National Interest: Americans must answer 4 questions before confronting China
It is no longer surprising that China is the main topic of discussion that, over the past few months, has divided not only the American foreign policy community in general, but also realist politicians, with everyone agreeing that the rise of Chinese hard power has developed It is important that it will inevitably lead to reactions of retaliatory dimensions from Washington abroad.
The magazine confirms – in a report According to Sumantra Mitra, a researcher at the Center for the National Interest in Washington, what it looks like in the end in the US relationship with the Chinese dragon is that there is an increasing disconnect between the goal of American policy and the subject of the goal, so some key questions must be answered at the outset.
The first – the magazine adds – is China a power that believes in the principle of imposing a fait accompli, or is it open to modifying its positions and policies? And does the United States have enough information to formulate a grand strategy for Beijing’s rise?
If China is a de facto power, this will mean that it will settle for itself a higher position in the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific regions, and the steady rise of its GDP will mean a greater expansion of its interests and military power, but as long as it is ready to work within the specified framework, this will not pose a problem unless it engages The United States is in a grand strategy of supremacy.
On the other hand, the greater danger will be America’s transformation from a de facto accepting power to a revolutionary power seeking to export its ideology across the Asian continent, which would surely mean not only alienating potential partners such as India’s increasingly delinquent liberalism, but also creating an open conflict with China.
The second question is: What will be the ultimate goal of the United States? If the goal is to seek to achieve superiority at any cost, this will necessarily mean that there are no chances for coexistence between the two powers, because any growth, even a small amount, of Chinese power will constitute an American threat to the balance that must be corrected at any cost, and the scenario of destroying Chinese power will be possible if necessary.
The third question is: What does the United States mean by destroying Chinese power in Asia? Does that mean working to bring down the Chinese government and the Communist Party and defending or promoting democracy? Or does that involve containing Beijing’s power with a series of alliances surrounding China without making any extra effort to limit its influence?
The National Interest asserts that the first option will cause a war that will include, in particular, the island of Taiwan, which will turn into a defense center and a tool to achieve the ultimate goal of stopping the rise of China.
On the other hand, adopting the second option will most likely lead to the fall of Taiwan to China, which has spent about 20 years trying to calm its rebellion, but the broader balance of power in Asia will not change even in light of this given, as China will remain surrounded by countries such as Japan, India, Vietnam and Australia, There is no indication of its will or ability to launch an expansionist war across the continent.
The fourth and final question is: Do Americans really understand what it would cost to plunge into a great power war with a nuclear rival, especially around a piece of land (Taiwan) barely miles away from the missile batteries off the Chinese coast? Most of them do not realize the extent of the destructive powers of civilization involved, even if it was a limited nuclear war.
To approximate the picture only – the magazine adds – the total losses of the United States in its war on terrorism during the decade – including the attacks of September 11, 2001 – were about 12 thousand dead and several thousand wounded, and the outcome of the sinking of a group of aircraft carriers in the first hour will be Only than any major battle with China is greater than that, not to mention air and missile attacks or things developing into a nuclear conflict, is Washington ready to fight such a war for Taiwan and risk so many casualties?