The 10th Asia Security Summit, held in Singapore June 3-5, carved into sharp relief the confrontation between the U.S. and China over Asia and Eurasia, that is expected to intensify in the years to come. Clearly discernible was the determination on the part of an overwhelming percentage of Asian participants, alarmed by the fear of China, to accelerate measures to seek closer ties with the United States.
　　　The annual conference, sponsored since 2002 by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) of London, was attended by defense ministers and officials representing over 30 nations. Over the years, the conference has realistically reflected the specific military situation of the world at the time. What most vividly symbolized the world situation during this year’s tenth conference was the question asked by Professor Kishore Mahbubani of the National University of Singapore, as well as the answer he drew from U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the keynote speaker. Prof. Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy attached to the National University of Singapore, asked:
　　　“Secretary Gates, we are all heartened by your assurance that the U.S. wants to maintain its presence in this region. However, as you said in your speech, economic logic will drive American defense expenses down and China’s defense expenses up. The geopolitical chemistry of this region will change…Five years from now, with the perception that American influence will be declining, what do you do to reassure countries in this region that things will actually remain the same…?”
　　　Secretary Gates’ speech was delivered on the second day of the three-day conference, with Prof. Mahbubani asking the last question during a question-and-answer session that followed Gates’ address. The pointed question from one of the top intellectuals of Singapore, a small but strategically located nation, was in effect an appeal to the U.S. to continue to protect and defend the region. Gates had this to say:
　　　“I have a very simple answer. I will bet you $100 that five years from now, U. S. influence in this region is as strong, if not stronger than it is today.”
　　　The conference hall was instantly enveloped in a swirl of laughter. Indeed, in this exchange Gates expressed most articulately his conviction concerning Asia’s changing posture towards the U.S., which he described as follows in his address:“Indeed, one of the most striking -€ and surprising -€ changes I’ve observed during my travels to Asia is the widespread desire across the region for stronger military-to-military relationships with the United States…”

“Air-Sea Battle”
　　　In the address, Gates summed up the U.S. government’s objectives in four points:(1) free and open commerce; (2) an international order emphasizing rights and responsibilities of nations and fidelity to the rule of law; (3) open access by all to the global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace; and (4) the principle of resolving conflict without the use of force.
　　　As proof of the U.S. commitment to Asia, Gates alluded to “the sight of the U.S. and Japanese troops working together to bring aid and sustenance to the survivors of the horrific earthquake and tsunami in March.” Within 24 hours of the earthquake, Gates pointed out, the U.S. initiated Operation “Tomodachi” (“Friends” in Japanese), deploying more than 24,000 personnel, 24 battleships (including two aircraft carriers), and 190 aircraft to support Japan’s response.
　　　Gates then went on to talk in more detail U.S. cooperation with nations like
Japan, Korea, India, Australia, and Singapore, and Vietnam, stressing the U.S. government’s efforts to increase its military strength in Asia as well its pledge to continue deploying troops in Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean.
　　　Noting that the U.S. forces are stronger than ever thanks to strategic and qualitative improvements, Gates admitted that the U.S. has been faced with tough problems in the area of access to key sea lanes and lines of communication for some time. He pointed out that a new operation, resorting to advanced disruptive technologies and weapons, has been underway to deny U.S. forces access to specific areas, and emphasized the U.S. Navy and Air Force have developed a new concept of operations called ‘Air-Sea Battle” to cope with the situation.
　　　Although Gates did not name names, it was evident which country he was talking about in each of these references. Needless to say, he called on China to “build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship,” stressing the need to build military-to-military relations between the U.S. and China.
　　　During the question-and-answer session with Gates, what was more interesting than Gates’ answers were the questions raised by the defense experts and government officials from the more than 30 countries in attendance. It was clear they all shared a growing fear of China’s threat to the stability of the Asia-Pacific region. Below are some of the questions put to Gates, which I shall introduce by adding some explanations to help make comprehension easier:
　　　●Denial of access (by China) to key sea routes and lines of communication is a matter of serious concern, particularly in the event of China’s invasion of Taiwan. Can the U.S. effectively cope with this?
　　　●Chinese patrol ships (reportedly) cut the cable of a PetroVietnam ship and erected some structures on reefs in the Philippines in the South China Sea. How should this problem be resolved?
　　　●How does the U.S. plan to cope with China’s anti-access/area denial capability, which has steadily been intensified?
　　　●The U.S. has adopted a new cyber policy that allows some form of cyber attacks to be considered acts of war. Will the U.S. be able to successfully cope with the huge number of cyber attacks emanating from computers in China?
　　　These -€ and many other -€ pertinent questions asked in rapid succession were obviously generated from a common distrust and fear of China shared by Asian participants, who now clearly discern China as a major threat to regional security in Asia.
　　　Chinese delegates also spoke up, as their counterparts from the rest of Asia cast a critical eye on China. Professor Wu Xinbo, Associate Dean of the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, Shanghai, made this retort to Gates:
　　　“One major problem with these (U.S.-China) relations, in addition to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, is U.S. intelligence and military activities in the Chinese vicinity. While the U.S. may take access to every part of the world for granted, from a Chinese perspective…sometimes China may find U.S. activities intimidating and intrusive. As a major military power, the U.S. could sometimes exercise self-constraint…to show some sensitivity to the concerns of the countries which are much weaker than the U.S. I think this is (the) very core to the equation in building military trust between the U.S. and China.”

Solidarity in the International Community in Dealing with China
　　　Actually, the nature of Prof. Wu’s criticism of the U.S. is such that it all will inevitably rebound on China itself. Obviously, that is not how the Chinese mindset works. Nevertheless, Secretary Gate’s response was marvelously explicit:
　　　“First of all, I would say that U.S. activities are completely consistent with international law and with freedom of navigation and skies; we are respectful of territorial limits…I think that the key here begins with one word, and that is transparency.”
　　　Gates made a logical contention -€ that even if a nation builds up its military strength, it won’t necessarily cause concern for other nations so long as the intent and purpose of the build-up are clear. China, which often ignores international law and lacks transparency, could in no way have refuted his argument.
　　　Applying Gates’ logic to Japan, I firmly believe it has every right to demand a “transparent” explanation from China as to why China organized fleets of battleships to sail between the main island of Okinawa and Miyako-jima Island. Why does China claim sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands and the Japanese part of the East China Sea, and claim Okinawa as its own? Is China out to eventually wrest the southernmost Japanese prefecture by use of force after building a gigantic blue water navy? Secretary Gates’ emphasis on the importance of transparency is perfectly agreeable as far as Japan is concerned.
　　　Following Prof. Wu’s comments, the Q&A session with Gates wound up with the question from Prof. Mahbubani -€ introduced at the beginning of this article -€ about the U.S. commitment to a long-term military presence in Asia.
　　　On the following day, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie spoke, stressing “we should accommodate each other’s core interests” and “we should not engage in any alliance targeting a third party,” among other things. Greatly alarmed by the possibility of the international community coalescing against it, China thus demonstrated a determination to resolutely safeguard its diplomatic pillar of core interest, i.e., not allowing any third party to interfere with matters pertaining to Taiwan, Tibet or the South China Sea.
　　　However, the more China attempts to adhere to a hawkish foreign policy, the stronger will be the resolution on the part of the international community to tighten its guard against it. Sensing such a move, China -€ adept in diplomacy -€ is already assuming a soft approach. But the truth of the matter is that, behind its “smile diplomacy,” China is clamping down on its own citizens relentlessly in a blatant bid to quench domestic unrest.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 465 in the June 23, 2011 issue of The Weekly Shincho.)