Think tanks in the United States seem to be very creative. The latest example is a study by three researchers of the Rand Corporation, which is believed to have close relationship with the military. Titled “War with China: Thinking through the Unthinkable,” the 116-page report says that a war between China and the US in the next 10 years is “not unimaginable.” The study looked into four possible prospects of the war — short-term low intensity; long-term high intensity; short-term high intensity; and long-term high intensity — and concluded that whatever the case China’s losses would definitely exceed that of the United States.
Talks about the possibility of war have never ceased in the US media, but Rand was the first to discuss it in such a specific manner. This proves that some people in the US really have come to the understanding that China would be the US’ archrival for quite a period in the future.
According to the theory of “aggressive realism”, war is unavoidable between a rising country and the current dominating nation, as was frequently seen in history. However, that stereotyped perception of the past two centuries would be an insane assumption in time and space if applied today indiscriminately. Having experienced two devastating wars in the 20th century, the human race cannot stand another one in the new century.
China doesn’t want to go to war with the US. Its modernization drive is to let its people live a happy life rather than challenge the US’ hegemonic position in the world. It is not to establish a new Asia-Pacific order dominated by China. China is also modernizing its national defense and developing its military power but that is because it doesn’t want to repeat the tragedy of being “bullied and beaten because of being less developed” rather than bully and beat others and because it wants to stop wars rather than wage one by itself. China never regards military actions as an effective way to settle disputes between nations.
Frankly speaking, the US is sort of fond of going to war. It loves to show its muscles and threaten other nations because it has an extraordinarily strong military power. Nevertheless, it is also wise enough to know the difference between big and small potential enemies. The US could spank any small country whenever it wants or thinks necessary to and it does so without leaving any leeway for compromise. Iraq and Libya were two examples. Muammar Gaddafi shipped all his nuclear material and facilities to Missouri but the US still launched military strikes on his country.
A different story would ensue if the target were a big country. In the Cold War time, the US and Soviet Union came to the brink of a real war several times, but each time Washington pulled back before it was too late, such as during the two Berlin crises and the Cuba missile crisis. These have remained study examples for international relations scholars.
The Rand report says, if a war breaks out between the US and China, it “would be a regional regular war.” This is not necessarily true. If war really happens, it may not necessarily proceed as the scenario suggested by the Rand scholars predicts, for each side would fight to its greatest advantage according to how things would actually go on in the battlefield. And the report’s claim that China will suffer a greater loss than the US is also dubious. In its history the poorly armed Chinese army always ended up defeating a far better-armed enemy.
Differences and rivalry do exist between China and the US but they are controllable. Take the lately much hyped South China Sea issue. The two sides were not only engaged in heated verbal exchanges but also assumed a posture of engaging in a full-fledged war, with the US sending in military aircraft and carriers and China conducting naval drills. After the so-called international tribunal announced the award, both sides intensified the battle of words trying to win supports from the world opinion circles. But the situation is still under control.
After meeting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Vientiane, Laos in July, US Secretary of State John Kerry told a press conference that “the time has come to sort of move away from the sort of public tensions and turn the page and begin to engage in full measure of diplomacy.” He also said in his visits to Manila that he would “encourage President Duterte to engage in dialogue and in negotiation” with China. He made similar remarks during his visit in that country. It doesn’t mean that the US would no longer exert pressures on China, for Kerry still claimed that the arbitration award is “legally binding”. Nevertheless, Washington clearly understands that China would not bow before the pressure and that the disputes in the South China Sea still have to be settled by the disputing parties themselves through negotiation. It seems that the Obama administration follows the principle of “engaging in struggle but keeping the ties (with China) unbroken,” a principle also followed by China.
The South China Sea dispute has cast shadows over the relations between China and the US, eclipsing the bright side of common interests and cooperation and giving rise to a pessimistic sentiment in both countries. However, the cooperation is still continuing on a number of issues. For example, the two countries cooperated pretty well last year on the Iranian nuclear issue and the global climate change. Recently US National Security Adviser Susan Rice came to China to prepare for President Barack Obama’s participation in the G20 summit to be held in Hangzhou and for his scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the summit. Obviously the two countries will continue to lead the global economic recovery and growth under the framework of G20.
It is factual that difference and rivalry exist between China and the US; and it is also factual that they share certain common interests and need cooperation. This “rivalry plus cooperation” relationship will continue. And this is how the Sino-US relationship differs from other big-nation relations. Possibilities of war do exist between the two countries and that’s why China lists “no conflict, no confrontation” as the top principle in its suggestions about establishing a new type of big-nation relationship. But exaggerating the war prospect will undoubtedly bring negative impact to the bilateral relations. The more such talks, the more mutual suspicion. Finally, such speculation would become “self-fulfilling prophesy” as suggested by certain American scholars.
By the way, the report mentioned in this article was written by the Rand scholars at the request of the deputy secretary’s office of the US Department of the Army. In its preface, the report states that it does not necessarily represent Rand’s opinion, nor that of the client; it is only the opinion of the three researchers in the study. Though we need not attach too much importance to it, we should not forget that it still reflects the ideas held by some people in the US governmental, military and academic circles.
Think tanks in the US should apply their creativeness more on helping promote cooperation and control differences with China and contribute more practical ideas in this regard. If so, they are positive energy added to the Sino-US relations.
China and the US need more positive energy in their relations.
