to try to portray this more benign view of the Quad, the US came up with a proposal to provide Covid vaccine to Asian and Pacific nations. The irony of this being at a time when vaccine nationalism was reaching a peak – especially by the US closely safeguarding its own stocks for “America First” and, for example, leaving close neighbour Mexico having to depend on Chinese supplies. And delivery in 2022! The joint statement by the Quad was filled out with a panoply of other contemporary international issues which were discussed and announced a few working groups on technical issues.
Much was made over the Quad statement on Myanmar but seemingly without any decisions with any teeth. Both India and Japan have closer contacts than their Quad partners with the Myanmar military – officially and through its various sorties into the commercial world. They might actually be able to bring more effective pressure to bear on the generals than the US or Australia can. The statement also included a reference to the ASEAN Indo-Pacific Outlook which was a blatant attempt to establish a linkage between ASEAN with the Quad though the Outlook quite clearly argues against “rivalry” in its region!
Prior to the Quad, the US proposed a meeting in Anchorage between Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan and their Chinese counterparts to follow on from the Biden:Xi conversation. In line with Biden’s commitment to strengthen alliance relationships, it was announced that Blinken and Defense Secretary Austin would travel to Tokyo and Seoul beforehand for consultation with both allies. The visits were characterised very much as ones for “listening” to the views of allies but they highlighted the very sensitive current state of relations between Japan and the ROK and their quite different views on China. All of which presented substantial hurdles to any thoughts of expanding the Quad to include the ROK as part of the Biden alliance-building project.
The US:Japan Security Consultative meeting, “reaffirmed” that the US: Japan Alliance remains “the cornerstone of peace, security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region”. The joint statement asserted that “China’s behaviour … presents political, economic, military and technological challenges to the Alliance”. It went on to list a series of joint concerns about “recent disruptive developments in the region” associated with China and affirmed “unwavering” US support for Japan on such issues as the Senkakus. It also reaffirmed their commitment to the “complete denuclearisation of North Korea.” Comments by participants after the meeting repeated the strong anti-China rhetoric.
All of which contrasted with the Seoul meeting labelled “a joint Foreign and Defense Ministerial Meeting”. Its joint statement avoided any specific comment on China. The main focus was on the importance of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the continuing “critical” role played by US forces in the ROK ( contrasting with their threatened withdrawal by Trump). In its section on North Korea, there was no mention of denuclearisation at all. Whether that has anything to do with DPRK statements on the eve of the visit seemingly leaving the door open to further talks between Pyongyang and Washington – despite the latter’s claim not to have had any response to their repeated efforts to reopen contacts – remains to be seen. It also agreed on the importance of the US:Japan:ROK triangular relationship but with no sign of any attraction from the ROK side to membership of the Quad. China has maintained its solid pressure on Seoul on this point for which the Chinese response to the introduction of the US THAAD counter missile system still rankles.
Then the US took a series of actions before the Anchorage talks, described by one US media source as the US “lobbing a few more grenades” China’s way. The most significant was a further series of sanctions against a number of high ranking Chinese in response to the new Chinese laws on Hong Kong. There has been some speculation about the timing of these actions in the lead up to Anchorage which were clearly designed to annoy Beijing. Could it simply have been a step to puff up the muscular image of the Biden team holding the line against Beijing?
They certainly warmed up the scene for the opening session in Anchorage which received so much media hype for the theatrics on both sides. Each clearly was playing to its domestic audience and the US to those in Japan and elsewhere in the Quad who may have been concerned that the US would be too soft in Anchorage. But just how much did this and the blunt tone of the US debriefing – and to a lesser extent the Chinese – mask positives which might have emerged in the closed discussions?
Blinken was suitably restrained in his comments about the meeting arguing that simply hearing about how differently Presidents Biden and Xi were now pursuing their priorities had been valuable. The US side had known that there were a number of contentious areas where the two sides were at odds. When they raised them the Chinese side responded defensively. He was very short on details about the discussion.
After a few somewhat warmer comments in the Global Times, the Chinese side provided their fuller version of the talks in the People’s Daily on 21 March. It claimed that the discussions had been “candid, in-depth and constructive” covering a wide range of international and domestic issues and had agreed to enhance cooperation or coordination in some specific areas: a joint working group on climate change and further talks on the future of the consulates general closed in Houston and Chengdu and on foreign journalists. It asserted that the US should “respect China’s “core concerns such as sovereignty and security” and welcomed the US reiteration of its adherence to the “one China policy on the Taiwan question”. It made no reference to the US‘s reported promise to make representations about Chinese economic coercion on its allies ( ie. Australia).
Not surprisingly given the eye he has to maintain on the US domestic scene, Blinken subsequently sought to refute some of the Peoples Daily version. But it also made some sense to restrain any hopes for speedy change in the bilateral relationship. Biden’s China policy is still very much in the process of development. That the two sides actually met and spoke so candidly in public without any walk-out, in itself, was a positive (albeit small) step towards a less volatile relationship between China and the US and welcomed in our region and the wider world. Though no further meetings have been announced, Anchorage hopefully has cleared the way to a cautious expansion of contacts at various levels between Washington and Beijing. One likely follow up could be a visit to China by White House envoy John Kerry to discuss preparations for Earth Day on 22 April which Biden will be hosting.
Mack Williams is former ambassador to the Republic of Korea.
Comments
40 responses to “Anchorage: Emerging Biden Policy on China”
Memo to Menadue: this thread’s been hijacked by low post sockpuppets. The sort of dynamic that when allowed to continue, has brought down a fair few otherwise reasonable sites.
So why don’t you debate rather than resort to name calling. Or you are actually blank on the facts?
Rational debate requires a common set of agreed upon facts.
*Noting the obvious about sockpuppet disqus accounts… well, you can just chalk that up to observation and experience.
What, uniquely by the right wing?
Largely, if not exclusively.
The US has a deep structural default when dealing with a rising China. Many pundits has zeroed in the lack of strategic planning when Trump’s agenda was set to contain and demonise China by opening up trade wars and culminating in a de facto “Cold War 2”. Without proper planning, they were unable to anticipate what China’s next move is or was prepared to counter those moves effectively.
Secondly, many of the strategies used are double-edged swords. For eample. US propaganda machine and media were extremely successful in demonizing the Chinese as reflected in the PEW Research polls. This success has given the big US juggernaut huge momentum which is not easily reversible. Biden may have the wish to normalise relations with China but the people will not allow it at the moment. It was a “populist” enemy created and returning to haunt the new Administration with a threat of losing the next election (local, state or federal) if it tries to reverse course.
This double edge sword now also applies to Australia, having difficulty changing course as it not popular. Coercion or no coercion, the stark reality is our next loss of $100 billion of iron ore export (George Wendell) would be disastrous for our long term economy.
Tighten your belts mate or start learning how to cook Chinese food – much cheaper! Or better still, start negotiating with the Chinese in earnest.
Hi Anthony
I agree that the PEW research poll demonstrates how effective the 5EYES campaign of media vilification against China has been. Italy stands out as holding a quite different view however. It also signed up to the BRI, and maybe Marco Polo so many years ago had a more significant effect on Italian minds than we’ve ever known. Both countries have a great love of noodles too.
The irony about Europe where I have both worked and continue to have ongoing close family ties in the French part of Switzerland, is that so much of their income is propped up by China where for more than 25 years they have relied on Chinese parts for manufacturing. From Swiss watches to prestigious cars most of them are made from Chinese internal and structural components, and made in Euro-Chinese factories established in China. Watch manufacturers in Switzerland in regions I know of, have also established local Chinese built factories in conjunction with Swiss manufacturers, but the products they make still retain the prestigious Swiss names.
On a lighter note
I cook my own Chinese food (and SE Asian cuisine) and grow my own vegetables, particularly bok choi (xiao bai thai), gai choy (gai cai), Chinese cabbage (bai cai) spinach (bo cai) and spring onions (qing tong) etc. Not every night – my wife likes cheese a lot – but most nights. It is a very healthy way of cooking and oriental vegetables are like medicine they so full of antioxidants and vitamins. Chinese people living across the road from my house taught me much about how to grow these vegetables successfully after I commented on their amazing garden in their front yard.
After the first encounter with the grandparents of the family, who are also the gardeners, I was given the title of “uncle” which their 3 year old grandson has since called me.
Thanks Mack for bringing us up to date with a great analysis of the Anchorage meeting. The US has made another big mistake using the meeting to castigate China with accusations of unfounded violations of human rights. This only serve to draw China and Russia into each other’s camp. This is laid out very clearly in a recent media release by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1852037.shtml
Of particular relevance is the following statements:
“Wang Yi said, China views China-Russia relationship as one of strategic coordination that is all-dimensional and all-weather and sees no restricted area or upper limit…….China firmly supports the measures Russia has taken to safeguard its national sovereignty and social stability, and is willing to work with Russia to continuously strengthen coordination on such issues as rejecting interference in internal affairs and fighting against false information.”
The combined military might of Russia and China beats any of the alliances that the US has managed to forge to this point in time, be it Five Eyes, Quads or Three Stooges. With the economic cooperation between the two big powers, the US will soon have two countries poised to eclipse it in economic or military strength. Confucius was reputed to have said “Before you embark on a journey of revenged, dig two graves”.
In any case, it is really rich of the US to accuse China of human rights abuse. Today, I was even reminded by Dateline ABC of the tons of Agent Orange dropped by the US on Vietnam that continues to cause deformities in babies by mothers exposed to the chemical. Where is the human rights of these people? Is there a Statute of Limitation on such crimes?
Not to mention the unexploded ordinance in Laos. The US is funding some removal of buried bombs but at the rate they are paying for it, it will not be completed until the end of the is century.
We hear a lot about the US side, with a great deal of indulgence given to US views and fumbling, and I would agree that we have not seen the full position of Biden yet, but when is anyone other than Chinese media going to actually cover the point of view of China?
The meeting as far as I saw was one where China made some pretty salient points concerning the arrogance of the US to be targeting China for human rights issues etc. It is only fair that reportage covers what they said as well. But it seems inexistent in Western media.
At first with the phone call on the eve of Lunar New Year celebrations, it appeared that Biden was making an effort to kick off a new start on positive grounds with China, but the track the US has taken since has said quite the opposite.
Apart from the formal trade war with sanctions placed on goods by Trump, the real trade war is to stop China from trading altogether so it can never rival the US. That is the unofficial position, and the entire reason for Quad and 5eyes who are in effect running a cancel culture campaign against China in the world. That’s a nasty form of trade war gone way beyond anything we have seen before.
In Australia we are fools to follow the US, the Global Times announced yesterday that China will now end purchasing iron ore from Australia. It constitutes 25% of our exports. Well over $100 billion each year. And China’s withdrawal from the market will also have a significant impact on lowering the ore price.
Australia is now seriously looking at an economic disaster.
Kevin Rudd made it clear with his “Five To’s”
1. To contain
2. To isolate
3. To diminish
4. To internal divide China
5. To sabotage Chinese leadership
All of the above has been in earnest operation for the past few years and will continue into the foreseeable future, perhaps the next 20-30 years?
One should lower our expectations of our “free” media to maintain its objectivity and neutrality when reporting on China. Like the Soviets at the end of the Cold War 1.0, the west will wake up after the 20-30 year slumber to find a changed world. A world in which US, UK, potentially Australia, to borrow the well-rehearsed eschatological phrases, have been “left behind” (Third World) while others on the side of the bamboo curtain have “raptured” (First World). That is, if violent, destructive, disastrous and murderous wars doesn’t visit us in between slumbers.
George,
The Western MSM is of course always toeing the official line. But dig a bit deeper, the Americans know they got whacked very hard by the China delegation.
Blinken got a ‘swirly in the toilet’!
https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2021/03/22/exclusive-charlie-hurt-china-gave-blinken-a-swirly-in-anchorage/
Meanwhile, half a billion people in China have celebrated the clash in Alaska. “中國人不吃這一套”! Chinese people will not take the crap anymore!
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E4%BA%BA%E4%B8%8D%E5%90%83%E9%80%99%E4%B8%80%E5%A5%97&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU921AU921&sxsrf=ALeKk0243w4huADqu8tiEvLWVgqJNq0TJA:1616548232228&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivnZO538fvAhXdwTgGHcIGBB4Q_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=2400&bih=1171
Like defeated dogs that lick their wounds with their tails still between their legs – I think you are correct and it has been a catharsis from China the likes of which we have never seen before. They have patronised China like a child, but they have not seen it grow up and talk back with ‘attitude’ in such a way before.
Fair enough, has the US ever apologised for Trump’s long tirade of purely racist comments? “Kung Floo”, “China virus”, China “raping” the US etc etc. What sort of superior international standard is that? Blatant racism.
Thanks for your colloquial Chinese lesson Man Lee – you don’t read expressions like that in Chinese language textbooks. Much appreciated.
You are right George. It has been cathartic for millions of Chinese people around the world (oh, excepting those who are sold on the idea of being inferior beings…).
The last time the Chinese said something similar was a letter penned by Emperor Qianlong to George III in 1793. https://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-1793
Quote: “Should your vessels touch the shore, your merchants will assuredly never be permitted to land or to reside there, but will be subject to instant expulsion. In that event your barbarian merchants will have had a long journey for nothing. Do not say that you were not warned in due time! Tremblingly obey and show no negligence! . . .”
Of course, that arrogance was before the rape of the Celestial Empire by British expeditionary forces.
So after 200+ years of putting up with it, the Chinese people have had enough of the crap from the West! You deal with us as equals, or you go jump. That seems to be the message from Beijing.
It is always good to act with respect for each other, but there are occasions in my experience when a good catharsis directed at someone who never listens or hears what you have got to say works a treat and leads to a better relationship.
Once the storm is over there is a possibility of the Sun coming out again and getting on with what needs to be done.
Given China has so many proverbs like this I guess there is already one existing. Something like 暴风雨过后，太阳出来了? My guess.
Someone, not sure who it was now, put me on to this clip a couple of weeks ago, it sums up things pretty well, and was so prophetic being made in the 1970s of the world we live in now. Orwellian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRuS3dxKK9U
Very good, George. Pepe Escobar predicted that the Chinese would seek to make shark’s fin soup out of Blinken and Sullivan. He was not wrong!
He also said: “Predictably, US deep state masters have not factored in that they could eventually be neutralized by a geopolitical Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDbOdKL9ZY ”
The hegemon is getting less and less assured these days!
Good old Pepe, he knows geopolitics and who is doing what like no other.
I’m happy for the Chinese people, something has to change and it isn’t ever going to work if we continue to chastise and hector China for everything it does.
Citing Bretibart destroyed any credibility you might have had.
May be. Used the website because the MSM was not reporting the truth. Everyone knows Breitbart is extreme right wing, so that is not an issue.
It’s an issue.
Another counter attack from China today ;
China issues report urging U.S. to drop double standard on human rights
Updated 18:17, 24-Mar-2021
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-03-24/China-issues-report-on-human-rights-violations-in-U-S-in-2020-YTijdZGIrC/index.html
Mack should have waited a day, George, to understand the Chinese reaction to the EU falling in behind the US, and whacking sanctions on some Chinese officials, over Xinjiang.
To say the Chinese reaction was ferocious is to understate it. A quote from Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying;
“I advise them not to underestimate the Chinese people’s determination to defend their national interests and national dignity. They will pay the price for their stupidity and arrogance if they come and go with such indecency.”
Another;
“The era when a few cannons can open the door to China is gone!”
It seems Wang Yi has taken on board some more friendly advice from Sergey Lavrov; ‘Tell your spokeswoman to call my spokeswoman for a chat. Then, let her be free!’
Yesterday was the first time I’ve detected Hua Chunying ‘doing the Zakharova’.
Otherwise, Wang Yi and Lavrov had a very big day, yesterday. It was almost as if Lavrov had predicted the EU would again ‘do the lapdog’, fall into line with the US, and throw a few sanctions at China…………………!
Cos, man, were they ready!
And, yesterday was another step toward pulling the EU to pieces. The EU is little more than the front office of NATO, and NATO’s job is to keep the Brussels’ bureaúcrats in line with the US.
Meanwhile, the governments of individual European nations are having their doors kicked down by their commercial enterprises, over having those enterprises continually blocked from pursuing legitimate business relationships in both China and Russia.
A few days ago, a former French envoy to Washington said France and/or the EU should start placing sanctions on the US, for ínterfering’ in sovereign French and EU affairs.
He is not a lone voice.
I’ve said for some time the Russian strategy is to pull the EU apart, and I now believe that strategy is also part of Chinese ‘policy’.
Always, always, watch Lavrov.
Thanks DJT.
Also, two topics taken out from yesterday Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on March 23, 2021, have become huge topics of discussion among social media in China and HK this morning.
1. Hua angrily refutes European and American sanctions, “The era when artillery opened the door to China is gone
2. Hua Chunying: Chinese democracy is the most extensive and true democracy. Welcome to discuss
“”The era when a few cannons can open the door to China is gone!”
A direct reference to the First Opium War, and so much for only 100 years of humility as some claim the Chinese were exposed to, but kind on the part of the Chinese when they limit it to that.
Some of Europe may have been roped in, but It’s also significantly dependent on China for its economy where so many of its manufacturing parts come from. Its what keeps Europe as a manufacturer competitive because Chinese parts are cheap.
See my comments to Anthony Pun about Euro manufacturing.
I also think the US has been trying to pull Europe apart due to to the scale of its united Euro economy. Any economy that gets close to rivaling that of the US is a concern for them. Look at the part US ratings agencies Standard and Poors, and Moodys, functioned in Europe after 2008 in terms of diminishing credit ratings. As far as I know no other country has agencies that do this sort of thing with such clout. I wonder who behind the scenes has been trying to cause continued division like we have seen with Brexit?
On your comments re European manufacturing, George – and, this applies to Western/developed world manufacturing, generally, one of my pet hatreds for many years has been the simplistic nonsense that developed world enterprises were largely attracted to China because of ‘cheap labour’.
Utter nonsense, and has become increasingly so over the last couple of decades.
The industries attracted to China are increasingly ‘capital intensive’, not ‘labour intensive’, industries, and they are attracted to China for one major reason – China’s ‘capital stock’, particularly its infrastructure, is ‘new’.
You cannot run sophisticated and complex supply chains in amongst run down, clapped out, poorly maintained infrastructure, and expect to COMPETE!
I may have mentioned this before, but Dr. Michael Hudson remains an economic adviser to the government in Beijing, and this is very much his ‘special subject’. The minute your economy turns to privatising every last element of your economy, particularly the infrastructure that supports manufacturing, you are well down the road to being a ‘rentier economy’, in large part because the privatised infrastructure owners move heaven and earth to protect their capital, which stymies investment of new capital in infrastructure.
And, that protection of old capital is further supported by taxation policy, such as allowing the revaluation of depreciated assets, to reflect ‘earnings’, thereby allowing another round of depreciation, which further stymies new investment.
Very few explain the difference b/w ‘Industrial Capitalism’, and ‘Financial Capitalism’, as well as Hudson.
I agree with you on the infrastructure but there is more to it than that. Chinese parts for European manufacturers are cheaper. How is this possible if the low wages and materials costs in China have not played a part? Materials costs in China are also based on wages. Buying products on a site like aliexpress made out of metal for example, reveals that the price of just the metal would be way beyond the price of the Chinese product if it was made in Australia.
I worked in Swiss watch factories for 2 years going back to 1978-79. Having relatives in the industry, and also having gone back there to visit them many times since, I’ve seen what has developed over more than 40 years. Several of these relatives are directly involved at some level in the watch making industry. There are many decentralised factories in Switzerland the villages, so it is different to larger scale businesses here.
A number of factors are part of why China has been favoured, and that is related to such things as “can do” ability (the Chinese have a great capacity for it as you would know) which is to say they are reliable suppliers that get the job done. When it comes to things like watches that are small in size, air transport is the main method requiring infrastructure because the size of the pieces that make up an expensive watch are relatively small.
Before China, the interest from Switzerland for developing nations started in Thailand as another site of extended manufacturing where parts were also made. I’ve visited Swiss manufacturers in Thailand where they also run smaller factories of around 120 employees. Watches are still assembled in Switzerland, but from where it started where a single watchmaker that made nearly every part and assembled the watch, it has grown into a larger robotics-based industry. Young Swiss are more likely to study robotics now rather than watchmaking as it was before. Having said that, there are still some things that are done by hand, in particular the metal polishing and jewellery finishes on the exterior metal cases the watch movement fits into.
The Swiss factories I have seen develop using parts from China, or from their own parts feeder factories based in China, have grown to be quite significant enterprises (many rich families), so they are doing far better financially out of the industry with the Chinese help, than they have ever done before.
Until Trump and 5Eyes countries started doing their anti-China campaign, no one said a word against the Chinese in Switzerland, and it is still far less of an issue there than here.
I’ll concede I know bugger all about making watches, George, so I’ll leave that with you.
But, I do know about making cars, whitegoods, electronics, building materials, surface coatings and a whole lot of other manufactures that have become a) increasing automated, and b) increasingly capital intensive over time.
The key difference, driven by the different approaches to infrastructure, is the ‘Hudson principle’ – infrastructure MUST support the adding of value in manufacturing supply chains, and that can only be achieved if infrastructure is not regarded as a ‘profit centre’ itself and, therefore, not designated as primarily a link in the larger value chain of manufacturing.
It’s the same with land. Allow property speculation to drive up the ‘value’ of land, in a value chain, and you make ‘unearned rents’ the focus of investment returns, and not the facilities that convert materials into value.
And, yes, of course, China derives advantages in material costs, but that is a product mostly of their size.But, it can also be a burden where ‘market failures’ occur, such as Brazil’s Vale having to withdraw from the iron ore market, due to operational failures in Brazil – which left China largely at the mercy of Australian iron ore producers.
Hudson explains all this much better than I can, of course. If you hop over to michael-hudson.com, you’ll see what I mean. You’ll even find a conversation b/w Hudson and Pepe Escobar, from early January, titled;
“Rentiers a bunch of gangsters”.
Thanks DJT, I am not an expert on economics, but have a reasonable self-taught grasp of the basics so as to have a go at a making a reasonable comment. I cannot get around all the subjects as much as I would like to.
I’ll definitely check out your link as I do with all the linked views that come my way. Pepe is a big favourite.
Watch half of video so far. Pretty good. Amazing that Hudson is providing advice to the Chinese at the highest levels.
Rubbish, I enjoy travelling on privatised toll roads! It has that free market feel to it.
But seriously, the US knows they are f.cked. They couldn’t even make masks and injection needles during the pandemic, in a full blown war, all the factories are at a particular place not in US.
It’s got a lot of GDP but most of it is an illusion. It’s only got one solution to all its problems, PRINT. It’s been 10 years, people know they can’t stop, at some point in the next 10 years, this house of cards is going to be in serious trouble.
Yes, the one new thing the Yanks can come with is money – by the end of last CY, circa 25% of all $’s in the US were ‘printed’ in 2020.
I didn’t write “circulating” in the US cos, well, they didn’t, and don’t. The “Velocity of Money” keeps declining with the printing, and it’s been that way since the GFC.
BTW, one the things Lavrov raised with Wang Yi was the prospect of the 2 nations developing a new global payment and transfer system. Kick it off just b/w the 2, then invite any other nations who wanted to join in.
I can think of a very large list who’d be keen.
The payment thing needs to be attacked on several prons, the ultimate nail in the coffin will depend on China’s technology development. This could still be a decade off. But watch this space. Certainly the number of takers for US debt have been declining with the latest batch, practically zero foreign interest. This is a stark contrast to what happened in 2008.
Some very big hedge fund types, such as Ray Dalio, are actively campaigning against buying any US Bonds.
His ‘plan’ is to borrow US $’s (before rates respond to the building inflation pressures), and sink that into ‘hard assets’, such as commodities.
Problem is, it won’t work as China is the biggest trading partner for a majority of nations worldwide.
US is saying don’t trade with China so USA can be number 1.
China is saying trade with me and we both win.
I mean it’s pretty easy to see who is going to win. A lot of this alliance is just lip service.
Only Australia with a corrupt infiltrated political class can be this stupid but even then, Australia will fall into line soon enough when the sugar hit from RBA wears off.
However for the West as a whole, there is a contradiction since if China becomes too prosperous, it’s going to bring into question the corrupt political system of the West into the spotlight yet they need China to keep the economy going. This is why you are seeing so much schizophrenia behaviouir at the momennt.
Problem is, it won’t work as China is the biggest trading partner for a majority of nations worldwide.
US is saying don’t trade with China so USA can be number 1.
China is saying trade with me and we both win.
I mean it’s pretty easy to see who is going to win. A lot of this alliance is just lip service.
Only Australia with a corrupt infiltrated political class can be this stupid but even then, Australia will fall into line soon enough when the sugar hit from RBA wears off.
However for the West as a whole, there is a contradiction since if China becomes too prosperous, it’s going to bring into question the corrupt political system of the West into the spotlight yet they need China to keep the economy going. This is why you are seeing so much schizophrenia behaviouir at the momennt.
The fact that the US chose to host these top-level talks with the Chinese at a seedy hotel in Alaska, about as far as one can get from Washington DC and still be in the continental USA, was a deliberate insult in itself, and that certainly would not have been lost on the protocol-savvy Chinese. What children we have as allies.
Nice point, Bernard. Reagan and Gorbachev met at Reykjavik in Iceland’s autumn weather, which is not exactly Mediterranean. Anchorage in Spring is even icier and is not even neutral ground. When the histories of the Vietnam War were written we learned that there were professionals in the State Department giving good advice but it did not percolate to the top. This is most likely happening again.
This is a thoughtful commentary by Mack Williams. Blinken’s bravado in his opening sallies may reflect a more worrying lack of confidence on the part of the US team, and a lack of diplomatic sure-footedness. The current problems in the US relationship with China are too serious to be played simply to the US domestic audience. No apparent advantage was gained by drawing in Australia and its problems, and even less by precipitating an anodyne joint statement with Korea. With some reflection, and perhaps some constructive counsel from allies (though whether that is possible from Australia is moot), the US might decide in future to embark on a negotiating strategy that is more smart than tough.
It’s worth noting the abbreviation “ROK”, the Republic of Korea, the formal name for South Korea, was used FIVE times in this article.
“Taiwan” was used twice BUT NEVER referred to by its formal name “ROC”, the Republic of China.
Might it be that “ROC” is rarely, if ever, used because “ROC” will completely shatter the illusion that Taiwan, the Republic of CHINA, is not China?
Ambassador Williams, are you able to enlighten us?