hankyoreh

Still from a video in which members of al-Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden, second from right, appear to be planning the Sept. 11 attacks at an undisclosed location in southern Afghanistan. Al-Jazeera broadcast the video, produced by al-Qaeda’s media wing as-Sahab, in 2006. (AFP/Yonhap News)

The world watched in shock 20 years ago as three planes hijacked by al-Qaida members crashed into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. The neo-cons of the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, demanding the handover of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. After toppling the Taliban regime, the US then invaded Iraq in March 2003 despite UN opposition.

Bin Laden was killed in 2011, but I wonder what he would think if he’d survived to witness the Taliban take back control of Afghanistan and the American military withdraw amid chaos and terror. Would he think his dream of punishing the US had been realized?

The US military lost 2,442 service members while allied troops lost 1,144. The Afghans reported more than 170,000 deaths, though the actual number is likely much higher.

US President Joe Biden said the US spent US$1 trillion on the War in Afghanistan, but analysts at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University put the cost at US$2.31 trillion. The total cost of the “war on terror,” including operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, is US$6.4 trillion.

An even bigger problem is the debt accrued during these wars. World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War were funded by raising taxes. But the Bush and Trump administrations slashed taxes on the rich while issuing government bonds worth more than US$2 trillion to fund the wars in the Middle East. The wars may be over, but this immense debt must still be repaid — with interest.

The war enriched the US’ five major defense companies, including Lockheed Martin and Boeing, as well as the Wall Street banks invested in them. Then came the global financial crisis, producing rampant inequality that angered low-income white people, who subsequently voted in Trump.

Bin Laden and al-Qaida’s “victory” over the US consisted of wrecking the US’ society, politics and economy by dragging the US into inequality and debt.

China has adeptly exploited the opportunity presented by the US’ entanglement. In exchange for its cooperation on the “war on terror” after 9/11, China persuaded the US and the UN to designate the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which advocates autonomy and independence for the Uighur people, as a terrorist organization. That empowered Chinese authorities to suppress Uighur criticism of and resistance to China’s rule over Xinjiang under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

The Chinese and US business communities worked together to incorporate low-wage workers throughout China into a production network as the two countries opened up to each other in the areas of trade and finance. China’s gross domestic product (GDP) surged from 13 percent of the US’ GDP in 2001 to 71 percent in 2020. Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, China is now openly challenging the US-led international order on the assumption that China is on the rise and the US is on the decline.

With the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, the Biden administration hopes to create a turning point that will reverse these trends. The US is moving toward a realist strategy of leaving Europe and the Middle East in charge of a regional balance of powers instead of squandering its resources on the unrealistic goal of expanding the liberal international order. Instead, the US hopes to concentrate its energy on counterbalancing China, its new adversary.

While the new direction has been set, the exact path there remains ambiguous. It’s still unclear to what extent the US will cooperate or compete with China, and the US hasn’t put forth alternatives for its allies with close economic ties to China if they decouple from China as the US would like to see happen. The US will undoubtedly ask South Korea, Japan and Taiwan to play bigger roles in keeping China in check, but the US itself has yet to make concrete plans.

But foreign policy strategizing ranks low on the Biden administration’s priorities. First comes shutting off the spigot of defense spending, paying down debt, and rebuilding the American society, economy, and middle class.

Biden has promised to reduce equality and rescue middle- and working-class households by passing a US$1.2 trillion infrastructure bill and a US$3.5 trillion social welfare bill. The New York Times described this as a revolutionary recasting of the social safety net “from cradle to grave.”

Biden appointed Colombia Law School professor Lina Khan, who is regarded as an antitrust crusader, as the chair of the Federal Trade Commission and tasked her with blocking market monopolization by Big Tech companies such as Amazon, Google and Facebook.

Chinese President Xi Jinping himself has raised the banner of “common prosperity.” Xi is clearly convinced that China’s development will run aground unless the country can reform its economic structure by reducing extreme social inequality and boosting welfare for the low-income population.

To be sure, there are concerns about the Chinese government’s methods of achieving this, including suppression of labor activists and draconian regulations on private companies. It also remains to be seen whether China can reform its tax code and distribute assets directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

But it’s worth noting that China has jumped ahead of the US in regulating big tech.

“In the past, China selectively introduced systems that had been proven overseas. But now, it’s adopting measures such as privacy protections, big tech regulations and social insurance for the gig economy at the same time as the US or even faster. It’s competing with the US to set new standards,” said Jee Man-soo, director of international finance research at the Korea Institute of Finance.

Both Biden and Xi share the view that their primary challenge is resolving domestic inequality. True victory for either country will depend on whether they can effectively solve inequality at home while sustaining innovation and growth. That process will also clarify decoupling, the reorganization of the high-tech supply chain, solutions to platform monopolization, and the new international order.

Are South Korea’s politicians giving enough thought to resolving inequality, preparing for a super-aged society, and the impact that the US and China’s competition for “common prosperity” will have on Korea and the world?

Park Min-hee

By Park Min-hee, editorial writer

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]