China, the Frankenstein Monster of Geopolitics

Saying there’s tension in the US-China relationship would be a gross understatement. The reality is much graver: Both countries are engaged in a second Cold War — a contest for global influence and, ultimately, supremacy. By Aaron Kliegman China seems to have no problem snubbing the Biden administration publicly. First, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi gave Secretary of State Antony Blinken a scornful tongue-lashing in front of the cameras at their meeting in March. And then last week, China’s top military officer, Gen. Xu Qiliang, rebuffed Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s repeated requests to speak with him. Instead of engaging constructively, Chinese officials are either accusing America of “slaughtering” Black people (Wang’s words) or just ignoring their American counterparts. Either way, the result is one big insult right in the face of President Biden’s Cabinet. What’s more: This year, China has both flown a record number of fighters and bombers into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone and simulated missile attacks on the US Navy’s USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier near Taiwan. Saying there’s tension in the US-China relationship would be a gross understatement. The reality is much graver: Both countries are engaged in a second Cold War — a contest for global influence and, ultimately, supremacy. Until recently, America’s chief problem in this conflict was its wrongheaded thinking. For decades, experts, journalists, and policymakers thought China would, over time, become a democracy through trade, global interdependence, and greater economic freedom. By making China a stakeholder in the international system, the conventional wisdom went, the Chinese government would become less hostile and more cooperative. Needless to say, this theory was completely wrong. The Chinese Communist Party remains a global menace and is now more entrenched in power than ever. Richard Nixon recognized the looming Chinese threat back in 1967, when he wrote that China had to be opened to the world. Asia’s largest country would pose a grave danger, he argued, if left to remain in "angry isolation." Five years later, President Nixon made his famous visit to China, thawing bilateral relations with China to counter the Soviet Union. The idea was to cut the tenuous thread that linked the world's two largest communist states. It turned out that China was just angry, period, in isolation or not — a belligerent, imperial power ruled by a communist party that terrorizes its people, risks war over Taiwan, and seeks regional (and then global) domination. Opening China to the world change none of that. In a way, Nixon said as much before his death in 1994 while speaking to his former speechwriter. "Before Nixon died, I asked him — on the record — if perhaps we had gone a bit overboard on selling the American public on the political benefits of increased trade," Safire wrote in the New York Times. "That old realist, who had played the China card to exploit the split in the communist world, replied with some sadness that he was not as hopeful as he had once been: ‘We may have created a Frankenstein.'" (Safire noted he was on the verge of correcting Nixon that Dr. Frankenstein was the creator, and that he meant ''Frankenstein's monster.” He decided to bite his tongue.) The Frankenstein described by Nixon is now in a stronger position today to undermine American interests. It’s also more emboldened than ever, seeing no problem with insulting America’s top diplomat and defense official. China is the Frankenstein monster of geopolitics, and America helped create it. Newt hosts monthly virtual events in which he discusses news of the day and why it matters to you and your community. These Newt Live events are your opportunity to communicate directly with Newt. We hope you will join us next time and let Newt answer your questions and provide his insight on the issues that concern you most. JOIN TODAY to be a part of this special event and receive a BONUS GIFT. Click here to join Newt’s Inner Circle. More from Aaron Kliegman:

Should Congress raise the debt ceiling?