Chinese Military Strategy
Written by Yuran Wang, The Eurasia Center
January 2016
Introduction
It is an ever-more common theme in modern media to depict the possibility of a Sino-American conflict. A war, in the coming future, between the Dragon and the Eagle. It is an understandable trope, and one that follows the line of thought postulated by power-transition theory. At some point, the line of thought goes, that the military strength of China will reach parity or near parity with that of the United States; it is at this stage, according to power transition theory, that the likelihood of conflict is at its greatest.
This type of alarmist thinking is not altogether new. In the 1980s, rising Japanese economic fortunes saw to similar sentiments of a potential challenge to United States interests in the Pacific, no matter how unlikely it was. Nonetheless, the thesis of a Sino-United States conflict is currently far more plausible; for one, the People’s Republic of China is not bound to the United States through a long military alliance, nor does it maintain the same intensely pacifistic domestic culture that Japan has since the end of World War Two (though there is evidence that this is shifting). Beyond this, China meets many of the qualifications for a potential revisionist power; from irredentist land and island claims (most notably on Taiwan), has adopted an offensive grand strategy aimed at expanding Chinese influence abroad, and has been, year after year, rapidly increasing its military spending and capacity.
Indeed, this is most vocally argued by proponents of Chinese containment. As Michael Pillsbury argues, the upper echelons of the People’s Republic of China are engaged in a “Hundred Year Marathon” with the United States, aimed at wresting international hegemony from the United States by 2049, aimed at righting perceived wrongs dealt by the West to China through the 19th and early 20th century. While this will not necessarily happen by force, Pillsbury argues that the PRC has ultimately been working over the past decades to undermine United States power, in spite of consistent attempts at engagement, as foreign policy hawks in Beijing, especially in light of Xi Jinping’s ascension, ultimately dominate Chinese foreign policy and grand strategy.
This however does not doom the United States and China into a headlong collision. First, the international security climate in the 21st century thus far has been the least militarized period in all of human history, and the significant role of international institutions and regimes predisposes nations towards peace, as opposed to war. Beyond this, Asian geopolitics hinders and minimizes Chinese opportunity for overt aggression, and limits its power projection capability through regional balance of power politics, nor does it consider that there is almost certainly room for engagement in the Sino-United States relationship. The rise of China is almost certainly one of the essential geopolitical questions of the near future, but it must be understood as an opportunity for engagement. While some will argue that this form of engagement is counterproductive to United States interests (and indeed, cooperation and agreements will not be met on every issue), it is the main, viable option to ensure long-term peace and stability in the international system.
Geopolitics and Chinese Security Concerns
First, in order to assess Chinese grand strategy, it is essential to understand the PRC’s geopolitical situation, and the constraints it poses on Chinese power. China, in comparison to the United States, faces a geopolitical situation that necessarily hampers its ability to project power. In contrast to the United States, China borders several major powers, with which their borders remain in friction; India and Russia in particular. While Russia is currently in a state of close cooperation with China, through organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, due to issues such as the Ukraine or the South China Seas putting the two nations into conflict with the West, this does not necessarily hold in the long run, as Chinese influence in Central Asia, in former Soviet Republics such as Kazakhstan, increasingly expands with their economic interests in the region. In India, Chinese military power and actions are observed uneasily, for instance, the recent announcement between China and Pakistan over the Pakistan-China Economic Corridor, which passes through Pakistani controlled Kashmir, a disputed territory. Indeed, India, in many ways, is a long term regional competitor to China, with a growing economy and population. Unlike the United States, which maintains clear superiority against peaceful, comparatively weak and allied neighbors, China, both presently and in the future, is geographically disadvantaged with numerous strong rivals, both on land and in the adjacent oceans.
However, India, Russia, and China, are all part of the BRICS countries, which has recently been in the process of consolidation as a legitimate group of nations, with institutions such as the BRICS Bank being created. Surely, then, this will prevent the emergence of competition between these otherwise rival nations, when economic interests are at hand? Not necessarily; while Chinese economic ties are close with many of their neighbors, most notably Japan, this does not necessarily guarantee cordial political ties. Indeed, throughout the East Asia/Southeast Asia region, China’s political standings with many of the countries do not mirror the same level of intense economic cooperation and interdependency, and China (and other East Asian countries) keep a two-track diplomatic policy of separating economic and political concerns. This is particularly true with Japan, as due to unresolved historical and nationalist tensions, the political climate has grown quite tense in the short term. This in despite Japan being one of China’s largest trading and investment partners (indeed, in the aftermath of Tiananmen, Japan was one of the few nations to maintain trade and investment relations with China). Thus, it is clear that close economic relations do not necessarily translate to close political cooperation (as the Sino-American relationship highlights).
Taiwan
The next of China’s main geopolitical concerns is that of the One-China policy, and the continued ambiguous status of Taiwan in international affairs. Since 1949 and the end of the Chinese Civil War, the PRC maintains that Taiwan, which had broken away after the defeated Nationalists fled en masse to the island, is an integral part of China. While the United States was initially reluctant to support the Nationalists after their defeat, PRC involvement in the Korean War led to the historical development of a China policy featuring strong support for Taiwanese sovereignty, with the United States providing massive economic and military subsidies to the island, and a full guarantee against potential aggression from the mainland. Since the tense days of the Korean War, relations between China, the United States, and Taiwan have improved markedly. Tensions have eased and cross-strait economic ties have rapidly grown in the interim. The last period of heightened tensions followed the last slew Taiwan Strait crises in the 1990s. This may change based on Taiwan election results, and the perennial rivalry between Pan-Green vs Pan-Blue coalitions over the continued ambiguous status of Taiwan. Nonetheless, despite de-escalation, the PLA continues to hold missile forces aimed in the direction of Taiwan, and regularly holds military exercises near the Straits of Taiwan, and lingering threat of an armed invasion of Taiwan, to forcibly reintegrate the island, remains.
A peaceful resolution to the issue is desirable by all parties, but this is unlikely to occur until political liberalization occurs in earnest in Mainland China. As Taiwan has developed into a polity with a strong democratic political culture and a vibrant civil society, political unification with the People’s Republic of China, especially in the wake of Xi Jinping’s centralization reforms and the Hong Kong protests in 2014, is unpalatable. Political reunification would potentially face the same challenges to its democracy that Hong Kong has, despite prior assurances that Hong Kong democratic traditions would be maintained, as part of the “One China, Two Systems” approach. It is possible that in the future, political reform in China will pull China towards political liberalization, and which thus forms the central tenet of Taiwanese geopolitical strategy; aiming to delay reunification for as long as possible to see increasing growth of Chinese civil society and, it is hoped, political liberalization. The long-term prognosis for Taiwanese independence is grim: the diplomatic and political support for Taiwanese independence in international circles is a lost cause, against the backdrop of growing PRC influence, but until peaceful reunification becomes more palatable than continued diplomatic limbo that Taiwan presently occupies, the status quo will remain.
Alternately, there is the possibility of a violent resolution to the continued independence of Taiwan, by the PRC. As noted previously, the PLA maintains a sizable force in the area, and there are hawkish, hardline voices advocating a forceful end of the issue. While such voices will persist, in the short term this is unlikely to occur; thus far, Taiwan has grown increasingly close to China through economic ties (if not political or cultural affiliation). In addition to Taiwan’s relatively modern armed forces, this would put China into direct conflict with the United States, based off the informal guarantee of independence, and the powerful US Seventh Fleet, based in Japan and South Korea, whose twin military missions would be to intervene in either a future conflict on the Korean peninsula or a war between the Mainland and Taiwan. In addition to this, an armed invasion of Taiwan would put China at odds with its neighbors, specifically Japan, the ASEAN nations, and India, and undercut its international credentials and political capital. The combined weight of these factors makes a military solution to the Taiwan issue highly unlikely, as the political, economic, and military cost of such a war would be immense (not to mention the difficulty managing a hostile island territory would be).
The South China Seas
The next vital issue of geostrategic importance is that of the Asian island disputes, particularly in the South China Seas (though there are long-standing disputes between China, South Korea, and Japan; the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, in particular). Rooted in nationalist, political, and economic reasons, this is a major facet of China’s focus on maritime affairs in the region, and its recent naval build-up. Some, such as Robert D. Kaplan, call the South China Seas, and the myriad competing claims therein, “Asia’s Cauldron” and proclaims it to be the Mitteleuropa of the 21st century, as the looming source of instability in the world. Much as Central Europe in the early 20th century proved to be a hodgepodge of competing national claims and counterclaims, which would form the catalyst for two world wars, the South China Sea also prove to be the location of numerous conflicting national claims. China’s Nine Dash Line puts them into direct disagreement with many of their Southeast Asian neighbors, from Malaysia and Vietnam to the Philippines, over the largely uninhabited island chains that litter the seaways of the South China Sea. Indeed, Kaplan compares these conflicting claims to the United States and the Caribbean in the late 19th century: by dominating the region and peeling it away from European influence, the United States was able to secure itself in its own hemisphere, and begin to project its influence abroad.
First, why are these islands important, and why do they constitute a similar role to the Caribbean? These islands are situated in the important seaways connecting East Asia to the Indian Ocean (and consequently, Persian Gulf oil). The seaways, upon which island chains such as the Spratleys straddle, are thus of vial economic significance for nations such as China, Japan and South Korea, which imports much of their petroleum from overseas. Indeed, there are also estimates of large oil reserves with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the island chains. The lure of petroleum and natural gas is a strong motivator for a nation that has historically held deep significance to energy independence. In addition to the many nationalist claims based on hazy historical records and colonial meddling, and the conflict, from which few of the participants are willing to back down from, becomes apparent.
The realist argument would be that, in addition to these economic security and nationalistic concerns, there is an underlying geopolitical element behind China’s actions in the region. Under this view, China seeks to break a United States-led encirclement of Chinese waters, and the large string of US alliances and “island fences” that hem Chinese maritime power. According to Kaplan, control of the South China Seas islands, based on China’s nine-dash line, would open the cork to the bottle, and allow China to greatly expand their power projection capabilities, secure the maritime routes through the congested and Straits of Malacca, breakout into the Indian Ocean, and surround Taiwan, and threaten to end its de facto independence. This would then be followed by the establishment of naval bases in the Indian Ocean basin, or a “String of Pearls”, by the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), which would allow China to project power into the vital waterways of the basin, and provide the true emergence of China as a world power, and potential competitor to the United States. This thesis is somewhat debatable (India, for instance, will almost certainly react to Chinese naval bases in the Indian Ocean, as will the ASEAN nations), and the stark terms used to paint such a scenario is pessimistic, but there is no doubt that Chinese military expansion aims to provide China with power projection overseas, either to defend Chinese interests abroad or challenge the USN, and bring China’s military dimension up to the same size and prominence as their economic clout. The resolution of these island disputes will be one of the essential lynchpins of Asian stability in the future.
North Korea
China and the Korean peninsula, and particularly North Korea, is another relationship that merits review: since the rise of Xi Jinping, China’s relationship with North Korea has grown significantly frostier; in stark contrast to the regular visits between Hu Jintao and Kim Jong Il, there has been no high level state visits between the countries, and holidays and anniversaries, such as the anniversary of China and North Korea’s relationship. Indeed, despite censorship, there is now a robust debate over the status of North Korea in China, both in the media and in the academic community, with two poles: one overall sympathetic to North Korea, and one that views it as a potentially dangerous and unstable state, and understanding of United States concerns. Overall, China remains concerned about nuclearization of the peninsula and, while committing to the continuation of a North Korea as a buffer state, is also looking to improve relations with South Korea, partially in an effort to peel South Korea from the United States alliance web (especially with the recent strain of relations between Seoul and Tokyo). This outcome is unlikely to occur, given the militarization of the peninsula, and the prospect of Korean unification a distant dream for now.