Leland Lazarus and John Brunetti, who served as consular diplomats
in China representing America, seem to know quite a bit about Chinese history.
They wrote a good article about China then and now.
The problem is that the editor who chose a title for the article,
chose a misnomer — this one: “China Is Capitalizing on the West's Mayhem,”
which gives the impression that the Chinese are watching and waiting for the
West to show a weakness, at which time they'll pounce on it, and make it work
for them. But when you read the article, you discover that what the Chinese are
doing is far from that description.
In fact, you get a better sense of what the article is about when
you read the subtitle, which is a quote taken from the article itself. It goes
like this: “Beijing is creating norms to incentivize neighboring countries to
follow its leadership in a new Asian order.” The article was published on April
1, 2019 in the National Interest.
Perhaps the editor that chose the title was impressed by what he
saw in the first paragraph of the Lazarus and Brunetti article, and did not
bother reading beyond it. Here is what he would have seen in that paragraph:
“In Davos, the West had lost its swagger. The leaders of the US,
UK and France were MIA. Trump wrestled with government shutdown, Theresa May
suffered from defeat of her Brexit deal, and Macron was fending off the Yellow
Vest protests. Meanwhile, the Chinese vice president Wang Qishan advocated for
international cooperation, a bigger economic pie for all, and global
technological governance.” Yes, this is impressive but it is not capitalizing
on the mayhem of the West.
To expand on their point of view, the two authors began the
discussion by making this assertion: “Some experts accept China's eventual rise
to global hegemony, yet history shows that China maintained tenuous control
over its neighbors.” The authors illustrate their description by giving
historical examples. First, they cited the example of Burma, and this is what
they said about it:
“Burma pestered the Chinese with relentless attacks. As the
Burmese exhausted resources and the Chinese grew in strength, the Burmese began
paying tribute, and voluntarily became a vassal state for economic gain. But
the relationship was tenuous; soon Burma resumed its border raids. China sent a
limited number of troops to fend off the 'bandits,' but also realized that
Burma was remote, and subduing it would be costly. Thus, direct rule remained
untenable”.
Second, the two authors cited the example of the Korean Peninsula,
and this is what they said about it:
“Chinese records refer to Korea as a model vassal state. Yet,
Korea also cheated. When it invaded China, the latter sent troops and subdued
the invasion. Korea paid tribute for three years afterwards, but soon stopped
paying. Korea eventually settled into a subservient role to China. Yet, it was
not forced to do this. Like Burma, it decided that being a vassal was in its
best interest. The relationship between China and periphery states was
constantly changing, and never unilaterally imposed. It was a complex and
dynamic diplomatic phenomenon”.
Leland Lazarus and John Brunetti believe that China is now dealing
with its neighbors in that same spirit, and will do so with the rest of the
world as it grows more prosperous and more powerful militarily. Here is how
they ended their article: “This dynamic is as true today as it was in history.
In the twenty-first century, China is creating norms that will incentivize
neighboring countries to follow China's leadership in this well-established
Asian order”.
This real image of China, being the exact opposite of what those
who call themselves hawks have been peddling, it is vital that the foreign policy
establishment in Washington take note of this kind of articles and testimonies.
It is imperative for America's decision makers to sit with and listen to people
like Lazarus and Brunetti before making decisions about matters relating to
China.
Failing this, America will continue to make decision based on
false information created and propagated by people who look after their own
interests, and in some cases the interests of foreign powers. They do not worry
for a moment about the damage they cause to American interests or to the world.