Dangerous differences between U.S. and China
.jpg?w=728)
By Tong Kim
The ongoing face-off between the United States and China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea has emerged as a serious source of tension. If not abated or averted by a diplomatic solution, it could escalate to threaten the prospect of Sino-American cooperation to sustain the existing regional order until another balance of power evolves in the region to allow continuing economic growth in peace and stability.
The issue of the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyudao islands in the East China Sea seems to have submerged somewhat for now due to a recently upgraded U.S.-Japan defense guideline, which guarantees American military intervention to protect Japanese administration of the disputed islands.
On the other hand, China’s massive reclamation to build an outpost in the South China Sea has alarmed its neighboring countries. It led to an open American reconnaissance flight with a CNN reporter onboard over the newly reclaimed island filled up with sand, maybe to test the Chinese response. The Chinese navy radioed to the American spy plane to “leave Chinese air space, please.” The U.S. spy aircraft replied, “We are flying over international waters.”
This encounter ended without an incident of chasing by Chinese fighters or forcing the intelligence-gathering aircraft to land on a Chinese air base, as had happened in the past. When China unilaterally announced its Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea overlapping with those previously proclaimed by Japan and South Korea, U.S. warplanes also flew through the zone with no response from the Chinese.
The South China Sea is a strategic and tactical issue to Washington, which advocates for the freedom of navigation for trade and the freedom of flight over international waters. The Obama administration supports no change in the status quo by coercion or threat. Washington maintains that the parties concerned should resolve their disputes peacefully through diplomacy.
The U.S. also stresses the importance of abiding by international law and the international norm of behavior in a range of things China is initiating in the region, whether it is the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank or Xi Jinping’s vision of major power relationships. One legal approach to territorial disputes is to utilize an arbitration mechanism under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, to which the United States has not acceded.
It is legitimate for the U.S. to claim its rights to free navigation and to protection of its interests as the dominant Asia-Pacific power in the maintenance of the status quo that has successfully contributed to the peace and prosperity for all in the region for decades. The concepts of America’s rebalance to the shifting dynamics of power relationships are better formed and therefore better understood in recent months, as they were thought to be sorely focused on a military rebalance against a rising China.
Since Xi Jinping’s takeover of power, China has been consistent in foreign policy goals to assert its sovereign rights and its territorial claims, while willing to work with Washington to resolve regional and global issues. Xi’s untested theory of a new major power relationship presupposes that a rising power and the existing power may not have engaged in a zero-sum game but they can cooperate for a win-win situation.
As China becomes more assertive in the international arena, some neo-liberals believe it is a reflection of a growing China’s power serving the domestic consumption of nationalism. Many traditional realists view it as an indication of China’s ultimate foreign policy goal ― to replace the U.S. as a global hegemony.
American Chinese hands are divided over what to do about the rising China. One group insists that the U.S. should, and can, maintain its preponderant military power in the region to cope with China’s security challenge. The other group believes that a new system of sustainable balance of power should be worked out to avoid a hot or cold war.
The Obama administration seems to be preparing for both scenarios of confrontation and cooperation from a position of strength. That’s why American security planners want an easing of sequestration on defense budgets and stress economic growth through a TPP with Japan and 12 other Pacific partners. In a period of a relative decline of American power, Washington spends more time and energy than ever on diplomatic efforts to keep and bolster the strength of the alliance and to build support and cooperation for its efforts in the region and around the world.
Secretary of State John Kerry was in Beijing last week and met high-level interlocutors from the Chinese president down to his counterpart, Wang Yi. One topic of Kerry’s agenda was to pave the way for Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington in the fall, which will be preceded by the seventh Strategic and Economic Dialogue to be held in Washington late June.
From press conferences during Kerry’s visit in Beijing, it is clear that both sides want to cooperate on many regional and global issues, including the denuclearization of North Korea and the Iranian nuclear negotiation. It is also clear there are persistent differences between the two capitals, especially on the territorial disputes.
The U.S. does not have a territorial claim in the region. It wants to see no bullying by a big power over smaller nations. It encourages a code of conduct be negotiated between China and ASEAN members in the already troubled area to avoid further trouble. Beijing thinks the South China Sea is its own backyard and it does not appreciate U.S. interference in its territorial claims.
The South China Sea could develop as a potential hot spot, hotter than Senkaku, Taiwan or the Korean Peninsula. What’s your take?
Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the Institute of Corean-American Studies
.