All hope is not lost for US-China relations, despite tensions and tepid virtual summit

By Tom Plate

Can it be that fresh air is being permitted to enter U.S. foreign affairs thinking? The other day, a critique of U.S. policy toward China turned up on my computer screen that raised my hopes. It amounted to a reasoned plea for exactly the kind of strategic rethinking America needs to put together soon.

The essay called for junking the moribund approach of confrontation and containment and re-pivoting to Asia with a calibrated appreciation of China's growing stature in 21st-century geopolitics. It coolly reprimanded both sides for fueling the growing bilateral arms race, when the race which both sides should be leading is the global marathon against climate change and COVID-19 resurgence.

The extraordinary thing about this article, though, was not just the substance itself, but the notable platform of its transmission. It was in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York.

Foreign Affairs has not always been everyone's cup of tea. For truly cosmopolitan Americans, perhaps on the West Coast especially, Foreign Affairs and its parent organization, the CFR, were viewed as an East Coast men's club where grumpy grandees snoozed away in the library.

It seemed like an unfeeling place where American triumphalism was on display for all to see, whether they liked it or not. But, perhaps now, the prospect of a different global future is starting to dawn, even on the old Foreign Affairs club.

Influential establishment platforms could help nudge thinking outside the box, if only they tried harder. The author of the refreshing Foreign Affairs essay was Van Jackson, a distinguished fellow with the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada and a senior lecturer in international relations at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand who specializes in Asian security and the politics of U.S. foreign policy.

Similar to Australia's Hugh White, whose book, “The China Choice,” suggested a new way of thinking about China for the West, Jackson manages to stay a step ahead when most others continue to fall behind by digging in.

“Massively outgunned,” he writes, “China is acting rationally and predictably. Less rational is Washington sitting in a position of advantage, observing China's clear track record of seeking to counter U.S. nuclear modernization and then proceeding as if Beijing won't do so in this case. By modernizing its nuclear force, the United States is giving China every reason to expand its own.”

If Beijing wants to increase its nuclear arsenal because the U.S. has so much, why not have the U.S. reduce its arsenal, rather than increase it, to equalize the build-up if it really wants Beijing to cool it?

Level-headed analysis of genuine needs is hard to find in the American media. Patriotism would seem to require conformity. Recall the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Too many American journalists ― not to mention their editors and publishers ― were far too eager to don their mental combat uniforms and support the war. The American people never really knew what was happening, and that is true today with U.S.-China tensions.

The chairman of the board of the Asia Society's Hong Kong Center last week had it about right when he downplayed the potential peace impact of the recent video summit between U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

At a seminar organized by the University of Hong Kong's Research Hub on Institutions of China, property tycoon Ronnie Chan Chi-chung said: “What we are seeing today, don't blame Donald Trump. Donald Trump no doubt took [U.S.-China relations] to hell, but he was just the last straw that broke the camel's back. It was 30 years in the making.”

China is red and reds are better dead ― that's the kind of analysis that passes muster in the U.S. Congress. As Chan noted, one-dimensional talks will not cool tensions as long as the average U.S. politician holds retrograde views on “red China.”

Thankfully, Chan can always be counted on to offer singular perspectives on the U.S. and China. Because he is well informed and willfully outspoken, he can cut through the blather without adding to it.

At the seminar, he dismissed as ignorant those waxing euphoric over the video summit. Knowing America ― where he frequently appears at Asia Society fundraisers and educational platforms with his inimitable in-your-face style ― he has more perspective on this issue than all but a few members of Congress.

I wish I could disagree with his pessimism; I might sleep better at night. But, at least on an issue like U.S.-China relations, George Orwell was wrong and Chan is right: ignorance is not strength.

What are some solutions? For starters, Washington needs to become more realistic and not try to replay 20th-century containment or restage 19th-century gunboat diplomacy. Likewise, China has to cease scaring half the world to death, reflexively barking back and retaliating economically at the slightest perceived offence.

As long as being nice is not misunderstood as being weak ― and few today are under the illusion China is weak ― why not try it another way? Put your scary wolves back in the zoo and deploy your better angels into the diplomatic field.

Finally, the Xi government should crown some contemporary, wise, old owl (similar to the late Wang Daohan) as a cross-Pacific coordinator, and Biden's people should send some counterpart to meet him halfway. I still like the Barack Obama idea.

Tom Plate (platecolumn@gmail.com) is a professor at Loyola Marymount University and vice-president of the Pacific Century Institute in Los Angeles. The views expressed in the above article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times. The above article was distributed by the South China Morning Post.