China considers itself at war with the US.
And it holds the US to rules
it refuses to follow itself.
So what can the US do?
Welcome to China Uncensored, I’m Chris Chappell.
Since the 1950’s, the Chinese Communist Party has been calling the United States
its enemy. Top officials talk about fighting a war with the US.
Not a boots on the ground war, but economic warfare, propaganda warfare, media warfare.
But even as the Chinese regime was saying this,
the US was focused on engaging with China. Strategic cooperation.
What will it take to get Americans aware of the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party?
Joining me today is David Stilwell (Corner Box) the former top
US diplomat to East Asia. He was the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs during the Trump Administration. Chris: Thanks for joining us today.
David: Glad to be here and I love the show, so it's a good chance to finally join you.
Chris: Oh, thanks so much. When you came on as assistant secretary of state,
how was U.S.-China policy changing?
David: Well, I think, by the time I came on the Trump administration had already made significant
changes to what, in the past, was a policy of trying to win them over and bring them along
into recognizing that it hadn't worked. 40 years of trying and it hadn't worked. So they took a
more forceful approach. It actually fit my desires as well from my time in the embassy in Beijing and
beyond to pick a harder edge with the PRC and speak to them in a language they understand.
Chris: Well, I know while you were in that position,
you called China a lawless bully. How did that go?
David: Well, I mean, again, diplomatic language doesn't have to be nice, right? Just because...
Diplomats can also use hard language. If the language doesn't reflect the reality, then all
of a sudden your credibility is shot. So calling it what it is, is part of... You prefer to have
those conversations in private, but if they're not having the conversations, if they're not going
to talk to you, then you have to message them in any way you can and a public space is one option.
David: Just calling it as it is. And look at the most recent example of the Michael Kovrig
and Michael Spavor. In response to the legal detention of Huawei heiress, Meng Wanzhou. That
sounds like a lawless bully to me, right? Hostage diplomacy isn't how normal diplomacy is conducted.
Chris: Well, so was it frustrating dealing with your Chinese counterparts?
David: I got to say it was frustrating in previous administrations. I was in military,
so I've worked for every administration since Jimmy Carter. It was frustrating
saying, "Hey, there's a problem here. We need to take a harder edge." We weren't
given one and my PRC counterpart often time mocked me. He says, "Well, it's just,
just the way it is, man. And, we're doing it this way and you have to be nice to us." Well,
this is one reason I got back into government. Happily retired here in Hawaii, as I saw that
secretary Pompeo was taking what I thought was a very necessary approach to the PRC. Having a
direct conversation, in many ways, clarifies our intent with the PRC. It's actually better
than trying to be nice because for all this time they've been wondering why aren't they reacting
more forcefully? We would. And why aren't they doing it? Well, we'd had enough after 40 years
and said, "Unfortunately we are going to have to stoop to your level and play the game your way."
Chris: Mm-hmm (affirmative). And that's sort of the idea of reciprocity that you've talked about.
David: Absolutely. And that comes from anybody who's... Nobody goes... Everybody goes to
the embassy in Beijing. Foreign service, defense attaché, as Panda huggers. We go,
I can solve this. I see a clear way to do this. Everyone leaves the embassy a dragon slayer going,
"This is a problem. And we're going to have to take a harder position on this."
That colored my approach and then having had real experience in the PRC
and looking at how badly they treated us there, and then looking at how well we
treat their diplomats in the US, made that conversation with my counterpart very easy.
David: Because like I say, "We both know that you do this to us there and you don't give us
any of the same, yet give you full latitude here in the US. How are we going to rectify this? How
are we going to make this a more balanced relationship. In the terms of that they use
in their own language. In terms of the new type great power relations, right? Mutual benefit,
mutual respect, no confrontation, and win-win. And yet they violate every single one of those
they're demanding that of us, but they're not willing to give it back to us. So I gave it bacK.
Chris: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
David: As much as I could.
Chris: And it was simple as you only had the fax number for Chinese officials.
David: Yeah, the role of a diplomat is basic to maintain communications and share
and make sure the messaging is happening. When I went to Beijing I discovered that my only way
of reaching out directly to my counterpart was via fax number. I kept asking them can I get
your phone number at least? So when things go pear shaped we can at least talk about it. And prevent
these things from escalating. They wouldn't even entertain the question. I ran into my counterpart
in the US and he had just scheduled a meeting here in Hawaii with his counterpart or with a senior
officer at the Pacific command. I go, "How'd you do that?" The Pacific guy says, "Well, he
just called us up." It turns out he had every DOD phone number and he could call anybody he wanted.
David: Oftentimes, in the spirit of friendship and the rest, his American counterparts would accept
the invitations. So I asked him, "I've got a fax number. You've got every phone number in the book.
How is that fair? Why, why don't you guys allow me the same lattitude?" He kind of smirked at me
and smugly says, "Well, that's not our system." They hid behind that. That's not their system.
How do you respond to that? Well, you have to then match in the spirit of reciprocity. You
have to try to match that system and deny them the same things and then incentivize them to
give you what you deserve. Then step by step build the relationship back up to where it should be.
Chris: Yeah. At least they should give you their beeper number
David: Something. When accidents happen, when ships collide, when a Chinese fighter
crashes into an American EP3, is operating legally in international airspace in 2001.
When this guy's clowning around, loses control his airplane and crashes into that EP3,
you've got to be able to reach out and talk to somebody to at least figure out what happened.
Then make sure that neither side overreacts. When I was there I didn't have the ability to do that.
David: You saw the secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, attempted to reach out to
his counterpart in the PRC early on to establish those conversation channels. The Chinese refused.
That is a significant problem, especially now as tensions rise in the relationship.
Chris: Yeah. Well, speaking of China's military. Officially,
China only has one overseas military base in Djibouti. But is that the reality?
David: Well, we know that's... Here's the problem, when they were a small middling power, a leader of
the third world and the rest. They couldn't afford any of those things, right? As their interests
grow, as their economic power grows, and as their need for things like energy and natural resources
grow, they of course are incentivized to protect their lines of communication, right? If there's
blockages or if there's unrest or instability, if the straits of Malacca close, or whatever, that
really affects their ability to do their jobs. We're seeing the energy problem in China right
now. Due to the supply chain and the shipping issues. It makes, to me, perfect sense that they
would want to defend those. Djibouti. Remember, Djibouti began as our invitation to them to
help with the piracy problem. The piracy problem affected their shipping capability significantly.
David: They were incentivized to participate.
The fact that they are looking to put bases in Sri Lanka, and Cambodia and anywhere else they can
find. They've got the port of Darwin. Again, it makes sense to me, but that's not the narrative.
They say only imperialists set up these polling stations and all that while doing the opposite.
To me that's a great advantage of opportunities that we can take to actions,
put them against the words, show that disconnect and then question their credibility. Credibility
leads to legitimacy. I think when their legitimacy is at stake, it will force them to make their
words and their actions align better. Yes, we are building bases overseas because we have global
interests. Perfect. Now that's a repudiation of their long term policy of policies like non
interference in the internal affairs of foreign governments. Which they do constantly here. The
fact that they are an imperial and global power. Just make the words align the deeds.
Chris: Well, if we want to talk about holding China to their word,
they've been talking about invading Taiwan. Is the US prepared for that?
David: You know, one thing that we as Americans and especially we in the US government, formerly,
need to do is be more astute when we reach Chinese language. There is an outside voice and there's an
inside voice. The outside voice is all about threats and deterrents. And if a threat...
When we make threats and we don't follow through on the threats, then I got to point to the Syrian
red line. It's a good example of drawing a red line and then not following through.
Your credibility, you feel like it's been damaged, but that's how they work. In the PRC sense if you
threaten somebody 10 times and they back down once that's a success. The other nine times,
the fact that you didn't follow through, that's not considered loss. That's a break even one.
David: And it's the same thing with, as you mentioned earlier, global commitments
or internal commitments. That Hong Kong being the most, glaring. The fact that they,
in the joint declaration, agreed that they would afford Hong Kong's significant autonomy for 50
years. And in the 23 year mark they just walked away from that. They called that agreement a scrap
of paper. That should put everybody on notice. As to how much stock you could put into the word
of the communist party. If there's an advantage in walking away from an agreement the damage to
the reputation is not considered significant. So this is where Pompeo said, "Distrust and verify."
That's got to be the new mantra for, not just the US government, but for all interactions with PRC.
Chris: Yeah they're open about disregarding international agreements. And as you mentioned,
hostage diplomacy. I think the real question is,
do you think the American public understands the threat of the Chinese communist party?
David: No and that's been a huge frustration, is
helping us get better at telling a story. The US government... Helping the US government
communicate with our own people better. It is endlessly frustrating that the best we could
do is put out these bland anodyne public statements. Secretary of state says this,
"I mean, I guess we have to do that, but we've got to get smarter on utilizing social media. Media
that my kids relate to. To get this message to the down to, making it real to the American people.
So far, we've just trusted dumb luck. Bill Maher, however you pronounce his name, John Oliver,
the NBA, the story of Daryl Morey, of the Houston Rockets. Simply tweeting, I stand with the people
of Hong Kong. Then the NBA losing all of this China revenue for a period of time. Then the
response of some key NBA players, who actually side with the Chinese, is really unfortunate.
David: But the fact that dialogue is happening in the public, popular space is important.
I can't say enough about NS Cantor basically saying enough, standing up. Yes, we make a lot
of money in China, but isn't our self-respect worth more than that. And yes, let's talk about
needlessly punishing a minority, the Uighurs, in China. Then all the other things. He's
talking about Hong Kong now, good for him. That's going to get this into the popular space. Where
people are start asking questions. Yeah, what's that all about. This show does that, right? You're
using social media to help people understand what the real Chinese communist party really does.
Chris: Do you think in the end the US would be able to decouple from China?
David: Not entirely, but this is going to be a period of adjustment for the next five, 10 years
or whatever it takes to get them to treat us with the same respect they demand of us. Decoupling, I
think, is an unfortunate word. It's a Chinese term that basically says you can very neatly unplug the
relationships and have an independent Chinese economy and an independent American economy.
It's not that. By design, it's this tangled mess. Compared to two root balls, two trees
have grown too close together and their root balls are entwined. If you want to separate those two,
it's going to be ugly. It's going to damage both sides, but it's necessary. You've got to.
The relationship isn't necessarily two trees. It's a forest of American trees and an invasive kudzu
that's a parasite. That's choking out healthy American businesses through any number of ways.
The funny thing is American businesses don't learn. They constantly go back to China because
this is the market they want to get at. In the Chinese rules, mandatory joint ventures
makes it impossible for them to actually retain their own sovereignty. They have to give up their
intellectual property and all the rest and soon leave China with their pockets outturn. As the
president Trump said, It's the greatest illegal transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
Chris: Well, I think this gets at the heart of the issue. For 40 years, the US got its
China policy dead wrong. But it seems like a few years ago, even before COVID, that started to
change. This was something that was across the government. Democrats and Republicans,
people started to recognize the threat of the Chinese communist party. What do you think
changed and what is the next step moving forward?
David: It just took some over the top actions on the part of the PRC. Hong Kong, 2014 umbrella
revolution, didn't get that much attention from outside of government. The protests of 2019 did.
Those really started putting the problem on the American people's laps. They started understanding
why Democratic Hong Kong is being squeezed like it is. The Uighur issue... You compare Tibet
to Xinjiang... I've never understood why we allowed Tibet a pass with Chinese
activities in Tibet. It's the same guy, right? This guy Chen Quanguo who we have
sanctioned. He did his work in Tibet. He proved that you can kill your way to peace.
Then he moved to Xinjiang and pretty much followed the same pattern. In China Uighurs
are assumed to be terrorists. The fact that they're Uighurs, based on their race,
they treat them like in minority report. Before they can commit their terrorist acts
we're going to suppress them, train them, and keep them from doing these things inside China.
David: I think that's despicable. I think that one resonated. American people
finally understood exactly what we're talking about. Both, on the testimony of some Uighurs,
who've been very brave. Because their families are being held Xinjiang and being punished.
Activities that the Trump administration carried out with secretary Pompeo
at the general assembly in September 2019. Where we convened a sidebar event with 32 countries for
Uighurs who testified to the treatment they had. Then of course the pandemic. That's undeniable
that they are responsible for that. These are things that have gotten people to wake up and now
said this... People say seeing is believing. The fact is seeing is believing is seeing. Now the
blinders have come off and people are starting to recognize there really is a problem.
Chris: Even as we're affected by supply chain issues, inflation, a lot of this goes back to
the coronavirus. The globalized supply chain tied to China.
David: Monopolistic, non WTO conforming behavior.
Chris: Yep.
David: In rare earths... The first hint of that was in 2010, when a Japanese coast guard ship,
completely within its rights, arrested a Chinese trawler that rammed it. What was the Chinese
response? They threatened to cut off rare earth metals to Japan, which would've crippled its
electronic markets and factories. That was the beginning where people began to realize that
China has kind of taken over a whole bunch of key industries. Lithium for batteries,
and the rest. Awareness is all you need. Awareness is the first step and now people are aware
we can start doing things. With our allies and partners and like minded,
there's nothing we can't do. 60% of the global GDP is represented by the US,
the EU, and Japan, right? If we can just get those three onboard, there's no problem we can't solve.
Chris: Well, thanks so much for coming on the show and helping spread some of that awareness.
David: Thank you. Look forward to coming back.
Chris: Definitely.
And thank you for watching.
For more, check out the hour-long discussion Matt,
Shelley, and I had with David Stilwell. That’s on our podcast, China Unscripted. The link is below.
Once again, I’m Chris Chappell. See you next time.