      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to China: Friend or Foe? main page    Transcript for: China: Friend or Foe?Think Tank Transcripts:China: Friend or Foe? ANNOUNCER: 'Think Tank' has been made possible by Amgen, recipientof the Presidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, helpingcancer patients through cellular and molecular biology, improvinglives today and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theRandolph Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. China is already aregional power in Asia. It has the potential to become a globalsuperpower. In the 21st century, will China be America's adversary orally? Joining us sort through the conflict and the consensus are: JamesLilley, U.S. ambassador to China from 1989 to 1991 and now directorof Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute; Bette BaoLord, chairman of the board of Freedom House and author of the newlypublished, 'The Middle Heart'; Yasheng Huang, assistant professor ofpolitical science at the University of Michigan; and Nancy BernkopfTucker, professor of history and Georgetown University and author of'Taiwan, Hong Kong and the U.S., 1945 to 1992: UncertainFriendships.' The topic before this house: China -- friend or foe? This week on'Think Tank.' The relationship between the United States and China iscomplicated and, lately, tense. To understand why, here is a look atthe world's most populous nation, 1.2 billion people. Item: China'seconomy is growing at 11 percent per year. They have the potential,therefore, to be a prosperous rival. Item: China as now constitutedwould be anti-democratic, as indicated by the brutal crackdown in1989 on a democratic demonstration at Tiannanmen Square. Item: Chinais already militarily strong. The latest escalation in tension isover Taiwan, the island that is officially part of China, but hasenjoyed de facto independence since 1949. China vehemently opposes Taiwan's desire for official autonomy, sowhile Taiwan was gearing up for its first direct democraticpresidential elections two weeks ago, China launched a series ofmissile tests just off Taiwan's coasts. Why? China wanted to reducethe support for incumbent President Lee Teng-Hui. The United Statesresponded by dispatching a carrier group to the region. With theelections now over and the missile tests concluded, it seems thatdirect confrontation between China and the United States has beenavoided for now. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us. First question.Let's go around the room. Looking into the future, is China theprincipal threat to America's role as the sole global superpower, andis it the principal threat to global stability? Jim Lilley. MR. LILLEY: I don't think so. I think the ground rules in Asia arechanging. The Soviet Union has collapsed, you have the risingeconomic miracle. The United States is a status quo power. China is anon status quo power. We have to work out a modus operandi withChina, and we have to get along with China and China has to get alongwith us. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Bette Bao Lord. MS. LORD: I think he's absolutely right in the long-term stakethat everyone has in this relationship. However, I think the paranoiaof the current leadership has to change. MR. WATTENBERG: The paranoia of the leadership in the UnitedStates or in China? MS. LORD: No. (Laughter.) In China. I think it will depend on howmuch trust the Chinese government has in its people first to involvethem in some kind of political changes as well as the economicchanges that are happening. MR. WATTENBERG: Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, Georgetown UniversitySchool of Foreign Service. MS. TUCKER: China doesn't have to be a foe. It's not likely to bea friend. But certainly the current trajectory of disagreementbetween the United States and China on a variety of issues wouldsuggest that we do have to begin talking more constructively with theChinese in order to avoid the time when China will have the power tocontest American positions in Asia and become an increasing problemfor the United States. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Yasheng Huang. MR. HUANG: I don't think China is going to be a threat to America.Economically speaking, the two countries have too much in common.Militarily, China is not going to be having the kind of capabilitiesto challenge the United States. But politically, I should say thatChina now is undergoing a transition, so what kind of policy theUnited States has toward China now can determine the future of China. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. The model that always comes to mind becauseof what we have just been through in the world is, is this Cold Warnumber two? Is China going to be the new Soviet Union? MR. LILLEY: Well, I think the issue of the Chinese military is anopen issue. I would hope that Dr. Huang is right. I'm not sure he isbecause the Chinese military -- they have the intention to buildtheir military, the question is whether they can or not. And that's adebatable subject. They tried this exercise in the Taiwan Straits. Itdidn't work because the United States acted decisively and clearlyand the Chinese backed off. I think this is a very clear lesson onhow to deal with military confrontation, and I applaud theadministration for its action. MR. HUANG: I guess I disagree a little bit with Ambassador Lilley.I think the Chinese capabilities are still weak despite the increasein the military spending, and much of that increase in the militaryspending can be explained by just the capital expenditure because themodern equipment costs a lot more money, whereas the militarydoctrine China had before emphasized people, emphasized soldiers, andthat makes a big difference. It doesn't mean their capabilities aregreat. MR. LILLEY: I think that's true, but when you look at theirprojection of power in the Sukhoi and the Kilo class subs and the SA10s and they're getting this new cruise missile technology, IRBMtechnology, muffling of nuclear power technology, largely fromRussia, obviously they are trying to build up this power projection.Replenishment ships, air refueling -- they're aiming in thatdirection. Their statements in the South China Sea are quite clear.And it seems to me you have to deal with that seriously. You can't bea romantic about this thing. Look at them as factually what they'redoing. Don't try to make excuses for them. MS. LORD: I think one of the reasons why they're paying so muchattention to the military, whether it's going to be a threat or not,is the political situation in China. I think that a lot of thislatest tension is created not, essentially, either for the Taiwanaudience or the international audience or the American audience, butfor their home audience. This is a period of succession. This is aquestion of buying off the military, getting them on board for theirown campaign to -- for the succession after Deng Xiaoping dies. MS. TUCKER: Yeah, it's clearly the case that Jiang Zemin, who'spresently in control, in order to remain in control, has felt theneed to try to bring the military on board and to play to militaryhard-liners. His position on Taiwan has shifted and become muchtougher in the course of the past year. And part of the militaryagenda is not simply to retrieve Taiwan, which is clearly a patrioticissue and the military feels strongly about that, but also to buildmilitary budgets. And threatening war tends to increase payments tothe military. MR. WATTENBERG: Is China becoming more democratic or moreauthoritarian? MS. TUCKER: At the grass roots, there are indications that Chinais becoming more democratic. There has been a lot of effort, a lot ofactually American cooperation in free elections, or comparativelyfree elections, on the local level. That has not passed up the chain,and China at the top does not seem to have moved. Indeed, since 1989,it seems to have receded from a degree of democracy that we all, Ithink, would agree China seemed to be displaying prior to June 4th. MR. LILLEY: I'm not as pessimistic as you, Nancy. I think that inthe NPC, they are passing laws. MR. WATTENBERG: The NPC -- MR. LILLEY: National People's Congress. They are passing laws thatdeal with the criminal justice system suing the government, and thisis actually going into effect. And I think the NPC has been votingagainst candidates and I think they've been taking a tougher positionon government -- governors appointed. I think they're passing lawsthat protect the people. And not to say it's working. I'd only saythat there is a movement at the top to institute a rule of law. It'sgot a long way to go, but there's a start. MR. HUANG: I think Jim is right. I'm not as pessimistic as Nancy.At the local level, there's no question that the country is movingtoward a more democratic direction. Almost two-thirds of the villageleaders now are popularly elected. And these are contestedcompetitions. We are not talking about party handpicking just one. MR. WATTENBERG: Can a person run for local office taking a standthat he disagrees with the national government? MR. HUANG: Well, I mean maybe not that openly. (Laughter.) Butsome of these village heads now are private entrepreneurs. Fourteenpercent of village leaders now are actually private entrepreneurs.Some of them are not party members even. MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, it is a one-party state. MR. HUANG: It's still a one-party state, there's no question aboutit. MR. WATTENBERG: Would you describe it still as a totalitarianstate? MR. HUANG: No, I wouldn't. MS. LORD: Not because they don't want it to be, but because theycan't help it because the people are asking. Through money, throughtheir -- the businesses, they can effect democracy, their aspirationsfor democracy, but certainly it is not permissible. MR. HUANG: But it is permissible sort of at the private level. Youcan't openly air your views, you cannot publish your views innewspapers. But you can talk about these things among your friends,among your colleagues. MS. LORD: As long as you're not an electrician by the name of WeiJingsheng. I mean, I find it very difficult to understand this greatbig country with this long history and a leadership that cannottolerate one or two people. Wei Jingsheng, an electrician, was jailedfor 14 years, and he came out. Six months, jailed again for another 7-- another 14 years, I guess. MR. WATTENBERG: Because he said what or did what? MS. LORD: Because he said that a modern country has to havedemocracy as well. MR. LILLEY: And he attacked Deng by name. MR. HUANG: Yeah, that'sright. MR. LILLEY: That's unacceptable. MR. HUANG: I think that's -- the personal animosity between himand Deng probably is more important -- MS. LORD: But that's not an excuse. MR. HUANG: No, it's not an excuse. MS. LORD: But everybody has -- as if, well, he attacked Deng,therefore, you know, they only got him because he attacked Deng. MR. HUANG: But it does mean that other people who have had similarthings as Wei Jing Sun said, but though they don't have his personalanimosity with Deng, they do not get sentenced to jail for 14 years. MS. TUCKER: But I think there's a very important symbolic eventthat just occurred. On Saturday of this last week, Taiwan elected thefirst democratic, directly elected president in all of Chinesehistory, and on Sunday, Beijing arranged for a group to declare thatHong Kong's popularly elected legislature will cease to exist whenChina takes over the colony. MR. HUANG: We have to look at this from a historical point ofview. If you look at Taiwan in the 1970s, they also had localelections, district elections without any democracy at the nationallevel. MS. TUCKER: Absolutely. MR. HUANG: The correct question, I think, and the correct answeris that whether China is moving toward that direction, not whether ornot it has all these proper elements of democracy. Obviously, itdoesn't, but it is moving in that direction. MR. LILLEY: I'd just make a comment on this. It seems to me thatthere isn't a great deal you can do about the internal situation inChina. You can influence it at the edges and you should continue totry to do that on these cases that Bette talked about, like Wei JingSun. But the main issue is what Nancy is talking about, is you cannotlet them export their system outside of China. And when they exporttheir system to Hong Kong or they try to influence the democraticprocess in Taiwan by military force -- MR. WATTENBERG: Well, how are you going to stop them from doingwhatever they want to do in Hong Kong? I mean, they are taking overas the sovereign power, aren't they? MR. LILLEY: The first thing you do is to -- you turn the spotlighton it and you keep this exposed. You've got Keith Richburg there.You've got Ed Gergen. You've got people that are very competentjournalists turning the spotlight right on them, and this affectstheir behavior. And you go right into the multilateral -- MR. WATTENBERG: Where is the evidence that popular journalism hasaffected their behavior? MR. LILLEY: You read Robertie's book on thefall of Hong Kong, and you will see instance after instance wherepressure has been brought to bear on China and that they have backedoff on positions they've taken because of international pressure. MR. WATTENBERG: Do you agree with that, Bette? MS. LORD: I think they'd like to have international respect, but Ithink they -- they want that above all. They want people to think ofthem as the great leaders of a great country. They do not understandthat to get that is to respect their own people nowadays. It's thereciprocity between the ruled and the rulers. They have tried many,many times to get the trappings of this respectability, like theOlympic Games, like the women's conference. But they do such sillythings because their paranoiac and they don't understand what isgoing on in the world. MS. TUCKER: I think the problem is, as Bette is suggesting, thatyou have a government that's essentially afraid of its own people, agovernment that fears any kind of criticism, a government that is notconfident that it can continue to stay in power without repression.It's silly. Wei Jing Sun acting alone or even with a small group ofpeople is not going to topple the Chinese government. But there is somuch concern about having lost, maybe in traditional terms, themandate of heaven, that they are defensive about everything. I thinkthat's one of the reasons there are so many problems in U.S.-Chinarelations as well. MR. WATTENBERG: Yasheng. MR. HUANG: I would agree there is -- MR. WATTENBERG: You do agree or you do not agree? MR. HUANG: No, I would agree that there is a degree of paranoia inChina, and much of that China is actually unnecessary because opinionafter opinion poll shows that the Communist Party in China, despiteall they have done, negative things they have done, actually enjoysquite a degree of support from its own people. But yet it has thisparanoia about a few dissidents, about foreign connections, aboutHong Kong, which is totally unnecessary. And then they engage inthese highly publicized, open, hostile acts that get a lot of presscoverage in this country. Yet the good things they do do not get anypress coverage in this country. MR. WATTENBERG: What are the good things? You had mentioned themunicipal elections. What else would you -- MR. HUANG: Oh, theeconomic measures. The economic reforms in the 1980s lifted 100million people above the absolute poverty level. That's an incredibleimprovement, unprecedented in human history, and yet that is notbeing reported in a balanced way in the Western press. MS. LORD: I don't understand why -- I think everybody applaudsChina, and especially the Chinese people, because I think in manyways, it's the Chinese people that have lifted themselves up. It'snot the leadership that has lifted them up, it's the Chinese people.So I think whether China is going to be friend or foe depends very,very much whether we think of the Chinese people as one, as amonolithic group that supports their government. I think there aremany, many Chinese, there are many, many credits that should be givento the people and not just the leadership. MR. HUANG: The Chinese leaders are very conspiracy-minded for somereasons. They view that there is a coalition of Western forces plusJapan against China, which really doesn't exist. They have a verysimple understanding of what U.S. policy about China is all about. MR. WATTENBERG: There is an organic conspiracy, isn't there, Imean of people saying --just what we're doing this show about --watch out. That's over a billion people, they're still communist, wedon't know much about them. I mean -- MS. TUCKER: I think the fact that they're still communist in someways is irrelevant. China is going to be a great power in the nextcentury whether it's communist or not. And to some extent, you couldeven argue that the fact that communism is declining in its abilityto keep China unified is a problem for us because what's taken itsplace is nationalism, and a highly nationalistic China is probablymore dangerous than communist China has been in recent years. MR. LILLEY: I'd like to add to Nancy, just look at the pictures ofthe goose-stepping soldiers with their shoulder boards, the exercisesin the Taiwan Straits, this sort of thing. And by the way, you know,they have claimed the South China Sea, they occupied Mischief Reef,they're drilling off the Senkaku Islands, Diaoyu Tai, in Japaneseterritorial waters. They have had this exercise in Taiwan. It seemsto me you have to give them a very clear message that their militaryadventurism is not working. MR. WATTENBERG: Nancy Bernkopf Tucker of Georgetown University,you said that in the next century, China is going to become a greatpower whether it's communist or democratic or whatever. It somehowseems, to an outside observer at least, that people are alwayssaying, boy, in the next century, that's going to be this greatcountry. And somehow it's always -- have they ever gotten their acttogether? Is there something going on in China that makes it nothappen? MS. TUCKER: This seems to -- we are the threshold of Chinaactually finally getting its act together. And I think one of thereasons that the Chinese have been so belligerent of late is becausethey feel it in their grasp. They think they're almost there, andthey are very hostile to anyone that will keep them from gettingthere. In the past, China has always been overwhelmed by its enormouspoverty, its enormous population and the series of foreign threatsthat have constrained China. But much of that's now been eliminated--not that the population isn't still enormous, but that China'seconomy is increasingly able to support that population. And Chinawants, finally, to be treated the way it always thought it should be.China wants to be considered a great power, a world power, not just aregional power, and they think that they're there. And that's part ofthe reason why, when the United States has defense talks with Japanand consultations with India and recognizes Vietnam diplomaticallyfor the first time, that China feels surrounded and China feels thatthe United States has a coordinated policy to prevent it frombecoming a great power. MR. WATTENBERG: In an earlier incarnation, I worked for PresidentJohnson, who had a wonderful one-word question, which was,'Therefore?' So therefore? Therefore what? What should America doabout all of this? MS. LORD: I think America should be separating the people and thegovernment. I think we have had so many students here. They haveenjoyed, for the most part, their stay here and have gone back.They're wonderful ambassadors for this bridge of friendship betweenthe people -- MR. WATTENBERG: As good an ambassador as Jim Lilley was and yourhusband, Winston Lord, right? (Laughter.) MS. LORD: But I just think it's very important for people tounderstand that much of the policies of China today are dictated byinternal politics and power plays and that the excuse of this Chinasurrounded by enemies is a myth that should be countered by talkingto the people. The American people are friends with the Chinese people. This isnot their fear. What they fear are the leadership of China who willdrum up the paranoia among people. MR. WATTENBERG: Late this spring or early summer, America willstart broadcasting shortwave into China in Mandarin. It used to becalled Radio Free Asia or Radio Free China. I think it's got a moreeuphemistic title now. MS. LORD: Asian Pacific Network. MR. WATTENBERG: Asian Pacific Network. To deal with local newswithin China the way Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty dealt theEastern European countries and the Soviet Union. Is that a good idea?Is that the sort of thing we should be doing? MR. HUANG: Free flow of information is always good, I think, and Ithink if the news program focuses on news and less on commentariesand editorials, I think that will have even greater effect. Now, I wanted to come back to this issue about what the Americansshould do about China. I think the first thing that Americans shoulddo about China is to approach China non-ideologically, not alwaysfocus on the communist aspects of that country. And I agree withNancy that communism now in China really doesn't mean much. Even sometop leaders in their private moments would say that they don't reallysincerely believe in every doctrine of the communism. That's one, and the other thing I think that the U.S. shouldrefrain from doing is to adopt a containment strategy against China.China is fundamentally different from the Soviet Union. China has abig trade contact with the United States. China has thousands ofstudents in this country. At a societal level, the interactionsbetween the two societies are nowhere in comparison with the SovietUnion. The Soviet Union was a static power. It was a power locked inits own ideology. China is a dynamic power. It's changing. By andlarge, it's changing in a direction that we like. MR. WATTENBERG: We are running out of time. Let me go around theroom one more time, starting again with you, Ambassador Jim Lilley.It's 1996. Let us do a thought experiment and make it 20 years fromnow, 2016. Where are we going to be with China? Where is China goingto be? Quick answers. MR. LILLEY: China is going to be a growing power still. It's goingto probably be more democratic, and I think it's going to have astable relationship with the United States and Asia. MR. WATTENBERG: Bette. MS. LORD: I am a pathological optimist like you. (Laughter.) And Ibelieve the aspirations of the Chinese people will be met by thepeople, not because they were granted by the government, but becauseof the process of joining the world in the 21st century. It isinevitable, democracy will win. MR. WATTENBERG: Amen. Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, GeorgetownUniversity. MS. TUCKER: I have to be a little bit more negative and say Ithink China will be a dynamic, vigorous power that its neighbors inAsia will have to be concerned about, that the United Stateshopefully will be working with constructively, but that will continueto be a challenge to the international system. MR. WATTENBERG: Yasheng Huang. MR. HUANG: I think one thing we have learned is the internationalenvironment does matter for China. If we have a benign, cooperativeinternational environment, then the domestic political dynamics aregoing to move in the right direction. But if we have a hostileinternational environment, if we have a conservative leadershipbacklash in China, I'm not so optimistic. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Thank you, Ambassador James Lilley, YashengHuang, Bette Bao Lord, and Nancy Bernkopf Tucker. And thank you. Please send your questions and comments to: NewRiver Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036. Or we canbe reached via e-mail at thinktv@aol.com or on the World Wide Web atwww.thinktank.com. For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible forits content. 'Think Tank' has been made possible by Amgen, recipient of thepresidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology, improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theRandolph Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. END Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |