Authors: Elbridge Colby and Robert D. Kaplan
Affiliation: The Marathon Initiative, The Foreign Policy Research Institute
Organization/Publisher: Foreign Affairs
Date/Place: September 4, 2020/USA
Type of Literature: Article
Word Count: 1721
Link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-09-04/ideology-delusion
Keywords: US-China Rivalry, China’s Hegemony in Asia, Ideology and Strategic Interests
Brief:
In this article, both Colby and Kaplan deny that the ideological factor is a reason behind the relatively united and hard-line US stance towards China, nor an explanation for the increasing tensions between the two powers. In the beginning, the authors mention some of the views that “China may ultimately present a stronger ideological challenge than the Soviet Union did,” similar to what Kurt Campbell and Jake Sullivan argued before. They also point to the leadership assertion of the Chinese Communist Party of its Marxist-Leninist ideology, and they provide some examples of China’s undemocratic practices that violate human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nevertheless, they assert that the main reasons for the United States’ hard-line stance towards China and the escalating tension between the two powers are due to purely strategic factors that have nothing to do with ideology. Specifically, China is the largest great power to emerge in the international system since the United States itself in the late nineteenth century; it has an enormous economy, huge population, and large landmass. China aims to shape an economic-trade zone in its neighborhood that is favorable to its standards (which Washington may be excluded from), in order to avoid limitations and sanctions imposed on it by the US and its allies, and to ensure that it never again lives the “century of humiliation” that was experienced before. Its ultimate aim is to impose itself as the hegemon power of Asia. None of these previous motivations or aims are related to the factor of ideology; but all of these aims cause deep concern to decision-makers in the US, even if China is a democratic country with liberal values. The authors accordingly warn Washington against viewing competition with China through ideological lenses, as this will lead to negative and disastrous consequences for the US’ security, prosperity, and global status. They argue that looking at China through ideological lenses would require Washington to work to change the Chinese state and regime, which will push China to adopt escalating policies in order to avoid defeat, which in turn may lead to catastrophic consequences. Moreover, the ideological lenses will impede the possibility of a stable relationship with China, especially if the latter shows its respect for the interests of the US and its allies in Asia. It would also be difficult for the US to work with less liberal Asian allies (India, Malaysia) or non-democratic allies (Vietnam) who share the same goals regarding China if Washington adopts an ideological perspective toward Beijing. Also, ideological lenses will not necessarily resolve strategic tensions with China. The US should learn from the Cold War against the Communist Soviet Union, where despite the fall of the latter and the rise of contemporary Russia (which may well be more strongly opposed to the West), the pending strategic tensions between Washington and Moscow remain. Finally, the authors offer some cautious recommendations for dealing with a rising China with lower costs and dangers, recommending that the US take a selective approach in its dealings with China. The approach should combine realpolitik with a defense of values. Washington must defend freedom, republican government, and human dignity to distinguish itself from China. Defending these values would draw others around the world to the US’ banner, help demonstrate the dangers of bowing to Beijing, and provide a motivating force to collective efforts to prevent China from dominating Asia.
By: Djallel Khechib, CIGA Senior Research Associate
