As China continues to rise, U.S. evaluation and recommendations for Chinese policies also continue to surface. Among them, a research report by former Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd called “The Future of U.S.-China Relations Under Xi Jinping” was recently published by the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Rudd expected that the growth of China in the next decade would give U.S. relations with China room for reasonable foreign and security strategies. These types of reports on the optimistic outlook of the development of China fully affirm the Chinese government’s enthusiasm.
Alternative analyses are also endless. Some are pessimistic toward China; others propose opposition against the Chinese. Among them, a recent special report by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations entitled “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China” posits that China has formulated a strategy to replace the American presence in Asia. The report recommends that the U.S. adjust its grand strategy toward China “that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy … to limit the dangers that China’s geo-economic and military power pose to U.S. national interests in Asia and globally.” The basis of these arguments is that the rise of China would lead to its expansion, so the U.S. must take measures to curtail the Chinese.
Indeed, China is on the rise, but it is not expanding. The People’s Republic of China has been established for 66 years, but unification has yet to be realized fully due to external factors, mainly from the USA. Since 1988, even though China has had a number of territorial disputes with neighboring countries, it had never intervened with any international armed conflicts. On the contrary, China has followed principles of consultation to peacefully resolve border conflicts with Russia and the neighboring Central Asian nations. If foreign invasions do exist in the international community, then the U.S. launching the Iraq War in 2003 is a contemporary example.
With its continual rise, China will become more capable of protecting its legitimate interests according to international law. It will also lead the U.S. to view China as a “stakeholder” incompatible with American hegemony. The U.S. must know that it could more or less pursue hegemony in the past because of its extreme power. But since the beginning of this new century, the strength of the U.S. has rapidly declined, and its pursuit to maintain regional and global hegemony has gradually become futile.
According to a recommendation from the report by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. should limit China’s economic and military development. However, if the U.S. failed to accomplish this goal during the Cold War, how can it do so in a globalized era? How can the U.S. hurt China without it backfiring, given their two highly interdependent economies? Given that China became a net capital exporter last year, would the U.S. not be more reliant on Chinese capital in the future?
The U.S. wanting to restrict Chinese military development is self-deception. The majority of China’s military supply comes from its own research and development, with little of it benefiting the USA. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, after more than half a century of development, the country’s independent national defense system has an extremely competitive edge in the world, whether on conventional or unconventional weapons and equipment, or tactical or strategic weapons. If technology export control is expected to effectively restrict China, the U.S. is underestimating the innovation of the Chinese people.
U.S. restrictions on the Chinese have certainly created some hurdles for China, but the development of the People’s Republic has always risen in the midst of difficulties and obstacles. U.S. cooperation with China has never been a benevolent gesture but rather an act of mutual benefit. Any proposition that restricts the development of China would inevitably be difficult to maintain if it threatens the legitimate interests of the majority of Americans. A continually rising China has long surpassed the bounds of U.S. restrictions. China’s rise does not challenge the relations between countries based on international law. China would naturally expand its legitimate interests in its rise, but would not mimic the U.S. to establish hegemony. Therefore, seeking to extend the strategy of American hegemony will not only be detrimental but will also be ineffective.
China’s own behavior will shape U.S. policy. If you continue to coerce your neighbors over your vast island claims, there will be objections, and perhaps even hostility, from many Pacific countries. The U.S. exercises no hegemony in Asia or anywhere outside its own territory. We want to live in a rules-based international system. We exact no tribute or unjust demands on anyone. All of our alliances require unanimous consent for action. We go to war when we think necessary, but then our troops can stay only when they are lawfully invited.