From the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to the Shangri-La Dialogue: Two "security concepts" between China and the United States are colliding

From June 10th to 12th, the Shangri-La Dialogue was held in Singapore for three consecutive days.

On the afternoon of June 10, Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin first held bilateral talks. According to the Chinese Ministry of National Defense, Wei Fenghe emphasized during the meeting that if anyone dares to split Taiwan, the Chinese military will resolutely smash any "Taiwan independence" separatist attempts at any cost and resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

At the same time, Wei Fenghe also made four demands to the U.S. side on the development of Sino-U.S. relations: do not attack and smear China, contain and suppress China, do not interfere in China’s internal affairs, and harm China’s interests; he also pointed out that a stable Sino-U.S. military relationship It is crucial to the development of bilateral relations. The two militaries should implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, maintain high-level strategic communication, enhance strategic mutual trust, and manage conflicts and differences.

Austin also issued a statement after the meeting, saying that he and Wei Fenghe discussed China-U.S. defense relations and regional security issues, and reiterated that the United States still adheres to the long-standing one-China policy. Three joint communiqués and six assurances guide. He also stressed the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, opposed unilateral changes to the status quo, and called on China not to take further destabilizing actions against Taiwan.

During the conference, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a keynote speech, focusing on the impact of the Russian-Ukrainian war on Indo-Pacific peace, emphasizing international behavior based on rules and maintaining an orderly international environment, while reminding that "Today's Ukraine may be tomorrow's East Asia. ", echoing the invisible agenda shaped by the United States; at the same time, Indonesia advocates an "Asian way" to resolve differences between countries, emphasizing that it refuses to "choose sides", and more explicitly calls on countries to give China the opportunity to re-emerge. Space: "China has always been a great civilization. As the leader of Asia for thousands of years, China's influence extends throughout Southeast Asia. Therefore, we urge all countries to respect China's legitimate rise as a great civilization."

From the war between Russia and Ukraine to the Shangri-La dialogue, the two "security concepts" of China and the United States are colliding fiercely.

Planning ahead or self-actualization

First, the U.S. proposition reflects the logic of action of "preparing for a rainy day."

The U.S. chose to hold the Shangri-La Dialogue after the Russian-Ukrainian war, and even linked the aforementioned conflict with the Indo-Pacific peace. The U.S. intention is obvious. It greatly enhances the main theme of the "China Threat Theory".

In the established narrative of the United States, the key to the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is Russia's unwillingness to accept the existing international order, whether it is based on the "innate gene of aggression" in its blood, or because of the international structure of the post-Cold War. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is only the starting point, and its ultimate purpose is to challenge the European order dominated by the United States and NATO.

In all fairness, such a narrative is not entirely unreasonable, but under the framework of "opposition between good and evil", the United States has completely avoided the historical responsibility of NATO's many eastward expansions, as if Russia's "challenge" stems from the void of fate, and it will happen when time comes. In the process, the "important role" of the United States has been hidden from mentioning, and the international order that Russia wants to "challenge" has turned into a hypocritical moral fog, leaving only the slogan of "the West will win". Amid the global anti-Russian uproar.

Now, facing the Indo-Pacific region, the United States has replicated a similar narrative logic, implying that China will become the Russia of East Asia and “challenge” the current international order; the Taiwan Strait is the Indo-Pacific Ukraine, which will become the starting point for China to subvert the order. Therefore, under the consideration of "preparing for a rainy day", the United States frequently intervened in the Taiwan Strait and played the Taiwan card; it led Japan, India, and Australia to establish a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), and even invited South Korea to participate; at the same time, it also led the United Kingdom and Australia to establish AUKUS, the alliance of Australia, Britain and the United States, has not hesitated to walk on the edge of nuclear non-proliferation and announced that it will assist Australia in producing nuclear submarines. All kinds of measures can be included in his discussion of "protecting peace in the Indo-Pacific". Regardless of whether the outside world is convinced or not, "containment of China's ambitions" is his consistent logic of action.

However, China provides another vision of security demands, that is, the Indo-Pacific region cannot repeat the mistakes of NATO. In this discussion, the key to the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is the continuous eastward expansion of NATO, which not only squeezes the sphere of influence within Russia’s cognition, but also transforms Ukraine, which has direct historical and cultural ties with Russia, into an anti-Russian bridgehead. This prompted Moscow to hit back hard. As a result, although the war succeeded in destroying the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, it also left many Russian middle-aged people in their homes and displaced the people of Ukraine.

Therefore, in the Shangri-La Dialogue, China used the issue of the Taiwan Strait to convey its own security thinking: to avoid geopolitical confrontation and put an end to hard-line selection, only then can the tragedy of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict be prevented from repeating itself. The United States seems to be "preparing for a rainy day" and wants to take the lead in arming and mobilizing the Indo-Pacific before "China launches a challenge". In fact, it may "self-realize" the deep-seated fear in the subconscious: forcing China to "respond" to the provocation, the result is instead Accelerate the loss of U.S. influence in the Indo-Pacific and make its great power prestige gone forever.

NATO in Asia is difficult to form

As far as the current situation is concerned, the dilemma of the United States is gradually emerging. Although it intends to shape the China threat theory and mobilize Indo-Pacific countries to form a Chinese encirclement network, it seems to be unable to do so. The reason for this is related to the political and economic situation in the Indo-Pacific region.

First, the awareness of integration in the Indo-Pacific region is inherently insufficient. From the perspective of European cases, in addition to the basis of NATO's military alliance, there is the European Union, an economic and market alliance organization, and the "euro" can be regarded as the backbone of NATO's monetization, which can maintain the overall coordination of Europe outside the military field; However, there is no such mechanism in the Indo-Pacific region, which reflects regional differences and uneven development, as well as an immature sense of integration. Right now, TECO is still difficult, let alone AYuan.

Second, the reason why Europe was able to form NATO is that in addition to Russia, the "powerful imaginary enemy", there are also two main forces in the European continent, France and Germany. As traditional European powers, the two countries have certain political prestige and military strength. Even if Germany is limited by the legal norms after World War II and cannot build a steel powerhouse as in the past, it still has the technological and economic power of great powers and enjoys a pivotal position in the EU. leadership.

However, the distribution of power in the Indo-Pacific region is not as good as in Europe. Taking Northeast Asia as an example, China is the political and economic core here. No matter what kind of frictions and conflicts China, Japan and South Korea have experienced, the substantive interdependence of the three countries will not be broken in the short term. However, it cannot completely abandon Sino-Japanese relations. In addition to the rhetoric that "things in the Taiwan Strait equals troubles in Japan," China, Japan and South Korea have continued to deepen their economic and trade cooperation through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Within ASEAN, China is an irreplaceable trading partner of all countries. To form an anti-China alliance on this basis is an extremely unrealistic geopolitical delusion. Indonesia's speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue is a typical manifestation of ASEAN's stance towards China: while being pro-US, try to strive for the space of "friendship with China" as much as possible, so as to maintain the national economic pulse, and at the same time enjoy the tranquility of the regional order. For the current ASEAN, one-sidedness is not a good strategy, and the middle route is likely to maximize national interests.

To sum up, there are two fatal flaws for the United States to promote the establishment of a new NATO in the Indo-Pacific: First, the awareness of integration here is insufficient. From the perspective of the current strength of the United States, it can only choose in the dilemma of limited resources. Allies who "already have an anti-China tendency" to improve sexuality, such as Japan, India, and Australia, participate. However, such "10,000 people respond and one person is present" is destined to be difficult to achieve scale and climate. In other words, even if the United States can pull up an anti-China siege network in the Indo-Pacific, its mesh is so huge that it is useless.

Second, from the perspective of the political and economic structure of the Indo-Pacific, no country can play a role similar to that of Germany and France in the European continent. However, China's single weight is much higher than that of the two countries, and there are intricate economic and trade interactions and market dependence with surrounding countries. Japan As in India, so does Australia. Therefore, in order to promote an effective alliance here, China is an indispensable and necessary member, but this is contrary to the theme of the "anti-China alliance" conceived by the United States, and has become a paradox of its Indo-Pacific strategy.

The Shangri-La Dialogue not only reflects the game of security concepts between China and the United States, but also reflects the flow of interests of Indo-Pacific countries. How to deal with regional relations under the competition between China and the United States, while managing the cost of conflict, will be the two keys for China to face the "Indo-Pacific strategy" in the future.

Original published URL:

2022.6.20

From the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to the Shangri-La dialogue: The two "security concepts" of China and the United States are colliding | Hong Kong 01 https://www.hk01.com/sns/article/783230