Skip to main content

Opinion Trump’s trade war with China is starting to feel like a race war

Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, the author of China’s Crony Capitalism, and the inaugural Library of Congress Chair in US-China Relations.

Late last month at a security forum in Washington, Kiron Skinner, the director of policy planning for the U.S. Department of State, described today’s U.S.-China conflict as “a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology, and the United States hasn’t had that before.”

Even as a trial balloon, this apparent attempt to define the Trump administration’s confrontation with China did not fly.

Story continues below advertisement

By framing the creeping cold war between the United States and China as a clash of civilizations, Ms. Skinner – whose position was once held by luminaries such as George Kennan, Paul Nitze, Richard N. Haass and Anne-Marie Slaughter – was being neither original nor accurate. The political scientist Samuel P. Huntington developed the concept more than a quarter-century ago, and the Communist Party of China itself is an ideologically bankrupt entity.

Worse, Ms. Skinner’s full remarks were freighted with racial overtones. Unlike the United States’ competition with the Soviet Union, which she described as “a fight within the Western family,” the rivalry with China supposedly represents “the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.” Never mind that the United States fought Japan in the Second World War.

One hopes Ms. Skinner’s talk of a clash between Caucasian and non-Caucasian civilizations was just a slip of the tongue. Those who would intentionally traffic in such ideas must know that they could lead not just to the economic or military defeat of one side, but to the destruction of an entire society. How policy-makers frame the U.S.-China conflict will have far-reaching implications, and the United States must demonstrate that its policies are motivated by a higher moral purpose if they are to gain wider international support.

Most commentators see the U.S.-China conflict as a struggle between an incumbent power and its most plausible challenger. The two countries appear to be falling into the proverbial Thucydides Trap, a self-fulfilling prophecy in which a hegemon’s fear of being supplanted leads it to act in such a way as to precipitate a war for global dominance.

And yet, even if today’s conflict is being driven by a zero-sum quest for power, that should not be the United States’ sole consideration. Given the threat of civilizational collapse posed by climate change, the Trump administration’s focus only on U.S. interests appears selfish and irresponsible to the rest of the world.

Opinion: Trudeau will play the latest twists in the U.S. tariff tale

Opinion: Unlike Trump, China can afford to play the long game on trade

Opinion: U.S. foreign policy is in shambles – and that might tempt Trump to wage war

The fact is that most of the world – including a sizable share of Americans – has no interest in being plunged into another cold war just to preserve U.S. hegemony. If the U.S. government wants to garner international support for countering Chinese power and influence, it must make a more compelling case.

This shouldn’t be all that difficult, given that the rise of China under a one-party dictatorship threatens not just American hegemony but the rules-based international order. Rather than framing the conflict as a race war, then, the United States should focus on the Chinese threat to global institutions, which, by extension, is a threat to many other countries’ growth and stability.

Story continues below advertisement

Whatever its flaws, the U.S.-led international order offers far more benefits to other countries than any conceivable alternative system could. Indeed, during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the United States enjoyed widespread international support precisely because it was leading a defence of that order. And since the end of that conflict, most of the world has either welcomed or accepted American hegemony, on the tacit understanding that the United States would continue to uphold the liberal framework.

Sadly, that condition no longer holds. U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has unabashedly championed an “America first” foreign-policy agenda, alienating traditional allies and alarming the rest of world for the sake of narrow political objectives. It is no exaggeration to say that Mr. Trump’s misguided policies pose as great a threat to the liberal order as China does.

The Trump administration may continue to believe that U.S. power on its own is enough to vanquish China. But going it alone will prove costly, and the chances of success would be much higher if the United States were to marshal the support of its friends and allies.

The latest failure to reach a trade deal suggests that the U.S.-China cold war is escalating to the next stage. Sooner or later, the Trump administration will realize that it actually needs the support of its allies to prevail against the Chinese. When that day comes, it would do well to abandon talk of civilizational conflict and racial rivalry, and instead offer a morally justifiable case for confronting China. The United States is the traditional defender of the liberal order. It needs to start acting like it.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2019.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter