How to Achieve Long Peace in Asia?

To be objective, over the past 40 years, compared to any other region in the world, East Asia has been the fastest-growing, most peaceful, and most stable region. The "East Asia" mentioned here is the definition of the World Bank, including Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. The region has grown several of the world's largest economies: Japan was once the largest economy in Asia, now China is the largest in Asia, and Japan is the second largest; India is now developing rapidly; Indonesia has returned to normal development and has become another Asian economic "rising star"; Vietnam is also a fast-growing economy. In terms of economic development potential, this situation will not change in the next 10 years, 20 years, or even longer.

Peace, development, and stability are mutually reinforcing. Peace provides a good environment for development, while development, in turn, promotes stability. Many people once believed that "China and Japan must have a war." Many Americans believe in the "Thucydides Trap" and think that the rise of China will inevitably lead to a war with Japan. Japan once invaded China in history, causing great disasters for the Chinese people, and anti-Japanese demonstrations did indeed occur in China at that time. But what was the final result? There was no war between the two countries—although there were some minor disputes between them, overall, it was very peaceful, and the Chinese government and the Japanese government handled many historical and practical issues very rationally.

The peaceful development of Asia proves the correctness of Deng Xiaoping's advocacy of "peace and development." "Peace" and "development" are complementary relationships; without peace, there is no development, and development lays the foundation for peace. Today, although there is chaos and disorder in the world, we still need to stick to the path of "peaceful development."

However, precisely because East Asia's position in the global economy has become so important, countries outside the region have become concerned about Asia, whether big or small. Asia has become the center of geopolitics in today's world, and peace in the region faces severe challenges.

Among the many challenges, what China needs to be very vigilant about is the "bipolarization" of the international order by the United States. The current grand strategy of the United States is to polarize the world order. In the recent Russia-Ukraine conflict, bundling China with Russia is an important step. The bipolarization of the international order has a very negative impact on our Asian region. Most Asian countries have deep relationships with both China and the United States. If Sino-US relations are good, they have both security and development guarantees; however, if Sino-US relations deteriorate to the level of Russia's relationship with the European Union or the United States, all Asian countries will be victims—Asia will face the situation in Ukraine today, with no security and no development. Therefore, under any circumstances, we must not let the situation in Ukraine be repeated in Asia.

Today, the United States is creating various "groups and cliques" in Asia, such as the so-called "Two, Three, Four, Five": "Two" refers to the "bilateral alliances," including the US-Japan, US-South Korea, and US-Australia alliances; "Three" refers to AUKUS, which is the trilateral security partnership between the US, UK, and Australia; "Four" refers to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) between the US, Japan, India, and Australia; and "Five" refers to the Five Eyes Alliance (composed of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Now, based on the four Indo-Pacific countries, alliances are being formed with the inclusion of more countries, such as Vietnam and Singapore, known as "Six Plus." If this trend continues and an Asian version of NATO eventually emerges, Asian countries will never know peace. NATO itself is a product of the Cold War, and with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of its opponent, the Warsaw Pact, NATO should have reformed or even disbanded. However, not only did NATO not disband, but it also continued to expand, leading to today's situation. Regarding the US security layout in Asia, the situation in Asia today is extremely serious.

However, as long as there is enough rationality, the US plan will not be easy to implement. Over the past few years, the United States has been busy forming "groups and cliques" in Asia (and around the world), which it calls alliances, even forcing some countries to "choose sides." But China has not done so, avoiding the division of Asia. Here, the "exclusive" multilateralism of the United States and China’s “inclusive” multilateralism form a sharp contrast. China's inclusive multilateralism has already produced positive results. Asian countries have their judgment. At last year's Shangri-La Dialogue, the Indonesian Foreign Minister's view, which was endorsed by most Asian countries, was that Asian countries should coexist with China in an "Asian way" rather than an "American way." I believe that we Asian countries have the ability to control our own destiny, just as we have experienced common development over the past 40 years.

First, major powers should provide more international public goods. In the past 40 years, although there has been competition between Asian powers like China and Japan, this competition has been largely benign. The three "10+1" mechanisms based on ASEAN are typical examples. When China signed a free trade agreement with ASEAN and formed the China-ASEAN "10+1" mechanism, the other two Northeast Asian economies, Japan and South Korea, also competed, forming their own "10+1" mechanisms with ASEAN. These three "10+1" mechanisms were mutually competitive. But what was the result of this competition? It led to the formation of the "10+3" mechanism, which has been a good cooperative mechanism as everyone is competing to do better, not worse. Asia's past successes are related to this kind of benign competition. In the future, major Asian powers, such as China, Japan, and India, should continue to provide more international public goods for the Asian region.

Second, China should maintain openness and continue to practice inclusive multilateralism. Asian countries, especially those in Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia, are highly open to each other, even more so than many other countries in the world, with very few exceptions. This openness should be maintained. China now faces the challenge of value-based blocs created by the United States, which is contrary to globalization and represents "anti-globalization." Asian countries should remain open to each other, as regionalization based on mutual openness promotes globalization and aligns with it. In this regard, China has already accumulated considerable experience and needs to persistently practice inclusive multilateralism.

Third, China should manage the relationship between major powers and smaller countries. On the one hand, major powers should be tolerant, including China, India, and Japan. The remarkable achievements of Asia in the past 40 years are closely related to the tolerance of major powers. For example, in the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, China made concessions to some smaller countries in certain aspects (such as early harvest), which is very important for these smaller countries. The large markets of major powers should be open, and the openness of these markets is an international public good. Furthermore, major powers should have enough magnanimity to understand that smaller countries often rely on or invite external powers to protect themselves due to their security concerns. To some extent, this behavior of smaller countries is understandable. On the other hand, while major powers are tolerant of smaller countries, smaller countries should also understand the security concerns of major powers. More importantly, if smaller countries disregard the security of major powers and "invite the wolf into the house," becoming "agents" of external powers and making neighboring major powers feel insecure, they will also lose their security. The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war is a clear example. Ukraine's insecurity stems from perceived threats from Russia, which is understandable, but if Ukraine relies on NATO for security, Russia will, in turn, feel insecure. When Russia feels insecure, Ukraine becomes a victim for serving as NATO's agent. Asia's recent history also provides profound lessons. In 2016, the Philippines influenced and encouraged by the United States, tried to resolve the South China Sea issue through international law, but in practice, the arbitration case only deepened divisions and distrust among countries without any positive results. Therefore, it is crucial for China to properly handle the relationship between major powers and smaller countries, such as in negotiating the "Code of Conduct in the South China Sea" (COC) with smaller countries.

Fourth, China must manage its relationship with the United States concerning military conflicts. The United States has always been in Asia and has never left. The United States has consistently had a misguided perception of China, believing that China's resolution of the South China Sea and Taiwan issues aims to drive the United States out of the Western Pacific and dominate the region alone. This is not the case.

The South China Sea is very important to China, and the issues are complex. They cannot be simply resolved by resorting to international maritime law, as profound and complicated historical issues are at play. Competition between China and the United States in the South China Sea is inevitable. Although China is not afraid of competition, it should try to avoid military competition with the United States. Once military competition between China and the United States takes place, the South China Sea region will become Asia's "powder keg." China can guide the United States' military competition towards economic competition, as economic competition is often a win-win situation, while military competition is a zero-sum game. Western countries, including the United States, also pursue the "Belt and Road" initiative in Asia. Although this is also competition, it is a good kind of economic competition that may ultimately lead to benign competition. We welcome economic competition from Western countries but should not engage in military competition with the United States. In general, the South China Sea should be an open and peaceful sea. Asian countries should prioritize their own interests and not be influenced by the interests of external powers, as external powers will never serve the interests of Asian countries, or at most, Asian countries will be agents for the pursuit of self-interest by external powers. For example, the United States has been leading NATO's expansion, but is NATO's behavior for the benefit of the United States or Europe? The impact of the Russo-Ukrainian situation on the United States and Europe is telling: European countries have to bear almost all the costs brought about by this war.

Taiwan is at the heart of China's core interests. The Taiwan issue is a matter of China's national unification, not a struggle for dominance as some Americans perceive it, nor is it related to the "Taiwanese democracy and freedom system" advocated by the West. In other words, this is a matter of sovereignty, not governance. On the Taiwan issue, China's goal is not to "defeat the United States" but to achieve national unification. With the modernization of China's national defense, the possibility of peacefully resolving the Taiwan issue is increasing. This contradicts the Western perception, as the West believes that the purpose of China's military modernization is to use force to resolve the Taiwan issue.

Suppose the outcomes of battles measured the status of great powers in the past. In that case, the status of great powers today is measured by their ability to provide sufficient international public goods for the region and the world. Achieving a rise by providing international public goods is the main distinguishing feature of China compared to any previous great power.