Стратегия «жемчужной нити» как мера для реализации инициативы китайского морского шелкового пути

Does the “String of Pearls” Strategy Contradict the Chinese Principle of Non-Interference Policy?

There has been much discussion in the expert community about the possible links between “String of Pearls” theory and MSR, and their contradictory role to the Chinese principle of non-interference policy. Many experts are sure that having developed the “String of Pearls” policy and established bases in ports, it will be difficult for Beijing to adhere to the principle of protecting non-alignment and non-interference and refuse to pursue a policy of building military bases abroad.

Some analysts believe that “String of Pearls” is not a coordinated strategy on the part of China, and there is no substantial evidence in Chinese sources or elsewhere to support the allegations of commentators, scholars, and officials who use it as a basis for explaining Beijing’s intentions in the Indian Ocean [Naval War College Press, 2011, P. 61]. According to Zhou Bo, Honorary Fellow, PLA Academy of Military Science, the only thing that can be justified in the “String of Pearls” theory is that it emphasizes the growing importance of the Indian Ocean for China's ever-expanding national interests [Drun, 2017].

China’s stated non-interference policy is an important element of its national security policy, and the absence of Chinese military bases abroad is often cited as an example of Beijing’s commitment to non-interference and non-alignment [Naval War College Press, 2011, P. 61], which in turn was seen as a pragmatic step towards securing and maintaining `access` to vital resources in most developing countries, and played an important role in enhancing “South-South” solidarity in these countries [Aidoo, Hess, 2015, P. 111]. “South-South cooperation,” “non-interference,” and “non-conditionality” were at the forefront and at the center of China's approach, presented as “one of humanitarian and development aid plus influence without interference, in contrast to the West’s coercive approach of sanctions plus military intervention” [Campbell, Wheeler, Attree, Butler, Mariani, 2012, P. 8-9].

However, China’s long-standing commitment to non-intervention does not mean that the foreign policy community in China has always reached consensus on its validity and relevance. If a few years ago, almost no Chinese scientist challenged the principle of non-interference, infringement on the sovereignty of other nations, in recent years more and more have been arguing about this issue. One important factor contributing to the current domestic criticism of China’s strict commitment to non-intervention is regulatory change in the international system [Duchâtel, Bräuner, Hang, 2014, P. 6]. The current debate in China is resolving around the establishment of what are commonly referred to in the U.S. military as “places”, as opposed to bases. This type of strategy involves securing with friendly governments diplomatic agreements allowing access to those nations’ facilities in order to obtain essential supplies, such as fuel, food, and freshwater, for deployed forces. Such agreements can also involve reciprocal guarantees of military support in such areas as training, equipment and education [Naval War College Press, 2011, P. 61].

However, it should be noted that China’s first overseas base in Djibouti, opened in mid-2017, like one pearl in a string, adds the first explicit military component to its MSR, despite the fact that official statements emphasize the purpose of the base: providing support for military operations other than war (MOOTW) [Drun, 2017]. The official goal was to open a logistics support base to become the center of peacekeeping and other strategic policies in Africa and the Indian Ocean region [Lanteigne, 2018, P. 4]. But actually, in addition to providing a demanded supply point for the PLA Navy, the base will be crucial to expand China's intelligence gathering capabilities in the area and provide the PLA Air Force with the long-awaited opportunity to reach world level [Ghiselli, 2016, P. 7].

From here it should be concluded that the Chinese principle of a policy of non-interference, the rejection of a foreign military presence and ensuring the development of mutually beneficial economic and trade relations as the main task no longer corresponds to the need to ensure China's security and vital interests. Therefore, it is possible that in the foreseeable future, China will increasingly have to become a regional player in competitive cooperation with the U.S. and India [Dorsey, 2017, P. 1].