China: Dong Jun New Defense Minister

According to media reports, China has named Dong Jun as its new defense minister, two months after his predecessor was officially sacked. Dong, a former navy commander, takes over from Li Shangfu, who was last seen in public in August.

Dong's appointment was announced by China's top legislators at a Standing Committee meeting of the National People's Congress in Beijing on Friday.

The move follows a slew of dismissals of top military officials from the country's top posts earlier this year.

As well as Li, it included the removal of Qin Gang as foreign minister in July. No reasons were given for Li or Qin's dismissals. Both had been in their posts for only seven months respectively.

Further sackings took place this week too, with nine senior military officials removed from the Standing Committee on Friday.

Three executives at state-owned missile defense firms were also removed from Beijing's top political advisory body earlier this week.

Some analysts say this could indicate that a possible wider purge has taken place, targeting senior military leaders.

Dong was made commander of the navy in August 2021. His previous roles included serving as deputy commander of the Chinese military's Southern Theatre Command. Its area of operations includes the South China Sea - a disputed area, over large parts of which China claims sovereignty.

Dong's appointment comes after military personnel from China and the United States held their first high-level talks by phone in more than a year last week.

Relations between the two nations soured in 2022 after the then US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan. Taiwan is self-ruled, but China sees it as a breakaway province that will eventually unite with it.

In recent months, there has been a rapprochement between China and the US, with Chinese President Xi Jinping meeting his counterpart Joe Biden in California in November and agreeing to resume military communications. The two had not spoken for more than a year.

 

United States getting ready to drag China in Taiwan conflict

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it critically important for Washington to supply arms to Taiwan in the face of Beijing’s threats, said Republican Elise Stefanik.

“China is watching. They’re watching the US foreign policy when it comes to the war in Ukraine,” Stefanik told NTD’s “Capitol Report” program in a recent interview. “I think we need to be thinking very carefully about what that means for the future of Taiwan.”

Stefanik said the mistake President Joe Biden has made with regards to Ukraine should not be repeated.

“One of the lessons that—frankly, Republicans would have never let this happen, but Joe Biden let happen—was they didn’t get the weapons, munitions, in early enough to Ukraine,” she added.

“We need to be arming Taiwan now,” Stefanik said. “We need to be getting the support to Taiwan now, both as deterrence but also making sure that they are armed to self defend.”

Taiwan has been on a heightened state of alert since Russia launched a full-scale invasion against Ukraine on February 24, wary that China might make a similar military move to seize sovereignty of the self-governing island.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) claims that Taiwan is a part of the mainland and has never renounced the use of force to absorb the island. Internationally, Taiwan is widely recognized as a de facto independent state with its own military, constitution, and democratically-elected government officials.

Beijing may be tempted to attack Taiwan now, believing that Moscow would lend its support under their “no-limits” partnership, a new Sino–Russian alliance announced three weeks before the invasion of Ukraine. While Beijing has officially stuck with a “neutral” position between Russia and Ukraine, the regime has sided with Moscow on UN votes and amplified Russian justifications for the war.

Under the alliance, Russia has openly supported China’s claims for Taiwan. A joint communiqué announcing the partnership on February 04 said that Moscow “opposes any forms of independence of Taiwan.”

Admiral John Aquilino, Head of the US Indo–Pacific Command, shares Stefanik’s concerns about Taiwan. In an interview with the Financial Times on March 25, Aquilino said the lesson from the Russian invasion should be that a Chinese attack on Taiwan “could really happen.”

He said China has “increased maritime and air operations” in what he called a “pressure campaign” against Taiwan. He added, “We have to make sure we are prepared should any actions get taken.”

In recent years, China has repeatedly flown its military aircraft into the island’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ). On Feb. 24, the day Russia began attacking Ukraine, China sent nine military planes into the island’s ADIZ.

Since that day, similar sorties have happened on 18 different days, according to Taiwan’s defense ministry. The latest incursion happened on March 27, when three Chinese military planes, including two bombers, entered Taiwan’s southeast ADIZ, promoting the island to deploy its military aircraft and air defense missile systems in response.

In Taiwan, the majority of Taiwanese do not believe the island can fend off a Chinese invasion by itself. That belief was shared by 78 percent of 1,077 respondents polled, according to a Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation survey released on March 22.

When asked whether the United States would go into a war against China to defend Taiwan, only 34.5 percent of those surveyed said they believed Washington would, while 55.9 percent said the United States wouldn’t.

Washington and Taipei are currently not formal allies and the United States has maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity,” meaning that the United States is deliberately vague on the question of whether it would come to Taiwan’s defense.

Stefanik also criticized Biden for having not used “every tool at his disposal” to confront the CCP, taking exception to the president’s “no threats” remark on March 24 to characterize his phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

At NATO headquarters in Brussels on Friday, Biden said he had a “straightforward conversation” with Xi. The president added that he did not threaten his Chinese counterpart but “[made] sure he understood the consequences of him helping Russia.”

“You are dealing with a China that is strengthening their ties to Russian President Vladmir Putin prior to the invasion,” Stefanik said, before calling Xi and Putin “authoritarian, blood-thirsty despots” who “see weakness in the United States.”

In mid-March, several media outlets, citing unnamed US officials, stated that Russia had requested military assistance and financial aid for its war in Ukraine, and Beijing had signaled a willingness to comply. The two nations have denied the allegations.

 

China: Wildcard in Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Washington is focused on Chinese President Xi Jinping as President Joe Biden grapples with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s violent military campaign against Ukraine.  

Biden administration officials are calling on Xi and his government to join other nations in condemning Russia, while warning China of consequences if it tries to evade export controls on Moscow. 

China is viewed as a key player because of its influence with Russia, which is expected to grow as Moscow finds itself further isolated by Western sanctions. 

“If there’s anybody that could make a difference, it’s Xi Jinping,” said Charles Kupchan, who served as Senior Director for European affairs at the National Security Council in the Obama White House. “China is Russia’s lifeline right now, and if the Chinese discover the gumption to tell Putin that it’s enough, I think the impact would be very considerable.” 

“I do not yet see any signs that China is going to head down the road,” he added.  

CIA Director William Burns told Senate lawmakers on Thursday that Xi has been unsettled by the war playing out in Ukraine and the unity it has inspired in the West. Burns assessed that the Chinese leader is worried about global economic consequences as well as damage to his reputation from being associated with the ugliness of Russia’s war.  

“I think the Chinese leadership, President Xi, has invested a lot in partnership with President Putin and Russia. I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon. It’s for a lot of very cold-blooded reasons. I do, however, think that President Xi is unsettled by what he has seen transpire in the last 15 days in Ukraine,” Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee.  

“That’s raised some question marks in the minds of Chinese leadership as they look at what is going to be an enduring partnership but maybe with a few more concerns than they had 16 days ago,” he said.  

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Wednesday pointed to a handful of actions China has taken that were viewed positively by the West, including Beijing’s decision to abstain from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Ukraine invasion. Some believed China would vote against it in a nod to Russia. 

Psaki also said that China has largely abided by sanctions the administration has imposed on Russia thus far. 

“I would note, though, that if any country tries to evade or work around our economic measures, they will experience the consequences of those actions,” Psaki said. 

“Our assessment right now is that they’re abiding by the requirements that have been put in place, but we would continue to encourage any country to think a lot about what role they want to play in history as we all look back,” she said. 

The administration has stepped up its rhetoric with China in recent days. 

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told the New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that the US would penalize Chinese firms that violate US export controls imposed on Russia by preventing them from using American software. 

“They have their own self-interest to not supply this stuff to Russia. So they’re not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. It would be devastating to China’s ability to produce these chips,” Raimondo told the Times. 

Days earlier, Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged China to use its voice to condemn Russian aggression during a call with his Chinese counterpart.  

“They have an opportunity for leadership here and we are all urging them to take it,” Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.  

The White House failed to convince China to avert a Russian invasion of Ukraine before it happened.  

Xi and Putin celebrated their close relationship in an in-person meeting ahead of the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing. The two sides released a joint statement declaring the China-Russia relationship had no limits.   

Burns on Thursday described that as the “most sweeping expression of their commitment to partnership” that the US has seen but noted that the war has since unsettled Beijing. At one point during his testimony, Burns said China’s own intelligence didn’t appear to foresee Putin’s attack. 

The US is also watching China closely over concerns that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will embolden Xi to launch a military takeover of Taiwan, the self-governed democratic island that Beijing views as a rogue territory.  

The administration in early March sent a high-level, non-governmental delegation to Taiwan in a show of American solidarity. The United States is required by law to provide Taipei with the military means and assistance necessary to repel a possible Chinese invasion. 

It’s unclear whether Biden will seek a call with Xi about Ukraine. The two leaders last spoke one-on-one during a virtual meeting in November. The White House made clear after Russia began its invasion that Biden was open to a call with Xi.  

“China is not going to reassess its view on the China-Russia relationship fundamentally on this alone,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “But we can make it more painful for China.”  

O’Hanlon noted that China would be the key to putting pressure on Russia to agree to some kind of diplomatic solution to the crisis in Ukraine. 

The Chinese leader earlier this week spoke jointly with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. In its readout of that call, China said that Xi expressed support for peace talks between Ukraine and Russia and warned that sanctions were not in the global community’s interest.  

The relationship between the US and China has grown more confrontational in recent years, as former President Trump waged a trade war with Beijing. Biden has since made competition with China a centerpiece of his domestic economic agenda.  

Still, China maintains robust trade relations with the West and Europe in particular. A close association with Putin threatens to disrupt that.  

“They still find the international system useful to them. They are not risk takers the way that Vladimir Putin is,” Evelyn Farkas, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, said of the Chinese. “If they stand with Russia, the world will condemn them.”  

Is China getting ahead of United States in weapons technology?

The stunned silence that descended on Washington after the Financial Times recently reported that China had successfully tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic glider shows how dangerously inept the US policy establishment has become at preempting China's technological breakthroughs.

Predictions about China overtaking the United States often use existing technological processes as their yardstick. Yet, they overlook another increasingly likely scenario that China has successfully applied entirely new substance materials to these technologies, bringing unprecedented breakthroughs in performance.

Beijing is currently experimenting with radically different substances in three key strategic domains -- nuclear weapons, semiconductors and energy.

Breakthroughs here will break American dominance and radically alter the power balance between the two superpowers. The US must both check its blind spots for more incoming "Sputnik moments” from China and engage in more disruptive research of its own if it is to stay ahead.

Somewhere in the Gobi desert, the world's first new thorium-powered nuclear reactor in over half a century is starting up. The uranium-233 isotope it aims to produce could take China's rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal to a whole new level.

China is building on Cold War-era research by the Manhattan Project team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee in the U.S. Though the U.S. later abandoned uranium-233 in favor of the naturally occurring uranium-235, declassified documents from 1966 show researchers at the time judged uranium-233 to have superior functions to other materials, but only if kept chemically pure.

Thanks to the co-presence of the element protactinium in the uranium-233 they generate, thorium reactors were believed to be "proliferation resistant" for many years. Yet, a variety of reprocessing methods that separate the protactinium isotopes from the rest of the nuclear fuel have been developed in recent decades, clearing a pathway for its use as a high-performance weapons-grade material.

Uranium-233 emits stronger radiation than other isotopes, producing 15% more neutrons per thermal fission than either uranium-235 or plutonium-239. It also has a lower critical mass, meaning more weapons can be made from less material.

This could enable Beijing to not just scale up the number of weapons in its arsenal but potentially increase each missile's destructive power, and, having the second-largest reserves of thorium in the world, the surplus of nuclear energy could drive China's conventional platforms, including nuclear-powered warships and drones.

Advances in silicon chips will reach their physical limits by 2025, as dictated by Moore's Law. This seems like a bad thing for China, which still trails semiconductor leaders Taiwan, South Korea and the US by two wafer generations.

Yet China is gearing up for what its leaders call the post Moore's Law-era -- the dawn of carbon-based chips. A recent paper published in the journal Science by Peking University researchers claimed that they had tested carbon nanotubes up to three times faster and four times more energy-efficient than silicon chips. Beijing has allocated a high priority to this field of research. It is now part of the scientific innovation strategy for China's fourth five year plan.

Revolutionizing chip material could also bust through China's biggest bottleneck further downstream – chip making itself. Due to US export sanctions, China lacks the lithography machines to make cutting-edge chips. Yet, a state-directed 02 Special Project to develop an integrated domestic lithography machine supply chain is making progress.

If these machines are designed to manufacture carbon-based chips, such dual innovations could create the technological foundation for a whole new foundry ecosystem that would all belong to China. Its chipmakers could leapfrog incumbents and China would dominate the strategic information and communications technology hardware of the future.

Though currently the world's biggest energy importer, China is positioned to become the largest energy exporter if it can pull off its moonshot project to mine Helium-3 on the moon.

Already, over a dozen Chinese institutes are working to extract Helium-3 from moon rock samples from last year's Chang'e 5 mission. The isotope holds more energy than Earth-based minerals with just 40 tons capable of powering the entire US for a whole year. It is estimated there are at least a million tons of Helium-3 on the moon.

Though, one US company is planning a mining expedition to the moon in the early 2030s, China is already streaming ahead with a permanent mega-base on the moon to be built by around the same time. The US Central Intelligence Agency space analysts warn that breakthrough dominance in this powerful and carbon clean resource would make China the 21st century's energy powerhouse.

If China achieves dominance in any of these three domains, it will likely displace the US as a global hegemon. There are two key ways the US can work to prevent this.

Firstly, the US intelligence agencies must better track China's disruptive research, map out potential pathways for leapfrog maneuvers and take action to preempt and prevent technological breakthroughs.

Secondly, the US must take advantage of the lead it currently has and take on unconventional experiments that are yet another step beyond what China itself is doing.

Voices on Capitol Hill calling for the US government to utilize its leftover uranium-233 reserves show that some lawmakers are taking notice. Yet, it is not nearly enough. Drawing on innovations from yesteryear may buy Washington some time, but if delayed rear-guard actions are all it can muster to counter Beijing's multipronged leapfrog, the result of this great power competition is a foregone conclusion.

Overcrowding of warships in South China Sea

Senior Chinese diplomats have called on the United States not to show off its power over the South China Sea and warned of the risk of a misfire in the disputed waters with increasing presence of naval vessels.

Speaking to a South China Sea forum in Sanya, on the Southern Chinese island province of Hainan, via video link, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi blamed an unspecified country for seeking to show off its power and maritime dominance.

“We must adhere to multilateralism and jointly maintain maritime order. The ocean is not a zero-sum game of competition, and no one should use the ocean as a tool to impose unilateral power,” Wang said.

“We oppose that certain countries, for the purpose of safeguarding maritime hegemony, flaunt their forces and form cliques at sea, and continue to infringe on the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of other countries.”

China and the US have been stepping up their military presence in the disputed waters, with increasing risks of an accidental clash. Concerns have escalated as the US has teamed up with its allies, including Britain and France, to send naval vessels to the South China Sea. Diplomatic observers have warned the consequences would be more serious if there was a clash between nuclear submarines.

Last month, the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group and the British carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth conducted a series of exercises in the South China Sea. It was the USS Carl Vinson’s ninth visit to the area this year.

The South China Sea is heavily contested between China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. The US is not a claimant, but accuses Beijing of stoking military tensions and restricting freedom of navigation there, and has said its presence is needed to provide security backup to its Asian allies.

“China calls on the United States to actively consider joining the convention and take concrete actions to participate in the defence of the international maritime rule of law,” he said.

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, former president of the Philippines, said the tensions and troubles in the South China Sea were posing “grave threats” to stability, and Southeast Asian nations were seriously concerned.

“Imagine what an exchange of fire between warships of the People’s Liberation Army and the US Seventh Fleet would do to stock, currency and commodity markets worldwide,” she asked the forum.

“The world hopes that such an unwelcome event remains pure imagination. But there are reasons to worry. For the first time in years, if not ever, aircraft carrier groups of China and America deployed in the South China Sea at the same time; so did French and British warships. Earlier this year, the presence of hundreds of Chinese vessels near Whitsun Reef led to Philippine diplomatic protests and the exchange of unfriendly words between Manila and Beijing.”

Arroyo said the South China Sea disputes had previously been managed by the expansion of economic and diplomatic ties among the nations involved, and with a balance of power.

“Now, the balance of power approach is increasingly being taken with the growing presence of American and allied forces in the South China Sea, which will get even more formidable with the Aukus, to which the PLA may feel the need to respond,” she said, referring to the deal struck with the US and Britain to help Australia acquire a nuclear submarine fleet.

A Pentagon report last week said China’s navy had expanded to 355 ships and submarines by 2020. It said the Chinese navy had placed a high priority on modernizing its submarine forces, operating six nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), six nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), and 46 diesel-powered attack submarines (SSs).

But Wu Jianghao, assistant Chinese foreign minister, said China had engaged in discussions with other South China Sea claimants on joint exploration of its resources and a code of conduct.

“We must oppose maritime hegemony, division and confrontation, and build the ocean into a territory where all parties expand cooperation, rather than a zero-sum arena,” he told the forum.

 

Challenges facing US Defense Strategy

The Pentagon has begun the process of developing a strategy to meet the congressional requirement for a National Defense Strategy (NDS) report in 2022. The defense strategy is likely to expand upon the 2018 strategy, which identified China and Russia as peer competitors and assigned highest priority to deterring adventurism on the part of both states. 

China’s increasingly aggressive stance against Taiwan — notably, its recent four-day surge of nearly 150 combat aircraft into the island’s air defense identification zone, as well as the expansion of its conventional and strategic nuclear forces — underscores the ongoing need for maintaining a credible deterrent against Beijing. Similarly, Russia’s continuing pressure on Ukraine, its ceaseless efforts to employ cyber to disrupt American political and economic activity, and its military modernization programs justify the priority that the 2022 NDS, like its immediate predecessor, is likely to assign to deterring Moscow’s aggressiveness.

China and Russia do not constitute the entirety of American security concerns, even if they represent the most demanding threats that American forces might have to confront. North Korea is a rogue nuclear power that can threaten its neighbors and the American homeland. Iran is poised to develop its own nuclear capability while continuing its disruptive efforts throughout the Middle East and its own efforts to fight the West in cyberspace. Washington may wish to ratchet down its Middle East military profile, but unless Iran terminates its nuclear program and ceases to undermine the stability of regional states, American withdrawal from the region will be easier said than done.  

While American forces may have departed from Afghanistan, there is little indication that Taliban government will do anything to prevent terrorists from once again using that country as a base for attacks on Western, and especially American, targets and persons. If dealing with these challenges were not enough, the Biden administration has added both climate change and fighting pandemics as two additional threats that the Department of Defense (DOD), like the government as a whole, must face for the foreseeable future.

Strategies represent the employment of means to stated ends. Yet the administration’s future budgets, which would provide the financial sources to acquire means for coping with the array of challenges that it has identified, are unlikely to grow much beyond that which it proposed for fiscal year 2022. That budget calls for a small decline in real terms over the previous year’s budget. Indeed, even if congressional appropriations would increase FY 2022 spending levels by some $24 billion, there is no indication that the Biden administration would maintain the trajectory of that increase over the next several budget years.

In light of the administration’s reluctance to increase defense spending to any significant degree — which itself is rather puzzling given its willingness to spend trillions of dollars on domestic progress — one might have expected it to mandate a cutback in the forces and capabilities that currently are targeted against the lower priority but still potent threats that it has identified. This does not appear to be the case. The FY 2022 budget and the proposed congressional adds-ons both continue to preserve far too many of what have come to be called “legacy programs” — that is, weapons systems whose utility was greatest over the past two decades, but whose value in confronting the challenges posed by China, in particular, is questionable at best. 

Future budget requests, and likely congressional appropriations, no doubt will incorporate many cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence and systems that incorporate machine learning. Nevertheless, the expansion of these and other capabilities to meet future threats will be constrained not only by relatively flat top-line budgets but by ongoing, real-cost growth for both military personnel and operations and maintenance. The combined squeeze on defense modernization would render it highly unlikely that Washington credibly could deter China and Russia simultaneously, or indeed, any combination of the threats it might face. 

If Biden administration remains determined to put a cap on defense spending, yet wishes to pursue all of its priorities while minimizing to the degree possible the risk to meeting its security objectives, it will have to take far more seriously the need for allies and partners. With few notable exceptions such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, Washington has not done enough to convince its other allies and partners that their economic interests — especially involving China and Russia — simply do not outweigh the threats that these states pose to their security.   

Part of its problem is that, in the past, Washington often did little more than pay lip service to the importance of allied contributions to the defense of common interests. The time has come to take allies and partners far more seriously, to expand its reliance on their military capabilities, to be more open to sharing technological breakthroughs, and indeed, to improve the balance of military trade that currently overwhelmingly favors the United States. Without its allies and partners, America no longer can be certain that it would prevail in a future conflict — especially if, as may well be the case, it will simultaneously have to face more than one adversary in more than one theater. 

United States-China rivalry intensifies after withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan

The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan last month finally put an end to the 20-year mission sparked by the terrorist attacks on US soil on 11th September 2001. But the move has also set the stage for Washington to turn its attention and refocus its energies and resources on continuing and even intensifying its strategic rivalry with China.

President Joe Biden alluded to it as much when he acknowledged that the withdrawal will give the US the opportunity to focus on countering Russia and China, particularly in meeting the “stiff competition” from “an increasingly assertive China”.

Afghanistan has already emerged as the latest arena for the rivalry, with China pledging to donate US$31 million dollars worth of aid, including food and coronavirus vaccines, to the war-torn country. 

Apart from the possibility of sending a peacekeeping force to Afghanistan if the security situation worsens, Beijing also made clear that it was ready to maintain communication with the Taliban.

China used what it calls the US “abandonment” of Afghanistan to remind America’s allies in Asia, especially Taiwan, not to rely on the US for protection, arguing that the island is merely used as a card to contain China.

Not to be outdone, the US has promised to continue humanitarian aid to the Afghan people through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations, including providing a further US$64 million in new humanitarian assistance.

US Vice President, Kamala Harris headed to Singapore and Vietnam to offer reassurance that Washington remains committed to the region, and she outlined the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which in recent months has become a buzzword for countering China.

The Americans also sailed the USS Kidd guided-missile destroyer and Coast Guard cutter Munro through the Taiwan Strait last month, and over the weekend deployed the littoral combat ship USS Tulsa and Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group, said to be a tit-for-tat move after four Chinese warships were spotted sailing in the waters off Alaska late last month.

In a brazen flexing of its military muscle, the US joined forces with its three allies in the Quad security grouping - India, Australia and Japan - in holding joint naval exercises off the coast of Guam, featuring anti-surface, anti-air and anti-submarine warfare drills.

The US is even considering the possibility of allowing Taipei’s US office to change its name from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office to the Taiwan Representative Office, prompting Beijing to issue a terse warning to Washington not to challenge the one-China principle.

The relations between the world’s two highly disagreeable powers are so tense that cooperation in other areas, most notably in climate change, has taken a beating, with Beijing mincing no words when it declared that China would follow its own plan rather than bow to US pressure.

As both nations face pressure to improve ties, Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed in their first phone call in six months to manage the growing rivalry and to stop it from devolving into a conflict. While Biden focused on the way forward for the troubled bilateral relationship, Xi said “getting the relationship right is not optional, but something we must do and must do well”.

These are the most reassuring words that the world has heard in a while, but under the “new normal” in US-China relations, few concessions are likely, relations will remain hard-nosed, while hostile and prickly impulses will continue to undermine mutual interactions.

Cold war is still going on, though of another type

According to many analysts, 20th century ended with a unipolar world. The United States developed the complacency it had eliminated its enemies, but the start of the 21st century proved it wrong and the cold war is still going on.

The fight against communism might be over, but the communist countries from the east began to respond to the US, in their own way. Two leaders from the east, Putin and Xi Jinping are constantly challenging the US hegemony through proxies, trade and diplomacy.

Although, the main US enemy during the cold war was Russia, one more was added to the list in the new cold war, China. The dawn of the 21st century brought rising China.

Its military might and economic progress posed a threat to US dominance. China began to capture the world through trade and investment. It caused the US, to take some unconventional steps against China. The US imposed economic sanctions on China and China responded accordingly. Hence, the trade war started.

The US also shifted its Asia Pacific policy to Indo-Pacific. The initiative New Silk Road, the establishment of Quad, more military presence in the South China Sea, military assistance to Taiwan, and support for Hong Kong are some manifestations of the new cold war.

Rising Russia

Putin strengthened the disintegrated Russia, which gave birth to the new phase of the cold war, and also made Russia stronger to give a befitting response to the US at every front.

Putin with political acumen and strong nerves has brought Russia to the level to compete with the US at the international chessboard more firmly and robustly.

In 2015, Russia launched airstrikes in Syria to back Bashar Al-Assad, the US was too keen to topple. Failed Trump had to announce the withdrawal of troops from Syria. Subsequently, Russia won Asad, the ruler of an important country in the Middle East.

Furthermore, Russia’s meddling in the US 2016 elections which boosted Trump candidacy, proved Putin a great strategist. Trump’s policies ‑ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, cancellation of Iran nuclear deal, Mexico border wall, a travel ban on some Muslim countries, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel etc. brought criticism to the US.

By bringing Trump into power, Russia succeeded in minimizing its enemy’s role in international politics and tarnishing its image at an international forum.

Russia and China also enjoy good relations with Iran. Both Russia and Iran are also major allies in Syria, a country that was once America’s ally. Closer to home, Russia is also trying to play its card in the Afghanistan conflict.

The US had to invite Russia to arrange the Moscow conference, which was arranged on 20th March, to bring peace to Afghanistan. After fighting the longest war, the US is defeated and facing humiliation, because of Russia’s support to Taliban. Now Russia would surely win an important stake in Afghanistan’s political leadership.

Falling United States

Moreover, Turkey has also gone from the US hands. The US sanctions over Turkey against buying the S-400 missiles system from Russia have brought the relations between former allies to a historic low.

Turkey, under Erdogan, chose to preserve its sovereignty by pursuing an independent policy. Hence, the country, which once allowed the US to deploy nuclear weapons against USSR now has warm relations with Russia and is no more on Uncle Sam’s payroll.

In Latin America waves of the cold war were also seen following the Venezuela crisis. The US has thrown its support behind Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido and declared him the interim president while Russia sent two military planes carrying about 100 Russian personnel arrived in Caracas in the support of President Maduro.

The US officials have told CBS News that the influx was unusual for its size, has fuelled tensions between Russia and the United States as China was also supporting Maduro. Hence, the 21st century has ignited the cold war between Russia and United with new a new vigor.

It was thought that Biden, the seasoned politician, who was known for his support to democratic values, would not put through the world into an abyss of another cold war, but his first foreign policy speech proved it wrong.

Yang Jiechi warns United States to stop meddling in Chinese internal affairs

Yang Jiechi, Director, Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Chinese Communist Party has called Beijing and Washington to put relations back on a predictable and constructive path, saying the United States should stop meddling in China's internal affairs, Hong Kong and Tibet.

Yang Jiechi is the highest ranking Chinese leader to speak on Sino-US relations since President Joe Biden took office.

Under the Trump administration, the US relations with China plunged to their lowest point since the establishment of diplomatic ties in 1979, as both sides clashed over issues ranging from trade and technology to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang, and the South China Sea.

While reassuring the United States that China has no intention to challenge or replace the US position in the world, Yang stressed that no force can hold back China's development.

"The United States should stop interfering in Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and other issues regarding China's territorial integrity and sovereignty," Yang said, defining these as issues concerning China's core interests and national dignity.

Speaking at an online forum organized by the National Committee on US-China Relations in Beijing, Yang said China never meddles with US internal affairs, including its elections.

Yang, whose position in the ruling Communist Party gives him more influence than even the Foreign Minister, also urged the Biden administration not to abuse the concept of national security in trade.

"We in China hope that the United States will rise above the outdated mentality of zero-sum, major-power rivalry and work with China to keep the relationship on the right track," he said.

Yang reasserted that China is prepared to work with the United States to move the relationship forward along a track of "no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation."

The word "cooperation" appeared 24 times in his speech. He suggested that US firms could gain from an estimated US$22 trillion worth of exports to China in the coming decade.

Focus should be on oil and gas, not maritime dispute, Beijing urges Philippines

China and the Philippines should not be distracted by their disputes in the South China Sea and should instead focus on advancing cooperation on oil and gas exploration in the region, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said when wrapping up his week-long tour of Southeast Asia.

Wang said the two countries would continue to “properly manage their disputes” and push for oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea.

Wang’s trip that included stopovers in Myanmar, Indonesia and Brunei was part of Beijing seeking to consolidate its ties with the region.

In an interview with state media posted on the Ministry’s website, Wang highlighted China’s desire to move the focus away from maritime disputes to joint exploration of resources in the waters. “Both sides believe that the South China Sea issue is only partial to the entirety of Sino-Philippines relations,” Wang said, discussing the outcomes of his Manila visit. “We should not let such one percent difference derail the 99 percent of our relations.”

Separately during Wang’s tour, China and Brunei set up a working group on energy cooperation, the ministry said on Friday, without providing details.

The Philippine government in October lifted a ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, reopening the door to joint energy development with China.

Two years ago, the two governments signed a memorandum of understanding to jointly explore undersea oil and gas, a way of defusing their corner of a broader regional dispute.

In 2016, an international tribunal in The Hague upheld the Philippines’ challenge to Beijing’s territorial claims to almost all of the South China Sea, but Beijing has never accepted the ruling. President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration has promised to shelve the dispute in exchange for Beijing’s economic aid.

As the Duterte administration nears its end, Beijing has sought to reaffirm support for its neighbour, promising half a million doses of Covid-19 vaccines, US$1.34 billion in loan pledges for infrastructure projects and US$77 million in grants.

Wang said the supply of vaccines to the Philippines showed Beijing’s willingness to help the Philippines overcome its Covid-19 pandemic challenges.

China and the Philippines also announced an arrangement for fast-track border crossing during the pandemic for certain personnel, and opened the Bank of China’s yuan clearing business in the Philippines.

China would continue to take part in the Philippine side’s infrastructure plans and actively promote cooperation on major projects to lay a better foundation for the Philippines’ long-term development, Wang said.

He said China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations were working together to advance post-pandemic recovery. “Facts once again show that adherence to regional and a multilateral mechanism is more important than ever,” he said.

Will Biden also use India against China?

The United States has declassified its 2018 Indo-Pacific strategy for unknown reasons, although it was initially set to be released to the public at the end of 2042. Over the last three years, this National Security Council strategy has guided American maneuvers and policy in a region extending from the United State’s Pacific Coast all the way to India.

At its heart, the strategy reveals a deep concern with China’s rising influence in the Western and Central Pacific. It also highlights plans to deal with an increasingly belligerent North Korea, while seeking to strengthen India to counter Chinese military power.

The strategy was initially devised throughout 2017, going on to be approved and enforced by President Donald Trump in 2018 shortly after the US National Defense Strategy was finalized.

While the strategy’s actual authors are not credited in the document, much of the document accurately reflects the White House’s actions in the region for the last three years.

The strategy shares rare insights into how the US perceives its opponents and allies in the region, specifically India, China and North Korea. There is a realization that China enjoys growing dominance in the Indo-Pacific and it is the United State’s primary adversary and strategic opponent in the area. 

The strategy dwells how to maintain the US strategic edge and promote a liberal economic order while preventing China from establishing new, illiberal spheres of influence, and cultivating areas of cooperation to promote regional peace and prosperity. It also emphasizes that China will circumvent international rules and norms to gain an advantage in a strategic face-off between the two powers.

While the strategy doesn’t specifically mention the paths China follows to further its dominance in the region, it does cite China’s increasing use of digital surveillance, information controls, and influence operations that will counter US efforts to promote its values and national interests, not only in the Indo-Pacific, but also within the Western hemisphere itself.

Parallel to the strategy, the US government and military have consistently sounded alarms over China’s expanding nuclear arsenal, long-range ballistic and cruise missile capabilities, and the resurgence of its naval fleet.

Broadly speaking, it aims to build US capabilities to be capable of, but not limited to denying China control of the air and the sea in the first island chain, referring to a string of Pacific islands surrounding China that include Russia’s Kamchatka peninsula, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam. China claims most of these waters. It also emphasizes the need to defend the first island chain, and dominate all areas outside it. 

While the document does not mention the South China Sea dispute, it reflects a concern over China’s claims there and in other parts of the Western Pacific. The South China Sea and Western Pacific as a whole have seen a tremendous increase in Chinese military activity, but also activities by the US and its allies in the region.

The strategy adopted by the Trump administration has arguably led to the worst deterioration in US-China ties in recent history, triggering an ongoing trade war and US commitment to defence of Taiwan by approving large defence deals with the island nation. On top of Trump blaming China for the COVID-19 global pandemic and accusing it of mismanaging the outbreak, Trump has fostered deeper ties with Taiwan that go beyond arms deals and include military capacity building and reinforce diplomatic ties.

After identifying China as a primary strategic concern, the strategy turns its attention to North Korea. Threatened by its multiple missile launches in 2017 including one missile that flew over Japan, the strategy acknowledges the rapid technological advances North Korea realized in its missile technology.

India features prominently in US strategic plans for the region. Specifically, the strategy seeks to build a quadrilateral security framework with India, Japan, Australia and the US. The four-cornered strategy wants to use a strong India to counterbalance China.

This comes after pointing out that India is already able to counter border provocations by China. It should be noted that the strategy was passed before India-China skirmishes in the Doklam region. 

Interestingly, the strategy makes no mention of Pakistan at all in spite of its close ties to China. It further defines a key need to accelerate India’s rise and capacity to serve as a net provider of security and Major Defense Partner; solidify an enduring strategic partnership with India underpinned by a strong Indian military able to effectively collaborate with the United States and its partners in the region to address shared interests.

The US Navy has advocated creating a new naval command exclusively for the Indian Ocean and close-by areas of the pacific. With the expiration of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the US has also assessed different locations in South East Asia to position long-range missile forces that would be able to counter China’s own strategic missiles.

Meanwhile, India continues to enjoy large defence procurements from the US, including the F-21 fighter jet. Others have indicated this could be a form of induction to bring India into the F-35 stealth fighter program. 

In spite of its bold efforts, much of the strategy’s ambitious objectives have yet to be fulfilled. That’s not to say that the strategy went entirely unfulfilled. The US Navy is set to create a new fleet to cover the Western Pacific. Freedom of Navigation deployments to the region is increasing, along with the major US efforts to arm Taiwan. While the strategy reflects Trump’s legacy, its approach may still shape coming US strategy as Biden’s new administration seeks to contend with China and North Korea. 

India holds joint naval exercises with Vietnam Navy

Lately, Indian Navy sent a warship to hold joint exercises with Vietnamese warships to assert navigation rights on the South China Sea as both countries try to boost maritime cooperation amid rising border disputes with China.

The INS Kiltan, an anti-submarine warfare corvette, took part in a two-day Passage Exercise or ‘PassEx’ with the warships of Vietnam after it arrived at Ho Chi Minh City to deliver humanitarian assistance for those affected by floods in central Vietnam. The Indian Navy said that the drill was aimed to "reinforce maritime interoperability and jointness."

The Indian Navy's assertion of navigation rights is on the lines of the Freedom of Navigation patrols that the US regularly takes out in the South China Sea to challenge Chinese territorial claims. 

Beijing, which has made expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea and militarized islands there, has watched the exercises with a wary eye. Liu Zongyi Shanghai of the Institute of International Studies (SIIS) wrote in the state-sponsored China Military Online that the joint operation is a bid by India to exert pressure on China through the South China Sea, to force it to back off from eastern Ladakh. The Indian and Chinese militaries are locked in a stand-off in the Himalayan border region of Ladakh after Chinese soldiers intruded into territory claimed by both countries. A border clash in Galwan in June killed about 20 Indian soldiers and an unspecified number of Chinese soldiers. 

The opinion piece, authorized by the Central Military Commission of China, says India's meddling with South China Seas and strategic partnership with Vietnam was to counter China on the land boundary issue. It said the Indian army was finding it "extremely challenging" to supply the troops in the Galwan Valley and Pangong Tso lake area in Ladakh. But those assertions were not independently verified and Chinese party mouth-pieces are known to make such propaganda claims. India has refused to back off in the face of Chinese aggression, with Indian troops moving quickly and boldly to outmaneuver Chinese troops and occupy mountain ridges, putting intruding Chinese troops at a tactical disadvantage.

Both nations have stationed thousands of troops in the frigid heights and have dug in for the long haul, recent reports have said.

The Indian Navy also adopted an aggressive posture during the Ladakh clashes and could, in the event of a war, hold an advantage in the Indian Ocean basin through which Chinese shipping has to pass.

Zongyi added that India's recent strengthening of military cooperation with Vietnam and Indonesia and building of military facilities near the Malacca Strait was with an "important purpose of guarding against China, even throttling its development."

Vietnam also has maritime disputes with China in the South China Sea region. Though China claims sovereignty over the region and its vast reserves of oil and gas, Vietnam has made counterclaims, along with other littoral states like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippine. 

According to the Deccan Herald, the 'PassEx' comes a week after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a virtual summit with his Vietnam counterpart Nguyen Xuan Phuc. Modi had then formally handed over a high-speed patrol boat, which was the first of a fleet of 12 that India had promised to Vietnam to help it guard its maritime boundary in the face of growing Chinese aggression. The leaders had also stressed the need to maintain freedom of navigation and over flight in the South China Sea.

India's ONGC Videsh has a long-standing partnership with PetroVietnam for exploration of oil and gas in Vietnam, which has irked China, says Deccan Herald.

 

Trade will be the toughest test for Biden’s foreign policy

Joe Biden campaigned to restore America’s standing in the world by repairing ties with the US allies, create greater domestic equity through improvements in the Affordable Care Act and aggressive efforts to advance the interests of women and minorities, and accelerate US efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Biden can’t accomplish these massive programs without big deficits or taxes, which a Republican Senate is not likely to permit. He could pay his campaign debts with surgical improvements to the ACA funded by dedicated levies, and coax Republican cooperation by offering torts reform and bending to wherever ideas the GOP may have about improving competition. He also needs more aggressive enforcement from Justice Department Civil Rights Division and Departments of Labor and Education.

Internationally, Biden must reckon with a China that will soon have a larger economy, has an impressive navy, is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and Straights of Taiwan, and suppressing democracy in Hong Kong. At best we are in a stalemate and at worst, we could be pulled into a ruinous confrontation that establishes China as the pre-eminent power in the Pacific.

France and Germany combined are as populous as and about four times richer than Russia. Clearly the Europeans can afford to entirely provide for their own defense. The Europeans will be told, albeit more politely, to do much more for themselves, because America’s resources are needed in the Pacific.

China’s economy is at once complex—a state-orchestrated market system, similar to  that of Germany and Japan in the 1930s—and simple—a free rider in the international trading system created principally by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The WTO permitted China to accomplish export-led growth and create an economic and military juggernaut that is now bent on reshaping the entire global system to serve the values and vision of the Chinese Communist Party.

The WTO system was designed to link together democratic market economies and assist developing countries by establishing rules that promote trade based on comparative advantage. The agreements very much look as if they were written by economists to create work for lawyers.

Beyond reducing tariffs and quotas—quite effectively but for agriculture and textiles—the WTO agreements lay out general rules for product standards, customs administration, subsidies, intellectual property regimes and other instruments of domestic policy that clever bureaucrats can manipulate for mercantilist purposes. It leaves to dispute settlement panels and an Appellate Body to elaborate their situational meaning.

The rules are general, because technology and the ways governments can subvert open trade are constantly evolving. A de facto common law system has emerged, which when it works well, provides predictable limits on the protectionist pressures special interests can bring to bear on domestic politicians.

China’s economic system is too inconsistent with Western market economies for the WTO to accommodate. It has run circles around WTO dispute settlement and does most whatever it likes. It targets Western industries by closing its markets, forces foreign investors to transfer technology to gain market access, and subsidizes exports. It has accomplished dominant positions, for example, in solar panels and 5G technology.

The Obama and Trump administrations responded by refusing to approve judges to the Appellate Body and that crippled dispute settlement. The Europeans, Chinese and others countered  the US policy by creating a contingent arbitration mechanism outside the WTO to review dispute settlement panel findings.

China should not be in the WTO, but the Europeans want to deal with Beijing there. China has grown too large for the United States to confront without allies, and the Europeans want tangible gestures that show Trump era abuse of America First is over. President Donald Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs are on the table but the Europeans have quite a laundry list of issues.

Ambassador Robert Lighthizer proposed replacing the Appellate Body with bilateral arbitration that would not set precedents—but without precedents, the WTO system is rudderless and subject to the whims of the biggest player—soon to be China.

The Biden administration could approve the appointment of new appellate judges but condition that on an American exception for dispute settlement with China.

That would permit the United States to impose remedies it deemed necessary to counter China’s aggressive protectionism and force the Europeans and other advanced industrialized countries to consider the same. China needs trade to prosper. Excluding China from WTO dispute settlement would force it to take multilateral negotiations more seriously or face increasing isolation.

US Naval Ship getting too close to China

Reportedly, for the first time since 2017, the US Navy has positioned three of its aircraft carriers on the doorstep of the disputed South China Sea, as tensions between Washington and Beijing continue to soar. The dispatch to the Western Pacific of the three vessels was likely intended to send a message to China that, despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the United States military would continue to maintain a strong presence in the region.

According to reports, two of US Navy’s ships, USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz carrier strike groups had begun dual carrier flight operations in the Philippine Sea.

The two strike groups were scheduled to conduct air defense drills, sea surveillance, replenishments at sea, defensive air combat training, long-range strike drills, coordinated maneuvers and other exercises.

“This is a great opportunity for us to train together in a complex scenario,” said Rear Adm. Doug Verissimo, commander of Carrier Strike Group 9. “By working together in this environment, we’re improving our tactical skills and readiness in the face of an increasingly pressurized region and COVID-19.”

While it was not clear where in the Philippine Sea the US carriers were operating or where they would head to next — the Luzon Strait between Taiwan and the Philippines is the entryway into the flash point South China Sea.

Beijing claims much of the South China Sea, though the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims in the waters where the Chinese, US, Japanese and some Southeast Asian navies routinely operate.

The US Navy has angered Beijing by regularly conducting training and so-called freedom of navigation operations close to some of the islands China occupies in the waterway, including its man-made islets, asserting that freedom of access is crucial to international waterways.

Washington has lambasted Beijing for its moves in the waterway, including the construction of the man-made islands, some of which are home to military-grade airfields and advanced weaponry.

The US fears the outposts could be used to restrict free movement in the waterway, which includes vital sea lanes through which about $3 trillion in global trade passes each year.

Chinese state-run media lashed out last week as news emerged that the three carriers were simultaneously operating in the Pacific. In a report, the hawkish Global Times said that the deployment could put Chinese troops at risk.

“By massing these aircraft carriers, the US is attempting to demonstrate to the whole region and even the world that it remains the most powerful naval force, as they could enter the South China Sea and threaten Chinese troops on the Xisha and Nansha islands as well as vessels passing through nearby waters, so the US could carry out its hegemonic politics,” the report quoted Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie as saying.

The Xisha and Nansha Islands are the Chinese names for the Paracel and Spratly chains in the South China Sea. But the report also said that China could counter the US by holding its own naval drills in the waters at the same time, Li said.

It also highlighted the weapons at Beijing’s disposal, notably mentioning its “wide range of weapons designed to sink aircraft carriers,” including the DF-21D “carrier killer” and DF-26 “Guam killer” ballistic missiles.

The US military has in recent months grappled with the coronavirus as it battled to maintain its formidable presence in the Western Pacific, while both reassuring allies and preventing China from capitalizing on any perceived opening.

The Navy has rebounded after cases of COVID-19 were detected on some of its ships, including infections aboard all three carriers currently in the Philippine Sea, with many of the hard-hit vessels returning to action.

“Our operations demonstrate the resilience and readiness of our naval force and are a powerful message of our commitment to regional security and stability as we protect the critically important rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea for the benefit all nations,” said Rear Adm. James Kirk, commander of Carrier Strike Group 11.

US carriers have conducted dual carrier strike group operations in the Western Pacific, including in the South and East China seas and Philippine Sea for several years, according to the navy. These operations typically occur when strike groups deployed to the 7th Fleet area of operations from the US West Coast link up with the forward-deployed carrier strike group from Yokosuka.

This month’s deployment to the Pacific is the largest since 2017, when the US sent three carriers to the region amid tensions with nuclear-armed North Korea.

United States and China entangling in a new type of cold war

Over the last more than two months many countries were told by World Health Organization (WHO) to opt for lockdown to fight wide spreading coronavirus pandemic. In the mean time one of the equally fast developing narratives is that it is an ongoing biological war between United States and China.

If one can recall Saddam Hussein of Iraq was accused for the production of weapons of mass destruction. A few sites were identified and destroyed, but soon it became evident that the entire propaganda was very well concocted. However, some observers went to the extent of saying that these sites produced material which was used against Iran in a war spread over more than a decade.

Coming back to my topic, it may be suspected that United States was not happy, rather afraid of growing economic might of China. Initially to keep a close watch the US companies were allowed to make huge investment in China and Chinese were allowed to invest in United States. Growing deficit in balance of trade prompted United States to impose restrictions on the entry of Chinese good, but all in vain.

One of the conspiracy theories is that United States leaked a virus in Wuhan, to ultimately reach the industrial hub of Shanghai. The move backfired as China saved its industrial hub, but virus spread to almost all the countries on the plant, except a few.

Scanning the content printed one is inclined to arrive at a conclusion that this is not a pandemic but a biological war. After more than four decades of engagement, the two superpowers have been unable to bridge the ideological gulf that separates them. A global pandemic might have served as an occasion for more cooperation; instead it has only made the divide more obvious. The two countries now stand on the brink of a new type of cold war.

The level of trust between China and the United States is at its lowest point since diplomatic ties were established in 1979. The deterioration in US-China ties began long before the pandemic and even before the Trump presidency. A fundamental shift in the relationship has taken place. American interests now diverge more than they converge.

China’s return towards communist orthodoxies since Xi Jinping became president in 2013 has had a crucial impact. Tthe fundamental difference in ideology between the US and China can be summed as, “Between 1978 and 2012, the Communist party put aside its communist roots and focused on developing economic strength. Once China succeeded economically, the CCP went back to refocus on its original intentions of building socialism. For decades, this bargain delivered impressive commercial gains; making China the prime engine for global growth.

Tens of thousands of US companies set up business in China and bilateral trade last year amounted to US$541 billion.  China is often accused of showing less willingness to accept US global leadership and began carving out its geographical spheres of influence. One critical breach of trust was termed deployed huge military infrastructure on the islands by China.

 The insecurities of United States started mounting on rising military might of China. Images of sailors standing on the deck of a Chinese guided-missile destroyer were clear signs of defiance by China. As China’s economy grew, it showed progressively less willingness to accept US hegemony.

In US-China commercial relationship accusations of violation of intellectual property rights became a big hurdle. This prompted Washington to impose tariffs on a range of Chinese goods, triggering a 20-month trade war that was put on hold in January this year with a truce deal that remains extremely fragile.

Reportedly, total Chinese investment in the US fell to US$5 billion last year, from a recent peak of US$45 billion in 2016, when Chinese companies were much more free to acquire US businesses. On top of that Trump administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been considering other moves against China, including more stringent export controls, curbs on investment flows and limits on integrated supply chains between the two countries — all in the midst of a deep global recession.

Trump also threatened to terminate the January trade deal with China, which could lead to a new flare-up in tariffs, because of skepticism over China’s willingness to honour its pledge to buy billions of dollars of American goods. 

Apparently, both sides claim that good progress is being made and fully express willingness to meet their obligations under the agreement in a timely manner, but ongoing blame game becomes the biggest dampener. Some observers predict continued tension, with nationalist sentiment and recession supporting hardliners in both countries. It appears extremely difficult to contain deteriorating relationship. Strategic competition will remain the dominant factor.

.

India opposing CPEC

Indian Ocean is the oldest and most efficient trade corridor. On its one side are hydrocarbon rich countries and on the other side are energy deficient but major energy consuming and industrially developed countries. The ships carrying goods destined for Europe using Suez Canal also passes through Indian Ocean. In order to provide security to their maritime trade navies of different countries are also present in the Indian Ocean. In the recent past pirates having safe sanctuaries in Somalia have created serious havoc, which prompted many countries to further enhance their presence in the Indian Ocean, which also included India.

India not only claims that it is the strongest regional super power, but also openly denounces any world super power that refuses to accept its hegemony in the Indian Ocean. India is fully cognizant of the fact that bulk of the international trade, energy products, consumable and capital goods pass through Indian Ocean. It is also a fact that India and China have never enjoyed cordial relationships; in fact they are involved in boarder disputes for decades. In such a scenario, China has no option but to protect its maritime trade, particularly movement of energy products. The US Navy is also active in Indian Ocean and it has been constantly increasing its presence around Striate of Hurmaz and in the Malacca Striate. In South China Sea dispute, Japan and Korea are fully supported by the US, which also wishes to contain Chinese growth.

India has emerged as the biggest opponent of Chinese program, which is commonly known as ‘String of Pearls’. Under this program China is building sea ports in various countries and out of these Gwadar is one. While China says that all these ports fall under the category of ‘Listening Ports’ that helps in the movement of merchant ships. However, India has been refuting Chinese claim and call these ‘Chinese Naval Bases’ and term these a serious threat to its sovereignty.

India is actively operating in Afghanistan, under the disguise of developmental work. Afghanistan is a land locked country and bulk of its transit goods having been passing through Pakistan for ages. India often complains that its Afghan destined goods are not allowed to pass through Pakistan conveniently. In this backdrop India has invested huge amounts in constructing Chabahar port in Iran and linking it to the Central Asian Countries via Afghanistan by road and rail. While the Indian endeavor may succeed in offering an alternative route, the undeniable fact is that Pakistan offers the shortest and the most efficient passage to Afghanistan. This fact became most obvious when Pakistan stopped movement of NATO supplies though land route.

Pakistan decided to handover management control of Gwadar Port to China and also entered into an agreement for the construction of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The corridor will link Gwadar with Kashgar and enable China to contain transit time of its imports/exports. The goods will move on-land rather than sea. Under CPEC, Gwadar port will be linked to china by construction of allied infrastructure­ - road and railway track. India is opposing construction of CPEC section passing through newly constituted Gilgit-Baltistan Province of Pakistan.

With the commencement of full scale activities at Gwadar Port and construction of road and rail networks, Baluchistan is likely to reap enormous benefits. Over the years India has been supporting rebel groups and supplying them funds and arms. A banned outfit Jundullah had enjoyed external support but the group was disintegrated after the hanging of its chief in Iran. Lately, ‘Free Baluchistan’ banners were seen in Switzerland and analysts suspect that it is the work of those Baloch groups who have obtained political asylum there.

One can still recall that India announced to disassociate itself from Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) project due to security reasons as the gas pipeline has to pass through troubled Baluchistan province. Later on, it dawned that another gas pipeline project, Turkmenistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) was being sponsored by the opponents of IPI.  A point beyond comprehension was that India decided to quit IPI because of security issue in Baluchistan, but joined TAPI that has to pass through war-torn Afghanistan.

A substantial part of road network that will ultimately become part of the CPEC has already been constructed and now it is being revamped to offer speedy and safe mode of transportation. It is believed that CPEC will change the entire landscape. India has the realization that it has missed the opportunity by strangulating its relationship with China. It also fears that Chabahar port would never be as efficient and cost effective as Gwadar. Therefore, it is making last ditched efforts to sabotage Gwadr Port and CPEC projects. Now it is the responsibility of all the Pakistanis to frustrate Indian efforts and make Pakistan ‘natural corridor for trade and energy’.

This article was originally published in Pakistan & Gulf Economist