Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
American election cycles are well known to be fact-free zones. Instead of informed, dispassionate debate about the issues of the day, voters are treated to a barrage of mud coming from all directions, with each candidate distorting the opponent’s positions and oversimplifying his or her own. Campaigns are about slogans rather than issues. That is nothing new, but it will be particularly true in 2020 since the United States has a president notoriously uninterested in actual facts.
As in 2016, this year trade will play a significant role in the campaign because it is a signature issue for the president, which will force the Democrats to respond. As the debate has evolved so far, it appears much of it will be about China. The Trump administration’s confrontation with China began with trade—their large surplus and the numerous “structural issues” identified by the U.S. trade representative as creating an uneven playing field. In the past six months, however, thanks to Covid-19 as well as the lack of success on the trade front—phase one is in question, and phase two is at best on life support—the attack has broadened. In recent days, it has become downright apocalyptic—see Secretary of State Pompeo’s insult-laden speech last week. While the administration has not yet blamed the Chinese for the demonstrations sweeping our country, everything else that makes the president’s base unhappy appears to be their fault.
The president has decided to make China the bad guy in the election, and his administration is busy coming up with new ways to make the relationship worse. The most recent development was the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston, which was predictably followed by China ordering the U.S. consulate in Chengdu to close. There is doubtless more to come, which will be followed by equally predictable Chinese retaliation.
The real danger we face is that there has long been a group in the United States—in both parties, Congress and the executive branch, academia, and the media—which regards China as an existential threat. There is likewise a group in China that sees the United States the same way. I have thought for a long time that the best policy in both countries is simply to make sure those people never end up in charge. It now appears they may be taking over, although, to be fair, it appears to be the president who is restraining some of our hawks’ worst impulses, at least for the time being.
This is a dangerous turn of events, though like everything with China, the truth is complicated. There is no question they are engaging in a range of activities that are militarily dangerous, offensive to those who respect human rights, and economically threatening. A strong U.S. response is not only warranted but necessary if we are to maintain our position of global leadership and preserve our interests in the Pacific. At the same time, our economies, for better or worse, are intertwined, and our actions have caused unwelcome collateral damage, as we have seen with the tariffs, and could be counterproductive to our broader global and regional interests.
That means our actions should be carefully calibrated to achieve specific objectives rather than pander to voters. In particular, arguing for fundamental political change in China, as Secretary Pompeo came close to doing, will accomplish nothing besides convincing the Chinese what we really want is regime change. Similarly, closing consulates and expelling diplomats is counterproductive. Of course they’re spying. That’s what governments do, including the United States. Kicking diplomats out simply makes it harder for both sides to better understand each other. The same is true for expelling their journalists, which means the expulsion of ours. That means our publics will both understand each other less. Likewise, when we send home their students we forfeit a great opportunity to show off the vitality of our democracy and the value of freedom. When foreign students come here they learn about the United States and what Americans believe in. If they stay here, we gain their talents and imagination. If they go back, they take part of us with them. Either way, we win. Improved relations begin with better mutual understanding. If we don’t talk, don’t meet, and don’t visit, then we will never understand. There must be better ways to demonstrate our concern about Chinese actions than by reducing contacts.
This is the first time the United States has faced a challenger that is simultaneously an economic and security threat. The Soviet Union, despite its claims, was never the former, and Japan was never the latter. China is both and is not going to go away. Rationality is clearly too much to expect in an election year, but even as the candidates throw mud at each other and at China, they should do it in a way that does not permanently and irredeemably poison the relationship because the next president, whoever it is, will have to deal with China throughout his term.
William Reinsch holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
© 2020 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
