A little bit of realpolitik

Article: Robert S. Ross, "China's Naval Nationalism: Sources, Prospects, and the U.S. Response", International Security, Fall 2009.

This is a classic mainstream text holding the worldview of a global race for geopolitical supremacy between the U.S. and China. It reminded me a lot of the vast majority of articles contained in the FP magazine that we can pick up every week at GPIA office :)

The author proposes a thesis whereby the chief point of concern is China's alleged spiking military build-up, especially in the area of naval security. He identifies that as a growing concern for the U.S. national security and its position as a power hegemon in Pacific blue-waters.

Ross claims that in light of China's alleged desire to attain a great power status similar to the U.S., its leadership has decided to invest heavily into the nation's naval forces. This, in turn, might pose some threat to the established security interests of the U.S. (which are portrayed as vital not only in terms of the U.S. national security, but also from the viewpoint of providing security to U.S. main partners in the region, such as Japan or Singapore). In this regard, China is depicted as an unwelcome challenge.

According to Ross, this thrust for the attainment of greatness is further complemented by China's "pseudo-national interest strategy". Indeed, this is the main thread throughout the whole article as the Chinese leadership, however rational and relatively non-aggresive in terms of geopolitical agenda, has been ostensibly captured by China's nationalists who seek increased militarization to fulfill aspirations of the Chinese people.

In Ross' view, this kind of nationalism is wholly irrational and undermines China's long-lasting strategy of power projection via peaceful diplomatic means. This approach has, for decades, helped China attain its current economic growth and, at the same time, left unchallenged the U.S. naval supremacy in the Pacific. Since the author clearly associates himself with the view that, in order for world's peace and stability, we need the U.S. to singularly take on the protection of blue-seas and maintain its status as a chief guarantor of international security, he obviously dismisses this avowed Chinese nationalism. But by supposedly acknowledging its dominant position within the society (a point I found lacking credible evidence), Ross makes several alarming points with possible consequences for the U.S. should this whole nationalistic wave let loose.

However, he concludes by appeasing everybody that China is still lagging far behind the U.S.'s naval capabilities. According to him, some of the most crucial short-term implications are possible distortions in the U.S.-China diplomatic relations which, as he stresses, should desirably be kept friendly. Chinese nationalists should regain their sanity, strip their overly ambitious plans and stop investing heavily into navy.

By and large, this is an interesting piece. Not for the originality of argument, but rather for the chance to see the lines along which U.S. mainstream analysts write. There is a critical rejoinder to this published in the same magazine few months later. I will read it soon and then provide a summary. In this way, we can set ourselves a stage for a sound analytical framework.