Page 1 of
2 China
unbowed, vigilant and still
rising By Michael S Chase and
Benjamin S Purser III
On January 5, US
President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta released new defense strategic
guidance, highlighting national-defense priorities
and underscoring America's determination to
maintain its global leadership and military
superiority despite budgetary constraints. [1]
The strategy indicates that the United
States will continue to focus on counterterrorism,
and highlights the Asia-Pacific and Middle East
regions as key regional priorities. Specifically,
it states that the US military "will of necessity
rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region" in
keeping with the broader "pivot" toward that
region illustrated by Obama's Asia-Pacific trip
last November, progress toward the Trans-Pacific
Partnership economic agreement, and plans to
rotate US military forces through bases in
Australia - moves that many Chinese analysts have interpreted
as aimed at countering
Beijing's growing power and influence.
Within the context of a growing focus on
the Asia-Pacific region, the strategy notes that
China's emergence as a great power "will have the
potential to affect the US economy and our
security in a variety of ways", and the United
States and China "have a strong stake in peace and
stability in East Asia and an interest in building
a cooperative bilateral relationship". It also
highlights the need for transparency in China's
defense policies: "The growth of China's military
power must be accompanied by greater clarity of
its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing
friction in the region."
Moreover, the
strategy commits the United States to maintaining
the ability to operate effectively in the region
despite advances in Chinese military capabilities
aimed at countering US intervention. [2] In
addition, the strategic guidance underscores
long-standing and recently highlighted commitments
to enforce free use of international water space
(eg the South China Sea).
Given this focus
on China-related issues, analysts in that country
reacted with predictable concern about the
strategy itself and US intentions. Official
commentary highlighted the importance of
maintaining a stable US-China relationship, while
other analysts debated Washington's intentions
toward China, its ability to implement the new
strategy and how China should respond.
Chinese concerns Chinese
assessments of the strategy highlighted several
concerns about its implications for China.
First, analysts clearly interpreted the
strategy as further confirmation of a US shift in
strategic resources to the Asia-Pacific region. A
January 9 article in China Daily assessed the new
strategy as marking "an adjustment of the US
defense structure in an era of austerity and a
shift in its strategic priorities"; it further
concluded that the shift, with the new emphasis on
space, cyber, naval and air power - despite plans
to reduce defense spending - was a reflection of
America's supposed determination to extend its
hegemony to new domains and a "cause for grave
concern".
Chinese observers opined that
the United States was shifting its focus toward
Asia and the Pacific not only because the region
is an engine of economic growth, but also because
Washington is worried that China's emergence as a
great power will threaten US interests and
challenge its supremacy.
For example, a
January 7 PLA Daily article suggested the strategy
reflected Washington's growing concern about the
erosion of its superiority, which it described as
"supremacy anxiety". The same article stated that
the Pentagon was returning to a threat-based
planning model that increasingly emphasizes China.
Some Chinese analysts also suggested that whatever
the United States says about its motives, the
underlying intent is to "contain" China. In
People's Daily the same day, Rear Admiral Yang Yi
of the PLA's National Defense University opined
that the new strategy clearly targeted China and
Iran.
Similarly, Luo Yuan, deputy
secretary general of the China Association for
Military Science, warned that US actions in the
Asia-Pacific region were aimed at "containing
China's rise".
Other Chinese sources
paired grudging acceptance of the US role in the
region with concerns about Washington's intentions
toward China. For example, a January 9 China Daily
article stated that the United States "is more
than welcome [in the region], so long as it plays
a constructive role", and "both countries stand to
gain if they turn the Asia-Pacific into a region
of cooperation". It also warned, however, that
both countries would lose if Washington saw the
region "as a wrestling ring in which to contain
emerging powers like China".
Reflecting
broader debates within Chinese foreign- and
security-policy circles about the extent to which
the US is a declining power, at least relatively,
analysts also focused on the implications of
America's economic problems. Some scholars argued
that resource constraints would leave the United
States hard pressed to achieve its strategic
objectives in the Asia-Pacific region. Yang Yi in
the January 7 People's Daily article highlighted
what he characterized as the serious consequences
of the global financial crisis and the
overextension of the US military. According to
Yang, "The financial crisis, the economic
recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
have exhausted the comprehensive national power of
the United States." Similarly, in PLA Daily on
January 10, Luo Yuan opined that because of its
economic troubles and impending budget cuts, "what
the United States wants is one thing, whether or
not it can do it is another".
Official
responses from the ministries of National Defense
and Foreign Affairs focused on transparency. The
National Defense spokesman stated on January 9
that criticism of China in the new strategy was
"completely groundless" because the strategic
intentions motivating China's national-defense
modernization were "consistent and clear" (China
News Service). Similarly, on the same day a
Foreign Affairs spokesman declared that China's
strategic intentions were "clear, open and
transparent" (Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
Rather than responding directly to the
individual elements of the US strategic guidance,
Chinese scholars and analysts tended to
extrapolate on the potential results of its
implementation. For example, many addressed what
they portrayed as US "interference" aimed at
creating problems and exploiting tensions between
China and other countries in the region.
Yang Yi charged that the US was attempting
to portray the Asia-Pacific security situation as
a "mess" to intensify regional concerns about
China and "pave the way" for America's "return to
Asia". In addition, he cast the United States,
rather than China, as the "troublemaker" that was
responsible for recent regional instability
(People's Daily, January 7). Other commentators
also asserted that US "interference" had increased
regional tensions (China Daily, January 9).
The potential increase of such
"interference" initially motivated some Chinese
observers to suggest Beijing would need to take a
sober look at the US-China relationship. Along
these lines, a Global Times editorial cautioned
that Washington had firmly locked its strategic
attention on China and Beijing should be
"clear-headed" in dealing with the United States.
Furthermore, the editorial suggested that, because
Beijing is incapable of offsetting US concerns
about China's rise, it must deal with the United
States from a position of strength.
Such
comments reflected the discussion and debate that
immediately followed the release of the new US
defense guidance - not only about the implications
for the US-China relationship, but also about how
China ought to respond to growing US involvement
in the region.
Recommended
action Chinese sources highlighted a range
of potential responses to the new US defense
strategy. In the immediate wake of its release,
comments from scholars and analysts were varied,
with some recommending that China pursue a more
muscular response. A characteristically strident
Global Times editorial recommended using Iran to
constrain Washington's behavior: "The US strategic
adjustment should once again remind us of Iran's
importance to China. Whether we like this country
or not, its existence and its diplomatic strategy
form a strong check against the United
States."
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
