How China and the US can avoid a catastrophic clash

By provoking US allies, Beijing is forcing Washington to choose between abandoning its friends or going to war with China. Both believe the other will back down. But there is a high chance that they are both wrong. America’s best move then is to change the game in Asia, by offering to share power if China behaves responsibly.

|
Vietnam Coast Guard/AP
A Chinese coast guard vessel fires a water cannon at a Vietnamese vessel off the coast of Vietnam on May 4, after China deployed an oil rig in disputed South China Sea waters. Op-ed contributor Hugh White writes: '[Leaders in Beijing] know that America’s position in Asia is built on its network of alliances and partnerships with many of China’s neighbors, including Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. And they believe that weakening these relationships is the easiest way to weaken US regional power.'

Many find it hard to understand why China is acting so aggressively in regard to its territorial claims in the East and South China Seas. What do leaders in Beijing hope to achieve by alienating its neighbors and undermining regional stability?

Their reasoning is actually simple enough. China wants to wield much more power and influence in Asia than it has for the past few centuries. And for China to have more power, the United States must have less.

They know that America’s position in Asia is built on its network of alliances and partnerships with many of China’s neighbors, including Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. And they believe that weakening these relationships is the easiest way to weaken US regional power.

They also know that, beneath the flowery diplomatic phrases, the bedrock of these alliances and partnerships is the confidence America’s Asian friends have that the US is able and willing to protect them from China’s power. So the easiest way for Beijing to weaken Washington’s power in Asia is to undermine this confidence.

By using direct, armed pressure in these disputes, China makes its neighbors more eager for US military support, and at the same time makes America less willing to give it, because of the clear risk of a direct US-China clash. In other words, by confronting America’s friends with force, China confronts America with the choice between deserting its friends and fighting China. 

Beijing is betting that, faced with this choice, America will back off and leave its allies and friends unsupported. This will weaken America’s alliances and partnerships, undermine US power in Asia, and enhance China’s power.

China will continue to call Obama’s bluff

Ever since President Obama announced the “pivot” to Asia, China has tested US willingness to support its allies over the Scarborough Shoal and Senkaku/Diaoyu Island disputes. Until his Asian trip in April, Mr. Obama seemed inclined to step back from America’s commitments, but his bold words in Tokyo and Manila suggest he has recovered his resolve to stand firm.

Now we can expect China to test this newly recovered resolve by applying more pressure. And that is what Beijing is doing today in the waters off Vietnam. It is calling Obama’s bluff.

Of course, this carries risks for China. It does not want to fight America, so it must be confident in the judgment that America will back down and desert its friends rather than engage in conflict with China. This confidence reflects two key judgments by China’s leaders.

Why China thinks it has the upper hand

First, they believe that China’s new military capabilities can deny America an easy victory in a maritime clash in the East Asian waters. They also know that the US cannot prevail in those waters without launching a major campaign against Chinese territory. Such strikes would obviously risk a major escalation, which might not stop below the nuclear threshold. So China’s leaders think their US counterparts understand that a war with China today is one that America could not be confident of either winning or limiting.

Second, Beijing believes the balance of resolve is on China’s side. Washington clearly wants to preserve its role in Asia, but Beijing is even more determined to win power at America’s expense. That makes the Chinese confident that US leaders will not assume that China would back down first in a crisis.

A dangerous calculation

Unfortunately, the consensus in Washington is that Beijing is not really serious about challenging US leadership in Asia because it is not willing to risk a confrontation with America that it would assuredly lose. If they are right, then China’s conduct is clearly foolish. But I’m pretty sure it’s not.

Both Washington and China are steadily upping the stakes in their rivalry as China’s provocations of US friends and allies become more flagrant and America’s commitments to support them become more categorical. Both believe they can do this with impunity because both believe the other will back down to avoid a clash. But there is a disconcertingly high chance that they are both wrong. 

Power sharing to avert disaster

Fortunately, there’s another option: America and China could find a way to share power in Asia. This would be hard for both sides, but it could happen if both sides realize that they cannot dominate Asia in opposition to the other.

Of course, America has never done such a thing before. But America has never before dealt with a country as rich and powerful as China is likely to be. How can America not share power with China if it wants to stay in Asia and avoid escalating rivalry with this formidable country?

America’s best move then is to change the game in Asia, by offering to share power if China behaves responsibly. Initiating and solidifying such a power-sharing relationship would require real statesmanship from America’s leaders. China would have to accept a continuing strong US presence in Asia and abide by basic norms such as not using force against its neighbors. And America would have to treat China as an equal, allowing full weight to China’s interests as China sees them, and no longer assume the status of regional leader.

We can’t be sure exactly what power sharing with China would look like, how exactly this relationship would work, or even whether it would work. But we can be sure that the only likely alternative would lead to disaster.

Hugh White is a professor of strategic studies at Australian National University and author of “The China Choice: Why We Should Share Power.” A version of this article appears in The Interpreter, the journal of the Lowy Institute in Australia. It comes to the Monitor via The WorldPost/Global Viewpoint Network, distributed by Tribune Content Agency LLC.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to How China and the US can avoid a catastrophic clash
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2014/0618/How-China-and-the-US-can-avoid-a-catastrophic-clash
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe