Next year will mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and his fellow revolutionaries created a new state, proud and independent, as well as authoritarian and murderous. That era seemed over, but oppression with totalitarian overtones has returned to the PRC. What should the US do?
China’s history is long and tortured. Once a great empire that dominated its neighbors, it turned inward, falling behind both its neighbors and more distant Western powers. However, on Oct. 1, 1949, in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the PRC.
The communists became the new elite and for nearly 30 years, Mao dominated his nation. Estimates of the total number who died under the man known as the “Red Emperor” range between 35 million and an astounding 100 million. Only his death in 1976 finally freed the Chinese people. Economic reform soon followed, with perhaps the greatest reduction in poverty in such a short time in human history. Moreover, personal autonomy greatly expanded, with people increasingly free to live their lives — outside of politics, anyway.
Finally, the intellectual atmosphere relaxed. Political opposition was verboten, but the Chinese Communist Party had little credibility. There was hope that Western contacts, economic development and increased wealth would lead to a steadily freer Chinese society.
Then along came Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
He has often been compared to Mao in terms of the power that he has amassed, but more important is his role as the anti-Mikhail Gorbachev and even anti-Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平). Increasing his personal authority obviously is a priority, but so is empowering the state.
His government has assaulted intellectual freedom, Internet access, religious liberty, foreign business and economic autonomy. This attack is also evident in Hong Kong, once promised legal autonomy, and even against Taiwan, still beyond Beijing’s control. Perhaps most creepy is the attempt to create an essentially totalitarian system of surveillance and social control.
Xi might ultimately fail in his attempt to remake the PRC. Still, it seems naive to imagine that China is destined to evolve in a more liberal direction. That means the US and its allies are likely to face a wealthier and more authoritarian China controlled by a president setting a consciously anti-Western course.
That does not mean Beijing poses a direct military threat. Historically, China’s reach has been limited and there is no evidence that the PRC has global military ambitions. Moreover, it is encircled by potential adversaries with which it has fought in the past: India, Russia, (South) Korea, Japan and Vietnam.
Finally, the US possesses a significant military lead and will easily preserve the capability to deter the PRC from any aggressive moves on US territory.
Even China’s apparent economic gains are less than they appear. Beijing, like the US during the Cold War, has found Africa to be tough going. By pursuing politically driven projects with poor, inefficient and corrupt governments around the world, the Belt and Road Initiative risks expensive failure.
The harder the PRC pushes, the more other nations shove back, most notably in its own neighborhood, as Southeast Asian nations increasingly welcome Indian and Japanese military involvement.
Nevertheless, Washington and its friends cannot ignore the transformation taking place within China. While outside influence over the PRC’s internal affairs is extremely limited, it would benefit from a more liberal Chinese society. Trade provides Western nations with enormous economic benefits, but Chinese investment, even in civilian industries, raises increased concerns with Beijing appearing to consciously target liberal democracy.
It is imperative for Washington to avoid war — the PRC would be no pushover, and even if the US and its allies won the first conflict, it would be only the first one.
A la Germans one century ago, nationalistic Chinese would likely be energized and initiate another round, but how to encourage the PRC’s often fractious neighbors to cooperate to constrain what threatens to be an overwhelming superpower?
Western policy must evolve. About the only certainty is the importance of not treating Chinese as enemies.
However, with events in the PRC moving speedily and dramatically in the wrong direction, allied states should consider its response. China remains far freer than it was when the Red Emperor ruled, but how far Xi intends to go is not evident.
The West could eventually find itself facing a more rational version of Mao ruling a far more powerful China. We should start preparing for that time today.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to then-US president Ronald Reagan.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing