Well deserved kudos should be
given to President Donald Trump. By agreeing to meet with North Korea leader
Kim Jung-un, he has made a clean break from the impasse that outlasted two US
presidents.
Trump will be doing what his
two predecessors were unwilling to do. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama dismissed
the notion that any meeting with the North Korea leader can take place in lieu
of North Korea abiding by certain preconditions.
Without an agenda loaded with
excess baggage, Trump and Kim can begin a conversation that could break the ice
and make history together.
American leaders frequently
forget that confrontation and upfront in your face demands rarely impress
Asians favorably. It will behoove Trump to remember that in giving face, good
things happen.
Given the suddenness of the
development and unpredictable nature of Kim and Trump, it will be hard to
predict the eventual outcome. However, Kim through the South Korean
intermediaries has already indicated that the topic of denuclearization is on
the table—certainly a concessionary gesture.
If Trump is a fraction of the
master negotiator he has said he is, he has a real opportunity to resolve the
Korean debacle that has bedeviled American presidents since the end of the
Korean War in 1953.
If so, he would deservedly be
honored around the world as the statesman that made a major contribution toward
world peace. He could look forward to ticker tape parades not only in New York
and Washington but Beijing, Seoul, Pyongyang, even Moscow and Tokyo, too.
Back to making America great again
Then, after a suitable
breather, Trump can go back to making America great again.
Ironically, Trump’s “America
first” strategy will depend on not only getting along with China, but figuring
out various ways of enlisting China’s assistance and cooperation.
Indeed, as a professor from
University of Texas pointed out in Fortune,
Trump could not begin to meet his own goal of rebuilding the nation’s
infrastructure relying just on public and private capital from within the US.
Obviously America needs
capital from China, virtually the only source with the wherewithal to help.
Furthermore, China has the proven skillset to plan and manage infrastructure
projects that would complete on time and within budget. Therefore, that means
the US needs China’s goodwill.
Firestein of University of Texas
suggests that to avoid geopolitical controversy, the US invite only China’s
private capital to participate. That distinction won’t work, because American policy
makers have trouble distinguishing the difference between China’s private and
state own entities in any case.
For example, Huawei is
dominating the global markets with their telecommunication products because of
their cost effective advantages. By alleging a shadowy connection of the
founder with his previous PLA affiliation, Huawei has been shut out of the US,
its privately held status notwithstanding. This is foolish xenophobia at its
worst.
By continuing to treat China
as an adversary justifies the defense budget and does nothing for the US as a
whole—and won’t make America first.
Consistent with Trump willing
to break the mold on dealing with North Korea, he should consider undertaking a
brand new, history making, approach with China.
To do so, it’s probably
necessary to first dispel the many myths and misinformation about China that
circulate inside the Washington Beltway.
Many in the US expect China
to become a democracy as it becomes an economic power, and are deeply
disappointed when China goes their own way. Such expectation is in fact not founded
by China’s past tradition and history, and can be attributed to a delusional
mindset of the critics that every country must eventually be like the US.
The current government in
Beijing believes in single party rule in the name of ensuring internal order
and stability. If anything, the PRC government is most like the city-state of
Singapore. Unlike the US, China does not attempt to export their way of
governance to other parts of the world.
Thus, nothing China has done
could be considered provocative or hostile toward America. They do not try to
interfere with the US elections. They do not engage in an arms race with the
US.
They will not initiate a
trade war because they understand very well that there will be no winners in a
war of tit for tat rounds of retaliatory tariffs.
It’s true that China has
become enormously successful in global trade. Their success comes from making
products at a low cost and competitively priced. Their comparative advantage
benefits consumers that buy their goods around the world.
Made in China industrial
goods benefit the US economy and create jobs. For example, low cost solar
panels increase demand to convert to solar power. The demand creates an
industry of panel assemblers and installers.
In a trade war, tariff
protection for one sector of the economy will damage other sectors that depend
on reasonably priced imports to build a business. Also hurt would be sectors
that export because their competitive advantages would be erased by retaliatory
counter tariffs. The net effect will be mutually assured damage or even
destrruction of their own economy.
There is nothing to be gained
by insisting on casting China as America’s adversary and everything to the good
by treating China as a friend.
As I commented previously, Chinese companies operating in the US, have already
demonstrated their ability to rebuild America’s infrastructure cost
effectively, such as China Construction rebuilding the bridge over the East
River in Manhattan and China Railway Rolling Stock replacing old subway cars in
major U.S. cities.
Both Chinese entities—yes,
they are state owned—delivered quality results relying on American labor. These
projects resulted in local US investments and created local jobs. A long array
of win-win outcomes awaits US China cooperation, if America can get over their
xenophobic bias and treat China as peer and partner.
Given President Trump’s bold
move toward North Korea, he is just unorthodox enough to pull this off, namely
change the narrative about the most important bilateral relations in the world.
