I read an article with respect the other day by Mr Lee Yee named “Multilateralism means no ism”, which highlights “only do the most powerful countries take the lead to deter totalitarians from causing political and economic damage to their countries and the free world at the expense of their own interests can a genuine alliance, not a cocktail party, be made possible “, hence inferring that having hopes for Biden’s China policy is not advised. Yours truly think differently on this, so I’d like to ask the senior for advice.

Before anything else, I do not have high hopes for Biden’s China policy. In contrast, against the backdrop of my majoring in international relations, I should not have any hope for any diplomatic policy of any country – after all, the rule of thumb in diplomatic policy and international relations should be: everything rests with national interests instead of responses to what other societies hope for.

As such, here comes the first argument I would like to deliberate on with the senior: on what ground can the world carry off what the US unilaterally commits?  It needs to be known that the remote cause of the rise of Trump is the discontent among US rightist meritocrats and mass with US immoderate unilateral commitments, including provision of military protection to Europe through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and intervention in Middle East and North Africa affairs after the war on terrorism. And the reason why America chose to fight with the European Union(EU), Japan, Canada and China over trade issues is the country no longer believes that the free trade system established and upheld by the US in the old days can preserve US trade and commercial interests. Besides, China being in the eye of the wind in the trade war is contributed by China riding on US coattails, the “communication policy”, to join the World Trade Organization(WTO).

Trump did a U-turn on the soft containment policy towards China, which had lasted for decades, exerting extreme pressure on China and Chinese enterprises, not because the US was willing to “lay down” its interests, but wanted to safeguard them by declining to have its coattails, Pax Americana, ridden on by other countries down the line. To infer that Trump’s administration contains the totalitarian “at the expense of national interests” from the policy impact and the derived influence on the economy is a logical error called “judge by result”. In fact, if the coronavirus pandemic had not canceled out Trump’s economic achievements, if China had readily delivered on what was agreed on in the Sino-US phase one trade deal and curbed on the wolf-warrior hostility, exertion of extreme pressure would not have been the original option of Trump’s administration, as evidenced by the analysis of US stance on China in 2017-2019.

Maybe finding out the reason why a thing happened is what an “egghead” is licensed to do, but the answer to whether the rise of the “extreme pressure” policy is attributed to the US “morally inspired” to establish an alliance at the expense of its own interests, or the basic interests the US is pursuing in the new era, has a profound impact on the understanding of where the future global setting is heading and developments of individual regions. Indeed, yours truly is asked every so often on social media a question: Is Biden, who has nominated quite a number of diplomats that used to work for Obama, set to stage a comeback of the “Obama-style diplomacy”?

However, the “Obama-style diplomacy” is going to be confronted with the international relations context of the 9.11 attacks and the wars in the Middle East, and the stance traditionally adopted by the Democratic and Republican Party on domestic policies towards the intense US-Russian relations and relaxation of relations with China. Most importantly, the honeymoon phase of Sino-US relations enjoyed by the two countries for almost ten years is ascribed to the US society craving for the economic dividends brought about by China joining the WTO and China in support of the strategy for the global war on terrorism during the presidency of George W. Bush. Thus, the international community took China on as a rival whom they could “both communicate and fight with” as soon as Obama assumed office while the US was set to revamp its diplomatic resources so that it could get its clout in East Asia revived after the Cold War. So, at the time when the US is convinced that confronting China is not where the national interests lie; the diplomatic resources have not been put in the East Asian region for decades; and the international relations context deems China a “rival partner” instead of a “rival competitor”, any efficacy of any multilateralist framework that Mr. Lee Yee wants to see is not possible.

Nevertheless, now that both the White House and Capitol Hill have deemed the threat posed by China more menacing than that by Russia, and other members of the international community have also considered China a challenge to their basic interests, such an augmented multilateralism, coupled with coordinated hegemony,  is the desirable blueprint for US diplomatic policy towards China, which Pompeo and his team and even the Republican Party have desired to push through but in vain because of Trump’s bluntness.

A report by the Financial Times the other day said a document leaked from the EU indicated that the EU wishes for reconditioning US-European relations so as to coordinate China policy with the US. Such a diplomatic “leak” has never happened during Trump’s presidency. And yours truly was told by informants that quite a number of countries have hoped to convert their China policy, but hung back from drawing near Trump’s diplomatic course, which has been difficult to pin down for the past four years, lest they should run into an accident by tailgating. In view of this, it is not the case that multilateralism means no ism, but it can only be brought into full play when various countries have their clear directions and coordinate with each other. In reality, it is easy to entrust a “messiah” with hopes, yet whether a healthy system, long-lasting peace and stability can be preserved is anyone’s guess.

(Chan Wai-shun, Secretary-General Of Global Studies Institute (Hong Kong))

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play