news

Half a century ago in August, former US President Nixon announced his resignation. As everyone focuses on this year's US election, this node provides an opportunity for people to think about the "inner contradictions" of the US political leadership.

Nixon's abuses of power stood in stark contrast to his diplomatic achievements. As an avowed anti-communist, he shocked the world with his visit to China in 1972. Nixon's "Great Triangle Strategy" of the United States, the Soviet Union and China effectively isolated the former Soviet Union and ultimately helped end the Cold War.

Will such a breakthrough happen again? The impending superpower conflict between China and the United States undoubtedly requires another strategic breakthrough. Politically driven false narratives have caused the two countries to be on a collision course with no realistic way out. Just one accident in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, or an increase in US containment policy, could lead to an escalation of the conflict.

Even if Trump wins in November, he seems unlikely to resolve the conflict with China. He will keep tariffs at the forefront, just as he did in his first term, when he raised tariffs on China from 3% in 2018 to 19% in 2020. He is now proposing to raise tariffs to 50-60%.

Like earlier tariffs, this move will backfire. First, tariffs on China will push up prices in the U.S. consumer market. According to a recent study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the additional import costs of Trump’s new tariffs will reach 1.8% of U.S. GDP, almost five times the cost of his first round of tariffs.

Second, as I have long argued, additional tariffs on China do not reduce the overall U.S. trade deficit when the U.S. savings rate is low. Instead, these additional tariffs shift the deficit to other, higher-cost foreign producers. This is what happened when Trump initially imposed tariffs: the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with China narrowed somewhat, but the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, Vietnam, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Ireland, and Germany increased, more than offsetting the deficit with China.

In contrast, Harris seems to have no intention of raising tariffs. But she seems inclined to support the Biden administration's "small courtyard and high wall" policy, which is seen by Chinese leaders as "all-round containment, encirclement and suppression" against China. This means that she will continue Biden's tariffs (most of which are tariffs carried over from the Trump era), introduce targeted sanctions, and promote "de-risking" and "friendly shore outsourcing" strategies. Although Harris's strategy is not as radical as Trump's, inheriting this "anti-China" strategy from Biden will not help ease tensions between China and the United States.

Harris and Trump may have different views on the Taiwan issue. In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek at the end of June, Trump emphasized the need to defend Taiwan in a "more transactional" way. He believes that the United States is no different from an insurance company, and "Taiwan should pay for our insurance premiums." Trump has previously taken the same stance toward Europe, NATO, and even Japan, that wealthy countries should pay for the United States' protection.

I do not agree with the US's utilitarian foreign policy. But I must admit that Trump's strategy is likely to shift the burden of containing China from the US to Taiwan. This may be a positive development because it can ease the direct tension between the two superpowers. But it is far from a strategic solution to the conflict between the great powers.

Although neither Trump nor Harris is inclined to end the conflict between China and the United States, Harris's selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz as her running mate is a potential turn, suggesting a Nixon-style breakthrough in relations with China could be achieved.

Like George H.W. Bush, who served as director of the U.S. Liaison Office in Beijing from 1974 to 1975, Waltz has a special connection to China. In the late 1980s and 1990s, Waltz traveled and taught in China, including on his honeymoon with his wife. Given this experience, Waltz also focused on human rights issues on China issues during his tenure as a member of Congress from 2007 to 2019. However, in addition to focusing on human rights and the situation in the South China Sea, Waltz also emphasized the importance of a "sustainable Sino-US relationship", believing that dialogue between the two countries is indispensable and "absolutely necessary." In other words, he will bring pragmatism, which is severely lacking in the current increasingly anti-China environment in the United States.

Vice presidents rarely influence major policy projects. But in Waltz's case, his knowledge of China increases the likelihood of a "Harris administration" taking a Nixon-style approach to China. Harris and Waltz share common views on issues such as human rights and the South China Sea dispute, but they also recognize the urgent need to correct the course of the troubled Sino-US relationship.

This nuanced perspective will allow them to play both sides, encouraging them to prioritize re-engagement with China rather than digging their heels in and refusing to budge at every friction point in the conflicting relationship. This is why Nixon put aside his ideological biases to engage with China in 1972. Waltz may well help reverse Harris’ China policy.

The current geostrategic environment bears striking resemblance to the Cold War atmosphere of half a century ago. Who better than a thoughtful new U.S. president to de-escalate the dangerous situation with another superpower and shift relations from confrontation to competition, and from escalation to conflict resolution?

America’s “China problem” has only gotten worse under Trump and Biden. If Harris wins in November, that doesn’t have to be the case.