Biden’s promise of new deal to make America rise anew

In President Biden’s hourlong address to the Joint Session of Congress (almost empty due to Covid-19) on April 28 he took stock of his achievements in the first 100 days, but he also presented a whole laundry list of wide-ranging initiatives and proposals to let America rise anew, almost like his predecessor’s “Make America great again.”
No doubt news media will evaluate Bidens’s speech in the light of their respective ideological beliefs, but perhaps it might help just to see excerpts from his speech grouped according to main topics distilled from his speech. Leaving out of course his use of uplifting homilies.


The topics distilled from Biden’s address:

1. Insisting that America is rising anew

2. Combatting the Covid-19 pandemic

3. Investing in Economic growth and job creation

4. Promoting middleclass through education, redistribution and welfare

5. Tackling systemic racism, white supremacists and other thorny issues

6. Proposing a fair deal for migrants

7. Acting together on climate crisis

8. Enacting a foreign policy balancing between diplomacy and assertiveness

9. Expressing belief in democracy


Excerpts from Biden’s address relating to the topics
 


1. Insisting that America is rising anew
100 days since I took the oath of office, lifted my hand off our family Bible, and inherited a nation in crisis.

The worst pandemic in a century.
The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.

Now, after just 100 days, I can report to the nation: America is on the move again … America is rising anew.

2. Combatting the Covid-19 pandemic
After I promised 100 million COVID-19 vaccine shots in 100 days – we will have provided over 220 million COVID shots in 100 days.

100 days later, nearly 70% of seniors are fully protected. Senior deaths from COVID-19 are down 80% since January. Down 80%. And, more than half of all adults in America have gotten at least one shot.
 
Everyone over the age of 16, everyone – is now eligible and can get vaccinated right away.

3. Investing in Economic growth and job creation
Record growth
More new jobs in the first 100 days than any president on record. …the economy created more than 1.3 million new jobs in 100 days.

The International Monetary Fund is now estimating our economy will grow at a rate of more than 6% this year. That will be the fastest pace of economic growth in this country in nearly four decades.

Financial aid for struggling families
We kept our commitment and we are sending $1,400 rescue checks to 85% of all American households.

[T]he American Rescue Plan is delivering food and nutrition assistance to millions of Americans facing hunger – and hunger is down sharply already.

Rental assistance to keep people from being evicted from their homes. Providing loans to keep small businesses open and their employees on the job … And, maybe most importantly, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, we are on track to cut child poverty in America in half this year.

Infrastructure investment defined broadly
We have to do more than just build back. We have to build back better.

That’s why I proposed The American Jobs Plan — a once-in-a-generation investment in America itself. The largest jobs plan since World War II.

It creates jobs to upgrade our transportation infrastructure. Jobs modernizing roads, bridges and highways. Jobs building ports and airports, rail corridors and transit lines. It’s clean water … These are good-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced.

Nearly 90% of the infrastructure jobs created in the American Jobs Plan do not require a college degree. 75% do not require an associate’s degree. The American Jobs Plan is a blue-collar blueprint to build America.

And all the investments in the American Jobs Plan will be guided by one principle: “Buy American.”

4. Promoting middleclass through education, redistribution and welfare

Education
To win that competition for the future, we also need to make a once-in-a-generation investment in our families – in our children. That’s why I’m introducing the American Families Plan tonight. … the American Families Plan guarantees four additional years of public education for every person in America – starting as early as we can.

We add two years of universal high-quality pre-school for every 3- and 4- year-old in America. The research shows that when a young child goes to school—not day care—they are far more likely to graduate from high school and go on to college.

Redistribution
[T]he American Families Plan puts money directly into the pockets of millions of families …Up to a $3,000 Child Tax Credit for children over 6 — and $3,600 for children under 6. With two parents, two kids, that’s up to $7,200 in your pocket to help take care of your family.

This will help more than 65 million children and help cut child poverty in half this year.

I will not impose any tax increases on people making less than $400,000 a year

It’s time for corporate America and the wealthiest 1% of Americans to pay their fair share. A recent study shows that 55 of the nation’s biggest corporations paid zero in federal income tax last year … A lot of companies evade taxes through tax havens from Switzerland to Bermuda to the Cayman Islands.

We take the top tax bracket for the wealthiest 1% of Americans – those making $400,000 or more – back up to 39.6%. I will not add to the tax burden of the middle class of this country… I will not impose any tax increases on people making less than $400,000 a year.

My fellow Americans, trickle-down economics has never worked. It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom up and middle-out.

Welfare
The American Rescue Plan lowered health care premiums for 9 million Americans who buy their coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

[T]he American Families plan will provide access to quality, affordable child care. We guarantee that low- to middle-income families will pay no more than 7% of their income for high-quality care for children up to the age of 5.

[T]he American Families plan will provide access to quality, affordable child care. [It] will finally provide up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.

5. Tackling systemic racism, white supremacists and other thorny issues
We have all seen the knee of injustice on the neck of Black America.

Now is our opportunity to make real progress. Most men and women in uniform wear their badge and serve their communities honorably. I know them. I know they want to help meet this moment as well.

My fellow Americans, we have to come together. To rebuild trust between law enforcement and the people they serve. To root out systemic racism in our criminal justice system. And to enact police reform in George Floyd’s name that passed the House already.

And with the plans I outlined tonight, we have a real chance to root out systemic racism that plagues American life in many other ways.

The other thorny issues
I also hope Congress can get to my desk the Equality Act to protect the rights of LGBTQ Americans. To all the transgender Americans watching at home – especially the young people who are so brave – I want you to know that your president has your back.

And another thing. Let’s reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which has been law in this country for 27 years since I first wrote it.

I need not tell anyone this, but gun violence is an epidemic in America. I will do everything in my power to protect the American people from this epidemic of gun violence.

6. Proposing a fair deal for migrants
Immigration has always been essential to America…On day one of my Presidency, I kept my commitment and I sent a comprehensive immigration bill to Congress.

We also have to get at the root of the problem of why people are fleeing to our southern border from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador.

Congress needs to pass legislation this year to finally secure protection for the Dreamers – the young people who have only known America as their home. And, permanent protections for immigrants on temporary protected status who come from countries beset by man-made and natural made violence and disaster. As well as a pathway to citizenship for farmworkers who put food on our tables.

7. Acting together on climate crisis
The climate crisis is not our fight alone, either. It’s a global fight. The United States accounts for less than 15% of carbon emissions. The rest of the world accounts for 85%. That’s why – I kept my commitment to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement on my first day in office.

 And I kept my commitment to convene a climate summit right here in America, with all of the major economies of the world – from China and Russia to India and the European Union in my first 100 days.

For too long, we have failed to use the most important word when it comes to meeting the climate crisis. Jobs. Jobs.

8. Enacting a foreign policy – balancing between diplomacy and assertiveness
I’ve often said that our greatest strength is the power of our example – not just the example of our power. And in my conversations with world leaders – many I’ve known for a long time – the comment I hear most often is: we see that America is back – but for how long? My fellow Americans, we have to show not just that we are back, but that we are here to stay.

And that we aren’t going it alone – we’re going to be leading with our allies. No one nation can deal with all the crises of our time alone – from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to mass migration, cybersecurity, climate change – and as we’re experiencing now, pandemics.

China
We’re in a competition with China and other countries to win the 21st Century.

In my discussion with President Xi, I told him that we welcome the competition – and that we are not looking for conflict. But I made absolutely clear that I will defend American interests across the board. America will stand up to unfair trade practices that undercut American workers and industries, like subsidies for state-owned enterprises and the theft of American technologies and intellectual property.

I also told President Xi that we will maintain a strong military presence in the Indo—Pacific just as we do with NATO in Europe – not to start conflict – but to prevent conflict.

And, I told him what I’ve said to many world leaders – that America won’t back away from our commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. No responsible American president can remain silent when basic human rights are violated. A president has to represent the essence of our country.

[For a critical assessment of Biden’s policy in relation to China see the essay “Biden – Caretaker of America’s decline?” at
https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/biden-caretaker-of-americas-decline].
 
Russia
With regard to Russia, I made very clear to President Putin that while we don’t seek escalation, their actions have consequences. I responded in a direct and proportionate way to Russia’s interference in our elections and cyber—attacks on our government and businesses – and they did both of those things and I did respond.

But we can also cooperate when it’s in our mutual interests. As we did when we extended the New START Treaty on nuclear arms – and as we’re working to do on the climate crisis.

On Iran and North Korea
On Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs that present a serious threat to America’s security and world security – we will be working closely with our allies to address the threats posed by both of these countries through diplomacy and stern deterrence.

On Afghanistan
American leadership means ending the forever war in Afghanistan. We delivered justice to Osama Bin Laden and we degraded the terrorist threat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. After 20 years of American valor and sacrifice, it’s time to bring our troops home.

Even as we do, we will maintain an over—the—horizon capability to suppress future threats to the homeland.

9. Expressing belief in democracy
As we gather here tonight, the images of a violent mob assaulting this Capitol—desecrating our democracy—remain vivid in our minds. The insurrection was an existential crisis—a test of whether our democracy could survive.

… we won’t ignore what our own intelligence agencies have determined – the most lethal terrorist threat to the homeland today is from white supremacist terrorism.

Can our democracy overcome the lies, anger, hate and fears that have pulled us apart?
America’s adversaries – the autocrats of the world – are betting it can’t. They look at the images of the mob that assaulted this Capitol as proof that the sun is setting on American democracy. At the very moment our adversaries were certain we would pull apart and fail.

We came together. United.


Plans mentioned in the address

The American Rescue Plan (H.R. 1319) is the name of the giant 1.9 trillion dollars (In Europe US trillions would be called billions) relief bill and stimulus package to help overcome the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic.
“The American Rescue Plan will change the course of the pandemic and deliver immediate and direct relief to families and workers impacted by the COVID-19 crisis through no fault of their own. This law is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in history, and will build a bridge to an equitable economic recovery.” (U.S. Department of the Treasury).

The American Jobs Plan is the plan to invest about 2 trillion dollars in infrastructure (in a very wide sense) not the least to keep up with China. In a White House fact sheet it is described as “consisting principally of one-time capital investments in our nation’s productivity and long-term growth. It will invest about 1 percent of GDP per year over eight years to upgrade our nation’s infrastructure, revitalize manufacturing, invest in basic research and science, shore up supply chains, and solidify our care infrastructure.
A breakdown of the separate element of the infrastructure plan can be found in Wall Street Journal (WSJ) at https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-infrastructure-plan-how-the-2-3-trillion-would-be-allocated-11617234178

The American Families Plan. According to White House fact sheet “The American Families Plan will help restore the promise of America for communities who have been left behind and locked out of opportunity—investing in teachers and students, empowering workers and their families, and reimagining a tax code that rewards work over wealth. By extending and building upon the provisions of the American Rescue Plan, the American Families Plan would lift more than 10 million people out of poverty in 2022.”
While details remain vague the plan may include 1 trillion dollars in new spending and around 800 billion dollars in tax credits, or around 1.8 trillion dollars.

The three plans together would then amount to around 6 trillion dollars, representing more than a quarter of U.S. GDP in the year 2019.
Compared to just The American Rescue Plan with its 1.9 trillion dollars (billions in the EU) EU’s NextGeneration EU €750 billion temporary recovery plan looks less impressive than EU would have us believe.

Rebuttal to President Biden’s address
The traditional Republican rebuttal to President Biden’s address, was held Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. A transcript of his rebuttal can be found at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/us/politics/tim-scott-rebuttal-transcript.html

Biden foreign policy speaks loudly, but…
“The message I want the world to hear today: America* is back. America is back.
Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy.” President Biden in a speech on “America’s place in the World” held on February 4 2021.
In what way is America, or at least the United States, back, and how does Biden see America’s place in the World?
Biden talks of bringing back the cooperation and support for key partners and allies that he sees as having been neglected under Trump.
“we will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but todays and tomorrow’s… I’ve spoken with the leaders of many of our closest friends — Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, France, NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia — to [begin] reforming the habits of cooperation and rebuilding the muscle of democratic alliances that have atrophied over the past few years of neglect and, I would argue, abuse.”
To Biden the ideals of America’s diplomatic efforts must be rooted in essential democratic values “defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”
Values that have come under pressure in recent years in many parts of the World. Using the recent example of Burma (Myanmar) Biden promises to work with America’s partners to support the “restoration of democracy and the rule of law, and impose consequences on those responsible.”
Biden talks of challenges to prosperity, security and democratic values by the U.S.’s most serious competitor, China. Its aggressive and coercive actions must be confronted and its attack on human rights, intellectual property and global governance must be pushed back.
Tough talking, but to Biden America must also engage with its adversaries through diplomacy. Biden wants to work with China where it is America’s interest, from a position of strength by working with partners and allies in international institutions and reclaiming America’s credibility and moral authority.
The same tough talking followed by diplomatic engagement is also found in relation to Russia.
“I made it clear to President Putin, in a manner very different from my predecessor, that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions — interfering with our elections, cyberattacks, poisoning its citizens — are over. We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia and defend our vital interests and our people.” But Biden also announced that the United States and Russia had just agreed to extend the New START Treaty for five years.
In his speech he does not take up the challenges in relation to North Korea, Afghanistan, the Iran, and the Middle East in general. He only talks about the Yemen conflict. “We’re also stepping up our diplomacy to end the war in Yemen — a war which has created a humanitarian and strategic catastrophe … And to underscore our commitment, we are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.” This would presumably mean ending the sale of offensive weapons to Saudi Arabia, but then he mentions that “We’re going to continue to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people.” Thus, presumably not ending all arms sales to Saudi Arabia after all.
Biden’s focus on the Yemen conflict and diplomacy in relation to this conflict in his foreign policy speech is rather strange when thinking of all the other challenges in this region, and his stated intention to re-join the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran.
Climate is an important issue for Biden, and that means that the U.S. is re-joining the Paris Climate Agreement. “That way, we can challenge other nations, other major emitters, up to — to up the ante on their own commitments.”
Biden also takes up a series of challenges that may seem less acute, and in some cases rather peripheral to foreign policy.
Biden mentions the crisis of more than 80 million displaced people suffering all around the world. “So today, I’m approving an executive order to begin the hard work of restoring our refugee admissions program to help meet the unprecedented global need.” With an executive order he will raise the refugee admissions to the U.S. back up to 125,000 persons for the first year of his administration. Perhaps not the very best thing to in the midst of a pandemic.
To further his agenda of moral leadership, Biden is issuing a presidential memo to agencies to reinvigorate leadership on Muslim and LGBTQI issues and do it internationally.
“Within hours of taking office, I signed an executive order overturning the hateful, discriminatory Muslim ban; reversed the ban on transgender individuals serving in our military.”
He then talks of his commitment to science, to policies grounded in facts and evidence and to truth, transparency and accountability. Announcing steps to address systemic racism and ending the scourge of white supremacy in the U.S.
How that is related to foreign policy is a bit vague, but presumably Biden would see it as related to his intention of having America showing moral leadership. Biden argues that all these issues matter to foreign policy as he plans to host a Summit of Democracy to rally the nations of the world to defend democracy globally.
In relation to defence Biden announces “additional steps to course-correct our foreign policy and better unite our democratic values with our diplomatic leadership.” This will include a Global Posture Review of the U.S. forces to make sure that the military footprint of the U.S. is aligned with foreign policy and national security priorities.
Biden’s speech on foreign policy speaks loudly on the importance of having the U.S. work with allies, the important role of diplomacy, and of upholding essential democratic values, universal rights, and the rule of law.
But his speech is very vague on the ways and means to achieve this. The speech leaves out important and acute challenges. There is nothing on how the West is supposed to find a common approach to the challenges mentioned and all the other challenges that are missing from his speech.
There is nothing about North Korea, staying or leaving Afghanistan, the many-sided issues in the Middle East, the growing threat represented by Iran, the still smouldering embers of Daesh, the unresolved problems in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. How does he see the Abraham accords brought about by Trump’s foreign policy? What about the Israel-Palestinian problem? What about NATO member Turkey, with an Erdogan who certainly doesn’t live up to Biden’s ideas of democracy and rule of law.
Why was Africa and Latin-America missing from the speech? Opening up the U.S. for 125,000 refugees only indirectly touches upon these areas, but does not solve any challenges in relation to these continents and regions. What we find instead is loud talk about democracy and human rights, and an emphasis on trans-people that may sound soothing to left leaning media and woke activists.
Biden’s may smooth ruffled feathers that have been caused by Trump’s harsh tirades and actions, but Biden does not really indicate how the U.S. is going to achieve what he is promising.
What we want to see is how the Biden administration is actually reacting to existing and looming challenges in different regions of the World. What Biden and his administration, especially of course Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken, is doing in relation to all the challenges facing the U.S. and the World in general.
In this essay we will first concentrate on the challenges posed by the only serious competitor to America’s and the West’s present hegemony. In later essays we may take up the other challenges.

It's a war on words
In his foreign policy speech Biden emphasises that China is the U.S.’s most serious competitor.
A marked change of view since 2019, when presidential candidate Joe Biden sad that he believed that concerns that China would surpass the U.S. were overstated: “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man, …I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.” Followed by the somewhat confusing statement “They can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the east, I mean the west.”
Now President Joe Biden seems finally to have realized potential of China and the challenge it represents to the U.S.
At a meeting with senators after he had been on the phone with China’s Xi Jinping, he was suddenly concerned about the growing competition for global dominance between the Washington and Beijing, and now argues “If we don’t get moving, they’re going to eat our lunch.”
Apparently impressed with Chinese infrastructure and other projects he mentioned “They have major, major new initiatives on rail and they already have rail that goes 225 mph with ease … They’re working very hard to do what I think we’re going to have to do.”
In Biden’s phone call with Xi Jinping something else was on his mind though. He “affirmed his priorities of protecting the American people’s security, prosperity, health, and way of life, and preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific.” He raised fundamental concerns about Beijing’s coercive and unfair economic practices, the crackdown in Hongkong, human rights abuses in Xinjiang and China’s actions in relation to Taiwan.
At his first Pentagon meeting Biden announced the creation of a task force at Department of Defense to make recommendations on key priorities in relation to China and that a strong path forward would require strong alliances and partnership. “That’s how we’ll meet the China challenge and ensure the American people win the competition of the future.”
Perhaps Biden have come around to see China almost like Trump and former Secretary of State Pompeo, who in 2019 warned that “China wants to be the dominant economic and military power of the world, spreading its authoritarian vision for society and its corrupt practices worldwide." (NYT).” Even so the Biden administration’s focus in relation to China is very different from Trump and his administration. While Trump focused on the challenges to the US and took less interest in China’s internal affairs, Biden’s focus is on democratic values, universal rights, and the rule of law. This was also quite evident in the war of words witnessed in the open part of the recent meeting in Anchorage, Alaska on March 18 and 19. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met their counterparts from China, Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi and State Councillor Wang.
The meeting gave us a glimpse of where the Biden administration’s main focus is in contrast to Trump’s.
In his opening remarks Blinken talked of his administration’s concern with China: We'll … discuss our deep concerns with actions by China, including in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, cyberattacks on the United States and economic coercion toward our allies. Each of these actions threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability. That's why they're not merely internal matters and why we feel an obligation to raise these issues here today.”
Blinken’s statement was followed up by National Security Advisor Sullivan, who stressed the backing of America’s partners and allies. “We're particularly proud of the work that we've done to revitalize our alliances and partnerships, the foundation of our foreign policy. Just last week, President Biden hosted the Quad leaders' summit that spoke to the can-do spirit of the world's democracies and committed to realize the vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific.” (nikkei.com).
Blinken’s and Sullivan’s criticism of China visibly angered the Chinese delegation. In his long counter attack in this war of words Yang said: “What China and the international community follow or uphold is the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law, not what is advocated by a small number of countries of the so-called rules-based international order. And the United States has its style -- United States-style democracy -- and China has the Chinese-style democracy. It is not just up to the American people, but also the people of the world, to evaluate how the United States has done in advancing its own democracy.”
He later added “I don't think the overwhelming majority of countries in the world would recognize that the universal values advocated by the United States or that the opinion of the United States could represent international public opinion, and those countries would not recognize that the rules made by a small number of people would serve as the basis for the international order.”
Yang therefore argued that was “important for the United States to change its own image and to stop advancing its own democracy in the rest of the world.” He then took a swipe at democracy in the U.S: “Many people within the United States actually have little confidence in the democracy of the United States.” Mentioning that the leaders in China have the support of the people.
Foreign minister Wang saw competition between China and the U.S. as being mainly in economic sphere and argued that it was important to respond to this in a rational way and attempt to seek win-win solutions.
With regard to international relations and regional issues Yang said: “I think the problem is that the United States has exercised long-arm jurisdiction and suppression and overstretched the national security through the use of force or financial hegemony, and this has created obstacles for normal trade activities, and the United States has also been persuading some countries to launch attacks on China.”
He also countered the U.S. attempt to intervene in what he saw as China’s internal affairs: Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan, since they are an inalienable part of China's territory. “We have expressed our staunch opposition to such interference, and we will take firm actions in response.” With regard to human rights Yang pointed to the fact that there many problems with human rights in the U.S. He even referred to the Black Life Matter’s protests.
Wang also vented his anger at U.S. meddling in China’s internal affairs: “China urges the U.S. side to fully abandon the hegemonic practice of willfully interfering in China's internal affairs.” He took issue with the unfriendly sanctions recently imposed on China with regard to Hongkong. “the Chinese people are outraged by this gross interference in China's internal affairs and the Chinese side is firmly opposed to it.”
Blinken then talked about his recent visit to Japan and the Republic of Korea two of the closest allies and of their interest in the discussions with China.
The reply from the Chinese side contained a thinly veiled warning, as Yang mentioned that the two countries were China’s second and third-largest trading partners. Implying of course that they were dependent on good relations with China.
China’s aggressive diplomacy has been called wolf-warrior diplomacy, and it seems that China is actually quite proud of the characteristic. In 2020 the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua said that China wouldn’t be lamb when attacked. "If some people call China's diplomacy "wolf-warrior diplomacy" just because we fight back and speak the truth in the face of unscrupulous attacks, slanders and denigration, I don't see any problem in living with that "wolf-warrior" title, as long as we are fighting for China's sovereignty, security and development interests, national dignity and honor, and international fairness and justice.” (globaltimes.cn).
Not much have come out from the non-public part of discussions in Anchorage, but the tit for tat exchanges in televised part of the meeting made evident a couple of things.
Blinken afterwards told reporters “the governments “are fundamentally at odds” on issues such as Hong Kong and cyberattacks, though interests intersect on Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and climate change. The expression “intersects” being in this case being quite ambiguous. Interest intersecting at cross purposes or with similar purposes?
China’s self-confident and fairly aggressive attitude made it clear that China certainly now sees itself being on equal footing with the U.S.

The real Chinese threats
While the Biden administration is preoccupied with human rights for the Uighurs China is laser focused upon overtaking the U.S. and challenging its hegemonic position in the World.
In order to see the real challenge to U.S. and the West it is important to get a closer look the major subject areas that will determine who will dominate the world scene.
The following topics will be relevant:

The struggle for economic dominance

The struggle for technological and scientific dominance

The struggle for geopolitical influence

The raw military power struggle  

A crumbling West vs. rejuvenated authoritarian China


Economic dominance
What are the relative economic positions of the U.S. and China? At the moment we have this picture.

GDP (current U.S. $) - China, United States,

A GDP comparison based upon current U.S. dollars would seem to indicate that China is lacking well behind both the U.S. and the EU. Even with high growth rates in China it is likely that this will be the situation for some years to come. But U.S. GDP was hit by the Covid-19 pandemic, while Chinese GDP continued to grow and with the present outlook China may overtake the U.S. sooner than expected. Projections see it happening as soon as 2028
Using instead a measurement of Purchasing Power Parity (similar to the so-called Big Mac index or Burgernomics) leave us with a different picture. Measured in PPP China has overtaken both the U.S. and the EU since 2015. But China is of course lacking very far behind the U.S. and EU when looking at GDP per capita.

GDP, PPP (current international $) - China, United States, European Union

World Bank, International Comparison Program database.

U.S.-China trade deficit
A look at trade relations between the U.S., the EU and China. Trade was a major bone of contention for President Trump in relation to China, and it is easy to see why.

U.S.-China Trade Deficit

https://wolfstreet.com/2021/02/08

President Trump waged a trade war with China with the objective of reducing this deficit. The tit for tat in the war did result in the reduction of total trade in 2019 and 2020 from a high point in 2018. In 2019 it reached 345,204 million dollars and in 2020 it declined to 310,800 million dollars,  but this was of course an abnormal year.
Trump also succeeded in getting at least the first part of trade deal with China. While economists disagree about the effect of Trump's trade policies, his actions demonstrated that the U.S. still possessed hegemonic power to wrench concessions from China.

Biden continuing Trump’s fight
For the moment it seems that the Biden administration is continuing Trump’s trade war and upholding the deals he reached.
But “The Biden Administration is conducting a comprehensive review of U.S. trade policy toward China as part of its development of its overall China strategy.” This will include “coercive technology transfers, illicit acquisition and infringement of American intellectual property, censorship and other restrictions on the internet and digital economy, and a failure to provide treatment to American firms in numerous sectors comparable to the treatment Chinese firms receive in those sectors in the United States.” Precisely the same issues the Trump administration was fighting with, with a significant difference.
Where Trump would tend to ignore the Uighur question, eyeing instead the challenges to U.S., the Biden administration “will also make it “a top priority” to address China’s alleged forced labor programs that target Uighur Muslims and other minority groups” (cnbc.com)
Thus, even when engaging in a trade war with China, the Biden administration keeps a focus on internal human rights issues in China, which may not bode well for deals with China.
While a trade embargo focusing on the imports of goods made by forced labour in the Uighur camps might be more sensible, we already see that China will counter with boycotts of Western goods.

Allies does not follow Biden on China
Biden says the U.S. will cooperate with partners and allies to make sure that China lives up to its obligations, but he cannot expect much cooperation from Europe.
Superficially it might seem to work, as seen recently, when both the EU, the UK and the U.S. coordinated sanctions on people and entities involved in China’s suppression of the Uighurs. But these were only the small stick actions, not really of any consequence to China.
In reality European views of China are clearly very different from the U.S. view, although there is no shared European view, the only shared view might actually be that they all disagree with the harsh U.S. views on China.
This certainly goes for the views found in Germany. At a World Economic Forum in Davos Chancellor Merkel said: "From a social point of view, from a political point of view, we have this very close partnership with the United States; but sometimes, for economic reasons, we may well pursue our policies in a different way."
The emphasis is on "economic reasons." Merkel might make some noise here and there about the lack of human rights in China, but the importance of preserving the economic relations with China seem to be all dominating in her view of China. According to Merkel: "We Europeans must be wisely reflecting how we can deal in this digital age with Chinese products and offerings, and weigh very carefully whether we wish to decouple ourselves from the Chinese value chain," (afr.com). Meaning of course that for economic reasons Germany wouldn't dare to decouple itself from China trade and investment.
Clearly Merkel wants Europe to take a very different approach from the U.S. to China. Slightly bizarre perhaps, but an opinion poll in 2019 by Civey shows that 42,3% of Germans see China as a better partner than the U.S. Only 23,1% are of the opposite opinion. Although these views may have changed with Biden becoming President.
More than Merkel, Macron sees the need for Europe to assert its sovereignty in relation to China. He bids welcome that the EU has finally woken up to need to assert itself against China as seen the recent EU strategic outlook on China. Though for the time being this awakening is mostly on paper.
In reality the EU is still split on China, with member countries in the South and East having a more positive view of China, welcoming Chinese investment deals.
Views and strategies towards China are evidently very different between the EU and the U.S.
Although in recent EU strategic outlook from 2019, a new sense of realism seems to be creeping in "…there is a growing appreciation in Europe that the balance of challenges and opportunities presented by China has shifted. In the last decade, China's economic power and political influence have grown with unprecedented scale and speed, reflecting its ambitions to become a leading global power."
Still the EU strives to uphold the idea that China can become an integrated into a multilateral and rule-based world order to the benefit of all.
In December 2020 the EU and China announced the completion of a draft deal on a “EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment” (CAI). With this agreement the EU hopes to achieve long standing objectives of better market access to China, fairer competition and sustainable development, later to be followed by investment protection negotiations.
Here at least it becomes evident that the EU still believes it can couple itself to the Chinese value chain, distancing itself from the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute and certainly not aligning itself with Biden when it comes to trade with China. The CAI actually representing a slap in the face to the Biden’s idea of presenting a united front towards China.
One thing is for sure, the divergence in views especially between the U.S. and the European views on the growing China dominance weakens the whole Western position vis-à-vis China.
China attempts to use its economic power to drive wedge between the U.S. and the EU, helped by the implicit disagreement on trade between the U.S. and the EU, and the divergent views within the EU. The result being that the Western pressure on China is weakened, and that Europe is being squeezed in the hegemonic power struggle between the U.S. and China.

Infrastructure
In the competition with China Biden has become obsessed with China’s advances in infrastructure in comparison with the U.S. At the recent press conference, the topic popped up several times. Biden reading from notes: “We have somewhere, in terms of infrastructure — we have — we rank 13th globally in infrastructure. China is investing three times more in infrastructure than the United States is.”
Based upon data from Statista the picture is even bleaker. In 2018 China apparently used 5.57% of GDP on investments for construction and maintenance of infrastructure, while the U.S. used a paltry 0.52%. While U.S. overall GDP is larger this gives an indication of how far the U.S. is lacking behind investments in something as important as infrastructure.
China can point to impressive advances in transportation, super-train technology, and enormous modern airport building compared what one sees in the U.S.
Perhaps one may use a much simpler comparison, indirectly related to infrastructure. The visual advances in China’s big cities compared to the biggest U.S. cities. Visually at least China’s cities are leaving the U.S. far behind.
Biden may plan more than 2 trillion (called billions in Europe) dollars of investments in infrastructure. Although a large part of the investment would seem be in areas not directly related to traditional definitions of tangible hard infrastructure consisting of the transport system (such as roads, airports, port facilities, and rail), public utilities (such as energy, water supply and sewer, and irrigation), communication network (such as telecommunication and broadband) (Working paper, World Bank Group).
Biden’s plan only contains 621 billion (called milliard in Europe) dollars in transportation infrastructure investment and 650 billion in what he calls infrastructure at home, with investment in energy, water supply and communication, but also affordable and sustainable housing and public schools.
The remaining investments will be in areas like research, manufacturing, workforce development and home and community-based care.
The share of Biden’s trillions that goes to infrastructure will not be enough to keep. up with Chinese infrastructure investments, and  his plan may not even get through the Senate.
Meanwhile China is also surging ahead with enormous investments in new technologies in their new 14th five year plan.

Scientific and technological dominance
In his first press conference Biden emphasized the scientific and technological competition with China and said:
“First, we’re going to invest in American workers and American science. I said that all through the campaign and I say it again. And we’re — and I’m setting up my administration to be able to do that, which is that, you know, back in the ‘60s, we used to invest a little over 2 percent of our entire GDP in pure research and investment in science. Today, it’s 0.7 percent. I’m going to change that. We’re going to change that.” He added: “The future lies in who can, in fact, own the future as it relates to technology, quantum computing, a whole range of things, including in medical fields.”
Let’s have a look at the competition in some of these areas:
 
R&D investment
A worrying picture of the haste with which China moves can be had by comparing investments in R&D in China with some major competitors.
Here shown in a graph from the National Science Board ("Science and Engineering Indicators 2018"):

Note the extremely rapid growth in investment in China compared to its competitors.
According to a science report from UNESCO, China might have outpaced the USA as the world’s leading R&D spender by around 2019, reaching another important milestone in its endeavour to become an innovation-oriented nation by 2020. (UNESCO science report: towards 2030).
Further cause for worry in the West may be found in an evaluation of USA's "National Security Strategy," which asserts that "Part of China’s military modernization and economic expansion is due to its access to the U.S. innovation economy, including America’s world-class universities."

Artificial Intelligence
Given the overwhelming importance of AI, especially in relation to expected future potentials, it is important to see how the U.S. fares in relation to the China.
In a paper to Congress, "Rise of the Machines," it is asserted that the U.S. has been leading the world in the development of AI: "The United States has traditionally led the world in the development and application of AI-driven technologies. This is due in part to the government’s prior commitment to investing heavily in research and development (R&D) that has, in turn, helped support AI’s growth and development. " (U.S. House of Representatives).
The report warns that the U.S. risks falling behind in its investments in AI, especially in relation to China, that is investing heavily in AI.
In 2018 China published its own "Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan."
In 2025 "new-generation AI will be widely used in intelligent manufacturing, intelligent medicine, intelligent city, intelligent agriculture, national defence construction, and other fields, while the scale of AI’s core industry will be more than 400 billion RMB, and the scale of related industries will exceed 5 trillion RMB. (Around 700 billion USD)."
By 2030 "The country will achieve major breakthroughs in brain-inspired intelligence, autonomous intelligence, hybrid intelligence, swarm intelligence, and other areas, having important impact in the domain of international AI research and occupying the commanding heights of AI technology. AI industry competitiveness will reach the world-leading level."
U.S. investment is mainly in private sector initiatives. Meaning there that there is no similar plan in the U.S.
It is difficult to compare the overall Chinese efforts with U.S. and EU efforts as comparable statistics doesn't seem to exist, but there is no lack of reports containing piecemeal assessments of AI efforts. On the basis of such assessments it might be possible compare the relative efforts of the U.S., EU and China.
Looking at venture capital (VC) and private equity (PE) investments in AI show this picture:

 (NB weight belongs to an overall ranking system).

For 2017-18 the U.S. is leading investment in VC and PE in AI, but China is catching up, while Europe is lacking far behind. There is perhaps reason for caution when looking at the Chinese investment, as others have pointed to the difficulty of measuring the real size of Chinese investment in AI.
The picture changes once more when looking at adoption of AI by firms.

China is here seen as leading the adoption and piloting of AI in firms, in front of the U.S., with Europe in third place.
This may sound puzzling, but the Chinese efforts may be a result of the Chinese “Three-Year Action Plan for Promoting the Development of a New Generation of Artificial Intelligence Industry (2018–2020).”
Based upon these admittedly simple comparisons we see a bipolar situation in which the U.S. and China are the only real significant competitors, with China apparently accelerating its efforts, while Europe in general is a distant third.

The race for quantum computing supremacy
The race is on. In late 2019 IBM announced a 53 qubit (the basic unit of information for a quantum computer) quantum computer. On October 23 2019 Google announced that its Sycamore 54 qubit quantum computer (though with only 53 qubits working) had completed a very specific calculation in 3 minutes and 20 seconds, a calculation that according to Google would have taken 10.000 years on a traditional supercomputer, thus boasting that they had achieved the holy grail of quantum supremacy, which means that a quantum computer solves problems which for all practical purposes would be impossible for a traditional computer. There is some doubt about Google's claim, as IBM claims the specific problem could be solved in 2.5 days on its own supercomputer.
Then in December 2020 it was announced that a team in China had achieved the first demonstration of quantum advantage, the ability to perform computations that would impossible on classic computer.
“Tasked with solving the so-called boson sampling problem, the researchers found solutions in as little as 200 seconds. By comparison, it could take China’s TaihuLight supercomputer about 2.5bn years to do the same.” (siliconrepublic.com).
Unlike Google’s quantum the Chinese quantum computer is not programmable meaning that it cannot be used to solve practical problems.
In the area of quantum communication China may also have a lead. So-called quantum key distribution (QKD), take advantage of quantum entanglement to allow secure communications that cannot be hacked.
A Washington Post article from 18 August, 2019, shows that China has leapt past the West (U.S. and Europe) in the number of patent filings for quantum technology in the past few years. In 2018 China had 492 patents filing, the U.S. 248 and the EU a miserly 31, overtaken even by South Korea with 45.

Chinese research priorities
China is prioritising and advancing research in other areas too. One example, in January 2019 China's Chang'e 4 lunar explorer was making a soft landing on the dark side of the moon. The first time this has been accomplished. According to China's lunar exploration plans a future Chang'e 8 mission "will test key technologies to lay the groundwork for the construction of a science and research base on the moon."
In the race for Mars, China’s own Tianwen-1, successfully entered a Mars orbit on February 10. At the time of writing the spacecraft is circling Mars, preparing for its own landing attempt.
China recently published its 14th five year plan that promises further advances in a whole host of fields:
“We will accelerate and expand industries such as new-generation information technology, biotechnology, new energy, new materials, high-end equipment, new energy vehicles and green and environmentally friendly products, as well as the aerospace and marine equipment industries. We will promote deep integration of the internet, big data, AI, etc., in all industries, promote cluster development in advanced manufacturing industries, build a set of strategic and emerging industry growth engines with distinctive features, complementary advantages and rational structures, and foster new technologies, new products, new industrial formats and new models. We will promote the healthy development of the platform economy and the sharing economy; and will encourage enterprise mergers and restructuring, and prevent low-quality and redundant construction.”
Meaning that the U.S. and the West in general is in for furious competition from China in wide ranging areas.

U.S. supply chains show critical dependence on China.
February 24 President Biden announced an executive order on America’s supply chains:
“The United States needs resilient, diverse, and secure supply chains to ensure our economic prosperity and national security. Pandemics and other biological threats, cyber-attacks, climate shocks and extreme weather events, terrorist attacks, geopolitical and economic competition, and other conditions can reduce critical manufacturing capacity and the availability and integrity of critical goods, products, and services. Resilient American supply chains will revitalize and rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity, maintain America’s competitive edge in research and development, and create well-paying jobs.”
China is not mentioned in the executive order, but China’s role in America’s supply chains is critical.
Biden is again following in the footsteps of Trump and Trump’s administration did not mince their words “We’ve been working on (reducing the reliance of our supply chains in China) over the last few years but we are now turbo-charging that initiative,” Keith Krach, undersecretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment told Reuters.
A diagram made by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) indicates that U.S. industries are highly exposed to supply risks in relation to China, and in certain areas it is very difficult to find substitution to the supplies from China.

BCG 2020.

For its part China is much less dependent on the U.S., although semiconductors still represent a critical area for the Chinese, and due to security concerns, there has been bipartisan support in the U.S. for restrictions on sales of semiconductors and other high tech products to China.
On the other hand, China has vented the possibility of restrictions on exports of emergent and foundational technologies as well critical raw materials like rare earths.
The picture painted here indicates that U.S. supply chains in many areas are more dependent on Chinese imports, than Chinese supply chains on the U.S.
It may therefore prove very difficult for the Biden administration to achieve the resilient, diverse, and secure supply chains that he wants in order to ensure America’s economic prosperity and national security.

China's rapidly expanding geopolitical influence
Bach in 2013 Xi Linping gave a speech at the Nazarbayev University in Kazakhstan introducing a modern version of the old Silkroad in the shape of the "One Bridge One Road Initiative" (OBOR).
Linping: "To forge closer economic ties, deepen cooperation and expand development space in the Eurasian region, we should take an innovative approach and jointly build an "economic belt along the Silk Road". This will be a great undertaking benefitting the people of all countries along the route. To turn this into a reality, we may start with work in individual areas and link them up over time to cover the whole region."
Xi Linping mentioned five objectives for the OBOR: First, to step up policy integration in order for further economic integration; Second, to improve infrastructure in order to further trade; Third to remove barriers to unimpeded trade in parts of the World inhabited by 3 billion people; Fourth to improve monetary circulation through currency convertibility; Fifth, to promote understanding among people.
OBOR was later renamed BRI as it was about more than one bridge and one road. It has since become a gigantic infrastructure and economic project consisting of attempts to construct transport corridors on land and sea, ports and gas and oil pipelines, as shown in this map:

While BRI might be first and foremost an economic project boosting Chinese growth, it must certainly also be seen in a geo-strategic context. It will give China immeasurable influence in large regions of Asia, Europe, Africa and even Latin America.
 “Over 100 countries have signed agreements with China to cooperate in BRI projects like railways, ports, highways and other infrastructure. According to a Refinitiv database, as of mid-last year, over 2,600 projects at a cost of $3.7 trillion were linked to the initiative.” (Reuters).
A map compiled by The Kiel Institute for the World Economy demonstrates the scale of global indebtedness China, as a share of debtor country GDP.

“China’s overseas Lending,” (Horn, Reinhart and Trebesch 2019)

“[A]s of 2018, the government of China holds more than five trillion USD of debt claims towards the rest of the world (6% of world GDP), up from less than 500 billion in the early 2000s (1% of world GDP). …This dramatic increase in Chinese official lending and investment is almost unprecedented in peacetime history, being only comparable to the rise of U.S. lending in the wake of WWI and WWII.” (Horn, Reinhart and Trebesch 2019)

The challenge to U.S. military hegemony
Biden has emphasised that Americas diplomatic efforts must be rooted in essential democratic values “defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”
But Biden’s democratic values will need a big stick in order to thrive and survive against authoritarian advances. Diplomacy and a war of words is certainly not enough. If nothing else, the origins of World War II have taught us that. Democracies must possess sufficient military power to preserve and protect democracy.
Does the U.S. and its allies still possess the power to preserve and protect Western democracy in the competition with Chinas rapidly expanding power? There are signs of tectonic shifts of power towards the East. China's growing power and the self-awareness that accompanies it are manifested in many ways. We see this clearly in the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea, where other countries' demands and a Hague Tribunal ruling are ignored.
Indirectly, in cases where countries are subject to penalties if they take actions contrary to China's official interests, support Tibet, the Uighurs or have diplomatic contact with Taiwan etc. We also see it in China's increased military presence in other parts of the world. A military base in Djibouti, naval exercises with Russia in the Pacific and even naval visits in the Baltic Sea. In the annual report to the Congress on U.S.-China relations, full attention is paid to Chinese expanding global engagement and footprint. Notable here are the "buildup of aircraft carriers and other large vessels - which China now appears to be pursuing under a doctrinal shift towards ''far seas '' protection." The ability to project military power to distant parts of the world is reminiscent of the German struggle to build a navy to compete with Britain's Royal Navy before World War I.
Also notable is China's commitment to cyber, information and electromagnetic warfare under a separate command.
In order to really get a better picture of the U.S.-China hegemonic power struggle we need to see China's own military aspirations and strategies and contrast them with U.S. strategies.

China's strategies and military aspirations
A white paper on "China’s National Defense in the New Era" (July 2019) presents a view of the World in which international security "is undermined by growing hegemonism, power politics, unilateralism and constant regional conflicts and wars."
The U.S. and the NATO are causing tensions to rise. The U.S. "has provoked and intensified competition among major countries, significantly increased its defense expenditure, pushed for additional capacity in nuclear, outer space, cyber and missile defense, and undermined global strategic stability. " While NATO in the eyes of China "has stepped up military deployment in Central and Eastern Europe, and conducted frequent military exercises."
The U.S. is accused of undermining the security of the Asia-Pacific region by strengthening "its Asia-Pacific military alliances and reinforcing military deployment and intervention."
Its deployment of the THAAD system (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) in South Korea to guard against North Korean threats, has in the Chinese view "severely undermined the regional strategic balance and the strategic security interests of regional countries." Read, it may also be seen as threat to China. U.S. allies in region also contribute by becoming "More outward looking in their military endeavours."
Closer to home Taiwan is a problem as it has "gone further down the path of separatism by stepping up efforts to sever the connection with the mainland in favor of gradual independence, pushing for de jure independence, intensifying hostility and confrontation, and borrowing the strength of foreign influence." Foreign influence being of course being the U.S.
Then there are the disputes relating to South-China Sea, where China resolutely safeguards its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. "The South China Sea islands and Diaoyu Islands are inalienable parts of the Chinese territory."
What then is the Chinese strategy for handling what they see as the increased insecurity and threats?
In 2019 Xi Jinping warned that "Taiwan independence goes against the trend of history and will lead to a dead end." He didn't exclude the use of force in relation to Taiwan: "We make no promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option of taking all necessary means." So much then for the peaceful reunification.
In relation to the South-China Sea, the white paper insists that "The situation of the South China Sea is generally stable and improving as regional countries are properly managing risks and differences. … A balanced, stable, open and inclusive Asian security architecture continues to develop."
This does fit with the views of China's neighbours in the area. China lays claim to a very large part of the South-China Sea. An area generally referred to as being delimited by the nine dash line. The disputed area is seen here:

Other countries, like for instance Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines have contested the Chinese claim. In 2013 the Philippines raised a case against China at "The Permanent Court of Arbitration" in the Hague. The court ruled in favour of the Philippines, but China accepted neither the court nor the ruling.
Instead, China has continued in its efforts to establish Chinese sovereignty as a fait accompli by building military installations in the contested area. In the white paper it sounds like this: "China resolutely safeguards its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The South China Sea islands and Diaoyu Islands are inalienable parts of the Chinese territory. China exercises its national sovereignty to build infrastructure and deploy necessary defensive capabilities on the islands and reefs in the South China Sea, and to conduct patrols in the waters of Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea."
 
Preparing for non-peaceful belligerence
The overall military guideline being: "We will not attack unless we are attacked, but we will surely counterattack if attacked." In the U.S. interpretation this means that China "may conduct defensive counterattacks by responding to an attack or striking preemptively to disrupt an adversary’s preparations to attack."
To fulfil the goals the white paper argues for reform and modernisation of the PLA (People's Liberation Army), military modernisation innovation based upon for S&T (Science and Technology) and strengthening of all areas of defence. In the words of Xi Jinping: "China must step up transforming its armed forces into a world-class military that is ready to fight and win wars as the country will never compromise on defending sovereignty."
Promoting innovation in defence S&T and military theory. China’s armed forces are accelerating the implementation of the strategy to develop the military through S&T in a bid to maintain and enhance the strength of the areas where they lead, and intensify innovation in emerging areas.
On the military equipment side there has been a rapid development of high-tech weaponry and equipment. "Type 15 tanks, type 052D destroyers, J-20 fighters, and DF-26 intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles have been commissioned."
In addition, the PLAAF (PLA Air Force) plans for a "new medium- and long-range stealth bombers to strike regional and global targets. Stealth technology continues to play a key role in the development of these new bombers, which probably will reach initial operational capability no sooner than 2025."
“A major Shanghai shipyard is being significantly expanded amid news that work has begun there on China’s fourth aircraft carrier.” (The Diplomat), demonstrating that China aims to be able to project military might to the "far seas." According to the white paper "The PLA Navy (PLAN) has extended training to the far seas and deployed the aircraft carrier task group for its first far seas combat exercise in the West Pacific." China is in fact rapidly building a navy that at least based upon the number of ships is challenging the U.S. navy
The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is estimated to have 360 warships in 2002 and around 400 warships in 2025, while the U.S. Navy has shrunk to less than 300 in 2020. Although a  2020 plan sees a need for 355 warships in U.S. Navy by the 2030s. It has to said that total U.S. naval tonnage is still bigger than Chinas, and the U.S. still has the advantage of more missiles launch cells.
With the ability to turn out ships faster than any other country, China could build up its force or rapidly replace its naval losses in a conflict, and “its ability to rapidly produce new warships would be a 'huge advantage' in a long fight with the U.S.” (Busines insider).
China recently acquired a base in Djibouti (August 2019) to support PLA, presumable to strengthen China's "far seas" ambitions. While China publicly at least hasn't plans for a worldwide net of bases like the U.S., there seems to be plans afoot that it may intend to get more bases to support its ambitions. Investments in foreign ports may have a dual purpose. According to "Brookings" there are rumours that potential “bases in Haifa, Israel and Ream, Cambodia reflect similar priorities to those exemplified by Djibouti and Hambantota" (Brookings).
China also has its eyes on a series of Pacific island states.
During the 70th anniversary parade, China also showed off the new DF 17 hypersonic missile which might pose a threat to regional stability and the U.S. fleet in the Western Pacific. Also in the parade was the new intercontinental road and rail mobile ballistic missile, DF 41, with a presumed range up to 15,000 kilometres. Armed with thermonuclear warheads a potential threat to rest of the world.
Clouded in secrecy are China's nuclear capabilities. In 2019 the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) estimated that China had around 290 nuclear warheads, numerically about equal to France, with the majority found in land based ballistic missiles, a smaller amount on nuclear submarines and tens to be used by the air force.
But China is expanding its triad of nuclear forces, land sea and air. One estimate by FAS is that by 2029 China may have in the region of 600 warheads. Thus, we see China expanding its military capabilities in all areas.

U.S. view – China a threat to U.S. military hegemony
In a statement to the Congress the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, said that "China represents our greatest long-term strategic threat to a free and open Indo-Pacific and to the United States, ... Through fear and coercion, Beijing is working to expand its form of ideology in order to bend, break and replace the existing rules-based international order, ... In its place, Beijing seeks to create a new order, one with Chinese characteristics led by China, an outcome that displaces the stability and peace of the Indo-Pacific that has endured for over 70 years.” (Joint Chiefs of Staff).
U.S. National Defence Strategy 2018: "As China continues its economic and military ascendance, asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy, it will continue to pursue a military modernization program that seeks Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The focus is certainly on China. No wonder that the former U.S. Defense Secretary has summarised the main focus for U.S. defence in three words: "China, China, China."
In December 2020 the “U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission” wrote: “Recent advances in equipment, organization, and logistics have significantly improved the PLA’s ability to project power and deploy expeditionary forces far from China’s shores … A concurrent evolution in military strategy requires the force to become capable of operating anywhere around the globe and of contesting the U.S. military if called upon to do so.”
A recent Australian report isn't sanguine about the present and future U.S. ability to counter China. The report finds that the U.S. has "an atrophying force that is not sufficiently ready, equipped or postured to fulfil a strategy of conventional deterrence by denial in the Indo-Pacific. Indeed, the combination of two decades of near-continuous combat operations, budget dysfunction, aging equipment, and the rising cost of advanced military hardware has severely impacted the quality and quantity of America’s high-end armed forces."

The Quad – a vague idea of strategic partnership?
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) represents an informal strategic dialogue between Australia, India, Japan and the United States.
In recent virtual summit between the leaders of the four countries, Biden announced that “the Quad is going to be a vital arena for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.” His administration is also promoting the Quad as an important part of the U.S. strategy for the Indo-pacific, sounding almost Trump like in his focus on the Quad.
According to the Diplomat, “Commentators often cast it as an “alliance” in the making, perhaps an “Asian NATO.” It is not. Rather, the Quad is designed as a loose-knit network of like-minded partners aiming at a broader purpose.”
This was evident in the recent summit. A White House lists the topics touched in the meeting. First and foremost was the talk of a Covid-19 vaccine partnership. “Quad partners will launch a landmark partnership to further accelerate the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Together, Quad leaders are taking shared action necessary to expand safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing in 2021.” Next was talk about a Quad climate working group, followed by the agreement on a “Critical and Emerging Technology Working Group.”
Not the slightest whiff of NATO like Indo- Pacific military partnership. Nothing really on presenting a united front against China at least in this meeting. There are only rudiments of a military cooperation between the Quad members with cooperation on naval exercises and sharing of intelligence.
In reality though the U.S. will have to rely on its own military resources to counter the growing Chinese military presence in the region.

Weak containment strategy
From the Trump administration Biden has inherited another attempt to contain China in the Indo-Pacific area
Pompeo's State Department "outlined a vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific in which all countries prosper side by side as sovereign, independent states"
The U.S. main attempt was to strengthen and deepen relationships with a half-moon sphere of countries surrounding China. "Our alliances with Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand have helped sustain peace and security for generations."
New are strengthened strategic partnerships with India, South Asian nations, Pacific island states and Taiwan.
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is the top destination for U.S. investment in the Indo-Pacific. In 2018, cumulative U.S. investment in ASEAN was $271 billion, more than U.S. FDI in China and Japan combined.
China on the other hand is seeking influence (and perhaps bases) in small pacific island states by promising investment in return for joining the Chinese sphere of influence. As in the case of the Solomon Islands, who in return withdraw their recognition of Taiwan. The small poor island state of Kiribati switched allegiance from Taiwan to China in September 2019. Vanuatu though has said no to Chinese military bases, stating “We are a non-aligned country. We are not interested in militarization, we are just not interested in any sort of military base in our country.” One may accept that as realistic for now, but what if they become dependent on Chinese investment.
China's activism in the Pacific island states worries Australia, who is now trying to counter Chinese expansion with a “Pacific step-up” program promising investment and enhanced Australian support to the islands.

Biden talks loudly, but the stick is losing power
It is quite clear that China aggressively will resist every policy and activity that it regards as interference in China’s internal affairs, be it in relation to the Uighurs, Hongkong criticism for lack of democracy or criticism of judicial processes in China, and perhaps internal affairs also includes Taiwan.
The Biden administration on the other hand seems hellbent on focusing on exactly these issues, caught up in the own Western idea of possessing the moral, democratic and rule based high ground. A high ground China evidently does not accept and will resist. China may even have point, when they point to the internal erosion and shakiness of the U.S. and Western high ground.
What the Biden administration is doing with this focus is annoying a self-conscious and confident China that sees itself as being equal to the U.S. And for what purpose? Why is one-eyed focus on areas that China of cause will regard as U.S. interference in internal affairs? Why focus with such high priority on the Uighurs, and talk of genocide? Though Biden still seems to hold back using this term. Not even Muslim countries of the world seem very concerned with plight of the Uighurs. The Hongkong issue may seem more relevant to the talk of a rule-based World, but is it the most important issue?
Do these issues really mean much to the vital interests of America and the West that Biden talks about? Or have much relevance in relation to America’s prosperity and security? Are they a threat to Western democracy? It is difficult to see how criticism of internal affairs in China will be helpful. In fact, it may turn out to be counterproductive, seeing the Chinese reaction.
And while Biden and Blinken may speak with loud words, the sticks they carry seem as threatening as chopsticks. Just a few days ago the impotence of the small sticks America and its allies are carrying became evident.
On March 22 Secretary Blinken announced sanctions against two Chinese individuals believed to be involved in suppression of Uighurs in Xinjiang. “We are doing so in response to serious human rights abuse against members of ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.”
The sanctions were coordinated with similar sanctions announced by the EU, Canada and the UK, and were meant to send a clear message to China.
China’s first reaction were, not unexpected, sanctions against individuals and entities in the West. Whether more sanctions will flow is not known. Not much more than Chinese annoyance is gained by this angry exchange with chopstick sized sticks.
The American focus on democracy and human rights in China is deflecting attention from what ought to be a much more serious challenge: China’s struggle for World hegemony.
While this exchange is going on the Biden administration is ignoring the real threats to Western security, prosperity and democracy as we have seen.
In Biden’s first press conference he boasted: “"They [China] have an overall goal to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world. That's not gonna happen on my watch … "This is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies, … We have to prove that democracy works.”
Looking back at the challenges we have discussed the outlook for Bidens’ prophecy that China will not become most powerful country in World on his watch is not bright.
With the present growth rate China’s GDP will surely surpass U.S. GDP in a few years, putting China on a path to become the wealthiest country in the world contrary to Bidens’ boasts.
Biden looks set to continue Trumps aggressive trade war with China at least for now, but his talk is somewhat ambiguous, China’s aggressive coercive actions must be confronted, but his focus is on diplomatic efforts and he wants to work with China where it is America’s interest.
Biden talks repairing old alliances and engaging with the world, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but todays and tomorrows. But in his struggle for economic supremacy and balance in trade he cannot count on his biggest ally, EU, to follow him of their own free will in any sort of trade war with China. The EU may only become an ally if it is forced to, by the U.S. or by unforeseeable circumstances.
Trump certainly realised that, but Biden seems to live in a more ideal world of hopes, loud proclamations and conciliatory words.
Looking at the struggle for scientific and technological dominance, the situation is somewhat similar. China is investing heavily at the frontiers of science, and the U.S. is keeping at up for the moment, but looking to the pace with which China is moving ahead it may only be a matter of few years before China no longer need to steal, buy or force its way forward in science and technology, to become dominant in important frontier fields of science and technology. China certainly exudes confidence that it will come out ahead.
The problem is that Biden and the U.S. really doesn’t seem to be able to do much to keep the U.S. ahead.
America and the West may be on an irreversible path to lose the struggle for geopolitical dominance. We have seen China’s giant efforts on the BRI, which it stretching its many tentacles over all continents. The silk road is no longer confined to Asia. Chinese investments, credits and loans are making large parts of Africa and parts of Latin America more dependent on China than the U.S. or Europe. A dependence that China may also be using to gain a dominant influence in major UN and other World organisations.
The U.S. and the whole Western position in the rest of the World is waning in relation to Chinese influence. Being coupled more to ideals in relation to democracy, development and human rights than the Chinese approach. An approach that is ruthless and impervious to moral considerations and following a strategy, where the main consideration is whether the approach is advantageous to a China. In relation to Africa and Latin America it is evident that Chinese influence is growing, while the traditional hegemonic influence of the U.S. is waning, and Europe's influence is weak and confused, plagued by various ideological and moralistic views and goals, whose achievement may actually become less secure by insisting on them, as it leaves the field to a more self-serving Chinese influence.

Western response to China’s gigantic initiatives seems almost non-existing, but a few days
ago Biden in a phone call with Boris Johnson suggested that democratic countries should act together to create a plan to rival China’s BRI. Biden afterwards told reporters “I suggested we should have, essentially, a similar initiative, pulling from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world that, in fact, need help.”
There we have it again with Biden suggesting a rival plan, representing at most only the ghostly outline of a small stick to compete with existing China’s BRI, a big club growing bigger all the time.
The raw power struggle is between a hastily rising Chinese military, apparently focusing its efforts more and more on modern technology, and at the moment only dominant in the South-China Sea. But the signs of a grander strategy are there, in the development of new weapons and a military with more of a global reach. This is also seen in the efforts to gain footholds in places that has potential to become military bases.
The U.S. may still be the only World power, but its military power is increasingly being challenged, not only by China but also by Russia, forcing the U.S. to enormous defence expenditures to maintain superiority.
Europe meanwhile is hiding under the mighty umbrella of U.S. military power, contributing very little to the power struggle with China and Russia. All the while talking grandly about peace based upon multilateralism and the rule of law. As if this isn't in the end based upon the presence of military power to uphold these grand ideas.
Looking at the competition for military dominance, we are forced to conclude that Chinese military efforts are in the ascendency, while the U.S. star is, if not waning, at least not shining as brightly as it has in the decades after WW II, and the U.S. and the West in general may be on the back foot in other areas too.
No wonder Washington Post warns: “The Biden administration will find countering China’s military strategy, especially in Asia, to be a complex, costly and risky endeavour. But it has no choice but to embark on it, because the status quo is giving out.”
Alas, for the time being we only see the Biden administration being fully prepared for a war on words and mostly on topics that will not help counter the threat of Chinese military expansion.
For the time being Biden has only announced that the Pentagon would review its strategy toward China, looking at pivotal areas including intelligence, technology and Washington’s military footprint in the region.

A crumbling West vs. rejuvenated China
"Once a Culture's aim is attained — its idea, its entire content of inner possibilities fulfilled and made actual — it suddenly hardens. It mortifies. Its blood congeals. Its creative forces break down. The fire in the soul dies. Life is fatigued. The society experiences no more fullness but instead poverty, coldness, emptiness, an intellectual chill, and void. Values ​​built up and maintained within the Culture begin to fall away. A sweeping transvaluation, a rejection, a persistent nihilism remolds old forms, understands them otherwise, practices them in different ways. The society begets no more, but only reinterprets. " (Burner, Staring Into Chaos) Today one might get an unpleasant feeling that this description might well fit some of the more negative developments of Western societies today. The West seems to be surrendering to an unfortunate cultural relativism. People who think in these terms do not see that invisible, but crucially important and mutually supportive values ​​and norms that uphold our culture, democracy and society are eroded away. Do not see that they themselves are guilty of this erosion. They make silly excuses for not putting our values ​​and our culture above other value systems or religious requirements that are formulated differently from our values.
They forget values ​​ exist only by virtue of our living them. We can only save our culture by living it and insisting on its values. And I am increasing doubting that we will and dare do that in the West.
The West seems to be disintegrating. In all sorts of identity- and special interest groups. Noisy, loud-mouthed, wildly gesticulating groups of focused opinions that all seek maximum attention, with the aim of gaining power for their view of the World, regardless of the consequences for the rest of society.
This preoccupation with one's own group identity and group self-assertion has led to a loss of a shared vision, of seeing community itself as a Gemeinschaft. The focus is on what separates the different identities and not on what is shared. It is the “I” that matters, not the “We.”
"Today, in the wake of decades of group identity politics and the attendant
deconstruction of our heritage through academia, the media, and popular culture,
this conviction in the uniqueness of the West is only a pale shadow of what it was a mere half century ago. It has been replaced by elite narratives substituting shame for pride and indifference to one's own heritage for patriotism ... Western societies have changed in ways that make social mobilization around the shared idea of a nation increasingly problematic. This ideological hollowing out of the West has been accompanied by a surge in confident revanchist nationalisms in other parts of the world, as well as religiously inspired totalitarianism. (Micha)."
Contrast this with what we see in China. While there may be fault lines in China, the majority of the population belong to the same ethnic group of Han people. "The racial identity and collective memory associated with Han-centrism is a cohesive force that the Chinese political elite can exploit. Here racial beliefs often feed hyper nationalism, and as China continues to expand its sphere of influence regionally and internationally, it needs the unwavering patriotic support of its population at home and abroad. Han-centrism makes this possible by supporting and legitimating an " us versus them" mentality that fuels security competition and mistrust between China and other nations." (Friend and Thayer)
There may be fault lines between town and country and between mass and elite in China, but it is evident that compared to the West we haven't seen a similar break up and disintegration in China. In China the emphasis still seems to be on the “We” and not the “I.”
The exception of course being the democratic protests in Hong Kong. Protests that one may surmise has something to do with Hong Kong's past being influenced by British idea of freedom and democracy. It remains to been seen what the Hong Kong protests may lead too, but at the moment it is difficult to see them inspiring further protest in mainland China
In China we find a deep-rooted belief in Chinese superiority in relation to the everyone else, at least according to the experience of foreigners in China: "[W]hat we would consider racism in the West is simply a deeply ingrained cultural characteristic of mainland Chinese people. White skin (the Chinese like to consider themselves white) and or being a Han (the dominant ethnic group) means a person is good. Dark skin or not being Han means a person is inferior (and more likely to be a bad guy/a thief/incompetent etc.)." (The Atlantic).
What one has to remember is that although there are a number of minorities in China, more 92% of population see themselves as belonging to be the homogenous ethnic group of Han Chinese. As Hobsbawm has noted China is one of "the extremely rare examples of historic states composed of a population that is ethnically almost or entirely homogeneous."
Well, then there are of course the problems with the minority of the Muslim Uighurs in the Western province of Xinjiang. According to The Council on Foreign Relations China has detained more than million Uighurs in re-education camps. While this has led to outburst in the West, it would seem that Han Chinese don't have a problem with that, perhaps again marking a belief in their own cultural superiority.

Sunset in the West, Sunrise in China
While we may see signs of a looming Western sunset, the sun is certainly rising over China, with its phenomenal rejuvenation and rise after the dismal post war Mao period.
President Xi Jinping not long ago talked of a "Chinese Dream" (Zhongguo meng) of the future based upon a political model, expressing the superiority of the Chinese Communist Party-led multiparty cooperation system, and rejecting Western ideas of democracy
A Chinese Dream in which China by 2050 will have returned to its rightful status after over a century of bowing to the demands of Western powers. Achieving a goal in which "China will continue to grow and China will be so developed in all aspects that it will be truly a superpower." (Xi Linping).
In some way the rise of China semes almost the follow a pattern similar to the rise of America when it began to overtake Great Britain, outperforming the UK economy sometime after the Civil war and expanding its power in the Western hemisphere in the late eighteenth century. After the First World War it became a rapidly growing power not only in the Western hemisphere, but in large parts of the World.
China’s attempt to dominate the South China Sea may be a parallel to the early U.S. Monroe doctrine. Just read the 1823 address of President James Monroe that announced what became known as the Monroe doctrine.
“In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. (Our emphasis).”
The Monroe Doctrine was followed up in 1904, when Theodore Roosevelt (of big stick fame) formulated his version of the Monroe doctrine.
Today China seems to entertain similar notions with regard to outside interference in their hemisphere by U.S. and the West, while rapidly expanding their own influence into the Western Sphere.
While there is no question of a rejuvenated and self-conscious and growing Chinese hegemony, there are as we have seen ominous signs of internal decline in the West that doesn't bode well for upholding existing Western hegemony.
To counter rise of an increasingly powerful China believing in its own superiority, and to avoid an "Untergang des Westen" scenario, there would have to be a rejuvenated Western drive, a greater degree of unity in the West, a will to power, and a conviction of the validity of ideas and values of the West. To be really heretical: We need some kind of pendant to Trump's "America First." A Re-vitalization of the belief in the superiority of the ideas and values that shaped the West.
Alas, what see instead is disunity internally in the U.S., bickering and disunity among Western allies and almost everywhere in the West a surrendering to an unfortunate cultural relativism. People who think in these terms do not see that the invisible but crucially important and mutually supportive values ​​and norms that uphold our culture, democracy and society are eroded away. Creating a strange kind of internal defeatism and value relativism that cripples the ability to decide and to act.
What we have seen in our discussion are signs of a rapid tectonic shift of power to East. The West may applaud Biden’s loud words about America’s role in defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity. Alas, these are only words followed by inconsequential actions in the shape of pinprick sanctions.
Biden does not seem to realise that the fight for Western hegemony, for Western democracies and values, has to concentrate on the areas we have discussed in this essay, and be fought with real bite, or big sticks that will guarantee the protection of these values.
Instead, Biden risks becoming the caretaker not only of Americas decline but of the West.


 *America meaning of course only the U.S., not the Americas. The terms America and U.S. are used interchangeably in this essay.