Centerboard Control: The Global Power Struggle Between the U.S. and China

I try to play at least one game of chess every single day, whether it’s in the morning with my cup of coffee, during a study break, or at night after I get home from class. Although there’s myriad intellectual benefits to playing chess, I play just because I have fun. Plus, I love the little bit of dopamine I get when I win. While my daily Chess.com games against fellow 700-level strangers are insignificant to anyone besides myself and my opponent, there is currently a global chess match going on with much more profound consequences.

In any structured chess game, both sides begin by posturing and laying the groundwork for an attack. Although they have this time, there will necessarily be some systemic weakness to both systems if both opponents are defending well. Eventually, however, the attack will start, and it will be time for both sides to show their hands. The key to an early game strategy is to balance a short-term positional advantage with long-term gains and flexibility. Centerboard control is imperative. Gain control of the center and not only do you have an easier time projecting up the board. Lose the center, and you lose the initiative. Therefore, it’s important to come out fast and hard. This doesn’t only apply to chess on a board either, but also the current geopolitical chess match between the United States and China.

In the current global chess match, economics, military strategy, and alliances are the chess pieces. The chess board is all around us, in the oceans, in offices and factories, and in every part of both countries and their allies, and Taiwan is likely where the first attack will come.

Because the political chess match between the U.S. and China is still in the early phase, it is important for the U.S. to come out swinging now, before it’s too late. The stakes for not gaining control of the center aren’t theoretical. It’s people’s lives. It’s the integrity of international laws and the nation state. It’s the slide back into a new dark age, where only hard power matters. As we have seen with the war between Russia and Ukraine, doing nothing and retreating from the global order only invites more wars.

Although the threat is grave, the good news is the short-term timeline is on the United States’ side, but this only counts if we make the right moves now. It is no secret anymore that China has ambitions of taking Taiwan. According to the Taiwanese Foreign Minister, Joseph Wu, in a recent interview with Sky News, he predicts 2027 is the year to watch out for aggression from China (Sky News). Some voices have put this even earlier, but I believe there is good reason to not worry about any imminent threats. As we have seen with Putin’s quagmire in Ukraine, not preparing fully for an invasion can have disastrous consequences. An invasion that was supposed to last two weeks is about to have its first anniversary, and that was only a ground invasion against a relatively weak neighbor with flat, open terrain. China would need to conduct the largest amphibious assault ever conducted without the element of surprise. Amphibious assaults are the most complicated and costly types of invasions. The logistics are eyewatering, and make no mistake, Xi Jinping is learning from what is happening with Russia. Logistics decide the outcome of war, and a policy of maximum economic pressure on China delays or denies China’s ability to stockpile material to conduct a war of aggression. Once this policy is in place, and the United States has proverbial center-board control and establishes leverage, it is then possible to deal more methodically.

American government officials and strategics have correctly identified China’s strategic Achilles’ heel in the form of microchips. Microchips are found in everything from kitchen appliances to computers to cars. They are the “new oil” that allows the modern world economy to function (Fitch). Most importantly, microchips are integral to the advanced weaponry that China would need to take Taiwan. The U.S. is the primary designer of chips, Taiwan the primary manufacturer, and China the primary consumer. In fact, much of China’s advanced military equipment uses American chips. Therefore, in November the Biden administration announced a ban on all American chip sales to China. Additionally, all companies that use American chips in their equipment can no longer sell that equipment to China (Cox). China has responded by saber-rattling and increased incursions into Taiwanese airspace. While this may seem concerning, the pressure must continue to be laid on, while these are still just hollow displays of force.

The chip ban is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. A complete, or almost complete, decoupling of our economy from that of China is necessary, either by policy or economic incentives. There have been some critics of decoupling from the Chinese market, including A. Michael Spence in an article for the Council on Foreign Relations, where he warns of the economic challenges of a “lurch towards confrontation”, including central banks having fewer economic tools at their disposal (Spence). Although these economic concerns are legitimate, the security threats posed by economic reliance on an ever-more hostile country is sufficient grounds for taking such risk. Moreover, economic reliance on China would be another weapon in their arsenal that depletes the United States’ ability to dictate the trajectory of confrontation that hopefully avoids conflict. More options are always better. Decoupling offers more options; therefore, it is preferable. Furthermore, trade can always be reinstated later.

In tandem with the chip ban, this would be beneficial both as a hinderance to China’s military preparations in the short-term, and for negotiating power in the medium-term. Without an economy bolstered by trade, China will not have access to many of the resources it needs for its military, including chips, which at worst delays war, and at best stops it. Setting up manufacturing operations domestically aren’t a short-term option either as microchip factories are incredibly complicated, high-tech operations. Both options allow the U.S. more time to pump military hardware into Taiwan, further changing China’s cost-benefit analysis. In the medium-term, economic decoupling allows us to reintegrate, if China agrees to back down from the brink, with more negotiating power.

The China issue is one of the few in Washington where there is unanimous bipartisan support. There are, however, some dissenting voices, such as Bernie Sanders. In an article he wrote for the Financial Times, he warns of the dangers of a “new Cold War With China” including distracting from the global cooperation needed to combat climate change (Sanders). The anti-conflict sentiment isn’t exclusive to Sanders however, as all over social media, there have been calls to avoid conflict at all costs. They worry about the American population forced into another costly foreign war like the War on Terror. While nobody should welcome war, if it is to happen, we should be prepared. Indeed, even before the U.S. escalated the economic war with the chip ban, there were underlying signs the Chinese military was preparing for an assault on Taiwan and the rest of the first island chain, including Japan and the Philippines. For the past couple of years, China has been quietly retrofitting its ferries to carry troops and armor across the Taiwan Strait (Axe). While they are far from being ready for an invasion, the capabilities and logistics are being put in place. Moreover, the world becomes an infinitely more dangerous place when the American rules-based order is no longer in effect. Say China invades Taiwan, and the U.S. stays neutral. China, Russia, and other countries with aggressive attitudes become emboldened to solve their problems with force. Even countries that aren’t aggressive will feel the need to rearm, and we would see a conventional and nuclear arms race throughout the globe. Inaction is action. We are still ahead, and we need to press our advantage while we still are. Furthermore, if an armed conflict does happen, because we have denied China the initiative, they will be operating from the opening day from weakness. There is, in fact, historical precedent to this.

When Japan was expanding its empire in the 1930s and 40s, they were reliant on American oil. When the U.S. finally decided to cut off Japan, it was the final straw that led to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor (Yergin). While the attack on Pearl Harbor was terrible, both from a human and material cost for the United States, it also led to Japan’s eventual undoing. The Japanese were overextended, without the ability the replace the equipment and manpower lost in the war of attrition with the U.S. From the first day, they were already in a position of weakness. This highlights the importance of centerboard control.

In addition to the strategic value of defending Taiwan, we also have a moral responsibility. Is it not right to help a country being bullied by its aggressive neighbor, especially one we consider a friend? The United States is in a unique position because we are the only country with the economic leverage to impact what goes on between China and Taiwan.

The lessons of history, and of chess, indicate that passivity in the end leads to worse outcomes than if action had been taken. As I have said, inaction is action. The United States needs to continue to economically put pressure on China through a policy of economic centerboard control. We need to get out ahead while we still dictate the moves. If not, we will have to give up much, much more to regain control.

The opening moves have been set, only the pieces on the table aren’t knights, queens, rooks, and pawns. They’re guns, microchips, money, and power. This chess match, however, isn’t taking place on Chess.com, but in the world of economics and global politics. The outcome of this game isn’t a hit to our ELO rating but the right for people all over the world to decide how they want to live and to not be coerced by aggressive neighbors. We should all hope the politicians and strategists controlling the American pieces understand the importance of taking centerboard control early. We need to deny the ability of countries like China to tear apart the peace and rule of law that governs our world.

Works Cited

Axe, David. “Thousands of Ships, Millions of Troops: China Is Assembling a Huge Fleet for War with Taiwan.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 10 Dec. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/07/27/thousands-of-ships-millions-of-troops-china-is-assembling-a-huge-assault-flotilla-for-a-possible-attack-on-taiwan/?sh=9cecc00751b0.

Cox, Chelsey. “U.S. Commerce Secretary Raimondo Doubles down on Biden Plan to Restrict American Companies, and Citizens, from Helping China Make Semiconductor Chips.” CNBC, CNBC, 4 Nov. 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/03/us-commerce-secretary-raimondo-doubles-down-on-biden-plan-to-restrict-us-companies-and-citizens-from-helping-china-make-semiconductor-chips-.html.

Fitch, Asa. “Chips Are the New Oil and America Is Spending Billions to Safeguard Its Supply.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 15 Jan. 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/chips-semiconductors-manufacturing-china-taiwan-11673650917.

Sanders, Bernie. “Washington’s Dangerous New Consensus on China.” Foreign Affairs, 19 Apr. 2023, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-06-17/washingtons-dangerous-new-consensus-china.

Skynews, director. Exclusive: China ‘Likely’ to Invade Taiwan in 2027. YouTube, YouTube, 18 Jan. 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztBPgUbAHNY. Accessed 31 Jan. 2023.

Spence, A. Michael. “Destructive Decoupling.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/article/destructive-decoupling.

Yergin, Daniel. “Blood and Oil: Why Japan Attacked Pearl.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Dec. 1991, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/12/01/blood-and-oil-why-japan-attacked-pearl/1238a2e3-6055-4d73-817d-baf67d3a9db8/.