China and the United States - The Threats to American Hegemony

At a recent high level meeting between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Chinese Politburo Member and Director of the Office of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi and Chinese State Councillor and Minister of National Defense General Wei Fenghe gives us an interesting insight into the minds of China in this time of growing military and economic stresses between the United States and the world's most populous and second-largest economy.

Let's open by looking at what Mike Pompeo and James Mattis had to say before we look at China's responses.  Let's start with some excerpts from Mike Pompeo's remarks on key issues:

"As President Trump has made clear, the United States seeks a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China grounded in fairness, reciprocity, and respect. Personal relationships of trust and candor will go a long way in achieving these ends.

Even as our countries confront important differences in the bilateral relationship between the nations, our cooperation remains essential on many, many central issues. For example, I expressed in our meeting today the importance of remaining united in the pursuit of the final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea as agreed to be Chairman Kim in Singapore. This means maintaining pressure through the continued strict enforcement of all UN Security Council resolutions.

I also expressed our desire to see further cooperation from China in addressing Iran’s nuclear missile programs and other malign activities. We hope to work with the Chinese Government and Chinese energy companies in this regard. Bringing Iran’s oil export revenues to zero is a critical component of this campaign, and we discussed this today.

In addition to these opportunities to strengthen our cooperation, I was forthright in addressing significant differences between our nations.

I was clear, for example, that we have continued concern about China’s activities and militarization in the South China Sea. We pressed China to live up to its past commitments in this area.

Regarding our strong ties with a democratic Taiwan, I reiterated the U.S. policy has not changed and that we are concerned about China’s increasing efforts to coerce others, constraining Taiwan’s international space. 

In closing, I want to state that this was an incredibly productive conversation. The United States is not pursuing a Cold War or containment policy with China.

Rather, we want to ensure that China acts responsibly and fairly in support of security and prosperity of each of our two countries." (my bolds)

Here are a selection of comments from James Mattis:

"High-level dialogues like this help diminish the space between us as we explore areas where we share common interest and common purpose. To that end, as Secretary Pompeo stated, today we discussed our shared desire to achieve the final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea. We reaffirmed our nation’s commitments to enforcing the unanimous Security Council resolutions in pursuit of that goal for the good of all mankind.

As the Secretary of State touched on, we also discussed the importance for all military, law enforcement, and civilian vessels and aircraft, including those in the PLA Navy, the Chinese Coast Guard, and the PRC Maritime Militia, to operate in a safe and professional manner, in accordance with international law, as we seek peaceful resolution of all disputes in the South China Sea. Through candid discussions, we sought ways to lessen tension, maintain open lines of communication between our militaries, and reduce the risk of miscalculation. And we made clear that the United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.

The U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, one that is underpinned by the rules-based international order and regional stability, is unwavering.  Director Yang, Minister Wei, within our pursuit to realize this vision for the region, I echo Secretary of State Pompeo’s words that the United States seeks a constructive, reciprocal, and results-oriented U.S.-China relationship, one that benefits the Indo-Pacific and the world." (my bolds)

Here are excerpts from the response by Politburo Member Yang:

"We elaborate on our respective strategic intentions and domestic and foreign policies. The Chinese side stresses that China is firm on pursuing socialist – socialism with Chinese characteristics. Everything that we do is to deliver a better life for the Chinese people, to realize rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. It is not intended to challenge or displease anyone. China will stay on the course of reform and opening up and a path of peaceful development. And we are committed to working with other countries for a community with a shared future for mankind.

China will remain a contributor to world peace and global development, as well as a defender of the international order. China has all along committed itself to working with the United States for non-confrontation, non-conflict, mutual respect, and win-win outcome, and to make positive contribution to peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia Pacific and beyond.

The Chinese side highlights that China is firmly resolved to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The “one China” principle is the political foundation for China-U.S. relations. Taiwan independent forces and their separatist activities pose the biggest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The U.S. should recognize it clearly. We urge the United States to abide by the “one China” principle and the three China-U.S. joint communiques and cautiously handle Taiwan-related matters.

The Chinese side also stressed that proper handling of the Middle East situation, in particular matters related to Iran, is very important. About the deal on Iran, it needs to be continued to be implemented and observed to – and the two sides should make – contribute – make continued contribution to peace and stability of the region.

The Chinese side is committed to peace and development in the Asia Pacific. We respect the United States interest in the Asia Pacific. At the same time, we expect the United States to respect China’s security interests in the Asia Pacific, China’s sovereignty and development interests. China has undertaken some constructions on its islands and reefs. Most of them are civilian facilities. The purpose is to serve the interest of the Chinese people and also to provide public goods to others.

At the same time, it is necessary for China to build certain security facilities in response to possible threats from outside.  We believe that no country should use any excuse to engage in militarization in the region. Actually, to pursue militarization in the region will not only undermine interest of regional countries, but will hurt the countries who take these actions themselves. There’s no such a problem of the freedom of navigation and overflight being obstructed, so to use the freedom of navigation and overflight as an excuse to pursue military actions is unjustifiable.

The two sides discussed in an in-depth manner the Korean Peninsula issue. China reaffirmed its position and commitment to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, and a solution through consultation and negotiation. China will continue to enforce strictly relevant UN Security Council resolutions. China supports direct dialogue between the United States and the DPRK and hopes that the two sides will meet each other halfway, accommodate each other’s legitimate concerns, build trust, and advance denuclearization process and the establishment of a peace mechanism in tandem." (my bolds)

Finally, here are excerpts from the response by State Councillor Wei:

"Just now, the two sides had candid and in-depth discussion on how to follow up on the important common understanding reached between our two presidents. I think this is a productive and positive dialogue. The two sides share the view that the two sides need to further step up strategic trust, properly handle differences, promote exchanges and cooperation, so that this military relationship will be a source of stability for the overall bilateral ties.

As two major countries, we stand to gain from cooperation and to lose from confrontation. Cooperation is the only option for us. Peaceful coexistence and cooperation between the two militaries will be good news for our two countries and for the whole world, while confrontation or conflict between the two militaries will spell disaster to all.

China is committed to peaceful development. It follows a defense policy that is defensive in nature. We will definitely not seek hegemony however strong we may grow. The development of China’s defense capability represents a growing force for world peace.The Chinese military stands firmly against any separatist activities. We have an unwavering resolve in safeguarding China’s sovereignty, security, and development interests." (my bold)

During the question and answer session, James Mattis made this statement when directly asked about American operations in the South China Sea:

"In regards to our exercises and operations in the South China Sea, the United States adheres strictly to international law and the international maritime rules of the road, and we continue to operate anywhere in international waters, international air space, as all nations are entitled to. So the most important thing is that we all pay equal attention to international law."

Here is the response from Politburo Member Yang:

In our discussion just now, the Chinese side made it clear to the United States that it should stop sending its vessels and military aircraft close to Chinese islands and reefs and stop actions that undermine China’s sovereignty and security interest. And we urge the United States to play constructive role for peace and stability in the South China Sea. That will certainly help reduce security risks.

Mike Pompeo made this statement when directly asked about Taiwan:

"The U.S. policy has not changed since this administration took office with respect to Taiwan; we honor the “one China” policy and the three communiques. Every action that we have taken is consistent with that, and we will continue to take actions that are consistent with honoring that commitment that is a longstanding United States commitment.

Here is the response from Politburo Member Yang:

"Taiwan is an inalienable part of the Chinese territory. On the basis of the “one China” principle. China has established diplomatic relations with over 170 countries. We will continue to remain committed to the “one China” principle that bears on China’s sovereignty and dignity, its security and territorial integrity.

Despite the outside appearance of diplomacy between the United States and China, it certainly appears that the two nations are worlds apart when it comes to two issues that are key to China's leadership; the South China Sea and Taiwan.

Given that, according to the International Monetary Fund, this is likely to occur:

...and that this has already happened:

...it is pretty clear that China is the one nation that threatens America's hegemony and is most likely to inherit the reins of a post-American world, rules-based international order be damned.

China's Military Capabilities - Part 2

In part one of this two part posting, I looked at China's military capabilities through the eyes of the United States Department of Defense, focussing on the nation's missile capability.  In part 2, I will take a closer look at recent developments in both the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, two areas that are certain to result in conflict of one sort or another in the future given America's penchant for sailing through the region.

Let's start by looking at China's territorial claim in the South China Sea along with its military outposts and the outposts of other nations:

In October 2015, an arbitral tribunal that was constituted at the request of the Philippines ruled that it has jurisdiction to rule on certain disputed territorial issues between the two nations and a ruling on the merits of the case is expected in 2016.  China states that it will not abide by the decision of the tribunal.

China has spent a great deal of energy on land reclamation in the Spratley Islands, adding over 3200 acres of land to the seven features that it occupies in the past two years compared to only 50 acres by other claimants in the region.  As part of its massive engineering effort in the region, China created artificial harbours, dredged and depend both natural harbours and channels and constructed new berthing areas that will allow larger ships to access its territory.  In addition, communications, logistical and surveillance systems have been constructed on four features.  On three features, China completed its reclamation projects in October 2015 and is developing 9800 foot long runways on each.

Let's take a look at how things have developed on five of these features:

In the case of the Fiery Cross Reef Outpost, the size of the exposed landmass grew substantially, from 2.5 acres to 665 acres.  The feature now has a runway that is nearly 2.5 miles in length and a substantial berthing area for ships.

Now, let's look at two maps which show at least part of the reason why China is so interesting in staking its significant claim in the South China Sea.  Here is a map showing the proven and probable oil reserves in the region:

Here is a map showing the flow of liquified natural gas in the region:

It is quite easy to see why China is so interested in claiming a very large portion of the South China Sea; it has both economic and military importance.   With China importing 60 percent on its oil supply along with 27.7 billion cubic metres of natural gas supply in 2015, there is good reason for China's Communist Party to maintain control over the shipping lanes in the region as well as the potential for future hydrocarbon exploration and production.  Additionally, the South China Sea shipping lanes bring 80 percent of the crude oil that is shipped to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.  Controlling the South China Sea would give China a great deal of diplomatic and strategic leverage over its neighbours.

Now, let's take a brief look at the Taiwan strategy.  Since 1949 when the Kuomintang government was expelled from Mainland China by the Communist Party of China, the People's Republic of China has believed that Taiwan is destined to reunify with mainland China.  During 2015, a meeting between China's President Xi Jinping and Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou was the first such meeting between the leadership of both nations since 1946.  Given that there is only 100 nautical miles separating the two nations, it would not be a stretch for China and its current increasingly sophisticated military technology to invade its neighbour.  Taiwan's military advantage that has protected it for decades is greatly reduced by the massive expansion of China's military program.  By way of comparison, Taiwan's annual military spending has declined to 2 percent of its GDP (compared to 9 percent for China) and China's official defense budget is now more than 14 times that of Taiwan's.     

China has stated that there are certain circumstances under which it would use force to solve the Taiwan problem.  These circumstances have changed over time and have included the following:

         1.) formal declaration of Taiwan independence;

2.) undefined moves toward Taiwan independence;

3.) internal unrest on Taiwan;

   

4.)Taiwan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons;

           

5.) indefinite delays in the resumption of cross-Strait dialogue on unification;

           

6.) foreign intervention in Taiwan’s internal affairs;

                       

7.) foreign forces stationed on Taiwan.




In the March 2005 Anti-Secession Law, China states that it may use "non-peaceful means" if "secessionist forces cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China" or if "possibilities for peaceful reunification" are exhausted.  


China could use one or more means to get Taiwan to "see things its way" as follows:




1.) Maritime Quarantaine or Blockade: China could force Taiwan-bound ships to stop in mainland ports for inspection or by declaring exercise or missile closure areas in Taiwan's port approach lanes.  This is similar to what the PLA did during the 1995 - 1996 live-fire exercises.




2.) Limited Force or Coercive Options: China could use a number of disruptive or lethal military actions in a limited campaign against Taiwan including attacks on Taiwan's computer networks, military and economic infrastructure to cause unrest among Taiwan's populace.




3.) Air and Missile Campaign:  Here is a map showing the range of China's missiles in reference to Taiwan:


China could use missile attacks and air strikes to disable Taiwan's air defence system including its radar and missile systems.

4.) Amphibious Invasion: The Joint Landing Campaign is a complex military operation involving air and naval support to break through Taiwan's shore defense system and build a beachhead that would allow China to launch attacks to occupy Taiwan, in part or in whole.  China's submarine fleet are also well positioned to assist in an invasion.




The PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) is prepared to conduct missile attacks against Taiwan's entire defense system and, as I showed in the first part of this two-part series, China's technological advances in its offensive missile systems has brought it to the forefront of the world's missile manufacturing nations. 


The great unknown in the China-Taiwan equation is the United States.  Since 2009, the United States has sold more than $14 billion worth of arms to Taiwan as part of its support for Taiwan's independence.  That said, if China were to amass a very large attack against Taiwan, it would take some time before U.S. forces, particularly its navy, could reach the region.




The U.S. Department of Defense report clearly shows us that China is now a very significant player in the world's military ecosystem, having made huge strides over the past decade and a half, and it appears that it could now hold its own against the world's sole remaining superpower.  Over the coming decades, the changing demographic in China will have an impact on its economy which will ultimately have an impact on its ability to continue to fund 10 percent annual increases in military spending.  On the other hand, the growing federal debt level in the United States will have an impact on its military spending, particularly if interest rates rise and the funding  required to service interest owing on the debt take up a larger and larger portion of tax revenues.

United States, China and the World's Second Middle East

Updated December 2016

A commentary on China's Xinhua news site provides us with an interesting glimpse into China's current mindset regarding the United States and its global hegemony.  Lest you think that Xinhua is just another independent foreign media outlet offering a commentary on the relationship between the United States and China, such is not the case.  The Xinhua News Agency, formerly known as the Red China News Agency, was founded in 1931 and functions as the official state news agency of the People's Republic of China and operates under the control of China's central government.  Xinhua's news releases and commentaries reflect the official policies of the Chinese Communist Party and the agency is used as a means for China's government to wield "soft power abroad".   With that background, let's take a look at the commentary in question about the relationship between China and the United States.

Here are some key quotes from the commentary:

"The United States, the world's sole superpower and largest economy, should play a constructive but not a hegemonic role in the Asia-Pacific region, home to the South China Sea that is witnessing rising tensions fueled by U.S. activity.

The United States and the Philippines on Friday announced a deal allowing for a rotating U.S. military presence at five Philippine bases, including one close to the Nansha Islands of China in the South China Sea.

The deal, reached under a 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the two countries, aims to expand U.S. military presence in its former colony through rotation of ships and aircraft for "humanitarian and maritime" security operations.

Such military cooperation is within the framework of bilateral arrangement between the United States and the Philippines. It is welcome that the United States, an important stakeholder in the Asia-Pacific, cooperates with regional countries.

However, any form of alliance or cooperation should not be built at the expense of sovereign interests of a third party.

In fact, like in other parts of the world, Washington has spared no efforts to flex its muscle in the Asia-Pacific, in a bid to show its global hegemony that is already waning nowadays.

On the South China Sea territorial disputes, despite its promise to stay neutral, the United States has actually taken a clearly lopsided approach favoring China's rival claimants and even staged various military maneuvers that infringed upon China's sovereignty.

Washington has sent its warships and warplanes to waters and airspace near China's territory in the South China Sea in recent years." (my bold)

Here is a map showing the disputed region in the South China Sea:

You will notice that the Philippines is claiming ownership of a region to the west of the nation, covering part of the very large geographic claim that China has on the South China Sea.  Back in 2012, there was a standoff between the People's Republic of China and the Philippines over the Philippine Navy's apprehension of eight Chinese fishing vessels located near the disputed Scarborough Shoal.  Unfortunately for the underwhelming Philippine Navy, there were also Chinese maritime-surveillance vessels in the area.  China escalated the dispute by sending additional maritime vessels into the region, outnumbering the Philippine vessels, going so far as to erect a rope across the reef lagoon, trapping Filipino fishermen inside.  After ten weeks, on June 15, 2012, the Philippines withdrew its vessels from the Scarborough Shoal.  As it stands now, the Philippines have turned to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which was ratified in 1984 by the Philippines and 2006 by China; this law grants each maritime nation an exclusive economic zone within 200 miles of its shoreline.  The Philippines has appealed to the Arbital Tribunal in the Hague to determine whether China's vast territorial claims in the South China Sea violate international law.

Let's go back to the subject of this posting.  The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) which is mentioned in the Xinhua commentary is an agreement between the Government of the Philippines and the United States Government which was signed in April 2014.  After it was signed, the EDCA was challenged on the grounds that allowing U.S. troops on Filipino soil was against the constitution, however, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the agreement in January 2016.  The EDCA allows U.S. forces to access agreed upon locations in the Philippines for "enhanced defense co-operation" (i.e. boosting the military capabilities of the Armeed Forces of the Philippines).  What this means is that the United States is swinging its military focus from the Afghanistan-Iraq theatre and its anti-terrorist focus to the Far East where China's growing military power has been essentially unchecked.

Here are the first three pages of the agreement:

Notice under section 3 of Article I that "...the Parties agreed that the United States may undertake the following types of activities; security cooperation exercises, joint and combined training activities, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief activities and such other activities as may be agreed upon by the Parties."  One would have to assume that "other activities may include intervention in the South China Sea territorial dispute where and when required, keeping in mind what happened on the Scarborough Shoal in 2012.  Obviously, the EDCA has the Chinese government concerned since hostilities could ramp up very quickly with the world's sole superpower enhancing its presence in the region.

Let's close this posting with an additional quote from the Xinhua commentary, showing how clearly China's government is trying to send a message to the United States about their respective roles in the region:

"It is advisable that Washington refrain from taking sides on the South China Sea issue and let concerned parties solve the issue through negotiations in accordance with international law.

Muddying waters in the South China Sea and making the Asia-Pacific a second Middle East will do no good to the United States.

China and the United States share broad common interests in Asia-Pacific affairs. If the two world powers continue to respect each other and boost cooperation, the region and the rest of the world will enjoy long-lasting peace, stability and prosperity." (my bold)

Chilling, isn't it?  Let's hope that cooler heads prevail in the Pentagon, Congress and the White House before we end up in another world war.