Michael D. Swaine is a senior research fellow in the East Asia Program of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington. He is an expert on China-related national security issues, having worked previously in that capacity at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the RAND Corporation. He advises the U.S. government and has written numerous books and monographs. He holds a doctoral degree in government from Harvard University.
***************
Hard-line views on how the U.S. should approach China have been around for some time, but the most extreme among them have usually existed only on the margins of the policy debate in Washington. In recent months, however, an expanding coalition of mainstream U.S. politicians and foreign policy analysts has pushed dangerous and irresponsible views that go far beyond traditional or reasonable concerns about China and which could very well spark a future conflict. This new wave of ultra-hawkish hardliners is getting greater attention in the mainstream media, and some of them may be in a position to shape the next administration’s China policy, making it all the more urgent to push back against their most extreme positions.
Prime examples of their views are reflected in House Speaker Mike Johnson’s remarks accompanying his announcement that the next Congress will renew the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, along with other recent remarks he has made on global threats and U.S. security policy. They were similarly expressed in a recent article co-authored by Matt Pottinger, the Asia director on former President Donald Trump’s National Security Council, and Mike Gallagher, a former congressman who until he resigned in April had chaired the select committee on the CCP. They are also on display in many of the select committee’s hearings and findings.
The language employed by the select committee on the CCP and its supporters is routinely extreme and polemical, and rarely fact-based in any balanced manner, consistently portraying the CCP as leveling an array of existential military, political, economic and values-based threats to the U.S., the West and the world in general.
For instance, these hardliners have posited that China is set to “push the United States out of Asia” by annexing Taiwan and penetrating beyond the so-called first island chain of U.S. allies around the Chinese mainland, which would allow Beijing to expand its “communist footholds” beyond Asia and “pursue preeminence globally.” Beijing would supposedly face little challenge in achieving these far-reaching ambitions and subverting the international community, as it will soon be capable of holding the West “hostage economically.”
Equally worrying, this hardline coalition portrays Beijing as the driving force behind a sinister “axis” that includes “partner regimes in Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and even Cuba.” Collectively these countries are supposedly using their resources to foster international chaos, weaken the U.S., and usher in an authoritarian global order.
The ultra-hawks claim to want to avoid a war with China, yet most offer up policy prescriptions that would almost certainly increase the chance of a serious crisis or conflict with Beijing that would devastate the global economy. Many counsel a massive increase in defense spending without attempting to resolve the costs and trade-offs this would inevitably entail or address how Washington would deal with the ensuing open-ended arms race with China.
Regarding the issue of Taiwan, some ultra-hawks call for overhauling the U.S. military to focus exclusively and explicitly on ensuring Taiwan’s autonomy from China under any circumstances, while others call for bringing the island into the U.S. defense perimeter as a de facto ally. Both actions would constitute a direct refutation of the long-standing “One China” policy that has kept the peace for decades and would almost certainly precipitate an eventual crisis or conflict with Beijing. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who served under Trump, has publicly asserted the need to recognize Taiwan officially as a sovereign, independent nation, a move that many seasoned China experts believe would guarantee a catastrophic war with China.
The ultra-hawks claim to want to avoid a war with China, yet most offer up policy prescriptions that would almost certainly increase the chance of a serious crisis or conflict with Beijing.
In the economic arena, these extremists push for a hard decoupling with China, including by piling ever-higher tariffs, ever-stiffer sanctions and ever more severe technological restrictions on Beijing, while shutting down virtually all investments in both directions and, in some cases, revoking China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations status. Many serious economists and analysts observe that such moves would severely damage the U.S. and global economy without producing the desired result of constraining China’s growth.
Some of the most extreme ultra-hawks even advocate for actions designed to weaken and eventually topple the Chinese government, in order to not just manage, but to win the strategic competition with Beijing. Even Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, not known for being a dove on China, has described the pursuit of regime change as “reckless and likely unproductive.”
There is no denying that Beijing is an increasingly assertive, sometimes destabilizing force on the world stage that engages in widespread, destructive cyber hacking and supports—albeit within limits—Russia’s war on Ukraine, to cite just two examples. Under President Xi Jinping, China has become more repressive and ideologically driven, as well as increasingly aggressive in its expansionist territorial claims in the South China Sea. But there is no conclusive evidence that Xi wants China to replace the U.S. as the global military hegemon. And even if global hegemony were his desire, China is in no position to create an authoritarian bloc powerful enough to pose an existential threat to the United States. The strength of Beijing and a few other authoritarian states are no match in both hard and soft power compared to the U.S. and its many allies and partners around the world.
Moreover, Xi’s rule will not last forever. And hardline U.S. policies that are viewed by many Chinese as an attempt to weaken their nation will not benefit the efforts of those who aspire to a more open, diverse and tolerant future for China. To the contrary, such policies will only strengthen popular support among the Chinese people for ever more assertive, anti-Western leaders.
It is also important to point out that China is a major driver of global economic growth, having already raised millions of its own citizens out of poverty. Moreover, it holds many common interests with other nations in combating transnational threats such as climate change and pandemics, as well as in maintaining global economic health and financial stability.
Such a complex array of challenges and opportunities demands a sophisticated set of policies designed to deter, assure and engage with China, while both competing and cooperating in equal measure.
The administration of President Joe Biden has thus far largely avoided adopting the most hawkish views and policies currently on offer in Washington. But it has rarely meaningfully pushed back against the growing extremism for fear of political blowback, which only serves to legitimize many of these views. And most ominously, if Vice President Kamala Harris fails to win the presidential election in November, it is a virtual certainty that many of the most hawkish voices on China will hold influential posts in a second Trump administration or counsel him from outside the government.
While Trump does not agree with all the most extreme views, he agrees with enough of them—particularly the economic ones—to be quite dangerous. And if he believes China is making him look weak or foolish, he could easily be persuaded to endorse some of the most provocative views and actions in order to bolster his image and domestic support.
No one should be sanguine that these views will remain marginal. They are much more likely to grow and become ever more influential if not countered more effectively by U.S. political leaders as well as more clear-sighted analysts and commentators, in order to forewarn the U.S. public to their danger.
This article first appeared in World Politics Review (WPR), an online publisher of in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs, and is reprinted here with permission. Readers of AP Insights who are interested in an all-access WPR subscription can sign up here.
