Is US-China Collision Inevitable?

By S P SETH

Even as Iran has become the center 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 program, Asia-Pacific region is emerging as another potential trouble spot pitting China against the United States. 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 Asia-Pacific and is slowly, but steadily, working to push it out of the region. China regards Asia-Pacific as its strategic space and the United States 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 defense review that prioritizes Asia-Pacific region. Even though the review seeks to make sizeable cuts of about $500 billion in the US’s defense budget over the next ten years, it wouldn’t be at the cost of its engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, as President Obama told reporters, “We’ll be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific…”

Washington’s decision to make 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 as the centre stage. It doesn’t accept China’s sovereignty claims in 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 United States. As part a new resolve to play a more assertive role, the United States has reinforced and strengthened its strategic ties with Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Australia and Japan.

In announcing cuts to defense 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 United States 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. Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, maintains, though, 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 doldrums, might not be that easy with the new US strategic doctrine prioritizing Asia-Pacific. Not surprisingly, the Chinese media hasn’t reacted kindly to it. According to the Chinese news agency, Xinhua, “… the United States should abstain from flexing its muscles, as this won’t help solve regional disputes.” It added, “ If the United States 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, US’s closet regional ally, fears that China’s rising economic and military power has the potential of destabilizing the region. Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, though, hopes (as he told the Asia Society in New York) that there was “nothing inevitable” about a future war between the US and China, emphasizing the need to craft a regional architecture that recognized 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 “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, South China Sea and its islands, 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 South China Sea, it only needs a spark to ignite the prairie fire.

As it is, neither China nor the United States want 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 United States 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 emphasized 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 defense budget, as viewed in Washington, is way beyond its defensive needs. On the other hand, the US has the largest defense 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 an inevitability of a potential military conflict sooner or later.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.