One anecdotal comment here... When I was in the Army in the 1980s, we called the Soviet Union "The Threat" but it was a somewhat remote one. We prepared to fight "Ivan" but I think we were all a bit sanguine about deterrence preventing that from actually happening. From talking to students who are currently in the military, they are encountering an attitude of China as a more imminent and/or inevitable threat. This seems more reminiscent of (what I heard and read about) the attitudes of the military in the 1950 through early 1960s when the military actually expected to fight the Soviets.
I was glad I read this article because I got to read two interesting articles (Drezner's in Politico and Weiss's in Foreign Affairs'). Weiss makes a reasonably good case but all I can say is I sure hope she's right. Ultimately if China tries to invade Taiwan the decision will be largely one man's and an individual 's decision is more likely to be irriational. I believe Xi really, really wants to get Taiwan and that may count too heavily. Certainly if he has a half competent diplomatic core (I'm not certain he does) he must surely see that there is no chance at all of the Taiwanese voluntarily accepting absorbtion into an authoritarian one party state. The fact that he is massively building up his navy has to count for something too. Let's just hope caution and reason wins out.
Concur with your general sentiment, both in diagnosis and prognosis, Dan. I live in Romania, and can relate two curious anecdotes. The first is that, unlike Poland and the Baltic states, Romanians are much less dedicated to the idea of the West continuing support for Ukraine or seeing that war through to victory. I will hold off my OPINION on that (it's not a kind one toward Romanians. And the reason this is surprising is that Romania, as a populace, has NEVER been sympathetic to Russia. Until now, apparently. Some of this is based on fear (Russia is the eternal boogeyman); but seemingly even more based on some illogical sympathy).
The other, far more unexpected one--a question I am asked, repeatedly, by Romanians and other Europeans: if I think China will invade Taiwan (and if China can be stopped). This tells me is that the hawkish China narrative is having effect (for what it's worth, I always tell them that, if anything, Ukraine has made China MUCH more cautious about any hostile ambitions toward Taiwan and that no, I do not think China has any definite timetable, nor that there is inevitability to an invasion as has been purported by some). I think yours' and Weiss' voices need to amplified and repeated on this. This requires nuance (if people think the Chinese don't get nuance--even when they're acting aggressively--read some of their strategy papers. No shortage of high-level thinking going on there).
Jessica Chen Weiss may be as right or wrong as the more hawkish voices that we hear. But it’s not acceptable not to give full agency to the rhetoric and actions of Xi’s China. Xi has not hidden his ambition for the CCP in the global order and just yesterday Foreign Minister Qin Gang said “The principal contradiction in today's world is not at all a so-called "democracy vs autocracy" played up by a handful of countries, but a struggle between development and containment of development, and between global justice and power politics…China and Russia are committed to promoting a multipolar world and greater democracy in international relations, which meets the demand for upholding international equity and justice, and fits in well with building a community with a shared future for mankind”, using several Xi phrases.
In my view, Ms Chen Weiss isn’t paying enough attention to what these words mean.
Whether or not the US is justified in its hawkish tone towards China, there are certainly consequences. The last 3 decades of US foreign policy has usually included a military component. As a result many have commented on the negative posture that foreign countries have taken to the US. As the US have interests across the globe, it’s blue water military is not far behind. A prime example are the recent developments in the Middle East. As the US has chosen sides by selling weapons or lending military aid, it is unable to play negotiator and peace broker. As a result China has filled the vacuum. Certainly there may have been a self serving motive to secure Middle Eastern oil (this taking pressure from the need to occupy the South China Sea) in addition to advancing the BRI. The result is a smaller zone for American global influence. The US can use an additional tool it it’s foreign policy tool box.
One anecdotal comment here... When I was in the Army in the 1980s, we called the Soviet Union "The Threat" but it was a somewhat remote one. We prepared to fight "Ivan" but I think we were all a bit sanguine about deterrence preventing that from actually happening. From talking to students who are currently in the military, they are encountering an attitude of China as a more imminent and/or inevitable threat. This seems more reminiscent of (what I heard and read about) the attitudes of the military in the 1950 through early 1960s when the military actually expected to fight the Soviets.
I was glad I read this article because I got to read two interesting articles (Drezner's in Politico and Weiss's in Foreign Affairs'). Weiss makes a reasonably good case but all I can say is I sure hope she's right. Ultimately if China tries to invade Taiwan the decision will be largely one man's and an individual 's decision is more likely to be irriational. I believe Xi really, really wants to get Taiwan and that may count too heavily. Certainly if he has a half competent diplomatic core (I'm not certain he does) he must surely see that there is no chance at all of the Taiwanese voluntarily accepting absorbtion into an authoritarian one party state. The fact that he is massively building up his navy has to count for something too. Let's just hope caution and reason wins out.
Concur with your general sentiment, both in diagnosis and prognosis, Dan. I live in Romania, and can relate two curious anecdotes. The first is that, unlike Poland and the Baltic states, Romanians are much less dedicated to the idea of the West continuing support for Ukraine or seeing that war through to victory. I will hold off my OPINION on that (it's not a kind one toward Romanians. And the reason this is surprising is that Romania, as a populace, has NEVER been sympathetic to Russia. Until now, apparently. Some of this is based on fear (Russia is the eternal boogeyman); but seemingly even more based on some illogical sympathy).
The other, far more unexpected one--a question I am asked, repeatedly, by Romanians and other Europeans: if I think China will invade Taiwan (and if China can be stopped). This tells me is that the hawkish China narrative is having effect (for what it's worth, I always tell them that, if anything, Ukraine has made China MUCH more cautious about any hostile ambitions toward Taiwan and that no, I do not think China has any definite timetable, nor that there is inevitability to an invasion as has been purported by some). I think yours' and Weiss' voices need to amplified and repeated on this. This requires nuance (if people think the Chinese don't get nuance--even when they're acting aggressively--read some of their strategy papers. No shortage of high-level thinking going on there).
Jessica Chen Weiss may be as right or wrong as the more hawkish voices that we hear. But it’s not acceptable not to give full agency to the rhetoric and actions of Xi’s China. Xi has not hidden his ambition for the CCP in the global order and just yesterday Foreign Minister Qin Gang said “The principal contradiction in today's world is not at all a so-called "democracy vs autocracy" played up by a handful of countries, but a struggle between development and containment of development, and between global justice and power politics…China and Russia are committed to promoting a multipolar world and greater democracy in international relations, which meets the demand for upholding international equity and justice, and fits in well with building a community with a shared future for mankind”, using several Xi phrases.
In my view, Ms Chen Weiss isn’t paying enough attention to what these words mean.
George Magnus
Good analogy.
Whether or not the US is justified in its hawkish tone towards China, there are certainly consequences. The last 3 decades of US foreign policy has usually included a military component. As a result many have commented on the negative posture that foreign countries have taken to the US. As the US have interests across the globe, it’s blue water military is not far behind. A prime example are the recent developments in the Middle East. As the US has chosen sides by selling weapons or lending military aid, it is unable to play negotiator and peace broker. As a result China has filled the vacuum. Certainly there may have been a self serving motive to secure Middle Eastern oil (this taking pressure from the need to occupy the South China Sea) in addition to advancing the BRI. The result is a smaller zone for American global influence. The US can use an additional tool it it’s foreign policy tool box.
The US has a much longer track record on creating actual peace through diplomacy than any other nation, and definitely far more than China.
Agree.