Economics

Por qué no ocurrirá una guerra sino-estadounidense

Oct 22, 2018 Ngaire Woods

OXFORD – Se suele decir que Estados Unidos y China –superpotencias enfrentadas en lo económico, geopolítico e ideológico- se encaminan hacia una nueva guerra fría. Y la retórica (al menos desde uno de los bandos) ha llegado a recordar la del discurso de “La cortina de hierro” que diera en 1946 Winston Churchill, uno de los eventos que dieron inicio a la Guerra Fría. Este mismo mes, el Vicepresidente estadounidense Mike Pence acusó a China de prácticas económicas predatorias, agresión militar contra los Estados Unidos e intentar desacreditar al Presidente Donald Trump.

Pero a pesar del alboroto mediático, no es inevitable una nueva guerra fría, o incluso posible. Lo cierto es que los líderes chinos, temerosos de cualquier debilitamiento de la legitimidad del Partido Comunista de China, están decididos a evitar que los Estados Unidos obliguen a China a realizar cambios en su sistema político y económico. China seguirá impulsando reformas a su propio ritmo y manera. Una importante prioridad para el Presidente chino Xi Jinping es fusionar el PCC con la maquinaria de gobierno para reducir la corrupción y pulir las credenciales ideológicas del estado. Todo intento de interferir en este proceso equivaldría a cruzar una línea roja.

Por suerte para Xi, Trump no tiene interés alguno en “democratizar” otros países ni parece haber sido seducido por los inversionistas, financistas y titanes tecnológicos estadounidenses que desean que su gobierno presione a China para lograr mayor acceso a su economía.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 Comments on this article

fl1034 Jan 29, 2019

Woods would really like to say 'Goo'ole England's second after the Yanks' but can't type that with a straight face, so she had to fill that psychological void with Germany, who arguably is the only European state that has any resemblance of raw power. Why couldn't you Europeans (yeah UK is part of Europe like it or not) just wake up to the reality you can not stand on your own when uncle sam isn't rushing to your rescue? Fight a new cold war with the US, and win it, or there will be no Europe.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Oct 28, 2018

Germany and Russia share the same geopolitical space. How Woods ca see them as dominating "respective regions" is a bit of a mystery. Russia, last i heard, has thousands of nuclear weapons; Germany has none, nor does it have a real military. This essay does not pass muster for an op-ed. Maybe the school should have been named after Mme. Blavatsky - a fellow fantasist.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gustavo Mello Oct 28, 2018

Isn't India supposed to play a larger role than directly acknowledged by the articulist? She may stand poised to be a giant regional hegemon - big economy, large population, good educational system, nuclear weapons, space launching capabilities... they sent a probe to Mars in the 1st attempt for chrissake...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 25, 2018

Ngaire Woods does not envision a Sino-American Cold War, but sees a multipolar system led by China, Germany, Russia and the US. The four powers are expected to be dominating “their respective regions and seeking the upper hand in international negotiations.” This scenario may not be ideal, but not unprecedented.
After World War II there was the term “Big Four” – comprising China, the UK, the US and the USSR – proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his talks on the format of the future United Nations Organisation. He labelled the alliance the “Four Policemen“ – each would be “patrolling its own sphere of influence and negotiating with the others on world peace.” With the addition of France, this concept came to fruition as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
The ongoing trade war between the world’s two largest economies is not merely about US trade deficit with China – it is about a larger pushback against Beijing’s rise. One true target may be China’s high-tech industries, those linked to “Made in China 2025 Initiative.” Beijing’s national strategy aims to build up 10 strategically and technologically important sectors such as 5G networks and cybersecurity, high-end precision tools and robotics, and aerospace. China aims to overtake the US as the world’s largest economy in the coming years.
By focusing on its high-tech sectors, China “can be seen as posing a threat to U.S. dominance in these fields.” At home, Xi Jinping’s top priority is to reform China “at its own pace and in its own way” – fighting corruption and boosting growth. In order to ensure the Communist Party’s surviva, “the state’s ideological credentials” need to be defended. Meanwhile Beijing is challenging American hegemony in Asia and elsewhere.
To Xi’s relief, Trump is not interesting in “forcing changes on China’s political and economic system.” Nor does he let himself be “swayed” by business leaders, investors and tech titans, “who want his administration to press for more access to the Chinese economy.” He is obsessed with reducing trade deficits, creating jobs and bolstering US manufacturing “by repatriating global supply chains and blocking or curbing imports.” His slogan, “Make America Great Again” is really about” making in America again.”
As China and the US are poles apart when it comes to resolving their current trade dispute, “it could weaken both countries and usher in a more multipolar world.” There is fear that the trade war could drag on for years. The US depends heavily on China as a source for low-cost goods to help American consumers make ends meet. Despite holding some $1.2 trillion of US Treasury bonds and funding America’s budget deficits, China sees no incentive to retaliate, as it would only “weaken the value of the US Treasuries that it continues to hold.”
Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal that Iran signed with the world powers had united China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany to push for an alternative financing mechanism that would bypass US sanctions on Iran. This allow Iranians to trade with other countries, using other payment channels for selling their oil. Although “none of these alternative systems have yet to match the convenience of SWIFT and the dollar system... if a new system were to take hold, it could rapidly shift power away from the US.”
The author says China, Germany, Russia and the US “are once again in the lead, only now we have stronger international institutions to help keep the peace.” Perhaps in the absence of a patronising US, China and Russia are more willing to uphold the international order and benefit from a modicum of stability. “Whether that peace lasts will depend on the willingness of the four powers to use and adapt those institutions to the emerging international system.” Facing challenges from all sides, the US is losing its tight grip on global power. The question is whether hawkish Republicans will be content with playing a diminished role in a multipolar system.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mauricio Duran-Loriga Oct 23, 2018

These four hosemen of apocalypse have totally destroyed the value of their currencies over the last century (Germany even twice!). If that is the best solution the world is going to come up with, I want to be the first human who flees to Mars.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.