Assessing Current Asia-Pacific Political Situation

ZHANG YUNLING

Member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Director of the Academic Division of International Studies, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and President of China Society of Asia-Pacific Studies

Assessing Current Asia-Pacific Political Situation

ZHANG YUNLING

Member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Director of the Academic Division of International Studies, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and President of China Society of Asia-Pacific Studies

CHINA-US STRATEGIC CONTEST MOST WORRYING

The China-US relations attract most attention of the world, being also most worrying. In recent years, particularly since the outset of 2016, the strategic contest between the two countries is on the increase, seeming to head for antagonism. Since announcing its “rebalancing Asia-Pacific” and “pivot to Asia strategy”, the United States has taken more and more major measures against China as its principal adversary. In economic terms, it has led the TPP talks, President Obama making pubic that the US would lead the writing of rules rather than let China do so. In security terms, the US has sent armadas of warships and warplanes to show off its muscle in the South China Sea, supported the Philippines to unilaterally submit its dispute with China for international arbitration and bought off the ROK for the deployment of its THAAD system, enhancing theater missile defense capabilities. For countermeasures, China has accelerating the implementation of Free Trade Area strategy in economic field, actively participating and advancing negotiations for Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), promoting and launching the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and putting forward the Belt and Road initiative. In security field, it has reclaimed land on islands and rocks in the South China Sea, conducted large-scale war games in the South and East China Seas and given stern warnings to the ROK against the deployment of the THAAD system. Quite a few people fear that the escalation of Sino-American strategic contest may lead to conflicts and that such escalation and especially conflicts bodes disasters for the whole Asian-Pacific region.

On June 20, 2016, the Chinese and the American navy held a joint military exercise on the West Pacific Ocean. The photo shows Chinese and American vessels in the RimPac2016.

Why should the US have made such haste and fanfare to do the above? There are several attributes. In economic terms, the major crisis the US undergoes has made it urgent and necessary for it to begin “strategic readjustment”, the greatest imperative being to cope with competition from China and other emerging economies. The US is compelled to lead in making new rules and to reestablish its competitive advantage by raising the threshold for others’ access to the market. In security terms, the rapid ascendance of China’s comprehensive national strength has worried the US lest it be squeezed, endangering its leading position, and therefore it has, on the one hand, deployed more of its naval and air forces to the West Pacific and, on the other, created confusion for opportunity to get actively involved. The shadow of the US is both up front and behind tensions between China and Japan, China and the Philippines and China and the ROK. It is clear that both in economic terms and in security and regional-relation terms, the US has taken China for the principal competitor and most direct threat to its interest and position, which underlines the antagonistic nature of US strategic design and conduct.

How to assess the China-US relations under this situation? To be realistic, such a strategic antagonism runs a big risk and it is liable to trigger off conflicts either by accident or when things are out of control. However, the Sino-American relationship is a complex and multifaceted one, conditioned by factors in multiple fields, there being both the side of contest and antagonism and the side of consultation and cooperation, not only the side of all set for a showdown but also the side of sitdown to talk for consensus. China and the US are two major countries not only differing significantly from one another with contradicting strategic goals but also being mutually interdependent. From this perspective, what both countries face and need to handle is a new type of major-country relationship. In fact, it is precisely because of this that it is necessary and possible to promote the construction of a new model of major-country relationship between the two, the core content of which is “mutual respect, non-conflict, non-antagonism and mutually beneficial cooperation”. It is China’s initiative and though the US authorities have not openly acknowledged its acceptance, things are in fact understood clearly as it is also in the interest of the US. Further than this, there are no better options.

The Asian-Pacific region is both the point of convergence of Sino-American contradictions and that of their interests. Both sides understand the basics that it is inevitable for them to be in contest but it is also necessary for them to work out space for joint cooperation. Indeed, the construction of a new model of major-power relationship is to keep a balance between contest and cooperation. At the same time, multiple mechanisms have been in place in the Asian-Pacific regions, which play a positive balancing role in constraining excessive US actions and building a platform for consultation and cooperation between China and the US. As such, there are no conditions for a “new Cold War” or a “hot war” to happen between the two countries. The double tracks of contest and cooperation will go on leading the bilateral relations.

SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTES BEING COOkED-UP

Originally, the South China Sea disputes are a matter between China and the concerned Southeast-Asian countries. Owing to various reasons, they have been internationalized and given rise to a contest between multiple forces that becomes normal and chronicle in character.

In “pivot to Asia” and “rebalancing the Asia-Pacific”, the US has taken the South China Sea as a point of strategic attack. By alleging China to be a game changer and to seek hegemony, the US has not only achieved power of persuasion but also established itself as “protector of the regional order”. Making use of strategic misgivings and even strategic fears of China by its allies and other countries, the US has availed itself of the issue of South China Sea to acquire “rationality” to expand its activities including military ones. Some of the countries in dispute and contradictions with China have also used the US to pressure China, lining up with US actions. In recent years, some of the countries in dispute with China over the South China Sea such as Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia have intensified their efforts to counter China by building on occupied isles and rocks, self-demarking exclusive economic zones and denying China’s entry. As they cannot hold a candle to China particularly for directconfrontation, they have opted to the following strategy, to keep what they have occupied and to get the involvement of forces beyond the region. The international opinions tend to be “in sympathy with the weak” and more often than not to unduly lock China in the position of being the bad guy. The Philippines has done both things at the same time: to seek the power of persuasion (by submitting China for international arbitration) and bring on the US involvement (by providing military bases) while avoiding direct confrontation with China in military terms as best as it can. Vietnam has the biggest appetite, effectively reinforcing its occupation, bringing in multilateral involvement and striking up a united front to put pressure on China while also avoiding direct confrontation with China. Malaysia has all along kept a strategy of “low-profile maneuvers”, to maintaining a stable relationship with China while enhancing development and utilization of occupied isles and rocks. It is obvious that the main strategy of concerned countries is first, to prevent the status quo of the occupied territories from being forcefully altered by China and secondly, to bring on forces beyond the region to check and balance China’s control of the waters. Standing on long historical accretions and practical complicities, the issue of the South China Sea involves core national interest of territories and maritime rights. Not only are there overlapping contradictions and interest of countries directly involved but also a source of inalienable interest of countries beyond the region. As such, it is very difficult to find a solution, especially since it has already been internationalized and subject to the influence of external factors. On the South China Sea disputes, China persists in the position of peaceful solution through negotiations and conducting bilateral negotiations with concerned countries, which is supportable for the international community and its mainstay opinions in moral and political terms. However, it is liable to encounter practical obstacles to insist on the position of “bilateral negotiations” only, as control and claim over isles and rocks and maritime rights overlap various parties. Therefore, it may be considered in the future to promote a principle of double tracks on “bilateral negotiations and multilateral consultations”, the former being the principal, and the latter, a supplement, which can well accompany a greater “double-track”principle that has been promoted by China namely that it is for China and countries concerned to conduct direct negotiations and for China and the ASEAN to cooperate on maintaining the situation.

The South China Sea is a great sealane for international navigation and it involves national interests of China and other countries to keep the South China Sea open and for free and safe navigation. It is in the interest of all countries to prevent the disputes from escalating, especially to prevent war from happening. China should be the principal country in providing “public goods” of unimpeded and safe navigation for all countries in the region and all stake-holding countries. Such “public goods” include, first to provide and deploy the forces for maintaining regional stability and secondly to provide facilities, equipment and information that serve the region. For the former, while enhancing its own capability building, China may, of its own accord, call for the establishment of mechanisms for South China Sea security cooperation, some of the areas having already been put forward by the Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea between China and the ASEAN countries which need to be better implemented. For the latter, China has already declared that the facilities built on the isles and rocks of the Nansha Islands will provide public services for all countries, facilities like lighthouses, a tsunami forecasting center and a hospital being open to anyone. The contests and competition centering on the issue of the South China Sea will go on but, at the same time, room for maneuver is quite sizable. In taking actions to uphold its national interest in the South China Sea, China should closely link its regional strategy with its global strategy, keeping in line with two major aspects, one being the environment for peace and development and the other, cooperation with the ASEAN countries.

The issue of the South China Sea has become a hot-spot one. It has escalated with the Philippines unilaterally submitting the case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and vigorous US involvement. Especially when the PCA delivered its so-called final award, people were worried that the tension could have intensified and even led to a war. However, since then the conflict has not escalated, nay, it has cooled off. Particularly, the foreign ministers of China and the ASEAN countries have come up with a joint statement for comprehensive, effective implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, emphasizing on peaceful resolution of disputes through friendly consultation and negotiations between directly concerned sovereign countries and calling for “all other countries to respect the principles included in the Declaration” without mentioning the PCA award. At the series of East Asia Summits held between September 7 and 8, China was not subject to attacks relating to the so-called PCA arbitration. The facts illustrate that the overall situation of the South China Sea is controllable, there being a great consensus to maintain regional stability.

INCESSANT OCCURRENCES OF NORTHEAST ASIA

Although it is a long time since the Cold War ended, the “hot war”in Northeast Asia is yet to cool down which, in the main, is referred to the fact that the confrontation between the North and South Koreas has kept escalating, that the US has strengthened the layout of its military capacities and alliance system, that Japan has attempted to revise its peaceful constitution, and especially that the DPRK has made up its mind to become a nuclear power and to step up the development of its missile capabilities. Furthermore, the US deployments of its THAAD sys-tem in the ROK, and the intensifying dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands have made matters still worse. All this gives rise to incessant crises in the situation of Northeast Asia.

The issue of the Korean Peninsula becomes the hot spot of all standing hot spots, risks of mishap being on the rise. As the Cold War ended, the US listed the DPRK as one of the axis of evil countries along with Iraq, Iran and Libya. The rulers of Iraq and Libya have been dislodged by the US, which compels the DPRK leader to accelerate the development of nuclear weapons, being considered a shield in regime protection. China has pushed for the Six-Party Talks aiming at eliminating nuclear capabilities of the DPRK and building peace in the Korean Peninsula, which once turned around the situation, from fierce antagonism to relaxation by producing a signed agreement. However, as the US had made no major readjustment to its basic Korea policy and the DPRK was not truly prepared for denuclearization, the reached agreement was discarded. Thus, the US continues to step up pressures on the DPRK whereas the DPRK continues to raise the level of its nuclear weapons. As a result, the Korean Peninsula situation has not only fallen into predicaments but also escalated as a spiraling crisis. The US asks the DPRK to abandon nuclear capabilities to begin with whereas the latter asks the former to change its policy first and the ROK politics makes turnabouts now and then, which at the moment has returned to the beaten track of relying on the US to constrain the DPRK.

The tension and confrontation in the Korean Peninsula situation poses no threats to the homeland of the US but provides it with room for maneuvering and basis for it to keep a lasting presence. In this regard, the Korean nuclear issue has conversely played into the hands of the US as the raison d’être for “pivot to Asia” and a readyfor-use tool. It is most disturbing that facing a crescendo of pressures (including increased sanctions and US-ROK war games), the possibilities of adventurous and pushy actions taken by the DPRK are on the increase, so are also the possibilities of war and confusion there, running a huge risk of nuclear catastrophe. As such, China is opposed to the DPRK possessing nuclear weapons, standing for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and vigorously advancing the mechanism of Six-Party Talks, which is aimed at a soft landing of the confrontation in the peninsula and in search of peace-building mechanisms for Northeast Asia. However, the root cause of the Korean Peninsula issue is the US policy and the antagonism between the North and South, which have largely constrained China’s efforts. In fact, the US Korea policy is not limited to hostility to the DPRK but involves its interest layout, alliance system and influence in the Korean Peninsula and even the whole Northeast Asia. More important, it involves its long-term considerations of how to deal with the ascendance of China’s comprehensive national strength. Therefore, it is no easy matter for the US to change its course. From this perspective, as it takes time to resolve the issue of the Korean Peninsula, the priority should be to prevent chaos and war from happening, to seek a new balance in incessant occurrences of crises and to create an environment for cooling down, consultation and cooperation. However, it is rather difficult to create such an environment at the moment as the deployment of the THAAD system by the US and the ROK has made a new change of the pattern of regional relationship, which induces new variables in the China-ROK relations whereas the fifth nuclear test by the DPRK once more attested to the fact that the track of spiraling crisis of the Korean Peninsula keeps going.

The prospect of China-Japan relations remains unoptimistic. To begin with, the contest between the two countries goes on over the Diaoyu Islands, the development of resources in the East China Sea and the build-up of security capabilities. At the same time, the political will of Japan to take China for its main threat remains strong with well targeted political design and operation, making its contradictions with China goes beyond bilateralism. For instance, Japan has enhanced its support for US pivot to Asia strategy, endeavored to instigate the South China Sea international arbitration and alleged“China threats” on various occasions, which casts a dark shadow on China-Japan relations.

In Northeast Asia, mechanisms for regional cooperation have in place originally. However, the Six-Party Talks has ceased to operate for years. Affected by political relations, the China-Japan-ROK leaders meeting has been stop and go, unable to play its due role. Rather, a relatively active regional mechanism is none other than the military alliance led by the US and participated by Japan and the ROK. The situation is disturbing. Some people are even worried lest Northeast Asia fall into a new confrontation with the US, Japan and the ROK on one side and China, Russia and the DPRK on the other. This author believes that such a structure of great confrontation will not take shape. But lacking regional cooperative consultation and coordination, the Northeast Asian relationship runs the risk of things getting out of control.

Northeast Asia is an area where China holds a major stake, an area that has brought the country into the vortexes of war for several times. As such, denial and prevention of chaos and war from occurring is the primary goal and direction for China’s diplomatic efforts in the region. In the future, China will make still greater efforts in this direction. However, as it takes two to tango, peace and cooperation need various parties to make concerted efforts and share responsibilities. Conversely, in a region where various interests overlap, more often than not, making risks a top story indeed helps concerned parties to cool down, reflect and explore a way out to avert the risks. Therefore, it is necessary to calmly observe developments of the Northeast Asian situation and to prevent the media from helping tension escalate and out of control by cooking for the headlines.