By Yuan Peng
Recently the United States has been trying to strategically
position China in a variety of ways, with new words and new
concepts popping up frequently.
President George W. Bush calls the Sino-US relationship "very
complex," while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said China's
rise is a "new factor" in 21st century international relations.
Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick included China as a
"stakeholder" of the existing international order led by the
US.
In the Pentagon's view, China is at a "strategic crossroads," a
saying which first appeared in the 2005 China Military Power Report
and repeated in the recently released 2006 Quadrennial Defence
Review.
However, the new report not only finds China at a "strategic
crossroads," but also Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and most of the Middle
East and Latin American nations.
Apart from China, Russia and India also made the list. That
seems to imply that, aside from "Western democracies" led by the
US, the rest of the world is at a "strategic crossroads."
In the eyes of the US, all those countries have indefinite
prospects, which worries it and makes it vigilant.
Although the list is long, an observant person would see that
China is obviously the one that keeps the Pentagon fidgeting.
For one thing, the report devotes three to four times the space
on China as it does on India and Russia, and the most on a single
nation.
For another, the wording on China is the sharpest. The US calls
India a "key strategic partner" that shares its value system, and
Russia is a "country in transition" and does not pose a
comprehensive military threat to the US.
But China has "the greatest potential to compete militarily with
the US and field disruptive military technologies that could, over
time, offset US military advantages absent US counter
strategies."
Why this conclusion? As the US military rationalizes, first,
China has invested heavily in its military. Second, the outside
world has little knowledge of Chinese motivations and
decision-making or capabilities supporting its military
modernization. Third, Chinese deployment in the Taiwan Straits has
put regional military balances at risk.
And perhaps the most crucial point is that China's political
democratization and economic liberalization are far from reaching
their goals.
Compare this year's report with the previous two versions and
one can see the US is increasing its strategic vigilance towards
China.
It is also revealing its strategic preparedness from its
previously thinly veiled stance. In the 1997 report, China was to
be a "potential strategic competitor" with comparable clout, but
was grouped with Russia.
The 2001 report mentioned "a military competitor with a
formidable resource base" that would emerge in the region, without
naming names, but added, "Russia does not pose a large-scale
conventional military threat to NATO."
The 2006 report has made an unequivocal statement and also
stipulated the hedging strategy that the US should adopt. This is
very rare in any of the US' previously issued strategic
reports.
The speedup of China's military modernization has its own logic,
which is completely reasonable.
It is a necessary step for a major power in a new phase of
development, just like the US did at the end of the 19th century
and the beginning of the 20th century when it invested heavily in
its naval power. It is also an act of preparedness in response to
the escalating trends of "Taiwan independence."
At the same time, it reflects a readjustment in military concept
and strategic thinking that takes into account new military
dynamics in post-Cold War world and regional trends.
China's move is not only honorable, but, in terms of speed or
scale, not ahead of regional powers like Japan or India. Its gap
with US military technologies is even widening.
To put China at "strategic crossroads" is to use an American
point of view and American way of measurements. In actuality,
China, from its stated goals of "harmonious society," "harmonious
world" and "peaceful growth," is clear about its strategic policy
for development.
Its foreign policy of "peace, development and co-operation" and
regional policy geared to "maintaining peace and friendship with
its neighbors and helping them prosper" are gaining increasing
support. Its Taiwan policy of "peaceful reunification" and "one
country, two systems" is showing more signs of peace and
reconciliation, bringing its relations with the island back to the
track of stability.
China's co-operation with the US on a wide range of issues, from
anti-terrorism, Korean Peninsula nuclear issues to non-traditional
security, demonstrates China's continued rationality, pragmatism
and commitment in its "constructive co-operation" with the US.
On the contrary, the US seems to be the one standing at
strategic crossroads.
With the 9-11 incident five years behind, the world is mired
deeper in terrorism, natural disasters, fatal epidemics and other
non-traditional security threats.
As the only superpower, the US should take some of the
responsibilities, but its foreign strategies are wavering between
full-brunt anti-terrorism and challenges among big powers, between
handling traditional and non-traditional threats.
As a result, it has more and more threats, and its line of
attack becomes longer, which raises suspicions in many
countries.
The 2006 Quadrennial Defence Review lists four big concerns and
four big threats, asking for more funds from US Congress and
appealing for more confidence and patience from the American
public.
As of now, the US has spent as much money on Iraq as it did
during the entire Korean War. Its anti-terrorism expenses are
approaching that of the entire Viet Nam War.
This report was submitted to the Congress on the same day as
Bush's budget report for 2007, which makes its intention for
additional funding quite obvious.
It all indicates an anxiety on the part of the US that borders
on illusionary. And paradoxically, the anxiety was caused by a
state of uncertainty because it finds itself at "crossroads."
The author is vice-director of Institute of American Studies
under China Institutes of Contemporary International
Relations.
(China Daily February 8, 2006)
