Abstract
From its inception in September 1995 to the end of 2000, The Weekly Standard published over three times as many editorials on China as it did on Iraq.2 According to Robert Kagan, China posed the most serious longterm challenge to the unipolar global order and to Washington’s position as guarantor of peace in East Asia. Beijing had “the clear aim of using its growing military power to enhance its influence abroad,” he claimed, and its primary international purpose was to disperse the preponderant power of the United States.3 The Heritage Foundation expressed concern about “China’s drive to become a great military power” in Asia and viewed Beijing as “a looming threat,” while CSP designated it “the next great adversary” and claimed that its worrisome regional power projection indicated its “aspir[ation] to superpower status.”4 As far as Frank Gaffney was concerned, the U.S.-China relationship was going “frankly, toward conflict.” “In many ways,” he argued, “this is a time not dissimilar to … the 1930s.”5
The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is gone, and the biggest challenge to American interests in the world today comes from Beijing.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
William Kristol and Robert Kagan for the Editors, “Free Taiwan,” WSt., 26 July 1999: 11.
Robert Kagan, “Most Favoured Nation—Or Most Appeased?” WSt., 3 June 1996: 18, 20
Robert Kagan, “China: The End of Engagement,” WSt., 10 November 1997: 22.
Gaffney quoted in “‘Blue Team’ Draws a Hard Line in Beijing,’” WP. 22 February 2000.
Andrew Scobell, Chinese Army Building in the Era of Jiang Zemin. Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, August 2000: 2.
On the Clinton administration’s engagement with China, see James Mann, About Face: A History of America’s Curious Relationship With China, From Nixon to Clinto. (Vintage Books, New York, 1998): 274–314; Rourke and Clark, “Making U.S. Foreign Policy toward China in the Clinton Administration,” in James M. Scott (ed.), After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Worl. (Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1998): 202–24.
Rourke and Clark, “Making U.S. Foreign Policy toward China in the Clinton Administration,” in James M. Scott (ed.), After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Worl. (Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1998): 202–24.
David Shimbaugh, “Sino-American Strategic Relations: From Partners to Competitors,” Survival. Vol. 42, No. 1, Spring 2000: 97–115; Ross H. Munro, “China: The Challenge of a Rising Power,” in Robert Kagan and William Kristol (eds.) Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Polic. (Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2000): 47–73.
Ross H. Munro, “China: The Challenge of a Rising Power,” in Robert Kagan and William Kristol (eds.) Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Polic. (Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2000): 47–73.
William Kristol and Robert Kagan, “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs. Vol. 75, No. 4, July/August 1996: 28–32.
Robert Kagan, “Most Favored Nation—Or Most Appeased?” Editorial, WSt., 3 June 1996: 22.
Robert Kagan, “What China Knows That We Don’t: The Case for a New Strategy of Containment,” WSt., 20 January 1997: 22–27.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “Stop Playing by China’s Rules,” NYT. 22 June 1998
William Kristol and Robert Kagan for the Editors, “Call Off the Engagement,” WSt., 24 May 1999: 9–10. For The Weekly Standard. increasing tendency to oppose engagement rather than propose an offensive posture, see “Clinton’s China Syndrome,” WSt., 27 April 1998: 7–8. “Clinton’s Sorry Excuse for a China Policy,” WSt., 22 March 1999: 9–10; “Peace through Strength,” WSt., 16 August 1999: 9–10.
Kristol and Kagan, “Call Off the Engagement,” WSt., 24 May 1999: 10.
Zalmay M. Khalilzad et al., The United States and a Rising China: Strategic and Military Implications. Project AIR FORCE, RAND, 1999.
Kagan, “What China Knows That We Don’t,” WSt., 20 January 1997: 26–27, Khalilzad et al., United States and a Rising China. 12–13.
Steve M. Goldstein and Randall Schriver, “An Uncertain Relationship: The United States, Taiwan and the Taiwan Relations Act,” The China Quarterly. No. 165; Taiwan in the Twentieth Century, March 2001: 147–72.
CSP DB, “China Threatens Taiwan—And the United States: Will ‘A Missile A Day’ Keep the U.S. Away?” 26 January 1996, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p2115.xml
CSP DB, “The Ultimate China Card,” 26 May 1994, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p2862. xml
CSP DB “An Alternative to Clinton’s Failed China Policy: Strategic Containment and Tactical Trade Ambiguity,” 19 March 1996,http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p2451.xml
CSP DB, “Time for a Course Correction on China,” 23 February 1999, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p979.xml (all 30 December 2009). On the background to the crisis, see Mann, About Face. 333–38.
William Kristol and Robert Kagan for the Editors, “Pressuring Taiwan, Appeasing Beijing,” WSt., 2 August 1999: 5–6; “Chinese Threaten to Attack Taiwan,” Independen., 20 July 1999; “U.S. Blocs Arms Sales after Taiwan’s Sabre-Rattling,” Independen., 22 July 1999.
Kristol and Kagan, “Free Taiwan,” WSt., 26 July 1999: 12
William Kristol and Robert Kagan for the Editors, “Peace Through Strength,” WSt., 16 August 1999: 9–10.
See also Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly, “Arms and Taiwan: Our Interests Lie with Theirs,” WP, 23 April 2000.
The B. C. Lee Lectures, “Asian Democracy and American Interests,” Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz to the Heritage Foundation (henceforth Wolfowitz, “Asian Democracy” lecture), 29 September 2000: 7,http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/upload/12268_1.pdf.
Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomac. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England, 2002): 91, 93–95; I. M. Destler, “Foreign Economic Policy Making under Bill Clinton,” in Scott (ed.), After the End. 89–107. David Tell for the Editors, “Selling Out to China,” WSt., 23 December 1996: 9; Robert Kagan and William Kristol for the Editors, “Clinton’s Sorry Excuse for a China Policy,” WSt., 22 March 1999: 10; Michael A. Ledeen, “No Tyrants Allowed,” WSt., 24 February 1997: 28–29; Michael A. Ledeen, “Springtime for Chi,” WSt., 16 December 1996: 12–13. See also attempts by Senator George Mitchell and Rep. Nancy Pelosi to introduce legislation linking MFN to human rights. Mann, About Face. 262–64, 278–81.
David Tell for the Editors, “Selling Out to China,” WSt., 23 December 1996: 9
Robert Kagan and William Kristol for the Editors, “Clinton’s Sorry Excuse for a China Policy,” WSt., 22 March 1999: 10
Michael A. Ledeen, “No Tyrants Allowed,” WSt., 24 February 1997: 28–29
Michael A. Ledeen, “Springtime for Chi,” WSt., 16 December 1996: 12–13. See also attempts by Senator George Mitchell and Rep. Nancy Pelosi to introduce legislation linking MFN to human rights. Mann, About Face. 262–64, 278–81.
David Tell for the Editors, “Selling Out to China,” WSt., 23 December 1996: 9
Robert Kagan and William Kristol for the Editors, “Clinton’s Sorry Excuse for a China Policy,” WSt., 22 March 1999: 10
Michael A. Ledeen, “No Tyrants Allowed,” WSt., 24 February 1997: 28–29
Michael A. Ledeen, “Springtime for Chi,” WSt., 16 December 1996: 12–13. See also attempts by Senator George Mitchell and Rep. Nancy Pelosi to introduce legislation linking MFN to human rights. Mann, About Face. 262–64, 278–81.
Tell, “Selling Out to China,” WSt., 23 December 1996: 9.
Kagan and Kristol, “Clinton’s Sorry Excuse for a China Policy,” WSt., 22 March 1999: 10.
Kagan, “What China Knows That We Don’t,” WSt., 20 January 1997: 27.
David Tell for the Editors, “Kowtowing to Beijing,” WSt., 9 December 1996: 10
Robert Kagan, “The Price of ‘Engaging’ China,” NYT. 15 January 1999.
Also, David Tell for the Editors, “‘We Have Not Made the Progress … I Had Hoped,’” WSt., 10 February 1997: 9–10
David Tell for the Editors, “No Favors for China,” WSt., 21 April 1997: 9–11.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol for the Editors, “Clinton’s Sorry Excuse for a China Policy,” WSt., 22 March 1999: 9–10.
PNAC Memo, 25 September 1997, http://www.newamericancentury.org/chinasep2597.htm; Mark Lagon, “Ties That Bind China,” WP, 8 April 1999, http://www.newamericancentury.org/china_pdf_03.pdf (30 December 2009).
CSP DB, ‘“Where Have All the Sanctions Gone?’ Additional Arguments for Blocking MFN to China,” 4 June 1990,http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p3615.xml
CSP DB, “The Ultimate ‘China Card’: Right Response to Odious Chinese Behavior is Recognition for Taiwan,” 26 May 1994, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p2862.xml (both 30 December 2009).
CSP DB, “Export Decontrollers Make the ‘Counter in U.S. CounterProliferation Stand for Counter-Productive,’”14 June 1994, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p2868.xml?genre_id=1
CSP DB, “‘There You Go Again’: More Chinese Proliferation, More Clinton Politicization of Intelligence,” 12 June 1996, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p2092.xml U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China. Select Committee, United States House of Representatives (“The Cox Report”), undated, http://www.house.gov/coxreport/
Johanna McGeary, “The Next Cold War?” Time. 7 June 1999: reproduced at http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/ time/1999/05/31/china.html
CSP DB, “Cox Report Underscores Abiding Nuclear Dangers, Should Caution against Efforts That Would Exacerbate Them,” 25 May 1999, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p1026.xml
CSP DB, “Chris Cox: Keeper of the Flame,” 31 October 1997, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p2270.xml (all 30 December 2009).
CSP DB, “An Alternative to Clinton’s Failed China Policy: ‘Strategic Containment and Tactical Trade Ambiguity,’” 19 March 1996,http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p2451.xml
CSP DB, “National Security Assessment: PN.T.R. for China Will Be Bad for America,” 18 May 2000, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p689.xml
Robert Kagan for the Editors, “Permanent Normal Appeasement,” WSt., 18 September 2000:
Ledeen, “No Tyrants Allowed,” WSt., 24 February 1997: 28–29; Ledeen, “Springtime for Chi,” WSt., 16 December 1996: 12–13.
Ledeen, “Springtime for Chi,” WSt., 16 December 1996: 12–13.
Charles Krauthammer, “The Unipolar Moment,” Foreign Affairs. Vol. 70, No. 1, Winter 1990/91: 24.
Robert Kagan for the Editors, “Permanent Normal Appeasement,” WSt., 18 September 2000: 11–12.
William Kristol and Robert Kagan for the Editors, “Pressuring Taiwan, Appeasing Beijing,” WSt., 2 August 1999: 5–6.
Copyright information
© 2010 Maria Ryan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ryan, M. (2010). China: The Limits of “Unipolarity”. In: Neoconservatism and the New American Century. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230113961_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230113961_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28930-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-11396-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)