Xi’s ominous warning to Trump

In his annual New Year’s address, the Chinese president said, “People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family” and added, “No one can sever our family bonds, and no one can stop the historical trend of national reunification.” Xi’s defiant tone isn’t a coincidence, it’s a warning. And the United States and its allies would be wise to listen — and to react.

Xi is the most powerful Chinese Communist ruler since Mao Zedong. Mao, who died nearly half a century ago, presided over a China that was impoverished. This poverty was the victim of both Mao’s policies and decades of war and internal strife. By contrast, China today is, without question, the second most powerful nation in the world. The Pentagon has noted that Beijing represents the “sole pacing challenge” and is a “peer competitor.” In fact, in key metrics, notably industrial capacity, China exceeds America’s capabilities. The Office of Naval Intelligence, for example, has observed that Beijing has 200 times Washington’s shipbuilding capacity. 

Mao and every subsequent Chinese leader have coveted Taiwan. But Xi might be first to rule a China that believes itself to be in a position to potentially fulfill this long-standing ambition. This is ominous. 

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could potentially result in a Sino-American conflict — a war that would likely be the most devastating since World War II, if not ever. American bases, even America itself, would be subject to attack from a country whose economic and military power surpasses previous opponents like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. Worse still, while China’s power has grown, America’s once mighty industrial base has atrophied. 

Some U.S. military officials have suggested that America’s more recent combat experience would provide Washington with an edge over China, which hasn’t fought a hot war in decades. But the U.S. has been fighting terrorists and third-rate armies like Iraq’s, not industrial superpowers. History also offers a warning: Britain’s combat experience in the years prior to World War I counted for little when the country met Imperial Germany on the battlefield.

Others have claimed that China’s ailing economy might discourage Xi from invading Taiwan. But the opposite could be true; Xi could view it as an opportunity for unity and national purpose.

A war with China would almost certainly result in a global depression. And the decision to make our supply chains reliant on our chief geopolitical foe would go down as one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in modern history. The difficulties experienced in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis will pale in comparison.

Nor is there a guarantee that the U.S. could stay out of an invasion; China might decide to preemptively attack America, either via conventional means, cyber, or sabotage — or all of the above. And even if the U.S. managed to avoid war, it would face a far more precarious situation in the Indo-Pacific should China seize Taiwan.

Longtime treaty allies like South Korea and Japan would have an empowered China on their doorstep. The U.S. would be forced to massively ramp up defense spending. And China would be in a position of mastery of a region that will account for the majority of the world’s gross domestic product. Nations that once leaned toward Washington in this contest for supremacy would be more likely to tilt toward Beijing. In short, the U.S. would confront a more dangerous and difficult world.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM MANNING THE RAMPARTS

The U.S. has failed to act with the urgency that this situation requires. America has failed to prioritize, failed to make necessary reforms, and failed to rebuild the defense industrial base. As importantly, the U.S. has failed to compel many of its allies, including Taiwan, to increase their share of the defense burden significantly. More must be done, and it must be done fast. The window is closing, and the U.S. might be entering a period of hard choices.

Only Xi knows when, or if, China will move on Taiwan. But his intention seems clear enough. Ditto for the consequences.

The writer is a Washington, D.C.-based foreign affairs analyst. His views are his own.