Sources:Global Time

GT: Under the Trump administration, the US has withdrawn from a number of international and multilateral agreements. Do you think this means the US will go toward isolationism?

Yan:Trump and the pro-establishment camp are in serious opposition as for whether the US will continue to assume world leadership. The establishment believes that the US maintaining world leadership is the country’s biggest strategic interest; while Trump believes that as America's power is in decline, it cannot afford to hold the leadership, so America's first priority is to build up its own strength. In ranking the priority of national interests, Trump might be the first US President since the end of WWII to put economic interests prior to keeping the world leadership.

Trump's "American first" does not mean that the US will go into isolationism. Instead, he will pay more attention to bilateral diplomacy, although the newly published National Security Strategy (NSS) has maintained a balance between bilateral and multilateral diplomacies. The US has pulled back from some international organizations and agreements because it wants to replace the existing multilateral framework with a bilateral one.

GT: The US just released the Indo-Pacific strategy in its NSS. Do you think this is the Trump administration’s new Asian strategy?

Yan:The NSS defines China as the US’ biggest strategic competitor, which accords with the principle that the rising state and the hegemonic state are in zero-sum relations and also fits the interpretation of the “superficial friendship theory.” However, the report did not use the concept of "Indo-Pacific strategy," but rather the "Indo-Pacific area." It's an economic concept instead of a security strategy. The US will be mainly engaged in economic strategic competition with China, which is different from Obama's emphasis on political leadership when he raised the "Pivot to Asia" strategy.

Trump's "free and open Indo-Pacific" mainly refers to trade and investment. As the economy of East Asia has surpassed that of Europe, the world center is also shifting here. So the US positions the focus of its global strategy to this area. And Trump especially puts his strategic emphasis on Northeast Asia, which contains China and Japan, the world’s second and third biggest economies, respectively. He does not pay as much attention to Southeast Asia as Obama did. This also demonstrates he regards economic interests as a primary national interest.

GT: Compared with 2016, there have been few conflicts in the South China Sea between China and other countries in 2017. What do you think caused that situation?

Yan: Trump's security strategy in East Asia also focuses on Northeast Asia. As he takes little count of military alliances with Southeast Asian countries, they have to re-consider their security strategies.

In recent years, some ASEAN countries have adopted a dual-track strategy, which relies on China economically and the US for security issues. However, facing a less reliable Trump administration, they have begun to adjust their policies. While still relying on China economically, they try to keep a equal distance between China and the US when it comes to security issues. For example, when Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong visited China in September, the two sides expressed their intention to conduct joint military exercises in the future.

I think the US navy will have more patrols in the South China Sea in 2018. But considering that the two countries have gained a more mature model of dealing with each other's behavior in the past few years, I believe there is a very low possibility that the two sides will have any direct frictions in the region.

GT: What is your observation of India's future strategy toward China?

Yan:The structural contradictions between China and India in South Asia are becoming increasingly serious. India considers itself the dominant power in the region, and takes China’s Belt and Road projects in the region as a strategic containment of India.

The Doklam standoff is just one of the measures India used to stop China’s expansion in South Asia. In the future, India will continue to confront China via the issues where India is in a more advantageous position. Although the two countries have held high-level talks on the border issue, it won’t fundamentally change India's confrontational China policy.

The biggest obstacle in improving Sino-Indian relations is that India’s psychologically reluctant to recognize China is stronger than itself. In this aspect, India is even worse than Japan.

GT: Do you think the Korean Peninsula is at the highest risk of going through a war in 2018?

Yan:I don't think there is any possibility of war on the Korean Peninsula in 2018. There is only one country that could wage war in the region — that is the US. But the US would only start a war if its strategic gains outweigh the costs. However, a war led by the US means that the North Korean regime will lose its chance of survival, which might force the country to the corner to take full revenge on Seoul. The significant price of blood is unaffordable not only to South Korea, but also to the US. As a result, I don’t think the US will be determined to start a war.

GT: China is playing a more important role in global governance, and is willing to offer the "Chinese solution," what opportunities has the current international situation brought to China?

Yan:The biggest opportunity for China is the Trump administration’s reluctance to assume international leadership and the uncertainty of its foreign policy. It’s yet to be seen whether the US will restore its former support to its allies, based on the NSS. The US’ weakened support to its allies is beneficial to the expansion of China’s overseas interests.

Meanwhile, we need to prevent aggressive policy. Although China is the world’s second biggest power, we have a big gap with the US. If the US is not capable to lead global governance, China's strength will not be more fulfilling. China is qualified to provide regional governance schemes, but not in the global scope.

GT: Recently various countries, including Australia, Germany, the US and Canada, all accused China of “political penetrations,” do you think this is a “China threat” theory V2.0?

Yan:The "China threat” theory was dated back to the early 1990s. Firstly, it was China’s cheap goods, then its military policies, and later its financial competition. Now, the concern is mainly with China’s influence of ideas and values. With the rise of China's power and the expansion of its global influence, China's impact on culture, values and ideology will also go up. But some people in Western developed countries are reluctant to see this trend and try to prevent China's ideological influence from rising. Actually this is a normal phenomenon. The rise of great powers inevitably comes with strategic competition and conflicts of interest. And the conflicts are not confined to the physical area, but will also spread to the realm of thought and culture.

Some scholars have predicted that there will be anti-China incidents in more countries in 2018. I hold the same view. If the Belt and Road project is promoted as fast in 2018 as it was in 2016 and 2017, the international backlash is likely to continue to rise.