Balancing China’s Influence

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 4 June 2010
by Cheng Yawen (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by David Farley. Edited by Mary Lee.
Singapore's Senior Minister, Li Kuan Yew, has recently accepted a visit from Chuan Qiaoyang, Japan's editor of the "Morning News" [television show], proposing that America be allowed to balance out "China's impact" in the Pacific Rim because the Pacific Rim is unlikely to enter a "Post-American age" within the next 30 to 50 years. With regards to military affairs and technology for civilian use, China just doesn't compare with the United States and China’s purchasing power doesn't even come close.

This was especially apparent during Li’s trip to America last year, which has been the cause for much criticism from China's media. Singapore's media has come to the conclusion that China's media is trying to incite nationalism, which is obviously inappropriate. Who on earth would want to hear that their own country's political system is purposely agitating its people in order to "control and balance" the country? Even if "control and balance" was changed to "check and balance," the topic still conflicts with the facts coming out of China and can't just be ignored. Surely this doesn't make Chinese people happy.

However, some people are expressing exaggerated opinions online about Li Kuan Yew, from profound admiration to deep hatred, which are completely unnecessary. Li Kuan Yew said that he isn’t being carried away by a whim, but rather it is a reflection of Singapore. To a great extent it has to do with ASEAN’s long-lasting worldview and strategic way of thinking, which on the practical level, is not lacking in vision. If the Chinese people could be clear on this point, then there would be no need to be sorely disappointed with Li Kuan Yew; really, it is just preparing for a rainy day. Through a more mature attitude and appropriate development strategy with ASEAN, progress will be made towards peaceful relations between China and the rest of Asia. We shouldn't let little distractions interfere with our vision of the main goal.

In dealing with relationships among major powers, since the second half of the 20th century, ASEAN has gone through three main ways of thinking. One way is that of a non-alignment policy, which is mostly advocated by Indonesia. Another way is neutrality of thought, which was proposed by Malaysia. The last mode is the concept of balancing the major powers. Singapore is the leading advocate of this idea. During the integration process of ASEAN, Singapore's idea of balancing large nations gradually became the most commonly accepted policy among ASEAN members and has had the most influence.

Singapore and ASEAN’s concept of balancing the major powers has its own background. ASEAN countries have suffered greatly from European colonialism. After World War II, there came another long struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. In the past, for the majority of the time, Southeast Asia — if not controlled by a particular world power — has existed sandwiched in between powers, making survival very difficult. From this has sprouted a strategy: to assemble the ASEAN countries into a collective competitive circle of major powers. From this, the greatest benefit among ASEAN countries has been realized. On this basis, ASEAN announced its establishment during the Cold War in 1967 and, since then, they have gradually enlarged their scope of influence and increased the level of cooperation.

Simply put, the strategy of balancing large nations has two major implications. First, no one power dominates Southeast Asia. Second, ASEAN serves as a bridge between the major powers. Based on the first point, with regard to geo-strategy, ASEAN is pursuing an ideology of openness. In other words, to be open to all large nations rather than focus on economic security and strategically showing favor to specific countries. When a nation in the region is clearly more influential and powerful than the other countries, it will devote its efforts to increasing cooperation with other world powers, thus balancing the world powers.

Since the 1990s, ASEAN's association with China has increased as a direct result of this type of thinking. During the time of the Cold War — Japan in an economic way; the United States in economic, security, and strategic ways — had the biggest influence in the region. By balancing America and Japan, ASEAN increased China’s level of fluctuation. For example, by initiating the “10+1” dialogues, in which were negotiations with China to establish a free trade area. However, ASEAN is not merely limited to building relationships with China — it is also interested in developing cooperative relations with India, Japan, America, and even Australia is slowly being drawn into ASEAN's "East Asia" category.

Given the last point, ASEAN countries are making every effort to organize in a way that they can lead the affairs of East Asia, to gain momentum and influence. With ASEAN as the core, various types of forums and dialogues would be established, increasing ASEAN’s ability to conduct official business and their influence in international affairs, while helping them obtain security.

China needs to be clear about ASEAN’s strategic reasoning when dealing with ASEAN countries. Li Kuan Yew’s request for America to remain in the Pacific to balance China is not to set Southeast Asia against China, but rather the opposite. Once the United States’ influence grows strong in the region, there will inevitably be repercussions to ASEAN, at the same time increasing the intensity of other large nations getting involved in the affairs of the region. Thus, allowing major powers to reach a state of harmonious equilibrium in Southeast Asia. This kind of political game is somewhat like the strategic game Bismark played in Europe during the latter part of the 19th century. This is also the reason Li Kuan Yew is saying, on one hand, “balance China,” while on the other hand, specifically objecting to “surrounding and enclosing” China.

At the same time, we need to understand what Li Kuan Yew meant by "checking and balancing China." Time and time again, Li Kuan Yew has reminded Americans to put emphasis on the Pacific. This long-term, historical setting has been the [center for] growth and decline in Chinese and American strength in the Pacific Rim.

Since the turn of the new century, America has devoted itself to fighting terrorism and has not placed as much emphasis on East Asia, allowing China's influence in the region to grow stronger. After Japan's democratic party took office, they proposed to establish an "East Asian Community," basically meaning an exclusion of the United States. If China and Japan become too close, and if America loses influence in East Asia, then according to Singapore and ASEAN, this will damage the equilibrium of major powers in Southeast Asia, weakening ASEAN's centrality and influence in East Asia. This is not a pleasant picture for Singapore or other ASEAN countries.


平衡中国影响力,东盟要跟着美国走?

新加坡内阁资政李光耀最近在接受日本《朝日新闻》主编船桥洋一采访时,再次提出要让美国在亚太地区“平衡中国”的影响力,因为在未来30—50年时间内,亚太地区都不太可能步入“后美国时代”,中国在军事和民用方面的技术都无法与美国相比,购买力也与美国相去甚远。这番言论在他去年访问美国期间,就曾有过清楚表述,为此在中国媒体引来不少批评性的评论。新加坡媒体评述认为这是中国媒体在煽动民族主义,显然察之失当,有哪个国家的国民,喜欢听他国政治家鼓动他国来“制衡”自己国家的话呢?即使把“制衡”这两个字换成“平衡”,那话题冲着中国而来的事实,却还是没办法抹除的,这自然不可能让中国人愉快。

  然而一些中国公众对李光耀的言论上纲上线,由从前爱之匪浅到现在恨之至深,却也毫无必要。李光耀这样去说,实际上并非心血来潮,而是反映了新加坡——大而言之是东盟久而有之的一种世界观和战略思维,而且在实践层面也并不乏见。中国人如果清楚这一点,就大可不必对李光耀所言如此“不高兴”,而是要未雨绸缪,以更成熟的心态和更恰当的战略安排发展与东盟交往,逐步推进中国国家利益和亚洲共同的和平发展,所谓“不畏浮云遮望眼”也。

  在处理与大国的关系上,20世纪下半叶以来,东盟曾经有过三种较有影响的思想观念,一种是不结盟政策,主要为印度尼西亚所倡导;另一种是中立化思想,马来西亚是其提出者;再有一种,乃是大国平衡理念,新加坡是其不懈主张者。在东盟整合的过程中,新加坡的大国平衡理念,逐渐为多数东盟国家所接受,在东盟内部有更大影响力。

  新加坡和东盟的大国平衡理念,有其自身生长背景。东盟国家近代以来曾饱受欧洲殖民之苦,第二次世界大战结束后又长期处在美苏争霸的前沿,在过去多数时候,东南亚地区不是受大国控制,就是在大国的夹缝间生存,小国处世之难,对东盟国家来说感受良多。由此萌发的一种思想,乃是东盟国家化零为整,作为一个集体周旋于大国之间,从中实现东盟国家的利益最大化。基于这种考虑,东盟于1967年冷战期间宣告成立,并在之后逐渐扩大规模和提升合作水平。

  简单地说,东盟的大国平衡战略思维,主要有两点内涵:一是不让任何一个大国在东南亚地区独大;二是力求使东盟在大国间发挥桥梁甚至牵引作用。基于前一点,东盟在地缘战略上,所奉行的乃是开放的地区主义,也就是说对所有大国开放,不在经济、安全和战略上特别厚待某一特定大国,而在某一大国对该地区影响力明显超过其他大国时,就会致力于提高对其他大国的合作水平,以平衡大国间的实力影响。20世纪90年代以来,东盟与中国交往水平的提高,就是这种思维的产物。冷战结束前后,日本在经济上,美国在经济、安全和战略领域对该地区影响最大,出于平衡美国、日本的考虑,东盟加大与中国的来往水平,如建立 “10+1”对话机制,与中国商议建立自由贸易区等。但东盟的交往对象并不限于中国,同期内与印度、日本、美国都在发展合作关系,连澳大利亚都已渐渐被东盟拉拢入“东亚”范畴。

  基于后一点,东盟国家力求以整体的形态,主导东亚地区事务,即以小球带动大球。以东盟为中心所建立起来的各种论坛和对话机制,就是这种思维的产物。这些论坛和对话机制的建立发展,提高了东盟对内对外的议事能力,增强了东盟在国际上的影响力,东盟的主体性也因此得到很大保障。

  中国与新加坡等东盟国家打交道,需要明白它们的战略思维。李光耀请求美国留在亚太平衡中国,并不是就想在东南亚地区排斥中国,相反,一旦美国对该地区的影响力加强,东盟的必然反应,是会同时加大其他大国对该地区事务的介入力度,以此使大国之间在东南亚地区达成实力均衡。这种权术,很有点类似19 世纪后期俾斯麦在欧洲所玩弄的合纵连横之道。这也就是李光耀一边说要拉美国“平衡中国”,另一边又明确反对“包围中国”的原因。

  同时,还要弄清楚李光耀说出“制衡中国”之语的背景。李光耀三番五次提醒美国人重视亚太,长期背景是中美实力在亚太地区的消长,新世纪以来美国致力于反恐,对东亚地区重视不如以往,而中国在该地区影响力增强。短期因素乃是日本民主党上台后,所提出建设的“东亚共同体”,有把美国排除在外的意思。中日如果过于接近、美国在亚洲的影响力如果遭遇本质压缩,在新加坡和东盟国家看来会损害大国在东南亚的实力均衡结构,进而削弱东盟主体性和在东亚地区的影响力。这不为新加坡等东盟国家所乐见。(程亚文)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Australia: Trump Misfires Again in His War on the World

Topics

Austria: Soon Putin Will Have Successfully Alienated Trump

Canada: Scorning Trump’s Golden Dome Would Be a Mistake

Australia: Which Conflicts of Interest? Trump Doubles Down on Crypto

Russia: Will Trump Investigate Harris? Political Analyst Responds*

Germany: Ukraine War: Cease-fire Still Out of Reach

Japan: Expectations for New Pope To Mend Rifts among American People

OPD: 16 May 2025, edited by Helaine Schweitzer

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Previous article
Next article