A crisis in U.S.-China relations involves threats to important interests by one or both sides, high levels of uncertainty and risk, and a sense of urgency. It often escalates due to neither side backing down and can include the possibility of military force.
Crisis management focuses on resolving a crisis once it has begun, balancing signals of commitment and accommodation to avoid escalation. Crisis prevention aims to avoid crises by establishing ground rules and confidence-building measures that reduce the likelihood of provocations.
The Korean War taught that ignoring Chinese warnings and underestimating their resolve can lead to significant miscalculations. Clear and serious communication, understanding the other side's concerns, and being cautious about assumptions are crucial for managing and preventing crises.
This principle, meaning 'on just grounds, to our advantage, and with restraint,' can lead to inflexible moralistic stances and reciprocal escalation, leaving little room for accommodation or de-escalation, especially in issues involving sovereignty.
The U.S. needs to maintain the credibility of its commitments to allies like the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea. However, this can also lead to rigid and assertive responses in crises, potentially drawing the U.S. into conflicts it might prefer to avoid.
In a simulation involving the Philippines, the U.S. backed its carrier away from a crisis area to show non-provocation, but the Chinese interpreted it as an escalation. Similarly, Japan's deployment of a ship named after a vessel from the Sino-Japanese War was seen as a deliberate provocation by the Chinese, though the Japanese had no such intention.
Misinterpreting China’s historical memory, such as the idea of the 'Tian Xia' system, can lead to gross simplifications and mistaken assumptions. These tropes often fail to account for the varied and complex relationships China had with its neighbors, which were not always hierarchical or based on dominance.
Both sides often assume that signals are well-coordinated and come from the top leadership, leading to misinterpretations. Unauthorized signals, particularly from media or lower-level officials, can also be misread, causing further tension. Clear and authoritative communication channels are essential to mitigate these issues.
The two-tier structure includes a civilian-led forum for discussing policy and crisis prevention, and a more traditional military-led forum for crisis management. This approach aims to break down barriers and ensure a more flexible and coordinated exchange of ideas and information.
Track two dialogues, involving non-officials, allow for more flexible and honest discussions compared to formal track one dialogues. Participants can explore different scenarios and perspectives without being constrained by official talking points, which helps in understanding the other side’s concerns and potential reactions.
China's decision-making system can stovepipe information, limiting communication between the military and civilian branches. The U.S. also faces challenges in coordinating military actions with civilian oversight, particularly in operations near China’s borders. Both systems need better internal communication and a systemic approach to avoid miscalculations.
Educating lower-level officials who communicate with higher levels about past crises and the processes that led to them is crucial. Leaders need to understand the pitfalls, biases, and structural issues that can arise during crises and how to navigate them effectively.
This week on Sinica, I chat with Michael Swaine, Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for the last couple of years, prior to which he spent nearly two decades as a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he led extensive work on Chinese defense and foreign policy, U.S.-China relations, and East Asian international relations more broadly. He was also a senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, where he developed a reputation for rigorous research on Asian security and crisis management. We focus on his recent report, “Avoiding the Abyss: An Urgent Need for Sino-U.S. Crisis Management,” which offers both a framework for understanding the forces driving U.S.-China crises and a roadmap to prevent or manage these crises effectively. He drew on his many decades of experience working on the security dimension of the bilateral relationship, including his participation in many Track II dialogues and simulations of crisis scenarios over the years.
4:51 – Defining "crisis" and "crisis prevention"
10:13 – The possibility of a crisis in the South China Sea
12:31 – Lessons from past crises
20:08 – The problematic moralistic stances and tit-for-tat escalation produced by yǒulǐ, yǒulì, yǒu jié 有理, 有利, 有节
27:37 – U.S. concern over the credibility of its alliance commitments
34:50 – The problem of perception
38:16 – Examples of how each side is sometimes unable to see how its own actions are perceived by the other
41:20 – The dangers of failing to understand and making assumptions about the China’s historical memory
45:42 – Problems of signaling and how best to solve them
51:17 – Mike’s suggestions for a crisis toolkit and his proposal of a civilian-led two-tier dialogue structure
58:41 – Track II dialogues
1:02:47 – The importance of educating leaders up and down the system on crisis management
1:06:08 – The structural issues of the decision-making systems in China and the U.S.
Recommendations:
Michael: Art critic Brian Sewell’s The Reviews That Caused the Rumpus); Robert Suettinger’s The Conscience of the Party: Hu Yaobang, China’s Communist Reformer)
Kaiser: The Great Transformation: China’s Road from Revolution to Reform)* *by Odd Arne Westad and Chen Jian
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy) and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info).