Bogus. Even sans the Communist didactic...there is a real, irreconcilable fact: China's No. 1 Enemy. as observed by scholar Robert Kagan of Reagan-era fame, he notes the very real fact of China's perception which is not mistaken:
So far, the United States has insisted on remaining the leading power in East Asia. The Chinese believe their ambitions clash directly with the vital interests of the United States. They're right about that, too.
And "Business Partners"? Next you'll repeat the mantra that they are "stake-holders" in our order as well. As Deng Xiaoping told America, "Tell your President that is not the kind of relationship we have."
If we take the view that China is our enemy and try to isolate them and cut them off from trade with the Western world, we’re only going to create conditions where the old ways of the communists thrive
They are doing quite well, with our total complicity via laissez-faire suicide policies...thank you very much! Constantine Menges accurately identified that situation....and the solution...which you get upside down! Do you believe in "soft power" or not? And their enmity is unabated (why should it, it's working), stretching from the 90's as shown in China's "Bamboo Network" and to today's clear efforts to establish superiority, displace and clash with the U.S. so as to establish itself as pre-eminent globally.
I suggest you acquaint yourself with the following symposium conclusions which are pretty well supported and worthy of consideration...directly undermining all of your thesis. From A to Z.
The recent China-Russia joint military exercises were clearly a symbol of China’s military objectives. Without doubt, the communist regime is in an arms race with the United States and is intent on overtaking the U.S. as the world’s superpower. Many observers also believe that China is preparing for war, knowing that the U.S. represents the only obstacle to its expansionist objectives. Peking recently indicated its seriousness by threatening to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. if it interferes with China’s plan to militarily conquer Taiwan.
How dangerous is this situation? What threat does China real pose and how must we deal with it? What do we do if China acts militarily against Taiwan?
To discuss these and other issues with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel of experts. Our guests today are:
Al Santoli, the President of the Asia America Initiative in Washington, DC. He is editor of the China in Focus and Asia in Focus weekly e-publications. He also is director of the successful Development for Peace program in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao in the Philippines;
Gurmeet Kanwal, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Security Studies that is part of the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi;
Prof. Dan Goure, the Vice President with the Lexington Institute, a nonprofit public-policy research organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. He is involved in a wide range of issues as part of the institute’s national security program. He was a member of the 2001 Department of Defense Transition Team and spent two years in the U.S. Government as the director of the Office of Strategic Competitiveness in the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
Patrick Devenny, a Henry M. Jackson National Security Fellow at the Center for Security Policy with an expertise in international terrorism and Asian security affairs;
and
Frederick W. Stakelbeck, Jr., an expert in bilateral and trilateral alliances and their impact upon U.S. national security. He has been published extensively on matters relating to China. His work has also appeared in In the National Interest and the Globalist and he is a frequent contributor to The American Thinker and Global Politician.
FP: Al Santoli, Gurmeet Kanwal, Prof. Dan Goure, Patrick Devenny and Frederick W. Stakelbeck, Jr., welcome to Frontpage Symposium.
Mr. Santoli, let’s begin with you. Kindly give us a brief overview of the danger and threat that China poses to the U.S. and the West. Is it overrated or underrated?
Santoli: China is clearly undergoing a dramatic arms build-up, utilizing a number of modernized strategic and space-based weapons systems, as well as a blue water navy, that are offensive in their application. Chinese political and military officials have repeatedly stated that the United States is their "principal enemy." All Chinese modernization planning and development has been focused on how to defeat the United States for supremacy in the Asia Pacific region, and in other parts of the world where competition over strategic natural resources are becoming increasingly competitive.
In considering China's intentions externally, one must consider its repressive internal policies against open political and social organizations and against religious believers. We face the same type of repetition of history as in the early to mid-1930s when much of Europe and the United States ignored Germany's repressive policies and military modernization.
We must also consider the strategic "Multi-Polar" alliance between China, Russia and Iran which is military in nature and directed against the United States. Taiwan is more important to world peace than its geographical position as a strategic island in Southeast Asia. Taiwan is the first ethnic-Chinese government and society to have held peaceful democratic elections. Its system can be a model for mainland China. For war to be ultimately averted, there must be change inside of China, with those elements of social, political and religious reformers overcoming the repression of the 2% of the population Communist Party and there back-up in the military and paramilitary police. The solution cannot be imposed by the West, it must be Chinese in nature. But we can help the situation with a firm commitment to helping defend Taiwan's democracy.
FP: Mr. Kanwal, do you agree with Mr. Santoli’s assessment? And please help illuminate what a “firm commitment to helping defend Taiwan’s democracy” would entail.
Kanwal: China calls its ongoing quest for superpower status a “peaceful rise”. However, while its lips say one thing, its body language is different. China has not hesitated to use strong muscle power throughout the last 50 years to settle international disputes. It is the only major Asian country that has fought wars with all of its land neighbors and claims to have done so in self-defence.
It was involved in a vicious war in Korea in the 1950s. In 1962 China fought a border war with India that shattered illusions of peaceful co-existence for many decades to come. It fought with Russia over a disputed island in the Assuri River. It invaded Vietnam to teach it a lesson and then quite inexplicably withdrew.
China always speaks of the peaceful re-unification of Taiwan with the mainland but does not hesitate to issue dire threats at the smallest sign of Taiwan’s quest for self-determination. It has fired surface-to-surface missiles into the Taiwan Straits and regularly practices amphibious landings. China has taken physical possession of some of the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea even though several other nations have much stronger claims. China was the world’s leading proliferator of nuclear weapons till recently when A Q Kahn’s antics propelled Pakistan to the top and it inherited that dubious distinction. Hence, China’s emerging military capabilities must be seen in the light of its likely intentions in future.
FP: Fair enough, so what will the U.S. have to do to confront these “likely intentions” and, as I asked earlier, what would a “firm commitment to helping defend Taiwan’s democracy” entail? Dr. Goure?
Goure: The consistent position of the U.S. government is that it will oppose any attempt to change Taiwan's status by force. The credibility of this position depends on a willingness and capability to use force to counter any Chinese aggression. China must know that it cannot win a war with the United States. Beijing could choose to escalate, but it could not win.
China is developing a military capability to deter or, if necessary, deny U.S. intervention on behalf of Taiwan. The necessary response is a U.S. military posture that defeats Chinese aims. This means, first, forces that can gain and hold the seas and air spaces in and around Taiwan, specifically, nuclear attack submarines and stealthy aircraft such as the F-22. Second, it requires theater and strategic missile defenses. Finally, this strategy necessitates the ability to hold at risk strategic targets throughout China. Capabilities such as the cruise missile firing SSGNs, long-range strategic bombers and global strike systems satisfy this requirement.
FP: So just a second, we are actually considering a real war between the U.S. and China and Dr. Goure is suggesting that China cannot win. Mr. Devenny what would a war between the U.S. and China look like and are we certain we would “win”? In a situation where a few nuclear bombs are exchanged doesn’t everyone lose? Or might this not necessarily be nuclear?
Devenny: Yes, nuclear war, even a limited exchange, would have a disastrous effect on both nations, particularly China, considering the marked superiority of the American nuclear arsenal. Luckily, such a possibility is fairly remote. No massive Chinese ICBM build up has been reported, and extensive financial investment overseas is hardly the modus operandi of a country actively planning for thermonuclear conflict. Dr. Goure is correct; the Chinese would invariably lose were a war to escalate to a true state-on-state level.
To avoid this outcome, the Chinese would hypothetically initiate a sharp, quick battle over Taiwan that they could, conceivably, “win”. Using submarines such as their recently procured Kilos, the PRC would attempt to close down the island’s shipping lanes, while concurrently achieving air dominance. Were they to be successful in this attempt, a U.S. President would be forced to weigh the desirability of fighting a war 7,000 miles away, over a battered island nation surrounded by modern warships and hundreds of fighter aircraft.
I would like to stress at this point however that the PRC buildup by no means suggests hostilities are inevitable, or even likely. After all, China reaps other benefits from its expanded military capabilities, namely additional leverage in Taiwan’s domestic political arena, an increased willingness of American politicians to rein in pro-independence forces on the island, and a certain marshal prestige that could siphon off some of their own population’s latent political dissatisfaction.
FP: Mr. Stakelbeck, can you expand on Mr. Devenny’s point about China reaping “other benefits” from its expanded military capabilities? Do you agree with his angle on this? Kindly expand on why this minimizes the chance of hostilities.
Stakelbeck: I agree with Mr. Devenny, specifically his point that hostilities between China and Taiwan are not inevitable. In addition to the three important benefits noted, expanded military capabilities have had several additional benefits for China.
First, not only have China's military capabilities forced Taiwan's domestic population to recognize the mainland's growing power, but it has dissuaded Taiwan's potential allies in Asia from coming to its aid more vigorously. In fact, China's military capabilities have fostered the creation of organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and other Asia-specific arrangements.
Second, strange as it may seem, China's expanded military capabilities have inadvertently increased economic integration between China and Taiwan. Both economies have become increasingly inter-connected on several distinct levels. Bilateral cooperation will only expand, as China's military capabilities begin to slowly influence economic policy decisions made by Taiwan's business and government leaders. The Taiwanese business sector, with an eye on investment in China, will try not to offend Beijing, realizing that any invasion would all but destroy the enormous gains already made and eliminate any chance for market competitiveness in the future.
Third, it is only logical for the Taiwanese military hierarchy to question whether it is better to join China in a great "Asian brotherhood" of nations, rather than to fight it in a war that will almost certainly destroy the island's delicate infrastructure. Taiwan's failure to reach a consensus on American military hardware sales proves once again that there is uncertainty at the highest levels of Taiwan's military and political leadership.
Taken collectively, all of these points minimize the chance of hostilities between China and Taiwan.
FP: Fair enough, so what’s going on with China and Russia holding their first joint military exercises? Should we be worried?
Santoli: The goal of the Russia-China military exercises, as well as the numerous public and secret military and political deals signed between Putin and Hu, should raise serious concern. Pan-Asian political/military cooperation between Russia and China encompasses from the Silk Road energy routes in Central Asia across to Vladivistok on the Pacific, opposite Japan and Alaska.
In addition, Russia has enabled the Chinese People’s Liberation Armed Forces [PLA] with state-of-the-art Sukhoi 27 and Sukhoi 30 fighter bombers, and in-flight refueling capability. And Russia’s assistance to the People’s Liberation Navy’s quiet submarine force, combined with the miniaturization of warheads technology and MIRV’ing capability that China bought or stole from the US has substantially increased its nuclear strike capability against the United States. Equally significant are the hand-held lasers that Russia has helped provide the Chinese Army that can be used on a tactical battlefield to blind US forces, ship crews, pilots and miniature anti-satellite satellites can blind US Command and Control in the case of conflict.
Chinese leaders throughout the reign of the Communist Party have repeatedly shown that they are willing to launch political, economic and military campaigns that caused suffering and death of countless Chinese citizens. The US and our allies must be able to convince Beijing that they cannot militarily defeat the forces of freedom. That is getting increasingly more difficult, due to our sticky and expensive involvements in other areas of the world.
The current generation of “spoiled brat” Chinese Communist leaders have shown a ruthless tendency against internal religious believers and political dissenters. In order to hold on to their power, they may exploit nationalism and launch attacks in any given direction, not only toward Taiwan, with power-hungry military-industrial cadre in support. Potential social disruption in China, caused by the Communist Party’s corruption, mismanagement and callousness to the well being of their own citizens, could also be a factor leading to external war against a “common” enemy
Many of those Americans who currently say that the Chinese Communists value their economic integration more than lust for power, are forgetting the mistakes made by the best and brightest in the US and Western Europe in the 1930s who claimed a similar view of Nazi Germany before World War II. The competition over oil and other scarce natural resources are also vital flashpoints for conflict, more significant than the Taiwan political issue. Also, control of North Korea after the demise of Kim Jong-il will also pit the PRC, Russia, Japan and the US-South Korea in competition for influence in North Asia. In one of the bilateral security agreements between Russia and China since 2001, Moscow pledged to rush emergency military assistance to the PLA in the instance of a conflict over Taiwan. And the Russian sale of Sunburn anti-Aegis ship missiles to the PLA is part of a military strategy to destroy US aircraft carriers and Aegis radar destroyers in a Pacific conflict.
In addition, China and Russia are supporting anti-American despots such as Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez with weapons and training for insurgency forces that could bog us down in our own hemisphere. And the electronic spy and warfare bases operated by Russia and China in Cuba pose a threat to our vital defense, homeland security and economic communications.
Kanwal: Mr. Santoli’s formulation that there is a deep military nexus between China and Russia is questionable. In fact, it would be wrong to deduce that China is concentrating exclusively on enhancing its military power. Military power is now only one element of a nation’s ability to influence and shape the international environment. The Chinese leaders have for long propounded the concept of ‘comprehensive national power’. The Chinese are acutely conscious of the fact that they cannot hope to match the military muscle of the West for many more decades and they have been quick to realize that, in future, as the world becomes increasingly globalized, interdependent and wired, economic power will be the predominant determinant of a nation’s global status and its relative weight in the new world order. Hence, the Chinese are working assiduously towards becoming an economic superpower.
Simultaneously, China is modernizing its military forces to prepare for an option of the last resort, should Taiwan suddenly declare independence, and Russia is its foremost supplier of military hardware. The Chinese are unlikely to either invade Taiwan to secure its merger with the mainland or launch even missile and air strikes as such action will have huge economic repercussions. New FDI will almost certainly stop; projects in the pipeline will be put on hold; some MNCs may even pull out; and, the stock market will inevitably crash. However, as Mr. Devenny has said, a naval and air blockade of Taiwan, though it would be likely to invite UN sanctions, may appear attractive to the Chinese leadership. Cyber attacks, for which China has been preparing since the first Gulf War in 1991, are even more likely as these can completely disrupt the economy and provide inherent deniability.
The Russia-China joint military exercises are politically important but not militarily significant. These are likely to be aimed at assessing inter-operability challenges for joint patrolling, preparing for joint search-and-rescue and future cooperation as part of multinational intervention forces. Despite the Chinese purchase of large quantities of Russian military hardware over several decades, there has been no major military and strategic cooperation between the two countries. The relationship is basically a patron-client, buyer-seller relationship with limited transfer of technology to manufacture under license. It will be recalled that the Chinese had debunked former Russian Prime Minister Primakov’s proposal of a China-Russia-India triangle.
______________________________
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com
