US needs smarter measures to avoid war with China

A group of men – with knives and axes at the ready – board enemy ships and immobilize them. Do you think this comes from the days of sailing ships? Wrong.

The recent escalation of the dispute between China and the Philippines is another example of Beijing’s willingness to defend its claimed territory. This event followed a similar escalation in 2020 along the China-India border, where both sides defended their claims with sticks and stones, not to mention China’s military exercises around Taiwan.

Given the US commitment to stand by the Philippines and Japan over rocks and reefs claimed by China, and possibly intervene in Taiwan’s defense, Washington must better understand Beijing’s willingness to fight for its perceived territory – and develop more effective policies – or risk a destabilizing conflict.

The risk of war over China’s disputed territories is real. Beijing has been actively asserting its claims since at least 2012, including by building military bases in the South China Sea and maintaining a regular coast guard around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

However, since 2003, China has been prepared to defend its claims by force. At that time, they became its “core interests” because they are considered vital for national survival.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “Chinese Dream” of a “great renewal of the Chinese nation” by 2049 ties these territories even more closely to the political legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party, making them virtually uncompromising.

Until a solution is found, China will likely continue to claim disputed territories regardless of the regime – keeping conflict with Beijing always on the table. Reclaiming the lost territories has been a goal of China since the late 19th century.

This was true when the Republic of China controlled the country, is true under the People’s Republic of China, and even nominally applies to the rest of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Furthermore, territorial integrity has been a prerequisite for the legitimacy of a government since the 4th century – much older than most states.

Given Beijing’s vital interests in its territorial disputes, Washington’s reliance on avoiding accidents or threatening force is irresponsible at best and reckless at worst. Cooler heads prevailed in China’s recent attack on Philippine vessels, but how long will it be before both sides escalate the situation further and Manila invokes its mutual defense pact with Washington?

US promises to militarily defend the Philippines and Japan in their dispute with China are already lacking credibility. US military exercises and freedom of navigation operations have not led to a more peaceful Indo-Pacific. Smarter policy options are needed to avoid a conflict that could weaken or even destroy America.

On China’s most serious territorial conflict point, the United States can fully comply with its legal obligations to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act while remaining below the conflict threshold by revising the Six Assurances and making additional commitments to both Beijing and Taipei.

The scale of arms sales should be based not only on the threat level in the Taiwan Strait, but also on Taiwan’s willingness to defend itself. Americans should not be expected to sacrifice their lives and wealth for a country that does not want to protect itself. Moreover, arms sales could be linked to Taiwan’s independence aspirations.

Since the US has no interest in Taiwan’s independence and this event is the most likely trigger for Chinese use of force, creative modification of Taiwan’s arms sales could become a stabilizing factor. Finally, Washington should explore ways to resolve the issue diplomatically rather than allowing it to pose a constant threat to US interests.

When it comes to conflicts in the East and South China Seas, Washington should put its national interests first – which means keeping the number of American deaths over rocks and reefs to a minimum.

The United States could end its tacit support for the claims of the Philippines and Japan – despite assurances of neutrality – by making clear that their mutual defense treaties could only be invoked in the event of an attack on their home islands.

Washington should follow suit and encourage Manila and Tokyo to resolve their conflicts with Beijing in creative ways, including a return to the “Duterte model” in the South China Sea or privatization and regulation of ownership of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

In addition, the United States can support the negotiation, establishment and implementation of the mutually agreed Code of Conduct for the South China Sea to reduce regional tensions.

Looking at the border dispute between China and India, the answer is simple: the US has no interest in getting involved. Washington has nothing to gain and would lose a lot by getting involved. The best option remains to avoid land wars in Asia.

America should understand the importance of China’s territorial integrity and its willingness to defend it by force, including disputed territories. Washington must seriously consider wise measures to protect its national interests in these areas.

Some of these measures may be unpopular and even upend convention, but the stakes could not be higher. America’s strength and survival are at stake. The solution is to wisely put them first.

Quinn Marschik is a visiting scholar at Defense Priorities.