In the last installment of the “Noah Smith is clueless about China” series, I look at history and culture to explain that China does not have a warlike culture, placing significant restraints on whatever expansionist ambitions China might otherwise have harbored.
I understand why on Taiwan & SCS. But I think for many of your readers, there is an idealogical theory that you did not address in detail but which looms quite large in Western minds as a China excuse for war. You may want to address this in future
It goes somewhat like this: Century of Humiliation > After rejuvenation > Take revenge > War on Japan > War on West
I have my theories on why the above is not likely. But if you are planning to be a peace advocate, you may want to have answers to the above, as it will be used as a talking point by hawks
There are some really compelling points here Robert, and it's possible that you're right ... but I think some of your claims deserve a little more scrutiny.
"No Chinese leader would ever be able to explain to their people why the Iraq War was remotely necessary. No Chinese parents would ever allow their children to sacrifice for this unnecessary war." - Yet Chinese parents were powerless to stop the Cultural Revolution. Frankly, the record of 20th century China does not inspire confidence in the ability of the Chinese people to rein in a clearly crazy government.
"Come and spend a day, a week, or a month here and tell yourself: is there any trace of public messaging about Chinese people requiring some Lebensraum?" - Lebensraum? No. But the messaging that Taiwan is a renegade province, that Taiwan is an economically failing state or an American military base that must be "merged" with China, is everywhere. Just as Hitler telegraphed his plans for the Jews, the Chinese government has made little secret of its plans to absorb Taiwan, voluntarily or otherwise.
"Could it be that Xi Jinping is only hiding his true intentions, which he would only reveal at the last minute? This is utter nonsense, unattached to how politics operate." - And yet even now, it is a crime in Russia to claim that they are at "war" with Ukraine, rather than fighting a special military operation to de-Nazify Ukraine and defend ethnic Russians from persecution. Stalin did not give rousing speeches about the need to partition Poland. Japan did not warn the US about its plan to attack Pearl Harbour; Britain did not conduct referendums before allowing the East India Company to colonize India. History is absolutely full of wars with little public buy-in.
"When we choose war, it is when we absolutely have to, not because we believe war-making itself can lead to some morally righteous end in itself." - Was the occupation of Tibet a matter of crucial nation defence, something "you had to do?" Because many Chinese certainly see it in moral terms, a righteous campaign to liberate the Tibetans from feudalism. Were the invasion of Vietnam and the defence of North Korea issues of critical national defence, or ideological operations?
I think you lean a little heavily on ancient history, and gloss over the pretty shocking modern stuff. China has certainly advanced since the 60s, but it is not a democracy or a champion of human rights, and I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of a clearly expansionist regime.
"I think you lean a little heavily on ancient history, and gloss over the pretty shocking modern stuff. China has certainly advanced since the 60s, but it is not a democracy or a champion of human rights, and I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of a "clearly" expansionist regime. "
Are you talking about the Trump Regime or the Xi Administration? For the former, then you don't need to reply with out you arrived at clearly, but for the latter, then "your claim deserves a little more scrutiny."
Both are obviously expansionist. I'm not American and don't like Trump but don't see how he is relevant here. Does every single comment on every article on the internet have to be about the US? So exhausting
Quote: "On New Year’s Eve in Taipei, it’s hard for me not to think about the future that might be coming. It’s hard not to see the streets filled with merrymakers strewn with bodies instead, the shopping malls lying shattered in chunks of rubble, the young people searching in vain for their parents. It’s hard not to look at the towering spectacle of Taipei 101 and imagine it toppled and broken.
It’s hard for me. But it doesn’t seem to be hard for most of the Taiwanese people, who go cheerfully about their partying and their jobs and the quotidian routines of daily life with as little apparent terror as my rabbit munching hay."
It's mind-boggling that Noah never stops to think that the Taiwanese people he is literally comparing to his rabbit might know MORE about China and the aspects of its history and culture Robert has outlined than Noah does, given that they share the same language and root culture as Mainland China and are well educated.
Noah is like the Quiet American, who has an incredible textbook knowledge of Asia and thinks he fully understands it, despite not knowing the language or having lived there.
----------
As for why China wants to control the South China Sea, one key reason is that it's the only ocean off China's coast that is deep enough to hide nuclear submarines. 2019 Reuters special report about submarine base in Sanya, Hainan: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-army-nuclear/
Nuclear submarines are the most important part of the nuclear triad that ensures a credible deterrent (mutually assured destruction) to nuclear war.
Paraphrase of former foreign minister of Singapore George Yeo: walking through the war game scenario: In the event of a conflict, the US will attempt to eliminate China's counter-strike capability by destroying every land-based ICBM and strategic bomber in China, which they can track in real time using satellites, so China must be able to hide nuclear submarines in the SCS to preserve its nuclear counter-strike capability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge91Rg97l1Q&t=1990s
To further Robert's point about China's tendency towards peace, it is the only major nuclear power with an unconditional "No First Use" policy when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Robert, I accept that China is building up its military in sync with its economy. However, the buildup of that military is perceived as a threat, at least by Japan and Korea, and perhaps by the Philippines. China may never engage in combat with those countries, but it may make other demands, perhaps territorial or economic, that its neighbors may feel forced to accept. China definitely wants to turn a unipolar world into one where E Asia gives a special deference to China. Is that something that China's smaller neighbors just have to live with?
Thank you for your detailed answers to my questions.
Noah Smith's posts started worrying me too. I have been a free subscriber to his Substack site for a long time. During that time, I have come to respect his thinking. I know that he is an intelligent and knowledgeable man and he writes very well. Recently however, he became very hawkish, especially on China. I find it difficult to explain why. I do not think it is a matter of being clueless on China. There may be a deeper agenda but this is not for me know.
I live in Australia and, like every Australian I know, would like to lessen our security dependence on the U.S. But then just this week one of our Air Force aircraft was accosted by two fighter jets from the PRC, one of which shot flares at us, much like the PRC naval vessels that attack ships from the Philippines with water spray. The flare assault was filmed and shown repeatedly on the news, enflaming Australian public opinion against the PRC right at the very time Australians are looking askance at the U.S. because of Trump's shenanigans. Very poor timing on the PRC's part.
Whenever I visit my in laws and the extended family in China the TV is more often than not playing some war drama or a some tv show analyzing some aspect of China’s military might vis a vis America or Taiwan. If I were to switch channels many if not most are also variations of this. I feel that the Chinese could much more quickly be mobilized to a war footing than westerners, or even Taiwanese. I appreciate that reunification with Taiwan is not China’s only path to rejuvenation, but I imagine if the US was much weaker China might be less reticent.
I showed your article to a Chinese friend of mine and got this reply:
"I couldn’t agree more. China is not an expansionist power. When one looks into its history and culture, the answer is self-evident. For example, historically, China had the opportunity to take over Korea and Vietnam but didn’t.
In the beautifully written essay, East Asian International Relations over the Longue Durée, the authors mention that:
“Both Korea and Vietnam demarcated a clear border with China by the eleventh century, and those borders have remained in essentially the same place up to the present day. Ji Young Lee observes in her chapter that Korea and China spoke from a similar Confucian vocabulary, and that although there were differences between the two sides, they were often largely resolved through diplomacy and negotiation, not imposition by power.”
They also point out that
“(China not expanding outward)… such dynamics working so clearly against expected realist and materialist theories makes examining these cases even more important for testing and assessing whether and how our theories of international relations may be used across time and space.”
The problem is that people tend to judge China’s intentions based on its capabilities, which is a partial view and lacks historical evidence."
Fine article. I don't think I disagree with anything, but it doesn't change the fact that China's neighbors have to build up the military to maintain deterrence from Chinese aggression, even if its people are not fond of war. This is triggered by China's military build-up and explicit signaling of a willingness to use military force to seize Taiwan and much of SCS.
Japan was militaristic in the past, but they sure did not want to fight the US but felt themselves cornered and did so. China acts like it is cornered much of the time, too, due to trade and a dislike of autocracy, with special emphasis on trade. The world is willing to live with autocracies. Still, it is unwilling to buy everything it produces due to fear of discontent among citizens of those countries who are thrown out of work and fear of future trade cut-offs from China, which, while not an enemy, isn't an ally.
US and its allies are stuck with no real alternatives.
If Noah Smith could spend a little time chatting with ordinary Chinese people, he would know that Chinese people really don’t like war. This mindset is deeply rooted in every Chinese person's mind, and no ruler can change it. Throughout history, Chinese people would label the ruler initiating unsupported foreign aggression as a tyrant, and once that happens, such a ruler's reign would become difficult to maintain.
Therefore, learning from history, no Chinese leader would casually start a war.
"In hindsight, the fatal error of Chamberlain and Daladier in Munich was not that they appeased Hitler but how they could appease such an ambitious man despite all his very clear intentions."
There is documentation and argument that the British, French, and the British financial arms in the USA like JP Morgan had every intention of using Poland and Germany together to weaken Russia/USSR and then after the dust settled attack the surviving weakened party. It all went off the rails when Poland's dictator and Hitler could not come to terms on how the loot was to be split, and then Hitler and Stalin reached an accommodation. This is just to show that plans seldom go to plan, and China has the historical wisdom to see what happens to over-grand plans.
"Since China does not need the South China Sea for its own security, why? " This question posed to you is dubious, we can see the USA intends to place missiles on Greenland to threaten Russia, has placed them in East Europe, and has placed them in South Korea and many Pacific Islands too. The idea that China does not need to secure the South China Sea from US military is a historic and logically questionable assertion contained in this question.
I would contend that the definition of “secure” is the key. Yes, China must be prepared for foreign aggression, but I can’t imagine China attempting regime change with any of its SCS neighbors. Yes, there will be some territorial squabbles which will eventually culminate in an agreement.
As an American, I am mystified as to why the U.S. feels an obligation to police the SCS for the UN when we have not even ratified the UNCLOS rules of the sea. I understand China needing to defend its coastline, but I see no justification for the U.S. to be involved without provocation. China has no desire to become involved in a war of ideology, not even in Taiwan.
“Secure” in the Chinese mind is defensive, not offensive.
I understand why on Taiwan & SCS. But I think for many of your readers, there is an idealogical theory that you did not address in detail but which looms quite large in Western minds as a China excuse for war. You may want to address this in future
It goes somewhat like this: Century of Humiliation > After rejuvenation > Take revenge > War on Japan > War on West
I have my theories on why the above is not likely. But if you are planning to be a peace advocate, you may want to have answers to the above, as it will be used as a talking point by hawks
Great reminder !
There are some really compelling points here Robert, and it's possible that you're right ... but I think some of your claims deserve a little more scrutiny.
"No Chinese leader would ever be able to explain to their people why the Iraq War was remotely necessary. No Chinese parents would ever allow their children to sacrifice for this unnecessary war." - Yet Chinese parents were powerless to stop the Cultural Revolution. Frankly, the record of 20th century China does not inspire confidence in the ability of the Chinese people to rein in a clearly crazy government.
"Come and spend a day, a week, or a month here and tell yourself: is there any trace of public messaging about Chinese people requiring some Lebensraum?" - Lebensraum? No. But the messaging that Taiwan is a renegade province, that Taiwan is an economically failing state or an American military base that must be "merged" with China, is everywhere. Just as Hitler telegraphed his plans for the Jews, the Chinese government has made little secret of its plans to absorb Taiwan, voluntarily or otherwise.
"Could it be that Xi Jinping is only hiding his true intentions, which he would only reveal at the last minute? This is utter nonsense, unattached to how politics operate." - And yet even now, it is a crime in Russia to claim that they are at "war" with Ukraine, rather than fighting a special military operation to de-Nazify Ukraine and defend ethnic Russians from persecution. Stalin did not give rousing speeches about the need to partition Poland. Japan did not warn the US about its plan to attack Pearl Harbour; Britain did not conduct referendums before allowing the East India Company to colonize India. History is absolutely full of wars with little public buy-in.
"When we choose war, it is when we absolutely have to, not because we believe war-making itself can lead to some morally righteous end in itself." - Was the occupation of Tibet a matter of crucial nation defence, something "you had to do?" Because many Chinese certainly see it in moral terms, a righteous campaign to liberate the Tibetans from feudalism. Were the invasion of Vietnam and the defence of North Korea issues of critical national defence, or ideological operations?
I think you lean a little heavily on ancient history, and gloss over the pretty shocking modern stuff. China has certainly advanced since the 60s, but it is not a democracy or a champion of human rights, and I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of a clearly expansionist regime.
My full response: https://www.china-translated.com/p/q-and-a-to-is-taiwan-only-the-first
Thanks for the comment. I am thinking of responding in a new post.
"I think you lean a little heavily on ancient history, and gloss over the pretty shocking modern stuff. China has certainly advanced since the 60s, but it is not a democracy or a champion of human rights, and I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of a "clearly" expansionist regime. "
Are you talking about the Trump Regime or the Xi Administration? For the former, then you don't need to reply with out you arrived at clearly, but for the latter, then "your claim deserves a little more scrutiny."
Both are obviously expansionist. I'm not American and don't like Trump but don't see how he is relevant here. Does every single comment on every article on the internet have to be about the US? So exhausting
"clearly"... should be an easy task then.
Thanks for walking through all the reasons why China is unlikely to go to war over Taiwan.
I also found the premise of Noah Smith's post (https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-players-on-the-eve-of-destruction) on a possible Taiwan invasion to be completely ridiculous.
Quote: "On New Year’s Eve in Taipei, it’s hard for me not to think about the future that might be coming. It’s hard not to see the streets filled with merrymakers strewn with bodies instead, the shopping malls lying shattered in chunks of rubble, the young people searching in vain for their parents. It’s hard not to look at the towering spectacle of Taipei 101 and imagine it toppled and broken.
It’s hard for me. But it doesn’t seem to be hard for most of the Taiwanese people, who go cheerfully about their partying and their jobs and the quotidian routines of daily life with as little apparent terror as my rabbit munching hay."
It's mind-boggling that Noah never stops to think that the Taiwanese people he is literally comparing to his rabbit might know MORE about China and the aspects of its history and culture Robert has outlined than Noah does, given that they share the same language and root culture as Mainland China and are well educated.
Noah is like the Quiet American, who has an incredible textbook knowledge of Asia and thinks he fully understands it, despite not knowing the language or having lived there.
----------
As for why China wants to control the South China Sea, one key reason is that it's the only ocean off China's coast that is deep enough to hide nuclear submarines. 2019 Reuters special report about submarine base in Sanya, Hainan: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-army-nuclear/
Nuclear submarines are the most important part of the nuclear triad that ensures a credible deterrent (mutually assured destruction) to nuclear war.
Paraphrase of former foreign minister of Singapore George Yeo: walking through the war game scenario: In the event of a conflict, the US will attempt to eliminate China's counter-strike capability by destroying every land-based ICBM and strategic bomber in China, which they can track in real time using satellites, so China must be able to hide nuclear submarines in the SCS to preserve its nuclear counter-strike capability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge91Rg97l1Q&t=1990s
To further Robert's point about China's tendency towards peace, it is the only major nuclear power with an unconditional "No First Use" policy when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Robert, I accept that China is building up its military in sync with its economy. However, the buildup of that military is perceived as a threat, at least by Japan and Korea, and perhaps by the Philippines. China may never engage in combat with those countries, but it may make other demands, perhaps territorial or economic, that its neighbors may feel forced to accept. China definitely wants to turn a unipolar world into one where E Asia gives a special deference to China. Is that something that China's smaller neighbors just have to live with?
Thank you for your detailed answers to my questions.
Noah Smith's posts started worrying me too. I have been a free subscriber to his Substack site for a long time. During that time, I have come to respect his thinking. I know that he is an intelligent and knowledgeable man and he writes very well. Recently however, he became very hawkish, especially on China. I find it difficult to explain why. I do not think it is a matter of being clueless on China. There may be a deeper agenda but this is not for me know.
I live in Australia and, like every Australian I know, would like to lessen our security dependence on the U.S. But then just this week one of our Air Force aircraft was accosted by two fighter jets from the PRC, one of which shot flares at us, much like the PRC naval vessels that attack ships from the Philippines with water spray. The flare assault was filmed and shown repeatedly on the news, enflaming Australian public opinion against the PRC right at the very time Australians are looking askance at the U.S. because of Trump's shenanigans. Very poor timing on the PRC's part.
I will be totally with you if this happens off the coast of Darwin or Perth. But did that episode happen over the South China Sea?
Whenever I visit my in laws and the extended family in China the TV is more often than not playing some war drama or a some tv show analyzing some aspect of China’s military might vis a vis America or Taiwan. If I were to switch channels many if not most are also variations of this. I feel that the Chinese could much more quickly be mobilized to a war footing than westerners, or even Taiwanese. I appreciate that reunification with Taiwan is not China’s only path to rejuvenation, but I imagine if the US was much weaker China might be less reticent.
I showed your article to a Chinese friend of mine and got this reply:
"I couldn’t agree more. China is not an expansionist power. When one looks into its history and culture, the answer is self-evident. For example, historically, China had the opportunity to take over Korea and Vietnam but didn’t.
In the beautifully written essay, East Asian International Relations over the Longue Durée, the authors mention that:
“Both Korea and Vietnam demarcated a clear border with China by the eleventh century, and those borders have remained in essentially the same place up to the present day. Ji Young Lee observes in her chapter that Korea and China spoke from a similar Confucian vocabulary, and that although there were differences between the two sides, they were often largely resolved through diplomacy and negotiation, not imposition by power.”
They also point out that
“(China not expanding outward)… such dynamics working so clearly against expected realist and materialist theories makes examining these cases even more important for testing and assessing whether and how our theories of international relations may be used across time and space.”
The problem is that people tend to judge China’s intentions based on its capabilities, which is a partial view and lacks historical evidence."
Fine article. I don't think I disagree with anything, but it doesn't change the fact that China's neighbors have to build up the military to maintain deterrence from Chinese aggression, even if its people are not fond of war. This is triggered by China's military build-up and explicit signaling of a willingness to use military force to seize Taiwan and much of SCS.
Japan was militaristic in the past, but they sure did not want to fight the US but felt themselves cornered and did so. China acts like it is cornered much of the time, too, due to trade and a dislike of autocracy, with special emphasis on trade. The world is willing to live with autocracies. Still, it is unwilling to buy everything it produces due to fear of discontent among citizens of those countries who are thrown out of work and fear of future trade cut-offs from China, which, while not an enemy, isn't an ally.
US and its allies are stuck with no real alternatives.
If Noah Smith could spend a little time chatting with ordinary Chinese people, he would know that Chinese people really don’t like war. This mindset is deeply rooted in every Chinese person's mind, and no ruler can change it. Throughout history, Chinese people would label the ruler initiating unsupported foreign aggression as a tyrant, and once that happens, such a ruler's reign would become difficult to maintain.
Therefore, learning from history, no Chinese leader would casually start a war.
"In hindsight, the fatal error of Chamberlain and Daladier in Munich was not that they appeased Hitler but how they could appease such an ambitious man despite all his very clear intentions."
There is documentation and argument that the British, French, and the British financial arms in the USA like JP Morgan had every intention of using Poland and Germany together to weaken Russia/USSR and then after the dust settled attack the surviving weakened party. It all went off the rails when Poland's dictator and Hitler could not come to terms on how the loot was to be split, and then Hitler and Stalin reached an accommodation. This is just to show that plans seldom go to plan, and China has the historical wisdom to see what happens to over-grand plans.
"Since China does not need the South China Sea for its own security, why? " This question posed to you is dubious, we can see the USA intends to place missiles on Greenland to threaten Russia, has placed them in East Europe, and has placed them in South Korea and many Pacific Islands too. The idea that China does not need to secure the South China Sea from US military is a historic and logically questionable assertion contained in this question.
I would contend that the definition of “secure” is the key. Yes, China must be prepared for foreign aggression, but I can’t imagine China attempting regime change with any of its SCS neighbors. Yes, there will be some territorial squabbles which will eventually culminate in an agreement.
As an American, I am mystified as to why the U.S. feels an obligation to police the SCS for the UN when we have not even ratified the UNCLOS rules of the sea. I understand China needing to defend its coastline, but I see no justification for the U.S. to be involved without provocation. China has no desire to become involved in a war of ideology, not even in Taiwan.
“Secure” in the Chinese mind is defensive, not offensive.