How Donald Trump Should Manage China's Growing Power

The U.S. military said a Chinese warship recently led a military grade laser to a Navy surveillance aircraft over the Pacific Ocean, potentially temporarily blinding the crew. While troubling, this is not surprising given the increased tensions between Washington and Beijing. And this latest incident is likely to fuel fears among American experts and policy makers who are already arguing for economic and military containment and the confrontation of China. Although it is becoming more and more dominant in Washington, this opinion is false. China is neither as aggressive nor as difficult as the threat inflators claim.

Do not believe that China is a friendly player to argue that the United States. is going through a pointless, costly and uncertain confrontation based on lazy analysis and a threat of inflation. Worse, this same logic undermines the long-term ability of the United States to contain China if and when such a policy becomes reasonable. An overhaul of the U.S. approach to China, which more realistically emphasizes limiting Chinese dominance in Asia and securing U.S. economic opportunities in the region, is in order .

Although experts describe the U.S. targets as defensive and China as the challenger, the actual evidence of Chinese aggression is questionable, based largely on China's assertiveness in pursuing its land claims in the South and East China seas. The allegations are suspect but are also long-standing features of PRC policy. Ironically, therefore, it is possible that China sees himself as acting defensively. And while the tactics adopted to assert these claims over the past decade deconstruct military bases in disputed territories, send ships and planes to the region, and so on, are new, equating them with a threat is out of reach. . Rather, the exercise seems to attempt to make the pre-existing allegations more credible; to paraphrase discussions in the Middle East, China is creating facts about the sea.

The military balance also doesn't change dramatically in favor of China. Of course, China is reducing American military advantages. However, most analyzes recognize that it lags behind the United States in terms of quality, skills and spending. Even if the RAND Corporation finds that the United States is stuck in regions close to China itself, it retains important advantages that can prevent Beijing from making the Pacific a Chinese lake. Chinese strength is increasing, but it does not sound like a Chinese military threat to the whole of East Asia.

Of course, threat inflators would say that Chinese land claims and military efforts are inherently problematic and require an American response. This logic is however flawed. Few countries readily tolerate unfavorable military balances, disputed territories and a foreign presence near their homeland. As an example, the United States repeatedly threatened the war against Britain, Spain, and France in North America during its own ascent in the 19th century. And more recently, US leaders have reacted with hostility to suggestions that Russia may deploy forces to Venezuela to deal with the country's troubles. States dislike foreign forces and territorial ambiguity near their territory China is no different.

What happens then? At the root, the reactions of commentators reflect the ingrained desire of many analysts to keep the United States the strongest state of Asian politics, rather than Chinese behavior per se. And here, China is tailor-made for the threat of inflation. After all, for the first time since the collapse of the USSR, there is an economically capable, populous and militarily powerful state that exists outside of the American orbit. The fact that it is ruled by an autocratic, theoretically communist regime, reinforces the trend.

By reinforcing the Chinese threat now, those who are attached to American pre-eminence abroad are asking the United States to ensure its preponderance by trying to remove a possible competitor.

Ironically, this is the opposite of what the United States should do if it were serious about limiting an aggressive PRC. Faced with a real challenge, the geography, interests and trends of military technology imply that it is better to thwart Chinese aggression encourage local states to strengthen their defenses as much as possible. By injecting itself as a guarantor of security, the United States is encouraging countries like Japan and Vietnam to under-invest in their security. This can allow local capabilities to atrophy to the point where they have little to contribute against China, instead of fostering a capable regional coalition designed to lock Beijing with Washington as a safety net from last resort. Not coincidentally, it also forces the United States to work hard and devote more time and financial resources that could be better used at home, for example, to consolidate the failing infrastructure of the United States.

In short, limiting the response of the United States rather than reacting preemptively to the false accusations of a Chinese threat is the best solution for the United States. In doing so, not only will the United States avoid triggering an unnecessary security spiral, but it offers the best route to guard against any future problems with the PRC.

In the end, China is not the claimed threat, and inflator prescriptions are a recipe for undue effort and unnecessary risk. It is not too late for the United States to soberly address the rise of China.

Joshua Shifrinson is an assistant professor of international relations at Boston University. He is the author of Rising Titans, Falling Giants: How the great powers exploit changes in power.

Image: Reuters