US Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to China appears to have been quite uneventful, apart from the fight between a visiting US college basketball team (unrelated to Biden’s visit) and their Chinese counterparts. Is this a portent of things to come?
Considering China’s nervousness over its investments in US Treasuries, Biden must have assured his hosts that the US remained a secure economic destination. However, according to media reports, Chinese leaders didn’t need any assurances because they already had confidence in the US financial system.
The US’ weakened economic position, with China as its biggest creditor, gives Beijing important political and economic leverage in the Sino-US bilateral relationship. Indeed, according to a report in the Times of London, Pentagon officials are already practicing economic war games because of a threat “that makes America vulnerable to a new kind of bloodless, but ruthless war.”
Times’ correspondent Helen Rumbelow wrote: “At the end of that Pentagon session, [in 2009] the 80-odd players returned from their bunkers and assessed the damage.”
The result: “China won, without so much as reaching for a gun.”
China increasingly fancies itself as a new superpower, with fewer constraints on its power. This is reflected in Beijing’s refusal to become part of a regional architecture conducive to stability and cooperation.
Beijing is reportedly rebuffing efforts to set up protocols and institutions for regional crisis prevention.
“We continue to underscore how important that is,” US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said.
“More and more, Chinese and the United States operate side by side [in the region]. There is a need to have predictability on the high seas and above the high seas,” Campbell told the Sydney Morning Herald.
Hence the need “to put in place the institutions and policies to manage any incidents” — of which there have been quite a few recently — on the high seas between the US and China and between China and its regional neighbors.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard reportedly made the same point when recently addressing the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Perth.
“This is about shaping a future ... by developing institutions, norms, rules and habits of consultations and cooperation that minimize the risk of conflict or miscalculation, manage the frictions of a growing and changing Asia-Pacific,” Gillard said.
However, China doesn’t seem interested. With its blanket sovereignty claims to regional seas and islands, it is not interested in a regional architecture that might constrain its freedom of action.
Take the case of the South China Sea and Pacific island chains that Beijing claims. Some of China’s neighbors contest its claims of sovereignty — there have been naval incidents with Vietnam and the Philippines over these ownership issues. The Chinese navy, for instance, reportedly cut the cables of a Vietnamese survey ship in waters claimed by that country.
The Philippines, too, has claimed a number of Chinese naval incursions. Manila felt so threatened that it invoked its security treaty with the US.
China’s attempts to turn the whole of Southeast Asia into its regional enclave are also acting as a catalyst for closer strategic ties between the US and Vietnam, former enemies.
The spectacle of Chinese heavy-handedness is reminiscent of Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere around the time of the World War II, which it sought to carve out by attacking and occupying its Asian neighbors.
China, of course, seeks to do something similar, but without the use of brute force, so far. However, it has the same intention of dominating the region to the exclusion of other powers.
This sort of bellicosity doesn’t square with China’s often-stated declaration that it is not a “hegemonic” power and does not aspire to be one — a claim uttered often in the past decade, but one heard much less recently.
Beijing thinks it has found a way around accusations of hegemonism. By referring to its regional claims as sovereignty issues, China’s territorial aspirations cease to be hegemonic in nature, as far as Beijing is concerned. This concept of territorial enlargement is very flexible and can be expanded as China gains power and its national interests expand to the far corners of the world.
China is developing a blue-water navy to enforce its writ — the recent test runs of its aircraft carrier is a forerunner of things to come.
A recent Pentagon report, titled Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2011, paints a rather disturbing picture of future trends.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia Michael Schiffer said the pace and scope of China’s military buildup is “potentially destabilizing,” not only because of its new weaponry, but also because of a lack of transparency.
The US and China’s neighbors are understandably worried, so they have developed a two-fold response.
First, some of them are developing closer ties to the US to counter the growing military might of China. Second, they are also beefing up their own military forces as a credible deterrence.
For instance, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are reinforcing their defenses by buying new weapons and equipment, as well as renewing their defense ties with the US.
Vietnam and the US are creating new strategic linkages to counter China. The Philippines is invoking its defense alliance with the US in the face of China’s intrusions into its territorial waters around the islands it claims in the South China Sea.
If China continues to claim sovereignty over contested islands and waterways, and aggressively pursues domination over its neighbors, the Asia-Pacific region will face turbulent times in the years ahead.
China, though, will face tough resistance to its new Monroe Doctrine — named after former US president James Monroe, who formulated a doctrine in 1823 that forbade European powers from further colonizing the Western Hemisphere — for the region.
First, the US is unlikely to let China turn the region into its exclusive enclave. At the same time, China’s neighbors will not willingly become part of its newly formulated Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.
China should know that because it fought against Japan when the Japanese sought to impose military domination on China and the region.
Sushil Seth is a commentator in Australia.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —