{"id":39673,"date":"2018-06-04T06:00:33","date_gmt":"2018-06-03T20:00:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=39673"},"modified":"2018-06-08T11:36:21","modified_gmt":"2018-06-08T01:36:21","slug":"china-truth-and-consequences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/china-truth-and-consequences\/","title":{"rendered":"China truth and consequences"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/strong><\/p>\n A lot of \u2018c\u2019 words were tossed at China during the Shangri-La Dialogue<\/a>\u2014collaboration and competition, coercion and consequences, challenges and choices. The dangers of combativeness. Dark conclusions about China\u2019s militarisation of the South China Sea.<\/p>\n The US promised to compete strongly, cooperate where it could, and make China see the consequences of its actions. Australia preached against coercion.<\/p>\n In the opening Saturday address\u2014the traditional spot for the US Defense Secretary\u2014James Mattis set up the alliterative trail, promising \u2018a constructive results-oriented relationship with China, cooperation whenever possible will be the name of the game, and competing vigorously where we must\u2019.<\/p>\n Mattis told the IISS Singapore security conference that competition among nations is intensifying. The Trump administration took a clear-eyed view of this competition, \u2018and cooperation with China is welcome wherever possible\u2019. That \u2018wherever possible\u2019 line is a screaming modifier, shifting the weight in America\u2019s cooperation\u2013competition calculus<\/a>.<\/p>\n The US rhetorical clash with China on the Shangri-La Saturday is also a tradition. Reprising last year\u2019s crunch<\/a>, Mattis was sharp about China in the South China Sea, charging that China has broken its promise<\/a> not to militarise its artificial islands:<\/p>\n Our Indo-Pacific strategy informs our relationship with China. We are aware China will face an array of challenges and opportunities in coming years. We are prepared to support China\u2019s choices, if they promote long-term peace and prosperity for all in this dynamic region. Yet China\u2019s policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness of our strategy\u2014it calls into question China\u2019s broader goals. China\u2019s militarisation of artificial features in the South China Sea includes the deployment of anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers and more recently, the landing of bomber aircraft at Woody Island. Despite China\u2019s claims to the contrary, the placement of these weapons systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion. China\u2019s militarisation of the Spratlys is also in direct contradiction to President Xi\u2019s 2015 public assurances in the White House Rose Garden that they would not do this.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mattis said that Washington won\u2019t ask the Indo-Pacific to choose between the US and China \u2018because a friend does not demand you choose among them\u2019. The point the US Defense Secretary stressed during questions was the idea of consequences, as the Indo-Pacific judges China by its actions:<\/p>\n I think there are consequences to China ignoring the international community. We firmly believe in the non-coercive aspects of how nations should get along with each other, that they should listen to each other. Nothing wrong with competition, nothing wrong with having strong positions, but when it comes down to introducing what they have done in the South China Sea, there are consequences \u2026 I believe there are much larger consequences in the future when nations lose the respect of their neighbours, when they believe that piling mountainous debts on their neighbours and somehow removing the freedom of political action is the way to engage with them. Eventually, these things do not pay off, even if on the financial ledger sheet or the power ledger they appear to. It\u2019s a very shaky foundation to believe that militarising features are somehow going to endorse their standing in the world and enhance it. It is not. It\u2019s not going to be endorsed in the world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The\u00a0consequences argument can apply, too, to the Trump administration launching a trade war that imposes more tariffs on allies than on China<\/a>. The first question to Mattis was whether picking fights with US partners is going to serve China\u2019s strategic interest in separating America from its friends.<\/p>\n The Defense Secretary\u2019s answer was part rueful, part philosophical:<\/p>\n Certainly, we have had some unusual approaches\u2014I\u2019ll be candid with you, some unusual approaches to how we deal with these issues. But I\u2019m reminded that so long as nations continue dialogues, so long as they continue to listen to one another and to pay respect to one another, nothing is over, based on one decision, one day.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And in Trump world, today\u2019s decision can always be trumped by tomorrow\u2019s different choice.<\/p>\n