New Predictions on American ‘Containment Through the Balance of Power’

Published in Southern Views
(China) on 17 March 2016
by Zhe Fu (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Calvin Blackburn. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
It doesn’t matter if one is discussing the “rebalance to Asia,” the rebalance in Europe with Russia, or even the rebalance in the greater Middle East, America is in reality carrying out its plan of containment through the balance of power. In regard to this, we absolutely must have a clear understanding.

How to look at and deal with the present state of the world’s “great chess game” is a question that politicians and strategists most certainly ought to focus on and research. Of special importance is that in recent years, international flashpoints have been springing up frequently, their growth erratic and difficult to predict. There has been sudden change in situations where there was once only stalemate, in addition to the rapid arrival of unheralded turmoil. Sometimes, a great power will unexpectedly deliver a master stroke, appearing to consistently come out on top. And at the same time, another great power might act tit-for-tat, greatly sapping its rival’s vitality. In an international climate that has grown increasingly unstable despite efforts to bring order, a situation that defies comprehension, it is still as important as ever to understand what strategic ploys the “lone superpower” America has up its sleeves. In the effort to develop and protect the peace and security of China’s international environment, the importance of this understanding goes without saying.

Historically, America’s international strategy has two major traditions. The first is represented by Theodore Roosevelt, and the second is represented by Woodrow Wilson, their thinking forming the basis for what are now known as the schools of realism and idealism. In actuality, looking at previous American administrations, these two schools of thought were not mutually exclusive, and were used concurrently. The only real difference between them is that when those in power found that their global power had limits, they were more inclined to realism, and when the government was in a position of great power, it was inclined toward idealism.

Currently, in a situation where the United States has not given up exporting its value system, it appears that America has increased its emphasis on geopolitics. American strategists have felt that in the wake of the rise of the developing nations and the invigoration of the Asian economies, America’s comprehensive national power has already gone into relative decline. Compared to the height of America’s superpower status at the conclusion of the Cold War, the present state of affairs is a different beast entirely. Despite the fact that at present the United States still engages in frequent displays of its “muscle” and aggressive side, America cannot flaunt its superiority everywhere, nor wantonly squander its power as it could in days past. This has forced America to come down from the heights it enjoyed during its victory around the globe at “the end of history," transitioning to an international strategy that makes frugal use of its power. Consequently, geopolitical considerations have led to the gradual ascendance of realism as the school of choice for the American government.

Some great American thinkers, such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, have strong admiration for the geopolitical tenant put forth in the 20th century by Halford Mackinder, the claim being that whoever controls “the great land bridge of Asia” controls the world. These great thinkers believe that the Asian continent is America’s most important geopolitical objective. In their view, Asia is the largest continent in the world and functions as a geopolitical axis. To have mastery over the countries of Asia would allow one to control two of the most advanced and economically developed regions in the world; the other being North America, a region undoubtedly controlled by the United States. Additionally, controlling Asia would naturally lead to the control of Africa, turning the Western Hemisphere and Oceania into peripheral regions to this geographic center.

Asia makes up three-fourths of the world’s population. In addition, its gross national product and known and unknown resources also exceed three-fourths of the world’s overall totals. This is especially prevalent in the area around the Asian tectonic plate, which has already become the region with the most economic vitality. Consequently, for an America that refuses to relinquish global hegemony, it has not been able to avoid making the struggle for control of Asia into the focus of its geopolitical strategy. Naturally, things are just as Brzezinski says: “American hegemony means exercising decisive influence... this differs from the old empires in that this does not involve direct control.” This requires the use of incredibly brilliant strategic techniques, and “deep thought on the deployment of American power.” *

Previously, America has used the method of garrisoning troops in the lands of its allies in Asia, holding access to the sea at both ends of the Asian continent. From this the United States gained control over the politics and economies of Asia. At present, everything is in flux, forcing America to once again make adjustments to its policies due to having overextended its power. Now it cannot avoid increasingly placing its hopes in developing the capabilities of its allies, following the example of the British Empire’s strategy of maintaining the balance of power in Europe. America is using “smart power” foreign policy, doing its best to use a little to control a lot. Naturally, this “balance of power” is the same as its counterpart, differing from the British Empire’s choice to avoid taking sides. America fixes its eyes on maintaining the regional balance of power in its strategy. On this note, we can tentatively call this strategy “controlling the balance of power through a strategy of containing the situation.”

Currently, America’s plans for its strategic direction and deployments have already become quite clear, with the primary focus being on containing three strategic opponents and formulating the balance of power for three major geopolitical regions. The first is the balance of power between China and the Pacific region. China is a socialist country that has persistently rejected an American style system and American values, pursuing a road of modernization and national strengthening that is in line with its own national characteristics. Following 40 years of intense construction, China’s economy has already jumped to the number two spot worldwide, and is now approaching number one. Even though the Chinese government has repeatedly insisted that it has no intention of challenging America and will never pursue hegemony, China has nevertheless made America feel threatened, restless and very worried. In response, America has taken great pains and attacked the situation from two ends. The first approach is the relinquishment of restraints on Japan’s military affairs, inciting claimants to the South China Sea to make trouble. At the same time, America plots to string together nations such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and perhaps even Vietnam as a means of encircling and containing China’s North and Southeast Asian security systems. Additionally, America is supporting India as a way to balance China in the Southwest. Naturally, seeking to bring about these strategic goals will not be easy.

The other means America uses are economic, sparing no effort to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, resolutely placing China outside of this group and plotting to delay China’s economic development. America’s wishful thinking is vested in a plan to use Asia’s power in response to China’s rise, with itself acting as a supporting force to its allies or as a biased intercessor as a means to realize the so-called “rebalance to Asia.” This move will manifest itself as the containment of China through the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific.

The second focus is on Russia and the balance of power in Europe. Although the Russian economy is already a first-rate power and poses no threat to the United States, Russia’s military strength still ranks second internationally, especially in terms of nuclear power. Russian nuclear strength is quite similar to that of the United States, and Russia functions as the sole nuclear power that could annihilate the United States. Add to that Russia’s highly ambitious geopolitical goals. With a world dominating superpower complex and historical tradition, Putin is a political strongman that is not afraid to act. Currently Russia appears to have no intention of cozying up to the West. All of this has forced the United States to deploy troops in Europe, requesting that the European countries in NATO take on more responsibility. Acting as a means of encircling Russia in Europe, this is another element of America’s strategy of containment through the balance of power.

The third focus is on Iran and the balance of power in the greater Middle East. The Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf region comprises a geopolitical hub for the world that is also an important energy source. As a result, it has historically functioned as an arena for the clash of swords and the struggle for hegemony among great powers. The political situation for this region is extremely complicated; the countries here all seem to be made up of multiple nationalities and religions, with an extremely unstable political situation. There is the conflict between Israel and the Arab world, the internal struggle between Sunni and Shiite Muslims and the clash between the religious extremist groups al-Qaida and the Islamic State. The conflicts are complex and numerous, the factions are many and interlocking. A multitude of forces unceasingly changes and overlaps. Even though America, Russia and several European powers have operated there for many years, they have found it difficult to realize their objectives. To sum up the moral of directly dispatching troops to Iraq and Libya: one needs to plot out the conservation of strategic resources. After the first steps were taken to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem, America plotted to unite the Gulf nations in a strategic alliance that would stand up to Iran. They make up a part of America’s strategy in that region to achieve containment through the balance of power.

In the recent course of world history, first there was Cardinal Richelieu, then there was the British Empire. Both were excellent geopolitical players, skilled at the balancing of power, always placing themselves outside of the organization that was used to balance power, and acting as a “seesaw.” When the balance became tilted, they cast themselves as a counterweight to the more powerful side as a means to maintain the balance of power. America finds itself distinct from these situations. For most of the Cold War, while the world objectively found itself in a bipolar balance of power, this situation was a matter of who could defeat the other. Up until the point when America, China and the Soviet Union found themselves in a tripolar situation, Nixon was actually adopting and acting out a policy of strategic balance of power. But when all was said and done, what he was trying to establish was the containment of the Soviet Union, and not the classic strategic balance of power. This situation persists to this day; no matter if it is the “rebalance to Asia” or if it is the rebalance in the greater Middle East, America is still carrying out a policy of containment through the balance of power. We cannot afford not to have a clear understanding of this policy.

*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated and attributable to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the exact quotations could not be independently verified.


美国“遏制性战略均势”现端倪

无论是“亚洲再平衡”,还是与俄罗斯在欧洲的再平衡,抑或是在大中东地区的再平衡,美国实行的仍然是剑有所指的遏制性均势,对此,我们不能不有清醒的认识。

如何看待和适应当今世界这盘大棋局,是各国政治家、战略家们不能不关注和研究的问题。特别是近几年来,国际上热点频出,常常变生不测,忽焉于胶着中出新局,忽焉于无声处起风雷;有时某一大国突然剑走偏锋,似乎屡屡得手,与此同时,另一大国则针锋相对,大耗其对手“元气”。在这一理而愈乱,扑朔迷离的国际形势下,弄清当今仍然是世界上唯一“超级大国”美国的战略图谋,对于维护和发展我国和平与安全的国际环境,其重要性是不言而喻的。

  美国的国际战略,历来有两大传统,一是以西奥多·罗斯福为代表,一是以伍德罗·威尔逊为代表,从而形成了被称为是现实主义和理想主义的两大派别。其实,纵观美国的历届政府,对于两者,他们实质上都是并行不悖,兼而用之的。区别似乎仅在于,在其力有不逮时,往往是偏于现实主义多一些,在其不可一世时,则又偏于理想主义多一些罢了。

  今天,美国在不放弃其价值观输出的同时,似乎更加重视的是地缘政治的布局。美国的战略家们感到,随着新兴国家的兴起,亚洲经济的活跃,美国的综合国力已经相对下降,与“冷战”结束时如日中天的超强之势相比,目前已经不可同日而语了。尽管现在我们仍能看到它不时大秀“肌肉”、气势汹汹的一面,但它已经不能再像过去那样到处逞强,肆意挥霍国力了,这就迫使其不得不从所谓“历史终结”的那种全球胜券在握的狂喜中冷静下来,转而采取更为节省实力的国际战略,于是,基于地缘政治考量的现实主义战略开始逐渐上升为美国政府的主要选项。

  美国的一些高级智囊人士,如亨利·基辛格、兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基等都十分欣赏哈罗德·麦金德在20世纪初提出的谁控制了“欧亚大陆桥”,谁就有可能控制世界的地缘政治信条,认为欧亚大陆是美国最重要的地缘政治目标。在他们看来,欧亚大陆是全球面积最大的大陆和地缘政治中轴,主宰欧亚大陆的国家将能控制世界上最先进和经济最发达的3个地区中的两个(余下的一个是北美,美国毫无悬念地已经占有了它)。而且,控制了欧亚大陆就几乎自然而然地控制了非洲,并使西半球和大洋洲成为这个地缘中心的周边地带。

  欧亚大陆拥有世界人口的3/4以上,国民生产总值和已知能源、矿藏资源也不低于世界总量的3/4,特别是其中的亚洲板块已成为当今世界最具经济活力的地区。因而决不放弃雄霸天下的美国,就不能不把争夺对欧亚大陆的控制权作为自己地缘战略的中心。当然,正如布热津斯基所说,“美国的霸权意味着发挥决定性影响。”“与过去的帝国不同的是,它不意味着进行直接的控制。”这就需要运用十分高超的战略手段,并“深思熟虑地部署美国的力量”(均引自布热津斯基《大棋局》一书)。

  过去美国采取驻军其欧亚盟国,扼守欧亚大陆东西两端出海口的办法,取得对大陆经济政治的支配权。现在,时移世变,美国又做了一些相应调整,由于其力量的捉襟见肘,目前它不得不更多地期望发挥其盟国的作用,并效法以往大英帝国对欧洲大陆实施均势战略的做法,运用“巧实力”外交,力求以“少少许”控制“多多许”。当然,此“均势”不是彼“均势”,美国采取的乃是一种有别于英帝国一般不选边站,只着眼于维持地区战略平衡的均势战略,这里,我们姑且把它叫作遏制态势下的均势控制战略。

  目前,其战略指向和战略部署的意图已经渐趋明朗,这就是它要主要遏制3个战略对象,形成三大地缘均势:一是中国和亚太地区战略均势。中国是社会主义国家,一直坚决拒绝美国的制度模式和价值理念,坚持走具有自己本国特色的现代化强国道路,而且经过近40年的埋头建设,经济总量已跃居世界第二,并直逼第一。尽管中国政府反复申明,无意挑战美国,永远不追求霸权,但仍然让美国感觉受到威胁,并为之坐立不安,十分焦虑。为此,它煞费苦心,双管齐下,一方面在军事上解禁日本,挑动南海声索国闹事,并企图拼凑日本、韩国、菲律宾、澳大利亚,也许还想加上越南等国,组成围堵中国的东北亚、东南亚安全体系;同时支持印度在西南方向制衡中国。当然,要实现这些也绝非易事。

  另一方面又在经济上,极力推动跨太平洋经济伙伴关系即TPP,断然把中国排除在外,企图在经济上迟滞中国发展。美国的如意算盘是,企图主要用亚洲的力量来应对中国的崛起,它则充当其盟友的后盾和拉偏架的仲裁者,以实现所谓的“亚洲再平衡”,即形成遏制中国的亚太地区战略均势。

  二是俄罗斯和欧洲战略均势。俄罗斯在经济上虽然已经出局于一流强国,完全构不成对美国的威胁,但在军事上则依然位居第二,特别是在核力量上与美国相去不远,是世界上唯一一个可以摧毁美国的核大国。加上俄罗斯有雄心勃勃的地缘政治目标,有称雄世界的大国情结和历史传统,普京又是一个敢于出手的政治强人,目前俄没有任何迹象向西方靠拢。这一切都使得美国不能不在欧洲排兵布阵,要求北约的欧洲诸国要多承担责任,在欧洲形成对俄罗斯的围堵之势,亦即遏制性的战略均势。

  三是伊朗和大中东地区战略均势。中东、北非和波斯湾地区,既是世界地缘政治的要冲,又是最为重要的能源产地,因此历来是大国较力、争霸的角斗场。这一地区政治生态极为复杂,所在国家几乎都存在着多种民族和宗教,政治上极不稳定。有以色列与阿拉伯世界的矛盾,有穆斯林内部逊尼派与什叶派之争,有极端的伊斯兰原教旨主义发起的基地组织和“伊斯兰国”势力的矛盾,各种矛盾错综复杂,各种派别犬牙交错,各种力量不断变动和重组,美国、俄罗斯和一些欧洲大国虽然在那里经营多年,也难以实现自己的战略目标。总结直接出兵伊拉克和利比亚的教训,为节省战略资源计,在初步解决伊朗的核问题后,美国企图支持海湾国家结成对付伊朗等国的战略同盟,形成在该地区对伊朗的遏制性战略均势。

  在世界近代史上,前有黎塞留,后有大英帝国,都是玩弄均势战略的地缘政治高手,他们往往置身于构成均势的格局之外,当“跷跷板”发生严重倾斜时,再向弱势的一方投以“砝码”,以继续保持均势局面。美国则不同,在“冷战”的绝大多数时期,虽然客观上呈现出的是两极对峙的均势,但它要解决的却是“谁战胜谁”的问题。及至美苏中三极鼎立的态势形成后,尼克松倒是采纳和推行了一段均势战略,但归根到底他要建立的还是对苏的遏制性局势,而不是典型的战略均势。今天依然如此,无论是“亚洲再平衡”,还是与俄罗斯在欧洲的再平衡,抑或是在大中东地区的再平衡,美国实行的仍然是剑有所指的遏制性均势,对此,我们不能不有清醒的认识。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving towards the Far Right?

Ethiopia: ‘Trump Guitars’ Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Topics

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving towards the Far Right?

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Canada: How To Avoid ICE? Follow the Rules

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump and Ukraine: a Step in the Right Direction

Related Articles

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

India: Peace Nobel for Trump: It’s Too Long a Stretch

Ethiopia: ‘Trump Guitars’ Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics