Former Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) once said that “all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.” Whether his apostolic successor, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), who is visiting US President Barack Obama this week in Washington, believes this particular line in Mao’s catechism is unclear. Completely clear, however, is that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) not only believes it, but is implementing it.
Systematic expansion of China’s strategic nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities; rapid growth in submarine and blue-water naval forces; substantial investments in anti-access and area-denial weapons such as anti-carrier cruise missiles; fifth--generation fighter-bomber platforms and sophisticated cyber-warfare techniques all testify to the PLA’s operational objectives.
Western business and political leaders have chattered for years about China as a globally “responsible stakeholder” enjoying a “peaceful rise.” This is the acceptable face Hu will present in Washington. However, just because the musclemen aren’t listed on the Chinese leader’s passenger manifest doesn’t mean they aren’t flying the plane. The Chinese Communist Party remains unquestionably dominant and the PLA remains its most potent element.
During US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ Beijing meetings last week, China tested its stealthy new J-20, a prototype combat aircraft. Many scoffed at the notion that Hu seemed surprised when Gates raised the test and at the Chinese leader’s explanation that the timing was coincidental. Was the J-20 flight intended to embarrass Gates and Obama prior to Hu’s Washington visit or was it a signal to China’s civilian leadership about who is actually in charge? In truth, both seem likely.
Both Hu and the PLA undoubtedly understand that China is dealing with the most left-wing, least national--security-oriented, least assertive US president in decades. This matters because China will be heavily influenced by its perception of US policies and capabilities. Obama’s extravagant domestic spending, and the consequent ballooning of US national debt, has enhanced China’s position at the US’ expense. Indeed, the only budget line Obama has been interested in cutting, which he has done with gusto, is defense.
Sensing growing weakness, therefore, it would be surprising if Beijing did not continue its assertive economic, political and military policies. Thus, we can expect more discrimination against foreign investors and businesses in China, as both the US and EU chambers of commerce there have recently complained. Further expansive, unjustifiable territorial claims in adjacent East Asian waters are also likely. While the Pentagon is clipping coupons and limiting its nuclear capabilities in treaties with Russia, the PLA is celebrating Mardi Gras.
Consider two further important issues: Taiwan and North Korea. When Beijing threatened Taipei in 1996, then-US president Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait, demonstrating the US’ commitment to Taiwan’s defense. Does anyone, particularly in Beijing, believe Obama would do anything nearly as muscular faced with comparable belligerence today? On the North Korean menace, meanwhile, Obama is conforming to a 20-year pattern of US deference to China that has enabled a bellicose, nuclear Pyongyang.
Of course, if China sensed a US determined to maintain its dominant position in the western Pacific, and ready to match its deterination with budget resources, it might be dissuaded from its recent objectionable behavior. In such circumstances, more balanced, cooperative and ultimately more productive relations would likely follow. On the other hand, if China is determined to increase its military strength regardless of Washington’s posture, all the more reason for the US to ready itself now.
China should take careful note: Neither Hu nor the PLA ought to assume that Obama truly represents broader US public opinion. There could be a different president two years hence, ready to reverse his agenda of international passivity and decline. Beijing can certainly take advantage of Obama for now, both because of his philosophical and leadership weaknesses. However, doing so could cost them in the future, if the US in 2012 goes to the next level in rejecting Obama’s failing policies.
John Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and served as US ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS