Chinese officials are far too sophisticated to follow the Soviet example and say "we will bury you" to US visitors. But they exude robust self-confidence.
Along with rapid economic growth has come increased diplomatic penetration around the world, as well as a growing military. The People's Republic of China is on the move.
As a result, more than a few Americans, along with some of their Asian allies, are worrying that "they will bury us." Or go to war trying to do so.
Hopefully not. But pitfalls in the US-China relationship abound.
A good place to start in trying to understand China is China: The Balance Sheet, a joint project by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Institute for International Economics.
The authors observe: "The direction that China and US-China relations take will define the strategic future of the world for years to come. No relationship matters more -- for better or worse -- in resolving the enduring challenges of our time."
Despite China's economic progress, rural Chinese, who make up two-thirds of the population, remain desperately poor. Although China is likely to continue growing, it faces enormous challenges. Thus, suggest the writers, while we should expect more growth, temporary stagnation or even collapse is possible.
The volume maintains a similar measured tone throughout. On the critical issue of US-China relations, there is good news, at least in the short term.
The researchers write: "Beijing seems to understand its limitations at present. Chinese leaders have no illusions that the PLA [People's Liberation Army] is a match for the US military, will catch up in the foreseeable future, or will measurably narrow the gap in comprehensive national power for decades, at least."
Despite inevitable disagreements, there is no intrinsic reason for conflict between China and the US. Ensuring that they don't is the task for thoughtful diplomacy.
Jed Babbin and Edward Timberlake, long-time hawks, take a very different view in Showdown: Why China Wants War With the United States. They see China as a looming threat, dedicated to the destruction of the US.
Indeed, in their view, China "is now engaged in a second cold war, the Pacific Cold War, with the United States." The next step is armed conflict, and: "This war will begin when China decides the time for it has come."
Their main argument is that Beijing is building up its military. But from China's perspective, such a build-up, which starts from a very low, antiquated base, could be seen as defensive, designed to deter the US from attacking China.
After all, Washington's increases in military outlays dwarf those of China. Moreover, the US freely attacks countries even when its vital interests are not at stake -- Iraq and Serbia being the most recent examples.
Babbin and Timberlake offer several war scenarios (one of the weirder ones involves Cuba, Columbia and China). But there is nothing in China's history or recent behavior to suggest an intention to challenge the US globally.
Thus, the real issue in US-China relations is continuing US hegemony in East Asia. It is unnatural to expect that Washington can forever dominate every continent. Washington must decide what issues warrant risking a massive regional war and nuclear exchange.
The worst flashpoint is Taiwan. Indeed, Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute devotes an entire book to the latter scenario.
There obviously are hawks in China, and they certainly are eyeing the US.
Yet, notes Carpenter: "It is often difficult for Americans and other Westerners to comprehend the depth of Chinese determination to get Taiwan to `return to the motherland.'"
In America's Coming War With China: A Collision Course Over Taiwan, Carpenter offers a scathing critique of Washington's current Taiwan policy: "Instead of achieving balance, the administration has increasingly sowed confusion, inviting miscalculation by Taipei or Beijing -- or even worse, by both capitals."
A friend of Taipei, Carpenter acknowledges the appeal of protecting what has become a prosperous democracy. Sell Taiwan weapons, he advocates. But don't provide a security guarantee, he warns.
The future of US-China relations will almost certainly be complicated, though obviously it is in the interests of everyone throughout East Asia that relations remain peaceful.
Let us hope that US policymakers do a better job of handling China than they have done of "managing" Middle Eastern affairs.
Doug Bandow was a special assistant to the late US president Ronald Reagan.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic