Republican Congressman Randy Forbes believes China’s assertive behavior in Asia is destabilizing the region. Forbes explained why he takes this position in an interview with The Cipher Brief.
The Cipher Brief: How would you assess the current state of the U.S.-China relationship, especially following President Xi Jinping’s visit?
Rep. Randy Forbes: An assessment of the U.S.-China relationship should not be based solely on diplomatic state dinners and joint press conferences. While I continue to hope that China will become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system, China’s recent behavior has made it a destabilizing force within the global system. Looking at China’s rapid military buildup, construction of artificial formations in the South China Sea, persistent cyber theft and espionage, and generally belligerent behavior toward its neighbors, I cannot help coming to the same conclusion as Professor Aaron Friedberg: Beijing's ultimate aim is to displace the United States and resume its traditional position as the preponderant power in Asia. Given our enduring interests in that region, I assess that we are likely heading into a period of long-term strategic competition with China.
TCB: What is your opinion on the U.S.’s current China policy of a balance of containment and engagement? Do you think the current security environment in the South China Sea is any reflection of the U.S.’s “pivot” to Asia?
RF: China’s actions in the South China Sea are one part of a broader pattern of assertive behavior that is destabilizing the region. Along with China’s activities around the Senkakus and its 2013 declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, China’s actions in the South China Sea demonstrate Beijing’s willingness to flout both regional opinion and accepted norms of international behavior. That is one of the main reasons why recent polling data by the Pew Research Center show that China’s neighbors are supportive of the United States’ “pivot” to Asia—especially countries like Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines that feel directly threatened. That said, while there is clearly widespread support for the idea of the “pivot,” many officials from the region that I meet with are wondering how and to what extent it will actually be implemented. That is why it is critically important that we go beyond rhetoric. We need to make sure we are maintaining the military forces and providing the credible military presence that will assure our allies and deter opportunistic aggression in the region for decades to come. Engagement is vital as well, but we should be engaging from a position of strength and achieving tangible results with our engagement—not just pursuing it for its own sake.
TCB: What should U.S. strategy and messaging be with China with respect to the South China Sea? What are some concrete measures that the U.S. could take in support of our interests in the region?
RF: U.S. messaging must be clear and unambiguous: We support the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes. We need to oppose unilateral actions by all parties to establish de facto control, but China’s recent actions are of such unprecedented scale and intensity that they warrant especially strong opposition. That is why I led a bipartisan group of 29 members of Congress in urging the administration to conduct freedom of navigation operations within 12 nautical miles of these formations. By restricting the U.S. Navy and Air Force from going within this limit, the United States is implicitly accepting China’s claims that these features are their sovereign territory that entitle them to the surrounding seas as their territorial waters and exclusive economic zone.
TCB: If armed conflict broke out in the South China Sea, what should be the U.S.’s reaction?
RF: The goal of U.S. policy in Asia should be to maintain peace and the international order that has encouraged 70 years of prosperity and rising living standards in a region once beset by poverty and war. To maintain peace, we must deter war, and to deter war—as the ancient saying goes—we must be prepared for it. That is why we need to make sure that we maintain the ability to intervene in case of aggression to defend our allies and partners, and our security interests in the region. Beijing is developing anti-access, area-denial capabilities that are specifically designed to counter intervention in a regional conflict by America’s armed forces. We need to make sure that we are investing in military forces that can still deny aggressors their objectives and impose costs upon them, even in anti-access environments.
TCB: If you were given the opportunity to sit down with Xi Jinping and discuss with him the situation in the South China Sea, what would you say?
RF: I had a similar opportunity with Xi’s predecessor, Hu Jintao. What I took away from that experience is that Chinese leaders respond to clarity and honesty, not self-defeating attempts to moderate our words in fear of offending them. American policymakers should never leave Beijing with the impression that we accept their current behavior in the Asia-Pacific or numerous other aspects of Chinese policy at home and abroad. President Xi should be under no illusions about U.S. commitment to stability in the Asia-Pacific and the fundamental U.S. interests at stake in preserving that stability. Sino-American relations would be well served by American leaders who speak clearly about our objections to Beijing’s current course.
