Biden‘s policy toward China has been two-fold, with him at times making overtures to the Chinese Communist Party and at other times declaring war preparations against China. Biden is not acting, but is entangled in a fundamental dichotomy between “politically correct” values and U.S. national security. The Biden Administration has lowered its tone and characterized the CCP as a “major competitor”; in fact, the CCP is not a “competitor” but a strategic enemy. The Chinese Communist Party ignited the Cold War in a premeditated and systematic manner, and arrogantly and ignorantly thought that it would be the winner. The U.S. military and economic strength is now sufficient to deal with the CCP threat, and whether the CCP can continue to be arrogant depends on how the Biden administration intends to deal with the CCP threat.
I. Is Chinese Communist dictatorship a normal “cultural norm”?
During a Feb. 16 television appearance on CNN in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Biden described what he told Xi Jinping when he spoke with him on Feb. 10. He explained, “If you know anything about Chinese history …… Xi’s central principle is that there has to be a unified, tightly controlled China. Based on that, he took those actions and rationalized them. Culturally, different countries have different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow. I don’t disagree with what Xi Jinping did in Hong Kong and don’t intend to disagree with what he did in western China and Taiwan.” This is Biden speaking from his heart, his values and his consistent position of “embracing the panda faction.”
Biden’s values are a good example of the American “politically correct” view, which refuses to recognize that the communist regime that emerged from Marxism is the worst system in human history, and uses “cultural relativism,” imported from Europe, in order to make their case. “Cultural relativism, which emphasizes that there is no right or wrong in multiculturalism, is an important view of the neo-Marxism born in Europe. This is the essence of “moral negation”, which believes that the moral concepts of right and wrong based on Christian civilization need to be eliminated and replaced by various concepts of sexual confusion, ethnic and class antagonism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Western religion.
Biden’s description of the Red dictatorship as a “cultural norm” undoubtedly justifies the Communist dictatorship. This is a sophistry. It is not difficult to distinguish between authoritarianism and freedom, and whether they are right or wrong should be the basic values of a democracy. But neo-Marxism advocates the overthrow of the social order of existing democracies and the introduction of various old and new Marxist red values that transform democratic societies, so it wants to emphasize “cultural relativism” and equate authoritarian Culture with the traditional culture of democracies, using the phrase “there is no right or wrong in multiculturalism. They use “multiculturalism is not right or wrong” to put the laurel of legitimacy on their favorite authoritarian culture. Biden is a clumsy student of neo-Marxism, parroting that sophomoric debate without even knowing how to wrap his head around it, only to say it out loud as a nakedly authoritarian theory of tolerance. In fact, the “politically correct” school is so hypocritical that it has no tolerance for the traditional Western values it wants to suppress, and it does not say that “multiculturalism is right or wrong” at all.
As we have seen in the United States, the values of the “political correctness school” are nothing but a kind of Western post-modernist authoritarian thinking, which has the same roots as the values of the Red dictatorship, and that is why it is always affinity to the Red dictatorship in terms of values. It imposes its own way of thinking on American society, using “political correctness” as an excuse. Like the Communist Party, the “politically correct” want to use their authoritarian thinking to control society as a whole. The “politically correct” also criticize the human rights situation under Communist dictatorship, which is nothing more than a show to try to cleanse themselves of their close association with Red authoritarian values, neither sincere nor serious. Many of the older generation of American “political correctness” were among those who loved the “Quotations from Chairman Mao” during the anti-war movement, and many of them later entered the university lecture halls and, generation after generation, produced the overwhelmingly pro-Marxist (pro-Marxist) teachers in universities and high schools today, who have never had a favorable view of the CCP.
II. The Three Factions in American Politics
The U.S. policy toward China in the late Trump era is very clear and unambiguous, while Biden’s policy toward China seems to be a bit confusing. However, if we analyze the formation of the U.S. policy toward China simply by using the opposition between the “politically correct faction” and traditional values, or the opposition between the “panda-friendly faction” and the “panda-containment faction” to It is too simplistic to judge the U.S. policy toward China. Because, at this moment, there are not only two factions in the U.S. political and business circles, but actually three factions.
For a long Time, there has been a “Panda Goodwill Faction” and a “Panda Deterrence Faction” in the United States, the former in politics, finance, business and academia, and the latter in the military and Republican Party. However, not all legislators can be divided by these two factions, nor can they be distinguished by the two parties.
The three factions that the author refers to are, firstly, the “Defenders of the Nation”, to which the “Panda Containment Faction” belongs, and some of the “Panda Goodwill Faction” may come to their senses and join.
The second is the “sellout faction,” in which some people in the “panda-friendly faction” would rather have a strong enemy than a weak one for their own benefit; the third faction is the “harmful faction,” in which people who like the idea of political correctness may not be as good as the “panda-friendly faction. These people, who like the idea of political correctness, may not have inextricable ties with the Chinese Communist Party as the “Panda Goodwill Faction” does, but they are willing to use all kinds of so-called “politically correct” arguments to promote various policies that hurt the interests of the United States in order to establish an authoritarian unified world for their faction. The future U.S. national policy will be determined by the competition between these three parties. Both parties have these three factions, only the proportion is more or less different. In the Republican Party, there are more “defenders”, but there are also “sellouts”, and some people will collude with the “harmers” for personal interests; in the Democratic Party For example, on national defense issues, the “defense faction” basically prevails, while on economic, trade and financial policies with China, the “sellouts” have considerable influence. The overall direction of China Policy is not always adequately explained by the simplistic distinction between conservatives and liberals.
The future of U.S.-China relations will be a complex situation, the military level of confrontation is obvious, but in other levels will require frequent specific analysis. Biden is not willing to adopt a coherent policy across all dimensions of the Cold War, as Trump has done; instead, Biden will make somewhat contradictory decisions on the military, espionage, economic, and political fronts. While the “defenders” cannot verbally oppose the demands of the “defenders” for greater national defense and security, the “sellouts” and “detractors” may often act in favor of policies that weaken themselves and strengthen their enemies. When the military believes that the national security of the United States is increasingly threatened by the Chinese Communist Party, its calls and demands for strengthening national defense will be supported by a group of “defenders” in Congress and the government, and the military will become the main driver of policy toward China. While many companies in the U.S. business community oppose Trump’s policy of economically containing the CCP, the military’s hard-line stance will provide some restraint to the “sellouts. The military is deploying at the pace of the U.S.-China military confrontation, and the deployment of the U.S. military to prepare for war will inevitably restrict economic interactions between the two countries, and future U.S.-China economic relations will be in the context of the military confrontation between the two countries.
Third, the Chinese Communist Party is sharpening its knives and preparing for war mobilization
The Asia-Pacific region now faces its most dangerous decade, rooted in the international ambitions and military threats of the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party’s military threat to the United States is not lip service; it has actually made legislative preparations for war mobilization. In a report titled “China’s National Defense Law to Add “Conditions for War” as International Security Instability Grows,” the CCP’s official foreign propaganda media, Dovetail News, reported on October 22 last year that the CCP had expanded the “conditions for war” in its national defense law to include economic needs as The report said that the Communist Party has expanded the “conditions for war” in the national defense law to include economic necessity as an important reason for “war mobilization. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress met on Oct. 13 last year to consider draft amendments to the national defense law proposed by the State Council and the Central Military Commission. The revised national defense law contains 12 chapters and 70 articles, of which 50 articles are to be revised, 6 articles are to be added, and 3 articles are to be deleted, especially when “development interests are threatened”, the national general mobilization or local mobilization is required.
What does the Chinese Communist Party intend to do by amending the national defense law in this way? This is a very dangerous signal that the purpose is to legally prepare for general mobilization for war. In fact, when the Communist Party and the military decided to wage war, they did not need to follow the legal procedures. When the Communist Party waged the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Battle of Jumbo Island, they kept them secret from the people and let the official media mobilize the society afterwards according to the prepared propaganda version.
In this amendment to the national defense law, the CCP avoided the highly sensitive word “war” in front of “general mobilization”; in fact, there is only one type of “general mobilization” related to the national defense law, namely, war. General mobilization. The general mobilization for war usually includes the following initiatives: first, expanding the pool of soldiers and conscripting veterans back into military service; second, converting the civilian economy into military service and extending working hours; and third, limiting the supply of civilian consumer and industrial goods according to the needs of war.
When the Chinese Communist Party amended the national defense law, it included economic needs (or “development interests,” as the official media called them) as a reason for general mobilization for war. In other words, by amending the national defense law, the CCP has expanded the “conditions for war” for foreign wars to infinity, and any argument can be easily linked to “economic interests. In other words, by amending the national defense law, the CCP has expanded the “war conditions” for foreign wars to infinity.
The scope of this general mobilization for war is certainly not limited to the Taiwan Strait conflict, as the most relevant to China’s “development interests” are overseas trade, technology theft and foreign investment inflows, which are mainly related to the United States. In the CCP’s strategy, the United States is the main country that could impede its global economic interests; and the changes to the national defense law mean that the CCP’s war threats are aimed primarily at the United States.
Fourth, why does the CCP not want to compete peacefully?
Common sense dictates that the economic development of any country can only proceed smoothly in a state of peace; and every country’s economic development can run into trouble, and such trouble should be resolved in accordance with international regulations and negotiations between countries. Can the benefits needed for economic development be achieved by means of war? Can economic benefits that cannot be obtained in normal competition be grabbed by war?
The Chinese Communist Party’s thinking seems to defy common sense and seems to be incomprehensible, but in fact there is another ulterior motive. The “rise” of the Chinese Communist Party was facilitated by breaking international rules and laws of various countries, such as stealing intellectual property and technology secrets from the United States and other countries on a large scale, using the stolen patents and technologies to manufacture products to crush enterprises in the United States and other countries, and maintaining a high trade surplus with the United States for a long time in violation of international trade rules. If it returns to normal competition at the level of international rules and laws, China will have lost these important tools to support its economy. Therefore, once Trump opened the U.S.-China economic and trade negotiations on the subject of intellectual property infringement, the Chinese Communist Party flipped out; at the same time, the Chinese Communist Party insisted on the policy of pressure on the United States, since it is still economically dependent on the U.S., it will attack militarily and try to force the U.S. to give in.
The political direction of the U.S. after the election fraud has provided the CCP with an opportunity, so the CCP now feels it can challenge the U.S. instead. The Dovetail News used the headline, “China’s 2021 Sessions, Firm and Ambitious,” on March 6. The four words “full of ambition” are the mindset of the CCP’s top brass at this moment. What is its ambition? Recently Xi Jinping said a few words, “after 70, after 80, after 90, after 00, they go out to see the world before, China can already look at the world, and not like we were so ‘earthy’ …… “The Chinese Communist Party now has no longer a mindset of looking up to the world, but a feeling of “what’s so great about you guys, we can crush you” in Xi Jinping’s mind. What Xi did not say is how to turn the world into the CCP’s world and how to say no. Moreover, the “world” in Xi’s words is not the small and medium-sized countries, but the United States; what he said about “looking up” is certainly not the sudden achievements of the CCP in just a few months. It is that the United States is in a dangerous downward spiral, especially in its domestic political and economic policies.
An article published in the Communist Party’s Dovetail News on February 12 said, “Judging by official statements from the United States and China, Beijing is avoiding being labeled as ‘challenging the United States’ as much as possible. In fact, it has been difficult for Beijing to avoid the point that ‘China has challenged the United States. Economically, China has become the second largest economy after the United States since 2011, and a number of economic sources predict that China will overtake the United States by 2027 or 2028. At the level of global economic governance, the touch of the ‘Belt and Road’ on the global geopolitical landscape will become increasingly evident. At the military level, China and the United States are both equally nuclear-armed states, and China’s military presence in the South China Sea and Taiwan has increased significantly in recent years, with the PLA’s military deterrent power increasing significantly and the United States’ absolute advantage in the Asia-Pacific turning into a relative advantage.” These words are the language of the CCP’s foreign propaganda, and their self-aggrandizement can be questioned, but its “ambitious” mentality is fully reflected through these words, and the CCP does not shy away from challenging the United States.
Is the relationship between China and the United States competitive?
Biden’s characterization of the CCP as a “major competitor” reduces the Trump Administration‘s Perception of the CCP at the level of diplomatic language, and is much milder than the Trump administration. Is the CCP a normal competitor? Historically, the United States has had many competitors in international politics among democratic countries, such as France’s Charles de Gaulle, who pursued a supposedly independent diplomatic course in opposition to the United States, and the world economy, where Japan claimed to be able to buy Manhattan in the 1980s. Is today’s Chinese challenge only at the level of the French competition and The Japanese challenge back then? Of course not.
An article in the Dovetail News in February, “Two Realities Determining Beijing’s Interaction with the Biden Administration,” pointed out that there are two realities in the current U.S.-China relationship. First, the rapid deterioration of U.S.-China relations over the past four years, especially in 2020, has tended toward a new Cold War. Second, the new Cold War between China and the United States may be caught in the Thucydides’s trap. What does the Thucydides’ trap mean and how dangerous is it? Graham Allison of Harvard University published an article in the Financial Times back in 2012 exploring the potential conflict between China and the United States, and later pointed out in his book “Doomed to War” that “China and the United States are now in the process of a war conflict. He borrowed the words of the ancient Athenian general Thucydides and introduced the concept of the “Thucydides Trap”. The idea is that when a great power is threatened by an emerging power, war is likely to break out between the two countries. The evolution of U.S.-China relations over the past few years proves that history is being pushed step by step into the Thucydides Trap by the Chinese Communist Party, as if in accordance with Allison’s hypothesis. The idea is that when a great power is threatened by an emerging power, war is likely to break out between the two countries.
The U.S.-China Cold War was started by the Chinese Communist Party, and Trump has responded in a timely manner. While the Biden administration has lowered the tone and used the term “China challenge” to describe the current U.S.-China relationship, the United States is now facing not just a peaceful challenge or competition, but a comprehensive, especially military, threat from the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party has long posed a significant threat to U.S. national security at four major levels: military, economic, espionage, and political infiltration. For the United States, this threat has not been seen since the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party did not accidentally ignite the U.S.-China Cold War; it ignited it premeditatedly and systematically, thinking it would be the winner, regardless of what the world thought.
The military and economic strength of the United States is currently sufficient to deal with the threat of the CCP. Whether the CCP can continue to be arrogant or not actually depends on how the Biden administration actually intends to deal with the threat of the CCP. The future of the United States, the future of East Asian countries, and the future of the world are at stake.
Recent Comments