US-China Rivalry and Regional Dynamics – I

This is the first of a two-part series on US-China Rivalry and the Indo-Pacific Region

Recently, a New York Times news headline read,” US-China Trade Stand Off May be Initial Skirmish in Broader Economic War”. The article went on to say “…that may persist for decades, as both countries battle for global dominance, stature and wealth”. The ongoing contestation between US and China needs to be viewed in a broader strategic context to fully grasp its dynamics and the impact it has on the rest of the world. It transcends into a wider canvas of conflict over the so called civilizational divide, contrasting worldviews, and the quest for domination of the Indo–Pacific Region (IPR), technology war, and a multitude of other grey zone rifts. Historians interpret the rising strategic brinkmanship as another ‘Thucydides trap’ that posits the inevitability of war, when a ruling hegemonic state is challenged by a rising power. It is widely believed that the center of gravity of the balance of power lies in the IPR, where the two protagonists are vying for domination of resources, locations, and political influence. The US is a pre-eminent global power and it wields considerable politico-military influence in the Indo- Pacific. The US has continually asserted its influence by re-fashioning its strategy for the IPR, from the earlier ‘Pivot to Asia’, then rebranding it as a ‘Rebalancing Strategy’ and now with the newly coined epithet, ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’. China on the other hand has its own Indo- Pacific Strategy that is predicated on economic allurement cum strategic coercion,  with the ‘Two Ocean Strategy’ being its military component.

 The US has created a robust security alliance system in the region, with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand, noted as the fulcrum of strategic turn into the Indo-Pacific. A careful study of US National Security Strategy 2017, US National Defense Strategy 2018, US Nuclear Posture Review 2018, US Missile Defense Review 2019, and the recently released ‘Annual Report to Congress – 2019 on China’ reveals a hardened US position on China and Russia. Under the rubric of ‘America First Policy’ and the subtly stated ‘China Containment Policy’, the US, inter alia, seeks to enhance its conventional military capabilities to deter/defeat its rivals, make nuclear deterrence more lethal and flexible by inducting low yield nuclear weapons and deploying nuclear umbrellas (THAAD and BMD). The war games conducted at the US military training establishments play scenarios of multi- prong collusive threats emanating from both China and Russia. NATO is being re-energized to fight major wars against traditional and emerging adversaries. The US enjoys formidable military footprints globally in about 84 countries. The newly named US Indo-Pacific Command, Central Command and European Command have a major role to deal with Russia and China threats. This military muscle flexing is matched by large–scale military exercises being conducted by Russia and China, sometime collectively. The US has about 40 military bases, known as ‘Lily pods’ in various countries. About three Carrier Strike groups and an equal number of Amphibious Ready Groups, comprising Marine Expeditionary Forces are on rotational Sea faring missions in and around the Indo-Pacific throughout the year. A study of US military literature provides an insight into the tenets of the US Air – Sea Battle concept against China’s military adventure in the IPR. It is premised on the capacity of a militarily empowered ally to limit the initial ingress and set the stage for the US intervention forces to join the fray. The US forces will prosecute ‘hub and spoke’ strategy to disrupt and destroy the Chinese ingress. The US permanent bases at Guam in the Pacific Ocean and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean serve as the ‘hubs’ and the regional bases as ‘spokes’, from where air superiority fighters, aircraft carriers, and submarines will be used to dislodge Chinese forces and bottle them up within the ‘First Island Chain’. Concomitantly, US maritime forces will dominate the sea lanes of communication (SLOCs) to economically strangulate China.

A rising China is pursuing a competing narrative. The China Dream envisions China  becoming a major world power, at par with the US, by 2049 and the signature ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ is China’s de-facto grand strategy.  China has shed off Deng’s 24 character strategy; “bide your time, hide your capacity and never claim leadership”, in favor of Xi Jinping thought that espouses ‘Socialism with the Chinese Characteristics’, ‘RMA with the Chinese Characteristics’, and also assuming a leadership role in creating a China driven new economic order and security architecture with Asian characteristics. Militarily, China has articulated a ‘Counter Intervention Strategy’ or as the westerners call it – ‘Anti Access Anti Denial (A2AD) Strategy’ – to prevent US and its allies from intervening in a regional military conflict that involves China using military force.

The IPR is straddled with a number of flash points such as Diaoyu / Senkaku dispute in the East China Sea, Taiwan, South China Sea, and the Korean Peninsula. China is fast militarizing these islands within its much touted ‘Nine Dash Line,’ and has designated its claims over these islands as core interests and ipso facto as its Red Lines. China subtly plays North Korea as a wild card to keep US, Japan, and South Korea on a tight leash. The US, on the other hand, by virtue of the security treaties,  it has with allies like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, is obliged to assist them militarily. China’s military assertiveness in the South China Sea and the ‘US Freedom of Navigation’ operations within China’s ‘Nine Dash Line’ are potentially explosive for triggering a military crisis, which could move up the escalatory ladder into a bigger conflict. Lack of strategic trust, hyper nationalism, and absence of a robust mechanism for conflict prevention make the probability of military skirmishes high.

 The US – China rivalry in the IPR is fast expanding into heightened trade wars, technology wars, and competition in outer space and in the Arctic Region. If the trade war spirals out of control it will hurt the Chinese economy that may lead to internal unrest due to displacement of labor force from closed down manufacturing hubs to urban centers. At the same time, it will also hurt America, as well as disrupt global supply chains, energy flows, and resultantly jolt the world economy. The US has declared China’s technology overdrive into the US as a national security risk, issued a Presidential Executive order and imposed curbs on Huawei (5G), ZTE and its affiliates, and put stringent visa regimes for Chinese students, particularly those seeking admission in science and technology disciplines in American universities. The competition in the arena of Artificial Intelligence, disruptive technologies, and outer space has sharpened. China’s forays in the Arctic Region are raising hackles in the US and Arctic Council countries. China has declared Arctic Strategy 2018, has proclaimed itself as a Near Arctic State and is promoting the idea of a Polar Silk Road. Russia and China are closely cooperating in the Arctic region. The US is now reaching out to the Arctic countries to balance the Russia – China Arctic push. The Arctic Region and the Northern Sea Routes are the new frontiers of Great Power rivalry.

(The author is AVSM, SM &Bar (Retd)., and currently heads the Centre for Strategic Studies and Simulation, United Services of India, New Delhi. He specialises in Strategic Assessments, Scenario Building and Gaming, and is an expert on Central Asia and China.)

Aditi Bhaduri

See author's posts