Hu
oils cogs to lock the US Asia
'pivot' By Brendan O'Reilly
The Chen Guangcheng drama overshadowed the
recent round of the United States-China Strategic
and Economic Dialogue (SED). This
media-friendly story of a blind activist being
oppressed in China revealed more about domestic
politics within the United States and China but
little about the potential for significant
geopolitical changes between the world's two
largest economies. The US-China SED is perhaps the
most important bilateral summit in the world. One
must read carefully into the statements made at
the SED in order to understand the changing
dynamic of US-China relations.
The latest
round of the SED brought together US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of the
Treasury Timothy
Geithner, Chinese
President Hu Jintao and a host of other
high-ranking American and Chinese officials in
Beijing late last week.
This was the first
SED since Clinton famously called for a US
strategic "pivot" towards Asia. The American
government has a stated policy objective to
perpetuate its dominance in Asia in all aspects.
The Barack Obama administration openly seeks "...
to lock in a substantially increased investment -
diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -
in the Asia-Pacific region." [1]
"Otherwise" in this context is almost
certainly a diplomatic term for "military". China
views this American strategy with suspicion - it
seems unlikely that such a major investment in
economic, political, and military effort is solely
aimed at containing North Korea.
Hu's
speech at the SED hints at deep, underlining
concerns on the Chinese side. The Chinese
government is keenly interested in avoiding
conflict with the United States at this time.
During his opening remarks at the SED, Hu made a
forceful appeal for the leaders of the two
countries to avoid the "outdated thinking" that
powerful countries must inevitably have an
adversarial relationship. He called for
unshakable, lasting cooperation:
"Whatever changes may take place in
the world, and no matter how the domestic
situations in our two countries may evolve,
China and the US should be firmly committed to
advancing a partnership of cooperation." [2]
Hu openly called for a durable
cooperation that can withstand any domestic or
international developments. Hu blamed the
difficulties in the relationship on the particular
qualities of the nations themselves, rather than
differences in objectives or interests: "Given the
different national conditions, it is impossible
for China and the US to see eye-to-eye on every
issue ..."
Herein lies the real substance
of Hu's words. The differences in "national
conditions" between the United States and China
are the main source of tensions. And what exactly
are the main differences in the national
situations in these two nations? Besides obvious
differences in history, culture, and political
systems, the main difference is in geopolitical
trajectory.
China is a growing global
power, while the United States is commonly
believed to be in relative decline. This trend is
especially evident with regards to the economies
of the respective nations. China's sustained,
rapid growth in its gross domestic product (GDP)
is a stark contrast to the ongoing economic
malaise in the United States.
Furthermore,
the United States has spent massive military,
economic, and political capital in the last decade
fighting the various conflicts of the so-called
"War on Terror" while the impressive economic
achievements in China are starting to have
profound strategic and military implications for
the entire world, especially the Asia-Pacific
region.
The US military is openly
concerned about the increasing military
expenditure in China. The US military claims that
China seeks "greater control of the sea lanes off
its coast and wants to protect the heavily
populated and increasingly wealthy cities on its
coast". [3] The Pentagon wants to boost military
capabilities in order to effectively project
United States power into China's coast and counter
China's defensive measures.
With regards
to increased Chinese military investments, the New
York Times also mentions: "That gap has reinforced
the realization that the United States may not
remain the singularly dominant power in the
Asia-Pacific region if Chinese military spending
keeps escalating." [4]
It is in this
geopolitical situation that we can understand the
Obama administration's much-touted "Asian pivot"
and Hu's call for sustained peace and cooperation
at the SED.
Imperialism by any other
name China has a clear interest in
challenging the United States' self-perceived
position as the "singularly dominant power" in
China's backyard. How would regional and world
powers react if China sought to become the
"dominant power" in, for example, South America?
This scenario is not as far-fetched as it
may seem. Just as many of China's neighbors have
worries about China's increasing dominance, many
nations in South America have a historically
uneasy relationship with Brazil. If China
stationed tens of thousands of soldiers in the
nations that border Brazil with the goal of
containing Brazil's rising power, then the Chinese
could hardly be surprised when the Brazilians
started expanding their own military capabilities
for defensive purposes.
This thought
experiment becomes much more interesting if Brazil
was the largest purchaser of China's government
debt.
From China's viewpoint, the US
"pivot" towards Asia is an aggressive stance meant
to threaten and contain China. These troops serve
no purpose in defending America from attack. The
planned deployment of 2,500 marines to Western
Australia, naval cooperation with the Philippines,
the open goal of increasing the United States'
naval capabilities on China's coastline, and the
continued presence of roughly 50,000 US military
personnel in Japan are all seen as unnecessary
provocations. One can imagine the American
response if China stationed massive military
forces in the Caribbean.
Nevertheless,
China has no interest in military confrontation
with either its regional neighbors or the United
States in the short to medium term. Instead, China
is focused on internal economic development and
domestic stability. China has no interest in
foreign adventurism so long as it continues its
rapid economic growth - economic growth, it should
be noted, that relies heavily on international
trade. The ongoing military buildup by the Chinese
government is meant primarily to project power
into the South China Sea, an area that China views
as its own integral territory, and deter any
outside interference.
The contentious
issue of sovereignty in the South China Sea is the
most obvious area in which the United States sees
an opportunity to roll back China's growing
influence. China claims the South China Sea in its
entirety as an integral part of China itself. This
claim is disputed by the Philippines, Vietnam,
Brunei, and Malaysia. These countries, especially
the Philippines, seek US support in order to
effective challenge Chinese power.
A
recent military standoff between Philippines and
China in the South China Sea exemplifies the
security issues that trouble China-US relations.
In March Chinese naval vessels reportedly
threatened to ram a Filipino research ship in the
disputed waters, prompting the Filipino military
to dispatch its navy and air force to the scene of
the confrontation.
After this incident,
the Philippines government has sought increased
military cooperation with the United States, and
the US has seized the opening to project its
power. The US proposed sending PC3 Orion spy
planes to patrol the area on the Philippine's
behalf. [5] Clinton, in a recent trip to Manila,
even went as far as to call the disputed maritime
region "The West Philippines Sea".
China
views these developments as a direct threat to
Chinese authority. China claims the South China
Sea it its entirety; therefore by projecting power
into the region China believes it is merely
protecting its own sovereignty. From the Chinese
perspective, the territorial disputes in the South
China Sea are a series of bilateral issues between
China and the other relevant nations.
The
Chinese government views American involvement as a
provocative interference and a threat to China's
internal security. China is expanding its military
capabilities in order to counter US forces in and
around what China views as its territorial waters.
China fears that Washington may wish to instigate
conflict in the South China Sea in the near term,
while the United States is still in a position of
relative power.
China's strategy:
Economic development and integration Despite the ongoing tensions in the South
China Sea, China does not view the United States
as an inherent adversary. Bilateral trade between
the United States and China stands at roughly $450
billion a year, constituting the largest trade
relationship between two countries in human
history. Massive investments flow between the two
countries. Tens of thousands of Chinese students
graduate from US universities every year. Many
American businesspeople, professionals, and young
college graduates view China as a land of economic
opportunity.
It is interesting to note
that all of the major agreements reached at the
latest round of the US-China SED were related to
trade and investment. The most profound policy
change to come out of the SED was the Chinese
decision to "allow foreign investors to raise
their stakes in joint venture securities companies
and joint venture futures companies to as much as
49%". [6]
This is a significant change
from the previous cap for foreign ownership in
securities firms of 33%. Policies such as these
reveal the most important facet of Chinese
geopolitical strategy.
The economic aspect
of the China-US relationship is highly valued by
both sides. Treasury Secretary Geithner even made
public rare American praise for Beijing's economic
policy at the SED, saying that "China has acted to
move toward a more flexible exchange rate system
in which the market plays a greater role. It is
intervening less in exchange markets. China is
also moving to liberalize controls on the
international use of its currency and on capital
movements into and out of the country." [7]
Clearly, US-China relations are still far
from a zero-sum game.
China, while
increasing her martial capabilities, employs a
subtler tactic for efficiently countering US
military and political dominance. China is seeking
to further integrate the two nations' economies.
The United States and China already heavily rely
on each other economically. China wants to ensure
that any military conflict can be avoided not only
through the means of a credible deterrence, but
also by economic self-interest. As Hu said at the
opening of the SED:
We should, through creative thinking
and concrete action, prove that the traditional
belief that big powers are bound to enter into
confrontation and conflict is wrong and seek new
ways of developing relations between major
countries in the era of economic
globalization.
A military
confrontation between the world's most powerful
nations would inevitably result in a historically
unprecedented international economic crisis.
Neither country's political leadership would stand
to benefit.
As the eurozone malaise
deepens, China and America need each other more
than ever before. So long as China can increase
its power through economic development, it has no
interest in international conflict.
China
cannot hope to match America's military might in
the medium term, so the Chinese government wants
to effectively disarm America's tactical advantage
by creating a situation of near-total economic
mutual-dependence.
A clear message emerges
from the diplomatic pleasantries of the SED. China
seeks to create a new world order in which major
powers' military conflict is rendered obsolete by
economic integration.
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
