In recent days, the U.S. and British political circles have been mulling the formation of a “trade version of NATO” as a means to counter the Beijing regime’s war-wolf diplomacy. When Beijing uses economic coercion for political gain, people should unite to punish Beijing for its economic hegemony. The China Study Group of the British Parliament said on its website that the U.S., U.K. and EU are thinking of seeking a new alliance to deal with Beijing’s challenge because of its criticism of Beijing’s human rights issues and the constant retaliation by Beijing through economic and trade means, as well as the urgent need to reform the World Trade Organization. This trade version of NATO may be called the “Democratic Alliance Treaty Organization” (DATO). When Beijing takes intimidating measures against any member state, all members of the DATO would be required to retaliate in kind against Beijing. According to documents released by the CRG and ITIF, and published internally by DATO’s advocates, any democratic country is welcome to join, including Taiwan.
In the past three years, the situation in the United States and the world has changed dramatically. In particular, the political situation, social situation and morality of the people in the United States have undergone mind-boggling and dramatic changes in the past eight months. However, U.S. policy toward the Chinese Communist Party, both economic and military and foreign policy, has still not been clearly and brightly articulated more than six months after the Biden administration took office. There is no end to the U.S.-China trade war, no end to the U.S. import tariffs on China, and no second phase of an economic and trade agreement. Between the U.S. and China, the extent to which the first phase of the agreement was implemented, and whether it can continue, are now open questions.
In my analysis three years ago, I pointed out that while the trade war is in full swing, its final, most likely ending could lead to changes in the trade structure, economic structure, and even political structure of Chinese society. But if the trade war enters a stalemate, the Chinese Communist Party will hijack the entire Chinese people, not hesitating to set the economy back forty years and return to the relationship with the United States during the Cold War; trade and investment between China and the United States will drop to a freezing point, and China and the United States will begin a full-scale economic, political, and even military confrontation. Today, it appears that the trade structure of Chinese society has been transformed, and the outward shift of the international supply chain and the world’s efforts to rid key industries of their dependence on the CCP are beginning to bear fruit. Although the trade war has not yet reached a stalemate or broken the ice, the CCP has hijacked the Chinese people and the economy has begun to degenerate in the direction of unified purchasing and marketing, cooperatives, and rural supply and marketing agencies. Economically, the U.S. and China have not yet decoupled, and politically, because of the leftist government’s indecisiveness, lack of long-term goals, and inability to firmly counter communism, they have become ambiguous and weak in responding to the CCP’s atrocities in Hong Kong and Xinjiang; but the U.S.-China military confrontation, because of the U.S. military’s awareness of CCP ambitions and CCP strategy, has become more and more confrontational and conflictual, and direct U.S.-China The possibility of conflict in the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and East China Sea is also becoming more and more likely.
Three years ago the author pointed out that the CCP has also been trying to divide the EU countries and the relationship between the EU and the US for many years. Before the China-EU summit that year, the CCP tried its best to persuade the EU to issue a joint statement with the CCP to condemn Trump’s trade policy, and even direct benefits temptation. However, the Chinese Communist Party touched the dust and the EU refused on the spot not to ally with Beijing. Now, European countries have adopted the U.S. proposal to reject Huawei’s 5G and even dismantle its existing Huawei 4G facilities, causing the CCP’s calculations to divorce Europe and the United States to largely fall through.
Dennis Shea, former U.S. ambassador to the WTO, once said that the unfair trade policies of the Chinese Communist Party have created problems that are beyond the WTO’s ability to solve. The most effective solution is to prompt the U.S. to consider other international frameworks, other international norms, and systems to solve the CCP’s problems. And this framework and the way out, is the new “economic NATO”.
Originally, three years ago, Trump made a lot of good moves, a series of punches, from the diplomatic, military, political, trade, hitting the Chinese Communist Party. Although the EU countries are dissatisfied with U.S. tariffs, Trump still jaw-droppingly proposed: trade should have zero tariffs, zero barriers, zero subsidies elements. This shocking sentence completely shatters the lies of the Chinese Communist Party’s self-proclaimed “defender of free trade” and accuses the US of “trade protectionism”. The author’s argument is based on the fact that if the U.S. and Europe could really reach a “zero tariff” agreement and implement zero barriers and subsidies, it would be breeding a “U.S.-European economic community”, or an “economic NATO This is an “economic NATO”. If it comes to fruition, it will be a nightmare for the Chinese Communist Party at the time of the trade war between China and the United States.
Of course, the whole world has seen it, the heroes are being counted before their ambitions are fulfilled. The poet Du Fu of the Tang dynasty remembered Zhuge Kongming, saying, “He died before he was able to get out of the army, making the heroes cry. Fortunately, America’s heroes are still around, still fighting, still seeking the truth. And the truth is also in the strict audit and everywhere in the explosion, to show the world. I pray that God will not discourage the good people and will allow the U.S. to continue to lead the world in countering and purging the Chinese Communist Party economically and militarily.
Nine years ago, the United States and Europe tried to establish the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), in fact, the prototype of the “Economic NATO”. The size of Economic NATO is 800 million consumers, a huge market that covers one-third of global trade. If you add Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and other new Asian economies, the total amount will be even more significant. The concept of “Economic NATO,” as I pointed out three years ago, is found in the Washington Treaty of 1949 (paragraph 2), which is also known as the “Canada Clause This provision is also called the “Canada Clause” because the Canadians were the first to take the lead. C. Boyden Gray, a Washington lawyer who served as U.S. ambassador to the European Union, also proposed the idea of an economic NATO in 2013.
If an “economic NATO” were to be created to unite Asian democracies against the Chinese Communist Party, what form would this new economy take? The seven levels of economic integration among countries, from low to high, are: 1) Preferential trading area; 2) Free trade area; 3) Customs union; 4) Common market; 5) Economic community. Common market); five, economic community (Economic union); six, economic and monetary union (Economic and monetary union); and seven, the complete economic integration (Complete economic integration). Trump’s proposal to the leaders of the countries present at the G7 summit in Canada to remove trade barriers between the United States and its allies, to eliminate tariffs and all government subsidies, and to achieve free and fair trade is the third level of the “customs union”. The best possibility of “Economic NATO” is to reach the level of “Economic Community” (the fifth level).
As I suggested three years ago, if the trade war between China and the U.S. breaks down and the confrontation between China and the U.S. intensifies, the best strategy for the U.S. is to accelerate the formation of an “economic NATO” based on the military alliance of NATO. While the “military NATO” led to the complete collapse of the former Soviet Union, the “economic NATO” will lead to the total collapse of the last communist regime, the Chinese Communist Party. Thus, to argue for an economic NATO after three years, there must be a clear consensus among the leaders and people of the U.S. and Europe on the nature of the CCP, the danger of the CCP, the determination to eradicate global communism, the rejection of all socialist ideas, and the need to unite economically to bankrupt the CCP. And this consensus, it seems, is in the process of being built.