Recently, tension in the Indo-Pacific region has risen as China’s maritime expansion has escalated in the region. In the South China Sea, China has ignored the verdict of an international court in 2016 and deployed both military and paramilitary forces and constructed seven artificial islands with three runways. While claiming that these artificial islands have no military purpose, China has started to deploy missiles and military planes on them. And this year, China has exploited the COVID-19 pandemic situation and increased its military activities.
Given this aggressive behavior, US-China competition has escalated sharply. In December 2017, the US published its latest “National Security Strategy,” and, in 2018, Vice President Mike Pence detailed the administration’s China policy at a speech at the Hudson Institute, both of which indicated a strong US stance toward China. In addition to imposing tariffs, the US has excluded Chinese products and 5G technologies from government procurement in a so-called “high tech war.” To deal with China’s challenging attitude during the COVID-19 crisis, the US has already deployed three aircraft carrier battle groups, as well as B-1 and B-2 strategic bombers, in the Indo-Pacific region.
Against this backdrop, it is important to examine the role of Japan, India, and Australia with regard to the US-China competition. To understand their role, this article first analyzes features of current rivalry between China and the US.
I. Characteristics of the China-US Relationship
Three features of China’s territorial expansion
China’s recent territorial expansion has three features. The first involves the flouting of international law. In the South China Sea, China has expanded its claim and ignored the verdict of an international court. On Senkaku Island of Japan, China is asserting historical rights to an island it has not claimed before 1971. In the case of the India-China border, where 20 Indian soldiers sacrificed their lives in a clash with China this year, the Tibetan exile government stated that these areas belong to India. China has ignored current international law and expanded its territorial claim in all three areas.
ALSO READ: Implications of Japan’s Policies in the Indo-Pacific
The second feature of China’s territorial expansion is timing. It has exploited the situation whenever it finds a “power vacuum.” For example, China occupied half of the Paracel Islands just after France withdrew in the 1950s, and expanded its presence to all of the Paracel Islands after the US withdrew from South Vietnam in 1970s. China occupied six features of the Spratly Islands after the Soviet Union decreased its military presence in Vietnam in the 1980s. And China laid claim to Mischief Reef after US troops withdrew from the Philippines in the 1990s. Recently, China has tried to expand its territorial claims not only in the South China Sea, but also in the East China Sea and the India-China border. According to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, from 2010-19 China increased its military expenditure by 85 per cent, compared with India’s 37 per cent and Japan’s 2 percent. There is a strong possibility that China is doing so because it believes there is a power vacuum in these areas.
A third feature of China’s territorial expansion is its insistence on excluding outsiders. In issues surrounding the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the India-China border, China has blamed the involvement of non-regional powers as contributing to the problem. China wants to solve these territorial issues on a bilateral basis without the involvement of the US or of the international community.
Analysis of the US stance toward China
To deal with China’s provocation, the US has chosen a tough stance toward China that has two aspects. Militarily, the US has tried to maintain a balance, but economically, the US has tried to decouple from China and make it poorer.
In June 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explained why the number of US troops in Germany has been reduced, and why US troops had also withdrawn from Syria and Afghanistan. He said, “This is going to dictate that in certain places there will be fewer American resources. There’ll be other places-I just talked about the threat from the Chinese Communist Party, so now threats to India, threats to Vietnam, threats to Malaysia, Indonesia, South China Sea challenges, the Philippines. We’re going to make sure we’re postured appropriately to counter the PLA. We think that’s the challenge of our time, and we’re going to make sure we have resources in place to do that.” To counter China’s territorial expansion, the US has increased its military deployment to maintain balance in this region. Because China tends to expand its territorial claim when it finds a power vacuum, maintaining a military counterbalance is the proper way for the US to respond.
Economically, the US strategy is more aggressive. Both its trade war and its high tech war have excluded China’s participation in the US economy. As a result, US experts have started to use the word “decoupling” when referring to relations with China, and the US president himself has indicated the possibility. Because China’s growth and expansionist tactics include rapid military modernization and loaning money to other countries for infrastructure projects as part of the Belt and Road Initiative, it is dependent on a healthy budget. It is, therefore, a wise strategy for the US to focus on reducing China’s wealth.
ALSO READ: Japan deepens intelligence sharing with India, Australia and UK
Indeed, there is a strong possibility that such tough policies toward China will remain long-term policy for three reasons. First, the US became a superpower because it defeated all rivals including Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union and during these conflicts it developed long-term policies that prepared for all scenarios, even unlikely ones. For example, between the two World Wars, the US had an “Orange Plan” to defeat Japan and implemented it during WW II. Similarly, it had a “Black Plan” against Germany. But when these plans were declassified in 1974, the world was surprised to learn that there was also a “Red Plan” to defeat Britain and Canada. (Canada was very upset.) Because the US designated China as a “competitor” in the “National Security Strategy” in 2017, one can assume that it has a contingency plan to defeat China as part of its long-term policy.
Secondly, the tough stance toward China is not the product of the Trump administration alone. For example, the high tech war, which excluded products of Huawei and ZTE, started when the “Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE” was published in 2012, during Barack Obama’s presidency. Thus, Republicans and Democrats share many similar goal toward China.
Third, now is the proper time for the US to act if it wants to win the competition with China. The “National Security Strategy” was published in December 2017. At that time, according to the “Military Balance 2018,” published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the US defence budget was $603 billion compared with China’s $150 billion. However, from an economic perspective, according to the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook Database for 2018, US GDP was at $19.39 trillion, compared with China’s $12.24 trillion. Compared with the defense budget, the economic gap is narrow. And technologically, according to UNESCO Institute for Statistics figures published in 2018, the US invested $476 billion for research and development and China invested $370 billion. That gap is very small. If the US acts now, it will have the advantage over China. But without such efforts, there is a possibility that US advantages will decline one by one.
II. The Role of Japan, India, and Australia
Three policies toward China
What should Japan, India, and Australia do in dealing with China? In short, they should do the opposite of what China wants. First, if China ignores current international law, other countries should uphold the law strongly and refuse China’s new territorial claims. For example, the US and Australia have already refused China’s territorial claim in the South
China Sea. Second, Japan, India, and Australia need to fill the power vacuum militarily by increasing their military expenditures. Infrastructure cooperation to build strategic road projects is also useful. And these countries should also support countries, including Vietnam, Philippines and Taiwan, that face Chinese intimidation. Third, Japan, India, and Australia should continue to enhance security cooperation with the US and other like-minded countries.
III. How should Japan, India, and Australia cooperate with the US?
Currently, the US is requesting cooperation from Japan, India and Australia, both militarily and economically. Militarily, the US wants these partner countries to share the security burden by increasing their defense budgets, participating in military activities and importing American weapons. Economically, the US is requesting that Japan, India, and Australia adopt the same tough policies against China. For example, when the US banned the products of Huawei and ZTE, it asked US allies and friendly countries to do the same. Japan and Australia have already banned such products. And India has banned more than 100 apps made in China, including TikTok. The US is also requesting that its allies impose sanctions against government officials and companies that trade with China. For example, the US asked Canada to arrest executives of Huawei.
Japan, India and Australia should not think of this as a burden but a chance. To deal with China, these countries need to fill the regional power vacuum. The US request for increased military spending is not only in the US interest, but in the interest of Japan, India and Australia. Recently, Japan decided to purchase limited offensive capabilities, including small aircraft carriers, F-35 stealth fighter jets and stand-off weapons. India is importing airlift equipment such as heavy and middle transport planes, heavy transport helicopters and air-liftable howitzers from the US in order to establish air-mobile offensive capability against China. Australia also recently published its plan to possess long-range strike capabilities. These offensive capabilities will give these countries more flexible choices when they need to deal with China.
Economic requests are more complicated because China is the first or second-rated trading partner for Japan, India and Australia. However, if Japan, India and Australia depend too heavily on trade with China, the economies of these countries will be like passengers of a sinking ship. Therefore, decoupling or risk diversifying is necessary. Indeed, Japan has already begun to do so. Because Japan has relocated its factories from China to Southeast Asia and South Asia, the number of Japanese citizens living in China has decreased from 150,399 in 2012 to 120,076 in 2018. At the same time, the number of Japanese living in the US has increased from 410,973 in 2012 to 446,925 in 2018. In addition, Japan earmarked $2.2 billion of its record economic stimulus package to help local manufacturers shift production out of China in April 2020. That same month, India adopted a new rule which requires prior government approval on foreign direct investment from the countries that share a land border with it, to deter opportunistic acquisitions.
China’s aggressive territorial expansion spurred the US to take a tough stance toward it. And US allies like Japan, India and Australia need to reevaluate their role. The security situation will demand that these three countries make drastic changes. This will also give them an opportunity to cooperate more deeply with the US and to form a new partnership. Now is the time for the “Quad” to do so.
