Trump's nominations, Zhuhai mass killing, Kaifeng night cycling - Week in Review #34

Hi folks, welcome to Week in Review #34.

You would expect to see me reviewing events of the last week(s) that I think carry a long-term impact on China. I try to stick to a weekly publishing schedule but there is no guarantee about it. Occasionally, I also publish in-depth essays about some major themes listed in the Master Plan and Table of Core Contents.

#1 Holding breath for Trump’s nominations

A string of key nominations were announced this week by Donald Trump, many of which will have far-reaching consequences for US-China relations.

For the two posts most relevant for China - Secretary of State and National Security Advisor - the nominations went to two die-hard China hawks, Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz. Although they are not as hawkish as Matt Pottinger who openly calls for a regime change in China, they are also not as sensible as the type of person like Elbridge Colby, who at the beginning of this week appeared at Tucker Carlson’s and was rumored to win some major nomination, but ultimately failed.

I was rooting for Colby, whose old-school realpolitik ideas focus on responsibly maintaining a balance of power, which may be the best thing China could reasonably expect to get. If Colby were the NSA or Secretary of State, at least the tension between the two powers would be contained to the economic and industrial side. Instead, we will have two people who would rely on ideological and rhetorical tactics and would not wait to use issues like Taiwan to provoke and weaken China, a situation that would be much more difficult to manage.

But we can live with the cards we are dealt with.

I could only find some small solace in the nominations of the non-establishment people who are against “forever wars” such as Tulsi Gabbard or Vivek Ramaswamy.

Also this week, a top Chinese political topic influencer Tuzhuxi summarized Ramaswamy’s Sep 26 podcast appearance on Lex Fridman's show. In Tuzhuxi’s eyes, this podcast represents a clear MAGA description of US-China relations. Here are some key points that Tuzhuxi summarized (translated by Claude):

• Absolutely reject US-China hot war and world war escalation: The US and China must avoid direct confrontation ("hot war"), and local conflicts or contradictions must not escalate into a world war. Avoiding (the third) World War is a core MAGA demand.

• The "Thucydides Trap" should and can be avoided: … Vivek states that the so-called Thucydides Trap can be completely avoided and shouldn't be constrained by mainstream relationship theories. He doesn’t believe we are necessarily a 'declining' power, nor does he believe this will inevitably lead to major conflict with China.

• US Policy towards China (Political/Diplomatic Relations):

  • Maintain the "One China Policy," believing there is no need or reason to deviate from the policy that the US has followed for decades.

  • "Strategic Clarity": Believes that the past "strategic ambiguity" was wrong, stating "all world wars were caused by strategic ambiguity because major powers didn't know what others intended to do." Therefore, "strategic clarity" should be adopted, clearly defining red lines and bottom lines between both sides, with complete alignment in granularity.

  • Interpretation of both sides' red lines/bottom lines: China's red line is Taiwan achieving independent status, which is absolutely unacceptable; the US red line is military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. These have been consistent positions from both sides for decades, and their respective red lines and bottom lines need to be made clear. Believes that as long as both sides have clear bottom lines, conflict won't occur: As long as boundaries and bottom lines are clear, conflict can be avoided, "no need to worry about conflict." "Clarity" means both sides know and believe what the other says, with mutual feedback.

• US-China Relations (Economic and Trade Relations): Vivek believes that the US must achieve decoupling from China. Here, Vivek speaks not from the perspective of revitalizing US domestic industries, but from managing US-China geopolitical conflict. He believes: 1, Critical materials, necessities, and supply chains must decouple from China; 2, Sensitive industries like military technology must completely decouple from China; 3, The US cannot rely on China to provide the "modern American lifestyle" (meaning the US cannot be in a position where it cannot survive without China. The purpose of reducing dependence/decoupling is: to minimize the impact on the US if conflict occurs. [Note: Their logic is not to minimize the possibility of bilateral conflict through strengthening and deepening US-China ties, but rather to distance from China to reduce the potential costs if conflict occurs. This is actually based on their fundamental judgment that, due to various internal and external factors, the US and China cannot achieve long-term political and economic coexistence and mutual benefit. "Since we can't walk together, it's better to stay as far apart as possible"]

#2 Zhuhai mass killing

On Monday evening, in a horrific event, at least 35 people were killed and 43 injured after a car purposefully and insidiously plowed into a crowd of people in Zhuhai. The driver tried to kill himself but was saved.

Like most people, I only knew about this incident until the official announcement almost one day later. I was totally shocked.

Almost 2 months ago, I commented on the perceived rise of “suicidal and/or lone-wolf” crime and its link to economic troubles. In light of this event, I have made that article completely free. (Week in Review #29)

Questions immediately arose about how and why the news of Zhuhai's killing was suppressed for a full 24 hours.

[The remaining part of this article is reserved for paying subscribers. I would also reveal a photo of my young self 14 years ago to illustrate a point (blushing face).

Again, if you are already a paying subscriber of Baiguan, you may contact me for complimentary access.]