Can Communist China Be America's Partner?

If you ask the Obama administration or the foreign policy establishment in D.C., the answer is "Of course!  And it already is!"

And according to AT's own C.W. Getz, China has no reason to fight the U.S. because supposedly, that would be against China's own interest.

What is China's actual stance?

China's policies over the last decade have been vehemently anti-American -- according to Chinese policymakers, whatever is bad for the U.S. is good for the PRC.  China has brought down an unarmed American plane in neutral airspace; laser-blinded an American satellite; stalked an American carrier; and embarked on a huge, opaque military buildup against the U.S. (what does China need carrier-killing warships and missiles and satellite-killing ballistic missiles for?).

China's hackers attack American cyber networks daily, while its media, led by the Global Times, continually vilify the U.S., and its customs services block American products from the Chinese market.

China has protected the odious NPT-violating regimes in North Korea and Iran, as well as the Burmese junta, from any serious sanctions.

China's military is planning and preparing for war with the U.S., and its generals have repeatedly threatened America.  This February, Colonel Meng Xianging promised a "hand-to-hand fight with the U.S."  MGEN Yang Yi said to his colleagues of the U.S., "We must make them hurt."  RADM Guan Youfei told American officials this May that everything that's wrong about Sino-American relations is America's fault.  Under Hu Jintao, the opinions of hawkish PLA generals have become official Chinese policy, and virulently anti-American generals have been appointed to key posts.  Two generals (Guo Boxiong and Xu Caihou) are members of the CPC's politburo, although neither is a member of its Standing Committee.

A partner would hardly behave like this.

Yet Obama administration officials, like their predecessors, falsely claim that China is a constructive partner.  They have thanked China for approving "sanctions that bite" against Iran at the UNSC -- even though China has blocked any serious sanctions against Tehran and continues to do lucrative business with the Iranian capital.  Obama officials claim that China has become more transparent about its military and its defense budget -- even though it hasn't.  China's real defense budget remains unknown, and its weapon programs still remain untransparent.

Obama has closed dozens of crucial weapon programs which, if continued, would have fitted the U.S. with necessary protection against China -- but the Obama administration does not believe China is a foe or a threat.  This even though PLA generals and the Global Times have clearly stated China's intention: to fight the U.S.

The Obama administration has invited Chinese officials and generals dozens of times to visit not only the Pentagon, but also crucial military facilities (a little Chinese spying doesn't hurt anyone, right?) and has briefed the Chinese on the Nuclear Posture Review and the BMD Review.  The Chinese, meanwhile, have shown the U.S. nothing.

Furthermore, the Obama administration hasn't even defended America's right to sail in neutral waters.  When asked a simple yes/no question about whether the U.S. has such a right or not, Secretary of Defense Gates didn't answer, and instead blathered generalistic nonsense.  (Gates, for the record, wasn't even invited to visit Beijing until last month.)

Speaking at the liberal, anti-defense, blame-America-first Center for American Progress recently, Admiral Michael Mullen said that China is a great constructive partner and can be very useful to the U.S.  What is his policy based on?  Hope that China will assist the U.S.  That's what America's policy towards its most dangerous enemy is based on: hope, and nothing more.

Successive administrations have appeased China by not responding effectively to the Tiananmen Square massacre, not pressing China on human rights, apologizing for the EP-3 incident (a Chinese act of aggression), not commenting on the satellite-blinding incident, not blaming China for cyber attacks, and granting China MFN status.  And what has America received as a reward?  Nothing.  And yet, America's utterly incompetent Secretary of Defense says he still believes in dialogue with China.

Clearly, the 21-year-old appeasement policy towards China has failed abysmally.  So what should the Congress and the Executive Branch do?

Militarily: Restore the military's inventories of weapons to sufficient levels, replace obsolete weapons (with F-35s, Virginia class subs, etc.), and equip the U.S. military to protect the U.S. and its allies against Communist China.  This must include a national missile defense system capable of intercepting all Chinese missiles, cyber defenses, and modernized minesweepers.  Congress should also refuse to reduce total defense spending.  America's global military deployments should be reconsidered and realigned with the 21st-century threat environment.

Economically: Protect the American industry with strict product quality standards and export-import certificates to end America's large annual trade deficits.  Also reform the tax code to prevent corporations from fleeing abroad (e.g., to China); abolish all bans on drilling for oil and natural gas to ensure plentiful, cheap energy for the U.S. economy; and reopen America's mines of rare-earth minerals.

Diplomatically: Strive for good relations with China's neighbors, recognize their territorial claims rather than China's, and establish an Asian NATO to bring America's Asian allies and partners together against China and North Korea.  Sell weapons to China's foes.

Morally: Speak out for Chinese dissidents and label the criminal Chinese regime as such.  Link Sino-American relations to China's human rights record.  Ronald Reagan did so throughout the 1980s: he recognized the USSR as an evil empire, publicly called it such, and used the moral lever to win the struggle against the Soviet Union.  Today's American officials should do the same vis-à-vis China, the new Evil Empire.
If you ask the Obama administration or the foreign policy establishment in D.C., the answer is "Of course!  And it already is!"

And according to AT's own C.W. Getz, China has no reason to fight the U.S. because supposedly, that would be against China's own interest.

What is China's actual stance?

China's policies over the last decade have been vehemently anti-American -- according to Chinese policymakers, whatever is bad for the U.S. is good for the PRC.  China has brought down an unarmed American plane in neutral airspace; laser-blinded an American satellite; stalked an American carrier; and embarked on a huge, opaque military buildup against the U.S. (what does China need carrier-killing warships and missiles and satellite-killing ballistic missiles for?).

China's hackers attack American cyber networks daily, while its media, led by the Global Times, continually vilify the U.S., and its customs services block American products from the Chinese market.

China has protected the odious NPT-violating regimes in North Korea and Iran, as well as the Burmese junta, from any serious sanctions.

China's military is planning and preparing for war with the U.S., and its generals have repeatedly threatened America.  This February, Colonel Meng Xianging promised a "hand-to-hand fight with the U.S."  MGEN Yang Yi said to his colleagues of the U.S., "We must make them hurt."  RADM Guan Youfei told American officials this May that everything that's wrong about Sino-American relations is America's fault.  Under Hu Jintao, the opinions of hawkish PLA generals have become official Chinese policy, and virulently anti-American generals have been appointed to key posts.  Two generals (Guo Boxiong and Xu Caihou) are members of the CPC's politburo, although neither is a member of its Standing Committee.

A partner would hardly behave like this.

Yet Obama administration officials, like their predecessors, falsely claim that China is a constructive partner.  They have thanked China for approving "sanctions that bite" against Iran at the UNSC -- even though China has blocked any serious sanctions against Tehran and continues to do lucrative business with the Iranian capital.  Obama officials claim that China has become more transparent about its military and its defense budget -- even though it hasn't.  China's real defense budget remains unknown, and its weapon programs still remain untransparent.

Obama has closed dozens of crucial weapon programs which, if continued, would have fitted the U.S. with necessary protection against China -- but the Obama administration does not believe China is a foe or a threat.  This even though PLA generals and the Global Times have clearly stated China's intention: to fight the U.S.

The Obama administration has invited Chinese officials and generals dozens of times to visit not only the Pentagon, but also crucial military facilities (a little Chinese spying doesn't hurt anyone, right?) and has briefed the Chinese on the Nuclear Posture Review and the BMD Review.  The Chinese, meanwhile, have shown the U.S. nothing.

Furthermore, the Obama administration hasn't even defended America's right to sail in neutral waters.  When asked a simple yes/no question about whether the U.S. has such a right or not, Secretary of Defense Gates didn't answer, and instead blathered generalistic nonsense.  (Gates, for the record, wasn't even invited to visit Beijing until last month.)

Speaking at the liberal, anti-defense, blame-America-first Center for American Progress recently, Admiral Michael Mullen said that China is a great constructive partner and can be very useful to the U.S.  What is his policy based on?  Hope that China will assist the U.S.  That's what America's policy towards its most dangerous enemy is based on: hope, and nothing more.

Successive administrations have appeased China by not responding effectively to the Tiananmen Square massacre, not pressing China on human rights, apologizing for the EP-3 incident (a Chinese act of aggression), not commenting on the satellite-blinding incident, not blaming China for cyber attacks, and granting China MFN status.  And what has America received as a reward?  Nothing.  And yet, America's utterly incompetent Secretary of Defense says he still believes in dialogue with China.

Clearly, the 21-year-old appeasement policy towards China has failed abysmally.  So what should the Congress and the Executive Branch do?

Militarily: Restore the military's inventories of weapons to sufficient levels, replace obsolete weapons (with F-35s, Virginia class subs, etc.), and equip the U.S. military to protect the U.S. and its allies against Communist China.  This must include a national missile defense system capable of intercepting all Chinese missiles, cyber defenses, and modernized minesweepers.  Congress should also refuse to reduce total defense spending.  America's global military deployments should be reconsidered and realigned with the 21st-century threat environment.

Economically: Protect the American industry with strict product quality standards and export-import certificates to end America's large annual trade deficits.  Also reform the tax code to prevent corporations from fleeing abroad (e.g., to China); abolish all bans on drilling for oil and natural gas to ensure plentiful, cheap energy for the U.S. economy; and reopen America's mines of rare-earth minerals.

Diplomatically: Strive for good relations with China's neighbors, recognize their territorial claims rather than China's, and establish an Asian NATO to bring America's Asian allies and partners together against China and North Korea.  Sell weapons to China's foes.

Morally: Speak out for Chinese dissidents and label the criminal Chinese regime as such.  Link Sino-American relations to China's human rights record.  Ronald Reagan did so throughout the 1980s: he recognized the USSR as an evil empire, publicly called it such, and used the moral lever to win the struggle against the Soviet Union.  Today's American officials should do the same vis-à-vis China, the new Evil Empire.