What the US wants is to protect its global dominance
From our guest: “The US government has designated China as a long-term strategic threat and they are acting on it. They don’t want any country to threat the United States economic, political or military dominance of the world. This is part of what they believe is America’s exceptionalism that requires the United States to be leading the world towards a liberal, democratic, capitalist democracy. And unfortunately, this is just not real.”
For more on this, here’s the full transcript of our interview with Einar Tangen, current affair commentator by TODAY’s host Su Yi.
Su Yi: So given it took place during the on-going trade spat between China and the United States, how much is it about trade war and how much is it about law enforcement?
Einar: I think you have to shoot this 100% about the trade war. This is an exploratory move by Trump, to see if he can get China knuckle in by destroying its companies. If this had been about law, there are processes involved. They had been involved before. ZTE had been punished by the US government and there have been fines imposed.
[File photo: VCG]
Su Yi: If we look at Trump Administration’s proposed tariffs on the fifty billion US dollar worth of Chinese goods, they are exclusively targeting the initiative called “Made in China 2025” - a plan to upgrade the Chinese industry. Why are those tariffs designed that way?
Einar: While talking about these tariffs, you have to understand the world view. And what we have currently is that the US government has designated China as a long-term strategic threat and they are acting on it. They don’t want any country to threaten the United States economic, political or military dominance of the world. This is part of what they believe is America’s exceptionalism that requires the United States to be leading the world towards a liberal, democratic, capitalist democracy. And unfortunately, this is just not real. It is an extremely hardline ideological position that does not allow any kind of differences, (either) culture or (path of) development. And this is the problem. This kind of moves unfortunately, will probably continue. Because there is a fundamental difference between the ideologies of a hardline US and the thriving China just trying to make its way in the world a win-win situation that is opposed to a unilateral way.
Su Yi: Now there are a lot of debates in China on the internet. Some people argue that this ZTE case serves as a wake-up call for China and also Chinese companies which have overseas business. What can Chinese companies learn from such consequences for ZTE?
Einar: I mean they are learning about political risk and this is going to be important not only for the US but for Europe. You know, in Europe, it is possible they haven’t shown the same kind of act as the US, but what the US is doing is setting an example. But in other instances like the Belt and Road Initiative, it is also very important to have complete understanding, not only in language but in political, cultural, social issues that align this in the economic system and the legal system. I think a lot of companies are going to start looking at their going-out programs, employing people who could really help them negotiate all the pitfalls and understand the local condition. Chinese companies are used to (the idea of) “we make money and we will provide business services, hopefully at a very competitive prices and we will win”. But now it is clear that is not enough.