By Jerome A. Cohen
Here is Michael Cole’s excellent analysis of the current Sino-American crisis. I would only add the following:
We should note the very nice statement by China’s new Ambassador Qin as he arrived in Washington, a vivid contrast with everything else coming out of the MOFA that sent him and at odds with his own reputation. He stated that “the China-U.S. relationship has once again come to a new critical juncture, facing not only many difficulties and challenges but also great opportunities and potential.”
I wish that Michael, in his helpful list of the issues, including human rights, that divide the PRC from the West had made explicit reference to the suppression of human rights lawyers and the abusive criminal justice system that enforces the repression of free expression.
PRC rhetoric does not rail against the current system of international law as much as the alleged manipulation by the US and allied governments of that system and the need to mobilize the non-liberal states to overcome that manipulation, a process that is well under way.
The crucial element in Sino-Western relations now is what to do about Criticism. Although the Biden administration has advocated a balanced China policy that consists of Cooperation, Competition and Confrontation, it did not adopt the fourth “C” that I have been advocating – Criticism, even though it has properly been engaging in a good deal of it. That Criticism should be mutual, not unilateral, of course, since, although the valid aspects of the PRC’s responsive criticisms sting, they provide useful additional stimulus to the necessary domestic debates that currently roil the US, Canada, Australia, the UK and other liberal democracies striving – in public – to address their failings. As many of us have recognized and as the PRC now makes plain, it is easy enough to articulate the elements of a balanced policy, but difficult to execute in practice since Criticism - devastating, rightful condemnation - gets in the way of Cooperation.
Nevertheless, despite a similar challenge in Soviet-Western relations, Moscow and Washington and its allies did manage to reach a number of important agreements and practices that were crucial in avoiding a conflict that many observers thought inevitable. That record should be re-studied. The PRC, despite its current hostility, will recognize its security interests in resolving certain universal problems regardless of its preference for all-out opposition to the West. That’s what Wendy Sherman was emphasizing the other day. But we need to be patient and anticipate a long period of stalemate before that recognition is translated into action. That is why during the immediate period of the Xi Jinping years we have to avoid unnecessary provocations and excessive nationalism that plays well in domestic politics but can lead to disaster. I don’t like Confrontation and prefer Deterrence, although it does not begin with “C”. Containment, which I previously invoked, might also be preferable, although it hearkens back to the Cold War and seems to vindicate the PRC charge that the US wants to contain China’s progress. Biden and allies should make clear that we do not want to contain the PRC’s progress, which should be evident to objective analysts, but to contain its destabilizing aggressiveness, just as the PRC rejects the destabilizing actions of the US in recent years. Further analysis of the Cold War and anti-Soviet Containment seems to be warranted, and there is no time to be lost.