How the US projects bullying onto others

Much has been made recently of a "close call" incident whereby a Chinese fighter jet intercepted an American reconnaissance plane in the South China Sea at close proximity, and then another one regarding a US navy destroyer the following week. The incidents are a clear show of discontent from China toward the United States, who subsequently demanded "dialogue" and "communication" in order to prevent mistakes from being made.

This theme carried on into the Singapore-based Shangri-La Dialogue last week, a forum which is of course used by the US and its allies to advance their geopolitical goals. Here, US Secretary of Defence Llyod Austin again reiterated a call for open channels, but he did not get a meeting with his Chinese counterpart.

Austin, of course, continued in presenting his vision for a "free and open Indo-Pacific," which as American politicians do, depicts themselves as a bringing of peace, stability and freedom for the nations of that given region against so-called "coercion" and "bullying." In reality, the United States is aiming for the comprehensive militarization of Asia in the bid to contain China, and of course frames Beijing's reactions to this hostile activity, be it Taiwan or the South China Sea, as acts of aggression and instability, with the US frequently prescribing itself as the solution to the problem they are subsequently creating. Likewise, China's lack of willingness to "cooperate" is then spun as being unreasonable.

But this is manipulative and completely misleading in so many ways. If a bully decides to move into your garden, sets up camp and brings weapons, is it reasonable to object to it, and of course to be hostile in response? Yet, on demanding that bully to leave and stop interfering with your property, do you think anyone would take it seriously if he then says that you are the one being unreasonable? And that you should talk with him to make sure you don't get into a fight? As that is exactly what is happening here. The US response is literally this: "We're going to continue to get new bases around you, we're going to continue to build new alliances targeting you and bring more military assets into the region, and continually sell warships off your coast, but oh, please make sure you talk with us just to make sure no problems arise from it."

In doing so, the United States has no intention of changing course or "understanding" China more, let alone respecting its interests and finding a position of coexistence. Rather, it is about gaslighting Beijing as the aggressor and using a misleading logic that frames China as the one being unreasonable. The United States knows that the more it can provoke and fan the flames of tensions in the region, the more it can subsequently advance its own military agenda and thus force other countries to take sides. The US does not respect the neutrality of ASEAN, and will make regional harmony, economic and political integration, as well as trust, completely disintegrate in the bid to escalate its own ideological conflict.

We have subsequently seen the exact same situation pan out in regards to Ukraine, where it has already started a major war, which has been wholly to American benefit. China has made it clear they do not want such a war, and it is not in their interests to do so, yet that does not mean the United States will change its path or stop provoking, thus forcing Beijing to continue to respond in tandem.

In other words, the cycle of escalation or "the security dilemma" is already well underway, and no matter how many sweet words the United States may speak about dialogue or talks, the structural reality of what they are pursuing is not going to change and therefore the risk of conflict continues to grow irrespectively.

There is little walking away from the emerging arms race now, and it is absolutely right nonetheless that there is no point in talking to the United States and taking heed of this gaslighting about "communications" and "guardrails," because it distracts from the obvious reality that the perpetrator is trying to project on the victim and force it to be responsible for a situation it is creating. The US has chosen the path of confrontation, and must subsequently bear the consequences for it. You do not be nice to someone who moves into your garden.

(The author, a postgraduate student of Chinese studies at Oxford University, is an English analyst on international relations. The views are his own.)