Is Strategic Containment of China a Possibility?

Recently, in Sept. 2018, the US trade representative Robert Lighthizer & his counterparts from the EU, Cecilia M & Japan, H Seko issued a “statement on non-market oriented policies on practices of third countries” with specific emphasis on industrial & state subsidies & forced technology transfers – a clear dig at China.  While the USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada) Agreement was signed to replace NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Association), in Nov’18, a thaw in the US relations with EU & Japan, if achieved, could help co-ordinate the “Strategic Containment” of China. The Big “IF” remains.

Post the 2^nd world war, the US, formed a military alliance NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in 1949; they even rejected the USSR’s offer, in 1952, of withdrawing from East Germany & allowing for German reunification in lieu of Germany forbidden to join NATO. They rebuilt the vanquished, West Germany & Japan, under the Marshall plan & imposed on them a pacifist constitution to constrain their military rise. Under clause 5 of the NATO Act, US was treaty bound to provide mutual security which Trump refused to ratify, in July 2018, at the NATO summit sparking off  unease among allies. He further demanded the doubling of EU nations spent on defence from the NATO target of 2% of GDP, & undiplomatically, left soon after perpetuating his tempestuous reputation. Incidentally, only 5 of the 28 NATO nations-US, UK, Poland, Greece & Estonia,  have fulfilled even the 2% target with France spending 1.8% & Germany 1.2% & the latter planning to touch the 2% target only by 2030. Trump railed against the German plan to construct a gas pipeline to Russia- who supplies 60% of German needs- perhaps, seeking a share of the pie to be fulfilled by US shale gas companies.  He, resents, rightly,  Germany saving on defence while funding an export drive & accumulating a trade surplus.  While there is bipartisan consensus, in the US, on “burden sharing”  impetuous Trump’s  brusque treatment of allies with a potential to distort transatlantic- EU - & transpacific - South Korea, Japan etc.- partnerships  is being viewed with trepidation.

Trump's unpredictability & revisionist policies are forcing EU to explore for alternatives & revise roadmaps since it faces a precarious situation of doubtful NATO trust, US-EU trade war & unilateral US withdrawal from the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran & Brexit on one front & Russian interference of propping up a fringe - extremist Left or fascist Right & malignantly influencing democratic processes - on the other. Trump might become the “unintentional force behind the creation of a new western order” opined German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas while French President Emanuel Macron averred that EU should seek “Strategic autonomy” after the US “with whom Europe built the post –war multilateral order seems to be turning its back on this shared history” & advocated building strategic partnerships with Russia - contingent though on the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis - & Turkey - subject to Erdogan managing his pan-Islam, anti -Europe project - since neither China or the US think that Europe has a strategic autonomy comparable to theirs; building on the advances in EU defence  integration during the past year, he passionately envisioned a greater European role in resolving conflicts in MENA(Middle east & North Africa) - especially Syria, Libya & Sahel. In an interview to Europe 1, in Nov 2018, Macron called for a “real European Army” to protect the continent from Russia, China & even the US after the US pulled out of the 2016 Paris treaty for climate change & the 1987 intermediate range Nuclear forces treaty with Russia-imperilling European security; Trump called the proposal "insulting".

While Trump's actions that upend the relationship with allies is under legitimate fire, there is some method to the madness of the US launching a trade war with China. Of the $352 billion Chinese trade surplus in 2018, US accounts for $323 billion implying that the US is funding a competitor’s rise to challenge the unipolar world architecture. Even if US actions cool world trade growth for some time, squeezing China on trade, forcing them to drop export subsidies, reducing non-tariff barriers & denying hi technology loot or forced transfers makes eminent sense. Likewise, is opening up to North Korea - a client state of China - taking advantage of President Kim’s distrust of China post the Middle kingdom’s  complicity in Kim’s uncle, Jang Song Thaek’s plot, to assassinate him. However, Kim seeks control of some nuclear weapons & delivery systems for regime preservation while the US wants capping on both, delaying closure of an agreement; Trump reneging on the Iran deal & US forcing regime change of Gaddafi , in Libya, in 2011,after he agreed to freeze his nuclear ambitions,  legitimately creates distrust.

Trump’s revisionist foreign policy is costing allies across the world; lack of support, when India took on China, during the Doklam imbroglio, in Aug 2017, forced Prime Minister, Modi to quietly seek a “Wuhan reset” with President, Xi.  Similarly, Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, reciprocated to Chinese rapprochement efforts seeking hi technology as a counter to western technology denial.

Against this background, the US-EU-Japan joint statement is interesting despite questions persisting on whether it is a strategic rethink or a tactical retreat by the signatories. Putin wants a weakened NATO to stop its eastward expansion & a compromised Trump is seen as delivering on the same; paradoxically, EU, now, wants greater engagement with Russia as a counterbalancing force, even while Trump himself is keen on a reset of the US-Russia relations against the advice of his bureaucracy, driven as it is by a cold-war ideology & agenda, largely underwritten by a military industrial complex. Russia is compelled into a Chinese embrace, post the UN sanctions, to keep its economy afloat by military & energy sales; if EU & US agree to target only China & open up to Russia, with EU offering  alternative markets to diversify Russian energy sales, Russia - concerned with China’s encroachment into its perceived sphere of influence in central Asia,  could extricate itself from the dragon’s bosom; perhaps, Russia could then  be induced to reduce meddling in EU internal affairs as a quid pro quo.

US, EU, Russia, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Australia & India could emerge as a QUAD PLUS to tame China into following a rule based world order, with a consequent  reduction of conflict in the South China Sea & beyond, if only Trump does not suffer from a “short attention span”. He should quickly close a trade deal with the EU & Japan & keep his focus on targeting China alone. Since President Xi, can remain head of state for life - after he secured a removal on term limits for himself - the trade attack should be sharpened to weaken Xi’s position to encourage domestic challengers to his suzerainty; else the “liberal” world  order would face the gravest challenge - from "Mao reborn" & what is euphemistically called “socialism with Chinese characteristics" .