
How big of a threat is Asian superpower China really?
Daniel DePetris,
Tribune News Service
Last June, during an annual security conference in East Asia, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin underscored that the United States was not seeking conflict with China. Maintaining a consistent dialogue with Beijing, he hinted, was just as vital to effective deterrence as ensuring the US military was fully equipped and prepared. Fast-forward a year later and the message from Washington is far different. Unlike his predecessor, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth name-dropped China in his speech to the same security conference multiple times, as if to shame the Asian superpower for running roughshod over the so-called rules-based international order.
China, Hegseth warned, was trying to become a hegemon in Asia, where it could dominate its neighbours, exploit the South China Sea's vast natural resources and coerce other countries into accepting Beijing's demands. In Hegseth's words, 'It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.' An invasion of Taiwan, he added, could be 'imminent.' If this all sounds scary, that's because it is. His comments raise the rhetorical gamesmanship to a level US officials weren't comfortable with in the past. The Biden administration was no slouch on China policy, but it still didn't want to inflame things unnecessarily. The Pentagon, for instance, repeatedly emphasized that while China's military drills around Taiwan were aggressive and designed to wear down the island's will to resist, a conflict in the Taiwan Strait was 'neither imminent nor inevitable.'
In other words, there was still an opportunity to defuse any tensions before they exploded into a war that could drag the United States in, kill tens of thousands of people and throw a heavy wrench into the global economy. The Trump administration, however, has deployed noticeably sharper words during its first four months. Although the fundamentals of its wider policy in East Asia mimic the Biden administration's own — reinforcing US alliances; engaging in regular freedom of navigation exercises with Japan and the Philippines; and stressing the utility of preserving the status quo in the Taiwan Strait — Trump's advisers aren't afraid of poking Beijing in the eye.
If managing the systemic rivalry with Beijing was a core component of Washington's overall strategy throughout Biden's four years, it increasingly looks like the guardrails that were put in place to prevent miscalculations are now eroding. Even so, does the Trump administration have a point? Is a conflict over Taiwan imminent as Hegseth suggests? And how real is the risk of China becoming Asia's hegemon? First, we should acknowledge that China is a threat in certain respects, particularly to its neighbors who have competing jurisdictional claims. The People's Liberation Army, or PLA, is arguably the strongest military in the region today, a consequence of Chinese President Xi Jinping's long-standing policy of pouring money into its coffers to fund a large-scale modernization campaign.
China spent $314 billion on defense in 2024, a 7% increase from the year prior and a whopping 59% increase from a decade ago. The PLA boasts the largest ballistic missile arsenal in Asia and continues to invest in hypersonic missiles, which are difficult for conventional air defenses to intercept. The PLA is also throwing out the old rulebook that used to govern affairs in East Asia. As I mentioned last week, the median line that once served as an unofficial boundary separating Chinese and Taiwanese airspace is now imaginary as the Chinese air force flies closer to the self-ruled island to test Taiwan's defenses and wear down morale. Yet the United States would be wise to refrain from overestimating China's military capability and underestimating the capability of its allies like Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia — all of whom have an even greater interest in preventing Chinese hegemony in Asia than Washington does. China is its own worst enemy in this regard: The more it presses its territorial claims, the more incentive its neighbors have to balance Beijing.
For the most part, this is exactly what China's neighbours are doing. Japan is the most obvious case study. Traditionally a pacifist country that kept to an artificially low defense budget relative to its wealth, Japan has spent the last three years adding resources to its so-called Self-Defense Forces and buying American weapons off the shelf. Tokyo's latest national security strategy, unveiled in 2022, was a sea-change in how Japan typically talks about its security environment. In that document, China was called out for challenging the international order, partnering with Russia in its war against Ukraine and trying to change the region's status quo by force. Japan's defense budget is set to double by 2027, and with more resources comes a greater capability to preserve the balance of power. The Philippines is another example. While the country can't possibly compete with China in conventional terms, the Philippine government under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has effectively given up on rapprochement with Beijing and thrown in its lot with Washington. China's incessant clashes with Philippine forces in the South China Sea have served as a wake-up call to a country whose previous administration under Rodrigo Duterte (who is now in custody at the Hague for war crimes) drifted into the Chinese camp and took a more suspicious view of US intentions.
Today, Manila is not only buttressing its navy and coast guard but also increasingly partnering with countries like Japan and Australia who have a similar threat perception about China.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Arabian Post
5 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Trade Envoys from US and China to Convene in London Amid Renewed Optimism
Top trade officials from the United States and China are set to meet in London on Monday, 9 June, in a bid to ease escalating tensions over tariffs, technology transfers, and critical mineral exports. The announcement follows a 90-minute phone call between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping, during which both leaders agreed to resume dialogue and expressed cautious optimism about resolving key disputes. Leading the US delegation will be Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The Chinese side has not officially confirmed its delegation, but past rounds have included Vice Premier He Lifeng, Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang, and Vice Finance Minister Liao Min. Li, who was appointed as China's International Trade Negotiator in April, has been instrumental in shaping Beijing's response to the ongoing trade conflict. The upcoming talks follow a temporary truce brokered in Geneva on 12 May, where both nations agreed to reduce retaliatory tariffs—previously as high as 145%—to more manageable levels. However, the ceasefire is set to expire on 12 August, adding urgency to the London negotiations. ADVERTISEMENT A central issue on the agenda is the flow of rare earth minerals, which are essential for advanced manufacturing and defence technologies. China's earlier suspension of some rare earth exports to the US had heightened concerns about supply chain vulnerabilities. During their phone call, President Trump stated that President Xi agreed to resume these exports, a move that could alleviate pressure on US manufacturers. However, Beijing has yet to publicly confirm this commitment. The trade dispute has had significant economic repercussions. American businesses have faced increased costs due to tariffs, and a pending lawsuit challenges the legality of these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The outcome of both the negotiations and the legal case could significantly influence future US trade policy and economic relations with China. President Trump has expressed optimism about the upcoming talks, stating, 'The meeting should go very well.' However, the complexity of the issues at hand suggests that reaching a comprehensive agreement may require sustained effort and compromise from both sides.


Al Etihad
6 hours ago
- Al Etihad
China allows limited exports of rare earths as shortages continue
7 June 2025 09:39 BEIJING (THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE)China's Ministry of Commerce has started issuing more export licenses for shipments of rare earth magnets in recent days, but the pace remains factories in the automotive sector and other industries in Europe and the United States, and a few in Japan, are running low on the makes 90% of the world's supply of these magnets, which are essential for cars, drones, factory robots, missiles and many other a 90-minute call Thursday with Chinese PresidentXi Jinping, US President Donald Trump wrote on social media that the two men had discussed rare earths. Trump mentioned that rare earths were a complex subject, but did not indicate whether anything had been decided about China's strict export licensing requirement, which Beijing imposed April wrote on social media Friday that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US trade representative Jamieson Greer would hold further economic talks Monday in London with top Chinese Trump was asked later on Air Force One whether Xi had agreed to allow rare earth minerals and magnets to flow to the US, Trump replied, 'Yes, he did,' but did not statement Thursday about the call did not mention rare earths, however. Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, declined to answer a question about the minerals Friday at the ministry's daily briefing, saying that it was a matter for other Chinese Ministry of Commerce said Thursday before the two leaders spoke only that it would issue export licenses according to its new rules, introduced two months US and European chambers of commerce in China each said Friday that somewhat more export licenses had been issued in recent days. But both groups emphasised that more were needed, as the Ministry of Commerce faces a huge backlog of detailed applications for licenses. Rare earth metals, a group of 17 elements found near the bottom of the periodic table, have a wide range of industrial applications. China produces practically the entire world's supply of seven of the least common rare earths, including three that are crucial in making powerful, heat-resistant magnets.


Gulf Today
15 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Why Medicaid work requirements won't work
Kathryn Anne Edwards, Tribune News Service The US labour market is a truly astonishing thing to behold. It includes 171 million Americans, as young as 14 and older than 90, some who never finished elementary school and others with PhDs. It is resilient and dynamic, shrinking during recessions but growing again after. It provides the majority of Americans with the majority of their income. All of which is to say: It is common to look to the labor market as a kind of salve for all economic wounds. Whatever the problem is, the solution is to get people working. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For all its strength, the labor market is encumbered by the low-wage labor market — where work doesn't support a stable living, and where jobs are so bad they're more salt than salve. This is a reality that Republicans in Congress, in their current push to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, ignore. They are making policy for a labor market that doesn't exist. The 'low-wage labor market' is a vague designation. It's typically defined as those workers who have relatively or absolutely low hourly earnings, such as the bottom quintile or quarter of wage earners, or earners below some nominal wage cutoff. Whatever the definition, however, there are some aspects of the low-wage labor market that are obvious: The low-wage labor market is large. At least 39 million workers in the US earn less than $17 an hour, which is the equivalent of $35,360 annually. That is just below 138% of the poverty threshold for a family of three — the income needed for parents to be eligible for Medicaid in states that expanded it under the Affordable Care Act. Earnings in the low-wage labor market are volatile. Earnings volatility measures change in wage income from one month to the next. Instability at both the very top and very bottom is so great that economists have a term for it: the 'wild ride.' Recent research from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project shows that low-wage earners see more spikes and dips in income than any other group, with the dips being especially large. They have the most volatile earnings when measured by the coefficient of variation, regardless of whether the household has a single or multiple earners. That volatility can be partly attributed to unpredictable hours. Many low-wage earners are employed in shift work, in which their hours and schedule can vary week to week, often with little notice. According to Harvard's Shift Project, two-thirds of workers in retail and food service get less than two weeks' notice of their schedule, half get less than one week's notice, and 70% report that the timing of their scheduled shifts changes at least once a month. This flexibility is more likely to be imposed by employers rather than requested by employees; the more volatile the hours, the fewer hours typically worked. Low-wage jobs usually also have low-quality benefits. Of private-sector workers in the bottom 25% of the wage distribution, 30% do not have access to any type of leave, whether it is sick, holiday, vacation or personal. Some 56% do not have access to an employer-sponsored health-care plan, while 84% do not have access to an employer-sponsored dental plan. And 50% do not have access to a defined-contribution retirement plan. The bottom line is clear. Working Americans are eligible for social benefits such as Medicaid not only because their pay isn't high enough, but also because it isn't reliable enough. Classic labour theory holds that workers are balancing two conflicting goals: the consumption of purchased goods, and the consumption of leisure time. The former requires time at work; the latter requires time away from work. It is up to the worker to calibrate how much of each they want. Of course, economists will try to predict how workers and consumers will react to any change in their earnings. If a worker gets a wage increase, the 'income effect' would push them to work less: They can still consume the same amount of purchased goods but also have more leisure time. Alternatively, a wage increase could trigger the 'substitution effect,' pushing them to work more: The price of leisure (foregone wages) is now more expensive. But what if that worker gets a non-wage increase from a public benefit? There is no substitution effect, just the income effect — that is, they would work less. This is the economic foundation for the idea that public benefits discourage work. Work requirements are meant to counter this incentive. It sounds reasonable. But for at least 39 million Americans, work brings low wages, unstable earnings, unpredictable hours and few benefits.