Of course U.S. rebalancing is about China
July 20th, 2012
10:58 AM ET

Of course U.S. rebalancing is about China

By Justin Logan, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Justin Logan is director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, and the author of a forthcoming policy study, “China, America, and the Pivot to Asia.”

Brad Glosserman has penned a provocative article arguing that America’s rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific isn’t about “fear of China.” Fear may be too strong a word, but the argument is still wrong. Of course it’s about China.

It’s telling that Glosserman’s article itself is all about China. For instance, he mentions Washington’s support for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. But the recent friction hasn’t been between Vietnam and the Philippines. It isn’t Malaysia claiming almost all the territorial waters there. No, the current panic in the South China Sea is all about China.

Glosserman concedes that the “lead story” at the ASEAN Regional Forum this year was the tension between Washington and Beijing, and that this tension was so powerful that it prevented ASEAN members from issuing a joint declaration.

But the problem is deeper than that: with Washington insistent on putting itself at the center of Asian disputes involving China, smaller, weaker ASEAN members are playing China and Washington off one another, trying to see which side values their support more. As the Thai scholar Thitinan Pongsudhirak remarked, ASEAN members “don’t want China and the United States to be in complete agreement. These tensions and rivalries give them leverage and bargaining power.” Similarly, Japan and South Korea have just allowed historical squabbles to scuttle closer defense cooperation. The reason they can let this happen, as Stephen Walt observes, is because Uncle Sucker is willing to help foot the bill for those countries’ defense.

The only paragraph in the article that offers possible alternative explanations for why we’re “rebalancing” consists of abstractions. The real reasons, according to Glosserman, are Washington’s desire to “counter a narrative of U.S. decline in the Asia-Pacific” and its “determination to play its historical regional role.” But what might produce this narrative of U.S. decline, and who would care about such a narrative, absent China? And what is our historical regional role?

Our historical role has been to infantilize our partners so we get greater control over East Asian politics. And as John Mearsheimer points out, our track record is quite clear: we don’t tolerate peer competitors. We didn’t tolerate the Soviet Union, we didn’t tolerate a Third Force in Europe, and there’s little indication that we want to tolerate China.

The usual rejoinder here is that we aren’t containing China because we’re trading with it. It’s true that we’re trading, but our military policy is clearly designed to contain China. Consider: if China were much more powerful than America, and Chinese leaders were reveling in their self-styled role as the preeminent Western Hemisphere power, cultivating allies and naval basing agreements in Cuba and Venezuela, and arming what we viewed as Hawaiian separatists (Taiwan), even if they traded with us, we’d call that containment. I and others have worried about the contradictions of our “congagement” policy, but interdependence doesn’t mean there isn’t security competition happening, as the Great War showed clearly.

Despite protests to the contrary, we aren’t upgrading our relationships with Vietnam and the Philippines to deal with drug trafficking or piracy. We aren’t spending hundreds of billions on the platforms to back up our new “operational concept” AirSea Battle in order to better perform humanitarian relief. No, as the Chief of Naval Operations and Chief of Staff of the Air Force recently argued, AirSea Battle is needed because:

“Some rising powers that appear to be seeking regional hegemony hope to employ access denial strategies to isolate other regional actors from American military intervention, enabling them to more effectively intimidate and coerce neighboring states.”

Arguing that our Asia policy isn’t primarily about China is like arguing our Middle East policy isn’t primarily about oil and Israel. The danger of repeating over and over that our policy isn’t about China is that we may come to believe it ourselves, overlooking the important problems with the policy itself.

Post by:
Topics: Asia • China • Military • United States

« Previous entry
soundoff (69 Responses)
  1. jordan 4 cavs 2012 price

    Hiya very nice site!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I'll bookmark your site and take the feeds alsoI am satisfied to find numerous helpful info right here within the publish, we need develop more strategies in this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . . jordan 4 cavs 2012 price

    July 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Reply
  2. eagle eye

    Take a look at China... they are provoking harmony at South East Asian Nations, Mr. ban ki moon, what is your stand? "Open your EYES" before it's too late.

    July 27, 2012 at 11:33 am | Reply
    • Peace

      His mouth is full of Chinese ... noodles and Peking ... duck.

      July 30, 2012 at 1:30 am | Reply
  3. Ngoc nguyen

    China's massacre in Truong Sa Archipelago in 1988 (real footage and English script).
    Check out this video on YouTube

    July 31, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Reply
  4. Ngoc nguyen

    China's massacre in Spratly islands (real footage 1988).
    Check out this video on Youtube

    July 31, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Reply
  5. jack jone

    http://www.kissijordansman.us china get through to search malysia flight

    March 18, 2014 at 4:45 am | Reply
  6. In Home Personal Training

    I love this line"Arguing that our Asia policy isn’t primarily about China is like arguing our Middle East policy isn’t primarily about oil and
    Israel." So true.

    April 17, 2014 at 7:42 am | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

« Previous entry