Printable Version
China: Dangerous Nation or Peaceful Power?
A Speech By CNP Vice President Scott Bates, St. John's College, New York City
March 30, 2007
I’d like to thank St. John’s University School of Law, the New York International Law Review and the International Law & Practice Section of the New York Bar for hosting this event and bringing us all together today.
The nation of which I will speak today is emerging on the world stage and threatens to disrupt long established patterns of power in the world.
It’s people have been called restless, numerous and warlike. I quote from a European diplomat who said in confidence, “their population and culture are advancing and multiplying in the silence of peace.”
Another observer remarked of this nation’s peaceful rise that, “In a few years we shall watch with grief the tyrannical existence of this future colossus.”
I am speaking of course, of the United States of America.
For it was with a mix of admiration, wonder and anxiety that the leading powers of their day watched the inevitable rise of the United States.
America’s rise to power was evident for all to see, and the status quo powers of their day all wondered in the fashion of those well schooled in the zero sum game of balance of power politics- “what will become of us if America gains so much power as to disrupt the usual order of things?”
And so it is today, that we see once again, the signs of the inevitable rise of a great power that will change the course of history.
What will China’s rise mean to the world economy, international law and institutions, our national security?
There is a cottage industry currently in Washington, D.C., of defense and public policy professionals, politicians and the media, speculating on what China’s rise means for the United States and the world.
While one can spend twenty hours a week attending conferences that chronicle the phenomena that is the rising Chinese superpower, I think all these discussions come down to one simple truth.
Last December, I walked along the majestic walls of the Forbidden City with one of my Chinese hosts at a conference of security experts. When parting, this gentleman said to me- “Let us work to make sure that our two nations grow in friendship, for the long term peace of the world depends on it.”
This is, I believe, the seminal question of our age.
The question of whether there is great power war or peace in the 21st century will be answered by how China enters the international system.
The rise of the United States was accommodated by the reigning superpower of the day, Great Britain. How will the United States react to a rising China, and will China accept the international system as it is-or attempt to create a new order at odds with the values we hold dear in the west?
Is China a threat to the national security of the United States?
Well, when trying to determine if another state is a threat, I believe the calculus is this: threat equals capabilities plus intentions.
Let me provide an example. Great Britain and France each possess sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missile systems capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the continental U.S.
Britain and France have the capability to destroy the United States. However they have no intention of ever doing so- therefore they are not a threat. And our economic, security and political relationships with those nations reflect that reality and allow for extensive degrees of partnership in every field.
War between our nations is in fact unthinkable.
China’s economic strength and military capability is growing by the day.
In the years ahead, if we are to believe that an increase in Chinese capabilities alone equals a threat to U.S. national security, then we are very likely to see every Chinese advance as coming at the expense of the United States.
In such an environment, the potential for unstable competition and confrontation is great. Already, we can hear the echoes of the Cold War in statements coming from the Pentagon when assessing the rise in Chinese military capabilities.
The Pentagon releases an annual report on China’s military power.
This year’s edition takes note that China is planning to create an air combat wing that might be taken as a sign that the Chinese Navy is planning to build an aircraft carrier.
What is the analysis from the Defense Intelligence Agency based on this scrap of information?
These U.S. military intelligence officials concluded, “Because aircraft carriers are a requirement to effectively project power and to conduct offensive global operations, this development could be seen as a direct challenge to U.S. naval hegemony.”
Of course the British and the French each have aircraft carriers, yet they are not seen as a threat to U.S. naval hegemony.
India has announced their intention to gain an aircraft carrier, yet they are not seen as a threat to U.S. naval hegemony.
However China simply putting together an air combat group is seen as leading to a global challenge to American military supremacy.
I have news for the Pentagon. In the decades to come, China’s economy will continue to grow, and like every other power in history, China will translate some of that national wealth into building a military force to protect what it sees as its own national security interests.
To see every improvement in Chinese military capabilities as a threat to the United States will lead to a costly arms race and a new version of the old Cold War.
I’m not saying that this is not the prudent course to take. It might be our eventual course of action. However-
Before going down that road, running the risk of a new Cold War, it is incumbent upon us to determine what are China’s intentions?
What do they want to do with their increasing capabilities?
Not an easy question to answer.
I believe the answer to this question lies with the Chinese political class and the Chinese people themselves.
The answer to the question of Chinese intentions--
The answer to the question is China going to remain peaceful after its rise--
The answer to the question of whether there will be war or peace between the United States and China this century can be found in this question--
Will China respect fundamental human rights and the rule of law at home and abroad?
A China respecting human rights and observing the rule of law is a nation whose intentions are benign toward the United States and the international system.
A China that disregards human rights and the rule of law at home is liable to do so even more so abroad. That is a nation whose intentions we can never really be comfortable with.
So far the record is mixed.
At home, the Chinese Communist Party retains its monopoly on political power.
Over a quarter of humanity has no voice in choosing their leaders. The Internet is censored, dissenters are punished and the practice of religion is severely restricted.
Abroad, China embraces regimes with some of the worst human rights records on the planet.
When Chinese officials visit Sudan, Darfur is not discussed.
By keeping the Kim Jong Il regime on life support, China has aided and abetted the continuation of the misery that is daily life for millions of North Koreans.
When the democratic community of nations takes actions to isolate the generals of Myanmar or put pressure on the octogenarian authoritarian ruler of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe,
China goes the other way—extending trade and aid to these rogue regimes.
On the issue of Taiwan, the world is treated to the spectacle of unelected rulers in Beijing issuing periodic threats against the elected, democratic government in Taipei.
The world stays silent, much as anyone does when a friend seems adamant on a certain point and unwilling to listen to even the best advice.
These are policies that should cause us to have serious doubts about the prospects for China’s respect for fundamental human rights and the rule of law at home and abroad.
These policies call into question Chinese intentions, thus making their rise to power potentially threatening to U.S. interests.
And yet—there are positive signs and room for hope.
At home, the Chinese National People’s Congress is gaining in stature and raising issues that are not always comfortable for some in power.
Most recently, the People’s Congress took the first steps toward guaranteeing property rights for individuals.
At the local level, experiments in democratic elections with multi-candidate fields are taking place.
At the highest levels of the Chinese political system, the leadership of the Communist Party and the government have undergone peaceful transitions and term limits have been put in place.
On the world stage, China has been taking active steps to be a constructive part of the existing international system.
As we meet here today, Chinese police are part of a United Nations mission in Haiti and Chinese aid workers assist the United Nations reconstruction mission in Afghanistan.
China has also played a critical role in imposing increasingly tough sanctions against an Iranian regime striving for nuclear capability.
And so when it comes to evaluating Chinese intentions in the world, the evidence is contradictory and inconclusive.
The main indicator we should look to when making this determination, of whether to view China as an adversary or ally, is whether China is developing a respect for fundamental human rights enshrined in the rule of law.
The answer to that question can, I believe, be found in the law schools of Beijing, Hong Kong, Boston and New York.
My great hope is that in the coming decades, political leadership at every level of the Chinese Communist Party will pass from the hands of engineers, economists and political apparatchiks to those schooled in the rule of law.
I hope that the Chinese bar will rise in prominence and ambition.
For those are the men and women with the knowledge of just how far a free people living under the rule of law can go.
Throughout history, it has been a truism that democracies do not go to war against one another. States respecting the rights of the individual enshrined by the rule of law have not gone to war with one another.
And so it should be with China and the United States.
What practical steps can the United States take to achieve this desired outcome?
I propose a path of positive engagement.
Positive engagement means finding areas of strategic cooperation that are based on achieving constructive goals worthy of two great nations.
Rather than define our strategic partnership by shared enemies, as we did in the 1980’s versus the Soviet Union and in this decade with Islamic fundamentalists, we should work together to solve long term challenges facing our nations and the international community.
We should seek mutual benefit in developing clean energy sources, sharing pollution control technology and settling regional conflicts in places like Kashmir and the Middle East.
We should work together to achieve stability in Afghanistan. We should set joint benchmarks for development aid to impoverished nations of Africa.
Positive engagement means close economic cooperation marked by eventual Chinese membership in the G-8.
Positive engagement means an open door to Chinese participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative.
It means an ever-increasing educational exchange and cultural contacts that are not hostage to the vagaries of the government-to-government relationship.
Yet at the same time, the United States must remain true to its convictions and denounce human rights abuses wherever they are taking place.
The more active our engagement, the less room there will be for misunderstanding and miscalculation. How better to ascertain another’s intentions than to remain in constant contact.
For the answer to this riddle of “is China a threat?” can be answered by determining their intentions. Through positive engagement we may learn more of Chinese intentions while perhaps shaping them as well.
Thank you very much- and I look forward to hearing your views today and in the days ahead.