XI’S PARTY NOT A HOUSE OF CARDS

US will find it hard to contain China by emphasising security over the economic game

AN anonymous critic of China gave the impression that the 100-yearold Communist Party of China (CPC) would soon collapse like a house of cards.

A proposal to undermine the CPC and remove its secretarygeneral, President Xi Jinping, and his close friends from office is being widely circulated in the United States.

The proposal for regime change is the brainchild of an American reportedly with deep expertise and experience on China — the anonymous author of The Longer Telegram, an 85-page document to unsettle China.

According to the author, “the single most important challenge facing the US and the democratic world in the 21st Century is the rise of China under its authoritarian leader, Xi Jinping”.

Despite reports of internal purges of those challenging his leadership, Xi remains popular.

Under Xi’s reign, China has become influential globally, and its growing economy has helped to strengthen his leadership.

According to Price Waterhouse, China’s economy will reach US$61 trillion in 2050 in purchasing power parity terms, leaving the US at US$41 trillion, and in third place after India.

The recent National Congress in February has forecast a six per cent post-pandemic gross domestic product. A feat, considering that other developed countries are still struggling to contain the Covid-19 virus.

Xi’s anti-corruption policies are popular with the masses and the elites. So are his tough policies towards the US and Japan. Besides, there are no obvious signs of discontent within the CPC. Xi’s firm control over the party and the Military Commission has strengthened his hand.

Any thought of undermining the CPC remains fiction and is likely to be counterproductive. Strong domestic factors will prevent the collapse of the current regime in China.

Calling on the CPC and the party elites to acknowledge the primacy of the US and that democracy will again triumph over autocracy has further emboldened the party’s apparatchiks.

On the contrary, such warnings have played into China’s national psyche by strengthening its defences and resolve.

For example, probably in response to repeated US warnings, the recent National Congress voted to increase China’s defence budget by 6.8 per cent to US$208 billion, a quarter that of the US.

China’s tough position at the Alaska talks in March is a manifestation of deep anger.

It is unthinkable to expect China, a nation with more than 4,000 years of civilisation, to follow blindly the US-led international order and remain deferential when it can bite back.

Labelling China and Russia as revisionist powers is a desperate act to bolster confidence among mainly the Western allies against China that is expected to outstrip its rival in global influence by 2035.

The domestic political discontents in the US and its inability to contain the Covid-19 pandemic will further erode confidence in US leadership.

The proposed strategy for the US to undertake has two pillars: rolling back China’s assertive international influence and weaning off Russia from Beijing.

The single greatest strategic error of successive US administrations, in the view of the author, is letting Russia fall into China’s arms.

Thus, the strategy calls for the US to rope in Russia against China. But President Joseph Biden’s “killer” remark against Russian President Vladimir Putin will widen the distrust.

Besides Russia, Washington is also rallying support from friends and allies, some of whom have become Beijing’s principal trading partners.

Attempts by Washington to build an anti-China coalition, including efforts of getting Japan, India and Australia to join hands in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue are likely to fizzle away.

Kishore Mahbubani, an astute critic of US foreign policy, recently remarked in Foreign Policy Journal that the US was barking at the wrong tree, emphasising security over the economic game.

Probably out of desperation, the anonymous author is calling on the US to punish China for crossing some red lines.

Among the declared red lines that call for US military action include China’s use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against the US or its allies.

Any form of military attacks, economic blockades and cyberattacks on public infrastructure and institutions in Taiwan is considered a red line that can trigger a military response from the US.

To bring Japan into the fold, Washington considers the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu a red zone for Chinese troops.

To get support from member states of Asean, the author urges Washington to use force against China when the latter resorts to using its military or coast guard against what it calls “foreigners” infringing on its “sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction” in the South China Sea.

The recently-enacted Coast Guard Law authorises China to demolish buildings and structures, including fixed and floating devices built by “foreigners” in the South China Sea, within its claimed jurisdiction.

Let’s see whether Washington will punish China for transgressing the declared red lines in the South China Sea.