The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes and prioritizes federal funding for the US Department of Defense and related military activities for fiscal year 2019, was recently passed by the US House of Representatives and US Senate, and was to be signed by US President Donald Trump into law on Monday. [Editor’s note: Trump signed the bill into law as scheduled.]
Freely accessible online to the public, the 2019 NDAA reveals a significant shift in US thinking toward major adversaries, such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Washington’s attempt to co-opt Beijing into the Western capitalist order and turn it into a clone of the US has failed. In response, it is treating China as a formidable threat, anticipating more great power rivalries in geopolitical and economic spheres.
Rightfully or not, many US lawmakers, foreign policy think tanks and intelligence agents are quite suspicious of China’s global expansion, especially its efforts to subvert US-led international systems and remake the world in its own image.
The 1,000-page NDAA throws light on US anxieties, at several levels, about China’s remarkable rise and its advances in military technology.
The first area of concern focuses on cybersecurity attacks. Deeply troubled by Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, politicians across the partisan divide are worried that history will repeat itself.
This fear arises from the ambiguity over technology transfer agreements between US and Chinese companies. After some notorious cases of intellectual property theft came to the spotlight, more US defense companies and scientific institutes began to guard their strategic technological assets and formulated specific rules of engagement in dealing with their Chinese counterparts.
Equally important is China’s decision to punish Trump’s supporters in states across the US Midwest through retaliatory tariffs on US agricultural products like soybeans, cotton and fruit. China has learned from Russia to be harsh toward international opponents and lenient toward those nations that are receptive to Chinese investments.
Another persistent problem concerns the global expansion of Chinese influence. For example, the US perceives China’s comprehensive developmental plans for Eurasia, widely known as the Belt and Road Initiative, as a Chinese Monroe Doctrine that is creating a series of sinocentric alliances against US leadership.
A similar contest can be seen in the ongoing maritime sovereignty disputes in the western Pacific Ocean, where Washington regards the presence of Chinese military facilities as jeopardizing the freedom of navigation and overflight in international waters.
The US has pressed China to dismantle military infrastructures on disputed islands, but it remains unclear how the US plans to enforce this demand. Perhaps the best way to de-escalate the bilateral naval arms race is for both sides to sit down at the negotiation table rather than flexing their military muscles at each other.
The last anxiety is related to what the US interprets as China’s attempt to export its authoritarian mode of governance, thought to be even more dangerous than Russian interference in democratic elections in the West.
Economically, the Chinese Communist Party’s monopoly on market resources completely destroys the free trade myth. Through extensive networks of well-funded state-owned enterprises, China is capable of utilizing capitalistic practices to empower and enrich itself. The business world in China is not flat. Its political, economic, sociocultural and ideological domains are shaped by institutional barriers with irreconcilable differences.
Politically, the recent imprisonments of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy and pro-independence youth leaders, the sudden revocation of Taichung’s right to host next year’s East Asian Youth Games and the intimidation of international airlines to remove Taiwan as an independent entity signified China’s determination to use coercion to accomplish political objectives.
On the surface, these intimidating tactics make Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) a strong statesman and satisfy the nationalist sentiment at home. Yet such top-down measures only reinforce the widespread fear of China’s determination to globalize its autocratic values and practices.
Both the US and China can be victims of their own historical trajectories. Perceiving China’s assertion through the lens of US historical encounters with Great Britain, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union, the US is always prepared to confront different crisis scenarios when they happen. Washington has taken on Beijing as a serious adversary, striving to defend its interests and well-being in the face of strong Chinese challenges.
Marginalized from the international economy for much of the 20th century, China has sought a global level playing field for its industries to learn from and catch up with the West. With two decades of unprecedented economic growth under its belt, China has become more confident of its developmental model. It is now more than willing to act as an unchallenged superpower, silencing domestic opinions and shaking up the international security “status quo.”
Faced with an escalating trade war with the US, China should avoid viewing the practice of international relations as a zero-sum game in the old Marxist framework of class antagonism. It should also be sensitive toward the legitimate concerns and grievances of neighboring nations, such as Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos and Nepal. Otherwise, it may be hard for China to stabilize ties with the US and seek a favorable environment for modernization.
Joseph Tse-Hei Lee is a professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations