Can China and the U.S. Create a New Asia-Pacific Security Paradigm?

Published in Zaobao
(China) on 23 May 2011
by Du Ping (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Rickisha Berrien. Edited by Alex Brewer.
The third joint meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue produced many points of consensus, one of which was an agreement to set up a bilateral dialogue on Asia-Pacific security. However, because international news coverage has mainly focused on the Sino-U.S. trade dispute, the decision to establish a bilateral consultation mechanism on Asia-Pacific security issues has not received much international media attention. Despite being virtually unknown, the establishment of this new dialogue is a historical and far-reaching decision.

The First Bilateral Dialogue on Asia-Pacific Security Affairs

Asia-Pacific security has never been a focus of Sino-U.S. relations. Although Japan, Korea and Australia are all traditionally allies of the United States, they have never set up an official bilateral dialogue on Asia-Pacific security.

Conversely, while the United States and China are not traditionally allies (both nations are often seen as strategic rivals), they established a dialogue that focuses on Asia-Pacific security issues.

Why did two nations normally characterized as rivals establish such a dialogue? There are a few obvious reasons. First, the U.S. has never treated any of its above mentioned allies as equal partners, because, as the leader of the alliance, the U.S. doesn't want them to have an equal voice in making strategic decisions; instead the U.S. only seeks the loyalty and support of its historical Asia-Pacific allies. Second, none of the above mentioned allies, nor India, which the U.S. is in the midst of courting, posess the international status or diplomatic skills to help the United States maintain Asia-Pacific regional security.

From the Chinese perspective, it is unrealistic to establish a bilateral security dialogue with any other Asia-Pacific country. While China and Russia have a strategic partnership and engage in dialogue and coordination on local security issues, it would prove inappropriate for the pair to have a bilateral dialogue on more regional Asia-Pacific security issues. The reason is simple; Russian presence and influence in the Asia-Pacific region is limited, making it difficult for the country to lead on such issues. Other countries in the region are an even less appropriate choice for similar reasons.

The United States and China's agreement to establish a bilateral dialogue on Asia-Pacific security issues reflects a new trend in Sino-U.S. relations, which will be characterized by mutual "approval," "respect" and "necessity." Specifically, the two sides are ready to endorse each other's status in Asia-Pacific security affairs and ready to respect each other's interests in the Asia Pacific region; and they both need each other's understanding, cooperation and support.

This new development means that the strategic plans of both countries have undergone major changes, marking a turning point in Sino-U.S. relations. Although China and the U.S. still see each other as rivals, new developments in the Asia-Pacific region have lead both countries to reach the same conclusion: Only through cooperation will it be possible to further and protect their own interests. This decision will directly affect both countries' foreign policy strategy in the Asia-Pacific region and may lead to a strange situation in which the "non-allied" Sino-U.S. relationship becomes more important than the traditional Asia-Pacific alliances.

In short, while Japan, Korea and Australia are still indispensable allies in the United States' Asia-Pacific strategy, in this new landscape the U.S. cannot solely rely on its traditional allies to meet its interests in the region. The United States needs to ensure the support of traditional allies, while also ensuring the cooperation of non-traditional allies, so as to preserve its own interests in the Asia-Pacific region and maximize its benefits.

For China, cooperation with the United States in Asia-Pacific security is unavoidable. This is because only through increasing coordination and cooperation with the United States can China encourage the U.S. to reduce its reliance on traditional allies and reduce the pressure from external security while gaining more voice and leadership in the Asia-Pacific affairs.

How Should China and the U.S. Build Mutual Trust?

The Sino-U.S. Asia-Pacific security dialogue is expected to start before the end of this year, with both sides showing a sense of urgency to begin the dialogue and positive expectations for its potential outcome. Will the opening of this new dialogue go smoothly? Can it lay the foundation for future security cooperation? The key to the success of the bilateral dialogue is not predicated on reaching an immediate consensus, but rather dependent on the ability of both parties to come to the talks in goodwill and sincerity. After all, the purpose of the dialogue is to assist one another manage Asia-Pacific regional security. In order to achieve this objective, the two sides must first develop and establish a degree of mutual trust.

How can the two countries build mutual trust? First, both sides should be willing to openly and honestly share their strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region with each other. Second, both sides must be frank in articulating their concerns and, to the extent possible, attempt to understand and safeguard each other's interests. Third, both sides must earnestly seek cooperation. Since the dialogue is intended to increase cooperation, both sides should try to avoid recriminations. In short, as long as both sides believe that such dialogue is worth it, the future of the talks will remain promising.

From China's point of view, the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea are the most pressing security questions threatening the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. As long as the United States is supportive of China on these two issues, China has every reason to reciprocate by supporting U.S. concerns and aspirations. China could support the U.S. in several key ways. First, China could respect the traditional alliances the United States has with Japan and South Korea. Second, we could respect the security affairs of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific. Third, we could welcome broad participation by the U.S. in regional economic cooperation and other multilateral cooperation. Fourth, we could participate in appropriate cooperation on pressing regional problems such as the Korean peninsula issues.

The creation of an Asia-Pacific security dialogue is an attempt by the world's two great powers to draw on each other’s strengths. Both the new situation in the Asia-Pacific and new trends in the region dictate that plans for the dialogue will soon become a reality, an achievement that has come after years of rivalry between the two countries. It is clear that the two countries are adjusting their international strategies, while also changing the ways in which they pursue strategic interests.

If the Asia-Pacific security dialogue progresses, the two nations will be able to overcome the bitter history of two inevitable wars and establish a peaceful coexistence for the future of the world and a new model in which major world powers cooperate with each other. To sum up, if the United States and China can work together to shape and lead a new security paradigm in the Asia-Pacific region, the damaging legacy of WWII on Asia-Pacific relations is likely to fade.

The author is a commentator on Hong Kong's Phoenix TV.


中美之间第三轮战略和经济对话达成若干共识,其中一项就是同意就亚太安全事务进行双边对话。但是,由于中美贸易分歧一直是国际社会关注的焦点,因此,有关建立亚太安全对话机制的决定并没有引起国际媒体的足够重视。实际上,这是一个具有深远意义的重要共识。

亚太安全首次成为双边对话课题

  把亚太安全作为双边之间的专项对话课题,这在中美各自的对外双边关系中都未曾有过。美国虽然和日本、韩国、澳洲都有传统的盟友关系,但从来没有专门就亚太安全事务设立双边对话机制。

  美国和中国不仅不是盟友,反而时常被视为战略竞争对手,但两国之间却能建立这样的安全对话渠道,显然是不同寻常的。

  至于其中的原因,至少有几个是很明显的。一是美国从来没有真正地把上述任何一个盟国当做平等的伙伴来对待,因为作为盟主的美国是不会跟小伙伴在平等基础上做出决策的,它所需要的只是盟友的追随和支持;其二,无论是日本、韩国、澳大利亚,还是美国正在拉拢的印度,其国际地位、国家实力和外交能力都不足以帮助美国维持亚太地区的安全秩序。

  从中国的角度看,与其他任何一个国家就亚太安全问题建立双边对话机制,也是不现实的。中国和俄罗斯有战略协作关系,双方在局部安全问题上一直在进行对话和协调,但若把亚太安全问题作为专项的双边对话课题,就显得不甚恰当。原因很简单,那就是,俄罗斯在亚太地区的存在和影响力都很有限,难以承担主导亚太安全事务的责任。至于其他周边国家,更是不具备这样的分量。

  可以这么说,中美同意专门就亚太安全问题进行双边对话,这一决策本身体现了双边关系中正在酝酿的新趋势,那就是“认可”、“尊重”和“互需”。具体地说,双方愿意认可对方在亚太安全事务中的地位和作用;愿意尊重对方在亚太地区的利益;双方都需要得到对方的谅解、合作和支持。

  这个新趋势意味着中美两国的战略思维已经发生大转变,标志着双边关系已经来到一个转折点。尽管中美两国依然把对方视为竞争对手,但亚太地区的新形势使双方都做出了相同的判断:只有合作才能维护自己的利益,也才能为自己创造利益。这种判断将直接影响各自的亚太战略和外交政策,其可能导致的最终结果是,中美之间的非盟友关系将变得比传统盟友关系更加重要。

  简言之,在美国的亚太战略中,日本、韩国和澳洲依然是不可缺少的盟友,但在新的亚太安全格局中,只靠这些盟友是无法满足美国的利益需求的。美国既要确保传统盟友的支持,又要获得非传统盟友的合作,这样才能保全自己在亚太地区的利益,并且使这些利益获得最大化。

就中国而言,在亚太安全事务中与美国进行合作,也是不可回避的选择。因为,只有和美国进行更多的协调与合作,中国才有可能促使美国减少对传统盟国的倚重,减轻来自外部的安全压力,也才有可能在亚太事务中掌握更多的话语权和主导权。

中美应如何培养和建立互信
  根据双方的意愿,中美亚太安全对话机制可望在今年年底之前正式启动,双方似乎都有一种紧迫感,更有积极的期待。对话机制在开启之初能否顺利,能否为未来的安全合作奠定基础,关键不在于能否立即达成某些具体共识,而在于各方能否从对话中感受到对方的善意和诚意。说到底,中美愿意展开亚太安全对话,目的无非是要借助对方来管理亚太地区的安全秩序。但若要达到这个目的,双方就必须首先培养和建立相当程度的互信。

  如何培养和建立互信?第一,双方应该开诚布公地阐明自己在亚太地区的战略利益和真实意图;第二,双方必须坦诚地阐明自己的具体关切,并尽可能理解和照顾对方的利益诉求;第三,对于可以进行合作的事务,双方必须有实际的合作行动。既然是为寻求合作而对话,双方就应该尽力避免把对话变成相互指责和扩大分歧的平台。总之,只要双方都认为这种对话是值得的,未来的道路才会越走越宽。


从中国的角度看,在亚太地区的安全局势中,最关乎其国家利益的问题莫过于台海地区和南海地区的和平与安全。只要美国在这两大问题上给予理解、谅解和承认,中国就有理由对美国的关切和诉求给予回报。其一,理解和尊重美日、美韩之间的传统盟友关系;其二,尊重美国在亚太安全事务中的地位;其三,欢迎美国广泛参与亚洲地区的经济合作和其他多边合作;其四,在朝鲜半岛以及其他热点问题上予以适度配合。

  中美专门就亚太安全事务进行双边对话,是当今世界新旧两个大国相互借重、彼此借力的新尝试。这种对话概念的诞生并即将成为现实,既是亚太地区新形势和新趋势使然,也是中美两国经过长期相互审视和多次较量之后而作出的决策。由此可以看出,中美两国正在调整各自的战略思维,双方追求战略利益的手段也在改变。

  假若亚太安全对话机制进展顺利并逐步走向成熟,中美两国就有可能摆脱历史上新旧两强难免一战的宿命,从而为未来世界确立一种和平共存、相辅相成的大国关系新模式。概而言之,假若中美能够共同塑造和主导亚太地区的新安全秩序,那么,二战遗留下来的亚太地区旧格局就有可能逐渐淡出。

作者是香港凤凰卫视评论员
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Russia: Political Analyst Reveals the Real Reason behind US Tariffs*

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Topics

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Related Articles

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

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?