I have raised this comment/question for a long time.  It finally dawned on me why it has not happened.  The reason is because the U.S. wants a unipolar world with the U.S. being the center of that unipolar world, and the U.S. sees that China is the main challenger keeping the world from changing from a unipolar world to a multipolar world.  Instead of looking at the world to see what is good for the world, the U.S. sees what is good for the U.S. even it is not achievable.

Now with this new perspective, we can understand why the U.S. is adopting that policy, i.e., a policy that is not good for the world.  Instead of living together to try to improve the world, why would the U.S. try to create confrontations and adopt a foreign policy toward China that is so antagonistic that can easily escalate into wars? If U.S. and China work together to address the world’s major problems, then the U.S. would not be able to control the world and dictate their so-called rule-based order for the world to follow. Instead of creating a world with multi-modality, the U.S. wants to create a single modality world with the U.S. in the center and in control of that modality.  

This answers a lot of questions, such as the U.S.’s position toward Taiwan, and why the U.S. wants to turn back the clock more than half a century.  It also answers the question why the U.S. government is adopting such a demonic eye toward its American citizens who are Chinese Americans who also want the best for the U.S.  It also helps to understand the recent U.S. government’s policy toward companies like TikTok.

In future issues of this website, we will elaborate on the consequences of this attitude of the U.S., and why that policy should change.

This chapter will discuss several important “issues” between the U.S. and China.  We will recall and analyze history and see what history has to say about these issues.

The first issue is Taiwan:  Every one knows that Taiwan has been a province of China.  After China was defeated by Japan in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), China, besides being required to pay to Japan an extremely large indemnity to Japan, also ceded Taiwan to Japan.  After WWII ended with the defeat of Japan, all parties agreed that Japan should give up the territories stolen from China (including Taiwan) and returned them to China.  This was consistent with the 1943 Cairo Declaration [1], the 1945 Potsdam Declaration [2], and the September 2,1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender [3].  After recalling this part of history regarding Taiwan, the issue of Taiwan should be closed, and Taiwan should be part of China.

Another issue is Diaoyu Islands (or Senkaku Islands):  Most of the people of the world probably have never heard of these islands.  The Diaoyu Islands are a small set of unoccupied islands off the northern part of Taiwan in the East China Sea.  They have been part of China (part of Taiwan) for several hundred years (dating back to as early as 1403).  Since near the end of the 19^th century, Japan has also claimed that these islands are part of the Ryukyu Islands (or Okinawa), as part of Japan’s attempt to steal the Diaoyu Islands from Taiwan.  More information on the background history of the Diaoyu Islands can be found in Chapter 19 “Experiencing the Worldwide Diaoyu Islands Students Movement” and the details will not be repeated here. 

The reason that the Diaoyu Islands is often cited as an issue involving also the U.S. is because the U.S. claims that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty should also be applicable to the Diaoyu Islands even though the official position of the U.S. government is that the territorial sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands is still to be determined, thus  showing that these two positions [(1) that the Diaoyu Islands should be covered under the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty, and (2) the territorial sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands is still to be determined] are internally inconsistent. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to discuss again this issue besides pointing to Chapter 19 for the details.  Thus, after recalling history regarding the Diaoyu Islands, the issue of the Diaoyu Islands should also be closed, and the Diaoyu Islands should be part of China, and the U.S. has no justification to claim that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty should be applicable to the Diaoyu Islands.

Another issue is the dispute over the South China Sea Islands:  Although one may often hear claims that China is doing a lot of illegal things in the South China Sea (in particular, the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands) such as stealing territories belonging to other countries, or building artificial islands, or blocking traffic over the international sea or air in the South China Sea area.  Often these people will bring in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to make accusations against China.

In particular, several years ago (around 2016), Philippines was involved in a case with the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) declaring that all of the islands in the Paracel or the Spratly area are rocks, and not islands that can sustain human habitation or economic life of their own under UNCLOS.  Although the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) is also under UNCLOS, it is clearly stated in UNCLOS that the AT should not rule in cases where the parties have territorial sovereignty/historical rights.  For China since historically China does own the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands [see, e.g., Ref. 4 and Ref. 5 for that part of history], from the very beginning, China declared in writing that it would not participate and not abide by the decision of the AT because this dispute involves territorial sovereignty/historical rights, which should not be arbitrated under the Arbitral Tribunal.

Furthermore, Taiping Island (the largest island of the Spratly Islands) is 0.9 mile in length and ¼ mile in width with an area of 110 acres and has a hospital and an airport.  It has fresh water, can grow vegetables, can support livestock, as well as the habitation of people permanently living there.  This is contrary to Philippines’ claim that these islands cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own.

The U.S. has often stated that China’s activities in the South China Sea have violated UNCLOS which was signed in 1994.  One of the accusations is that China has built landfills on some of these islands.  First of all, UNCLOS does not forbid building various facilities, including docks and airstrips, on the islands that a country has sovereignty over if those islands are not always submerged under water all the time.  Of course, we have all heard of the famous Palm Islands in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, which involve massive landfills to build the large islands with residential, business, and entertainment skyscrapers.  But has the U.S., or anyone else, made protests on what Dubai has done?

Once again, history shows us that there is a lot of purposedly spread misinformation (another example of abuse of world power) creating a false image of China.  Thus, after recalling and analyzing history, the issue of the South China Sea Islands is also closed, and China is not doing anything illegal.

Recent talk on a rising power like China will inevitably have a conflict with the established power like the U.S.: Recently there is some talk whether a rising power like China will inevitably have a conflict with the established power like the U.S. that will lead to war.  We and others have analyzed this issue and the conclusion is a definite no. [6].  Interested readers can read the two articles mentioned in [6] for more details.  Basically the story is between Athens, a then rising power, and Sparta, the then established power.  Initially there might not have been a serious conflict between Athens and Sparta. But the conflict became serious when Athens became an imperial power with influence over many cities along both sides of the Aegean Sea. Furthermore, in the case of China and the U.S., the conflict is not due to China’s economic rise, but it is due’s to the U.S.’s economic decline. The U.S. should then take actions to correct its own economic decline, and should not blame China for something due to their own shortcoming.

In his book, Allison discussed how order was decided, or how does one decide whether one can keep your adversary in line. A rule that is often used is a “Two-Power Standard” announced in 1889 as the general method to maintain Britain’s naval primacy, that is to keep Britain on the top of the order hierarchy is to maintain a fleet of battleships equal to the numbers deployed by its next two competitors combined since naval supremacy was key to the battlefield in the past, including the 19th century and first part of the 20th century. This was a rule used by the British to ensure that the British had enough military power to help to enforce its rule-based order. This was used by Winston Churchill in his various positions as the British Secretary of state for War, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Prime Minister, as well as other positions. Similarly, it was also used by other countries in planning for conflicts or wars with potential adversaries.

In the imperialistic world, it was your military might that settled conflicts. The question of fairness was of secondary importance. In our current world with nuclear powers that can lead to the destruction of the whole world and end civilization as the world knows, we should not rely on the “Two-Power Standard” to keep your potential rival in its place and to maintain your rule-based order.

Why does the U.S. government continue to carry on a mass media campaign to demonize China and create a phobia in the public against China and the Chinese? It is especially important to ask this question when the U.S. and China are the two most important economic and political powers in the world, and as we have previously mentioned, it is crucially important for the U.S. and China to work cooperatively to address the many difficult global problems. 

There are many differences between U.S. and China, e.g., their histories, how the governments operate, the way freedom and people’s wishes are expressed and reflected in the government, how government policies are formed and carried out, the country’s strategic alliances with other countries, the conduct of foreign policies and treatment of other governments and countries. These differences could easily lead to conflicts between the U.S. government and the Chinese government, especially when the differences lead to different political orientations. However, such differences should not lead to the two countries getting to diametrically opposite opposing corners. For example, China’s Bell and Road Initiative (BRI) could help a democratic government that is based on free elections and also an autocratic government whose family basically controls the whole country. It could help to improve the livelihood of the people of both countries, and therefore, it should not lead to their foreign policies on China that are diametrically opposite to each other.

Why is the relationship between U.S. and China keep on getting more antagonistic when a better relationship can benefit the American people, the Chinese people, as well as the other people of the world? Why is that relationship moving toward more confrontations and even war?

To understand the answer to that question, one needs to take an unbiased assessment of the history of the U.S. and especially what it has done in its foreign policy toward other countries in the last 75 years, since the end of WWII.

The U.S. government always presents itself as a government that is democratic, respects human rights, treats other countries with peaceful intention, and helps to solve world problems. That is the image that the U.S. government and the U.S. mass media depict itself. In reality, the U.S. government doesn’t act that way. It is not a democratic government working for the benefits of all its people; it treats its citizens differently depending on race, sex, place of origin, wealth, social and political status, etc.; it involves in many wars and instigates numerous regime changes in many countries.

Just look at how the government of the U.S. behaves when former President Donald Trump has been charged in four criminal cases, including 44 federal charges and 47 state charges, all of them felonies.  In Washington, D.C., he faces four felony counts for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In Georgia, he faces 13 felony counts for his election interference in that state. In New York, he faces 34 felony counts in connection with hush money payments to a porn star. And in Florida, he faces 40 felony counts for hoarding classified documents after he left office and impeding the government’s efforts to retrieve them. [7] Numerous mass shootings and killings of innocent people, including children, occur frequently in the U.S., to the tune of 686 mass shootings incidents in 2021. [8]  U.S. Americans’ trust in their government has consistently fallen in the past 20 years and now fewer than two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right. [9] At the same time when the U.S. government has consistently trying to demonize China, and President Biden has as recently as November 2023 called President Xi Jingping a dictator. [10]

Furthermore, in many respects the U.S. government behaves contrary to what a democratic government is supposed to behave.  Not only that it often doesn’t get involved in solving various world problems. It sometimes drops out of critical agreements (e.g., Paris Agreement on Climate Change) and criticizes or even sabotages other countries’ contributions.”  The U.S. really needs to look inward at itself to have a real assessment of its government, its political leaders, and its actions and attitudes toward other countries and people.  Hopefully after such as assessment, the U.S. would look at the world differently and treat other countries and people differently and with more respect.

The conclusion is that the U.S. is not the same as what the U.S. government depicts itself.  I will now discuss the real conflict between the U.S. and China, and why that relationship is getting worse with more confrontations and possibly leading to war. 

The Real Conflict Between U.S. and China:  In the last 40+ years, China has transformed itself from a very poor and backward country into the world’s second largest economy, lifted most of its huge population out of poverty, became basically the factory of the world, became the world’s third largest nuclear power, and has the world’s second strongest military, and can compete with the best of the world in science, engineering, bio-medicine, space explorations, and new patents, as well as gaining influences in world affairs. What is best for the world is for China and the U.S. to work cooperatively to address and solve the many difficult problems facing humanity. If the world’s two richest economies and the most powerful countries cannot work cooperatively, at least we hope that they don’t try to sabotage each other. Unfortunately, it seems that one country, the U.S., has been working hard to do just that.

Why? Instead of living together to try to improve the world, why would the U.S. try to create confrontations that can escalate into wars? If U.S. and China work together to address the world’s problems, then the U.S. would not be able to control the world and dictate their so-called rule-based order for the world to follow. Instead of creating a world with multi-modality, the U.S. wants to create a single modality world with the U.S. in the center and in control of that modality.

This may be surprising to many people, but it is consistent with U.S. policy in how it has been treating the rest of the world in the past century. Unlike the image that the U.S. government has been presenting to the world that it is a democratic and benevolent country trying to do the best for all the people of the world, unfortunately, that image has been repeatedly shown to be false, as illustrated by the large number of regime change activities engaged by the U.S. [11] [12] [13]

Some of the activities of the U.S. government have been so evil that it is almost unimaginable. An example of that is what the U.S. did in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, using island natives as guinea pigs to see the effects of nuclear radiations. [14]

Unfortunately, we have to face reality because the U.S. is not willing to give up its power to dominate the world, the U.S. is willing to create conflicts with China, even leading to a war between the world’s two most powerful military powers, possibly leading to a world war with the use of nuclear weapons. This is the essence of the real conflict between the U.S. and China.

In future releases of this website, we will discuss in more details how the world can address this issue. An important component must have the U.S seriously look inward at herself and figure out how it can improve herself, including its government structure and whether its government leaders are working to improve the welfare of the American people, or improve their own livelihoods or stay in power, and whether the U.S. treats other  countries and people fairly and with respect.  Another major component is to mobilize the pro-peace/anti-war movements of the world into a unified and formidable force.

References for Chapter 36

[1]    See, e.g., “The 1943 Cairo Declaration”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Cairo_Declaration.

[2]    See, e.g., “Potsdam Declaration”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration.

[3] See, e.g., “National Archives: Surrender of Japan (1945)”: https://www.aarchives.gov/milestone-documents/surrender-of-japan.

[4]    For the history of the South China Sea islands like the Paracel Islands (西沙群島) and Spratly Islands (南沙群島), please read Chapter 34 “South China Sea Dispute:  Abuse of World Power,” the contents of that chapter was also published by the author in China-US Focus, September 15, 2016.  The link for the English version is: http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/south-china-sea-dispute-abuse-of-world-power/.  The link for the Chinese version is: http://cn.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/20160915/8681.html

[5]   “Some Thoughts on South China Sea Dispute”:  https://www.dontow.com/2015/12/some-thoughts-on-south-china-sea-dispute/.

[6] Recently there is some talk whether a rising power like China will inevitably have a conflict with the established power like the U.S. that will lead to war.  Graham Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?, Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston-New York, 2018.  We and others have analyzed this issue and the conclusion is a definite no.  See “Review of ‘Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?’”:  https://www.dontow.com/2023/06/review-of-destined-for-war-can-america-and-china-escape-thucydidess-trap/.  See also Alan Freeman, “Is war between China and US inevitable?”, video broadcast by Thinkers Forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STi5J6ppjvk, April 16, 2023. See in particular, the (5:10-6:50) segment of this video showing the map of Athen’s imperial power and Athen’s many potential partners and allies in the Aegean Sea.

[7]    “Breaking down the 91 charges Trump faces in his four indictments,” by Derek Hawkins and Nick Mourtoupalas, The Washington Post, August 23, 2023.

[8]    “Mass Shootings in the U.S.,” An Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund Analysis, November 2023 was last updated. 

[9]    Pew Research Center “Public Trust in Government:  1958-2023,” September 19, 2023.

[10]  After President Biden’s remark that his most recent discussion with President Xi Jingping on November 17, 2023 was one of the most interesting and productive discussions that they have had, President Biden then made the comment that Xi Jingping is a dictator.

[11] Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, New York, 2006. This is a book by veteran New York Times writer who reported from over 50 countries and served as the paper’s bureau chief in Turkey, Germany and Nicaragua.

[12]  United States involvement in regime change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1991%E2%80%93present:_Post-Cold_War.

[13] “The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War,” Lindsey L. O’Rourke, The Washington Post, December 23, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/. According to the author, of the 72 times, 60 were covert operations and 6 were overt operations. And among the 60 covert operations, only 20 successfully brought the U.S.-backed government to power, and 40 failed.

[14] The Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Australia is part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under the administrative control of the U.S. after WWII. It was here that the U.S. tested nuclear weapons 67 times between 1946 and 1958. There are several documentaries on Marshall Islands and the sufferings experienced by the Marshall Islands natives from the numerous nuclear bomb testings there. The best one is probably the one made in 2011 by Adam Jonas Horowitz:  “Nuclear Savage:  The Islands of Secret Project 4.1.”  You can see a 7-minute summary of this documentary for free at https://vimeo.com/30869044

The post-Western, multipolar international order is coming to pass. As the world grapples with the implications of this shift in power, the foundations of a great reckoning are taking shape. This reckoning will challenge the long-held beliefs and structures that have sustained Western dominance of the world for the past few hundred years, exposing along the way the nature of the West’s perceived entitlement to lead the global pecking order. The end result will be a significant re-evaluation of international relations as we know it.

This great reckoning will be driven by five major trends, which are compelling Western nations to confron* This article is by Chandran Nair. It was first published in The National Interest on June 8, 2023.t and adapt to a future where power must be shared with the rest in a multipolar world. A failure to recognize, or attempting to strongly resist, these trends could pose significant risks not only to the West itself but also to global stability. Yet future conflicts can be avoided if this period of change is viewed as an opportunity to build a more equitable world, rather than as a crisis that threatens preferred and entrenched privileges.

* This article is by Chandran Nair. It was first published in The National Interest on June 8, 2023.

Five Trends to Consider:

What future awaits the West—a smooth transition toward multipolarity or a period of instability and potential conflict—will largely depend on how policymakers respond to the following five trends.

First is the unravelling of the hitherto telling of history. The West, across its colonial history, has practiced and perfected the selective interpretation and telling of events, choosing to portray itself as the originator of modern civilization and a benevolent guiding force. This is now changing; information technologies, such as the Internet and social media, have broken the monopoly over information and history once held by Western gatekeeping institutions (media companies, universities, book publishers, and more). As a consequence, people around the world are recognizing that history is no longer confined to Western interpretation—including its projection of benevolence.

A significant component of this has been the West’s frequent failure to acknowledge its own imperfect past. Despite amplifying the perceived wrongdoings of others, it has been silent about its own unsavory moments, such as early American pioneers’ destruction of First Nation cultures, European exploitation of the African continent, or Australia’s treatment of aboriginal peoples. Addressing these historical episodes matters all the more because they affect current behavior; Western nations also have problems admitting to contemporary mistakes and intentions.

Non-Western nations can now make clear that their own countries and communities have long histories that not only exist despite Western interpretation, but these histories need to be explored, understood, and told. The West must grapple with this trend and its implications, rather than continue to obscure it in denial. Consider the ongoing diplomatic efforts of the Indian government to compel Great Britain to return the treasure stolen from India, including some of the crown jewels.

The second trend is the re-evaluation of the” rules-based” international order. Policymakers in Washington may not like hearing it, but the concept is the subject of much derision around the world and is widely regarded as a tool used by the West to control global affairs and maintain hegemony. There is ample resentment growing against Western nations given the repeated breaching of their own rules, meaning that the legitimacy of this order is being questioned despite its positive aspects.

Coinciding with this growing frustration is the reality that the distribution of power across more nations is transforming the current world order and creating new opportunities and challenges. China has assumed a more prominent position, offering global public goods such as peacemaking and addressing climate change in a manner Western nations are not willing, or able, to do. Similarly, India is beginning to assert itself, as are other smaller nations, like the UAE and Indonesia.

As more countries determine their own trajectories in the twenty-first century, the West must recognize that the international balance of power has shifted. It cannot continue to impose its will on others—the rise of China and other nations is evidence of such. The West must come to terms with this new reality and recognize that a new, more pragmatic, and multipolar approach is needed, where nations pursue foreign policies committed to co-existence, driven by their own best interests rather than aligning themselves with “one side” or the other.

Third is the unmasking of Western “peacekeeping.” Despite portraying itself as the guarantor of global security, much of the world now views the United States‚ and Europe to a lesser extent, as profiting from war rather than being interested in promoting authentic peace. The Western military-industrial complex—particularly the United States’—is so powerful that it is now well-known to drive U.S. foreign policy to the extent that it perpetuates conflicts to thus profit from war.

At present, the United States and its NATO allies are driving the rise in global military spending, with America spending more on defense than the next ten countries combined. It is similarly well known that almost half of the Pentagon’s budget goes to private contractors each year, and the military-industrial complex donates millions of dollars to U.S. Congressional races, resulting in state capture and significant increases in defense budgets.

The rest of the world has realized that the West alone cannot be trusted to lead global peace efforts, especially if a significant portion of their economies are geared to profit from conflict. In light of this, a positive change is occurring, with China brokering ground-breaking peace agreements—between Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example—while world leaders like Indonesia’s Joko Widodo, India’s Narendra Modi, and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pitch peaceful resolutions to modern conflicts.

The fourth trend underway is the dethroning of the Western financial superstructure. That the West makes ample use of its financial might for geopolitical advantage and purposes is no great secret—policymakers and experts openly talk about the “weaponization of finance” and applying sanctions on countries that do not comply with Western intentions. Likewise, the ability of the United States and its allies to freeze and even confiscate the reserves of sovereign states—Afghanistan, Venezuela, Russia—sent shock waves across the world.

Because of this and the West’s own track record of financial greed and impropriety—which resulted in devastating crises such as the 2007–2008 financial crisis and the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, which has had global reverberations—distrust in and a rejection of Western financial structures is growing.

Efforts are now underway to dismantle the exorbitant privilege bestowed on the United States via its currency. De-dollarization is very much happening, with the currency’s share of global reserves falling to 47 percent last year, down from 73 percent in 2001. Additionally, countries are seeking alternatives to the SWIFT system, which also has been used in aid of Western-based sanctions and thus alarmed the global majority. As countries with stable currencies gain influence, a more multipolar economic order emerges, reshaping geopolitical alliances, economic diplomacy, and the balance of power within international institutions. This change may grant developing nations greater flexibility in managing their currencies and monetary policies and limit the West’s capacity to unilaterally impose sanctions. Moreover, BRICS nations have recently surpassed the G7 in terms of GDP, signaling a redistribution of economic power and hinting at a future of cooperation in trade, investment, infrastructure, and development assistance.

Fifth and finally, there is the notable collapse of the Western press’ credibility. This comes at a critical juncture, as repeated shortcomings in the last few years have heightened global awareness of Western media’s role in perpetuating the West’s preferred aspects of the current world order—often to the detriment of other countries.

For instance, persistent China-bashing in Western headlines has perpetuated an unproductive and fear-mongering narrative of Beijing as a threat to its own citizens and the world at large. The geopolitical contexts of Hong Kong and Taiwan, though complicated affairs, have been particularly and selectively drummed up to push an “us vs. them” narrative, rather than encouraging understanding between the West and China.

Similarly, overwhelmingly one-sided coverage of the Ukrainian conflict regularly overlooks national and regional geopolitical complexities in the long-standing Russian-Ukrainian relationship and the history of NATO expansion in Europe. A lack of reporting on the Nord Stream bombing, which many believe was perpetrated by a Western nation—with reporting to back this claim up—is a glaring hole that has contributed to the lack of trust in Western media from both non-Western and Western readers alike. Only months later is the Western press quietly admitting potential Western culpability, or at the very least, knowledge.

Moreover, inadequate, and biased coverage of non-Western conflicts, such as those in Yemen, Myanmar, and Palestine, has led to global accusations of neglect, bias, and even racism.

The Writing on the Wall

Western governments operating in an echo chamber of denial need to reach out to their friends across the world and realize what is obvious to everyone except to themselves: that the world is not like what it was in the post-Cold War era. The old ways are finished, and the West simply does not have the political and financial power, not to mention the international legitimacy, it once did. Western nations must adapt to this changing international environment, rather than stubbornly insisting upon business as usual. Failure to do so will make the world a more dangerous place and erode the credibility and influence of the West even further.

——————————————————————————————————————–

* This article is by Chandran Nair. It was first published in The National Interest on June 8, 2023. Chandran Nair is the Founder and CEO of the Global Institute For Tomorrow (GIFT), an independent pan-Asian think tank based in Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur focused on advancing a deeper understanding of global issues including the shift of economic and political influence from the West to Asia, the dynamic relationship between business and society, and the reshaping of the rules of global capitalism.

This article provides a review of the recent book [1] Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucdydides’s Trap? by Graham Allison. The book discusses whether a situation with a rising power facing a ruling power will likely end up in war. In the book, Allison analyzed several such world situations, it argues that the answer is more likely, although not necessarily, and the book asked the important question, known as Thucydides’s trap, whether the current situation of China as a rising power and the U.S. as a ruling power will end up in war. That is the purpose of this article. The answer to the question of Thucdydides’s trap is not a simple and straight-forward answer, as discussed below.

Sparta Versus Athens in the 5th Century BC or BCE (Before Common Era): Before the Persian invasion of Greece in 490 BCE, in the Greek peninsula known as the Peloponnese, the city-state of Sparta, highly militaristic with a powerful army where their sons were enrolled in military academies starting at age of seven, had been the region’s dominant power for more than a century. Athens, another city-state in the Peloponnese area, was a port city and interested always as a trading nation with merchants who crisscrossed the Aegean Sea, and had developed a vast navy, was interested in culture, history, philosophy, and democracy, but at the same time had no reservations about interfering in the affairs of other states.

Athens was a rising power and Sparta was a ruling power. As Athens’ power and influence continued to grow, there were even thoughts of a preemptive attack by Sparta on Athens to remind the entire Greek world who was number one. To reduce the tension and avoid a series of all-out conflicts known as the First Pelonponnean War, Sparta and Athens agreed to a peace treaty in 446 BCE that laid the groundwork for a regional peace treaty that lasted for about 30 years. However, later a conflict between two smaller partner states of Sparta and Athens escalated to a conflict that neither side wanted to back away from and let to a war between Sparta and Athens. This gave rise to Thucydides’s Trap that a rising power would lead to war between the rising power and the ruling power.

Initially there might not be a serious conflict between Athens and Sparta. But the conflict became serious when Athens became an imperial power with influence over many cities along both sides of the Aegean Sea and trying to convert them to become Athens’ allies or colonies. The American historian and economist Alan Freeman gave an excellent video broadcast “Is war between China and US inevitable?” discussing the conflict between Sparta and Athens, Thucydides’s Trap, and the current conflict between the U.S. and China. [2] See, in particular, the segment (5:10-6:50) of his video broadcast showing the map of Athen’s imperial power and Athen’s many potential partners and allies in the Aegean Sea. However, in the case of China and the U.S., the conflict is not due to China’s economic rise, but it is due’s to the U.S. economic decline. Furthermore, the U.S. should be responsible for taking actions to correcting its own economic decline, and should not blame China for its own economic decline.

What Is the Likelihood of a Rising Power Leads to War with a Ruling Power? Actually even in Graham Allison’s book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?, Allison did not conclude that the answer is a definite yes, although when he and his team at Harvard studied 16 historical cases between a rising power and a ruling power, they concluded that the answer is yes in 12 of the 16 cases they studied. However, their conclusion can leave a lot of room for debates, as in the discussion of Sparta and Athens. Furthermore, history in the world has a lot more cases that can be studied that could lead to the answer to Thucydides’s Trap as no. We next discuss how was world order decided, then follow with a discussion of the current U.S.-China conflict.

How Was World Order Decided? The book often mentioned how order was decided, or how do you decide whether you can keep your adversary in line. A rule that is often used is a “Two-Power Standard” announced in 1889 as the general method to maintain Britain’s naval primacy, that is to keep Britain on the top of the order hierarchy is to maintain a fleet of battleships equal to the numbers deployed by its next two competitors combined since naval supremacy was key to the battlefield in the past, including the 19th century and first part of the 20th century. This was a rule used by the British to ensure that the British had enough military power to help to enforce its rule-based order. This was used by Winston Churchhill in his various positions as the British Secretary of state for War, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Prime Minister, as well as other positions. Similarly, it was also used by other countries in planning for conflicts or wars with potential adversaries. In the imperialistic world, it was your military might that settles conflicts. The question of fairness was of secondary importance.

The Current U.S.-China Conflict: In the current world, the U.S. is the world’s richest country and the most powerful country, with the world’s most number of inventions and patents, with the best built infrastructures, and with the best universities. Therefore, the U.S. is the ruling power in the world. China is the second most productive country in the world, with the fastest growth in the last 30+ years, with the greatest reduction in poverty, and leads or nearly leads the world in inventions and patents, and has become the manufacturing center of the world, and leads the world in modern infrastructures. Therefore, China is the world’s rising power. This leads to the question of Thucydides’s Trap whether the rising power China and the ruling power the U.S. will lead to conflicts and war.

What makes this question even more urgent is that the U.S. is declining in power. The U.S.’s economy is relatively stagnant, its infrastructures are getting old and not being rapidly replaced, its manufacturing capabilities are migrating overseas, and its people and government do not seem to have the same urgency or zeal. At the same time, China’s economy and manufacturing capacities seem to continue to grow, its infrastructures are rapidly expanding, its education system seems to continue to improve and grow, and its people seem to work with more urgency. Will this lead to more conflicts between U.S. and China? It could, but on the other hand, the U.S.’s declines are not due to China, and it must revitalize itself and should not blame China. Furthermore, synergy can come if the sides are willing to collaborate and help each other, and the rest of the world as a whole can also improve.

There is, however, one important question that has not been brought up for discussion. In all past conflicts, it was possible to have a winner. However, with countries now owning hundreds, if not thousands, of thermonuclear weapons that can annihilate a country, the world, and humanity, there may not be any winner after a war. Therefore, that could alter all our plannings and strategies, as we contemplate Thucydides’s Trap.

Concluding Remarks: There seems to be several major issues in the conflict between the U.S. and China, at least from the eyes of the U.S., in particular Taiwan, South China Sea, and East China Sea islands. Since all these issues have already been discussed in my other articles in this website, I will not address them further in this article, except to point out their references. See, e.g., Ref. 3 and references referred to in that article.

——————————-

References

[1] Graham Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?, Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston-New York, 2018.

[2] Alan Freeman, “Is war between China and US inevitable?”, video broadcast by Thinkers Forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STi5J6ppjvk, April 16, 2023. See in particular, the (5:10-6:50) segment of this video showing the map of Athen’s imperial power and Athen’s many potential partners and allies in the Aegean Sea.

[3] “It Is Time for the U.S. to Acknowledge History”: https://www.dontow.com/2021/06/it-is-time-for-the-u-s-to-acknowledge-history/, as well as articles referenced in that article.

Senator Blackburn is making an accusation against the Chinese that its 5,000 years of history of great accomplishments was made up of cheating and stealing, and then followed by a sentence that insults all Chinese who are still to be born in the future. Any reasonable person would recognize that such a remark must have come from a person who either has no brains or was said intentionally to damage the reputation and integrity of a country and its people with utmost discrimination, with absolute zero concern for the harm that it could do to the people of the intended remark, and for the negative consequences and actions that it could generate to the people of the U.S. and the people of the world. Yet, no apology has come from Senator Blackburn and no refutations have come from American political leaders.

This says something about the state of the American society and its ability to distinguish truths from lies, and how the goal of getting votes can override other concerns of honesty, civility, truths, facts, and common decency. Unfortunately, it is the kind of behavior we see more and more being displayed in the American political environment, at every level of the political spectrum. This is manifested in rising hate crimes against Asian Americans, black Americans and other minorities, unfair and illegal charges against Chinese American researchers and academics, various proposed housing ownership laws that will be challenged to be unconstitutional, unfair and illegal trade sanctions, and the whole demonic treatment of China and Chinese by the U.S. government and its mass media. It results in an atmosphere that all actions are legitimate as long it can continue to maintain American dominance in the world, instead considering whether the actions are fair and good for the world.

Unless this environment makes a drastic change, not only that the U.S will not be able to continue to be a country that all Americans can be proud of, the country will continue its recent decline. All American need to have a wake-up call to examine our country critically and be willing to speak up and take actions to demand a change. Chinese Americans and Asian Americans in general, must unite to fight all these discriminatory laws and actions at various state levels, the federal level, and the international level, and join forces with other progressive forces locally, nationally, and internationally. Various organizations who have not taken a stand on these issues that should of concern to them need to take actions now. One of the things that need to be done is to publicly criticize Blackburn and work to make sure that she will not be reelected to a second term as the senator from Tennessee.

Questions posed to Panelists are:

• What is the reason U.S. and China are heading toward a head-on collision?
• What are the consequences of this head-on collision?
• What can possibly avoid this collision from happening?
• Role of Chinese Americans in this conflict?
• Address generation gaps among different generations of Chinese Americans

The main reason that the U.S. and China are heading toward a head-on collision is because China’s rise is fascilitating the creation of a multi-polar world, but the U.S. wants a uni-polar world following only the U.S.’s rule. This leads to conflicts and instabilities. The consequences of this U.S. desire to maintain hegemony at any cost could lead to regime changes and instabilities all over the world, and possibly leading to wars, including world wars and nuclear wars.

Before the Panel Discussion, the panelist K. J. Noh left a paper underneath each chair in the conference room and asked the audience to show them and read them. Each paper listed the name of a U.S. military base. There were over 200 chairs in the room, and there are over 400 U.S. military bases encircling China, providing a tangible sense of the U.S.’s military threat to China.

As the panelist George Koo pointed out, the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in a recent visit to China declared in a joint statement with President Xi Jinping that the two countries will promote a multi-polar world and disavow any attempt at decoupling.

We are also seeing other developments in the world. For example, there is great interest in joining BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) which is a grouping of the world’s leading emerging market economies; its purpose is to promote peace, security, development and cooperation. Quite a few countries, such as Algeria, Argentina, Indonesia, and Iran have applied to join, while countries like Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have also expressed interest.

Also several countries have also expressed interest in joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which focuses on regional security issues and fighting against regional terrorism, ethnic separatism and religious extremism. SCO currently has eight countries (China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), four Observer States (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, and Mongolia) with interest in acceding to full membership and six “Dialogue Partners” (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey), with Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia also expressing interest to become Dialogue Partners.

Developments like the above could put geopolitical pressure on the U.S. to change its political position of a uni-polar world. Such a change will not come from U.S.’s good will, but it will be forced to change. As pointed out by the panelist George Koo that the U.S.’s full-blown chips war against China has impacted the U.S.’s semiconductor industry in companies like Applied Materials, Lam Research, Advanced Micro Devices, and Nvidia. Therefore, there will be political pressure from the American people and other parts of the U.S. government to force changes.

If such geo-political and geo-economic pressures are not sufficient to change the U.S.’s uni-polar policy to acceptance of the multi-polar world, then we must mobilize a large-scale world-wide pro-peace or anti-war movement on a scale much larger than the anti-Vietnam war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The panelist Julie Tang pointed out “The cold war against China is characterized by Obama’s pivot to Asia, Trump’s trade war, and Biden’s all-inclusive economic war against China. We live in a dangerously insane world where our US leaders are increasingly turning warmongering on the unsupported rationale that China is an existential threat. We adopt policies thoughtlessly, such as the trade war that drove up inflation, a chip ban on China that kneecapped our own most productive industry, the US chip manufacturers. Our leaders appeared to be lost and confused. They have lost their reasonableness, common sense, and direction in pushing China close to war.”

U.S. Propaganda Against China:

The panelist Gordon H. Chang mentioned “we are entering a new international geopolitical relationship with far reaching negative consequences for Chinese Americans, with unfair targeting of Chinese American professors, columnists, and other professionals, as clearly demonstrated in the large number of completely unjustified accusations and arrests of such Chinese Americans.” [1]

Gordon H. Chang also said “I see Sinophobia and anti-Asian racism entrenching themselves in American life. U.S.-China relations will never resume to what they were in the early 21st century. This is in spite of what the panelist K. J. Noh said “China is not a threat, China’s rise is peaceful–the most peaceful rise of any great power in history –, and why despite this, the US sees China as a threat.”

Noh also added referring to how the U.S.’s financialized economy lives off of extracting value from productive economies in the global south, ‘A parasite sees the host’s effort to free itself as an existential threat.”

Julie Tang also said “US people have been fed daily that China is a competitor and an enemy, rather than a potential partner in trade, climate change, scientific research, and world hunger. The negative sentiments American people hold towards China represents the massive propaganda, disinformation, and brainwashing taking place in the U.S. mass media. It is no wonder that a 2021 Pew study found that 9 out of 10 Americans believe China is a competitor and enemy.” [2]

The U.S. government is also following such false propaganda by executing illegal, dangerous, and counter-productive measures such as “the China Initiative” in carrying prosecutions against Chinese professors and other professionals, in the process of ruining their lives, their reputations, and their livelihood. [1]

The Issue of Taiwan:

As to the issue on Taiwan, the moderator Don Tow said that all the international agreements, including the 1943 Cairo Declaration [2], the 1945 Potsdam Declaration [3], and the September 2, 1945 Japanese Surrender on the U.S. Battleship Missouri [4] all stated clearly that Taiwan should be returned by Japan to China. Therefore, there should be no issue on Taiwan. If there is any, it is fabricated.

Role of Chinese Americans in this Conflict:

As all the panelists mentioned that the current atmosphere in the U.S. creates great difficulties for Chinese Americans. We are looked upon and treated as enemies. We are on the receiving end of hate crimes. We are being discriminated against, not only by the people, but also by our government. Having been brought up in the atmosphere of demonized China, difference of opinion often surfaced among ourselves, e.g., between 2nd/3rd generation Chinese Americans and 1st generation Chinese Americans.

As Chinese Americans, we all love the U.S. and China, and we want the best for both countries. How to identify and address such conflicts is an important issue for all of us and an organization like ISSCO to address.

At the panel discussion, Don Tow mentioned that a modification of the Peace and Reconciliation Asia Study Tour similar to what organizations like the “Alliance for Learning and Preserving the History of WWII in Asia” (ALPHA) to study and discuss modern Chinese and world history, but instead of orientating toward U.S. high school teachers, our audience should be Chinese Americans.

However, after giving it more thought, the impact of such an approach would be far too small to make a difference. Therefore, we need to write books on this subject. The more books and articles on this subject, the better it will be, because the issue is important and complex. It is important to hear the wisdom from different perspectives and backgrounds.

** I also gave a talk at this conference. That talk “Perspective on U.S.-China Relationship – War or Peace” was prepared before the conference and that talk can be found in the September 2022 release of this website: https://www.dontow.com/2022/09/perspective-on-u-s-china-relationship-war-or-peace/

[1] Such cases were clearly discussed at the conference with the participation of people like Sherry Chen, Gang Chen, and Xiaoxing Xi.

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/03/04/most-americans-support-tough-stance-toward-china-on-human-rights-economic-issues/.

[3] The 1943 Cairo Declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Cairo_Declaration.

[4] The 1945 Potsdam Declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration.

[5] The September 2,1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the U.S. Battleship Missouri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender.

Brief Bios of Panelists and Moderator

Gordon H. Chang: Gordon H. Chang is a professor of History at Stanford University, the Olive H. Palmer Professor of Humanities, and a former director of the Center for East Asian Studies. He was also the founding director of the Asian American Studies Program at Stanford. In 2019, he published Ghosts of Gold Mountain: The Epic History of the Chinese Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad and The Chinese and the Iron Road: Building the Transcontinental Railroad. His other books include Friends and Enemies: The United States, China, and the Soviet Union, 1948-1972 and Fateful Ties: A History of America’s Preoccupation with China, which studies the long arc of U.S.-China relations from American colonial days to the present. Among his other publications is Chinese American Voices, which he co-edited with Judy Yung and Him Mark Lai. 

George Koo: George Koo retired from a global advisory services firm where he advised clients on their China strategies and business operations. Educated at MIT, Stevens Institute and Santa Clara University, he is the founder and former managing director of International Strategic Alliances. He is currently a board member of Freschfield’s, a novel green building platform. Dr. Koo is one of the leading Chinese-American writers and organizers in regard to U.S.-China policy and on the conditions of Chinese-Americans in the United States, especially the persecution over these last years of Chinese-Americans and Chinese in the U.S.

K. J. Noh: K.J. Noh is a journalist, political analyst, writer and teacher specializing in the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region. He writes for Dissident Voice, Black Agenda Report, Counterpunch, Popular Resistance, Asia Times, MR Online. He also does frequent commentary and analysis on the news programs The Critical Hour, By Any Means Necessary, Fault Lines, Political Misfits, Loud & Clear, Breakthrough News, Flashpoints. K.J. Noh has reported extensively on great power  competition, geostrategic messaging, and the media ecology and its effects on communities. He has also collaborated with various scholars on the geopolitics of global health, Indigenous health rights policy, structural violence, and medical care delivery under neoliberal capitalism. He recently pioneered a study with Dr. Claudia Chaufan on the military transmission of infectious diseases and its implications for Covid transmission. He believes a functioning and healthy society requires good information; to that end, he strives to combat the weaponization of disinformation in the current cold war climate.

Julie Tang: The Hon. Julie M. Tang is a retired judge of the San Francisco Superior Court. Before her judgeship, Judge Tang worked as an Assistant District Attorney in San Francisco and served three terms as President of the SF Community Board. Upon retirement, Judge Tang co-founded the “Comfort Women” Justice Coalition and “Pivot to Peace.” Through these organizations, she actively promotes awareness of the issues of sexual violence against women and the importance of peace between the US and China. Judge Tang was named “Outstanding Chinese American” by the SF Board of Supervisors; she was inducted into Hastings’ College of the Law’s LEOP program’s Hall of Fame and received the “Joe Morizumi Award for Exceptional Legal Advocacy” from the Asian American Bar Association.

Don M. Tow: Don M. Tow is the President of the New Jersey Alliance for Learning and Preserving the History of WWII in Asia (NJ-ALPHA).  He is the Co-Founder of “10,000 Cries for Justice” and the “Coalition Peace Initiative.” Don has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of California at Berkeley, and performed Physics research at the Institute for Advanced Study, Brown University, University of Paris VI and XI, and University of Texas in Austin.  He also taught undergraduate and graduate Physics courses at UT Austin, before changing fields from academia to industry working at Bell Laboratories, Bellcore, Motorola (in Beijing), Telcordia, and Raritan Computer. He is the author of the book Mental Aspects of Youth Soccer: A Primer for Players, Parents, and Coaches. He also posts regularly in his website www.dontow.com.

For a while, I thought that relationship cannot keep on getting worse because it is not good for the U.S., not good for China, and also not good for the whole world. [1]  But that relationship has kept on getting worse. [2][3]  We need to understand the real conflict between the U.S. and China, and what can be done to address the problem.

This is the subject of this article. We will discuss the critical conflict between U.S. and China, why that conflict is leading to a path of war, and how that path can and must be altered.

We will also discuss the impact of this relationship on Chinese Americans. We will discuss, especially the views of second-generation/third-generation Chinese Americans, and more generally speaking on the view of the people of the world.

Analyzing and Understanding the Conflict Between U.S. and China:

There are many differences between U.S. and China, e.g., their histories, how the government operates, the way freedom and people’s wishes are expressed and reflected in the government, how government policies are formed and carried out, the country’s strategic alliances with other countries, the conduct of foreign policies and treatment of other governments and countries. These differences could easily lead to conflicts between the U.S. government and the Chinese government, especially when the differences lead to different political orientations. However, such differences should not lead to the two countries getting to diametrically opposite opposing corners. For example, China’s Bell and Road Initiative (BRI) could help a democratic government that is based on free elections and also an autocratic government whose family basically controls the whole country. It could help to improve the livelihood of the people of both countries, and therefore, it should not lead to their foreign policies on China that are diametrically opposite to each other.

Why is the relationship between U.S. and China keep on getting more antagonistic when a better relationship can benefit the American people, the Chinese people, as well as the other people of the world? Why is that relationship moving toward more confrontations and even war?

To understand the answer to that question, one needs to take an unbiased assessment of the history of the U.S. and especially what it has done in its foreign policy toward other countries in the last 75 years, since the end of WWII.

Earlier this year, we posted two articles in this website on the subject “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part 1” [4] and “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part 2” [5]. Instead of repeating what was written in those two articles, let me just write down the summary of the two articles:

“The U.S. government always presents itself as a government that is democratic, respects human rights, treats other countries with peaceful intention, and helps to solve world problems. That is the image that the U.S. government and the U.S. mass media depict itself. In reality, the U.S. government doesn’t act that way. It is not a democratic government working for the benefits of all its people; it treats its citizens differently depending on race, sex, place of origin, wealth, social and political status, etc.; it involves in many wars and instigates numerous regime changes in many countries. Furthermore, in many respects it behaves contrary to what a democratic government is supposed to behave.  Not only that it often doesn’t get involved in solving various world problems. It sometimes drops out of critical agreements (e.g., Paris Agreement on Climate Change) and criticizes or even sabotages other countries’ contributions.”

Now I will discuss the real conflict between the U.S. and China, and why that relationship is getting worse with more confrontations and possibly leading to war.

The Real Conflict Between U.S. and China:

In the last 40+ years, China has transformed itself from a very poor and backward country into the world’s second largest economy, lifted most of its huge population out of poverty, became basically the factory of the world, became the world’s third largest nuclear power, and has the world’s second strongest military, and can compete with the best of the world in science, engineering, bio-medicine, space explorations, and new patents, as well as gaining influences in world affairs. What is best for the world is for China and the U.S. to work cooperatively to address and solve the many difficult problems facing humanity. If the world’s two richest economies and the most powerful countries cannot work cooperatively, at least we hope that they don’t try to sabotage each other. Unfortunately, it seems that one country, the U.S., has been working hard to do just that. [2] [3]

Why? Instead of living together to try to improve the world, why would the U.S. try to create confrontations that can escalate into wars? If U.S. and China work together to address the world’s problems, then the U.S. would not be able to control the world and dictate their so-called rule-based order for the world to follow. Instead of creating a world with multi modality, the U.S. wants to create a single modality world with the U.S. in the center and in control of that modality.

This may be surprising to many people, but it is consistent with U.S. policy in how it has been treating the rest of the world in the past century. Unlike the image that the U.S. government has been presenting to the world that it is a democratic and benevolent country trying to do the best for all the people of the world, unfortunately, that image has been repeatedly shown to be false, as illustrated by the large number of regime change activities engaged by the U.S. [6] [7] [8]

Some of the activities of the U.S. government have been so evil that it is almost unimaginable. An example of that is what the U.S. did in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, using island natives as guinea pigs to see the effects of nuclear radiations. [9]

Unfortunately, we have to face reality because the U.S. is not willing to give up its power to dominate the world, the U.S. is willing to create conflicts with China, even leading to a war between the world’s two most powerful military powers, possibly leading to a world war with the use of nuclear weapons. This is the essence of the real conflict between the U.S. and China.

Multi-lateral World Versus A Unilateral World:

China wants a multi-lateral world, but U.S. wants a unilateral world following the U.S. rule-based order.

With China’s rise to almost equal to U.S.:  economically, politically, militarily, U.S. feels the competition from China, and wants to dominate the world, always criticizing China, independent of its justification. When it does not get its wish, the U.S. will not hesitate to instigate regime change or create color/umbrella revolutions. This creates instabilities and could lead to wars all over the world, including to world wars or nuclear wars.

Of course we all hope that this will not happen and the U.S. will also pursue a multi-lateral world to the benefits of all countries and all the people of the world.  Unfortunately, just wishing it is unlikely to make that become a reality.

However, when other countries in many other parts of the world also see the benefits of a multi-lateral world, and openly advocate and work toward that goal, then the U.S. will need to change its foreign policy toward a multi-lateral world.  Then the world may choose the path to peace in this fork in the road of war or peace.

People of the World Must Create a Massive Pro-Peace (or Anti-War) Movement:

Until that happens, the decision should be clear that the world must generate a massive peace movement, or anti-war movement.  Creating a war between the U.S. and China is legally, historically, ethically, and morally not justifiable.  It is not necessary, and not good for the U.S., China, or the world.  The consequence of the alternative is unimaginably terrifying.

The fact that this potential war is also not good for the U.S., this global peace movement should be able to generate mass support in the U.S. at both the grass root level and the government level, although it will not be easy.  Keep in mind that it was not easy to generate a massive antiwar movement in the 1960s and 1970s against the Vietnam War when all young men in the U.S. were required by the draft to join the military.  Now that requirement is no longer in place due to replacing the draft of young American men by a professional U.S. army, it may reduce the psychological impact of seeing body bags of dead American soldiers shown on TV every evening as we saw back then. 

There are already many organizations existing today working toward global peace; a partial list is given below.  Some of them are major organizations, and have been in existence for many years.

• International Peace Bureau
• Code Pink – Women for Peace
• Peace Action
• Massachusetts Peace Action
• Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security
• International Action Center
• Veterans for Peace
• Pivot to Peace
• World Beyond War
• Coalition Peace Initiative
• Global Alliance for Preserving the History of WWII in Asia
• Toronto ALPHA Education

Although there are differences in emphasis among the above world peace organizations, we should be able to join forces to mobilize against any potential war initiated by the U.S.’s hegemonic drive to dominate the world, thus making a coalition peace initiative possible.  We know that this is an extremely difficult task, but the other path, that of war, is just not acceptable.

How To Strengthen the Global Peace Movement:  Besides the people who are in various peace or anti-war organizations, there are many others who are in related movements who can be persuaded to join the peace movement.  For example, people who are in various civil rights or minority rights or women’s rights movements, such as:

• NAACP
• Black Lives Matter
• National Organization for Women
• American Indian Movement (AIM)
• Latinos civil rights and advocacy organization UnidosUS
• 80-20 Initiative
• Asian Americans Advancing Justice
• Organization of Chinese Americans-Asian American Pacific Islanders (OCA-AAPI)
• Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)
• Stop AAPI Hate

Although all the previously named organizations provide a good base to build on, this global peace movement will need a much larger base.  Thus, we have a formidable task in front of us.  We need to work earnestly, and intelligently, and we need to be determined and not give up when we encounter any obstacle.  We need to be constantly looking to enlarge the foundation of our global peace movement. 

There is also a very large group of people we may be able to appeal to, and that is Christians, but it will not be easy.  Christians often oppose some of the causes of many of the above organizations. On the other hand, Christians are also against discrimination, injustices, killings, wars, and want to help the down-trodden. Although Christians may have a legitimate concern on abortion, because that is killing a life, but it may also involve the saving of lives, like a mother, or not destroying the life of a young woman in the case of rapes.  Furthermore, Christians are very much pro peace.  That is why there was a large number of Christians who supported the peace movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s.  Some Christians are also against LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender).  However, LGBT people are also people created by God and therefore are all loved by God. That is why Christians can and should be appealed to in the peace/anti-war movement. It is time for Christians to realize the actions and real intention of the U.S. government.

Undo Years of Propaganda and Fabricated News about China:   The U.S. government is very good in the propaganda war against China as well as other countries who hold different political views.  Not only that organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Voice of America (VOA) are well funded and constantly spreading news and information that are at best half-truths and fanning color or umbrella revolutions all over the world, they also have numerous think tanks and non-profit organizations supported with research funds from the U.S. government that produce numerous documents and white papers that tend to support the political views advocated by the U.S. government.  In addition, there is a very large number of mass media sources (such as newspapers, magazines, televisions, radios, and websites) putting out numerous reports everyday repeating the political view of our government.  For example, just look at how the Western mass media have reported on the recent Russia-Ukraine invasion and compare that with the reports on the 2003 U.S.-Iraq invasion, and you can clearly notice the tremendous difference in the amount of coverage, the content of the coverage, the tone and message of the coverage, etc.

It is no wonder that the American public is strongly influenced by the mass media reports they hear, read, and see every day, and they buy into the political message of these reports.  Normally, you trust your government and believe what your government is telling you, unless you have other evidence to believe otherwise.  The U.S. is especially good in presenting an image that the U.S. government is a model government for the world to admire and mimic, even though it is often a false image.  Please see Refs. [6-9], as well as Refs. [2-5]. This is especially the case with what has been happening in the U.S. in the last few years when so many political leaders of the U.S. are engaged in so many obvious activities that contradict the basic principles of democracy, human rights, respect and love for your fellow human beings. How can the U.S. still advertise itself as a model government for the world to admire and mimic. Can we really afford to be silent?

Implications and Significance for 2nd-generation/3rd-generation Chinese Americans:

Chinese Americans, especially 2nd-generation and 3rd-generation Chinese Americans, have grown up in the above atmosphere, can easily believe what they hear and read every day, and buy into that rosy American image. Unless they have seriously studied the issues involved or have personal knowledge or experience around those issues, it often leads to arguments, sometimes divisive arguments between these 2^nd or 3^rd generation Chinese Americans and their 1^st-generation parents or grandparents.  Furthermore, a lot of 1st-generation Chinese Americans may also buy into this rosy depiction of the U.S. It is an important open issue on how Chinese Americans should address and resolve this generational-understanding issue. It is an issue that falls in the domain of the International Society for the Study of Chinese Overseas (ISSCO). [10]

This constant depiction of the golden image of the U.S. affects not only Chinese Americans, but also affects other people of the world. So the discussion on Chinese Americans may also be applicable to other groups of people.

One may argue that there seems to be an American Dream in the minds of many Americans as well as other people of the world, isn’t that already an existence proof that the American system of government must have been doing things close to what has been advertised. This is a very important question, and we have actually discussed this issue earlier. [11] [12]. We will not repeat that discussion here, and will just refer you to those two articles.

Summary;

We are at this dangerous fork in the road:  War of Peace  Even though the road of peace is extremely difficult, the alternative path of war is just unimaginary horrifying.  Fortunately, many countries of the world also recognize this critical fork on the road, and they also see the benefits of the multi-lateral world approach to solving the world’s problems and improving the livelihood of the people of the world.  Therefore, there could be a path for peace.

_____________________________________________________________________

[1] There are many articles on “U.S.-China Relationship”. Here is just one such article: “Why U.S.-China Relations Are Locked in a Stalemate” published on February 21, 2022 as a Commentary from the “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.” Most of these articles are written from a U.S. political perspective.

[2] For commentaries on recent US-China Relationship, see this reference: “Campaign to Promote Peace Between the U.S. and China”: https://www.dontow.com/2021/12/campaign-to-promote-peace-between-the-united-states-and-china/, as well as Ref. 3.

[3] “China Is Not the U.S.’ Enemy”: https://www.dontow.com/2021/12/china-is-not-united-states-enemy/.

[4] “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part 1”: https://www.dontow.com/2022/03/tale-of-two-standards-in-world-politics-part-i/.

[5] “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part 2”: https://www.dontow.com/2022/03/tale-of-two-standards-in-world-politics-part-ii/.

[6] Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, New York, 2006. This is a book by veteran New York Times writer who reported from over 50 countries and served as the paper’s bureau chief in Turkey, Germany and Nicaragua.

[7] United States involvement in regime change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1991%E2%80%93present:_Post-Cold_War.

[8] “The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War,” Lindsey L. O’Rourke, The Washington Post, December 23, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/. According to the author, of the 72 times, 60 were covert operations and 6 were overt operations. And among the 60 covert operations, only 20 successfully brought the U.S.-backed government to power, and 40 failed.

[9] The Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Australia is part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under the administrative control of the U.S. after WWII. It was here that the U.S. tested nuclear weapons 67 times between 1946 and 1958. There are several documentaries on Marshall Islands and the sufferings experienced by the Marshall Islands natives from the numerous nuclear bomb testings there. The best one is probably the one made in 2011 by Adam Jonas Horowitz:  “Nuclear Savage:  The Islands of Secret Project 4.1.”  You can see a 7-minute summary of this documentary for free at https://vimeo.com/30869044.

[10] This is an important issue for the International Society for the Study of Chinese Overseas (ISSCO), which will have its 30 year anniversary conference on Nov. 11-12, 2022 in San Francisco on the topic “Diasporic Futures: Sinophobia, Techno-Political Strife, and the Politics of Care.” I will be presenting at this conference a paper titled “Fork on the Road: War or Peace” whose content has a lot of resemblance to the current article.

[11] “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part II”: https://www.dontow.com/2022/03/tale-of-two-standards-in-world-politics-part-ii/ has a section called “Revisiting the American Dream,” which elaborates on the earlier article of Ref. 12.

[12] “Can the American Dream Be Continued?”: https://www.dontow.com/2010/01/can-the-american-dream-be-continued/.

In this article we focus on the issue of Taiwan which is going to be the most important issue in determining the outcome of the U.S.-China relationship. In a sense, this issue is really trivial if you follow the history of China and the U.S.-relationship with respect to Taiwan, but in reality, because the U.S. is not acknowledging history and wants to rewrite history, this issue could trigger the next world war and another nuclear war.

What Is Happening in the Past Decade?

The U.S. has been mobilizing its vast media apparatus to distort the truth and demonize China at whatever opportunity that may arise, e.g., in situations involving Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, East China Sea Islands like the Diaoyudao Islands (also called Senkaku Islands in Japan), the South China Sea Islands, hate crimes against Chinese Americans and more generally speaking against Asian Americans, and false espionage charges against Chinese American academics (all accusations have been proven to be false and wrongfully accused in the U.S. courts).

At the same time, the U.S. government is always projecting itself as the model government for the world to admire and mimic; it is a gold standard in terms of governance of the country with respect to democracy and human rights, and in terms of world peace and addressing the world’s critical problems. However, in reality, the U.S. government has been paying lip service to democracy and human rights and has long been involved and documented in destabilizing and overthrowing foreign governments when the leaders in power are not favorable to the U.S. government. [1][2] Therefore, it has repeatedly happened that the U.S. government does not always acknowledged history and will rewrite history whenever it is to the advantage of the U.S. government.

Brief Reminders of Certain Historical Facts Involving Taiwan:

Historically, Taiwan has been a part of China for many centuries and universally so recognized by the world. The island of Taiwan was ceded to Japan after Japan won the first Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 [3]. After WWII ended, Japan was supposed to relinquish all territories in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. This agreement was clearly stated in several major international declarations.

The 1943 Cairo Declaration [4]:

In particular, it was so stated in the November 26, 1943 Cairo Declaration by President Franklin Roosevelt of the U.S., Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China. The declaration developed ideas from the 1941 Atlantic Charter, which was issued by the Allies of WWII to set goals for the post-war order.

The 1945 Potsdam Declaration [5]:

On July 26, 1945, the Allied Powers represented by President Franklin Roosevelt of the U.S., Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China issued the Potsdam Declaration that offered an unconditional surrender of Japan to WWII and reiterated the 1943 Cairo Declaration that all territories that Japan seized or occupied from the Chinese, including the island of Taiwan, should be returned to China.

The 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender [6]:

On September 2, 1945, representatives from the Japanese government and Allied forces aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, which ended World War II and also reiterated the Potsdam Declaration that the island of Taiwan should be returned to China.

The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty [7]:

The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty [8] was supposed to officially end WWII and to allocate compensation to the Allied powers.  China (either the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China), the country who suffered the most at the hands of the Japanese military during WWII, was not even invited to the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, although over 50 other countries were invited.  Unlike the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, and the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender which all stated that the island of Taiwan should be returned to China, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was orchestrated and controlled by the U.S. only stated that these territories should be given up by Japan, but purposely did not state that they should be returned to China (to either the Republic of China or the People’s Republic of China). The People’s Republic of China immediately protested that mistake.  But the Republic of China signed the Treaty of Taipei with Japan on April 28, 1952 (almost immediately after the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty took effect) that basically copied the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, i.e., without stating that the island of Taiwan should be returned to the Chinese. In 1951, U.S. was in control of not only the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but also of the Republic of China government in Taiwan, and it once again used its power to dictate the fate of others to the advantage of the U.S. while ignoring history and justice.

It is important to point out that In 1980, while adjudicating a case concerning nationality, the Tokyo High Court wrote in its opinion that the 1952 Treaty of Taipei should lose its significance and should end as a result of the Japan-China Joint Communique signed on September 29, 1972 between Japan and the People’s Republic of China. [8]

Summary:

History clearly tells us that the island of Taiwan should be returned to the Chinese, and should now belong to the People’s Republic of China. If the U.S. would just acknowledge history, this is a non-issue. But if the U.S. wants to rewrite history, then it crosses the openly stated red line of the People’s Republic of China, and could easily trigger another world war, or even a devastating nuclear war.

Unfortunately during the past year, the U.S. government has repeatedly denied history, as in the most recent example that the US State Department has recently changed the wording on the “fact sheet” on its relations with Taiwan when it no longer included a declaration of its long-time position that the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. The most recent example is when President Biden made the remark on May 23, 2022 that the U.S. will defend Taiwan. It is clear that the U.S. has now been moving clearly into a position that denies history, and could easily trigger a war with China, a war that is not good for Americans, for Chinese, and for the people of the whole world. All the peace-loving people of the world must take actions to keep the U.S. from rewriting history.

———-

[1] See, e.g., Overthrow, by Stephen Kinzer, Times Books, 2006, ISBN 978-0-8050-7861-9.

[2] See, also, “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part I”: https://www.dontow.com/2022/03/tale-of-two-standards-in-world-politics-part-i/.

[3] See, e.g., “First Sino-Japanese War”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War.

[4] See, e.g., “The 1943 Cairo Declaration”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Cairo_Declaration.

[5} See, e.g., “Potsdam Declaration”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration.

[6] See. e.g., September 2, 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender”: https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F2%2F1945+Japanese+Instrument+of+Surrender&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALiCzsbFH6wgMOxad-1h-T2PRv9Pmo1E2A%3A1651865624297&ei=GHh1YqPPEbK5gge01ryADA&ved=0ahUKEwiju4L-zsv3AhWynOAKHTQrD8AQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=9%2F2%2F1945+Japanese+Instrument+of+Surrender&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBwgjELADECcyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsANKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQAFgAYI4JaAFwAXgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAyAEJwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz.

[7] See, e.g., “Treaty of San Francisco”: https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F2%2F1945+Japanese+Instrument+of+Surrender&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALiCzsbFH6wgMOxad-1h-T2PRv9Pmo1E2A%3A1651865624297&ei=GHh1YqPPEbK5gge01ryADA&ved=0ahUKEwiju4L-zsv3AhWynOAKHTQrD8AQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=9%2F2%2F1945+Japanese+Instrument+of+Surrender&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBwgjELADECcyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsANKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQAFgAYI4JaAFwAXgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAyAEJwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz.

[8] See, e.g., “Treaty of Taipei,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Taipei.

This article looks more carefully into the American government and its actual practice during its existence in the last 250 years so that we can have a better benchmark to assess the actual American government. For our assessment, we will consider the following metrics:

• Democracy
• Human Rights
• Peace
• Addressing World Problems

Part I of this two-part article discusses the first two metrics of democracy and human rights.  Part II discusses the other two metrics of peace and addressing world problems.

Democracy:

Is the U.S. a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? This means whether the U.S. government is all the people (i.e., whenever we mention people, we are referring to all the people), whether the control of the government is in the hands of the people, and more importantly whether the purpose of the government is for the benefits of the people? First let us look at the Constitution of the U.S. The key to democracy is that the people have a right to vote and therefore the people are in control of the government, and the decisions of the government should then be for the benefits of the people. People elect representatives to vote for them, and the key is how many congressional representatives a state should have. From the very beginning when the U.S. Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788, a black person was counted to be equal to three fifths of a white person. This did not change until 76 years later in 1864 in the middle of a divisive and deadly 4-year civil war (1861-1865) when the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed. Then it took about 100 more years until the 1960s when the Civil Rights Movement finally gave more recognition to the rights of the black citizens. Furthermore, even today about 250 years after the U.S. was founded, black and and other types of Americans are still being discriminated in schools, housings, businesses, judicial courts, and almost every other aspect of life, and are being arrested and killed much more frequently by police. How the Native Americans were treated and are still being treated can be considered to be an example of genocide.

Are the decisions of the U.S. government for the benefits of the American people. There are several metrics we can consider. One metric is the top 1%’s wealth as compared to middle 60% of the American public (i.e., so-called middle class). After years of declines, American’s middle class now holds a smaller share (26.6%) of U.S. wealth than the top 1% (27.0%). [1] Another metric is the Gini index [2], the most commonly used measure of income distribution (the higher the Gini indes, the greater the gap between the incomes of a country’s richest and poorest people). According to Ref. [3], the Gini index for the U.S. is 41.50, which is near the highest among industrialized countries. It is important to note that the Gini index for China has gone up to 38.6, which is also very high and an important issue that China also needs to address.

Another area that needs to be looked at is the homeless issue in the U.S. The number of Americans living without homes, in shelters, or on the streets continues to rise at an alarming rate, as discussed in a recent Dec. 28, 2021 report by Judy Woodruff of PBS News Hour. [3] In cities like Los Angeles, the homeless situation is especially bad, with over 66 thousand people in the county experiencing homelessness. This represents a 12% rise from 2019, with the city of Los Angeles reporting a 16.1% jump to 41,290.

For a country supposedly as rich and as successful as the U.S., the above statistics may be surprising and unexpected. However, if you look at how our government leaders, especially among the Republican Party in the last couple of years, perform their jobs, when their objective is essentially solely for their own or their party’s self interests. They focus on outright lies to try to reverse election results, to forcibly occupy the nation’s capital and overthrow our legitimate government, to change voting regulations and procedures to disenfranchise the legitimate rights of voters, to gerrymandering electoral districts to favor specific political interests. When you take this into account, it is not surprising at all that we end up with the results mentioned earlier in a supposedly democratic and model country that the world is supposed to admire and mimic.

Unfortunately, such unreasonable behavior of our political leaders is not just limited to the Republican Party, because in the realm of world diplomacy, we see so much biased news and outright fabricated and false news, especially with respect to China, coming from both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It is not surprising that there has been so much anti-China and anti-Asian hate crimes in the U.S.

Human Rights:

The U.S. always describes itself as a country that is at the forefront of advocating and supporting human rights., and when another country who is not one of the U.S.’s own strategic partners has any hints of human rights issues, the U.S. would not pass any opportunity to attack that country on any hints of human rights violation. On the issue of human rights, again the U.S. considers itself to be a beacon for other countries to follow and to mimic.

Let’s look more carefully at the human rights record of the U.S. As it was already mentioned in the previous section on “Democracy,” it was written explicitly in the U.S. Constitution that a black person is considered to be three-fifths of a white person, and this was not changed until the 13th Amendment in 1864. Then the whole reconstruction movement was basically postponed for about 100 years before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s started to restore the basic rights of American black citizens. Even now in 2022, the American blacks and other minorities still suffer significant discrimination and are much more likely to be arrested, killed, or found guilty in the judicial system.

The Native Americans were never treated properly, their lands were stolen; they were attacked or killed, and then put into reservations. Living in reservations is comparable to living in the 3rd world, with inadequate housing, high unemployment, low wages, often with income coming only from social security, disability benefits, or veteran compensation, poor health with significantly shorter life expectancy, with reservation land tightly controlled by the federal government. [4]

Native American children were usually educated and brought up in American Indian Residential Schools, which were established in the U.S. from the mid 17th to the early 20th centuries with a primary objective of “civilizing” or assimilating Native American children and youth into Euro-American culture. These schools forced removal of indigenous cultural identifiers: cutting the children’s hair, having them wear American-style uniforms, forbidding them from speaking their indigenous languages, and replacing their tribal names with English-language names for use at the schools, as part of assimilation and to “Christianize” them. The schools were usually harsh, especially for younger children who had been forcibly separated from their families and forced to abandon their Native American identities and cultures. Children also sometimes died in the school system due to infectious disease. Investigations later in the twentieth century have revealed many documented cases of sexual, manual, physical and mental abuse occurring mostly in church-run schools. [5] When we remember how the U.S. treated the Native American, it makes one wonder how can the U.S. with a straight face accuse other countries of mistreating their minorities.

We should also remember:

• The hardship and courageous sacrifices of Chinese workers in building the first continental railroad, and then not even invited and recognized in the celebration of the completion of that railroad in 1869 [6]
• The discrimination and massacres of many Chinese workers in the 18th century and 19th century. [7]
• The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the only law in American history to deny citizenship or entry based on a specific nationality. [8]

Then we should need to remember the internment of Japanese Americans in 1942-1945, when they were rounded up from their homes in various parts of the Western U.S. and shipped to internment camps. [9] These include many Japanese Americans who were born in this country and served in the U.S. military fighting against the Japanese.

We will continue the rest of this article in “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part II” in the “Other” category page in the same issue of this website [9]. In Part II, besides discussing the other two main metrics of “Peace” and “Addressing World Problems,” we also revisit the American Dream issue and then provide a conclusion summarizing both parts of this article.

Brief Summary of Part I:

This ends the first part of this article “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part I”. In Part I, we discuss the U.S. government from the perspective of democracy and human rights. We conclude that contrary to what the U.S. government and mass media have always tried to depict that the U.S. is a model in terms of its democratic government and human rights that the world should copy and mimic. This is not saying that the the U.S. government is a worse government than that of other countries, but we do want to emphasize that the U.S. government has not been a model government for the whole world to copy and mimic. We should acknowledge that there may not be one model of government that is always best suited for all countries at all times. We should be willing to let other countries to try their own form of government, and be willing to coexist with them.

[1] See, e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-earners-hold-more-wealth-than-the-u-s-middle-class.

[2] See, e.g., https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings.

[3] See, e.g., https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/whats-behind-rising-homelessness-in-america.

[4] See, e.g., http://www.nativepartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=naa_livingconditions and https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-government-keeps-native-americans-in-poverty/?sh=14b1b0db2c27.

[5] See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schools#cite_note-Stephen_Magagnini-3.

[6] Ghosts of Gold Mountain: The Epic Story of the Chinese Who Built the Continental Railroad, by Gordon Chang, Mariner Books, 2019.

[7] The Chinese in America, by Iris Chang, Penguin Books, 2003.

[8 See, e.g., Chinese Exclusion Act: https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/chinese-exclusion-act-1882.

[8] See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans.

[9] “Tale of Two Standards in World Politics – Part II”: https://www.dontow.com/2022/03/tale-of-two-standards-in-world-politics-part-ii.

The last webinar in this 9 webinar series is titled “China Is Not United States’ Enemy.” This article is the summary by the author given at the end of this webinar program.

I want to take a few minutes to summarize this series of webinars.  As we have emphasized repeatedly, the most important question facing the world today is whether the world is moving toward war or peace, and the key to answering that question is the relationship between the United States and China. There are many critical global problems that the world is facing.  It is absolutely critical that the world’s two most important and most powerful countries work cooperatively to solve these problems that could lead to a win-win situation for all the people of the world. 

As our speakers tonight pointed out that China is not the enemy of the United States.  In this summary, I want to discuss what would happen if China were the U.S.’ enemy.

1. If China were the U.S.’ enemy, China would have many military bases surrounding the U.S.  China does not. But the United States does have many military bases all around China.
2. If China were the enemy of the United States, China would have alliances with countries around and near the U.S.  China does not.  But the U.S. does have many alliances, including military alliances, with various countries around and near China.
3. If China were the U.S.’ enemy, China would be fabricating accusations against the U.S. in order to psychologically prepare its citizens when conflicts and wars break out between the two countries. China has not done that.  But the U.S. has repeatedly done that as we have discussed throughout this webinar series.
4. If China were the U.S.’ enemy, China would be boycotting U.S. companies and arresting U.S. business leaders on trump-up charges.  China hasn’t done that.  But the U.S. has done that.
5. If China were the U.S.’ enemy, China would try to destabilize the U.S. and try to encourage secession activities within the U.S.  China has not done that.  But the U.S. has repeatedly done that.
6. If China were the U.S.’ enemy, China would provide encouragement, financial support, and perhaps even military support to those organizations or parts of the U.S. who have differences of opinion from the U.S. government.  China has not done that.  But the U.S. has repeatedly done that.

In summary, China has not taken any of the actions which an enemy of the U.S. would likely be taking.  However, on the other hand, the U.S. has repeatedly taken all of those actions. 

That is why in this webinar program, we have repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. government’s demonization of China is essentially based on fabrications, and not based on facts.

Of course, the U.S. and China will also need to compete against each other.  As a matter of fact, we believe that it is healthy to have competition between the U.S. and China.  But that competition should be based on decency and fair play.  The U.S.’s foreign policy should not adopt a Tonya Harding-like foreign policy to unfairly attack its major competitor. 

On the other hand, it is equally important to recognize that the U.S.’s policy and actions all reflect the U.S. government’s belief that China is U.S.’ enemy.  The U.S. must look within itself, instead of blaming others for its problems. This is the most important attitude that needs to be changed.  If that is not changed, we in the U.S. will not be able to solve our internal problems, and we will not able to help the world to solve many critical global problems, and we will move the world closer to war, instead of peace.

Finally, I want to thank all the speakers of this whole webinar series, and I especially want to express my appreciation for all the participants, especially those who have attended multiple webinars.  Let’s all work together harder for peace in order that our children and grandchildren will have a livable world to grow up in, because there is really no alternative. 

——————————————————-

[1] For an explanation of why these three topics are relevant for discussion and understanding of modern U.S.-China relationship, please read the accompanying article “Campaign to Promote Peace Between the United States and China” in this issue of this website: https://www.dontow.com/2021/12/campaign-to-promote-peace-between-the-united-states-and-china/.

[2] You can see the replay videos of all 9 webinars at the Coalition Peace Initiative website: https://www.coalitionpeaceinitiative.org/replay-files-for-webinar-series/, including the talks by K. J. Noh and Sheila Xiao on the topic “China Is Not United States’ Enemy” during the last webinar on 11/17/2021. Also, the audio podcast of this summary to end the Webinar Program on 11/27/2021 can be found at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n07xoft8rhd3jw1/P9c-20211117-Tow%27s%20Closing%20Remarks.mp3?dl=0.