CHINESE RESPONSE TO AMERICA

China has always reacted to Washington’s accusations of unbalanced mutual trade with emphatic patience, avoiding harsh remarks and actions. For each increase in customs tariffs, Beijing responded with mirror measures, at the same time expressing its readiness to discuss everything at the negotiating table.

Negotiations have never stopped, but the tariff war continues to gain momentum. No one doubts the fact that tensions between the two countries will only increase, affecting not only the economic sphere. The new American military doctrine, in which China is called one of the main threats to US security, is a true example of the ongoing confrontation.

Never before has China been a key topic for NATO. But in April, during the NATO meeting held in Washington and dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the creation of this organization, the NATO foreign ministers devoted quite a lot of time to discussing issues related to China. US Vice President, Mike Pence, directly stated in his speech: “Perhaps the greatest challenge NATO will face in the coming decades is how we must all adjust to the rise of the People’s Republic of China.  And adjust we must.”

The response came immediately. It became known that China was making changes to its military doctrine. It is rumoured that it will allow for a pre-emptive strike on the enemy, if necessary.

It is easy to guess who the enemy is. China is not even hiding this. Otherwise, why, for example, Admiral Lu Yuan, deputy head of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences, suddenly declared that in order to relieve tension, it was enough to sink two American aircraft carriers with ten thousand troops on board in the South China Sea? American society, he believes, having suffered great human losses, will force its president to give up.

Also, Chinese former Deputy Commerce Minister Wei Jianguo told the South China Morning Post that China had not only determination, but also readiness to wage a long war. “China will not only act as a kung fu master in response to US tricks, but also as an experienced boxer and can deliver a deadly punch at the end,” he said in his interview.

Certainly, all these menacing statements are designed for external audience and aim at raising the morale inside the country. Propaganda activities began suddenly. In May, China’s main television station, CCTV-6, cancelled its regular programs and launched a series of films about the Korean War, telling how China successfully fought America: Heroic Sons and Daughters, Battle at Mount Shangangling, Sudden Attack, etc.

At the same time, the Chinese population is prepared for the inevitability of a protracted war. For example, recently a collection of Mao's speeches that he made in 1938 during the Japanese invasion, when it took China eight years to repel the aggressor, have been reissued in multimillion copies.

Chinese media and social networks are teeming with similar bellicose statements. According to Weibo, the slogan “Do you want to talk? Let's talk. Do you want to fight? Let's do it. Do you want to mock us? Dream!” became popular among users of social networks.

Chairman Xi's initiative

No war can be won without allies. Therefore, it is quite logical that Chinese President Xi Jinping during the fifth summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (Azerbaijan was represented by Prime Minister Novruz Mamedov), which was held in Dushanbe on June 15, proposed to form an Asian variant of security body like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

“...It is necessary to approach the security of Asian countries in a new and wider framework. Asian countries must cooperatively respond to the security challenges in our region. This new security cooperation should be based on frequent contacts between the regional countries and the principle of mutual trust,” Xi Jinping said.

With a similar appeal, the head of the People's Republic of China spoke at the previous summit in 2014, however, it can be assumed that this time it will not be limited to thoughts alone.

In 2016, China has already attempted to create a military bloc with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan, emphasizing that this will not be a “Central Asian NATO”, but only an addition to anti-terrorist cooperation as part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). However, due to Russia's categorical objections, which regarded this step as a threat to the existence of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the idea did not go further.

In fact, it was, perhaps, the only attempt by China to unite with its closest neighbours in a block to solve security issues and fight terrorism. Prior to this, other countries were initiating the creation of military alliances in Asia, and China’s participation in them was not expected. Rather, on the contrary, their need was explained by fears that the rapidly growing economic and military might of China could become a threat to other countries in the region.

Failed attempts

To be more precise, the first military blocs in Asia after World War II were directed against the communist threat in the region, and only then, after the collapse of the USSR, all attention was focused on China.

South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) existed from 1954 to 1977. Despite its name, SEATO mainly included countries located outside the region, but with their own interests in it — Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Philippines, and Thailand. Originally created to block further communist conquests in Southeast Asia, SEATO is considered a failed project, since internal conflicts and disputes have constantly hampered the common use of the armed forces.

The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), also known as the Baghdad Pact, or the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), was formed in 1955 by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and the United Kingdom and dissolved in 1979. By the way, CENTO's Institute of Nuclear Science has been located in Tehran since 1958.

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD, also known as QUAD), an association consisting of India, the US, Japan and Australia, was established in 2007. Diplomatic and military arrangements were seen as a response to the strengthening of China’s economic and military power. In 2013, the group disbanded after the departure of Australia, which resisted strong pressure from China. Since 1992, the US and India have been conducting joint military exercises called Malabar. Periodically, they are joined by Japan and Australia. Since 2017, negotiations are underway to revive the QSD, and Vietnam and Indonesia are also showing interest in this.

QSD is seen as a too direct and obvious challenge for China, and so far it succeeds in trying to violate the intentions of its organizers by putting pressure on each of them. More importantly, it also discourages other regional countries from joining QSD, even if they have serious concerns about China. After all, having more than 22,117 km of borders with 14 different countries, China is involved in numerous territorial conflicts with almost all its neighbours.

Three Reasons against Asian NATO

In recent years, large countries of the region, such as India and Japan, have declared their readiness to create, together with the US, a multilateral security alliance in Asia, like NATO, in order to "balance the continuing build-up of China's military power." However, Beijing is confident that these attempts will fail. China has several reasons for thinking like this. First, the US has never seriously considered the creation of an Asian NATO with its participation, not wanting to bear the burden of basic financial expenses. Although the US allies in the Asia-Pacific region (APR) in recent years have significantly increased their military spending, by 2020 they will total an estimated $553 billion. While the US military budget for 2019 is $725.5 billion.

Secondly, there are many intractable differences among the US allies in the Asian region, including territorial ones.

Third, many are trying now and will continue to avoid formal multilateral security commitments because of their heavy reliance on Chinese investment and trade. China is the largest trading partner of almost all countries in the APR.

According to Robert Manning, an expert at one of the American think tanks for strategy and security, the main fear of the APR states is the need to choose between the US and China. It’s one thing to reinsure against the uncertainty surrounding the long-term US presence in the region and the growing role of China. Quite another thing is the choice to take one of the sides in the event of a crisis or military conflict in key areas of tension. For example, in the South China Sea, in the Sino-Indian conflict, in the situation around Taiwan or on the Korean Peninsula.

China will face exactly the same dilemma in its attempts to unite the countries of the region into one large-scale military bloc, if it does not provide for the participation of the US.