On February 4, a US fighter jet “safely” shot down a Chinese “surveillance balloon” off the coast of South Carolina. The balloon, according to US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, was being used by China for the purpose of spying on “strategic sites in the continental United States.” Lloyd also emphasised that the decision to shoot down the Chinese balloon reinforced President Biden’s resolve to “always put the safety and security of the American people first while responding effectively to the PRC’s unacceptable violation of our sovereignty.” Strangely enough, the US officials refused to accept the Chinese explanation that the concerned balloon was a runaway weather balloon. Most importantly, officials in Washington were not seen as bothered by the fact that the use of balloons for espionage is now outdated, especially when there are other, more sophisticated means – such as satellites – available today.
So, what purpose could the shooting down of a balloon serve for Washington? The fact that Washington shot it down meant as a political taunt to China, a provocation that Washington could use to create a scenario full of tensions. This is most evident from how both the US and China reacted to the incident.
Whereas China urged the US to avoid “misjudgement” and manage “differences in the face of a chance occurrence”, Blinken – who was due to visit China very soon – chose to project the incident differently even after speaking directly with Wang Yi of the CCP Central Foreign Affairs Office. Blinken called off his visit in view of what he called “an irresponsible act and a clear violation of US sovereignty and international law” [whatever that means].
This was an aggressive response. But, most importantly, Washington’s decision to shoot down a Chinese balloon has now added a direct military dimension to the US-China bilateral ties. Could the Chinese extend the same treatment to the US espionage efforts?
The US decision to shoot down a Chinese balloon to protect the US from a ‘Chinese attack’ on US sovereignty is directly feeding into the already existing narrative of a coming war with China.
In 2021, testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Phil Davidson, who was leading the US Indo-Pacific Command, said that China could take Taiwan in the next decade. This, Davidson further said, was part of Chinese ambitions to “supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules-based international order.”
In this context, it is hardly surprising to see many geopolitical analysts in the West seeing this Chinese balloon as Beijing’s attempt to test the waters, a step that PRC decided to take to see how the US would react. But why China would feed the narrative of war in the US remains to be explained. Why would China need to start a war to overtake the global system when it is already on its way to dominating the global system without fighting any war? Chinese aggression against the US, therefore, does not make any sense.
Aggression, however, does make sense for the US, a country obsessed with the prospect of losing its unilateral hegemony. Therefore, it is the US bringing the war to China rather than China bringing the war to the US. This is most evident from the US attempts to bring NATO to the Indo-Pacific.
On January 31, 2023 – when the US was already aware of the Chinese balloon – the Secretary General of NATO met Kishida Fumio, Japan’s Prime Minister. The visit followed Kishida’s participation in the 2022 NATO summit, as NATO Secretary General “reaffirmed their commitment to deepen cooperation between Japan and NATO.” The purpose was to reaffirm the US position vis-à-vis China in the Indo-Pacific, as both leaders targeted “China’s rapid strengthening of its military capabilities and expansion of military services.”
By militarizing its ties with China and making Japan a de facto partner of NATO, the US is encircling China. This military encirclement is region wide.
In the Philippines, the Biden administration aims to “deter” China with a greater military presence. On February 1, 2023, the US and the Philippines announced four new military sites to be established in the Philippines. The US Defence department said that the new sites will make the US-Philippines alliance “stronger and more resilient, and will accelerate modernization of our combined military capabilities.”
These alliances are part of the global alliance the US has been trying to build against China for the past few years now. What is driving this recent acceleration is the way the US is using the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) military conflict to convince the world that the Chinese intend to militarily attack Taiwan and there will soon be a war between the two countries very soon.
Interestingly enough, a four-start US general recently revealed that he had a “gut” feeling that the US and China will go to war in 2025. What is even more important is the fact that the memo in which the military official expressed his “gut” feeling was leaked on social media in what appears to be an attempt by some hawks to popularise the idea of war with China.
That the memo was leaked only a few days before the US shot down the Chinese balloon yet again reinforces the American idea of an imminent military conflict with China, a country, as many US officials have repeatedly pointed out, is supposedly bent upon undoing the US-dominated (so-called) rule-based system, although we are yet to find out what those rulers mean, why they do not happen to serve countries other than the US and its allies, and why these rules cannot be changed.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
