Kissinger is wrong about balance in Asia

By Ding Gang Source:Global Times Published: 2014-11-5 19:38:01

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

If the APEC is part of building a new world order, the US "pivot to Asia" is disconnected from it.

Henry Kissinger's latest book, World Order, ranked high on the non-fiction list shortly after it came out. The core opinion he states in the book is that the equilibrium of major powers based on the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is the key to ensure peace and stability and avoid wars. 

Over 360 years from the signing of the agreement, it's interesting to see that the US policy on China is still made to a large extent on the basis of such treaties. Rebalancing to Asia is apparently a product of equilibrium thinking.

Most advices on China policy brought up by some US experts say that Washington should maintain or build a power balancing system in the Asia-Pacific region that can reach equilibrium with Beijing.

"The US should therefore back up the pivot with a strong military presence in the Asia-Pacific to deter or counter Chinese aggression; reach consensus and then ratify the TPP; and bolster US programs that support democratic institutions and civil society in such places as Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Vietnam, where democracy is nascent but growing," Elizabeth Economy, C. V. Starr senior fellow and director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs magazine.

For a long time, the best approach to such policies has been seen as trying to constrain China with both hard and soft approaches so that the US can dominate a security system used to balance a rising China.

There's no doubt the rise of China is triggering uneasiness in its neighboring countries. But what concerns them more should be how to achieve continuous and steady economic development so as to meet the political and social welfare demands of the emerging middle class. Development is actually the most severe and practical challenge for them.

It is their fundamental demand for development that shakes the ground in which equilibrium theory revives and grows in Asia. And it is the problems coming up during development that prompt Asian countries to be more closely interconnected and deepen their cooperation.

Asia's future order is unlikely to be built on equilibrium because a system that stands for the common interests of all the Asian countries won't simply be one in which big powers such as China, the US and Japan reach power equilibrium. An effective Asian order must only be a system that provides more opportunities for development.

The major problems between Asian economies are often related to development. For instance, China and ASEAN have to think about how to reduce competition of similar products and be more complementary in their economic and trade ties.

China, Japan and South Korea are seeking to build a free trade area. Asian countries need to raise more money in constructing railways, roads and ports to form a network of interconnectivity and intercommunication, and they also have to jointly deal with the Ebola virus that will very possible be brought to Asia.

None of these problems could be solved by equilibrium or by several more naval vessels from Washington.

Apparently what the US needs is not a strategy of balancing power in Asia, but one that helps the country integrate with Asia's development. It depends on how much the US will pay for the development of Asian countries to establish its position here, not by an equilibrium built on guns, warships and air power.

In his 2011 novel Comes the Dragon, retired US officer RF Johnson set the 2015 as the time when China will invade the US and start WWIII. With less than two months from a new year, however what we see in Beijing is that 2015 will very likely become a start for APEC members to discuss building an ambitious free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.

The author is a senior editor with People's Daily. He is now stationed in Brazil. dinggang@globaltimes.com.cn. Follow him on Twitter at @dinggangchina

Posted in: Columnists, Ding Gang, Critical Voices, Viewpoint

blog comments powered by Disqus