01:00 AM EDT on Friday, June 24, 2005

I THINK I USED to like Robert Kaplan. Or, rather, I see value in some of his earlier works that blended travelogue, historical reflection, and political analysis. But in a recent piece in The Atlantic Monthly -- revealingly entitled "How We Would Fight China" -- Kaplan seems to have fallen victim to an all too common and particularly narrow point of view: the neo-conservative vilification of China. That he has only demonstrates how pervasive such a shortsighted perspective has become and how dangerous it is to U.S. interests.

Kaplan seems to have taken so whole-heartedly to the vilification of China that his Atlantic piece can be used as a prime example of it. He describes China's "martial energy" as "constitut[ing] the principal conventional threat to America's liberal imperium."

China's size, it's true, cannot be denied. But defining its "martial energy" as "the principal conventional threat" to U.S. interests? In today's world, that's a bold assertion.

Of course, Kaplan knows this. He tries to explain himself when he describes how China's antiquated but growing submarine fleet could threaten the U.S. Navy: "[O]ne can imagine that China could launch an embarrassing strike against us, or against one of our Asian allies." Sure, one could imagine that. One could just as easily imagine the opposite, too.

The rest of Kaplan's piece follows in this vein, demonstrating an ever-expanding fascination with China and its popularly termed "rise." In just the past few weeks, both U.S. News and World Report and Time magazine have featured cover stories on China's rise. Indeed, the country's size and influence -- and the growth of each -- are ample. The copious ink spilled in covering them is perhaps not out of proportion with their importance.

Kaplan's piece, however, represents a darker and increasingly common side of this China fascination. In China's rise, to be sure, there is reason for wariness; but Kaplan's perspective goes well beyond wariness into the realm of unnecessary fear. Increasingly, it's a perspective that pervades the media consciousness.

Such vilification derives not only from China's rise but also from an equally large vacuum in neo-conservative self-perceptions. Certain ideologies define themselves more by what they're against than by what they're for. Although the "war on terror" has provided a legitimate and unifying foe for neo-conservatives to rally around, "terror" -- insofar as it can actually be defined as an enemy -- doesn't quite fill the shoes of a big, menacing state-based opponent. In other words, al-Qaida is no Soviet Union. But China -- oppressive, militaristic and expansive -- comes much closer.

The recent China vilification has its roots in scholarly works that hypothesized the capabilities of a potentially hostile China. Neo-conservative writers and ideologues joined the bandwagon in the late 1990s, replacing scholarly conditionality with breathless certainty, and China vilification has since snowballed to its current prevalence.

A common vilification argument rests on the classical great-power theory, which holds that rising powers inevitably come into conflict with existing ones. But history and theory should be used to illuminate the future, not to blind us to its unforeseen directions. China's rise, fundamentally, is unprecedented and uncertain. Such uncertainty is naturally disconcerting for those who instinctually demand certainty and the benefits it brings.

Predicting conflict with China doesn't just provide certainty in an otherwise uncertain situation. It also justifies a range of diplomatic and military policies that would otherwise be impossible to implement. More important, a hostile China represents a self-fulfilling, self-indulgent prophecy, which justifies a faulty ideology and perpetuates the political careers that rely on it.

It is perfectly fair to ask whether China's rise poses a threat to the United States. I think it very well might -- but it also might not. Again, that's the point: China's rise is a fundamentally uncertain phenomenon.

So much of the recent thinking on China seems to move beyond the frustrating uncertainty of reality and into the convenient certainty of fantasy. But though the United States should absolutely prepare for the possibility of a hostile China, such anticipatory policies must be based on rational judgment that prioritizes genuine U.S. interests -- not on breathless vilification that prioritizes political careers and ideological impetus.

I imagine the Chinese view this phenomenon and its pervasiveness with some amusement. Whether or not they seek conflict, they must surely be pleased at being unpredictable and confounding to U.S. policy makers and citizens alike. That China's "rise" is met by such a knee-jerk, fear-based reaction makes U.S. attitudes seem predictable and one-dimensional. The situation only empowers the Chinese; it gives them the freedom of movement that neo-conservatives love to ascribe to them.

So the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling: Irrational fear of China irrationally empowers China. And whom does that serve? Certainly not the United States.

Daniel Widome, an occasional contributor based at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies, is a former editor in chief of the Brown Journal of World Affairs and is author and editor of Natural Selection (http://watsonblogs.org/dwidome).