What is China up to in the South China Sea?

What is China up to in the South China Sea?

BEIJING has reacted angrily to a US think-tank’s prediction that any war would inflict heavy losses on China, vowing that that the US and its allies ‘would suffer more’.

An editorial published in the Global Times, part of the State-controlled People’s Daily, yesterday took direct aim at military and international affairs think-tank RAND Corporation’s hypothetical war scenario covering the South China Sea.

The War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable report predicts that, in any conflict between now and 2025, the “United States can no longer be so certain that war would follow its plan and lead to decisive victory,” a statement reads.

“Chinese losses would greatly exceed US losses, and the gap would only grow as fighting persisted.”

Beyond 2025, it says the technological and numbers gap will have closed significantly.

“Even then, however, China could not be confident of gaining military advantage, which suggests the possibility of a prolonged and destructive, yet inconclusive, war.”

Beijing sees things differently.”

“We will be very prudent about going to war, but if a war is triggered, we will have greater determination than the US to fight it to the end and we can endure more losses than the US,” the Global Times editorial states.

“Obviously, certain institutions in both China and the US are studying the worst-case scenario of a military conflict.”

EXPLORE MORE: The coming war with China

“Keeping the study confidential differs greatly from making it public. Such a report, if published, will poison the atmosphere and the way the two societies view each other and inevitably cause negative influences.”

But Beijing has been freely dispensing such ‘negative influences itself’.

EXPLOSIVE RHETORIC

Beijing’s response to the think-tank’s scenario comes after another Global Times editorial on Saturday took aim at ‘paper cat’ Australia … “a unique country with an inglorious history.”

The attack came after last week’s ASEAN meeting of governments became deadlocked, with its final statement ignoring the implications of an international court’s finding that the island building campaign in the South China Sea was illegal.

RELATED: How Beijing rolled ASEAN

As a result, Australia joined Japan and the United States in issuing a trilateral statement calling upon Beijing to respect the rule of law.

This drew an immediate angry response from China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi: “It is time to show who they really are, whether they are the peacekeepers or troublemakers.”

The Global Times editorial, coming two days later, pulled no punches.

“Australia has unexpectedly made itself a pioneer of hurting China’s interest with a fiercer attitude than countries directly involved in the South China Sea dispute. But this paper cat won’t last.”

The editorial took things even further, accusing Australia’s stance over the South China Sea to be attempting to please the US and gain a ‘bargaining chip’ for its own economic interests: “China must take revenge and let it know it’s wrong. Australia’s power means nothing compared to the security of China. If Australia steps into the South China Sea waters, it will be an ideal target for China to warn and strike.”

Here is a version in the original Chinese.

“Australia calls itself a principled country, while its utilitarianism has been sizzling,” it reads. “It lauds Sino-Australian relations when China’s economic support is needed, but when it needs to please Washington, it demonstrates willingness of doing anything in a show of allegiance.”

FIGHTING WORDS

The RAND study, the most recent in a string of think tank analyses based on surging tensions in the Western Pacific, states that the likelihood of a premeditated war between the US and China is ‘very unlikely’.

Instead, it warns a ‘mishandled crisis’ could easily trigger hostilities.

Such a fight would start out brutal, it says, with heavy losses of ships and aircraft.

DELVE DEEPER: China’s carrier fleet to muscle-in on Asia

But the effects of any conflict would not be restricted to lives and material, the RAND report states. Such a costly fight would also have serious economic and political consequences for Beijing.

It predicts a collapse in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 25 to 35 per cent for China, while the US would contract just 5 to 10 per cent.

Beijing disagrees.

“Rand claimed that a long conflict could expose China to an economic recession, turbulence, and even internal breakup. But in our opinion, the US will suffer disturbance sooner from a war,” the Global Times editorial reads.

“The contiguous US can only avoid being stricken under the condition that China’s land is not attacked. The island disputes in the West Pacific are unlikely to lead to war …

“The Rand report shows how important it is for China to further boost its military strength. China must keep building up its deterrence capabilities against the contiguous US.”