Heading Toward a Cold War, or Even a Hot One

 The United States and China, the word's mightiest military and economic powers, are currently heading toward a Cold War, or even a hot one, with potentially disastrous consequences. But an alternative path is available and could be taken.

Beginning in 2018, U.S. government policy toward China turned sharply hostile, bringing relations between the two nations to their lowest point in the last four decades. The Trump administration fostered military confrontations with China in the South Sea, initiated a trade war with the Asian nation, blamed China for the COVID-19 pandemic, and sharply denounced its human rights record. In a July 2020 public address, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for "a new alliance of democracies" to resist China, declaring: "The free word must triumph over this new tyranny."

For the most part, the Biden administration has continued this hard-line policy. Soon after taking office in 2021, U.S. officials stepped up political and military engagement with Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory, while Secretary of State Antony Blinken used his first meeting with Chinese officials to publicly berate China. At the beginning of June, the U.S. Senate passed the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, explicitly designed to compete with China by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into advanced U.S. technology. This action followed the release of a proposed Pentagon budget that identified China as "the greatest long-term challenge to the United States." 

The Chinese government has not shied away from confrontation, either. XI Jinping, taking office in 2012 as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and in 2013, as President of China, has launched his nation on a 'more assertive nationalist course' in world affairs. This has included turning disputed islands in the South China Sea into Chinese military bases, and steadily building up Chinese military forces. The latter have been employed for dangerous confrontations with U.S. warships in the South China Sea, and for flights into Taiwan's airspace.

The dangers of this growing confrontation are enormous. The United States and China have developed unprecedented military might, and a conventional war could easily spiral into a catastrophic military conflict. Even if war were averted, their escalating arms race, which already accounts for more than half the world's military expenditures, would be a colossal waste of resources.

Fortunately, though, there is plenty of opportunity on the world scene for the United States and China to cooperate and, thereby, not only avert disaster, but serve their common interests.

Avoiding climate catastrophe is certainly a key area in which they would be well-served by cooperation. Not only are the people of China and the United States threatened by climate change, but, as the two nations are the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, they can make or break world climate agreements.

Moreover, both countries have a great deal to gain, as does the world, by their agreement on a nuclear arms control and disarmament program. Minimally, they could increase the transparency of their nuclear holdings, develop arms control verification procedures, and freeze China's nuclear stockpile in exchange for further cuts in U.S and Russian nuclear arsenals.

Other area are also ripe for cooperation. Economic agreements could reduce global poverty, outlaw multinational malfeasance, and regulate trade while crime-fighting measures could address cyberattacks and piracy.

Cooperation between the two nations is not as far-fetched as it might seem. In past decades, the U.S. and Chinese governments worked together on projects like stopping Ebola, reducing the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons, averting global financial catastrophe, and assuring food safety. Furthermore, there has recently been agreement by the governments of both nations on U.S.-China cooperation in fighting climate change.

Pompeo Is the Wrong Choice

Days before his  nomination for Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said, "there will be no concessions made during ongoing negotiations with North Korea." Refusing to make any concessions in the normal process of negotiations is a sure way to doom the diplomatic process before it begins. Supporting withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal will dramatically undermine efforts to negotiate an agreement with North Korea. 

Pompeo advocated for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities at the height of delicate (and ultimately successful) nuclear negotiations with Iran, arguing that it would take "under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity," which he characterized as "not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces." Pompeo also called for congressional action to foment regime change in Iran.

Last July, Pompeo implied that he supports regime change in North Korea, saying that Kim Jong-Un has to be separated from his nuclear weapons and that the people of North Korea "would love to see him go."

Mike Pompeo has a history of Islamophobia. He once said that Muslim leaders across America are "potentially complicit in acts of terrorism that they do not specifically condemn." He supported legislation that would have labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Presumably in response to reports that the Trump administration was considering making such a designation, CIA analysts released an internal memo in January 2017 warning that labeling the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization "may fuel extremism," and noting that the Muslim Brotherhood has "rejected violence as a matter of official policy and opposed al-Qa'ida and ISIS."

Pompeo has strong connections to some of the most well-known anti-Muslim voices in the country such as Frank Gaffney, who has promulgated conspiracy theories about President Obama being a Muslim, and Brigette Gabriel, who believes that Muslim-Americans should not be allowed to hold public office, and has said that "a practicing Muslim... cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America." This record of Islamophobia makes Pompeo ill-suited for the task of working with leaders of Muslim-majority nations around the world, a critical responsibility for the Secretary of State.

While he was director of the CIA, Pompeo said that he couldn't remember if President Trump asked him to speak against the Russian investigation. He couldn't remember the conversation but he would surely remember if Trump had asked him to do something that was improper. Anyway, Pompeo would not reveal what Trump had told him in a private conservation. Pompeo joined several other high officials in the Trump administration who have refused to reveal conversations with Trump, even when Trump has not invoked executive privilege.

President Trump's Developing Foreign Policy

On November 28, 2016, Jon Rainwater, Peace Action's executive director, published an assessment of then-presidential-elect Donald Trump's developing foreign policy.  Following are selected excerpts:

#A militarist strain of anti-Islam views is the thread that ties much of Trump's positions together.
Three key picks, Steve Bannor as chief White House advisor, Mike Flynn for National Security Advisor -- now pushed out of office-- and Mike Pompeo as CIA chief all share apocalyptic views about Muslims. Flynn called Islam "a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised." Even with moderate picks sprinkled through the cabinet, this toxic ideology is likely to drive key policies.

The fear is that, as the New York Times put it, Flynn and Pompeo "will thrust the charged phrase 'radical Islamic terrorism' to the center of American foreign policy in a way that blurs the lines between a war on terrorism and a war on Islam."

In this expanded war, the Trump team openly admits it sees torture and increased civilian casualties as a price worth paying. We need to oppose this divisive worldview.

#We should believe Trump when he says he's "much more militaristic" than George W. Bush.
Trump put Clinton on the defensive by critiquing "regime change wars" like in Iraq. But let's be clear: Trump and his advisors have explicitly said they will not shy away from using U.S. military power. Trump promised to escalate the air war in Syria and Iraq, saying he'll "bomb the [expletive] out of them... I'd blow up every single inch, there would be nothing left."

You and I will need to mobilize to oppose that unbridled militarism. Trump has plans to send as many as 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria to battle ISIS so we'll need to build opposition to a large-scale ground war.

#The Trump's team cagey mix of white nationalism and "America First" principles is a threat to international peace and cooperation.
There's a lot of uncertainty about how Trump will handle agreements like the Iran deal, the Arms Trade Treaty and the Paris Climate Accords. But it's clear that unilateralism and a suspicion of the rest of the world are likely to drive Trump's policies.

One of the first things Trump and Bannon have done is reach out to other white nationalist political lenders like Nigel Farage in the U.K. and Marine Le Pen in France to create what some call a "global ultra-right coalition." Trump's opposition to alliances, his white nationalist leanings, and his fondness for authoritarians could dramatically transform U.S. foreign policy and global relations.

#War is already on the table.
ISIS may be central to Trump's foreign policy, but Trump and his bellicose advisors have threatened to use U.S. force against targets like Iran and North Korea as well.

Iran is enemy number one for the new Trump administration. It's not only that Trump called the nuclear deal "the worst deal ever negotiated" and plans to "restructure" it." If that's not scary enough, Trump advisors from John Bolton to Mike Flynn have said war with Iran is necessary. They prefer war over diplomacy when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program.

Trump once called for strikes on North Korea,  saying: "I don't think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing trough the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?" This was way back in 2000. Today, tensions with North Korea are at a fever pitch over North Korea's advancing missile program.

#Trump is planning an expensive Pentagon build-up that would make Reagan blush.
Trump's plans include bulking up what is far and away the largest and most expensive military in world history. Trump has promised to grow the Army to 540,000 soldiers, who are expected to be deployed in Asia and Europe. He wants the biggest navy build-up since the Reagan administration.

He also plans a major investment in destabilizing missile defense and space weapons systems. This outsized spending is likely to be "balanced" by huge cuts in spending on domestic programs.

#Trump has particularly dangerous views on nuclear weapons.
Many were shocked when Trump entertained the use of nuclear weapons both against ISIS and in Europe. Trump's finger on the button is the most terrifying aspect of his soon-to-be presidency. This is a man who, as he was briefed on national security issues before the election, asked repeatedly why nuclear weapons should never be used and suggested more nations should possess their own nukes.

After the election, the Trump transition team announced that the administration plans to make spending on developing new nuclear weapons and delivery systems a top priority. Trump has made the wild claim that President Obama had allowed the large U.S. nuclear arsenal to "atrophy." Never mind Obama's $1 trillion plan for new nuclear weapons spending, Trump wants more.

#We need to promote a positive vision of foreign policy that favors peace and human rights while we fight Trump's dystopian agenda.
You and I share a vision of a more peaceful foreign policy. It's a vision of a world where human rights, diplomatic cooperation and international law are the foundations of global relations.

ADDENDUMS:
*Two changes from what Jon Rainwater has written are: 1. Mike Flynn is out as national security adviser, because he lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador; and 2. to my knowledge, John Bolton has not been given a high position in the Trump administration.
*As of at least a week ago, 30 under-secretary positions in the Department of State have not been filled nor nominations made.