Finančna ministrica ZDA Janet Yellen je morda prejšnji teden res hotela pomiriti nekatere glede povečanih tveganj vojne med ZDA un Kitajsko. Vendar se ji ni najbolj posrečilo. Po vsem poskusu pomirjujočega tona je izrekla dva ključna stavka, s katerima je določila mirovne pogoje, pod katerimi bo ddovolila Kitajski, da se še naprej razvija. Prvi:

“China’s economic growth need not be incompatible with U.S. economic leadership.” 

Če prevedemo, Kitajska se lahko gospodarsko razvoja in raste, dokler ne ogrozi ameriške gospodarske dominacije. Toda Kitajska je to že zdavnaj naredila. Je daleč največja gospodarska velesila, merjena po obsegu BDP, je absolutno največja trgovinska velesila, za večino držav je Kitajska največji trgovinski partner, Kitajska je tehnološko prehitela ZDA na mnogih področjih, je prva velesila glede sodobnih zelenih tehnologij (proizvodnja solarnih panelov, proizvodnja baterij, proizvodnja električnih avtomobilov itd.) in ima monopol nad vsemi ključnimi inputi za zelene tehnologije (od litija do redke zemlje, prek Rusije pa tudi kobalta, mangana itd.), tudi glede aplikacij umetne inteligence Kitajska prevzema vodstvo. Torej, kako naj Kitajska ne bi ogrozila ameriške gospodarske dominacije?

No, in ker je Kitajska že prevzela gospodarsko dominacijo v svetu in jo zacementirala z bilateralnimi dogovori z državami BRICS in večino držav v razvoju, pride na vrsto drugi ključni stavek Yellenove:

“As in all of our foreign relations, national security is of paramount importance in our relationship with China.”

Vprašanje nacionalne varnosti je vprašanje definicije za posamezno državo oziroma vlado. Vprašanje je, kako država definira svojo nacionalno varnost. ZDA so jo opredelile na planetarni ravni. Po tem konceptu vse in vsakdo lahko ogrozi ameriško nacionalno varnost – od navadnega komarja, ki nekontrolirano leta, mulcev, ki na domačih računalnikih razvijajo UI aplokacije, do Kitajske, ki želi sama razvijati mikroprocesorje ali trgovati v juanih namesto v dolarjih.

ZDA danes zatrjujejo, da je med »najbolj perečimi vprašanji nacionalne varnosti« Amerike obramba Ukrajine pred rusko agresijo. Vsakdo, ki se odloči ignorirati ameriške sankcije proti Rusiji in spada pod njeno jurisdikcijo, se bo soočil z resnimi posledicami. Podobno, ker se je Amerika odločila, da želi “kitajski vojski” odreči nekatere tehnologije, bo temu primerno uvedla sankcije in trgovinske omejitve vsem, ki bi kitajskim podjetjem prodajala čipe in tehnologijo za proizvodnjo čipov. Pri tem se seveda skriva za izgovorom glede kitajske vojske, dejansko pa ameriško administracijo skrbi civilna uporaba čipov, saj s tem Kitajska tehnološko in gospodarsko izriva ZDA.

Torej, ameriški mirovni pogoji za kitajski gospodarski razvoj so, (1) da Kitajska ne sme ogroziti ameriške gospodarske dominacije, in (2) da na nobenem področju ne sme biti boljša od ZDA, ker bi s tem ogrozila ameriško nacionalno varnost. Če zveni shizofrenično, zelo verjetno tudi je shizofrenično. Shizofrenija alfa samca, katerega čas je minil in ki želi na izteku svoje dobe kljub pešajoči moči pobiti ali vsaj prestrašiti mlajše, spretnejše in močnejše pretendente. Too late.

Dva dobra komentarja na to temo sem zjutraj prebral. Prvi je komentar ekonomskega zgodovinarja Adama Toozeja iz Columbia University v Foreign Policy (komentar Stephena Roacha v Project Syndicate objavim posebej). Tooze je to ameriško shizofrenijo opisal v zgornjem duhu. Prvič, da je Yellenova določila demarkacijsko linijo za Kitajsko, ki jo slednja mora spoštovati. Če ne spoštuje meja, ki ji jih je začrtal Washington, potem mora pričakovati, da se bo soočila z velikimi sankcijami.

In drugič, ZDA v svoji aroganci prizadetega ponosa ne vidijo, da ne morajo več enostransko določati pogojev mirne koeksistence. Vizija, v kateri si ZDA prisvajajo pravico, da določijo, katera pot kitajske gospodarske rasti je in katera ni sprejemljiva, ne more biti osnova za mir. Če so ZDA še vedno zainteresirane za svetovni gospodarski in politični red, kar bi zagotovo morale biti, morajo biti odprte za pogajanja o miroljubnih spremembah. V nasprotnem primeru preprosto kličejo na boj.

So a strong and self-confident America has no reason to stand in the way of China’s economic and technological modernization except in every area that America’s national security establishment, the most gigantic in the world, defines as being of essential national interest. For this to be anything other than hypocrisy, you have to imagine that we live in a goldilocks world in which the technology, industrial capacity, and trade that are relevant to national security are incidental to economic and technological modernization more broadly speaking.

Yellen pays lip service to that goldilocks vision, by insisting that U.S. measures against China will be tightly targeted. But, as everyone knows, those targeted measures have so far included massive efforts to hobble the world leader in 5G technology, Huawei, sanctions against the entire chip supply chain, and the inclusion of most major research universities in China on America’s entities list that strictly limits trade.

Meanwhile, to add to the perplexity, whilst Yellen insists that national security sanctions tell us nothing about America’s intentions towards Chinese growth, she trumpets legislation passed on the Biden administration’s watch, notably the Chips Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which feature strong anti-Chinese elements, as contributing significantly to America’s own future prosperity.

The upshot is that America welcomes China’s economic modernization and will refuse the lure of the Thucydides trap so long as China’s development proceeds along lines that do not infringe on American leadership and national security. And America’s attitude will be all the more benign the more successful it is in pursuing its own national prosperity and preeminence precisely in those areas.

It is telling that what seems to be intended as a reasonable and accommodating statement is, in fact, so jarring. China must accept America’s demarcation of the status quo. If it does not respect the boundaries drawn for it by Washington between harmless prosperity and historically consequential technological development, then it should expect to face massive sanctions.

One must be grateful to Yellen for stating the point so clearly. But how on earth does Washington expect Beijing to respond? China is not Japan or Germany after 1945. In relation to the United States, if the question of “leadership” is posed, parity is the least that Beijing must aim for. The status quo that Treasury Secretary Yellen takes for granted clearly cannot be legitimate in the long run. As Beijing has said, it aspires to a fundamental reordering of world affairs such that American talk of leadership is retired forever. Nor is China the only major Asian power to share this view. India’s understanding is no different.

In Washington, this meets with blank incomprehension or even a sense of wounded pride. Does China not understand that it owes its growth to an American-led order? To rebel against that order, Yellen says quite openly, is not in China’s interest. Yellen is right that conflict between China and the United States is not inevitable. It does depend on the moves that both sides make.

But it is hard to see how her vision, in which the United States arrogates to itself the right to define which trajectory of Chinese economic growth is and is not acceptable, can possibly be a basis for peace. If the United States is still interested in global economic and political order, and it surely should be, it must be open to negotiate peaceful change. Otherwise, it is simply asking for a fight.

Vir: Adam Tooze, Foreign Policy