I have not published a take on the week or a post for another series as I have been incredibly busy doing my TEFL course, as well as preparing to leave Australia to go back to Canada in between adventures. I have been trying to figure out a way to publish a regular post that I can make time to write no matter how busy I am throughout the week, and to sometimes publish longer posts that look at issues in much greater depth.
I have settled on a formula that I will start implementing this week. I will publish a take on the week every week on Friday starting this week. Instead of trying to publish one a week on top of my take on the week, I will publish longer posts as special posts that analyze issues in depth. My take on the week will look at the previous week. This allows for the aftermath of the 24-hour news cycle to relax and for closer analysis from the commentariat to amass. Much of my own work is in response to the work of others. Thus, this formula will guarantee a weekly posting while giving me space to often publish much more focused, longer posts.
This week I will first be looking at an event from the week ending September 3rd. During this week, US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo went on a four-day trip to China to conduct dialogues with ambassadors and she concluded her trip with a speech at Disneyland Shanghai. Although on the surface Raimondo’s visit, combined with the removal of export controls on 27 Chinese companies by the Secretary of Commerce beforehand, shows a thawing of relations with China and a move towards diplomacy, the underlying goal of US policy towards China is still economic imperialism and technological dominance.
Second, liberal thinker Joseph Nye wrote an article for The Strategist in which he argues that the first Republican primary debate showed the schism within the Republican party between conservative internationalism and isolationism. Nye makes the case that those who oppose continuing support for Ukraine against Russia are wearing historical blinders and should be disqualified from the US presidency. His thinking is outdated and ignorant. Nye’s argument is based on the notion that America and the West are exceptional, and that the world order developed following the end of the Second World War requires US leadership and is founded on liberal principles. That Nye and his ilk, which includes thinkers like Michael Mandelbaum and John Ikenberry, are still widely revered in the field of international relations is absurd. This is part of a larger argument that I have developed over the course of my studies. Through brief analysis of Nye’s article published this week I will introduce this position.
Uncle Sam is Tariff Man (From Week Ending September 3rd)
From August 27th to the 30th US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo visited her counterparts in China, and before her visit, the US removed export restrictions on 27 Chinese companies that were previously placed on the Commerce Department’s unverified list.[i] A company on this list have failed end use checks which verify the legitimacy of export receivers and is then subject to prohibitions and restrictions.
Raimondo discussed issues like AI, the sale of chips, and on making China understand that US export controls and tariffs were related to their national security interests, and that those will not be compromised under any circumstance. Raimondo said that the US was not targeting China, but “We’re targeting action and behavior which undermine U.S. national security, and we sought to begin clarifying our procedures.”[ii] Action and behavior that undermines US national security is intentionally vague, as to an outside observer, it sounds logical, however US national security means US economic and military supremacy, and that is why, as Raimondo made clear during her visit, the US will not sell its most advanced chips to China, as they will inevitably be used by their military.
Raimondo’s visit to China and the resulting dialogues between them show that, unlike Trump, the Biden administration disguises its ruthless effort to ensure China lags technologically and militarily behind endless rhetoric and fake diplomacy. The Commerce Department may have lifted some export controls, but the steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by Trump in 2018 remain and were deemed illegal by a WTO report in December 2022. However, a recent WTO report ruled in America’s favor in a case in which China imposed retaliatory tariffs on agricultural products like pork.[iii] China argued that they were acting to protect their interests, and the WTO did not recognize these claims.
Raimondo reiterated in recent interviews that she told ambassador she met with in China that US national security was for the US to decide, and it was not to be discussed or debated with China or any other nation. While on the surface, this makes sense, of course it is up to the US what is in their own national security interest, it is not in the interest of the American people, but a handful of oligarchs and the ruling class in Washington. Their interest in taking on China is clear, as China is a threat to US empire, and, as Patrick Lawrence argues, they are simply “better at capitalism than us”.[iv] Voters have been convinced that China is the source of their ills, and that, in the words of Trump, “China has been raping our country!”[v]
Trump and his top trade advisers, Robert Lighthizer, and Peter Navarro, repeatedly made comments and delivered speeches that articulated how China steals jobs, sends fentanyl to kill Americans, and how China cheats through the WTO and manipulates its currency. These claims may be partially true, but lashing out at China with tariffs and massive military buildups on its doorstep will escalate tensions, not ease them. We in the West accuse China of being expansionist and mercantilist. Any such accusation you can hurl at China can hurled at the US and the West.
In his 2020 campaign, Biden positioned himself in favor of free trade, not protectionism. Three years into his presidency, the Biden administration is continuing Trump’s protectionist trade policy. Biden has not renegotiated the TPP, which Trump withdrew from within days upon entering office in 2017, he has upheld Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, and Biden has not signed a single free trade deal. Even Trump signed a free trade deal, though it was the renegotiation of NAFTA, the USMCA.
Biden’s chief trade ambassador, Katherine Tai, sounds more like Lighthizer than a free trade advocated. Lighthizer argued that he is not a protectionist, nor is he a globalist, and that he opposes the “free trade theology” that he argues is the doctrine of the Washington establishment.[vi] Similarly, Tai says “If you want to understand my perspective: I neither believe in pure free trade nor pure protectionism,”, and her focus is on trade policy that prioritizes American workers.[vii] This is, of course, a sham. The goal of US trade policy is to safeguard its economic imperialism. American workers are political pawns.
Raimondo’s visit, which she concluded with a speech at Disneyland Shanghai touting the new beginnings for the US-China relationship, is proof not of diplomatic détente, but political pantomime that disguises the US mercantilism underpinning its approach to China and its trade policy in general. Despite what William Alan Reinsch wrote recently for CSIS on the potential return of ‘tariff man’, meaning Trump, Tariff man is Uncle Sam, not Trump or Biden.[viii]
Illiberal Liberal Globalism’s Historical Blinders
In my studies in International Relations (IR) one of the foundational theories we explore is liberal internationalism. This is a strand of liberalism that has at its center of interest the individual, as opposed to realism which is centered around states. In liberal internationalism, multilateralism is preferred over unilateralism, and institutions like the United Nations (UN) are essential to gathering coalitions of the willing to commit to humanitarian interventions and for promoting global development and climate security.
Although it claims to be liberal, and against despotism, there are few ideologies more illiberal than liberalism and liberal internationalism. It has been used to justify multiple invasions, occupations, and sanctions across the globe for decades. This is part of a larger argument I will outline in future essays. It is an argument that I have been pondering for a long time and is partially borne out of my frustration with how we are taught about theory and its applications in political science subjects. The prevailing assumption in the West is that our ideology, liberalism, and the political system that it manifests as, liberal democracy, defines us and separates us from autocracies like Iran and North Korea.
However, the ideology of liberal internationalism, or as I will refer to it from now on, illiberal liberal globalism, has been incredibly destructive and will potentially lead to apocalypse, if not with Russia, then with China. This is part of my take on this week as an article by Joseph Nye, the intellectual father of ‘soft power’ and former foreign policy adviser in the Clinton administration, was published that embodies major problems with illiberal liberal globalism and its historical blindness.[ix]
In Nye’s article, Is America Reverting to Isolationism? he analyzes the Republican primary debate and the schism it revealed within the Republican party, between ‘isolationist’ candidates like Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy versus conservative internationalist candidates like Nikki Hayley and Mike Pence. Nye points out that isolationism is not new for the US and that Trump is not the first to appeal to desires for retrenchment. Although he admits that Trump represents a change from ‘the liberal tradition’, he notes that “Some believe that Trump’s rise was caused by the failure of liberal elites to reflect the underlying preferences of the American people.”, however according to him “that is facile”, as “Of course, there are many strands of American public opinion, and elite groups are generally more interested in foreign policy than the public at large.”[x] He goes on to show that in surveys conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs since 1974 American people consistently say that they favor active US involvement in world affairs.
Nye concludes by arguing that how the Ukraine war ends is essential to US interests in maintaining the liberal international order, or more aptly, the illiberal liberal globalist order. He stresses that if Russia is allowed to retain Ukrainian territory, it will undermine “the liberal principle prohibiting the use of force to alter a country’s borders.”[xi] Not only that, but he argues that China will see its choice to warm up to Russia despite its perception that Vladimir Putin’s risky behavior abroad damages China’s soft power goals as a risk that will eventually pay off, and this is “a lesson that will not have been lost on the rest of the world, either.”[xii] Nye, a longtime Washington foreign policy insider, insists that the US led liberal international order reigns the world and that Russia and China are trying to create a new world order in their autocratic image. Russia and China are simply doing what the US does. Thinkers like Nye are incapable of seeing US militarism and expansionism as what it is, as to him it is in defense of a common good, a liberal world order. According to him, to retain this order and prevent its slip into disorder, force is justified, either through military interventions or various sanctions regimes.
Nye clings to the idea of American/Western exceptionalism, and US actions are almost always carried out to defend liberalism and liberal principles. Trump shook Nye and his ilk because he exposed them for what and who they are, illiberal liberal globalists. He may find comfort in the American public overwhelmingly supporting the US having an active role internationally, however, what does that mean exactly? Nye seems uninterested in exploring this. For him, the mere suggestion that conflicts like Ukraine do not serve US interests is preposterous. He captures this when he concludes his article by writing “Those arguing that America doesn’t have an important national interest in helping Ukraine are wearing historical blinders. Their naivety (if not bad faith) should disqualify them from seeking the presidency.”[xiii] Nye is sure that the godly wisdom of him and the US foreign policy establishment is the only legitimate worldview, and that those who disagree do not merit running for public office.
His last sentence proves Nye’s illiberalism. To him, only those who follow the doctrine of American exceptionalism are allowed to run for the presidency. In other words, US foreign policy is beyond debate and accountability. Thus, funneling millions of dollars to Ukraine is in America’s interests, and anyone who contests this must be barred from public office. Illiberal liberal globalism is the greatest threat to the West and the world. It is used to justify the most abhorrent actions and policies imaginable. A brief glance at history affirms this. Nye is projecting, as it is him, not those who argue that the US does not have a national interest in assisting Ukraine, as he puts it, who is wearing historical blinders.
[i] China Briefing Team. “US-China Relations in the Biden-Era: A Timeline.” China Briefing News, March 22, 2021. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-china-relations-in-the-biden-era-a-timeline/.
[ii] Mcdonald, Joe. “US Commerce Secretary Warns China Will Be ‘Uninvestable’ without Action on Raids, Fines.” AP News, August 30, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/china-united-states-raimondo-economy-investment-779f3463a20efe1cd2db0d59d4a05ed7.
[iii] Heavey, Susan. “US Welcomes WTO Panel Report on China Steel, Aluminum Tariffs.” Reuters, August 16, 2023, sec. Commodities. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-welcomes-wto-panel-report-china-steel-aluminum-tariffs-2023-08-16/.
[iv] Lawrence, Patrick. “Patrick Lawrence: The Real Threat from China: They’re Better at Capitalism than We Are.” scheerpost.com, August 30, 2023. https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/30/patrick-lawrence-the-real-threat-from-china-is-that-theyre-better-at-capitalism-than-us/.
[v] Diamond, Jeremy. “Donald Trump: We Can’t Allow China to ‘Rape Our Country.’” CNN, May 2016. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/01/politics/donald-trump-china-rape/index.html.
[vi] Lighthizer, Robert. No Trade Is Free. HarperCollins, 2023.
[vii] Overly, Steven, and Doug Palmer. “Biden’s Trade Experiment Is Ticking People Off. His Trade Rep Is on the Receiving End.” POLITICO, July 3, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/03/katherine-tai-free-trade-00104483.
[viii] Reinsch, William Alan. “The Return of Tariff Man.” Www.csis.org, August 28, 2023. https://www.csis.org/analysis/return-tariff-man-0.
[ix] Nye, Joseph S. “Is America Reverting to Isolationism?” The Strategist, September 5, 2023. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-america-reverting-to-isolationism/.
[x] Nye. “Is America Reverting to Isolationism?”
[xi] Nye. “Is America Reverting to Isolationism?”
[xii] Nye. “Is America Reverting to Isolationism?”
[xiii] Nye. “Is America Reverting to Isolationism?”
References
China Briefing Team. “US-China Relations in the Biden-Era: A Timeline.” China Briefing News, March 22, 2021. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/us-china-relations-in-the-biden-era-a-timeline/.
Diamond, Jeremy. “Donald Trump: We Can’t Allow China to ‘Rape Our Country.’” CNN, May 2016. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/01/politics/donald-trump-china-rape/index.html.
Heavey, Susan. “US Welcomes WTO Panel Report on China Steel, Aluminum Tariffs.” Reuters, August 16, 2023, sec. Commodities. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-welcomes-wto-panel-report-china-steel-aluminum-tariffs-2023-08-16/.
Lawrence, Patrick. “Patrick Lawrence: The Real Threat from China: They’re Better at Capitalism than We Are.” scheerpost.com, August 30, 2023. https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/30/patrick-lawrence-the-real-threat-from-china-is-that-theyre-better-at-capitalism-than-us/.
Lighthizer, Robert. No Trade Is Free. HarperCollins, 2023.
Mcdonald, Joe. “US Commerce Secretary Warns China Will Be ‘Uninvestable’ without Action on Raids, Fines.” AP News, August 30, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/china-united-states-raimondo-economy-investment-779f3463a20efe1cd2db0d59d4a05ed7.
Nye, Joseph S. “Is America Reverting to Isolationism?” The Strategist, September 5, 2023. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-america-reverting-to-isolationism/.
Overly, Steven, and Doug Palmer. “Biden’s Trade Experiment Is Ticking People Off. His Trade Rep Is on the Receiving End.” POLITICO, July 3, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/03/katherine-tai-free-trade-00104483.
Reinsch, William Alan. “The Return of Tariff Man.” Www.csis.org, August 28, 2023. https://www.csis.org/analysis/return-tariff-man-0.
Not Without Incident: Questioning Big Brother's Platitudes 
Leave a comment