By MATTHEW M. BURKE
Stars and Stripes
Published: December 17, 2012
SASEBO NAVAL BASE, Japan — A real life game of chess is being played out in the Pacific between China, the United States and its allies.
China is dramatically modernizing its military, especially its navy, and has been engaged in confrontations in recent months with Japan over uninhabited islands in the East China Sea and the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal. Both Japan and the Philippines have defense treaties with the U.S.
The Chinese also have commissioned an aircraft carrier, landed a J-15 fighter on its deck and deployed drones in exercises near Okinawa, according to media reports.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has recommitted itself to the Pacific and expanded diplomatic ties in the region, courting Myanmar as it emerges from isolation and expanding relationships with Vietnam and Cambodia. U.S. Marines have been stationed in Australia, and there are plans to deploy littoral combat ships to Singapore, moves that some analysts see as a policy of containment.
High-level meetings in Beijing and at the Pentagon, invitations to exercises and tours of military bases for visiting dignitaries have done little to mask that bilateral distrust is at an all-time high and these examples of tit for tat one-upmanship and chest puffing have not been seen — outside of the Korean Peninsula — since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Two major reports this year have detailed an emboldened Chinese government — bolstered by years of economic growth, theft of technology secrets and a navy that is quickly becoming more modern and designed to specifically combat U.S. Navy platforms — that increasingly sees the U.S. as a superpower in decline. China is in a leadership transition, but analysts don’t expect much to change.
The tenuous relationship has been called many things, from adversarial to an arms race.
“There is a new kind of Cold War going on,” said June Teufel Dreyer, a professor in political science at the University of Miami and an expert on the Chinese government and U.S. defense policy.
Teufel Dreyer said it is reminiscent of the chess game played between the U.S. and Soviets following World War II, even though the U.S. government won’t acknowledge it’s happening. Official Chinese military journals that aren’t translated into English say it “implicitly,” she said.
Baohui Zhang, a political science professor at Lingnan University’s Centre for Asian Pacific Studies in Hong Kong, stopped just short of calling it a Cold War.
“I think that at a minimum, a strategic competition has emerged between China and the United States,” Zhang said. “They are competing for influence and leadership in the Asia-Pacific region.”
China began to modernize its navy in the 1990s, according to a Congressional Research report released in March. The reasons largely relate to Taiwan, which is claimed by China but has self-rule and is allied with Washington. The Chinese are believed to be developing an anti-access maritime force that would try to keep the U.S. Navy from intervening if Taiwan declared independence and conflict broke out.
The Chinese also aim to assert territorial claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea, and enforce its view that it has the right to regulate foreign military activities in its 200-mile maritime exclusive economic zone.
China’s naval modernization effort includes anti-ship ballistic missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft, submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, mine countermeasures ships, hospital ships, education and training, as well as exercises with countries like Russia, the report said.
The Defense Department says the amount of modern units in China’s submarine force has gone from less than 10 percent in 2000 to about 56 percent in 2010. Surface combatants have gone from less than 10 percent in 2000 to about 26 percent in 2010.
“Decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military capabilities could affect the likelihood or possible outcome of a potential U.S.-Chinese military conflict in the Pacific over Taiwan or some other issue,” the paper’s author Ronald O’Rourke wrote.
“In the absence of such a conflict, however, the U.S.-Chinese military balance in the Pacific could nevertheless influence day-to-day choices made by other Pacific countries, including choices on whether to align their policies more closely with China or the United States.”
It is a daunting prospect considering the gridlock in Washington, looming defense budget cuts, and an already-overtaxed fleet of ships. More than one-fifth of Navy ships fell short of combat readiness in the past two years, and fewer than half of the service’s deployed combat aircraft are ready for their missions at any given time, according to congressional testimony.
Another report, “Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust,” released in March by the Brookings Institution in Washington and the Institute for International and Strategic Studies at Peking University, said the Chinese government’s senior leaders believe they will come out on top due to the state of American politics and the economy.
Zhang said the Chinese economy is poised to overtake the U.S. in the next 10 years as the world’s largest.
Wang Jisi, an influential and widely respected expert on Chinese foreign policy who has held positions within the Chinese government, wrote in the Brookings report that the Chinese view themselves as on the rise and the U.S. on the decline. As such, they see the U.S. as trying to disrupt their rise toward becoming the world’s most powerful country.
“In Beijing’s view, it is U.S. policies, attitude and misperceptions that cause the lack of mutual trust between the two countries,” Jisi wrote.
O’Rourke wrote that China’s emerging maritime anti-access force is similar to the Soviet Union’s sea denial force developed during the Cold War to keep U.S. forces from intervening in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict. The difference, O’Rourke claims, is the Chinese missile capability to strike a moving ship at sea. Military experts have called that a game-changer.
Zhang said the era of globalization could not support a full-scale war between the two powers, but he was still pessimistic.
About the future
“This is why the U.S. position on the issue is so important. If it overextends its commitment, then a U.S.-China stand-off could emerge” from a standoff between China and the Philippines or Japan, he said.
Teufel Dreyer said the Chinese are being careful not to instigate an all-out military conflict but are slowly and deliberately escalating the situation, claiming territory and restricting access.
The Chinese are mining the South China Sea for natural resources like oil to maintain an economic growth rate of 8 percent that some feel is unsustainable. Teufel Dreyer said this is being done to mitigate dissent with the promise of a bright future.
“No country can sustain an 8 percent annual growth forever,” according to Simon Shen, a professor at Chinese University of Hong Kong. “There’s a rise of Chinese nationalism, but the target isn’t only the U.S. In a country where full freedom of speech is lacking, nationalist trends can also go against the regime.”
The U.S. government has pledged to support its allies in the region but does not weigh in on territorial disputes like those that China is embroiled in with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. Analysts fear that an overcommitment by the U.S. could lead to a conflict.
“The U.S. has a national interest in freedom of navigation, the maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law and unimpeded lawful commerce in the South China Sea,” a Department of State spokesman said, asking not be identified.
However, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment Nov. 29 to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Japan on the uninhabited islands that Japan calls Senkaku and China calls Daioyu as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.
So what will be the outcome?
Chinese economic growth already has begun to slow, Teufel Dreyer said, adding that she believes the Obama administration is playing nice while patiently waiting for China’s rising star to burn out and fall.
“The U.S. is going to try very hard to manage this relationship,” she said. “We have a lot of work to do. China is eventually going to be constrained by the weaknesses in their own system. The U.S. will try to smooth the cracks [in the relationship] without giving anything away while trying to fix our own deficiencies.”
观察者：美媒称中美互疑达空前高度
“美中互疑达到空前高度”，这是美国《星条旗报》17日给两国关系下的最新定义。
在中国专家看来，让中美疑心加重的原因是，美国对中国的不信任已经触到天花板。“美国人不停地问中国，我们可以信任你们吗？中国说可以，美国不信并继续追问。它如此急迫地想知道答案，却又永远放不下心。”中国学者金灿荣这样说。
德新社评论称，美国还没有做好同中国这个不同政治体制下的“大块头”打交道的准备。“俄罗斯之声”说，失去力量的美国虎，即便拖着受伤的脚也要想方设法咬住中国龙的尾巴。两个核大国的猜疑让世界充满担心，其中甚至不乏擦枪走火的猜测。美国智库劝总统，请学会适应崛起的中国。
德国媒体则对中国说，请不要忘记你还在美国的船上。而美国著名中国问题专家李侃如的看法更具操作性，他认为两国必须深入探讨一个问题——什么样的总体军事姿态即允许中国满足必要的安全需求，又能使美国保护其盟友和利益？
美国更不信任中国
“高级别会议、联合演习以及互让来访者走进军事基地，都难以掩饰华盛顿和北京之间的脆弱关系。”《星条旗报》17日这样论证其关于中美互疑达到“空前高度”的说法。它给出的写实画面是：中国首艘航母服役，并很快在甲板上迎来歼-15舰载战斗机；美国则将触角伸向亚太的广阔地区，拉拢越南、柬埔寨以及刚走出孤立的缅甸。这一说法与德国《经济事实》杂志最近的一项调查“不谋而合”。该调查称，只有26%的美国人对中国持有政治信任，中国对美国本就不多的信任也再次下降，两国互信创下新低。
“中美互疑的确处于建交以来的最坏时期。”中国人民大学国际关系学院副院长金灿荣认为。但复旦大学美国研究中心教授吴心伯认为，“空前高度”的说法有所夸大。他说，中国对美国的不信任峰值出现在小布什政府时期，现在是“信任不多，仍在恶化”。但在这对关系中，“美国更不信任中国”，“一直处于上升之中的美国对华疑虑达到高点”是他们共同的看法。
新加坡《联合早报》认为，从奥巴马政府对华战略的基本定位上，这些疑虑就可见一斑：政治上，中国属于异类国家和潜在对手；经济上，中国是发展伙伴加竞争对手；军事上，中国属于区域对手及潜在敌人。
“俄罗斯之声”评论说，美国内部存在许多不同意见，不过现在对华“怨恨”的一派占了上风。美国政界的对华态度从双边关系早期典型的“既爱又恨”变成“简单的怨恨”。
中美战略互疑从来不是秘密。美国布鲁金斯学会中国问题专家卜睿哲曾将其分为4类：从子虚乌有的事情中想象对方的敌意，比如台湾问题；在一些问题上有共识，但因双方采取行动的进度不同而互相猜忌，蔽日保护知识产权；某些目标上拥有共识，但在途径上出现分歧，比如朝鲜核问题；实实在在的利益冲突直接加深双方的疑忌，比如在亚太的影响力。
“中国龙要完成从全球经济老二向老大的腾飞，美国这只失去力量的老虎暂时还在退却。但一切迹象都表明，即便拖着受伤的脚，美国也要想方设法咬住中国龙的尾巴。”“俄罗斯之声”这段评论写在报道中国副总理王岐山访美的消息之后。
复旦大学美国研究中心教授吴心伯说，以前提中美关系“合作与竞争并重”，合作是主流，可当下定义中美关系，是“竞争与合作交织，竞争一面在上升”。竞争由信任赤字导致，又进一步加重不信任。沿着这一态势负向加速，中美关系就可能无法止步于竞争。
“请学会适应崛起的大国”
“进入第二任期的奥巴马政府该如何面对习近平新指挥部？”《日本经济新闻》提出这个问题。美国大西洋理事会给出的答案是，“请学会适应崛起的大国”。美国国家情报委员会上周也发布了一份重量级的“配套”报告，建议总统停止跟中国“对掐”，因为崛起大国对当前大国构成战略威胁的历史模式成为现实，会给世界带来灾难。
但这可能并不容易。法国《世界报》称，对于美国人而言，“美国是理所当然的世界领导者”理念根深蒂固。这必然导致其他国家戒备甚至敌视。美国希望将中国纳入自己主导的规则中进行约束，让中国成为“负责人国家”，而中国对美国单边主导的世界规则不以为然，希望自己也能成为规则制定的参与者。
在德国《青年世界报》看来，美中消除战略互疑对于中国也非常重要，因为“中国还在美国的船上”。德国《法兰克福汇报》评论说，中国越来越有发言权，越来越有影响力，但并非越来越受人喜欢。中国需要朋友，美国仍是重要的一个。
走出互疑怪圈有多难？
对于中美能否走出互疑怪圈，卜睿哲没什么信心。他认为，中美之间的各种交流不胜枚举，而信任却未能随之提高。此外，由于中美都是多元化大国，外交政策制定者面临着形形色色的干扰和不确定性。因此“无法给出令人满意的答案”。在他看来，合作背后都存在隐患：如果任何一方因为忽视双方相互依存的关系而过分强调自身的主导地位，中美就无法走出互疑的怪圈。
新加坡《联合早报》评论称，历史证明，中美如果能够瞄准和面对共同敌人，双方的军事互疑就会下降，从二战期间共同抗日，到冷战期间联手反苏，再到目前的联合反恐反海盗均可为证。中国应帮美国认识到，中国不只为自己的领土主权利益存在，还在为世界及区域和平与发展努力；应该帮美国认识到，日本右翼抬头会重新构成对中美和亚太地区和平的共同威胁。文章说，作为古老文明的中国可以再主动一点，这样才能帮助美国这样的较为年轻的文明，同时也帮助中国自己。
