“Biden and US hawks must understand China before waving the democratic torch” | Jing Lee

Click above for the article

The geopolitical map of our time is unsettling. World politics is entering a new phase, and many politicians and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it should be: a clash of civilisations, the end of history, the decline of the nation-state, and the return of traditional rivalries between nations. [Read on …]

Jing again in the Op-Ed pages of our South China Morning Post. Links above or also Web Archive.

Many of the commenters support her thesis (we must understand China). My own simplistic response to the thesis is: Assume we do fully understand China and its history, what then? Do we treat it with more empathy and softness? Would that get any useful response from Beijing/Xi? Or just encourage assertiveness (aka aggressiveness or bullying)? Also: Don't forget China's (Xi's) "Document 9".

A US-based [Reader] comments (indent) and author [JL] response (flush left), below:

[Reader]: 

Excellent op-ed ’Biden and US hawks must understand China before waving the democratic torch’ in the SCMP. The historical context is a powerful reminder of the nuances and that history rarely can be reduced to linear thinking and black and white. But to continue the historical theme, the general Chinese outlook has been one of looking inward (especially after Zheng He) and not being aggressive on the world stage. That has changed and changed markedly with Xi’s ascent and the now stated objective of Chinese domination. That I don’t think can be swept under the rug.

I am not arguing if this or that system is right, but I am arguing that no nation has the right to impose its will on others, which is what China is currently doing. The power that comes with improving economics and fair play in the market place is OK, but state directed commercial operations and pressure is not right. Flaunting international law in the South China Sea is one ugly example of China’s assertiveness that is not in tune with the peaceful and rightful rise of a nation. Pressuring the Faroe Island’s government (part of Denmark) to accept Huawei equipment or all fish imports will be banned, is not the waynations treat each other. Banning Australian wine (close to my heart), and the list goes on.

The watch word here in my mind is ‘peaceful rise’ which we all want to see and economic progress of a tortured nation. I have witnessed that myself, from when I looked north from Lok Ma Chau over the rice fields in the late seventies to recent time. 

Keeping the unique Chinese history in mind is critical for the US I agree, but also understanding that the new Chinese assertiveness may not be placid, is just common sense.

Best, [Reader]

And an author [JL] response on 14 July:

Hi [Reader]

How are you?

It is nice to hear from you. And thanks for your comments. There are a few more issues in your email that perhaps require a much longer and separate analysis. 

The key point in my article is about the natural evolution of China’s centralised bureaucracy. This governing structure appeared long before Biden’s debate between democracy and autocracy, therefore, it is likely that the political ideology face-off is misplaced. As a result, it may not deliver any desirable outcome. 

The current tension between America and China is fundamentally economical. All the politics are derived from it, are used to rally round the flag. In history, countries went to wars to fight for the redistribution of wealth and powers, often caused great suffering.  I hope that there is a peaceful solution for this great power rivalry. 

In terms of the South China Sea , I wrote an opinion page article a couple of months ago on China’s maritime ambition, I think that Peter has it on his blog but I enclose below a link if you are interested in reading it. 

Cheers, Jing  

Why in US eyes, China’s maritime ambition can only appear as a threat

And a further response from [Reader] on 15 July

Hi Jing:

I am fine and all well this end. The pandemic is coming to an end here although there is a pick up now due to the Delta variant and a bunch of anti-vaxxers.

Turning to the topic at hand…

I did read your op-ed about the South China Sea and responded, but let me elaborate.

I agree broadly with your analysis in both of the pieces, but there is a critical point being left out of the analysis. And that is the recent aggressive stance by China. This cannot be ignored nor can the reasons.

Xi’s has clearly stated that China shall dominate the world by 2050 and the way the nation is building its military capabilities and its demonstrated bullying does not bode well for a peaceful ascent, quite the contrary. Again building on the historical theme, China appears to want a set of vassal states around it which is not too different from neighbors expected to pay homage to the emperor in old times. Instead, this time around the stakes are much higher and Mr. Xi seems willing to use force. The developments in the South China Sea is a case in point, as is the provocations around the Senkaku Islands.

This aggressiveness is a critical aspect of how the rest of the world should look at China. If China decides to continue the aggressive route, the rest of the world will react and the outcome will not be a good one. This situation is actually more dangerous compared to the situation with the Soviet Union who had military power, but no economic power. China has both.

All the best,

Jing responds 15 July:

Dear [Reader],

I agree with you that the current situation is dangerous. It is why I started writing on geopolitical issues, using facts and history as my guide for rational discussions. 

It seems that you are concerned about  2050, South China Sea and Japan’s islands claim. 

Based on verifiable information, 2050 is “the modernisation goal of China becoming a fully developed nation” - the “China Dream defined by sustainable development”. At the moment, China’s per capita income is one sixth of America’s, so they want to become a more developed country in thirty years. I can’t find anywhere about world domination. 

As for the South China Sea many thousand nautical miles away from you but at our doorstep, it is becoming more crowded for us with warships from all. 

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are two types of transits on the open sea, one is the right of transit passage that “is defined the exercise of the freedoms of navigation solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit through an international strait…”, the other is the concept of innocent passage that “passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.” However, no one seems to take notice nowadays. Although it encouraged the Philippines’ claim against China, America sent warnings to China, Philippine and Vietnam at the same time in its recent exercise of “freedom of navigation”.  It doesn’t want any of these claims to restrict its navy, the most powerful in the world.  

As for these uninhabited Islands in the East China Sea, Japanese call them Senkaku Islands, but China mainland and Taiwan call them Diaoyudao Islands or Diaoyutai Islands, these islands were placed under Japanese administration by America after the war when China was in civil war.  No one, including America, recognises Japan’s sovereignty claim over the islands. 

You are right that China today is economically stronger than Soviet Union then. However, unlike in the Cold War, I don’t think that China is doing an arms race with America, it spends 1.7% of its GDP while America spends 3.7% in 2020. 

Last time, the Cold War brought the world close to annihilation, the Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner by Daniel Ellsberg (Non-Fiction) presented us a gloomy reality. The Cold War ended but the outcome is not deterministic. Therefore, with all the new Cold War rhetoric ramping up, rational discussion is more important than ever. 

Best regards, Jing 

And further [Reader] response (16 July): 

Hi Jing:

 

Great conversation here and I agree that global rationality ought to be guiding the world’s decision makers. I do believe that they are all aware of Thucydides Trap. But being intellectually aware, may not translate into emotional awareness, especially when the stakes are high and dictators are involved. Remember Billy II in 1914!

 

Let me comment on your points after >>> below.

 

Best,

[Reader]

  

From: Jing Lee <jinglee@netvigator.com> 

Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 2:04 PM

To: [Reader]

Subject: Re: SCMP op-ed

 

Dear [Reader],

 

[JL] I agree with you that the current situation is dangerous. It is why I started writing on geopolitical issues, using facts and history as my guide for rational discussions. 

 

[Reader]>>> Great and I agree this is a great framing for a critical discussion.

 

[JL] It seems that you are concerned about  2050, South China Sea and Japan’s islands claim. 

 

[Reader]>>> I am not necessarily concerned about these issues other than they seem to present a pattern of recent Chinese behavior. And that is what concerns me.

 

[JL] Based on verifiable information, 2050 is “the modernisation goal of China becoming a fully developed nation” - the “China Dream defined by sustainable development”. At the moment, China’s per capita income is one sixth of America’s, so they want to become a more developed country in thirty years. I can’t find anywhere about world domination. 

 

[Reader]>>> One thing is what is being said, the other is what is being done and what the real intentions are. See comment above. There is in my mind, a large gap between what China is professing and its actions of intimidation and bullying. 

 

[JL] As for the South China Sea many thousand nautical miles away from you but at our doorstep, it is becoming more crowded for us with warships from all. 

 [JL] According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are two types of transits on the open sea, one is the right of transit passage that “is defined the exercise of the freedoms of navigation solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit through an international strait…”, the other is the concept of innocent passage that “passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.” However, no one seems to take notice nowadays. Although it encouraged the Philippines’ claim against China, America sent warnings to China, Philippine and Vietnam at the same time in its recent exercise of “freedom of navigation”.  It doesn’t want any of these claims to restrict its navy, the most powerful in the world.  

[Reader]>>> Exactly, but the sequence of when these war ships appeared is critical to the analysis. It is the Chinese who decided to militarize the area, thwarting international law in the process. The reaction from other nations is natural. The task force led by HMS Queen Elizabeth now on its way, is a case in point.

 [JL] As for these uninhabited Islands in the East China Sea, Japanese call them Senkaku Islands, but China mainland and Taiwan call them Diaoyudao Islands or Diaoyutai Islands, these islands were placed under Japanese administration by America after the war when China was in civil war.  No one, including America, recognises Japan’s sovereignty claim over the islands.  

[Reader]>>> On the last point I believe that facts are different. Link

 [JL] You are right that China today is economically stronger than Soviet Union then. However, unlike in the Cold War, I don’t think that China is doing an arms race with America, it spends 1.7% of its GDP while America spends 3.7% in 2020. 

 [JL] Last time, the Cold War brought the world close to annihilation, the Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner by Daniel Ellsberg (Non-Fiction) presented us a gloomy reality. The Cold War ended but the outcome is not deterministic. Therefore, with all the new Cold War rhetoric ramping up, rational discussion is more important than ever. 

 [Reader] >>> I agree 100% with this and hope that rationality sets in on all sides. The historical analogy is perhaps not the Soviet Union, but the seemingly reasonable steps Germany took early in the 20^th century which led to catastrophe. Even more the reason to strengthen the current dialogue, just as you suggest.

And further [JL] response on 16 July:

We don’t have to agree on everything but obviously we both want to see a stable and peaceful world. The question is how. 

I can see the advantages for America using Quad (initially proposed by Abe) and tensions in the neighbourhood in its China containment strategy. However, it is not without its own risk. 

You referenced Germany in the 20th century conflict, perhaps Japan is more relevant for Asia given its wartime atrocities, unlike Germany, it was never repented. Unaware of the wartime background, most of the young generations in Japan today see Japan only as a victim of Americans’ bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

The Treaty of San Francisco is a history legacy, and it was between Japan and the US (with the UK tag-along), all the rest of others, including China (both the ROC - in Taiwan today and PRC- on mainland) were not invited. 

In the 70s, America removed the Senkakus from its inclusion in the concept of Japanese "residual sovereignty" and gave “administrative rights over those islands to Japan“ and US government officials have declared in 2004, 2010, and September 2012 “that as Japan maintains effective administrative control on the islands”. This position remains unchanged. 

However, in the recent escalation of tension with China, Japan is actively highlighting that the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands fall under the scope of a Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the US and Japan, it is likely for a different consideration. 

Japan was the regional hegemon until its unconditional surrender and it always wanted to return to the top seat in Asia. However, its economy is stagnant (GDP shrunk 20% in the recent decade), and it doesn’t have real control over its military as a result of the war. It is in its interests to see a fight between America and China so to create a strategic space for itself so long as it could divert the conflict away from its homeland (eg towards Taiwan, Philippines or Indian coast). If China were to be defeated, Japan could regain the top seat in the region and reenergise its economy, if the result were to be the opposite, Japan could be freed from US military occupation and realign itself in the East Asian Economy sphere. Quickly abandoned Taiwan to establish embassy in Beijing ahead of America, and quickly rectified RCEP ahead of the most are examples of its style. 

I think that some American strategists are aware of the risk, but the narrative on public display is in favour of Japan.

Hope all goes well eventually.

Best regards, Jing