Protectionism and War
This blog frequently looks at the security implications of China’s rise, which are potent and diffuse. But there’s no doubt that the real skirmishes between the US and China are being fought on economic terrain. Friday’s announcement of CVD duties, which are a first step towards greater American protectionism, is one example. The greatest threat for the 21st century is that these economic flare-ups between the US and China will not be contained, but might spill over into the realm of military aggression between these two world powers.
Economic conflict breeds military conflict. The stakes of trade override the ideological power of the Taiwan issue. China’s ability to continue growing at a rapid rate takes precedence, since there can be no sovereignty for China without economic growth. The United States’ role as the world’s superpower is dependent on its ability to lead economically.
As many of you will know from reading this blog, I do not believe that war between the US and China is imminent, or a foregone conclusion in the future. I certainly do not hope for war. But I have little doubt that protectionist policies on both sides greatly increase the likelihood of conflict–far more than increases in military budgets and anti-satellite tests.
With the announcement of this change in trade policy, the Bush Administration has opened the floodgates, and it will be very difficult to turn back the tide. That’s the real concern with this move. Sure, the CVD duties only apply to glossy paper, and things may even stay that way for some time (i.e. wider enforcement by the administration may not follow immediately). But the politics of trade are such that greater protectionism now appears inevitable.
All this points to the fact that Friday’s announcement was merely the opening salvo in a delicate, dangerous dance with China.
A couple years ago I listened to a senior US intelligence analyst talk about the intel community’s views on China. She said that there was a large contingency at the agency that simply assumed that war with China was inevitable at some point. The reason: the sheer number of high-stakes issues meant that not all could be solved by dialogue and cooperation.
I refuse to take such a fatalistic approach. But protectionist trade policies contribute to a rapidly expanding list of incredibly challenging issues, which bodes poorly for the US-China relationship, and for all of us.
April 3, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I think there has always been a dangerous dance with China just like we do dangerous dances with other countries. It is because of the two wars and the fact that there is this underlying fear of communism, that protectionism is on the rise. I believe it never really left the average person…protectionism that is. The stock market, corp. and politicians may have felt free to do trade with certain countries but the average American does not feel that way.
Besides when you read the different Chinese online news outlets, none of them appear to enjoy their relationship with us. Rather they go on and on about Russia and the EU. It is a perception from both sides- here and there.
April 4, 2007 at 6:35 am
[...] Ben Landy’s take on the trade dispute over glossy paper is worth a read. His point is that the effects of protectionism range far beyond direct economic inefficiencies. In this case, the U.S.-China relationship itself will take a hit, and in Ben’s mind, trade disputes are potentially quite dangerous: The greatest threat for the 21st century is that these economic flare-ups between the US and China will not be contained, but might spill over into the realm of military aggression between these two world powers. [...]
April 4, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Thanks for the post and I want to comment on two related issues. First, having worked in the security community I too agree that many see China as the ultimate evil. I often think this is based on the state-centric need of having to have a rising enemy to be against, which is remarkable to me even when we are being dished so much rhetoric on the Global War on Terror. The second issue, related to the first, is that I often believe US government officials believe war is inevitable because they simply do not understand China’s history and culture. They jump to conclusions based on ignorance and it is also convenient to have an external force to blame on outsourcing of jobs, foreign debt ownership, etc. Yes, some are legitimate concerns but others are simply either our own fault or the product of globalization and we therefore cannot stop and must learn to deal with. If officials continue to subjectively believe China is a threat, it will become a self-fulfilled proficiency. I am not claiming China is never to blame but we lack the knowledge and expertise to make truly objective assessments.