Military exercises in the South China Sea
Current US military assertiveness in the South China Sea is causing a heightening security dilemma between the US and China. Mike Pompeo’s address on strengthening US policy in the South China Sea in light of China’s increasing “unilateral agenda” (Pompeo, 2020), has been met by increased Chinese military presence accordingly. US Missile testing and military exercises, such as the $125 million Tomahawk testing near Taiwan (Lague, 2020), can be seen as a direct threat to Chinese security and, as a result, has caused Beijing to increase military power in the region as well. China, symmetrically, acquired 200 cruise-missiles (Lague, 2020) in response. From a classical realist perspective, this security tension is inescapable as states act in human nature, both self-interestedly and for self-preservation, meaning it is in both China’s and the US’ best interests to increase security measures in light of increasing oppositional military power. This is, therefore, a prototypal realist example of spiralling tensions, with ongoing retaliations by the US and Chinese demonstrating the inescapable nature of the Sino-US security dilemma.
Liberalists, who believe in the notion of harmony amongst competing interests, look at other counteracting factors, such as interdependence, for escaping the security dilemma.
Trade and interdependence
The threat to the discontinued trade between the U.S and China may lead to a de-escalation of tensions. Nye identifies that power is losing emphasis on military force; economic growth is becoming the most significant in international power (Nye, 1990: 80). Therefore, threats to the economy may be a reason why the U.S and China will escape its security dilemma. U.S goods and services trade with China totalled $634.8 billion in 2019 (USTR, 2020), with China being the U.S’ largest supplier of goods imports. These statistics clearly identify a high level of interdependence, or rather a level of bilateral co-dependency. From a Liberalist perspective, decision-makers will, therefore, value the continuation of trade relations higher than any potential gains made through tension or conflict. It is the decisive threat of an economic downturn caused by a loss of trade, that will deter both China and the US from increasing security tensions. However, neorealists suggest that, historically, this isn’t always the case, with World War 2 being an example of continued trade in conflict (Copeland, 1996). Yet, liberalists argue the world has greatly changed since then.
Here, it’s important to note the fundamental differences between realism and liberalism. Neorealists believe that states have no choice, principally, in the active prioritisation of interdependence over escalating tensions, this is due to states’ survivalist mentality prioritising the protection of security in an anarchic world. meaning “no amount of cooperation” provides a choice of de-escalation (Mearsheimer, 1994: 9). The epistemological differences in perspectives of the nature of the state are elucidated here. Therefore, since the current security dilemma is only becoming more accelerated while commerce resumes, the neorealist perspective offers logical reasoning to the continued escalation of the US-China security dilemma.
Increasing ‘soft power’
‘Soft power’ (the ability to co-opt rather than coerce (Nye, 1990)), although more clandestine, is also a matter of relational contention. China’s increasing concentration on soft power measures is seen as a security threat by the U.S. Xi has a ‘Chinese dream’ to “Increase Chinese soft power” (Albert, 2018). As a result, China’s Belt and Road initiative (BRI), an investment in 70 countries (Clarke, 2017: 72), is a clear global campaign to build economic power. Alongside this, a spread of cultural ‘Confucius institutes’ and developmental aid programs show us that China wishes to export its developmental model, ideology, and culture. Soft power is induced through cultural, relational, or economic allyship or seduction (Nye, 1990), and can be a means of achieving aims. From a neorealist perspective, China’s actions, although perceivably harmless, are power-seeking as states are ‘selfish’. Neorealists perceive the increased use of Chinese soft power as its wish to balance political and economic power (rather than bandwagon), thus expanding its powers over US hegemony. Therefore, the nature of soft power is a powerful tool in expanding global hegemony and, due to its non-violent nature, is a means of achieving aims whilst still remaining ‘legitimate’ in the eyes of the international community. Contrastingly, a liberalist perspective would argue soft power is a means of peace-building and friendly relations. However, the US’ policy ‘pivot’ to Asia under the Obama administration (Clarke, 2017: 72) clearly shows us that soft power is regarded as threatening to U.S hegemony. Neorealism shows us that states essentially rely on their own resources to make judgements, regarding their own security as most important. The reprisal U.S pivot most likely will be met with Chinese retaliation, therefore, neorealism best demonstrates a continuing Sino-US security dilemma.
International organisations
However, many international organisations, such as the UN, can offer détente via the promotion of peace. The U.S. and China are both members and big-budget contributors ($674.2 million from U.S to the UN in 2019 (Kent, 2019: 135) to international organisations such as the UN. The UN concentrates on promoting cooperation, democracy, and interdependence; all these relating to the liberalist Kantian peace theory, which has pacifying effects (Nye, 2008). The UN peace-builds through coercing norm-breakers, mediating tensions, and promoting inclusive state self-interests. Liberalists believe that the UN can act as a mediator for the U.S-China security dilemma, something which the UN attempted after the Russian Crimean annexation in 2014 (Aljazeera, 2019). However, the efficiency of the UN in holding states to account is questionable. Russia, due to its superpower status, was able to annex Crimea with little consequences, as the UN, especially to neorealists, isn’t an effective central world authority. Neorealists see states as being the highest form of authority that exists globally and, therefore, any mitigation of tensions would be futile. Furthermore, some neorealists see organisations as battlegrounds of power. China’s increased expenditure on international organisations such as World Bank and IMF (UN, 2019) is seen as China acquiring more political power, as the more control it has over these organisations, the greater ability it has to prevent issues from reaching the political stage originally; this being Luke’s second face of power.
Furthermore, recent trends in decreasing U.S. involvement in international organisations, such as the WHO, show us that domestic factors are also key to the security dilemma debate. The recent Trump administration has implemented isolationist policies, causing cuts to WHO budget contributions (Huang, 2020). The US’ power in international organisations will, as a result, decrease, thus altering the balance of power in the world order. Therefore, from a constructivist perspective, domestic issues such as leadership and ideology are also very important factors in understanding Sino-US tensions. Constructivism reveals that actors continually shape the very nature of international relations through their actions and are an important factor to be investigated.
Domestic affairs
Critical approaches, such as constructivism, is a useful perspective. Liberalism and realism are positivist theories that fail to examine the ‘structure-agent’ dimension, this was the case in predicting the end of the Cold war. Therefore, looking at domestic affairs will allow a more conclusive answer to the debate.
Differing views on security are leading to a fundamental bilateral incompatibility between the US and China. CCP’s notion of state security is uniquely expansive relative to American concepts of national security, including the concerns of cultural, political, and ideological security. According to Chinas National Security Law, security involves the capability of the state to ‘maintain its ideological domination’ (Panyue, 2015) which is at fundamental odds with US liberal definitions. From a constructivist perspective, this shows us that constructed norms and ideational factors drive tension between the US and China. Fundamental differing perceptions of power and threat, due to the ideational differences between democracy and non-democracy, means American policy is at fundamental odds with Chinese policies. Therefore, the US and China are caught in an inescapable security dilemma.
In conclusion, my exploration of hard and soft power; international organisations; domestic affairs, and interdependence ultimately shows us that neorealist arguments, alongside constructivist examinations of domestic affairs, best explain the escalating U.S-China tension. They are fundamentally a cause of ideational differences; the anarchic nature of the world, and the failure of pacifying effects of interdependence/international organisations, which, reveal the inescapable nature of the Sino-US security. This essay may provide potential predictions for the future of the world order.
Bibliography (alphabetical):
aljazeera.com. (2019.). UN resolution condemns Russia’s occupation of Crimea. 10th December [online] Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/10/un-resolution-condemns-russias-occupation-of-crimea. (Accessed on 8/11/20)
Clarke, Michael. (2017) “The Belt and Road Initiative: China’s New Grand Strategy?” National Bureau of Asian Policy, no. 24, pp. 71–79.
Dale Copeland. (1996). “Economic interdependence and war: A theory of trade expectations,” International Security 20:4.
Huang Panyue (2015). National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China - Ministry of National Defense. Mod.gov.cn. Available: http://eng.mod.gov.cn/publications/2017-03/03/content_4774229.htm. (Accessed on 8/11/2020)
Kent, A. (2013). China’s participation in international organisations. In Zhang Y. & Austin G. (Eds.), Power and Responsibility in Chinese Foreign Policy. ANU Press. (pp. 132-166).
Lague, D. (2020). Special Report: U.S. rearms to nullify China’s missile supremacy. Reuters. 6 May. Available: https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-missiles-specialreport/special-report-u-s-rearms-to-nullify-chinas-missile-supremacy-idUSKBN22I16W (Accessed on 8/11/2020).
Mearsheimer, John J. (1994) “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security, yale University Press, New York. vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 5–49.
Nye, Joseph S. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Washington D.C, Sage, 616, 94-109.
Nye, Joseph S. (1990). "Soft Power." Foreign Policy, Washington D.C, Slate Group, no. 80: 153-71.
Pompeo, M. (2020). U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea. United States Department of State. Available: https://www.state.gov/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/ (Accessed on 11/5/2020.)
Un.org. (2019). Contributions received for 2019 for UN Budget. n.d. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml. (Accessed on 7/11/2020)
ustr.gov. (2020). The People’s Republic of China. N.d. Available: https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china#:~:text=China%20is%20currently%20the%20United. (Accessed on 5/11/2020)
Comments
Post a Comment