CC BY
170
Galina Yatsenko
CHINA VS USA: GEOPOLITICAL RIVALRY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION*
This article considers the Asia-Pacific region as a place of conflict of interests between the two world powers: China and the USA. The comparative analysis of the purposes and problems of foreign policy courses of the two countries in this region is given. The conclusion about influence of the Chinese-American rivalry on the regional security is drawn.
Key words: Asia-Pacific region, China, the USA, conflict of interests, regional security.
It is not a secret, that when the "Asian Tigers" achieved success in the economy at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, the Asia-Pacific Region (APR) changed its meaning and came to be regarded as a central place in world geopolitics, as a knot in which the interests of the leading powers of the world intertwine. It is in this part of the world where the global redistribution of power between the two great powers - the USA and China is coming.
In 2011, the U.S. President B. Obama announced the "return" of the United States to the Asia-Pacific region and reorientation of the American efforts from the fight against terrorism to restoration of balance in Southeast Asia. On 10 November of the same year, the U.S. Secretary of State H. Clinton, being at the APEC summit in Honolulu, confirmed the intentions of the President's administration and called the coming century as "the Pacific epoch for America" [1].
This decision of the American government was caused by several reasons:
• a need to regain the trust of voters after a protracted war with terror in Iraq and Afghanistan;
• a requirement to strengthen the position of the USA as a world political and economic leader through the resumption of cooperation with traditional and potential allies.
Today in the Asia-Pacific region, there is a concentration of factors, bearing in themselves a challenge to the United States. They include the existence of nuclear weapons in North Korea, the rise of China in economic and military domains, the regional instability caused by the unresolved disputes in the South China Sea. To some extent, the new US policy aims at "rebalancing" forces in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as creation of new standards, corresponding to the principles of the USA for implementation of the world order.
* Research supervisor: I.I. Arsentyeva, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor of Department of International Relations and Russian Foreign Policy. Language instructor: R.M. Bazyleva, Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor of Department of English Language for Humanities.
The USA are positioning themselves as a future leader of the APR, the main source of investment and technology, which is able to benefit Pacific countries. These are not insignificant words, because in the Asia-Pacific region there are longstanding allies of Washington, the six major US economic partners: Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Mexico. It is worth noting, that most of the Asia-Pacific countries responded positively to the US "turnabout" in Asia. Australia and New Zealand believe, the rapprochement with the United States is a great opportunity for the development of their countries. Some of them are not only welcomed the new policy of Washington (Singapore, Japan, Republic of Korea), but also tried to persuade the US to intensify its actions in the region.
However, there is an opinion that the most important factor of the above mentioned, which caused a shift of Washington's political course, was the strengthening of China in the region. In the speech on November 19, 2011, B. Obama said that the USA "attach great importance to maritime security in general and to the resolution of disputes in the South China Sea in particular - as a Pacific power", and they are ready to take on the responsibility for the provision of security in the region. From this we can conclude, that the United States declared themselves the guarantor of security in the Asia-Pacific region. The question is from whom, according to the USA, may a threat to stability be posed in the region?
The answer lies on the surface - the United States worry about China's active work on the development of the economic potential and the increase of its military capabilities. APR is important for Beijing because it gives to China opportunities for strengthening the position in the struggle for world leadership.
China's foreign policy strategy for further strengthening its role in the world is made up of three fundamental points:
• fixing on the leading positions in East Asia (opening a free economic zone "China - ASEAN" in 2010 says about successful implementation of this point, so that Chinese products are subject to a duty of 0.6% instead of the previous 12.8%)
• becoming a major power in the Asia-Pacific region;
• becoming a power of world significance.
On the one hand, Beijing is interested in establishing close relations with APEC and the ASEAN countries to strengthen its influence in these organizations, on the other hand - to reduce the level of anti-Chinese sentiments. This tendency includes economic, political and military contacts. Thus, China is planning to surround itself with some belt, consisting of loyal states, and use it as a tool for the transmission of "soft power" to the rest of the world.
China's rapprochement with the countries of Southeast Asia and its attempts to establish a special diplomatic relations, expanding access not only in trade, but
in the military sphere as well, have been named by the American analyst K. Pearson strategy of "pearl thread" where China acts as a cementing foundation -"thread" and the countries in the region are "the pearls" [2].
In addition, a build-up of the Chinese presence in financial associations is taking place. At the same time, Beijing is trying to create financial and economic structures, bypassing the American ones. For example, in 2014 an agreement on the establishment of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was signed in Beijing, the initial capital of which is likely to be mainly, if not entirely, provided by China. This bank is the second one created on the initiative of China after the New Development Bank. It is interesting that among the 57 states that cooperate with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, there are regional partners and allies of the White House, but there is no United States itself.
Enduring progress in the pace of economic development and gradual increase in China's military budget along with the strengthening of the international significance of Beijing have resulted in the claim for possession of several islands in the South China Sea. In general, the countries involved in territorial disputes with China are American allies.
A natural consequence of the USA and China collision of interests in the Asia-Pacific region was the escalation of regional tension. A striking example of this escalation was the Dialogue on Security "Shangri-La", which took place in May 2015 on the territory of Singapore, which showed that the problem of territorial disputes in the South China Sea has become one of the world's tension points on a par with the Middle East. It was initially believed that such unwillingness of the countries to concede small islands was connected with oil and gas resources. Actually, the value of disputed islands consists in their strategic location. The possession of these territories offers incredible opportunities for any power to relocate the navies quickly from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian. If these options are in the hands of the Chinese government, they may block access to the water area for foreign countries, namely for the United States. Such a state of affairs will bring serious changes in the balance of power in the region.
Such an outcome of events cannot be allowed by Washington. Therefore in 2012 a decision on the concentration of 60% of the USA navy in the water area of the Pacific Ocean by 2020 has been made. Now, the number of transferred warships makes up about 52%. During one of his visits to the Southeast Asia countries, B. Obama made it clear that in the future a US military base will be created in the Philippines. In addition, Washington is trying to enlist the support of Australia and India, the countries with economic potential capable of controlling the situation in the region [2].
Such US actions lead to a limitation of China's capabilities. Although in the US officials' speeches we can hear completely different things: "Our goal is not to fight against China. Our goal is not to contain China", - B. Obama declared. Previously, in 2014 during his visit to Beijing D. Kerry expressed Washington's position concerning Beijing as a "greeting of peaceful rise of China". However, China's leading analyst Yan Syuetun believes that the US strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, without doubt, is directed against China, the only question is how containment will be carried out [3].
In fact, statements of the US administration are rather contradictory. For example, in November 2011, a project on creation a major economic association "Pacific Partnership" was launched. It pursues the aim of establishing a free trade regime between the United States and the countries of the Pacific, bypassing China. In October 2015, an agreement was signed between the United States and 11 other participating countries (Australia, Brunei, Vietnam, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Chile and Japan). On the US President's official website it is stated that in the present circumstances, America cannot allow China to dictate its own rules of the global economy. This is the United States which is obliged to write the rules which "will open new markets for American products" [4].
The strategic interests of Beijing and Washington in the Asia-Pacific region form a complex set of contradictions, determining an uncertain vector of further development of the relations between them. If the countries choose the way of the direct confrontation, then it will break already fragile balance of forces in the region and make the remained states be divided into supporters of the USA and China. This situation is quite probable in the conditions of deficiency of effective approaches to reforming the East Asian system of international relations. In the absence of ideas, the sides can return to the already proven methods of "cold war" that can lead to serious consequences for regional and global security.
Bibliography
1. Mamonov M. The Return of the USA to Asia // Russian International Affairs Council. - 22.08.2012. - URL: http://russiancouncil.ru/inner/?id_4=708#top-content http://dekatop.com/archives/8722
2. Terehov V. Some Features of American Policy in the Asia-Pacific region // Russian Institute of Strategic Studies. - 28.10.2014. - URL: http://riss.ru/analitycs/6673 http://dekatop.com/archives/8722
3. Mamonov M. Will there be a war between America and China? // International Trends. - 2012. - No. 2 (29). - P. 6-12.
4. Statement by the President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership // The White House. - 05.10.2015. - URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/05/statement-president-trans-pacific-partnership http://dekatop.com/archives/8722
Briefly about the author
Yatsenko Galina Victorovna - student of the Institute of History and International Relations, Saratov State University. E-mail: [email protected]
