My new piece @WarOnTheRocks analyzes the White House's China strategy.
I've heard five critiques:
1) Too confrontation for admin critics
2) Too restrained for CCP critics
3) Too transactional for allies
4) Too values-based for Trump
5) Too late to matter
warontherocks.com/2020/06/five-c…
I've heard five critiques:
1) Too confrontation for admin critics
2) Too restrained for CCP critics
3) Too transactional for allies
4) Too values-based for Trump
5) Too late to matter
warontherocks.com/2020/06/five-c…
I want to begin by acknowledging that this is a carefully crafted strategy. It deserves serious debate.
Unfortunately, the administration remains "badly fractured intellectually" on China policy. The authors were saddled with several basic contradictions.
whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
Unfortunately, the administration remains "badly fractured intellectually" on China policy. The authors were saddled with several basic contradictions.
whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
First, the strategy rejects the "responsible stakeholder" approach and relies on sticks (not carrots) to “compel Beijing to cease or reduce" harmful actions.
But National Security Advisor O'Brien just said "China is not going to change its behavior." So what's the ultimate goal?
But National Security Advisor O'Brien just said "China is not going to change its behavior." So what's the ultimate goal?
Second, the strategy states there is "no desire to interfere in the PRC’s internal affairs."
But senior administration officials frequently call out the Communist Party and suggest "democratic processes are really the only way to go." How long can these two arguments coexist?
But senior administration officials frequently call out the Communist Party and suggest "democratic processes are really the only way to go." How long can these two arguments coexist?
Third, the strategy is difficult to reconcile with the America First approach (which is not mentioned).
How can the administration square the transactional America First rhetoric it uses at home with the focus on alliances and “shared interests and values” it touts abroad?
How can the administration square the transactional America First rhetoric it uses at home with the focus on alliances and “shared interests and values” it touts abroad?
Fourth, the strategy emphasizes values, unlike President Trump.
It criticizes China on Xinjiang. He says "go ahead." It calls out "political interference." He wants "the crucial farm-state vote." It labels China a "strategic competitor." He says "strategic partner." Which is it?
It criticizes China on Xinjiang. He says "go ahead." It calls out "political interference." He wants "the crucial farm-state vote." It labels China a "strategic competitor." He says "strategic partner." Which is it?
Fifth, the strategy comes too late. The NDAA required it in March 2019, which would already have been overdue.
This strategy comes six months before the end of a presidential term, after a trade war, and amidst worsening tensions. Has it already been overtaken by events?
This strategy comes six months before the end of a presidential term, after a trade war, and amidst worsening tensions. Has it already been overtaken by events?
In short, the strategy's authors faced an impossible task: building a coherent strategic approach out of an incoherent set of administration positions and actions.
The result is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." The words flow smoothly, but few will be convinced.
The result is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." The words flow smoothly, but few will be convinced.
