but the U.S. and China are approaching the phase of heightened military danger, is written by the staff of the Centre for security studies in Zurich. While the world is busy fighting the pandemic, the two countries unwind the spiral of confrontation. US feel that you lose influence, and China is eager to regain “lost” territories.
The Asia-Pacific region stands on the threshold of a decisive decade. Now enter into the confrontation between Pro-American and Chinese social model. The delicate balance of support for the welfare of the world economy, gives way to overclock both sides confrontational spiral. Crisis because the fashion industry only intensifies this trend.
But it is the beginning of the fight hegemonic on a global scale. However, in the coming years, the processes in the Asia-Pacific region will imprint on the character of international relations far beyond this part of the world. They would touch and Europe.
Yield is the United States its dominant position in East Asia to China as the new defining how the power? Or the US will be able to maintain a privileged position? In the current situation, with confidence to predict anything. However, caused by a coronavirus economic problems could further restrict the space of action of the United States and to accelerate the decline of their influence. But what Chinese President XI Jinping will be the “winner” from the crisis in any case is not guaranteed.
the Fear of the “Thucydides trap”
Called into question not only the outcome of the us-China confrontation. It is also not clear in what form will be played this strategic competition. Many leading politicians and economists believe that military conflict is possible. But in reality, the question is, how long will the us-China conflict will remain below the threshold of war, remains open.
The idea that the possible transition of hegemonic position from one subject to another may cause a war as old as the world and at the same time relevant. It can be found in the “History of the Peloponnesian war” by Thucydides (431-404 BC). In her “real reason” that are comparable with world war II conflict he calls the rise of Athens and the fear of the Spartans in front of the ever growing power of the enemy. In the past decade, Harvard Professor Graham Allison (Allison Graham) introduced this thesis into scientific use the term “Thucydides trap” and widely used it in describing the situation between the US and China.
This historical analogy has caused some fair criticism. But it does not necessarily refer to the Greek historians and their contemporary interpreters to come to similar conclusions. What is the likelihood of conflict between States, identify countries��epicheskie rivals, is greatly increased, and that such a situation was the reason of the vast number of interstate wars, convincingly proved by modern conflict. But the fact is that such competition does not necessarily lead to wars. However, the probability of incidents and crises in relations between the US and China may increase.
The fact that the probability of war in the Asia-Pacific region will continue to grow, due not only to structural changes in the balance of forces, but of specific political decisions. While the first is caused by the rapid economic development of China in the last thirty years, the latter are consequences of the actions of politicians, their interests and internal political factors. Only a comprehensive consideration of these factors shows why the US and China are moving in their relationship to the phase, which is even more fraught with conflict.
China wants to have the opportunity to win
In China for several years, the military budget is growing faster than GDP. But only one thing is not necessarily threatening. The concern is rather a combination of aspirations in the field of modernization and the growth of arms with the territorial component of the “Chinese Dream” of XI Jinping. It provides for the return of “lost” territories in the coming years. This intention is in sharp contradiction with the ideas of the world order the United States and of most countries in the Pacific rim.
In Washington and Beijing are now the prevailing nationalist currents manifesting — although it is mainly on the trade-political level — a tendency to escalation, and this fact contributes to the aggravation of the situation. To consider this process only as an intermediate is probably wrong. First, si has created for itself the prerequisite to remain in power for life, and secondly, the United States in its relations with China, pursue the interests that will be relevant and after a possible re-election of Donald trump in November of this year.
Problematic due to the likelihood of conflict and processes in the military field. On the Chinese side not only increases the combat capability of the people’s liberation army. Equally important and ongoing change in Chinese military thinking. Self-confident, if not aggressive assertion of Chinese territorial claims is expressed not only in the effort to make America continually increase the cost of possible intervention, but also in the desire to gain the ability to win a quick and decisive victory over the armed forces of the United States in the region. The people’s liberation army must be able, above all in the air and at sea, to win before the opposing party fully Rwill advernet its military capabilities.
Corresponding to these tasks the modernization of the army should be substantially completed by 2035. At the latest in 2050, the Chinese army in all military branches and operational areas must be at “world level”. Due to this fact, together with the U.S. armed forces and quality will be a unique army.
of Painful debate on the strategy for the West
Heated debate about how best to respond to Chinese ambitions, continued in the US until now, although experts are debating for many years. The idea of military strikes on targets inside China too problematic because of the high risk of escalation. The same applies to the idea to resist possible Chinese aggression, naval blockade. In recent years more and more supporters of the idea of creating a line of defense along the “first island chain” (from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines to Borneo). But as these debates in the coming decades will affect the development of the armed forces is not yet clear.
To determine this is important because the economic costs associated with coronavirus, is reflected in the vast military budget of the United States. The fact that the pandemic will temporarily mute and Chinese ambitions, also cannot be ruled out completely. But it seems that at the moment the situation in the Western Pacific is developing in the opposite direction. China enjoys the fact that the West was distracted by the pandemic, to strengthen military pressure on Taiwan. More than usual, the armed forces of Taiwan in the past months become the target of provocations by the people’s liberation army of China.
Still, the prevailing view is that the war is likely to start due to errors in perception, incorrect calculations, errors or tragic accidents. But the fact that the United States at the end of 2020-ies will still be able to resolve the military conflict between the people’s Republic of China and Taiwan in favor of the threatened island of democracy, is very doubtful. It is possible that in the eyes of the elite of the Communist party of China appeal of forcible reunification of Taiwan with mainland China will soon increase. Politicians tend to resort to military instruments, when there is a possibility that the conflict can be won quickly and at an acceptable cost.
of the Dangerous illusion
To prevent a war in the Pacific, last but not least we need to re-look at some dubious assertions. This includes, contrary to many opinions of scientists in the field of politics and military Affairs, and the popular thesis of “nuclear safeguards world.” You can often hear, that the very existence of nuclear weapons is effective for the prevention of military conflicts between the great powers. But this thesis in higherher degree is questionable, and not only after the Kargil war between nuclear powers Pakistan and India in 1999. Even before this there was a fair doubts about the ability of nuclear deterrence to automatically prevent war.
Speaking specifically about the relationship between the US and China, this view in their apparent simplicity seems particularly untenable. Nuclear weapons do have effective potential deterrent. But it will help to prevent a war, if both sides are confident that military action with conventional weapons, with some probability, can evolve to the nuclear level.
However, this confidence in the military theory of people’s liberation army almost no sense. On the contrary, Chinese military theorists are manifest in the field of control over the frightening escalation of the conflict, Western observers with optimism. They do not seem seriously to doubt the possibility of limited regional conflicts below the nuclear threshold.
At the same time and in the American debate on military doctrines noticeable understatement of the value of the nuclear factor. In the presence of a variety of scenarios, “entering into military action” below the classical threshold of the military is absolutely not possible that the two powers ever accidentally got involved in a war with each other, without thinking of the nuclear factor details.
On this background, Europe should abandon the dangerous illusion, namely, the idea that war between the great powers in principle, and irreversibly in the past. “War by mistake” — this is just one of the possibilities. And we should not consider itself immune from war between the great powers, which leading politicians may find it inevitable, necessary and promising, and therefore will intentionally kindle. In the Pacific, on the one hand, Washington does not abandoned the intention to continue to impose their notions of order and to support them by military means. On the other hand, the Chinese leadership in recent decades, consistently working to one day to be able to absorb the disputed region.
to underestimation of the risks
Many Western politicians are not taking seriously its resulting consequences or put them behind economic interests. Probably the sovereignty of the democratic of Taiwan have long been concerned with the less than good economic relations with the people’s Republic. Even when Beijing announced that the South China sea is a “blue earth” and an integral part of Chinese tourism, and began to dispute in the East China sea the Japanese claim to sovereignty, leading Western economists and politicians were considered in the forecasts scenario, a military conflict only as a theoretical residual risk.
“Only b�� not a self-fulfilling prophecy!” — for years, this was their motto. But such metaphysics does not meet the real aims of international policy in the field of security. If such a “strategy of closed eyes and ears” of the likelihood of a military conflict only increases. It should be clear to Europe more than anything.
Michael Haas (senior research fellow) and Nicolas Mazur (researcher) work at the Analytical center of security studies at the ETH in Zurich.
