87 Comments

I see a lot of commenters below quibble with the view that China is more responsible for the current situation.

I don’t really have an opinion on the subject, but I wonder if people truly comprehend how different China is politically. Chinas policies aren’t something that change every election. Chinese policy is completely insulated from public opinion. China is run by very smart people who have long term goals, and who aren’t going to be persuaded by good will. They want to win. It’s not personal.

I used to assume that the internet would result in the Chinese population becoming more western, but if anything it’s has allowed the Chinese government to have even more control.

China already views themselves as in a Cold War with us. And there is not going to be glasnost.

Expand full comment

I would like to propose that our impulse to say "cold war 2" is a mistake. An understandable one, because it's got self-professed communists on one side and self-professed capitalists on the other.

I believe a far more appropriate comparison is the Anglo-German Rivalry of 1871-1917. Both because it takes a more pragmatic look at China's allegedly communist ideology, and because it implies that the more likely consequences are different.

In 1871, the German Empire united. This move shocked basically all of Europe, despite being clearly inevitable in hindsight. An entirely new power had burst forth on the world stage. It was huge, it was economically powerful due to sheer population size, and it had industrialized at an incredible rate. Moreover, it was politically unfree, and discontent with the global order, feeling that it was all a bunch of fancy rules designed to keep them down. Germany hated the international rules and set to work disregarding them as a show of strength.

Most concerned by this was the United Kingdom. Germany was a Heartland empire. Their wealth came from a massively industrial and highly populated continental heartland. The United Kingdom however was a Merchant Empire. Their wealth came from sea power, trade, and diplomacy, and they depended heavily on a system of rules in foreign affairs, and a balance of power, to make trade and politics predictable and stable. The United Kingdom saw in Germany a potentially rivalrous economic power, with no respect for the geopolitical order on which the United Kingdom depended, and held much less sympathy to them for their authoritarian government. They were terrified.

The two powers would express this rivalry through diplomatic posturing, mostly. But also through expressions of Economic and Military power. Proxy Wars and Puppet Regimes weren't so common, though imperialism and competing for economic influence in underdeveloped nations was extremely common. The most notable peaceful manifestation of this rivalry was the Dreadnought Race, an arms technology race between Germany and Britain to build the largest High Seas Fleet possible to protect or distrupt Britain's naval hegemony.

Does any of this at all sound familiar?

Perhaps most concerning is that Britain didn't actually believe war with Germany was all that plausible. They were too economically intertwined, despite the competition and rivalry. Yet, in 1914, Germany invaded a country that was explicitly under British protection, in an attempt to once again assert Germany's prestige on the world stage. The United Kingdom honored their agreement and intervened, and the ensuing years of conflict would end the rivalry decisively for the British, but at an incredible cost in human life. The Great War.

I do not believe that this war is inevitable. However I do believe that Germany invaded Belgium because they didn't think Britain would actually be willing to go to war with Germany. And Britain believed Germany wouldn't invade Belgium because they didn't think Germany would actually be willing to go to war with Britain. By discounting the very real danger of war, both sides behaved so callously as to allow the war to happen. I only hope we do not make the same error.

Expand full comment
Jul 12, 2021Liked by Noah Smith

I worry that China policy will be in the hands of people who are more interested in private interests, and/or idealists rather than realists. In other words, fighting the wrong Cold War.

Expand full comment
Jul 12, 2021Liked by Noah Smith

I don't get what's in it for China risking Cold War 2? As Noah said, they already benefit immensely from the current economic status quo, so why would they jeapordize it? Because they want to own Taiwan and a useless island outside of Japan THAT badly? China stands to most to lose.

Expand full comment

This seems to be a recurring trope in US foreign-policy circles post-2017: "We wanted to be China's friend but China chose antagonism". Its a nice-sounding platitude and i'm sure that foreign-policy/defense apparatchiks can expect to sell it to the American public with a good chance of success. The problem is that its largely self-serving nonsense which nobody outside of the US should be paying too much attention to.

The opinions/feelings of the Chinese and their experiences over the period 2000-2012 are apparently unnecessary. The very real concerns (floated under a pre-9/11 Bush regime) of Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier used to threaten South China are discounted out of hand (Not to say that they should be given Taiwan, but you can't dismiss the real geo-strategic quandaries). The distrust that Obama's much-hullabaloo'd 'Pivot' generated is again ignored. Especially given a) the wealth of Chinese literature that it generated and b) the fact that it came a good 1-2 years before the first real signs of Chinese assertiveness. Also, does noone (except maybe Tanner Greer) acknowledge just how nauseatingly condescending and hypocritical all that 'responsible stakeholder' crap must have sounded to the Chinese when the US was busy illegally bombing countries and torpedoing the world economy.

Forgive me, but I don't think the Chinese necessarily saw all this as a sign of 'friendship' and 'benign intentions'. America ultimately needed cheap manufacturing and a quiet Asia-Pacific whilst it got itself entangled into multiple wars and economic hardship. All this 'we wanted to be friends' post-facto malarkey is akin to shooting an arrow into a barn and painting a target around it. It may have actually existed 1990-2000, but in this century, its been little more than an ideological justification/legitimization for policy actions that the US had to undertake anyway.

Now, that's not to say that what China is doing in the SCS and Taiwan is great and we should all applaud them. But this Hollywood narrative of some grand geopolitical betrayal and a pending fightback is not something that non-Americans should be caring too much about.

Expand full comment

So many mistakes.

First, the communist party has been talking about the color revolution for decades. I don't understand why you guys seem to believe the regime suddenly changed its attitude after Xi. The only difference between Xi and other guys is that Xi has the support from Hu and Jiang to consolidate power and push a new agenda as the development enters a new era. Hu's attitude towards a lot of issues is very similar to Xi, except that Hu does not have power to push agenda like Xi.

Second, China has massively invested in renewable energy. In fact, China's electricity production share from renewable energy(excludes nuclear) is growing very fast in the past decades. In absolute terms, renewable energy electricity production in China is three times greater than that in the US. In relative share, China's share is 26% and the US is 20%. Also, China is trying very hard to move to EV in the near-decade. I don't understand why an American can blame China for not doing much about climate change. Read some scientific research instead of reading your English propaganda. By the way, China significantly contributes to lowering the price of solar panels and batteries. That is why China dominates the solar panel industry and plays a very important role in battery industry.

Third, PRC inherits South China Sea's claim from ROC. And US supports ROC‘s claim of the South China Sea in the good old days as the gift of the WWII victory. Generally speaking, ROC government aka the Taiwan government still claim the South China Sea and has several islands there. Same for the Diaoyu island(disputes with Japan). You seem to have no knowledge that both the governments in mainland and Taiwan make these claims.

Expand full comment

nice post. Imagine both sides-ing genocide. sad

Expand full comment
Jul 12, 2021Liked by Noah Smith

Excellent. Avoidance of Chamberlainism again achieved.

Expand full comment

I really don't know how to engage with this. I subscribed to your work because you bring some thoughtful and diverse perspectives to economics and cultural questions, but your China screeds are suffused with the same old tropes and talking points that Foggy Bottom peddles to all the stenographers.

Are you really trying to sell the idea that the US attitude to China "for decades" has been one of consistent, constructive engagement? And it was only Xi's arrival that sabotaged that? And Trump's trade war (and other bullshit) is a trifling footnote?

And as for the two countries' relative performance on climate change.... jeez

Expand full comment

Not buying it. "We tried engagement, remember?" Sounds like you are blaming China for our aggression. "But they were supposed to reform and didn't." Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Also, everything under "China’s aggressive moves" is one sided to the point of dishonesty. There are many good Asian news sources that publish in English, and when you read them it is quite obvious Asian countries by and large want to solve their troubles with China on their own, and do not want unchecked aggression from the US foisted upon them. This sounds more like a case of white savior complex, they way described here.

No, the real issue is the US doesn't want any competitors to their hegemony, pure and simple. Doesn't matter who the competitor is or what they have done, those making the decisions here in the US will say and do anything to damage them.

Expand full comment

Noah, as always I'm a fan of your writing and this is a very important topic that needs to be addressed.

I think part of the skepticism of the left (and not just the left I'm sure there are some moderate liberals, centrists, and heterodox conservatives) is the experience of the Iraq war.

I remember listening to liberal hawks on why and how we needed to go to war with Iraq and at the time I thought "I would have more confidence about this war if you mr. liberal war were in charge but this war will be waged by the Bush administration, not by you".

I think at least some people who are skeptical about a new cold war are at least open to Biden pursuing a rational foreign policy but are concerned about what a Trumpist and more broadly xenophobic and racist GOP will do with a cold war with China once they are back in office.

Expand full comment

Defending Taiwan isn’t just about defending a democracy (although it certainly is that) or economic interests.

If China occupied Taiwan it would provide the Chinese navy with open access to the Pacific Ocean & improve their capacity to target important trade routes.

It would bring China in close proximity to islands which are territory of Japanese & The Phillipines, including those it claims as territory. This would undermine Japanese, South Korean & Filipino security in the long term.

It also would be a threat to Guam, an American territory.

It also would put Guam in range of Chinese missiles.

Expand full comment

The focus on the Cold War between America and China is myopic. It misses the fact that, in this time, authoritarianism and bellicose rhetoric are on the rise globally. Are we Chinese and Americans to proud to give credit to Modi's Hindu Nationalism or MBS' strongman crushing of the population in Yemen?

Expand full comment

Seeing the local chinese influence operations in my European country, I am very sure there is a chinese influence behind those China-appeasement campaigns.

I would love having this mentioned in the article, China sees everything as a wepon, and influence ops have a effect/cost ratio out of charts.

Expand full comment

"The main cause of Cold War 2 is not economic. Yes, Trump did start a trade war with China, and Biden is continuing that trade war. But China had for decades been engaging in mercantilist policies against the U.S. that were far more aggressive than anything Trump or Biden has done — mercantilism that is increasingly difficult to justify on the grounds of national development. So China really started that".

This statement is a mass of contradictions. Starting a trade war, is that not economic policy and an "economic cause"? Is not "mercantilism" an economic policy and "economic cause", regardless of "who started it"? More generally, how is it not possible that China's enormous and historically unprecedented economic expansion isn't the real cause of the angst of Americans from Noah Smith to Donald Trump?

That's not a celebration of China's economic achievements, capitalist and not "socialist" ones as should be made clear, but the citing of a historical fact.

The U.S. anti-capitalist Left is not to take sides in an inter-imperialist conflict between capitalist state powers. But that is exactly what Noah Smith is trying to drum the Left into: Taking sides. We saw what that led to in Germany in 1914. Catastrophe.

Expand full comment

This is one of the more misinformed articles I have seen, Noah.

Yes, China has been more aggressive lately around its own borders.

That's because up until 40 years ago, it was so weak that other countries could pursue their interests against China more or less at will.

The issue which neither you, nor the US State and Defense Departments nor the US Deep State ever go into is: what is legitimate sovereign self interest vs. meddling from far-afield outsiders?

Yes, China building artificial islands is dubious. But what about the rings of US bases surrounding China's ocean facing coastline?

Taiwan: more Janus lunacy. The US can fight a Civil War and suffer 1.2% wartime population deaths to pacify its secessionist Southern states but its ok for Ukraine, Taiwan, etc to go their own way. What about the US meddling in Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan?

Expand full comment