Read on Twitter
Thread: Looking at the "Overreach of China Hawks", one sees many flaws in their criticism of @AaronFriedberg's "An Answer to Aggression" in @ForeignAffairs. https://twitter.com/AaronFriedberg/status/1320730023003906049
First, the title: the use of the pejorative "China hawks" invites the retort that they are "China appeasers". It is unflattering for both sides to label each other as such and colors the debate, but if they wish we can go down this road...I'd say historical analogies favor Aaron.
Second, they say that "push back" would increase the risk of conflict, when history suggests the opposite is also possible. (Chamberlain's weak response to Germany in 1930s lack of balancing policies (fortifying alliances & rebuilding armaments) helped make...
... conflict more likely, making Britain a far weaker an adversary when the conflict -they inadvertently helped bring about- actually occurred. Their arguments for avoiding conflict are easily refuted by one clear historic example.
They also share Chamberlain's central myth: that Germany had been wronged and thus was entitled to assertiveness. They repeat "Century of Humiliation" trope ignoring PRC's post-Tiananmen weaponization of history (as well as centuries of Chinese imperial expansion under the Qing).
To my surprise, they rebut claims of interference and ideological underpinnings of PRC without discussing United Front. It's not even mentioned. Given the expansion of its bureaucracy and power under Xi, this strikes me as disingenuous to say the least. https://www.thechinastory.org/yearbooks/yearbook-2015/forum-ascent/the-expansion-of-the-united-front-under-xi-jinping/
They critique the Aaron's focus on ideology in Chinese policy, ignoring both Xi's personal role centralizing the CCP's hold on PRC policy while pushing ideological conformity. The recent "two-faced" doctrinal purity campaign inside the CCP supports this. https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/publications/china-trends-7-shrinking-margins-debate
They legacy-defend the West's "wager" that engagement would eventually liberalize China. Silly to offer "former officials" rebuttal when so much evidence exists. As an easy-to-find example, Pres Clinton's WTO speech clearly links the two. https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Full_Text_of_Clintons_Speech_on_China_Trade_Bi.htm
Their argument that "community of common destiny" is "a simplistic propaganda slogan" misses both the context of the "China Dream", the rise of Tianxia among CCP academics over last decade, and internal CCP discourse on what a China-led order. https://china.usc.edu/implications-tianxia-new-world-system
They also do not address the tension between human rights & working with China on climate change. Beijing will hold the latter hostage to the former. What's more important, boycotting Olympics because of the Xin concentration camps or climate change? https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/china/xi-jinping-carbon-neutral-2060-intl-hnk/index.html
I don't pretend to know the answer, but that is in essence the PRC's current playbook: to raise the possibility cooperation on climate change as a promissory check to cash - but cooperation isn't a given. It's dependent on our silence & submission to PRC norms & "good relations"
Finally, their proposal that US must concentrate on domestic revitalization is (sigh)...obvious. In fact, it's already policy. Even Navarro mentions in his Crouching Tiger book where he argues infrastructure dev and tax reform are required to compete. https://www.ft.com/content/b30b0be0-cb61-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0
Conclusion: I think the letter is an unfortunate attempt to discredit a serious critique of the PRC. This was done by labeling the author as a "hawk", gas-lighting his analysis, and straw-manning his recommendations. IMHO, the last blows of a dying creed.
