Expert Claims China Must Excel at“Fair Charging” in U.S.-China Military Affairs

China must excel at “fair charging”* in the arena with the United States, and even more importantly, it must prevent strategic competition between the two nations from escalating into a mold of confrontation and ensure that both sides establish a long-term, peaceful coexistence in Asia and the Pacific.

Recently, the Obama administration ostentatiously announced its new military strategy, dubbed “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” marking the official beginning of the United States’ third military restructuring since the end of the Cold War.

If one says that the first post-Cold War military reorganization was in response to the new world order brought about by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and that the core mission of the second was to adapt to the practical necessities of the global war on terror, then the defining characteristic of this round of restructuring is the chief importance of the Asia-Pacific region in [America’s] military layout.

On the surface, the aforementioned strategy does not discuss China at any great length. China is only directly mentioned in three places within the document: once to mention that China’s sudden rise has affected the whole of America while pointing out that the U.S. and China have mutual interests in and a responsibility to promote security in East Asia; once to criticize the lack of transparency in Chinese military planning; and once to state that the strategy of “area denial” pursued by China cannot be tolerated. While these viewpoints don’t appear to be anything new and the choice of words was fairly restrained, behind [the words] actually lies an abundance of profound meaning. Compared with the proactive tone used in the U.S. National Security Strategy of 2010 encouraging China to “take on a role as a global leader,” the new military strategy’s take on the position of U.S.-Chinese relations has clearly come down an octave; combine that with [the fact that] one of the core objectives of this round of restructuring is the remodeling of the security order in Asia and the Pacific, and [it is clear that] although the sections in writing concerning China are few, responding to the Chinese challenge was unquestionably one of the core factors which prompted the revision of America’s military strategy.**

From the end of the Cold War to today, it has been difficult to develop military relations between the U.S. and China within the cycle of constantly being “reset,” “broken off,” “reset again,” and “broken off again.” Military collaboration between the two sides has lagged far behind cooperation in trade and political agreements, and it has become a noticeable “short board” (translator’s note: limiting factor) in U.S.-China relations. Following the great strides taken forward in the modernization of China’s military and America’s thorough restructuring of the security order in Asia and the Pacific, the relationship between the two militaries has not only been a topic difficult to avoid in the two countries’ relations, but it is also increasingly becoming a source of tension and even antagonism between China and the U.S.

Even more importantly, a new round of tensions which may exist between the Chinese and American militaries would be occurring precisely at a delicate stage in overall relations between China and the U.S. As a result of the simultaneous start of multiple transitions into the “post-anti-terrorism,” “post-crisis,” “post-withdrawal,” etc., periods, as well as the ever-shrinking disparity in strength between the two nations, U.S.-China relations are currently undergoing a period of extensive recovery and transformation. In the process, each side will reexamine and reevaluate the other, as well as re-plan their own nation’s strategies. In the past few years, bumps in the U.S. and China’s relationship have already indicated a high level of sensitivity in relations during this regrouping phase, and the 2012 U.S. elections already being under way will further heat up the debate on policies towards China. One can say that U.S.-China relations are now at an important crossroads. Whether or not military relations can be dealt with successfully will by a large degree decide the fundamental nature of U.S.-China relations in the future. If handled well, the two sides’ “cooperative partnership” will live up to its name, and the United States, China and all other parties will be winners; if handled poorly, the outcome will be an unbearable weight on all nations.

For China, “peaceful development” is neither a wished-for but unachievable gesture of compromise nor a disingenuous stopgap measure, but rather the most rational choice for an up-and-coming power to achieve a low cost, highly efficient and sustainable rise to prominence. As the United States’ new military strategy becomes deeply intertwined with its policies on China and China’s strategies on its periphery coincide more and more with those concerning the United States, China must excel at “fair charging” in the arena with the United States, and even more [importantly], must prevent strategic competition between the two nations from escalating into a mold of confrontation and ensure that both sides establish a long-term, peaceful coexistence in Asia and the Pacific. This has already become a prerequisite and foundation for China’s continued “peaceful development” and devoted management of the national and public welfare, and will also be the crucial element which defines the essence of U.S.-China relations in the 21st century.

Wang Honggang (Deputy Director of the Institute of American Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations)

*Editor’s Note: a soccer term meaning a legal shoulder tackle

**Translator’s Note: the author of this article seems to have only loosely quoted the 2010 National Security Strategy; the original quote in English is ” takes on a responsible leadership role”, while the Chinese reads closer to “take on a role as a global leader”.