简体中文
By APD writer Wang Peng
The U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and President Donald Trump repeatedly mentioned a notion “Indo-Chinese” in their three major speeches within one month. This phrase also appeared 12 times in the recently released U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS). All this makes it quickly become the hottest concept of international observers.
In China, scholars also hold different opinions on the concept. The first reason for this phenomenon was that Trump and Tillerson themselves did not elaborate this notion, or they just expressed the word without valid conceptualization or operationalization works.
At a symposium held in the Chahar Institute (Shanghai Branch), in response to the author’s question, the officer of the Political and Economic Department at the U.S. Consulate General in Shanghai replied: At present, “Indo-Pacific” is only a “strategic review”; it future may become a policy. Their answers seemed to suggest that even the U.S. diplomats are not sure what to do with the concept that their president elaborated.
Trump in China
Contending interpretations about “Indo-Pacific”
The strategic vague of this key notion leaves a large room for International Relations (IR) scholars to understand, interpret, comment and criticize in various ways. At present, there is a certain discrepancy between the scholars in the field of IR in China on the understanding of the Trump-Version of “Indo-Pacific”, which occurred much earlier in academia of other states.
Some scholars believe that ‘the concept of “Indo-China” is like a bubble and hence when sun rises it will disappear.’ The reason is that there are too many uncertainties in the domestic politics and economy in the United States, India and their foreign policies. At the same time, China will also respond flexibly to the challenge posed by the so-called “four-nation alliance” (America, Japan, Australia, and India). Therefore, this discourse is doomed to have a short-term impact on China without any substantial impact.
By contrast, some scholars oppose the above viewpoints, thinking that the United States, India, Japan, Australia and other countries do indeed have a great deal of interest in “checking and balancing” China. For example, during the severe border confrontation between China and India in June, July and August this year, the United States, India and Japan were operating joint military exercise to back up New Delhi.
In addition, Japan also stated its readiness to provide military equipment to India and Vietnam. Tillerson’s visit to India in October promised to provide India with the best military technology, including the sale of F-16 fighters.
China’s proper response: “unperturbed outside, vigilant inside”
In the face of the possible “Indo-Pacific” alliance and its strategic threat, China can neither sit still nor overreact, and need to take advantage of it. In an old Chinese phrase, it should be unperturbed outside while vigilant inside.
The notion “unperturbed outside” means, through vigorous propaganda and practice, the concept of open and inclusive new globalization advocated by President Xi Jinping, especially the “community of shared future of mankind” and the “Belt and Road Initiative”, are to institutionalize and systematize in international society, overcoming the rising discourse of “Indo-Pacific”. In this regard, “selective disregard (of Indo-Pacific)” plus the reinforcement of China’s own alternative discourse should be the most proper and workable response of our government at discourse level.
However, on the other hand, if we fail to distinguish “domestic strategic concern” from “international propaganda”, we may fall into the “ostrich trap” we set ourselves. Although the ostrich can head buried in the sand, the hungry hyenas do not disappear or stop hunting and killing. The worst propaganda often fail to brainwash the enemies while generates hypnosis on the subjects themselves.
Therefore, we must give due attention to the emergence of the Indo-Pakistan language and its profound implications toward China. Wise choice and strategic response of China can only be built on the basis of full debates and repeated deducing, rather than brain-smack (imprudent decisions), wishful thinking, or self-hypnosis after the words of the propaganda. Then, take actions calmly and steadily.
Wang Peng ,Research Fellow at Asia Pacific Institute, is the Research Fellow at the Chahar Institute and China Institute of Fudan University.
(ASIA PACIFIC DAILY)
