After 9/11, China grew into a superpower as a distracted U.S. fixated on terrorism, 9/11 attacks a "geopolitical gift to China,“ experts say

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China

After 9/11, China grew into a superpower as a distracted U.S. fixated on terrorism, 9/11 attacks a "geopolitical gift to China,“ experts say​

In 2001, the Bush administration was focused on China and tensions had spiked. The 9/11 attacks were a "geopolitical gift to China,“ says one expert.
Oct. 17, 2021, 6:03 PM CST

WASHINGTON — Twenty years ago, White House officials were worried about China and tensions were rising.

On April 1, 2001, a Chinese fighter jet collided with a U.S. EP-3 reconnaissance plane off China's coast, forcing the Americans to make an emergency landing on Chinese territory. The Chinese detained the U.S. crew for 11 days and carefully inspected the sophisticated aircraft before handing it over. Washington accused the Chinese fighter pilot of reckless flying. Beijing demanded an apology.

The incident reinforced the Bush administration's view that China was America's next major adversary.

But on the morning of Sept. 11, al Qaeda extremists hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia. America's attention abruptly shifted to the "war on terror."

In the wake of the attacks, U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan and the Middle East, and the challenge posed by China was set aside for nearly two decades.

“It was an incredible geopolitical gift to China,“ said Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s former U.N. ambassador.


“It was a huge mistake for the United States to focus on the war on terror because the real challenge was going to come from China,” said Mahbubani, a distinguished fellow at the National University of Singapore.

China’s GDP jumped from $1.2 trillion in 2000 to more than $14.7 trillion in 2020.

“While you were busy fighting wars, China was busy trading,” said Mahbubani, author of “Has China Won?”

As the U.S. was bogged down fighting Islamist militants in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, China’s economic and military power grew exponentially. Beijing built up its missile arsenal, extended its reach in the South China Sea by constructing artificial islands, stole intellectual property on a massive scale and pursued predatory trade tactics, experts say.

"After 9/11, China very quickly realized that Washington's strategic focus would be shifting 3,000 miles away, away from the East China Sea, away from the Taiwan Strait and into Afghanistan," said Craig Singleton of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank. "It was an opportunity to quietly develop very coercive military capabilities that were all designed and intended to expand its power in East Asia."

The 9/11 attacks didn't alter China's goals, but created the chance to close the gap with a rival distracted by the "war on terror," said James Lewis, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank.

"They were doing the same things all along and we slowed down," Lewis said. U.S. officials at the time assumed that "we could put the China problem on the back burner, while we brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan," said Lewis, who worked on national security issues under several administrations.

The United States spent an estimated $8 trillion on the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts in the fight against terrorism, according to a report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University.

Lewis said that money could have been spent on research and development, modernizing the country's infrastructure, building high-tech weapons "and all the things we could have done over the past 20 years."


While China ratcheted up defense spending on ship-killing missiles in the western Pacific and expanded its navy, the Pentagon revamped the U.S. Army to take on insurgents in the Middle East armed with AK-47s, and the Air Force grew accustomed to operating with total air superiority.

"We gave them 20 years, and we retooled our military for a fight totally irrelevant to the principal security challenge of today," said Evan Medeiros, the Penner Family Chair in Asia Studies in Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration reversed course with China to gain its support at the U.N. Security Council for the fight against al Qaeda, easing pressure on Beijing over human rights and pressing Taiwan to hold off on an independence referendum. At Beijing's request, in 2002 the U.S. declared an obscure Uyghur organization, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a terrorist group.


By the time Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, officials spoke of the need to "pivot" to Asia and focus more on countering China. But a faltering war effort in Afghanistan and turmoil in the Middle East kept drawing Washington's attention away from China.

It's difficult to say how things would have evolved without the 9/11 attacks, but some experts argue the U.S. might have adapted its defense and economic strategies years earlier to take into account China's rise.

"Absent 9/11, you potentially would have had a faster shift in U.S. strategy towards China, in a more competitive direction," said Medeiros, who served as Obama's top adviser on the Asia-Pacific region. "At a minimum, you would have had a faster shift in U.S. defense strategy."

'Delusional about China'


For years, U.S. political and business leaders did not see China's economic and trade policies as a major problem, Medeiros said.


"I think it took time for people to really recognize the nature of the China economic challenge, but that didn't have to do with Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "[The mentality] was, 'Hey, everybody's still making money in China, so why rock the boat?'"

In 2001, no one in Washington fully grasped that China was on a phenomenal trajectory, said Oriana Skylar Mastro, center fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.

At that point, China’s economy was a “sliver” of its current size, and Beijing had no meaningful naval presence in the Western Pacific, she said.


“It’s absolutely true that China gained the upper hand because the U.S. was distracted. But it’s not like we would have won this competition already if 9/11 hadn’t happened, ” said Mastro, who is also non-resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.


Until about five years ago, successive administrations misjudged China, believing Beijing could be a partner, according to Dmitri Alperovitch, executive chairman of the Silverado Policy Accelerator, a nonprofit think tank.


Political leaders mistakenly believed that if Washington helped open up global markets to Chinese industry, the Chinese government would gradually open up the country’s political system and play a more cooperative role on the world stage, according to Alperovitch.

“I don’t actually think that Afghanistan or the war on terror had a lot to do with it, that if we didn’t have that distraction, we would be less delusional about the threat that China poses,” said Alperovitch, who is also co-founder of CrowdStrike Inc., a cybersecurity company. “We had hope as a strategy and it backfired.”

China now is decidedly at the top of the agenda in Washington, and both parties agree about the need to “get tough.” President Joe Biden has kept in place tariffs imposed on China by former President Donald Trump, and lawmakers and corporations are pushing for measures to promote America’s microchip industry, invest in research and safeguard America’s technology sector from industrial espionage.


But is the response to China coming too late?

Some experts say valuable time was lost, that America still lacks a long-term strategy on how to counter China and that the country’s polarized politics threaten to distract the U.S. from the main task at hand.

But they say America remains a center of innovation and still has the means at its disposal to compete with China and win.

In the 1970s, after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam in a humiliating defeat amid economic troubles and skyrocketing oil prices, the Soviet Union believed America was on a downward spiral, according to Lewis of CSIS. China now often portrays the U.S. as a decaying power on an inevitable decline.

In private conversations with his Chinese counterparts, Lewis said he has told them not to write off the United States just yet.

The Soviets thought we were gone, Lewis said, "and 15 years later, who was still standing?"



 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,847
Reactions
21 12,442
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Yes, it's undeniable that the 20 years are such a distraction to US great power competition.

Good thing the US left Afghanistan to laser focus its effort in the Indo-Pacific.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,477
Reactions
5 18,094
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Yes, it's undeniable that the 20 years are such a distraction to US great power competition.

Good thing the US left Afghanistan to laser focus its effort in the Indo-Pacific.

War on terror benefitted the USA in the long run.

It allowed its footprint to be heard worldwide.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
War on terror benefitted the USA in the long run.

It allowed its footprint to be heard worldwide.
They pulled out of Afghanistan, it's safe to say all the money , resources and human lives they wasted there just went down the drain.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,847
Reactions
21 12,442
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
War on terror benefitted the USA in the long run.

It allowed its footprint to be heard worldwide.
the US is already a hyperpower when the USSR collapses, why would they need to go to the ME.

People need to remind themselves the restrain the US exhibit after Al-Qaeda series of bombings in US embassies, USS Cole bombings and finally 9/11.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,847
Reactions
21 12,442
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
They pulled out of Afghanistan, it's safe to say all the money , resources and human lives they wasted there just went down the drain.
they have a lot of money, those money they spent annually in Afghanistan could now be redirected towards constraining you.

good luck.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,477
Reactions
5 18,094
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
They pulled out of Afghanistan, it's safe to say all the money , resources and human lives they wasted there just went down the drain.

You are right but there is another story to this.

They got combat experience and tested new weapon systems. While at the same time they bolstered there presence worldwide.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
they have a lot of money, those money they spent annually in Afghanistan could now be redirected towards constraining you.

good luck.
Too late, now they don't really have lots of money, lots of debts are more like it, even the government can be at a risk of shuting down.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,847
Reactions
21 12,442
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Too late, now they don't really have lots of money, lots of debts are more like it, even the government can be at a risk of shuting down.
China has a lot of debts too. LMAO

3 times it's GDP to be exact.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,477
Reactions
5 18,094
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
the US is already a hyperpower when the USSR collapses, why would they need to go to the ME.

People need to remind themselves the restrain the US exhibit after Al-Qaeda series of bombings in US embassies, USS Cole bombings and finally 9/11.

Al qaeda was looking for a fight they got one in the end.

More Muslims got killed than in 911.

I really curse bin laden. He is a true pos.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,847
Reactions
21 12,442
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Al qaeda was looking for a fight they got one in the end.

More Muslims got killed than in 911.

I really curse bin laden. He is a true pos.
The point is, the US need not enter the ME to be known, their presence, economically, militarily and politically are already known worldwide.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China
China has a lot of debts too. LMAO

3 times it's GDP to be exact.
Much smaller than US, and China's debts are mostly internal debts, owned and owed by state companies, so China's debts are also China's assets, this is very different from debts in western countries.
 

xizhimen

Experienced member
Messages
7,391
Reactions
384
Nation of residence
China
Nation of origin
China

Why the U.S.-China duo is the most significant, and potentially the most perilous, bilateral relationship in human history​

PUBLISHED SAT, OCT 16 20215:10 PM EDTUPDATED SAT, OCT 16 20217:26 PM EDT

Frederick Kempe@FREDKEMPE

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (L) inside the Great Hall of the People in Beijing December 4, 2013.
Lintao Zhang | Reuters

The U.S. and China represent the most significant – and potentially most perilous – bilateral relationship in human history. Given that reality, neither side is managing their rising tensions with adequate skill or durable strategy.

That's the way Stephen Heintz of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund put it in a conversation with me a couple of days ago. It is also the subtext of conversations I've had with world leaders visiting Washington, D.C. this week for the IMF and World Bank meetings.

U.S.-Soviet relations defined the Cold War, with both sides fielding the unprecedented nuclear capability to devastate each other, and much more. Before that, the Anglo-American relationship was decisive, from intense U.S.-British competition in the 19th century to an alliance that prevented fascist victory during World War II in the 20th century.

Yet Heintz's argument is compelling that U.S.-Chinese relations have a historically unique significance, based on their multi-dimensional nature that touches on just about every aspect of global affairs now and into the foreseeable future.

That's true whether you're concerned about world war, the global economy, climate change, human rights, the contest between democracy and authoritarianism, the future of space, or the accelerating race for technology's commanding heights. Never has so much across the world rested so heavily on two countries' ability to manage their relationship across a dizzying array of domains.

The accuracy of data related to China's economy, which for many years has been the biggest driver of global growth, took center stage at this week's IMF and World Bank meetings. The controversy focused on allegations that IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva asked colleagues, when she was a top official at the World Bank, to find a way to boost China's standing in its flagship 2018 Doing Business report.

Georgieva has denied any wrongdoing. The IMF board, which convened eight times to consider her fate, concluded that its review of the allegations "did not conclusively demonstrate that the managing director played an improper role." The board reaffirmed its confidence in Georgieva's leadership, but the controversy is likely to continue.

The subtext is that any international institution leader must manage the reality that China will increasingly act to influence, lead or replace the world's most significant multilateral bodies, in this case, the world's lender of last resort.

Meanwhile, senior government officials in D.C. this week, representing the world's most important economies, had plenty else to worry about: an unfolding energy crisis, rising inflation, slowing growth, and increasing climate concerns ahead of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP26, that begins Oct. 31 in Glasgow, Scotland.

A senior official from one of the most significant U.S. allies, speaking anonymously, said all of this has been made more difficult to manage due to the growing volatility in U.S.-Chinese relations, generated by both their differences and their domestic realities.

China is lurching in a more authoritarian direction at home and toward more confrontational policies abroad as it flexes its regional and global muscles. Amid messy and polarizing U.S. politics, following a badly executed Afghan withdrawal, and lacking clarity about U.S. strategy toward Beijing, partners wonder about U.S. commitment, competence and capability for global common cause.

The senior allied official said his country's greatest medium-term and longer-term economic risk was that rising tensions between the U.S. and China boil over into a contest that engulfs his country. "Few of us can afford to make a decision between the U.S. and China," he said. "So please don't ask us to do so."

It isn't that America's allies are naïve about the unfortunate course President Xi Jinping is setting for his country. It's just that a great many of them have China as their number one trading partner – including the European Union as a whole, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. China represented nearly 30% of global growth between 2013 and 2018, double that of the U.S.

Much of the most recent analysis regarding China has circled around two immediate issues: growing signs of China's economic fragility, after decades of double-digit growth, and increased saber-rattling and threats concerning Taiwan,

The two could be connected.
A growing chorus of analysts argues it could be Chinese weaknesses rather than its strengths that pose the greatest dangers. The logic goes that President Xi, if his economic difficulties grow, might choose to stoke up nationalism through escalating confrontations with the United States with Taiwan as the most tempting target. The most immediate source of economic concern, aside from new power shortages, has been the unraveling of Chinese property giant Evergrande amid missed bond payments and under the weight of $300 billion in loans.

"If China's policymakers can successfully pivot their economy to be a more productive and dynamic one, the risk to Washington is real," writes a new Atlantic Council fellow Michael Schuman. "If, however, it turns out that China is more like Evergrande – a glossy growth story with a rotten core – then Beijing's ambitions will unravel, much like the property company's."

Bonny Lin and David Sacks argue this week in Foreign Affairs that "China's increasingly aggressive behavior" toward Taiwan "makes a cross-strait emergency more likely. But the risk of a crisis stems less from the possibility of an immediate Chinese invasion than from an accident or a miscalculation that turns deadly – a midair collision between Chinese and Taiwanese jets."

This all has the feel of the perilous beginning of an uncertain era that lacks established rules or patterns of behavior. The U.S. is unaccustomed to such challenges to its role, and China is unpracticed at managing global tensions.

It's worth remembering that the U.S.-Soviet relationship was probably most dangerous from 1945-1962. In those 17 years after World War II, the two sides navigated a series of crises, culminating in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, before the relationship evolved into more predictable contours.

Two top Biden administration officials, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and top Asia coordinator Kurt Campbell, impressively laid out their thinking in 2019 in Foreign Affairs on how to navigate U.S.-Chinese relations.

That was before they knew they would own the challenge inside the White House. They now are working toward a virtual U.S.-Chinese summit before the year's end, and the two sides have made progress toward working-level talks on several key issues.

Under the headline Competition without Catastrophe, Sullivan and Campbell wrote in 2019, "The starting point for the right U.S. approach must be humility about the capacity of decisions made in Washington to determine the direction of long-term developments in Beijing … (the U.S.) should seek to achieve not a definitive end state akin to the Cold War's ultimate conclusion but a steady state of clear-eyed coexistence on terms favorable to U.S. interests and values."

Whether they succeed will shape the global future.

 
Top Bottom