Looking Back at the Year 2018: New Characteristics of International Military Struggle and Security Situation

By Men Xiangqing, CPAPD Council member and Professor of National Defense University, and Wang Xiao of National Defense University

Looking Back at the Year 2018: New Characteristics of International Military Struggle and Security Situation

By Men Xiangqing, CPAPD Council member and Professor of National Defense University, and Wang Xiao of National Defense University

Compared with previous years, the biggest bright spot of the international security environment facing China in 2018 is in the surrounding areas, the biggest difficulty is in the Sino-U.S. relations, the biggest hot spot is in the Middle East, and the biggest explosive point is economic and trade friction. In 2018, the international military struggle and the international security situation presented some new characteristics different from those in the past.

On July 20, 2018, the Chinese Air Force participates in the International Military Competition - 2018. The picture shows a Fighter-7A arriving at a Russia's Airport.

On September 13, 2018, at a training ground in Russia, the parade of the Chinese side after the participation in the "Oriental-2018" strategic exercises.

I. The uncertainty and instability in the security relations of major powers increase significantly, but there is little possibility of a full-scale military confrontation

Military struggle and competition among major countries get intensified, but there is still a broad consensus on crisis management and control to avoid direct conflict. In recent years, the competition among major countries around geopolitics and new fields has always been one of the important symbols of the evolving international situation, but unlike the past, the competition and game-play in the year 2018 present a new trend. Firstly, the scope of competition changes from the focus on one or two fields to comprehensive and all-round competition. For example, the contradiction between Russia and the Western powers around Ukraine is not only unsolved but tends to escalate; the competition in Syria and the Middle East becomes increasingly fierce; meanwhile, the struggles over space, cyber network, spying, arms control and other issues are unfolded in an all-round way, and mutual sanctions in the economic field also get warming up. Secondly, the nature of game turns from cooperation and coordination as the main stream to further strengthened competition and antagonism. The risk of runaway crises or even outbreak of conflicts rises. For example, the game-play between China and the United States in the South China Sea gets warming up in 2018. As America's "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea becomes more provocative, the risk of a crisis outbreak between China and the United States increases. Thirdly, new changes take place in the main contradictions. In the past, the major powers' competition mainly focused on the contradictions between the United States and Russia, nowadays is evolving in the direction of equal focus on both the contradictions between the United States and Russia and the contradictions between the United States and China. Of course, these new changes have not broken through the bottom line of relations between major countries, and there is still broad consensus on non-conflict and non-confrontation. The overall peace and stability of the world can be maintained.

Traditional security has accelerated its return, but there is little possibility of outbreak of full-scale military confrontation. In recent years, the weight of traditional security in international security competition has increased, and its status and role have continuously spiraled. In 2018, the return of traditional security is obviously accelerating. Firstly, military expenditures of major countries continue to increase. According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, global military expenditure reached US$1,739 billion in 2017, an increase of 1.1% over 2016, having reached its post-Cold War peak. Looking at that of 2018, this figure is likely to continuously climb. Secondly, the strong military powers accelerated the development of information and intelligent weapons and equipment. Strong military powers such as the United States and Russia made significant progress in the military application of artificial intelligence and cyber technology. For example, the U.S. military, in collaboration with Google, used artificial intelligence technology to analyze videos captured by UAVs in military operations against the Islamic State. Thirdly, the military strategic readjustments of major countries are pushed forward in depth. A series of important strategic reports issued successively by major countries such as the United States, Russia and Japan, etc. make new plans and arrangements for their military strategies, speeding up the transformation to cope with the major country competitions and new fields. Fourthly, the unilateral announcement of the withdrawal of the United States from the INF Treaty seriously reverses the process of international disarmament and arms control. The purpose of this action is, first of all, to further widen the military gap between the United States and other major powers and to continuously expand the advantages of the United States. Once the United States formally withdraws from the Treaty, which will cause a heavy blow to the global strategic balance, and which does not rule out that in order to strengthen its own defense, Europe may enhance its anti-missile capability and even expand the deployment of nuclear weapons, an arms race around short-and medium-range missiles may be inevitable. Under the new situation, a new type of arms race is launched, which is based on military quality building, with information and intelligent weapon equipments updating as the main content, with development of new strategic deterrence means as the support, and with the goal of winning the information war. However, this arms race is still different from that in the Cold War period, which makes it unlikely to lead to a full-scale military confrontation, and its negative effects are still under control.

Global hotspots witness heating and cooling, and are spreading in some regions. Firstly, the contention of the key geographic positions among the major powers has stimulated the hotspots in some regions to warm up, thus affecting the evolution of the regional pattern. In recent years in the Middle East, the input of the United States continues to decrease, and the overall strategic contraction has taken place, but it still does not relax its game-play with Russia on the Syria issue. On April 14, 2018, the United States, Britain, France and other countries launched a military attack against Syria without the authorization of the United Nations on the ground that Syria used chemical weapons. Russia then joined Iran and Turkey to strengthen diplomatic mediation and intensify military operations in Syria. After Russia's strong military intervention, Syria's battlefield situation see a major turning point. The "Islamic State" is basically exterminated and the Bashar government is maintained. On December 19, the United States announced its full withdrawal from Syria, further realizing its strategic contraction in the Middle East. Currently, the military contention between the United States and Russia over Syria comes to an end, but the struggle between the two sides around the geo-political pattern of the Middle East will not stop. After the withdrawal, the United States may still intervene in Syria's security arrangements in the name of anti-terrorism, interfere in the process of drafting the Syrian constitution and reconciliation between the government and opposition, force Syria with coercion to demand the withdrawal of Iran and the Shiite armed forces it supports, appease its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, and urge Russia to decrease its forces and equipments, and restore the military balance between the United States and Russia in the Middle East. Moreover, on the issue of Palestine and Israel, the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem not only demonstrates the U.S. consistent position in favor of Israel, but also is interpreted by the outside world as encouraging Israel to play a greater role in reshaping the regional pattern. Besides, the U.S. policy stance on the Middle East issue has not only triggered a new round of conflict between Palestine and Israel, but also led to increased instability in the Middle East region. Secondly, some contradictions that are highlighted but not solved in recent years, such as the refugee problem in Europe, have continuously released destructive energy after accumulation and fermentation, has a series of impacts on the political, economic and social development of Europe, directly led to the rise and confluence of nationalism and Populism in European countries, and social hatred has led to a surge in crime and even turmoil in some European countries. Thirdly, the situation on the Korean Peninsula has relaxed rapidly and the relations between the countries concerned in the South China Sea dispute have improved. However, the situation in South Asia is more complex and the fight against terrorism has a long way to go. "Al-Qaeda" and "Islamic State" have suffered heavy losses, having become decentralized, and continued to create terrorist incidents. Terrorist activities in some regions show a new trend of decentralization, single wolf, localization and spreading. According to statistics, there were 639 terrorist attacks in 42 countries from January to June 2018, a slight increase of 0.6% over the same period in 2017. Terrorist attacks resulted in 3305 deaths, and the death toll dropped by 19.6% over the same period in 2017. Meanwhile, there are serious security concerns in Central Asia and North Africa.

The Sino-U.S. relations partially show some qualitative changes, but there is little possibility of a "new Cold War" between the two countries. One of the most eye-catching hot spots in the international security situation in 2018 is the Sino-U.S. relations. The U.S. policy toward China undergoes fundamental adjustments. Significant changes have taken place in its perception of China's interests, threat judgments and attitudes towards China. Under the new situation, the United States positions China as a "primary competitor", "new expansionist" and "unfair trader", and regards China's rise as a "structural challenge to the global leadership of the United States". Accordingly, the strategists of the United States at all levels begin focusing on the so-called "threats from China and Russia". This is a new phenomenon that is never seen in the policies of successive American administrations towards China since the end of the Cold War. Presently, the U.S. strategic adjustments to China are not fully in place. Given that the international background of globalization is quite different from that of the Cold War, China will not actively get into the Cold War mud, and the Cold War between China and the United States is unlikely. But how to reshape and what Sino-U.S. relationship to shape is an urgent issue for both countries.

The security situation around China has obviously improved, but some hot spots may still reoccur. In the year 2018, the big bright spot of China's external environment is its surrounding regions. As a result of China's active actions and active adjustments, the relations on the Korean Peninsula, China-India relations, China-Japan relations, and China -ASEAN relations get improved at the same time, which generally helps cool down the hot spots in various directions around China and leads to a distinct improvement in the security situation surrounding China. However, due to the deep involvement of some major powers, the contradictions between historical left-over issues and pragmatic interests are intertwined, which is difficult to be solved in the short term, so some hot and difficult issues around China may still reoccur. For example, denuclearization of the Peninsula will continue to undergo a tortuous process; contradictions and conflicts between China and Japan around issues such as history, Diaoyu Island and delimitation of the continental shelf of the East China Sea may still come back; interference by non-regional major powers in the South China Sea affairs and provoking confrontations among China's neighboring countries will not stop, so the South China Sea disputes may rise again at any time; and territorial disputes between China and India has the risk of triggering a crisis as always.

The accelerated development of the new high-tech revolution has prominently shown the positive and negative impacts on human beings. Today, the time for "technology progress" is getting shorter and shorter. New technological achievements such as cloud computing, big data, artificial intelligence and biotechnology are constantly incubated and rapidly transformed and applied, which profoundly affects human production, life and even the way of thinking, thus changing the world. But meanwhile, the unknown and uncertain factors of new technology are increasing day by day, causing possible spiritual, ethical and moral crises of individual human beings, and even political, economic crises as well as wars in the whole human society if improperly used. These negative and passive effects are difficult to command, which causes widespread concern in the International community.

II. Faced with the complex and uncertain security situation, global security governance meets new challenges

Looking back at the year 2018, facing the complex and uncertain international security situation, the international community urgently needs to rally consensus and strengthen global security governance. However, the reality is that the United States frequently "scraps treaty" and "withdraws from collective", affecting the governance mechanism; the strong return of nationalist ideas shakes the value basis of governance; one-sided emphasis on "national interests first" threatens the common security governance objectives.

The mechanisms are affected. Global security governance mechanisms consist of traditional and non-traditional security governance mechanisms, which overlap with each other. Similar to domestic governance, the smooth and effective operation of the global security governance mechanisms also need to be managed on the basis of law, and the relevant laws should be strictly observed. The so-called "legal basis" means that the international community should formulate relevant international law, including the signing of international treaties with international binding. The term "laws be followed" refers to the compliance of relevant international laws and treaties by sovereign states and international organizations. In 2018, the global security governance mechanisms are severely impacted by the violation of law. The unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Iranian nuclear deal and the INF Treaty imposes impacts on the existing global security order, brings long-term uncertainties to regional and world peace, and casts a shadow on the nuclear non-proliferation and arms control regime. At present, the negative effects of such shocks have emerged, and the long-term impact remains to be observed. Iran's announcement that it would restart nuclear-weapon-grade uranium enrichment if Europe fails to comply with the agreement could trigger a chain reaction between Saudi Arabia and other countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons. The German and French leaders have clearly expressed their support for the establishment of the European Army, whose move is clearly based on concerns about the so-called Russian threat and a response to the disappointment of the United States, so it does not rule out the European efforts to strengthen armaments and deploy nuclear weapons for this purpose, which will lay a hidden danger to regional and global security. At present, in order to improve global security governance, we must first solve the problem of "non-compliance with the law". In recent years, whether in the field of traditional security related to arms control and disarmament, or in the field of non-traditional security related to global climate change, "non-compliance with existing laws" has posed the greatest challenge to existing security governance mechanisms. Secondly, we should solve the problem of "non-compliance with the law" as soon as possible. With the rapid development of globalization and science and technology, non-traditional security issues that pose threats to human security continue to emerge. The previous international norms based on traditional security and aiming at managing threats among countries have lagged far behind the development of the global security situation, leading to double challenges for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global security governance. It is the first step to be taken to effectively address and resolve various security issues by forming a global consensus and formulating relevant international rules as soon as possible.

The concepts are shaken. In 2018, the traditional security returns with a strong momentum, and various countries in the world strengthened military-building. Under the background of intensified strategic competition and game-play among major powers, the Cold War thinking of encirclement and containment, alliance politics and zero-sum game has found a new soil, and the values of openness, inclusiveness, cooperation and win-win results are seriously impacted. On the one hand, the Trump Administration pursues the "American First" policy, pursues the maximization and absolutization of the U.S. interests in the field of security governance, makes utilitarian choices on global security governance from the perspective of national self-interests, and tries to break the existing order and establish an exclusive order under the U.S. leadership. On the other hand, the ever-expanding contradictions and differences between the United States and China as well as between the United States and Russia will not lead to military war, but will greatly reduce the willingness and possibility of major countries to achieve global governance through security cooperation. Under the combined effect of these two factors, the strong return of nationalism has shaken the universal values based on the common security of mankind. With the emergence of new confrontations in the relations between major countries, the value conflicts and contradictions in global security governance are becoming more and more intense. These conflicts exist not only among countries (such as between the United States and Russia as well as between the United States and China), but also among different groups of countries (such as the so-called Five Eyes Alliance in the West and other groups of countries), as well as among an international organization with a single country (such as between NATO and Russia). The fundamental reason behind the contradiction of the concepts of security governance is the different interests and value judgments among the stakeholders of global governance. However, the further development of global governance can not be separated from the building of value concepts, which is the most lasting force to cohere and stabilize the behavior of different stakeholders. How to reconcile contradictions, bridge differences and establish and strengthen common security values is an unavoidable issue in strengthening global security governance.

Goals are hard to achieve. In today's anarchic international community, whether the goal of global security governance can be achieved depends to a large extent on the effectiveness of national governance of various countries, specifically whether various countries can implement security governance measures and follow their own governance commitments. In recent years, as populism and nationalism converge as a trend in many countries, global security governance is greatly affected by the internal affairs of some countries, and its effect is greatly reduced. For example, in response to climate change, in November 2018, France broke out a world-shaking "yellow vest" campaign, which was triggered by the Macron administration's increase in domestic oil prices to meet France's emission reduction commitments. As the crisis escalated, in December, the Macron administration announced a moratorium on raising fuel taxes, which could make France difficult to fulfill this commitment. On December 16, a large-scale demonstration broke out in Belgium to protest the signing of the United Nations Global Compact on Migration. The United States openly attacked the Convention as a move by the United Nations to promote global governance at the expense of national sovereignty. Australia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and other countries also openly expressed their opposition. This has cast a shadow on the realization of the refugee governance goal of safe, orderly and regular migration in the world. In order to cater to or succumb to nationalism and populism domestically, some countries, especially the governments of some major countries, unilaterally emphasize "national interests first". In the face of the contradiction between the exercise of national sovereignty and the realization of the security governance goal, they are unwilling to negotiate and resolve it within the framework of the international multilateral mechanism, and refuse to assume the responsibility and obligations of a sovereign country in the global governance, which make it difficult to achieve some important and urgent goals of global security governance.

III. The connotation and extension of the era theme of peace and development have changed, providing important external conditions for the formation of a new security order

The new features of the international military struggle and the international security situation in 2018 impact the existing international security order and bring new risks and challenges to global security governance. At present, the old security order remains unbroken and the new security order is not formed yet. Only by accurately grasping the characteristics and laws of the development and evolution of the international security order, can we promote the establishment of a new international security order.

The existing international security order was formed after the Cold War, the basic feature of which is that the United States enjoys global hegemony and has the biggest voice in dealing with global and regional security affairs. However, nothing remains unchangeable, with the deepening development of economic globalization, political multi-polarization and information society after the Cold War, a group of emerging market economies have emerged with growing strength and willingness to participate in international security affairs. The international security order led by the sole U.S. hegemony is undergoing a certain degree of quantitative change, which is marked by the growing role of developing countries represented by emerging market economies in global and regional security governance.

In the 21st century, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008, especially the events of "Black Swan" and "Grey Rhinoceros" that have occurred in the international community since 2015, indicate that the quantitative changes of the international security order have accumulated to a certain extent, although they have not yet triggered qualitative changes, yet show an obviously growing trend. One prominent manifestation is that the domestic and foreign policies implemented by Trump Administration after taking office have brought unprecedented impacts on the existing international security order. On the one hand, the United States is increasingly unsatisfied with the existing security order that it has created and enjoyed tremendous benefits, and its willingness to maintain the existing order is declining; on the other hand, the influence of the United States is on relative decline while new security issues are emerging, even if the United States is willing to, but its ability to solve the problems is declining.

Presently, the struggles around the old and new security concepts, rules and order is increasingly fierce. Proceeding from "America First", the United States attempts to establish a new security order led by the United States through unilateral means, on the basis of disrupting the existing order and starting a new. Meanwhile, the vast majority countries in the world hope to constructively reshape the existing security order through multilateral means, so that developing countries can enjoy equal voice, participation and decision-making as developed countries, and promote the formation of a new security order featuring equality, inclusiveness and win-win cooperation. Looking ahead, the struggles between two concepts, between two rules and between two orders will be fairly long and complex.

The current international security order was born out of the bipolar pattern during the Cold War and formed under the background of peace and development as the trend of the times. This order is characterized by the "sole hegemony" of the United States, based on the super-strength of the United States, centered on traditional security issues, and supported by the global military alliance system of the United States, with a deep Cold War brand. At present, interdependence has become a basic feature of the international community. The fierce confrontation between the two superpowers, the confrontation between the two military blocs and the clear distinction between the two parallel markets during the Cold War have long disappeared. Peace and development are still the themes of the times, but their connotations and extensions have changed. A more precise wording alternative to peace is security. Today, there is little possibility of a world war, but security challenges emerge endlessly, especially various non-traditional security issues. The extensions of the development issue is significantly expanded, in addition to economic growth, social equity, national quality of life and happiness index, technological innovation and many other respects have received increasing attention. All these changes call for a new security order and create conditions for the establishment of a new security order.

Without a qualitative change in the existing security order, the international community must strengthen multilateral global security governance in order to create a good security environment and achieve new security and development goals. However, in recent years, some existing security governance mechanisms are inefficient or even ineffective in their operations, and they are unable to cope with and solve various security threats faced by the international community. For example, as the largest and most authoritative intergovernmental international organization in the world today, the United Nations has failed to effectively stop several major local wars that broke out after the Cold War, highlighting the inability of the original mechanism to prevent major powers from launching wars for the self-interests. Again, with the joint efforts of the international community, many countries have signed the Paris Agreement to respond to global climate change, which is the most important norm for tackling climate change in the world presently, but it is unable to prevent the "withdrawal" of the United States, and can not guarantee the achievement of the emission reduction targets set in the agreement. All these highlight the necessity and urgency of reforming the existing security governance mechanisms.

(Edited excerpts of the article in People’s Daily 26 January 2019)