For years, foreign policy optimists have predicted that China’s rise to superpower status would be peaceful and responsible, but recent Chinese actions make this vision look increasingly naive. The administration of US President Barack Obama must decide whether to respond to Beijing’s hostility or allow its aggressiveness to go unchecked.
China continues to modernize and expand its nuclear-capable delivery systems, even as Obama urges Senate ratification of a treaty with Russia that would further reduce US nuclear weapons and long-range conventional delivery systems. Beijing operates under no restraints whatsoever in enhancing its nuclear and ballistic missile options, while also developing new “carrier killer” cruise missiles.
On nuclear non-proliferation, China is even more uncooperative. As Washington pushes for further economic sanctions against Iran, Beijing is distancing itself from the effort and was never really serious about tough sanctions. If anything, it is now likely to double down on its relationship with Iran, particularly with regard to oil and natural gas, to help Tehran meet its domestic need for refined petroleum products.
Updated US sanctions against North Korea also are not sitting well with the Chinese. In many respects, the Obama administration has taken a tougher line against Pyongyang than former US president George W. Bush’s administration did. On the other hand, Obama has not made it clear that the only stable long-term solution to the problem of the North’s nuclear program is the reunification of the peninsula under a democratic government. This should be an urgent priority, since North Korean leader Kim Jong-il’s poor health brings that day of reckoning ever nearer.
Nor has the president responded strongly enough to Chinese efforts to keep US warships from transiting and exercising in the Yellow Sea. North Korea’s unresolved maritime border with South Korea there is a continuing source of tension and Pyongyang has, with tacit Chinese support, repeatedly made threats against US-South Korean naval exercises.
Washington must be clear in word and deed that we will sail in international waters when and where we deem it advisable. US weakness on freedom of the seas is particularly dangerous given Chinese naval behavior in the South China Sea, buttressing Beijing’s territorial claims to the Paracel and Spratly Islands. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rightly took a more confrontational stance on this issue last month when she rejected China’s position.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) called her remarks an “attack” and said US involvement would “only make matters worse and the resolution more difficult.”
Domestically, Beijing is also on the offensive, prompting even previously submissive foreign investors to fight back. Google’s refusal to capitulate to Chinese interference continues, while both European and US business interests have complained about increased discrimination against foreigners in China’s domestic markets. General Electric chief executive Jeffrey Immelt accused Beijing of “hostility” to foreign corporations and there appear to be increasing obstacles for lenders to recover on defaulted debts from Chinese firms.
China’s long-awaited transition to a more democratic government isn’t going anywhere. Beiijing’s repression of religious freedom continues and the government is still flooding Tibet and Xinjiang with ethnic Han Chinese to overwhelm the “splittist” tendencies in those regions.
China’s leaders cannot expect the US and other governments to remain passive for long. “Softly, softly” is hardly the right reaction to Beijing’s new belligerence, unless Obama is prepared to see it continue.
John Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise. Institute.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS