A lively exchange on the Internet generated by the Pacific Forum, a Honolulu think tank, has underscored the deep differences among Americans on how to define the rise of China — and therefore how the US should cope with it.
The dialogue started with Representative Randy Forbes, a Republican from Virginia and co-chairman of the Congressional China Caucus, who said “there is a frightening reluctance on the part of government officials to speak openly about the challenges we face from the People’s Republic of China.”
“If US leaders are expected to marshal the diplomatic and military resources necessary to engage in this long-term competition,” Forbes wrote, “they must first be willing to speak more candidly about Beijing’s growing capabilities and strategic intentions.”
Former US assistant secretary of defense for East Asia Wallace Gregson, a retired marine lieutenant general and now director of the China program at the Center for the National Interest in Washington, said: “Discussing China in anything less than a flattering light has become taboo.”
Gregson and associate director of the Center’s China program Greer Meisels said: “Washington is not being clear. This is both unfair to the US electorate and diminishes the defense department’s ability to make logical and supportable claims to the nation’s resources.”
The US should speak frankly about policy on China, they said.
“If the US cannot clearly articulate its strategic concept,” they said, “then our policymakers most likely are not thinking about it clearly.”
These points reflect a debate that highlights the lack of a comprehensive, coherent US stance toward China. At least five schools of thought can be discerned:
‧ Dragon-Slayers: In their eyes, China is a mortal threat that must be confronted at every turn. Unless Beijing is stopped, China will dominate Asia and drive the US back to Hawaii. War with China is probably inevitable. A prominent dragon-slayer is former US under-secretary of state and UN ambassador John Bolton.
‧ Panda-Huggers: They admire China’s success in restoring national pride and stimulating economic growth, and believe the US should accept China’s rise. A notable panda-hugger is former US president Richard Nixon’s national security adviser Henry Kissinger, who orchestrated the opening to China in 1972 and later became an apologist for the regime in Beijing.
‧ Bean-Counters: Business executives and investors seem to pay little attention to strategic issues involving China unless it affects their operations. Many have done well in China, others have failed. A big issue is intellectual property rights as the Chinese are notorious for stealing proprietary information and technology.
‧ John Q. Public, sometimes known as Joe Sixpack: A majority of Americans are so preoccupied with the tasks of putting food on the table, paying the mortgage and trying to set aside funds for their children’s education that they do not think much about China, except maybe when a made-in-China electronic device breaks down.
‧ Realists: Somewhere between the dragon-slayers and the panda-huggers are realists who believe that conflict with China is not inevitable. However, they also think the US must take a measured stand on certain issues to avoid being bulldozed by Beijing and they advocate being candid in defining Chinese intentions.
However, unlike the single-minded dragon-slayers and panda-huggers, realists often differ in nuance and tactics. Forbes, a realist, labels China a “competitor.” Gregson, also a realist, disagrees: “Being a competitor in certain arenas does not mean that you are not a partner in others.”
Former US president George W. Bush seems to have been a realist with leanings toward the dragon-slayers, defining China as a “strategic competitor.” On the critical issue of Taiwan, he said if China used force, “the United States must help Taiwan defend itself. Now, the Chinese can figure out what that means.”
US President Barack Obama appears to be a realist with leanings toward the panda-huggers. A 2008 campaign platform said he would not “demonize China,” but would seek “a constructive relationship to foster continued peace and prosperity.” Even so, the US must “remain vigilant about China’s military modernization.”
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, leans toward dragon-slaying, but so far has focused on economic conflict and said little about strategic issues. He has criticized China for “theft of intellectual property,” hacking into “foreign commercial and government computers” and currency manipulation.
An articulate, balanced realist was Admiral Dennis Blair when he led the US Pacific Command from 1999 to 2002. He told a Congressional committee that he tried to impart two messages when he met with Chinese military leaders. One was that his command was not planning to attack, contain or pick a fight with China.
The other, he said, was to caution the Chinese: “Don’t mess with us.”
Richard Halloran is a freelance writer based in Hawaii.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under