This should be the fucking poli-sci textbook example of the meaning of "doublespeak". A power that wants to violently invade a neighbor talking about "cherishing peace" is just SOOOO rich!
I’m not sure why there’s a notable absence of Singapore in IPEF. Seems to be right up their alley and they’re typically all for deepening regional forums and dialogues. On top of that they’re a key regional ally sitting right at the eastern approaches to the Strait of Malacca.
We have one of 7th Fleet’s Task Force’s there and a full aircraft carrier pier at Changi Naval Base… I’m not sure the Chinese have the same Defense relationship.
Totally agree. These countries also need to deepen bilateral trade and alliances between each other. And other allies in Europe and elsewhere will need to move in the same direction. Keeping compeition with China peaceful depends upon it. A weak alliance will invite war. Current Chinese political rhetoric, as well as observed preparations, clearly puts that on the table. Stability would be acheived if such an alliance did not fully depend on the USA or any other single country.
I'm optimistic about this though because most of these countries simply cannot ally closely with China without major changes in Chinese forgein policy. China claims territory in many and could conceivably do so in others. USA intervention attracts criticism everywhere but at least people understand its limits. What limits would Chinese leaders place on forgein intervention if they had the power to do more?
I mean... i’m a neoliberal mf’er like you, but access to US markets created a domestic political backlash that can’t be ignored. It’d be nice if countries protected their favored industries less in trade agreements
You have just shown why South-East Asia needs China. How many of these deals would have been made if the was no strategic competitor to Washington ? As an economist you know what happens to a market dominated by a monopoly.
Why not Latin america instead? I'm not sure why Latin America gets neglected so much, but I think it's much more important for western interests that latin america gets more prosperous and stable.
1) Latin America, or most of it at least, is more developed than most of South and South East Asia already.
2)The population of Latin America is very miniscule compared to SA or SEA. 600m to ≈3 Billion ratio.
3) If most of SEA or SA were to be on the same level as Latin America economically speaking, it would be the biggest economic centre in the world, just because of its huge population. China is on the same level as Brazil economically, yet has an oversized influence because of its population. Imagine that but for India+Bangladesh+Malaysia+Indonesia+Vietnam+Sri Lanka.
"If most of SEA or SA were to be on the same level as Latin America economically speaking, it would be the biggest economic centre in the world, just because of its huge population. "
Only if you are very pessimistic about growth prospects! Personally I think the world's economic center will remain in the west and the US should pursue policy around that assumption.
I'm not saying to disengage from south asia, but there is this weird push in some elite circles to drop everything to focus on asia whereas I think US priorities should be Europe>East-Asia>Latin America>The Rest.
"Personally I think the world's economic center will remain in the west and the US should pursue policy around that assumption"
China being on the same level as Brazil was enough to push the world's economic centre of gravity from the Atlantic to the Russian hinterlands. SEA and SA being on the same level as LatAM will make it come further east.
America already trades more in the Pacific than in the Atlantic.
I'm not being pessimistic about growth prospects, its just that SEA and SA will have huge middle classes, and the largest consumer base in the world. Almost 50 percent of the world lives here. The biggest market in history. Europe, Latin America are already for the most part, allied with America, and doesn't require more engagement than now to stay that way. SEA and SA needs this. America's biggest threat is China, and the only way to counter China is to have strong allies in SEA and SA.
Tldr, if america wants to triumph over China, SEA and SA will be the top priorities. Its been happening for quite some time now.
"China being on the same level as Brazil was enough to push the world's economic centre of gravity from the Atlantic to the Russian hinterlands. SEA and SA being on the same level as LatAM will make it come further east. "
China to me seems to be headed down the same road as Japan(which, although people have forgotten, represented 20% of the world's economy in 1989). There is no guarantee that developing countries will continue converging with the west at the same pace. Indeed, I think it's more likely that the "middle-income trap" is harder to break than some people give it credit for.
I think just about every country which has broken the “middle income trap” started industrializing 100 years ago or more.
The only exceptions are South Korea and Taiwan. Both of whom have received significant external contributions from the international community.
The other exception would be Israel but I too has benefitted from a lot of external connections. I concur though, it is very hard to become a high income society.
Even if, China and the rest of SA and SEA stay middle income trapped, which is very big possiblity, it will still have the largest market in the world to cater to.
Great piece—as always. I think the problem though lies more with a reticence on the part of South Asians and Southeast Asians to unambiguously align with the USA when America just seems like such a “wild card.”
Trump trashed American Allies quite publicly and a couple of times threatened to abrogate US mutual defense commitments. Biden’s record with Afghanistan shocked the world. It is hard to know whether you can rely on America for multi-decade mutual support.
Part of the problem is that if America “tires” of China it can withdraw from the world in a way that its tentative Allies cannot. They need to know the USA is committed. I am not sure the past 5 years have helped.
Don't forget South America or Africa. In a cold geo-political sense, development here is more valuable than Asia. The proximity to China has more downside than upside. A common mistake is to view apply a military view, which would mean surrounding China with a defensive perimeter. But really, since we expect (with reservations expressed as fears) peace, that plays out mostly as economic and political influence, geography has a different importance.
An Asian country can "switch sides", and is more likely to than other places, due to the proximity and the predictable strong pull to trade with China. Switching sides might mean changing political expressions (more totalitarian, less democratic), it might mean taking a side in a trade dispute, and in the most extreme, it might mean reacting to military threats.
Speaking just geographically I'd rather have the world's semiconductor center in Nigeria than Taiwan. That's not possible today since Nigeria's state capacity is not effective enough to support that. But if it really was so easy a choice, the world would be a slightly safer place from the change.
The same is basically true for all the countries surrounding China. If all the world's industrial capacity is centered there, it would seem to make China's position in the world stronger. While it would mean those economies were more capable of sustaining a military and other state capacity to resist Chinese military and political pressures, it would also increase China's opportunities to win them and thus gain the advantage of all that industrial capacity.
That's definitely not suggesting that it's a good strategy to treat most of South and Southeast Asia as anything other than allies or potential allies, but it does suggest that it would be a possibly grave mistake to give priority in a way that neglects those places geographically closer. Increases in industrial and state capacity in South America and especially Africa would be some of the greatest possible boons to a peaceful future world.
Enriching other nations at the expense of American workers to advance "American" interests. A true classic of the foreign policy establishment. We don't need Russia, China or the Islamists. The American government hates its own people enough.
Americans gain benefits from those relationships. Goods are more plentiful and less expensive. Many higher skill (and thus higher paying) jobs are created by nature of those relationships. If there's any real concern in that about harms to Americans, it comes from the not everyone sharing those benefits equally while being affected by disruptions that change brings.
Change is also going to be disruptive to someone, thus it's understandable there's always some pushback to it. But it's also not avoidable. Attempting to stand still is just abandoning your own agency and putting your own future fully outside your control.
Those higher skill and higher paying jobs will be the ones that will be outsourced. Countries like India want to move up their informationt technology chain and not forever be a call center country. And if the US Government foolishly opens up its markets, it will definetely happen. And you are correct that those supposed benefits will not be shared equally. Here I would point out that my loyalties lie with working class not the Substack reading class. If the Substack reading class has to pay some more for goods, then so be it.
There's no Substack reading class. If there was, it's center point would be those in Information Technology. It would also not be the primary beneficiary of less expensive goods, that benefit would mostly be captured by what you probably mean by working class.
The inequality in benefit mostly comes from reductions in local, state and federal taxes, and the accompanying drops in investment in research and development, education and infrastructure investment as a result.
As to outsourcing of information technology, your assessment is incomplete. Yes, of course India and Indian's want to be involved in higher skill and higher paying jobs. Many individual Indian's (and other nationalities) already have after working in the sector for years to gain the necessary experience. There are also many many more that have recently joined that workforce but don't yet have that experience. They will in time have that experience, and of course they will try to make use of it.
You can feel threatened by this, but it doesn't really make sense as there's plenty of room in that sector, and many problems left to be solved. Those individuals with the most experience will always be even more valuable the more they are surrounded by others that seek their guidance in solving those problems.
Loyalties are a topic you bring to a zero-sum game. Focusing upon them when presented with an opportunity to collaborate for the common good will lead to worse outcomes for everyone. Your overall loyalty statement is not against the "Substack reading" class, but against 2/3rds of the worlds population.. approximately 4 billion people.
Thanks for posting. It's a bit of a head-scratch, though, that you ignore SE Asia's richest nation (far richer than Malaysia, which you optimistically site as having First World living standards) and the US's staunchest security partner in the region, Singapore.
US markets are for many years now substantially open, tariff free, to SE Asian[ ASEAN countries. Most have booming trade ties with the US as well as huge inbound US investment. These parts of your proposed policy direction are substantially in place and working.
South Asia -- India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka especially are a different story. One big positive in the region: Bangladesh. The US has been prime mover behind 'its remarkable economic rise in last 25 years.
Plan: Make a NatGas + Oil pipeline from the Permian Basin to the West Coast to sell US oil to IPEF partners (South and East Asian countries). Add California if it is interested, otherwise we can let them buy gas at $6 a gallon.
Outcomes:
1. Communicate to domestic stakeholders that this will decrease the trade surplus with these countries and bring in investment capital to USA.
2. These countries are more willing to give money to the US which will use it for good purpose, like investment in other economies, etc. rather than give it to Russia, and the gulf states, which use this money to fund proxy wars which ultimately affects Asia in form of terrorism and war.
3. Anyway we need syngas for API manufacturing and petroleum for plastics and everything else. So it will be better if we get it from a cleaner source (light sweet crude and free natgas) rather than from the Asian countries.
Why not subsidize exports of US nuclear power technology to India?
The Chinese might respond with export subsidies of their own, but that would be no bad thing. Clean energy for the world's largest country (within a year or two, if it hasn't passed China already) would kill several birds with one stone.
>>> "So, let's cherish peace together."
OMG.
This should be the fucking poli-sci textbook example of the meaning of "doublespeak". A power that wants to violently invade a neighbor talking about "cherishing peace" is just SOOOO rich!
I’m not sure why there’s a notable absence of Singapore in IPEF. Seems to be right up their alley and they’re typically all for deepening regional forums and dialogues. On top of that they’re a key regional ally sitting right at the eastern approaches to the Strait of Malacca.
China also has full naval access to Singapore. It has deals with both of us
We have one of 7th Fleet’s Task Force’s there and a full aircraft carrier pier at Changi Naval Base… I’m not sure the Chinese have the same Defense relationship.
Totally agree. These countries also need to deepen bilateral trade and alliances between each other. And other allies in Europe and elsewhere will need to move in the same direction. Keeping compeition with China peaceful depends upon it. A weak alliance will invite war. Current Chinese political rhetoric, as well as observed preparations, clearly puts that on the table. Stability would be acheived if such an alliance did not fully depend on the USA or any other single country.
I'm optimistic about this though because most of these countries simply cannot ally closely with China without major changes in Chinese forgein policy. China claims territory in many and could conceivably do so in others. USA intervention attracts criticism everywhere but at least people understand its limits. What limits would Chinese leaders place on forgein intervention if they had the power to do more?
Excellent piece, thanks again Noah!
I mean... i’m a neoliberal mf’er like you, but access to US markets created a domestic political backlash that can’t be ignored. It’d be nice if countries protected their favored industries less in trade agreements
You have just shown why South-East Asia needs China. How many of these deals would have been made if the was no strategic competitor to Washington ? As an economist you know what happens to a market dominated by a monopoly.
Why not Latin america instead? I'm not sure why Latin America gets neglected so much, but I think it's much more important for western interests that latin america gets more prosperous and stable.
Three reasons.
1) Latin America, or most of it at least, is more developed than most of South and South East Asia already.
2)The population of Latin America is very miniscule compared to SA or SEA. 600m to ≈3 Billion ratio.
3) If most of SEA or SA were to be on the same level as Latin America economically speaking, it would be the biggest economic centre in the world, just because of its huge population. China is on the same level as Brazil economically, yet has an oversized influence because of its population. Imagine that but for India+Bangladesh+Malaysia+Indonesia+Vietnam+Sri Lanka.
"If most of SEA or SA were to be on the same level as Latin America economically speaking, it would be the biggest economic centre in the world, just because of its huge population. "
Only if you are very pessimistic about growth prospects! Personally I think the world's economic center will remain in the west and the US should pursue policy around that assumption.
I'm not saying to disengage from south asia, but there is this weird push in some elite circles to drop everything to focus on asia whereas I think US priorities should be Europe>East-Asia>Latin America>The Rest.
I
I disagree.
"Personally I think the world's economic center will remain in the west and the US should pursue policy around that assumption"
China being on the same level as Brazil was enough to push the world's economic centre of gravity from the Atlantic to the Russian hinterlands. SEA and SA being on the same level as LatAM will make it come further east.
America already trades more in the Pacific than in the Atlantic.
I'm not being pessimistic about growth prospects, its just that SEA and SA will have huge middle classes, and the largest consumer base in the world. Almost 50 percent of the world lives here. The biggest market in history. Europe, Latin America are already for the most part, allied with America, and doesn't require more engagement than now to stay that way. SEA and SA needs this. America's biggest threat is China, and the only way to counter China is to have strong allies in SEA and SA.
Tldr, if america wants to triumph over China, SEA and SA will be the top priorities. Its been happening for quite some time now.
"China being on the same level as Brazil was enough to push the world's economic centre of gravity from the Atlantic to the Russian hinterlands. SEA and SA being on the same level as LatAM will make it come further east. "
China to me seems to be headed down the same road as Japan(which, although people have forgotten, represented 20% of the world's economy in 1989). There is no guarantee that developing countries will continue converging with the west at the same pace. Indeed, I think it's more likely that the "middle-income trap" is harder to break than some people give it credit for.
I think just about every country which has broken the “middle income trap” started industrializing 100 years ago or more.
The only exceptions are South Korea and Taiwan. Both of whom have received significant external contributions from the international community.
The other exception would be Israel but I too has benefitted from a lot of external connections. I concur though, it is very hard to become a high income society.
Even if, China and the rest of SA and SEA stay middle income trapped, which is very big possiblity, it will still have the largest market in the world to cater to.
Great piece—as always. I think the problem though lies more with a reticence on the part of South Asians and Southeast Asians to unambiguously align with the USA when America just seems like such a “wild card.”
Trump trashed American Allies quite publicly and a couple of times threatened to abrogate US mutual defense commitments. Biden’s record with Afghanistan shocked the world. It is hard to know whether you can rely on America for multi-decade mutual support.
Part of the problem is that if America “tires” of China it can withdraw from the world in a way that its tentative Allies cannot. They need to know the USA is committed. I am not sure the past 5 years have helped.
Don't forget South America or Africa. In a cold geo-political sense, development here is more valuable than Asia. The proximity to China has more downside than upside. A common mistake is to view apply a military view, which would mean surrounding China with a defensive perimeter. But really, since we expect (with reservations expressed as fears) peace, that plays out mostly as economic and political influence, geography has a different importance.
An Asian country can "switch sides", and is more likely to than other places, due to the proximity and the predictable strong pull to trade with China. Switching sides might mean changing political expressions (more totalitarian, less democratic), it might mean taking a side in a trade dispute, and in the most extreme, it might mean reacting to military threats.
Speaking just geographically I'd rather have the world's semiconductor center in Nigeria than Taiwan. That's not possible today since Nigeria's state capacity is not effective enough to support that. But if it really was so easy a choice, the world would be a slightly safer place from the change.
The same is basically true for all the countries surrounding China. If all the world's industrial capacity is centered there, it would seem to make China's position in the world stronger. While it would mean those economies were more capable of sustaining a military and other state capacity to resist Chinese military and political pressures, it would also increase China's opportunities to win them and thus gain the advantage of all that industrial capacity.
That's definitely not suggesting that it's a good strategy to treat most of South and Southeast Asia as anything other than allies or potential allies, but it does suggest that it would be a possibly grave mistake to give priority in a way that neglects those places geographically closer. Increases in industrial and state capacity in South America and especially Africa would be some of the greatest possible boons to a peaceful future world.
Enriching other nations at the expense of American workers to advance "American" interests. A true classic of the foreign policy establishment. We don't need Russia, China or the Islamists. The American government hates its own people enough.
Americans gain benefits from those relationships. Goods are more plentiful and less expensive. Many higher skill (and thus higher paying) jobs are created by nature of those relationships. If there's any real concern in that about harms to Americans, it comes from the not everyone sharing those benefits equally while being affected by disruptions that change brings.
Change is also going to be disruptive to someone, thus it's understandable there's always some pushback to it. But it's also not avoidable. Attempting to stand still is just abandoning your own agency and putting your own future fully outside your control.
Those higher skill and higher paying jobs will be the ones that will be outsourced. Countries like India want to move up their informationt technology chain and not forever be a call center country. And if the US Government foolishly opens up its markets, it will definetely happen. And you are correct that those supposed benefits will not be shared equally. Here I would point out that my loyalties lie with working class not the Substack reading class. If the Substack reading class has to pay some more for goods, then so be it.
There's no Substack reading class. If there was, it's center point would be those in Information Technology. It would also not be the primary beneficiary of less expensive goods, that benefit would mostly be captured by what you probably mean by working class.
The inequality in benefit mostly comes from reductions in local, state and federal taxes, and the accompanying drops in investment in research and development, education and infrastructure investment as a result.
As to outsourcing of information technology, your assessment is incomplete. Yes, of course India and Indian's want to be involved in higher skill and higher paying jobs. Many individual Indian's (and other nationalities) already have after working in the sector for years to gain the necessary experience. There are also many many more that have recently joined that workforce but don't yet have that experience. They will in time have that experience, and of course they will try to make use of it.
You can feel threatened by this, but it doesn't really make sense as there's plenty of room in that sector, and many problems left to be solved. Those individuals with the most experience will always be even more valuable the more they are surrounded by others that seek their guidance in solving those problems.
Loyalties are a topic you bring to a zero-sum game. Focusing upon them when presented with an opportunity to collaborate for the common good will lead to worse outcomes for everyone. Your overall loyalty statement is not against the "Substack reading" class, but against 2/3rds of the worlds population.. approximately 4 billion people.
Thanks for posting. It's a bit of a head-scratch, though, that you ignore SE Asia's richest nation (far richer than Malaysia, which you optimistically site as having First World living standards) and the US's staunchest security partner in the region, Singapore.
US markets are for many years now substantially open, tariff free, to SE Asian[ ASEAN countries. Most have booming trade ties with the US as well as huge inbound US investment. These parts of your proposed policy direction are substantially in place and working.
South Asia -- India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka especially are a different story. One big positive in the region: Bangladesh. The US has been prime mover behind 'its remarkable economic rise in last 25 years.
If we had guaranteed income and/or guaranteed jobs people would not worry as much about opening our markets and borders.
I have a simple policy proposal.
Plan: Make a NatGas + Oil pipeline from the Permian Basin to the West Coast to sell US oil to IPEF partners (South and East Asian countries). Add California if it is interested, otherwise we can let them buy gas at $6 a gallon.
Outcomes:
1. Communicate to domestic stakeholders that this will decrease the trade surplus with these countries and bring in investment capital to USA.
2. These countries are more willing to give money to the US which will use it for good purpose, like investment in other economies, etc. rather than give it to Russia, and the gulf states, which use this money to fund proxy wars which ultimately affects Asia in form of terrorism and war.
3. Anyway we need syngas for API manufacturing and petroleum for plastics and everything else. So it will be better if we get it from a cleaner source (light sweet crude and free natgas) rather than from the Asian countries.
Can you guys amplify this? I think this is required for Indo-Pacific cooperation, from a QUAD perspective. Japan and India would love US crude.
Why not subsidize exports of US nuclear power technology to India?
The Chinese might respond with export subsidies of their own, but that would be no bad thing. Clean energy for the world's largest country (within a year or two, if it hasn't passed China already) would kill several birds with one stone.
US nuclear power kind of sucks. They might be better with French or Korean fission technology.