ICAS posted the Open Letter titled ‘China is Not an Enemy’ on its previous bulletin, which originally appeared in the Washington Post. Since the publishing of the open letter, the debate over U.S. policy towards China was reignited within the U.S. foreign policy community. The Washington Post open letter received criticism from members of this community, prompting additional open letters from various other sources. Among the responses that argued against the original open letter, the major debate focused on whether it is China or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that is the real threat to the United States, and whether the United States should pursue a more confrontation-based approach and decouple with Communist China as a means to deal with the CCP threat. Here I form four questions to discuss these issues and provide my comments on the matter.

– What threat does China pose to the United States?

China’s historical and cultural experience shapes its so-called China Dream, which is a similar Chinese version of the concept of American exceptionalism. China sees itself now as in the process of the rejuvenation of its past economic and cultural glory, which had spread its influence across the East Asian region. Such a self-identification in strategic planning threatens the United States which seeks to sustain, or even strengthen, its preeminent status in the Indo-Pacific region. The United States also views itself as an exceptional country that rallies countries around the world to its system of values and standards. When two exceptional characters meet, they are likely to disagree and clash over conflicting interests and beliefs.

Furthermore, China is among the few countries on earth that has an independent and self-sufficient military system, the only other two being Russia and the United States. These three countries have a well-developed systematic military industry that can produce armaments and equipment for all types of conflict from localized warfare to nuclear warfare. It is reasonable, from a military perspective, that the United States views both China and Russia as strategic competitors. Through military cooperation and arms sales, the United States is able to increase mutual trust and interoperability with its allies and partners. Due to China and Russia’s independent military structure, however, the United States is more uncertain of their intentions, causing a feeling of insecurity, which can descend into a ‘security dilemma’. This insecurity has been amplified by the rapid growth of China on both the economic and military fronts through its “Reform and Opening up” – further making the U.S. more inclined to confront rather than to cooperate with China.

– Why can’t the U.S. separate the CCP from China when shifting to a more confrontation-based China policy?

The first answer is obvious, it is simply not feasible. Targeting the CCP through confrontational foreign policy is the same as confronting China as a whole. Articles in response to the Washington Post open letter often refer to U.S. Vice President Mike Pence’s speech that separated the CCP from China when thinking about U.S.-China relations. However, after ruling China for seventy years, the CCP has been integrated into China’s political and societal system. Furthermore, the CCP has inherited many historical Chinese views and values and has incorporated these beliefs into China’s military strategy.

In regard to the existential threat America feels that China poses, it has nothing to do with Communist ideology or its alleged “authoritarian” regime. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union’s communist ideology per se was not a matter of immediate concern. Only when it served as and became a tool for Soviet expansionism and subversion of foreign societies was it seen as a grave security threat. By contrast, post-reform Communist China has shown neither the interest nor the will to export its political model – let alone subvert foreign nations. Further, from a geo-political perspective, its vision of expansion of influence was clearly and carefully defined in its Science of Military Strategy in 2013, well before the Trump Administration took office. This document defined China’s vision for expanding both its political and military influence to secure its path for development as well as maintain internal stability. Such ideas of extending influence into the broader Asian region while maintaining its size-current, existing land territory can be seen at every stage in Chinese history since unification under the Qin Dynasty. Long after the Sui Dynasty, China has always sought to expand its political and military influence over this broad regional theater, while at the same time maintaining its self-claimed land territory within a defined area. From that historical perspective, the current CCP regime is merely another vehicle to carry out a 5,000-year-old Chinese national defense strategy. Therefore, with this in mind, the CCP should be thought of as “China” when talking about the threat posed by China to the U.S.

Moreover, from a practical perspective, targeting the CCP instead of targeting China will not make the United States’ job any easier. To the contrary, the U.S.’ geopolitical management of Asia will grow more difficult as it seeks to proceed with its Indo-Pacific strategy. Due to the CCP’s firm grip over the People’s Liberation Army, targeting CCP will likely provoke tensions with the PLA in the Asia-Pacific region, putting U.S. allies in danger if the PLA seeks to counter U.S. policy by flashing its military strength at U.S. allies in the region, such as holding military exercises in the Taiwan Strait or provoking Japan over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Up to this point, China’s military strategy has focused on the geostrategic environment rather than global competition. Marking the CCP as an “enemy” not only fails to address the strategic challenge posed by China to the United States but will also intensify the geopolitical situation in the Indo-Pacific region.

North Korea is another reason why the United States should not attempt to separate the CCP from China. Up to this point, China and North Korea have been linked by historical, ideological and political ties. China therefore has the ability to exploit these close ties to influence North Korean actions when the latter misbehaves. However, getting rid of the CCP could cut one of the most valuable channels to communicate with North Korea. Getting rid of the CCP is also likely to trigger increased insecurity in North Korea and further destabilize the region.

– What is the U.S. plan for post-CCP China and the world system?

This is also my question to those advocating for the U.S. to pivot its China policy to ousting the CCP. Given that regime change advocates are calling for a revision of U.S. strategy towards China, it is necessary to ask what plans and strategies exist for both the short and long term to ensure a transition that would not destabilize the region for years to come. The removal of the CCP would be one of the most difficult undertakings for the United States in its history. The biggest challenge for the U.S. plan would be determining how to deal with a post-CCP China if the removal of CCP was a success. Since 9/11, there has been no solid evidence that the United States has enough resources to help a country peacefully recover and move towards a democratic transition after the removal of an alleged authoritarian/totalitarian regime. In all cases, these countries fell into bloody civil clashes over various interests. With a 1.4 billion population like China’s, what would be the U.S. plan to prevent this vast population from falling into the same trajectory and potentially drag the surrounding region and U.S. allies into armed conflict?

From the U.S.’ perspective, the CCP may represent a troubling set of governance challenges, especially given its communist ideology. However, the CCP also insists firmly on promoting China’s stability both in its defense white paper and in its national strategy. Although many of the CCP’s approaches towards achieving these goals is viewed as largely unacceptable from the U.S. perspective, China’s stability is one of the fundamental reasons why the U.S. and its partners in the Indo-Pacific have reaped enormous economic benefits since China’s opening up to the world. The future of this mutual prosperity is threatened should China become unstable.

– What is the benefit of “fruitless engagement policy” vis-à-vis decoupling?

Indeed, many of America’s past engagement policies have been ineffective when dealing with a China that sought to further expand its influence through leveraging its rapid economic and military growth since the “Reform and Opening Up”. However, continuing this engagement policy that many in America believe has failed would still benefit the United States and the international world order.

There will always be voices advocating for decoupling because the two countries are interdependent with each other. For instance, U.S. dissatisfaction over China’s trade practices is largely due to the deep interdependence between the U.S. and China, which allows China’s participation to impact the U.S. economy in many ways. In such a situation, it would be easy to talk about decoupling, but not as easy to actually implement and achieve it. The Trump administration has endangered the U.S. agricultural industry in the short term and potentially in the long run by beginning this process. Yet, in the end, the administration ultimately decided to resume negotiations with China in Shanghai. Such a decision to continue negotiations may not lead to a completely satisfactory trade agreement but it is a better alternative than potentially permanently hampering the U.S. agricultural and other industrial sectors.

Maintaining a policy of engagement deepens the connection between China and the United States, not only through interdependency, but also leads to a more stable balance of power. The United States has the ability to leverage its military capabilities with its allies in the region as well as keep diplomatic pressure on issues that the United States is deeply concerned about, such as on human rights matters. However, due to a lack of cultural or historical connections with North Korea, the United States has been largely unable to deter its continued nuclear development. Should the U.S. continue decoupling with China, that leverage will be lost, and North Korea could further pursue its destabilizing activities without any external constraints from China.

—————

The existence of a debate over the U.S. approach towards China is a positive sign that the bilateral relationship will begin to improve again. And indeed, while most policymakers tend to be pragmatic and realistic about potential outcomes when engaging with China, American beliefs and values provide an overarching framework to do so more effectively. However, this emphasis on American values and ideals must also be structured on a realistic basis. Overemphasizing American values without properly addressing the feasibility question is counterproductive to U.S. policy on China.

Yilun Zhang is a research assistant at ICAS. He obtained his M.A. in International Relations with a concentration in International Political Economy from Johns Hopkins University SAIS.