I wanted to share a couple of thoughts on this opinion piece by the PLA's Senior Colonel Zhou Bo on how the U.S. and China can "coexist competitively." nytimes.com/2020/02/03/opi…
First, it isn't all that unusual actually for Chinese military officers, particularly those specializing in U.S.-China relations, to write and publish in English. In fact, Zhou Bo has a whole series of op-eds in SCMP for those interested. scmp.com/author/zhou-bo
For instance, in this piece in December, he disparaged the notion that the current 'Sino-Russian rapprochement' could be eroded or undermined by any U.S. efforts. scmp.com/comment/opinio…
I'd add his colleague, Major General Yao Yunzhu, Director of the Center on China-American Defense Relations, at which Zhou Bo is an honorary fellow, has also written and engaged with American audiences on numerous occasions, such as this @NBRnews interview nbr.org/publication/bu…
@NBRnews Such articles, like another piece by Zhou Bo in @ForeignPolicy, tend to stress common themes intended to be conveyed in English to U.S. readers, such as China's "peaceful rise" as demonstrated by "helping with global governance as a responsible power." foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/06/the…
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy I'd add that the official national defense white papers, such as "China's Military Strategy" (2015) and "China's National Defense in the New Era" (2019) also should be interpreted as intended for foreign audiences, more so than strategies in their own right.
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy That is not to say that these aren't worth reading. I think the signaling is important and, to some degree, encouraging, but should be contextualized by the frequent discrepancy relative to commentary available only in Chinese. I don't see these as 'personal opinions' per se.
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy As to the substance of the opinion piece itself, there are aspects of this argument that I would agree with — including the importance of potential flashpoints and concerns about inadvertent escalation to unintended conflict.
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy It's worth noting the relative sophistication in the discussion of U.S. policy debates, legal issues, and even specific academics' arguments, including this report by @fravel. taylorfravel.com/documents/rese…
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel I am also wondering whether or not the discussion of "competitive coexistence" is in reference to (and quite a different perspective on) @AndrewSErickson's approach to that concept? nationalinterest.org/feature/compet…
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson I'd add that there is, to some degree, an asymmetry of information insofar as there are fewer of us who are tracking Chinese military writings and academic scholarship so closely, which I believe is important — and we should.
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson Of course, there are aspects of this piece that I take issue with, including its defense of China's so-called "“indisputable sovereignty” over the South China Sea islands and the adjacent waters," which is again quite an expansive phrasing.
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson His framing of the situation in the South China Sea places the blame squarely upon U.S. policy and the U.S. military for the "dangerous encounters," when it is the behavior of Chinese vessels that has often been "unsafe and unprofessional." washingtonpost.com/world/chinese-…
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson The mention of confidence-building measures, such as "well-established hotlines for emergency communication," is encouraging. I too hope these can be sustained and expanded. Yet I'd add my understanding is the Chinese government has not always proven willing to answer hotlines?
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson Regardless, hopefully there is scope to evolve and build upon tentative progress in U.S.-China military-to-military relations, including to explore rules for new domains and technologies, such as the mention of space exploration, cyberspace and artificial intelligence.
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson On AI, I'd mention (once again, because this is an issue that I care a lot about) this policy brief via @CSETGeorgetown, in which @Andrew_Imbrie and I discuss how great powers might engage on AI safety and security. cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/upl…
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson @CSETGeorgetown @Andrew_Imbrie In concluding, I think it is always worth reading pieces like this, but equally important to read carefully and with a certain degree of skepticism.
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson @CSETGeorgetown @Andrew_Imbrie I'm not convinced that "coexistence" is the best framing of U.S.-China relations, particularly when the CCP seems to see certain aspects of American democracy as inherently antithetical to its regime security and interests.
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson @CSETGeorgetown @Andrew_Imbrie I continue to struggle with how to frame alternative discourse on U.S.-China relations. Not 'new cold war,' not 'new type of great power relations,' nor simply strategic competition (to what end), but perhaps constructive competition? rivalrous rejuvenation? entangled contention?
@NBRnews @ForeignPolicy @fravel @AndrewSErickson @CSETGeorgetown @Andrew_Imbrie None of those are quite right, but I think continuing to think through how to progress beyond talk of 'great power rivalry' in the abstract will be important going forward.
