The Trump administration is planning a series of hardline actions against China with the aim of making it politically untenable for a Biden administration to reverse the moves, administration officials told Axios.
According to the officials, the administration plans to sanction or restrict trade with Chinese companies, officials, and government entities. The actions will be related to alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, so-called threats to US national security, and China’s fishing industry. An official told Bloomberg that actions might also be taken to protect US technologies from “exploitation” by China’s military.
“Unless Beijing reverses course and becomes a responsible player on the global stage, future US presidents will find it politically suicidal to reverse President Trump’s historic actions,” National Security Council spokesman John Ullyot told Axios.
The report comes a week after President Trump signed an executive order banning US investment in Chinese companies that Washington claims are linked to China’s military. Also last week, the US sanctioned officials in China and Hong Kong over the Hong Kong national security law, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration is “not finished yet” with being tough on China.
The Axios report says to watch for Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe to “publicly describe in granular detail intelligence about China’s nefarious actions” inside the US.
“Director Ratcliffe will continue playing a leading role, in coordination with other national security principals, in delivering a necessary mindset shift from the Cold War and post-9/11 counterterrorism eras to a focus on great power competition with an adversarial China,” a Ratcliffe advisor told Axios.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy outlines the US military’s priorities, a shift away from counterterrorism in the Middle East towards so-called “great power competition” with Russia and China.
The Trump administration has pursued a hardline approach towards China since 2017, but the policies and rhetoric have become increasingly hostile in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Part of the anti-Beijing policies has been an increase in US military activity in the Pacific, particularly the South China Sea, where the US challenges China’s claims by sending warships and military aircraft into the area.
Biden is not expected to soften Washington’s stance towards Beijing’s claims to the South China Sea. Michele Flournoy, the frontrunner to be Biden’s Pentagon chief, wrote in Foreign Affairs that the US should have the ability to sink all Chinese vessels in the South China Sea “within 72 hours” as deterrence for Beijing’s activity in the waters.
Like handing off a baton in a relay race with Flournoy as the anchor and the finish line being war.
Another Thatcher like bitsh.. trying to prove how tough SHE is, risks the lives of Californians & anyone downwind.
Just big talk I, we hope.
Figuring that China would be too nice, or maybe frightened to present a reciprocal response.. In his dreams, and stupidly he issues this challenge which might scatter their fleet into places difficult or impossible to strike, but the Chinese General who responded to similar threats a decade or so past said, any sneak attack and we will take out LA. As in Los Angeles. I would not want to be there when this proposed attack happend, or own anything there. Who are these morons gambling with Hollywood, one of the U.S.”s greatest assets.
What makes you think many Americans may not mind LA being nuked?
LA is a known den of ‘sin and depravity’.
Depravity did nor stay in LA unfortunately.
Well, yeah…
Also, a large Chinese or NK attack would certainly solve a lot of big-city decay and unrest problems.
Trump’s either doing China a favour by locking out Harris-Biden or Harris-Biden a favour by locking out China for them.
Either way, the key phrase is ‘politically unacceptable’; that is, the level of sinophobia in the U.S. makes it impossible to back down on sinophobia.
The Democrats can now focus on Russophobia. The best hope for peace, is that they can’t decide whom to attack first, Russia or China.
However, that depends on Harris-Biden having the common sense to realize they can’t do both at the same time either.
Decide whom to attack first ? , the question is what happens if China / Russia decide to fight as allies in any attack on either of them ?,
That really depends on the nature of the attack. Either would hesitate entering into an official state of war with the U.S. and the Angloshpere, because that would limit response options to warfare, and preclude trade and diplomacy.
While many assume a straight-up fight with China, all the U.S./Euro Globalist sinophobes need is a light skirmish, even under a false flag, that results in an official state of war between the U.S. and China. … Then never end the war, like the Korean War never ended. Instant decoupling.
While Trump might be careful to make sure Europe was in on any anti-China coalition, Harris-Biden would not. Harris-Biden would maybe rook Australia and New Zealand. and Japan.
The Globalist (read: European) objective logically would be to cut off trade between China and the Angloshpere. Trade would by necessity still happen, but through middleman third parties such as Europe and Israel.
mao described USa as “a paper tiger”; a Chinese general recently mentioned the notorious “amerikan fear of death”….Europe is worried about this; macron recently mentioned the “amerikan Chinese duopoly” that should be avoided by EU
Sanctions are nearly always self defeating: they reflect a nation unable to compete—an empire near collapse
“….US should have the ability to sink all Chinese vessels in the South China Sea “within 72 hours” as deterrence for Beijing’s activity in the waters…”
Like China would just sit there and not respond against every US ‘military asset’ within 3000 miles. lol.
These DC idiots forget that they are talking about f*cking with a nuclear power that has at least 300-320 nuclear warheads. Flournoy is trying to talk the world into a nuclear confrontation if she thinks she can act like that..Of course once in power, there are then real world restraints on how far the US can go militarily without provoking a confrontation.that leads to a hot war
The West simply can’t get over the fact that China will soon be the economic superpower of the 21st century, no matter what the US does or threatens to do.
Indeed. Sinking China’s fleet is meaningless; its the shore-based missiles that matter.
However, China is not meant to prosper from the COVID-1984 reset any more than the Western middle classes.
Should be interesting to see how this plays out. The desperate Democratic election cheating makes whatever’s going down seem kind of, well, desperate.
China has proven in recent days that it can hit a Ship with missiles capable of sinking a Super Carrier in the Pacific, with Missiles fired from Western China, so they have significant range, their ICBMs have the range to take out every city in the US, Now would China win a Nuclear Exchange, absolutely not but the US would not be winning any war except between its own current citizens between each other as they fight each other to survive!
Ships bumping at sea, deliberate or not, is one thing. Attacking a fleet with live fire is entirely another thing. Any attack from USA would be met with China’s full force, so consider the US navy sunk. US retaliation would result in full-scale nuclear war. The US thinks itself to be invincible, but this is pure folly and insanity. Be not deceived. A nuclear war of the magnitude to destroy the world’s 3rd largest country would consequently destroy the hemisphere with radiation, and spread to southern. US cities would be bombed: you have not the missiles to defend against hyper velocity; and even if you did, the radioactive fallout from successful SAM hits would cover your cities to pollute your waters, farmlands, cities for another 500 years.
Sink all Chinese vessels ? , what could possibly go wrong ?.