Henry Kissinger: Conflict is not an option (Relations Between China and the U.S.)

International Herald Tribune ^ | June 9, 2005 | Henry A. Kissinger

[RWR8189]

NEW YORK The relationship between the United States and China is beset by ambiguity. On the one hand, seven presidents have affirmed the importance of cooperative relations with China and a commitment to a one-China policy.

 

Nevertheless, ambivalence has suddenly re-emerged. Various U.S. officials, members of Congress and the news media are attacking China's policies, from the exchange rate to military buildup, much of it in a tone implying that China is on some sort of probation.

 

Before continuing on this subject, I must point out that the consulting company I chair advises clients with business interests around the world, including China. Also, in early May, I spent a week in China, much of it as a guest of the government.

 

The rise of China - and Asia - will, over the next decades, bring about a substantial reordering of the international system. The center of gravity of world affairs is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

 

China's emerging role is often compared to that of imperial Germany at the beginning of the last century, the implication being that a strategic confrontation is inevitable and the United States had best prepare for it. That assumption is as dangerous as it is wrong. Military imperialism is not the Chinese style. China seeks its objectives by careful study, patience and the accumulation of nuances.

 

It is also unwise to apply to China the policy of military containment of the cold war. The Soviet Union was the heir of an imperialist tradition. The Chinese state in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years

[Dog Gone]

I clicked through and read the whole column. This wasn't the typical insightful Kissinger column that one could agree with or disagree with. He didn't say much of anything, except that a Cold War with China wouldn't be helpful.

Well, yes, that's obvious.

[Czar]

"Conflict is not an option (Relations Between China and the U.S.)"

The hell it isn't.

[GOP_1900AD]

RE: Conflict is not an option

That's the sort of talk that made Hitler think he could bully the world.

[raybbr]

I have posted this a couple of times with little response. I really am curious to read what others think:

If China were to do something (invade Taiwan, for example) and we came to Taiwan's defense by declaring war on China, what would allies like Germany, Britain, India, France, etc. think about our attacking a country that they have so much invested in?

Or, what would the large corporations of America, who have billions invested in industrial enterprises in China, do in response to our warring with China?

Wouldn't we be threatening the billions of dollars that millions of Americans have in stocks in these corporations?

What would the result of those losses to 401K's, IRA's, etc. have on our economy?

Does anyone think that the Chinese haven't thought this out?

[Longbow1969]

"The hell it isn't."

At this time, conflict with China really isn't an option for us. We are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time to come and are not in any position to be going to war with China. If China were to attack Taiwan - which they are not going to do anytime soon, we would and should assist Taiwan as best we can, but other than that we should cultivate the best relationship possible with the Chinese even where that involves accepting China's growing dominance in the region. There is absolutely no reason we can't continue to further strengthen our relationships with Japan and India as a counterbalance.

China does not need to be an enemy, and should not be treated as one at this time. If China becomes overtly beligerent or provocative, I will reconsider my view, but at this time China is not doing anything that requires a Cold War stance on our part.

Longbow

[raybbr]

As a new century begins, the relations between China and the United States may well determine whether our children will live in turmoil even worse than the 20th century or whether they will witness a new world order compatible with universal aspirations for peace and progress.

There's that phrase again.

[Finalapproach29er]

The Ivy league elitists are always the last to know what a guy in Kansas can understand through basic,common sense.

Prgmatist Hank is making $$$$ whoring for China, I suspect. The me-first era continues........

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."

-- Chairman Mao Tse-Tong, in his book "On Protracted War"

[Czar]

"...even where that involves accepting China's growing dominance in the region."

Not if that is contrary to American interests, strategic and otherwise, in which case I will concede nothing to Red China.

"China does not need to be an enemy,..."

Then I suggest they put a muzzle on their increasingly bellicose and belligerent military. See, e.g., Rumsfeld's recent comments re concerns on this very issue.

Lets have no illusions.

[Dog Gone]

Mao was right.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"Mao was right."


The DNC certainly wages war.

Tell Senator Frist, let's level the playing field....

[Wiseghy]

I agree with Longbow. Confronting China now would be unproductive. However they do have a long view on Asia, and they want the center seat there, eventually.

[Dog Gone]

We're winning. We just don't see enough bloody enemy corpses to satisfy the crowd watching on TV.

ANWR, Kyoto, tax cuts, etc.

We're winning. It's just not often enough or violent enough to be a crowd-pleaser.

[Archon of the East]

I wonder if this is Michael Moriarty meant when he said that Kissinger convinced Nixon that the battle against socialism is lost?

[GVnana]

the rise of Asia will be a test of America's competitiveness in the world now emerging, especially in the countries of Asia…

it does not follow that any damage to China caused by a cold war would benefit America. The United States would have few followers anywhere in Asia. Asian countries would continue trading with China. Whatever happens, China will not disappear…

Attitudes are psychologically important. China needs to be careful about policies that seem to exclude America from Asia and about U.S. sensitivities regarding human rights, which will influence the flexibility and scope of America's stance toward China…

America needs to understand that a hectoring tone evokes in China memories of imperialist condescension and is not appropriate in dealing with a country that has managed 4,000 years of uninterrupted self-government.

Much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with this.

[oceanview]

so long as we continue our current trade policies, china will grow stronger and we will grow weaker.

[RFEngineer]

"At this time, conflict with China really isn't an option for us."

Today, no....6-months, 5 years, 10 years.....I think it's a certainty, unless we can destabilize them internally (a much more preferrable option) or return Japan (as you mention) to blue-water navy status, or get India to seriously threaten their rear flank.

Contain them, or they won't be contained.

[Fedora]

Thanks! Mao got that from Karl von Clausewitz, BTW.

[maui_hawaii]

We thought it out long before they did. Thats the whole idea behind doing what we are doing ala China since the 1980s and beyond.

As for what the Euroweniees think...who knows.

As for stock options, 401Ks,IRAs etc the war portion obviously would have negative results. That is true regardless of where the war is, especially a major war...

If we went to war with Brazil (highly unlikely) it would be the same result.

China's economy isn't doing nearly what its played up to for us though...

As I've said, I think it is still too soon to be sure that the landing will be a soft one. But I also think that the fears of a hard landing tend to be overdone—for two reasons.

In the first place, the impact of a hard landing on China's neighbours is likely to be less than many have suggested. In the middle of last year, the Fund conducted a simulation to assess the likely impact on the rest of Asia in the event of a sharp slowdown. The calculations suggest that a decline in the investment growth rate of 5.5 percentage points—in China, investment accounts for over 40 percent of GDP—would lead over time to a 4 percent point fall in GDP and a 10 percent fall in imports, relative to what would otherwise have been the case.

The Fund's calculations suggest that such a relatively sharp fall in Chinese imports would have a relatively small short-term impact, reducing world GDP (at PPP exchange rates) by perhaps one third of a percent in the first year; that figure might rise to three quarters of a percent after several years, with most of the longer-term impact in Asia (the bulk would be in China itself).

The impact for some Asian economies might be significant. But such a shock should be manageable given the fairly robust outlook for the region as a whole. The United States and EU are still important export markets for Asian economies. A substantial drop in the growth of exports to China would still leave countries in the region with relatively robust export growth rates provided that growth momentum in industrial markets is sustained in the U.S. and gradually improves in Europe.

Beyond Asia, a hard landing in China would have only a small impact. In spite of recent rapid growth, trade shares with China are lower for countries outside of Asia. For example, preliminary estimates for the United States and the Euro area point to a decline in GDP of less than 0.1 percentage points even over the longer term.

Keynote Address by Anne O. Krueger First Deputy Managing Director International Monetary Fund