An important premise behind the United States agreeing to the accession of China to the WTO in 2001 was that engaging China through trade would encourage democratic reform. And as the creation of the European Economic Community fostered a peaceful cooperative relationship between Germany and France and the idea of a politically united Europe, a relaxation ideological conflict could be accomplished in the Pacific. Instead, China has used much of the money it has earned through burgeoning trade with the United States to build the largest navy in the world, militarize the South China Sea and threaten to invade Taiwan. Similarly, China has employed massive subsidies and forced labor to boost production of solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles. The cost advantage China enjoys making EVs-along with the fact that EVs will take fewer workers to manufacture-are underlying factors in the drama between the United Autoworkers and Detroit Three. Cheaper coffee tables, computers and cell phones are hardly worth all this. At least these problems should be weighed when the WTO cranks models showing displacing its system of rules with regional deals that will make us all worse off. The real threat to the WTO is that its expansive system of rules don’t deal well with mal-adjustments in domestic economies or cheating on the system. In this context, regional agreements that could have more targeted provisions make sense. The TPP with American participation would do more to accelerate a shift of U.S. sourcing from China to friendlier environs and limit the Middle Kingdom’s influence.

Multinational business leaders, international civil servants, journalists and mainstream economists are bewailing deglobalization and the erosion of the trading system enabled by the World Trade Organization. They are hosting conferences, sponsoring studies and blaming populism and the geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes. One important reaction to these tensions is the further rise of regional blocs. China and Russia are becoming more mutually dependent. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was originally envisioned by President Obama as an American counterweight to the growing influence of China on the norms of international commerce. And the EU, Saudi Arabia and India are seeking tighter relations with a system of rail and port links through the Middle East?their own vision of the China’s Belt and Road initiative. WTO economists estimate the fragmentation of the WTO system could shave 5% off global GDP. Unfortunately, blackboard theories of comparative advantage that underlie economists’ seemingly sophisticated simulation models compute the static gains from international specialization through trade but ignore the good and bad dynamic effects. The further integration of post-colonial Sub Saharan Africa into the global economy impelled much greater dependence on commodity exports such as oil, copper and cocoa and reliance on imported agricultural commodities and technology products. When commodity prices dropped and then ran flat during the 1980s and 1990s, real per-capita incomes stagnated. The same cycle has repeated since 2014 when prices dropped and in no small measure, is contributing to the political instability and coups ripping the region.

An updated version of Cold War deterrence strategy has been quietly gaining prominence in the Defense Department and elsewhere. There doesn’t seem to be the same allergy to deterrence, possibly because we’re thinking mainly in terms of nuclear deterrence. Given China’s multipronged attack on liberal democracy and market economics, new Cold War deterrence thinking needs to be expanded to include information and economic deterrence. So what do we have to show for the last 40 years of trying to engage China, hoping engagement would change it? Through its superior influence tools, or “magic weapons” ― as New Zealand researcher Anne-Marie Brady highlighted ― the Chinese Communist Party has operated unopposed in free and open democratic societies. Containment must begin with either getting reciprocal information access to China and its citizens or denying its political warfare entities access to our systems. We did this well during the first Cold War ― we recognized and contained Soviet disinformation meant to weaken us. Yet today, we still allow TikTok unhindered access to American children and voters, even though we know it’s designed to create instability and undermine confidence in democracy. At least some of the modern world’s insanity can be attributed to political disinformation operations meant to mislead and divide us. It’s time to contain them. We have the surveillance systems and should have exposed the disinformation for what it was, undermining China’s credibility and legitimacy.

Despite the Chinese Communist Party’s assertions to the contrary, and because of Beijing‘s deliberate actions, we are in another Cold War. Our strategy to win this one will require modernized deterrence and containment - not engagement - strategies to preserve our democracy and the current world order. We have tried various forms of engagement for 40 years without success, until the last administration recognized the need for a different approach: containment. Chinese Communist Party gaslighters and influencers have done good work keeping us from acknowledging this, putting the blame on us with language like “that’s Cold War thinking” and “you’re trying to contain us”. It wasn’t until about 2018 that the U.S. began to abandon the effort to engage China in a global system that creates the most good for the most people, and moved toward containment. Those who argue that containment is the wrong path should reflect on what Beijing is doing to box the U.S. and others out of resource-rich Africa and elsewhere. The more we brought China into international bodies like the World Trade Organization, the more those bodies have come to serve Chinese interests. It is past time to isolate and contain this cancer of new-type communism. The post-Soviet peace dividend was squandered through wishful thinking. But ignoring the problem isn’t going to make it go away; on the contrary, it has made it worse. After 40 years of failure, it’s time to dust off the proven body of knowledge on how two diametrically opposed governance concepts can exist simultaneously until the judgment of history decides a winner again.

Recently, India has been making headlines in the global tech manufacturing sphere thanks to the entry of Google’s Pixel 8 manufacturing into its domain. Google’s move aligns with the broader trend of global tech giants like Apple and Samsung expanding their manufacturing bases in India, further cementing the nation’s position in the global supply chain. Samsung has set up the world’s largest mobile phone manufacturing facility in India, which showcases the nation’s capacity to cater to the production needs of global tech giants. The shift in supply chain dynamics is palpable. A report revealed a whopping 400% increase in U.S. and European greenfield investment into India between 2021 and 2022, while investments in China dropped significantly during the same period. The economic tides are clearly turning, with India positioning itself as an attractive alternative for sourcing amid the quest for diversified supply chains due to disruptions caused by policies like China’s controversial Belt and Road Initiative. This economic predicament for China augments the favorable shift towards India as a reliable and economically viable manufacturing hub. On the flip side, compared with China, the overall democratic fabric of India presents a stabler and more trusted environment for global supply chains. As India continues on this trajectory, the ripple effects will likely resonate through the global supply chain, marking a new era of high-quality tech manufacturing rooted in Indian soil.

Europe witnessed antisemitism over many years, especially in France, Austria and Germany. Indeed, there were actually antisemitic political parties in those countries in the late 19th century. But there was never a mass and organized attempt at their annihilation until the rise of Hitler and National Socialism in Germany. Anti-Jewish propaganda was thrown about by the Nazis and their supporters to stir up anger and then hate. The Nazis - National Socialists - were regarded as a fringe organization, a loose collection of left-wing haters, in the early days. With the rise of National Socialist Adolf Hitler came organized hate. He was the detestable socialist and antisemite who brought it all together. As Hanna Arendt wrote in her brilliant book “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” antisemitism has often been used as an organizing tool of the left, as it was in the Soviet Union. The end result was the extermination of 6 million Jews and millions of other “undesirables,” including homosexuals and people with physical or mental disabilities. Nazism - National Socialism - has always been a left-wing ideology. And it was and is often associated with the upper and so-called educated classes. The reality of history shows the left being more closely aligned with overt nationalism and antisemitism. They see it as a means to control the masses. The textbook definition of socialism is the state controls the means of production and distribution. These are the new followers of hate as a state policy. History does indeed repeat itself: Today’s liberals are yesterday’s National Socialists.

On that basis, we have to conclude that the new “Axis of Evil” has defined itself: Russia, China and Iran. They are on course to combine Russian and Chinese imperialism with Iran’s religious fanaticism to create an axis of evil far more dangerous than Mr. Bush’s original. We can’t yet know how much farther this alliance will go, but the danger is terribly clear. Russian and probably Chinese support for Iran’s missile program will quickly enable Iran to dominate the Middle East and threaten both Europe and the U.S. Those nations’ support for Iran’s nuclear weapons program will probably create a nuclear-armed Iran almost immediately with the ability to deliver those arms by missile. In April 2022, Mr. Biden assured the Israelis that Iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. But this past March, then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley told the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee that the United States “remains committed, as a matter of policy, that Iran will not have a fielded nuclear weapon.” That was more than a quibble about our policy on a nuclear-armed Iran. There’s a massive difference between a policy denying Iran any nuclear weapons and a policy saying that they cannot deploy such weapons. So what is Mr. Biden’s policy about a nuclear-armed Iran? His tiptoeing around Iran in his statements on the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel creates the impression that he is still committed to reviving the 2015 nuclear weapons agreement with Iran. Mr. Biden has a choice. He could aim U.S. diplomacy and sanctions ― and military preparedness ― at the new axis of evil or let it drift into a nuclear-armed Iran.

On Jan. 29, 2002, four months after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address. In that speech, he labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea an “axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” The world has changed greatly, and the “axis of evil” evolved considerably since Mr. Bush delivered that speech. Iraq, now effectively an Iranian satrapy, is no longer a direct threat to world peace. North Korea was then and is now a Chinese dependent that can do little without China’s permission. But Iran - with the probability it will soon have nuclear weapons and have the missile with which it can deliver them, as well as its control of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah - is a much greater threat than it was in 2002. China and Russia are now allying themselves with Iran and apparently pursuing a mutually aggressive path. We need to think about their alignment with Iran in the context of their own “no limits alliance” that Russia and China declared in February 2022, weeks before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. China is and has been the principal purchaser of Iranian oil, reportedly buying 87% of Iranian oil exports in September. On Oct. 30, China proclaimed “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Iran. China has clearly chosen to side with Iran in the Israel-Hamas war and will prove a valuable ally to the world’s principal state sponsor of terrorism. So will Russia. On Oct. 26, delegations from Hamas and Iran visited Moscow to confer with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin. The Russian meetings were reportedly focused on greater cooperation with Iran’s missile program.

The United States even outsourced the manufacture of its advanced information technology systems. The results of that 30-year process have come home to roost. China’s shipbuilding industry is nearly 200 times that of the United States. China produces more computers, computer components, medical equipment, pharmaceutical products and steel than the United States. Most of America’s consumer goods are imported, and those industries are among the easiest to convert to defense purposes in a conflict. Modern military equipment requires high-technology components that are themselves reliant on rare earth elements and computer chips. China produces over 80% of the world’s supply of the former and is America’s leading supplier of those materials. The United States also imports most of its computer chips, even though the most advanced chips were developed in the United States. The United States is facing one of the greatest challenges in its existence. Aggressors and terrorists are on the march in Europe and the Middle East, while China is bullying Japan and the Philippines, America’s allies in the Western Pacific. Yet our business and political elites seek dialogue with China for dialogue’s sake or fight over titles in Congress while American industries languish and lawmakers’ attention is divided. It is not press conferences and speeches that deter aggression but strength and resolute action. Neither of the latter has any real credibility if the nation’s economy cannot produce what the nation’s and its allies’ defenses need. The West enabled China to become the arsenal of autocracy. America must restore its capacity to become democracy’s arsenal. World peace demands it.

Vladimir Putin’s autocratic regime is not the only recipient of Beijing’s military largesse. While the U.S. and its allies look the other way, China has been buying sanctioned Iranian and Russian oil, and selling Iran weapons, weapons components and military technology. Iran claims to have anti-ship ballistic missiles, a technology first developed by China. Iran’s anti-ship cruise missiles are either Chinese-manufactured. Those weapons have turned up in the hands of Syria, Hezbollah. This is at a time when America’s and its allies’ defense industries are struggling to supply Ukraine, and the U.S. is straining to supply Taiwan and its other allies with the weapons and supplies to face a growing Chinese threat. Where America was once the arsenal of democracy, China has risen to become the arsenal of autocracy. Historians will look back on the 20th century’s final decade and the first of the 21st century as a period of unprecedented economic growth and technological advancement by China. Progressive Western politicians, business leaders and some media commentators have extolled the Chinese Communist Party for lifting so many Chinese citizens out of poverty. Those same admirers typically ignore the reported $2 trillion of foreign investment in China. Nor do they credit the Western political elites who opened their nation’s markets to Chinese-produced goods, even those manufactured by slave labor. It was that combination of Western investment, intended to escape growing wages in their countries, and the opening of their markets to the now-cheap imports that diminished the West’s industrial base.