sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Nouriel Roubini urges both the US and China to pursue a new strategic understanding on the issues driving their current conflict

Economy / opinion
Nouriel Roubini urges both the US and China to pursue a new strategic understanding on the issues driving their current conflict
US versus China

The United States and China remain on a collision course. The new cold war between them may eventually turn hot over the issue of Taiwan. The “Thucydides Trap” – in which a rising power seems destined to clash with an incumbent hegemon – looms ominously. But a serious escalation of Sino-American tensions, let alone a war, can still be avoided, sparing the world the cataclysmic consequences that would inevitably follow.

There will always be at least some tensions when a rising power challenges the prevailing global power. But China is facing off against the US at a moment when America’s relative power may be weakening, and when it is committed to preventing its own strategic decline. Both sides are thus becoming increasingly paranoid about the other’s intentions, and confrontation has mostly supplanted healthy competition and cooperation. Both sides are partly to blame.

Under President Xi Jinping, China has become more authoritarian and moved further toward state capitalism, rather than adhering to Deng Xiaoping’s concept of “reform and opening-up.” Moreover, Deng’s maxim, “hide your strength and bide your time,” has given way to military assertiveness. With China pursuing an increasingly aggressive foreign policy, territorial disputes between it and several Asian neighbors have worsened. China has sought to control the East and South China Seas, and it has become increasingly impatient to “reunify” with Taiwan by any means necessary.

But Xi has accused the US of pursuing its own aggressive strategy of “comprehensive containment, encirclement and suppression.” On the other hand, many in the US fear that China may challenge US strategic hegemony in Asia – a decisive factor in the region’s relative peace, prosperity, and progress since World War II.

Chinese leaders also fear that America is no longer committed to the “One China” principle that has underpinned Sino-American relations for half a century. Not only has America become less “strategically ambiguous” on the question of whether it would defend Taiwan; it has also fanned Chinese fears of containment by reinforcing its Indo-Pacific alliances through the AUKUS (Australia, the United Kingdom, and the US) pact, the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the US), and an Asian pivot by NATO.

A first step toward preventing a collision is recognising that some of the reigning concerns are excessive. For example, US anxiety about China’s economic rise is reminiscent of its attitude toward the rise of Germany and Japan decades ago. After all, China has significant economic problems that could cut its potential growth to only 3-4% per year, far below the 10% annual growth rate that it achieved over the past few decades. China has an aging population and sky-high youth unemployment; high debt levels in both the private and public sectors; falling private investment as a result of intimidation by the ruling party; and a commitment to state capitalism that hampers total factor productivity growth.

Moreover, Chinese domestic consumption has weakened, owing to deepening economic uncertainty and the lack of a broad social safety net. With deflation setting in, China now must worry about Japanification: a long period of lost growth. Like so many emerging markets, it could ultimately end up in the “middle-income trap,” rather than reaching high-income status and becoming the world’s largest economy.

While the US may have overestimated China’s potential rise, it also may have underestimated its own lead in many of the industries and technologies of the future: artificial intelligence, machine learning, semiconductors, quantum computing, robotics and automation, and new energy sources such as nuclear fusion. China has invested significantly in some of these areas under its “Made in China 2025” program, but its goal of achieving near-term dominance in ten industries of the future now seems far-fetched.

American fears about China dominating Asia are also excessive. China is surrounded by almost 20 countries, many of which are strategic rivals or “frenemies” – most of the few allies it does have, like North Korea, are a drain on its resources. While its Belt and Road Initiative was supposed to make new friends and create new dependencies, it is encountering many challenges, including massive failed projects (white elephants) that are leading to debt defaults. As much as China wants to dominate the Global South and its international “swing states,” many middle powers are resisting and countering this ambition.

The US has rightly imposed some sanctions to keep key technologies out of the Chinese military’s hands, and to frustrate China’s quest for dominance in AI. But it must be careful to limit its strategy to one of de-risking, rather than decoupling, apart from some necessary technological decoupling and limits to direct investment in China and the US. As it determines which sectors to include in its “small yard and high fence” approach, it must avoid going too far. The trade sanctions that Donald Trump imposed on China applied to a vast range of consumer goods, and should be mostly phased out.

On Taiwan, the US and China should try to reach a new understanding to defuse today’s dangerous escalation. US President Joe Biden should clearly reaffirm the One China principle and realign his public commitments and statements with the principle of “strategic ambiguity.” The US should sell Taiwan the weapons it needs to defend itself, but not at a pace or scale that could provoke China to invade the island before its “porcupine” defense advances too far. America should also state clearly that it opposes any Taiwanese move toward formal independence, and it should avoid high-level visits with Taiwanese leaders.

China, for its part, should stop its air and naval incursions near Taiwan. It should state clearly that eventual reunification will be strictly peaceful and mutually agreed; it should take new steps to improve cross-strait relations; and it should defuse tensions with other neighbors on territorial disputes.

China and America both need to pursue policies that will reduce economic and geopolitical tensions and foster healthy cooperation on global issues such as climate change and AI regulation. If they fail to achieve a new understanding on the issues driving their current confrontation, they will eventually collide. That would lead inexorably to a military confrontation that would destroy the world economy, and which could even escalate to an unconventional (nuclear) conflict. The high stakes demand strategic restraint from both sides.


*Nouriel Roubini, Professor Emeritus of Economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, is Chief Economist at Atlas Capital Team and the author of Megathreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them (Little, Brown and Company, 2022). Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023, published here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

15 Comments

I don't get why contemporary leaders are so obsessed with preventing a global conflict. It seems driven by cowardice and fear of loss of place in the world order. We live in a world which is overly burdened by the old and established. A world war would break the world by its spine and give the young a chance to make a new fate. Thousands of new industries, workers and opportunities. Mass destruction of physical capital, inflating away debt. Why should 'peace' be the only option when faced with oppression, humiliation and misery under 'peace'? The great peoples of history accept this in their flowering. Should any oppressed people tolerate their lot for 'peace'? I want a new world, as do millions of others who hate the suffocating debt slavery of today.

The world 'peace' is suffocating stagnancy. The long peace has delivered us 50% of our paychecks on rent. Why should China subject itself to the humiliation of 2nd place on the world stage to the United States? Why should the US tolerate an upstart rival which its own hubris created?

As Homer wrote 3000 years ago, the blade itself incites to violence. The struggle for power will never end so long as we exist. Clinging to a long life is cowardly. States will only improve the conditions of their people after making such demands upon their people. The long struggle ahead will bring out the best of both the Western World and China.

Up
3

You don't get why leaders want to prevent global conflict?
Global conflict means that millions of people die horrible deaths. Hundreds of millions more starve and suffer from illness/injury as a result of the conflict. In a nuclear conflict, catastrophic  damage is done to our planet and biosphere.
Is that enough of an incentive for you? 

There are issues with the global economic status quo, i will give you that, but global war has to be the worst possible solution to these. A war base on "humiliation" and "hubris" is childish.

Your detached perspective suggests that you either don't understand, or have no intention of fighting in or suffering, any of the effects of the war that you seek and that you expect these costs to be born by others for your benefit.

Global war should be avoided at all costs and I hope that people with a perspective like yours are far from any position to influence the decision making of any global leaders.

Up
10

I served and don't support this system. I would still be called up to fight, I'm in my 20s and am still on the inactive reserve. Millions would die, that is true. Millions will suffer immensely. But the Thucydides trap is not avoidable. States and their influence depend on their ability to back their power with benefits, governance problem solving and coercion. I can not think of a single time where the thucydides trap didn't result in great power conflict.

The reality is though, if nothing is done, the world will suffer from immense overpopulation, resource depletion and general immiseration. A world of 10+ billion people battling over dwindling resources would be a hellscape. 

The idea that something shouldn't be fought because it harms people is ridiculous. Should the Palestineans endure their lot? The world order that enabled the peace today is the immense world shattering war of the mid 20th century. The US is not the titan it was in 1945 and the entire global order is falling apart. The only way to enforce the global order is with implied violence from a dominant empire. The reality is the conflict is escalating because the underlying conditions of all states are increasingly unstable. The mass society of the 20th century that could coerce and influence its population to a coherent worldview has disappeared. States face all sorts of transnational issues in trade, crime etc which are beyond their national abilities. These issues need to be resolved to restore a world order that enables a workable peace.

The current situation is totally untenable. Compare the current disintegration of the American empire to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Collapse of the soviet union only ended relatively well because the Americans were there to pick up the buck and guarantee the deal for all these states. The same as the US did as it picked up the remnants of the British and French Empires after the second world war. But there is no one to catch the US Empire as it falls. The world will become immensely more dangerous as the American Legions are overstretched and retreating from their global policeman role. Comparable to the relative chaos of the Hellenic world after the collapse of the Delian league.

It has to be resolved and diplomacy is obviously not working. Diplomacy failed and created the situation in Ukraine. It is failing in Taiwan and creating a potential disaster. The entire Western world needs to rearm and reindustrialise to deal with this problem.

Up
2

VM, whilst your frustration about the direction the world is heading in and the corresponding inequalities is understandable, your young age really shows your immaturity.  You are lucky to have lived in a mostly peaceful world, and you really don't understand the consequences and utter misery that a war between the two biggest military powers would have on us all.

Up
7

Only the old and sterile yearn to live long and peaceful lives. The living and the becoming grow from the suffering of this life. The timidity of our age is the root of the decline of the western world. We live afraid of the fact that the world is rushing towards a globe shattering war instead of preparing for it.

It is worse to live in fear of the consequences of the magnetism of history towards the coming war.

Up
1

The Palestinians should all be booted out of Israel. I didn't know until a few weeks ago that there about a dozen "Camps" for them in various other countries as well. This only came to light when they started to cause trouble amongst themselves let alone another party. Bunch of trouble makers, stick them all together somewhere and let them go for it.

Up
0

WTAF???!!!

Up
0

If you are being serious, you are very ignorant on the history of the region!

Up
0

For a start neither nation geographically, if only for a matter of size, is “invadable .” Therefore combat will be aerial, missiles etc and/or located in an overseas theatre, more likely closer to China than the USA. The Korean peninsular has precedent and the peace there is secured by no more than an armistice.It would hardly be impossible for China to impel its vassal Nth Korea into resuming hostilities.

Up
0

in the Chinese philosophy, "not losing" or 不败 is always a better strategy than winning.

 

Up
4

100% agree. The west really doesn't understand China all that well.

That said, there are a lot of Chinese both in China and around the world that are becoming very afraid and are retrenching investment decisions based on the fear of conflict. (Many I've spoken too say that if the CCP was bold enough to lock everyone up over covid they'll have no issues with escalating a conflict either.) 

Their economy is in the doldrums, and while usually attributed to anything else, the fear of a major conflict is part of it. Xi needs to pull some heads in  in the CCP and slow the sabre-ratling down to a barely discernible rattle. I don't expect China's economy is going to pick up until that happens.

Up
0

The west (US) and China relationship is like many of married couples - both are heavily relying on trust and understanding. That is; the west doesn't understand China, and China doesn't trust The West!

Up
1

How is a 6% growth rate this quarter, up from 4% last quarter "doldrums"? People who watch western msm finance news and don't consider the narratives being spun astound me with their blind ignorance to the cherry picking of data when it suits their cognitive biases. 

Up
0

Unfortunately, history dictates when the incumbent empire is in its death throws. It goes to war when all else fails.

Up
1

And it is rarely if ever those at the top, who make that decision to war, that suffer the consequences of that decision.

Up
0