Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Mr. Rumsfeld goes to China
This trip, which paves the way for a visit by George W. Bush in November, is useful for a number of reasons.
The first reason is that we need to stay closely engaged with China, in some respects our most important trading partner and in all respects a force to be reckoned with in the world. If we isolate China or attempt to contain it under any "Cold War" model it will weaken our security in countless local ways and build paranoia in a country that has shown no expansionist impulse for almost 700 years. And, no, do not yell "Taiwan," or "Hong Kong," or even "Tibet" back at me. None of those three relatively local issues indicate expansionism. And neither does China's recent foray to in the Indian Ocean, which is calculated to protect its oil supply.
The second reason is that Taiwan is taking the United States security guarantee for granted. In so doing, Taiwan is actually destabilizing the region and forcing the United States into a corner. We need open lines of communication with China if -- or even when -- Taiwan does something meatheaded in the hope that the United States will honor the barely-qualified blank check that it has written.
The third reason is that fear of China, warranted or otherwise, is the political justification for a lot of really stupid big-ticket defense spending. Why do we need the appallingly expensive F/A-22? Since the only real argument in its favor is to achieve air superiority in a fight with China, the benefits of that program turn on one's assessment of the China "threat." If this administration understood that China is not a Soviet-style expansionist threat it might do the right thing and kill that program. Indeed, killing the F/A-22 might well go a long way toward undermining hawks inside China who argue that it China needs to guard against American expansionism. It is even possible that canceling the F/A-22 program would enhance stability.
The many China hawks who read this blog are going to scream bloody murder at my claim that the Middle
China, the bogeyman beloved of strategists in search of a conventional enemy, has become so dependent upon selling goods to the United States that it cannot afford a war that would destroy its economy. While the current state of trade is detrimental to the United States, it has had the strategic effect of addicting China. Certainly, states do not always act in their own self-interest -- emotion has killed hundreds of millions more human beings than logic ever did -- but a war between the Untied States and China would have to involve folly and misjudgment on both sides. History runs crimson with such mutual misapprehensions, yet the prospect of a major war between the United States and the People's Republic of China may be the least probable of the threats we routinely consider. On the other hand, China will not offer any potential for the expansion of American influence or hegemony. China isn't a dragon ready to attack us, but it is a mountain we cannot move.
Second, China is depopulating itself. China's rising urban affluence (affluent people have fewer children than poor people the world over) and its very controversial "one child" policy are aging China's population. Not only will this reduce the total number of people of military age, but it has probably significantly increased the risk of war to China's ruling class. Why? Because Chinese parents cherish their single child with undivided intensity, and will not look kindly on any government that spends their lives unnecessarily.
2 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Oct 18, 01:03:00 PM:
Dear Mr. TigerHawk:
Let us point out where we agree and where we disagree.
We agree that China is not necessarily a menance for the future. We disagree with those who seem to be whipping up a hysteria over China. And we believe that diplomatic errors, on both sides, could create an otherwise unnecessary conflict.
We agree that U.S. officials should maintain constant contact with their Chinese counterparts. Indeed, we should engage is much greater military-to-military contacts, so that Chinese officers can view in full U.S. military capabilities.
And we agree that the U.S. may have created a "moral hazard" with its implicit security guarantee for Taiwan, something that may end up becoming dangerous.
But then you surprised us (are you feeling well?). How can you say that the only "real" argument for the F-22 is for a fight with China? The F-22 is a multi-role aircraft, not just a dogfighter, and will have at least a 35 year life, probably longer. Does anyone know what exact security problems the U.S. will face through the years 2040 and beyond? We don't. And it is replacing the F-15, itself now 30 years old. The Europeans and the Russians have equivalent aircraft now, as will China reasonably soon. Why is it unreasonable to replace a 30-year old aircraft? And we are surprised to hear you say that not having the F-22 would be stabilizing. Have you been spending time with Gary Hart and George McGovern lately? Did you make the same argument about SDI in 1989?
China's commerical interests may or may not be a deterrent to conflict; rapid expansion of global trade up to 1914 didn't deter conflict then. Chinese leaders' embrace of business is very likely wholly practical (greed) and not tied to recent readings of Hume, Mill, Ricardo, or Adam Smith. In this case, their motivations and policies could change rapidly if necessary to protect their interests. And the Chinese are proud and nationalistic and are as susceptible to propaganda as any.
What do we think? In China's red lines we examined these issues and concluded that the U.S. should watch China's behavior to see whether it crosses certain "red lines" which we describe. That will tell U.S. policy-makers what Chinese intentions are.
A preferred outcome would be similar to the interplay between the United Kingdom and the U.S. after 1870. After warring earlier in the century (and after Britain almost intervened in the U.S. Civil War), the established power (Britain) and the rising power (U.S.) enjoyed a mutually beneficial commercial, diplomatic, and security relationship in the decades that followed. It could happen again with the U.S. and China.
Westhawk
By , at
Wed Oct 19, 02:20:00 PM:
TigerHawk, China and the US will be in an embrace for decades to come, I am sure you know that. For the US to forgo its military advantage would be a gift from us to China. The FA-22 is not just a fighter. It is a directed energy weapon, a first really. Its an intelligence collector and distributor. Its a air superiority platform unmatched by any competitor today or for years to come. Why give up these advantages while China is arming itself with the most advanced weapons its coin can buy or develop? Don't forget America's best fighter the F-15 has been beaten in war games with Indians flying top of the line Russian equipment. We need the F-22.
The China-American story is yet to be written, but for America to throw away its military advantages just as the game begins is not wise.
