Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Why East Asian War is Unlikely

2008; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 50; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00396330802601883

1468-2699

Richard A. Bitzinger, Barry Desker,

Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography

Abstract The Asia-Pacific region is home to many unresolved geostrategic issues that could escalate into conflict; nevertheless, it is probably more stable than one might believe. In particular, the emergence of a more assertive China does not mean a more aggressive China or that war in Asia is more likely. While Beijing may be increasingly pushing its own agenda in regional international affairs, and while it may seek to displace the United States as the regional hegemon, this does not automatically translate into an expansionist China. If anything, China appears content to press its claims peacefully, if forcefully, through existing avenues and institutions of international relations, and in particular by co-opting these avenues and institutions to meet its own purposes. Secondly, when one looks more closely at the Chinese military buildup, one can still find many deficiencies in its offensive capabilities. The Chinese war machine, while still quite worrisome, may not be quite as threatening as some might argue. Notes US Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 6 February 2006), p. 29. For more on the rise of China, see Avery Goldstein, Rising to the Challenge: China's Grand Strategy and International Security (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005). See Daniel A. Bell, East Meets West (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000) for a well-researched analysis of this debate. Also see Alan Chong, ‘Singaporean Foreign Policy and the Asian Values Debate, 1992–2000: Reflections on an Experiment in Soft Power’, The Pacific Review, vol. 17, no. 1, March 2004, pp. 95–133. Some examples of articles by protagonists in this debate include Nordin Sopiee, ‘The Development of an East Asian Consciousness’, in G. Sheridan (ed.), Living with Dragons: Australia Confronts its Asian Destiny (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1995); Kishore Mahbubani, ‘The Pacific Way’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 74, no. 1, January-February 1995, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950101facomment5012/kishore-mahbubani/the-pacific-way.html; Tommy Koh, ‘Does East Asia Stand for Any Positive Values?’, International Herald Tribune, 11–12 December 1993; Tommy Koh, ‘The 10 Values which Undergird East Asian Strength and Success’, International Herald Tribune, 11–12 December 1993, p. 6. Also see the comments of Lee Kuan Yew, ‘Society vs. the Individual’, Time, 14 June 1993; Fareed Zakaria, ‘Culture Is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, no. 2, March-April 1994, http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/other/culture.html; Mahathir Mohamad's address at the Asia-Pacific Management Forum on Asian Values and International Respect, 21 May 1996, http://www.apmforum.com/news/apmn21.htm. For more on the Washington Consensus see John Williamson, ‘Democracy and the “Washington Consensus”’, World Development, vol. 21, no. 8, August 1993, pp. 1329–36; Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stainslaw, The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy (New York: Free Press, 2002); Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999); John Williamson, ‘"Did the Washington Consensus Fail?"Outline of Remarks at CSIS’, Institute for International Economics, Washington DC, 6 November 2002, www.southamericastudytrip.com/study_abroad_class_resources/Intro-Did+the+Washington+Consensus+Fail.doc. Williamson and other proponents used the term ‘Washington Consensus’ to describe a set of economic policies including ‘macro-economic discipline, a market economy and openness to the world (at least in respect of trade and FDI)’. Its critics, including Joseph Stiglitz (See Joseph Stiglitz. Globalization and its Discontents (New York: W.W. Norton, 2002)), contended that these neo-liberal economic policies were imposed by the Washington-based financial institutions on developing countries in the 1990s. However, we are broadening the use of the term to highlight the political agenda favoured by Washington in its interactions with developing countries. Joshua Cooper Ramo was the first to discuss the idea of a Beijing Consensus in his paper ‘The Beijing Consensus’, The Foreign Policy Centre, London, May 2004, http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/244.pdf. He highlighted innovation-led growth, sustainable and equitable development and self-determination. We have broadened the use of the term to highlight the relationship between Beijing's political and economic agendas. It should be noted that although Western political leaders such as US President George W. Bush emphasise Japan's example as a liberal democracy, the dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party for almost the entire post-war era suggests that Japan fits easily into this paradigm. The analysis in this section was first presented by Barry Desker in the first Michael Hintze Lecture delivered at the inauguration of the Centre for International Security Studies, University of Sydney, 26 July 2007. John J. Mearsheimer, ‘China's Unpeaceful Rise’, Current History, vol. 105, no. 690, April 2006, p. 160. Speech by Haruhiko Kuroda, ‘Challenges for the Asian Economy in 2008 and Beyond’, Asian Development Bank Institute Symposium, 8 February 2008, http://www.adbi.org/speeches/2008/02/08/2474.speech.kuroda.cae.2008.symposium/. Henrik Schmiegelow and Michèle Schmiegelow, ‘Asia's International Order – How the Most Dynamic Region will Influence the Shape of World Affairs’, Internationale Politik, Autumn 2007, http://www.schmiegelow-partners.com/down-load/3_Schmiegelow.pdf. Also see by the same authors: ‘The Road to an Asian Community – How Asia's Actors Are Promoting Integration and Why We Should Take Note’. A version of this paper can be found at http://policyanalysis.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/why-europeans-discount-asias-integration-wrongly. See ‘Kuala Lumpur Declaration on the East Asia Summit, Kuala Lumpur’, 14 December 2005, http://www.aseansec.org/18098.htm. The text of the ASEAN Charter can be found at http://www.aseansec.org/ASEAN-Charter.pdf. Beijing Review, 26 July 2007, pp. 16–17. Wang Jisi, ‘Toward a More Self-Confident Chinese Nation’, Global Times (Huanqiu Shiboa), 3 September 2007. See S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, ‘A Tale of Two Disasters’, NTS Alert, May 2008/2, http://www.rsis-ntsasia.org/resources/publications/e-news/nts-alert/may%20 2008–2.pdf. Indeed, the way in which the region handles Myanmar's lack of commitment to the restoration of democracy and the upholding of human rights will be a key test of the emerging East Asian perspective. Presently, Myanmar's bilateral political and economic relationships with China, India and Thailand, and its membership of a significant caucus within ASEAN composed of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, have allowed it to ignore pressures from the West for even symbolic liberalisation measures such as the release of democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi from house detention. The patience of older ASEAN members is now being strained, especially in light of Myanmar's lack of progress on its commitments to implement its road map for democracy and the international criticism of ASEAN arising from the callous disregard of Myanmar's leadership for the suffering of its citizens in the aftermath of the May 2008 cyclone. However, while ASEAN states have become more vocal in recent years, and China has raised concerns privately, neither ASEAN nor China has much influence on the Burmese government. See Tin Maung Maung, ‘Myanmar: Challenges Galore but Opposition Fails’ and Bruce Matthew, ‘Myanmar's Human and Economic Crisis and Its Regional Implications’, both in Daljit Singh and Lorraine C. Salazar (eds), Southeast Asian Affairs 2006 (Singapore: ISEAS, 2006). Also see Christopher B. Roberts, ‘Myanmar and the Argument for Engagement: A Clash of Contending Moralities?’, IDSS Working Paper, no. 108, 2006, available at http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&id=27143. Efthimios E. Mitropoulos, ‘Enhancing Safety, Security and Environmental Protection’, Opening Address by the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organisation at the Meeting on the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, Singapore, 4 September 2007; ‘Milestone Agreement Reached on Cooperation over the Straits of Malacca and Singapore’, 18 September 2007, http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1472&doc_id=8471. Ian Storey, ‘China and Vietnam's Tug of War over Laos’, China Brief, vol. 5, no. 13, 7 June 2005, http://jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=408&issue_id=3358&article_id=2369847; Ian Storey, ‘China and the Philippines: Moving Beyond the South China Sea Dispute’, China Brief, vol. 6, no. 17, 16 August 2006, http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=415&issue_id=3837&article_id=2371392; Ian Storey, ‘Progress and Remaining Obstacles in Sino-Indonesian Relations’, China Brief, vol. 5. no. 18, 16 August 2005, http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373126; Robert Karniol, ‘Country Briefing: Vietnam -Off the Ground’, Jane's Defence Weekly, 22 December 2005. ‘China's Grand Strategy’, IISS Strategic Comments, vol. 10, no. 9, November 2004. ‘China, America, and Southeast Asia: Hedge and Tack’, IISS Strategic Comments, vol. 11, issue 1, February 2005. Ralf Emmers, ‘What Explains the De-escalation of the Spratlys Dispute?’, IDSS Commentary, 5 December 2006, http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/IDSS1242006.pdf. Ibid. David Shambaugh, ‘China and Europe: The Emerging Axis’, Current History, September 2004, p. 246. Also see ‘China's Grand Strategy’, and Richard Carney and Richard A. Bitzinger, ‘From Hegemony to Loose Bipolarity: The Evolving Geopolitics of the US, EU, and China’, RSIS Commentary, 26 January 2007, http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/rsis/publications/Perspective/RSIS0052007.pdf. ‘Chapter II: National Defense Policy’, China's National Defense in 2004 (Beijing: Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2004). Richard F. Grimmett, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998–2005 (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 23 October 2006), pp. 17, 56. Timothy Hu, ‘China – Marching Forward’, Jane's Defence Weekly, 25 April 2007. Dennis J. Blasko, The Chinese Army Today: Tradition and Transformation for the 21st Century (London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 69–70,160–2. Ronald O'Rourke, ‘PLAN Force Structure: Submarines, Ships, and Aircraft’, paper presented to the CAPS-RAND-CEIP-NDU conference on ‘The Chinese Navy: Expanding Capabilities, Evolving Roles?’, pp. 4–9, 13–18. O'Rourke, ‘PLAN Force Structure’, p. 19; Sinodefense.com, ‘Type 071 Landing Platform Dock’, 5 June 2008, http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/amphibious/type071.asp. Richard A. Bitzinger and Paul T. Mitchell, ‘A Drop in the Ocean: China's Aspirations to Acquire an Aircraft Carrier’, RSIS Commentary, 30 May 2007, http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/RSIS0502007.pdf. Timothy Hu, ‘Country Briefing – China: Ready, Steady, Go…’, Jane's Defence Weekly, 13 April 2005; Office the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008 (Washington DC: US Department of Defense, 2008), pp. 2, 24. Office the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008 (Washington DC: US Department of Defense, 2008), pp. 24–5. Timothy Hu, ‘Country Briefing -China: Ready, Steady, Go…’. You Ji, ‘China's Emerging National Defense Strategy’, China Brief, vol. 4, no. 23, 24 November 2004, http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=395&issue_id=3152&article_id=2368905. Ibid. Ibid.; Wendell Minnick, ‘China Shifts Spending Focus to Info War’, Defense News, 11 September 2006. Office the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2006 (Washington DC: US Department of Defense, 2006), p. i. See Richard A. Bitzinger, ‘US Defense Transformation and the Asia-Pacific Region: Implications and Responses’, Australian Strategy Policy Institute, 2006. Timothy Hu, ‘China – Marching Forward,’ Jane's Defence Weekly, 25 April 2007. Ibid. Office the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2007 (Washington DC: US Department of Defense, 2007), p. 15. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008 (Washington DC: US Department of Defense, 2008), p. 34. You Ji, ‘China's Emerging National Defense Strategy’. Dennis J. Blasko, The Chinese Army Today, p. 95. Ibid., p. 101. This section is adapted from Barry Desker, ‘Managing Global Risk with a Rising China’, a paper prepared for the Fifth IISS Global Strategic Review, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2007, and from Richard A. Bitzinger, ‘China's “Revolution in Military Affairs": Rhetoric Versus Reality’, China Brief, vol. 8, no. 5, 29 February 2008, http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2374006. Additional informationNotes on contributorsRichard A. Bitzinger A Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Barry Desker Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Director of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.