Paul Keating’s analysis of China’s geopolitical strategy, offered in his 24 December interview with veteran political journalist Paul Kelly, was at once fascinating and provocative. But it was built on a dated conceptual flaw, and so should not go unchallenged.
The former Australian Prime Minister imagined a China constrained throughout its long history by its geography, bounded by deserts and mountains with only a relatively short coastline – a continental power – in direct contrast to the US, a global naval power able to project force and protect its interests anywhere in the world. China, he said, “… seeks only to command its near back yard in one ocean, not three oceans.”
Such a China had, in his view, a limited and legitimate sphere of influence – limited to its immediate geographic region, and legitimate because, through its long history, China had always had, and now seeks to regain, that influence over its neighbourhood. Much like the sphere of influence Russia had and now seeks to regain with its ‘near abroad’.
But, he went on, “Unlike the Soviet Union before it, China is not an ideological power seeking to propagate an international ideology. It is a great nation-state but is seeks fundamentally to live within its own precinct. It is not seeking to command three oceans. It is seeking to command the corner of one of them. It doesn’t wish to project power to become the sole superpower.”
This distinction between continental and naval powers, and hence regional and global influence and hegemony, was a 19th century idea that survived into the early 20th century. But it was a thin truth even then, failing to properly acknowledge the role of science and technology in creating a state’s power.
Opportunity knocks in cyberspace
And in the 21st century, it is virtually meaningless – technology trumps geography. Any state that has the wealth, technology and willingness can become a global power. With cyber and space technologies in particular, a global power’s neighbourhood is the whole world.
So two questions arise about China’s geopolitical strategy, and the answers, based on the evidence, are sobering.
The first is: Does China need to be a global power, influencing countries in its global neighbourhood to do what it wants, not what they want? China’s need for resources – particularly food, energy and minerals – says yes. China can brook no threat to its increasing demand for the world’s resources. Whether it is outbidding others for agricultural land, mining tenements or ports in Australia, or building railroads to export food from its farms in Africa, China is already projecting its influence well beyond its traditional neighbourhood.
A rising standard of living, and hence an increasing demand for resources, has become an existential issue for the Communist Party of China. Having dropped any pretence to Marxist ideology, but still authoritarian, its only claim to power and legitimacy is its capacity to improve the standard of living of its citizens. China needs, in an absolute sense, to have unimpeded access to the world’s resources.
The second question is: Given this need, does China have the intent to be a global power? China’s military build-up, and its diplomatic and overseas development initiatives, all say yes. China’s naval shipbuilding program is focused on creating a blue-water navy capable of operating in all the world’s oceans – its submarines, for example, now operate in the Indian Ocean. It has nuclear weapons and can deliver them by air, land and sea. It has an expanding military space program and a well-known offensive cyber capacity. Each of these military capabilities speaks to the application of advanced technology rather than geography. And each has, or soon will have, global reach.
Star wars: China’s plans for the final frontier
This global military reach goes hand-in-hand with China’s assertive diplomatic and overseas development initiatives, especially its One Belt, One Road project and its closely related Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Through these initiatives, China is attempting to create a web of economic interconnections among Eurasian and African countries with itself as the hub. The military spinoffs are substantial, with China gaining access to a set of ports across the Indian Ocean.
These large, extensive, long-term programs all signal a country intent on becoming a global power, one that sees its neighbourhood, and hence legitimate sphere of influence, as the whole world.
With the US, and its fantastic command of advanced technology, remaining, and indeed growing, as a global power, the next few decades are very likely to see two assertive global powers in play. It’s an open question whether they will interact competitively or cooperatively, or perhaps both.
History is a weak guide. There have been instances in the past of both stable and unstable periods with two top dogs, but these were always regional – the Med, the Indus Valley, Central America and so on. Now, for the first time, the game is global, and ‘all the world’s a stage’.
Professor Roger Bradbury heads up the Strategy and Statecraft in Cyberspace research program at the National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
This piece was first published at Policy Forum, Asia and the Pacific’s platform for public policy analysis and opinion. Read the original here: http://www.policyforum.net/technology-not-geography-makes-china-global-problem/
Addressing 2 questions in the articles : Does China need to be or intent to be a global power? and the answer is quite simple.
The title of global power cannot be a self-appointed one. As China’s economy continues to grows through its global trades and becoming the world biggest economy in tandem with its military advancement and capabilities, having the fire-power to ward off all the pirates and robbers nations with evil design that had been marauding China in the past by then China will be recognised as a global power by default even if China does not wish to assume such title.
Quote "its only claim to power and legitimacy is its capacity to improve the standard of living of its citizens" western commentators always like to use this as though western countries power and legitimacy does not depend on their capacity to improve the standard living of their own citizen.See if western Govt can survive if great recession were to occur and 80% of their citizen lost their jobs..This is the most absurd reason that western experts can come up with.
Another military industrial scientific complex academic seeking to stay relevant (and funded).
The "power" of American technology is such that it has been defeated in Iraq, in Libya and in Afghanistan. Syria can be excused since the US doesn’t officially participate in that conflict.
All three of the active conflicts above are characterized by 3rd rate military technology on the opposing side.
The sad fact is that – whatever the fancy technology – a piece of land is not conquered until a 17 year old with a rifle is standing on it.
The technologies the US deploys are primarily destructive, yet ironically these same technologies are far more deadly to infrastructure dependent first nations than the poorer ones.
So the ironic contrast of "modern" warfare is that the newest tech is of low value except against those with almost no tech.
As for China – it is unsurprising, if ironic, that the author focuses on China’s development of space, cyber and other capabilities – since these already are under development in the United States. Why then is American development of military technology considered good, but Chinese, bad?
The answer lies in the paycheck. Not to hard to understand when the author hails from National Security College, but quite sad when that attitude is clearly that national security only can be permitted when others have national insecurity.
Good points.
i would like to add a couple of others. China is investing it´s fortune in it´s own country, especially in education and infrastructure.
By contrast the US has given up on any state responsibility for the education of it´s masses. The school system is in dissaray, with the profit motive having taken over and consequently the quality of education in the US has nosedived. Where is the US going to find the engineers, the physisists, the scientists to keep it´s shrinking share of the top tier of countries?
With a surging China along with the rest of Asia and India, they won´t be able to just shop off shore for these essential people to maintain their edge. Foreign well educated people are choosing to return to their own countries. Racism is one big factor. But another is the assult on the US dollar which is becoming more and more apparent is in it´s last years as the world´s sole reserve currency. The really smart people do not want to be paid in scraps of paper that may at any time become worthless.
One only has to look at the National Geographic two part series , "China From Above" on Youtube to see which country is the more dynamic of the two between the US and China. China is advancing by leaps and bounds while the US is declining at the same rate. A major difference is in what the two countries are concentrating on. With Chine it is primarily infrastructure, it is like the US at the end of the 1930s. Mega projects all over the country. With the US, it is draining it´s treasury by investing in wars and war fighting equipment. War fighting equipment is a waste of money because cutting edge today is scrap metal tomorrow. But a high speed railway network is good for 100 years, produces wealth, and unites a country.
China and the USA are the story of poor man rich man. One builds his wealth and property. The other squanters his wealth on his favortite passtimes. China on building it´s country and the USA on it´s passtime war. In my lifetime ( 76 with all but twenty of those years in mining towns) I have never seen a tough guy in a bar that had any money.
Thomas Daniel Kuhn And the sad scenario is that Americans continually grow prouder of their ignorance..Our colleges are rated on "party potential" (drugs, sex and alcohol)…And the "ranking" of it’s football team..College entrants in September 2016, were rated as the poorest prepared students to ever enter college..Remedial coursework for college entrance is rampant across America…Our only hope is the myriad Asian and Eurasian students who are dedicated to education.It really is too bad they will probably leave the US to go home…
Do you ever read the public remark pages such as "google" and "Yahoo" Note that, Americans cannot form a coherent sentence or paragraph..Americans cannot spell, use punctuation…and when I point out these inadequecies, I am bombarded with ugly remarks about being the "word police"..The only technologies Americans value, are cell phones and video games"..Beyond these, a majority of Americans are not the slightest bit interested in 21st. century developement of new technologies….trumpf has promised them great jobs in dirty steel mills or trumpf palatial coal mines..