CHESS MASTER: China’s Long-Term Strategy For World Domination

Too much engagement, too little containment, too late… to stop the giant panda?

Bret Stephens concluded his July 5, 2021, New York Times column, “China Won’t Bury Us, Either,” with this historic recollection:

“Xi Jinping may think that, one day, a disciplined and directed Chinese system will bury an aimless, unserious free world. Nikita Khrushchev once had a similar thought. Something to remember in this time of Western self-doubt.”

Unfortunately, China in 2021 is not the Soviet Union of 1956, when Khrushchev had made that dubious call to bury us. Nor is China anywhere close to becoming the Soviet Union of 1991, when Khrushchev’s 35-year-old ignominious threat finally completed its long, inevitable boomerang and buried the Soviet Union instead. The reason for the Soviet implosion was very clear — it always remained largely a military power and never an economic one. Today China is both, a strong military power and a formidable economic power that has the world’s 2nd largest GDP.

The Chess Master.

In fact, China has significantly expanded its reach into so many different aspects of the global SPECS ecosystem that simply calling it a superpower does not fully reflect the true scope of its growing influence. However, in the acronym, CHESS MASTER, I attempt to encapsulate a wide range of data that establishes China’s increasing dominance on the world stage. It has been culled from several contemporary media reports of note:

Control — Countering China’s Maritime Insurgency…

Hegemony — China’s efforts to establish regional hegemony

Exploitation — Chinese tech stocks roiled by worsening crackdown

Semiconductors — China’s New Semiconductor Policies: Issues for Congress

Supply Chain — How China still controls the global supply chains

Military — China Increasing Military Capability at ‘Serious and Sustained Rate,’

Artificial Intelligence — Is China Emerging as the Global Leader in AI?

Space — The Moon, Mars and Beyond: China’s Ambitious Plans in Space

Trade — Asia Trade Pact Draws US Allies Toward China

Economy — China tipped to overtake the US economy, despite ‘unreliable’ and ‘faked’ data

Renminbi — China advances in challenge to dollar hegemony

A Khrushchevian threat?

So, is it any surprise then that China recently decided to flex its muscles and warn the world as to how powerful it had become? During a speech at Tiananmen Square celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party on July 1, 2021, President Xi Jinping issued a veiled Khrushchevian threat — shown below, and as reported by the New York Times — to western nations:

“The Chinese people will never allow foreign forces to bully, oppress or enslave us, he said,” clad in a Mao suit. “Whoever nurses delusions of doing that will crack their heads and spill blood on the Great Wall of steel built from the flesh and blood of 1.4 billion Chinese people.”

While China won’t be able to “bury” us, as Khrushchev had once threatened; the west, in turn, cannot expect China to implode like the Soviet Union did. The west successfully contained the Soviet Union, despite its military might, because it had no economy to speak of that could have kept its citizens happy in the long term. A similar predicament exists in today’s Russia but that’s a commentary for another day.

An expensive Engagement.

The more pressing problem for the western world (and even most Indo-Pacific nations) is how to deal with an increasingly ubiquitous CHESS MASTER? In order to do that, we need to revisit our overall China policy over the past five decades, so we can better understand its current aggressive posture. Starting in the 1970s, a united western world sought to pursue an unbridled engagement policy with China, as a strategic and integral part of our containment plan for the Soviet Union. The “unbridled” aspect of this China strategy has turned out to be a huge mistake. Following the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, I had written to the Wall Street Journal (which never published my letter) about the need to do a midcourse correction in our China engagement policy. However, back then, we were not only enamored by Reagan era domestic and foreign policies, but also, we believed that China held the keys to mutual economic nirvana.

Moreover, at that time, there was a general national paranoia — of another rising sun in the Far East — which was portrayed in an infamous 1989 essay, “The Japan That Can Say No: Why Japan Will Be First Among Equals.” The essay was, per Wikipedia, “originally co-authored by Shintaro Ishihara, the then Minister of Transport and leading LDP figure who would become governor of Tokyo (1999–2012); and Sony co-founder and chairman Akio Morita, in the climate of Japan’s economic rise.” While we had helped build the post-WWII Japanese economic colossus, we had simultaneously ensured that Japan transitioned into a liberal democracy. This did not happen in the case of China, where we naively assumed that economic success would automatically lead it to democratic reform.

My concerns about our China policy — that began with Tiananmen Square — have continued over the past three decades. In a September 3, 2002, commentary, “The ‘Silent War’ Doctrine,” (which was published on the now defunct Nargundkar family web site), I had suggested the following:

“The Bush Doctrine needs to be modified, not only to incorporate the realities of the post-Cold War era, but also to reflect the dynamics of the post-9/11 age.

…

However, our successful Cold War strategy of containing the communist threat continues to be needlessly extended to Cuba, an ally of the now-defunct Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the other Cold War strategy of engaging the enemy (China) of my enemy (the then Soviet Union) needs to be revisited simply because the parameters in the equation have changed!”

Real change remains elusive.

Then, in a May 19, 2007 essay, “The 21st Century China Syndrome,” on my political blog, Political Potpourri, I had responded to an April 25, 2007 column by George Will, a renowned conservative pundit, as follows:

“So I was not at all surprised when George Will expressed his very own skepticism in a recent column, “Real Change In China?” using James Mann’s book, “The China Fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression,” as a reference. However, it is important for Americans to realize that Mr. Will’s “regime change” sought by President Nixon’s policy of engagement with China has still to bear fruit after 35 years. By comparison our policy of containment of the Soviet Union and communism, initiated by President Truman after World War II, achieved its objective in 45 years.

Coincidentally, containment was also beginning to languish as an ineffective doctrine around its 35th anniversary until President Reagan took office in 1981. He then jump-started it with his “evil empire” offensive and the Soviet Union collapsed barely a decade later.

As mentioned earlier, President Bush has been overwhelmed by the “global war on terror” that he initiated under the auspices of his very own “Bush Doctrine.” Unfortunately, the magnitude and complexity of conducting this preemption policy has rendered him incapable of seriously revisiting our China engagement policy — which happens to be languishing, like its Soviet containment cousin did, in its 35th anniversary.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. economy continues to get more and more interminably entwined and dependent on China, cold turkey disengagement is hardly a viable option and “real change in China” slips further into oblivion. No matter how China performs in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it long ago won the gold medal for international statecraft.

Alas, we have already begun to witness the 21st century China Syndrome — in which China has already demonstrated its ability to launch a missile and destroy an orbiting satellite, to make and launch a satellite for Nigeria, and has also publicly announced its intention to land on the moon by 2010.

Thus, the strategic imperative for the United States is no longer in doubt — China has already morphed into a “worrisome competitor” — we must therefore redefine and pursue a more holistic relationship with this budding superpower, one that encompasses economic, foreign, and trade policies that are not only in sync with our core values, but also more cognizant of the 21st century China Syndrome.”

A pivot away from Containment.

Alas, the Bush presidency ended with China becoming a far stronger “strategic competitor” than when Bush took office in 2001. Subsequently, President Obama was largely focused — thanks to inheriting a Global Recession — on domestic policy in his first term. However, he did pivot to an Asia-Pacific foreign policy during his second term, in part, to counter China’s growing influence in the region.

But then barely a week into Obama’s second term, Joseph S. Nye Jr., a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, penned an op-ed, “Work With China, Don¹t Contain It,” in the New York Times dated January 26, 2013. It provoked me enough to write a letter (which the Times chose not to publish) in response:

“In “Work With China, Don’t Contain It,” Professor Nye makes a valid, but incomplete, case regarding how to effectively deal with an increasingly belligerent China. While it may be too late for containment, continuing with a policy of unrestrained economic engagement is also ill advised.

Even as we hedge our bets with China, we need to ensure that “Mr. Obama’s ‘rebalancing’ toward Asia,” does not drive it back into a post-WWII style strategic relationship with Russia. Mr. Putin, who is becoming progressively more antagonistic towards the United States, might be simultaneously eyeing his own “reset” in relations with China to counter our pivot to Asia.

Given that China has of its own volition “worsened its relations with Japan, India, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines,” we must concomitantly strengthen ours with these nations, and even consider a broader NATO-style partnership. While our business relationship with China cannot be contained, we must necessarily extend our business as well as strategic partnerships with its neighbors.”

My early 2013 prognostications seem rather prescient in 2021, given that Russia and China are drawing closer today, even if they did not seem particularly close in 2016 towards the end of the Obama presidency. Also, Obama did make sustained efforts to strengthen ties with all other Asian countries except for North Korea. And yet, his Asia pivot was ruled a failure by the leftist British newspaper, The Guardian, in a September 25, 2016 op-ed, “Barack Obama’s ‘Asian pivot’ failed. China is in the ascendancy.” The Diplomat, a more centrist publication, welcomed Donald Trump to the presidency on January 21, 2017 with an op-ed, “The Pivot to Asia Was Obama’s Biggest Mistake.” It concluded:

“The pivot did not contain the rise of China. Instead, China became more aggressive, pressing its claims in the South China Sea and to the Senkakus. China also continues to close the gap in military capabilities with the United States. Its economy continues to grow, as does its share of global GDP. The TPP looks to be dead in Congress while China pursues trade deals of its own with key countries in the region.”

The trade deal that never happened.

Trump, a transactional president, took an entirely different and self-centered approach to China. He believed if he secured a trade deal with China, then he would be reelected, and… everything else relating to China would just fall in line. The New York Times reported on June 18, 2020, in an article, “The Biggest Obstacle to China Policy: President Trump,” as follows:

“Overseeing it all has been a president whose main aim with China has been to secure a trade deal — using overt pleas to Chinese leaders — that would help him get re-elected, according to the accounts.

Mr. Trump, who has shown little interest in human rights and has an affinity for dictators, had no qualms about negotiating openly on those terms with Mr. Xi and ignoring other issues.”

The above account was based on John Bolton’s — a former national security advisor to Trump — book, “The Room Where it Happened.” Bolton wrote a blistering op-ed, “The Scandal of Trump’s China Policy,” in The Wall Street Journal dated June 17, 2020. A similar scathing assessment was made in a Washington Post op-ed dated December 15, 2020 by conservative writer, Max Boot, “Trump’s China policy was a fiasco — not a triumph.” Suffice it to say, had it not been for the Covid-19 pandemic — which originated in China and went on to cripple Trump’s presidency — it’s quite likely that Trump would be cowering in front of President Xi-Jinping during his second term, much like he did before President Putin in his first term. From a foreign policy perspective that would have been an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

The American Gambit.

So, what does President Biden need to do to bring our China policy back on a track that is neither Trumpian, nor a holdover from the Soviet era? He must get the U.S. and its allies to play and beat the CHESS MASTER at its game — not just on one, two or three fronts but all of them simultaneously. Trade is not the be all and end all in the U.S.-China relationship, as Trump seemed to believe. Also, when it comes to AI and the three S categories — Semiconductors, Supply Chain and Space — the American private sector can and should do a lot more to make us race ahead of China.

When it comes to Control (of sea lanes) and Military issues, Biden must prepare for a “Cuban Missile crisis” type showdown with China that involves NATO and Quad partners. So, in summary, Biden needs to quickly:

• Demonstrate firm resolve in the South China Sea,
• Provide debt/opt-out relief to third world nations trapped in China’s Belt Road Initiative
• Reenter the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership to counter China’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership,
• Sign the Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 currently held up in the House of Representatives, and
• Stop China’s manipulation of Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges.

Truth will prevail.

It is still not too late to stop the giant panda, but it will require a certain amount of courage and commitment. Also, Biden must lead the world in addressing the other 800-pound gorilla in the room — pressing China to account for the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. It’s becoming increasingly clear that China was careless and secretive during the initial outbreak of the coronavirus. If we must prevent such a global catastrophe — billions in lost economic output, millions of lost jobs and lives shattered, 185 million cases of Covid-19 with over 4 million deaths — from happening again, the world needs honest answers and only China can provide them.

This long dissertation began with a quote from Bret Stephens’ op-ed, and I will conclude it as well with what he said towards the end of that op-ed:

“How Beijing’s apparatus of lies will eventually bring the system down is impossible to predict. But there’s little question that it profoundly enfeebles the system as a whole. Truth, in the form of accurate information, is essential to good decision-making. Truth, in the form of political honesty, is essential to generating the social trust that is the basis of healthy societies. China’s regime lacks both.”

Maybe, China would like to prove Mr. Stephens wrong on at least one of those truths — in the form of accurate information — because in today’s interconnected world, it will help a lot of other nations in good decision-making and thus prevent future tragedies. In any case, the other truth — in the form of political honesty — should eventually checkmate the CHESS MASTER, even if it happens to take a few more decades. China can’t ignore the post-WWII history of its northern neighbor — a proud nation of Chess Grand Masters — because it will then be condemned to repeat it.