Fri, Sep 18, 2015 page8

• US should be tough toward China

  • By Doug Bandow
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Whenever China is mentioned in a US presidential campaign, the consequences are rarely good. In 2012, residents of Ohio, where anti-Beijing advertisements proliferated, might have believed that the campaign hinged on China. In the current US election campaign, US policy toward the People’s Republic of China (PRC) might become a broader election issue, leading to serious damage in the relationship.

  Trade, proliferation, human rights, cyberwar, security and more are at stake in how the existing superpower and emerging great power get along in coming years. Whether cooperation or confrontation dominates might define the 21st century.

  Unfortunately, political campaigns are not well-suited for the thoughtful discussion of complex international issues. Especially currently, when many Republican voters are skeptical of any foreign policy message that does not involve pummeling one nation or another.

  One of Beijing’s loudest critics is Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, though he has focused on economic issues, as did US President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney when they battled for Ohio’s votes three years ago.

  Trump’s only female Republican presidential rival, Carly Fiorina, promised to be “more aggressive in helping our allies [and] push back against new Chinese aggression.” With Washington already pledging to defend allied territorial claims, arm allied states and step up military patrols, it is not clear what more she would do.

  US Senator Marco Rubio denounced the PRC’s “increasingly aggressive regional expansionism” and the administration’s alleged “willingness to ignore human rights violations in the hope of appeasing the Chinese leadership.”

  Despite the Florida senator’s bluster, Beijing would not adopt democracy on Washington’s say-so.

  However, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, desperate to revive his flagging campaign, has rushed to become China’s harshest critic.

  “Given China’s massive cyberattacks against America, its militarization of the South China Sea, continued state interference with its economy, and persistent persecution of Christians and human rights activists, President Obama needs to cancel the state visit,” he said.

  “Honors should only be bestowed upon leaders and countries that are allies and supporters of the United States, not just for China, which is a strategic competitor. I think China, as others in the world, would actually respect some leadership once and for all from the United States,” he added.

  No country or leader is entitled to a state visit, of course, but Walker’s convoluted reasoning is what one would expect from a governor play-acting as president. US policy toward Beijing can, and perhaps should, be tough. However, it should not be stupid.

  First, it is a mistake to view a state visit as an “honor.” It is a diplomatic tool. No matter how much Luxembourg might deserve the “honor,” it would be silly to host the reigning grand duke for a state visit.

  Second, disrespecting another nation’s leadership is a curious way to seek its respect.

  Privately telling Beijing that there would be no state visits would get its attention, though probably not affect its behavior. Canceling an already scheduled trip would be seen as a studied insult, enough to anger, but not coerce.

  Third, everyone believes that “there is serious work to be done” with China. The disagreement is over the best way to do so. Treating other nations seriously is one step in attempting to work through contentious issues.

  Fourth, lumping together radically different issues makes serious work less likely to succeed. Fiscally irresponsible Washington is in no position to lecture the PRC on internal economic policy. Christians do face persecution, but the situation, though complex, is far better than a few years ago and is likely be determined by the rising number of Chinese believers, not Washington demands.

  There is no easy answer to cyberwar, but US companies and governments possessing the ability to retaliate as well as defend would be more effective than canceling a state visit.

  Resolving conflicting territorial claims is mostly the concern of allied states now squabbling with Beijing. Telling Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that he would not get a state dinner is unlikely to cause his government to give up its claim to the disputed Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) in the South China Sea, or, more importantly, Taiwan.

  Unfortunately, with almost 14 months to go until the presidential election, there is room for a lot more China-bashing. However, much is at stake in maintaining a civil relationship. Hopefully any threats and insults would be forgotten by the winning candidate.

  However, the more heated the rhetoric, the more likely the PRC is to respond in kind, and “Grand Old Party” hawks like Walker might turn out to be true believers rather than pragmatic cynics. If so, US-China relations could be heading for stormy times. That would be bad for them and for Taiwan.

  Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Uncrewed US craft transits the Taiwan Strait

  • 5

    Taiwan assessing recruiting from Eswatini: ministry