A Politician’s Power Play Between Washington and Beijing

Imagine being the elected leader of Saffronia, a noteworthy yet moderate nation that depends substantially on American support for its security. You are embarking on your first diplomatic journey to Washington, with the aim of initiating trade agreement discussions that could significantly boost your country’s economy and strengthen its bond with the United States. This proposition, to anyone’s perspective, seems to be the desirable scenario of mutual benefit.

When dealing with Washington’s top brass, who you get to converse with is a sure measure of your significance. An audience with President Joe Biden would be the gold standard, but a close runner-up is a meeting with Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser.

Mr. Sullivan is pivotal yet faces an exceeding difficulty in his role. He must coordinate the American response to multiple global hotspots, from Israel and Gaza to Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, China, and possibly even more areas that may not have crossed your mind yet. His knowledge and expertise make him indispensable, and yet, he operates in a system where the expectations placed on the president to manage global events are unachievable.

Sullivan, Saffronia, and a New Economic Perspective

So, you land the meeting with Mr. Sullivan. You did your research on him and found out he is not just tasked with the grueling demands of his job, but he also works harder than an average American. He has been a key adviser to a vice-president and two presidential campaigns before taking up his current position—impressive credentials for a relatively young man of 46.

But as you read his recent statements, your admiration turns to worry. Following Hillary Clinton’s defeat to Donald Trump in the 2016 election, where he worked as Clinton’s policy adviser, he reassessed his views on economics and foreign policy. His conclusion was that trade benefits to American voters were overstated, inequality was eroding the American middle class, and that corporations spent too much energy avoiding taxes. Consequently, he is now an advocate for “a foreign policy for the middle class.” This proposed change in direction offers little promise for a potential trade agreement with your country, Saffronia.

The Trade Dilemma

On your return flight, you contemplate the paradoxical nature of American economics. How could a country, where a UPS driver could expect a package of pay and benefits worth $170,000 a year, believe that the global economy—largely of its own creation—is detrimental to its working class? American wage inequality escalated in the 1990s and 2010s but has since stabilized. It becomes evident that, despite the competent handling of foreign policy by Sullivan, America seems to be on the brink of renouncing its own values.

Furthermore, you observed a troubling trend in Washington: the floundering support for Ukraine by the Republicans in the House of Representatives. If the United States fails to sustain its support for a nation where it hasn’t deployed a single soldier, pilot, or sailor, how dependable is the security assurance that Saffronia has come to rely on? Conversely, China, despite being authoritative and assertive, has proven to be consistently relentless in its pursuit of power.

A New Direction?

Your next diplomatic tour will be to Beijing—a city devoid of the inspiring vistas of Washington, offering instead scripted and sterile meetings. Yet, you can’t help but wonder, given the shifting dynamics in Washington, if an offer came from Beijing, what would be your response, and how would it impact the citizens of Saffronia?

News sourced from the archives of Reader Wall