The Main Characters of the International Security Situation in 2018

The Main Characters of the International Security Situation in 2018

By Hou Hongyu, CPAPD

Since the year 2018, major countries were increasing their competition, traditional security was returning, geo-rivalry was becoming heated, the international architecture adjustment was deepened, and the international order reshaping was accentuating, so security situation witnessed an overall stability, but the disability and uncertainty were growing, the security ridden risks were accumulating, featured by cooperation without tranquility.

I. The international security architecture adjustment was deepened with increasing confrontation among major countries

The newly emerging economies continued their collective rising, the strength of the sole U.S. superpower was comparatively on the decline, the posture that the Eastern force was rising while the Western force declining in the international balance of strength was getting clearer, the global multi-polarity was developing with high speed. In the pattern of one sole superpower with several strong powers, cooperation among major countries was on decline, competition accentuating, and confrontation intensifying. The United States raised the banner of America First, picked up again the Cold War mentality, stressed major countries competition, defined China and Russia as its strategic competitors, carried out comprehensive suppression against China and Russia while having readjusted its relations with allies, which led to growing competition and contradiction with China, Russia and Europe. The competition between China and the United States became spiraled. The United States views China its key threat and counterpart, the U.S. suppression against China spread from trade and economics, science and technology and geo-politics to military, ideology and development models, etc. The confrontation between the United States and Russia with the United States on offense and Russia on defense exacerbated. The United States followed an all-dimensional policy to contain and weaken Russia, upgrade sanctions and carried out fierce rivalry with Russia around the issues of Ukrainian crisis, Syrian war, strategic forces and geo-politics, etc., so their bilateral relations hit a historic low since the end of the Cold War. Russia firmly made a breakthrough of the encirclement, strengthened its strategic planning on the Looking East policy, gave priority on upgrading the Russia-China comprehensive strategic coordinate partnership. The internal rift between the United States and the West was expanding. The U.S. differences with allies on issues such as climate change, free trade, etc. were extended and its narrow-mindedness on issues of defense budget sharing, Europe’s increasing “strategic independence” as well as France and Germany appealing for “European forces” building, etc. was on the rise.

II. The international security order was adjusted in depth, and the international rules were reshaped in the course of game-play among various sides

The U.S. Trump Administration’s unilateralism and protectionism were rearing its head, attempting to do away with the international order that puts the United States at a disadvantage and in restriction, and to build a new international order and games rule that aim to achieve the America First and conforms to maintaining the U.S. hegemony. Therefore, the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and comprehensively resumed sanctions against Iran; withdrew from the UNESCO on the pretext of bias against Israel; withdrew from the enacting process for the International Convention on Migration on the pretext of the U.S. sovereignty being damaged; withdrew from the Vienna Diplomatic Convention Protocol in order to avoid any control by the International Court; declared to withdraw from the INF treaty on the pretext of Russian violation of the treaty; made a huge cut on foreign aid, reduce its input budget on the world-wide issues such as peace-keeping, public health, etc. and demanded the United Nations to be reformed in the U.S. way. The U.S. withdrawals and terminations intensified the chaos and fission of international order. So the international order was moving into a transitional period of the new and old interweaving together. Faced with the U.S. puncturing on the international order, the international community turned from not knowing what to do to gradually getting adapted to it, to taking some measures to respond to it, and various countries one after another adopted post-hegemony and post-alliance arrangements. Actively responding to climate change and continuously implementing the Paris Agreement; the Iran nuclear deal and its relevant signatories came to an unanimous agreement to continuously observe the deal, the EU was discussing on building a international independent payment system delinking with the U.S. dollar. Various sides carried out games play on major international security agenda such as the UN reform, the INF, etc., which will catalyze a new international order that reflects the balance of international strength. The “new frontier” governance rules-making leadership witnessed fierce struggles. The United States propagated the cyberspace global domain public frontier, attempting to weaken sovereign feature of cyberspace through high-tech advantages, and established its hegemonic position on cyberspace. The newly emerging economies put forward the global cyberspace governance principles with cyberspace sovereignty as the core, promoting the cyberspace interconnectivity and interoperability, and joint benefit and governance, and effectively restricting the U.S. projection for seeking internet dominance. In the face of “one superpower with several strong powers” in the filed of space, the EU put forward an idea of establishing space activity code of conduct, Russia came up with an idea of building space transparence and trust mechanism. In the areas of polar regions, deep seas, AI, pilotless driving, etc. major countries meet with fierce game-play around the relevant rules.

III. The traditional security revisits, high-tech military competition intensifies the global security risks

Major countries competitions are featured mainly by military competitions, high-tech military build-up are in the ascendant. Nuclear strategic competition restarted. The United States clamored that the international strategic security situation was deteriorating, should seek peace with strength, reversed the U.S.-Russian nuclear disarmament progress, reemphasized the pillar role of unclear weapons in the national security strategy, took Russia and China as the main nuclear threats, accelerated the regenerations of its strategic nuclear forces, carried out R &D of low-yieldnuclear weapons, and expanded usage of the nuclear weapons. The United States announced the withdrawal from the INF in attempt to shake off the restrictions on deploying the inter-mediate range missiles, so that it was able to deploy them around China and Russia freely. Russia strengthened its reliance on the nuclear weapons, and successfully manufactured a group of high-tech weapons that can infiltrate into the U.S. MD systems. The United States and Russia upgraded their capacity-building for nuclear and conventional strategic defense and offense. The United States constantly structured its MD networks at home, and in Europe as well as Asia-Pacific, prioritized on refiguring various MD chains in the world, actively developed a new generation of MD high-tech, intended to build a MD system to fully cover the boost, mid-course and terminal interception. Russia carried out the R & D of a new generation of anti-missile system such as S-400 and S-500, and significantly upgraded its anti-missile and air defense capability. Fierce military competition in the new frontier domain and new high-tech areas. The United States published the National Space Strategy, was planning establishment of space army, and pursued expansion of its military cutting-edge in the outer space. Russia was seeking to weaken the U.S. military advantages in space through deploying more land-, air- and space-based offensive weapons. The United States released its cyber strategy, all-dimensionally strengthening it cyber offensive and defense capability. Britain, France, Japan, Russia, etc. enhanced the R & D of cyber weapons, adopted and improved their cyberspace operational plans. Speeding up new high-tech equipments competition, the United States and Russia prioritized on pushing ahead the R & D projects of high supersonic weapons, laser weapons, intelligent robots, artificial intelligent weapons. etc. The non-stop show of large scale military exercises. NATO held the largest military exercise since the end of the Cold War, with participants of 29 member countries. Russia held the “unprecedented” military exercises – the “Oriental-2018”, with participation of 300,000 strong. Large scale military exercises intensified major countries tense relations.

IV. Geo-political games became intensified, regional hop spot issues witnessed twists and turns

The United States propagated China and Russia as its geo-political counterparts, so major countries increased their competition in the global strategic positions. The Korean Peninsula situation obviously became relaxed. The U.S. policy toward the DPRK shifted to “carrot plus stick” from “promoting changes through pressures”, both the South Side and the North Side adopted positive policy. The Korean Peninsula returned to the denuclearization negotiation track, all sides enhanced their interactions, the Korean Peninsula peace process showed a sound momentum. The South China Sea disputes obviously cooled down. The Philippines and Viet Nam showed stronger will to control the South China Sea differences through dialogue, China and the ASEAN countries reached a consensus on the single draft regarding the South China Sea Code of Conduct. The United States and the West, on the pretext of maintaining “free navigation” in the South China Sea and with promotion of “Indo-Pacific strategy” as the hook, held joint military exercises excluding China, escalated the military provocations in the South China Sea, upgraded the allies military modernization of Japan, South Korea, etc., carried out military and economic cooperation with Viet Nam, Taiwan, India, and cooked Chinese militarization of some isles in the South China Sea. Fierce games were seen among regional and non-regional major countries in the Mid-East. The United States shifted its global strategic priority to major countries competition, attempted to create controllable chaos in the Mid-East, continued its stationed troops in Syria, taught Turkey a lesion, withdrew from Iran nuclear deal and resumed its sanctions against Iran；comprehensively consolidated its relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia, was building a Arab versioned NATO; promoted Arab countries of Sunny sect to establish anti-Iran alliance, and spared no effort to weaken the Russian camp force. Europe closely cooperated with the United States around the Syrian issue, and contained the Russian influence. Russia continuously made the Mid-East as its breakthrough point for countering the sanctions and containment by the United States and the West, sent troops to aid the Syrian governmental forces to turn around the warring situation; associated with Iran and Turkey to lead the Syrian negotiation process, structuring Russia-Iran-Turkey alliance so as to hedge the U.S. and Western strategic pressure. The contradictions and disputes among major countries in the Mid-East region became warm up. Russia had a fierce trial of strength with the United States and Europe in Europe and Asia. The United States and Europe constantly squeeze the Russian strategic space from Ukraine and Baltic, decided to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine, encouraged Russian die-hard friend Armenia to see political changes, and seriously threatened the CIS region with “color revolution”; NATO made it clear to admit Georgia to NATO, and recognized Ukraine as an “applicant”. The disputes between Russia and Ukraine became continuously fermented, so Russia strengthened its military deployment in Crimea and Kaliningrad, and enhanced military deterrence to Ukraine and NATO member countries.

V. The international security concepts collide strongly, making more difficult the global security governance

The United States is opposed to globalism and globalization, and followed a selfish and narrow nationalism featured by America First; holding offensive realist security concept, sticking to Cold War thinking feature by your loosing while mine winning and zero-sum game, pushing forward unilateralism and power politics; strengthening exclusive military alliance system, picking up military arms race and seriously threatening the international peace and security. EU follows “effective multilateralism”, raises the banner of “an international order based on rules” and spares no efforts to maintain its traditional advantageous position. China firmly safeguards the purpose and principles of the UN Charter, puts forward to build a community with a shared future for mankind, adopts advanced concepts such as a new security concept and a concept of holding justice while pursuing benefits, global governance concept of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, and provides an important guidance for global security governance. The interweaving complexity between the difference and collision of the international security concepts, and reconfiguration and restructuring of the international security system have the will for the international security cooperation reduced, make it more difficult to coordinate, see the international security disorder risks rising, and increasing difficulties on global security governance.