The Chinese have formidable qualities, but they have rarely been credited with a sense of humour. Yet in that regard, we may be underestimating them. In response to the tariff contest, a number of witty, AI-generated memes have appeared, mocking Messrs Trump, Vance and Musk, depicting the three as unhappy-looking cobblers trying to replace the goods which American consumers have come to rely on – at reasonable prices. It was funny.
So where is all this going? A few days ago, it seemed that Trump was set on a trade war. It now appears that he merely wants a deal. But the shape of that deal is wholly unclear. At moments, he has given the impression that he will insist on repatriating all manufacturing designed for the American market back to the United States. Then everything changes. He wants to raise tariffs, but only to a reasonable level. This President is predictable only in his unpredictability.
It is true that over recent decades, an economic symbiosis has developed between the US and China. The Chinese exported cheap manufacturing goods, helping to keep American inflation under control. At the same time, China bought large quantities of US bonds, helping to sustain the deficit. There were losers, among them, JD Vance’s folks in poorer regions, who did not see many of the profits generated on Wall Street. There was also another factor.
Back in 1967, Richard Nixon – no softie – called for a pragmatic rapprochement with China. If China was excluded from the global economic order, he argued, it would remain sullen and disruptive. But if it could be gradually wooed into international standards of trade and legality, the world would be much more manageable. Hence – when he was in a position to shape policy – Nixon went to China. Hence, decades later, Xi Jinping went to Oxfordshire as David Cameron’s guest to conduct diplomacy over pints of beer. Alas, that did not work. For ‘beer diplomacy’ read bitter diplomacy.
The explanation for this lies deep in the past. It is true that since the 1980s, China has benefitted from a remarkable run of economic growth, accompanied by a rise in living standards. For the first time in Chinese history, few are dying from hunger. People whose parents had to survive on grass and bark are now driving large motor cars. So all this, lubricated by a pint or two of good Oxfordshire ale, must surely have led to harmony. Yet there was another route. The Chinese have a deep-seated self-confidence. They believe that they ought to be the top dog in the global kennel and they want the world to kowtow.
But for 150 years, that historical entitlement was utterly denied to them. We British – the Opium Wars were not a glorious Imperial interlude, and we burned the Summer Palace – the Americans, the Russians, the French, the Germans and the Japanese all maltreated China. The Chinese then followed that up by inflicting terrible cruelties on one another. In Easter Week, even those of us who cannot believe should consider one apparent instance of divine providence. In all societies, boy babies are born in slightly larger numbers than females. Nature seems to assume that males are more likely to get themselves killed. But the Chinese authorities imposed the one child policy. Chinese parents preferred boys – more economic use – and somehow acted on their desires. There are 20 million missing Chinese girls, thanks to the cruelty of China’s communist regime.
On the Yangtze river lies the city of Wuhan, famous now for wet markets and laboratories. It has ancient traces, including a museum built around the tomb of the Marquis Yi, who died around 400 BC, when we barely had enough woad to paint our backsides blue. On his final journey, the great nobleman took with him bronze, pottery and ivories: today’s exhibits. There were also scrolls and cloth which inevitably perished. Finally, Marquis Yi brought along some attendants, also perishable: 21 young women aged between 13 and 26. We can imagine the scene in Wuhan, and the noise. In one room, the principal aesthete is supervising the gilding on the bronzes’ high reliefs. Next door, the girls are being nailed into their coffins for an eternity of servitude.
Think of the fate of Tibet, and of the Uighurs. In China, civilisation and cruelty can still co-exist. Equally, consider the Chinese approach to the international economic order. They have not been converted to Adam Smith. They are in trade for what they can get out of it (that said, Trump seems to be no better). We have just experienced the perils of financial dealings with the Chinese. Jingye has come close to killing off the British steel industry. We should also consider the fate of Hong Kong. ‘One nation, two systems’ appeared to be working well, to everyone’s advantage. Perhaps we could have done more to caution young radicals, in the hope that the Chinese authorities might gradually change. Sotto voce, we could also have reminded anyone inclined to hot-headedness that unfortunately the days when we could have sent a gunboat are over.
Even so, it is hard to find a rational explanation for the treatment of Hong Kong. Inter alia, it will make it harder for Beijing to seduce Taiwan. One nation, two systems might have gained some traction among the Taiwanese. One nation, one repression is much less appealing. We can only assume that Xi has no interest in seduction and is simply an authoritarian nationalist, who believes that history owes China reparations, and who is building up his economic and military might in order to pursue his imperial goals. This is not a pleasant prospect.
How do we respond? When considering that, another unpleasant prospect hoves into view. As it has since 1945, Western security depends on the United States. That thought justifies a deep gulp, but not full-grown despair. Even if there is no full-blooded trade war, it does seem unlikely that the two leaders can go much further than a modus vivendi. (How good is the Donald’s Latin?) Moreover, it also seems improbable that he would stand idly by if China blockaded Taiwan. That would be a humiliation, which he would surely find intolerable. That said, consider Vietnam.
Finally, men are mortal. Like prisoners in a cell, American friends of mine are scoring off the days until the Trump era ends. Is it also possible that a less aggressive Chinese leader might be willing to come to terms with the international order? One can still come across people who deride the role of great men in history – ‘great’ in this context refers to size, not morals – and who claim that everything is due to impersonal forces. Anyone who thinks like that cannot know much history. We have to deal with the current personalities, with all their contradictions, and wonder what the devil they will do next.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
