Strategic Snooping and Souring of Sino-US Relations

Columnist Dr SM RAHMAN writes about the consequences of the EP3 incident.

“The sole advantage of power” goes the saying, “is that you can do more good”. But for USA, power is a means to intimidate, coerce and exploit. The abiding passion is to rein supreme and freeze the strategic ‘unipolarity’. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism is eulogized for the triumph of free market ideology, euphemistically glorified as the “end of history”, by Fukuyama. It is, however, ironical that the classic treatise of Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, has assumed sacrosanctity of an economic bible for the western nations, and is the main impetus towards Globalization, but his earlier book Theory of Moral Sentiments is hardly ever  taken notice of in which, he had laid down the basic foundation on which the economic order was to be built. He had counselled that free economic system would flourish only, when it is propelled by essential morality of the people. He also contended that both political and economic systems needed adherence to "good will", without which both the systems would collapse. The advice was not heeded to. The geo-economic world order, without a human face, has accentuated mistrust and polarization between the haves and have-not nations of the world. The Seattle episode is a manifestation of that bitter realization that economic hegemony cannot be allowed to masquerade under the cover of globalization, which popularizes western values, but overly restricts affluence and prosperity to the G-8 club. Capitalism has never changed its essence and colour, which is built on “unequal exchange.”

 What is true of geo-economics is also true of geopolitics, as both are determinants of a mind set, which promote Hobbesian paradigm of dominance, hegemony and containment. International relations are hopelessly circumscribed by constructs, which breed civilizational conflicts and a dreadful apprehension exists of total annihilation due to overly loaded weapons of mass destruction as a consequence of the so-called security order of the globe. A geopolitical analyst rightly pointed to the implicit irony in the fact that, however, much nuclear weapons may be rightfully regarded, in their threat role at least, as effective guardians of national security, they portend the severest consequences of life as we know it. "To survive by threatening major extinction is after all what we mean by nuclear deterrence". But the deterrence complacence works only to a limit, when the frustration threshold of an aggrieved nuclear world power is not crossed. George Bush’s predisposition towards CIA sponsored perception of Global Trends 2015, and display of naked power, to emulate his father as a role model, is blinded to the reality that China is altogether a different breed. It will never compromise on its honour and dignity, no matter what strategic price it may have to pay.

With the change of President in the White House, it was not difficult to predict that Neo-Wilsonian strategy of engagement with China, which Clinton administration deemed desirable to follow under the unfolding imperative that unipolarity was a transient reality and that USA must learn to adjust in the emerging world of multipolarity, would receive a partial reversal. Clinton administration had realized that China was a formidable global power, both militarily and economically. Political sagacity thus demanded that Containment, a cold war prescription propounded by George Kennan, must be replaced by engagement. It was not for the intrinsic love or respect for China, but for the furtherance of US interests. It is indeed very paradoxical that strategic thought in USA, tends to gravitate towards what the proponents of so-called realpolitik, uphold, which views morality as unnecessary appendage to power. Geopolitical idealism, based on higher values of global inter-existence, represented in Wilsonian sensibility has served as temporary interlude in the general drama of power-game. Bush symbolizes a return, albeit, too crudely to the Cold War paradigm, where the perceived threat of USSR, was the centrepiece of USA’s foreign policy. Due to strategic addiction to containment for long forty years, USA sees China a potential threat to its over-lordship of the world. For Clinton, China was a strategic partner, and now under Bush it is a competitor, with obvious implications that its geopolitical regional and global clout and sphere of influence are significantly reduced.

 The US spy plane, EP3 F of naval surveillance with 24 member crew, which had to land after colliding with Chinese jet, a few miles off the Hainan Island, over the South China sea, is not a stray incident. It is linked to that geopolitical passion called containment. China, which is on road to phenomenal prosperity and progress must somehow be deterred through incessant strategic pricks. Commissioning electronic Matahari, with sophisticated eaves-dropping devices, along China’s coastal areas, is to divert its attention from economic sphere to manipulated security threats, due to excessive surveillance activities by USA. Promise of supply of high tech weapons to Taiwan, is a part of the same strategy. In other words, China through constant pressures should remain bogged down to the contrived threats along the coastal area, which in turn, would accentuate fear and suspicions among its neighbours along South China sea — Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and so forth. China’s regional leadership of East Asia is to be minimized. The design is what Kennan had propounded. “Our safety”, he said, “depends on our ability to establish a balance among the hostile or undependable forces of the world. To put them where necessary one against the other; to see that they spend in conflict with each other, if they must spend it at all, the intolerance and violence and fanaticism which might otherwise be directed against us, that they are thus compelled to cancel each other out and exhaust themselves in internecine conflict in order that the constructive forces, working for world stability, may continue to have the possibility of life.”  It is a sure recipe for destability of the conflict prone world.

 The CIA agenda for the world as contained in the study called Global Trends 2015, is based on the analysis that the new challenge will be the declining power of Russia and the rising power of China neither inherently threatening to the US but both potentially dangerous if mishandled. The espionage episode, reflects that Bush has not been too visionary and statesman-like. Russia, which is now considered “only a courtesy super power — retired, or perhaps on extended leave with severe disabilities”, may like proverbial phoenix rise from its ashes. China and rejuvenated Russia may prove formidable power to oppose US hegemony. USA has a choice, like the British faced at the end of the nineteenth century, as David Calleo contends. “It can”, he says, either accommodate its rivals or oppose them. It can oppose by pressing for a seamless “global” system that remains under its own hegemony. Or it can try to accommodate by coaxing the others into a global sharing of power, with some mix of regional spheres of interest and collective world responsibilities. Bush has opted for the first one, and here lies the peril. Imperial institutions of power — overly developed military, intelligence establishments, are anachronistic.  Opposing forces in order to meet the functional imperative of a collective response, may emerge as a patent reality to counter balance American power preponderance.

The moral aspects and defiance of the norms of propriety in international relations notwithstanding, USA’s insistence that it had not violated the conventions and the laws of the seas, is a typical manifestation of mind, which is overly intoxicated with power. To make it much worse, it showed marked reluctance to seek apology for the mistake it had committed. If it had continued with this stance it would have been self- defeating. China’s principled stand made USA bend from its hard line position to find a semantic relief and protect its ‘bruised ego’.  "Sincere regret" and "sorrow" are not synonyms of apology, but words often convey more than dictionary meanings. In this context, the latent massage is eloquently expressed, and the Chinese graciously accepted it as “double apology”.

On espionage episodes, USA has always maintained double standard. The U2 — incident of 1960 at the height of cold war has not faded out of our memory. The former Soviet Union was subjected to similar surveillance through high-tech spy plane, operating from Pakistan’s territory. One such plane was shot down which had to land on Russian soil. USA first denied its offence, but had to eat the humble pie, when real facts surfaced. There is no iota of doubt that in the latest incident USA indulged in espionage and that the frequency of the intrusion was becoming much too unbearable for China, not prepared to compromise on its sovereignty.

One recalls how in late eighties, a Russian MI 29, helicopter had landed in the Chitral area in Pakistan. It was equipped with latest espionage system. USA, did not let Pakistan return this to Russia, and by getting it dismantled, it took all its parts by paying a meagre price to Pakistan. Similar was the fate of Mig 25 surveillance plane of USSR, which had to make a forced landing in Japan. Every bit of it was dismantled and then reassembled to be returned to the owner country after long seventy six days. In the face of such contradictory positions, USA is prone to maintaining the latest one it appears would set the limit to which USA can carry on strategic snooping in a country like China. While the 24 crew members of the US spy plane have been rightly released, the issue is not dead and the controversy would linger on till USA is refrained from such venture in future. The Chinese demand that the international airspace be for civil aviation, but not for "hostile" aviation is quite logical and convincing.

What information, is USA looking for, through electronic peeping and to what consequence? China is no longer that closed society as it used to be. It has demonstrated principled stand on its global dealings and has no hegemonic ambitions. It is only trying to consolidate itself from within. The French philosopher of the 16th century Montaigne formulated a principle: "It is better to have a good head than a full head." The knowledge and information must be gained to serve a sound strategy. Bush has seemingly faulted on this principle.