US President-elect Joe Biden has nominated core members of his cabinet and announced his 100-Day Plan when he assumes office next year. When interpreted in conjunction with the ambition laid out in his article “Why America Must Lead Again” in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, one should realize he will not change the US global strategy adjusted under the Trump administration, which regards China and Russia as main rivals of the US.
It doesn’t matter which party is in control of the US government or who is the US president, China has to be one of the main rivals of America because the US needs this worthy “competitor” to justify its obsession with hegemony, which is waning amid the paradigm shift of the century in global power balance.
The essence of this paradigm shift of the century in global politico-economic landscape is the shift of power balance from the West to the East. Although the European Union (EU) also feels moderate pressure from this shift of power balance, it does not have or seek hegemony. Its ambition is to be one of the poles of a multi-polar world in the 21st century. Therefore, the EU is adapting to the shift by promoting Eurasian cooperation. Japan, on the other hand, is an Asian country but widely seen as a member of the Western alliance due to its westernized political system. It is not as difficult for Japan to adapt to the global power shift as it is for the EU. As for the “Five Eyes”, it is four working for one (the US) whether they like it or not. It is all about America, the sole superpower in the post-Cold War era but especially after the devastating financial crisis of 2008 that accelerated the US’ decline; while China became the second largest economy in the world. Faced with the rise of Asia starring China in the new century, the US readjusted its global strategy under the Obama administration. As vice-president then Biden knew very well why Obama pushed for the “return to Asia” strategic maneuver and focused on containing China. It was a consensus between the Democratic and Republican parties as well as “the power that be” behind them. In that sense, when Trump declared China as one of the major rivals of the US shortly after taking office in 2017, he was merely finalizing the strategic adjustment of the US’ China policy initiated by Obama. The Biden administration may or may not be the third term of the Obama administration, but he is not expected to change the existing China policy as far as the foreign policy options he and his advisors mentioned during the election campaign as well as the foreign affairs and national security teams he has chosen are concerned.
Of course, Biden is expected to use tactics different from Trump’s, with a priority reshuffle to boot. Trump championed unilateralism, distanced America from the EU, Japan and other allies to varying degrees, and withdrew from multiple international treaties and organizations; whereas the Biden administration will rejoin those treaties and organizations while repairing the damaged relations with US allies. Trump openly called for an international anti-China alliance; Biden will instead form an international alliance under a different theme. Considering the two aspects above, it is easier for Biden’s approaches to rally support from other Western countries. In other words, it will be harder for China to counteract to Biden’s offensive than to Trump’s.
When Biden takes office, he has to decide whether or not to start the second round of bilateral trade talks with China. So far he already indicated that he would discuss with allies matters concerning tariffs against China. The US trade war waged by Trump against China apparently did America more harm than good. Biden’s foreign policy, on the other hand, will supposedly serve the interests of the middle class. That is why some people believe he would end the trade war by proposing simultaneous tariff cuts by both sides. Of course “simultaneous” does not mean equal, and Biden is expected to demand more concessions from China; whereas the latter will likely propose a package deal, including the US calling off its discriminatory treatment of Chinese enterprises, especially attempts to kill hi-tech giants like Huawei. However, Biden will not do that by any chance, because he believes the US cannot afford to let China advance in technology and innovation. As such we have no reason to expect the tension between the US and China to ease as far as bilateral trade is concerned.
Biden has no choice but to continue playing the “Hong Kong card” against China. Maybe he would make it easier for Hong Kong by not requiring “Made in Hong Kong” labels being replaced by “Made in China”, because “Made in Hong Kong” is recognized by the World Trade Organization and Biden respects the fact the US needs the WTO. Nevertheless, the “Made in Hong Kong” label is insignificant because Hong Kong only exports about US$3 billion worth of goods to the US a year.
The SAR government and Hong Kong society as a whole should try and delay US sanctions against Hong Kong’s financial market. Sooner or later, such sanctions will come but any delay would allow Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland to prepare better. A delay is possible because, first, US cross-national financial institutions have huge vested interests in the Hong Kong financial market; second, major US accounting and law firms are deeply involved in Hong Kong’s financial sector; third, China is willing to further open up its financial market and related professional services, and fourth, the US has a significant competitive edge in the financial industry and related professional services, therefore they are not compelled to curb China including Hong Kong in these areas.
As for Hong Kong, it must maintain confidence in the country’s ability to handle challenges from the US government no matter who is the president and not expect too much in terms of easier Hong Kong policies by Washington; while continuing efforts to help ease the tension between the two countries over specific issues however it can.
The author is a senior research fellow of China Everbright Holdings.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
