Over the last weeks, there has been a debate between @PLMattis, @shifrinson and others on the nature of the Chinese threat. The disagreement is over whether to take govt statements seriously as a guide for policy. I want to take a different approach. 1/n
Assume @PLMattis is right about everything, meaning Chinese statements do reflect policy, and moreover, that China hawks are right in their interpretation of the documents. Let's analyze what they actually say, using testimony @PLMattis referenced. 2/n uscc.gov/sites/default/…
Even granting China hawks every argument they make, it is clear that the threat from Beijing to the United States is limited, and there is scant evidence for it seeking to remake the global order in any kind of forceful way. 3/n
The first indictment against China is that it wants to survive and for other states to follow international law. Tobin portrays the US position of forced democratization as consistent with international law, and the Chinese position of sovereignty as the rogue outlier. 4/n 
State sovereignty is the entire basis of international law, not a Chinese plot. It is the US that has had to invent new concepts like "right to protect" and "preemptive war" when it has been acting in clear violation of the UN Charter, like in Iraq. 5/n
The other gripe is China wants to provide a model to other states, an alternative to democratic capitalism. Yet if one is confident that our system is better, what is there to fear? The Cold War was justified because the USSR sought to use force to spread its model. 6/n
Had the USSR simply wanted to create a shining socialist city on a hill, it would have been destined to fail and there would have been little justification for the US to check it militarily in Europe and Asia. Not even hawks argue Beijing wants to spread its model by force. 7/n
I detect a sense of self-doubt in the hawk's position. A fear that democratic capitalism will not prove superior to the Chinese system in the same way that the USSR discredited central planning. If true, the goal should be to make our system better, not "confront" China. 8/n
Tobin goes on to contradict himself. After saying the fear is that China will spread its model abroad, he goes back to worrying about its principle of non-interference. Basically anything China says or does short of self-liquidation will be treated as threatening. 9/n
Also, Xi Jinping talks like a hippy about one world and interconnectedness, which is also supposed to be really scary for some reason. 10/n
In sum, one does not have to read the arguments of China doves in order to know that Beijing poses little threat to the United States and the world order. All you need to do is read what the China hawks are saying and apply a bit of critical thinking. 11/n
The case against China is little more than it desires survival, and wants to peacefully provide a model for the rest of the world. This is seen as a problem only if you're a global empire that sees itself as having an inherent right to regime change everywhere and always. 12/n
See here for the origins of the debate. 13/n
Here's another op-ed I found on China "taking over the world," that relies on Liza Tobin's analysis. This is the best they got. 14/n bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
The author, Hal Brands, is a fellow at AEI. He wrote a paper on the inevitably of great power competition. His first reason why is that democracies inherently distrust authoritarian regimes. 15/n halbrands.org/wp-content/upl…
It's not well paid think tank fellows and the national security bureaucracy leaking information about China that is causing distrust. It is "most Americans" who are intimately familiar with the governments of foreign countries and demand a new cold war. 16/n
Section heading "Making the world safe for authoritarianism." Once again, the real problem with China (and Russia) is they want to survive. The entire basis of the new "great power competition," is the US wants to overthrow other governments, and they resist. 17/n
The argument is actually a little more subtle. Authoritarians lack "organic legitimacy" so they need foreign enemies to survive. The idea that ballots and elections are the only path to legitimacy is laughable to anyone with the most passing familiarity with world history. 18/n
Some criticize the foreign policy of Bush and also call for balancing against China. Yet the intellectual heart of the China hawks is the same as neo-cons. A belief that democracy promotion and the transformation of foreign societies should take priority over everything else.19/n
