China’s Strategic Preference: Drive a Wedge in the Atlantic Alliance

CHINA’S STRATEGIC PREFERENCE: DRIVE A WEDGE IN THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE

By Dr. Subhash Kapila

Introductory Observations

China is strategically convinced that despite its burgeoning comprehensive strategic strengths, it will be in no position to challenge that global strategic predominance of the United States in the 21^st Century. China can create strategic irritations for the United States in different parts of the world but China is in no position to limit United States military power.

China is also aware that a resurgent Russia will also be in no position to effectively foil or challenge United States military might for quite some time to come. Additionally, despite the so called China-Russia strategic nexus, both nations have strategic misgivings about each other’s long term strategic goals.

United States two military interventions in Iraq, in Yugoslavia, nearer home to China, in Afghanistan, strategically haunts China’s political establishment and its strategic community. China seriously fears that the issues of Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang at some time could be exploited by the United States for military intervention, in case China becomes insensitive to United States global strategic interests and priorities.

China is also acutely aware, as this Author has repeatedly asserted that it has “no natural allies” on its side to strategically confront the United States.

The United States military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan etc could have been undertaken independently by the United States military on their own. But greater political and military support by the European Union countries as member-states of NATO added international legitimacy to United States military interventions.

China is well aware that the Atlantic Alliance, namely the United States and NATO (European Union Countries) united as one strategic entity represent a major strategic force in being that dominates the global security architecture.

China following traditional Chinese military dictums that if you cannot win over your enemy, you must fragment its strengths, seems to prefer this strategic preference i.e. drive a wedge in the Atlantic Alliance by articulated campaigns as we shall see below.

On such issues, China’s articulation never comes from the policy establishment, but emerges from the written works of its noted intellectuals specializing in strategic and foreign policy affairs.

In a recent Op-Ed commentary by a noted Chinese intellectual reproduced in a Pakistani English newspaper, China’s strategic preferences are well articulated to convey the sense that China would prefer that the European Union, independent of the United States, adopt a greater role on the global strategic stage and act as a counterweight to the United States.

This Paper intends to highlight China’s strategic preference so articulated along with some associated perspectives under the following heads:

China’s Strategic Preference for the European Union as the Main Global Security Actor
Atlantic Alliance: The Global Strategic Anchor for Stability
European Security and Defence Program is Militarily Unworkable
United States’ Prime Responsibility to Nurture Atlantic Alliance

China’s Strategic Preference for the European Union as the Main Global Security Actor

In a longish commentary the Chinese intellectual surveys the international security environment, acknowledges China’s limitations to strategically challenge the United States and then outlines China’s case as to why China would prefer the expanding European Union to emerge as a ‘counterweight’ to the United States.

The commentary has selected the European Security and Defence Programme (ESDP) as the strategic mechanism that could impart greater strategic weight to the European Union in global affairs as a replacement for the US-led NATO mechanisms.

The ESDP has been under discussion since 1998 and envisages an integrated European security mechanism available for European Union’s active involvement in conflict-resolution and conflict-prevention both within Europe and outside. Associated with this is a EU Rapid Reaction Force of about 60,000 troops.

China’s strategic preferences as articulated in this commentary can best be captured in the Chinese intellectual’s own words. Selected excerpts are as under:

“China wants a strong and independent Europe and from that vantage point, it is not too early for China to envisage a truly multi-polar “global system”.
“China sees the expanding European Union as a likely counter weight to unchecked United States power.”
“In China, the concept of an independent European defence embodied in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) as well as the EU’s Rapid Reaction Force and various police missions is thus seen generally as necessary and effective in a multi-polar world system.”
“But the ESDP once fully developed will not necessarily follow America’s lead unconditionally, especially if American policy continues to deviate from the norms of international law, as in Iraq.”
“As a result of acquiring a Pan-European defence capacity, the Europeans are likely to play a more independent role than at present in managing intra-Europe security relations and carrying out global missions.”
“China welcomes the expanded security role for the European Union although it remains wary of international intervention by the EU.”
“The substance and pattern of ESDP operations are likely to win respect (from China) for several reasons (abridged) as follows:

1. “Chinese leaders note that the ESDP gives priority to the legitimacy of its missions” (unlike the United States)

2. “Outside Europe, the ESDP acts to enhance good governance, rather than regime changes.” (in comparison to USA)

3. The ESDP is open to international cooperation with other non-EU states.”

In other words, Chinese leaders view that the ESDP would be their preferred strategic option in comparison to what China perceives as the unbridled domination of global security affairs by the United States both through the UN Security Council and outside it.

But the real reason for China’s strategic preference emerges in the concluding paragraph of the commentary, which reads as under:

“There are good reasons to expect that China will continue to accept an independent European Security Mechanism. There is little concern if any about the ESDP interfering in internal Chinese affairs such as Taiwan.”

The excerpts quoted above by themselves, may sound very pious along with hopes of a multi-polar world. But it is not difficult to fathom the underlying deep impulses and that is to drive a wedge in the Atlantic Alliance by emphasizing implicitly that the European Union by itself is a better alternative than the UnitedStates in managing global security affairs.

Atlantic Alliance: The Global Strategic Anchor for Stability

The Atlantic Alliance operating on the bed rock of the NATO Security Alliance has contributed towards global security for over sixty years now. The Atlantic Alliance despite periodic differences in outlook of the United States with its European partners on specific issues has withstood the test of times. The Atlantic Alliance provided security both to the United States and Europe during the testing times of the Cold War and even in the Post-Cold War era.

The Atlantic Alliance through NATO has been visible in restoring peace and stability in the Balkans and most importantly grappled with the threat of global Islamist terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Much as many countries vilify the United States yet all of them including China wish for US military presence in their regions for peace and stability. This particularly applies today to the Middle East.

In fact in the referred Chinese commentary there are pointed references to the European Union’s strategic stakes in the Middle East being higher than the United States implying that the European Union should play a larger role in the Middle East. The underlying Chinese strategic aim seems to be to somehow to dilute the United States strangle hold over Middle East oil and gas reserves badly needed by China. Inspired campaigns to sow misgivings seems to be part of China's strategy.

The Middle East’s peace and stability today against the divisive forces out to disturb the region has been upheld by the joint efforts of the Atlantic Alliance, namely by United States strategic predominance and European Union political clout and ties with the region.

The Atlantic Alliance today is very much on the doorsteps of China’s most volatile and rebellious outlying regions and it is this factor which is of strategic worry to China and China constantly strives to somehow limit US presence in its vicinity.

It is also worth recording that unlike China there has been no espousing of the ESDP concept by Russia to the best of the Author’s knowledge. Russia has objections to NATO’s eastern enlargement and has recently employed its leverages to stem the process. Russia had also been a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace process. Russia does not seem overly worried about the Atlantic Alliance as China is.

While all other security alliances around the world have floundered and gone extinct, the Atlantic Alliance exists today even more stronger. Obviously, there is strategic value for its members who continue to sustain it.

To the credit of the European Union’s major countries like France, Germany & Britain it needs to be recorded that despite having strategic partnership accords with China all these countries have upheld the solidarity of the Atlantic Alliance/NATO in more ways than one as follows:

Forging strategic partnerships with China by European countries gave no indications nor any evidence is available that this was meant to signal a multi-polar balancing of the United States. They were merely diplomatic exercises for economic reasons.
European countries heeded to United States call to not to breach the arms exports ban against China even though China dangled billion dollar inducements.
European countries as part of NATO have increased their troops contributions in Afghanistan on China's doorsteps.

European Security and Defence Program is Militarily Unworkable

The ESDP may be a laudable objective in terms of security integration of Europe but the achievement of the end objective needs to be viewed at two levels. Firstly, the economic integration which was the prime aim of European Union founding has yet to be achieved. The most recent example being the inability to pass the Lisbon Treaty.

In terms of security integration, the European Union countries should be well aware that their past efforts for security integration of European nations in earlier mechanisms like the WEU etc. did not meet with success. Country-specific problems along with systemic drawbacks thwarted progress in this direction.

Then arises the question of the large scale financial outlays that would be required to maintain and sustain an independent European military capability for global intervention. Unlike the United States there are limitations in the European Union as it will have to depend on member-states contributions.

Even if European Union countries were able to financially sustain such a military capability the significant question that arises is whether Europe needs to duplicate the existing NATO security architecture which has proved strategically and politically effective.

The ESDP concept presumably emerged out of pique and anger of some European leaders in the past who were unhappy with US policy stances and outlook.

The times have changed and the security environment in Europe and areas contiguous to Europe has changed significantly with multiple threats emerging including nation -specific threats.

As a stark example can the ESDP on its own handle the threats emerging within Old Europe from the millions of Muslim citizens of these countries, many of whom are under strong influence of Islamic Jihadi groups in the Middle East and South West Asia.

The European Union and even if the ESDP becomes fully effective would lack the military and political leverages that the United States can employ in the Middle East to arrest if not fully neutralize the threats to Europe.

China’s espousal of the ESDP is politically motivated to serve its own strategic ends rather than serving any security needs of the European Union.

In short the ESDP is a military untenable concept on all counts when analysed strategically and politically. And that probably is the reason as to why ESDP has till now not figured as a central focus in the planning of defence strategies of major European countries.

United States’ Prime Responsibility to Nurture Atlantic Alliance

The European Union and especially the countries of ‘Old Europe’ have contributed handsomely in providing military protection to mainland America right from the days of World War I nearly a century ago. The countries of ‘Old Europe’ were America’s ‘front-line states’ during the Cold War confrontation with the Warsaw Pact countries.

Just because a large number of ‘New Europe’ countries (erstwhile Warsaw Pact nations) are flocking to the United States camp and facilitating NATO’s eastward creep, it does not imply that the United States can overlook the strategic sensitivities and interests of the ‘Old Europe’ countries.

The United States must recognize that the strength of the Atlantic Alliance lies in the combined strengths of the United States and countries of ‘Old Europe’. The United States therefore has prime responsibilities to nurture and sustain the Atlantic Alliance.

China’s global strategic ambitions can only be effectively checkmated when the Atlantic Alliance functions in an integrated and concerted manner. The United States on its own could not have held on to Afghanistan without the contribution of NATO countries. This is an ample indicator of the frequently changing geo-political scenarios and security environment that can be met only by a combined and united Atlantic Alliance efforts.

Finally, on this issue, the United States needs to recognize that the central focus of China’s ‘Grand Strategy’ is to promote and support the emergence of rival power centres to the United States. China’s highlighting that the ESDP as a security mechanism is something that China can live with, seems to be a part of this ‘Grand Strategy’. The United States has to exhibit by strongly nurturing of the Atlantic Alliance that Europe is one region of the world where China’s strategic designs cannot succeed.

Concluding Observations

The Atlantic Alliance held together in the geo-politically challenged era of the Cold War. Today’s security environment is far more unpredictable and hence so are the geo-political challenges. Strong strategic imperatives therefore exist that the Atlantic Alliance should not be weakened.

The ESDP concept is militarily not tenable and cannot displace the Atlantic Alliance in maintaining global security. The adverse symbolism of ESDP duplicating NATO is highlighted by observations in a US think-tank website which states: “The creation of duplicate military structures with autonomous decision-making powers independent of NATO represents a major geopolitical rupture between Europe and Washington that serves neither side”.

China’s espousal of the ESDP and its strong advocacy that the Chinese leaders are willing to accept the ESDP configuration as opposed to NATO security configuration is precisely aimed at driving a wedge in the Atlantic Alliance leading to a geopolitical rupture in the solidarity of the Atlantic Alliance.

(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email:drsubhashkapila@yahoo.com)