Chinese Discussant: Yes, there are a lot of issues left over by history that are complicating the situation in Asia and China’s rise. Maybe in the past the leadership was not as sensitive to “public opinion” but now the Chinese people are demanding that we take a tough stance on territorial issues and no Chinese leader can be seen as weak to the Chinese people. This is often ignored in your country. You say China has been more assertive in the past few years–that’s because the Chinese peoples’ mindset has changed and we must respect their wishes. They won’t be humiliated anymore.

U.S. Discussant: There is no doubt that the Chinese people are genuinely passionate about these issues. But even if you’re right and China’s leaders are sensitive to the whims of a “public opinion” that has grown more nationalist in recent years, who is responsible for that? China’s public space has grown immensely but while liberal commentary continues to be censored and discouraged, nationalist outlets have been allowed to proliferate exponentially. PLA generals are allowed to call for sinking American warships but newspapers are shuttered for discussing civil rights. These are strategic and political decisions taken by a government with substantial influence over the public discourse. It is simply not enough to say: “this is public opinion--our hands are tied.”

Chinese Discussant: The censorship regime must be reformed but our situation is unique and we are a developing country with tremendous divisions and challenges--censorship is required under these conditions to maintain stability.

U.S. Discussant: This always struck me as unusual: that the Chinese people are unique from all other peoples of the world and must be isolated from information. For stability? A harmonious society? India has far more developmental challenges, more violent insurgencies, and far more ethnic, political, linguistic, religious, and demographic cleavages and does not feel the need to control the flow information to its people. Society has not devolved into chaos because Indians can Google whatever they choose or openly voice dissent.

Chinese Discussant: It is important that you understand the Chinese leadership cannot so easily go backward once it’s gone forward. And you must understand this is what’s written in our textbooks –- the SCS is Chinese territory. This is passed down to us from our ancestors. This is what the Chinese people believe.

U.S. Discussant: I understand what is in your textbooks. From America’s perspective that does not make it legitimate. Pakistani textbooks promote religious extremism and claim Kashmir is rightfully Pakistan’s territory. Does that mean we must accept a Pakistani invasion of Kashmir? Of course not. For us – for the current international order – “historic claims” do not justify the use of force or the annexation of territory.  It goes against all accepted rules and norms.

Chinese Discussant: This isn’t about rules and norms. It’s about power.

U.S. Discussant: I appreciate your candor but it’s troubling to hear you say that. A system in which power rules is a return to the Wild West. From the country that birthed the Wild West, believe us when we say it’s not a healthy template for international affairs. A system governed by power would benefit the U.S. greatly. Had we acted like every power-obsessed hegemon before us we would have annexed territory and appropriated resources at will, and done everything in our power to prevent the rise of any potential challenger, including China. We have not done those things because we believe in the rule of law and in the stability produced by an international system of laws and norms. We don’t fear power but we despair the anarchy created by a system in which unrestrained power rules. And, frankly, China should too.

Jeff M. Smith is the Director of Asian Security Programs at the American Foreign Policy Council and author of Cold Peace: China-India Rivalry in the 21st Century. Follow Jeff on Twitter: @Cold_Peace_.

Image: Flickr/Defense Department