There have been a few highlights this year. Perhaps most interesting is Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu’s refusal to meet on the ground with Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin. The approach is quite unambiguous, although the two ministers mentioned in their speeches the inadmissibility of the confrontation, because its consequences could be catastrophic. Converging in their assessments of the possible future, Washington and Beijing see the reasons in opposite ways. The United States believes unconditionally and almost by consensus that the PRC is a rival that must be put in its place at almost any cost. Moreover, they think, it will be worse. China is outraged that the United States itself is dismantling the system of relations through which the two sides have enriched each other for several decades to mutual satisfaction. From Beijing’s perspective, Americans are overstepping the bounds of reason by demanding that their Asian counterparts submit to their interests and even their whims. In Washington’s view, allowing China to rise again means securing a contender for world dominance in the near future, with whom a collision is inevitable. Average layout.
The United States believes unconditionally and almost by consensus that China is a rival that must be put in its place at almost any cost.
The paradox lies in the fact that, while frankly preparing for the confrontation, both sides are very afraid of it. Neither has confidence in future success. Logically, China is above all interested in delaying the moment of conflict as much as possible, if we consider that it is inevitable. Yet the PRC has always caught up, and militarily Beijing has much less experience than the Americans. The latter, on the contrary, may come from the fact that their chances of success are all the higher the earlier the showdown takes place. On the other hand, the United States is now engaged in a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine, and the prospect of a “second front” in Asia is worrying. The “second front” is not necessarily a direct military confrontation (in the short term, no one believes it), but a general rise in military-political tensions, hindering resources in this direction.
The dangerous approach of warships the other day in the South China Sea is a sign of pressure we know well from the Baltic and Black Sea basin. At the same time, contacts are taking place at the level of diplomats and intelligence officers in order to “keep the lines of communication open”. In fact, the task, compared to what it was recently, is very small.
All of Asia is closely following the turning points in relations between the two greatest regional forces, which cannot live without each other and no longer get along. Ideally, big, ambitious countries would like to avoid the choice, as many Shangri-La participants said. However, this choice is asymmetrical. The United States expects from its partners a certain degree of alliance, that is to say a binding security relationship. China, as a rule, does not offer it (it does not like to take on formal obligations and does not demand of others), but it expects its neighbors not to participate in hostile formats and they are ready for free economic interaction. Until recently, countries in the region had no doubts that the Chinese model of relations is optimal, as it implies greater flexibility and does not require confrontation with the United States. But now flexibility itself is seen by the US side as disloyalty, with corresponding consequences.
Rapidly Developing Asian Countries Seize Every Opportunity to Show Their Independence
There is another aspect. In an environment of increasing competition between the two greatest powers, other countries feel the growth of their own importance. The competition is for them. And if in Europe no swinging of the pendulum is possible and not allowed, then in Asia it will not be. Even the states that have unequivocally joined the American bloc – Japan, South Korea, not to mention Australia – are not completely abandoning “hedging”. First, because the degree of economic interconnection with China of all countries in the region is enormous. Secondly, everyone understands that the severity of the confrontation is not only dictated by the importance of the goods for which the fight continues, but by the clarification of the fundamental question – who will be the directing force to determine the subsequent rules of the game.
In this context, maintaining full sovereignty and avoiding geopolitical dependence on others is the most important thing. The large, rapidly developing countries of Asia and the Pacific take every opportunity to show their independence, their ability to make decisions based solely on their own interests. The Indonesian peace plan for the Ukrainian conflict, which has hardly any real prospects, is one of the illustrations. Jakarta, like many other capitals, it should be emphasized that they have an original vision of world events. The world of tomorrow, whatever it becomes, will be a set of these original visions whose harmonization will constitute the direction of international politics. Asia is a much more demonstrative laboratory here than Europe.
Read the Latest Science and Technology News Today on The Eastern Herald.
