The International Architecture and China's Peripheral Security

By Liu Jiangyong

?

The International Architecture and China's Peripheral Security

By Liu Jiangyong

International Relations Institute, Tsinghua University

The so-called international architecture is a combination of the international strategic posture and the international relations structure composed of international balance of forces and international relations configuration. Studies on developments and changes in the international architecture belongs to strategic studies in the field of international relations, and is an important and indispensable perspective for assessment of the international situation. From the perspective to achieve the strategic objectives of sustainable security, this paper intends to understand the impacts of changing international strategic situation and its development trend on China's peripheral security environment.

I. The Evolving International Architecture

A. Various views on the changing international architecture

Since positions, perspectives and concepts used by researchers are different, who not only have different views and expressions for the status and future trends of the international architecture, but also produced opposite propositions in shaping what kind of the international architecture is conducive to world peace and development. For example, the United States tends to believe that the U.S.-led international order and the U.S.-dominated peace are more stable than a multi-polar world, global multi-polarity could weaken the U.S. superpower status, and those countries and groups of countries pose challenges to the U.S. hegemony are a threat to U.S. national security. However, China, Russia and some more countries from their own positions hold that global multi-polarity is an inevitable trend, is conducive to world peace and development, but the U.S.-led hegemonism and power politics are unfavorable to world stability. This matter may become strategic thinking barriers and obstacles to build a new type of China-U.S. relations.

Chinese official documents use "global multi-polarity" to describe a long-term international situation. However, since the early 1990s, some Chinese scholars of international relations have come up with an idea of "one superpower and multi-powers". However, in view of the actual situation, "one superpower and multi-powers" can only reflect the periodical state of balance of power among major powers of the world strong powers, and cannot be expanded to explain the world pattern. Because in addition to major and strong powers in today's world, there are many small and medium-sized countries and weak and poor countries, "one superpower and multi-powers" obviously is difficult to cover such a complex and diverse world.

From the international political reality, the small and medium-sized countries through unity become an important force to be reckoned with, the Chinese diplomacy is always opposed to a few major powers and strong powers to dominate the world. However, from an academic perspective of logical rigor, assuming that a multi-polar world means that some non-nuclear countries may seek to become nuclear states, is such a multi-polarity in international military sphere more secure? Dose a multi-polar confrontation triggered by religious and ethnic conflicts in some regions threaten world peace? Then for China, the United States and the world at large, what is indeed an ideal model of the international pattern conducive to sustainable security? These are thought-provoking matters.

Whether the post-Cold War new global pattern is formed, Chinese scholars are divided and unable to agree, but have not proposed a new concept, made summary in terms of essence and described the latest changes in the international architecture. In overview, since the United States as the world's sole superpower status has not fundamentally changed, so naturally the belief is that the international strategic architecture has not changed. The following logic must be: since the U.S. "superpower" status remains unchanged, a new pattern of the international multi-polar world is not yet formed, so the global pattern is still in the transition period to multi-polarity. However, suppose over twenty years after the Cold War, a new international architecture is not shaped, it seems untenable. The United States is indeed important, in addition to studies on the American rise and fall as well as adjustment and recovery ability; we should also look at what changes are taking place in the world beyond the United States.

In view of the systematic research methods, the international relations system is a whole made up of international order and international architecture. In view of the systematic structure, the international architecture is usually divided into economic, political and military aspects as well as three layers of the world pattern, regional pattern and major powers relations pattern. Among them, the major power relations pattern exerts the greatest impact on the international situation, and has global significance. Therefore, the major powers relations pattern can be regarded as an international strategic architecture. Although the international architecture can be shaped, yet, often has relative stability and complexity of different areas, different regions, and different levels intertwined and interactive. In the early 21stcentury, world multi-polarity is characterized by the following features of a complex structure.

In view of overall global pattern, "one pole with multi-powers" structure has not fundamentally changed. In the military field, the U.S.-led NATO and bilateral military alliances in the Asia-Pacific are strengthened; in the financial area, the dollar can still maintain the base currency position. However, the U.S. "pole" is weakening while the "multiple-powers" are developing, including the rising regional organizations and non-state actors.

In view of the major powers relations pattern, the situation of "one superpowers with multi strong powers" seeking cooperation in competition has not fundamentally changed. The U.S. comprehensive national strength is the most powerful, still maintains the "superpowers" status, but has been significantly weakened since the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008; "strong powers" such as BRICS countries and others become further strong, and began playing a role in the world economic and political affairs led by developed countries.

In view of the regional pattern, there have emerged different trends: the European economic integration process has encountered serious debt crisis and economic difficulties, but the EU will not collapse. Deteriorating political relations between Japan and its neighbors is not conducive to the formation of a free trade area among China, Japan and South Korea, but the East Asian regional cooperation process of coexisting multiple-powers will not be aborted. In Northeast Asia and other regions, geostrategic contradictions of the Cold War legacy still exists, and accompanied tensions with nuclear proliferation crisis crop up from time to time. In the Middle East, South Asia and other regions, the original ethnic and religious conflicts become sharpened, showing local "regional multi-polar confrontation". The changing international architecture and China’s peripheral security environment are directly related to whether China can maintain sustainable security, which requires in-depth studies.

II. Further Look At the Changing International Architecture

Study of the law on the changing international strategic architecture is indispensable perspective for national strategic analysis, needs historical enlightenments for the evolving international strategic architecture, and is supported by systematic and dialectical logic analysis.

(1) Judging the nature of evolving international strategic architecture cannot be separated from the era background

It is difficult to draw the right conclusions whether world multi-polarization is conducive to world peace and security if the understanding of the historical background and its changes is absent. Because in the era of imperialism and colonialism, whether the world is bipolar or multipolar pattern is unstable, and war is inevitable. In this regard, Lenin had done systematic and accurate exposition.

However, in the non-colonial era of the collapsed colonial system after WWII, there are no objective conditions for newcomers to have colonial repartition and wage war against the former colonial states, thus, a multipolar world in general is in favor peace, progress and development of human society. Since the post-war Germany and Japan have achieved a peaceful rise, China can certainly too and the past thirty year-practice proves undoubtedly. However, some people have suspicions about the future China because they do not see great changes in the background. If they ignore changes in the modern era background and preconceive the peaceful rising China as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during WWII, they will commit a serious era misjudgments. A correct understanding of the changing historical background makes it easier to understand why emerging powers including China can collectively and peacefully rise in the world. Similarly, China should also see that, in the post-colonial era, transcending different social systems and ideologies to develop friendly relations of cooperation with various countries in the world conforms to the trend of the time and the Chinese national interests.

Throughout history from WWI in early 20th century up to today with different era backgrounds, the international architecture evolution can be roughly divided into the following five stages. The first stage: 1904-1945 multi-polar confrontation patterns with the two world wars. The second stage: the bipolar confrontation pattern with the U.S.-USSR Cold War as the main indicator from the end of WWII to the 1960s. The third stage: multi-polarization trend and bipolarity with multi-powers pattern from the 1970s to the 1990s. The fourth stage: one polarity with multi-powers pattern in the 1990s after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Fifth stage: the emerging situation of traditional international relations pattern and non-traditional international pattern coexisting and interactive in the 21st century.

(2) It is often the re-located "world No. 2" that causes significant changes in the international architecture

The post-war evolving international architecture process indicates that it is the "world No. 2" rise and fall with the re-location rather than the U.S. superpower status changes that causes dramatic changes in the international strategic architecture and profound changes in international politics, economics and landscape.1Because the U.S. status change is relative while the "world No. 2" status change is absolute.

After WWII, leading to profound changes in the international architecture is the changes of the Soviet Union, the first post-war "world No. 2". During the Cold War, the Soviet Union tried to achieve a comprehensive balance with the United States in terms of national strength, having established a military alliance and the Soviet sphere of influence, and built a nuclear arsenal next to the United States, so the international strategic pattern formed a U.S.-USSR bipolar system. However, it is in 1991 the disintegrated Soviet Union that produced the most dramatic changes in the post-war international strategic pattern, and Japan replaced the Soviet Union as the "world No. 2". As a result, the international pattern becomes "one polarity with multi-powers" structure.

It is the "peaceful decline" of Japan as the second post-war "world No. 2" that causes the second most dramatic changes in the international strategic pattern. Although Japan is a U.S. ally and actively cooperates diplomatically with U.S. global strategy, the United States regards Japan as the post-Cold War largest economic threat, repressed appreciation of the yen, warned and pressurized Japan in terms of trade friction, and induced Japan's national model and business model transformation and to take the neoliberal economic path. As a result, having reached more than 80% of the U.S. economy, but the Japanese economy percentage dropped to less than 40 in 1994.

Since the year 2010, China-Japanese balance of power took a turning-point change, and in dollar terms, China’s GDP surpassed Japan’s to become the third post-war "world No. 2". In terms of total economy including GDP, volume of foreign trade and national defense spending, China’s comprehensive national strength appears to become the world No.2. However, the quality, scientific and technological level of China's economy need to be improved, and China has relatively low per capita GDP, and still faces many challenges and difficulties at home and abroad. Therefore, in the next 30 years, China should strive to avoid the third failure of post-war "world No. 2".

(3) It is the collective rise of emerging economies that is the real strength to change the future international architecture

After WWII, the independence of a vast number of developing countries revolutionized the international architecture of colonialist era. Therefore, it may no longer be the rise and fall and re-location of the "world No. 2", but the collective rise of emerging economies, which is typically represented by the BRICS, is an important force to change the international old architecture.

Since the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008, the American, European, and Japanese economy is in a recession, while the BRICS show strong economic growth. In response to the financial crisis, on 16 June 2009, the leaders of China, Brazil, Russia and India held their first formal meeting in Russia, and South Africa joined the BRICS summit in 2010. BRICS has vast territory, accounting for 27% of world's land area, and a large population, accounting for about 43% of the global population with China and India more than one billion each, and Brazil and Russia more than 100 million each. 2012 BRICS economic volume accounted for 21% of global GDP, trade volume for 15% of total world trade and foreign exchange reserves for 75% of global total.2According to IMF forecasts, the BRICS total GDP in 2013 may surpass the U.S. share and in 2016 will reach 23.7% of global GDP. The World Bank and IMF 2010 Reform Program would significantly increase the future BRICS countries’ voting power to 13.1% and share to 14.81% respectively.3

In the 21st century, a new phenomenon of international architecture is that emerging economies take non-military confrontation approach and peaceful cooperation-based approach to deal with traditional powers. The emerging powers’ collective and peaceful rise is the most prominent and the most dazzling international new things in the early 21st century. It may enable the international architecture move toward multi-powers coexistence and multi-powers integration, and become an important force to promote world peace and development. In this regard, the emergence of G-20 may be a proof.

After 2008 financial crisis, G-20 financial summit was held in Washington on November 15 the same year, so G-20 summit mechanism came into being. G-20 GDP accounts for about 90% of the global total, and trade volume for 80 %, which exceed the role of the G-8 and has changed the situation in international economic and political affairs mainly dominated by 7-8 developed countries since the year 1976. Thus, coordination of international relations becomes a dominant approach.

The enlightenment can be found in the era context. Today's era is no longer the era of imperialism and colonialism, there is no possibility of war caused by competition for colony; economic globalization has made unprecedented deepening interdependence among countries; there does not exist an exclusive trading bloc and an aggressive military bloc; nuclear weapons has deterrence to war between great powers; development of information technology reduces war possibilities due to lack of communications previously; international organizations, international rules and security mechanisms are relatively well-established; war would damage security interests of all countries, and peace and development remain mainstream of the world .

(4) The relations among China, the United States, Russia and Japan seem to have a pattern-impacted change every decade

It is the relations among China, the United States, Russia and Japan that exerts the most influential impact on the Asia-Pacific regional situation. Since WWII, relations among these four countries witness a pattern-impacted change every decade, which are mainly reflected in a balance of power among them and the nature of their relationships. The strategic pattern they structure shows the following major changes:

During the 1950s-1960s, the China-USSR alliance against the U.S.-Japan alliance; during the 1960s-1970s, China and Soviet Union split but continued to confront with the United States and Japan; during the1970s-1980s, China, the United States and Japan improved relations while resisting the Soviet Union expansionism; during the 1980s-1990s, China, the United States and Japan remained relatively friendly, and China and the Soviet Union gradually normalized relations but non-aligned; during the 1990s to the early 21st century, the United States and Japan improved relations with Russia, Japan and the United States had trade frictions, China and the United States had political frictions, China-Japanese contradictions increased, and China and Russia established strategic cooperative partnership; in the first decade of the 21st century, U.S.-Japan deepened interdependence with China while increasing contradictions with China and Russia, and China-Russia relations enhanced; in the second decade, contradictions highlighted between China and Japan, cooperation between China and Russia strengthened, the United States and Japan maintained alliance while averting a comprehensive strategic confrontation with China and Russia.

In the year 2013, China, the United States, Russia and Japan completed the political power transfer process, heralding a new round of adjustments and changes of major powers relations in the coming decade. In this regard, the U.S. return to Asia-Pacific will inevitably have a major impact, but comparatively, the Japanese move is more eye-catching. As a result, China-Japanese relations show a phenomenon featured by the most serious confrontations and most prominent contradictions among the four major powers relations for the first time in past half a century. The main reasons are that since 2010, Japan has significantly readjusted its strategy, having introduced in December 2010 Japan's new National Defense Program Outline, having made China its main defensive target, shifting Japan's defense force focus to the southwest islands, and clearly aiming at the Diaoyu Islands.

AbeCabinet believes that now it is difficult for Japan and United States to cope with China alone, thus, attempting to establish a "Japan-U.S.+1" cooperation framework, i.e. strengthening the Japan-U.S.-ROK cooperation, the Japan-U.S.-Australia cooperation, the Japan-U.S.-India cooperation, and even teamed with the Philippines and Vietnam together to stall China. From the Chinese perspective, Japan seems to play a U.S. role in containing China during the Cold War and USSR’s role in constraining China in its 1970s expansionism.

(5) A severe imbalance of power in international architecture is likely to result in risks of war

After the disintegrated Soviet Union, NATO, one of the two military blocs during the Cold War remains, and more importantly, NATO continues to expand and get strengthened and becomes the offensive military alliance that launches joint military operations in the world. Not only the past Warsaw Pact member states have joined NATO, and some CIS members also have abandoned Russia and turned to NATO, and allow deployment of U.S. troops. In the year 2004, NATO's eastward expansion admitted Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia to join. The United States decides to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and other countries. NATO also strengthens relations with Central Asian, the Caucasus countries, prolongs troops stationed in Afghanistan, and strengthens security ties with Japan. It is this severe international imbalance of power that after the Cold War the United States launched five high-tech local wars, i.e. the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 Kosovo war, the 2001 Afghanistan war, the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan war.

In contrast to the Korean Peninsula, as long as North Korea and South Korea correctly judge the situation, and do not make war provocations, a large-scale war is unlikely. One of the reasons is the United States , Japan, South Korea have to take into consideration the Chinese and Russian firm opposition against the use of force to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. The relative balance of major powers relations helps to ensure peace on the Korean Peninsula. China and Russia should maintain their strategic balancing roles, which is consistent with ROK and U.S. interests.

(6) The emergence of non-traditional international pattern is an important factor to decide the future relations between the "superpower" and the emerging powers

China has become the world No.2, does it means that Sino-U.S. confrontation irreconcilable? The answer is “No”. From the perspective of traditional pattern of major powers relations, the contradictions between China and the United States are long-standing, the U.S. strategic instinct determines that any means can be applied to China. However, the 9/11 attacks in 2001 brought unprecedented changes to the international architecture, and exerted a significant impact the Sino-U.S. relations. This change can be reflected, in addition to the traditional international relations pattern, by the emergence of a "non-traditional international pattern” characterized by the trial of strength and asymmetric warfare between state actors and non-state and non-governmental actors.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the socialized information and globalized and networked terrorist activities have become an "invisible pole", which continues to today the hot war with the traditional superpower and its allies.Non-traditional security pattern has changed the national security strategy of the traditional superpower.

The United States also believes that the 9/11 deadly attacks reveal its most immediate threat, and requiring to take strong and sustained effective measures to defend the country.4The Obama Administration clearly recognizes that the United States is in an era of rapid change ...... peaceful coexistence between major powers is possible, however, globalization has also exacerbated dangers, including international terrorism, the proliferation of deadly technologies, economic instability and climate change ...... during the past decade, the United States and the world-wide networks of violence and hatred are in a state of war ....... in the face of diversified threats posed by state actors, non-state actors and failed states, military superiority should be maintained.5

In November 2011, President Obama at the APEC informal summit formally proposed the Asia-Pacific "rebalancing” strategy, seemingly to re-shift the U.S. focus to major power games-play and geostrategic contention in the traditional international architecture, and releasing such U.S. strategic intentions through Japan, the ASEAN-related forums, etc. However, challenges met by the United States in non-traditional international pattern is the real existing security threats. The terrorist bombing of the Boston Marathon on April 15 once again sounded the alarm and required the Obama Administration to strengthen international cooperation against terrorism and closer relationship with Russia and China. It is clear that China-U.S. trade interdependence increase and in the aspects of international counter-terrorism and regional non-proliferation, China is not a threat to the U.S. security, but a cooperate partner. In the world today, China’s rise is not unique, as it is one of emerging powers of collective rise. Thus, there is a real possibility to establish a new major power relations between China and the United States.

III. The International Architecture and China's Peripheral Security

Since the 21stcentury, China is neither in the center of a contradiction whirlpool in the international strategic architecture, nor faces a real and urgent military threat. But its strategic risks increase, with the "East Turkistan" terrorist forces threats along the Northwest border and the disputes of maritime territory and maritime rights and interests in the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, South China Sea, there still exist unfavorable factors to China in the international architecture, so the peripheral security situation is not promising.

(1) The U.S. return to Asia-Pacific exerts a complex impact on China’s peripheral strategic pattern

The Sino-U.S. relations are generally stable, but strategic contradictions may get deepened. The easing situation across the Taiwan Straits is conducive to the Sino-U.S. relations to reduce strategic risks. However, the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan will continue to hinder the development of Sino-U.S. relations, the United States will put pressure on China regarding trade, the RMB exchange rate, human rights and other issues in the years to come. After becoming the world second largest economy, China will inevitably encounter more and more hegemonic pressures from the United States. Since 2010, the U.S. diplomatic strategy began shift of two focuses: Firstly, shift the focus of the strategic layout to a contest of the traditional major powers strategic pattern; Secondly, shift the focus of military deployment from the Korean Peninsula to the arc belt of the Indian Ocean, the aspect of which aims at China gets a rise.

The U.S. return to Asia-Pacific and "rebalancing" strategy include economic, political, military aspects. Economically, the U.S. return to Asia-Pacific, in addition to ensuring in the region the U.S. exports expanded exponentially, but also promotes the TPP with exclusion of China, draws Japan in the U.S.-set free trade system, stalls the process of the China –Japan-ROK Free Trade Area and the ASEAN + China, Japan and South Korea (10 +3) economic integration in East Asia, achieves the American-led Asia-Pacific economy. Politically, the United States will participate in the East Asia multilateral political and security dialogue and coordination mechanisms, and play a leading role. Militarily, the United States will continue to retain and expand its military bases and military presence in the Asia-Pacific region and by 2020, 60% of U.S. Navy forces will be deployed in the region. Possessed in the past the Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam and the Subic and Clark military bases in the Philippines, the United States now takes advantage of China’s contradictions with Vietnam and the Philippines in attempt to make a return, and maintains the U.S. military presence in Singapore, Australia, Japan, etc, to strengthen alliances with these countries.

Under the circumstances of decreasing defense spending consecutively, the United States, in order to maintain domestic military production lines and to sell arms to its allies, will create and use China’s peripheral tensions. In the years 2006-2010, among the U.S. arms exports buyers, South Korea topped the list, with US$ 1.05 billion annually. In the year 2011 U.S. arms sales orders totaled US$ 34.8 billion. In the year 2012, the United States gained a large order from Japan of 42 F35 fighters. If the United States annually reduces US$ 45 billion military spending over the next decade, it will inevitably seek to expand arms exports. Therefore, the United States in the next decade would continue to cook regional tensions, provoke conflicts between China and its neighboring countries, and render the "China threat theory". These are produced by the U.S. military-production complex model, the U.S. National Security Strategy instinct and the recognition of policy makers on the national interests.

President Obama announced the U.S. four long-term national interests as follows: (1) Security -- the security of the United States, the American people and allies; (2) Prosperity -- the U.S. powerful, innovative and growing economy, in an open international economic system, can provide a good opportunity and promote prosperity; (3) Values -- the universal values of the United States and the world are respected; (4) International order -- under the U.S. leadership, all countries of the world address global challenges and promote peace, security and opportunity by strengthening cooperation.

In the traditional international architecture, the United States will continue to take China as a major rival. However, in non-traditional international architecture, the United States strengthens cooperation with China. This reflects two important perspectives of the U.S. global strategy: on the one hand, with China’s continuous growth, the United States will instinctively worry about whether China will challenge the U.S. leadership and international order, Japan and other China’s neighbors will take the initiative for taking advantage of China-U.S. contradictions. On the other hand, the U.S. return to Asia-Pacific does not commence direct military confrontation with China, but makes great endeavor to avoid getting involved in the conflict. The United States provides behind support to Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam for contest with China, but superficially shows neutral or ambiguous positions on maritime disputes. On the Diaoyu Islands issue between China and Japan, the United States means to create a situation of no-war and no-peace to achieve the purpose of ensuring the United States to dominate East Asia with the minimum risk of the use of the China-Japanese islands disputes.

From Overall point of view, the U.S. return to Asia-Pacific strategy is largely generated by allies rising worries of the U.S. declined status in the Asia-Pacific after the 2008 financial tsunami, which itself may unnecessarily causes substantial harm to China national security interests. However, Japan and other Asian countries make strategic misjudgments, attempting to use the U.S. return to Asia-Pacific to fish for cheap on territorial and maritime rights issues, and to establish a strategic pattern to deter and control China before it gets really strong. So the most important thing for U.S. Administrations is to change the past words and deeds likely to cause a miscarriage of justice and clearly say "no" to the Japanese right-wing politicians provocations so as to avoid its return to the region from falling into a military conflict.

(2) Principal contradictions in the international architecture has an important impact on China's security

The United States identifies "violent extremism" the greatest threat to its national security, so it mobilizes its allies to launch a war on terror in the name of combating "violent extremism". The Obama Administration has three differences with the Bush Administration: Firstly, the Obama Administration opposes the Iraq war launched by the Bush Administration, and advocates the focus on winning the war on terror in Afghanistan. Secondly, it opposes the Bush-promoted U.S. unilateral militarism, and upholds the NATO-led operations, and in fact, implements "violent multilateralism". Thirdly, it opposes the Bush’s significant increase in military spending and advocates a deep-cut of U.S. defense budget.

Thus, the main contradiction of the future international pattern is likely the contradiction between the "al Qaeda" organization network led by "violent extremism" and the U.S.-led "violent multilateralism". China has so far not been involved in this major contradiction, but faces the actual or potential threats from both aspects. On the one hand, in Northwest of China, international terrorism, religious extremism and ethnic separatist forces in collusion threaten stability in the Northwest edge of China from time to time. From the years 2008-2010, on the occasions of the Beijing Olympics, the 60th Anniversary of Founding of New China and the Shanghai World Expo and other major events, the "violent extremism" was particularly active, and created some shocking bloody events. And, these activities were supported by China’s hostile forces internationally with rather sinister political motives.

On the other hand it is the "violent multilateralism" that poses a serious threat to peace and security for some developing countries. The so-called "violent multilateralism" is "international gang fights" phenomenon shown by military strikes against other countries launched by a number of countries or a military bloc, who is packed in "fight for the values" and pushing on democratization of the world. A common feature it shares with unilateralism is the use of violence or launching specific war against a given sovereign country, but the difference is multi-national joint actions replacing autocratic unilateral actions, whose nature is unchanged while the consequences may be worse.

In the early 21st century with the serious imbalance of world power structure, the main form of hegemonism, power politics and neo-interventionism is U.S. unilateralism. However, the U.S. unilateral militaristic actions have not only led to its declining hard power, but also caused its soft power influence declining. In the year 2009, the U.S. government budget deficit was up to US$1.42 trillion, equivalent to 10% of its GDP, having set the record since WWII, and equivalent to more than US$4700 per person.6-- -- One of the direct causes is the huge spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the safe international level of budget deficit ration to GDP is about 3%, but the U.S. figure is 8.5%, well above the safe international level. As a result, On 5 August 2011, the United States sovereign credit rating for the first time was downgraded from AAA to AA+ by Standard & Poor's international credit agency.

In this case, the Obama Administration decided, within the next decade, to reduce the U.S. military spending by US$487 billion, and 2012 annual military budget was cut about US$32 billion. The Obama Administration has changed the Bush Administration's unilateralist approach and actively involved in multilateralism. On the one hand, the United States is indeed more involved in various international multilateral mechanisms, has launched no more unilateral war; On the other hand, it still has participated in, encouraged and even led "violent multilateralism". The Libyan war is a typical case, the United States handed over the command to NATO shortly after launching the military strike. After the downfall of Gaddafi government and end of the war, the Obama Administration said proudly that its input was only US$2 billion with "zero casualties". This may multiply the U.S. allure to engage in "violent multilateralism ".

Nowadays, in China surrounding areas, this "violent multilateralism" specter is still wandering. In Northeast Asia, the Korean Peninsula situation depends largely on competition between peaceful multilateralism and "violent multilateralism". And peaceful multilateralism refers to diplomatic mediation through the six-party talks, and bilateral or multilateral political dialogue and consultations to ease the situation, to ensure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, and promote denuclearization process, which is conducive to achieving sustainable security. "Violent multilateralism" is to ensure the so-called absolute unilateral security by mainly relying on military alliances, joint operations, joint military exercises and other military threats and even military operations. China actively promotes the peaceful multilateralism and resists "violent multilateralism".

(3) China-Japan contradictions may rise to a principal contradiction of major powers relations in East Asia in the next decade

In the Asia-Pacific region, another source of "violent multilateralism" may come from Japan. Japan’s difference with the United States is as follows: Firstly, Japan has profound contradictions with China on the historical issues, territorial disputes and geo-strategy, etc. but the United States has none. Secondly, in non-traditional international pattern Japan has less incentive to cooperate with China. Thirdly, although the United States and Japan mutually use each other to restrain China, yet, Japan takes more advantage of the United States in the aspects of disputed territory and military confrontation. Fourthly, Japan seems to play the U.S. role regarding China during the Cold War while the United States failed in the past, and is no longer willing to take the risk of strategic confrontation. Fifthly, the Japanese domestic political right-wing and nationalist sentiment is much stronger compared with the American sentiment.

So far after the war, Japan under the "Constitution of Japan" has been taking the road of peaceful development, so it is difficult for it to revive militarism. However, a right-winger Cabinet's policy tends to amend the Constitution of Japan, and enhance Japan's military forces and the operational deployment of the missile defense systems by taking advantage of the North Korean nuclear crisis and the missile crisis, and shape a strategic posture against China by actively drawing in the United States on the Diaoyu Islands issue. Japan will try to add so-called "collective self-defense right"-- joint combat operations with the United States -- to a new National Defense Program Outline and revise in consultation with the United States the "Japan-U.S. defense cooperation guidelines" so as to detail Japan-U.S. joint military operations on the issue of the Diaoyu Islands disputes. The possibility of Sino-Japanese misfires around the Diaoyu Islands disputes cannot be ruled out.

Abe Cabinet after taking power again advocates the establishment of a four-nation alliance of Japan, the United States, Australia and India to form a diamond-shaped strategic pattern to clamp down on China. Abe stated that he is ready to contribute to the pattern with a maximum possibility. Meanwhile, Japan has also taken the first step for security cooperation with NATO. On 15 April 2013, Abe and NATO Secretary General Rasmussen signed a political manifesto aiming at strengthening Japan’s military security cooperation with NATO. The two sides reached a consensus to strengthen exchanges of military intelligence, joint fight against international piracy organizations, respond to Korean Peninsula situations and safeguard maritime rights and interests. It is the first time for Japan to have signed a separate military cooperation declaration with a regional military organization since the post-war, which indicates that Japan attempts to expand the scope of the Japan-U.S. alliance, and shape a strategic pattern to restrain China with the help of a global NATO. Japan has also set a new position -- "NATO representative of Japan" -- currently taken by the Japanese Ambassador to Belgium Sakamoto. This means, undoubtedly, that Japan and NATO will establish a new partnership.

At present, NATO does not consider China a threat, even expects to have dialogue with China, but Article Five of the "North Atlantic Treaty" stipulates that the United States and European member states share right to collective self-defense, i.e. as its one member is attacked, other NATO member states will take joint military action to respond. Including a challenge to the United States issued by the DPRK, NATO is very much minded because this could lead to the possibility of NATO intervention in a war against the DPRK. According to Japan's Kyodo News agency report, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen on 15 April 2013 in Tokyo said in an interview that the move of repeated provocations and a new ballistic missile launch by the DPRK against the United States, NATO will regards these attacks against all Member States and may exercise the right to collective self-defense.

However, Abe’s implementation of the "strategic diplomacy" after taking office again has not achieved a sound start, neither yielded the expected results. The island disputes with China, South Korea, Russia and other neighboring countries have highlighted at the same time, and isolated Japan still more, and even the United States could not support it without reservations. Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell had strong doubts and opposition on "sharing island" idea, and conveyed to the Japanese side "very strong advice" to give up the nationalization of the "Sharing Island". However, Noda Cabinet did not listen to him.7This fully shows that among the trilateral relationship of China, the United States and Japan, Japan uses the United States to deal with China rather than simply following the United States.

At present, before the Japanese Constitution is amended, there will be no war between China and Japan. However, China must be prepared to further strengthen its national defense building. While adhering to routine maritime law enforcement cruise around the Diaoyu Islands, we must continue to do a detailed promotion of historical backgrounds’ of the Diaoyu Islands belonging to China to Japan and the international community. In view of long-term perspective and people of the two of countries, China needs to continue to promote the cause of China-Japanese friendship for generations to come, and realize rebalancing between the Diaoyu Islands disputes of local interests and the China-Japanese friendship, and prevent the Japanese right-wing forces from cooking the issue to undermine the overall situation of bilateral relation.

(4) Japanese right-wing forces may step up efforts to break through the post-war Japanese self-restraints and international order that will affect the Asia-Pacific pattern

On 26 May 2013, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, after a visit to the site of the Potsdam Conference, said in a speech that theclearly stipulates that all territory of China, such as the Northeast, Taiwan and other islands stolen by Japan be returned to China, and that any denial or attempt to embellish that historical period of fascist aggression in words and deeds can neither be accepted by the Chinese people nor by the world peace-loving forces of justice.8These Remarks hit the essence and fundamental of the current retrogressing China-Japan relations.

The essence of this struggle is whether to subvert or maintain the post-WWII Japanese domestic and international order. In terms of domestic order, a right-wing Cabinet will try its best to amend the post-war Constitution of Japan, establish National Defense Forces, restore the emperor "head of state" status, and break up the post-war self-restraint for taking the path of peaceful development. If the Japanese right-wing forces are able to completely break through these self-restraints and take Japan onto a dangerous path, Japan will become a destabilizing factor in Asia in the 21st century, and bring a new disaster to the Japanese people.

Some U.S. analysts argue that the U.S.-Japan alliance serves as a cork to prevent Japan from engaging in militarism and becoming a military power. But in fact, the U.S.-Japan alliance is more like an eggshell, the Japanese right-wing forces and military power like a growing griffin in an eggshell, which, with suitable temperature, can rapidly expand and may eventually hatch. For example, on 4 April 2013, Shintaro Ishihara stated in a Congressman Hall interview that Japan should become a powerful military state; defense industry is the most effective to make the economic recovery; developing nuclear weapons is also an option though Japan's possession of nuclear weapons has many obstacles.9Personal view though, it represents a sentiment and ideal of the Japanese right-wingers.

After WWII, Japan has not invaded another country since its alliance with the United States, one of the reasons is Japan's postwar Constitution plays a restraint role. However, once Japan's postwar Constitution Article IX is amended, to squeeze the NDF into the cCnstitution, and restore the emperor the "head of state" status, Japan is able to use forces at will. China-Japanese relations will be severely affected, the Japan-U.S. alliance will also face new choices: either the United States is led by Japan, and together with Japan to engage in military confrontation with China; or the United States has to show accommodation or partiality to Japan on major issues since the Japanese right-wingers constantly play the "possession of nuclear weapons card"; or restrain the Japanese right-wing regime due to the the conscience of the U.S. society, so the political rift and value friction on war within the U.S.-Japan alliance will be difficult to avoid.

CONCLUSIONS

After national leadership handover of major countries is completed in the year 2013 the world over, a new round of international exchanges is critical in shaping the international architecture in the future. The Chinese Government is very clear that to realize the Chinese dream of great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, a peaceful international environment and a favorable security surrounding environment must be created and sustained. In the first half of 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping has chosen Russia, South Africa, Mexico, etc. for a state visit and to attend the fifth leaders meeting of the BRICS, and met with U.S. President Obama during a short visit as well as meeting with a number of top leaders of important countries at the multi-lateral occasions to discuss to build a new-type major powers relations under the new situation.

The Japanese right-wing forces attempt to mobilize its all diplomatic energy to build international restraints over China, which, in fact, has produced a lost opportunity to improve relations with China, and in some ways generated self-imposed isolation. On Territorial islands disputes, Japan has attempted to collaborate with Vietnam, the Philippines to counter China, but shaped opposition with China, South Korea and Russia at the same time; on values issue of historical outlook and war outlook, Japan has mired in serious isolation, further pushed South Korea, the United States and China to stay together; on the DPRK nuclear issue, Japan has different positions with other parties of the "six-party talks," but only shares varying degrees of common interests in maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, the future Asia-Pacific pattern full of variables, how to avoid disadvantages, and strive to achieve sustainable security is still the common issues faced by each country. In the next 20 years to come, China’s major national security threat is from complex challenges and "violent multilateralism".

An ideal model of a future international architecture should be：the existing “uni-polarity with multi-powers” architecture gradually develops into a cooperative architecture of “multi-powers coexistence” in multi-powers competition, and then peacefully transforms into a “multi-powers integration” anchored on the United Nations, and further builds a post-hegemony international system. If China and the United States are able to build a new-type major powers relationship, and jointly explore cooperation in the field of sustainable security, which will make an important historical contribution.

1. Liu Jiangyong, “The Future Main Strategic Risks and a Policy to Avert it for China”,, August 2012, p.6.

2.The BRICS Accelerated Rising Helps Global Economic Recovery,， 13 April 2011.

3.Ibid.

4. The White House, “National Security Strategy”, May 2012,

http://www.whitehouse.gov,/***national_security-strategy.pdf.

5.Ibid.

6.http:// news.xinhua.com /world/2009-10/18/content.12258651.html.

7.http://china.kyodo news.jp.news.2012/50071.ht04/html.

8.Ibid.

9.http://asahi.com/politics/update/0404/TKY201304040453.html.