-1.5 C
London
Friday, January 10, 2025

CHINA AND THE FOREIGN MEDIA CHINA POST #547

Must read

Graham Perry
Graham Perry
Experienced Arbitration Lawyer | China & Chinese Business Affairs | Public Speaker/Lecturer.

GOOD MORNING FROM LONDON

THIS ISSUE OF ‘GOOD MORNING FROM LONDON’ FOCUSES ON THE EVOLVING CONFRONTATION BETWEEN TRUMP AND CHINA.

THIS POST – #547 – CONSISTS OF TWO INFORMED BUT CONTRASTING VIEWS OF US-CHINA RELATIONS – BOTH AUTHORED BY AMERICAN NATIONALS.

THE FIRST AND SHORTER ARTICLE  IS WRITTEN BY TWO SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE INCOMING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION  – MATT POTTINGER AND MIKE GALLAGHER.

THE SECOND AND LONGER ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY A FOREMOST US DIPLOMAT WHO WAS AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA – CHAS FREEMAN

—————————————–

MATT POTTINGER + MIKE GALLAGHER

THEY JOINTLY AUTHORED AN ARTICLE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS IN MAY 2024 ENTITLED;-

NO SUBSTITUTE FOR VICTORY – AMERICA’S COMPETITION WITH CHINA MUST BE WON, NOT MANAGED

Matt Pottinger served as U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser from 2019 to 2021 and as Senior Director for Asia on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019. He is a co-author and editor of the forthcoming book The Boiling Moat: Urgent Steps to Defend Taiwan.

Mike Gallagher served as U.S. Representative from Wisconsin from 2017 to 2024 and chaired the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

The following are extracts from their joint article in Foreign Affairs

“Amid a presidency beset by failures of deterrence—in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and the Middle East—the Biden administration’s China policy has stood out as a relative bright spot. The administration has strengthened U.S. alliances in Asia, restricted Chinese access to critical U.S. technologies, and endorsed the bipartisan mood for competition. Yet the administration is squandering these early gains by falling into a familiar trap: prioritizing a short-term thaw with China’s leaders at the expense of a long-term victory over their malevolent strategy. The Biden team’s policy of “managing competition” with Beijing risks emphasizing processes over outcomes, bilateral stability at the expense of global security, and diplomatic initiatives that aim for cooperation but generate only complacency.

The United States shouldn’t manage the competition with China; it should win it. Beijing is pursuing a raft of global initiatives designed to disintegrate the West and usher in an antidemocratic order. It is underwriting expansionist dictatorships in Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. It has more than doubled its nuclear arsenal since 2020 and is building up its conventional forces faster than any country has since World War II. These actions show that China isn’t aiming for a stalemate. Neither should America.

What would winning look like? China’s communist rulers would give up trying to prevail in a hot or cold conflict with the United States and its friends. And the Chinese people—from ruling elites to everyday citizens—would find inspiration to explore new models of development and governance that don’t rely on repression at home and compulsive hostility abroad.

In addition to having greater clarity about its end goal, the United States needs to accept that achieving it will require greater friction in U.S.-Chinese relations. Washington will need to adopt rhetoric and policies that may feel uncomfortably confrontational but in fact are necessary to reestablish boundaries that Beijing and its acolytes are violating. That means imposing costs on Chinese leader Xi Jinping for his policy of fostering global chaos. It means speaking with candor about the ways China is hurting U.S. interests. It means rapidly increasing U.S. defense capabilities to achieve unmistakable qualitative advantages over Beijing. It means severing China’s access to Western technology and frustrating Xi’s efforts to convert his country’s wealth into military power. And it means pursuing intensive diplomacy with Beijing only from a position of American strength, as perceived by both Washington and Beijing.

No country should relish waging another cold war. Yet a cold war is already being waged against the United States by China’s leaders. Rather than denying the existence of this struggle, Washington should own it and win it..”.

GRAHAM PERRY COMMENTS;-

According to the two senior members of Trump’s incoming Administration, China is guilty of the following;-

  1. Pursuing “a malevolent strategy”
  2. Seeking “global dominion”
  3. Seeking “to disintegrate the West”
  4. Trying to “usher in an anti-democratic order”
  5. Underwriting “expansionist dictatorships in Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela
  6. Doubling “its nuclear arsenal since 2020”
  7. Building up “its conventional forces faster than any country has since World War II.

The same two senior members of the incoming Trump administration require that the US;

  1. “increases friction with China”
  1. “imposes costs on China”
  2. “rapidly increases its defence capabilities”
  3. “severs China’s access to Western technology”
  4. “pursues intensive diplomacy with Beijing only from a position of American strength”

This is the considered opinion of two close associates of President-Elect Trump. It is clear, straightforward and uncomplicated. China is the #1 Enemy and the US needs to draw a line in the sand and prepare for conflict.

There is a context for this Trump approach – best summarised in his 2024 Election campaign – Make America Great Again (‘MAGA’). The US came to the rescue of the UK during World War II and in the process exacted a price for that rescue which catapulted the US to the position of dominant #1 World Superpower.

‘MAGA’, proclaims Trump, is the slogan to reverse the decline of the US and bring it back to a position of dominance. The US must be in charge.

——————————-

There is another quite different American view. It comes from Charles Freeman Jr. who was for nearly 50 years involved in the US diplomatic service including serving as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia under President George W. Bush, Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Clinton administration, and interpreter for President Richard Nixon during the path-breaking 1972 China visit.

Ambassador Charles “Chas” Freeman Jnr  assesses the history of China-US relations and where they might go from here amid their “adversarial antagonism” stage. This interview was first published in South China Morning Post prior to the Trump/Harris 2024 Election

AMBASSADOR FREEMAN SPEAKS;-

QUESTION;

“You said US-China ties had moved from healthy competition in the past to the era of hostile, “very unhealthy competition”. With US-China ties trapped in a downward spiral and hardening public perceptions towards the other in both countries, are you concerned that a new cold war is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the US and its allies – such as Europe, Japan, South Korea – on one side and China, Russia, Iran and North Korea on the other? How far away are we from the disastrous enmity stage that you described?

ANSWER;

Competition can take at least three forms. Rivalry is healthy because it stimulates those engaged in it to improve their own performance so as to be able to outdo each other. Enmity envisages the annihilation of an opponent and is very dangerous, especially in the nuclear era. In between these two extremes is adversarial antagonism, in which competition relies less on self-improvement than on hamstringing an adversary – inhibiting or reversing its progress rather than progressing oneself. The United States and China are now in the intermediate stage of adversarial antagonism.

But I do not agree that the world can be divided in the way your question posits. China, Iran and Russia have little in common other than opposition to the threats they perceive from the United States and their commitment to a world order based on the principles of the United Nations Charter and the rule of international law rather than US hegemony. China is a world power. Russia is a great power. Iran is a regional power. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a masterless outlaw in world affairs. American and British portrayal of these four countries as some sort of “axis” ignores the many differences between them.

It is noteworthy that, with the exception of those long aligned with the United States, the world’s countries almost all refuse to choose between America, China or Russia. Countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia that once cleaved to the United States no longer do so. NATO is far from unanimous in its views of world or even European affairs. Many countries are hedging against possible abandonment by their former American protector. Few nations have chosen to align themselves with Iran and none rely on North Korea.

This is an era in which middle-ranking powers have no overlords, insist on their right to chart their own course, and reject subjugation by great powers. It is nothing at all like the Cold War.

QUESTION;

As a veteran China hand, you have been fairly critical of American diplomacy towards China in the past decade. To what extent do you think decision makers in Washington should be blamed for the deterioration of US-China ties?

ANSWER;

Neither country is without blame. Both have made mistakes. The invective that [former] secretary of state [Mike] Pompeo directed at China was matched by Chinese Wolf Warrior diplomacy, which was equally repellent and counterproductive. But the trade and technology wars were launched by the United States, not China, and it was the United States, not China, that crippled the World Trade Organization and insisted that dubious national security considerations replace comparative advantage and economic factors in governing international trade.

China continues to negotiate market opening with other countries. The United States has embraced protectionism and stopped doing so. American policy towards China now consists largely of sanctions intended to cripple Chinese exports and technological progress.

QUESTION;

Chinese scholar Yang Jiemian said last year that a self-centred, “narcissistic” US historical view was at the heart of Washington’s turn towards an increasingly confrontational China approach because the US wanted to maintain its hegemony, or at least delay its own decline, a view largely in line with that of the Chinese government. Do you agree?

ANSWER;

I have great respect for Dr Yang and am sorry to say that I largely agree with his analysis. Empathy is the basis for successful diplomacy and the current American government is foreign to it.

QUESTION;

You said in the past that the US should reduce weapon sales to Taiwan to pressure Taiwan into negotiations with Beijing, and “Taiwan is an established American foreign policy success story that appears to be nearing the end of its shelf life”. Last year, you said the US had wasted opportunities created in 1972 for a peaceful accommodation between Taiwan and the mainland, while urging Washington to use its influence to push Taiwan to accept a negotiated settlement with Beijing. Could you explain your rationale behind those policy recommendations?

ANSWER;

The Taiwan issue is the legacy of the Chinese civil war, the Korean conflict and the Cold War. It did not begin with the US opening to China in 1971-72. But the Shanghai Communiqué and the two later joint communiqués were premised on “a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves”. The United States has accepted every agreement the two sides of the strait have made but they have not settled their differences. In my view, it would serve the interests of the United States as well as the China mainland and Taiwan for them to do so but US policies, pronouncements and actions have instead served to bolster resistance to cross-strait rapprochement.

Some in Washington now justify their opposition to the unification of China on dubious strategic grounds. Instead of stepping back to let the Chinese parties address their differences though political dialogue, the US has acted to stiffen Taiwan’s resistance to this. The issue is now regarded by most Americans as purely military and treated as such by the authorities in Taipei. I think this is a mistake that is likely to end in tragedy for all concerned but see no prospect of it changing in the near future.

QUESTION;

How will the 2024 US presidential election affect Sino-US ties and Taiwan’s future? You said the transition between the November election and the inauguration in January could be the most dangerous period as countries, including China, may find it “tempting” to challenge the US if it turns chaotic again. What do you suggest the US and China should do to avoid such a scenario?

ANSWER;

The United States is in the midst of a mounting constitutional crisis that will come to a head with the November 5 elections and the transition to the January 20 inauguration of the next president. Those in Beijing who have come to believe that there is no longer a viable path to peaceful reunification and that the only feasible way to end the division of China is to resort to force might see this period of confusion in Washington as an opportune moment to do so. This would, in my view, be a tragic mistake. The civilian government in Washington may disintegrate at the end of this year, but the US Armed Forces will not, and the American people would not fail to direct their anger at China were they to regard it as responsible for a war over Taiwan.

QUESTION;

Beijing admits it is facing the most challenging external environment due to the feud with the US-led West and rising tensions over the South China Sea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and other geopolitical hotspots such as Ukraine. Do you have any advice for the Chinese government on how to fix its image problem, settle the territorial disputes with its neighbours and “tell China stories well to the world”?

ANSWER;

China can no longer maintain a low profile, as Deng Xiaoping urged. Nor can it avoid taking a leadership position on occasion. But it can and should recognise that, as a great power, its statements and actions can evoke fear as well as admiration by other countries, including its neighbours. That is why “observe calmly, secure the Chinese position, and cope with affairs calmly” remains good advice. If China is seen to be overbearing, it will cause other countries to organise themselves against it.

In another context, the late Saudi Arabian King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz offered relevant counsel: “If you want to be loved, do something lovable.” China’s reputation was burnished by its successful mediation of rapprochement between his country and Iran. China advocates the resolution of international disputes through diplomatic dialogue. It would benefit by making well-prepared proposals for the resolution of its own disputes with Southeast Asian countries.

QUESTION;

As probably one of the last “panda huggers”, you have worked tirelessly to promote engagement with China. But with the marginalisation of China-friendly, pro-engagement experts in the US, do you think there will ever be a “next Kissinger” between China and the US, who enjoys political influence in both countries and is willing to serve as Beijing’s backchannel to the White House?

ANSWER:

I have many Chinese friends and I am an admirer of Chinese culture, but I do not argue for better US-China relations to benefit China but to serve the interests of my own country. Great Britain handled the loss of its global hegemony to the United States gracefully, yielding privileges it could no longer sustain while ensuring that the transition was as much to its advantage as possible.

I believe that there is no reason for China and America to be antagonists and that, with strategic vision and skilled diplomacy, we too could manage a peaceful transition to a relationship grounded in equality and mutual benefit. I see the alternatives as dire, including a possible trans-Pacific war that could devastate both countries, while destroying Taiwan’s hard-won democracy and prosperity. It is a shame that advocacy of an approach that would leverage rising Chinese wealth and power to the benefit of the United States should be derided as “panda hugging”. It is not.

It is important to recognise that Henry Kissinger began as someone not just ignorant of China but, like many Europeans of his age, contemptuous of it and opposed to it. It took a direct encounter with China to transform him into an admirer of Chinese statecraft and a respected adviser on the management of Sino-American relations. The circumstances made the man. Future circumstances may yet restore respectful cooperation between the Chinese and American political elites as both recognise the many ways in which both countries could gain from that.

QUESTION;

Ambassador Freeman, even your critics have spoken highly of your “exceptional intelligence” and “superb language skill”. But you have also paid a high price for your contrarian views on topics, mostly concerning China and Israel, which may have cost you some great career opportunities, including the chair of the National Intelligence Council nearly 15 years ago. Do you have any regrets?

ANSWER:

I did not enjoy the political mugging the Israel lobby administered to me. On the Israel-Palestine issue, I have long been in the position of someone denying the car keys to a drunk, trying to avoid the enablement of self-destructive Israeli behaviour. Such behaviour is now a blatant global scandal that has made Israel a pariah state. America’s continued enablement of this behaviour has done enormous damage to my own country’s prestige.

When I was appointed to the National Intelligence Council (NIC), I was accused by my detractors of being a “realist”. I describe things as I see them rather than as our political elite or influential interest groups would like them to be, and I have a long record of declining to tell the powerful what they would like to hear. I could not do for the NIC and the US intelligence community what I was recruited to do. I could not hope to improve the credibility or efficacy of US intelligence analysis while under constant attack from the Israel lobby or anti-China ideologues. I had not sought the position I was offered, was very reluctant to take it, and did so only when I was told my country demanded my return to public service. I would not have lasted long in the position. In my view, the Israel lobby did me an inadvertent favour by convincing me to withdraw my acceptance of it.

QUESTION?;

As the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a long-time Israel critic, you have been critical of the powerful Israel lobby in the US and US policy towards Israel, which you said “had embraced Israel’s enemies as our own”, resulting in Arabs “equating Americans with Israeli as their enemies”. You once said Israel was holding US foreign policy hostage due to its “anti-Iran paranoia” and said Israel was carrying out “a mass lynching” in Gaza, “in utter disregard of international law and in a completely inhumane fashion”, and that the only thing Israel had done for the US was “get us into trouble”. Your views have been criticised by many as not balanced and biased against Israel. What’s your response to the criticism?

ANSWER;

I began, like most Americans, as an admirer of what I had been led to believe Israel was. It took subsequent direct experience of its racism, belligerence and inhumanity to its captive Arab population to alter my favourable opinion of Zionism. I believed in “the right of Israel to exist” until I realised that this meant no one else had the right to exist between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Israel’s strategy of ethnic cleansing has now extended to genocide in Gaza. I would object to that even if my own country were not funding it and excusing it, which it is. It is inexcusable.

QUESTION?;

What advice would you give to scholars of US-China ties and tomorrow’s diplomats? China’s leading US specialist Wang Jisi warned that American studies in China were “too weak” compared to Chinese studies in the US, which may have negatively affected China’s decision making vis-à-vis the US. What do you think should be done to address this problem?

ANSWER;

When I joined the US Foreign Service it was in part because I foresaw the correction of the irrational geopolitical geometry of the 1960s by a US opening to China and wanted to be part of that drama, if only as a spear carrier on the stage.

The older generation of Chinese-language officers had been persecuted by demagogues in the US Congress and intimidated by Cold Warriors in the Department of State. Ever more of them had never lived among Chinese and had mediocre language skills. I fear that, in the current atmosphere, we are likely to regress to a similar situation, in which the China of our nightmares replaces the China of the real world and in which our academics, think tank researchers, and government specialists on China are fearful of challenging the conventional ignorance of our political class.

Wang Jisi is right to be concerned. The millions of Chinese who have studied in the United States may not have a perfect understanding of my sometimes-inscrutable country, but they have a far better-informed view than the mere thousands of Americans who have studied in China have of China. I do not agree with Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken about very much, but he is right to call out the danger that American views of China will become ever less grounded as there are fewer Americans on the ground among Chinese. The aggressive actions of the security services in both countries are the major deterrent to mutual exchanges of students. They badly need to be reined in.”

GRAHAM PERRY CONCLUDES;

Sometimes it is better to be silent than to comment. The interview with Ambassador Freeman contains many gems. It is best to let them speak for themselves without comment or analysis. Hence a temporary vow of silence. Onto China Post #548.

- Get Involved- spot_img

More articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- I would love to here your thoughts on this! -spot_img

Latest article