Dr. Srdja Trifkovic’s “Getting China Straight” (The American Interest, August) is, for the most part, an intelligent and thorough analysis of the looming presence of China on the world stage. Unfortunately, Dr. Trifkovic concludes with a suggestion—admittedly only one among many that he brings forward—that is fraught with peril.
In his final paragraph, he writes: “The task of U.S. policy in East Asia should be to consider whether, and to what extent, [Chinese] aspirations are compatible with American interests. Contemplating the possibility of a consensual, carefully managed, and internationally condoned reunification of China with Taiwan would be a constructive first step.”
A few paragraphs earlier, he writes, “If the Communist Party of China continues to transform itself into a Red Kuomin-tang, a guided democracy will eventually emerge, . . . and economic growth will continue on a stable footing.” Unfortunately, that is a very substantial if. A very realistic if would involve the Communist Party exploiting and transforming China’s economic growth into military power, then forcing a reunification with Taiwan by direct military conquest or its brazen threat. This might then tempt the Chinese to reach for greater prizes still, with the attendant danger of a catastrophic collision with the United States. We do well to remember that China is a male-dominant society with a huge population. War, even nuclear war, may not hold the salutary terror for the Chinese that it does for other modern nations. Dr. Trifkovic, to his credit, acknowledges this as a potential reality in the early part of his column.
It is essential that the United States not permit Mainland China to force a reunification with Taiwan against the will of the people of Taiwan. Engaging in such a blatant appeasement may only whet the appetite of the Chinese and encourage them in the delusion that the policy of force comes with no risks or adverse consequences. Our present policy of permitting technological transfers to China and abetting her economic growth is foolish, indeed. Countries such as Iraq, Serbia, and North Korea that the United States is so fond of confronting really pose no serious threat to us, but the Chinese do. We had best wake up to that painful reality, and soon.
It is certainly true that the United States, in standing between China and Taiwan, also risks the collision that all sane people would desire to avoid. This risk, I believe, must at some point be taken. At present, the United States still holds a significant edge in technology and also holds the economic trump card of denying China access to American markets. If we connive in the Chinese conquest of Taiwan today (and that is precisely what reunification would be if brought about by thinly veiled force against the will of the people of Taiwan), we will confirm the Chinese leadership in the mistaken view that the United States is a paper tiger and invite future Chinese aggressions. Will we be better off confronting China over Japan or Hawaii or the Panama Canal (or even California) at some future date when our technical edge has been eroded and China’s economy has grown to the point that the loss of American markets would not be a fatal blow?
I do not believe that Dr. Trifkovic is promoting appeasement in his essay. Rather, he is spelling out the various evolutions and policy responses that these evolutions should engender. Nonetheless, I believe that a more pessimistic concluding paragraph would have been constructive. Dr. Trifkovic’s essay would have been perfected, in my humble opinion, if the end had been the beginning and the beginning, the end.
—John A. Collins
Wheaton, FL
Dr. Trifkovic Replies:
I am not promoting appeasement, which is a state of mind, not a policy. I am promoting realism, and the options are fairly clear.
If America wants to prevent the transformation of China into a first-class power capable of exercising regional hegemony in the greater part of Asia, America needs to fight a preventive war with China in the next three to five years. That war would entail using nuclear weapons and reducing both China’s population and her economic potential to the point where it would need another “Great Leap Forward,” some time in the 22nd century, to start catching up again.
Failing that, America has to accept the fact that the regional balance will change to her detriment, and she has to rearrange her priorities accordingly. The long-term American interests in the East Asia-Pacific region are to promote political stability, to maintain access to regional markets, and to secure freedom of navigation. It is also desirable to prevent the rise of a potentially hostile hegemon, but if the rise of China cannot be prevented—and the gap between American economic interests, on one hand, and status quo-oriented security interests, on the other, remains unbridgeable—it is necessary to remove the causes of potential hostility.
The only pragmatic solution, regarding Taiwan, is to reiterate the old “One China” policy of previous presidents. Taipei must refrain from any move toward independence, which should be easy to achieve considering its dependence on U.S. weapons and diplomatic support. At the same time, the United States should keep repeating to Beijing that there would be very real costs, military as well as economic, if China were to attack Taiwan.
China will do no such thing unless some separatist hotheads in Taipei decide to try their luck. Quite apart from the U.S. response, Beijing wants to present itself to other governments in the region as a responsible regional player. Any sign of heavy-handedness over Taiwan would prompt them to participate in a new U.S.-sponsored anti-Chinese alliance that would degrade the fruits of two decades of Beijing’s diplomacy in the region.
The situation is manageable for many years to come, but its management requires American acquiescence in principle to the final objective of reunification. Even if we witness the further democratization of China, that will by no means make Beijing any less determined to treat Taiwan as one of its provinces.
As for the very long term, the path of China’s expansion will lead north to Siberia and south to Australia. Hawaii will be safe for our grandchildren to retire to, and coastal California will no longer be there anyway.
Leave a Reply