U.S. Needs to Learn How to Coexist Peacefully with China

Published in China Times
(Taiwan) on 22 August 2011
by Zeng Fusheng (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Lisa Ferguson. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
Currently visiting mainland China, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden recently publicly expressed that, "Although China is not America's ally, it can become America's friend." At the same time, Biden stressed, "It is probably necessary for competition to exist between China and the U.S., but this does not mean that an all-out conflict will erupt between the two nations. In reality, everything tells us that advancing dialogue with China is what is in line with U.S. national interests."*

Presently, mainland China is America's second-largest trade partner, its number one source for imports and its third-largest market for exports. It also holds $1.2 trillion in government bonds, making it America's largest creditor. According to reports by the research organization Global Insight, mainland China could, by around the year 2035, surpass the U.S. to become the world's largest economy. Since trade activities between the U.S. and China foster closer ties each day, this will also establish the important foundation for the development of constructive relations between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party.

Working together with China on U.S. interests

Obama repeatedly emphasizes that the U.S. must have a practical attitude toward relations with the CCP. Both sides are neither enemies, nor are they strategic partners; in reality, the two are trade partners who also have competing interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Specifically, the main thinking behind America's strategic plan for dealing with the CCP is, "we need not like China, but we do need to work together with China to handle the major issue of U.S. interests."

When speaking at the defense think tank RAND Corporation, former U.S. National Security Council Senior Director of Asian Affairs Zalmay Khalilzad pointed out that the U.S. can plan to combine with its allies — such as the Philippines and Australia — to form an allied force to jointly handle conflict in the South China Sea region. At the same time, the U.S. needs to use its tactics for balancing power in order to prevent the three big powers — Russia, the Chinese Communist Party, and India — from forming an alliance against the U.S. Likewise, it must also prevent any one of these three countries from proclaiming itself the hegemony of the Asian region.

Previously, America's former Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, had said that, from America's perspective, the Asia-Pacific region simultaneously holds huge hidden potential and danger. Through the effect of trade growth and the free market, the U.S. can exercise great influence over Japan and India. At the same time, America also needs to keep a close watch as the Chinese Communist Party, by means of strengthening its economy and military force, begins to form a threat to U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

Within the Obama administration, those who wield power over strategic planning policy decisions generally believe that, were any tactic that proved effective against the Soviet Union during the Cold War to be used to cope with the CCP, it could result in substantial risk or even harm economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region, bringing about major damage to U.S. interests. This is because there are many differences between the mainland China of today and the Soviet Union of the 1980s.

In 2010, mainland China's gross national product had already reached $6.5 trillion and had $3.2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves. Moreover, although its military spending in 2011 reached the level of $100 billion, the U.S. passed a defense budget for the same year of $649 billion. Contrary to expectations, this wide gap in military expenditures has caused American think tanks to believe that the Chinese Communist Party's current strategy has coerced the U.S. to fall into the black hole of an arms race, making the U.S. spend excessively on military expenditures, using up its precious funding resources and causing U.S. economic development to lose momentum.

Guiding China to contribute to international society

Supposing the U.S. opened up a cold war with China in the Asia-Pacific, clearly the U.S. would, at once, have to be able to deal with all the challenges brought about by the CCP taking action against Japan or Taiwan, by North Korea launching an invasion on the Korean peninsula and by the CCP's expansion of its military into the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. This means that the U.S. would increase the size of its navy and air force pre-deployment in the Asia-Pacific; it would also push forward its military relationship with its allies Japan, South Korea, Australia and India.

However, this action could incite an arms race in the Asia-Pacific, especially in the adjustments to national defense policy that Japan plans to implement in its new edition of its "Defense White Papers," which would drive China to increase its armaments, triggering the apprehension of South and North Korea and provoking Southeast Asian nations to go down the path of strengthening their military power.

In order to prevent a cold war from erupting between the U.S. and China in Asia, the core strategists in the Obama administration believe that, faced with China's rise, it must now consider significant issues: First is how to coexist peacefully with China and develop mutually beneficial and constructive relations. The second question is how to influence China and ensure that its policy direction is in the interest of U.S. global strategic layout. Third is how to guide China toward becoming a contributor to international society, while at the same time being wary of its destructive actions. Lastly, the U.S. needs to use the principle of pragmatism to increase the quality of common interests between itself and the CCP, and to reduce the hindrance of bilateral disagreement about interests. In this way, the U.S. would be able to continue the process of cooperative economic interaction with China, thus itself becoming a winner.

The author is a national security consultant at National Policy Foundation.

*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.


正在中國大陸訪問的美國副總統拜登曾經公開表示,「中國雖然不是美國的盟友,卻可以成為美國的朋友」;同時,拜登強調:「中美之間也許必然存在競爭,但沒有什麼表明兩國間會爆發全面的衝突,現實中每一件事都告訴我們,和中國進行對話才符合美國的國家利益」。

 目前中國大陸是美國第二大貿易夥伴、第一大進口來源國、第三大產品出口國,以及擁有美國1兆2千億美元政府債券的最大債權國。根據環球透視研究機構(Global Insight)的報告預估,中國大陸可能會在2035年左右,超越美國成為全世界最大經濟體。由於美中之間的經貿互動質量日益密切,也將為美國與中共發展建設性關係,奠定重要基礎。

 與中一起處理美國利益

 歐巴馬一再地強調,美國必須以務實的態度對待與中共的關係;雙方既非敵人亦非戰略夥伴;事實上,雙方是貿易夥伴,也是亞太區域利益的競爭者。具體而言,美國戰略規畫圈對待中共的主流思維是,「我們不必喜歡中國,但我們必須與中國共同處理,關係到美國重大利益的議題」。

 前美國國安會亞洲事務資深主任卡里查德在國防部智庫蘭德公司報告指出,美國可以規畫結合菲律賓及澳洲等盟邦,組成聯軍以共同處理南海地區的衝突;同時,美國有必要運用權力平衡的策略,防範俄羅斯、中共、印度三國結盟對抗美國,或者避免造成其中任何一國,在亞洲地區稱霸。此前美國副國務卿阿米塔吉亦曾表示,對美國而言,亞太地區同時存有巨大的潛在機會與危險;透過貿易的成長及自由市場的效應,美國可以在日本和印度發揮重要的影響力;同時,美國也必須密切的關注,中共藉由經濟和軍事力量的增強,進而對美國在亞太地區利益所構成的威脅。

 歐巴馬政府內掌權的戰略規畫決策人士普遍認為,任何美國在冷戰時期曾經對蘇聯行之有效的策略,若要用來對付中共,將會遭遇相當的風險,並可能傷害亞太地區的經濟成長,導致美國利益的重大損失。因為,今天的中國大陸與1980年代的蘇聯有很大的不同。

 中國大陸在2010年的國民生產總額已達6兆5千億美元,並擁有3兆2千億美元外匯存底。而其軍費支出在2011年雖達到1千億美元水準,但是美國在2011年通過的國防預算卻高達6490億美元。這種懸殊的軍費支出差距,反而促使美國智庫認為,中共正運用策略引誘美國落入軍備競賽黑洞,讓美國把珍貴的經費資源,過度消耗在軍費支出,導致美國的經濟發展失去動能。

 引導中國貢獻國際社會

 倘若美國在亞太地區開啟一場對中共的新冷戰,很顯然地,美國必須要能夠應付,一旦中共對日本或台灣採取行動、北韓在朝鮮半島發動侵略,以及中共將軍力擴張到南海與印度洋等,所帶來的挑戰。這表示美國將增加在亞太地區的海空軍前置部署,並推動美國與日本、南韓、澳洲,以及印度間的軍事聯盟關係。

 然而,這項動作將會引發亞太地區的軍備競賽,尤其是以日本在最新版「防衛白皮書」中,所準備進行的國防政策調整內容,將會促使中共增加軍備、引發南北韓的焦慮,並刺激東南亞國家走向強化軍力的政策路線。

 為了避免美中在亞洲爆發冷戰,歐巴馬政府的核心策士認為,面對中國的崛起,美國現在必須思考的重大課題,首先是如何與中國和平相處,以發展互利的建設性關係;其次是如何影響中國,使其政策路線有利於美國的全球戰略布局;第三是如何引導中國成為國際社會的貢獻者,並同時防範其破壞性的行為;最後,美國需要運用「務實主義」的原則,增加美中共同利益的質量,減少雙方分歧利益的障礙,讓美國能夠繼續在美中競合互動過程中,成為贏家。

 (作者為國家政策研究基金會國安組顧問)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Australia: Played by Vladimir Putin, a ‘Weary’ Donald Trump Could Walk away from Ukraine

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Topics

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Related Articles

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Japan: US-Japan Defense Minister Summit: US-Japan Defense Chief Talks Strengthen Concerns about Single-Minded Focus on Strength

Taiwan: A Brief Look at Trump’s Global Profit Grab

Taiwan: Taipei Must Act To Soften Trade Blows

Taiwan: Trump Makes Another Bid