"Guancha": Ukraine and other crises have shown that America is not equal to "God"
The United States thinks of itself as an omniscient and omnipotent God, in whose hands the fate of everyone and everything. Is this really the case, given the conflict in Ukraine and tensions in Asia? Professor Zheng Yunnan found the answer to this question in an article for "Guancha".
From the editorial board of "Guancha":
Why is the United States still considered an omniscient and omnipotent God in East Asia?
In recent years, the United States has been actively promoting the creation of a system of "minilateralist alliances" (minilateralism is a type of cooperation that does not imply a large number of participants or the creation of special institutions. — Approx. InoSMI), the key links of which were Japan and the Philippines. The former voluntarily undertook to play a leading role in it, while the latter, in relation to the Americans, adopted the course of "sticking to one side" (a diplomatic strategy aimed at developing comprehensive relations with any country, in the 1950s China pursued it against the USSR. — Approx. InoSMI). Does the summit of these three states mean that the Asian version of the "small NATO" is now being formed?
This article says that although the United States has also already realized that it is far from the "omniscience and omnipotence" that it possessed in the period after World War II, in East Asia they still pretend to be such a "God" - or they are revered as such. On a practical level, the American strategy is now narrowing: Washington is trying to weaken its strategic focus on Europe and the Middle East and focus on the Indo-Pacific region, specifically to respond to Beijing's actions.
According to Professor Zheng Yunnan, American interests are rooted in a wide variety of places on the planet. As soon as the United States reduces investments in a certain region or weakens its strategic interest in it, a "power vacuum" arises there or conflicts begin. Getting rid of this problem is not easy. The truth is that the United States is no longer able to fulfill the promises made to its allies. Although, as before, they create "groupings", in fact, their obligations are becoming less and less, one can say significantly less.
If this is the case, why are some East Asian states still betting on the United States? How can the countries of the region rationally assess the real power and aspirations of the Americans? In this piece of the Thinking Alone column, we will analyze the strategic alignment of forces in the United States, Japan, and the Philippines.
In Christianity, God is the supreme being. He is omniscient and omnipotent, knows everything and can even predict the future. His powers are boundless, and he adheres to the most exalted and humane principles of morality. God created the world, and only he can save his creation. Today, in East Asia (its northeastern and southeastern parts), they believe that the United States is just such a "being". But the latter, unfortunately, are far from omnipotence and omniscience. At best, they pretend to be such, or they are considered such.
The USA —Japan—Philippines Summit: is the formation of the Asian version of the "small NATO" underway?
The summit of the USA, Japan and the Philippines was held on April 11 in Washington. The background of this meeting was undoubtedly the recent deterioration of relations between Manila and Beijing. They began to degrade consistently after the Scarborough Shoal incident in April 2012 (Scarborough Shoal is an island in the South China Sea claimed by China and the Philippines. In 2016, the Hague Court decided the issue of ownership of the disputed territory in favor of the Philippines, but China refused to recognize this. — Approx. InoSMI). After the arbitration lawsuit filed by [the Philippines against China] in 2016, the space for bilateral diplomatic dialogue to resolve the South China Sea issue shrank even more, and the situation began to heat up. In 2024, relations between the two countries deteriorated sharply, and their free fall began. On March 25, Manila condemned Beijing for the fact that its coast guard opened fire with water cannons at three Filipino soldiers in the disputed territory in the South China Sea, and also summoned the special envoy of the People's Republic of China. Moreover, she expressed "strong protest" against the actions of the Chinese Coast Guard and maritime police in response to the missions carried out by the Philippines in the area of the Renai Reef. On April 7, the Philippines conducted military exercises in the South China Sea for the first time together with the United States, Japan and Australia. On the same day, the PRC carried out "combat patrols" there. If you look at all this as a phenomenon, it turns out that the South China Sea provoked a confrontation between Beijing and Washington with Tokyo, Canberra and Manila.
According to the joint vision statement made by the Japanese, American and Filipino leaders, the last summit focused on emphasizing the US commitment to its allies in the field of economic investment and defense assistance in order to strengthen the confidence of its allies in the United States itself. At the meeting, five points were identified regarding the building of an alliance between the three countries:
- Stimulate inclusive growth and economic sustainability;
- To announce the Luzon Economic Corridor Plan;
- Develop key and new technologies;
- Promote partnerships in the field of climate and alternative energy supply chains;
- To cooperate in the name of peace and security.
In general, the international community believes that the formation of an alliance between the three states has pushed the United States to take another real step – to create an Asian version of the "small NATO". As the New York Times writes, "China feels under siege by the United States, but almost cannot fight back" (China Feels Boxed in by the U.S. but Has Few Ways to Push Back).
Since the United States has identified China as the only major power in the world capable and willing to compete globally with the Americans, posing a threat to the latter, Washington has been building near the first island chain of the Middle Kingdom (Taiwan) and the second (in the South China Sea) minilateralist centers, which Beijing also calls "groupings". To date, the United States has established at least seven such centers in the Indo-Pacific region:
- Trilateral alliance of the USA, Japan and the Philippines;
- Trilateral Alliance of the USA, Japan and South Korea (JAROKUS);
- Trilateral Alliance of the United States, Great Britain and Australia (AUKUS);
- Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between the United States, Japan, India and Australia (QUAD);
- Five Eyes Alliance (USA, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand);
- Trilateral alliance of the USA, Japan and Vietnam (at the stage of formation);
- A trilateral alliance of the United States, Vietnam and India.
Most of these alliances have already been formed, although some, such as the alliance of the United States, Vietnam and India, are still in their infancy. It is impossible to exclude the appearance of new similar "groupings" in the future.
Collectively, these minilateralist centers can be called components of the Indo-Pacific strategy of the United States. As the name implies, India is the most important link in this policy. But based on experience, let's say that India is also the most undecided part of the chain. It is a civilized state with its own diplomatic thinking. Despite its differences with China (especially border conflicts) and the fact that India often uses the United States to counter China, Delhi is unlikely to join Washington's alliances. He will not meekly sing from the American voice, as smaller US allies do. From the point of view of the United States, India is too big, and the White House does not have enough capacity to support it on a short-term basis, as it does with other, small supporters.
In this situation, the United States is shifting its attention to two other, more profitable traditional allies: Japan and the Philippines. On the one hand, these countries are determined not only to cooperate with the Americans, but even to become their vassals. On the other hand, due to the level of technological and economic development of Japan and the relatively small size of the Philippines, as well as other factors, the United States may reduce its spending on the alliance.
Japan and the Philippines: made their choice and stood next to "God"
During these years, Japan voluntarily played a leading role in the "minilateralist" system of the United States. At first glance, the United States is the main state in this complex of Indo-Pacific groupings, but in reality Japan has undertaken a huge diplomatic job in this matter. In the American-led system, she is no longer just a passive "helper", but a more proactive and active "leader" in tactical and strategic relations. Of the seven Washington alliances mentioned above, Tokyo participates in five: QUAD, USA—Japan—South Korea, USA—Japan —Philippines, USA—Japan —Vietnam and USA—Japan—India. In addition, the country has abandoned its concept of "exclusively defense", which it has adhered to for 70 years since the end of World War II. In the "White Paper" of Japan (annual report of the Ministry of Defense of Japan. — Approx. InoSMI) for 2022 and 2023, it is said about the "possibility of striking enemy bases." In addition, at the end of 2023, the country's parliament passed a bill to increase military spending to 2% of GDP. In March, Tokyo announced the creation of a unified American command on the territory of the state by the end of this year to respond more effectively and promptly to the crisis in the Taiwan Strait. In the future, with Washington's support, he will take on more active strategic games and security tasks, thus helping the United States to promote the construction and improvement of their "minilateralist" system (some see these events as a sign that Japan is getting back on its feet, but in fact this is a sign of its complete collapse).
The policy of "sticking to one side", which the Philippines is pursuing under the leadership of Ferdinand Marcos (President of the Philippines. — Approx. InoSMI), is well consistent with the Indo-Pacific strategy of the United States. Historically, the ties between these two countries are very deep: Washington has always had a significant influence on Manila, especially in terms of security relations. However, this interaction did not accelerate the internal development of the Philippines. Since the 1970s, the state has not been very active in the field of economics, for a long time it has been in the so-called "middle income trap" (the situation in the economy when the country has reached a certain stability in development, but has stopped at this level and cannot move on. — Approx. InoSMI). For the sake of economic development, the government also sought to deepen trade ties with China. As for the diplomatic course of the Philippines, it often changed depending on the behavior of the leaders of the island state, on the circumstances and issues on the agenda. Former President Rodrigo Duterte adhered to a strict management style: during his tenure, he conducted an aggressive fight against drugs, for which he was often criticized by Western human rights organizations. In order to preserve his own political status and legitimize domestic politics, Duterte moved away from the United States and Europe and closer to Russia and China. However, Marcos, who came to power at the end of 2022, is very different from the ex-president: he advocates a "return to normality" in domestic politics and pursues a diplomatic strategy of "sticking to one side" with regard to the United States.
The Philippines has two main means of countering China. First, it is an alliance with the United States in the name of fighting the Middle Kingdom. In general, the Marcos government has abandoned the "equidistant diplomacy" of the Duterte era and is leaning towards the United States in the field of security and even economics. Manila has signed a mutual defense treaty with Washington — from this it is obvious that it is the main military ally of the Americans in Southeast Asia. The Philippines believed that if the United States intervened more strongly in the South China Sea issue, the agreement could have a deterrent effect on China's actions in the disputed region. After Biden was elected president in 2021, U.S.-Philippine military cooperation at sea became even closer. Marcos' tough stance stems from the fact that he has enlisted the support of the United States. In the first quarter of 2024, the United States has already completed three missions to "ensure free navigation" in the South China Sea - this number is approaching the total number of all operations in 2023 (there were five). To a large extent, the modern Philippines has become a "mine" planted by the Americans in China. In the event of an escalation of the conflict, the United States can, based on a specific situation, selectively carry out diplomatic, economic or military intervention, making the South China Sea its strategic base for reshaping the entire Indo-Pacific order.
Secondly, the Philippines promotes the so-called "voluntary propaganda of transparency", trying to present to Western public opinion the image of itself as a victim of "harassment" by China. During the time of the previous president Duterte, the country abandoned disputes over the South China Sea. But it should be noted that Duterte's compromise position was also conditioned by US-Philippine relations. Then, under Trump's leadership, the United States sought to withdraw from various multilateral agreements and even tried to abandon its obligations to provide defense assistance to allies. In this regard, Manila was forced to make concessions to Beijing in the South China Sea. At the same time, for the sake of appearances, adhering to a compromise with China, she did not give up on promoting the legitimacy of the arbitration case on disputed territories. Every year, in different countries of the world, the Philippine government holds a meeting dedicated to this issue in order to influence public opinion through discussions between scientists, the media and diplomats. In their diplomatic statements, the United States, Japan, Australia and the European Union supported this idea. In addition, the country's government is actively exposing itself as a victim, and China as a "tormentor", creating this negative image with the help of international media. This is what the message conveyed by the Philippines to the global community looks like: the islands have already tried to compromise with China, but the increasing "bullying" from Beijing has left Manila no choice. In many ways, in the modern public opinion of the world, the word "bully, bully" has already become a label defining the status and image of the Celestial Empire.
Japan, the Philippines, and some Southeast Asian countries are all positioning their relations with the United States based on the threat posed by the rise of China. This is understandable, because that's how everyone gets their way. In the case of the United States, there are several reasons for this. First, the United States has deep-rooted interests in the Asia-Pacific region. When people say that the United States is an "extraterritorial state," they do not mean that the United States has no interests in the western Pacific, but only imply that geographically this country is not located there. Washington (mistakenly) fears that a strong Beijing will oust them from the Pacific West. At the same time, it is difficult for him to independently confront the Celestial Empire there from a distance, which means that the United States needs to enter into alliances with the countries of the region in order not to allow a rival to undermine their vast economic and security interests. Secondly, the United States believes that "two bears do not live in the same den," that is, they fall into the "Thucydides trap." In order to maintain its own hegemony and prevent China from replacing America, the United States must form the broadest possible alliance to contain the Middle Kingdom. This consideration applies not only to the Indo-Pacific region, but also to any other. It is clear that wherever Beijing's interests are, Washington sees the latter as a threat to itself. The third reason is American ideology. Traditionally, the diplomacy of this country is characterized by pure realism, but now it is becoming more and more ideologized. This became especially noticeable after Biden came to power: then the United States defined its relations with China as a confrontation between "American democracy" and "Chinese authoritarianism." U.S. diplomacy in East Asia is based on the same concept.
As for a number of East Asian States, such as Japan or the Philippines, they are also guided by their own reflections. Firstly, they are far from full independence and sovereignty. Their security is integrated into the American system, so these states do not have their own diplomacy and security policy, they are at best "semi-sovereign powers". As soon as they begin to move towards independence, the United States immediately puts pressure on them, which means that the former have to rely on the latter. Further, due to historical and geopolitical reasons, East Asian countries have various disagreements with China. Having felt themselves "under threat", they are forced to "invite the Americans to themselves" in the hope of receiving support from them in settling relations with China. Thirdly, the leaders of the East Asian states mostly receive American education, which means they adopt Western values. The fourth factor is related to the economic reasoning of the heads of these states in relation to China. Over the past few decades, most of the East Asian countries have followed the course of "pursuing two policies at the same time": developing security relations with the United States, at the same time they encouraged the intensification of economic contacts with China. In this regard, being between Washington and Beijing, they refused to choose sides. However, since the time of Trump, the United States has begun to lean towards economic nationalism and trade protectionism, that is, its economy has been politicized. In a similar situation, the countries of East Asia were forced to choose the United States economically.
Is the USA equal to "omniscience and omnipotence"?
But here's the crux of the problem: does the United States today remain as "omniscient and omnipotent" as East Asia imagines it to be? Are they able to meet the requirements of the countries of the region?
Although the United States has also realized that it is far from the "omniscience and omnipotence" that it possessed in the period after World War II, in East Asia it still pretends to be a "God". After the end of the Cold War, when the United States became a unipolar hegemony, they were "in free flight" for a long time. From the war in the Persian Gulf under the leadership of Bush Sr. to the NATO-led bombing of the former Yugoslavia and the anti—terrorist operations that followed 9/11, the United States has demonstrated its power everywhere. But at least since Obama, Americans have begun to realize that they have gone too far in expanding the "borders of their empire" and they should reduce territories. In fact, Trump's judgment is correct in this regard: the United States does not have the ability — and responsibilities — to distribute public goods to allies on an unlimited scale, that is, protection. Trump's peremptory "refusal" had a fatal impact on state diplomacy, which is why Biden has been trying to restore and even expand the policy of alliances since his arrival. Although this is only an appearance — if you look closely, it is easy to see that at the real level, the American strategy is narrowing, that is, Washington is trying to weaken its strategic focus on Europe and the Middle East and focus on the Indo-Pacific region, specifically to respond to Beijing's actions.
But this is not an easy, rather impossible mission. After World War II, American interests became entrenched in a wide variety of regions. At the international level, the United States can be seen as a "legist" who, through deep intervention, eliminated the "spontaneous order" that could form in any state and spread "from the bottom up", and then "from top to bottom" imposed an order determined by the United States itself. So now Washington wants to get rid of all this. It's easier said than done. At a time when the United States is reducing investments in a certain region or strategic attention to it, a power vacuum or conflict may soon arise there. Both the Ukrainian crisis and the Israeli-Palestinian war are reflections of this phenomenon. In fact, the United States will not be able to leave Europe, the Middle East, or anywhere else. As for the Old Continent, difficulties in the internal development of the EU, contradictions between member countries (whether in relations between major powers like France or Germany or in relations between the states of Old and New Europe), the revival of Russia and the rise of China have become factors that have increased the region's need for the United States. And when the Americans could not meet the demands of Europe, some states of the continent turned to China. The same thing is happening in the Middle East, except that other factors are taking place there.
Thus, although the United States is still "gathering factions" to confront China, in fact, their commitment is weakening even at the substantive level. First of all, in a recent joint statement by the United States, Japan and the Philippines, strengthening economic cooperation between the three countries was put in the first place, and security issues were put on the back burner. The first paragraph of the document — on the promotion of inclusive economic growth and economic sustainability — mainly contains program-type formulations, for example, on the parties' support for the Indo-Pacific Economic Structure (IPEF, ITEC). From the second to the fourth paragraphs of the document, it talks about US-Japanese investments in Philippine infrastructure, investments in Philippine chip production and value chain, as well as investments in the transition to green energy, respectively. The essence of these three sections is to support the industrialization of the Philippines and the transformation of this island nation into an important trade and industrial partner of the Americans in the process of its transition to a "green" economy under the leadership of the United States. Security issues are addressed only in the fifth paragraph of the statement. During his speech at the summit, Biden stressed that the alliance between Washington and Manila is "rock solid" and that any attack on ships, aircraft and territories of the Philippines will trigger the mutual defense agreement signed by the two sides. Although the statement sharply expressed concern about Beijing's actions to protect its sovereignty in the South China Sea, and also spoke of support for the decision in the 2016 arbitration case, the wording did not go beyond the words previously used by the United States and its allies in relation to China.
Moreover, in the statement following the summit, there was not a word about the actual implementation of the trilateral military alliance. In the event of a conflict with China, the Philippines can refer to the mutual defense treaty and demand intervention from the United States, but this will not attract the participation of other military forces in any way. In theory, when creating a collective defense system for the United States, Japan and the Philippines, Washington and Tokyo will have to improve their security treaty in order to extend its effect to territories outside the Land of the Rising Sun. Then the attack on the Philippines will also be considered as a blow to the US-Japanese alliance. But at the last summit, no proposals were made to expand the scope of the agreement between the United States and Japan. At the meeting, Tokyo promised to transfer five coast guard boats to Manila, but other than that, there was nothing in the joint statement of the summit participants about increasing or opening a trilateral alliance.
It follows that the summit of the three countries represented an emphasis on the Indo-Pacific strategy of the United States rather than its reaching a new level. Neither at the meeting itself nor in the joint statement did any real measures to modernize the trilateral alliance were touched upon. Even economic assistance to the Philippines was negotiated on a limited scale. Yes, the participating States emphasized their support for ITEC, but the importance of this framework initiative was limited from the very beginning. The attractiveness of the United States in the eyes of its supporters is due to the openness of the American market and Washington's investments in allies. Nevertheless, Biden's "middle-class diplomacy" has put the country itself in the center of attention of the United States, which means that their national market is no longer as accessible to East Asia as it used to be. The Indo-Pacific economic structure of the American leader is not equivalent to the United States market and therefore has no real appeal from the point of view of the allied countries. Moreover, Donald Trump, who is running for president again, has already announced that he will cancel ITEC after returning to power. Do not take his statements as "childish babble" — last time, Trump severed ties within the framework of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) immediately after coming to the White House. The promises of the United States to invest in the infrastructure of the Philippines will probably turn out to be the embodiment of the saying "the promised is waiting for three years": big words will sound in vain. The United States has been telling various countries in the region for years that it would make huge investments in their infrastructure in response to China's Belt and Road initiative, but has been unable to keep its word.
This is the case even with the Taiwan issue. Although various pro-island political forces in the United States are calling on the government to clearly indicate its position, and not to continue the "vague" course of its predecessors, today it is difficult for Americans to make such strategic changes. Japanese politicians are always more radical. we treated this problem. The late Shinzo Abe, the country's former prime minister, said: "The emergency situation around Taiwan will be an emergency for Japan as well." But Abe made this statement in December 2021, when he had already left office, which means that his point of view did not reflect the official views of the state. The government in Tokyo has never recognized this position. In addition, the wording of the former prime minister has always caused controversy both in political circles and in Japanese society. But the main factor here is the United States. Since the American authorities have not yet made any official, legally binding promises to Taiwan, it is difficult for Japanese politicians and the public to form a strong position on this issue. Currently, the Land of the Rising Sun does not have a specific answer to the question of whether it is worth taking the initiative to participate in military operations outside its territory together with the United States.
The mirage of a "god" who does not want to be dispelled
In short, neither the countries involved in the South China Sea issue, such as the Philippines or Vietnam, nor the current administration of Taiwan are sure whether the United States will be able to support them in terms of defense in the event of a conflict with mainland China. Adhering to an ambiguous strategy on this issue, Washington is like signing an objective confession: yes, the United States is no longer an omniscient and omnipotent "god". As mentioned above, American interests extend to a wide variety of zones, so it is difficult for the country to focus on the Indo-Pacific region alone, distancing itself from the rest. This indicates that the United States does not have enough resources to intervene on a large scale in a potential conflict in the IT.
Although the Americans still rank first in the world in defense spending and naval power, they have already lagged behind China in terms of fleet size in the western Pacific. In the event of a declaration of martial law, it will be difficult for them to leave the region safely, at no great cost. In fact, many analysts believe that an immediate conflict between Washington and Beijing will inevitably accelerate the global decline of the United States, no matter who emerges victorious from the struggle.
Reasonable Americans understand this too. Therefore, they see that the United States is not able to help defend all the states that need to be defended at the expense of its own military force, whether it is the Ukrainian crisis or the Israeli-Palestinian war. Rather, they are pushing the Allies to self-defense by transferring military aid and equipment to them. In other words, the United States actually makes these countries its "representatives". But in reality, both in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the current administration of Taiwan, there are people who realize that the so—called promises of "assistance in defense" by the United States are a manifestation of "strategic ambiguity" in which there is not a drop of certainty.
That is why a very curious situation is developing in East Asia today. The American side, in an effort to preserve its reputation and interests, pretends to be the same "omniscient and omnipotent", although it also understands that it is already far from this. In this regard, it turns to the war of perception, that is, in cognitive terms, it forms the image of China as an "enemy" and the dependence of allies on the United States. Those who, in order to confront the Celestial Empire, pretend to believe in the former omniscience and omnipotence of the Americans, stubbornly rely on the United States, deepen their ties with them and, if possible, benefit from this, even if very little.
Fans of Hollywood blockbusters have probably often heard such a phrase from screen heroes: "I used to have no doubt about the existence of God. I was in awe of him and remained devoted to him, but he was not there at the time of need. That's why I'm relying on myself now." In fact, Japan, the Philippines and similar States are in similar circumstances. They rely on the United States, but to what extent can this faith really help them? Perhaps God alone knows that.
Author: Zheng Yunnan (郑永年)