FEBRUARY 20, 2019
In his highly acclaimed 2017
book, Destined for
War, Harvard professor
Graham Allison assessed the likelihood that the United States and China would
one day find themselves at war. Comparing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to
great-power rivalries all the way back to the Peloponnesian War of the fifth
century BC, he concluded that the future risk of a conflagration was substantial.
Like much current analysis of U.S.-Chinese relations, however, he missed a
crucial point: for all intents and purposes, the United States and China are
already at war with one another. Even if their present slow-burn conflict may
not produce the immediate devastation of a conventional hot war, its long-term
consequences could prove no less dire.
To suggest this means reassessing our
understanding of what constitutes war. From Allison’s perspective (and that of
so many others in Washington and elsewhere), “peace” and “war” stand as polar
opposites. One day, our soldiers are in their garrisons being trained and
cleaning their weapons; the next, they are called into action and sent onto a
battlefield. War, in this model, begins when the first shots are fired.
Well, think again in
this new era of growing great-power struggle and competition. Today, war means
so much more than military combat and can take place even as the leaders of the
warring powers meet to negotiate and share dry-aged steak and whipped potatoes (as Donald
Trump and Xi Jinping did at Mar-a-Lago in 2017). That is exactly where we are
when it comes to Sino-American relations. Consider it war by another name, or
perhaps, to bring back a long-retired term, a burning new version of a cold
war.
Even before Donald Trump entered the
Oval Office, the U.S. military and other branches of government were
already gearing up for a long-term quasi-war, involving both
growing economic and diplomatic pressure on China and a buildup of military
forces along that country’s periphery. Since his arrival, such initiatives have
escalated into Cold War-style combat by another name, with his administration
committed to defeating China in a struggle for global economic, technological,
and military supremacy.
This includes the president’s
much-publicized “trade war” with China, aimed at hobbling that country’s future
growth; a techno-war designed to prevent it from overtaking the U.S. in key
breakthrough areas of technology; a diplomatic war intended to isolate Beijing
and frustrate its grandiose plans for global outreach; a cyber war (largely
hidden from public scrutiny); and a range of military measures as well. This
may not be war in the traditional sense of the term, but for leaders on both
sides, it has the feel of one.
Why China?
The media and many politicians
continue to focus on U.S.-Russian relations, in large part because of
revelations of Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 American presidential election and
the ongoing Mueller investigation. Behind the scenes, however, most senior
military and foreign policy officials in Washington view China, not Russia, as
the country’s principal adversary. In eastern Ukraine, the Balkans, Syria,
cyberspace, and in the area of nuclear weaponry, Russia does indeed pose a
variety of threats to Washington’s goals and desires. Still, as an economically
hobbled petro-state, it lacks the kind of might that would allow it to truly
challenge this country’s status as the world’s dominant power. China is another
story altogether. With its vast economy, growing technological prowess,
intercontinental “Belt and Road” infrastructure project, and rapidly
modernizing military, an emboldened China could someday match or even exceed
U.S. power on a global scale, an outcome American elites are determined to
prevent at any cost.
Washington’s fears of a rising China
were on full display in January with the release of the 2019 Worldwide Threat
Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, a synthesis of the views of the Central Intelligence Agency
and other members of that “community.” Its conclusion: “We assess that China’s
leaders will try to extend the country’s global economic, political, and
military reach while using China’s military capabilities and overseas
infrastructure and energy investments under the Belt and Road Initiative to
diminish U.S. influence.”
To counter such efforts, every branch
of government is now expected to mobilize its capabilities to bolster American
— and diminish Chinese — power. In Pentagon documents, this stance is summed up
by the term “overmatch,” which translates as the eternal preservation of
American global superiority vis-à-vis China (and all other potential rivals).
“The United States must retain overmatch,” the administration’s National
Security Strategy insists,
and preserve a “combination of capabilities in sufficient scale to prevent
enemy success,” while continuing to “shape the international environment to
protect our interests.”
In other words, there can never be
parity between the two countries. The only acceptable status for China is as a
distinctly lesser power. To ensure such an outcome, administration officials
insist, the U.S. must take action on a daily basis to contain or impede its
rise.
In previous epochs, as Allison makes
clear in his book, this equation — a prevailing power seeking to retain its
dominant status and a rising power seeking to overcome its subordinate one —
has almost always resulted in conventional conflict. In today’s world, however,
where great-power armed combat could possibly end in a nuclear exchange and
mutual annihilation, direct military conflict is a distinctly unappealing
option for all parties. Instead, governing elites have developed other means of
warfare — economic, technological, and covert — to achieve such strategic
objectives. Viewed this way, the United States is already in close to full
combat mode with respect to China.
Trade War
When it comes to the economy, the
language betrays the reality all too clearly. The Trump administration’s
economic struggle with China is regularly described, openly and without
qualification, as a “war.” And there’s no doubt that senior White House
officials, beginning with the president and his chief trade
representative, Robert
Lighthizer, see it
just that way: as a means of pulverizing the Chinese economy and so curtailing
that country’s ability to compete with the United States in all other measures
of power.
Ostensibly, the aim of President
Trump’s May 2018 decision to impose $60 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports (increased in September to $200 billion) was to rectify a
trade imbalance between the two countries, while protecting the American
economy against what is described as China’s malign behavior. Its trade
practices “plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and
prosperity of the United States economy,” as the president put it when announcing the second round of tariffs.
An examination of the demands
submitted to Chinese negotiators by the U.S. trade delegation last May
suggests, however, that Washington’s primary intent hasn’t been to rectify that
trade imbalance but to impede China’s economic growth. Among the stipulations
Beijing must acquiesce to before receiving tariff relief, according to leaked
documents from U.S.
negotiators that were spread on Chinese social media:
+ halting all government subsidies to
advanced manufacturing industries in its Made in China 2025 program, an
endeavor that covers 10 key economic sectors, including aircraft manufacturing,
electric cars, robotics, computer microchips, and artificial intelligence;
+ accepting American restrictions on
investments in sensitive technologies without retaliating;
+ opening up its service and
agricultural sectors — areas where Chinese firms have an inherent advantage —
to full American competition.
In fact, this should be considered a
straightforward declaration of economic war. Acquiescing to such demands would
mean accepting a permanent subordinate status vis-à-vis the United States in
hopes of continuing a profitable trade relationship with this country. “The list
reads like the terms for a surrender rather than a basis for negotiation,”
was the way Eswar Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell
University, accurately described these developments.
Technological Warfare
As suggested by America’s trade
demands, Washington’s intent is not only to hobble China’s economy today and
tomorrow but for decades to come. This has led to an intense, far-ranging
campaign to deprive it
of access to advanced technologies and to cripple its leading technology firms.
Chinese leaders have long realized
that, for their country to achieve economic and military parity with the United
States, they must master the cutting-edge technologies that will dominate the
twenty-first-century global economy, including artificial intelligence (AI),
fifth-generation (5G) telecommunications, electric vehicles, and
nanotechnology. Not surprisingly then, the government has invested in a major
way in science and technology education, subsidized research in pathbreaking
fields, and helped launch promising startups, among other such endeavors — all in
the very fashion that the Internet and other American computer and aerospace
innovations were originally financed and encouraged by the Department of Defense.
Chinese companies have also demanded
technology transfers when investing in or forging industrial partnerships with
foreign firms, a common practice in international development. India, to cite a
recent example of this phenomenon, expects that significant technology transfers from
American firms will be one outcome of its agreed-upon purchases of advanced
American weaponry.
In addition, Chinese firms have
been accused of stealing American technology through
cybertheft, provoking widespread outrage in this country. Realistically
speaking, it’s difficult for outside observers to determine to what degree
China’s recent technological advances are the product of commonplace and
legitimate investments in science and technology and to what degree they’re due
to cyberespionage. Given Beijing’s massive
investment in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at the graduate and
post-graduate level, however, it’s safe to assume that most of that country’s
advances are the result of domestic efforts.
Certainly, given what’s publicly
known about Chinese cybertheft activities, it’s reasonable for American
officials to apply pressure on Beijing to curb the practice. However, the Trump
administration’s drive to blunt that country’s technological progress is also
aimed at perfectly legitimate activities. For example, the White House seeks to
ban Beijing’s government subsidies for progress on artificial intelligence at
the same time that the Department of Defense is pouring billions of dollars into AI research at home.
The administration is also acting to block the Chinese acquisition of U.S.
technology firms and of exports of advanced components and know-how.
In an example of this technology war
that’s made the
headlines lately,
Washington has been actively seeking to sabotage the efforts of Huawei, one of China’s most prominent telecom firms, to gain
leadership in the global deployment of 5G wireless communications. Such wireless
systems are important
in part because they will transmit colossal amounts of electronic data at far
faster rates than now conceivable, facilitating the introduction of
self-driving cars, widespread roboticization, and the universal application of
AI.
Second only to Apple as the world’s
supplier of smartphones and a major producer of telecommunications equipment,
Huawei has sought to take the lead in the race for 5G adaptation around the
world. Fearing that this might give China an enormous advantage in the coming
decades, the Trump administration has tried to prevent that. In what is widely
described as a “tech Cold War,” it has put enormous
pressure on both its
Asian and European allies to bar the company from conducting business in their
countries, even as it sought the arrest in Canada of Huawei’s chief financial
officer, Meng Wanzhou, and her extradition to the U.S. on charges of tricking American
banks into aiding Iranian firms (in violation of Washington’s sanctions on that
country). Other attacks on Huawei are in the works, including a potential banon the sales of its products in this country. Such
moves are regularly described as focused on boosting the security of both the
United States and its allies by preventing the Chinese government from using
Huawei’s telecom networks to steal military secrets. The real reason — barely
disguised — is simply to block China from gaining technological parity with the
United States.
Cyberwarfare
There would be much to write on this
subject, if only it weren’t still hidden in the shadows of the growing conflict
between the two countries. Not surprisingly, however, little information is
available on U.S.-Chinese cyberwarfare. All that can be said with confidence is
that an intense war is now being waged between the two countries in cyberspace.
American officials accuse China of engaging in a broad-based cyber-assault
on this country, involving both outright cyberespionage to obtain military as
well as corporate secrets and widespread political meddling. “What the Russians
are doing pales in comparison to what China is doing,” said Vice President Mike Pence last October in a
speech at the Hudson Institute, though — typically on the subject — he provided
not a shred of evidence for his claim.
Not disclosed is what this country is
doing to combat China in cyberspace. All that can be known from available
information is that this is a two-sided war in which the U.S. is conducting its own assaults. “The United States will
impose swift and costly consequences on foreign governments, criminals, and
other actors who undertake significant malicious cyber activities,” the 2017
National Security Strategy affirmed. What form these “consequences” have taken
has yet to be revealed, but there’s little doubt that America’s cyber warriors
have been active in this domain.
Diplomatic and Military Coercion
Completing the picture of America’s
ongoing war with China are the fierce pressures being exerted on the diplomatic
and military fronts to frustrate Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions. To advance
those aspirations, China’sleadership is relying heavily on a much-touted Belt and Road
Initiative, a
trillion-dollar plan to help fund and encourage the construction of a vast new
network of road, rail, port, and pipeline infrastructure across Eurasia and
into the Middle East and Africa. By financing — and, in many cases, actually
building — such infrastructure, Beijing hopes to bind the economies of a host
of far-flung nations ever closer to its own, while increasing its political
influence across the Eurasian mainland and Africa. As Beijing’s leadership sees
it, at least in terms of orienting the planet’s future economics, its role
would be similar to that of the Marshall Plan that cemented U.S. influence in
Europe after World War II.
And given exactly that possibility,
Washington has begun to actively seek to undermine the Belt and Road wherever
it can — discouraging allies from participating, while stirring up unease in countries
like Malaysia and Ugandaover the enormous debts to China they may end up with and the heavy-handed
manner in which that
country’s firms often carry out such overseas construction projects. (For
example, they typically bring in Chinese laborers to do most of the work,
rather than hiring and training locals.)
“China uses bribes, opaque
agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to
Beijing’s wishes and demands,” National Security Advisor John Bolton claimed in a December speech on U.S. policy on that
continent. “Its investment ventures are riddled with corruption,” he added,
“and do not meet the same environmental or ethical standards as U.S.
developmental programs.” Bolton promised that the Trump administration would
provide a superior alternative for African nations seeking development funds,
but — and this is something of a pattern as well — no such assistance has yet
materialized.
In addition to diplomatic pushback,
the administration has undertaken a series of initiatives intended to isolate
China militarily and limit its strategic options. In South Asia, for example,
Washington has abandoned its past position of maintaining rough parity in its
relations with India and Pakistan. In recent years, it’s swung sharplytowards a strategic alliance with New Dehli,
attempting to enlist it fully in America’s efforts to contain China and,
presumably, in the process punishing Pakistan for its increasingly enthusiastic
role in the Belt and Road Initiative.
In the Western Pacific, the U.S.
has stepped up its naval patrols and forged new basing
arrangements with local powers — all with the aim of confining the Chinese
military to areas close to the mainland. In response, Beijing has sought to
escape the grip of American power by establishing miniature bases on
Chinese-claimed islands in the South China Sea (or even constructingartificial islands to house bases there) — moves
widely condemned by the hawks in Washington.
To demonstrate its ire at the
effrontery of Beijing in the Pacific (once knownas an “American lake”), the White House has ordered an
increased pace of so-called freedom-of-navigation operations (FRONOPs). Navy
warships regularly sail within shooting range of those very island bases, suggesting a U.S.
willingness to employ military force to resist future Chinese moves in the
region (and also creating situations in which a misstep could lead to a military incident that could
lead… well, anywhere).
In Washington, the warnings about
Chinese military encroachment in the region are already reaching a fever pitch.
For instance, Admiral Philip Davidson, commander of U.S. forces in the
Pacific, describedthe situation there in recent congressional testimony
this way: “In short, China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in
all scenarios short of war with the United States.”
A Long War of Attrition
As Admiral Davidson suggests, one
possible outcome of the ongoing cold war with China could be armed conflict of
the traditional sort. Such an encounter, in turn, could escalate to the nuclear
level, resulting in mutual annihilation. A war involving only “conventional”
forces would itself undoubtedly be devastating and lead to widespread
suffering, not to mention the collapse of the global economy.
Even if a shooting war doesn’t erupt,
however, a long-term geopolitical war of attrition between the U.S. and China
will, in the end, have debilitating and possibly catastrophic consequences for
both sides. Take the trade war, for example. If that’s not resolved soon in a
positive manner, continuing high U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will severely
curb Chinese economic growth and so weaken the world economy as a whole, punishing every
nation on Earth, including this one. High tariffs will also increase costs for
American consumers and endanger the prosperity and survival of many firms that
rely on Chinese raw materials and components.
This new brand of war will also
ensure that already sky-high defense expenditures will continue to rise,
diverting funds from vital needs like education, health, infrastructure, and
the environment. Meanwhile, preparations for a future war with China have
already become the number one priority at the Pentagon, crowding out all other
considerations. “While we’re focused on ongoing operations,” acting Secretary
of Defense Patrick Shanahan reportedly told his senior staff on his first day in office this
January, “remember China, China, China.”
Perhaps the greatest victim of this
ongoing conflict will be planet Earth itself and all the creatures, humans
included, who inhabit it. As the world’s top two emitters of climate-altering
greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to halt global warming
or all of us are doomed to a hellish future. With a war under way, even a
non-shooting one, the chance for such collaboration is essentially zero. The
only way to save civilization is for the U.S. and China to declare peace and
focus together on human salvation.
This article originally
appeared TomDispatch.
More articles by:MICHAEL T. KLARE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.