The United States rebalance to Asia has drawn mixed reviews from members of Congress. Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) discussed with The Cipher Brief the strengths and weaknesses of current U.S. policy towards China. Rep. Bordallo emphasized the need for a strong U.S. response to aggressive actions taken by China, while cautiously avoiding true conflict and excessive military spending.
The Cipher Brief: How would you assess the current state of the U.S.-China relationship?
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo: The U.S.-China relationship has evolved significantly since we formally established diplomatic relations three and a half decades ago. Our countries are deeply connected on items of mutual interest, including on security, the economy, governance, technology, and the environment. However, China’s rise has caused tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, and we must work to ensure that these challenges are peacefully resolved.
While some progress has been made to this end, there are many areas where improvement can and should be prioritized. We have opened lanes of dialogue to avoid conflict regarding territorial claims, especially in the South and East China Seas; however, China continues military construction, exercises, and interception of foreign and U.S. vessels and aircraft in international waters. This encroachment is unacceptable and threatens the sovereignty of our allies in the region. Additionally, while China’s condemnation of North Korean weapons testing is encouraging, we have seen little indication that this is more than lip service. Each test causes greater destabilization, and China is contributing to that by continuing to prop up the oppressive regime in North Korea.
Our relationship with China must continue to evolve. We cannot underestimate China’s desire for power projection, and we must hold them accountable to the values and rules that the international community has developed over the past decades. We aim for a relationship with China that is built and fostered on mutual security, economic stability, and political interests, but we have work to do to reach that end state.
TCB: What is your opinion on the U.S.’s current policy towards China? What should our strategy towards China be?
MB: I agree with President Obama that we should welcome the rise of a peaceful and stable China that respects human rights and international law. Cooperation will be required to address our mutual interests, but it is not yet clear that China is ready to be a wholly responsible actor.
We should continue to build a constructive and cooperative relationship to address regional and global challenges, which President Obama has sought to do. At the same time, we must act decisively to actions contrary to our interests and those of our allies and partners. I think we must rethink whether our previous strategy on China has truly worked. For several decades now, we have sought the peaceful rise of China by incorporating them into international organizations, such as the WTO and the G20. However, instead of acting in a way consistent with those international organization’s values, we have seen China flaunt its power and challenge international values, rules, and laws. While we must continue to engage China and encourage its peaceful rise, we should reconsider how this is achieved. For example, we must do more to press China on its abhorrent human rights record. Respect for the rule of law, free expression, and protecting ethnic and religious minorities are core American values, and any working relationship should be built on these principles. Further, China’s continued interception of legal U.S. military exercises in and over international waters is dangerous and divergent from international norms. The United States should continue legitimate operations in the region while communicating with China to avoid accidents or escalating tensions.
The United States must also recognize and be ready to counter what is coined as China’s economic anti-access/area-denial strategy. Across the Asia-Pacific region, but most specifically with Pacific Island nations, China is increasing its influence, largely through direct infusions of money that is needed by fiscally strained Pacific Island nations. China uses these investments as leverage to create friction with the U.S. or its allies. We cannot continue to ignore this phenomenon, and we must adapt economic strategies that counter China’s influence in the region.
Above all, we must not hesitate to confront China when it acts contrary to international rules and values. We must confront their actions, just as we would any friend or ally.
TCB: How do you see the Chinese military buildup impacting U.S. interests in the future? What should the U.S. be doing to counter this threat? What are some concrete measures that the U.S. could take in support of our interests in the region?
MB: We should be wary of falling into Thucydides’ trap when discussing China’s military growth. China seems to be building military capacities that are directly aimed at countering U.S. influence in the Asia-Pacific region, and this should continue to be carefully monitored and addressed. Despite the economic challenges currently facing China, the United States should seek to ensure its leadership without spending itself into oblivion. We cannot let our fears about the lack of transparency in China’s military growth lead us to make the same mistakes as the USSR during the Cold War.
China’s growing military influence gives them more confidence to assert territorial claims and engage in intolerable behavior. To counter this, we have engaged in military and economic partnerships with key allies and partners in the region, as well as with regional institutions such as ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). Building partnerships with key actors in the region is critical to maintaining peace and stability. We do not need to be the world’s policeman, but we must invest time and resources into developing the capabilities of our partners. For example, we should continue to support actions like Japan’s change to its security legislation that will make it one of our cornerstone military partners. We should continue to adhere to the Taiwan Relations Act to ensure that Taiwan has necessary defensive hardware, including technologies to aid in developing an indigenous submarine program. And we should look to non-traditional partners like Malaysia and work with them on their requests for greater security assistance, such as the permanent establishment of a State Partnership Program.
Furthermore, the U.S. military buildup on Guam, which was conceived under the Bush Administration and incorporated into President Obama’s Asia-Pacific Rebalance strategy, will allow for greater force projection in the region. While we have overcome some of the roadblocks to this important endeavor, we must remember that a robust military presence cannot ignore civilian concerns or impacts to the civilian community.
We should also look toward improving the resilience of U.S. military facilities. This would include improving missile defense capabilities that can more effectively counter China’s anti-access/area-denial strategy. The deployment of a THAAD battery to Guam has been an important asset to defending our homeland against North Korea’s hostile regime, but I believe other modern capabilities—like rail gun—need to be better tested and explored as options to protect U.S. interests.
Finally, there is a common view in American political and military circles that simply increasing defense spending is the best way to counter China. I believe this is an antiquated way to view American power. We must recognize that we live in a time of reduced budgets, and targeted spending of limited military funding is needed. While more ships would be nice, we cannot forget the costs that are associated with maintaining these ships, something the Navy already does not invest enough in for the current fleet. I also believe that we must better understand the true value of air power in the Asia-Pacific region. We often view the Asia-Pacific region through the maritime perspective, which is important, but we do so at the detriment to air power. Investments in the Long Range Strike-Bomber and other air power capabilities will be critical to our force posture in the region for decades to come.
TCB: If armed conflict were to break out, it would likely be related to the South China Sea. Should this happen, what should be the U.S.’s reaction?
MB: Every action we take in the Asia-Pacific region must be tailored toward preventing armed conflict. The Asia-Pacific region has developed economically, in great part, due to the U.S. being able to guarantee safety and security. Military action should always be the last resort of diplomacy, and we must exhaust all diplomatic means before considering the use of force to settle conflict, especially in the South China Sea. We should continue to work to deescalate tensions and find a peaceful resolution to these challenges.
However, the United States will support and defend our allies and partners when necessary. We must continue to work with them to defend their territorial claims and counter any Chinese aggression. Additionally, our military should be utilized as a deterrent to conflict, and when necessary, to respond decisively to protect our interests and personnel.
TCB: What were your takeaways from Xi Jinping’s recent visit to the United States? If you were given the opportunity to sit down with President Xi, what would you say?
MB: It is important for the United States to maintain dialogues with China in order to build and maintain a constructive relationship. While high level visits, such as President Xi’s visit in September 2015, are important, it is also noteworthy that the U.S. is engaged in over 100 bilateral discussions with China, covering topics from trade to cybersecurity to human rights.
I was encouraged by President Xi’s apparent interest in revisiting the U.S.-China relationship, and acknowledgement of the United States’ interests and subsequent roles in the Asia-Pacific region. However I am concerned with his proposed “new model of major country relations.” This policy appears to seek to legitimize China’s territorial claims over Taiwan, Tibet, and Hong Kong, as well as in the South China Sea. While he has signaled an intention to revisit certain policies, if I were to speak with President Xi, as I have with numerous Chinese officials during my time in Congress, I would ask him how he believes the Chinse political system could continue to operate given their significant economic challenges and in the shadow of the Arab spring.
