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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers