Seawolf Debate: ‘China dreams in terms that the U.S. does not understand’

Anchorage students were treated to a forum and debate – coordinated by the Alaska World Affairs Council – discussing the possibility of democratic governance emerging in China and the impact of Chinese policies on other countries, specifically the United States. Hosted at Bear Tooth Theater on Feb. 9, the event put particular focus on the challenges presented by tension within the U.S.-China relationship and included a debate performed by the UAA debate team.

Preceding the debate, the director of the Center of Excellence for Global Trade and Supply Chain Management, Sam Kaplan, spoke to the audience about the challenges, especially the economic challenges, that China presents to the United States. Kaplan theorizes that the United States and China are in a “competition of competence” – a push and shove game of trying to outperform each other economically. 

His presentation drove home the idea that China poses a great threat to the U.S. both economically and militarily if the relationship between the two nations continues to destabilize.

What is causing this instability? Kaplan said that the clashing of ideologies by the two largest economies in the world is to blame. The Chinese government’s authoritarian tendencies and the U.S.’s liberal tendencies have created a battle for dominance on the world stage.

These issues raise the question: Will China ever change? To discuss this, members of Seawolf Debate appeared on stage to deliver exciting speeches. The pro side argued that political liberalization will never happen in China, while the con side argued that it can happen.

The pro side suggested that Chinese political liberalization will not happen because of Chinese economic ambitions being greater than political ambitions. Chinese culture is also often in support of measures that promote society over individuals. Additionally, they pointed to the fact that the current long-term plans of the Chinese Communist Party include more authoritarianism. A case in point being the extension of Xi Jinping’s presidency after Chinese lawmakers voted to abolish presidential term limits – a move that allows Xi to remain in power for life.

On the con side, debaters argued that if the U.S. can successfully act as a role model, China might sway toward liberalization. Another point made was that China’s aging and declining population has the potential to push the current Chinese government system toward irrelevance as younger generations seek more self-agency. According to debater Steve Cherry, “China dreams in terms that the U.S. does not understand,” suggesting that the precedent of thousands of years of Chinese culture provides the Chinese people with more patience in the process of actualizing liberal practices. They also claimed that China’s slowing economic growth will shift ideologies from the economy to liberty.

At the debate’s conclusion, a panel of three judges determined that the con side won because of their presentation of less limiting arguments. One judge, Greg Wolf, who serves as the executive director of World Trade Center Alaska, also reminded the audience that Taiwan exemplifies Chinese culture and operates under a thriving democratic system. This reminder was meant to show that the Chinese people and their ways of thinking are compatible with political liberalization. The judges felt that Chinese political liberalization is possible under certain conditions.

Whether China liberalizes or not, the feud between the U.S. and China has dangerous potential and is one of the top concerns of U.S. foreign policy. The recent downing by the United States Air Force of a Chinese spy balloon that traversed U.S. skies was the starkest display of this conflict to date as military action escalates the conflict into a more tangible realm beyond economics.

The risk of war is high according to an internal U.S.Air Force memo sent out on Feb. 1 by the head of the Air Mobility Command, General Mike Minihan. 

“My gut tells me we will fight in 2025. […] Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025,” Minihan wrote.

Jake Werner and William Hartung wrote in a recent article published by The Nation that a policy of “constructive coexistence” is needed between the two countries to avoid a war that several organizations predict “would inflict heavy losses on both sides, destabilize the global economy, and run the risk of a nuclear confrontation, all while devastating rather than protecting Taiwan.”

Clearly, there is a need for constructive, thoughtful conversation and action. Peaceful solutions to our issues with China are much needed and public forums such as the one on Feb. 1 are an important space in which solutions can emerge and grow.

‍