The immediate aim of China’s declaration of an air
defence identification zone (ADIZ), covering most of the East China Sea,
appears to be to strengthen China’s position in its territorial disputes with
Japan
The disputes include not only the sovereignty of the
Senkaku/Diaoyu islands but also the question of overlapping exclusive economic
zones (EEZs) in the ocean and seabed.
Chinese strategists probably see the ADIZ as bolstering
China’s claims by demonstrating administrative ‘control’ over the disputed
area. The ADIZ declaration also supports the broader Chinese objectives of
establishing a sphere of influence on China’s periphery and pushing US strategic
influence out of the region. If foreign aircraft obeyed China’s demands, US and
Japanese military aircraft would not be allowed to enter within 200 miles of
the Chinese coast without prior approval from Beijing.
Beijing probably did not anticipate the strength of the
foreign pushback against its declaration. Declaring an ADIZ accords with
accepted international practice, and Japan and South Korea both already have
ADIZs in the East China Sea. Japan’s ADIZ for that matter cuts into China’s
claimed EEZ. The Chinese might have expected that foreign powers would have no
basis for complaining without appearing hypocritical.
Nevertheless, the region is seeing the ADIZ declaration as
impetuous behaviour by the Chinese. Four reasons for this stand out.
First, China is demanding that foreign aircraft obtain
Chinese permission even if they do not intend to enter Chinese territorial
airspace but are merely passing over the ADIZ. This goes beyond the
requirements of other countries’ ADIZs, including that of the USA.
Second, China did not discuss its plans with Tokyo or
Washington before making the declaration. The issue is not that China must get
American or Japanese permission before implementing Chinese policy. Rather, the
issue is that China acted unilaterally in an area with heavy US and Japanese
air traffic. Common sense would dictate that consultation and cooperation with
the US and Japanese governments would be prudent before changing the rules in
that area.
Third, China’s move further raises the already high tensions
over territorial disputes in the area, especially the sovereignty of the
Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. It increases the possibility of a lethal international
incident in the air, even if unintended.
Finally, Beijing’s action suggest that the Chinese are seeking
to coerce the Japanese into backing down rather than pursuing the less risky
course of peaceful negotiations. More broadly, the ADIZ affair is a disturbing
sign that a stronger China will bully its neighbours, which discredits
Beijing’s assurances that China will never seek hegemony or a sphere of
influence. Accordingly, Washington will see the ADIZ declaration as a challenge
to the uneasy status quo of the China-Japan territorial dispute, and the
regional order that US power upholds. Non-compliance by foreign military
aircraft with China’s ADIZ rules is necessary to avoid tacitly awarding China a
strategic success, which in turn might lead to new Chinese ADIZs in the South
China Sea and elsewhere.
It is questionable whether the ADIZ declaration serves
Chinese interests. If it was intended to strengthen China’s claim over disputed
East China Sea territory, the immediate result seems to be the opposite:
foreign governments are rejecting China’s demands that foreign aircraft comply
with China’s ADIZ rules. Japanese and US military activities in the area are
likely to push harder against China’s regional leadership ambitions. The swift
and unambiguous defiance by foreign governments, led by the US gesture of flying two B-52 bombers through the zone, leaves
the Chinese government subject to domestic ridicule for appearing like a paper
tiger. It is now politically impossible for the Chinese government to rescind
the ADIZ. The most we can hope for is that Beijing will announce that it is
monitoring non-complying foreign military aircraft in the new zone, and that
this will be enough to temper China’s domestic nationalism from forcing the Xi
government to aggressively reassert itself with an aerial confrontation.
China may have hoped the ADIZ declaration would isolate and
weaken Japan, by cowing the Americans into backing away from supporting their
ally. But not only did China’s declaration (which came a few days before the US
vice president visited Japan) produce a strong and unified US-Japan response,
it also adds fuel to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s agenda of
strengthening Japan’s military posture — a highly negative outcome from China’s
standpoint. To make matters worse for China, its ADIZ declaration has damaged
its relationship with South Korea, which has tried hard to get along with
Beijing.
China has lost strategic ground since 2009. A widely held
perception that a confident China is behaving more aggressively has increased
demand in the region for enhanced security ties with the United States. The Xi
government seemed to signal its desire for a diplomatic reset through the
Xi-Obama summit in California in June this year, using the mantra of ‘a new
kind of great power relationship’. Perhaps Xi, who needs a lot of elite support
to carry out his program of economic restructuring in China, must pursue a
confrontational foreign policy to satisfy a portion of his power base that demand
a settling of scores with Japan and other adversaries. It may be a highly
difficult balance to strike for the Chinese government to fulfil this
contradictory agenda: to achieve the ‘Chinese dream’ of economic prosperity while at
the same time avoiding a foreign policy posture that encourages foreign
military encirclement.
Denny Roy is a senior fellow at the East-West Center, Honolulu.East Asia Forum
No comments:
Post a Comment