Why the U.S. Must Address China’s Escalatory Rhetoric.

March 7, 2025

A Message to President Trump: Why the U.S. Must Address China’s Escalatory Rhetoric with Firmness, Fairness, and Measured Diplomacy.

Dear @realDonaldTrump,

Congratulations on your incredible achievements, only 47 days into your second term as the 47th president of the United States. It's very exciting, long overdue, and yet there is still so much more that needs to be done. For these reasons, I pray you stay vigilant to the wiles of the devil and the schemes of those who have pivoted their strategies to try to derail your accomplishments. Over the past several months, certain lower-level officials in the People’s Republic of China have ratcheted up their rhetoric toward the United States in response to the additional ten percent tariffs you have imposed on Chinese imports. These underlings have gone so far as to threaten “any type of war,” including full-scale, kinetic war if America does not back down. This is happening in March of 2025, under your administration’s second term, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio overseeing the State Department. Such bellicose language, especially from officials who are not even at the highest rungs of China’s government, is troubling and really unnecessary. It illustrates a less-than-professional approach to diplomacy—one driven by emotion, pride, or an eagerness to appear “tough,” rather than by the measured restraint and strategic thinking that many previous Chinese leaders prided themselves on.

The United States and China already have a lengthy list of unresolved disputes. We have seen tensions mount over trade, technology transfers, competing military presences, the issue of Taiwan, and the troubling reality of fentanyl trafficking, among other matters. However, none of these, individually or collectively, should ever be a cause for issuing threats of “all-out war.” Doing so erodes the credibility of diplomacy and sows fear at a time when the global community desperately needs calm heads, prudent negotiation, and leadership that can see beyond inflammatory sound bites.

This letter-article, addressed directly to you, President Trump, will argue that a decisive public statement—and, more importantly, a genuine diplomatic outreach—should be undertaken to address these irresponsible war threats. We must showcase American strength by simultaneously condemning unmeasured rhetoric and offering a fair and forward-looking path toward meaningful talks with China that could yield overwhelmingly positive results for both countries. At the same time, it is crucial we recognize that the United States has not always handled relations with China in a manner that fosters mutual respect or acknowledges Beijing’s perspective. I have written extensively on these issues relating to China in my book, "The Republicrat - A Plea To Humanity." If you, Mr. President, can blend firmness with humility—if you can outline the many ways in which we genuinely desire fair and prosperous dealings with China, while also insisting that Beijing clamp down on blatant threats and criminal activity (like fentanyl trafficking)—then we may find a way out of the present spiral of hostility.

Below is a structured exploration of why this approach is necessary. It draws upon historical precedent, the recent controversies that have soured U.S.-China relations, the Taiwan issue, and, importantly, the fentanyl crisis that has claimed hundreds of thousands of American lives. It also underscores that although we have a right to stand firm, we can still benefit from more robust engagement, provided China demonstrates responsible behavior and a willingness to compromise on issues like intellectual property theft, technology transfers, military communications, and the supply of deadly narcotics.

I. The Less Than Professional Nature of Escalatory Rhetoric

It is no secret that China’s diplomatic tradition had, for decades, been marked by carefully measured comments. Leaders such as Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin often employed the strategy of “hide your strength, bide your time,” which emphasized caution and patience in international affairs. This is not to say they were passive, but they were known for calibrating their responses, especially where major powers like the United States were concerned. By contrast, the recent statements from lower-level Chinese officials threatening “any type of war” over a fairly modest increase in tariffs—ten percent—are nothing short of unfortunate.

We must call out such over-the-top language for what it is: an unnecessary threat that fails to recognize the degrees of diplomacy available before resorting to war. It also suggests a degree of ego at play, in which prideful indignation over perceived slights outranks rational consideration of the repercussions. Indeed, to threaten war over a small trade dispute is the very definition of disproportionate. Were we to respond in kind, it would only escalate tensions further, fueling mutual animosity and possibly inching both nations toward dangerous brinkmanship. This is especially important to consider in light of your recent statements that you and Xi Jinping get along very well suggesting that your relationship can become even closer, one of deep mutual respect that would benefit both nations and the world.

Mr. President, what you can do is publicly regret the sophomoric nature of China's recent escalatory rhetoric in a manner that, at once, reaffirms American resolve and underscores that serious nations do not leap from economic disagreements to bellicose war threats. You could issue a call for more skillful Chinese diplomacy in the tradition of their Xi Jinping himself who is known for more measured comments—a call that will resonate with moderate voices in Beijing, many of whom likely cringe at the impulsiveness of these “underlings.” Diplomacy, like any craft, has levels, and war threats are at the far extreme, typically reserved for existential emergencies. Suggesting “any type of war” over trade is amateur diplomacy, pure and simple.

II. Understanding the Tariffs and Their Impact on China

Let us not forget what triggered this rhetorical spike. You added an extra ten percent tariff on Chinese imports. Yes, tariffs can hurt. They raise prices for U.S. businesses importing goods from China; they strain Chinese factories that rely on exporting to the American market; they complicate global supply chains. But the real question here: does a ten percent tariff truly justify warlike language?

China itself has engaged in numerous trade restrictions against the U.S. for years. Prior to the Trump administration’s first set of tariffs, Beijing had a variety of duties on American goods, as well as a patchwork of regulatory hurdles effectively barring U.S. companies from competing fairly in the Chinese market. Our measure was not an unprovoked punch in the dark; it was a reaction—arguably an overdue one—to a system that had been funneling wealth and intellectual property out of the U.S. while propping up state-owned enterprises in China.

Moreover, the extraterritorial reach of Chinese technology acquisition, forced tech transfers, and the overshadowing presence of the Chinese military near maritime routes (like the South China Sea and current encirclement of Australia) all contribute to Washington’s mounting concerns. A measured tariff, aimed at compelling Beijing to negotiate more equitably, is hardly impetus for all-out conflict.

Does this extra tariff truly inflict such a painful blow to China’s economy that it warrants threatening war? The data likely suggest otherwise. Although any tariff can disrupt supply chains, and while we must recognize China's only recent ascent out of poverty, China continues to be one of the largest trading economies in the world; there are other countries also putting some pressure on Beijing’s unfair trade practices; and many factories in China still find robust international demand. By no means has this tariff spelled the doom of the Chinese economy. In fact, if we look at metrics like China’s overall GDP, its manufacturing output, and the global hunger for goods “Made in China,” it remains competitive—though admittedly, your tariffs have forced them to recalculate their approach.

Frankly, if Chinese factories are hurting, it is partly because of China’s own actions, including intellectual property theft, attempts at forced technology transfers, and insufficient enforcement against the illegal export of fentanyl precursors. That leads us to the next major point.

III. The Fentanyl Crisis: China’s Missed Obligations

One of the primary justifications for the new tariff increase is the lingering concern over fentanyl.  You can and should no doubt recognize China's recent white paper on the matter and their attempt to take a close look at the situation and what they can do to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United states. For that, Let us thank them for taking that step. However we could respectfully remind China that while the fentanyl drug itself may have decreased in the amount transported from China to Mexico, Chinese drug traffickers have simply pivoted and  the U.S. Department of Justice has had to  indict individuals such as Du Changgen, owner of Hanhong Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd., as well as the company itself, for supplying the precursors used to create fentanyl. This synthetic opioid has devastated American communities, causing tens of thousands of overdose deaths annually. Yet China has not only not adequately prosecuted or extradited the indicted suspects, it has not acknowledged the pivot away from shipping the finished product to simply supplying the chemicals needed for the cartel to manufacture the fentanyl themselves. Instead, Beijing appears to have released a “white paper” outlining how it regulates fentanyl-class substances without following up with concrete law enforcement actions.

Mr. President, this is a key area where you can apply pressure without apology. Fentanyl is not just another trade item; it is a lethal drug, often 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine, and it has fueled an epidemic in the United States. We could acknowledge our drug problem in the United States citing the difficulties of addiction among our population, while emphasizing that surely China would not suggest that it is solely our fault when China continues to supply the chemicals that prey on the weak and addicted within our society. We must remind China that they are a much more honorable country than that and simply ask them to live up to their long held standards of honor. A question you could also pose in a public statement is: “How many Chinese families have lost loved ones to American-manufactured synthetic opioids or American drug cartels shipping chemicals into China? Close to zero.” Meanwhile, the U.S. is forced to grapple with tens of thousands of deaths each year, at least partly enabled by chemical shipments from Chinese factories. We must remind China that they are better than this and appeal to their sense of honor to live up to it.

Although Beijing insists that the U.S. demand for opioids is the driving force behind the epidemic, moral responsibility must also lie with Chinese entities that knowingly profit off of this tragic addiction. If Beijing were truly invested in curtailing such criminal activity, it would do more than publish white papers and disclaimers—it would hold traffickers and complicit pharmaceutical companies accountable, seize the facilities producing precursor chemicals, and collaborate with the U.S. on real-time investigations and intelligence-sharing, looking forward and working towards what could be the most amazing trade partnership in the history of US/China relations.

IV. Lessons from the Past: The Taiwan Factor

It would be disingenuous to paint the U.S. as purely virtuous or wholly innocent in all disputes with China. We have our own complicated track record—arguably nowhere more tangled than with the Taiwan issue.

Historically, the United States:

From Beijing’s standpoint, these moves can be seen as a U.S. double game—when China was weak in the 1950s, the U.S. stepped in to protect Taiwan; when it served American interests in the late 1970s, the U.S. shifted recognition to the People’s Republic, effectively sidelining Taiwan’s official status, but then still did not entirely abandon the island. China has repeatedly accused the U.S. of “speaking with a double tongue,” especially regarding Taiwan’s status.

Now, with China having grown into an economic and military powerhouse, partly due to our help in consuming massive amounts of Chinese e commerce and manufactured products, China sees itself in a position to push back vigorously—both in the Taiwan Strait and in the broader region. This backstory highlights how the U.S. has at times leveraged Chinese vulnerabilities, fueling resentment in Beijing. Many in China feel that the U.S. is encircling them with military alliances, from Japan to South Korea to the Philippines, and continuing to block them from retaking what they see as their rightful territory—Taiwan. This is why China encircles Australia to say in essence, "How do you like it? How does it feel"?

Mr. President, if you want to handle the present tensions effectively, it would help to realize that our God, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God The Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, expect us to love our neighbor as ourself and you could mention to China that America acknowledges this historical complexity, even if we do not share Beijing’s conclusion on Taiwan’s political status. Could we please just use some humility and acknowledge it and not follow Maria Bartiromo and Fox news' hardline stance on China. A small measure of empathy—understanding that the Chinese deeply value unity and resent perceived foreign interference—can go a long way in persuading Beijing to lower the temperature. Insisting that we remain committed to “One China” in principle, but also to peaceful resolution in practice, might calm some of the hawkish instincts that are fueling bellicose statements from some of China's junior diplomats. At the same time, you could remind China that we cannot remain silent if they threaten war or if they forcibly attempt to annex Taiwan, especially given that many of our own technologies and supply chains (like microchips) are tied to the island. A commercial partnership that benefited both China and Taiwan's economies.

V. Calling on Secretary Rubio to Engage in Diplomatic Repair

Mr. President, some critics have argued that the tariffs came too abruptly—without a sufficient diplomatic buildup that might have resolved the fentanyl question or broader trade disputes in a less confrontational manner. Whether or not that is fully accurate, the question now is how to move forward.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio could be tasked with initiating an urgent round of talks with his counterparts in China. Instead of confining the conversation to trade alone, these talks could put multiple agenda items on the table:

If Secretary Rubio were able to secure even partial concessions from China on fentanyl trafficking based on these considerations, the White House could reciprocate by easing certain tariff lines or rolling back specific restrictions that hamper everyday consumer goods. This synergy—cooperating to stymie drug trafficking while incrementally improving trade terms and other Chinese concerns—would remind the world that two major powers can still find common ground, even amid broader strategic competition.

VI. Measuring Fentanyl Trafficking Decreases

How do we measure the decrease of fentanyl use in the United States? That would be difficult for some time given the bulk supplies that are already here. Another inevitable challenge is how to measure whether China is genuinely clamping down on fentanyl precursors. The U.S. could propose a robust verification mechanism: for instance, a bilateral or multilateral working group that reviews seizures, indictments, and factory shutdowns in real time. Data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on fentanyl or precursor chemical seizures at U.S. ports of entry can serve as a gauge of whether China’s efforts are having an impact.

Similarly, Canada and Mexico, as other key nodes in the fentanyl supply chain, could be included in these discussions. If we note a marked drop in fentanyl precursor shipments from China arriving in Canada and Mexican ports—whether those are monitored by U.S. or Canadian/Mexican authorities—that data would serve as evidence of genuine progress. In parallel, if the indicted Chinese nationals involved in this illicit trade face serious legal consequences, that too sends a clear message that Beijing is finally taking the problem seriously. Conversely, if no such changes are observed, the U.S. would be justified in maintaining the tariffs, citing China’s unwillingness to act.

VII. Emphasizing the Enormous Economic Upside of Good Relations

Given the frosty relations that are developing between the United States and The EU and possibly NATO over Ukraine, It may behoove us to pick our battles and focus on the incredible benefits of a great relationship with China right now as we improve relations with Russia as well. The friction between the United States and China sometimes obscures an important reality: both countries benefit enormously from stable, prosperous bilateral trade and investment relations. Despite talk of “decoupling” or “de-risking,” a total economic divorce is neither feasible nor beneficial. American consumers have enjoyed a wide array of affordable goods, and many U.S. companies have tapped into China’s huge market for sales. China, for its part, has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty partly because of export-driven growth, much of it tied to U.S. demand.

By addressing the fentanyl crisis and adopting more balanced trade terms, China stands to gain far more than it loses. If they fear that acknowledging wrongdoing or prosecuting guilty parties constitutes “losing face,” we can reassure them otherwise. In Confucian-influenced cultures, there is a strong emphasis on maintaining dignity, but there is also a tradition that values the well-being of the people. Clamping down on fentanyl trafficking could be framed as a righteous act of moral governance, consistent with the concept of a benevolent ruler who cares about global harmony. Meanwhile, from our perspective, it is a sign that Beijing is ready to be a responsible stakeholder in global health and security.

Mr. President, you could openly illustrate the potential trade deals and cooperative frameworks that lie on the table if Beijing cooperates. Whether it’s reinforcing current e-commerce ties, developing new e-commerce ties through fledgling US companies like prudent1.com, streamlining supply chains for agricultural goods, or relaxing certain restrictions on American tech companies wanting to sell in China, the opportunities are massive. That “carrot” approach can be contrasted with a “stick” of continued tariffs if the Chinese government chooses to remain defiant regarding fentanyl and other issues.

VIII. Recognizing Our Own Shortcomings

One of the reasons your administration resonates with many Americans is its willingness to question the foreign policy orthodoxy that governed prior administrations. But in questioning the status quo, it is vital we not over-correct in a way that fosters permanent hostility or the prospect of war. The United States has sometimes spoken with a “double tongue,” especially regarding Taiwan, and we have also engaged in intelligence activities in or near China. Beijing, in turn, has spied on us and stolen intellectual property. None of that is conducive to trust.

Let us be candid: while the U.S. is absolutely justified in imposing tariffs to correct unfair trade practices, we must never forget that China is a proud country whose history stretches back millennia. They remember slights—such as foreign invasions, unequal treaties, and perceived humiliations—for generations. If the U.S. never publicly acknowledges any wrongdoing or fails to empathize with China’s grievances over matters like Taiwan, the Mainland’s impetus to “save face” can lead them to overreact, which is precisely what we are seeing with these war threats.

Even so, by reminding China of our two nations’ potential for mutual gain, we can steer them away from these tantrum-like escalations. We can also remind them that humility is not weakness. A powerful and wise leadership can say, “We have regrets over certain policies in the 1950s or 1970s, yet we stand ready now to create a new framework,” without relinquishing legitimate national interests.

IX. Calling for a Public Gaggle and a Comprehensive Report

Mr. President, the final step could be a televised “public gaggle,” as you put it, in which you outline the various steps we have taken or are willing to take, and the ways in which China can reciprocate. This gaggle could highlight:

This combination of transparency, accountability, and fair-mindedness underscores that we are not seeking to impose humiliating demands; rather, we are inviting China to be a dependable partner in forging a better world.

X. Conclusion: Balancing Strength, Respect, and Realism

Your administration’s stance toward China can combine America’s legitimate claims to fair trade and national security with respect for China’s dignity and historical perspective. Doing so requires strong leadership that does not shrink from respectfully criticizing Beijing’s underlings for their unprofessional threats, but also does not dismiss the complexities of Sino-American relations. If we disregard China’s cultural and historical sensitivities, we push them further into a defensive posture that only ratchets up tension. If we are too lenient or apologetic, we encourage the kind of arrogance that led to these warlike statements.

The wise path is to be unflinchingly critical of the immature rhetoric, yet respectful in tone with measured words—label it what it is: a sophomoric, ego-driven lashing out that is beneath China’s once-proud tradition of measured diplomacy. Point out that many past Chinese leaders understood how to measure words, how to approach negotiations, and how to see that cooperation often leads to greater prosperity than conflict. At the same time, reiterate that we recognize the United States has not always been faultless in its treatment of China—particularly on issues like Taiwan or the abrupt imposition of certain trade policies. Yet mutual blame alone accomplishes little. Both sides must now seek solutions.

Mr. President, your public address or gaggle to highlight this balanced approach might not silence the hawks in Beijing instantly. It may, however, encourage responsible voices within the Chinese government to reassert control. It might help Xi Jinping realize that his lower-level officials’ saber-rattling is detrimental to China’s image and to its genuine interests in trade, investment, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. It could also demonstrate to the American public that your administration does not respond to every provocation with equal hostility, but instead calls for measured, lawful, and results-driven talks—even while keeping all options on the table for our national defense (Hey Pete).

Lastly, by demanding accountability on fentanyl, you position the United States firmly on the side of life and public health. At the same time, you extend an olive branch, saying: “If you do the right thing, we stand ready to do right by you as well.” This is how real deals are made as you know—by blending moral imperatives with tangible incentives.

Should China heed this approach, the benefits for both nations could be monumental: from lowering tariffs and re-invigorating factories on both sides of the Pacific, to saving countless Americans from the tragedy of opioid addiction, to stabilizing the Taiwan Strait with diplomatic maturity. If China persists in its refusal to rein in deadly fentanyl exports or continues hurling unbalanced threats of war, the world will see clearly who bears responsibility for prolonging tensions.

Let this be the hallmark of your second term’s foreign policy: not the reckless escalation to war, but the demonstration of confident leadership that sets boundaries, extends a hand, and calls others to do their part for peace, stability, and mutual prosperity. By doing so, you, Mr. President, can guide the United States and China toward a relationship that—while likely to remain competitive—need not devolve into permanent enmity or needless destruction.

May the next steps be taken with conviction and clarity of our Lord and Savior's teachings—showing that the American people will not be intimidated by threats, yet remain open to forgiving and forging a new era of mutually beneficial accord with a more prudent and amicable Chinese leadership.

May The Grace, Mercy, And Peace Of The Lord Jesus Christ Be With You And Bless You All In These Areas Of Biblical Geopolitics.

In His Love,

~WLBJ~