Our So-Called Foreign Policy: A China Fork-in-the-Road Coming for America First-ers?

Tags

allies, America First, Barack Obama, China, deterrence, East Asia, globalism, industrial policy, Marco Rubio, national security, North Korea, nuclear deterrence, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, South Korea, Trade, tripwire, Trump

Something’s been bothering me for some time about the way that the national debate over dealing with China has been evolving.

Don’t get me wrong – it’s been great to see the major shift in the conventional wisdom since President Trump took office toward genuine recognition that the People’s Republic poses major economic and national security threats to the United States, that many of these threats are closely related, and that they have to be dealt with both on the economic and national security policy fronts.

That’s tremendous progress from the pre-Trump – and globalist – consensus that greater U.S. economic engagement with China was promoting more economic and political freedom in China, and more peaceful international behavior (or definitely would in some indefinite future), and that any dangers emanating from Beijing in the national security sphere are best coped with by increasing America’s military presence in East Asia (e.g., former President Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” largely rhetorical though it was), cooperating more closely with the country’s allies in the region, or some combination of the two.

You don’t have to be an avid follower of world affairs to realize that the sharp distinction drawn by this globalist consensus between China economic and China national security policy was already producing a mind blowingly idiotic result: Washington was still resolving to resist any expansionist ambitions of Beijing’s in East Asia while continuing to help send China’s way floods of money and defense-relevant technology bound to turn into formidable military equipment that U.S. and other allied forces would face if conflict broke out.

Further, as I began pointing out years ago, because of the impressive progress made by both China and North Korea in developing intercontinental-range nuclear weapons, the globalist approach was exposing the American homeland to an ever increasing threat of nuclear attack – and mainly because even the U.S.’s wealthiest regional allies refused to field the (admittedly) expensive conventional military forces that could repel aggression from Beijing or Pyongyang without American help.

So everyone should be encouraged by the growing, bipartisan support for limiting the flow of U.S. resources and technology to China – even though many allegedly converted globalists continue hoping in vain that this goal can be achieved without setting limits (like tariffs) on trade and investment between the two economies.

My problem? Many of the new China hawks (and the leading example here is Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who deserves considerable credit for his out-front role waking up other conservatives to the need for changing course on China) apparently believe that new U.S. trade, investment, and technology transfer curbs are mainly needed to shore up America’s decades-long position as the national security kingpin of East Asia. In other words, they’re hoping that America First-type China economic and technology policies can buttress globalist East Asia policies.

Maybe they’re right.  And if they succeed, it will at least become less likely that American troops will be killed in battle by Chinese weapons developed with dollars and knowhow from the United States.

Unfortunately, too much of the nuclear danger to the United States will remain in place – because the free-riding instincts of America’s East Asian allies inevitably will be reinforced. That is, the more confident they stay in America’s determination to protect them, the less military effort they’ll feel the need to make, and the longer U.S. military forces in places like South Korea will be needed to play tripwire roles – deterring aggression due to their vulnerability to attack and the chances that their imminent destruction will pressure a U.S. President to save them with nuclear weapons use that could trigger a similar retaliatory strike on the United States.

As I’ve written repeatedly, because taking every step possible to prevent a nuclear weapon from landing on American soil should be a much higher priority for Washington than protecting free-riding allies, it’s best for the United States to pull its troops back from the front-lines in East Asia and force its allies to defend themselves. And if this means okaying their own decisions to build nuclear forces, fine with me. I’d also sell them any conventional weapons they’re seeking – which would achieve the added benefit of improving American economic growth and employment.

Does this mean that an America First China policy would or should lack any national security dimension? Not at all. For as I first explained in this recent interview, staying ahead of China technologically will stay imperative for the United States to protect itself from the kinds of cyber-attacks Beijing is already capable of waging and has probably been sponsoring. And the threat is hardly limited to the hacking of U.S. government agencies or private businesses that originates from China. The more Americans (including individual Americans possessing valuable knowledge) use Chinese technology products because these goods have become the world’s best or cheapest, the more their privacy will be vulnerable to Chinese surveillance and ultimately blackmail. The advanced telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei is of course the most important example so far.

There’s another technology-based national security issue that purist America First-ers of my ilk need to deal with as well, and one that I haven’t sufficiently thought through. Nothing’s changed my mind about the United States being a big net loser from trade with East Asia, or about how it can retain the clout if needs in the solely from its role as a final consumption market these export-dependent economies will desperately need.

But thanks largely to failed globalist trade policies, most of the world’s semiconductor manufacturing capacity and capability is now located in East Asia – particularly in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. It may be tempting to believe that these countries will become more resistant to China’s power if the United States withdraws militarily from the region. But prudence counsels against simply assuming the best.

So as America First leaders start and keep offering these countries all the military hardware they need to rebuff Chinese advances, they will also need greatly to step up efforts to restore U.S. self-sufficiency in these key building blocks not only of high tech industry, but increasingly of all high value manufacturing and services. (To their credit, Rubio and some other new China realists also understand the need for redoubled American industrial policy efforts to achieve these goals.)

Attempts to reorient U.S. foreign and trade policies in America First directions are still at such an early stage that concern about these differing emphases might look premature. But events have a way of forcing major decisions much earlier than expected – either because crises erupt sooner, or because lead-times to implement new strategies can be longer, than is convenient. So all America First-ers should agree at least agree that the earlier this potential division in America First ranks is addressed, the better.

Those Stubborn Facts: Trade Deal or Not, U.S.-China Decoupling Continues

Tags

CFIUS, China, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, decoupling, FDI, foreign direct investment, national security, technology, Those Stubborn Facts

“The data [do] not identify the origin of the buyers who abandoned their investments. But attorneys who handle CFIUS [the U.S. inter-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] cases said many are probably Chinese companies caught in a Trump administration campaign to stymie their efforts to acquire sensitive U.S. technology.”

Share of proposed foreign buys of U.S. assets abandoned due to U.S. government “national security concerns,” recent years:

2014-16: 4-5 percent annually

2017: 14 percent

2018: 11 percent

(Source: “More foreign firms halted U.S. deals amid Trump administration scrutiny: report,” by Alexandra Alper, Reuters, November 22, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-investment-trump/more-foreign-firms-halted-u-s-deals-amid-trump-administration-scrutiny-report-idUSKBN1XW1VJ)

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: (Inadequate) Establishment Progress on China Trade

Tags

China, decoupling, dual-use technologies, national security, reciprocity, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade war, Trump, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Normally, it’s bad news for anyone seeking a realistic, sustainable U.S.-China trade policy when a group like private “The U.S.-China Trade Policy Working Group” issues a statement outlining “a new framework for trade negotiations” out of concern that bilateral economic relations “have taken a very concerning turn.”

Such phrases usually signal that the group of supposed experts in question is going to “Blame America First” for the current trade war (albeit with token acknowledgments of problematic Chinese policies) and urge a return to a cosmetically altered pre-Trump status quo. A quintessential example is this July letter to the President and Members of Congress from “members of the scholarly, foreign policy, military and business communities, overwhelmingly from the United States, including many who have focused on Asia throughout our professional careers.” Pessimism seemed especially appropriate given that this latest Working Group is comprised of “economists and legal scholars from China and the United States,” since members from the PRC can be accurately seen only as mouthpieces for the dictators in Beijing.

So I’m as pleased as I am surprised to report that the Group’s October 18 statement reinforces the case for a Trump-ian turn in China policies in two important ways. First, it made clear that, contrary to the economic conventional wisdom, lopsided U.S.-China trade flows (i.e., U.S. trade deficits) are an important, legitimate concern for Americans and their leaders. Second, it echoed increasingly common criticisms that the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a sorely inadequate forum for dealing adequately with these as well as the grave threats to U.S. security created by China’s rapid progress toward superpower status.

Not that the Working Group’s endorsement of a concentration on economic imbalances was emphatic, or even explicit. In fact, it was disappointingly implicit, and justified partly for political, not economic reasons. But nonetheless, endorsement it was, and it came twice, in the following passages:

>”In today’s interdependent global economy, a broad assortment of divergent domestic policies (including policies that have not historically been regulated through WTO rules) can trigger calls to ‘rebalance’ the structure of cross-border market access and trade barriers between countries.”

>”One advantage of [the Group’s proposed new framework for world trade] is that it offers a structure whereby the US and China can, together, make choices about how to rebalance their trading relationship in the future.”

At the same time, some individual Group members have accorded considerably more importance to the bilateral imbalances, both in economic and political terms. For example, University of Cambridge (United Kingdom) economist Meredith A. Crowley wrote in a concurring statement:

“Economic research has documented that the US’s trade policy commitments at the WTO have resulted in a higher level of penetration of the US market by producers based in China than China’s trade policy commitments have generated for producers based in the US. This asymmetry in border policy commitments, in conjunction with changes in technology, domestic and regulatory policies, and the wider economy have resulted in an asymmetry in the real and perceived benefits of the US-China economic relationship between these countries and across groups within the United States.”

And according to Dartmouth College economist Robert W. Staiger:

“US expectations of reciprocal market access expansion into the Chinese market arising from China’s 2001 entry into the WTO have not been met. This requires a rebalancing of the existing WTO market access commitments between the US and China to achieve the degree of reciprocity in these commitments that was intended to arise from their 2001 negotiations.”

Indeed, Staiger both went on to note that the same criticism could be made of the 1994 Uruguay Round global trade agreement that produced some trade barrier cuts along with creating the WTO:

“US expectations of the balance between the internal benefits and costs of its own tariff commitments agreed to at the…Uruguay Round have not materialized. This may require a rethinking and possible renegotiation of some of the Uruguay Round tariff commitments made by the US, subject to the preservation of reciprocity (once achieved) with China and with other US trading partners who would be impacted by this renegotiation.”

His mention of reciprocity as a trade diplomacy goal is noteworthy as well, for although this objective has been sought by the Trump administration and long supported by trade policy critics, it was never a goal enshrined by the WTO (or its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and is roundly rejected by most economists.  (See, e.g., here.)

As for the WTO itself, the Group as a whole made two key observations:

“It has been almost 18 years since China joined the WTO, the system of trade rules and dispute resolution mechanisms that, at that time, defined the state of the art. During the intervening years, the global economy and the technologies that sustain it have changed dramatically, in ways that very few people anticipated at the time”; and

“[T]hese changes have had significant impacts on the international trade ecosystem, and the political leaders of many WTO members have voiced concerns that globalization pursuant to the WTO system is no longer attuned to their countries’ needs.”

As a result, the Group declared its intent to offer an “intellectual framework” that would represent an “alternative” to that which “undergirded the global economy at the time of China’s 2001 Protocol of Accession to the WTO.” (In fairness, the Group has also described its recommendations as an alternative to more recent ideas, emphasizing geopolitical competition, that underlie more recent calls for U.S.-China economic decoupling.)

Most strikingly of all, although Group members clearly would like to preserve as much of the WTO’s multilateral dispute-resolution system as possible (in order to preserve to the great possible extent what they remain confident are the mutual gains resulting from maximum free trade), all are now on record as backing both the United States and China dealing with certain high priority issues “bilaterally outside the WTO framework initially, with subsequent WTO-compliance then achieved through the application of various WTO ‘flexibilities,’ or, in the case of new areas such as digital trade, through the development of new WTO norms.”

And despite the above qualifications to outside-the-WTO bilateralism, the references to “WTO ‘flexibilities’” and to “developing new WTO norms,” can only shrink the trade body’s role and legally accepted authority over the trade policies of both countries.

Unfortunately, the new Working Group report isn’t entirely a good news story for critics of pre-Trump China trade policies – mainly because it says so little about operational details, and what little is said is so unconvincing. For example, it uses a “buckets of policies” methodology to identify practices that the two countries (and the world trade system as a whole) should agree to prohibit or forswear, and practices that all parties concerned should be permitted in the name of sovereignty in general and economic development objectives more specifically.

But even keeping in mind the Group’s recognition that it work is only a start down this road, the suggested standards they propose for classifying practices as permissable and not seem hopelessly subjective. Even regarding rules they consider relatively uncontroversial, what will be the real world difference between “policies [that] cause harm to [another] country…without necessarily taking on a beggar-thy-neighbor character or entailing global economic losses” on the one hand, and on the other, policies that cause harm to another country that do take on a beggar-thy-neighbor character?

Similarly, in terms of the more controversial situations they explore, what’s the real world difference between “cases where Country A’s policies have adverse implications for Country B, but the harm is the incidental consequence of, and not the primary motivation for, those policies” and cases where the harm isn’t incidental and/or the primary motive?

And within these areas, huge definitional questions loom just as large. Like what kinds of compensation for various trade-related offenses will be deemed “adequate” and what kinds of responses considered “well-calibrated”?

The calibration point also brings up another problem never squarely faced by the Group to begin with: What’s the verification mechanism? That’s an especially important omission given China’s long record of violating official commitments. To date, if anyone’s thought of an answer that can adequately safeguard legitimate American interests other than reserving that authority unilaterally to Washington, they’ve very effectively kept it secret.

Moreover, the Group’s approach can be faulted for failing to recognize the systemic nature of China’s assault both on even minimally free market-oriented norms. “Well-calibrated domestic policy adjustments” and “proportionate and well-targeted” remedies sound great until the ease with which China’s vast and secretive bureaucracy can reorganize and rename offending entities is considered.

In fact, the Group seems to try to define the systemic nature of the China threat out of existence, touting the “advantage” created by its framework of “encouraging each country to refrain from aggregating the other’s extraterritorially injurious policies into a single grievance and to refrain from amalgamating extraterritorially injurious policies with other, non-economic concerns.”

Such aggregation is precisely what’s needed to deal with the China challenge satisfactorily from a U.S. standpoint, and avoid being drawn into the mug’s game of responding to offending Chinese behavior episodically.

Moreover, for all the potential benefits of delinking lower from higher hanging fruit, delinking economic concerns and strategic concerns created by Chinese transgressions clashes with the Group’s own recognition of the emergence and multiplication of “dual use” technologies with civilian and crucial military applications.

This U.S.-China Trade Policy Working Group deserves credit for breaking out of some dangerously outdated academic and policy molds. But compared with the growth of the Chinese threat, and the extent to which the economic decoupling it seeks in part to avoid is already proceeding, its work is way behind the times.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Offshoring Lobby Admits Americans are Standing Tall in the China Trade War

Tags

2020 elections, capex, Charles Koch, China, CNBC.com, consumers, Democrats, inflation, manufacturing, national security, recession, slowdown, Trade, trade war, Trump, Xi JInPing, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Another trade war myth bites the dust! And its demise is especially big news, given that its killers are some of the leading myth-makers.

Specifically, as reported by CNBC,com, top officials of a major lobbying campaign aimed at forcing President Trump to overturn his tariff-heavy trade policies, and in particular, to make nice with China, have openly admitted that the ace-in-the-hole they thought they held turned out to be joker. According to a CNBC posting yesterday, the political network funded partly by billionaire libertarian Charles Koch has concluded that their efforts to restore the pre-Trump, offshoring-happy, U.S. trade policy status quo have failed because it completely misread the American public’s willingness to pay an economic price for combating China’s trade predation.

This news comes on the heels of ongoing evidence that, contrary to widespread predictions from economists, think tank hacks, globalist politicians, and the Mainstream Media reporters who keep taking their cues from all these trade zealots, raging American inflation has not been ignited, business investment has not been paralyzed, domestic manufacturing has not suffered a death blow (though it’s been in a shallow recession for a year), and the economy has not plunged into recession (though growth has slowed).

The advertising-focused Koch drive sought to convince President Trump to back off his strategy of trade pressure by exploiting the selfishness of U.S. consumers in particular and the supposed vulnerabilities of the U.S. political system. The apparent central assumptions (and they’ll be familiar to anyone who’s been following Mainstream Media coverage of trade issues): Affluent, and indeed spoiled, Americans have much less tolerance for economic pain than their long impoverished Chinese counterparts; and China’s dictators will find it much easier to resist any public pressure that did develop than American leaders. Therefore, the Koch operatives reasoned, stoking fears that Mr. Trump’s tariffs would supercharge retail prices in particular and kill jobs by prompting retaliatory Chinese measures and slumping American capital spending would set off a political firestorm that the President would need to extinguish if he hoped to win reelection.

But at a briefing it held in New York City yesterday, a Koch official told reporters that “The argument that, you know, the tariffs are adding a couple thousand dollars to the pickup truck that you’re buying is not persuasive. It doesn’t penetrate with the people that are willing to go along with the argument that you have to punish China.”

Nor did the Koch campaign make this decision lightly. The CNBC.com piece noted that “the network came to this conclusion after conducting weekly focus groups on trade policies.” Also cited in the post was a recent national poll showing that “63% of registered voters believe tariffs will ultimately hurt the United States more than China, but 67% of the electorate is convinced it’s necessary to confront China over its trade practices.”

In other words, the American public is wiser and more farsighted than the U.S-owned businesses that have worked overtime to help strengthen the Chinese economy – including by voluntarily transferring to the Chinese the technology they need to upgrade their mechanisms of repression and modernize their military. And everyday Americans are much smarter than those companies that China has begun victimizing once Beijing concluded they’d outlived their usefulness, but that keep hoping against hope that enough boot-licking will save their corporate skins in the Chinese market. Because the American public evidently understands that U.S. prosperity and national security alike require reversing these China-enabling policies, and that slightly more expensive imports from China are a small price to pay for preserving and achieving these goals.

Ironically, the poll indicates that the Koch campaign (along with similar efforts) has succeeded in one respect: It represents some evidence that Americans believe that their country is more vulnerable to a trade war than China – even though the Chinese economy is much more trade dependent, and even though, as noted above, the United States keeps growing (albeit more slowly), and its overall inflation remains subdued by any reasonable standard.

Maybe that’s why the Koch network says it’s far from giving up, and is considering delivering the same message with different tactics. Two seem especially promising to these Friends of China:

>“putting together a team of almost 100 business leaders to call on the Trump administration and lawmakers to end the trade war with China”; and

>educating “100,000 activists in at least 35 states about the potential negative impact of using tariffs to battle China. Those volunteers will then be expected to start reaching out to their congressional leaders. The network hopes these activists can convince lawmakers on Capitol Hill to stand up against the administration’s current trade policy. The latest phase of the Koch campaign is expected to cost the network millions of dollars.”

Of course, short of a major economic downturn, if the Koch network has already established that the public is rejecting its advertising-carried China fear-mongering, it’s unclear why President Trump would be more responsive to the 100 business leaders than he’s been to date? And why would most Members of Congress not already backing China coddling pay more much attention to the 100,000 activists?

That’s a question that also needs to be asked by some other major actors in the U.S.-China trade war: the majority of current Democratic presidential candidates, who clearly believe that there’s lots of voter China-related trade whining that they can turn into votes, and ultimately into victory over Mr. Trump; and Chinese dictator Xi Jinping himself, who just as clearly believes that if the President is defeated, he’ll be back to dealing with Uncle Sucker on trade – and so many other fronts.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real Deal with that U.S.-China Decoupling

Tags

China, decoupling, national security, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

“Decoupling” is a word that’s started to pervade news reports and commentary about the U.S.-China trade war. And it’s even at long last been mentioned as a possible goal by President Trump. So this seems like a good time to explain what it really means, and why it’s strongly in both American economic and security interests.

Simply put, decoupling refers to the idea (which I’ve strongly endorsed) that the United States should start disengaging from the Chinese economy. It’s based on the conviction that the closer bilateral commercial ties that have developed between the two countries since China’s economic reform efforts began in the mid-1980s – and that have been avidly sought by U.S. Presidents and lawmakers from both major political parties – have backfired disastrously. They’ve not only greatly strengthened the military power of an increasingly belligerent dictatorship. They’ve also needlessly damaged America’s domestic “real economy” (the businesses and their employees that produce everyday goods and services in the United States – as opposed to the fortunes of the multinational corporations that make goods in China, and of the American financial sector).

In addition, as I’ve explained, major economists have written (albeit in veiled terms) that the grossly lopsided nature of U.S.-China trade and consequently capital flows helped set the stage for the near-global economic meltdown experienced in 2007 and 2008, and the ensuing worst economic downturn suffered by Americans since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Of course, it would be great if Washington and Beijing could reach a trade deal that solved all these problems, or even greatly mitigated them. But as I’ve also explained, verification problems render this goal impossible. China’s record of violating agreements is simply too long, and its government (including the state-owned and controlled entities that dominate China’s economy) is simply too big and too secretive to warrant any realistic hope that Chinese compliance could be monitored effectively.

So since decades of experience now demonstrate overall that mutually beneficial trade and investment with China simply isn’t possible – at least under this regime in Beijing – the only logical alternative is to start loosening ties. Just as important, as I’ve documented, decoupling has already begun and proceeded to a noteworthy extent.

As a result, the questions before American leaders now entail how much further such disengagement should continue, where it should be actively encouraged, and where – if any place – American policy should try to slow it down or at least try to preserve the status quo.

One of the big arguments against decoupling holds that American businesses (and their employers) can’t afford to deemphasize China because its own domestic market has become so enormous, and because growth potential remains considerable. A related point: China boasts manufacturing strengths for which companies that produce in China for its own or foreign markets (including America’s) simply can’t find adequate substitutes.

But these claims overlook some crucial realities about U.S.-China trade. For example, few U.S.-based businesses export from the United States to the Chinese consumer market. After all, it’s been decades since consumer goods have represented domestic U.S. manufacturing’s strong point, and those firms that remain prominent in the field have long been supplying the Chinese market mainly from China itself.

Moreover, other major exceptions to this rule (like Boeing wide-body airliners, and advanced semiconductors) sell the Chinese products China simply can’t yet make itself. That’s why such aircraft haven’t been tariff-ed by Beijing – and won’t be for the foreseeable future. And even though the Chinese could in principle replace their Boeing purchases by buying from Europe’s Airbus, the result would be complete Chinese dependence on a single source for this crucial product – a situation China rightly seems determined to avoid.

Motor vehicles, interestingly, are another major American consumer export to China – and the PRC is now the world’s largest automotive market as well as the top customer for General Motors and the second biggest for Ford in terms of vehicles sold. But if you look at these firms’ financial statements, you see that the former makes little money in China, and Ford is actually operating at a loss.

Just as important, U.S. and other foreign automotive manufacturers urgently need to come to grips with China’s ultimate intentions – not to remain dependent on non-Chinese products and services one moment longer than necessary. That’s why China remains such a huge extorter and outright thief of intellectual property. Its national business model is to welcome foreign capital in sectors where China has an inadequate presence, use the funds to create one, strong-arm or steal the knowhow to get up to foreign standards, and then spit out non-Chinese firms ASAP.

And China’s apparent rationale (so far) has looked completely reasonable. The country represents one-sixth of humanity, it’s full of smart people. Why should it rely on foreign supplies of anything longer than necessary? Even better – foreign firms and governments, including pre-Trump America’s have seemed all too willing to help out.

As for the tech companies, national security now clearly means that the United States can no longer afford to enable them to supply Chinese entities like telecoms giant Huawei with the chips needed to run their systems. So it’s time to tighten their ties with leading non-Chinese competitors like Nokia and Ericsson, and over the longer term, pitch in and make sure that there’s a major U.S. presence in such internet and global communications markets once again.

Moreover, no one should be deterred by warnings that such decoupling would fracture the global internet. China’s censorship and privacy-threatening practices have already made that outcome inevitable – at least if American leaders take free speech and privacy concerns seriously. And if other countries want to cast their lot with the Chinese, and expose their populations to these Chinese threats, good riddance and good luck to them. They were never likely to be reliable customers for U.S.-based companies anyway.

It’s also necessary to debunk the anti-decoupling claim that the tech companies, and especially the semiconductor manufacturers, earn most of their global profits in China, and as a result would face disaster if much more decoupling takes place. The basis of this claim is the outsized share of their global profits these firms book in China. But an accounting illusion is at work here.

The tech firms book profits in China whenever they sell a computer chip (often assembled, packaged, and tested in China) other product to a China-based assembly plant for computers or smartphones, etc. And the scale of these recorded profits results of course from China’s current dominance of global electronics product assembly. But in a large percentage of cases, the final demand for these goods isn’t China – it’s overseas. And much of that demand of course is American. That’s why more than half of the semiconductors China buys from overseas (including from U.S.-based facilities) get re-exported as parts of final products.

Clearly, the Chinese themselves buy lots of these consumer electronics, too. But their importance is just as clearly overestimated, and as long as firms like Intel and Qualcomm keep making products the Chinese can’t match, their China-based so-called back end semiconductor operations should remain viable.  In that vein, they’d have better odds of preserving their competitive positions if they stopped voluntarily transferring technology and even investing in Chinese-owned tech entities. And even if Mr. Trump’s tariffs help shift much electronics assembly out of China, those operations will still need U.S.-brand insides.

The anti-decouplers are right to argue that both U.S. consumers and businesses still rely on huge flows of low-cost imports of China to help stretch their paychecks and to maintain their global competitiveness. But although China’s ability to produce shoes and toys and clothing and consumer electronics remains peerless, and will not be duplicated easily or immediately elsewhere, that’s no reason to believe that China’s advantages will endure indefinitely.

As widely reported, companies in these industries are already leaving, or planning to leave, China in substantial numbers. Yes, bottlenecks have emerged in alternative production platforms like Vietnam. But if what most Americans believe about economics is true, the new demand will create its own supply – and the businesses involved will have plenty of incentive to make the shifts as quickly as possible.

Even better, decoupling could help Americans solve the pressing problems they face from the economic woes of their hemispheric neighbors. As I’ve written, flows of illegal aliens and drugs could be staunched if the United States prioritized regionalizing its trade arrangements and overhauling the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) even further to turn North America (including Central America) into a trade bloc – thereby fostering more job creation, development, and prosperity generally.

The role played by Chinese parts, components, and materials in American domestic manufacturing, meanwhile, has been seriously misunderstood. First, since many of these products are fairly capital- and technology-intensive, they’re goods in which domestic producers should be fully competitive, and would be but for massive Chinese government subsidies that depress the China price. Offsetting these subsidies with trade curbs, therefore, would create a huge new opportunity to supercharge domestic American manufacturing and employment.

Second, there’s evidence that the widespread use of these Chinese intermediates is exacting a big long-term cost on U.S.-based manufacturing, by knee-capping its productivity growth. For as I’ve shown, the productivity data indicate that the widespread availability of these artificially cheap products has undermined domestic firms’ incentives to increase their efficiency by developing new and better products and especially processes.

Finally, Chinese direct investment plays a similarly distorting role in the American economy by permitting the presence of government-owned or controlled entities that simply aren’t responsive to pricing signals. If Americans really believe that markets, and their entire economy, work best when participants enjoy the maximum freedom to discover prices and thereby create the optimal terms for competition, a big Chinese footprint is the last thing they should want. And because the United States is having no problem creating its own capital or attracting it elsewhere from abroad, this Chinese presence clearly isn’t needed. It should, additionally, go without saying that any Chinese investment in any U.S. tech or advanced manufacturing companies should be verboten for national security reasons alone.

None of this is to say that U.S.-China decoupling can or should be complete. In fact, the success of Starbucks and, more recently, Costco in China indicate that American consumer companies will continue doing well in the PRC as long as they maintain strong brands (although a Chinese rival is challenging the former). And short-term costs are inevitable when disruption of an immense bilateral economic relationship is on the table. 

But the verdict has long been in: Greater U.S. engagement with the Chinese economy has failed on an epic scale for American prosperity and national security. If the United States wants to avoid the ever greater dangers of continuing endlessly down this road, President Trump should treat decoupling as his top China economic policy priority.         

Im-Politic: China Experts Who Obviously Ain’t

Tags

China, experts, foreign policy, Im-Politic, national security, Reuters, Trade

The United States has to be the only country on earth (excepting dictatorships with no respect for facts or the truth) in which individuals who have been massively wrong on major issues can be considered “experts.” Think that’s wrong or overstated? Then how do you explain this recent Reuters report on a draft letter apparently signed by dozens of specialists on China policy?

Over the weekend, the news agency ran an item contending that “Scores of Asia specialists, including former U.S. diplomats and military officers, want President Donald Trump to rethink policies that ‘treat China as an enemy,’ warning the approach could hurt U.S. interests and the global economy, according to a draft” seen by reporters Michael Martina and Jonathan Landay.

The letter, intended for Mr. Trump and members of Congress, states that the roughly 80 signers (more are being sought) are “very deeply troubled by Beijing’s recent behavior….”

More specifically, “The Chinese government’s increase in domestic repression and control over private companies, ‘its failure to live up to its trade commitments, greater efforts to control foreign opinion and more aggressive foreign policy’ are ‘serious challenges for the rest of the world,’” according to the draft and some Reuters paraphrasing.

But as is typical of much China-related commentary lately, the signers “also believe that many U.S. actions are contributing to the downward spiral in relations….”

Reportedly, the letter continues, “U.S. efforts to treat China as an enemy and decouple it from the global economy will damage America’s international role and reputation and undermine the economic interests of all nations. The U.S. fear that Beijing will replace the U.S. as the global leader is exaggerated.”

That last claim underscores what’s most absurd about this whole exercise – and about taking it as a serious commentary about the Trump China approach. It’s perfectly legitimate – and necessary – to debate how the United States should handle the multi-dimensional China challenge. But the idea that the group of signatories described here has anything worthwhile to contribute, much less that its collective experience entitles it to a special hearing, flunks the laugh test by miles.

For although only two signers were named in the Reuters piece, it’s a safe bet that exactly none of them, during their long years and even decades of public service, predicted China’s spectacular rise to date – at least not on a remotely timely basis. Had they detected this possibility and alerted policymakers, does anyone seriously think that American policy would have continued literally showering wealth and advanced (often defense-related) technology on China? Not unless you believe the entire U.S. China-related policy establishment had been completely bought off by Chinese interests. (Ahem!)

Especially nutty is the contention that “The current U.S. response, however, is counterproductive because by treating China as an existential national security threat, it weakens the influence of moderates in Beijing who know that ‘a cooperative approach with the West serves China’s interests.’”

For if anything has been sadly clear about American foreign policymaking in recent decades, it’s that Washington’s ability to identify moderates and other factions inside dictatorships, and to manipulate them to promote or defend U.S. interests, is exactly zilch. (Google “Iran Contra affair” and “Ngo Dinh Nhu” if you’re unfamiliar with those two especially important and pathetic examples.)

But one ray of hope did emerge from this Reuters story: It’s not clear when the final version will be released. That creates the possibility that the signers will recognize how uniquely unqualified they are to offer anyone China policy advice, and have the good sense to keep their incompetent (at best) mouths shut.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy? Did Trump Trade National Security for Soybeans with China?

Tags

agriculture, China, election 2016, election 2020, export controls, extradition, farmers, G20, G20 Summit, Huawei, Meng Wangzhou, national security, Osaka G20 Summit, rural areas, soybeans, tariffs, technology, telecommunications, Trade, trade war, Trump, Xi JInPing, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Did President Trump sell U.S. national security down the river at his meeting with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping in order to make American farmers happy and, he hopes, ensure his reelection? Could be – even though there’s still much that’s not known about the U.S.-China deal reached between the two leaders on the sideline of a big international economic summit meeting in Osaka. In fact, I haven’t even seen any official U.S. government documents describing the agreement in detail. (A further complication: Whatever official Chinese documents come out describing the deal could differ significantly from the American portrayal.)

At the same time, I’ll venture that the major, and from the U.S. standpoint, urgently, needed course change in China policy begun by Mr. Trump hasn’t yet been altered fundamentally. And I still don’t consider that outcome likely, even though events of the last few days reveal that some important loopholes in America’s approach need to be closed, pronto. 

From what I can glean from the just-released official White House transcript of the President’s Osaka press conference is that (as I predicted), Mr. Trump and Xi agreed to resume formally negotiations that fell apart in early May, apparently because China began reneging on commitments it had already made. The quid pro quo that seems to have revived the talks evidently comes down to this:

The President agreed to refrain from imposing threatened tariffs on U.S. imports from China that don’t already face duties or new duties (a little more than half of Chinese goods entering the American market fall into this category), and to make it easier for American tech companies to sell, seemingly on an ongoing basis, parts and components vitally needed by Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei.

In return, China agreed to boost greatly purchases of agricultural products that it had all but shut out of its own large market to retaliate for Trump tariffs, thereby denying U.S. farmers major rivers (not just streams) of revenue. Since rural America went so notably for Mr. Trump in 2016, the political appeal of that approach is easy to see.

The chief uncertainty remaining: What exactly will Huawei be able to buy from U.S. firms? The issue is crucially important to China because, notwithstanding its commanding position in many global markets for advanced telecommunications systems, these Huawei products still depend vitally on information technology hardware and software from American-owned tech companies that have no adequate (if any) substitutes from other suppliers. And if, as was likely, Huawei suffered major damage because these U.S.-origin goods and services weren’t available, a major blow would be dealt to China’s ambitions to gain preeminence in a wide range of advanced technologies – and turn itself into a military superpower in the process.

Factors contributing to the uncertainty? To start, the so-called U.S. ban on selling to Huawei wasn’t technically a ban. It was an announcement that any proposed U.S. sales to Huawei needed to be approved by the American government because Huawei had been placed on a list of “entities” deemed dangerous to U.S. national security. So in principle, some American firms’ products and services could still be sold to Huawei (and several dozen affiliated entities also added to the list). But presumably, the truly valuable inputs would be denied.

Second, President Trump told the Osaka press conference that Huawei would only be permitted to buy from American-owned business “equipment where there’s not a great national-emergency problem with it.” That’s somewhat comforting, but only somewhat. The reasons? First, there’s reason to believe that, even before the Trump-Xi agreement, Huawei could have bought even equipment that did raise national security concerns as long as those computer chips or whatever else consisted mainly of foreign content (which is often the case because production of these goods has become so globalized, and because – irony alert! – some of the non-U.S. content now comes from China itself).

That qualification was shaping up as a huge problem because, if it’s present, then Huawei would still retain access to many of the high tech products it needs; and because the result could be even stronger incentives for American high tech companies to manufacture and develop even more of their most sophisticated offering offshore, including in China.

Third, as Mr. Trump specified, Huawei has not been taken off the “bad entities” list. Nor has there been any change in the U.S. extradition request to Canada for Meng Wangzhou, the CFO of Huawei (and daughter of its founder) to enable her trial for violating America’s export control laws. Why, then, do anything to make life easier for this entity?

Fourth, the Huawei-centric nature of this policy could signal that the President is falling into a China policy trap: Assuming that measures focused on specific entities (remember: nothing in China that’s routinely called a “business” or “company” deserves that label, in terms of how they’re used in most of the rest of the world, because China’s economy is so thoroughly controlled by the state) are adequate to cope with the intertwined China tech and national security challenge.

In fact, such episodic approaches seem doomed to fail because the China challenge is a systemic challenge. The exact names of specific instruments comprising this China challenge don’t matter in the slightest. For instance – let’s say that a truly total Huawei ban did sink this organization. In time, what’s to stop Beijing from simply slapping another name on the same units, facilities, and employees? Would Americans really want their government to have to wait to impose an embargo on this new entity until it began endangering their national security? Wouldn’t it be much better to understand that every Chinese entity big enough to be permitted by the Chinese government to play in global markets is by definition an agent of Beijing’s and of its (distinctly dangerous) ambitions? And to treat the Chinese high tech sector – for starters – accordingly?

As for the Chinese promises of greater imports of U.S. farm products, they’re problematic, too, even if Beijing does keep its promises. Hopefully, American farmers will be smart enough to respond in a measured way, not by simply assuming that they’ve won a free pass back into China forever, and recklessly supercharging and distorting their planting patterns to satisfy this new demand (as was the case especially for soybeans). Instead, hopefully, they’ve learned that Beijing can close the doors whenever it wants to – and that President Trump is kind of mercurial itself.

The President also could well be selling his agricultural record short. For although farmers clearly don’t like the Chinese tariffs on their exports prompted by the Trump levies, they also no doubt recognize how they’ve benefited from his tax and regulatory policies. And those that are culturally and socially conservative probably like what they hear from the President on those subjects – and/or don’t like many Democrats’ statements. Finally, the passage of the Trump administration’s revamp of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) deal could ease many farmers’ trade worries. 

In fact, the volatile Trump temperament – and his reelection hopes – look like the best guarantors that this shortsighted high-tech-for-soybeans trade-off won’t last long. Because the main obstacle to the kind of overarching trade deal the President still talks about still remains – the impossibility of verifying China’s compliance adequately. So the longer the Chinese hold out, and deny the President the chance he so clearly covets to claim a big victory, the more irritated with them he’s likely to become, and the greater the odds that some hammer comes down again.

Moreover, if the overall American economy and especially its manufacturing sector wind up slowing down, as some key indicators already suggest they are, increases in tariffs on Chinese manufactures could be the difference between Trump victories in the manufacturing-heavy Midwest states that (narrowly) helped key his 2016 triumph, and defeats.

In addition, it’s critically important to note that the Chinese products still facing tariffs are much more important to China’s economic future than the products that remain entirely or largely duty-free. That’s because the first group overwhelmingly consists of parts and components of industrial products that in turn are pretty advanced goods themselves. They’re the kinds of products that matter crucially to America’s industrial future as well.

So, as observed by this perceptive New York Times article, the China-links to the global supply chains that face such mortal threats from these tariffs still remain endangered, and the more-than-decent odds that these levies will remain in place, and even get raised further, will surely keep prompting multinational companies the world over to move at least partly out of China. And any developments that weaken China economically are by definition good for the United States.

Moreover, despite widespread predictions that Trump tariffs on these so-called intermediate goods would wind up raising consumer prices because their corporate buyers would need to pass along the tariffs’ cost to their final customers, little of such inflation has emerged, for numerous reasons I’ve written on previously.

By contrast, the still un-tariffed goods are consumer goods – like shoes and toys and apparel and consumer electronics products. For various reasons I’ve written about, their prices weren’t likely to budge much even with new Trump tariffs. But for now, the President has foreclosed any such possibility completely. The only drawback for the United States to leaving these goods largely duty-free – because they’re generally very labor-intensive products, they employ unusually large numbers of Chinese workers – is that any movement of production from China to anywhere else (even even it’s Chinese companies themselves doing the moving) would result in greatly increased Chinese unemployment. The regime has long viewed high joblessness as a mortal threat to its survival. So China’s labor-intensive industries, and by extension China’s dictators, have been let off the hook, too.

In all, then, so far it seems fair to conclude that President Trump handed the Chinese some genuinely important concessions in exchange for precious little from Beijing. But it’s also distinctly possible that this trade-off makes so little sense economically, national security-wise, and politically, that it will badly flunk the test of time. And at least as important, nothing in its seems capable of stopping or even greatly slowing the U.S.-China economic disengagement that, as I’ve written, is bound to serve America’s long-term interests, and that’s already underway.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: U.S. Companies Keep Feeding the China Tech Beast

Tags

AI, artificial intelligence, Bloomberg.com, China, hacking, Karen Weise, Microsoft, national security, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Paul Mozur, technology, technology transfer, The New York Times, Trump

Wow! This was quite the revealing – and disturbing – nugget buried in a recent New York Times article about American tech companies’ trials and tribulations in China! According to reporters Paul Mozur and Karen Weise, Microsoft’s “long-established research and development center has turned out valuable products and launched the careers of a generation of artificial-intelligence experts who have started important new companies in China.”

Mozur and Weise mentioned this Microsoft activity in order to make the important point that even companies, like the Seattle software giant, that have bent over backwards to remain viable in China by keeping Beijing happy in various ways seem to be fighting a losing battle. For even these firms are falling victim to China’s persistent desire to replace them in the country’s huge market with Chinese rivals.

But the reference to Microsoft’s artificial intelligence operations could well matter more to the United States because it underscores a point I made several years ago in a Bloomberg.com op-ed that bears on American national security: For decades, U.S. tech companies have been transferring to Chinese entities cutting edge knowhow that has greatly strengthened Beijing’s ability to endanger key American interests. It’s the price they need to pay to keep playing in the Chinese market. But whatever the commercial justification, and whether these transfers are voluntary, coerced, or somewhere in between (including the training of China’s tech workforce), they’ve too long been neglected by American policymakers.

My Bloomberg piece focused on technologies related to cyberhacking – where transfers ironically were coming back to bite the U.S. tech firms themselves. Since then, in several posts for RealityChek, I’ve covered tech transfer that’s handing China more conventional advanced defense-related knowhow. (See, e.g., here and here.)

But artificial intelligence-related operations push the threat to an entirely new level. For these capabilities will likely be the biggest game-changers in national security for decades, and Washington is already so alarmed by the progress China has made that many specialists worry that Beijing could soon forge ahead. Nearly as troubling: The more such tech American companies keep handing over to the Chinese, the closer China gets to self-sufficiency – the point at which it won’t need American assistance anymore.

The Trump administration rightly keeps calling attention to China’s growing technological prowess and the resulting dangers to the United States, and even many long-time supporters of the reckless pre-Trump China engagement policies are starting to agree.

But tariffs to punish predatory Chinese policies aimed at building tech dominance, and curbs on Chinese tech investments in the U.S. economy are necessary, not sufficient responses. The above linked Financial Times article indicates the administration now recognizes need to staunch the flow of advanced knowhow to China by American companies. But every minute new curbs are delayed, the United States will keep feeding the beast.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The U.S. Public Opinion Gap isn’t Only Partisan

Tags

alliances, America First, climate change, Democrats, globalism, Immigration, Jobs, national security, nuclear deterrence, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Pew Research Center, Republicans, terrorism, Trump, weapons of mass destruction

A recent (November 29) Pew Research Center poll on public attitudes toward foreign policy issues was a classic good news/bad news story – at least if you believe that the top priority of American foreign policy should be to promote the security and well-being of the American people.

On the one hand, that’s pretty much what the results show – that’s the good news. On the other hand, these commonsense positions prevail overwhelmingly because adults viewing themselves as either Republicans or Republican leaners hold them. That’s the bad news.  In other words, the views of Democrats and those leaning Democratic reveal a marked disregard for their nation’s self-preservation and prosperity.

According to Pew, 72 percent of all Americans say that “taking measures to protect the U.S. from terrorism” should “be a top foreign policy priority,” 71 percent would assign the same priority to “protecting jobs of American workers,” and 66 percent regard “preventing the spread” of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with similar urgency.

But now check out the partisan splits: On the terrorism issue, fully 84 percent of Republicans and their leaners regard it as a top foreign policy priority. Only 61 percent of Democrats and their leaners agree. So much, i.e., for the idea that Americans will never forget September 11. And remember – the question only described protection from terrorism as a top priority, not the top foreign policy priority.

On protecting American workers’ jobs, 81 percent of Republicans and their leaners would treat it as a priority, versus only 65 percent of Democrats and their leaners. I’m old enough to remember when the Democrat called themselves the party of working Americans.

The exception here is preventing the spread of WMD: Fewer (64 percent of Republicans and their leaners see it as a major priority than do Democrats and their leaners (68 percent), but these results are very close.

Many of the other Pew poll findings are not the slightest bit surprising. Principally, the biggest partisan divides on foreign policy issues come on “dealing with global climate change,” “reducing illegal immigration into the U.S.,” and “maintaining U.S. military advantage over all other countries.”

But here’s what’s more surprising. The Democrats, and especially their leaders, have enthusiastically assumed the mantle of globalism champions versus President Trump’s proclaimed America First approach. And a hallmark of globalism, whether on the right or the left ends of the national political spectrum, has been international activism. Liberals and conservatives generally disagree on where to place the emphasis (e.g., emerging transnational issues like climate change and migration versus more traditional security-oriented issues), but energetic engagement is favored by all.

Nonetheless, if you look carefully at the Pew results, Democrats and their leaners would place the “top priority” label on relatively few foreign policy issues. Indeed, only one such candidate for this status reaches the 70 percent mark with these groups – “improving relationships with allies.” And only four issues are seen as top priorities by 60 or more percent of Democrats and their leaners – as stated above, WMD (68 percent), protecting American jobs (65 percent), climate change (64 percent) and terrorism (61 percent). 

Overall, then, it’s easy to conclude from these and other findings in the Pew poll that Democrats and their leaners may be globalists, but they’re globalists who don’t seem to regard overseas-related challenges with overwhelming concern. Alternatively, they’re reluctant to support zeroing in on a limited (and arguably more manageable) set of goals. P.S., the relatively low score for climate change seems especially noteworthy given the importance progressive Democrats and others relatively far to the Left have attached to the idea of a “Green New Deal.”

It’s even easier to conclude that Republicans and their leaners are more committed to an America First-type approach. And it looks like this commitment is somewhat stronger. Their highest priority foreign policy issues are the aforementioned terrorism and job protection – where their priority scores are in the 80s percent. And their next three priorities are maintaining a national military edge (70 percent), reducing illegal immigration (68 percent), and preventing WMD spread (64 percent). For good measure, “getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order” comes in at 56 percent.

However revealing these Pew results, they still left out two of the biggest questions for politicians and others trying to surmise which approaches to U.S. foreign policy, and what specific initiatives, would garner the most and least public support. The first is how genuine political independents view these issues. The second is how high a priority is assigned to preventing a nuclear attack on the U.S. homeland.

The importance attached to halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction points to great concern about this challenge. But the strong support expressed by Democrats and their leaners for shoring up America’s alliance relations indicates an especially serious lack of awareness on their part that indiscriminately extending nuclear umbrellas over U.S. allies has greatly increased the odds of such attack (principally from the newish NATO commitments to the highly vulnerable Baltic states, and the longstanding commitment to protect South Korea from North Korea and its new nuclear capabilities).

Of course, these Americans can’t entirely be blamed for this knowledge gap, as both U.S. leaders and the mainstream media continue to work overtime to mask the – growing – nuclear war risks inherent in the nation’s alliance system. (President Trump has been only a partial exception.) Hopefully 2019 will see some explicit, intellectually honest discussion of these dangers – and well before they reach critical mass.

Im-Politic: Has a Major U.S. Economist Secretly Been in China’s Pocket?

Tags

China, donors, economists, globalization, Huawei, Im-Politic, Isaac Stone Fish, Jeffrey D. Sachs, national security, Project Syndicate, technology, telecommunications, think tanks, trade war, Trump, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Washington Post

I’ve always been skeptical of claims that money explains everything about where prominent folks stand on policy debates. Sure, money talks loudly, and that’s why, for example, I’ve so consistently reported on how leading U.S. think tanks are lavishly funded by corporate interests (e.g., here) and even by foreign governments (e,g, here) with huge stakes in matters on which they regularly comment, such as trade and globalization issues.

But I’ve believed that for the most part, their positions are also at least partly sincerely held – reflecting either an inability even to question what they’ve learned in school, or the power of group-think in their professional and social circles (inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway in particular these realms tend to overlap substantially), their honest convictions, and typically some combination of the above.

I still refuse automatically to write off analysts who disagree with me as simple donors’ mouthpieces, but a recent incident has reminded me that – in the words of a close long-time friend – when seeking to understand political behavior, the most cynical explanation is rarely wrong.

The story begins with an article on the Project Syndicate website – a sort of digital global op-ed page (which, to be sure, overwhelmingly publishes writers with globalist/establishment viewpoints) – by economist Jeffrey D. Sachs.

Sachs is a world-renowned figure in his field, but as with many of his colleagues, seems to assume that mastery of conventional economic concepts translates into expertise on all other subjects. (Google “Krugman, Paul” for perhaps the leading example of this phenomenon.) So I wasn’t entirely surprised to see him writing on the recent American arrest, on sanctions-busting charges, of a senior executive from the Chinese telecommunications entity Huawei – even though he has no special credentials on China, or technology, or national security.

I was very surprised by the nature of Sachs’ attack on the U.S. action, which ran on December 11. Most criticisms of the arrest focused on whether it would escalate the U.S.-China trade war – whether because it signaled a more aggressive turn in Washington’s approach, or because it would trigger Chinese retaliation – or whether the United States ultimately could curb China’s technological development, or whether the American tech industry could continue excelling after a cutoff of its access to Chinese markets or parts and components.

But according to Sachs, the Huawei arrest mattered most because it showed that “The Trump administration, not Huawei or China, is today’s greatest threat to the international rule of law, and therefore to global peace.” That’s pretty out there given that Huawei’s largest shareholder is a Chinese telecommunications company owned outright by the Chinese state, that its close relationship with Beijing has caused governments the world over to limit its presence in their markets for national security reasons, and that the Chinese regime itself has been challenging international law, and in turn peace and security, in the South China Sea region.

Still, I was inclined to write off Sachs’ diatribe as yet another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome, or the outgrowth of idolatry of the globalization status quo fanatical enough to fuel (sincere) outrage at any development threatening to change it – e.g., President Trump’s decision to confront China’s trade predation.

As a result, I was inclined to dismiss as off-base the reaction of one of my Twitter followers to Sachs’ article: “I guess we know who is signing Jeffrey Sachs’ paycheck these days.”

So imagine my surprise when, on December 12, Washington Post columnist Isaac Stone Fish reported that Sachs had written the forward to a big report put out by Huawei in November.

Nothing necessarily improper there. Academics engage in such activities all the time. And if Sachs genuinely believes that an entity that clearly is an arm of the repressive Chinese government deserved “kudos” for “producing… a timely and clear roadmap to help governments, businesses and civil society [emphasis added] to create digital nations on the path to sustainable development,” well that’s his business.

What is massively improper has been Sachs’ reactions to Fish’s questions about Sachs’ relationship with Huawei in light of his glowing praise of the entity both in the report and in his Project Syndicate piece: “Did Huawei pay you for that [the forward]? If so, don’t you think you should disclose that?”

Rather than respond to Fish, Sachs stonewalled – in fact, going so far as to delete his Twitter account.

In the process, he not only made it difficult to avoid the conclusion that he has something to hide when it comes to Huawei. He’s also unavoidably created shadows over two respected organizations with which he’s been closely affiliated: Columbia University’s Earth Institute (which he headed between 2002 and 2016), and that Institute’s Center for Sustainable Development (which he heads now).

I’ve been looking for evidence of Huawei or other Chinese funding for these organizations, and haven’t found any yet. But that doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been any (perhaps funneled through third parties?), and that it hasn’t colored their work. Because like I said, when seeking to understand political behavior, the most cynical explanation is rarely wrong.