On July 7, 2025, The Wall Street Journal carried an article by Lingling Wei, the newspaper's China correspondent. In the hard copy edition of the paper, flung onto my front lawn in the early hours of the morning, the Journal's article was titled as follows: "Xi Prepares For A Cold War With The U.S." Online, the headline is a little different: "Xi Has Spent Decades Preparing For A Cold War With The U.S."
The basic message of the article - as presented under both headlines - is that China has learned something from the failure of the Soviet Union to win the "Cold War" that followed up on the end of World War II. Let's remember, the United States and Russia were allies in that war! According to the article, Russia tried to "win" the Cold War too soon. Instead, the United States "won." Xi is not going to make that mistake (at least not according to The Wall Street Journal):
Xi is entering trade negotiations with a grand strategy he has prepared for years—one that, according to policy advisers in Beijing, is inspired by his understanding of what the Soviet Union got wrong during the first Cold War.
Well aware of the U.S.’s continued economic and military superiority, the advisers say, Xi is seeking to avoid direct confrontation, while holding China’s ground in a protracted, all-encompassing competition.
Xi aims to achieve what Mao Zedong used to call a “strategic stalemate”—an enduring equilibrium where American pressure becomes manageable and China buys time to catch up to the U.S.
“For China, ‘strategic stalemate’ is the most realistic and preferred outcome in the foreseeable future,” said Minxin Pei, a Claremont McKenna College professor and editor of the quarterly journal China Leadership Monitor. “Strategic patience, conservation of resources and tactical flexibility will all be critical in achieving this stalemate.”
In some ways, Beijing is pursuing a sort of guerrilla warfare, sparked by Henry Kissinger’s analysis of the nature of asymmetric conflicts: “The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose” (emphasis added).
This article made me think. I came up with a different way that we could define our relationship with those nations with whom we are currently in conflict and competition. What if we found an alternative to defining our relationship with China (and other nations) in terms based on "War"? Instead of defining our relationships in terms of conflict and competition, in terms of "winners" and "losers," what if we announced a different foreign policy approach, to be presented by the United States to the world at large? What if we announced that we were now going to focus all our efforts on achieving a "Win-Win World Order"?
We would still need to be prepared to defend ourselves, I think, in case other nations didn't want to join this parade, but our announced foreign policy objectives should be defined in terms of establishing "Win-Win" achievements, involving every nation we can enlist, to: (1) bring an end to global warming, (2) restore our now-threatened natural environment, worldwide, (3) achieve food security for the entire world, (4) ensure health care for all nations, along with housing, education, and beneficial employment for every perrson in the world; last, but definitely not least, (5) start eliminating the nuclear threat that hangs over every person in the world who is alive today.
It would take a while for these objectives to be achieved, of course, and we would have to redirect our economy to focus on these collective goals, instead of aiming our economy at allowing a small number of individual persons to achieve great personal wealth. Still, in terms of being clear about what we want to do, working with others, such a "Win-Win" agenda for the world makes a lot more sense to me than continued warfare while the planet burns up.
After World War II, the United States assumed a global leadership position, and a lot of good things happened - things of which we can be justifiably proud. Now, how about shifting gears, leading the world to work on what every human being alive would like to see?
I am no foreign policy expert. Still, if the biggest country in the world (China) is planning for a decades-long conflict with the United States, with the objective of "winning," why don't we propose collaboration instead of conflict, and try to work out international arrangements what are aimed at "Win-Win"?
This is sort of the opposite approach to that now being taken by our current president, and it's just a thought - but it's a pretty good thought, and we could do it!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!