September 28, 2016
The China Challenge:
Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power
Thomas J. Christensen
William P. Boswell (see addendum end of page) Professor of Politics and Public and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University
The China Challenge:
Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power
Thomas J. Christensen
William P. Boswell (see addendum end of page) Professor of Politics and Public and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University
Thomas J. Christensen and Jock McFarlane
Minutes of the Third Meeting of the 75th Year
On Sept. 28, 2016, 105 members and guests attended the third meeting of the Old Guard’s 75th year. Ruth Miller nominated Jane Silverman for membership. Bernie Miller read the minutes of the Sept. 21 meeting, taking exactly 5 minutes and 10 seconds, which Ruth deemed “close enough.”
The speaker arrived at exactly 10:30, first apologizing to President Jock McFarlane for any cardiac issues, and then proceeded to describe the main points of his recently updated 2015 book “The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power.”
Thomas J. Christensen is the William P. Boswell Class of 1942 Professor of World Politics of Peace and War in the Politics Department of Princeton University and is the director of the Princeton-Harvard China and the World Program.
He received his undergraduate, master’s, and Ph.D. degrees from Haverford College, the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University, respectively.
From 2006 to 2008, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, with responsibility for relations with China, Taiwan and Mongolia.
The speaker began with the “good news,” namely that China wishes to settle boundary disputes without the use of force, does not want the United States out of East Asia and will not become a true “peer competitor” to America for another 50 years. So much for the good news.
He stated that China is already powerful enough to “ruin your day” if you are the president of the United States. He believes that inter-agency cooperation between the Departments of State and Defense must learn how to encourage this “rising, developing power” to contribute to global governance, nonproliferation, monetary stability and moderating climate change, a task that the speaker said “is not an inherent strength of U.S. foreign policy.”
The situation today is much different from the Cold War, when boundaries were known and static. China believes that the various territories in dispute today were theirs in the 1930’s and now it has the capability to get them back. Risk-taking is always heightened when nations believe they are retrieving territory, as opposed to conquering it.
Further, China is rapidly improving power-projection capabilities, moving from a large land-based army and 20 or so nonmobile liquid fuel missiles, to a combination of road-mobile solid fuel missiles, submarines, air defenses, cyberwarfare, and antisatellite capabilities.
The not-good-news continued. Now China’s nuclear and conventional weaponry has been commingled, so we can’t for sure tell what’s aimed at us or our allies, and the chances of a nuclear incident are greatly increased.
And then a bit of good news. The global interdependence that inserts the United States into the market economy of China means that trade war with America would threaten the livelihood of billions of Chinese, which would in turn, threaten the Communist Party. But make no mistake, national pride
is something that a rising power will potentially overexercise.
The speaker projected his second slide, a map of Asia, just so we’d be able to see how much trouble we could be in. While reminding us that in the 1890’s the American “rising power” behaved very much like China is behaving today (think Spanish-American War), he took us around the perimeter of China where he enumerated South China Sea issues with almost all the bordering nations, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.
He described the special “security partner” status of Taiwan, which was removed as an “ally” in 1978, and now can be defended, or not, at the whim of the executive branch of the United States government. Japan, an official ally, claims “administrative control” of the Senkaku Islands, which could get sticky if China makes a move.
Continuing around the perimeter, North Korea is to China as Israel is to the United States, a lone ally in a potentially hostile region. China still fears democracy on its borders and remembers the Korean conflict when “Kim saved us” from Gen. Douglas MacArthur. And it would not like to see a jillion refugees coming into China, so it will defend the status quo.
Iran is a great friend of China, providing energy and trade and would be backstopped by China if caught cheating on a nuclear deal.
While China has been a great beneficiary of world stability since 1978, and while the European Union is its biggest trading block, it’s in no way yet in the “same league” as modern economies. When asked to bail out Greece, China was quick to point out that the per capita income in Greece is $24,000 dollars, while in China it’s $9,000. Take a hike!
Regarding cooperation with carbon emissions, again the Chinese argument is part historical and part per capita. Yes, China is the number 1 emitter and growing, but in the minds of the Chinese leaders it is now in the “same stage” of development as Pittsburgh was in the 1950’s. So you “developed guys,” who dumped all that cumulative carbon while you were developing, now want to stop us before we develop? Take a hike, although, air pollution in China is such an large issue that the Communist Party recognizes dirty air as a threat, just as it would mass unemployment caused by a global economic meltdown. The Paris carbon accord, which the United States has signed, received only “vague, long-term” commitments from the Chinese…so the issue will continue to unfold.
Questions from the Old Guard were wide-ranging:
Africa? While Africa is economically important to China, it's difficult to project military power through the Molucca strait. And it’s unclear whether China will support “good governance” with its economic clout in Africa.
Trans-Pacific Partnership? First of all, China is not a part of it because of so many state-owned enterprises. The theory was that China would become jealous and change its ways. Not going to happen. Very bad news, if/when the partnership fails, which the speaker thinks it will. Why? Because United States allies were pressured to make very unpopular concessions, only to have America bow out. In spite of what Trump says -- that he made Clinton switch from “Gold Standard” rhetoric -- in fact, it was Sanders. “U.S.A. afraid of trade? Not the U.S.A. I grew up in,” the speaker said.
Russia? Russia and China are cooperating in the fight against ideological terrorism in Central Asia. Though the two powers are competitive in Central Asia, they are cooperating because they fear the American penchant for supporting regime change as the best answer for problems coming from small countries (think Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine and Syria). Take Libya as a best case: From 2006 to 2011, China was softening what the speaker called its “allergy” to internal interference. They were the first non-African country to provide peacekeepers in Darfur. And then America got Qaddafi to give up his nuclear program -- and because of his battle in eastern Libya -- after which we hunted him down and he was killed. China fears North Korea might be next, and therefore has resumed its allergy to internal interference. The speaker believes that our focus should be on obtaining prescribed behavior, rather than removing and killing leaders in the name of regime change.
Hong Kong? Activists are possibly overplaying their hand, given the asymmetrical balance of power (Need water and power? Don’t mess with China).
Taiwan? No longer guaranteed United States military protection, yet a “miracle democracy” of 23 million. The speaker’s hope is that the mainland recognizes this and works to reconcile, rather than conquer.
Respectfully submitted,
Owen G. Leach
Addendum: William P. Boswell was a member of the Class of 1942. In World War II he served four years as liaison to the Chinese Army. He was the son of the founder of the Boswell Oil Company and continued to run the company successfully from headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. Bosworth owned and lived in a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Indian Hill, Ohio. He died in 1999 from complications of an accidental brain injury.
The speaker arrived at exactly 10:30, first apologizing to President Jock McFarlane for any cardiac issues, and then proceeded to describe the main points of his recently updated 2015 book “The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power.”
Thomas J. Christensen is the William P. Boswell Class of 1942 Professor of World Politics of Peace and War in the Politics Department of Princeton University and is the director of the Princeton-Harvard China and the World Program.
He received his undergraduate, master’s, and Ph.D. degrees from Haverford College, the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University, respectively.
From 2006 to 2008, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, with responsibility for relations with China, Taiwan and Mongolia.
The speaker began with the “good news,” namely that China wishes to settle boundary disputes without the use of force, does not want the United States out of East Asia and will not become a true “peer competitor” to America for another 50 years. So much for the good news.
He stated that China is already powerful enough to “ruin your day” if you are the president of the United States. He believes that inter-agency cooperation between the Departments of State and Defense must learn how to encourage this “rising, developing power” to contribute to global governance, nonproliferation, monetary stability and moderating climate change, a task that the speaker said “is not an inherent strength of U.S. foreign policy.”
The situation today is much different from the Cold War, when boundaries were known and static. China believes that the various territories in dispute today were theirs in the 1930’s and now it has the capability to get them back. Risk-taking is always heightened when nations believe they are retrieving territory, as opposed to conquering it.
Further, China is rapidly improving power-projection capabilities, moving from a large land-based army and 20 or so nonmobile liquid fuel missiles, to a combination of road-mobile solid fuel missiles, submarines, air defenses, cyberwarfare, and antisatellite capabilities.
The not-good-news continued. Now China’s nuclear and conventional weaponry has been commingled, so we can’t for sure tell what’s aimed at us or our allies, and the chances of a nuclear incident are greatly increased.
And then a bit of good news. The global interdependence that inserts the United States into the market economy of China means that trade war with America would threaten the livelihood of billions of Chinese, which would in turn, threaten the Communist Party. But make no mistake, national pride
is something that a rising power will potentially overexercise.
The speaker projected his second slide, a map of Asia, just so we’d be able to see how much trouble we could be in. While reminding us that in the 1890’s the American “rising power” behaved very much like China is behaving today (think Spanish-American War), he took us around the perimeter of China where he enumerated South China Sea issues with almost all the bordering nations, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.
He described the special “security partner” status of Taiwan, which was removed as an “ally” in 1978, and now can be defended, or not, at the whim of the executive branch of the United States government. Japan, an official ally, claims “administrative control” of the Senkaku Islands, which could get sticky if China makes a move.
Continuing around the perimeter, North Korea is to China as Israel is to the United States, a lone ally in a potentially hostile region. China still fears democracy on its borders and remembers the Korean conflict when “Kim saved us” from Gen. Douglas MacArthur. And it would not like to see a jillion refugees coming into China, so it will defend the status quo.
Iran is a great friend of China, providing energy and trade and would be backstopped by China if caught cheating on a nuclear deal.
While China has been a great beneficiary of world stability since 1978, and while the European Union is its biggest trading block, it’s in no way yet in the “same league” as modern economies. When asked to bail out Greece, China was quick to point out that the per capita income in Greece is $24,000 dollars, while in China it’s $9,000. Take a hike!
Regarding cooperation with carbon emissions, again the Chinese argument is part historical and part per capita. Yes, China is the number 1 emitter and growing, but in the minds of the Chinese leaders it is now in the “same stage” of development as Pittsburgh was in the 1950’s. So you “developed guys,” who dumped all that cumulative carbon while you were developing, now want to stop us before we develop? Take a hike, although, air pollution in China is such an large issue that the Communist Party recognizes dirty air as a threat, just as it would mass unemployment caused by a global economic meltdown. The Paris carbon accord, which the United States has signed, received only “vague, long-term” commitments from the Chinese…so the issue will continue to unfold.
Questions from the Old Guard were wide-ranging:
Africa? While Africa is economically important to China, it's difficult to project military power through the Molucca strait. And it’s unclear whether China will support “good governance” with its economic clout in Africa.
Trans-Pacific Partnership? First of all, China is not a part of it because of so many state-owned enterprises. The theory was that China would become jealous and change its ways. Not going to happen. Very bad news, if/when the partnership fails, which the speaker thinks it will. Why? Because United States allies were pressured to make very unpopular concessions, only to have America bow out. In spite of what Trump says -- that he made Clinton switch from “Gold Standard” rhetoric -- in fact, it was Sanders. “U.S.A. afraid of trade? Not the U.S.A. I grew up in,” the speaker said.
Russia? Russia and China are cooperating in the fight against ideological terrorism in Central Asia. Though the two powers are competitive in Central Asia, they are cooperating because they fear the American penchant for supporting regime change as the best answer for problems coming from small countries (think Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine and Syria). Take Libya as a best case: From 2006 to 2011, China was softening what the speaker called its “allergy” to internal interference. They were the first non-African country to provide peacekeepers in Darfur. And then America got Qaddafi to give up his nuclear program -- and because of his battle in eastern Libya -- after which we hunted him down and he was killed. China fears North Korea might be next, and therefore has resumed its allergy to internal interference. The speaker believes that our focus should be on obtaining prescribed behavior, rather than removing and killing leaders in the name of regime change.
Hong Kong? Activists are possibly overplaying their hand, given the asymmetrical balance of power (Need water and power? Don’t mess with China).
Taiwan? No longer guaranteed United States military protection, yet a “miracle democracy” of 23 million. The speaker’s hope is that the mainland recognizes this and works to reconcile, rather than conquer.
Respectfully submitted,
Owen G. Leach
Addendum: William P. Boswell was a member of the Class of 1942. In World War II he served four years as liaison to the Chinese Army. He was the son of the founder of the Boswell Oil Company and continued to run the company successfully from headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. Bosworth owned and lived in a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Indian Hill, Ohio. He died in 1999 from complications of an accidental brain injury.