Tag: U.S.A

Analysing China-US Relations Under Trump’s Second Term

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the most significant and highly complex bilateral relationships in the world today is the diplomatic relationship between the United States and China. Over the years of changing administrations and presidents, China might have come to the conclusion that US-China strategic competition is to endure, almost in similar characteristics, irrespective of who swings in the chair in the Oval Office. But certainly, Donald Trump is a president characteristically like no other. Despite the structural interests of US foreign policy that would make it predictable regardless of who the president is, there is room to analyse what Trump’s second presidency would hold out for China-US relations.

For the two countries and the entire world, cooperation between each other is paramount, lest we would have devastating implications altogether as a globe. Mismanaging China-US relations could potentially yield consequences of historically unprecedented proportions.

President Trump and President Xi Jinping’s characters are important to this analysis because of the person-centeredness of foreign policy action. Trump, and all his “isms” carries ambiguities in his foreign policy approach, and generally lacks structured placement of administrative thought to predict him as likely to hold a certain standard. His worldview is often described as transactional and business-oriented based on his entrepreneurial background. On the other hand, Xi is a man of calm, perceptive and grounded thought. He has written deeply and broadly about his world view; his commitment to a shared future for mankind, and his determination to ensure peaceful co-existence with all countries – big or small. Xi Jinping is unprejudiced by any personal political biases. His clarity of the kind of future for mankind is not selfish for China only as Trump’s is on “America First.”

In his first term, Trump pursued quite a confrontational foreign policy towards China. He rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Obama had reached with China. He waged an unprecedented tariff war against Chinese exports, negatively impacting the US’s own economy. He attempted to halt the development of Huawei’s 5G network for allegedly being a means of Chinese cyberaggression, among many other policies that caused deep friction between China-US relations.

Based on the foreign policy mistakes of the first Trump presidency, it seems he was genuinely ignorant of the reasonable fact that cooperation between the USA and China, as the world’s two largest economies, is fundamental to collective global stability.

The theory of realism is key in foreign policy analysis. It states that the state is the main unitary actor and rational actor seeking to maximize and expand its national interest and objectives, usually from the standpoint of promoting international security. The wisdom Trump requires in his second term is how to pursue the US national interests and ambitions without provoking China with the same confrontation and hostility he exhibited in his first term.

Trump and the West should make peace with a multipolar world and resist the urge to slow down the progress of countries like China and force them to respect American priorities. That world—the world where such a possibility resides—may still linger in the imagination of Western leaders, but it is now behind us.

The future of global stability is in win-win cooperation which is championed by President Xi, not President Trump’s worldview of a zero-sum approach to bilateral relations. I do not see why it should burden Western leaders to embrace Xi’s vision of the global community as sharing a common destiny where all nations benefit from cooperating instead of seeking global domination.  The ideological differences between the USA and China are becoming clearer to the world audience and more nations are starting to prefer China’s ideological policy standpoints and reading through the selfishness and unsustainability of the American self-righteous belief systems.

A state cannot have a sound foreign policy if it sits on a shaky domestic public policy. This was one of Trump’s undoings in the first term, and if he did not learn his lessons, might come to haunt him again. If his second term is also punctuated by weaknesses in domestic policy and scuffles with democrats, China is likely to enjoy more productive foreign policy. Xi Jinping is a popular leader at home and the Chinese Communist Party enjoys resounding appeal, is well-organised and disciplined. The more Trump will likely pull ropes with democrats at home, the more likely China’s Belt and Road Initiative will expand as China enjoys stability at home and respect abroad.

If Trump continues pursuing his isolationist agenda full-throttle as he did in the first term, he is likely to benefit China by driving the US’ traditional allies, especially the European Union, towards China. Many American and EU companies are already highly dependent on China’s high-scale, high-precision manufacturing prowess. In further pursuing decoupling from China, Trump will be glueing the EU economically tighter with China, because there will be less diversion of Chinese trade from the EU to the US.

So, Trump needs to understand that the EU lacks an inherent and plausible interest in geostrategically containing China. It is rather in their interest to harness a reciprocal primarily economic and technological interdependency with China based on reciprocity and jointly agreed-upon principles and rules.

Above all, as stated earlier, Trump and the Western world generally need to embrace the changes happening globally. The world is inclined towards multipolarity. The political ideologies of Western nations need to change shape, from the traditional neocolonial obsession with their own way of doing things and controlling the world to a more respectful one, like China’s commitment to peaceful co-existence and mutual respect for all the world’s nations.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Development Watch Center.

Secretary Blinken, Acknowledge China’s Positive Contribution to Africa’s Development

Posted on By Sino Uganda Research Centre

This month, United States of America’s top diplomats visited a number of African countries in what some American analysts described as Washington’s attempt to counter what the US sees as growing Sino-Africa cooperation. Secretary Anthony Blinken’s visit is the latest. It follows earlier visit by US’ Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

During the visit which included countries like South Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, Secretary Blinken unveiled the so-called U.S-Sub-Saharan Africa strategy. In his public lecture in Pretoria South Africa, Secretary Blinken praised it that it will enhance the US-African relations by creating what he called creating open societies, supporting economic cooperation, promotion of democracy and addressing climate change concerns.

Despite Secretary Blinken’s claim that “absolutely, this is about our relationships in Africa. It’s not about other geopolitical issues,” if critically analysed, not any of US diplomat in Africa or even Washington believe those talking points. Even in the little two-page executive summary of this strategy which White House released a head of Blinken’s visit, geographical issues are mentioned. It references China and Russia’s engagement in Africa.

While the US wants its Africa strategy play that Washington’s foreign policy in Africa is not driven by broader geopolitical issues, it is evident the endgame is not what works for Africa but, how can the US re-assert its failing hegemony in Africa. The 2022 US Competes Act says it all. US’ foreign policy key goal is to Counter China.

Whereas Blinken emphasized that the US will “not dictate” African countries, his diction is telling. He claimed that “African nations have been treated as instruments of other nations’ progress, rather than the authors of their own.” Of course, he was diplomatically saying leave those countries for treating you as instruments of their progress.

If we compare the US and China’s method on how the two shape their relations with African countries, the US’ method is selfish and dictatorial. It is a ‘big-brother’ affair while China’s is equal-partners style. For example, the 17page US Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa was developed without the input of African countries. On the other hand, through The Forum on China- Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), China engages African stakeholders on any initiative the country is to take. Put differently, China’s method is participatory while the US’ sort of dictates.

If we analyse recent speeches by US’ top diplomats, it is naïve one to believe the US is ready to end dictating Africa countries on how to run their foreign policies. While in Africa, US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield made this much pretty plain. While in Uganda, Linda warned African countries against dealing with Russia claiming this would be against US’ unilateral sanctions. “If a country decides to engage with Russia, where there are sanctions, then they are breaking those sanctions. And we caution countries not to break those sanctions because then, if they do, they stand the chance of having actions taken against them,” Linda warned.

During his Pretoria lecture where he elaborated US’ Sub-Saharan Africa strategy, secretary Blinken discussed what he described as Africa’s strategic importance and singled out the continent’s voting bloc in international bodies like United Nations, continents minerals, a vibrant youthful population. Blinken explained that among others, these three attributes makes Africa a priority in US’ foreign policy.

However, if critically analysed, at best, the diction of this strategy seems like some aesthetic improvements. It almost seems like its authors were trying, but they just couldn’t quite get past US’ strategic ambiguous language. Hence, it does not offer concrete commitments. In other words, it comes out as a lecture to Africa on how the continent should run its affairs.

This makes one to imagine that diplomats in the US are yet to understand global south moods.

African leaders lost interest in US lectures on the so-called values, democracy and human rights which despite preaching them, the US has spectacularly failed to live by. Blinken’s consistent presumption that African governments are autocratic is informed by what can be described as Washington’s think tanks dubious metrics in defining what democracy is. From a critical perspective, relying on Western epistemic communities to draw conclusions about Africa the home of over 1.4 billion people is not only a disregard of Africa’s agency but also an insult.

Washington should understand that while its governance systems maybe ideal for the US, it cannot be used as a gold standard for the rest of the world.

Going through this strategy, the US presents Africa as a place of competition presenting the continent as a pawn in what US considers competition between Washington and Beijing and recently Moscow. Three times Blinken described Sino-Africa relations negatively. The “People’s Republic of China (PRC), by contrast, sees the region (Africa) as an important arena to challenge the rules-based international order, advance its own narrow commercial and geopolitical interests, undermine transparency and openness, and weaken U.S. relations with African peoples and governments,” Blinken claimed. Blinken added that the US is committed to “Countering harmful activities by the PRC, Russia and other foreign actors.” He added that “the (U.S.) Department of Defense will engage with African partners to expose and highlight the risks of negative PRC and Russian activities in Africa.”

This shows that US’ strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa is not win-win but rather seeks to help Washington advance its selfish interests by dividing the world through cold war mentality of bloc formation while forcing countries to choose and take sides.

Blninken also talked about US’ Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) which is backed by G7 countries. While PGII is a good development since it will help to address infrastructure funding gaps in global south, the sprit in which the US brought this idea is negative. Many analysists see PGII as a rival against China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which has helped in addressing Africa’s infrastructure funding deficits. US criticise it claiming it is not open and is likely to undermine African countries’ sovereignty.

However, such claims if put to fact-checks, non would stand. Some analysts argues that criticism is nothing but US’ political smear campaign against China-Africa relations.

Historically, Sino-Africa relations have stood test of time, and these relations are based on mutual respect and win-win cooperation. China’s contribution to Africa in context of trade, investments, development finance and social development cannot be ignored.

In addressing challenges like COVID-19, while developed countries like the US chose vaccine nationalism, President Xi Jinping declared COVID-19 vaccines a global public good. China made millions of vaccine doses available to Africa and other developing countries, on top of offering financial assistance.

Blinken emphasized that their strategy will address challenges like insecurity in Africa. While security is a prerequisite for sustainable development, China has always walked the talk. Early this year, Beijing appointed special envoy for the Horn of Africa and mid this year, a security summit was held in Ethiopia to address the region’s security challenges. Also, China proposed two initiatives namely, Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative which if critically analyzed, are in line with Africa’s interests.

Relatedly, under UN peacekeeping missions, China remains the biggest peacekeeping contributor in Africa under. Compared with the US, China has over 1,400 peacekeeping troops in Africa compared to 29 personnel.

In conclusion, the US should learn that Africa is a continent with over 50 independent  countries. They should stop taking Africa to be a paw and area where Washington believes it should counter other countries Africans choose to relate well with.

Allawi Ssemanda, PhD is a Senior Research Fellow at Sino-Uganda Relations Research Centre.