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.
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS