After human rights, now tariffs as a weapon

Listen to article

Since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the US security establishment has consistently sought to exert pressure on the Communist China. Historically, this strategy has primarily involved human rights violations, demonisation of the Chinese Communist Party and economic coercion.

While the aggressive approach adopted by President Donald Trump has undoubtedly had negative consequences, it has also reinforced a fundamental reality: the US maintains a deep-seated conviction that China will always be perceived as a rival, if not an enemy. Trump's bullying tactics, which have reportedly frightened many of China's allies and smaller nations, have challenged the Chinese national ethos rooted in self-confidence, civilisational pride and economic prowess comparable to that of a superpower.

The reasons behind this escalation can be traced back to decades of strategic communication aimed at undermining China's influence. Human rights abuses, political unrest and economic coercion were core elements of this strategy. Negative stories disseminated through American and British media served as a means of discrediting China's democratic credentials.

However, this strategy came to a halt when Israel unleashed its brutal response to Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023. The resulting loss of over 50,000 lives effectively silenced Western concerns about human rights in China. Israel's actions demonstrated a disregard for international law, effectively dismantling the Western narrative on this issue.

Stoking unrest and exploiting dissent within China's western and southern periphery has also been a component of the anti-China strategy of the US - at least since the early 1990s.

Let us first examine the current tit-for-tat exchanges between the US and China before briefly reviewing the CIA's plans to cause unrest in China's western and southern regions.

Following his controversial statements regarding China, President Trump embarked on an apparent damage control exercise on April 10, engaging in a conciliatory tone towards President Xi Jinping. I believe President Xi possesses a deep understanding of the situation and is deeply committed to the well-being of his country.

However, it is highly probable that this strategy will effectively quell the sentiment stirred by his assertive discourse on China. Furthermore, it is unlikely to diminish the lingering memories of Chairman Mao's perspective on the US. As Chen Jian, a scholar affiliated with the Wilson Center, elucidated in November 2019, Mao had already solidified the national sentiment towards the US.

"What most angered Mao was the perceived American hostility towards China and the Chinese people's perception of themselves as backward and even inferior. Consequently, the discourse of anti-US-imperialism became a central theme of extensive domestic mobilisation throughout China during the Korean War era," Chen Jian wrote.

Even in the present day, the prevailing discourse primarily draws upon Mao's narrative on the US, which emerged in the mid-1950s.

Despite the pronounced anti-US sentiment, President Xi continues to refrain from naming names while advocating for accommodation, tolerance and mutual respect.

Those who fail to recognise the prevailing trend towards openness and inclusivity risk being left behind and relegated to the annals of history, as President Xi emphasised at the Oao Forum for Asia in China's southern province of Hainan. In contrast, the Cold War and zero-sum mentality appear antiquated in the contemporary world. Arrogance or a sole focus on personal interests will yield no positive outcomes. Only peaceful development and cooperation can achieve win-win or all-win results, Xi said without any direct reference to the US counterpart.

A New York Times article published in late 1991 by Leslie H Gelbnov provided intriguing insights into the CIA's long-term strategies regarding China. It suggested that the agency contemplated employing threats of separatism as a political instrument against Beijing.

In an otherwise uneventful Foreign Affairs quarterly article by Secretary of State James Baker, a subtle yet significant sentence about China emerged. While some may dismiss it as mere observation, key Bush Administration officials interpreted it as a potential ultimate sanction - a threat to the territorial integrity of the Middle Kingdom - if Beijing leaders persist in defying new standards of global behaviour on arms sales and human rights.

The integration of China's coastal provinces with Hong Kong, Taiwan and the global economy has been facilitated by the development of a substantial free-market sector.

Gelbnov elaborated: "On the surface, this appears to be merely a statement of an intriguing fact. Chinese provinces that have embraced free enterprise have become integral to the external trading world. However, on a deeper level, it carries a profound message that could instill unease within Beijing's ruling elite. It suggests that instead of China eventually absorbing Taiwan and Hong Kong, as envisaged in various solemn agreements, the exact opposite could transpire - Taiwan and Hong Kong could potentially assimilate the southern region of China."

Although Baker never explicitly mentioned this possibility in public, the CIA appears to have given it considerable attention. Once the plans are finalised, intelligence agencies initiate their actions without involving ministerial officials.

Let us recall that this was the era when China had commenced its economic reforms under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. Subsequent events provided ample evidence of how the US establishment propagated the concerns of 'unfair trade' and 'human rights' to effectively pressure China into accepting Western principles of rights and sovereignty.

According to Leslie Gelbnov, President Bush and Secretary of State Baker appeared to be threatening Beijing with a US-led period of intense competition if China maintains its trade practices, continues to sell potentially dangerous missiles and nuclear technology and persists in its human rights abuses. These Chinese actions clearly exceed acceptable boundaries. Americans and others may resort to extraordinary measures, including inciting separatism, to counter them. However, Beijing's leaders will be gravely mistaken to believe otherwise, as Gelbnov emphasised, underscoring that such language undoubtedly resonated within the American security establishment. In essence, political blackmail, albeit disguised as concerns for rights, trade and defence hardware exports, is being employed in a cold-blooded pursuit of national interests.