WUNDERKAMMER

Chapter6: Does China challenge US dominance in Asia?

The PLAN’s expansion does not impact only states in Asia.  As the growth of Chinese influence is the major concern for the Asian states, it is also considerable for the Americans.  In this chapter, the U.S. government’s general policies to China will be discussed first, and then discussion of how the PLAN’s expansion influence on these policies will follow.

The Bush administration’s main goal in East Asia is the relationship of engagement and deterrence with China; they want China to act with responsibility as a powerful country, and at the same time, they are worried about China’s increasing military enhancement and influence on the balance of power over the region and the world. ^[1]National Institute for Defense Studies, East Asian Strategic Review 2005 (Tokyo: GPO, 2005), 7.  Actually, there are many issues which Washington and Beijing disagree on, such as trade imbalance, human rights, and the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. ^[2]National Institute for Defense Studies, 226.  Also, Huntington, 228.  On the other hand, the U.S. government clearly stated with Japan in June 2006 that

The United States and Japan share interests in: winning the war on terrorism; maintaining regional stability and prosperity; promoting free market ideals and institutions; upholding human rights; securing freedom of navigation and commerce, including sea lanes; and enhancing global energy security.  It is these common values and common interests that form the basis for U.S.-Japan regional and global cooperation. ^[3]White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “The Japan-U.S. Alliance of the new Century,” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/68464.htm.

From these documents, it is clear that the U.S. wants China as a peaceful partner, because the U.S. is busy fighting against terrorism and needs China’s help, which shares its eastern border with the Islamic Central Asian states, to cooperate against it.  This is the idea Zbigniew Brzeninski supported.  He predicted that China cannot hold the regional hegemony soon, and since China cannot avoid democratization, it is possible to build peaceful relations between China and the U.S. ^[4]Brzeninski, 259-264.  Unfortunately, East Asia is still unstable.  In this situation, if China uses its military power to break the status quo, the U.S. has to use its military toward China to protect its own hegemony over Asia and the Pacific. ^[5]Brzezinski, 298.  Many experts agree that Asia is under the multipolar balance of power system with the hegemonic dominance of the U.S. (Prabhakar, 35).  On the other hand, some experts predict that China and the United States cannot establish friendly relations because of the differences between cultures and national interests.  For example, Samuel Huntington discussed that economic growth makes possible for the Asian states to develop their military capabilities and creates instability in this region; and China will try to regain its traditional hegemony by forcing other Asian States to choose between their side or the other side which attempt to contain them. ^[6]Huntington, 218.  The leader of the “other side” is obviously the U.S.  In these years, we can see this conflict between the two sides becomes more serious.  There are two major alliances which might be created in Asia; one is the alliance between the U.S., Japan, Taiwan, Australia, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand, and the other is the alliance between China, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma. ^[7]Prabhakar, 60.  Moreover, conflicts between them are caused not only by the difference of culture or political system, but they are caused by the title of the hegemony in Asia.  China does not want American leadership in Asia because it is supposed to be their job, and the U.S. does not want any regional hegemony in another part of the world. ^[8]The U.S. Has tried to prevent the emergence of regional hegemony in Europe and Asia through its history.  When any possible candidates emerged in these areas, the U.S. defeated them in two world … Continue reading

John Mearsheimer is also one of the experts who predict that the U.S.-China conflict over Asian hegemony.  He determined that America’s basic and ultimate goal of international relations is “to be the hegemony in the Western Hemisphere” and “not to allow any hegemony in Europe and Asia.” ^[9]Mearsheimer, 497.  If China sustains its economic growth speed, it can achieve enough latent power to challenge the U.S.; therefore, China will obtain the dominant power in Asia, become the rival of the U.S., and perhaps, be able to become the world super power as a result of competition with the U.S. ^[10]He indicated that if China becomes as huge Hong Kong, its possible latent power would be four times larger than the U.S. has (Mearsheimer, 517).

On the other hand, there are some people who are more optimistic for the future in Asia.  Brzeninski might be one of them.  They might think that the democratization of China will help to reduce the confrontation.  If China becomes a democratic state, it will share the basic national interests that the U.S. and Japan have.  Or some people might argue that economic interdependence will prevent the aggressive behavior.  As the globalization proceeds, the Chinese economy depends more on the other states; therefore, Beijing has to consider the international preferences.  In the same sense, people predict that the Chinese government will reduce the authoritarian methods, as China takes more responsible roles such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Six-Party Talks in the international society. ^[11]David M. Lampton, “China’s Rise in Asia Need Not Be as America’s Expense,” in Power Shift: China and Asia’s New Dynamics, ed. David Shambaugh (Berkeley: University of California Press, … Continue reading

The reality is quite opposite.  As the dependence on trade increases, the PLAN expands its activities, and as China becomes the major figure in the international society, the Chinese people enhance their patriotism as the great power.  Moreover, the Chinese people think that the U.S. behaviors on the international stage are based only on its own national interests, exploiting its military supremacy. ^[12]Lal, 90.  To avoid being the next victim of the American intervention in the name of human rights, China must be strong enough.  At last, Chinese foreign policies are based on case-by-case, calculating the benefits and costs each time. ^[13]Robert Sutter, “China’s Regional Strategy and Why It May Not Be Good for America,” in Power Shift: China and Asia’s New Dynamics, ed. David Shambaugh (Berkeley: University of California … Continue reading  With its changing claims and positions, it is hard to call China the responsible state.  The Chinese assistance to the Sudan government, which is accused internationally for its brutal repression, is a good example of this.  Even after the democratization of China, it is less possible situation that China will be friendly and satisfied at the current circumstance that the U.S. power dominates Asia.  The situation that China will keep pursue the regional hegemony might happen more likely.  Basically, China is a realists’ state as its history and its international situation proves. ^[14]Mearsheimer, 483.  Also, Avery Goldstein, “Great Expectations: Interpreting China’s Arrival,” in The Rise of China, ed. Michael E. Brown (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000), 26-27.  If China behaves with this realistic viewpoint, it will try to be the regional hegemony anyway, because it is the best way to secure its national interests. ^[15]Mearsheimer, 517.  Also, Xu Qi, “Maritime Geostrategy and the Development of the Chinese Navy in the Early Twenty-First Century,” Trans. Andrew S. Erickson and Lyle J. Goldstein, Naval War … Continue reading  A good example of this prediction is Russia.  Both China and Russia have been powerful states through their imperial and communists’ period.  After 1991, what has the domestic Russia done?  With similar historical and geopolitical background, there is more possibility that the democratic China would act Russia does under President Putin now.  Of course, the Russian case is just an indicator; two countries have different people, economic policies and national interests.  However, Russia proves the democratization cannot eliminate all authoritarian, nationalistic behaviors.  In this way, regardless how much China is involved in the global economic system, how much China becomes the responsible state in the international society, and how much China becomes the democratic state, the confrontation between China and the U.S. is inevitable.  A state which has achieved the regional hegemony does not want any another regional hegemony in other area, and it prefers the situation that there is more than two powerful states in the area. ^[16]Mearsheimer, 69-70.  This is why the U.S. concerns most about protection of its allies in Asia.

First, the U.S. government stated “The U.S. Government has made clear that it supports peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and opposes unilateral changes to the status quo.” ^[17]US Office of the Secretary of Defense, 37.  This support for the peaceful resolution is also adapted as the principle policy to the mainland of China.  But the Taiwan issue has special meaning for China in the context of China-U.S. confrontation.  Seizing Taiwan means China wins the strategic competition for the dominance of Asia. ^[18]Howarth, 29.  For the U.S., the Taiwan issue also has strategic meaning.  In short, loss of Taiwan would directly mean the loss of Japanese trust in the U.S.-Japan alliance. ^[19]Rahman, 81.  Taiwan must be defended, unless the U.S. finds no strategic and economic interests in Japan, or the U.S. just gives up its dominant power in Asia.  Moreover, such a situation might cause the Japanese re-militarization and nuclearization, china-Japan arm race, and complete instability in Asia.  Therefore, with the Taiwan Relation Act in 1979, the U.S. has committed to maintain security of Taiwan. ^[20]US Office of the Secretary of Defense, 30.  Now, both China and the U.S. hardly avoid a war over Taiwan, because such war will damage both of them seriously.  Moreover, this war might involve other Asian states as allies of either side.

In addition, the U.S. Navy guarantees the South and East China Sea trade routes for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. ^[21]Mochizuki, 144.  This guarantee allowed the U.S. access to East Asian markets.  In this sense, it is important for the U.S. trade and the balance of power in East Asia to keep these seas free.  This is one of the most important American national interests.  Since the U.S. itself can be called a huge island surrounded by oceans, the security of sea-lanes is crucial for its own economy. ^[22]Wylie, 194.  If China dominates sea-lanes, whether China reunifies Taiwan or not, Japan’s power might be weakened, and this makes the U.S. influence over Asia weak.  In addition to this, since the U.S. realized that its own security against terrorism comes by leading international approach for freedom of oppression and promotion of democracy, the U.S. needs understanding and alliances from the international society. ^[23]Japan Ministry of defense, Defense of Japan 2006 (Tokyo: GPO, 2006), 21.  In other words, the U.S. has to satisfy Japan by securing its interests to get Japanese cooperation for the war on terrorism.  This is same for the other states.  Moreover, the U.S. has to satisfy Japan in the viewpoint of its own military in Japan.  Japan is the important strategic key place, or in other words, power projection platform, which covers a half of the earth from Hawaii to the Cape of Good Hope. ^[24]Kazuhisa Ogawa, “Do we benefit the U.S.-Japan Alliance?,” In Thinking Japanese New Security, ed. Masahiro Sakamoto and Tadamasa Fukiura (Tokyo: Jiyu-Kokuminsya, 2004), 203.  In addition, there is the homeport for the U.S. 7th fleet, the camp of the Green Beret, and a base for Echelon in Japan.  The alliance is “the key to every other issue of Asian stability” for the U.S., and if Japan decides to dissolve the alliance; it is a nightmare for the U.S. ^[25]B. K. Gordon, B. K. “The Asian-Pacific Rim: Success at a price,” Foreign Affairs 71, no.1 (1990-1991): 157, http://proxy.mbc.edu:2108/pqdweb?RQT=306&TS=1192761093&clientId=52920.  Also, … Continue reading  The U.S.-Japan alliance is crucial for the strategic interests.

The U.S. also has developed a warm relation ship with India.  With the U.S. backing, India can be more confident against China. ^[26]Garver, 223.  However, the U.S.-India relation has been more complicated, because of U.S. relationship with Pakistan after the 9.11.  At first, this American behavior helped China to enhance the relationship with Pakistan. ^[27]Sutter, “China’s Rise in Asia: Promises and Perils,” 246.  It is enough for India to worry about their own security, because the U.S. is on the side of China and Pakistan.  But later, the U.S. drew closer to India to deal with both terrorism and China. ^[28]Berlin, 64.  Since the U.S. still needs to keep the good relationship with Pakistan and China to deal with Afghanistan, India would find that it is hard to tighten the alliance with the U.S. as a member of democratic anti-China states.  If the expansion of the PLAN to the Indian Ocean become more serious for the U.S. Navy’s activities against terrorism, it is possible to tighten the U.S.-India relationship.