When the National People's Congress convened in Beijing last week, Premier Wen Jiabao (
The US and Europe have grown apart and no presidential visit will change that. Europe won't be supplementing the US-led garrison in Iraq, for instance. But Washington might be able to convince Europe not to lift its ban on arms sales to China.
The fact that the interests of sovereign nations -- even ones with historical connections -- sometimes diverge shouldn't surprise anyone. Nevertheless, the US and Europe share a number of interests, including preserving their generally free and prosperous societies. No American or European wants to see the rise of a global hegemonic authoritarian power like China.
There's much good that has happened to the People's Republic of China (PRC) over the last three decades. However, further liberalization is by no means guaranteed. And even a more democratic China might be aggressively nationalistic.
That wouldn't be so important if the country was Myanmar or Zimbabwe, two other states under an EU arms embargo. But Beijing is likely to eventually marry the world's largest population with the largest economy. Even that needn't be frightening. After all, there were sometimes significant tensions between a rising US and declining Britain, but they ultimately forged one of the closest international relationships in existence.
With China, however, the differences are more significant, and these differences could conceivably lead to war. Should conflict come, it would be in the interests of Europe that the US prevail.
The EU implemented an arms embargo after the Chinese regime's slaughter of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. But European firms see potential profits from servicing Beijing's growing desire for weapons. Some Europeans also hope to advance their goal of becoming a counterweight to the US.
The betting now is that the EU will drop the prohibition at its June meeting in Brussels. If Europe planned on becoming a military counterweight to China, Washington could say go ahead. But despite European talk of establishing an independent foreign policy, even leading nations like Germany have no intention of spending the money necessary to develop serious military capabilities. The obligation for real war fighting will remain America's.
Unfortunately, Beijing is thinking about war. Shi Yinhong (
And confrontation with Taiwan could lead to confrontation with the US, which means high-tech weapons sold by Europe could be used against the US. Some EU officials point to Israeli weapons transfers to Beijing, but that is no less an unfriendly act.
Others promise to limit the sort of weapons they sell. But that won't be much solace should conflict occur. French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has argued that European sales might slow Chinese development of its own capabilities. Actually, even European businesspeople worry that China wants to appropriate technology as much as acquire weapons.
It's hard to believe that any voluntary "code of conduct" would be effective. The best case has been made by British diplomats, who suggest creating a more limited but transparent export control regime.
It's true that European exports especially of dual-use technology to the PRC have been rising. Unfortunately, however, the British seem to be about the only ones who are talking about selling less rather than more. If Europe ignores US concerns, the administration's options are limited. The US could deny export licenses for sensitive defense sales to companies and nations that sell to China. Beyond that would be the threat of a full-scale trade war, which would be in no one's interest. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for a "new chapter" in relations.
Washington should acknowledge the legitimacy of EU disagreements with US policy and the wisdom of rethinking outmoded institutions, such as NATO. Most important, the US must recognize the commercial sacrifice it is asking of the Europeans, while convincing them to look beyond to a future in which China's positive role is by no means assured.
Washington needs to make the argument to individual governments as well as the European Commission, since the European public seems to be on Washington's side on this issue. Engagement is a better strategy than isolation for encouraging the development of a free China. However, engagement need not mean strengthening the PRC's military.
Beijing will become a significant military power with or without European arms sales. There's no need to hurry the process along.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to the late US president Ronald Reagan. He is co-author of the recently released The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS