Do military leaders hold the keys to peace for China and the US?
- Tensions between the two powers have been rising, but the heads of the Pentagon and PLA are keen to ensure the conflict does not become militarised
- While both countries speak the language of righteousness and law, they are both sleepwalking towards an all-out confrontation
“War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale … nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means,” the early-19th century Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz once observed.
“For political aims are the end and war is the means, and the means can never be conceived without the end.” The ultimate aim of war, he wrote, was to “compel [an] opponent to fulfil our will”.
For the past decade, the United States and China have been duelling for supremacy on Asia’s high seas, brazenly dangling the threat of war in pursuit of ambitious political objectives.
More recently, in an unlikely turn of events, it has been the men in uniform, rather than the statesmen in suits and ties, who have become the greatest advocates for cautious vigilance and strategic moderation.
As strongmen populists dominate global politics, the key to preserving peace in Asia lies, quite paradoxically in the hands of sober and calculating military men. After all, it’s the generals, who are intimately familiar with the horrors of unmitigated military escalation between great powers.
“The two military leaders agreed on the value of a productive dialogue, effectively managing differences and cooperation on areas of common ground,” it said in a statement, underscoring the determination of the two sides to maintain robust military-to-military diplomacy amid heightened tensions.
The conversation between Milley and Li was not their first. The pair met in Beijing in 2016 when they were both heads of their respective armies. On that occasion Milley was on a shuttle diplomacy mission in the city after the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled against Beijing in a dispute with the Philippines over territorial rights in the South China Sea.
US warplanes on Beijing’s radar in South China Sea
China made it clear it regards the law as “meddling” in its domestic affairs and said there would be “consequences” for it. Most worryingly, the diplomatic spat over Hong Kong is taking place within the broader context of an indefinite and increasingly bitter trade war, which has threatened to untether their economies after decades of integration.
While Washington is intent on preserving its decades-long hegemony in Asia, a resurgent Beijing yearns for regaining its centuries-old primacy that preceded the advent of Western imperialism.
Though both superpowers speak the language of righteousness and law with often sanctimonious conviction, they are both sleepwalking towards an all-out confrontation.
Intent on preventing diplomatic tensions spilling over into mutually destructive military clashes, the diplomacy between the PLA and the Pentagon is more crucial than ever.
While both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are men of strong will, they are also known for their deep affinity for the top military brass. This places the PLA and Pentagon in a unique spot to de-escalate tensions through institutionalised conflict management and military-to-military dialogue.
And there are reasons for optimism. Over the past few years, top generals from the US and China have successfully lobbied for Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), which are crucial to mitigating unwanted clashes.
Together with other regional players, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Pentagon and PLA have also advocated for the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea.
The CBMs provide indispensable guidelines for immediate de-escalation in the event of accidental military clashes between rival states in regional waters.
Last year, the US, China and other powers pushed for a supplementary mechanism for preventing dangerous escalation during accidental air encounters among fighter jets of regional powers.
As then Singapore defence minister Ng Eng Hen said: “We all know that if there is a physical incident it changes the name of the game … it creates a cascade of activities that you cannot control.”
It was precisely these measures, including the Incidents at Sea protocol of the 1970s, that prevented a nuclear showdown between the US and the Soviet Union in Asian waters throughout decades of existential struggle for supremacy.
Down the road, the Pentagon and the PLA should push for binding CBMs, including multilateral rules of behaviour for safety of air-to-air and sea encounters, which include not only “grey hull” warships and fighter jets, but also coastguard and paramilitary forces roaming the contested waters of Asia, especially the South China Sea.
Following Clausewitz’s wisdom, men of war can also become the instruments of peace through wise diplomacy, especially when politics takes a turn for jingoistic confrontation.
Richard Heydarian is an Asia-based academic
