If you are my age, you might have been taught about how “Remember the Maine” was used as a rallying cry by the government and certain corrupt media outlets as a pretext for war against Spain. In fact, there was never any evidence that Spain attacked the Maine.
About the time I was being taught about this event, the US government lied about an incident involving a US warship in the Gulf of Tonkin. They claimed that North Vietnam fired first in an altercation with a US warship. (And also lied about a second altercation.) This was used as a pretext for going to war with North Vietnam.
In 2003, the US government exaggerated evidence that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, and used this “intelligence” as a pretext for war.
The Vietnam War and the Iraq War turned out to be disasters for the US. Actually, the Spanish American War was also a disaster, although this fact is not widely known. US and Filipino casualties ended up being comparable to US and Iraqi casualties in the Iraq War.
Now there is evidence that the US government intends to blame China for the coronavirus epidemic, and use this as a pretext for a sort of “cold war” with China. Of course cold wars can turn hot, as might occur if an accident occurs during a confrontation between US and Chinese warships in the South China Sea. And unlike Iraq, China really does have weapons of mass destruction.
In the previous three cases, there was reason to object to the behavior of Spain, North Vietnam and Iraq. But not enough to justify war. Similarly, there are aspects of Chinese behavior that are objectionable, but not enough to justify a cold war.
The political nature of this war is obvious once you begin to look at the specifics. There seems to be great interest in the US in a theory that the virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan, rather than from an animal market (as claimed by the Chinese government.)
Regardless of the truth of the matter, there is absolutely no reason to trust either government’s account. That’s because both countries are advocating positions that, objectively speaking, work against their own government’s objectives.
Why would the US be so interested in claiming that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab, rather than accidentally escaped from an animal market? After all, research labs that study viruses exist in many countries, and are considered perfectly legitimate enterprises. In contrast, many people in Western countries view China’s animal markets with extreme distaste. These are places where all sorts of wild animal are treated poorly before being consumed as food. Some argue that they should be shut down.
If you thought about the issue logically, it should be China claiming that the virus accidentally escaped from a research lab and the US claiming that it escaped from a “wet market”. But politics is not logical. The US government did not use logic when it tried to convince Americans to go to war against Spain, North Vietnam and Iraq. Rather they relied on propaganda that played on the public’s most basic instincts, their “reptilian brains”.
The average voter is not well informed on the issues. When they hear “virus escaped from a Chinese lab” they think in terms of mad scientists in Hollywood movies, creating a sort of “Frankenvirus”. Both the US and the Chinese governments know this, which is why they frantically try to put out stories that, objectively speaking, advance the interest of the other side. The US puts forward a theory that is actually pro-China, but sounds anti-China to the public, and China responds with the reverse.
If the US government were seriously interested in the truth, you would not see them accusing China of covering up a lab accident. Why act outraged when a foreign government admits to something even worse than what you privately believe happened. That makes no sense. For that reason, I am almost certain that the US government is purposely engaged in anti-China propaganda with the objective of creating a new cold war. We may never know exactly where the virus originally came from, but that doesn’t matter at all to the leaders of the US or China. (Nor does it matter to me, unless it was artificially created, which seems extremely unlikely.) Theories are weapons, to be used to advance certain foreign policy objectives. The US government has made up its mind that it wants to have a cold war with China, and it will do whatever it takes to make that happen.
As I get older, I increasingly wonder why we even teach history to our students. What’s the point? Why explain the Maine incident, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the Iraq War fiasco to students? Do we really believe that students will learn something from these lessons?
PS. President Trump is replacing more independent-minded intelligence officials with his own loyalists:
A Trump loyalist nominated as director of national intelligence (DNI) looked set to sail through Senate confirmation hearings on Tuesday, only nine months after being forced to withdraw for having exaggerated his security experience.
John Ratcliffe, a Republican congressman who fiercely defended the president in last year’s impeachment hearings, told the Senate intelligence committee that he would speak truth to power if confirmed as DNI.
Ratcliffe was reminded by Democratic senators that his two predecessors had been forced from their posts because the findings of the intelligence community irritated Donald Trump, and that the spy agencies were currently under pressure to provide evidence for Trump’s claim that the coronavirus outbreak started in a Chinese laboratory.
Get ready for the next manufactured (cold) war hysteria. It’s coming.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Hutcheson
May 6 2020 at 1:53pm
If only the “cold war” logic were applied to strengthening the economy and US “soft power vis a vis China: full employment fiscal surplussed, more liberal immigration, especially for educated immigrants, freer trade, a shift toward consumption from income taxation, regulation guided by cost-benefit considerations, pigou taxation of negative externalities.
Scott Sumner
May 6 2020 at 3:13pm
Yes, if only.
Mark
May 6 2020 at 5:13pm
Yes, some people are making this argument. I thought the Pete Buttgieg article in the Washington Post was a good example of this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/05/01/trump-china-biden-election/
Unfortunately it does seem to be mostly drowned out for now. But potentially this could be a good angle to take for Democrats politically because it lets them criticize both China and Trump. So maybe we will see this argument made more often.
Mark Z
May 6 2020 at 10:51pm
I think there’s also a pretty solid argument that, unless we expect war to be most likely in the near future and the likelihood to decline rapidly after, to maximize preparedness in the future, we should cut defense spending now. Improves our future fiscal state and GDP and therefore ability to afford a war 20 or 30 years out. Also, waiting to rearm until as late as possible before the war means you rearm with better technology. I’ve heard it argued that this is why Neville Chamberlain’s delay in rearming actually worked to Britain’s advantage, and was the reason the RAF was able to make widespread use of radar while the Luftwaffe did not.
Henri Hein
May 7 2020 at 1:51pm
That also reminds me of Sun Tzu’s admonishment: “The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy.” Not to mention my favorite: “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
Jon Murphy
May 6 2020 at 2:03pm
If the goal is to undermine the influence/credibility of the Chinese government, wouldn’t it make sense to go after their labs?
Wouldn’t the argument go something like this?:
Yes, virus labs are accepted and used worldwide. But look how incompetent the Chinese government is! Not only did they let a virus escape, they hindered our efforts to combat it! Therefore, they must be punished as an irresponsible member of the community of nations!
(Back to me)
One would not be able to make the same argument, I don’t think, for wet markets.
Does that make sense? Or did I miss your point?
Scott Sumner
May 6 2020 at 3:15pm
Jon, The “incompetence” in allowing wet markets is far more egregious than the incompetence of a lab accident (which happens in all countries, BTW.)
Yes, the cover-up would be a better argument, if only the US government had not done the same.
Jon Murphy
May 6 2020 at 3:25pm
Ah ok. I think I follow you now.
Mark Z
May 6 2020 at 10:55pm
I think there’s a sin of commission vs. commission difference that explains the difference in perceived severity: government researchers at a national university doing something incompetent seems worse to people than the government ‘merely’ failing to stop poachers from selling tainted pangolin meat, or whatever it turns out to be.
Scott Sumner
May 7 2020 at 1:13pm
I agree, but of course the exact opposite is true. The US is trying to prove bad optics, not bad actions.
Phil H
May 6 2020 at 2:19pm
“I am almost certain that the US government is purposely engaged in anti-China propaganda with the objective of creating a new cold war.”
I draw a little comfort from how incompetent Trump and his minions are in most areas. Unfortunately he has demonstrated a great deal of ability to whip up media frenzies, so it is entirely possible that this is the one thing he will do very well.
Brian
May 6 2020 at 2:40pm
Scott,
I think you are reading way too much into this. Is it possible the U.S. government wants to start a cold war with China? I suppose. But I could see all these claims being made without that.
People love conspiracy stories, Trump included. Nothing’s better than a “deadly virus leaked from a top-secret lab” conspiracy. It’s like a Tom Clancy thriller.
Trump loves blaming foreigners for any troubles we have. He basically got elected on that single platform. There’s every reason to do it here too.
Like Jon Murphy, I don’t see how the “COVID-19 came from a lab” story favors China. It’s a way of showing how incompetent and careless they are. It also allows for the additional conspiracy of “they hid it from us.” This story puts the blame firmly on the Chinese government. Saying it started in a market might blame the dirtiness and sloppiness of the Chinese people, but it’s not as fun as blaming the government.
Blaming the government lab opens up the potential for claimed reparations. Maybe Trump can use those to build his wall. 😉 With an origin in a wet market, it just seems like random bad luck. There are no reparations for that.
Given how many great reasons there are to push this story, an evil plot to start a cold war seems the least of them.
Scott Sumner
May 6 2020 at 3:20pm
See my reply to Jon. You are considering how it looks to voters (which is exactly my point), not objectively how big a policy error did the Chinese make. The decision to allow wet markets is a much bigger policy error than the decision to allow labs.
I do agree that Trump is doing this for political reasons, indeed the entire cold war with China is politically motivated from Trump’s perspective (although others in the US have different motivations). Objectively speaking, it’s Russia that is the expansionist power, not China.
Chris H
May 6 2020 at 2:43pm
Yikes. I believe this deserves Arnold Kling’s sometime closing line: “Have a nice day.”
Andrew_FL
May 6 2020 at 3:02pm
The Chinese Government’s contention is not that the virus originated from a market. Their domestic propaganda now states that the virus is an American bioweapon.
I wonder what, pray tell, you think *would* justify a “cold war”-if not what China is doing in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and frankly their own central territory. The Soviet Union certainly did nothing worse than what China has done, is doing, and will do. I imagine you must think Ronald Reagan was an unhinged cowboy aggressor, and the Soviets really ought to have been allowed to win the Cold War.
Scott Sumner
May 6 2020 at 3:26pm
Russia is an expansionist power, China is not. That’s the crucial difference. And yet Trump frequently praises Putin. Of course Mao’s government was among the worst in human history, but that has no bearing on current policy.
Look at what India is doing to its Muslims. Should we also have a cold war with India? How about a cold war with Saudi Arabia, in response to their atrocities in Yemen? Actually, a bunch of GOP Congressmen are calling for us to get tough with Saudi Arabia, but not because of Yemen, rather because the Saudis are producing too much oil!
It’s hard to be too cynical in today’s world.
zeke5123
May 6 2020 at 4:12pm
What makes you think China isn’t an expansionist power?
Mark
May 6 2020 at 5:14pm
Because China hasn’t been in a war since the 70s and hasn’t expanded its territory through violence since the 1700s.
Plato’s Revenge
May 6 2020 at 6:54pm
Tibet?
artificial islands in the South China Sea?
Scott Sumner
May 6 2020 at 7:02pm
I don’t know for certain, however, I see no evidence that China plans to grab territory from other countries and annex it. Throughout their history, they have generally not been particularly expansionist, and their current government says it is strongly opposed to expansionism.
You can find old maps of China that show Tibet to be part of China, and those islands in the South China Sea were basically uninhabited specks of land that until recently no one wanted. Ownership is unclear. That doesn’t mean I agree with China on those issues, just that it’s not at all comparable to what Russia is doing.
Guille
May 7 2020 at 5:22am
Hi Scott,
Not just Tibet, what about Hong Kong and Taiwan? You can claim that Hong Kong is already “Chinese” but getting absolute control over their political system is a way of expansion. Also, they may be looking for further military influence:
https://www.ft.com/content/1249f934-20dd-11ea-92da-f0c92e957a96
Or more subtle economic influence:
https://www.ft.com/content/bf2cfd72-f6c1-11e9-9ef3-eca8fc8f2d65
Also, I would argue they are pushing for other types of expansions (cultural and ideological) that are disturbing and dangerous for the West as a whole, not just the US:
https://www.ft.com/content/ba8645ca-016c-11ea-b7bc-f3fa4e77dd47
https://www.ft.com/content/2dd5ed50-f538-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654
https://www.ft.com/content/f56fce50-ff13-11e9-b7bc-f3fa4e77dd47
https://www.ft.com/content/3a660d3c-1579-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385
I think it’s difficult to argue against a Chinese desire for expansion. They just choose the ways of actions they deem more efficient in each situation. A violent confrontation is not viable with Western countries but they believe it can work with Tibet or Hong Kong (to a lower degree).
You may argue this is not enough to justify a Cold War. But I don’t think you can say China has not a foreign policy agenda against the interest of the West or that it is not an expansionary power. We shouldn’t be naive about China. They probably are the greatest thereat to freedom we will have in the 21st century.
Scott Sumner
May 7 2020 at 1:20pm
There’a a big difference between bad behavior in areas that are internationally recognized as part of China (HK, Taiwan, etc.) vs. taking land from other sovereign nations. BTW, Even HK and Taiwan officially accept the “One China” doctrine. Taiwan even claims Tibet.
I don’t see China trying to force their ideology on others. China has much more respect for democratic countries than it does for North Korea, Venezuela or other authoritarian places. It does business with tyrants (as does the US), but most of its trade is with democratic countries. Chinese businesses have contempt for places like Russia, and respect for the US/European economies.
Guille
May 7 2020 at 3:14pm
I also think there is a difference between bad behavior in areas that are internationally recognized as part of China (HK, Taiwan, etc.) vs. taking land from other sovereign nations (although probably not as big as you). The fact that a government represses their own citizens, as the Chinese toughly does with theirs, doesn’t mean it’s going to have an aggressive expansionary policy. Neither implies they are going to impose their ideology abroad. However, if they have such low contempt with their nationals, you shouldn’t expect them to have it for others. If they repress dissidence and impose ideology within their borders, they would probably do so abroad if they perceive dissidence there as a threat and calculate the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. So, do they do it?
I think there is evidence of this. The Houston Rockets GM tweet was a famous example, but there are others (just from a quick search):
https://www.ft.com/content/8e839064-317c-11ea-9703-eea0cae3f0de
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/sports/basketball/nba-china-hong-kong.html
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/01/31/prosecution-china-student-tweets-he-posted-while-studying-us-raises-free-speech
(BTW, Hong Kong accepted the One country-two systems doctrine, not the One country-One system one).
Regarding China doing business with democratic countries:
Regular Chinese with businesses probably just want to make money and they don’t necessarily have to share the CCP’s motives.
I would guess that the preference Chinese businesses have for the US and Europe over other authoritarians countries (especially Venezuela) may have to do with legal certainty and property rights, not “just” that they like democracy.
The EU and the US are second and third world’s largest economic areas. If you are the largest one (China) it’s difficult not to have as big trade partners the second and third ones.
But why doesn’t the Chinese government shut this down altogether? The CCP also benefits from trade and economic growth as it legitimatizes their ruling.
As I said, this is not a justification for a new Cold War. But it is important to be aware of the activities authoritarian countries may be doing to restrict rights and freedoms we value and to act accordingly and proportionally (this doesn’t have to mean a direct confrontation).
Alan Goldhammer
May 6 2020 at 5:05pm
Very good post and a couple of observations.
Whether there was a containment escape from the Wuhan lab is irrelevant. Stuff happens all the time. Look at the Sverdlovsk anthrax release which did kill a fair number of Russians. The US got lucky with the Reston outbreak that killed monkeys and was documented in Richard Preston’s “the Hot Zone.” Fortunately, the virus was specific to monkeys. I had a huge lab accident when a flask full of log growth B. pertussis (whooping cough) shattered and spilled all over me; yes this ended innocuous but shows what can happen. Lots of examples to cite here.
Soybean futures are certainly not rebounding these days. China still has huge leverage regarding imports of American farm products. What will the Iowa farmers think in November if silos are still full of soybeans?
The Trump Administration is using this as a distraction spurred on by Pompeo, Navarro, etc.
Mark
May 6 2020 at 5:18pm
The thing that’s disturbing is how many people are believing things that are demonstrably false, like China only shut down Wuhan after the Chinese New Year or that China was allowing regular commercial international flights out of Wuhan while blocking domestic travel after January 23. I see these claims repeated in mainstream media sources and in many Internet comments on mainstream websites. Even Trump repeated the latter claim recently. It is starting to feel a bit like 2003 when everyone insisted Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was in cahoots with Bin Laden. We might not have a state propaganda apparatus like China’s but our media seems capable of serving a similar role.
Scott Sumner
May 6 2020 at 7:03pm
Yes, it’s really sad.
john hare
May 6 2020 at 7:20pm
I believe a cold war with China would get unpopular real fast with the American consumer. Buy American is a nice slogan. Save money buy buying at a third of the price hits harder. When price of goods goes up fast and far, it should get entertaining fast.
Unless it could be used as a lever to clear some of the obstacles to domestic production.
Mark Z
May 6 2020 at 11:24pm
I think (echoing Alan above) that either scenario is pretty irrelevant to foreign policy; incompetence by a foreign government, as opposed to malice, is a poor excuse for confrontation. Hawkish foreign policy commentators, though perhaps cynically exploiting the current crisis, believe that we were already in a cold war with China, we just didn’t know it yet. They contend that the ‘liberal’ model, where free trade and prosperity were supposed to cause China to liberalize, has failed. I think there’s a kernel of truth to that. China’s political progression has been disappointing, and we shouldn’t underestimate the ability of wealthy, industrialized nations with sizable middle classes to remain deeply politically and culturally illiberal (interwar Germany being a prominent example). That said, the deduction that we should take a more confrontational, punitive approach is counterproductive. Going too slowly in the right direction is better than going faster in the wrong direction.
Lorenzo from Oz
May 7 2020 at 8:51pm
Territorial expansionism is not the issue with Chinese policy. China has quite a record of violent interaction with neighbours without being territorially expansionary, with border wars with the Soviet Union, India and Vietnam.
If you want to suggest the Trump Administration’s policy to China is inconsistent and un-clever, well yes.
Not sure that something that is Cold War-like is avoidable. The grand strategy of the Beijing regime presumes or implies a status to the Middle Kingdom that no United States that takes its alliance system seriously is likely to acquiesce.
A certain global anger at China over covid-19 is surely unavoidable, and their over-the-top reactions to pretty mild support for an open enquiry both indicates a certain defensiveness over the origins of the pandemic and its aspirations for status dominance.
Comments are closed.