Since the mid-1990s, China has changed significantly in global and regional security diplomacy. The fall of the Soviet Union (present day Russia) put an end to the bipolar structure that had been going on in the international scene and this was seen by China as an opportunity to turn into a developed country and become a country with a distinguished status at the regional and international levels.
The country has realized the importance of maintaining regional and international security based on the international norms which get broader and are no longer directed towards ‘Hard Politics’ but towards ‘Low Politics’ which focuses more on issues such as ‘Human Security’ and ‘Energy Security.’ To achieve its goals, China has chosen a more realistic, pro-active and constructive approach, and this country is ready to take a long term commitment.
China builds productive and closer relations with countries in Asia and the world including those in Central Asia and Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. All of these relations are based on a pragmatic security policy, stronger economic growth and diplomacy intensively carried out by Chinese officials. China's development had even begun before the World Trade Center (WTC) attack in September 2001 took place. After the WTC attack, China's involvement in a strategic partnership with the United States in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and global counterterrorism campaigns brought benefits to China to expand its influence at strategic regional and international levels. This country seems to have overshadowed Japan in terms of influence, has become an Asian dominant force in the Asia Pacific region, and is respected as one of the main factors in the regional and global political developments. China that seems to have overshadowed Japan's influence, took over the role at the same time with the stronger relations built by China with countries in Asia and the world.
Since the end of the Cold War, Chinese leaders have began to formulate policies that focus on the future of security and welfare with the objective of showing the country's intent to reestablish cooperation with other countries in Asia. However, the appearance of China as a big country has raised a new problem for its neighboring countries in the region. It is because many countries perceive China's approach as a way to recapture the glory of the past, which had been cruelly destroyed by the Western nations and later on by Japan during the ‘Shame and Humiliation’ era in 1840-1940.
China's Ambiguous Stance
During the Cold War, China solely focused on how to maintain its national security amidst the competition of two dominating powers. The idea was how China could fight against one of the great powers or even both of them at the same time along with their allies. The Chinese Government's perspective was, ‘Military power is the most important support in the mission of defending territorial sovereignty and integrity of a country, against the aggression of foreign nations and in maintaining the wholeness of a country.’ Therefore, China felt the need to strengthen its military power to achieve the abovementioned mission. It was so although direct military threat had declined since the division of the Soviet Union.
However, the intent to capture the glory should not always be perceived as the drive to expand aggressively by controlling a certain country or territory. China's rise should be understood as the country's intent to rebuild its status as the center of civilization. Since the current global trend challenges China not only to develop its power (military and economy), but also in terms of civilization. Catching up with the Western military is an important thing and it should followed by a social transformation. This has become a different concern for the Chinese nation in capturing the grandeur of civilization where the country's position is highly developing economically and militarily, and the trauma of the ‘Shame and Humiliation’ era is still haunting them.
China's ambiguous stance worsens the situation which is full of suspicions from other countries, as they feel that they are in dangerous spots and anarchy is likely to happen: an essential characteristic in the international system environment. In dealing with uncertain dynamics in global security and having no guarantees, the option of developing military power has been perceived as a rational move by a country. Furthermore, we know that in 1980 China had not had a closed policy so it was difficult to know its national stance and objectives.
China's Old and New Security Policies
At the end of the Cold War a new thinking of concept of anarchy emerged. According to Giddens, ‘The relation between structure and actor involves the inter-subjective understanding and the meaning of an interaction. A Structure certainly confines the actor into a certain space, but the actor can also change the structure by thinking and acting according to his own image.’
Conventional constructivists are traditionalist thinkers who not only accept the state and military security concept, but they also agree that strategic studies and international relation must be focused on the explanation on state behavior, because substantially and epistemologically that has been the long applied rule in international relation.
Since the beginning Wendt has explained the meaning of international relation or strategic study is the relation between states that does not recognize security dilemma like the realist and neo-realist thinkers. When a state understands in sharing its culture, its identity is open for a conceptualization, not only a calculation of power. Wendt also suggests that the anarchy system has three structures at the macro level (international politics and foreign policy) based on the role in the anarchy system, namely: enemy, rival, and friend or ally. Therefore, we can see that an anarchy structure has constructive components, but we must remember that the constructive components vary in the macro level that they have different final results.
Anarchy is like an empty ship without the intrinsic logic, and it is the structure that comes from us that makes the anarchy work. The inter-subjectivity structure is formed by a collective meaning. The international relation actor needs the identity that Wendt calls the specific role understanding that is relatively stable by participating in the collective meaning. Identity is the driving force of international actors in creating the motivation and characteristic of behaviors. Identity is significant because it creates the interest that becomes the foundation of a state. Because a state identity that is created by an actor is not something that naturally emerges.
For that reason, Wendt believes that the concept of individual and other people comes from the interaction between states. The state actor that always have institutional regulations, claims for monopoly of the legitimacy for the use of organized violence, sovereignty, civilization, and territory. This is present in the interaction of an independent state in the social context, where the state has four national interests, namely to maintain and defend security, autonomy, economic sustainability and collective recognition.
Therefore, constructivism can be understood as a construction of a state that sees the importance of the idea factor as its constructors namely culture, belief, norms, ideas, and identity. It usually focuses on its state behaviors. For that reason, in their analysis, constructivist thinkers see or build the security structure based on the history of behaviors and constructors.
Critical Security Study
Thinkers of Critical Security come from two schools of thought, namely the Copenhagen School and the Frankfurt School. The Critical Security study focuses on the individuals of a state. Individuals here can provide a concept on the peaceful world order. Conceptually, the critical security study believes that 'men as individuals are the primary reference' to create a security concept, because a state cannot guarantee the security because of the vast scope of state in explaining theories on security. Because of the large number of theories, a state will certainly face difficulty in providing 'a comprehensive theory on security'.
The critical security study on emancipation can be traced to be explicitly originated from the Frankfurt School, especially in Habermas' explanation on the emancipator's potential in interaction and communication. The critical security study states that the definition of security as a theory has been an analysis on the security concept that is most threatening, thus individual perception must also be accounted for in the search for the appropriate definition for security concept.
We can see that the concept of a state as a single actor is no longer significant. Human Security is currently the identity and connection to the community and culture. There are three assumptions that we can use to see human security. The first assumption is qua persons, as the object of the security itself, reminds the state to realize and analyze its actions in protecting its people. Protection of individuals in the community cannot be compared to the support for countries, but it focuses on the individual's human rights and the law enforcement that protects every individual from one another and from the state institutions that do not serve its people well.
The second assumption is (focusing on individuals of qua citizens) that illuminates the contemporary life that is important and dynamic which is consistently blurred by the neo-realists: where direct threats attacking individuals do not come from anarchic international environment and other citizens, but from organized and institutionalized violent groups that come from their own state. And the last, the third aspect, individuals as the object of the security, by treating them as a member of transcendental human community that have the same perception. The shift on focus of Human Security paradoxically enables the involvement of broader global threats.
China's Security Policy and ASEAN's Response
With the rise of China, many policymakers in other countries have the same concern over this country. Does China's rise have an intent and motivation to challenge the existing system? Do Chinese new leaders tend to be aggressive realists? Do they have the revisionist's belief? This reference is not only seen from China's power alone, but from the external situation and threats felt through China's leaders, and their perception and belief will reflect their strategic culture.
The end of Cold War also signified a change in China's leadership from Deng Xiaoping to Jiang Zemin. China's new leaders must realize that the systemic change based on the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought significant changes in China's security environment. After having been reforming itself for decades and opening itself, China's domestic situation has also changed.
The New Security Concept (NSC) has given contribution to China's leaders to prepare a new security strategy. At the end of Deng's leadership, China had relaxed its relationship with the United States and suggested an independent policy and emphasized on peace, the central point of policy is reactive and passive, and the objective of the policy is none other than to avoid the involvement in war or conflict. When compared to the non-alignment approach, the NSC emphasizes on dialogues and active consultation to prevent war and conflict through confidence building measures (CBMs). The NSC helps China to be actively involved in international issues because according to China's leaders, CBMs and dialogues suggested in NSC will facilitate China to gain political support, because it is based on the Confucian standard of ‘virtue and morality:
This fact shows us that China's New Security Policy still holds on to the values of Confusian and Sun Tzu that emphasize on the importance of avoiding war and the aggressive character feared by other countries will emerge together with China's rise. Therefore, it is very important to understand the values that remain the important belief in China's Policy. The works of Confucius and Sun Tzu significantly influence China's strategic thinking and behaviors. Confusian strategic culture, that has been the way of China's decision makers, has been underestimated or ignored by Western scholars. Confucian view on China's strategic behaviors is that China in general shows reluctance to use violence. Even under security threat, diplomatic ways and negotiations are preferred and proposed as the first choice. However, if hard power has to be used under the condition that all other ways do not work, China will continue to seek the opportunity to return to the negotiation table for peaceful resolution, thus reducing further damage.
China's defensive nature can be seen from the Great Walls, which are famous in the world and were built from the War State Period (403-221 BC) to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). The walls were the defense frontlines against external aggressions. In fact, the Great Walls are the symbol of China's defense and security strategy. When the use of force is ‘inevitable’, it must be based on the right standard, which means that the objective of war is to fight against the people who have created the war condition (invasion) or to stop the persecution of the weak by the powerful.
According to Confucius, yi or ‘truth or high moral standard’ is the foundation to gain people's support and to unite the people. Chinese political and military elites widely believe that ‘there won't be any way out of defeat if battles in war are waged without the right reason’ and emphasize that ‘power must be used with a certain reason’. When a war breaks out, China's strategy tends to rely on the defensive nature and limited use of power. Major attacks will only be launched to punish, prevent and maintain security rather than for destruction.
In facing new challenges, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) realizes the importance of involvement in the security policy making. PLA saw the possibility of playing a bigger role when China developed its military power, as in 2004 Hu Jintao formulated, ‘giving security guarantee for the national interests,’ which was then translated into defending further interests. China has fought well in the ‘defensive and offensive wars’ for the purpose of creating a security environment to achieve its national objectives. The defensive battles or war in the future can be waged to secure China's control over disputed territories with South Korea and Japan, and to achieve the ‘sacred mission’ and ‘reunification’ with Taiwan. The PLA is the key to hard line lobbying of policy against Taiwan, Japan and the US-led alliance system in Asia.
The Southeast Asia region is a strategic place for China to move its nuclear power together with the charm of military involvement campaign, which is meant to bring about operation training exercises and arms sales. China creates this scenario to strengthen its influence against the US domination by using soft diplomacy and hard-power piling ups. For instance, in December 2005, inspired by Malaysia, China helped establish the East Asia Summit, with the objective of creating a forum which excluded the United States. In the mid until late 1990s the PLA began to step up the involvement of Southeast Asian fellow countries, moving to a new point in late 2005 where PLA began to show that PLA and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries' armed forces had began to hold military training exercises. Thailand is the fist country in Southeast Asia to hold a military training exercise with PLA in Guangzhou in July 2007. The following impact that became the reason behind the joint exercise was greatly expected by China considering that Thailand has had a close relationship with PLA in terms of soldiers and naval weapons sales. China had also marketed primary weapons: type 071 LPDs and 10 J fighters to Malaysia, Type 309 submarines to Thailand, Z-9 choppers to the Philippine, and possibly missiles to Indonesia.
China has pursued independent and peaceful security policy since the 1980s. The objective of China's security policy is to maintain a peaceful international environment, which later on will be useful for China's long term economic and social developments. There are four characteristics circulating in China's current security policy: peace, independence, mutual respect and cooperation.
First, China's security policy was formulated from the perspective of whether it is beneficial for peace and international and regional stability, not only from the perspective of achieving military superiority.
Second, with regard to independence, China formulated its security policy in accordance with the national interests and the interests of nations from all countries in the world.
Mutual respect shows that China wants to put its relations with other countries based on mutual respect, and it wants to see that international politics, security and non-proliferation agreements are based on mutual respect among the members.
Cooperation shows that China wants to continue cooperation based on ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence’ with all countries in the world, including the United States, and it wants to put into realization a harmonious living among big countries.
China's intent to create a new image in security can also be seen in the Defense White Paper. Through the Defense White Paper, the Chinese government wants to explain the new dimension of security which is not only traditional, but also non-traditional security. Clearly in that context China wants to explain the importance of the growing economic issues, increasing needs for academics and policy makers to make peace by broadening the security concept. This feature defines that China's security interest is completeness. Essentially, this means that security is defined not only from the military aspect, but the political and economic dimensions are also the key components.
Since 1998, China has published its Defense White Paper twice a year to explain the national defense policy to the world. With the international security situation and change of environment, China's national defense policy in different historical periods has been adjusted accordingly but the basics remain unchanged. These basics are: China's national law (Constitution of People's Republic of China and National Defense Law), international relations, principles, international security situation, national security interests, responsibility of a big country, China's historical tradition and national culture, and warfare basic pattern.
China's Defense White Paper also explains about the evolution of PLA and its expanding role. Beyond the conception of the traditional military security, a Chinese analyst believes that the armed forces of all countries must play the role in countering new security threats such as terrorism and that international cooperation is needed to overcome such threats and even issues such as counterterrorism, epidemic disease medication, disaster prevention and fight against trans-national crimes have been indentified as measures where countries need to overcome them together. Currently, China supports counterterrorism convention and relevant legal frameworks and reached a consensus on a comprehensive draft of International Convention on Terrorism. In addition, China has called on Southeast Asian countries to strengthen cooperation in counterterrorism and drug abuse in a regional seminar on non-traditional security cooperation. In brief, it is important to note that China emphasizes on the need to strengthen armed forces to meet the military challenges from potential rival countries, but also sees the need to fight non-state enemies such as trans-national terrorism. Here, the public can see that even when discussing military security, China realizes that some non-state troops can be as threatening as the major forces that challenge China. China gives a positive view in the Asia Pacific region based on economic growth, creates long term good neighborly relations, and integrates more with other countries. China also shows its awareness as stated in the Defense White Paper:
‘However, there still exist many factors of uncertainty in Asia Pacific security. The drastic fluctuations in the world economy impact heavily on regional economic development, and political turbulence persists in some countries undergoing economic and social transition. Ethnic and religious discords, conflicting claims over territorial and maritime rights and interests remain serious, regional hotspots are complex. At the same time, the U.S. has increased its strategic attention to and input in the Asia Pacific region, further consolidating its military alliances, adjusting its military deployment and enhancing its military capabilities. In addition, terrorist, separatist and extremist forces are running rampant, and non traditional security issues such as natural disasters crop up frequently. The mechanisms for security cooperation between countries and regions are yet to be enhanced, and the capability for coping with regional security threats in a coordinated way has to be improved.’
In the Defense White Paper China also gives information on the development of military power, built-up defense, and defense expenses. This information was still classified by the old Chinese regime. However, by showing the information to the public, China wants to create the impression that the rise and development of China are meant to support and protect peace. China's intent to support world peace is also found in the Defense White Paper as quoted in the following:
‘China persists in developing friendly relations, enhancing political mutual trust, conducting security cooperation and maintaining common security with all countries on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. The Chinese government is actively involved in multilateral cooperation within the framework of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). At the Bishkek Summit in August 2007 the SCO member states concluded the Treaty on Long Term Good Neighborly Relations, Friendship and Cooperation, laying a solid political and legal foundation for security cooperation and ushering in a new phase of political mutual trust among the member states.’
China's Domination in Southeast Asia
ASEAN member countries took a careful stance when dealing with China, as this has been passed on for generations considering China's aggressiveness in its past history. China supported revolutionary groups in 1960s and then supported the Khmer Rouge to conduct genocide in Cambodia, launched attacks in Vietnam in 1979, and gradually occupied disputed territories in the South China Sea in the 1980s and the 1990s. However, over the last decade China's approach seems to have drastically changed, but the China's goal of expanding its domination in Southeast Asia remains the same.
To increase its influence in Southeast Asia, China has used Southeast Asian increasingly developing economy and its relations with Chinese ethnic communities spread out in this region. China's approach to these two issues draws more attention of ASEAN member countries than Washington's approach that brings the controversial terrorism issue considering that ASEAN member countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are dominated by the Muslim community. This can also be seen in the cooperation established by ASEAN member countries where in the post Cold War era Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines were open for cooperation with the United States. Meanwhile, apart from the three abovementioned countries, Malaysia and Indonesia are also willing to build military ties with Beijing. It is one thing that cannot be imagined in the mid 1990s.
ASEAN was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok by five countries, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand and Brunei Darussalam joined it on 8 January 1995, Laos and Burma on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999. ASEAN territories have 500 million of population, the total size of 4.5 million sq km, joint gross domestic product of nearly $700 billion, and the total trade of around $850 billion.
The rise of China has made ASEAN realize that they too have to set aside the differences and begin to expedite the management of this organization that has yet to seriously look for the best solution in the defense field. In fact, the ASEAN Security Community is perceived as having many weaknesses, especially at the moment China releases a new security policy. Border issue remains the interest of both parties. Claims over the South China Sea and Spratly islands are still in the agenda of ASEAN and the UN meeting forum. Philippine President as the ASEAN Chairman clearly states that, ‘if China maintains its sense of ownership and does not care (about the South China Sea), ASEAN will stand up as a bloc and go against it,’ Aquino added. ‘Hopefully, we don't have to call it the South China Sea because the sea is not theirs alone.’
The most relation disturbing issues are prejudice and misunderstanding. Because in the 1990s China chose to continuously use bilateral approach instead of the multilateral one to resolve international conflicts, it seems that the option decreased the prospect of establishing an effective regional institution. China's ambiguous stance is one of the causes, as Beijing is sometimes willing to participate in the international regime and multilateral efforts in resolving a problem, but the stance directly changes when the issue being discussed obstructs China's national interests, especially the issue of territorial sovereignty that discusses the country's historical side. Especially when China was forced to resolve the Spratly Islands dispute in early 1990s, the country's stance nearly ruined the effort of international institutions in reducing security conflicts in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).
Misunderstanding and Prejudices
ASEAN has, in fact, tried to build cooperative relations with China since the early 1990s. In 1991 for the first time China attended as observer the 24th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Three years later, Foreign Minister Qian Qiche and ASEAN Secretary General exchanged a memorandum of understanding and the ASEAN-China Relations was finally announced officially in Bangkok on 23 July 1994. ASEAN was given the full dialogue status to China at the 29th Ministerial Meeting in Jakarta in 1996.
Among the cooperation agreements made and agreed on by China with ASEAN, two of the most important cooperation agreements were agreed on in Phnom Penh in 2002 namely: ‘the Declaration on management arrangement and involved parties in the South China Sea’ and ‘Agreement on Economic Cooperation Framework between ASEAN and the People's Republic of China’. The two cooperation agreements can be seen as the pillars that constructed a new relationship between China and ASEAN after they managed to eliminate a lot of misunderstanding and prejudices. In the 1990s, China and ASEAN were in the Spratly Islands dispute, which could have lead to a serious armed conflict. China finally signed an agreement with Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei to reduce the tension in that region.
With the presence of China's new security policy, the relationship of ASEAN and China apparently enters a new phase. Although the road gone through by both parties was full of obstacles, the relationship between China and ASEAN is getting closer and better. China finally can accept and realize the importance of pluralism, unlike its behavior before the last decade, where it still had relied on bilateral relationships in dealing with a problem with another country. China's involvement in ARF and then ASEAN plus three shows the intent of the country to see multilateralism as a good cooperative relation.
Role of ARF Regional Forum
However, controversial statements that frequently expressed by China have raised concern and confusion among ASEAN member countries. For instance at the ARF meeting in Brunei in 1995, Chinese foreign minister shocked the audience by stating that it had accepted the UN convention (including the one concerning Maritime Law) as a base to resolve the South China Sea disputes. This is a forward move for that country that still upholds its China's traditional policy that claimed islands based on 'historical' rights. At the same meeting, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson laid China's claims over 'irrefutable sovereignty' over the islands and waters near their territory and rejected ARF's role in the discussion of this issue.
For some time, China had shown self control in dealing with the claims made by Manila and Kuala Lumpur. During Philippine President Corazon Aquino's visit to Beijing in April 1988, China promised that it would not attack the Philippine troops stationed in Spratly Islands. When visiting Singapore in 1990, Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng expressed China's willingness to set aside the sovereignty issue and work together with Southeast Asian countries to develop collective resources. However, Beijing continued to pursue its territorial claims by adopting the territorial maritime law in February 1992, which claimed the entire Spratly Islands and be ready to use power to support the claims.
Political and Economic Cooperation Framework
ASEAN has claimed to have made some successful moves in dealing with China on the Spratly issue. This organization has managed to put the dispute in the ARF agenda, despite China's initial objection. With intensive lobbying by ASEAN member countries, China finally agreed to accept the agenda. In addition, ASEAN has been able to make an agreement with Beijing to hold the China-ASEAN multilateral consultation on security issues, including the South China Sea disputes. This fact made China reverse its previous stance of maintaining claims over the South China Sea and its contents. Then, ASEAN is able to influence China to find the solution for its territorial disputes using the framework of Law, the UN, the Maritime Convention and guarantee on navigation freedom in the sea claimed by China. ASEAN's effort to turn the disputes into an international issue shows China's great sacrifice of being willing to get into the diplomatic approach medium.
However, the protocol process of the relation between ASEAN and China was carried out very slowly. Therefore, a bilateral agreement was made between China and Vietnam in October 1993 declaring that both parties would not use any sort of forces that could put the ASEAN-China relation in danger.
Another bilateral agreement was made between China and the Philippines in August 1995 aimed to establish cooperation in navigation safety, marine research, rescue operations and environment protection, and dispute resolution negotiations. However, the agreement had yet to resolve the problem between Manila and Beijing. In August 1997, ASEAN agreed to consider China's draft proposal, a political and economic cooperation framework, that included 'behavioral norms' as the guidelines for establishing relationship between both parties, also for peaceful dispute resolution. (However, this draft did not refer to negotiations over sovereignty) A draft code of ethics was circulated in Manila at the ASEAN Foreign Ministerial Meeting in July 1999, and as a result, ASEAN member countries considered the code of ethics as too legalistic, as it took the form of a formal agreement, while the other members preferred to refer to the initial guidelines (more consistent with ASEAN Way).
Negative Image of ASEAN
This clearly shows that there was no ASEAN country that sees diplomacy as a very easy way to prevent conflict in Spratly Islands. The South China Sea disputes have become the main consideration behind the military modernization program and critical planning of ASEAN countries. The biggest threat in the Spratly Islands dispute for ASEAN is the internal division in dealing with China. This can present negative image of ASEAN where ASEAN solidarity is only an unreal imagination. Meanwhile, China has continued to push forward some forms of bilateral agreement to resolve a conflict or a problem. The form of cooperation shown by China and ASEAN as a way to find the solution for a dispute clearly shows Max Weber's concept on the interdependence condition as a result of the new understanding on the similarity of concept and values among involved countries. China's non-violent stance can be accepted by ASEAN member countries as a positive action that shows peace, so that it creates an opportunity to open up a new relation.
The rise of China into one of the strong and stable country in Asia shows that the country has its influence at the regional and international levels. However, China's rise still makes many Western observers doubt the country's stance. Therefore, it presents an ambiguous result in deciding the stance to take in dealing with China's rise dan its impact on global politics, and it brings up request on the appropriate paradigm to face China's rise in order to avoid making mistakes in foreign policy making. To further understand China's foreign policy behavior, the cultural factor is one of the important factors but it is not easy to understand.
Assessment
An existing relation in the international politics is based on some factors that construct the relation such as history and values upheld by each country. This is certainly becomes the important base in building a multilateral relation which has become a trend recently. These factors can also become our reference in seeing the relation between China and ASEAN.
China has a new security policy as the main force among developing countries that is peaceful in nature. This is certainly shown by this country in the shift of approach, from militaristic to diplomatic. In addition, China also challenges the domination of a country dan supports the harmonization by countries of equal power.
However, ASEAN has yet to fully understand the threat from this country. This is seen from the objective of China that actually came from the domination of market and its products in the economic field. The threat in the security field is relatively nonexistent because ASEAN and China have been actively cooperating militarily such as through joint training exercises and China's support for the Malacca Strait. Because of the broad expansion of economic market China wants to cooperate with ASEAN.
The second thing regarding the values that construct China's policy is the peaceful values. The influences of Sun Tzu and Confucianism are still closely attached to today's Chinese thinkers and leaders. In fact they are unintentionally reflected from the behavior and policy made by China. These values are sometimes neglected by strategic experts in projecting China's interests at the international level.
However, there are things to remember in understanding the values of China's policy. This can certainly be seen in the pseudo peaceful rise or that China's peaceful rise is only a wrapping that we should be aware of in seeing China's aggressiveness that intends to replace the declining US domination. But it would not be easy because China also realizes that its rise is not a single rise like that of the United States after the Cold War, but other new powers such as India, Brazil and Indonesia have also been born.
The biggest challenge faced by ASEAN actually lies in the historical memories of respective countries that form different perceptions in dealing with China. This is certainly a challenge in itself in how ASEAN wants to come forward as unanimous every time it meets with China. One the other hand, this frequently becomes an access for China to establish bilateral cooperation.
Based on the fact that we can see the efforts made by ASEAN to face China's new security policy, ASEAN realizes the importance of China as one of the cooperation partners that since 1991 and eventually in 2002 both parties signed an agreement containing the commitment to eliminate all negative prejudices in both parties.
1. Diplomacy: ASEAN in approaching China prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism. China's move of wanting to resolve the Spratly Islands dispute with dialogue was warmly welcomed by ASEAN. This organization also learned to be unanimous in the forums that really require ASEAN to be so.
2. Multilateral Cooperation: ARF or ASEAN Regional Forum. China that previously disagreed with multilateral cooperation began to open up to follow the trend of global change which is no longer bipolar but multipolar. Therefore, China felt the need for the involvement of many countries to help achieve the interests of China and ASEAN in this case.
China's security policy has always drawn the attention of many countries, especially neighboring countries like ASEAN. However, as a rising country, China feels that the increased capacity of PLA is a logical step, which other countries would do if they were in the same position. On the other hand, many countries are concerned about the country's increased military power which will reveal the real face of aggressive China. Unfortunately, the values and belief contained in China's policy are relatively unknown to other countries. In reality, China's policy in managing its rise is to support the peaceful diplomacy and promoting dialogues without conflict and the use of weapons.
The country has realized the importance of maintaining regional and international security based on the international norms which get broader and are no longer directed towards ‘Hard Politics’ but towards ‘Low Politics’ which focuses more on issues such as ‘Human Security’ and ‘Energy Security.’ To achieve its goals, China has chosen a more realistic, pro-active and constructive approach, and this country is ready to take a long term commitment.
China builds productive and closer relations with countries in Asia and the world including those in Central Asia and Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. All of these relations are based on a pragmatic security policy, stronger economic growth and diplomacy intensively carried out by Chinese officials. China's development had even begun before the World Trade Center (WTC) attack in September 2001 took place. After the WTC attack, China's involvement in a strategic partnership with the United States in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and global counterterrorism campaigns brought benefits to China to expand its influence at strategic regional and international levels. This country seems to have overshadowed Japan in terms of influence, has become an Asian dominant force in the Asia Pacific region, and is respected as one of the main factors in the regional and global political developments. China that seems to have overshadowed Japan's influence, took over the role at the same time with the stronger relations built by China with countries in Asia and the world.
Since the end of the Cold War, Chinese leaders have began to formulate policies that focus on the future of security and welfare with the objective of showing the country's intent to reestablish cooperation with other countries in Asia. However, the appearance of China as a big country has raised a new problem for its neighboring countries in the region. It is because many countries perceive China's approach as a way to recapture the glory of the past, which had been cruelly destroyed by the Western nations and later on by Japan during the ‘Shame and Humiliation’ era in 1840-1940.
China's Ambiguous Stance
During the Cold War, China solely focused on how to maintain its national security amidst the competition of two dominating powers. The idea was how China could fight against one of the great powers or even both of them at the same time along with their allies. The Chinese Government's perspective was, ‘Military power is the most important support in the mission of defending territorial sovereignty and integrity of a country, against the aggression of foreign nations and in maintaining the wholeness of a country.’ Therefore, China felt the need to strengthen its military power to achieve the abovementioned mission. It was so although direct military threat had declined since the division of the Soviet Union.
However, the intent to capture the glory should not always be perceived as the drive to expand aggressively by controlling a certain country or territory. China's rise should be understood as the country's intent to rebuild its status as the center of civilization. Since the current global trend challenges China not only to develop its power (military and economy), but also in terms of civilization. Catching up with the Western military is an important thing and it should followed by a social transformation. This has become a different concern for the Chinese nation in capturing the grandeur of civilization where the country's position is highly developing economically and militarily, and the trauma of the ‘Shame and Humiliation’ era is still haunting them.
China's ambiguous stance worsens the situation which is full of suspicions from other countries, as they feel that they are in dangerous spots and anarchy is likely to happen: an essential characteristic in the international system environment. In dealing with uncertain dynamics in global security and having no guarantees, the option of developing military power has been perceived as a rational move by a country. Furthermore, we know that in 1980 China had not had a closed policy so it was difficult to know its national stance and objectives.
China's Old and New Security Policies
At the end of the Cold War a new thinking of concept of anarchy emerged. According to Giddens, ‘The relation between structure and actor involves the inter-subjective understanding and the meaning of an interaction. A Structure certainly confines the actor into a certain space, but the actor can also change the structure by thinking and acting according to his own image.’
Conventional constructivists are traditionalist thinkers who not only accept the state and military security concept, but they also agree that strategic studies and international relation must be focused on the explanation on state behavior, because substantially and epistemologically that has been the long applied rule in international relation.
Since the beginning Wendt has explained the meaning of international relation or strategic study is the relation between states that does not recognize security dilemma like the realist and neo-realist thinkers. When a state understands in sharing its culture, its identity is open for a conceptualization, not only a calculation of power. Wendt also suggests that the anarchy system has three structures at the macro level (international politics and foreign policy) based on the role in the anarchy system, namely: enemy, rival, and friend or ally. Therefore, we can see that an anarchy structure has constructive components, but we must remember that the constructive components vary in the macro level that they have different final results.
Anarchy is like an empty ship without the intrinsic logic, and it is the structure that comes from us that makes the anarchy work. The inter-subjectivity structure is formed by a collective meaning. The international relation actor needs the identity that Wendt calls the specific role understanding that is relatively stable by participating in the collective meaning. Identity is the driving force of international actors in creating the motivation and characteristic of behaviors. Identity is significant because it creates the interest that becomes the foundation of a state. Because a state identity that is created by an actor is not something that naturally emerges.
For that reason, Wendt believes that the concept of individual and other people comes from the interaction between states. The state actor that always have institutional regulations, claims for monopoly of the legitimacy for the use of organized violence, sovereignty, civilization, and territory. This is present in the interaction of an independent state in the social context, where the state has four national interests, namely to maintain and defend security, autonomy, economic sustainability and collective recognition.
Therefore, constructivism can be understood as a construction of a state that sees the importance of the idea factor as its constructors namely culture, belief, norms, ideas, and identity. It usually focuses on its state behaviors. For that reason, in their analysis, constructivist thinkers see or build the security structure based on the history of behaviors and constructors.
Critical Security Study
Thinkers of Critical Security come from two schools of thought, namely the Copenhagen School and the Frankfurt School. The Critical Security study focuses on the individuals of a state. Individuals here can provide a concept on the peaceful world order. Conceptually, the critical security study believes that 'men as individuals are the primary reference' to create a security concept, because a state cannot guarantee the security because of the vast scope of state in explaining theories on security. Because of the large number of theories, a state will certainly face difficulty in providing 'a comprehensive theory on security'.
The critical security study on emancipation can be traced to be explicitly originated from the Frankfurt School, especially in Habermas' explanation on the emancipator's potential in interaction and communication. The critical security study states that the definition of security as a theory has been an analysis on the security concept that is most threatening, thus individual perception must also be accounted for in the search for the appropriate definition for security concept.
We can see that the concept of a state as a single actor is no longer significant. Human Security is currently the identity and connection to the community and culture. There are three assumptions that we can use to see human security. The first assumption is qua persons, as the object of the security itself, reminds the state to realize and analyze its actions in protecting its people. Protection of individuals in the community cannot be compared to the support for countries, but it focuses on the individual's human rights and the law enforcement that protects every individual from one another and from the state institutions that do not serve its people well.
The second assumption is (focusing on individuals of qua citizens) that illuminates the contemporary life that is important and dynamic which is consistently blurred by the neo-realists: where direct threats attacking individuals do not come from anarchic international environment and other citizens, but from organized and institutionalized violent groups that come from their own state. And the last, the third aspect, individuals as the object of the security, by treating them as a member of transcendental human community that have the same perception. The shift on focus of Human Security paradoxically enables the involvement of broader global threats.
China's Security Policy and ASEAN's Response
With the rise of China, many policymakers in other countries have the same concern over this country. Does China's rise have an intent and motivation to challenge the existing system? Do Chinese new leaders tend to be aggressive realists? Do they have the revisionist's belief? This reference is not only seen from China's power alone, but from the external situation and threats felt through China's leaders, and their perception and belief will reflect their strategic culture.
The end of Cold War also signified a change in China's leadership from Deng Xiaoping to Jiang Zemin. China's new leaders must realize that the systemic change based on the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought significant changes in China's security environment. After having been reforming itself for decades and opening itself, China's domestic situation has also changed.
The New Security Concept (NSC) has given contribution to China's leaders to prepare a new security strategy. At the end of Deng's leadership, China had relaxed its relationship with the United States and suggested an independent policy and emphasized on peace, the central point of policy is reactive and passive, and the objective of the policy is none other than to avoid the involvement in war or conflict. When compared to the non-alignment approach, the NSC emphasizes on dialogues and active consultation to prevent war and conflict through confidence building measures (CBMs). The NSC helps China to be actively involved in international issues because according to China's leaders, CBMs and dialogues suggested in NSC will facilitate China to gain political support, because it is based on the Confucian standard of ‘virtue and morality:
This fact shows us that China's New Security Policy still holds on to the values of Confusian and Sun Tzu that emphasize on the importance of avoiding war and the aggressive character feared by other countries will emerge together with China's rise. Therefore, it is very important to understand the values that remain the important belief in China's Policy. The works of Confucius and Sun Tzu significantly influence China's strategic thinking and behaviors. Confusian strategic culture, that has been the way of China's decision makers, has been underestimated or ignored by Western scholars. Confucian view on China's strategic behaviors is that China in general shows reluctance to use violence. Even under security threat, diplomatic ways and negotiations are preferred and proposed as the first choice. However, if hard power has to be used under the condition that all other ways do not work, China will continue to seek the opportunity to return to the negotiation table for peaceful resolution, thus reducing further damage.
China's defensive nature can be seen from the Great Walls, which are famous in the world and were built from the War State Period (403-221 BC) to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). The walls were the defense frontlines against external aggressions. In fact, the Great Walls are the symbol of China's defense and security strategy. When the use of force is ‘inevitable’, it must be based on the right standard, which means that the objective of war is to fight against the people who have created the war condition (invasion) or to stop the persecution of the weak by the powerful.
According to Confucius, yi or ‘truth or high moral standard’ is the foundation to gain people's support and to unite the people. Chinese political and military elites widely believe that ‘there won't be any way out of defeat if battles in war are waged without the right reason’ and emphasize that ‘power must be used with a certain reason’. When a war breaks out, China's strategy tends to rely on the defensive nature and limited use of power. Major attacks will only be launched to punish, prevent and maintain security rather than for destruction.
In facing new challenges, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) realizes the importance of involvement in the security policy making. PLA saw the possibility of playing a bigger role when China developed its military power, as in 2004 Hu Jintao formulated, ‘giving security guarantee for the national interests,’ which was then translated into defending further interests. China has fought well in the ‘defensive and offensive wars’ for the purpose of creating a security environment to achieve its national objectives. The defensive battles or war in the future can be waged to secure China's control over disputed territories with South Korea and Japan, and to achieve the ‘sacred mission’ and ‘reunification’ with Taiwan. The PLA is the key to hard line lobbying of policy against Taiwan, Japan and the US-led alliance system in Asia.
The Southeast Asia region is a strategic place for China to move its nuclear power together with the charm of military involvement campaign, which is meant to bring about operation training exercises and arms sales. China creates this scenario to strengthen its influence against the US domination by using soft diplomacy and hard-power piling ups. For instance, in December 2005, inspired by Malaysia, China helped establish the East Asia Summit, with the objective of creating a forum which excluded the United States. In the mid until late 1990s the PLA began to step up the involvement of Southeast Asian fellow countries, moving to a new point in late 2005 where PLA began to show that PLA and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries' armed forces had began to hold military training exercises. Thailand is the fist country in Southeast Asia to hold a military training exercise with PLA in Guangzhou in July 2007. The following impact that became the reason behind the joint exercise was greatly expected by China considering that Thailand has had a close relationship with PLA in terms of soldiers and naval weapons sales. China had also marketed primary weapons: type 071 LPDs and 10 J fighters to Malaysia, Type 309 submarines to Thailand, Z-9 choppers to the Philippine, and possibly missiles to Indonesia.
China has pursued independent and peaceful security policy since the 1980s. The objective of China's security policy is to maintain a peaceful international environment, which later on will be useful for China's long term economic and social developments. There are four characteristics circulating in China's current security policy: peace, independence, mutual respect and cooperation.
First, China's security policy was formulated from the perspective of whether it is beneficial for peace and international and regional stability, not only from the perspective of achieving military superiority.
Second, with regard to independence, China formulated its security policy in accordance with the national interests and the interests of nations from all countries in the world.
Mutual respect shows that China wants to put its relations with other countries based on mutual respect, and it wants to see that international politics, security and non-proliferation agreements are based on mutual respect among the members.
Cooperation shows that China wants to continue cooperation based on ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence’ with all countries in the world, including the United States, and it wants to put into realization a harmonious living among big countries.
China's intent to create a new image in security can also be seen in the Defense White Paper. Through the Defense White Paper, the Chinese government wants to explain the new dimension of security which is not only traditional, but also non-traditional security. Clearly in that context China wants to explain the importance of the growing economic issues, increasing needs for academics and policy makers to make peace by broadening the security concept. This feature defines that China's security interest is completeness. Essentially, this means that security is defined not only from the military aspect, but the political and economic dimensions are also the key components.
Since 1998, China has published its Defense White Paper twice a year to explain the national defense policy to the world. With the international security situation and change of environment, China's national defense policy in different historical periods has been adjusted accordingly but the basics remain unchanged. These basics are: China's national law (Constitution of People's Republic of China and National Defense Law), international relations, principles, international security situation, national security interests, responsibility of a big country, China's historical tradition and national culture, and warfare basic pattern.
China's Defense White Paper also explains about the evolution of PLA and its expanding role. Beyond the conception of the traditional military security, a Chinese analyst believes that the armed forces of all countries must play the role in countering new security threats such as terrorism and that international cooperation is needed to overcome such threats and even issues such as counterterrorism, epidemic disease medication, disaster prevention and fight against trans-national crimes have been indentified as measures where countries need to overcome them together. Currently, China supports counterterrorism convention and relevant legal frameworks and reached a consensus on a comprehensive draft of International Convention on Terrorism. In addition, China has called on Southeast Asian countries to strengthen cooperation in counterterrorism and drug abuse in a regional seminar on non-traditional security cooperation. In brief, it is important to note that China emphasizes on the need to strengthen armed forces to meet the military challenges from potential rival countries, but also sees the need to fight non-state enemies such as trans-national terrorism. Here, the public can see that even when discussing military security, China realizes that some non-state troops can be as threatening as the major forces that challenge China. China gives a positive view in the Asia Pacific region based on economic growth, creates long term good neighborly relations, and integrates more with other countries. China also shows its awareness as stated in the Defense White Paper:
‘However, there still exist many factors of uncertainty in Asia Pacific security. The drastic fluctuations in the world economy impact heavily on regional economic development, and political turbulence persists in some countries undergoing economic and social transition. Ethnic and religious discords, conflicting claims over territorial and maritime rights and interests remain serious, regional hotspots are complex. At the same time, the U.S. has increased its strategic attention to and input in the Asia Pacific region, further consolidating its military alliances, adjusting its military deployment and enhancing its military capabilities. In addition, terrorist, separatist and extremist forces are running rampant, and non traditional security issues such as natural disasters crop up frequently. The mechanisms for security cooperation between countries and regions are yet to be enhanced, and the capability for coping with regional security threats in a coordinated way has to be improved.’
In the Defense White Paper China also gives information on the development of military power, built-up defense, and defense expenses. This information was still classified by the old Chinese regime. However, by showing the information to the public, China wants to create the impression that the rise and development of China are meant to support and protect peace. China's intent to support world peace is also found in the Defense White Paper as quoted in the following:
‘China persists in developing friendly relations, enhancing political mutual trust, conducting security cooperation and maintaining common security with all countries on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. The Chinese government is actively involved in multilateral cooperation within the framework of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). At the Bishkek Summit in August 2007 the SCO member states concluded the Treaty on Long Term Good Neighborly Relations, Friendship and Cooperation, laying a solid political and legal foundation for security cooperation and ushering in a new phase of political mutual trust among the member states.’
China's Domination in Southeast Asia
ASEAN member countries took a careful stance when dealing with China, as this has been passed on for generations considering China's aggressiveness in its past history. China supported revolutionary groups in 1960s and then supported the Khmer Rouge to conduct genocide in Cambodia, launched attacks in Vietnam in 1979, and gradually occupied disputed territories in the South China Sea in the 1980s and the 1990s. However, over the last decade China's approach seems to have drastically changed, but the China's goal of expanding its domination in Southeast Asia remains the same.
To increase its influence in Southeast Asia, China has used Southeast Asian increasingly developing economy and its relations with Chinese ethnic communities spread out in this region. China's approach to these two issues draws more attention of ASEAN member countries than Washington's approach that brings the controversial terrorism issue considering that ASEAN member countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are dominated by the Muslim community. This can also be seen in the cooperation established by ASEAN member countries where in the post Cold War era Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines were open for cooperation with the United States. Meanwhile, apart from the three abovementioned countries, Malaysia and Indonesia are also willing to build military ties with Beijing. It is one thing that cannot be imagined in the mid 1990s.
ASEAN was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok by five countries, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand and Brunei Darussalam joined it on 8 January 1995, Laos and Burma on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999. ASEAN territories have 500 million of population, the total size of 4.5 million sq km, joint gross domestic product of nearly $700 billion, and the total trade of around $850 billion.
The rise of China has made ASEAN realize that they too have to set aside the differences and begin to expedite the management of this organization that has yet to seriously look for the best solution in the defense field. In fact, the ASEAN Security Community is perceived as having many weaknesses, especially at the moment China releases a new security policy. Border issue remains the interest of both parties. Claims over the South China Sea and Spratly islands are still in the agenda of ASEAN and the UN meeting forum. Philippine President as the ASEAN Chairman clearly states that, ‘if China maintains its sense of ownership and does not care (about the South China Sea), ASEAN will stand up as a bloc and go against it,’ Aquino added. ‘Hopefully, we don't have to call it the South China Sea because the sea is not theirs alone.’
The most relation disturbing issues are prejudice and misunderstanding. Because in the 1990s China chose to continuously use bilateral approach instead of the multilateral one to resolve international conflicts, it seems that the option decreased the prospect of establishing an effective regional institution. China's ambiguous stance is one of the causes, as Beijing is sometimes willing to participate in the international regime and multilateral efforts in resolving a problem, but the stance directly changes when the issue being discussed obstructs China's national interests, especially the issue of territorial sovereignty that discusses the country's historical side. Especially when China was forced to resolve the Spratly Islands dispute in early 1990s, the country's stance nearly ruined the effort of international institutions in reducing security conflicts in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).
Misunderstanding and Prejudices
ASEAN has, in fact, tried to build cooperative relations with China since the early 1990s. In 1991 for the first time China attended as observer the 24th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Three years later, Foreign Minister Qian Qiche and ASEAN Secretary General exchanged a memorandum of understanding and the ASEAN-China Relations was finally announced officially in Bangkok on 23 July 1994. ASEAN was given the full dialogue status to China at the 29th Ministerial Meeting in Jakarta in 1996.
Among the cooperation agreements made and agreed on by China with ASEAN, two of the most important cooperation agreements were agreed on in Phnom Penh in 2002 namely: ‘the Declaration on management arrangement and involved parties in the South China Sea’ and ‘Agreement on Economic Cooperation Framework between ASEAN and the People's Republic of China’. The two cooperation agreements can be seen as the pillars that constructed a new relationship between China and ASEAN after they managed to eliminate a lot of misunderstanding and prejudices. In the 1990s, China and ASEAN were in the Spratly Islands dispute, which could have lead to a serious armed conflict. China finally signed an agreement with Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei to reduce the tension in that region.
With the presence of China's new security policy, the relationship of ASEAN and China apparently enters a new phase. Although the road gone through by both parties was full of obstacles, the relationship between China and ASEAN is getting closer and better. China finally can accept and realize the importance of pluralism, unlike its behavior before the last decade, where it still had relied on bilateral relationships in dealing with a problem with another country. China's involvement in ARF and then ASEAN plus three shows the intent of the country to see multilateralism as a good cooperative relation.
Role of ARF Regional Forum
However, controversial statements that frequently expressed by China have raised concern and confusion among ASEAN member countries. For instance at the ARF meeting in Brunei in 1995, Chinese foreign minister shocked the audience by stating that it had accepted the UN convention (including the one concerning Maritime Law) as a base to resolve the South China Sea disputes. This is a forward move for that country that still upholds its China's traditional policy that claimed islands based on 'historical' rights. At the same meeting, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson laid China's claims over 'irrefutable sovereignty' over the islands and waters near their territory and rejected ARF's role in the discussion of this issue.
For some time, China had shown self control in dealing with the claims made by Manila and Kuala Lumpur. During Philippine President Corazon Aquino's visit to Beijing in April 1988, China promised that it would not attack the Philippine troops stationed in Spratly Islands. When visiting Singapore in 1990, Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng expressed China's willingness to set aside the sovereignty issue and work together with Southeast Asian countries to develop collective resources. However, Beijing continued to pursue its territorial claims by adopting the territorial maritime law in February 1992, which claimed the entire Spratly Islands and be ready to use power to support the claims.
Political and Economic Cooperation Framework
ASEAN has claimed to have made some successful moves in dealing with China on the Spratly issue. This organization has managed to put the dispute in the ARF agenda, despite China's initial objection. With intensive lobbying by ASEAN member countries, China finally agreed to accept the agenda. In addition, ASEAN has been able to make an agreement with Beijing to hold the China-ASEAN multilateral consultation on security issues, including the South China Sea disputes. This fact made China reverse its previous stance of maintaining claims over the South China Sea and its contents. Then, ASEAN is able to influence China to find the solution for its territorial disputes using the framework of Law, the UN, the Maritime Convention and guarantee on navigation freedom in the sea claimed by China. ASEAN's effort to turn the disputes into an international issue shows China's great sacrifice of being willing to get into the diplomatic approach medium.
However, the protocol process of the relation between ASEAN and China was carried out very slowly. Therefore, a bilateral agreement was made between China and Vietnam in October 1993 declaring that both parties would not use any sort of forces that could put the ASEAN-China relation in danger.
Another bilateral agreement was made between China and the Philippines in August 1995 aimed to establish cooperation in navigation safety, marine research, rescue operations and environment protection, and dispute resolution negotiations. However, the agreement had yet to resolve the problem between Manila and Beijing. In August 1997, ASEAN agreed to consider China's draft proposal, a political and economic cooperation framework, that included 'behavioral norms' as the guidelines for establishing relationship between both parties, also for peaceful dispute resolution. (However, this draft did not refer to negotiations over sovereignty) A draft code of ethics was circulated in Manila at the ASEAN Foreign Ministerial Meeting in July 1999, and as a result, ASEAN member countries considered the code of ethics as too legalistic, as it took the form of a formal agreement, while the other members preferred to refer to the initial guidelines (more consistent with ASEAN Way).
Negative Image of ASEAN
This clearly shows that there was no ASEAN country that sees diplomacy as a very easy way to prevent conflict in Spratly Islands. The South China Sea disputes have become the main consideration behind the military modernization program and critical planning of ASEAN countries. The biggest threat in the Spratly Islands dispute for ASEAN is the internal division in dealing with China. This can present negative image of ASEAN where ASEAN solidarity is only an unreal imagination. Meanwhile, China has continued to push forward some forms of bilateral agreement to resolve a conflict or a problem. The form of cooperation shown by China and ASEAN as a way to find the solution for a dispute clearly shows Max Weber's concept on the interdependence condition as a result of the new understanding on the similarity of concept and values among involved countries. China's non-violent stance can be accepted by ASEAN member countries as a positive action that shows peace, so that it creates an opportunity to open up a new relation.
The rise of China into one of the strong and stable country in Asia shows that the country has its influence at the regional and international levels. However, China's rise still makes many Western observers doubt the country's stance. Therefore, it presents an ambiguous result in deciding the stance to take in dealing with China's rise dan its impact on global politics, and it brings up request on the appropriate paradigm to face China's rise in order to avoid making mistakes in foreign policy making. To further understand China's foreign policy behavior, the cultural factor is one of the important factors but it is not easy to understand.
Assessment
An existing relation in the international politics is based on some factors that construct the relation such as history and values upheld by each country. This is certainly becomes the important base in building a multilateral relation which has become a trend recently. These factors can also become our reference in seeing the relation between China and ASEAN.
China has a new security policy as the main force among developing countries that is peaceful in nature. This is certainly shown by this country in the shift of approach, from militaristic to diplomatic. In addition, China also challenges the domination of a country dan supports the harmonization by countries of equal power.
However, ASEAN has yet to fully understand the threat from this country. This is seen from the objective of China that actually came from the domination of market and its products in the economic field. The threat in the security field is relatively nonexistent because ASEAN and China have been actively cooperating militarily such as through joint training exercises and China's support for the Malacca Strait. Because of the broad expansion of economic market China wants to cooperate with ASEAN.
The second thing regarding the values that construct China's policy is the peaceful values. The influences of Sun Tzu and Confucianism are still closely attached to today's Chinese thinkers and leaders. In fact they are unintentionally reflected from the behavior and policy made by China. These values are sometimes neglected by strategic experts in projecting China's interests at the international level.
However, there are things to remember in understanding the values of China's policy. This can certainly be seen in the pseudo peaceful rise or that China's peaceful rise is only a wrapping that we should be aware of in seeing China's aggressiveness that intends to replace the declining US domination. But it would not be easy because China also realizes that its rise is not a single rise like that of the United States after the Cold War, but other new powers such as India, Brazil and Indonesia have also been born.
The biggest challenge faced by ASEAN actually lies in the historical memories of respective countries that form different perceptions in dealing with China. This is certainly a challenge in itself in how ASEAN wants to come forward as unanimous every time it meets with China. One the other hand, this frequently becomes an access for China to establish bilateral cooperation.
Based on the fact that we can see the efforts made by ASEAN to face China's new security policy, ASEAN realizes the importance of China as one of the cooperation partners that since 1991 and eventually in 2002 both parties signed an agreement containing the commitment to eliminate all negative prejudices in both parties.
1. Diplomacy: ASEAN in approaching China prioritizes diplomacy and multilateralism. China's move of wanting to resolve the Spratly Islands dispute with dialogue was warmly welcomed by ASEAN. This organization also learned to be unanimous in the forums that really require ASEAN to be so.
2. Multilateral Cooperation: ARF or ASEAN Regional Forum. China that previously disagreed with multilateral cooperation began to open up to follow the trend of global change which is no longer bipolar but multipolar. Therefore, China felt the need for the involvement of many countries to help achieve the interests of China and ASEAN in this case.
China's security policy has always drawn the attention of many countries, especially neighboring countries like ASEAN. However, as a rising country, China feels that the increased capacity of PLA is a logical step, which other countries would do if they were in the same position. On the other hand, many countries are concerned about the country's increased military power which will reveal the real face of aggressive China. Unfortunately, the values and belief contained in China's policy are relatively unknown to other countries. In reality, China's policy in managing its rise is to support the peaceful diplomacy and promoting dialogues without conflict and the use of weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment