Journal of Asian and African Studies XIII, 3-4 The Myth of Chinese Expansionism

FRANCIS L. K. HSU

University of San Francisco, San Francisco, U.S.A.

SHORTLY AFTER he was nominated to be ChiefU.S. Delegate to the UN, Representative Andrew Young (D. Ga.) spoke in favor ofnormalization ofre1ations with Vietnam. He said that America needs "a strong Vietnam" that could become an independent Marxist state like Yugoslavia and might provide a buffer against Chinese expansion (reported in Chicago Sun- Times). The idea of reconciliation between the U .S. and long-suffering Vietnam is laudable, but the faulty premise on which Rep. Y oung based his suggestion is regrettable. Rep. Y oung should not, perhaps, be blamed for repeating a popular myth of Chinese expansionism, for that myth dies hard. A whole disastrous Vietnam war was fought more or less on that myth and on the so-called domino theory. It is time to put the historical and recent re cord straight. We need to think more constructively ab out international affairs, less in terms of agame of pitting one country against another.

I Between World Wars land 11 China was an object of international pity and sympathy. Some Westerners remained admirers of Chinese philosophies, manners and objects d'arts. Others sent charity from time to time. But most viewed her poverty and famine, and political ineptitude and military prostra­ tion with exasperation and even disgust. This was especially evident after she was subjected to Japan's large-scale invasion which, within less than a year, reduced her to so-called Free China in landlocked southwest. After all, "God helps those who help themse1ves," and the Chinese just did not see m to he1p themse1ves. Then came Pearl Harbor, and suddenly China was one ofthe Big Four in a worldwide struggle against totalitarian aggression. Almost overnight China became one of the world's largest democracies. Books and articles attested to China's "democratic" tradition which began centuries back. The Communist victory in 1949 changed Western view of China just as suddenly. A se1f-re1iant and proud Communist China who claims to take second place to none has become a Western nightmare. China is called expansionist and Chinese expansionism is, according to many, the cause of most if not all of Asian instability. Many Westerners wished she would somehow disappear and others would frankly like to see her atom-bombed back to the Stone Age so that they could once more lavish their praise and charity on the enduring and peace­ ful but poor and long-suffering Chinese. THE MYTH OF CHINESE EXP ANSIONISM 185

11

The reality is that China is not, historically or now, an expansionist power. This erroneous assumption has so dominated the thinking of the Western but especially the American world that it has become amental millstone, a psycho­ logical prison, from which many Americans have not been able to extricate themselves. In a scientific discussion we must clarify our basic terms, in order to be certain that we know what we are talking about. Two basic terms must be distinguished from each other: Act 01 Violence versus Expansionism, and, for our present purposes, two kinds of violence and of expansionism must also be clearly kept in mind, as follows:

A. Aggressive Act 1. The use of force to coerce another power for whatever purpose ; or 2. The use offorce for securing a frontier, for revenge or because of other grievances and irritations linked with historical circumstances. B. Expansionism 1. The tendency to use force or other coercive means to gain control over new territory; or 2. The tendency to use force or other coercive me ans to gain control over new territory and to impose the way of life of the conquering on the conquered.

At the outset it should be clearly understood that these distinctions are not one hundred percent. In human affairs they rarely are. Some aggressive acts for revenge or otherwise may result in control of some new territory, as in border clashes between India and Pakistan and elsewhere throughout human history. Some expansionist expeditions may lead to loss of old territory for the expansionist power because of defeat, as when Napoleon was finally subdued. However, we should have no difficulty in seeing Mongoi conquest of Asia and Europe in the 13th century and Japan's invasion of China 1931-1945 as expansionist, while the continuing clashes between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, and the quarrels between Spain and Britain over Gibraltar as aggressive acts over territorial disputes linked to historical circumstances. In this light we must agree that all the world's states have, at one time or another, committed aggressive acts against each other, but not all of them are expan­ sionist. In 1643 Tibet invaded Bhutan to protect Lamaist Monpa monasteries. The latter complained to the Tibetan ruler that they were having trouble with the Bhutanese. That was only one of the many conflicts. In 1740 the Bhutanese attacked Sikkim, not unaware of the fact that the Sikkimese ruler was a minor at the time. In 1788 Nepal was dissatisfied with Tibet's reply to her demands concerning the devaluation of Nepalese coins circulating in Tibet and the purity of salt exported by Tibet to Nepal. The Nepalese forces were so strong