inevitability in play?

Sino-U.S. relations under discussion

During my question and answer session after I lectured this afternoon, a member of the audience asked if there were not some way by which the United States and the Chinese leadership could find an accommodation for each other. I never have people ask me that much these days nor is that a common topic inside the Beltway.

Interestingly, the individual was not a pointy-headed liberal academic or a peacenick at some California bookstore but a military officer. I thought him brave to ask the question because it is not welcome in the current environment.

Most conversations focusing on China these days seem to assume inevitable conflict between the nations, both nuclear powers. The two governments appear to believe their interests best served by pursuing policies which are de facto non-negotiable, regardless of whether the two states send representatives to exchange ideas at the same table. The discussions almost always conclude that China is bad and they won’t deviate from their path of seeking to force Taiwan to reunify with the mainland under any and all conditions. It is a bleak picture of the future across the Pacific.

I have more confidence in how thinking unfolds in my own government than I do for certain in China because I hear more statements from our officials on assumptions about our society, our capability, China’s assumptions, its capabilities, and its aspirations.

Defense communities in any society, especially those in uniform, are obligated to prepare for the worst rather than the give the adversary, or even a partner, the benefit of a doubt. Failure to do so can be fatal for literally millions of people. I understand that solemn obligation.

We need ask ourselves, however, about the clarity of our thinking to assure we know what we are committing to doing. I believe we are confusing deterring—which I think we believe are doing—China with responding to most extreme possible aspirations in China which may or may not be in play. I don’t think we have much evidence as we think we do but I am certain we see our assumptions about the CCP actions as evidence for their beliefs. Are those one and the same? Are they?

I do not pretend to know China leadership’s most extreme possible aspirations are. I can project several items that I assume could be the most extreme goals but I have no evidentiary knowledge of any discussions within the Chinese government as it’s hard to infiltrate that system with certainty no matter how many years people try. We all agree China is an incredibly closed, impenetrable political system centered around the support of 90 milllion Communist Party members but I am not confident that its members in a collective Party agree with the most extreme positions. They may or they may have different aspirations and Xi cannot function as a unilateral actor all the time. The Party isn’t public about its decision-making but it does appear to use a system to bring more than a single view, even if his views carry more weight as General Secretary. But, this is all supposition as we have no way to see their decision-making.

Those who serve in an all-volunteer armed force, like ours, agree to defend us with their lives if necessary. To defend us with their lives—the ultimate sacrifice one gave make. That commitment is an iron-clad evidence of a willingness to die for one’s nation. There are millions who sign up to do that.

In a democracy, the military does not make decisions but the civilians do. We hold periodic elections to bring individuals together in a deliberative body (Congress) under the legal constraints of our Constitution (the judiciary) in conjuction with an executive to propose and deliver policies (the Executive branch). That is our incredible strength with checks and balances, empowerment, and trust.

China has none of those. This this this is one of the most basic gems of our crazy society which China has never come close to replicating nor do they desire it. The Middle Kingdom has a Party of members, often who joined for the financial and relationship benefits (so I have heard from Chinese undergraduates studying in the United States as a result of a parent joining the Party to assure the child could receive a study abroad exit opportunity in a dictatorial system) it brings rather than out of ideological commitment, which functions in all three of the aspects of our system noted above. We should laud what we have and exercise it regularly.

China’s Communist Party is one of the most frightened regimes in the world, fearful its own people seek to oust the Party. Not a week passes that the civilian leadership misses the seemingly obligatory speech to remind teh military, the People’s Liberation Army, of its role as an arm of the Party rather than of the stae. That strikes me as a pretty bloody insecure bunch of people governing that place but that does not tell me what they are going to do as I doubt they can trust their own institutions (Party or PLA or local officials) entirely to execute what the highest leaders desire. The Party can push and can punish but the Chinese have long had the phrase ‘the mountains are high and the Emperor is far away’ to indicate local officials often do their own thing more than what Beijing wants. How much of that goes on elsewhere within the system? Are we sure it’s none?

Their and our two governments and societies are made of humans: egotistical, dedicated, competitive on many occasions while cooperative at other times, and most definitely fallible. We cannot always be certain in advance how our own leaders will behave, much less theirs.

At this point in our histories, to answer the initial question I received this afternoon, I am rendered uncomfortable we are doing as much rigourous logic as possible on the relationship. That does not mean we wouldn’t come to the same doubts that we hold about China and they similarly believe about our goals and actions. I would hope we would use the more deliberate assessments based on evidence regarding the actions of the other sides.

At this point, I am confident we have embraced an explanation of China’s behaviour that does not allow for anything other than the harshest of interpretations of Beijing’s behavior. Similarly, it seems that Beijing interprets every single thing we do upon arising in the morning as stifling China’s desire for respect or thwarting its role in global governance while moving the society back from its accomplishments of the past four plus decades but I have no idea how universally the Chinese accept that view. In sum, both governments now have pretty draconian views of an adversary across the Pacific.

What I most desire is that we continue asking about our thoughts and options as my questioner did this afternoon. In China, I am confident if someone asked a similar question online, nationalistic hackles would ensue, potentially creating a bitter backlash for the questioner. (I suspect the same sort of informal pressures against this thinking arises in some quarters in Russia today where independent thought is no more welcome than in the Middle Kingdom). I want our population to ask questions, to demand answers, and to follow the most rigours application of logic to the entire nature of the bilateral relationship. We may reach the same conclusion but let’s make sure we use the data available to us.

I am not saying the inevitablity fo conflict is wrong. I simply do not know with the absolute certainty that many inside the Beltway seem to have but I do know that strategy offers many options if you think through how you would apply the options and whether you are willing to weigh your interests and goals versus those of others.

I am asking for that process to assure we have as much airing of options as possible because wars, if we were to follow that path, are deadly and can be extremely painful for any society. The Vietnam experience took us years to put into the relative past; I wonder some days whether we have done that with our own Civil War.

But maintaining open, sincere paths of discussion without impuning motives about options is truly crucial to our society and why we are so much better than China. I laud the gentleman in the 3rd row for his question even if I don’t have a good answer to it per se. I prefer thinking through options rather than simply embracing inevitabilities, phenomena for which the human element can make a tremendous difference. FIN