5 questions that every presidential candidate should answer on China

The end of the Cold War provided the US a temporary reprieve from great power rivalry. China’s rise to economic and military power, however, now heralds its return. The next president must manage a relationship with China that is increasingly defined by strategic competition. Despite Beijing’s revisionist intentions, the thrust of US-China strategy is one of integration. The US government policy apparatus is designed to integrate Beijing into the “family of nations,” as Richard Nixon wrote in 1967, as if it were another rising “Asian Tiger” as South Korea once was. How will POTUS #45 approach a China that, aside from economic matters, shows little interest in firmly supporting a US-led world order?

Shutterstock.com

 How should the US respond to China’s island building in the South China Sea?

China continues to build man-made “islands” in the South China Sea’s contested waters. Previously submerged reefs now feature airfields, ports, and military installations. With island military facilities and an increasingly menacing navy, China can project power, coerce its neighbors, and try to control vital trade lanes. Additionally, China’s attempt to claim territorial waters around these “islands” threatens freedom of navigation, the bedrock of the international system.

Any effective US strategy in the region must involve active diplomacy backed up by hard power. The United States needs to coordinate with Southeast Asian claimants to negotiate a political solution for territorial and resources disputes in the South China Sea. This initiative should engage China, but if Beijing is obstinate, the parties should work around it toward a solution. While negotiations develop, the US must continue freedom of navigation exercises, surveillance missions, and robust partner military capacity building. The bottom line, however, is that the US lacks a permanent military presence in Southeast Asia – something that could be remedied by a shipbuilding program to permanently place a sufficient number of ships in the PACOM theater.

 How should the US protect itself from Chinese cyber espionage?

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Chinese cyber-militias have become highly effective at penetrating the networks of US defense contractors, businesses, and government offices. From the stolen designs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, to the massive data breach at the Office of Personnel and Management, Chinese cyber-warriors continue to undermine US national security with impunity. The US must confront the Chinese about their persistent cyber intrusions. The US must deter China by readying itself to inflict greater damage to Chinese networks and systems than is worth the price for Beijing of an attack.

 Will you make good on the US promise in 2001 to help Taiwan acquire submarines?

Over the past 20 years, the cross-Strait military balance has shifted drastically in favor of the PRC as the PLA has developed a suite of modern military technologies. In 2001, President Bush agreed to sell Taiwan eight diesel electric submarines to increase the ROC’s deterrent capabilities, however, both the Bush and Obama administrations have failed to follow through on delivering the submarines.

In accordance with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the US has a responsibility to “make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” Facing over 1,100 PRC short-range ballistic missiles and 60 modern PLAN submarines, Taiwan needs a survivable deterrent platform, a conclusion reached over a decade ago by US and Taiwanese defense and policy officials.

 Will you support freedom and internal reform in China?

Any comprehensive China policy must address not only China’s growing military and economic clout overseas, but also its internal repression. For decades, the Chinese Communist Party has succeeded in maintaining one-party, authoritarian rule by crushing domestic Chinese reformers, protestors and calls for liberalization. The CCP’s oppressive practices deserve a response—a sophisticated defense of freedom. A free and democratic China would not only tame the increasingly dangerous Sino-American strategic rivalry but also unleash the Chinese people’s potential for innovation, commerce, and creativity. To this end, the US should pursue an evolutionary, not revolutionary, strategy of engaging with China’s suppressed class of latent democrats: the human rights lawyers, Christians, and political dissidents who campaign for freedom and liberty. The US should add a “freedom prong” to its multifaceted strategy of engaging China will balancing against its growing power.

 What is your vision of a political and economic security order in Asia that is consistent with our interests and principles? Does it include the TPP? A defensive coalition of allies and partners? An India-Australia-Japan-US quadrilateral security agreement?

The US-led world order has paved the way for dynamic economic growth and great power peace in Asia since the end of WWII. The US military has defended allies, projected power forward into Asia, and ensured freedom of navigation and maritime trade. No nation has benefited more from the existing international system than China.

Now, however, the existing order is being strained as the PRC seeks to revise aspects of the international system it deems threatening. Most notably, China aims to replace the United States as the predominant security player in the region. The US must avoid policies that simply react to China’s provocations. Instead it must seek to further develop an Asia peaceful free and prosperous through economic leadership to create more free market economies, building up a defense coalition of allies and partners who share common interest and a high level diplomatic leadership vehicle such as a quadrilateral among Delhi, Canberra, Tokyo, and Washington. An organization of this kind can reassure smaller countries that China will dominate Asia and better engage China on issues of common concern.