Balancing USA and China

A few months ago, a geopolitical writer, Rodger Baker, wrote a now prophetic article: “ Asia’s Dilemma: China’s Butter, or America’s Guns?” One of its assertion was that in Asia, in the post Cold War era, regional geopolitics would focus on China as the economics center; and, the United States as the regional security center. Most ASEAN countries seemed satisfied with this balance of power. However, with the expanding military activities of China in the South China Sea, there was growing anxiety that this balance would not be sustainable.

The Philippines chose to break with the foreign policy of past administrations of close military alliance with the United States as its policy cornerstone. One argument was that the United States had failed to prevent Chinese construction on the disputed areas in the South China Sea. The confrontational relationship with Beijing had also led many to conclude that the Philippines had lost economic opportunities to attract infrastructure financing and investments from China. It was felt that it was time to look for new development partners; and, it seemed China and Japan were the most obvious sources. The United States seemed intent on pursuing a more protectionist and isolationist economic and trade policy framework.

The answer to Rodger’s question seemed to be that “China’s Butter’ was more attractive than “America’s Guns.”

The terrorist attacks on Marawi City, however, is sufficient reason to again review relationships with the United States and possibly also with China. The assistance of the United States and Australia in fighting the terrorists has come as a surprise to myself and to many others. I would surmise that the request for assistance was thoroughly studied and considered necessary before any decision was made.

The long term effect of this assistance on our foreign and defense policy will depend on the events that will occur after the end of the Marawi siege. I still believe that the terrorists knew that they had no chance of permanently occupying Marawi. I have said that they knew they would ultimately have to leave Marawi or be eliminated. However, we can assume that their attack on Marawi may be part of a longer term objective of attracting more followers to an ISIS affiliated organization in Mindanao. These terrorists may also be hoping to unify all the different jihadist groups and create a situation for an insurgency in the Muslim dominated parts of Mindanao. This was the scenario of ISIS and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and other areas in Africa and the Middle East.

I do not believe that the terrorists will ever gain sufficient strength to mount an actual rebellion. However, at the same time, I also do not see any quick ending to further terrorist activities in parts of Mindanao. In such a situation, the question is whether the Philippines will continue to request for American technical assistance to fight terrorism and to prevent any more major attacks. There is also the reality that the Philippine terrorist problem will spread to nearby nations – Indonesia and Malaysia. Southern Thailand has also been the site for a jihadist inspired separatist movement.

The answer to Asia’s Dilemma is to try and secure both “China’s Butter” and America’s Guns.” This is possible for as long as there is no open conflict between these two superpowers. But Rodgers also wrote: “ Stuck between these two powers lie the Asia Pacific countries, adapting to the changing balance of power and fearing a dramatic break in the pattern. Their ability to play both sides, to use the bookend powers of the Pacific Ocean as counterweights, may prove untenable if there is a substantial slide in US - China relations toward the negative. Few in the region are eager to choose sides, all are assessing their limited options, and the pervading hope is that somehow Washington and Beijing will continue their uneasy dance, leaving Asia-Pacific countries space enough to cheer both.”

American leadership vs. Chinese power

There is no question that China is emerging as possibly the world’s biggest economic power. But there is no sign that China is prepared to assume the task of becoming a global leader. During the Cold War, there was rivalry for global power between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both countries wanted to assert the position of being the global leader.

Today, China’s foreign policy is solely focused on advancing its own national security and national economic interests. Perhaps, the biggest constraint to the power and strength of China lies in its geography. The United States is very far from any other powers and is separated, by two oceans, from the geopolitical “hot spot” of the world. The only challenges in its own backyard are Cuba and Venezuela which do not pose any existential threat to the United States.

China, on the other hand, shares land borders with 14 countries; and, its maritime lane to the Middle East and the Pacific Ocean is blocked by a chain of island countries – Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore and Japan. It also has a history of conflicts with many of its land neighbours – India, Russia, Vietnam and Korea. China’s belt and road initiative is facing serious political problems. India is blocking its route to the Indian Ocean; and, recently several Chinese were killed in Pakistan. Its “silk road” through Central Asia is facing some challenges from Russia and possible jihadist insurgents.

All of these geopolitical realities mean that China is far from ready to become a global leader. It means that the Western powers – United States and the European Union – will continue to remain as the global leaders for the foreseeable future.

Creative writing classes for kids & teens

Young Writers’ Hangout for Kids & Teens on July 1 and July 22 (1:30-3pm/independent sessions). All sessions are at Fully Booked Bonifacio High Street. For registration and fee details text 0917-6240196 or email [email protected]

Email: [email protected]