Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

As China eclipses the U.S. economy, here's what Biden can do that Trump didn't: Ask for help
Washington and Beijing are becoming economic equals. The risk is that they won't stay that way, as bad things happen when existing powers won't make way for new ones.


Author starts by saying Britain letting go of its colonies was a tragedy - is he smoking crack, or something?

Crang said:

As China eclipses the U.S. economy, here's what Biden can do that Trump didn't: Ask for help
Washington and Beijing are becoming economic equals. The risk is that they won't stay that way, as bad things happen when existing powers won't make way for new ones.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Author starts by saying Britain letting go of its colonies was a tragedy - is he smoking crack, or something?

Click to expand...

From a global point of view. Had the British Empire not balkanized, the world would have been more multi-polar for the last 75 years, and the cold war might not have happened like that. Had the British empire remained, the US will have to prop up Germany/France (continental Western Europe) as a counter weight to both the British Empire and USSR. China would have been much more valuable to the US, and the US would not have viewed communism as the largest and sole threat.

The US might both invest a lot more interest and military aid to keep ROC in power in mainland, and also be a lot more tolerant and friendly toward left-wing factions in the KMT (this is a check and balance). It is not certain how this will result, as the CCP is quite a tough nut and the USSR will have a strong interest to make sure that she doesn't end up with hostile power on both end of Eurasia. So most likely, the Chinese civil war on the mainland will drag on for longer. Eventually, I still believe the CCP will win, but it is not unfathomable that this will take another 5-6 years, to 1955. Korean War will likely not happen, because the US will have 10 years to prop up South Korea's military to contend with the North. This will deny the North the overwhelming military advantage which gave them the confidence to start the war in 1950, and the North will not start a war when China is still in civil war.

The British Empire will help France, Netherland and others to keep their colonies in Asia, in order to maintain her own imperial legitimacy. The British Empire and USSR will have a converging interest in keeping China mainland divided, while the US will want to keep China mainland united to use as a counter balance against both the British Empire and USSR. The British Empire and USSR will then want to rouse up Anti-American sentiments in Japan, to weaken US's control.

The British Empire and USSR will both try to sway the US towards them, and they will be quite equally matched. The British Empire and the USA are culturally more close, with "shared value system". But the US aspires to be the dominant maritime super power, which pit right against the British Empire. The USSR will have much less direct geo-strategic conflict with the USA, but it is a culturally more different from the USA and have a totally different political system and "value system".

I think that's a fair assessment. So long as Biden doesn't do anything weird in his first year, the US under his presidency will probably remain a reliable partner for Taiwan and be unlikely to make concessions to China on that subject. I expect his attitude towards Chen was he didn't want UDI because that had a high risk of triggering a Chinese attack. However, if Taiwan is minding its own business and Xi attacks "because mah political legacy" he'd look at it in a different way (and before anyone asks, no that doesn't guarantee a US response).

jimmyjames30x30 said:

From a global point of view. Had the British Empire not balkanized, the world would have been more multi-polar for the last 75 years, and the cold war might not have happened like that. Had the British empire remained, the US will have to prop up Germany/France (continental Western Europe) as a counter weight to both the British Empire and USSR. China would have been much more valuable to the US, and the US would not have viewed communism as the largest and sole threat.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that this is a thought experiment, but whilst I agree that the world could have been more multi-polar, I don't think that the US and UK would have seen each other as strategic competitors. Churchill (and Attlee) both saw the US as an ally, not least because the British Empire alone had not provided a solution to the Axis powers. Although the US didn't like the idea of the British Empire as a point of principle, there was no realistic fear about it expanding in any meaningful way.

There was also the key fact that it would have been very unlikely the British Empire could have stayed together indefinitely as the cost of ensuring its security was a continual economic drain on the UK. Even in the 19th century, politicians like Gladstone had got angry when people kept trying to add new territories to the Empire because it was seen as another waste of money.

As ever, happy for you to have the last word if you want to reply.

Mr T said:

I appreciate that this is a thought experiment, but whilst I agree that the world could have been more multi-polar, I don't think that the US and UK would have seen each other as strategic competitors. Churchill (and Attlee) both saw the US as an ally, not least because the British Empire alone had not provided a solution to the Axis powers. Although the US didn't like the idea of the British Empire as a point of principle, there was no realistic fear about it expanding in any meaningful way.

There was also the key fact that it would have been very unlikely the British Empire could have stayed together indefinitely as the cost of ensuring its security was a continual economic drain on the UK. Even in the 19th century, politicians like Gladstone had got angry when people kept trying to add new territories to the Empire because it was seen as another waste of money.

As ever, happy for you to have the last word if you want to reply.

Click to expand...

One of the Lend-Lease conditions was the USA placed restrictions on what goods the UK could export.

That meant the the UK was commercial cut off from its Empire, with the USA moving in to fill the gap.
Of course, the UK had no choice but to accept these conditions given that it was losing a war against Nazi Germany.

And with fewer commercial ties, what is there to hold a disparate British Empire together?

Especially in the face of US encroachment.

Wut?

caudaceus said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1339228152233668611

Wut?

Click to expand...

Yeah, double wut?

Skywatcher said:

Yeah, double wut?

Click to expand...

Cindy McCain was reported as being the likely candidate for UK ambassador a few weeks ago. Also there was that Reuters post recently that Buttigieg was being considered for the Beijing post.

Maybe some bullshitting from the Hollywood Reporter just for clicks.

Mr T said:

Cindy McCain was reported as being the likely candidate for UK ambassador a few weeks ago. Also there was that Reuters post recently that Buttigieg was being considered for the Beijing post.

Maybe some bullshitting from the Hollywood Reporter just for clicks.

Click to expand...

Buttigieg is going to the transportation dept.

Mr T said:

Cindy McCain was reported as being the likely candidate for UK ambassador a few weeks ago. Also there was that Reuters post recently that Buttigieg was being considered for the Beijing post.

Maybe some bullshitting from the Hollywood Reporter just for clicks.

Click to expand...

I can see Cindy McCain, who'd make a pretty decent Ambassador to London, if she listens to the professional staff.

Sure, Iger's done HK and Shanghai Disneylands but this seems weird since the Ambassador to Beijing is usually driven by personal relationships/China experience, and Iger doesn't seem to have either (no real links to power structures in Beijing/DC and sure Disney has expanded its China presence under his watch, but he's no China hand).

You know Trump could do a lot more than he has so far against China. He still may but if there are those in the US aiming to ruin Sino-US relations they should be doing more damage as early as possible before Biden comes to office to make it harder him to reverse it. Yeah "Trump took on China more than any other President..." How come he hasn't done worse? Not even labelling China a FX manipulator. Where are those tariffs on the rest of China's exports? It doesn't hurt the US so why not? That's simple stuff. It tells despite all the talk of decoupling from China, they still need China. They ain't holding back because they're thinking of how it'll hurt the Chinese people. They worried how how it'll effect them meaning talking decoupling is just a tactic hopefully scaring Beijing into surrendering.