Dr. Wordmaon

​ 
Should we Americans let China have global aspiration is a weighty question, I am afraid that I have not seen enough think tank work to first clarify what is global aspiration? Do we have a double standard under hypocrisy: I can have it but you can’t or I did it but no one else should do it. Should the U.S. contain China simply because China would someday become the number one economy in the world? Why China cannot use her wealth to aid Africa, Latin America, etc. to have more ‘say’ on the world stage? Was it because that we Americans cannot face competition? Some blame China to have succeeded in her economical development by unfair practice, but in my opinion, it is a little too late and too naïve at this point. Reviewing history, one notes that there was no shortage of luring technologies (through copying and/or using market share to obtain technology) by one country from the other. Just tracking the recent few centuries one can see that Japan and the West have absorbed technologies from China; more recently the U.S. from the UK and Europe; then Japan and EU countries from the U.S.; S. Korea and China from Japan and the U.S. and now China is worrying other countries may copy her technologies. The fact that China applies and is granted the highest number of patents each year is a direct proof that when you don’t have technologies you must get them to survive and when you have them you worry about losing them. Is there a cure for this cycle, unfortunately, the only solution is to keep developing new technologies to stay ahead. That is what the U.S. must do and what China wants to do as well.
 
As stated earlier, the ‘how can’ question, is a lot easier to answer. Yes, if the West were united ( like the eight nations united to invade China in 1800’s) and determined, perhaps, they could contain China’s rise or might slow her down. However, two things have changed, first, China is no longer a weak nation like the Qing Dynasty and second, the West has less reason to gang up together to contain China for their own good. The West now need China more than any other country (even the U.S.) to sustain their economy and world stability; especially, the West’s anti-Russia legacy strategy has driven Russia to be closer to China, a complete reversal of the global politics from one and half century ago. UK is now exiting EU and EU is struggling economically with some countries facing bankruptcy. What is the motivation for France or Germany and other EU small nations to engage an all-out containment strategy against China? The current US–led policy of containing Russia built over seven decades is falling apart as the energy not gun power dictates the stability of a country. The use and effectiveness of NATO is being questioned. (The U.S. seems no longer willing to foot most of the NATO cost) Why should UK and EU unite together with the U.S. to counter Russia (which holds the energy supply to EU) and stop the rise of China (which is supporting the global economy) just to keep the U.S. in world leadership? The current U.S. Administration’s self-centered America First Policy cast more doubt on the wisdom of an anti-China policy. After all, China’s aspiration of building one Belt and One Road (Belt and Road initiative, BRI) seems to be a peaceful win-win program for all participants. The number of nation participants in BRI especially the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) is a testimony to the fact that not many nations are motivated to join an anti-China camp. 
 
It is rather unfortunate that the current U.S. Administration is driving an anti-China strategy based on outdated arguments (anti-communism rhetoric), ignoring the changing reality (world transformation) and pacifying a real need of self-examination (what did the U.S. do wrong?). The decline of the U.S. influence on the world stage is not caused by the rise of China. The US influence decline was gradual and China’s rise was rapid, perhaps in contrast, some would use China as the scapegoat. In all honesty, the fundamental reason is that the U.S. does not accept and face the reality. The U.S. loses industry by industry mainly due to her own failed policies. The U.S. favors financial industry over manufacturing, such as textile, steel, aluminum, auto, etc, etc created her economical problems which can hardly be blamed on others. In fact, many other countries following the U.S. economic model suffer the same consequences. Even China herself faces debt financing problems (quantitative easing for example) similar to the U.S. Actually, managing nations just like managing a corporation, the U.S. must focus on the competitiveness issue, not walking away from the global market but engaging it and finding complimentary products and services for the world. China must maintain her competiveness as well; the U.S. must view China as a vibrant partner to develop win-win collaboration rather than view China as a scapegoat for her failures. In the end, a crippled China does not mean a healthier U.S. One thing that does make the present world different from the past as the technology advances. The manufacturing processes become more complicated subject to material and skill dependencies often available from other countries. Therefore, division of labor becomes necessary practice which encourages international cooperation to produce the most cost effective products.
 
Out of G8, China is the only country that has risen without applying invasion or practicing colonialism to other countries. China built the Great Wall to keep out invaders that is a deep rooted philosophy in the minds of Chinese. Making an assumption that China is going to dominate the world with bad consequences (comparing to what the U.S. has done as the world leader) is an unfair and unproven notion. The West invited China into WTO after years of rejection but China persevered and thrived as a WTO member. Many countries benefitted from WTO and some still struggling but there is no proof that under WTO rules it is a zero-sum economic game. In a nuclear world, using military power to settle disputes especially among big nations with nuclear power is not an option. Clearly, nations must work with international bodies to resolve issues. Hence, ‘should the West contain China’s global aspiration’ is not really the question to address, the real question is how can we strengthen the world bodies, the U.N., WTO, or the like to allow all countries to compete under the same rules with their own global aspirations. This must be done under the framework of global democracy. The West has created the United Nations and embraced democracy for its operating principles. Democracy has its value and deficiencies but it is a peaceful means to settle things. All nations have no choice but to work with the existing system and try to improve it while they can. Therefore, it is fair to say that no one should contain another country’s global aspiration unless the aspiration is proven to be harmful to the world. (Part II)
 

 
The Chappaqua Library Foreign Policy Discussion Group sent out an announcement that on October 16, there will be a Skype linked seminar, entitled, China’s Challenge - How Can/Should the West contain China’s Global Aspiration, to be facilitated by Tyler Beebe, a Chappaqua, New York resident. The speaker will be Dennis Wilder, the managing director for the Initiative for U.S.- China Dialogue on Global Issues at Georgetown University and an assistant professor of Asian studies. Wilder has served as the National Security Council's Director for China and as the NSC Special Assistant to the President for East Asian Affairs.  He is also a former CIA Deputy Assistant Director for East Asia and the Pacific. The topic is an interesting and important one, but the title suggested that the speaker came with a background to discuss ‘how can the West contain China’s global aspiration’ first before the more logical consideration of whether or not ‘should the West contain China’s global aspiration’. Judging from the speaker’s resume, I am not surprised that he is more versed on the “how can” methodology under the strategy that the West “should” contain China rather as an academic scholar who studies: What is global aspiration? Should any country have global aspiration? Can any country define its own global aspiration? Should any country or a collected group (for instance, The West, a rather old fashioned imprecise term used by Wilder’s speech title compared to G7, G8 or G20) contain another country’s global aspiration?
 
I certainly will attend Mr. Wilder’s talk but I feel obligated to remind him of the above logical thinking. As the US-China relation has reached to a multi-lateral intersection, the China issue is more of the U.S.’s Challenge to ponder on the “should” question before the “how can” question and less as a China’s challenge to worry about “the West”. China seems to have come a long way, steadfastly, to pursue a simple goal to raise her citizens’ livelihood into middle class by economic development and to engage herself in the world body to earn her respect and dignity by rejuvenating the glorious Chinese culture and heritage which was nearly destroyed by ‘the West’ and ‘the Communism’ in the 19th and most part of the 20th centuries. Yes, we do need to understand China’s global aspiration, but more importantly we need to understand both the U.S. and China’s global aspiration and why and where is there a clash?!
 
First of all, we should not have a bias to discuss the China issue. Thus, I am less interested in “how can” ( a relatively easier question) than in the question of “Should” (a harder question to answer) the West contain China’s global aspiration. As modern seminars sometimes do beg for questions from the prospective audience in advance for the speaker, I decide to write about the above seminar topic in a logical sequence in this column before attending the seminar, more as thought provoking questions and a preparation for me to join the coming discussion seminar.
 
The logical thinking about this serious topic must be ‘Should the West contain China’s global aspirations?’ first; then second, ‘How can the West contain China’s global aspirations?’ Since WW II, the world has gone through many transformations, abolishing colonialism, rising of super powers and communism, collapse of the Soviet Union, revision of communism to embracing capitalism, striving developing countries in the third world, numerous regional wars and enduring global financial crises. Now the international community is a complex and sophisticated one. It is no surprise that China, as the most populated nation, is struggling with her development and searching her own formula for sustainable economical and political stability and growth. So, the “should” question must be asked by Americans, Europeans, Russians, Asians, Australians and Africans all with their own perspectives since the rise of China has impacted everyone one in the world.
 
However, since the U.S. is a superpower, self-charged with world leadership and global aspiration (American version), it is more important for us to focus on Americans’ view (of course including Chappaqua citizens) on the “should” question. First, I ask myself, am I qualified to answer that question? Based on what? On Justice? Should any country other than the U.S. have global aspiration? Does global aspiration mean challenging the U.S.? Challenging the world leadership of the U.S.? Challenging militarily by force? (No, no one is strong enough to challenge the U.S.) Challenging economically? May be so, however the U.S. is still one of the richest nations on Earth. The U.S. spent a defense budget over $700 B versus China $150 B, thus still maintaining her super military power status in the world. But the U.S. can’t stop N Korea, a small country, to develop nuclear missiles, what makes us sure that the U.S. can stop China to continue her military development, especially when the U.S. adopts a hostile containment policy to agitate and induce China to compete in military strength. What would this arms race lead to? The end result is not going to be a happy ending! Hence, we need to rethink the ‘should’ question.
 
Many hate-China people want to justify a containment policy towards China by stressing that economically the U.S. is threatened by China! Let’s take s historical view, not too long ago, when China was the number one economy in the world in 18th century, she did not threaten any country, did she?  It was the West brought colonialism to the world, invaded China, inflicted more than one century of misery to China. The U.S. played a minor part in the West aggression to squash China and later helped China fighting the Japanese in early part of 20th century. Post WW II, colonialism was abolished and the U.S. emerged as the strongest nation both militarily and economically. China came out of ashes, experimented miserably with communism, later embraced capitalism gingerly while transforming or reforming with socialistic principles. It took four decades for China to rise economically to be the second largest economy in the world. With 1.3 billion people working harder than the rest of the world, should we be surprised that China rises again? Should China be allowed to have her global aspiration? What is global aspiration? Do the U.S. and China have the same definition of global aspiration? Will human society forever be cursed by the ancient Greek Thucydides Trap? Is the U.S. a role model of global aspiration? Is maintaining superiority of military strength, having military bases everywhere in the world, settling international affairs unilaterally or simply earning world respect on the world stage the definition of global aspiration? Do we understand China’s global aspiration? Is there a hidden agenda behind raising the vast Chinese population into middle class, such as mimicking the U.S. or threatening the world leadership of the U.S.? Shouldn’t we understand these questions before addressing the ‘should’ question. (Part I)
 
 
 
 

​ 
American people are proud citizens better versed in American history (The American Revolution and Independence (1776) and her own democratization process: The States grant white male land owners voting rights in 1789, free black male lose right to vote in some States 1792-1838, property qualification dropped for white men 1792-1856, women allowed to vote from 1920, all native Americans granted right to vote, 1924, Chinese immigrants granted the right to citizenship and voting right, 1943, adults 18-21 granted right to vote, 1972) than in foreign relations and global conflicts. The reason may be that there were never wars or foreign invasions occurred on the continent of the United States. Americans went to foreign wars generally out of patriotism, serving the country and the military and supporting the government’s foreign policy, interpreted under national security consideration. The engagement of the U.S. in global conflicts prior to WW II and WW I were limited and constrained, it became full scale during WW II making the U.S. the strongest nation in the world as a result. Post WW II, when the spread of Communism flamed to threaten the capitalistic established nations and societies in the first half of the twenties century, the U.S. raised the flag to resist Communism and led the world to fight any Communist country. The American citizens generally accepted that doctrine whole-heartedly but rarely had learned the deep issues involved in the global conflicts, for example, the Korean War (6/27/1950 – 1/31/1955), the Vietnam War (2/28/1961 – 5/7/1975) and the Gulf War (8/2/1990 – present).
 
Korean War was an anti-Communist war but it evolved into a global conflict of nuclear threat not so much as a threat of Communism. It was obvious, Communist country fared poorly in economical development. The North Koreans finally realized that no suppression could hide the fact that South Koreans live with nearly 20+ times higher per capital GDP than their northern brothers. Now the South Korea and the North Korea are seeking a peaceful settlement, would the American government encourage that or reignite another Korean War to remove the nuclear threat? Wouldn’t it make more sense to work with NK, SK and all their geopolitical neighbors together to resolve the nuclear issue by peaceful dialogue?!
 
Vietnam War was another bitter war; many Americans lost their lives for it, again under the flag of anti-Communism. The U.S. sort of inherited the Indochina regional unrest like a hot potato created by colonialism and the Japanese invasion. The U.S. picked her support and created South Vietnam waving the flags of democracy and anti-Communism but in the end giving in to nationalism that the local people wanted their way of life because of their history, culture and their will of self-governance with no foreign interference. After the war, North Vietnam and South Vietnam are united; perhaps still having conflicts with her neighbors, but Vietnam is striving in her own way of focusing on economic development. Ironically, the U.S. is now considering enticing Vietnam to become one of her strategic partners for her anti-China Policy. Does that make sense?
 
The U.S. has given up her national draft policy, that is, every eligible citizen (18-25) must serve in the military to meet the call of duty in case of war. As the Vietnam War drew to a close in 1973, the Selective Service announced the cease of draft calls after Richard Nixon, a conservative Republican, won the Presidential election over Senator George McGovern of S. Dakota, a Democrat and outspoken opponent of war. The present voluntary army system means that the military service has become a professional career which will respond to any duty of war called upon by the Pentagon under the Commander of Chief, the President.
 
We all knew how George W. Bush started the Iraq war with false information. Subsequently, there are debates of withdrawal from the Middle East from Bush through Obama and now to Trump. But the Gulf War debate had never reached the level like the Vietnam War debate. The simple reason is the draft system. It has become apparent; the President of the U.S. and the Congress must be prudent in managing global conflict and especially careful in initiating any war and the American citizens must raise their understanding of global conflicts so that the citizens can impose their understanding and will onto the elected officials to conduct foreign policies and make sensible war decisions. Citizens must realize that the career military system would not offer the nation a debate process about a war (where the entire nation participates) like a draft system would (since every family has a stake in it).   
 
Recently, the U.S. confronted the “China Competition” by initiating a trade war to reduce trade imbalance. This measure itself can be understood by American citizens (to apply pressure to our trade partners to make them to trade fairly, to open up their markets and to stimulate American industry and corporations to focus on US economy). However, what is not understood by American people is the ever growing anti-China attitude based on national security argument, same arguments similar to previous ones which led to Korean War, Vietnam War and Middle East Wars. In those wars, the American citizens were led to war with no deep understanding of why and whether or not the war was justified. The recent development of US-China Conflict seems to have more issues than the trade imbalance. One issue showing possibility of war is the Taiwan issue. The Taiwan issue was a seven decade old Chinese domestic conflict elevated to the global stage because of geopolitical conflict in Asia, recently heightened by the US Pivot to Asia Strategy. Similar to Korea and Vietnam, the Chinese domestic division was triggered by Communism, thus the U.S. was involved (supporting Taiwan and opposing the Mainland). The involvement of the U.S. should have been ceased when President Nixon signed the Shanghai Communiqué (1972) confirming Taiwan is a part of China and later reinforced by President Carter by formally recognizing PRC as the sole legal entity representing China and severed the official diplomatic relation with Taiwan (1979).
 
The American people should really understand the Taiwan issue to avoid another mistake of creating a war in Asia involving American military for no benefit. China regards Taiwan as a domestic issue, hoping to resolve it peacefully. The American people should try to understand the issue from Taiwan, China and the U.S. perspective. One article published in World Journal (9/5/2018), by Su Qi, a former Secretary of Taiwan’s National Security Council, offers such a perspective. On the crucial issue, whether Mainland China would use military force to unite Taiwan and whether the U.S. would interfere with military force, Su states: Based on historical facts, China has not engaged in any military conflict after the Cold War; her wars were taking place only at peripheral regions of her national border, over sovereignty issue, nothing to do with Communism. He further points out that China’s war management generally goes through three clear phases, a warning period, then surprise attack and quick ending and withdrawal, meaning a rational behavior.
 
Su reemphasizes that whether (or not) the Taiwan Strait would break out into a military conflict depends on the behavior of the Taiwan government. Whether a conflict will escalate into a war would depend on the U.S. and whether the war would become serious would depend on China’s decision. At the moment, Taiwan’s current administration is marching onto an anti-China path mimicking the U.S. despite of Mainland China’s friendly gesture and generous offering in trade and benefits to Taiwan. The U.S. currently seems to be using the Taiwan issue to antagonize China by passing the Taiwan Travel Act, dedicating a big building for the American Institute in Taiwan (US Representative in Taiwan) and encouraging Taiwan to buy more US arms and develop submarines, all challenging the redline of the Mainland China raising probability of war. As American citizens, we must ask: Why do we want to trigger a war in Taiwan Strait? What will we gain? What did we learn from the Korean and Vietnam wars? Should we seriously rethink of our presnt and changing China Policy?!



​