The U.S. makes another move on China

is chess on a global scale – GEOPOLITICS moves and countermoves, strategies that shift with the ebb and flow of the game. The stakes, of course, are much higher in geopolitics: millions of lives can hang in the balance, with one wrong move sparking a war, or a poorly thought out strategy leading to unforeseen catastrophe. Last week, the U.S. played another move in its geopolitical competition with China, announcing a new security alliance with the UK and Australia through the sale of nuclear-powered submarines to the Australians. Recriminations were swift and immediate. China, of course, condemned the move as an escalation of tensions in its neighbourhood. The French reacted with fury, accusing the U.S. of abandoning its commitments to its traditional allies. Both were right in their own ways: the new security pact represents another shift in the geopolitical balance of power; it changes the chess board. And in the process, another piece of the emerging new world order falls into place.

Adnan R. Khan: Some people see this as a merely weapons-based issue - the Australian’s are acquiring nuclear submarine technology from the U.S. and the UK. •thers say it has much deeper implications. What are your thoughts?

Ilter Turan: I do not think we can reduce the move only to the submarines. Even looking at it strictly from a weapons procurement perspective, nuclear submarines have extensive capabilities. Introducing them into the equation will inevitably affect the security balance in any region. China naturally perceives this to be an enhancement of the threat emanating from its adversaries.

From a broader geopolitical perspective, France has reacted negatively to this, marking a critical rupture in its cooperation with the U.S. and Australia. This is partly because the French have lost a big commercial contract, but on top of that, they were also not informed that this deal was in the making. They were excluded from an important security development. This clearly demonstrates that American attention is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and this step is one more confirmation. The way it was done just lends support to what we have suspected all along: the defense of Europe has moved down the list of priorities of the American security establishment.

Adnan R. Khan: And has Australia moved up on that list?

Ilter Turan: Indeed it has. When we look at Australia, what we see is a country that was trying to walk a balanced line between the U.S. and China. Australia had extensive economic relations with China. Wealthy Chinese were acquiring large properties in Australia, to the point where Australia became concerned and put some restrictions on those purchases. By making this decision, it seems the Australians have decided the balanced relationship is not possible, that security concerns are so paramount that they have to move economics down to a lower level in their relations with China.

Adnan R. Khan: Australia basically picked a side. •ther countries, Canada for instance, are still trying to walk that fine line. Canada also was left out of this arrangement. Is this a message from the U.S. to its allies to pick a side?

Ilter Turan: There is an unsophisticated American mindset that says ‘you’re either with us or you’re against us’. Now, this doesn’t work as well as the Americans would like. We’ve seen this in the case of France during the Cold War, when the French decided to stay out of the military side of the NAT• alliance. The French, of course, were geographically protected from the Soviets on land by the Germans and on the high seas by the British and on both fronts by the Americans. Canada enjoys similar protection by the U.S. by dint of geography. So, countries like Canada, who don’t face a direct security threat from China, will not be feel compelled to go along with the U.S. to the extent the U.S. would hope but at the same time, their taking an ambiguous position will create complications that permeate into other areas of cooperation.

Adnan R. Khan: Some people have suggested that this move is the first salvo in an emerging Cold War between the U.S. and China. Do you agree?

Ilter Turan: We should be careful about historical analogies. It is clear that there will be a more difficult relationship between China and the U.S. but for a variety of reasons it is not going to be like the old Cold War. First, the Soviets were trying to promote an alternative social, political and economic system to that offered by the U.S. The Chinese do not appear to be pursuing such a mission. Second, the level of economic relations between the Soviet Union and the West were really negligible whereas western economies are closely integrated with China. Breaking up those relationships will be, if not impossible, then extremely costly.

Adnan R. Khan: How can Turkey balance its interests, on the one hand cooperating economically with China but still perhaps keeping itself embedded in the western sociopolitical world?

Ilter Turan: The question is geopolitical. Europe and the U.S. will probably have somewhat different relations with China. Europe has demonstrated a certain amount of reluctance to go along fully with American plans to isolate China, and this is likely to continue. In the case of Turkey, it seems more prudent to work with the Europeans in this case than with the U.S. while at the same time pursuing a somewhat independent line in the hope that this independence will bring in economic rewards.