As the world anxiously waits to see which direction the Chinese Communist Party will take amid rising tensions pitting China against its neighbors and the US, some commentators appear to be bending over backward to try to explain away Beijing’s behavior, which, for those of us in Asia, has all the appearance of belligerence.
From claims that the West is “inventing the China threat” to the argument that Chinese leaders have displayed “more self-control when it comes to sovereignty issues than their counterparts in Japan, Russia, South Korea and Taiwan,” some pundits are proposing that China’s recent patterns of behavior have been solely in reaction to an increasingly hostile environment.
As usual, it is the US, with its neoconservatives, military industrial complex and fear-mongering media, that shares the largest part of the blame for China’s anxiety.
Or so we are told. Having “defeated” the Soviet Union, Washington had to “invent” a new enemy (global terrorism apparently was not enough) and embarked on a program to surround and contain it by “pivoting” to Asia, “re-opening” air force bases and coming up with esoteric concepts like Air-Sea Battle.
That is all fine and well, and there is no doubt that with elections approaching, the US polity has entered a period where the “red scare” probably has more traction than it usually would (one need only look at the trailer for the recent Death by China documentary to get a taste of how extreme the rhetoric can get).
However, to claim that Chinese behavior played no role in the growing sense of crisis, or that its recent assertiveness was purely in reaction to insecurity, rather than the cause, stretches the imagination.
For one, China’s military buildup began years before the current situation in the East and South China seas arose. That expansion, both in budgetary terms and in the type of equipment the People’s Liberation Army is deploying, therefore cannot have been the result of supposed troublemaking by Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines.
Chinese state-owned media, as well as military pundits, have also adopted an undeniably nationalistic and belligerent tone, while protests over the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) have called for Tokyo to be “washed in blood” and for the South China Sea to be turned into a “sea of fire.”
Although it is fair to say that editorials and demonstrations do not necessarily reflect Beijing’s policy, China is nevertheless the only country in the region that has resorted to such rhetoric and Chinese leaders appear to have done little, if anything, to temper it.
It is also hard to see how building an air force base at Shuimen in Fujian Province, complete with multirole combat aircraft that can reach the Diaoyutais within 12 minutes, is more restrained than, say, Taipei’s call for an East China Sea peace initiative.
The whole notion that the US is re-engaging the region with an imperial agenda and to prevent China’s rise is also ludicrous. Knowing it was seriously outgunned by China, the Philippines turned to the US for assistance. As did Vietnam, whose painful history of entanglement with the US and long tradition of independence hardly makes it amenable to a greater US role in the region. That Hanoi would call upon its old adversary for help speaks volumes about the sense of anxiety that has developed within the region as China becomes more assertive.
Compounding all this is the fact that the world’s No. 2 economy, which is rapidly building one of the most modern armed forces on the planet, is run by an authoritarian regime that has not hesitated to use force against its own people. Such behavior, added to the possibility that it could be replicated in China’s foreign policy, understandably puts other countries on edge.
The “China threat” is no invention. It is a reality that must be addressed realistically and, if the situation calls for it, with firmness. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
“Testy,” “divisive,” “frigid,” “an exchange of insults” were some of the media descriptions of last month’s meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and their Chinese counterparts. Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass said that, rather than the “deft handling” needed in US-China relations, this encounter was “mishandled, a terrible start [with] way too much public signaling.” Yet, contrary to conventional wisdom, the acrimonious encounter with Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) was a great success for US diplomacy
A meeting between US and Chinese officials in Anchorage, Alaska, last month, showed that the US-China struggle will no doubt continue during the administration of US President Joe Biden. The struggle between democracies and authoritarian regimes is likely to last decades, because it stems from the fundamental difference in the two value systems — a difference that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees as an existential threat. The CCP fears that Chinese might someday demand the protection of individual liberties, and has therefore waged a years-long “total war” to undermine democracies, which eventually prompted the US to fight back. Within the
How could the Chinese delegation at the US-China summit in Anchorage, Alaska, last month possibly say that “the United States does not have the qualification to say that…”? As it turns out, one factor that accounts for this statement is overconfidence, and the other is an impression of the administration of US President Joe Biden as soft. However, there is yet another motivation, a subconscious one, for this statement: a criminal psyche. The Chinese delegates at the Alaska summit knew that at that very moment, there were more than 3 million Uighurs imprisoned in concentration camps and that hundreds of thousands