Tensions between borders can cause war.

0 15
Avatar for akumagai
1 year ago

In today’s time it is imperative that we come to the root causes of war and how these can be stopped so that we can live in peace. This paper will argue that China’s aggressive behaviour in the south china sea is driven not by its rising status as a super power but from the way the west and it allies have threatened China’s security when the US enacted its Asian Pivot strategy. In order to explain this the paper will first outline Clausewitz adage that war is politics ‘by other means’ in order to for us to see the political objective by strategy, war and conflict (Till 2012, 148). We will be investigating the three levels of analysis (Mayall 1990, 37) to show how the US and its allies behaviour towards China are driving and motivating both parties towards eminent war.

 

By other means signifies that once war starts a state has no other recourse but to see it to the end. All focus will be on annihilating their enemy to gain its grand political objectives (Strachan 2007; 97). The US and its allies in Asia want to contain China in order to stop it from threatening its hegemony. At the moment there is no violence between the two parties however there are drivers that are pushing them closer. Taking this into the picture we can see that with Clausewitz adage today there is every reason to resolve any issues before war starts. There is a security threat that they feel since the Asian pivots reason of being is to make China a small power and this will be explained in detail by the three levels of analysis. The levels will outline drivers and motivations that could lead to Clauswitzian thinking towards war as politics by breaking it down to the individuals, states and systemic environment and the very drivers and motivations that could trigger war in Asia.

 

So what causes wars on the individual level? In the individual level the motivations of leaders that decide when to go to war vary from their mental state; misperception of their states capability towards their rival and vice versa; to the need to deflect attention away from them (Stoessinger 1993. 80-123). If Xi Jinping and Barrack Obama were both showing signs of erratic behaviour it could be argued that their mental state is leading them in going to war with each other’s state. This is far from the case since both have not acted like Kim Jung Un. Both have acted without any major cause for sudden decisions that have led to wars in their time. Therefore, mental state as a driver to war in Asia is out of the question.

 

America is at a juncture in its economic place in the world, there are concerns within the US that it is being overtaken by China economically. Obama is right to try and combat Chinas rise since it threatens US interest when China starts to muscle in on their interest. A war with China would give its economy a boost (Barro 2001). For Xi Jinping China is on a downturn of its GDP and there are concerns there will be a bubble within its rising economy, there would be incentive for it to go and start a war with its neighbours in order to gain nationalistic fervour with the Chinese people. A lesson from Mao’s day in its war with India.

 

China is flexing its military might in the south China sea, building islands within the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia through their nine dash line. There is a sense of China having confidence in its military power against the smaller nation since US influence in the region is waning. A clear driver is being displayed by Xi Jinping government in its aggressive actions. The misperception could be its rising military capability against the US. Some would argue however that it’s a long way away before China’s military could stand toe to toe with the US.

 

Leadership within a state can be attributed to starting wars and when this is added to the state/national level of analysis the driver and motivations towards violent conflict in resolving political disputes especially between the US and China becomes a high stakes game. The national need and war to gain strategic depth in order for China to counter US containment strategies while a diversionary war to suppress domestic turmoils drives China to act aggressively as tensions within a region creates an opportunity to have its population focus away from its internal state of affairs.

 

Within the last few years China has been steadily building military islands in the territories claimed by its neighbours who are also part of the US Asian pivot foreign policy. The strategic depth created from these islands are to counter US naval power. In a realist perspective both sides are competing through increases of military hard power in the Asian region. More importantly this incentivises creating more reason for greater armament of small states like Japan and Philippines to try and counter Chinas aggressive move in the region. AS politics ‘by other means’ as long as human preferences and assertions of will result in a clash there is politics, and in this case strategic depth competition in the Asian region are driving towards a likely war.

 

China has grown rapidly and at time was poised to have steady growth however there are signs that all is not well within its interior. While this is not a US lead turmoil within China it does create the necessary catalyst for the CCP to create tensions within the Asian region in order for it to divert attention away from economic woes to issues that create nationalistic fervour. Hence the territorial disputes in the South China Sea is the perfect motivator to act aggressively and at the same time there is the added bonus of gaining territory to get resources in the region another driver of war. The politics of gaining the resource and diverting attention means that China is able to exert its political will by other means thought coercive means.

 

With the last two levels of analysis being the individual and state analysis the last level deals with systemic systems created by the US that has created the environment driving China into its aggressive footing. In the previous point we can see that the US has been pushing for democratic processes towards China. This is a driver to war as the differences as China is a communist country that is in constant pressure to adapt a more democratic state system (Huntington 1996, 20-21). The US also has not stopped its push for a more liberal thinking in China by pushing for a human rights led ideology. While China is also to blame by not adhering to international systemic norms of respecting human rights the constant push by western norms are driving the CCP to push back hence this is creating catalysts for war.

 

In conclusion China’s aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea is driven by the threat posed by the US and its allies on China’s security when the US enacted its Asian Pivot strategy. From the individual level the pivot drives China’s leaders to misperceive US and its allies’ intentions on China driving it to politics ‘by other means’. On the state level the pivot will be used as an opportunity to divert and strengthen CCP hold on power in its interior by creating nationalist fervour against the west. At the systemic level the difference of democratic and communist political systems is driving these two parties to war since there is no way they can co-exist in the same arena politics ‘by other means’ is eminent. The question that is important is how will this issues be solved when all parties in question have clashing interests from arms competitions, resource and territorial claims.

 

Reference

Barro, Robert. Why the war on terror will boost the economy Bloomberg.com, accessed 7 October 2016. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2001-11-04/why-the-war-against-terror-will-boost-the-economy

Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996, Chapter 1, pp. 19-39 (‘The New Era in World Politics’).

Mayall, James. Nationalism and International Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, Chapter 3, pp. 35-49 (‘Nationalism and the Creation of States’).

Stoessinger, John G. “Why Nations Go to War.” In John G. Stoessinger, Why Nations Go to War, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993, pp. 20

Till, Geoffrey. “The Evolution of Strategy and the New World Order.” In Craig A. Snyder (ed.), Contemporary Security and Strategy, Third Edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 147-174.

Waltz, Kenneth N. Man, The State and War: A Theoretical Analysis, New York: Columbia University Press, 2001, pp. 80-123 (‘The Second Image: International Conflict and the Internal Structure of States’).

2
$ 0.00
Sponsors of akumagai
empty
empty
empty
Avatar for akumagai
1 year ago

Comments