China’s rules-based order in the Air Defense Identification Zone

Forgiving any translation errors – which are possible, take a look at this comment about the significance of China’s Air Defense Identification Zone from one Ma Jun, a research fellow of the department of foreign military studies.

“It shows China is willing to participate in the formulation of international rules. Like it or not, China has set up a new ‘rule of game’ in the East China Sea. China will no longer allow others to unilaterally establish international rules, especially those concerning its neighbors and itself.”

So, China’s “participation” is the unilateral creation of rules in its region like the ADIZ, as opposed to what it sees as the “unilaterally” established international rules by others. But the more interesting idea comes next. Jun writes: 

“China will not blindly obey to the rules not agreed upon by China as it now has the desire and capability to guarantee the regional security. This is a fact other countries should learn to accept. As a member of the international community, China should not be excluded from the formulation of international rules.”

I am not sure China can actually guarantee regional security, which takes a mix of significant military commitments and diplomatic flexibility. But the assumption that rules come unilaterally seems to say a lot about China’s understanding of rule-making in general. It shows the kind of brittleness in the China’s relations with its neighbors.

Frankly, if Ma Jun simply wrote that China expects a big seat at the table on these matters, one befitting its size and influence, his position would be much clearer. Instead, the explanation that China shouldn’t be excluded from the “formulation” of international rules hints that the “formulation” of rules by China by necessity involves a top-down approach at home and abroad. This is the kind of thing that rattles neighbors and causes uncertainty.

What a “force-based” world order looks like

If it’s true the Chinese are giving the British the cold shoulder over Cameron’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, it is an example of coercion. When you hear talk of a rules-based order, it’s to prevent a world where this kind of thing is possible. 


Says the Telegraph: 

China wants Mr Cameron to apologise for hosting Tibet’s spiritual leader, who disputes Beijing’s territorial claims on the region. The Government insists there is nothing to apologise for.


There are now fears that the frosty diplomatic relations could put at risk Chinese investment in Britain, which was worth £8billion last year.


Chinese sources have made a veiled threat that for investment in the UK “there needs to be a strong relationship”.