America must do more to reassure allies

ON DISTANT SHORE
By Val G. Abelgas
 
For decades, China’s foreign policy followed the dictum of Sun Tzu, the Chinese ancient master strategist that says: “Appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak” and the foreign policy of Den Xiao-ping, who is considered the architect of Chinese modernization in the 80s, that advised: “Hide your strength, bide you time.”

The late leader of the Chinese Communist Party also warned Chinese leaders against military adventurism.

With its increasing aggressiveness in its disputes with its neighbors in the East China Sea and South China Sea (the Philippines calls it the West Philippine Sea), it would seem that the Chinese is no longer following the advice of the three premier Chinese strategists and leaders, or maybe they believe that the time for biding and hiding has passed, the time for military aggressiveness has come, and that it’s time to show its strength to the world.

After increasing its military presence and naval patrols in the disputed islands around the Spratlys in the South China Sea for years, China is reportedly planning to also declare an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in South China Sea after unilaterally declaring an air defense zone last week over the Shinkoku islands in the East China Sea, which it is claiming from Japan.

Obviously, China, under militarist leader President Xi Jinping, is flexing its muscle as it boosts its claim to being the premier military power in Asia while slowly establishing sovereignty over the disputed islands. In an article in The Diplomat, writer Zachary Zeck said the strategy is known among policy experts as “lawfare,” which can be attributed to retired American Air Force General Charles Dunlap and two officers of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China’s military arm.

In a 2001 essay, Dunlap described it as “the use of law as a weapons of war” while the two PLA officers described it in a 1999 book as “a nation’s use of legalized international institutions to achieve strategic ends.”

Zeck said the increasing military presence and the ADIZ declaration over the East China Sea is part of China’s strategy to “try to establish its sovereignty over contested areas through the use of a combination of military power and international law. Specifically, as is well known, it has sought to increase its maritime patrols over the entire South China Sea through the creation of Sansha City garrison, and has basically seized control over the Scarborough Shoal and, increasingly, the Second Thomas Shoal. It has also sought to challenge Japan’s administrative control over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands by increasing its maritime patrols and air flights over them.”
In essence, although China has refused to participate in an international arbitration with the Philippines in its dispute over the Spratlys with the Philippines, it is using international law in seeking to bolster its claims to sovereignty over these areas. Zeck noted that in international law, a major way by which states acquire sovereignty over an area is by actually exercising sovereignty (i.e. administering) over it for a “reasonable” period of time and especially having other states acquiesce to its administration.
Zeck cited two international court opinions that say: “The modern international law of the acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally requires that there be: an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis.”

In the case of the air defense zone over the Shinkoku Islands in the East China Sea, China is seeking to establish its sovereignty over the disputed islands by showing the world that it is administering the area’s air space and that other nations are recognizing such administration when airliners identify themselves to Chinese authorities and give information on their flight plan and nationality.

Even if the United States defied the air defense zone by sending two unarmed bombers to fly over the area, it basically negated such strong stance by advising American airliners to abide by the air defense zone rules. Japan was more consistent in its reaction when it sent air patrols over the area while advising Japanese airliners Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways to continue flying over the zone without identifying themselves to Chinese authorities.

The contradictory US reactions to the air defense zone should show us that America is still uncertain on how to deal with the Chinese military aggression in the region. While it continues to assure its Asian allies that it stands ready to defend them and that it is committed to maintaining the balance of power and stability in the region, it is showing weakness and uncertainty in its actions.

It has become obvious to many policy experts that Asia should be the major focal point of any economic, political or military strategy of nations because of the rapid rise of the economies of major Asian countries such as China, India, Japan and South Korea. As these nations’ economic powers continue to rise, the heightened militarization of the region is certain to follow as these new economic powers protect or expand their interests.

China and Japan are the second and third largest economies in the world and the increasing military aggressiveness of China is making Japan consider rearming fast. When the two biggest economies and armies in the region are engaged in an intense dispute over territory, there is reason to fear that the conflict could result in a war that would, for certain, bring in major powers such as the US and Russia.

I have no doubt that America will stand by its allies, like Japan and the Philippines, if push comes to shove in their territorial disputes with China. But the US has to act more decisively now while it enjoys vast military superiority over China, which will continue to push the US and its allies to the edge, knowing fully well that the Americans have much bigger problems domestically than try to defend small islets in the East and South China Seas.

America has to start showing the same commitment to the preservation of stability in Asia as it does in the Middle East. It has to show resolve in its promise to “pivot” or “re-balance” Asia by putting more teeth to its foreign policy in the region. Words can no longer reassure the Philippines and the rest of Asia. Only concrete and resolute actions can.

(valabelgas@aol.com)