​ 
On May 10 to 11, 2023, China and the U.S. held eight-ten hours, stretched over two-days, a conference between Wang Yi, politburo member and Director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission, and Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor of the U.S. Although the media paid serious attention to the meeting, no significant details were reported about the conference.  The meeting was not publicized by Washington or Beijing ahead of the high-level talks that took place in Vienna. Post-conference, despite of media's effort, no significant news report other than a few key words characterizing the conversations as being candid, substantive, and constructive were 'leaked' by an anonymous White House Official. The following headlines in the media essentially confirm this dismal assessment:                
 
The Guardian (May 11, 2023) ---  US and China hold 'constructive' talks in effort to move … — The White House described the wide-ranging discussions, in which the two leaders spent more than eight hours together, as “candid” and “ …
Washington Post (May 12, 2023) --- U.S. looks to move past balloon incident in slight warming … — The senior U.S. official described the talks as “constructive” and “candid.” Sullivan raised the cases of detained American citizens in China …
VOA ( May 11, 2023) --- Senior White House Official Meets With China's Top … — Jake Sullivan meets with Chinese diplomat Wang Yi as Washington seeks ... more than eight hours of meetings over two days as "really candid, ...
The frustration of the lack of details in the above news media reports can really be appreciated by following a Background Press Call by a Senior Administration Official on National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s Meeting with PRC Director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission Wang Yi. In a 27 minutes interview and Q&A, the reporters asked many questions: 1. Whether a future Biden-Xi call/meeting is scheduled. 2. Did China express any interest to engage any counternarcotics with the U.S.? 3. Will China provide lethal support to Russia? Did the U.S. speak Crisis Communications? Any progress? 4. Is the State Department trying to make concessions (reduce sanctions) to engage the Chinese in dialogues? 5. Was the issue of the spy balloon raised? 6. Any message countering Chinese economic concern at G7? 7. Did the Chinese express any specifics they want to happen or any barriers overcome before the meeting? 8. Is the Biden-Xi call expected ? Or after a Beijing meeting? 9. Did Jake bring up any detainee names? Was it difficult to set up the meeting? 10. Three detainees and counter-narcotics questions were raised again? 11. Any details (color) of the meetings? 12.Did the Chinese say anything needed to happen before Biden-Xi speak? 13. Is the spy balloon issue over for Biden Adm? 14. Did Jake say that there is a consequence if China decides to invade Taiwan? The anonymous official answered these questions diplomatically with no details. The official did say that these long meetings were more candid and constructive than discussions that he had been a part of.  Hence it is no surprise that we get the above headlines in the media.
 
In the above interview, in response to repeated requests for details such as whether the Chinese said anything needed to happen before Xi and Biden would communicate, the official offered his opinion on diplomacy with some philosophical remarks. He said: “We have tough issues on both sides. On some, we can change each other's mind but discussions are not necessarily about changing other's mind. The hard work of diplomacy is to explain your position, what you are doing, and how you see the relationship and the world stage. We want to maintain communication channels – hope to see more (of a relationship). We push back anytime there is this idea of precondition before there is a diplomatic conversation. For the U.S., managing competition responsibly and stabilizing relationship means having conversations regardless of what is going on and which actions are happening on each side. This is not about just the U.S. taking actions, but also Chinese side as well.” I have listened carefully to  the above statements, and they seem to make a good sense to me. However, when I try to review and analyze the U.S. and China's actions and counter-actions, I find the above diplomatic philosophy has a serious problem. It seems to be derived from a 'unilateral diplomacy' which I shall explain further below.
 
 When diplomatic conversation is only used as an intelligence tool, that is to find or see information about the other side's actions, it is very short-sighted. An action can only reveal the surface not necessarily the reasoning or motives behind it. To manage competition responsibly, one must not only see the actions but also understand the reasoning and motives behind them. A counter-action could be a big mistake leading to another wrong counter-counter-action. It is wise to engage in conversation and delve into a deeper understanding of reasoning and motives to convince the other side to change for a good reason or to convince oneself to change for a good reason. The U.S. has been a superpower, on the world stage, it has been getting away with unilateral actions because of its superpower status. Hence, U.S. diplomacy is mostly unilateral diplomacy. That is why the above State Department official would say that the U.S. only needs to engage in conversations regardless of what is going on or which actions are happening on the other side. The U.S. is powerful enough to make a unilateral decision to resolve an international issue. Now we are facing an equivalent competitor, the U.S. cannot make unilateral decisions regarding any “competition” issue with China. This is obvious because the U.S. now must ask allies to join her to counter China. 
 
Let's take China's BRI strategy as an example to illustrate the above argument. On the surface, the BRI strategy helps China to expand trade and increase its influence world-wide. The U.S. interprets that as a threat to the U.S. and assummes that China is destined to replace the U.S. on the world stage. The U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy is designed to target China and counter its growth, but it is not working with any assurance that it will collapse China like NATO collapsed the Soviet Union. Hence, we are in a diplomatic dilemma today. China's reaction to the U.S. China policy has evolved from accepting the U.S. unilateral diplomacy to defending its fair rights to challenging the world's unfair rules on China which China had little say before, while the U.S. is still behaving unilaterally. For instance, the U.S. say and do as it plays words with the one China policy, interfering in China's domestic issue of Taiwan unification. Taiwan has had peace for forty years, obviously, Mainland China has exhibited patience to unite Taiwan peacefully. It is the U.S. that has assummed that China must be contained militarily with the island chain strategy purposely including Taiwan as a component. 
 
If the U.S. is sincere in engaging China and managing competition responsibly, it must realize diplomacy is far deeper than an intelligence tool. It is a better tool for resolving international issues than military action, especially among nuclear powers. It is time that the U.S. must reevaluate its assumptions about other nations. China's rise is not through hegemony like the U.S. or any other imperialist power in Europe or Asia. China's co-development philosophy is welcomed by the world. The U.S. with its rich resources can always be a strong nation but it must be realistic to accept other rising powers. No country should ever think about dominating the world rather we all should think of  mankind as one unity. Diplomacy is the best solution to resolve international ssues. Long talks can resolve the U.S.-China confrontation just with a little attitude change!




​

 
Capitalism is an important principle in economics. The important elements of economic productivity (production capacity) are manpower (including human labor and human intelligence), resources (including natural water, land, mines, energy, and biology), capital (the tools of trade beyond the era of barter transactions, the value measurement of products and production capacity, and the catalysts for production and consumption), markets (including gathering places of manpower, consumer, and capital, such as factories, mines, stores, and financial centers) and transportation (including water, land, air, electricity, communication, and information data). Capitalism puts capital at the top of economic elements, so there is a saying that no money no business. Capital has a catalytic effect, but it is by no means a panacea, nor is it the only major contributing factor in the economy. When starting an economy, the above-mentioned elements (or factors) all serve different needs, and the needs of different components vary according to the time, place, and environment. When the economy grows, the required contributing elements may also change due to time, place, and people changes. The accumulation and catalytic effect of capital will greatly impact economic development. This is the reason why capitalism cannot be totally rejected. But capitalism will also cause a serious social problem, capital will likely be accumulated in the hands of a few people. That is, capital will become larger and larger and become more and more concentrated, resulting in a huge gap between the rich and the poor. Then society cannot be balanced and remain harmonious. In the end, many social problems will arise, causing social unrest and instability. Therefore, capitalism cannot be promoted without regulation.
 
America is a powerful capitalist country. There are many natural reasons why it has become the world's most powerful nation in less than 250 years since its establishment. Political scholars, economists, and historians have done many professional studies, analyses, and comments, but often professional theories are not applicable directly to complex, national, and global economic changes in the world, such as the current economic situation under the influence of the US-China competition. The present U.S. national security strategy and economic planning are more influenced by ideology than based on any thorough professional studies. So, there are different voices, even opposite opinions at home and abroad. The social and economic conditions in the U.S. are full of problems and few solutions. The U. S. economic status as the world's number one economy is precariously unstable and being challenged. In contrast, China and other countries are developing rapidly in their economies. The social problems in the U.S. are not just divided opinions but are exhibited by torn social fabrics. These social problems and phenomena can be traced and analyzed following the founding history of the U.S. and the evolution of its political and economic system. The U.S. is a country that practices and protects capitalism, any program initiated by socialism is carried out and managed by a capitalist system. (For example, the social security system or any retirement system.) We can observe how capitalism played a role in the U.S. as it grew, peaked, and declined in its 250 years of history and explain why the capitalist military-industrial complex driven hegemony would eventually lead to a road of no return.
 
It was a very lucky and smooth process for the U.S. to launch a revolution resisting high taxation to gain independence from British colonial control. In just a few years, the U.S. got rid of the control of the British Empire. In comparison, China’s revolutionary for establishing a republic nation took nearly a century of struggle under the oppression of the great Western and Japanese Imperial powers. During the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, various political and economic ideologies flourished, and the U.S. adopted capitalism and the democracy of people-elected governments. But its road to power mainly owes to the following factors. First, the U.S. is centrally located in the North American continent, a vast land with abundant resources. Second, the U.S. is well protected by the Atlantic Ocean on the East Coast and the Pacific Ocean on the West Coast, away and free from disputes and wars in Europe and Asia. In the two world wars, the U.S. was able to stay out of conflicts to earn war money by trade and join the wars later to receive victory dividends. As a result, the U.S. economy has become the number one in the world, and the U.S. industries, agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce are all leading in the world. All the economic factors in the U.S. are strong and nothing lacking. Coupled with the catalyst effect of capital, the US economy once reached 40% of that of the world. However, under the impetus of extreme capitalism, the U.S. naturally or greedily prefers the highly profitable military industry, creating the world's largest military-industrial complex, pursuing hegemony, and controlling the world with military (industrial) power and military alliances. If it weren't for the other military hegemony, the Soviet Union, the U.S. would have become the sole global hegemon long ago. The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1990 was caused by its failing economy. If the military-industrial complex could not make enough money and only had war consumption, it would naturally drag down the economy. That's why the Soviet Union collapsed. Although the U.S. won the Cold War against the Soviet Union, its military-industrial complex could not completely support the U.S. hegemony strategy alone with other industries being neglected, so the U.S. economy eventually declined to 20% of the world's economy. On the other hand, China's economy has risen to 17-18% of the world's economy while maintaining three times or greater than the U.S. economic growth rate (GDP).
 
If the major changes in the world are not caused by wars (World War I and World War II) but by natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, fires, and epidemics, the U.S. may also develop into the world's strongest power. It may become the world's major food supplier, the global medical provider, and not a military hegemony. Perhaps the world will not have many wars as there have been after World War II. The economy needs capital, and capital stimulates the economy as a catalyst. It is a pity that the U.S. has embarked on the road of military-industrial-complex driven hegemony, since this is a road of no return. It is easy to understand why the U.S. wants to sell arms for high profit, and why it wants to start wars forced by the military-industrial complex. But arms consumption is a negative factor for human prosperity. (War creates negative productivity.)  Eventually, humans suffer and disappear. The U.S. national strategy today is very similar to a life of a drug addict who knows that drug use is harmful, but too addicted to quit. The U.S. national debt is getting bigger and bigger, and the U.S. society is getting more and more torn apart. This is the consequence of capitalist military-industrial-complex driven hegemony. The reason is not difficult to understand. All countries in the world should understand this truth. The U.S. must be persuaded to take a rehab and stop going down this road of no return. China's economic growth has a rational gene of “lifting people out of poverty and providing opportunities for gaining wealth”. Facing the pressure of competition between the U.S. and China, we must rationally learn from the past (the Soviet Union collapsed because of military-industrial-complex hegemony) and accept our present reality (the U.S. is seriously in debt, $100,000/person). We must give up our addiction to capitalist military-industrial-complex-driven hegemony to embrace cooperation for mutual benefits.
  
 

The title is a fair warning for the U.S. attitude and behavior in U.S.-China relations, our foreign relations problems and domestic issues are giving us nightmares like driving down a dangerous cliffy road with no guardrail. Yes, we have no guardrails in U.S.-China relations. In the U.S., the roads are bad requiring fixing. The service stations compete for junk food and fast meals rather than getting ready for the coming auto-revolution. The 5G signals are weak or non- existence over many spots. High speed is desired but our railroads, highways and airports are outdated. Our politicians only master sweet talk to their voters using patriotic verses and blaming our government’s incompetency on foreign competition. Their purpose of winning an election is to get pension, power and privileges, they shout hawkish phrases but do little and kick the can to later generations. Why is this a dangerous scenario? The U.S. is a superpower; we got used to bullying through crises and we could create world crises to deflect or postpone our national problems. The Middle East flop, heightened nuclear threat, the Russian-Ukraine conflict, the world-wide trade war, and the U.S. debt crisis and dollar security are all problems giving nightmares to us. Yes, this is the state we are in. Yes, we are driving down a dangerous cliff with no guardrail!

Pessimistic words are usually not welcomed. We would rather hear a rosy story and picture a bright future. However, international politics are not always Rosy or Sunny, especially when great nations engage in Cold War and march toward a hot war. The U.S. by its superpower status has always been a principal player on the world stage. We confronted communism for half a century and won the Cold War against the Soviet Union. We came out of the Cold War as a victor wearing a hawkish crown believing that we could always bully through crisis and communism being forever evil. Hence, we lost the patience to solve complex international problems in a rational manner. We would rather think and act unilaterally and selfishly in dealing with international issues, often relying on our military might and our economic power (the U.S. dollar and our control of the world financial system) to force settlements. Yes, we were able to behave like a hawk treating other nations like little birds, but the world has changed. The U.S. now has a rival, a nation can say no to the U.S. A nation is fast changing and improving itself. This is today’s reality. If the U.S. did not accurately assess and understand its competitor, China, it would blindly take a hawkish way to deal with a rising China. It is very unwise and dangerous, especially when the U.S. is facing tons of problems created by itself (not by China). China is just a competitor, not a hegemony power as the U.S. imagined, this can be verified by its historical track record and deeds in recent two centuries.

This author is not the only one making the above analysis. Here I will first refer to a recent article/interview, entitled, “It is dangerous when everyone is a China Hawk” (reported by Ravi Agrawal of Foreign Policy on April 14, 2023, based on his interview with Larry Summers, the former U.S. Treasurer and President of Harvard University). Larry Summers has held top jobs at the World Bank and the National Economic Council, and was U.S. treasury secretary from 1999 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton. The interview discussed the global economic outlook; but also spent time examining the state of Russia’s economy, the dollar’s strength, accusations of U.S. protectionism, and the economic impacts of U.S.-China competition. The interview summarized, “Economic policymakers from around the globe traveled to Washington in mid-April for the annual spring convention of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The backdrop to the meeting was stark: The IMF warned of an “anemic outlook” for the global economy amid rising interest rates, stubborn inflation, and Russia’s war in Ukraine. It projects global growth could slow to just 2.8 percent this year.” From this economic and financial perspective, Mr. Summers has warned that it is dangerous when everyone is a China Hawk. In fact, the recent accelerated sentiment or movement of reducing the U.S. dollar’s role as the exchange currency for international trade is clearly an early dangerous sign. China could help stabilize the dollar and the U.S. ought to know.

Militarily, there were also similar voices about the U.S.-China dilemma. First, the military leaders in the U.S. have repeatedly warned that China’s advance in military strength is astonishing, they are able to build modern ships (including carriers) and planes at a much faster rate than the U.S. can. Multiple simulations of warfare between the U.S. and China yielded unfavorable results for the U.S. instead of honestly assessing the important question: Whether China has the same hawkish attitude as the U.S. does or China was pressured into a military rivalry by the U.S., the U.S. doubles down its hawkish military actions against China. The U.S. is earnestly organizing alliances targeting China and increasing frequency of military exercises at the front door of China in the China Sea. The politicians in the current U.S. Administration and Congress seem to be more hawkish than the Pentagon generals in pursuing an aggressive anti-China policy. The statement, “It is dangerous when everyone is a China Hawk”, applies equally well in our military strategy against China. The world has come around to recognize that the U.S. has been provoking Russia to invade Ukraine all along; its opposition to China’s peace proposal for the Russia-Ukraine conflict adds more evidence. Similarly, the U.S. Taiwan policy is agitating and heightening the danger of a Taiwan Strait war. But reviewing the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war does not support a rosy ending for The U.S., never mind for Ukraine. Taiwan Strait could be a worse scenario than the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it might be more dangerous if the U.S. continues blindly on a hawkish path provoking China.

The ancient famous Chinese war strategist, Sun Zi, has advised in his book: That war (between nations) should always be the last resort after exhausting all diplomatic means in settling disputes. The best strategy for winning is to win without warfare. The chance of winning lies in knowing yourself and your opponent thoroughly. (Understanding each other and making fair assumptions.) These wise words should be adhered to in assessing China as a competitor. China is located tens of thousands of kilometers away from the U.S. presenting no threat at all. China has never invaded any country in hundreds of years; it is shying away from military alliance unlike the U.S. China promotes a cooperative model for pursuing mutual development and prosperity, a win-win strategy. We should really ask why should every American be a China hawk. What would we gain? (Would China's collapse bring us better infrastructure and higher living standards?) What might we lose? (China can respond to war by bringing it to U.S. soil!) Shouldn’t we wise up to focus on our domestic issues in real nation building?!




​