Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang Jisi, “Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust”

By Kenneth G. Lieberthal

Lieberthal’s argument would be much stronger for the Chinese if he framed the Japan occupation as America wishing to suppress a former enemy.  And, frankly, as Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in his latest book, “Strategic Vision,” America’s hegemonic positions around the world indeed produces a public good: stability for everyone to plow ahead.

Brzezinski also argued a sudden and rapid decline of American power would bring about chaos and likely violence as the world realigns.

China’s challenge to the American hegemony, especially in East Asia, must have that reality in mind.

Unless China is ready to fully unseat America in East Asia and at the same time able to preserve peace and stability for the region, China should not try.

Until then, China’s strategy should be fully defensive in nature, in the ability to asymmetrically deter American force purely from the perspective of a fight where America attempts to bring the fight unto the Chinese mainland.

America’s “credibility of its commitments to friends and allies in the region” is simply a dress-up for preserving American hegemony in the region.  This way of framing the argument comes across as crafty and insincere.

America has not provided evidence about cyber theft, and so far the U.S. media have only resorted to insinuations about this issue.

Given the economic down-turn in the U.S., America is in a beg-thy-neighbor position in trade relations with China (and other countries).

The way to build strategic trust in the economic relationship is to negotiate more treaties – for example, an FTA between the two countries.

Recently, the U.S. has agreed to lift restrictions on technology exports to China.  China has agreed to import more American films.  Both will help with the trade deficit.

With demand in the West softening, China is focusing her efforts on domestic consumption.  This also bodes well for American corporations, many of whom already make record profits in China.

China working with the other BRICS countries to minize transactions using the USD in favor of currency swaps in cross-border trade will erode American financial power.  This is largely brought about by the World Bank and the IMF unwilling to fully accommodate the developing countries and the U.S. printing so much USD out of self-interest, at a great cost to foreign holders.

Strategic trust comes from equity.  The WB and IMF have taken positive steps resulting in BRICS adding funds into those organizations.  More along these lines could be done.

The ultimate truth is that both systems are only as legitimate as their ability to provide economically for their respective citizens and freedom from being invaded by foreign entities.

America’s interest in this line of thinking is purely to undermine governments abroad.  If America is so confident of these ideologies, she should be confident others will line up to copy them.  These ideologies would only strengthen if America can be a shining example, but at the moment, given her various problems domestically, she is hardly one.

China also deploys a lot of resources guarding the shipping lanes off the coast of Somalia against pirates.

America’s interest in this regard is largely about getting China to agree to undermining governments like Libya and Syria such that those governments become ‘friendly’ towards the United States.

America has to find a way for China go give more in the context of achieving a more fair and equitable world-order.  This would then be win-win and the true way to build strategic trust.   Getting China to help America in order for the U.S. to achieve a stronger grip on the existing world-order does not achieve strategic trust for China.

“most important region” is merely an excuse for American dominance.

If we view China and America within the region as two NBA professional teams competing where China enjoys home-court advantage, America’s dominance is only legitimate as long as her goals are aligned with the long term interests of the region.  Fairness, sportsmanship, and prosperity are all welcomed.

America (with a strong military and multi-national corporation) in fact has a much tougher team, and as long as she demonstrate those qualities, then the more America will be viewed as a leader.

The RMB valuation is not the culprit for the trade imbalance between the U.S. and China.  The key problem is American over-consumption (see Allen‘s post, “Making Sense of the Dollar and Yuan“).

China’s restrictions on market access are due to mutually agreed fact that China is a developing economy.  That fact is also reflected in China’s joining of the WTO.  America also enjoys favorable terms in that fact to restrict Chinese corporate access to the U.S. market.

Accusing China of constraining market access without that context is dishonest.

America in fact uses national security as grounds for blocking CNOOC and Huawei and other Chinese companies from acquiring assets.

Compared to the unprecedented market share of American companies in China versus the other way around, it is clear which country is ahead.

If American corporations all of a sudden relocate factories outside of China, the resulting environment would be a big list of American corporations in China profiting while only a handful of Chinese companies in the U.S..

This true economic imbalance is only allowed by the Chinese government because the factories employ Chinese workers.  This is also an imbalance American corporations are happy to have since China is suffering the environmental costs.

has alarmed American officials in charge of cyber efforts and raised very serious concerns about Chinese norms and intentions. And U.S. intelligence officials see increased evidence of zero-sum thinking in Beijing regarding the U.S. and also increased Chinese espionage efforts in the United States.

America harassing the Chinese military on a daily basis by buzzing up and down China’s coast with surveillance planes, aircraft carrier, and nuclear submarines is guaranteed to cause such reaction.

America should see this belligerence in the context of China doing the same along American coastal waters.  Imagine the Chinese sending warships within striking distance to Washington D.C.?

Is it surprising the “PLA apparently prioritizing” against American platforms?

Cyber attack or espionage are accusations we frequently hear in the American media, but rarely do we see any facts presented.  In fact, what is much more frequent are instances of American or Western hackers obtaining credit card or account information from financial institutions.

Undoubtedly, the two countries must be engaging in such activities against one another.  Friendly countries spy on each other too.  I often wonder how this situation can be improved.

Regarding transparency, the American view is very hypocritical.  After all, the U.S. State Department has been fighting tooth and nail to suppress Wikileaks from publishing their diplomatic cables.

Perhaps America can afford to be slightly more transparent in her intentions, because she is so much stronger than any other country.  But, declaring “full spectrum domination” is hardly being transparent.

Within Asia, is America planning to occupy Japan forever?  What is the end game for America in the region?  Where is the transparency?

At the end, if America can be a great example of transparency, however defined, perhaps other countries can follow suit.  For now, this concept has largely been bandied about to defame.