Solidarity: The Solution to Peacefully Countering China's Militarization

The issue of China’s military expansion and enlargement of its armed capabilities poses ostensible threats to the security of many Asia-Pacific states. 

Hence, the means by which states defend their national interests and sovereignty in the face of posturing by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is similarly a contentious problem. Many Asia-Pacific states with strong economic and trading dependencies on China must simultaneously protect their values and security without tarnishing their trading relationship with the emerging superpower. 

Nowhere is this more apparent than in Australia. Anti-China rhetoric from members of the conservative government has been met with economic coercion and trade barriers on Australian agricultural exports by China. This has harmed specific industries of Australia with devastating efficacy, as exemplified by the decline of Australian wine exporters. 

The method by which states go about diversifying their exporting arrangements to reduce dependency on China is the decision of each government respectively. However, one thing is clear. To counter Chinese military threats, particularly in the South and East China Seas and Taiwan, solidarity and cohesion are vital. 

“It is rare that the world observes the CCP succumbing to external pressure and influence. However, an act signifying global solidarity and commonality against China would signify that states are no longer passive bystanders to security threats from the PLA.”

The way that this ought to come to fruition is through a collective defense treaty amongst like-minded Indo-Pacific states. The alliance should enshrine the principle of ‘casus foederis,’ which in diplomatic terms describes “an attack on one is an attack on all.” On top of this, it is critical that the articles of the agreement be legally binding, so the CCP recognizes the credibility of the alliance.

This treaty would adopt a similar structure to the mutual defense agreement of NATO but have a more refined purpose to focus on counterbalancing Chinese power. A treaty in the Asia-Pacific region would be the most significant military bloc since the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO), whose raison d’être was to curb perceived communist expansions in the region. 

Skeptics may cite the collapse of SEATO as an argument against a contemporary military pact. However, this belief fails to recognize that the ineffectiveness of SEATO was triggered by the internal nature of conflicts during its existence, which prevented the use of the treaty. Moreover, the unconcealed encroachments on sovereignty by China in Taiwan and in the South China Sea create a renewed purpose for a new alliance.

Alternately, some may fear antagonizing China to retaliate. The precedent for this exists in the Soviet Union’s 1955 Warsaw Pact, which was an escalatory response to the inception of NATO in 1949. China already leads the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a security alliance that is also comprised of Russia, India, Pakistan, and several Eurasian states. Importantly, Iran and Mongolia have observer status. It is also possible that China could draw upon North Korea to be incorporated in this security apparatus. 

However, animosity between China and India has grown recently over Kashmir and other border disputes. It is currently unclear whether India would side with China or affiliate itself with the United States. Similarly, with minor exceptions, China’s main security partners are in the Eurasian region, not the Asia-Pacific. Russia typically does not consider itself an Asia-orientated power, while it may have a pragmatic interest in the region. On top of this, landlocked Eurasian states, closely tied with China, do not have coastal territory and thus have little interest in maritime and naval power. This does not pose a credible military threat. 

As such, due to the absence of key allies in the Asia-Pacific, it is unlikely that China could match a US-led security alliance in the region.

The joint military pact would be instrumental in providing a deterrent for Chinese aggression. It would cause the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to tread lightly in their military operations out of fear of triggering a legal instrument that sees states such as the US, India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia come to each other’s defense. 

Furthermore, it would be necessary to include states who have territorial claims in the South China Sea. This sea has regularly been witness to Chinese militarization involving artificial island building and expansion beyond its territorial rights stipulated by the United Nations Covenant on the Law of the Sea. Taiwan should also be integrated into the alliance as it has recently been the focus of aggressive Chinese posturing.

Importantly, it may not be necessary to recognize the statehood of Taiwan as part of its involvement in the alliance. There is a precedent for non-state entities participating in joint military bodies such as the US-led Coalition against ISIL, which Taiwan was involved in, but required no formal recognition of its sovereignty. Statehood and sovereignty are also typically recognized by United Nations membership and through state-to-state diplomacy, as in the US Taiwan Relations Act, which does not stipulate a recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty. Recognition of statehood does not occur through membership of a treaty organization. 

A unified effort displaying solidarity against the CCP would be more effective at curbing its aggression than unilateral actions. Many believe that the capability of the PLA exceeds the military power of the Pentagon. However, should the states of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, South Korea, the Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, and maybe Vietnam combine their military capabilities, Chinese military power will be completely surpassed and overwhelmed numerically.

In addition to its regular existence, the states involved should regularly exercise and train their militaries in joint exercises to build their interoperability. These exercises should be structured similarly to the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) multinational task force, which occurs biennially in Hawaii. This is important because it may be of little use to have an alliance in the first place if member states are unfamiliar with how to cooperate with each other. 

Similarly, the reason why NATO has relative power and efficiency, as opposed to being a bureaucratic quagmire, is because NATO member states have participated in war-like operations together and have a centralized command structure. Alliance Member States could gain experience and greater interoperability through conducting multilateral regional humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations. Additionally, this alliance should embody its own command structure. This command structure would provide the backbone of the alliance, allowing for member states to contribute senior military officers to cooperate with foreign military leaders in activities across all military domains. 

It is rare that the world observes the CCP succumbing to external pressure and influence. However, an act signifying global solidarity and commonality against China would signify that states are no longer passive bystanders to security threats from the PLA. This would go a long way in deterring an amplification of Chinese aggression, protecting smaller powers experiencing bullying by the PLA, and being a significant means to deter a disastrous conflict between the West and China altogether.