Is China more interested in money than missiles? Will the United States seek to contain China as it once contained the Soviet Union? Zbigniew Brzezinski and John Mearsheimer go head-to-head on whether these two great powers are destined to fight it out.
Make Money, Not War - By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Today in East Asia, China is rising—peacefully so far. For understandable
reasons, China harbors resentment and even humiliation about some chapters of
its history. Nationalism is an important force, and there are serious grievances
regarding external issues, notably Taiwan. But conflict is not inevitable or
even likely. China’s leadership is not inclined to challenge the United
States militarily, and its focus remains on economic development and winning
acceptance as a great power.
China is preoccupied, and almost fascinated, with the trajectory of its own
ascent. When I met with the top leadership not long ago, what struck me was
the frequency with which I was asked for predictions about the next 15 or 20
years. Not long ago, the Chinese Politburo invited two distinguished, Western-trained
professors to a special meeting. Their task was to analyze nine major powers
since the 15th century to see why they rose and fell. It’s an interesting
exercise for the top leadership of a massive and complex country.
This focus on the experience of past great powers could lead to the conclusion
that the iron laws of political theory and history point to some inevitable
collision or conflict. But there are other political realities. In the next
five years, China will host several events that will restrain the conduct of
its foreign policy. The 2008 Olympic Games is the most important, of course.
The scale of the economic and psychological investment in the Beijing games
is staggering. My expectation is that they will be magnificently organized.
And make no mistake, China intends to win at the Olympics. A second date is
2010, when China will hold the World Expo in Shanghai. Successfully organizing
these international gatherings is important to China and suggests that a cautious
foreign policy will prevail.
More broadly, China is determined to sustain its economic growth. A confrontational
foreign policy could disrupt that growth, harm hundreds of millions of Chinese,
and threaten the Communist Party’s hold on power. China’s leadership
appears rational, calculating, and conscious not only of China’s rise
but also of its continued weakness.
There will be inevitable frictions as China’s regional role increases
and as a Chinese “sphere of influence” develops. U.S. power may
recede gradually in the coming years, and the unavoidable decline in Japan’s
influence will heighten the sense of China’s regional preeminence. But
to have a real collision, China needs a military that is capable of going toe-to-toe
with the United States. At the strategic level, China maintains a posture of
minimum deterrence. Forty years after acquiring nuclear-weapons technology,
China has just 24 ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States. Even
beyond the realm of strategic warfare, a country must have the capacity to attain
its political objectives before it will engage in limited war. It is hard to
envisage how China could promote its objectives when it is acutely vulnerable
to a blockade and isolation enforced by the United States. In a conflict, Chinese
maritime trade would stop entirely. The flow of oil would cease, and the Chinese
economy would be paralyzed.
I have the sense that the Chinese are cautious about Taiwan, their fierce talk
notwithstanding. Last March, a Communist Party magazine noted that “we
have basically contained the overt threat of Taiwanese independence since [President]
Chen [Shuibian] took office, avoiding a worst-case scenario and maintaining
the status of Taiwan as part of China.” A public opinion poll taken in
Beijing at the same time found that 58 percent thought military action was unnecessary.
Only 15 percent supported military action to “liberate” Taiwan.
Of course, stability today does not ensure peace tomorrow. If China were to
succumb to internal violence, for example, all bets are off.
If sociopolitical tensions or social inequality becomes unmanageable, the leadership
might be tempted to exploit nationalist passions. But the small possibility
of this type of catastrophe does not weaken my belief that we can avoid the
negative consequences that often accompany the rise of new powers. China is
clearly assimilating into the international system. Its leadership appears to
realize that attempting to dislodge the United States would be futile, and that
the cautious spread of Chinese influence is the surest path to global preeminence.
Better to Be Godzilla than Bambi - By John J. Mearsheimer
China cannot rise peacefully, and if it continues its dramatic economic growth
over the next few decades, the United States and China are likely to engage
in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. Most
of China’s neighbors, including India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea,
Russia, and Vietnam, will likely join with the United States to contain China’s
power.