Bolton’s Irresponsible Approach to China

The op-ed that former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton penned in the Wall Street Journal this week made me glad President-elect Trump didn’t pick him for Secretary of State, as was rumored. Bolton leaned on dubious statements to advocate for the Trump Administration to revisit the “one-China policy” and take an irresponsibly hawkish stance towards Beijing.

Let’s first get past the flaws in Bolton’s piece. It’s OK that he blasted China for using an aircraft carrier to send Taiwan a message but forgot how often we treat our carriers like giant, bushy eyebrows to signal our anger and alarm. Never mind that the “Three Noes” policy he attributed to Beijing was initially a Taiwanese policy (no contact, no negotiation, no compromise with Communist China). We can agree that Taiwan is closer to the South China Sea than Okinawa or Guam without mentioning that’s because Taiwan is actually in said sea.

Bolton argues China is taking advantage of the United States and the “one-China policy” to take over the South China Sea and do whatever it wants there. This is true, China is running roughshod over there, but it’s not because of “one-China.”

It’s because of uncertainty, the same uncertainty that President-elect Trump touted during his campaign. When the New York Times asked him for more details on his plans regarding China, he refused, “I wouldn’t want them to know what my real thinking is.”

The more economically dependent the United States became on China, the more carefully we had to pick our quibbles with them. Afraid of how China might react — trade embargo, stop cooperating in negotiations with Iran or North Korea, escalate with Taiwan — we kept quiet and clung to the ambiguous “one-China policy” to comfort ourselves, if not our allies.

This uncertainty can be cleared by calling China’s bluff, which Bolton seems to support. Yeah, let’s see. Beijing would surely react to the increases in military sales and stationing of U.S. personnel on Taiwan that Bolton calls for, but that wouldn’t make things better for two reasons.

First, removing the uncertainty doesn’t remove the risk. Bolton’s insane, “Let’s see how an increasingly belligerent China responds,” advocates provoking China while inadvertently pointing out why that’s an awful idea. It would create a situation we cannot control because it’s based on how the Chinese perceive our actions and how they choose to react. Bolton can say that his plans wouldn’t, “imply a full defensive alliance,” but it sure looks like they would to me, never mind China.

Second, it also overstates the compelling power of our own uncertainty. Bolton’s approach assumes China will be scared of what we might do. Based on what? We have no real leverage with China and, as bellicose as Trump seems, it’s unlikely America is willing or able to take (or convince Beijing we might take) the extreme steps needed to deter them.

I suppose it’s good that Bolton’s ideas are in the newspaper and not the Cabinet Room. I agree that we need to reconsider our approach to China, but we have to do so responsibly. China remains an important partner in key issues and an important patron to us economically. For too long, we have allowed those reasons to excuse all of Beijing’s actions. But, in a moment of frustration or delusion, we can’t ignore these factors exist at all.