To follow up on yesterday’s dispatch from Durham, North Carolina, here’s the second question put to the panelists this week:
This question was asked of Jon Huntsman when he came to Duke in September and I would be interested to know what you make of it. The question is this: do we in the United States have more to fear from China’s strength or China’s weakness?
And my response:
Let me start with a caveat, namely this: there are many indices of strength and weakness. I waffled on this question before deciding my answer is strength—specifically military strength. Chinese military power could pose problems for the United States and its allies if China is politically stable and economically robust. It could also pose problems if China is politically weak and economically stagnant.
American officials hector Beijing incessantly to be “transparent,” or candid, about its intentions. In my view China has been very forthcoming about its purposes and principles. It wants to modify the Asian system to better suit China’s interests. This is what great powers do. The United States modified the system in the Western Hemisphere during the age of the Monroe Doctrine. A strong, confident China will use military power and the diplomatic clout that flows from it to uphold its core interests. Recovering every inch of soil once ruled by dynastic China is one goal. So is modifying the law of the sea so that coastal states exercise the same prerogatives throughout their exclusive economic zones that they exercise in their territorial seas. In effect Beijing would repeal the freedom of the seas of which Grotius once wrote—in Asia, at least. Carving out a zone of maritime exceptionalism also sits at the top of the agenda. If successful, this strategy would upset the liberal order over which the United States and its navy have presided since 1945. So, it appears a strong China will use its strength for purposes diametrically opposed to American and allied purposes.
Clausewitz notes that the best policy is to be very strong in general, and especially at the decisive point on the map at the right time. Thus, the most worrisome adversary is a power that meets these standards. It’s worth pointing out that China need not match overall U.S. military power to accomplish its goals in Asia. It only has to build up sufficient power to outmatch the largest contingent of forces Washington is likely to station in the region. Local superiority or supremacy would be enough. That’s why a century ago, Americans were content with a navy second to none except for Britain’s Royal Navy: Britain had imperial commitments spanning the globe, not to mention rivals to face at home in Europe. It was very unlikely to station enough of the Royal Navy in the New World to overpower the unified U.S. Navy fleet. And if it did, we could do the British fleet enough damage to set back the British Empire’s world status significantly—driving the costs of confrontation above the value of any likely British political objectives. The same logic—the logic of the home-court advantage, something you’re familiar with here at Duke—works in Beijing’s favor today.
When I mentioned that Chinese military strength could pose dangers amid political or economic decline, I meant that Beijing could be tempted to use the People’s Liberation Army in foreign adventures—distracting attention from domestic woes, locking in China’s strategic gains before Chinese military power starts to wither, or both. A pattern in Chinese history is for the regime to accommodate neighbors around the periphery in times of decay. But the Chinese Communist regime could break that pattern. History is not a straitjacket. Lashing out is a time-honored way for rulers to rally the populace. This is a prospect that bears watching.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
hodge joseph
Do not think this although its free does not mean that it¡¯s very good! If looking at different different options while in front of anyone, you should not disregard this.
Leonard R.
A strong China is bad for America. And a weak China is bad for America. But the US should not fear either one.
The US should however, prepare for a military clash. And it's best have it near China's shores.
That would have been my answer to the student. It wasn't a very good question, IMO.
Bankotsu
As long as a powerful industrial country with certain military capabilities appears and rejects the U.S unipolar hegemony, that will be bad for the U.S, as their unipolar hegemonic order is challenged. Doesn't matter whether it is Germany, Russia, Japan, India, Brazil or China.
This must be made clear.
Dave
This is the era of services & information technology not of labor-& resource- extensive manufacturing any more. China currently is at the bottom of the value chain. There's still a long way & a lot of hard work for it to move up the ladder. So don't talk big if you know just too little!
ACT
@James Holmes
i agree thoroughly with your assesment; another trend, one you did not mention, was identified by Alistair Ian Johnston, who noted that while the ming dynasty was complacent when it did not hold an advantage, it was thoroughly aggressive when it did hold an advantage in military ability. Furthermore, you brought up the issue of reclaiming "every inch of dynastic soil"; the Daioyutai and the Scarborough shoal are decidedly not Imperial territory–what they are is the maritime equivalent of someone driving by a small rock outcrop in a station wagon and yelling out "IT'S MINE!", even though there is no significant value to them. What's more, if you go back and look at Chinese maps from as early as 1874, there is no formal claim to those islands; not until 1969 was the first map altered by the ROC to reflect possible territorial jurisdiction over the Daioyutai. The claim to Scarborough Shoal–and the resources under it–is similarly bogus. This is blantant expansionism for resource and strategic (encircling taiwan) gain; while China does not–contrary to what some argue–want hegemony, what it is interested in is the establishment of a sort of "Great Sea-Wall of China", a linked system of island defenses to prevent intrusion of certain powers (Read: The US) which might be able to interfere in its ultimate goal of re-establishing its suzerainty over the Asia and its pacific periphery, extending through Japan, Korea, Vietnam, as well as what is currently Russian Vladivostok and the Indian Mcmahon line.
Ayush
The best way to rile up a nations populace for war is to speak largely of nationalistic pride, sacrifice, honor and whatnot. Activities that are happening in full swing especially because of the islands dispute. An economically strong china would be capable of such rhetoric and thus garner support for military activity, and undoubdtedly a strong china would want to leave its mark in the world. I agree with the home court advantage theory. America would not risk throwing its naval strength against china’s. The outcome would be bleak for everybody involved but to not check china’s naval might in the south east Asia region would also be a mistake. We can only wait and watch as to how the new government in china will function.
US Containment of India
Maybe the US Navy should check India's rise and pivot to South Asia. Have bases in Indonesia northern Sumatra, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Qatar to threaten India.
John Chan
@Ayush,
China is a major contributor to the world peace and prosperity; it is a member of WTO, IMF and all international organizations you can name it; and China is not interfering anybody free access to any market in the world, then why does China as a responsible world stakeholder need to be checked? Is it because China’s fair and even-handed manner an eyesore to the USA’s imperialist hegemony?
Tim Yu
@Chan,
Sure. China is a member of WTO, IMF and even the UNCLOS, but whether it respects for the International laws or not, that is anonther matter.
When there is a dispute, does China want to go to an International court, as the Phippines insisted? Or, its top diplomat (would undiplomattically and so lack of courtersy) says, we are a big country and Asean, you are small countries. China does things (like sea grabbing and land grabbing) as it pleases. Laws? What laws? In China, CCP members can grab anything they like. Did you hear President Hu talk about the corruption problems in China?
John Chan
@Tim Yu,
The Philippines government does not dare to submit its territory issues to an International Court for verdict, because it will be end of the existence of the Philippines as we know today; the Muslims and other tribes want to separate from the corrupted Manila regime, and international community has means to make those separations materialised.
CCP at least be honest enough to admit the corrupted problems in China, it is way better than the Filipinos who never mention corruption problems in their nation. Filipinos should follow CCP’s steps to clean up the corruption problems in their nation; it is way more constructive than being a vocal lackey for its former colonial master to disrupt peace in the South China Sea.
Kimbo Y. Laurel
@ John Chan. I have doubt in your thinking on the China's role for the stability of peace and prosperity. I know the USA has great assertine in the political stage but even, the PROC is getting involve on the world stage for their own national interest which is no different from other countries. All states have their own hidden agenda despite of their method. One of the best examples that I know to disprove your point are PROC's support of the Sudanese leader against the rebels who fought for the independences, PROC's veto on the UN on the intervetion of Syria where there are many massacre and declaration of war against Vietnam during the late 70's and the early 80's.
John Chan
@Kimbo Y Laurel,
Are you saying China should support those insurgents fighting for separation in the Philippines?
khai
China is a great contributor but it is also a great troublemaker. China is a member of all international institutions, but i am not so sure where it is follow the rule of those? sitting on shit and bark often cannot smell
DaveG
Not sure I agree about the comparison between the Royal Navy versus the American fleet 100 years ago. This scenario was tested at Jutland during the Great War when the bulk of the British Fleet was pitted against the German Navy, which was incredibly well equipped. This was only achieved due to the Anglo-Japanese alliance which allowed the British to bring their fleet home. Leaving the Japanese to safeuard British interests in the Far East.
The outcome was a victory for the Royal Navy but a severe bloody nose in doing so. In fact, the heavier losses were suffered by the Royal Navy during the battle but didn't significantly impact their imperial aspirations post war.
The Americans could do something similar. They can easily scale back operations in the Atlantic and in Persian gulf by asking partners and allies to take more responsibility – indeed, with Shale Oil expansion in the US, the reliance of Gulf Oil will be reduced allowing the Americans to reduce their presence. This would be offset by the pivot to the Pacific.
Bankotsu
"They can easily scale back operations in the Atlantic and in Persian gulf by asking partners and allies to take more responsibility…"
But U.S grand strategy requires europe and Japan to be protectores of the U.S with no independent security policies of their own, so that they won't develop powerful militaries that may turn against the U.S in the future.
I am always puzzeled by one aspect of U.S policy, they sometimes talk of europe and Japan needing to contribute more resources to the burdens of alliance, but ultimately, U.S doesn't want either Germany of Japan to be militarily independent of the U.S. This seems like a contradiction here.
Nevertheless, all three administrations shared the same essential strategic goal of consolidating U.S. global hegemony by averting the "renationalization" of German and Japanese military policy and preventing Russia and China from competing with the United States as "peer competitors." The perpetual "dual containment" of Germany and Japan, coupled with the not-so-secret containment of Russia and China, means that U.S. post-Cold War strategy represents less a break with U.S. Cold War strategy than a continuation of it, in a subtler form.
America’s Cold War strategy was often described as dual containment — the containment not only of America’s enemies like the Soviet Union and (until the 1970s) communist China, but also of America’s allies, in particular West Germany and Japan. Dual containment permitted the United States to mobilize German and Japanese industrial might as part of the anti-Soviet coalition, while forestalling the re-emergence of Germany and Japan as independent military powers…
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381
DaveG
I believe renationalisation of Japan and Germany is inevitable and would possibly be a pivotal game changer in the pacific. But it could take 10 years. Increased military cooperation within the EU chiefly between the UK, France and Germany, could see the removal of of US forces in Europe – largely seen as uneccessary. Indeed there are still thousands of British troops still in Germany who do not serve a purpose and do not contribute to European stability.
John Chan
@DaveG,
Yes, the Americans can do the same like the British, and walk the same path as the British Empire into an oblivion empire, a divided forgotten land.
At least the British has a reason to fight because there was a threat close to home, yet USA is thousands miles on the other side of the Pacific Ocean and there is nobody in sight can threaten its homeland. Gambling USA’s fate on something remote and hardly relevant surly proves that USA has lost its way by its blinding imperialist hegemony desire.
Jus7addwater
In what way, shape or form, is Britian a Forgotten land?
The concept is controlling things afar prevents them from coming close to home, you Mr. JC are one massive hiposcry with all the postings of yours that I have read.
John Chan
@Jus7addwater,
Explain world events in a Chinese point of view is not hypocrisy, yet mouthful of democracy and human rights meanwhile bombing and killing nonstop since WWII is hypocrisy.
AnNam Vuong
South China Sea, despite its name, it does not belong to China; as any Geography and World History educated person would know. The recent decades of China's ambitions for controlling of 1st and 2nd chains of islands in the region, this is a major issue.
Due to its ambitions and other dark and hidden agendas, China has becoming an aggressive nation, with such a child like, threatening and bullying behaviours. Numerous examples are already on the news in relation to SCS, ECS, the West Philippines Sea and within the Vietnamese's East Sea's EEZ.
The US, Russia, Japan and the World should be joining force to protect the International law of the Sea. If one has lived in China in the last 5 years and has been to a Germany Nazi's museum, one would see some clear and similar comparisons between the rise of current Communist China's nationalism and the Germany's Fascist/Military regime at the time. They are all started out with nationalism and small aggressions first.
It's a good thing that the World have seen how the Germany's Nazi and Japan's Imperial army behaved in the past; and how the got defeated. China's PLA/PLAN current and future behaviours pattern can be predicted and counter-acted accordingly. More importantly, unlike Germany and Japan during WWII, the current China's CCP is still very much depending on the US, Russia, Germany, Japan, UK, the West, etc for technologies and the technical know how. The US, Russia, UK, Germany, Japan, etc as the victors and the victims of WWII, surely they could see what China's PLA is up to.
Can China turn the World of International’s Law based of 21st Century into a Gunboat Policy of 18th Century? Can CCP/PLA turn the clock back to pre-WWII and lets the history repeat itself? More importantly, would all the victors and victims of WWI allow a bullying China to breakup the International Laws and destroying the hard earned World’s peace? Let’s see and let the history books are ready for recording!
John Chan
@AnNam Vuong,
The West does not need to go the Nazi museum in order to detect a Fascist/Military bellicose regime, under the leadership of USA they saw a Nazi/Fascist bellicose regime forming in Indo-China prior to 1967, they took action to stop it at great cost, it took them ten years from 1967 to 1976 and more bombs than WWII to stop it; the West called the campaign the Vietnam War.
Now the West is broke, they no longer have strength to stop that Fascist/Military bellicose regime from wreaking havoc in the SCS, it is indeed a burden falls upon China (one of the five major victors of WWII) to stop that Fascist/Military bellicose regime from destroying peace in the SCS now.