Chinese police officers in front of the Tiananmen Gate. Credit: Betsy Joles/Getty

China is on a war footing. While the Covid-19 outbreak has exposed some grave political miscalculations behind decades of international strategic relations with Beijing, the depths of our problem are only just beginning to dawn on us.
Fuelled by our desire for ever cheaper goods, the world has collectively sleepwalked into a supply-side dependency on the People’s Republic.
The gamble had been pitched as a trade-off. China was expected to evolve democratic norms and embrace relations with the international community, while we got richer from globalisation. But we have been played.
Whether it’s clothing and factory-fashion, personal protective equipment or hardware parts, too many of our manufactured goods today rely on a ‘Made in China’ supply-chain. At the same time as it was busy taking control over our manufacturing, China was busy cloning western software, via her lackadaisical respect for international copyright rules.
And while the world relies on China for hardware, China avoids software dependency on outsiders by creating substitutes: TikTok to replace snapchat, Weibo instead of Twitter, WeChat & RenRen for Facebook. Indeed, there is an alternative Chinese version for almost any platform.
With manufactured goods and hardware ‘Made in China’, and software increasingly ‘Cloned in China’, what of natural resources? Through the ‘Belt & Road’ initiative — a ‘21st century Silk Road’ connecting China to Europe over a network of land and sea trade routes, the People’s Republic has embarked on huge infrastructure projects in 60 countries, including loans and construction projects that secure key ports and mines as collateral to China for payment.
Look to Pakistan, African or southeast Asian nations to see China’s rapid expansion in ownership of mines and ports. Look to the UK and China’s attempts to secure our telecoms industry via the Huawei deal, her recent purchase of British Steel, and her quest to secure the nuclear power industry. Beijing even secured a deal to develop British nuclear station Hinckley point C in Somerset, thus paving the way globally for China to enter the global market to dominate nuclear power.
Over decades, we have naively outsourced or lost manufacturing, software, natural resources and critical infrastructure to China. The economic benefits of globalisation are well trodden, yet as Covid-19 has shown, it has left our society vulnerable during a major crisis, unable to manufacture the most basic of necessities such as PPE. Meanwhile, China has achieved self-sufficiency.
While pursuing economic dominance abroad, China’s communist one-party state has centralised political power at home, gained unprecedented command over her own population via wide ranging and well-documented spy-tech, and placed anything between 1 to 2 million Uigur Muslims in gulags.
Considering what we know of colonial history, there is little room for doubt that China is at a pre-colonial stage. States at this stage attempt to centralise domestic power under a strong leader, dominate global supply chains and monopolise industry, all the while expanding abroad to secure natural resources. China is aggressively pursuing total national self-sufficiency, and the question arises as to why.
My conclusion is that China is preparing for war: total, not limited war. The kind that seeks to rebalance the world order, tipping it in her favour by replacing the US as the dominant global power. Historically, major conflicts have arisen when the leading global power is challenged by a rival, a problem known as the Thucydides trap — and China is expected (by some metrics) to overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy this decade.
Also, and crucially unlike us, China is preparing for the next type of war. The People’s Republic knows that she cannot beat the US militarily — and she knows that type of ground war is almost over.
Instead, by securing global supply chains, maintaining IT independence, and having a cast-iron grip over her own population, China can focus on building her cyber and biological war capabilities while remaining relatively safeguarded against the same herself. Considering all of this, from steel to nuclear to telecoms, our policy towards China until 2020 can best be described as one of miserably failed economic appeasement. From China’s perspective, she has successfully gifted us a Trojan Horse.
So what is the solution? Do we take that bait and prepare for war too? No. We must first understand what happened, and grasp how it came that we so willingly handed China the very tools by which to defeat us.
For too long, China has had a strategy for dealing with us, while we have had no strategy for dealing with China. We must urgently pivot our strategic relationship, one that entails assuming that China is in a Cold War with us already, and ends our current naivety.
We must minimise our total global supply-chain dependency on China, or any one nation for that matter. Trade with China, yes, but we must ringfence critical infrastructure: nuclear, telecoms and natural resources such as steel.
As recent politicisation of the WHO highlights, the post-war international community — supposedly governed by the UN — is no longer serving its purpose, and perhaps more than ever the UN faces a crisis in moral authority. Instead, NATO-style, we must reorder our strategic and military alliances around the Pacific and build an international consensus against the broader expansionist desire of the Chinese Communist Party.
Just like with nuclear non-proliferation, there must be newly-developed global consequences for negligence in cyber and bio hazard safety. Post-Covid, we would be wise to build a new global consensus on which punitive measures are suited to states that violate our cyber or biological safety.
Whatever happens in China does not stay in China. Whereas our Orientalist based ‘othering’ of China created this blind spot, only our hubris and naivety would allow for us to continue thus blind. We have been outmaneuvered, but this pandemic has magnified our failures and brought them to the fore. We would only be deserving of loss if we did not learn the lessons now.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe media seem very uncomfortable with Musk being his own man and not particularly biased.
The media seem very uncomfortable with Musk being his own man and not particularly biased.
Let’s encourage Musk to buy Facebook as well.
Let’s encourage Musk to buy Facebook as well.
I think if you look back at the headlines following the 2016 election it looks like media organizations like Bookface came under substantial pressure for the apparatus of state to toe the Democratic line under threat of regulatory intervention
Partially true.
But most of their staff are censorious, woke, little pr**ks or some mentally ill transbolix creatures.
Apart from top management who are there to create media wars (and make mega money).
To distract woke slaves from noticing that their lot is much worse than their parents.
Poor but virtuous….
Brain dead sheep…
I do not disagree with you, but they were given a green light
I do not disagree with you, but they were given a green light
Partially true.
But most of their staff are censorious, woke, little pr**ks or some mentally ill transbolix creatures.
Apart from top management who are there to create media wars (and make mega money).
To distract woke slaves from noticing that their lot is much worse than their parents.
Poor but virtuous….
Brain dead sheep…
I think if you look back at the headlines following the 2016 election it looks like media organizations like Bookface came under substantial pressure for the apparatus of state to toe the Democratic line under threat of regulatory intervention
People like Zuckerberg are at the forefront of the cultural marxist revolution that is hell bent on destroying western civilisation. Thankfully there are still a few influential individuals like Elon Musk who are strong enough, intellectually, morally and financially, to stand up and challenge the Woking Class.
People like Zuckerberg are at the forefront of the cultural marxist revolution that is hell bent on destroying western civilisation. Thankfully there are still a few influential individuals like Elon Musk who are strong enough, intellectually, morally and financially, to stand up and challenge the Woking Class.
Elon Musk is right. He’s the John Wayne of social media. A straight-shooter.
Elon Musk is right. He’s the John Wayne of social media. A straight-shooter.
.
.
4 failed marriages and named his kid after a squiggle. Don’t see what all the fuss is about
4 failed marriages and named his kid after a squiggle. Don’t see what all the fuss is about
Musk is still a t**t though
Frank, do some research about the man before launching nonsense, ad hominem attacks. His YouTube interview by Lex Fridman is a good place to start.
Frank, do some research about the man before launching nonsense, ad hominem attacks. His YouTube interview by Lex Fridman is a good place to start.
Musk is still a t**t though
If I had to choose between Trump and Biden, I’d go for Biden too. Although that is the very definition of having to choose between plague and cholera.
But the key question is *if* the choice of the next President was between a bombastic Trump and a cognitively challenged Biden – which bad choice would you make? Now that you have seen both in ‘action’.
Would that be a ‘get the dope out’ campaign?
Still Biden. And promptly fall into a deep depression because out of 300 million people, the US has managed to front up only a man obviously in serious cognitive decline and a raging, delusional narcissist as presidential candidates.
I don’t know enough about US domestic politics to comment on that aspect of Trump’s presidency. But on foreign policy, whatever you might think of his personal oafishness, he got a lot of big calls right.
Pulling out of the Paris Agreement, cancelling the Iran nuclear deal, telling the European members of NATO to pay more for their own defence, telling Germany it was over-dependent on Russian gas, engaging with N Korea, facilitating deals between Israel and several of it’s Arab neighbours. Quite a lot to like there, especially when compared with Biden’s multiple foreign policy disasters.
Exactly.
If you compare Trump actual policies and achievents with not just Biden but Obama and Clinton and young Bush, he is way ahead.
Let’s remember as well that he called out China for various abuses.
Exactly.
If you compare Trump actual policies and achievents with not just Biden but Obama and Clinton and young Bush, he is way ahead.
Let’s remember as well that he called out China for various abuses.
And you fail to see that Biden might be a candidate because, supposedly sensible, people like you think he is better than Trump?
OK, Trump is boorish but his comments and actions on many big issues were correct.
Mass illigal immigration from South America?
Too much dependence on Russian energy by Europe?
Europe expecting USA to pay for their defence.
List is much longer…
I don’t know enough about US domestic politics to comment on that aspect of Trump’s presidency. But on foreign policy, whatever you might think of his personal oafishness, he got a lot of big calls right.
Pulling out of the Paris Agreement, cancelling the Iran nuclear deal, telling the European members of NATO to pay more for their own defence, telling Germany it was over-dependent on Russian gas, engaging with N Korea, facilitating deals between Israel and several of it’s Arab neighbours. Quite a lot to like there, especially when compared with Biden’s multiple foreign policy disasters.
And you fail to see that Biden might be a candidate because, supposedly sensible, people like you think he is better than Trump?
OK, Trump is boorish but his comments and actions on many big issues were correct.
Mass illigal immigration from South America?
Too much dependence on Russian energy by Europe?
Europe expecting USA to pay for their defence.
List is much longer…
US standing up for Ukraine and US economy doing well. As opposed to a perma-pouting TV chat show host who hero-worships his “genius” Putin.
Would that be a ‘get the dope out’ campaign?
Still Biden. And promptly fall into a deep depression because out of 300 million people, the US has managed to front up only a man obviously in serious cognitive decline and a raging, delusional narcissist as presidential candidates.
US standing up for Ukraine and US economy doing well. As opposed to a perma-pouting TV chat show host who hero-worships his “genius” Putin.
It is not the person but what they represent that matters, so Trump wins hands down
This seems reasonable, not sure why you’re getting the downvotes
Because the downvoters don’t likely get their information solely from CNN or MSNBC, who constantly yammer on that Trump is the antichrist, and not what he actually stands for.
I don’t think he’s the antichrist, just a rather preposterous narcissist
I don’t think he’s the antichrist, just a rather preposterous narcissist
Because the downvoters don’t likely get their information solely from CNN or MSNBC, who constantly yammer on that Trump is the antichrist, and not what he actually stands for.
But the key question is *if* the choice of the next President was between a bombastic Trump and a cognitively challenged Biden – which bad choice would you make? Now that you have seen both in ‘action’.
It is not the person but what they represent that matters, so Trump wins hands down
This seems reasonable, not sure why you’re getting the downvotes
If I had to choose between Trump and Biden, I’d go for Biden too. Although that is the very definition of having to choose between plague and cholera.