Source: Daily TimesS P Seth
As part of a new resolve to play a more assertive role, the US
has reinforced and strengthened its strategic ties with Vietnam, the
Philippines, India, Australia and Japan.
It is pertinent to remember that wars have often been caused
by miscalculation rather than deliberation. And this is even more so
when an emerging power is staking its claims impinging on the existing
superpower’s perceived interests and/or seen to be threatening its
regional allies. This is how the two World Wars started.
Even as Iran has come centre-stage of another likely military
conflict in the Middle East with the US and its western allies
determined to force it to forgo its nuclear programme, the Asia-Pacific
region is emerging as another potential trouble spot pitting China
against the US. With the US now disengaged from Iraq, and in the process
of military withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014, it has dawned on
Washington that China has strengthened its role in the Asia-Pacific and
is slowly, but steadily, working to push it out of the region. China
regards the Asia-Pacific as its strategic space and the US as an
external power. The US has decided to hit back by declaring that it is
not going anywhere and, indeed, will beef up its military presence in
the region. Straddling both the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans, the US
considers itself a legitimate Pacific country.
US-China relations have never been easy. They are likely to become
even more complicated after the recent announcement of a US defence
review that prioritises the Asia-Pacific region. Even though the review
seeks to make sizeable cuts of about $500 billion in the US’s defence
budget over the next 10 years, it would not be at the cost of its
engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, as President Obama told
reporters, “We will be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific…”
Washington’s decision to make the Asia-Pacific a priority strategic
area was presaged during Obama’s recent visit to Australia. He hit out
at China on a wide range of issues, while announcing an enhanced US
role, including the use of Australian bases/facilities for an effective
military presence. He urged China to act like a “grown up” and play by
the rules. Elaborating on this in an address to the Australian
parliament, he said, “We need growth that is fair, where every nation
plays by the rules; where workers’ rights are respected and our
businesses can compete on a level playing field; where the intellectual
property and new technologies that fuel innovation are protected; and
where currencies are market-driven, so no nation has an unfair
advantage.”
This catalogue of US economic grievances against China has been the
subject of intermittent discussions between the two countries without
any satisfactory results. On the question of human rights and freedoms
in China, Obama said, “Prosperity without freedom is just another form
of poverty.”
The US is upping the ante in its relations with China, with
Asia-Pacific centre-stage. It does not accept China’s sovereignty claims
in the South China Sea and its island chains. This has caused naval
incidents with Vietnam, the Philippines, and with Japan in the East
China Sea, and a close naval skirmish or two with the US. As part of a
new resolve to play a more assertive role, the US has reinforced and
strengthened its strategic ties with Vietnam, the Philippines, India,
Australia and Japan.
In announcing cuts to the defence budget over the next decade,
President Obama seemed keen to dispel the notion that this would make
the US a lesser military power. He said, “The world must know — the US
is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are
agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and
threats.”
The US’s continued military superiority has a catch though, which is
that the US will be adjusting its long-standing doctrine of being able
to wage two wars simultaneously. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta
maintains that the US military would still be able to confront more than
one threat at a time by being more flexible and adaptable than in the
past.
Be that as it may, the increased focus on Asia-Pacific has upset
China. Its hope of making the region into its own strategic backyard,
with the US distracted in the Middle East and its economy in the
doldrums, might not be that easy with the new US strategic doctrine
prioritising Asia-Pacific. Not surprisingly, the Chinese media has not
reacted kindly to it. According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua, “…the
US should abstain from flexing its muscles, as this will not help solve
regional disputes.” It added, “If the US indiscreetly applies
militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop
[literally and figuratively], and endanger peace instead of enhancing
regional stability.”
The Global Times called on the Chinese government to develop more long-range strike weapons to deter the US Navy.
Australia, the US’s closet regional ally, fears that China’s rising
economic and military power has the potential of destabilising the
region. Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd hopes though (as he told the Asia
Society in New York) that there was “nothing inevitable” about a future
war between the US and China, emphasising the need to craft a regional
architecture that recognised the coexistence of both countries, and the
acceptance of US alliances in the region. He also saw hope (as a
counterpoint to China) in the “collective economic might of Japan,
India, Korea, Indonesia and Australia,” which means that, hopefully,
China’s perceived threat might be balanced and contained with the US’s
enhanced commitment to the region, and the rising clout of a cluster of
regional countries.
There are any number of issues that could become a flashpoint for
future conflict, like Taiwan, Korea, the South China Sea and its
islands, the maritime dispute with Japan and so on. With China
determined to uphold its ‘core’ national interests, and the US and
others equally committed to, for instance, freedom of navigation through
the South China Sea, it only needs a spark to ignite a prairie fire.
As it is, neither China nor the US wants military conflict between
their two countries. China’s official position was expounded the other
day in Beijing by its Vice-President Xi Jinping, who is also the
country’s president-in-waiting. Xi, who is expected to visit the US next
month, hoped that “the US can view China’s strategic intentions…in a
sensible and objective way, and be committed to develop a cooperative
partnership”. And he emphasised that: “Ultimate caution should be given
to major and sensitive issues that concern each country’s core interests
to avoid any distraction and setbacks in China-US relations.”
The problem, though, is that when it comes to ‘core interests’,
objectivity is generally the first casualty. For instance, the US
complains that China’s strategic doctrine, if there is one, lacks
transparency. The double-digit growth in China’s defence budget, as
viewed in Washington, is way beyond its defensive needs. On the other
hand, the US has the largest defence budget of any country in the world.
It is pertinent to remember that wars have often been caused by
miscalculation rather than deliberation. And this is even more so when
an emerging power is staking its claims impinging on the existing
superpower’s perceived interests and/or seen to be threatening its
regional allies. This is how the two World Wars started.
One can only hope that China and the US will carve out a new peaceful
way of coexistence and cooperation, though the past experience in such
situations is not very encouraging. Indeed, it points to the
inevitability of a potential military conflict sooner or later.
The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia.
