The Return to Asia is America's Greatest Strategic Error

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 12 May 2014
by Jie Zhang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Darius Vukasinovic. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
The United States’ “Return to Asia” strategy is causing serious conflicts between China and the countries that surround it. The U.S. is demonstrating “confrontational” strategic intent on all hot points related to China. It is clear from the recent bouts of rhetoric coming out of the U.S. that China is now America’s foremost strategic opponent. The American response to the Ukraine conflict, and the ambiguous messages sent by its sanctions on Russia, send a foreboding signal that China is America’s next target.

In carrying out its strategy, the U.S. is applying compression tactics to all areas of China’s growth. Firstly, it is fomenting dissent within Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet to stab at China at a national level. Secondly, it is trying to weaken China’s geopolitical and economic relations throughout Asia by supporting those countries causing dissent within China’s nearby territorial waters. Thirdly, it is trying to destroy China’s global trade advantage and suppress its socio-economic transformation by creating a multi-nation trade partnership throughout the Asia-Pacific and then refusing to let China participate. Fourthly, it will also, in all likelihood, try to confound China’s attempts to emulate American society by taking advantage of this precarious point in China’s economic development, and export its ideas of “democratic revolution” to destroy China from the inside.

But, insofar as this writer is concerned, from both a strategic overview and a tactical application standpoint, America’s “Return to Asia” policy is flawed. We can judge the validity of this assertion through examination of the following points:

First, stability is an important issue in the United States’ “Return to Asia” strategy, and it’s clear that both the U.S. and Chinese economies are interlocked in an equilibrium of mutual dependency. The global economy is dependent on China too, and it is difficult to find any single country in the world, other than China, that can undertake a mass-scale, open economic system capable of meeting the needs of the global trading system like China can. As China’s national consumer economy starts to take shape, the Chinese domestic economy will become an important market for U.S. and Asian businesses, further increasing the mutual dependencies between China and its trading partners.

Second, with China being a country that remembers well the effects of foreign expansionism, China has no interest in leading or dominating the world. China’s foreign policy has always only been concerned with maintaining the country’s core interests, while simultaneously seeking outward economic expansion. Foreign scholars have commented that, once China’s GDP surpasses that of the U.S., it will embark on an aggressive campaign of hegemonic expansion throughout its neighboring countries and America. These statements reveal the “confirmatory bias” or “intentional bias” in these countries’ line of thinking, as they themselves are dependent upon expansionism and hegemony to continue their growth.

Third, the logic behind the American “Return to Asia” strategy is, to a large degree, an attempt to rehash 19th century values and conscience and apply them to China’s 21st century economic liberation. China’s future development does not exclude democracy and freedom, and this has been proven in the government’s recent report highlighting socialism’s 18 core values. In contrast, many countries’ “color revolutions” are beginning to fade away, showing clearly people’s reactions to the shortcomings of Western-style democracies. This will certainly give birth to new forms of governmental and administrative systems in the future.

Lastly, China’s historical longevity and the unique quality of its national character demonstrate that China’s society is highly flexible and tolerant. This will provide a stable base for China’s internal reform. The Chinese government is taking seriously the underlying issues of inequality within Chinese society, and will do all it can to ensure that future structural reforms address all these problems. For now, China needs only to hold its current course steady, bide its time and keep hold of its strategic game chips for when the appropriate time arises. While waiting, we must keep on the path toward peaceful horizons and focus on building further economic relations and dependencies with our trading partners. How the U.S. continues to respond to China’s rise will have a powerful effect on the world’s future. We trust that the many wise and learned people of the United States will join in introspection over this fact.

The author is a researcher for the China People’s University National Development and Strategy Research Institute.


张杰:重返亚太是美重大战略误判
2014-05-12 02:36 环球时报
3759 字号:TT
美国“重返亚太”战略已对中国与周边国家之间的地缘政治产生持续性的重大冲击。在与中国相关的所有热点问题上,美国展现出与中国“对着干”的战略意图。近期美国对华言行已明确发出将中国作为头号战略竞争对手的信号。美国在乌克兰危机中对俄罗斯制裁的暧昧,侧面印证了中国才是美国认定的未来最大竞争对手。
为实施该战略,美国精心设计了一整套遏制中国的策略体系。一是在台湾、香港、新疆以及西藏等国内问题轮番制造事件刺激中国。二是在中国周边的领土领海争端事件中刻意扶持、协助与事国,削弱中国东亚地缘政治和经济联系。三是构建跨越两大洋的谈判来组建20多国参与的全球服务贸易新规则体系,并排斥中国参与,从而削弱中国在全球的贸易优势和堵住中国经济结构转型升级通道。最后,美国很有可能会利用当下中国社会转型期的高风险和脆弱性,输入“民主革命”来搞乱中国,从内部摧毁中国赶超美国的能力。
但以笔者之见,无论是从美国“重返亚太”的战略意图来看,还是其采取的种种策略手段来看,“重返亚太”是美国的一次重大战略误判。这种误判性,或者说是无效性,可从下面几方面来理解。
首先,中美双方经济的相互依赖性,是平衡美国“重返亚太”战略的重要稳定器。全球经济的相互依赖性,决定了任何一国难以将中国如此庞大规模的开放经济体,排斥在全球贸易体系之外。随着中国国内消费社会的形成,中国经济对美国和亚洲各国的重要性和相互依赖性还会持续增加。
其次,从中国本身来看,既没有强烈对外扩张的历史记忆,也没有称霸全球的国民共同意识和领导意志。维护自己的核心利益,谋求经济发展的外部环境,始终是中国对外战略的重心。国外有学者鼓吹,当中国经济规模超美后,必会对美国及周边国家实施霸权主义和侵略性扩张。这是别有用心者的“确认性偏见”或“故意性偏见”,暴露出的是这些国家自身对全球霸权和扩张的依赖性。
再次,美国“重返亚太”战略的逻辑,很大程度上是在用19世纪的意识形态和价值观体系,来应对21世纪的开放中国。中国的发展不排斥民主和自由,这在十八大报告阐述的社会主义核心价值观中有充分展现。相反,一些国家“颜色革命”纷纷褪色,以及当前对西式民主体系弊端的反思,必将催生新型国家治理体系理论和实践的诞生。
第四,中国历史文化的延续性和国民性格的特质,决定了中国社会具有独特的伸缩性和包容性,能为中国改革提供相对稳定的内部环境。中国政府高度重视国内社会矛盾的高发期,正积极改革和调整利益结构。只要中国国内保持稳定,中国的对外战略就有足够的博弈筹码和运筹空间。今后中国仍要坚持既定的和平崛起路线,要把重点放在强化与全球主要国家及周边国家的经济相互依赖上。美国如何看待和应对中国的崛起,将决定着世界的未来,希望美国越来越多有识之士能多加反思。▲(作者是中国人民大学国家发展与战略研究院研究员)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Taiwan: After US Bombs Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Trump’s Credibility in Doubt

Poland: Calm in Iran Doesn’t Mean Peace Yet

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Australia: Could Donald Trump’s Power Struggle with Federal Reserve Create Next Financial Crisis?

Germany: Trump’s Opportunity in Iran

Topics

Germany: Trump’s Opportunity in Iran

Canada: Elbows Down on the Digital Services Tax

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump vs the Fed: Rocky Times Ahead

Cuba: The Middle East Is on Fire

Australia: Could Donald Trump’s Power Struggle with Federal Reserve Create Next Financial Crisis?

Taiwan: After US Bombs Iranian Nuclear Facilities, Trump’s Credibility in Doubt

Switzerland: Ukraine Is No Longer a Priority for America: Trump Leaves the Country High and Dry

Related Articles

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

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