James Chau:
You wrote in The New York Times about the “speed” and “scope” of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, and the introspection this has triggered in the West. How can China succeed where others have failed? And how would you measure that success?
Zhou Bo:
The international community has witnessed how the U.S.-led military intervention in Afghanistan, which lasted for two decades, has failed. The good thing is that the Afghan people have no bad memories of the Chinese because, historically, China has never invaded Afghanistan, unlike the invaders coming from afar. That laid a good foundation for Chinese efforts in Afghanistan. Why would Afghans trust the Chinese people? One reason is that China's political impartiality can be trusted because, even during the Silk Road period, relations were very smooth. So, China can be trusted. Also, everyone in the world knows that China has infrastructure-building capabilities and industrial capabilities that are second to none... and the Afghans also happen to be your direct neighbors. Why not help them?
JC:
You were in Afghanistan in the early 2000s, not long after the U.S.-led war began. What did you see there in terms of the human suffering that we're all too familiar with, as seen in the media coverage?
ZB:
It was one of the most unforgettable moments in my life. I have never seen a country so devastated by war. I saw houses on the mountains, but it's very bizarre because all the houses, one after another, have no doors, they have no windows. So, it's a bizarre situation. We delivered medical assistance to Afghan hospitals. At that time, the best hospital in Kabul had only one medical tonometer. That was shocking. I stayed at the Inter-Continental, which was one of the best hotels in Kabul at that time. But in my room, the ceilings were falling, and they had to support it with timbers. When we were in the elevator, it simply could not move. So, we could not move in the best hotel in Kabul. You know too well of the human suffering because you've seen it for yourself. And what were all seeing, at least on the television screens, is a humanitarian crisis that continues to unfold in real time.
JC:
When you see people clinging to the body of a C-17 aircraft as it tries to take off — and falling from that aircraft after it's in the air — what does that make you think?
ZB:
It was the most miserable image I have ever seen. I have to think how this country was plunged into such a situation. This should not be the case. Throughout history, the Afghan civilization was fabulous. I even remember a show of Afghan civilization at the British Museum. All these people know is fighting each other or fighting against invaders. But what contributed to this miserable situation? It was the war — the “forever war” led by the United States and NATO. This is what worries me. I was wondering: Does the withdrawal now indicate that the United States and its allies will divert their attention elsewhere? Will they redeploy resources to that part of the world and potentially recreate the problems that we see in Afghanistan? America's allies should really learn a good lesson here. This is probably the end of the American-led global counterterrorist war, and it might also be the beginning of the American global military retreat from the world. It is certainly the beginning of extreme competition by the United States against China in the Asia-Pacific.
JC:
Senior retired figures in the U.S., including retired Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, are flagging new concerns that the military crisis communication system between the United States and China is unreliable at best and absent at worst, and also charged China with not picking up the phone on their side at some key points in recent history. Does all this agree with your own understanding of these events?
ZB:
I certainly agree with Karl Eikenberry. I know him personally. This kind of crisis management is not so reliable. But what is the reason behind that? Let me put it in a very straightforward way: It is because of American provocations at China's doorstep. The fact is, it is American ships that come on a regular basis, and this has been a problem for decades. China would talk at a strategic level saying that you must at least reduce this kind of reconnaissance or surveillance, or better to stop it all. This will eliminate the problem of interaction. But the American way is “No, we will come to challenge your excessive maritime claim. But you have to make sure we are safe.”
JC:
If a military confrontation were to occur in the South China Sea would that in turn trigger other conflicts and actions, including embargoes?
ZB:
That, most unfortunately, has happened — for example in 2001 we had the collision of aircraft, and in 2018 two ships, one from China and one from the United States, narrowly missed a collision by just 41 meters. But still there is a light at the end of the tunnel. In October last year, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense and the Pentagon had what they called a crisis communication working group meeting. I'm happy that this word “crisis” was mentioned. They talked about the concept of crisis, and most important of all they talked about prevention of crisis. The intrinsic problem is that American ships coming so frequently into the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait speaks loudly about how they wish to challenge China. And this is extraordinary. Why? American ships sail around the world to challenge so-called excessive maritime claims of other countries. They not only challenge China but even our allies, though they highlight China. In fact, they even announce it before they start doing it.
JC:
John Kerry, the U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, met with [Director of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs] Yang Jiechi this year. China is saying it has its own road map for climate change. COP26 is being hosted in Glasgow, Scotland. If not climate change, then what will be the issue on which these two major economies and two major nations can find a way forward for humanity?
ZB:
I hope we'll have more areas of cooperation. During [U.S. Deputy Secretary of State] Wendy Sherman's visit to China, she mentioned the DPRK, the Iranian issue, Afghanistan and the "Burmese" issue for cooperation. But the irony is that it seems the U.S. simply wants China to cooperate [in areas] it is interested in, while continuing confrontation with China in some other areas. Yes, competition is a part of human nature. But isn't cooperation also part of human nature? I personally believe that cooperation, rather than competition, is really the better human nature of our soul. So, let's hope that might prevail.
JC:
Let's turn to the phone call between President Xi Jinping and President Joe Biden, their first such contact in over half a year. The White House says it was Washington that initiated that phone call. Why now?
ZB:
I think such communication is crucially important — conversation at the highest level, especially when the relationship between the two sides is not so stable and is competitive. So, this kind of a normal, occasional conversation is crucially important. Talking about the relationship itself, unfortunately, this is a so-called competitive relationship. That tone was set by President Trump for China-U.S. relations. This is not what China wants, China still wants a relationship of cooperation. Right now, we really have seen this unhealthy trend of cooperation sliding into competition. And my best hope is that it will not slide further into confrontation.
JC:
The two presidents raised and discussed several problematic issues that have reshaped the relationship in recent years. Does this necessarily indicate, or is there evidence, that things will get better for them from here on out?
ZB:
The gap between China and the United States be it in economic or military fields will only narrow. As time goes on, I think the United States will find that it must cooperate with China on so many international fronts. That is a bigger reason for me to be optimistic. Economically speaking, China is about 75 percent of the U.S. economy. But almost all the leading economists conclude that by 2030 China will be the largest economy in the world in terms of GDP. Yes, overall, the U.S. military is still much stronger than China, but China doesn't have to compete with the U.S. beyond China's periphery. If you look at China's military activity, it is invariably humanitarian in nature, be it peacekeeping, counter-piracy, disaster relief or evacuation of people from war-torn countries. These are all humanitarian missions. China and the United States have good cooperation in counter-piracy in the Gulf of Aden. They could even join hands in addressing the so called non-traditional threats. So, our door is always open. I never believed that the United States is exceptional or indispensable. How come Capitol Hill experienced such huge unrest? This is shocking. China's rise provides people with common sense, and common sense, at any given time in history, always means co-existence with different civilizations, different social systems, different religions and different cultures.
JC:
Mr. Zhou, thank you very much for the time and opportunity to speak with you today.
