State Department
concerns appear to trump military ones
Asian nations looking for US
protection in the face of concerns about China’s hegemonic designs on east and
Southeast Asia are left baffled by Washington’s response to China’s
controversial declaration of an air defense zone covering most of the East
China Sea.
The first US reaction, clearly driven
by highest level military concerns, was to send military aircraft through the
zone without notifying the Chinese authorities. Japan and Korea did likewise
and Japan’s civilian aircraft similarly ignored this great leap forward in
China’s de facto claims over airspace close to the territorial waters of Japan
and South Korea.
But since then the US, seemingly
driven by a State Department that often appears to place short- term relations
with China ahead of longer-term strategic questions, has adopted a somewhat
ambiguous posture. The visit to the region by US Vice-President Joe Biden could
have been used to condemn the Chinese action unequivocally and bolster Japanese
and South Korean confidence in US determination to stand by them in rejecting
Chinese presumptions.
As it happened, however, the US
seemed set on avoiding provoking China into yet more aggressive claims – even
though it was China’s announcement of the zone shortly before Biden’s visit,
which was the immediate provocation.
Much of the western media also
appeared to portray the air zone issue as simply an extension of China’s dispute
with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands when even a glance at a map of the
Chinese self-proclaimed zone shows it encompasses almost the whole airspace
over the East China sea, not just the southwestern portion close to the
Senkakus. Such misinterpretation must be music to China’s ears.
While in Beijing, Biden is reported
to have told Chinese President Xi Jinping that the US rejects the zone claim
and looks to China to ease tensions by effectively not doing anything to
enforce its claims. It could, for example, not do anything about plans,
civilian or military, which fail to provide their flight plans to the Chinese
authorities. Nonetheless, the claims are now on the record and having made
them, President Xi may come under nationalist and populist pressure to try to
enforce them.
The US position has clearly been
weakened by its advising its own airlines to file their flight plans with China
– unlike Japan. Not surprisingly, Japan has not been pleased with this failure
to back its own position of declining to provide civilian flight information to
the extent China demands. The US has explained its action by reference to the
safety needs of civilian aircraft. However, that implies that China represents
a risk to civilian aircraft which do not comply. Clearly China is not going to
start shooting down commercial aircraft so the US response is in effect
surrender to a theoretical threat. Stouter hearts would have called China’s
bluff.
Many countries declare air defense
zones which go well beyond their territorial waters as well as flight control
zones for the safe operation of civilian aircraft. But these have no formal
international standing and require neighboring countries to cooperate rather
than compete in demanding exclusive rights.
The vast extension of China’s zone
could be seen, most worryingly, as a preliminary move to be followed at some
future date with attempts to enforce it first of all in the vicinity of the
Senkakus, islands which the US recognizes as Japanese. It is also noteworthy
how close the zone goes to Japan’s territorial waters in the vicinity of the
Ryukyu Islands, and of Okinawa, with its US bases in particular.
In another direction, next on China’s
agenda could be declaration of a similar zone above the South China sea,
following the infamous nine-dash line of its claims there which take it almost
up to the territorial waters of Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia,
and very close to Indonesia’s Natuna islands. China’s ambassador in Manila Ma
Keqing was quoted as saying that China had the right to set up a similar zone
over the South China Sea.
Exactly how that “right” is defined
has not been made clear. But if such a right exists, presumably other
countries, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, have similar rights to air
defense zones extending close to China’s coast and its military airfields.
Given China’s world view and its
history of expansion over most of the past 500 years (only during the period
1840-1945 was it on the defensive, against the west and Japan) it is hard to
predict how far its ambitions now go. But Asian neighbors might like to see the
US put more backbone into its response if they are to believe that its “tilt”
towards Asia and the centrality of the western Pacific to US long-term strategic
interests. ‘Asia Senitnel’
No comments:
Post a Comment