Just a wee bit of the old historical revisionism

Brad DeLong responds to my post giving credit where credit is due to the Bush administration with the following rejoinder:

[C]onstructive engagement with China is not the policy of “Team Bush” but rather the policy of “Team Paulson” or “Team State Department” or “Team Reality-Based Interest Groups.” The China policy of “Team Bush” was and is Cold War followed by Hot War–but fortunately they got distracted by other things: James Fallows Anecdote of the day (from Gary Hart, at Aspen):

[Gary] Hart said. ?I am convinced that if it had not been for 9/11, we would be in a military showdown with China today.? Not because of what China was doing, threatening, or intending, he made clear, but because of the assumptions the Administration brought with it when taking office. (My impression is that Chinese leaders know this too, which is why there are relatively few complaints from China about the Iraq war. They know that it got the U.S. off China?s back!) Lee Hamilton, who had also been on the commission, was sitting at the same lunch table and backed up Hart?s story. Another chapter in the annals of missed opportunities in recent years.

OK, let’s stipulate that there were neoconservatives who looked at China as the big, bad threat that justified bellcose action. Let’s also make clear, however, four rather important facts:

a) None of these people held an official positions in the Bush administration; b) Most of these people backed John McCain in 2000, not George W. Bush; c) If “the China policy of ‘Team Bush’ was and is Cold War followed by Hot War,” then they missed a golden opportunity to act on the second part of their policy in April 2001 when an EP-3E spy plane had a mid-air collision with a Chinese fighter and was forced to land in Hainan Island in the PRC. When that incident occurred, no one was concerned about terrorism being the primary threat to the U.S. If Team Bush had really wanted to ratchet up tensions between Washington and Beijing, that was the moment. Instead, after a week or two of angry rhetoric from both sides, we got the following letter delivered to Beijing:

Both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft. Please convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very sorry for their loss. Although the full picture of what transpired is still unclear, according to our information, our severely crippled aircraft made an emergency landing after following international emergency procedures. We are very sorry the entering of China’s airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance, but very pleased the crew landed safely. We appreciate China’s efforts to see to the well-being of our crew.

After the incident, President Bush did make a provocative statement or two about Taiwan, but even before 9/11 the administration had abandoned a confrontational approach towards China. d) Does anyone think that Henry Paulson is implementing China policy without the approval of George W. Bush? Does anyone think that Paulson would have accepted the Treasury position unless he and Bush knew damn well that he’d have the China portfolio?

My own counterfactual — had 9/11 not occurred, bilateral relations with China would be pretty much where they are now.