By Dr.
Subhash Kapila
“But what
about an adversary that uses ‘salami-slicing’—the slow accumulation of small
actions, none of which is a casus belli, but which could add over time to a
major strategic change?
The goal
of Beijing’s salami-slicing would be to gradually accumulate through small but
persistent attacks, evidence of China’s enduring presence in the claimed
territory, with the intention of having that claim smudge out the economic
rights granted by UNCLOS and perhaps even the right of ships and aircraft to
transit what are now considered to be global commons. With ‘new facts on the
ground’ slowly but cumulatively established, China would hope to establish
de-facto and de-jure settlement of its claims.”-------Robert
Haddick, Foreign Policy Journal, August 03, 2012.
Introductory Observations
The South
China Sea dispute between China and its South East Asian neighbours which has
been festering for decades assumed conflictual contours since 2008-2009 after
China declared it as a ‘core interest’ for China, and on which it would be ready
to go to war to defend its self-proclaimed sovereignty.
China’s
such assertions should not surprise the international community as it is very
much in keeping with China’s past posturings and its marked propensity to resort
to conflict to resolve territorial disputes rather than by conflict resolution
initiatives.
Noticeably, China after 2009 has embarked on what can be best described as on a
dangerous course of military brinkmanship which not only is destabilising for
the Asia Pacific region but could ignite China’s military confrontation and
conflict with the United States over China’s military adventurism in these
contested waters.
South
China Sea disputes stand well covered in media analyses and need not be focussed
in this Paper. Since China’s contentious military unilateralism and
aggressiveness carries the dangers of spilling into a wider conflict what needs
to be focussed on is as to why and how China feels emboldened to indulge in
military adventurism over territorial disputes with its neighbors which could
ordinarily be resolved through multilateral regional and international forums.
This paper
therefore intends to examine the following related issues:
-
China’s Escalated Brinkmanship on South China Sea Conflict: The Intended
Target is the United States.
-
China’s Timing of Escalated Brinkmanship Significant
-
United
States Strategic Dilemma in Effectively Responding to Chinese Brinkmanship
on the South China Sea Conflict
-
China’s Contending Claimants Options on South China Sea Conflict: ASEAN not
an Option, the Effective Option is the United States
-
Global
Responses to China’s Escalated Brinkmanship on South China Sea Conflict
China’s
Escalated Brinkmanship on South China Sea Conflict: The Intended Target is the
United States
China’s
escalated brinkmanship on the South China Sea conflict can no longer be limited
to China’s burning desire to garner the control of the vast hydrocarbon reserves
that not only lie in the South China Sea but also in the East China Sea and the
Yellow Sea region. China’s disruptive strategies in the South China Sea region
has now transcended onto a bigger strategic canvass, namely to checkmate the
United States and assume the dominant role in Asia.
China can
ride rough-shod over all its rival claimants in the South China Sea conflict
with its military might any day but it will not do so as it can achieve the end
result on a low-cost option by a graduated and incremental strategy which keeps
the conflict boiling but yet does not boil over. In such a strategy China
pre-empts a swift intervention by the United States and yet achieves its
strategic objectives outlined above.
The South
China Sea aggressive claims are but only a precursor for similar aggressiveness
to follow in the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea where it will be pitted
against a more powerful rival in Japan.
However to
graduate to the seas in the North, China must first attempt to get the better of
the United States in the South China Sea region, both geopolitically and
geostrategically
Geopolitically, China’s aims against the United States is to belittle the United
States image by its seemingly inaction against Chinese military adventurism in
the South China Sea region. Symbolism carries weight and the image of a helpless
United States to checkmate China could be damaging for the United States.
Geostrategically, the Chinese aim is to portray to South East Asian nations that
the perceived lack of strong ripostes by the United States against China arise
from lack of political and strategic will on part of the United States to
confront China on contentious issues. More starkly China wishes to the strategic
credibility of the United States as a reliable strategic partner of Asian
nations in countervailing China.
China’s
three-pronged strategy outlined above is a manifestation of what in an earlier
Paper I had described as China’s strategy of asymmetric attrition of wearing
down US military embedment in Asia Pacific leaving the field wide open for China
to dominate the Asia Pacific.
China’s
Timing of Escalated Brinkmanship on South China Sea Conflict Significant
China’s
timing of escalated brinkmanship in the last few months is significant,
especially as it goes against the grain of any strategic logic. China is always
credited by the global strategic community as having strategic patience, long
range strategic vision and that China is evolving into a responsible stakeholder
in global affairs. But in the present process of China’s escalated brinkmanship
on the South China Sea conflict these ingredients are visibly absent.
Then how
does one make sense of its current military aggressiveness on the South China
Sea conflict? China’s timing for escalated brinkmanship on South China Sea
conflict can be attributed to the following factors/developments:
-
China’s strategic consternation on United States strategic pivot to Asia
Pacific and rebalancing its military postures in Asia Pacific. China hopes
that by escalated brinkmanship on the South China Sea conflict it could
deflect/disrupt United States rebalancing its military postures in Asia
Pacific.
-
China
is seeking to impede the strategic gravitation of South East Asia nations to
the United States camp and force them to arrive at strategic compromises
with China by a bilateral process in which China’s political and military
coercion can fully come into play.
-
China
senses that with the United States fully engrossed with Presidential
Election year politics, the present time is opportune for exploitation of
its geopolitical and geostrategic objectives stated earlier in this paper.
China has
long been involved in sowing disunity amongst ASEAN nations as part of pursuance
of its overall strategy to wean away Asian nations from US influence and which
has a direct bearing on China’s aggressive brinkmanship posturing on the South
China Sea conflict with ASEAN nations. ASEAN divisive disunity was starkly
visible at last month’s ASEAN Foreign Minister’s Meeting in Cambodia. Cambodia
on China’s prodding sabotaged ASEAN unity in a glaring fashion where Cambodia
indulged in a proxy war against its ASEAN member nations.
United
States Strategic Dilemma in Effectively Responding to Chinese Escalated
Brinkmanship on the South China Sea Conflict
The United
States is not a passive bystander to China’s escalated brinkmanship over the
South China Sea conflict. Even before it enunciated the Obama Doctrine of
strategic pivot to Asia Pacific, the United States had already put into motion a
southward realignment of US Forces to Guam with the aim of swift responses to
any outbreak of conflict in the South China Sea region.
The United
States has also been refining and redefining its military doctrines specific to
any military threats that China may pose in the region, in particular the
Air-Sea Doctrine which is aimed at neutralising China’s Anti Access strategies .
However it
seems that in terms of responding to China’s piecemeal coercive military actions
against its ASEAN neighbours claimants to territories in the South China Sea,
the United States is in a strategic dilemma.
The United
States dilemma is best reflected in the words of the author quoted above, and he
observes: “But policymakers in Washington will be caught in a bind attempting to
apply this (US ) military power against an accomplished salami-slicer (China).
If sliced thinly enough, no action will be dramatic enough to justify starting a
war.”
He
further observes that “A salami slicer puts the burden of disrupting actions on
his adversary. That adversary will be in the uncomfortable position drawing
seemingly unjustifiable red lines and engaging in indefensible brinkmanship. For
China that would mean simply ignoring America’s Pacific Fleet and carrying on
with its slicing under the reasonable assumption that it will be unthinkable for
the United States to threaten a major power over a trivial incident in a distant
sea.”
The United
States however needs to recognise that historically that such trivial military
brinkmanship provocations have a tendency to cumutavely add upto major
flashpoints which could have been best pre-empted and nipped in the bud at the
nascent stage.
Further,
the United States in order not to allow its political and strategic image and
stature in Asia Pacific be undermined by China’s nibbling provocations in the
South China Sea region, is honour-bound to ensure that it provides the necessary
security against China to its existing Allies and those whose strategic
partnerships it is seeking like Vietnam.
China’s
Contending Claimants Options on South China Sea Conflict: ASEAN is Not the
Option; the Effective Option is the United States
Confronting China for control of disputed islands/shoals that dot the China Sea
are South East Asian countries all of which are members of ASEAN. The ASEAN
grouping as an organisation had all along been trying to involve China for a
dialogue on the South China Sea conflict but without success. China all along
resisted that the dispute dialogue be a subject of multilateral discussions.
Additionally, the ASEAN nations, most of them were till recently adopting
hedging strategies on China unsure that the United States would have the resolve
to confront China on the South China Sea conflictual disputes. The picture seems
to have changed after the enunciation of the Obama Doctrine.
China’s
response was to inflict a divisive blow on ASEAN by proxy use of Cambodia to
scuttle issue of a Communique after last month’s ASEAN Foreign Minister’s
meeting in Cambodia, which would have incorporated critical references to
China’s current postures on the South China Sea dispute.
ASEAN is
likely to emerge as more deeply divided as China’s brinkmanship escalates on
these territorial disputes. All that this bodes is that ASEAN cannot as a
grouping hope to be an effective counterfoil against China on behalf of its
members involved in territorial disputes with China.
Even if
ASEAN was united in its stand against China’s coercion, it still does not have
the military muscle to confront China. That is the stark reality.
The other
stark reality for ASEAN is that China is averse to any multilateral dialogue
with ASEAN grouping and this is best explained by Haddick who rightly surmises
that : “ The collapse of ASEAN’s attempt to establish a code of conduct of
conduct for settling disputes in the seas(South China Sea) benefits China’s
‘salami-slicing’ strategy. A multilateral code of conduct would have created a
legitimate demand for dispute resolution and would have placed all claimant
countries on an equal footing. Without such a code, China can now use its power
advantage to dominate bilateral disputes with its small neighbours and do so
without the political consequences of acting outside an agreed set of rules”
ASEAN
countries confronting China on the South China Sea territorial disputes are left
with no option but to strategically rely on the United States for a security
cover and countervailing force against China. In doing so they would have to be
ready to enter into security relationships with the United States.
Global
Responses to China’s Escalated Brinkmanship on South China Sea Disputes.
The global
responses are best illustrated from a reading of speeches given at the Shangri
La Dialogue June 2013 deliberations at Singapore. The common thread running
through these speeches was that the global community and major powers were
committed to the security of the “global commons” and to the “freedom of the
high seas” and that no country had a right to declare them as national
territories.
The United
States, UK, and the new French Foreign Minister emphasised that all of them
stood committed to the security and stability of South East Asia. The new French
Government through its Foreign Minister made clear that France and European
nations had a stake in South East Asia and the stability and security of the
region was their strategic concern. He further emphasised that France would
support any regional security grouping in the region.
China
fearful of critical reference on its South China Sea posturing virtually stayed
away from the Singapore annual event and sufficed it with a low level
representation.
Undoubtedly, China stalks the South China Sea as a lone ranger bent on
establishing its hegemony over the South China Sea and to be followed by similar
provocative posturing later on the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea.
Fearful of
the above, China’s power rival in the region, Japan has issued some initial
cautionary warnings. While China seems to be getting away with military bullying
of its smaller ASEAN claimants in the South China Sea, the same walk through may
not be possible for China when it confronts Japan on similar disputes up North.
Concluding
Observations
China’s
recent escalated brinkmanship on South China Sea disputes with small ASEAN
countries needs to be viewed as a strategic and military gauntlet flung at the
United States in the nature of a challenge to provide effective United States
countervailing power against China and security guarantees to South East Asia
countries locked in territorial disputes with China on the South china Sea
United
States responses to China’s provocations and brinkmanship are being carefully
being scrutinised in ASEAN capitals and Asia Pacific capitals as eventually the
success of the American strategic pivot to Asia Pacific would overwhelmingly
depend on United States resolve in effectively checkmating China and before The
China Threat cumulatively becomes too hot for the United States to handle.
United
States declared neutrality on South China Sea disputes is no longer a viable
option for the United States. The United States needs to see through the
diabolical ‘Salami-Slicing Strategy” being practised by China in the South China
Sea and effectively checkmate China before China prompts a United States exit
from Asia Pacific.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét