United States President Donald Trump came off his highly successful meeting with Democratic People’s Republic of Korea leader Kim Jong-un, a meeting that may finally resolve the long-standing Korea conflict, only to open up another can of worms that could throw the region – and the world – into chaos, with his imposition of draconian tariffs on Chinese high-tech products. And while the president continued to say that he was determined to do something about the US trade deficit with the rest of the world, the recent discussions between US and Chinese negotiators here in Washington seemed to indicate that an agreement was in the works.

And yet on the morning of June 15, the president announced $50 billion of tariffs on Chinese good “that contain industrially significant technologies", including “goods related to China’s Made in China 2025 strategic plan to dominate the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the US and many other countries’’.

These draconian measures are obviously far more than a simple means of “rebalancing” trade between the two countries. It appears that Trump has heeded the ill-conceived advice of the “China-bashers” in his administration like White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro, to quench China’s ambitions in becoming a world-class technological power by slowing down the rapid technological advance that China has experienced during the last few decades. It is directed at the heart of China’s economic development policy which is based on the rapid development and implementation of new scientific breakthroughs. This has allowed China to make the tremendous progress it has made, and to liberate millions of Chinese from poverty and disease. But isn’t that what government is all about – improving the conditions of life of its people through this type of science-driven economic development? This used to be the norm in the US as well but decades of “deregulation” and a growing bias toward government regulation and stimulation of economic activity has abandoned policy-making to the vagaries of “the market.” And this laissez-faire bias has left much of our economy, and our infrastructure, in shambles.

The “narrative” that is used to justify these new tariffs is that China has in some way “stolen” the “secrets” of US technology and thus must pay us back. What a ridiculous idea! But progress made by other nations cannot be stopped by such tawdry measures as draconian tariffs particularly if a country is prepared to make an all-out effort to continue to move forward. In the 1970s, some “clever” US politicians were eager to stop “developing countries” like Brazil and India from developing nuclear power or developing a space industry, but to little avail. All such attempts to stop progress from happening will be like King Canute trying to stop the tides. The only effect of such a policy will be to leave the victims with a strong sense of contempt for the perpetrator.

But perhaps the president is simply using this threat (and the tariffs will not go into effect before July 6) as a bargaining tool. If that is so, it is a rather risky means of dealing with a nation with which he wishes to maintain on good relations. Trump has assured people that he will be able to work something out because of his very good relationship with President Xi Jinping. That may be the case. But such unfriendly acts can seriously try even the strongest of friendships.

China has already made a commitment to open up its economy even more to foreign investment. True, China does have an “industrial policy”. The nation has a clear direction where it wants to go. The real problem is, the US does not. In fact, we really haven’t had a real industrial policy since President John F. Kennedy launched the space program. President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative program had that potential, but it petered out when the accountants took charge. Is the US, like China, committed to developing its economy by pushing the frontiers in science and technology? Then why does Trump still not have a science advisor? And why are we farming out our well-developed space capabilities to private entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who have their shareholders to consider? And why hasn’t the Trump administration established some sort of infrastructure fund in order to put our roads, highways, and railroads, back in order for the safety and well-being of those who have to travel on them, as the president has promised?

The truth of the matter is that the government-directed industrial policy that China has implemented has proven itself more successful than the laissez-faire neoliberal model that has been promoted by the US over the last two decades. This policy, known as the “Washington consensus” has been devastating for the developing world which is still immersed in poverty. And China has now become a model of real development for them.

Trump could learn a lesson from one of his more important predecessors, Franklin Roosevelt, who well understood how to take a nation in the midst of a major financial economic crisis and transform it into a nation which became the decisive factor in winning World War II. And he could not have done that without mobilizing the full resources of government. The same goes for Trump. As a businessman, he has great confidence in private enterprise “carrying the ball”. But private entrepreneurs are primarily motivated by their “shareholder’s value” and not by the public weal. And cutting corners in space exploration can cost people their lives. This is where only government can be fully accountable.

Perhaps rather than condemning China for implementing an “industrial policy”, the US should learn from it – and start doing the things that we were previously so capable of doing in developing our own human and other resources. With that, we might feel less paranoid, and more confident in working together with China for the general welfare – of all our peoples.

William Jones is Washington bureau chief for Executive Intelligence Review. The author contributed this article to China watch exclusively. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.

All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.