Reference News Network, September 24 report - One of the few political consensuses among Americans in recent years has been that the United States must be tougher on China both economically and politically. Therefore, it is quite interesting to see that in recent weeks, the U.S. government seems to have made a real shift in its approach to relations with China.

Firstly, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, stated that the U.S. does not seek conflict with China. Secretary of State Marco Rubio used more moderate diplomatic language when he spoke with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in early September. Previously, a leaked Pentagon memo suggested that the U.S. should shift its focus away from China to regional issues and homeland security. This indicates a significant shift in the U.S.'s long-standing "rebalance to Asia" strategy. This is also a major shift compared to the messages conveyed by the Trump administration during its first and second terms, which had labeled China as America's main adversary and warned that the U.S. must be prepared for a cold war or even a hot war.

This Pentagon memo was clearly drafted with the participation of Deputy Secretary of Policy Elbridge Colby. He had previously advocated for the rebalance to Asia but now promotes a strategy similar to the "Monroe Doctrine," focusing on maintaining order in America's own backyard. Of course, the question is why this shift has occurred? Although some reports suggest that the U.S., especially this administration, finds allies and international conflicts problematic, there is also a deeper reason: the U.S. no longer has sufficient military capabilities to cover the globe.

The Biden administration has consistently stated that the U.S. is willing to "defend Taiwan" and Asian liberal democracies if China launches an attack. However, the Trump administration seemed mainly interested in Taiwan's semiconductor industry. I feel that once the U.S. domestic chip industry fully recovers, this administration will not care much about Taiwan anymore.

To be honest, this position has received support from many Americans. In 2023, I wrote an article that was quite controversial, questioning whether it is militarily or politically feasible for the U.S. to "protect Taiwan." I think it is important to face reality, that is, whether "protecting Taiwan" is the best use of American political, economic, and military resources. But I still am not completely sure of the answer.

I do believe we are heading toward a more regionalized and less globalized world. I think the U.S., China (and its partners), and Europe are increasingly moving along their own tracks. This is both an opportunity and a challenge. As I explained in my previous book, I believe there are solid reasons to support regionalization from an economic perspective. However, there are also significant problems, particularly whether Europe can survive between the political crossfire of the U.S. and China without its own tech giants, stronger defense capabilities, or a more unified political economy.

There are also great risks associated with American isolationism. Jonathan Derbyshire, editor of the U.S. opinion section of The Financial Times, said: "We can see the general outline of what some people call the 'Trump version of the Monroe Doctrine' from the statements of other officials in the government. This is a 21st-century version of President James Monroe's famous statement that any interference by other powers in the Americas should be regarded as 'an unfriendly act against the United States.'"

In January of this year, my colleague Ed Luce wrote an article about the new "Trump version of the Monroe Doctrine." Ed believes the fundamental reason for paying homage to the Monroe Doctrine is to keep China out of the Western Hemisphere. I think Ed is right; just look at these data.

In the economic field, China is the main trading partner of Latin America, surpassing the U.S. and the EU, and is also the main investor in infrastructure projects in the region through the Belt and Road Initiative.

Taking Peru as an example, according to former Chilean Ambassador to China Jorge Ene, Peru's exports to China now exceed its total exports to the EU and the U.S., and Peru has also accepted a large amount of Chinese direct investment, especially in the Chancay Port project.

In other words, China's economic influence in the Western Hemisphere is not a potential threat that can be contained by a modified "Monroe Doctrine." It has already deeply and widely taken root throughout the American continent. Moreover, as Ene pointed out, it may be too late to take measures against it now.

This article was published on the website of The Financial Times on September 22, titled "Trump's Major Shift in Attitude Toward China," written by Lana Zakaria.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7553624419684434483/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [upvote/downvote] buttons.