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.
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused