Awais Abbasi
Assignment: Research Article Subject: Foreign Policy Analysis Submitted to: Sir Omer Abbasi
Chinese Response to U.S. Asia Pacific Pivot Policy
Submitted By: Awais Zahid Abbasi Date: 30th April, 2015
National Defense University, Islamabad
Digitally signed by Awais Abbasi DN: cn=Awais Abbasi gn=Awais Abbasi c=Pakistan l=PK o=National Defence university ou=NDU
[email protected] Reason: I am the author of this document Location: Date: 2015-07-13 03:56+05:00
Introduction: U.S. Asia pacific pivot policy is the current and major topic of discussion in contemporary world among researchers, analysts, practitioners and strategists. The Asia Pacific region extends from the Indian Subcontinent to American West Coast. Being rich in resources and availability of large market in this region became more significant after 2010 for major players including United States of America. In the Fall of 2011, the Obama Administration announced that it would expand and intensify the U.S. role in the Asia-Pacific region, and that “the center of gravity for U.S. foreign policy, national security, and economic interests is shifting towards Asia,”1 a move that was later to be labeled as the U.S. “pivot” or “rebalancing”2 in respect to Asia. The question is why USA took this shift of rebalancing? The article attempts to provide an analysis of the growing significance of the Asia-Pacific region to the United States‟ and her interests, but also a response to the increasing power of China. To some degree, the U.S. pivot has triggered some distrust and may have negative consequences in the region, but from another perspective it is understood as extending strategic reassurance to U.S. allies and partners in the region. However, more than three years after the announcement of the realignment of U.S. policy, the overall state of relations between the U.S. and China has generally been fairly smooth. Asia Pacific region is of great significance to People‟s Republic of China which has recently emerged as the world's largest economy superseding super power. There are certain places in Asia-Pacific which are very critical for China such as, Diayu/Senkaku Island where China has maintained her hegemony and Japan wants to take it back. So by keeping all these facts in view one would wonder that after U.S. Asia pacific pivot what is the response of China or how it has affected the China‟s politics in the region? The main subject of this research article which will give an insight to Chinese response under the lens of theoretical paradigms International Relations. The article is divided in two main sections. Section one will explain a personal opinion about U.S. Pivot as a threat to china and Section two will analyze the Chinese dual
1
Justyna Szczudlik, "China’s Response to the United States’ Asia–Pacific Strategy"
2
Ibid.
response with the help of some statements from the Chinese officials and the actions of Government in response to U.S. actions.
Theoretical Framework: To analyze the subject of the research two main paradigms of International Relations are employed. Section one of this article will take help from neo-realism to justify the claim that China is threatened with the presence of super power in the neighborhood. Later section will use the lens of Defensive Realism to justify the military actions of People‟s Republic of China in response to U.S. pivot and also, this article will use the help of Robert Kohen and Joseph Nye‟s theory of complex interdependence to explain the major steps taken by China in response to this policy. Neo-realism is derived from classical realism, but its focus is on the anarchic structure of the international system, instead of human nature. It explains that due to anarchic structure when „State A‟ raises its military power it creates a security dilemma for other states by lowering the relative power capabilities of „State B‟. Neo-realists agree that the structure of international relations is the primary influence on how states go about seeking security. However, there are different opinions among neo-realist scholars as to whether states merely aim to survive or whether states want to maximize their relative power. The former represents the ideas of Waltzian school of defensive realism, while the latter represents John Mearsheimer approach of offensive realism. Defensive realism predicts that the anarchy of the international system causes states to become obsessed with security. In order to overcome the inevitable “security dilemma,” states will try to preserve the balance of power and “maintain their position in the system,” instead of gaining power through offensive actions. According to Kenneth Waltz “Security competition and interstate conflicts due to relative Power capabilities under anarchical structure fosters fear and suspicion among states.”3 3
Steve Wayne, " U.S. Pivot and Implications on China”
Another theory which explains my subject of research in section two about Chinese soft response to U.S. pivot is the Complex Interdependence theory given by Robert Kohen and Joseph Nye. Complex Interdependence is the phenomenon which can be stated as the “market integration and management of inter-national economic inter-dependencies.”4 Complex Interdependence theory explains that States interact over many kinds of issues. War and security isn‟t the only issue but there are other issues which are also of major concerns to states like Economics, environmental issues, etc. it states, that there is no hierarchy of issues in the interstate relations, hence the state foreign policy is not predominated by the security issue but cooperation and interdependence between states in one sector leads to cooperation in other sectors through the spillover effect. And it in the presence of security dilemma states try to overcome it by using military power as politically in form of alliances and strategic partnerships. Literature Review: While reviewing available literature related to the subject of the Asia Pacific many critical statements and facts regarding U.S. intentions over pacific pivot policy were found, as Michael D. Swaine in his article “Chinese Leadership and Elite Responses to the U.S. Pacific Pivot” said that none of the moves taken by U.S. are representing the containment, encircling or counterbalancing the China but it‟s a move to reassure allies of U.S. staying power and commitment. In another article "China’s Response to the United States’ Asia–Pacific Strategy", the writer Justyna Szczudlik-Tatar said that the People‟s Republic of China believes that the aim of the Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership is not only to increase U.S. export and attract investments, but also to strengthen political influence over the region and to contain China. A professor in Stanford University named Steve Wayne in his article “U.S. Pivot and Implications on China” mentioned that Asia diplomacy is more confrontational than the policies pursued by Clinton and Bush, who focused mainly on economic and security issues in Northeast Asia through alliances with South Korea and Japan. Joao Arthur Reis, in his article “China's dual response to the US 'pivot'” in an online journal said that this pivot to the Asia-Pacific potentially has a dual character: it can be part of an
4
Justyna Szczudlik, "China’s Response to the United States’ Asia–Pacific Strategy"
engagement strategy with the region and increase of its presence, as well as be part of a China containment strategy. While explaining the importance of China-Russia Relationship in the midst of U.S. pivot on Pacific region, the writer Dr. Ming-Hsien WONG, in his article "The analysis of Asia-Pacific security environment after US rebalancing strategy from the social constructivist perspective" stated that the linkage between China and Russia will impact US dominance in Asia-Pacific region, since those two countries have built up constructive strategic cooperation relationship. Simon Reigh in his Book “Good-Bye Hegemony” stated that In the last 20 years, the U.S. perceived China as a country which could collapse or at least be transformed according to foreign rules. However, due to the steady rise of the PRC, these perceptions were replaced by an idea of a “conforming China.” As none of these prophecies were fulfilled, the U.S. now wants to constrain the PRC.
Section 1: U.S. Pivot Policy, a Threat to China U.S. pivot policy in Pacific Ocean can be analyzed as a threat for China due to certain indictors which are mentioned later. Pacific Ocean is the region of dominance for PRC and before the entry of United states of America in the region it was stable and in favor of PRC but later its balance of power was disturbed with the presence of a super power in the neighborhood. These facts can be clearly observed through the statement of U.S. Secretary of defense in 2012 which he delivered in a press conference that “By 2020 the Navy will re-posture its forces from today‟s roughly 50/50 percent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about 60/40 split between those oceans.”5 U.S. involvement in East Asia Summit (EAS) and signing of free trade agreement of nine-nation Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, cooperation and trade agreements through ASEAN has also threatened China Economically. The United States of America believes that this region can be an ultimate source to recover its economy shortfall and to reduce unemployment. Before U.S. Pivot, People‟s Republic of China was the sole beneficiary of all these cooperation happening through the platform of ASEAN and other bilateral and multilateral 5
Dr. Ming-Hsien WONG, "The analysis of Asia-Pacific security environment after US rebalancing strategy from the social constructivist perspective"
cooperation agreements, but now with the current development it has created more space for other states present in Pacific region by increasing their option either to go with USA or China and by lowering power capabilities of PRC. U.S-South Korea free trade agreement (KORUS), deployment of U.S. Marines in Australia, establishment of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, Naval exercises with six ASEAN countries (Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Brunei), Selling of jet fighter planes to Indonesia, deployment of the first U.S. littoral combat ship in Singapore in 2013 and Hillary Clinton‟s visit to Myanmar to restore bilateral ties, All these steps taken by U.S. in the pacific region has left China in a critical position and threatened.
Section 2: Dual Response of China to U.S. Pacific Pivot While looking at U.S. actions been taken in Pacific pivot policy one can assume that china should response in hostile way but after looking at different statements from Chinese Officials, Elite Groups, People‟s Liberation Army, Official news channels of China and Ministry of Foreign affairs, one will easily analyze that China‟s response to U.S. Pivot was very soft and diplomatic. China Believes in Peaceful coexistence and cooperation led negotiations with all actors including USA and Japan. President of China, Xi Jinping issued a statement in response to announcement of U.S. Pivot in pacific by Obama Administration asserting that “China welcomes a constructive role by the US in promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the Asia Pacific” while “at the same time, we hope the US will respect the interests and concerns of China and other countries in the region”6. One can analyze this statement of Chinese president as a welcome note for U.S. Pivot. China seems to have delineated a two-pronged strategy in response that became more apparent recently. On the one hand, it has approached Southeast Asian and Central Asian states, proposing the establishment of two "Silk Roads" through the signing of investment, infrastructure-building and free-trade agreements by following a “March West Strategy”: A term used by Harvard Professor. On the other, it has reinforced an assertive posture against the Philippines and Japan, 6
Steve Wayne, " U.S. Pivot and Implications on China”
countries which are more aligned to a strategy for containing China in the region. Chinese military buildup to 30% after the announcement of U.S. Pacific Pivot can be assumed as a hard response from China in order to defend its security and to minimize the security dilemma created with the presence of super power in the neighborhood. In response to U.S. Japan Treaty over Senkaku Island, a Chinese official from Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that “the US-Japan Security Treaty should not go beyond the bilateral framework, undermine the interests of a third party, and take a position over sovereignty of the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands.”7 At one side it is a soft response but on the other side PRC tested Stealth Fighter jet on the visit of U.S. Secretary of defense Visit to China. In response to U.S. involvement in EAS and signing of TPP, Chinese official responded that “the PRC believes that the aim of the TPP is not only to increase U.S. export and attract investments, but also to strengthen political influence over the region and to contain China.” This particular statement shows the concerns of Chinese officials over Asia-Pacific Pivot, but to mitigate its effects Chinese President visited Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippine, Singapore, Thailand and signed major free trade agreements and also strategic agreements. The PRC also had a ASEAN+3 meeting (Japan, South Korea, and China) in November 2011, for closer cooperation through improving CAFTA (Central American Free trade Agreement), and deepening financial collaboration, including $10 billion credit for infrastructure. The People‟s Republic of China also signed free trade agreements such as China-ASEAN (CAFTA), China-Taiwan (ECFA) Economic cooperation framework agreement and ASEAN with Australia and New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and India. After looking at above discussed facts one can say that Chinese response to U.S. Asia-Pacific Pivot is of Dual character and ambiguous. At one side China is brilliantly responding through soft power by extending its interdependence and cooperation from East to West and especially in the neighborhood by settling the disputes and by following bottom to up approach. On another side China can also be seen as defensive when it comes to its security measures.
7
Justyna Szczudlik, "China‟s Response to the United States‟ Asia–Pacific Strategy"
Conclusion: After going through all of the above discussed facts and figures it can be concluded that China‟s response to US Asia Pacific Pivot Policy is ambiguous, China feels threatened and believes that it is an attempt to contain her but still dependent on United States of America for its market and Vice Versa. In personal opinion containment of China is not possible due to larger dependency of USA on China‟s industry. Pacific Ocean has a great space that China and USA both can coexist in this region through cooperation and interdependence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
China's dual response to the US 'pivot' By Joao Arthur Reis.
By Peter Mattis BEIJING DENIES RUSSIAN RUMORS OF SU-35 FIGHTER PURCHASE , the jamestown foundation, volume xii, issue 6, march 11th 2015.
Justyna Szczudlik. "China’s Response to the United States’ Asia–Pacific Strategy."
Steve Wayne. " U.S. Pivot and Implications on China.”
Dr. Ming-Hsien WONG. "The analysis of Asia-Pacific security environment after US rebalancing strategy from the social constructivist perspective."
