
America is in Asia, but not of Asia
Those cats were fast as lightning
In fact, it was a little bit frightening
But they fought with expert timing
– Carl Douglas
The United States of America ruined its future as an Asian power 143 years ago when it passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first US law to prevent immigration of a specific nationality.
In the 19th century, China was turned upside down by internal chaos. The Opium Wars, the Taiping Rebellion, clan feuds, droughts and famines pushed waves of Chinese migrants out to all corners of the world – particularly Southeast Asia, Europe and America.
Starting with the California Gold Rush of 1848-1855, waves of Chinese migrants fanned out across the western United States working in mines, laundries, restaurants and on construction projects. Chinese coolies were instrumental in the arduous construction of the Central Pacific route of the first transcontinental railroad, cutting through the Sierra Nevada Mountains to connect Nevada and California.
In his 1920 book 'The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World-Supremacy', eugenicist and racial anthropologist Lothrop Stoddard of 'The Great Gatsby' infamy wrote of Chinese labor:
At home, the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand's breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environments of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him the working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.
F Scott Fitzgerald dismissed Stoddard by making him an obsession of the boorish Tom Buchanan (misnaming him 'Goddard' to boot). On the issue of Chinese labor, however, Stoddard merely reflected the American opinion that prevailed in the 19th century and that ultimately resulted in the Chinese Exclusion Act.
By the 1870s, Chinese men accounted for a quarter of California's workforce. White workers were hard pressed to match the industriousness of the Chinese, reflected in the fact that the Central Pacific Railroad paid Chinese workers a premium salary: $31 per week versus $30 per week for whites.
Resentments intensified after the Panic of 1873, resulting in increasing restrictions on Chinese immigration until the broad ban of the Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted in 1882.
A harrowing 'driving out period' followed the immigration ban, with Chinese evicted from communities where they had long settled. The Rock Springs massacre of 1885 and the Hells Canyon Massacre of 1887 were especially gruesome episodes of anti-Chinese violence.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, but by then, the damage had been done. Today, there are 5.5 million Americans who claim full or partial Chinese ancestry, a mere 1.6% of the population.
This compares with 38.6 million (11.3% of the population) claiming Irish ancestry, 49 million (14.4%) claiming German ancestry and 16.8 million (4.9%) claiming Italian ancestry. There are 3.6 million more Scandinavian Americans than there are Chinese Americans. Nativists were dead set against nonwhite immigration. Cartoon image via National Public Radio.
There are 26 million Americans who claim full or partial Asian ancestry, 7.2% of the total population. If the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 had never been passed, there would certainly be far more.
At the time, China had a population of 400 million, Europe 330 million and the United States 54 million. In a counterfactual sans Exclusion Act history, it is not hard to imagine over 100 million Asian Americans today. Alcatraz Island could have been the West Coast's Ellis Island, processing Asian immigrants well into the 20th century.
Of course, this alternate universe America would be very different and we could have much fun speculating on the endless counterfactual possibilities. Suffice it to say that a United States with over 100 million Asian Americans would forever cement the republic as not just a Pacific but an Asian power.
That, for better or for worse, is not the America we have today. The United States today may be a Pacific power, but it is certainly not Asian. America became a Pacific power after it, fearing being shut out of the opium trade by European powers, sent Commodore Perry and his black ships to force open Japan in 1852.
Ever since, the United States has been a military presence in Asia through subsequent kerfuffles like the Second Opium War, the Boxer Rebellion, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.
As time goes on, it is becoming ever more apparent that the United States is in Asia, but it is not of Asia. Korea is divided. So is China. Vietnam, after much carnage, was abandoned. And Japan has been kneecapped into economic stagnation and bonsaied into cultural anomie.
And now, the United States has just picked an economic war with China, which it is highly likely to lose and lose spectacularly (see here). The danger of America being in Asia but not of Asia is that it is playing on alien terrain, subject to information asymmetries, and prone to bad judgment.
There are so few Chinese Americans that they essentially have no political power. Because of that, the expertise of the Chinese Americans who do exist is distrusted and dismissed as Washington takes its cues from grifters (see here) and China 'experts' who 'fell in love with Mandarin' at Princeton or the like.
In the counterfactual America of 100 million Asians, Chinese Americans would surely have amassed significant political power and Washington would be able to access real experts without political suspicion. America would trust Treasury Secretary Zhang to go up against China as much as it trusted Supreme Commander Eisenhower to take on Germany.
But alas, that is the counterfactual America. The factual America chose to fight China with the ignoramuses it trusts, not the experts it needs. This is what happens when America is in Asia but not of Asia. America started a fight as though it didn't know China is more than twice its size (see here).
To be in Asia but not of Asia when China is the size it is and still growing means to not be in Asia for long. The US military presence in Asia is an alien distortion, imposing social, economic and civilizational costs on both sides of the Pacific.
The US is not particularly reliant on Asia economically (36% of imports and 24% of exports) and is minimally integrated culturally.
English is the lingua franca in Europe and far more Americans speak Spanish than all Asian languages combined. While English is commonly spoken in Asia, it is hardly universal – not even among the highly educated. Asia, as far as most Americans are concerned, is an exotic other and vice versa.
The costs of maintaining a forward US military presence in Asia are immense. Total spending on defense is likely over US$1 trillion (including intelligence agencies and DOE nuclear weapons, etc.), or approximately 3.4% of gross domestic product (GDP).
The tyranny of distance, on top of a massive industrial base, allows China to impose highly asymmetric costs on the US. Total spending on defense by China is likely around $300 billion, or about 1.6% of GDP.
Because GDP can be squirrely given how services are accounted for in China, a more revealing comparison may be with industrial output. China's defense spending is around 4% of its industrial output versus about 25% for the US.
One of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed was that the US, given its technological superiority and the then USSR's vast vulnerable landmass, was able to impose asymmetric costs on the Soviet defense budget – the Ronald Reagan strategy.
Analysts have estimated that the Soviet Union was spending 12-20% of its GDP on defense in the 1980s trying to keep up with Reagan's Pentagon budget increases and whiz-bang Star Wars demonstrations. This time around, China is implementing the Reagan strategy with annual PLA budget increases and whiz-bang demonstrations of 6th-generation fighter planes (see here).
Can Joe Six Pack American be blamed for asking what it is all for when he is living paycheck to paycheck? America is not, after all, an Asian nation – it fatefully, for better or for worse, decided not to be 143 years ago with the Chinese Exclusion Act and confirmed that decision in WWII with Japanese American internment camps. America is not full of Zhou Six Packs with deep historical ties to Asia.
Proponents of the pivot to Asia and/or China containment policy offer up a confused litany of reasons for America's military presence. The most visible spokesman for this position is Elbridge Colby, currently undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon, who wrote the book 'Strategy of Denial.'
The fear is that a hegemonic China in Asia would economically gate-keep the region from American commercial interests. Given President Donald Trump's attempt to extort the world with his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, we must concede that a hegemon may indeed behave poorly for no good reason at all.
The issue we have with Colby is once again the issue of America being in Asia but not of Asia. How good of a handle does Colby have on the costs that his strategy of denial requires? America currently suffers from a whole panoply of domestic ailments, from inadequate healthcare to lousy education to decrepit infrastructure to homelessness. Does Colby fully understand what he wants to commit America to?
Does Colby understand that China's GDP is two to three times that of the US – something Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and team surely (dis)missed? Does Colby understand that there are 45 times as many highly capable (top 1.5%, US basis) math students in Chinese high schools as American high schools?
Does Colby understand that approximately 20-30% of Chinese high school students can score in the 99th percentile on the math section of the SAT? 99th percentile US math level is table stakes in China, nothing special, a mere B+ student in the Gaokao system.
Does Colby understand that China generates twice as much electricity, produces 13 times as much steel, 22 times as much cement, three times as many cars and has over 250 times the shipbuilding capacity as the US?
Colby's family history perfectly illustrates being in Asia but not of Asia. He is a scion of the CIA/Carlyle Group/Yale University with a deep family history in Asia. The first Elbridge Colby (great-grandfather) was an officer in the US Army stationed in Tianjin.
Grandfather William Colby was director of the CIA and did god knows what in Asia during the Vietnam War. Father Jonathan Colby is an executive at Carlyle who spent much of his career in Japan.
The scion himself is a product of international schools in Asia (but does not speak an Asian language). At one point, young Colby tweeted that he was 'not an expert on Taiwanese society and politics', an odd admission from someone whose life's work is the prevention of China's reunification with Taiwan.
This is all quite illustrative of America's confused presence in Asia. In an interview, Colby used scare tactics, saying that an Asia dominated by China would impoverish America and China would then have the world's largest corporations and highest-ranked universities.
Last year, the US retook Fortune's Global 500 crown away from China with 139 companies on the list versus China's 128. The two nations have been exchanging the top spot for the past few years.
This is a far cry from 2010, when the US had 139 companies on the list versus 46 from China. Similarly, China's universities are rocketing up the league tables, capturing 16 of the top 20 positions on the Nature Index. Image: Nature
While an Asia dominated by China, which then decided to gate-keep economic access, could indeed damage America, climbing the economic ladder is likely far more dependent on first-order principles like investing in education, infrastructure, public health, executing well-thought-out industrial policies, and stamping out graft and corruption.
America is falling behind not because China is modernizing its military, but precisely because America wasted trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now threatens to militarily challenge the biggest player that ever was.
Colby calls himself a realist, though it's not clear that he knows exactly what he is. Just like America does not know what it is. America may want to be an Asian power, but that ship sailed in 1882. America is not Asian – it chose not to be on more than one occasion – and has demonstrated a limited capacity to understand any region outside its borders, even Canada.
To devise realist policies for Asian security requires expertise on the region's society and politics. Otherwise, one is not weighing costs and benefits but merely pointing in ideological directions.
But nowadays that passes for 'realist' thinking among America's Asia 'experts.' When all is said and done, America is in Asia because it finds itself in Asia. There is no reason: Like international school students who don't learn the local language, they are there because that's where they are. Not everything has a reason or lasts.

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


RTHK
7 hours ago
- RTHK
'HK and Macau to leverage collaborative strength'
'HK and Macau to leverage collaborative strength' John Lee led a delegation to Macau to meet his counterpart Sam Hou-fai. Photo courtesy of Information Services Department Chief Executive John Lee emphasised the crucial roles of the Hong Kong and Macau SARs within the Greater Bay Area during an official visit to Macau on Tuesday. Leading a high-level delegation, Lee met with Macau Chief Executive Sam Hou-fai. In a statement following the meeting, Lee said the two SARs will continue to harness their collaborative strengths across key sectors including the economy, cross-boundary infrastructure, tourism and culture. He said both Hong Kong and Macau are integral parts of the Greater Bay Area and will continue to promote its development. The Hong Kong delegation visited the Guangdong-Macau In-depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin during the visit. Lee highlighted the strategic significance of the cooperation zone, describing it as a key initiative designed to enrich the practice of One Country, Two Systems, fostering Macau's long-term prosperity, stability and integration into national development plans. The delegation also toured a Chinese medicine centre there to learn about the integration of traditional Chinese medicine and the cultural tourism industry. The group also visited the Guangdong-Macau In-depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin Planning Exhibition Hall that features more than 600 exhibits on new products and technologies. The Hong Kong delegation included Financial Secretary Paul Chan, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Erick Tsang, Secretary for Health Lo Chung-mau, Secretary for Transport and Logistics Mable Chan and director of the Chief Executive's Office Carol Yip. Lee and the officials returned to Hong Kong later in the day.


AllAfrica
7 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Is Trump really winning his trade war?
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order updating the 'reciprocal' tariff rates that had been paused since April. Nearly all US trading partners are now staring down tariffs of between 10% and 50%. After a range of baseline and sector-specific tariffs came into effect earlier this year, many economists had predicted economic chaos. So far, the inflationary impact has been less than many predicted. However, there are worrying signs that could all soon change, as economic pain flows through to the US consumer. Trump's latest adjustments weren't random acts of economic warfare. They revealed a hierarchy, and a pattern has emerged. Countries running goods trade deficits with the US (that is, buying more than they sell to the US), which also have security relationships with the US, get 10%. This includes Australia. Japan and South Korea, which both have security relationships with the US, were hit with 15% tariffs, likely due to their large trade surpluses with the US. But the rest of Asia? That's where Trump is really turning the screws. Asian nations now face average tariffs of 22.1%. Countries that negotiated with Trump, such as Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines, all got 19%, the 'discount rate' for Asian countries willing to make concessions. India faces a 25% rate, plus potential penalties for trading with Russia. Students from an art school in Mumbai, India, created posters in response to Trump's latest tariff announcement. Photo: SOPA Images / Getty via The Conversation In the current trade war, it is unsurprising that, despite threats to do so, no countries have actually imposed retaliatory tariffs on US products, with the exception of China and Canada. Doing so would drive up their consumer prices, reduce economic activity, and invite Trump to escalate, possibly limiting access to the lucrative US market. Instead, nations that negotiated 'deals' with the Trump administration have essentially accepted elevated reciprocal tariff rates to maintain a measure of access to the US market. For many of these countries, this was despite making major concessions, such as dropping their own tariffs on US exports, promising to reform certain domestic regulations, and purchasing various US goods. Protests over the weekend, including in India and South Korea, suggested many of these tariff negotiations were not popular. Even the European Union has struck a deal accepting US tariff rates that once would have seemed unthinkable – 15%. Trump's confusing Russia-Ukraine war strategy has worried European leaders. Rather than risk US strategic withdrawal, they appear to have simply folded on tariffs. Some deals are still pending. Notably, Taiwan, which received a higher reciprocal tariff (20%) than Japan and South Korea, claims it is still negotiating. Through the narrow prism of deal-making, it is hard not to escape the conclusion that Trump has gotten his way with everyone – except China and Canada. He has imposed elevated US tariffs on many countries, but also negotiated to secure increased export market access for US firms and promised purchases of planes, agriculture and energy. Imposing tariffs on goods coming into the US effectively creates a tax on US consumers and manufacturers. It drives up the prices of both finished goods (products) and intermediate goods (components) used in manufacturing. Yet the Yale Budget Lab estimates the tariffs will cause consumer prices to rise by 1.8% this year. This muted inflationary impact is likely a result of exports to the US being 'front-loaded' before the tariffs took effect. Many US importers rushed to stockpile goods in the country ahead of the deadline. It may also reflect some companies choosing to 'eat the tariffs' by not passing the full cost to their customers, hoping they can ride things out until Trump 'chickens out' and the tariffs are removed or reduced. Despite Trump's repeated claims that tariffs are a tax paid by foreign countries, research consistently shows that US companies and consumers bear the tariff burden. Already this year, General Motors reported that tariffs cost it US$1.1 billion in the second quarter of 2025. A new 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products took effect on August 1. That announcement in July sent copper prices soaring by 13% in a single day. This affects everything from electrical wiring to plumbing, with costs ultimately passed to US consumers. The average US tariff rate now sits at 18.3%, the highest level since 1934. This represents a staggering increase from just 2.4% when Trump took office in January. This trade-weighted average means that, on typical imported goods, Americans will pay nearly one-fifth more in taxes. Earlier this year, many companies raced to bring inventory to the US before tariffs were imposed. Photo: Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty via The Conversation The US Federal Reserve is concerned about these potential price impacts, and last week opted to maintain interest rates at their current levels, despite Trump's pressure on Chairman Jerome Powell. And on August 1, economic data released in the US showed significant slowing in job creation, some worrying signs in economic growth, and early signs of business investment paralysis due to the economic uncertainty unleashed by Trump's ever-changing tariff rates. Trump responded to the report by firing the US Bureau of Labour Statistics commissioner, a shock move that led to widespread concerns that official US data could soon become politicized. But the worst economic impacts could still be yet to come. The domestic consequences of Trump's tariff policies are likely to amount to a massive economic own goal. Peter Draper is professor and executive director, Institute for International Trade, and director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide and Nathan Howard Gray is senior research Fellow, Institute for International Trade, University of Adelaide This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


HKFP
11 hours ago
- HKFP
Far-right German lawmaker's ex-aide on trial for spying for China
A German court will on Tuesday launch the trial of two suspected spies for China, one of whom worked as an assistant to the far-right lawmaker Maximilian Krah. The German national, partially identified as Jian G., allegedly worked for Chinese intelligence from 2002, including while he was an aide to the Alternative for Germany (AfD) MEP Krah between 2019 and 2024. Jian G. is accused by prosecutors in Dresden of using that position to pass on information about debates and decisions at the European Parliament, as well as some documents deemed highly sensitive. He is also suspected of being the handler for a second alleged operative, Chinese national Yaqi X., who is accused of spying on elements of the German arms industry. Jian G. is also suspected of gathering intelligence on leading AfD politicians and spying on Chinese dissidents in Germany. This included posing as an opponent of the Chinese government on social media in order to gain contacts in the opposition scene. The second defendant, Yaqi X., worked at a company which provided Leipzig airport with logistics services and is accused of helping Jian G. access information on flights and passengers. The information she passed on focused on flights transporting defence equipment and 'people with links to a German arms company'. According to German media reports, she particularly targeted arms giant Rheinmetall, which is involved in making Leopard tanks and which uses Leipzig airport for cargo flights. AfD 'power struggle' Both defendants have been in detention since they were arrested last year. The trial could be particularly embarrassing for the AfD if it leads to the information Jian G. collected on the party becoming public. According to news weekly Der Spiegel, investigators have seized records that Jian G. kept of conversations with Krah and other AfD politicians in which they discussed the private life of party co-leader Alice Weidel and alleged power struggles with her colleague Tino Chrupalla. Krah denied to the magazine ever having discussed such matters with Jian G. Krah was the AfD's top candidate in last year's European elections, but was excluded from its delegation after comments in which he minimised the crimes of the Nazis' notorious SS. However, he was welcomed back into the AfD fold for this year's German general election and now sits as one of the party's MPs in the Bundestag. The trial is expected to last until the end of September and Krah himself has been called to appear as a witness. Krah is also being investigated by prosecutors in Dresden on suspicion of money laundering and corruption during his time as a member of the European Parliament. According to Der Spiegel, between 2019 and 2023 he received more than 50,000 euros (US$57,900) in payments from firms linked to Jian G. Krah denies all wrongdoing and says the accusations against him are 'politically motivated'.