I have a love-hate relationship with China. As a university student, I was entranced by China’s history and rich culture.

Confucius and other classic thinkers have shaped China’s worldview over 2000 years. These texts teach that harmony is essential in human society. In Chinese culture, the community is pre-eminent. Social relations are based on respect, order and peace. If family relations are harmonious, society will also be harmonious. The role of the ruler is to look after the people like a parent looking after children.

Another seminal text is Lao Zi’s Dao De Jing (The Classic of the Way and its Power). Its main teaching concerns the Way Dao, the ultimate source and unifying principle of the universe. The Power De refers to the inspiration or energy that comes from aligning with the Way. Daoism does not encourage disruptive behaviour but rather wuwei or “inaction”. Daoists find inner peace through harmony with nature and protection of the environment.

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is famous in management schools around the world. It is not proof that Chinese culture promotes violence and aggression. It teaches that war should be avoided if possible. It lists 36 stratagems, of which the first is “Know yourself and know the enemy”, that is, one should be realistic about one’s strengths and weaknesses as well as understanding those of the enemy and not start a war unless one is confident that one can win it. The last of the 36 is “The best strategy is to leave”.

These are some of the qualities of Chinese culture that I love. There are also things I do not like. Today being the eve of June 4th, I remember the tragic inhumanity in 1989 of the brutal suppression of student democracy activists in Tiananmen Square. This arose from the government’s preoccupation with stability and order over and above individual human rights. China also experienced many man-made disasters concocted by Mao Zedong and the lack of legal constraints on his power. The “Three Years of Famine” (1959-61) were followed by the so-called Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-76), which destroyed millions of human lives. This upended the teaching of the classic philosophers. Chinese people can be too accepting of autocracy.

Chinese people are also determined that their country, despite all its faults and failings, will never again be in the hands of Japanese or colonial Western powers. They have learned at school and from their parents and grandparents that China was dismembered in the 19th century and suffered for half a century under Japanese occupation. The corollary is that sovereignty and integrity of territory are the basis of nationalism.

Applying Sun Tzu’s Art of War to understand China, we must first understand what drives its policy makers. China’s foreign policy is based on the principle of mutual respect and a determination to regain what is regarded as its rightful place in the world. It has not been an easy struggle.

The People’s Republic of China, established in 1949, did not receive a universal welcome. Even after Harry Truman removed Douglas MacArthur from office in 1951, the US Government remained concerned about the communist government and the CIA invested heavily in a “Third Force” strategy to build an insurrection. The strategy failed. Most citizens supported the regime and were willing to put up with temporary hardship, hoping for a better life for their children.

They had to put up with a lot. The Cultural Revolution was a disaster in economic as well as in human terms. Mao loved chaos (like Trump) but his successors wanted stability and order. Only after Mao’s death in 1976, did the economy really start to improve. The domestic economy flourished in the more open environment and in a stable peaceful region. Maintaining strong growth and raising living standards became the main pillars of domestic policies.

China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an active member of many multilateral organisations. With Australian encouragement, it has engaged with the multilateral trade system, joined APEC and the World Trade Organisation. It has relied on the international governance system to support and regulate its growth, but as it has grown stronger, it has become evident that the United States did not have the same trust in the established international order.

China is not expansionist or aggressive. It has had border disputes with neighbouring countries, including Russia (the former Soviet Union), India and Vietnam. Generally speaking, these were territorial disputes arising from the historical consequences of colonialism, not campaigns to occupy or colonise other sovereign states. Both the PRC and the Republic of China claim sovereignty of large parts of the South China Sea within the “Nine Dash Line” (first published by the ROC in 1947).

Taiwan also lies within the Nine Dash Line. Its status is a matter of great concern to the leadership of the Communist Party of China. When visiting China in February 1972, US President Richard Nixon signed the Shanghai Communique, acknowledging that “all Chinese people on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China”. This statement became the basis for formal recognition of China by Australia and other countries. Taiwan’s status is, therefore, an internal matter for China, not a case of potential foreign aggression.

It is not possible to discuss China’s security concerns without referring to the American presence in our region. Since the end of World War II, the US has maintained more than 100 military bases in Japan and the same number in South Korea. Seen from Beijing, Dulles’ First Island Chain is hardly friendly, and the noose is being tightened.

The “Pivot to Asia” policy of President Joe Biden led to an expansion of the US military presence in the region, including basing B-52 bombers in North Australia. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking at last week’s Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore, made it clear that the Trump administration would continue Biden’s China policy. “The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent,” he said. In another recent speech, he referred to “the Communist Chinese” as a “peer competitor… with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific”. To date, the Chinese reaction has been measured. A spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry said Hegseth had made “defamatory allegations” and “falsely called China a ‘threat’."

American anti-China sentiment has a long history and is shared by both Republicans and Democrats. Washington’s official policy is strategic competition. Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership calls China “America’s most dangerous international enemy”. The mainstream media, dominated by America, pumps out this sentiment around the world. Our media also promotes fear and suspicion, with campaigns like the 2023 ABC/Fairfax series Red Alert. Washington and US defence-aligned think-tanks such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warn that China has a grand plan to subvert Australian values and dominate our economy, threatening our sovereignty. ASPI’s Agenda for Change 2025 listed “unsafe encounters between Chinese and Australian military aircraft” and attempts to “advance unlawful maritime claims, threaten maritime shipping lanes, and destabilise territory along China’s periphery”. Other issues raised in the report include an agreement between China and the Cook Islands, debt-trap diplomacy, and China’s technological lead in several fields with potential military application. Interesting how closely these align with Project 2025.

Consider the reasons for not beating the drums of war, but rather applying the Art of War and avoiding war with China:

First, China is enmeshed in the global economy. War with China would affect global supply chains in everything from electronics to pharmaceuticals. The ripple effect would be felt by billions around the world and would very likely cause a global recession. Many countries rely on China as an economic partner, particularly our neighbours in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. If Australia was caught up in military conflict with China, this would not only damage our economy, but also those countries and our relationships with them. Neighbouring countries with US military bases, such as Japan, South Korea or the Philippines, would certainly be directly involved. The humanitarian impact of a war with China, the world’s second most populous nation, would be enormous, with massive loss of life and a potential refugee crisis of unprecedented proportions.

The greatest threat to our future is climate change and the need to address this should outweigh all other considerations. The Chinese and Australian Governments have committed to work together to find global solutions. War would inevitably have a severe environmental impact on both countries, including increased pollution, deforestation and destruction of ecosystems.

China is a leader in many emerging technologies. War with China will be waged in forms never seen before, including cyber warfare affecting communication systems and infrastructure, as well as drones and other autonomous vehicles, space and satellite applications. China is a nuclear power, as is the United States. In the past 80 years, the threat of nuclear war has acted as a deterrent, although we have often been close to disaster. The Doomsday Clock has now moved one second closer to midnight. Every second counts. War brings the risk of nuclear escalation with global catastrophic effects.

Hugh White, in the latest Quarterly Essay Hard New World: Our Post-American Future, says Australia must get used to life without the security blanket of the United States. It is a multipolar world with several great powers including China, India and, before long, Indonesia. Australia cannot depend on the US maintaining the present “rules-based order” in the Indo-Pacific. AUKUS sprang from Scott Morrison’s desire to lock in US support by backing it against China, but Australia does not need the US to make its own way in Asia.

All we need is written in The Art of War.

(This is based on a talk given to the Sydney RUG (Retired Unionists Group), 3 June 2025.)

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.