What would have happened if US foreign policy post-Cold War is dominated by China hawks

[Thomas1195]

The title says it all. I mean, the US and allies instead of welcoming China into the global system, opted for an aggressive containment policy. What would be the impacts?

Notes:

- By China hawks here I mean not China-sceptics, but inflexible anti-China folks like Peter Navarro.

- Being anti-China does not necessarily being protectionist, it can be free trade with anyone but China.

 

[overoceans]

Kinda hard to discuss this without using current politics as an example. Suffice to say, I'm not sure how far anyone could go in pushing a F**K YOU CHINA policy, without making a dog's breakfast out of the international order.

I'm not an economist, and I don't know all the details of China's trade relations with all its partners. But I think it's usually a good bet that when someone says "The only reason we're not getting tougher on Country X is because our leaders lack guts!!", he's talking out of his ass. More likely, it's because those leaders recognize that Country X holds better cards in its hand than the jingoists are willing to admit.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Kinda hard to discuss this without using current politics as an example. Suffice to say, I'm not sure how far anyone could go in pushing a F**K YOU CHINA policy, without making a dog's breakfast out of the international order.

I'm not an economist, and I don't know all the details of China's trade relations with all its partners. But I think it's usually a good bet that when someone says "The only reason we're not getting tougher on Country X is because our leaders lack guts!!", he's talking out of his ass. More likely, it's because those leaders recognize that Country X holds better cards in its hand than the jingoists are willing to admit.

In the present day you are correct, a screw you China policy would mess the global economy up completely and probably backfire on the implementer. Implemented at the end of the Cold War? Totally different story. In 1990 China had a GDP of $400 billion nominal USD, this year they are expecting $15,470 billion, by comparison the US was 5,980 and 22,200, China went from about 8% of US nominal GDP to about 70%, and actually overtaking the US in PPP. China in 1990 was the #9, behind Canada by a hundred billion dollars. Nothing was stopping the US back then from being as tough on China as it wanted

Cutting China off from their OTL export trade would massively slow down their economic growth, it would slow down non Chinese growth, but not by nearly as much, and may benefit some countries by the present day.

How China reacts depends, the Party is likely to clamp down on things rather more than OTL, have to rely even more on ideological/nationalist fervor without the carrot of economic growth. 1997 will be interesting in such a scenario, as Hong Kong has to be returned, but One Country two systems is unlikely in such a scenario, and Western populations won't like handing what they see as a nominal democracy over to an authoritarian regime they are in a confrontation with

 

[Have Blue-117]

It's hard to do but if you get Pat Buchanan to the presidency it could satisfy your scenario.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Wasn’t Newt Gingrich a pro-Taiwan old school China Lobby holdout?

 

[overoceans]

@RamscoopRaider

Thanks for the analysis. At what point between the end of the Cold War and now, would you estimate we passed the point of the OP's scenario being plausible?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

@RamscoopRaider

Thanks for the analysis. At what point between the end of the Cold War and now, would you estimate we passed the point of the OP's scenario being plausible?

It depends on what you mean? The ability for the US to reliably hit China economically far worse than vice versa probably passed a bit before 2014. The ability to really freeze China out without causing a Great Recession type deal probably passed around 2005. Before 2001 China was not a member of the WTO and had limitations on their ability to trade with other countries, hence impact would be minimal, still probably a recession as stock market is twitchy but nothing horrible

 

[overoceans]

It depends on what you mean? The ability for the US to reliably hit China economically far worse than vice versa probably passed a bit before 2014. The ability to really freeze China out without causing a Great Recession type deal probably passed around 2005. Before 2001 China was not a member of the WTO and had limitations on their ability to trade with other countries, hence impact would be minimal, still probably a recession as stock market is twitchy but nothing horrible

So, basically, dating the end of the Cold War from the end of 1991, you've got a period of a little under 15 years where the US could hit China hard without experiencing prohibitive blowback.

 

[Zheng He]

This could have happened during the Clinton administration. During the campaign and early in his first term, Clinton talked big about tying US trade policy to improvements in human rights in China, criticizing the Bush for coddling the Chinese on the issue. Maybe Albright as Ambassador to the UN and then Secretary of State decides this is an important issue for her too and she really pushes Clinton hard to stick to his guns.

OTL, Clinton gave up on this quickly and more or less adopted a policy toward China that had been consistent since Nixon was in office - engage with the Chinese and open up the market and China will eventually become a more open and democratic society.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

So, basically, dating the end of the Cold War from the end of 1991, you've got a period of a little under 15 years where the US could hit China hard without experiencing prohibitive blowback.

Not an expert but that's what it looks like to me, you could probably stretch it more depending on how you define hit China hard

 

[arrowiv]

I take it Kissinger would be discredited by the Republican hawks because of his extremely close ties with the Chinese?

 

[overoceans]

I take it Kissinger would be discredited by the Republican hawks because of his extremely close ties with the Chinese?

Possibly, but I think it would be pretty hard for most Republicans to openly attack the major foreign-policy architect of a previous GOP administration, especially someone with Kissinger's stature among conservatives.

For Kissinger to become openly villainized among Republicans, you'd basically need the party to be dominated by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

OTL, Clinton gave up on this quickly and more or less adopted a policy toward China that had been consistent since Nixon was in office - engage with the Chinese and open up the market and China will eventually become a more open and democratic society.

Which isn't a terrible stragetic idea at all, its just taking a lot longer than we would ideally like.

 

[History Learner]

U.S. manufacturing isn't decimated, possibly avoiding the 2008 Recession as well.

 

[King Nazar]

A lot of countries wanted to open up to China not just the United States. If the US decides to be hawkish on China in the 90s, there is no guarantee that others nations will follow. It might end up with the US being locked out of China rather than China being isolated.

 

[Zheng He]

A lot of countries wanted to open up to China not just the United States. If the US decides to be hawkish on China in the 90s, there is no guarantee that others nations will follow. It might end up with the US being locked out of China rather than China being isolated.

Bingo and the US business community and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans are screaming bloody murder because now China is buying a lot more Airbus jets and a lot fewer Boeing jets as one example.