China is Not a Strategic Competitor to US

Posted by AsiaViews | Feb 5, 2018 | 0 |

CHINA

By Xu Lyushan*

China Daily

29 Jan 2018

Like the US National Security Strategy report issued in December, the 2018 US National Defense Strategy report published recently also identifies China as a strategic competitor, causing repercussions in international relations and evoking a fierce rebuttal from China.

Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang, spokesman for the Defense Ministry, has said the United States should abandon the Cold War mentality and view China’s defense and military modernization rationally and objectively. Reiterating that Beijing will unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development and a defensive defense policy, Ren called on Washington to fulfill the important agreements reached by the top leaders of China and the US, and make concerted efforts to stabilize bilateral ties.

Ren’s statement makes clear the attitudes of the People’s Liberation Army and the Chinese government. First, China will never seek hegemony, and the PLA and the Chinese government have consistently played the role of builders and facilitators of world peace and development, and made efforts to improve the world order. They have shouldered more than their share of international responsibilities, winning the praise of the international community.

In the 40 years since the launch of reform and opening-up in 1978, China has demonstrated it has no intention of seeking hegemony, which has convinced the international community. But the US has persistently ignored and twisted this fact, in order to ratchet up tensions.

This has been overtly evident in the South China Sea issue. China has the sovereign right to conduct peaceful construction activities and build necessary defense facilities on its islands and reefs in the South China Sea. But despite the easing of tensions in the South China Sea, the US has chosen to flex its muscles in the region and stir up trouble in the name of “freedom of navigation”, by sending vessels to illegally navigate the waters near China’s islands and reefs. It seems the US is not interested in seeing a peaceful and stable South China Sea.

Second, China has upheld and will always uphold the principle of non-confrontation. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi elaborated on the concept of “new type of major-country relationship”, that is, non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation in a speech at Washington-based think tank Brookings Institution in 2013. The non-confrontation principle not only reflects the general attitude and good intentions of China, but also suggests how the US can constructively manage Sino-US relations. Non-confrontation conforms to the interests of both countries and the world beyond. So we hope the US acts wisely and makes efforts to improve people’s well-being in both countries.

Let us return to the essential question: Whether China is a strategic competitor to the US?

The answer is an emphatic no. China has no intention of becoming a strategic competitor to any country, let alone the US. Nor has it taken any actions to do so. Nonetheless, the US National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defense Strategy reports label China as one, making a serious strategic misjudgment.

About 2,000 years ago, Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu warned: “The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence, it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.”

Today, the global trend is one of peace and development. If the political and military elites of one country cannot objectively analyze and judge this international relations trend and, instead, devise foreign policies at will, their country will take the wrong diplomatic path to the detriment of public well-being. We hope US political and military elites treat Sino-US ties more prudently and facilitate the healthy development of bilateral relations, which would benefit peoples in both countries and the world beyond.

*The author is an associate professor at the PLA Navy’s Dalian Warship College.

(First published in China Daily – http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/29/WS5a6e61c0a3106e7dcc1373b6.html)

About The Author

AsiaViews

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Neigborhood Watch

Subscribe To Newsletter

POINTS TO PONDER

EXTRICATING NDONESIAN CHILDREN FROM ISIS INFLUENCE ABROAD

Indonesia urgently needs to revisit the possibility of repatriating the neediest of its young citizens stranded abroad, whose families had earlier joined ISIS. Most of these children are in camps in northern Syria but there are also small numbers in the Philippines, Afghanistan and Iraq. “Extricating Indonesian Children from ISIS Influence Abroad”, the latest report from the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC) argues that the government could begin by bringing back small groups of unaccompanied children under ten years of age, who pose minimal security risk and are most vulnerable to deteriorating conditions in the camps.“The problem is that health and security conditions are worsening by the day in the Syrian camps, and the children are growing older,” says Dyah Kartika, IPAC analyst. “They need access to schools, a nurturing environment, and medical attention. If the government waits too long, the children will be further exposed to ISIS ideology.” The new report examines a 2019 list of Indonesians in camps and prisons run by the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The Indonesian government has been trying to verify their citizenship, but with pseudonyms, misspellings and bad transliterations, it is a daunting task. At the time the data was collected, between March and June 2019, there were 555 Indonesians in SDF camps and prisons, including 367 children. Among the children, approximately 277 were under the age of ten and 34 were unaccompanied. In June 2021, there are fewer than ten children who are both unaccompanied and under the age of ten that could be prioritized for return. Bringing back children of ISIS families is no easy task. The report analyses the main challenges faced by the Indonesian government. These include definitional issues, bureaucratic competition, the difficulty of verifying nationality, evaluating the toll of exposure to conflict, assessing security risk, and finding relatives or others willing to provide care once the children are returned. In addition, COVID has meant stringent restrictions on travel, placing further obstacles in the way of repatriation. There are several models for rehabilitation of children exposed to violent extremism in Indonesia that could be modified to accommodate the needs of children repatriated from abroad. The report examines these models and argues that the government does not need to have every detail of rehabilitation programs in place before it starts extricating children from ISIS influence. It can start by bringing back the most vulnerable children and then modify programs as needed.

“It’s important that the government see these children as victims” says Dyah. “They deserve a chance to be children again.”

China is Not a Strategic Competitor to US