It's pretty sensible on China's part. What other way is there to discipline the US acting like a mad dog? Diplomacy and mutual-benefit are off the table until the US cries uncle. China is just meeting the moment in a rational manner.
I’ll humbly offer a few points that might add a bit of depth to what’s currently playing out.
In my opinion, China did not just suddenly spring the possibility of export controls on the Trump Administration. Their action was in response to a series of irresponsible actions by the Trumpers against Chinese companies.
The “tell” for this ruse is the repeated talking point from Bessent et al. that China was “planning this all along” rather than acknowledge that their action was pretty much a standard tit-for-tat style response to wildly irrational and unpredictable trade actions initiated by the Trump admin.
Likewise, the talking points attempt to portray this as a “China vs. World” issue to forestall the (accurate) opinion of many States that China now presents a far more stable and predictable trading partner than does the current US.
Whether the Rare Earths issue is a Winner-Take-All or a Mutually-Assured-Destruction style long term scenario becomes irrelevant when one considers the actions and self serving motivations of the key players on the US side.
Bessent has lost all credibility at this point. His recent ideological screed on the Charlie Kirk Show buried for good any notion that he was the “Adult in the Room” of the Trump Admin. Pretty humorous to watch George Soros’ former financier proclaim that Treasury was going to “track down and destroy the funding mechanisms for the Radical Left”.
I point this out not as a character judgement of Bessent ( had he one… ) but as an indication that his recent actions have played entirely to the audience of One with which every other current cabinet member is hoping to curry sufficient favor to survive the upcoming January-of-the-Long-Knives bloodletting.
Either Bessent already knows he’s a goner… similar to Hegseth, etc. or he’s trying desperately to cling to his position in hopes of avoiding the repercussions of (among other issues) this now 40 Billion scam in Argentina.
Always good when what is supposed to be serious Treasury official goes out of his way to designate his Chinese counterpart as “Disrespectful” among other slurs particularly offensive to Asian negotiators. Maybe Mr. “Art of the Deal” scripted his lame-ass talking points.
China had been building capacity and capability quietly for decades. They have plenty of issues, though the RE Export Controls were much more a response than a Rugpull. Not coincidental that their newly developed Helium independence was announced shortly before the RE chin stroking. The term “inscrutable” comes to mind, though I realize I’m dating myself with that reference.
Either way, many thanks for your efforts. I very much appreciate and respect your observations and insights.
"The Trump administration is more concerned with attacking perceived internal enemies than the outside world, and has stripped the bureaucracies that would allow it to begin to think straight about the problem."
The Trump administration has engaged the entire world in a trade war, has pledged imperial ambition (real empire, not underground empire), has murdered citizens of two states in the Americas, has bombed several countries in the Middle East, has done corrupt "deals" with despots throughout Asia, and has threatened military intervention (and economic coercion) to defend the dollar's global role. Not to mention the aggressive actions against the sovereignty of China, Brazil, etc.
So I disagree with the framing.
The Trump admin has dramatically reduced its global network position, which is why Xi has chosen this moment -- and not some other one -- to hit back: there is no core anymore, Trump destroyed it.
The weakness of the Weaponized Interdependence arg has always been its inability to develop a model of system structure within which your empirical expectations could be situated and evaluated. My guess is that is also why it influenced the 45 admin as it did: with no structure, everything is agency. They are fine with bilateral confrontation, but they are making major mistakes because they do not understand the importance of system structure.
China is not facing the US down unilaterally. China is building networks while the US is destroying its own. That is why Xi is confident, and patient.
And FWIW, my guess is that it influenced 46 more than 45 - in both cases though for values of 'influence' that mean 'take our loose concepts and remake them as needed for their own purposes.' Which is the only form of policy influence that academic ideas really have.
Agree with your last sentence, and only mentioned it b/c you brought it up. OTOH, WI was written and marketed so as to influence policy debates, no?
The Schneider argument is a reaction to bravado (I also disagree that "healthy democracies are more likely to win wars" but it's irrelevant since there are vanishingly few healthy democracies fighting them), I referred to a series of concrete actions. I'm not proposing a binary here, but 47's aggression outside of the US mirrors his aggression inside of it. These are all manifestations of the same underlying politics, and I hope we don't lose sight of that.
I'm not a 46 insider, you might be right about them (I certainly have no love for Sullivan), but from the outside I saw more effort at network building from 46 than I saw from any US president since Clinton. This manifested in the mobilization for the defense of Ukraine, which was more immediate and robust than anyone anticipated, and could've been the basis for a green dem coalition that was positively interdependent. But there was very little popular support for such a coalition globally so it didn't emerge.
I strongly opposed 46's trade policy because it ran counter to that (systemic) goal in its prioritization of domestic interests. Still, the idea that 46 was *more* unilateral than 47 is a new arg AFAIK.
As I read your new commentary above, I discovered my head nodding along in sympathy with everything you state. I even thought to mention this 9-months old Substack commentary by Henry something or other (forget his last name, sorry! :-)
Pair the two [commentaries] and you have looming disaster. Good thing we have in power an Administration well-versed in how to get the public past the inevitable bumps in the road.
Yeah, I know; not well-versed. In fact, does not care so long as they enrich themselves and own the Libtards in the process. And when the tumbling cascade of negative consequences hits us one after another (the Derangement in Ian McEwan's new novel), we (all of us, everywhere) will be so screwed.
What I've read in multiple places (so it must be correct) is that the earths aren't rare, but processing them is, with a low profit margin. That's China's leverage.
Well I got a free copy of Underground Empire at APSA but if you publish another book (which you should) I will certainly buy it
"Underground Empire (if you want to support this free Substack, please go buy)" — Done.
It's pretty sensible on China's part. What other way is there to discipline the US acting like a mad dog? Diplomacy and mutual-benefit are off the table until the US cries uncle. China is just meeting the moment in a rational manner.
I’ll humbly offer a few points that might add a bit of depth to what’s currently playing out.
In my opinion, China did not just suddenly spring the possibility of export controls on the Trump Administration. Their action was in response to a series of irresponsible actions by the Trumpers against Chinese companies.
The “tell” for this ruse is the repeated talking point from Bessent et al. that China was “planning this all along” rather than acknowledge that their action was pretty much a standard tit-for-tat style response to wildly irrational and unpredictable trade actions initiated by the Trump admin.
Likewise, the talking points attempt to portray this as a “China vs. World” issue to forestall the (accurate) opinion of many States that China now presents a far more stable and predictable trading partner than does the current US.
Whether the Rare Earths issue is a Winner-Take-All or a Mutually-Assured-Destruction style long term scenario becomes irrelevant when one considers the actions and self serving motivations of the key players on the US side.
Bessent has lost all credibility at this point. His recent ideological screed on the Charlie Kirk Show buried for good any notion that he was the “Adult in the Room” of the Trump Admin. Pretty humorous to watch George Soros’ former financier proclaim that Treasury was going to “track down and destroy the funding mechanisms for the Radical Left”.
I point this out not as a character judgement of Bessent ( had he one… ) but as an indication that his recent actions have played entirely to the audience of One with which every other current cabinet member is hoping to curry sufficient favor to survive the upcoming January-of-the-Long-Knives bloodletting.
Either Bessent already knows he’s a goner… similar to Hegseth, etc. or he’s trying desperately to cling to his position in hopes of avoiding the repercussions of (among other issues) this now 40 Billion scam in Argentina.
Always good when what is supposed to be serious Treasury official goes out of his way to designate his Chinese counterpart as “Disrespectful” among other slurs particularly offensive to Asian negotiators. Maybe Mr. “Art of the Deal” scripted his lame-ass talking points.
China had been building capacity and capability quietly for decades. They have plenty of issues, though the RE Export Controls were much more a response than a Rugpull. Not coincidental that their newly developed Helium independence was announced shortly before the RE chin stroking. The term “inscrutable” comes to mind, though I realize I’m dating myself with that reference.
Either way, many thanks for your efforts. I very much appreciate and respect your observations and insights.
All the best.
"The Trump administration is more concerned with attacking perceived internal enemies than the outside world, and has stripped the bureaucracies that would allow it to begin to think straight about the problem."
The Trump administration has engaged the entire world in a trade war, has pledged imperial ambition (real empire, not underground empire), has murdered citizens of two states in the Americas, has bombed several countries in the Middle East, has done corrupt "deals" with despots throughout Asia, and has threatened military intervention (and economic coercion) to defend the dollar's global role. Not to mention the aggressive actions against the sovereignty of China, Brazil, etc.
So I disagree with the framing.
The Trump admin has dramatically reduced its global network position, which is why Xi has chosen this moment -- and not some other one -- to hit back: there is no core anymore, Trump destroyed it.
The weakness of the Weaponized Interdependence arg has always been its inability to develop a model of system structure within which your empirical expectations could be situated and evaluated. My guess is that is also why it influenced the 45 admin as it did: with no structure, everything is agency. They are fine with bilateral confrontation, but they are making major mistakes because they do not understand the importance of system structure.
China is not facing the US down unilaterally. China is building networks while the US is destroying its own. That is why Xi is confident, and patient.
https://www.ft.com/content/fafe7543-4f38-4d5e-8493-c7a1e5e510fe Counterpoint (which I just came across now)
And FWIW, my guess is that it influenced 46 more than 45 - in both cases though for values of 'influence' that mean 'take our loose concepts and remake them as needed for their own purposes.' Which is the only form of policy influence that academic ideas really have.
Agree with your last sentence, and only mentioned it b/c you brought it up. OTOH, WI was written and marketed so as to influence policy debates, no?
The Schneider argument is a reaction to bravado (I also disagree that "healthy democracies are more likely to win wars" but it's irrelevant since there are vanishingly few healthy democracies fighting them), I referred to a series of concrete actions. I'm not proposing a binary here, but 47's aggression outside of the US mirrors his aggression inside of it. These are all manifestations of the same underlying politics, and I hope we don't lose sight of that.
I'm not a 46 insider, you might be right about them (I certainly have no love for Sullivan), but from the outside I saw more effort at network building from 46 than I saw from any US president since Clinton. This manifested in the mobilization for the defense of Ukraine, which was more immediate and robust than anyone anticipated, and could've been the basis for a green dem coalition that was positively interdependent. But there was very little popular support for such a coalition globally so it didn't emerge.
I strongly opposed 46's trade policy because it ran counter to that (systemic) goal in its prioritization of domestic interests. Still, the idea that 46 was *more* unilateral than 47 is a new arg AFAIK.
As I read your new commentary above, I discovered my head nodding along in sympathy with everything you state. I even thought to mention this 9-months old Substack commentary by Henry something or other (forget his last name, sorry! :-)
https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/when-the-polycrisis-hits-the-omnishambles
Pair the two [commentaries] and you have looming disaster. Good thing we have in power an Administration well-versed in how to get the public past the inevitable bumps in the road.
Yeah, I know; not well-versed. In fact, does not care so long as they enrich themselves and own the Libtards in the process. And when the tumbling cascade of negative consequences hits us one after another (the Derangement in Ian McEwan's new novel), we (all of us, everywhere) will be so screwed.
Thank you for another excellent commentary.
Presumably this will intensify the search for rare earth minerals in other locations (Greenland? Canada? whoops..).
What I've read in multiple places (so it must be correct) is that the earths aren't rare, but processing them is, with a low profit margin. That's China's leverage.