The Tables Have Turned

Moreover, China will have to overcome any ambivalence it may have if it seeks to fulfill the mission it had set for itself after its revolution in 1949, namely, the transformation of the world system as a whole and the turning of everything “into their opposites.” As Mao said:

“Of all the classes in the world the proletariat is the one which is most eager to change its position, and next comes the semi-proletariat, for the former possesses nothing at all while the latter is hardly any better off. The United States now controls a majority in the United Nations and dominates many parts of the world – this state of affairs is temporary and will be changed one of these days. China’s position as a poor country denied its rights in international affairs will also be changed – the poor country will change into a rich one, the country denied its rights into one enjoying them – a transformation of things into their opposites.” 

And indeed, the tables have turned to a large extent. China is no longer a poor country and is in fact ascending in the international system, whereas the United States is on the decline. But of course, all of this could spell trouble, given that the United States may be unwilling to adjust to a changing distribution of power in the world system. As Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: 

“Very serious international tensions could also result from a reciprocal failure by America and China to adjust cooperatively to the changing distribution of political and economic power in their bilateral relationship. Specific precipitating issues – in addition to the obvious economic rivalry and persistent financial disputes – might involve the status of Taiwan, or the extent of the American naval presence in the proximity of Chinese territorial waters, or conflicting interests in a Korean conflict.”

Indeed, the major flashpoints for a conflict in East Asia between China and the United States are Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula. In addition to these flashpoints, one must also consider that what China prioritizes the most in terms of defense and national security strategy is pushing military threats away from its proximity. Hence, Brzezinski hit the nail on the head when he brought the issue of Taiwan and Korea together with the issue of an American presence in China’s proximity. 

All of these defense and military issues are then counterbalanced with economic and social realities, in the sense that Asia as a whole and China in particular are highly interconnected and interdependent with the international economy and the West. Hence, military considerations must somehow be balanced with the economic and social considerations. Which of these considerations weigh more heavily on Chinese decision-making? It is believed by some that China now has the world’s largest navy. Having the world’s largest navy, as we saw with the British and then the Americans, gives a nation the edge over all other nations in terms of global strategy. Could this then tilt the balance in favor of a more militaristic strategy on the part of China in the coming years? And if the balance is tilted in favor of a more militaristic strategy on the part of China, would American efforts to avoid conflict in East Asia end up being futile? At this point, there is very little reason to believe that China would not want to take advantage of its ascendance and push the envelope in Taiwan, Korea, and its territorial waters. China will no longer sit idly by and allow for the status quo of American preponderance in East Asia to continue. At least that is what is most likely at this point.