The New York Times - USA (2020-07-28)

A22 TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2020

Y

With China throwing its weight around in the South China
Sea, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rightly declared this
month that the country’s aggressive claims to offshore re-
sources in the area were “completely unlawful.” The mes-

sage aligned the United States with international law in one
of the world’s most critical waterways and showed support
for the smaller coastal states threatened by Chinese bully-
ing.
The strategic importance of the South China Sea cannot
be overstated. A third of the world’s shipping passes through
it, its fisheries are critical sources of food for millions of peo-
ple in Southeast Asia and its seabed covers vast reserves of

oil and gas. China’s exorbitant claims and might-makes-
right behavior are self-evidently destabilizing to the interna-
tional rule of law.
The problem is that Mr. Pompeo’s statement is mean-
ingful only if it is accompanied by a firm commitment by the
Trump administration to a robust and coordinated policy.
However incensed China’s neighbors are by its bullying,
they are in no position to push back unless they can be cer-
tain of American support and leadership.

Apart from the possibility that the Trump administra-
tion is in its final months, the president and his revolving-
door lieutenants have abdicated multilateral leadership in
the Pacific and elsewhere in the world in the name of “Amer-
ica first.” Mr. Trump has vacillated between waging a tariff
war against China’s “predatory practices” in trade, singing
paeans to President Xi Jinping and, according to John
Bolton’s account of his time as Mr. Trump’s national security

adviser, seeking favors from Mr. Xi to help his re-election.
In the absence of any coherent China policy, the admin-
istration’s proclivity for tearing up treaties and its disdain
for alliances, Mr. Pompeo’s belated declaration that China is
violating international law — and especially the Law of the
Sea treaty, which the United States has never ratified —
sounds a bit hollow.
It is, nonetheless, a message that is valid and long over-

due. Over the past decade, China has steadily hardened its
claims to most of the South China Sea, a zone circumscribed
by a vague “nine-dash line” that one American naval com-
mander called the “Great Wall of Sand.” The claims have in-
cluded a campaign of building up shoals and militarizing is-
lands or proclaiming municipal districts and settling people
on contested islands. The reclamation of several reefs and
atolls in the Spratly Islands has included construction of
runways, hangars, barracks, missile silos and radar sites.

In recent months, with much of the world preoccupied
with the Covid-19 pandemic, China has sharply escalated its
coercive activities. In early April, a Chinese Coast Guard
vessel sank a Vietnamese fishing boat close to islands
claimed by both China and Vietnam. A Chinese marine sur-
vey vessel harassed a Malaysian oil exploration vessel off
Borneo. This month, the Department of Defense voiced con-
cern about the Chinese Navy’s decision to seal off an area
around the Paracel Islands to conduct naval exercises. In re-

sponse, the United States increased its own naval activities,

including joint exercises by two aircraft carrier groups.

These confrontations have contributed to a sharp de-

terioration in U.S.-China relations on other fronts. Over a

few weeks, while Mr. Trump has continued to publicly blame

China for the coronavirus outbreak, the United States has

punished Chinese officials over Beijing’s crackdown in Hong

Kong and the western region of Xinjiang and accused the

Chinese of stealing intellectual property. Last week, the

State Department ordered China to shut down its consulate

in Houston, provoking the closure of the American consulate

in the southwestern city of Chengdu.

The strains are not likely to subside as China continues

to grow in wealth, power and technological prowess. Though

the tensions between Washington and Beijing have often

been likened to the Cold War with the Soviet Union, they are

far different. China is a major trading partner with the

United States and much of the rest of the world. It does not

command an empire, and its economy is not likely to crum-

ble under the weight of Western challenges the way

Moscow’s command economy did.

Dealing with the new China will require a balance of di-

plomacy, firmness, credible deterrents and a code of con-

duct, especially in the South China Sea. It will require a

broad consensus among China’s Southeast Asian neighbors

and America’s allies, all of which are opposed to any restric-

tions on navigation through the South China Sea but are also

cognizant of the importance of trade with China. The Obama

administration’s Asia strategy marked a recognition of

these realities and the need for a coherent approach.

In fact, Mr. Pompeo’s statement did not break new

ground, since the United States already effectively recog-

nized the 2016 decision of an international arbitration court

that rebuffed China’s “nine-dash line” claims in a landmark

case brought by the Philippines. (China rejects the ruling.)

What Mr. Pompeo did was to overtly declare the validity of

the decision.

Though not necessarily a change of policy, the state-

ment would give greater authority to any American-led pu-

nitive actions, whether through sanctions, United Nations

resolutions or joint action by organizations such as the Asso-

ciation of Southeast Asian Nations or the Group of 7.

Yet the administration has largely spurned interna-

tional organizations, and its approach to China has vacillat-

ed widely and unpredictably. Mr. Trump tore up the Trans-

Pacific Partnership trade agreement with 11 other countries

and launched a tariff war against China while at the same

time heaping praise on Mr. Xi, avoiding criticism of China’s

human-rights violations and claiming, as he did last January

at Davos, that “our relationship with China has now proba-

bly never, ever been better.”

Mr. Pompeo has said the right things about China’s un-

lawful behavior. But unless words are accompanied by a

credible American re-engagement in the region, including a

clear commitment to diplomacy, investment and security,

the words are just more election-year bluster.

Empty Talk on the South China Sea?

EDITORIAL

ILLUSTRATION BY THE NEW YORK TIMES; PHOTOGRAPH BY GETTY IMAGES

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “In Portland’s ‘War Zone,’

Troops Menace” (column, July 26):

Nicholas Kristof’s column is

simultaneously illuminating and

terrifying. President Trump’s “Wag

the Dog” scenario isn’t about a

president declaring a mythical

election-year war on Albania, as

portrayed in the iconic film. No,

Mr. Trump’s scenario is to declare

a real war on American cities in a

feeble attempt to save his presi-

dency.

Real American forces and real

American munitions are being

used in Portland, Ore. — and un-

doubtedly very soon in other Dem-

ocratic-led cities — as unpaid and

unwitting people are being used as

props and extras in Trump cam-

paign commercials. We’ve already

seen a few such commercials in

which somber and serious sound-

ing voice-overs tell us that this is

what we can expect in a Biden

presidency.

Does no one perceive the irony

and the deceitful hypocrisy? These

scenes are being filmed right here,

right now, in the midst of a Trump

presidency.

America, wake up — finally!

MIKE SCHNEIDER, TRUCKEE, CALIF.

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Cities Are in Bind as Unrest

Flares Over U.S. Actions” (front

page, July 27):

If I could reach the protesters in

Portland, I would say:

While I sympathize with your

demands and complaints, includ-

ing the removal of federal forces

from your city streets, I worry

very much that your actions are

helpful to President Trump’s ap-

peal to parts of the electorate. Your

protests might be hurting your

cause. I recommend that you go

home and work more effectively

by:

Supporting the John Lewis vot-

ing rights bill in Congress.

Supporting voter registration

and absentee ballot registration.

Supporting the campaigns of

Democrats at all levels of govern-

ment in the upcoming November

elections.

KATIE WITTENBERG

ARLINGTON, VA.

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Who Gets to Be a ‘Naked

Athena?,’” by Mitchell S. Jackson

(Sunday Review, July 26):

I live in Portland, Ore. When I

saw the video of “Naked Athena,” a

naked woman striding majestically

out of the darkness and into the

glaring spotlights of the federal

goon squad, I felt that I was wit-

nessing a magical reawakening of

hope. There she stood, proudly and

unflinchingly, staring back at the

anonymous camouflage-clad men.

She was unclad and they were

heavily armed, yet she represented

the stronger force.

To me she was Aphrodite rather

than Athena. She represented

purity and love, which must tri-

umph over unreasoning brute

force.

CAROL BENSON KNUTSON

PORTLAND, ORE.

TO THE EDITOR:

Coming from a family with a his-

tory of military service, we display

both a Black Lives Matter sign and

an American flag in honor of those

who defended our liberty. Both of

these symbols represent to us the

continued pride of America’s past

struggles and the will to evolve

and fix what needs changing.

That is why I’m confused about

why I don’t see the American flag

used in the protests, or if they are

being used, maybe the images are

not being published. Federal forces

would be less likely to engage

violently with a protester holding

an American flag or a Black Lives

Matter sign with an American flag

incorporated into the design.

The image of federal forces

attacking an American flag would

be powerful. Adding the flag to the

protests may help keep them

peaceful.

DAN KING, ROCKPORT, MASS.

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Lewis’s Funeral Procession

Follows His Footsteps Across

Bridge” (news article, July 27):

Is there any difference between

what armed, federally employed

violent thugs are doing in Portland,

Ore., and what armed, state-em-

ployed violent thugs did in Selma,

Ala., on the Edmund Pettus Bridge

55 years ago?

Thank you, John Lewis, for your

courage and bravery, and for your

moral integrity on that day. You led

us by your example then, and by a

lifetime of examples of what it

means to be an American, keeping

alive decency and mercy, and the

dream of a country with liberty

and justice for all.

STEPHEN TESSLER, DAVIS, CALIF.

As Federal Forces Confront Protesters

LETTERS

TO THE EDITOR:

Re “Plotting the Future of Publish-

ing, Now Under New Manage-

ment” (front page, July 16):

In 1963, after graduating from

Wellesley College and with one

year of graduate school at Harvard

behind me, I tried to get an editori-

al job at Harper & Row. I was made

a secretary. Men with my educa-

tional background were made

“readers.” Women like me became

secretaries.

It was inevitable that we, the

women, quit, as I did, returning to

Harvard for my doctorate. It was

out of our anger and disappoint-

ment that the women’s movement

of the late 1960s was forged.

I hope that the women now at

the top of publishing do not forget

that our bodies formed the bridge

over which they passed to their

well-deserved positions.

ELLEN CANTAROW, NEW YORK

Publishing, Then and Now

TO THE EDITOR:

“Images of Self and Its Many Dis-

tortions” (Books of The Times,

July 8), a review of Marjorie Gar-

ber’s book about character, refers

to people protesting that their

offensive actions were not who

they were, not the “real me.” This

is the same excuse or explanation

offered by so many companies

when they are caught doing some-

thing egregious.

Time after time, looking at the

evidence of what they have done,

these companies simply rebut the

facts and say this is not who we

are. The fact is that that is pre-

cisely who they are, and they just

got caught doing it.

These companies are unwilling

to live up to or own up to the real-

ization that they are sometimes the

worst example of how they oper-

ate.

ETTAGALE BLAUER, NEW YORK

A Lesson in Character

AMERICA’S RESPONSE TOthe coronavirus
has been a lose-lose proposition.
The Trump administration and gover-
nors like Florida’s Ron DeSantis insisted
that there was no trade-off between eco-
nomic growth and controlling the disease,
and they were right — but not in the way
they expected.
Premature reopening led to a surge in
infections: Adjusted for population,
Americans are currently dying from
Covid-19 at around 15 times the rate in the
European Union or Canada. Yet the
“rocket ship” recovery Donald Trump
promised has crashed and burned: Job
growth appears to have stalled or re-
versed, especially in states that were most
aggressive about lifting social distancing
mandates, and early indications are that
the U.S. economy is lagging behind the
economies of major European nations.
So we’re failing dismally on both the
epidemiological and the economic fronts.
But why?
On the face of it, the answer is that
Trump and allies were so eager to see big
jobs numbers that they ignored both in-
fection risks and the way a resurgent pan-

demic would undermine the economy. As I

and others have said, they failed the

marshmallow test, sacrificing the future

because they weren’t willing to show a lit-

tle patience.

And there’s surely a lot to that explana-

tion. But it isn’t the whole story.

For one thing, people truly focused on

restarting the economy should have been

big supporters of measures to limit infec-

tions without hurting business — above

all, getting Americans to wear face masks.

Instead, Trump ridiculed those in masks

as “politically correct,” while Republican

governors not only refused to mandate

mask-wearing, but they prevented may-

ors from imposing local mask rules.

Also, politicians eager to see the econ-

omy bounce back should have wanted to

sustain consumer purchasing power until

wages recovered. Instead, Senate Repub-

licans ignored the looming July 31 expira-

tion of special unemployment benefits,

which means that tens of millions of work-

ers are about to see a huge hit to their in-

comes, damaging the economy as a whole.

So what was going on? Were our lead-

ers just stupid? Well, maybe. But there’s a

deeper explanation of the profoundly self-

destructive behavior of Trump and his al-

lies: They were all members of America’s

cult of selfishness.

You see, the modern U.S. right is com-

mitted to the proposition that greed is

good, that we’re all better off when indi-

viduals engage in the untrammeled pur-

suit of self-interest. In their vision, un-

restricted profit maximization by busi-

nesses and unregulated consumer choice

is the recipe for a good society.

Support for this proposition is, if any-

thing, more emotional than intellectual.

I’ve long been struck by the intensity of

right-wing anger against relatively trivial

regulations, like bans on phosphates in

detergent and efficiency standards for

light bulbs. It’s the principle of the thing:

Many on the right are enraged at any sug-

gestion that their actions should take

other people’s welfare into account.

This rage is sometimes portrayed as

love of freedom. But people who insist on

the right to pollute are notably unboth-

ered by, say, federal agents tear-gassing

peaceful protesters. What they call “free-

dom” is actually absence of responsibility.

Rational policy in a pandemic, however,

is all about taking responsibility. The main

reason you shouldn’t go to a bar and

should wear a mask isn’t self-protection,

although that’s part of it; the point is that

congregating in noisy, crowded spaces or

exhaling droplets into shared air puts oth-

ersat risk. And that’s the kind of thing

America’s right just hates, hates to hear.

Indeed, it sometimes seems as if right-

wingers actually make a point of behaving

irresponsibly. Remember how Senator

Rand Paul, who was worried that he might

have Covid-19 (he did), wandered around

the Senate and even used the gym while

waiting for his test results?

Anger at any suggestion of social re-

sponsibility also helps explain the loom-

ing fiscal catastrophe. It’s striking how

emotional many Republicans get in their

opposition to the temporary rise in unem-

ployment benefits; for example, Senator

Lindsey Graham declared that these

benefits would be extended “over our

dead bodies.” Why such hatred?

It’s not because the benefits are making

workers unwilling to take jobs. There’s no

evidence that this is happening — it’s just

something Republicans want to believe.

And in any case, economic arguments

can’t explain the rage.

Again, it’s the principle. Aiding the un-

employed, even if their joblessness isn’t

their own fault, is a tacit admission that

lucky Americans should help their less-

fortunate fellow citizens. And that’s an ad-

mission the right doesn’t want to make.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Re-

publicans are selfish. We’d be doing much

better if that were all there were to it. The

point, instead, is that they’ve sacralized

selfishness, hurting their own political

prospects by insisting on the right to act

selfishly even when it hurts others.

What the coronavirus has revealed is

the power of America’s cult of selfishness.

And this cult is killing us. 0

PAUL KRUGMAN

The Cult of Selfishness Is Killing America

The right has made

irresponsible behavior

a key principle.