Australia and India’s Dilemma with the US Containment of China

Right now, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is paying an official visit to India. While the foreign media is preoccupied with the imminent signing of a $2 billion arms deal between the two nations, the focus is directed toward the U.S. and India’s “never forget about China” topic. India’s Deccan Chronicle reported on June 6 that if India is caught in the struggle for hegemony in the Asia Pacific region between the two giants — China and the U.S. — India will find itself “between a rock and a hard place.” At the same time, although Australia aims to deepen military ties with the U.S., its economic dependency on China makes the strategy risky. Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith has openly acknowledged the Australian government’s “two-timing” approach toward China, pointing out that it’s possible for Australia to strengthen its relationship with China while maintaining its security partnership (including military cooperation) with the U.S., saying: “It’s not possible … to contain China, a country of 1.2 billion people.” The South Korean Defense Ministry remarked that as “strategically partnered” nations, South Korea and China have held joint naval humanitarian search and rescue exercises, conducted active cooperative exchanges in the field of defense and have been aiding each other in codependent logistical support agreements over the years. South Korea plans to sign a military reinforcement agreement with China, a move aimed to ease the tension brought forth by South Korea’s growing intimacy with the U.S. and Japan.

Having meddled around the globe for 20 years since the end of the Cold War, the formerly rivalless America suddenly discovers that it may have made a misstep. Aware that Asia Pacific has become the new economic center for the world, America has decided to focus future attention to the region. Thus, America has begun to make dynamic adjustments to its military strategies, hoping to regroup its scattered forces from around the world and relocate them to Asia Pacific, aiming to rival the booming economic world power that is China. Of course, America’s return to Asia Pacific is not simply the return of an active military strategy, for it contains political, economic, diplomatic and other facets. Especially given U.S. President Obama’s comment of wanting to become a “Pacific President,” it is clear that the U.S. is not content with just sitting and watching the rapid rise of China. The U.S. readies itself to make sacrifices in its global strategy and is determined to compete with China for hegemony in the Asia Pacific region!

But the U.S.’ strategy has brought both joy and anxiety to many nations. Some countries are fully supportive of the U.S.’ move and are enthusiastically cheering for the U.S.’ return. Such countries include Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore and even our country’s Taiwan. This is because they feel the U.S.’ return will bring a new sense of security and it has further renewed their feeling that the U.S. will bring them new development opportunities. While some countries do not actively object to the U.S. strategy, they are nonetheless presented with a dilemma. Examples are Australia, India, Thailand, Malaysia and others. They believe that to be in accordance with the U.S.’ plan to deter China, they must align themselves with the U.S., but this means taking the risk of offending the Chinese. Because the growth of these countries is intertwined with trade relations with China, explicitly joining forces with the U.S. may result in lost opportunities in trade cooperation with China.

Yet the U.S. insists that all the nations in the region must choose a clan to fight with, which poses a difficult problem for many countries when choosing between the U.S. and China. The competition between the U.S. and China cause a problem for a lot of countries, for while countries are insecure about China’s powers, they also hope to gain free access to the South China Sea. However, they genuinely do not want to be treated as a component of the U.S.’ strategy to deter China and view the U.S.’ promotions of its new military strategy as quite vexing. Even though they hope to strengthen defense cooperation with the U.S. on a bilateral basis, they cannot be independent of China economically.

For instance, when Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony met with Panetta, he expressed euphemistically that the U.S. needs to reevaluate or adjust its strategy of returning to Asia Pacific. Should the U.S. feel the need to strengthen multilateral security frameworks in the region, the U.S. must ensure that it moves at a pace that all relevant nations are comfortable with. While India will fully support “… unhindered freedom of navigation [in international waters],” issues regarding the South China Sea should be more “appropriately” resolved by having the relevant parties act in accordance with international laws, a sign that India will not support the U.S.’ active participation in the South China Sea dispute.

Australian officials have also expressed that Australia must declare to the U.S. that it will not act as part of the U.S.’ plan to contain China. “If we possess confidence, we should be an independent country and should not act as we have historically, behaving only as the U.S. wished.”* Meanwhile, Australian Defense Minister Smith announced while visiting China that Australia formally invited the Chinese People’s Liberation Army to participate in the “Spirit of Cooperation 2012” joint military exercises later this year. Australia also welcomed Chinese naval fleets to stop by Australia when returning from the completion of the Gulf of Aden escort. The two nations agreed to exchange expertise on anti-piracy operations in the meantime.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad proposed that it is inappropriate in the current climate for one nation to view another nation as a “threat.” If a nation wants to contain China, China can expand militarily to counter the containment, which will result in a military expansion arms race. Historically, China has been a trade nation, not an imperialist nation. Asian countries, therefore, need to enhance mutual understanding via dialogue.

Clearly, other than their loyal ally Japan and the rejoicing of a few territorial nations, most countries hold a wait-and-see attitude toward the U.S.’ active return to the Asia Pacific region. But the U.S. is brimming with confidence and rapidly implementing a series of initiatives, such as sending 60 percent of its naval fleets to Asia Pacific, deploying stealth fighter F-22 and B-2 stealth strategic bombers to Guam and Hawaii, adjusting military forces stationed in Japan, strengthening Australia’s military deployment, deploying high-profile littoral combat ships in Singapore, voicing intent to return to the Philippines and actively recruiting Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Mongolia, Brunei, Bangladesh and India to try to drive a wedge between China and its neighboring countries so that should containment of China’s peaceful rise fail, China would still end up with “a lonely rise to the top!”

Because of these reasons, China cannot simply wait for the dire consequences to happen. By displaying charm and not resorting to force, an act that may have been misunderstood by many, China demonstrated to the key actors and neighboring countries its sincerity in resolving the issue peacefully. This proves that China has sufficient strength and ample evidence that the South China Sea belongs to China and will not resort to strategic force in its peaceful rise to power. Meanwhile, China is making efforts to expand the prestige and influence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and actively developing strategic relations between Asia Pacific countries so that, should its own coastal development meet hindrances, development will focus and expand in the strategic rear, with the stabilization of the rear serving as a shield for front-end counterattacks.

Given such a context, China needs to rely on its improving economic and cultural influence and commit to the task of breaking down the U.S.’ strategic containment. For instance, China could strengthen ties with Australia, India, Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia through cooperation and joint military exercises, so that the U.S.’ attempt will fail, or it could create gaps in the strategy so that the final containment circle cannot completely materialize.

Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.