China’s dictator Xi Jinping, meeting with Trump in Beijing, called for cooperation rather than enmity; building each other up rather than tearing each other down; to make a calm, peaceful, stable world.
Wonderful. But Xi’s whole shtick was bizarrely belied by his accompanying bellicosity about Taiwan. Insisting China is somehow entitled to it, regardless of Taiwanese wishes. This is the biggest threat to a calm, peaceful world. (China is currently in a huge snit against Japan merely because its Prime Minister said the prospect of conflict over Taiwan is of concern.)
Years back, Turkey’s President Erdogan decreed an enlightened foreign policy of “zero problems with neighbors.” He’s forgotten that; but Xi would do well to heed it. Trump too.
What makes nations enemies? Sometimes disputes over borders, or resources, etc. Nothing that can’t be negotiated peaceably. But sometimes peoples just hate each other. Often irrationally. Though Jewish Israelis did have ample cause to hate Germans, they became friends thanks to Germany’s repentant goodwill efforts.
Russia is our enemy because its behavior undermines the peaceable post-WWII global order. China does that too (on a smaller scale), pursuing the antithesis of an Erdogan dictum, picking fights with neighbors. Seeking territorial gains not remotely worth the ill-will created.
Its threats against Taiwan hold center stage. Even if an invasion succeeds (but look at Ukraine), there’s no way China could truly benefit. The downsides would overwhelm any gains. Not just the immediate costs in lives and money, but the awfulness of trying to crush a population hostile to its rule. (A less tyrannical China might meliorate that.)
A nation’s greatness does not depend on how much territory it controls. Especially if controlled by force.
Yet “One China” has become a deranged obsession. How about — Two Chinas are better than one? Their shared heritage a fine basis for friendship and cooperation, building each other up, while contributing to wholesome world peace, prosperity, and stability. Like Xi himself blabbered about.
Am I naive? No, the ultimate realist. And I’m no pacifist. There are things worth fighting for. Like in America’s Revolution. But mainly fighting against breaches of the world order, as in WWII, and now in Ukraine. On D-Day, FDR said Americans fight “not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest.” In contrast, Trump and Hegseth revel childishly in blowing things up.
It’s often said that war is endemic to human nature. Tribal animosity and aggression are certainly programmed by evolution in our genes. But we we not prisoners of those genes. And is there any example in history of one country trying to subjugate another, and benefiting in the long run? Such war never pays.
Look again at Germany and Japan in WWII. Ran roughshod — for a while — but wound up literally in ruins. Look at the damage to Russia and Israel from their military madness. The Economist’s latest issue argues that in today’s world, even weak underdogs can make war hell for attackers. Take note, China.
A recent essay in that publication, too, says the world’s wickedness is not news, but “its current capacity for foolishness is a shock.” Citing those wars in Ukraine and Gaza — and of course Trump’s Iran war. And Barbara Tuchman’s 1984 history book, The March of Folly. And, in that context, the American Revolution — seeing it as really Britain’s misguided war to conquer those colonials.
We could have just been friends. And (after another war) eventually got there. Can China and Taiwan?
