United States’ War With China Policy

Two words characterize United States (US) foreign policy — failure and counterproductive. Research US post-World War II foreign policy initiatives and learn of lost wars, unnecessary wars, counterproductive policies, unresolved issues, failed diplomacy, and downright mayhem. US foreign policy toward the People’s Republic of China (PRC) follows the trend.

The US State Department defines its China policy as:

Strategic competition is the frame through which the United States views its relationship with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The United States will address its relationship with the PRC from a position of strength in which we work closely with our allies and partners to defend our interests and values. We will advance our economic interests, counter Beijing’s aggressive and coercive actions, sustain key military advantages and vital security partnerships, re-engage robustly in the UN system, and stand up to Beijing when PRC authorities are violating human rights and fundamental freedoms. When it is in our interest, the United States will conduct results-oriented diplomacy with China on shared challenges such as climate change and global public health crises. 

All of this is boilerplate. Strategic competition, defend our interests, advance our economic interests, counter aggressive and coercive actions, stand up to violating human rights and fundamental freedoms, etc., are policies that apply to relations with most nations and often serve as excuses for interfering with another nation’s sovereignty. Left out of the State Department's definition of China policy, which is an agenda rather than foreign policy, are gaining mutual understanding on social, political, economic, and international issues and resolving any issues that may lead to friction, hostilities, and war.

The Department of Defense (DOD)  is more sanguine. In Tailoring U.S. Outreach to Indo-Pacific Allies, Partners, June 15, 2023, Jim Garamone, DOD News, outlines the DOD attitude toward China. “Globally and regionally, China is the pacing threat for the United States. China is actively seeking to overturn the international rules-based order that has kept the peace in the region since World War II.”

Just mentioning the unexplained and ill-defined” international rules-based order” immediately gives the chest-beating United States an appearance of a moral high ground.

A US State Department  assessment: Addressing China’s Military Aggression in the Indo-Pacific Region, states:

Across much of the Indo-Pacific region, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is using military and economic coercion to bully its neighbors, advance unlawful maritime claims, threaten maritime shipping lanes, and destabilize territory along the periphery of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This predatory conduct increases the risk of miscalculation and conflict. The United States stands with its Southeast Asian allies and partners to champion a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Common to all these policy directives are, (1) China is engaged in aggressive and coercive actions; (2) China is actively seeking to overturn the international rules-based order that has kept the peace in the region since World War II; and (3) China threatens maritime shipping lanes and destabilizes territory along its periphery.

I have searched the historical record, examined news reports, and sought wisdom from the almighty and I cannot find any of this to be true. Examination of US policies toward Beijing reveals that US policies are not framed to engage in mutual understanding and are framed to precipitate and engage in eventual hostilities. Bashing China and forcing China to react in a hostile manner is the simple US policy. Look at the record.

China is engaged in aggressive and coercive actions.
Where is China engaged in aggressive and coercive actions?
Skip internal actions. These are a matter of perspective, and all nations can, at times, appear to be aggressive and coercive toward their citizens. Talk to African Americans in the ghettos of America, the Native American population, Mexican-Americans, and even the Jan. 6 insurrectionists and ascertain if they feel that their government is aggressive and coercive. Talk to Rohingyas, Palestinians, Bahrain Shiites, Egyptian Salafists, Saudi Shiites, Indian Muslims, Mexican and Guatemalan Mayans, and a host of other threatened minorities in nations where the US has friendly relations and does not strongly criticize the governments for aggressive and coercive actions toward their citizens.

Search around and find only two places where China might be accused of engaging in aggressive and coercive actions — Taiwan and the South China Sea. The latter charge appears in item (3) “China threatens maritime shipping lanes, and destabilizes territory along its periphery,” and will be covered in a discussion of that item. Aggressive and coercive behavior by China is reduced to one place, Taiwan. Only one Place? Is the charge true in that one place?

History describes Taiwan as a part of China since the 17^th century. The island of Taiwan has the trappings of a state but only several small countries — Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Vatican City — and no major country, recognize Taiwan as a nation. Even the nation of Taiwan is a misnomer; there is no nation called Taiwan. According to its current Constitution, the official name for Taiwan is the Republic of China (ROC) and it is not independent of mainland China. Although present-generation Taiwanese imagine Taiwan as a country independent of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the definition of ROC territories in its constitution includes mainland China. In the "One China Policy," first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972, the United States acknowledged that the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.

The controversy arose at the time that Chang Kai-Shek and his nationalist Kuomintang, after being defeated by Mao Zedong and his communist army, fled China to Taiwan and established the Republic of China (ROC) on the tiny island. In its tight quarters, the Kuomintang still claimed to be the rulers of all of China. After the ROC lost its seat at the United Nations, the world no longer recognized the ROC; the world’s peace organization only saw an island called Taiwan.

From a legal view, Taiwan never claimed independence. Both the PRC and the ROC still agree that there is only one China. The ROC claims the mainland is part of the ROC and the PRC claims Taiwan is part of the PRC. Who is more correct?

The two parties fought a Civil War. The communists won and formed the PRC. China encompasses an area of about 10 million Kms ²_, has a population of 1.4 billion, and a GDP of $18T. The counterclaiming  ROC encompasses an area of about 36 thousand Kms ²_,  has a population of 24 million, and a GDP of $800B.  

Shanghai, only one city in China, has a population and GDP almost equal to that of Taiwan. From my discernment of the facts, the entity that won the civil war and has a size, population, and economy that dwarfs the opposition is entitled to rule the whole ball of wax. China is not engaged in aggressive and coercive actions against Taiwan; Taiwan is engaged in aggressive and coercive actions against the Chinese people. The Chinese people from the People’s Republic of China own the maritime coastline, fisheries, minerals, mountains, rivers, lakes, and public places of Taiwan and its ownership is denied to them by the Taiwan government.

China is actively seeking to overturn the international rules-based order that has kept the peace in the region since World War II.
The international rules-based order has no agreed-upon definition. From China’s, as well as other nations’ perspectives, it means an order that assures US hegemony in the region. With that definition, China will not actively cooperate and would ignore it, if China could identify the order. Where is there an international rules-based order in East Asia that has kept the peace in the region since World War II?

Peace in the region? Haven’t we had the Korean War, French Indo-China War, Vietnam War, Cambodian War, Pol Pot reign, Vietnam overthrow of Pol Pot, China annexation of Tibet, China/Vietnam War, China/Soviet War, General Suharto, with CIA assistance, overthrow of President Sukarno in Indonesia, where an estimated  500,000 to 1.2 million people were killed, East Timor insurrection,  Myanmar military takeovers, massacre of Rohingyas, massacres of Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus in India/Pakistan violence, massacres of Tamil and terrorism against Sinhalese in Sri Lanka civil War, and…many more acts of violence, which have occurred almost every year after World War II and continue in contemporary times.  Where has the international rules-based order been applicable and where has there been peace in the region since World War II?

China threatens maritime shipping lanes and destabilizes territory along its periphery.
China has been aggressive in establishing sovereignty in the South China Sea. This is the one area where it must answer to its aggressiveness. For a fundamental reason, Beijing cannot threaten maritime shipping lanes; almost all the major shipping lanes in the South China Sea have Chinese destinations and those that do not can use other routes. The following map describes the western Pacific shipping lanes and shows that the South China Sea has only two internal maritime lanes, both feeding Vietnam, a country that has no sizeable navy. The other routes traversing the South China Sea are mainly for China’s maritime traffic. Some shipping can have the Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan as destinations, but these are alternate routes to other maritime routes from these nations. US shipping from Pacific ports does not pass through the South China Sea.

As for “destabilizing territory along its periphery,” where does this happen? A border conflict with India exists and will never end. This is an ongoing problem, but how is this destabilizing, and where is there another place that can be described as destabilizing? Circle the entire boundaries of China and find one nation that is being destabilized by China. You’ll go around in circles forever.

Conclusion
The US State and Defense Departments continue to speak “white men” words, saying anything they want against the East Asians, bashing China to advance their agendas and fomenting hatred against the Chinese people. They hope to have the distortions convince others to build alliances and subdue the PRC. Why subdue the PRC? The US fears that more of the PRC forebodes less of the USA. To US officials, the international arena is a zero-sum game, and what the PRC gains, the USA loses. A stronger China also forecasts a stronger challenge to US hegemony. This portentous prophesy does not have to happen and China has shown it does not want it to happen. After years of the “debase China strategy,” the US has little to show for its efforts and, by another counterproductive foreign policy, has assured China will grow economically and militarily stronger and will challenge US hegemony.

The first alliance is the enhanced trilateral security partnership, AUKUS, established in September 2021 with other white men from Australia and the faraway United Kingdom. AUKUS “is intended to strengthen the ability of each government to support security and defense interests, building on longstanding and ongoing bilateral ties. It will promote deeper information sharing and technology sharing; and foster deeper integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases and supply chains.”

The initial initiatives demonstrate the true reason for the white men alliance The first initiative commits the US and UK to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. The second initiative “intends to enhance joint capabilities and interoperability, focusing on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and additional undersea capabilities.” The true reason for AUKUS is to militarily challenge China.

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad,) brings the United States, Australia, India, and Japan together in maritime cooperation. The dialogue has expanded to a broader agenda and includes security, economic, and health issues. The Quad’s dialogue has not moved forward smoothly and is now a loose grouping rather than a formal alliance. From the Council of Foreign Relations:

Japan initially emphasized the democratic identity of the four nations, whereas India seemed more comfortable emphasizing functional cooperation. Australian leaders have been reluctant about creating the impression that the group is a formal alliance.

A US proposal for a 14-nation economic initiative, known as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, is at an early stage. The US hopes this economic initiative will rectify ex-President Trump’s abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the inability of the US to join The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN.

US rhetoric, alliances, and military moves have disturbed China but have not deterred Beijing from its objectives. The Communist Party remains the central governing body for 1.3 billion people; the International Monetary Fund estimates that China’s GDP/PPP reached $33.01T in 2022, far ahead of US GDP/PPP of $26.85T; and economically and politically, China exhibits an increasing role in international affairs.

China provides funds for more than 100 countries for road, railway, power plants, ports, and other infrastructure projects. In the volatile Middle East, once the region where the United States exerted its most influence, the Shanghai International Port Group obtained a lease to operate a port in Haifa, Israel, and the PRC brokered a Saudi-Iran normalization agreement. Most of the impetus for the BRICS, a group that is developing into a new global force able to challenge Western hegemony comes from its most powerful member, China. Original members — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — have met periodically and proposed several economic and financial issues for the bloc to consider. Their August 2023 summit still has not set direction or proposed action; instead the bloc extended invitations to Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Argentina, Egypt, and Ethiopia to join BRICS on Jan. 1, 2024. Four statistics express the global power contained in the expanded BRICS, in which China is the leading power.

• GDP of about $30.8 trillion, a 29.3% global share.

• Total population will reach 3.6 bln people, or 45% of the global population.

• Share of oil production will be about 43.1%.

• Share of global exports will be about 25.1%.

The fact that US foreign policy toward the People’s Republic of China has accomplished nothing beneficial to America and follows the trend of US foreign policies — failure and counterproductive — raises the question: What did the United States expect to accomplish with its retrograde policies? Did it expect the Chinese government, which is solidly entrenched and has no opposition, to change its policies and supplicate to US directives? Zero possibility of that happening.

History, from the Barbary Pirates War off the coast in Libya in 1803 to the NATO war against Libya in 2011, shows that the United States almost always eschews diplomacy and settles its imaginary and real disputes by war. In almost every year from its founding to today, the United States has been either directly or indirectly engaged in strife.

Accustomed to being the world’s leading economy since 1893 and the world’s leading military power since World War II, the American government and its people find it difficult to share the royal position or be classified as second-rate. Combine the jingoist military superiority attitude with the intensive utterances of China being guilty of aggressive and coercive actions and gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and we have the development of a mindset that prefers “better dead than red.” Unless the US State Department and Defense establishment change their policies toward China, the inevitable result is war.

With American politics becoming more incoherent, more extreme, and more polarized, a consensus that avoids war becomes more difficult. Hopefully, the new generation that seeks war no more will apply pressure and develop a strong and effective pacifist movement. Pete Seegar, where are you?

Where have all the young men gone
 Long time passin'

 Where have all the young men gone
A long, long time ago

Where have all the young men gone
Gone to soldiers every one

 When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

 Where have all the soldiers gone
Long time passin'

 Where have all the soldiers gone
Long time ago

 Where have all the soldiers gone
Gone to grave yards every one

 When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

 Where have all the grave yards gone
Long time passing

 Where have all the grave yards gone
A long time ago

Where have all the grave yards gone
Gone to flowers every one

When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn

Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
Pete Seegar,  Joe Hickerson
From the Cossack ballad, Koloda-Duda