Rumbling in Asia-Pacific

Rumbling in Asia-Pacific

S P SETH

Asia-Pacific is increasingly becoming an arena of power politics, which has its serious dangers. To understand this, one needs to delve a bit into the changing contours of global power. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US was left the only superpower in the world. The new China, under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership, was growing its economic power. There was a serious internal setback when the democracy movement erupted in 1989, but it was crushed with the deployment of the army. Deng proved persistent and China’s economic transformation and growth continued. And a stage has arrived today when China refuses to be bound by international rules and norms that were made at a time when it was not part of the process. It, therefore, wants to create a new international order, at least a regional order in Asia-Pacific, which will respond to the way Beijing sees the world with China at the centre.

And it wants to correct the injustices of the 19^th and parts of the 20^th century when the Opium Wars made a mockery of its great history and wealth and humiliated its people. During the 20^th century, from 1930s to the end of the WW11 in 1945, Japan committed horrible atrocities during occupation and war. Now that China believes it has arrived of age with much of its strength (military) and economic power restored, it is seeking to right the old wrongs. Beijing is fully convinced of the justness of its cause in asserting sovereignty in the island chains of South China Sea and East China Sea. Which brings it into clash with Vietnam and the Philippines in South China Sea, as well as with Japan in East China Sea. And by virtue of claiming all the contested islands, China also lays claim to much of the South China Sea and East China Sea. And to assert its sovereignty, China is patrolling the seas and has declared an air identification zone around the disputed East China Sea islands under Japan’s control.

Beijing believes that the United States has no business being in the Asia Pacific region as a military power, so far away from its homeland. The US, of course, is not buying it, with its own Pacific coast along California, for instance. China also believes that the United States is building a containment ring around it by encouraging its regional neighbours on a confrontation course, and by forging/strengthening military alliances with some of them. In the latter category are countries like Japan and Australia. In this context, there have been two important developments causing concern and anger in China. The first is a reinterpretation of Japan’s pacifist constitution, imposed by the US on a defeated Japan after WW11, which barred it from declaring or engaging in war. Japan has a substantial self-defence force but not intended for military operations abroad.

 After its defeat and occupation, it became a US charge for some years. And when it emerged with an independent status, it was part of a US security system in the midst of Cold War. The Japanese people, by and large, developed a strong pacifist tradition, and according some recent polls, over 50 per cent still want to retain their pacifist constitution. In other words, they have not yet been convinced by Abe government’s need for reinterpreting the constitution to facilitate war making, however limited its scope. But it would appear that more and more Japanese people are alarmed by China’s, what many will call, saber rattling.  China’s rise and its persistence in claiming the disputed islands in the East China Sea (under Japan’s control) has created an inflammatory situation, often close to naval and air encounters. Such recurring tensions between China and Japan appear to have created some unease, if not actual fear, in Japan.  In China, on the other hand, Japan’s wartime atrocities still evoke strong emotions and any resistance by Tokyo to Beijing’s claims is taken as a continuation of the old imperial arrogance.

Japan’s right-wing Abe government is taking measures to deal with any Chinese military threat. But within the limits of its pacifist constitution, the government didn’t have much leeway. However, to amend the constitution to do away with Article 9 that underpins its pacifist character, would require popular referendum, unlikely to favour the government. In the circumstances, the government has taken to making some important, but limited changes, for their purpose. These will, of course, have to go through Japan’s two houses of parliament where the government has comfortable majority. It might take a while for the parliamentary process to run through but the government is likely to have its way; though it might harm its political prospects at the next elections considering that most people don’t favour such changes.

These changes enabling Japan to come to the military assistance of its friends and allies, if they are under enemy attack, makes Japan a ‘normal’ country, in the words of Prime Minister Abe. Indeed, the US, which gave Japan the pacifist constitution in the first instance, has been pushing Japan, over quite some time, to amend and/or reinterpret its constitution to share defence burden, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region where China has emerged as a contender. And the constitutional reinterpretation will further solidify the US-Japan alliance to China’s great discomfort. Beijing, though, is not sitting idle. It has been, at the same time, seeking an opening with South Korea against the backdrop of their shared antipathy against Japan’s wartime crimes. The recent visit there of the Chinese President Xi Jinping was an important exploratory trip with an assurance that China, like Seoul, is for denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Since only North Korea has nuclear weapons in the peninsula, Xi was clearly favouring Seoul over its own Pyongyang ally. In another way, China is seeking to breach US’s strategic bastion as Seoul and Washington are and have been security allies for many years.

 The recent visit to Australia of Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, has further complicated the picture. The signing of a dual economic and strategic partnership during Abe’s visit added more depth to an already close relationship between the US’ two closest regional allies. Prime Minister Tony Abbot welcomed the new assertive security role for Japan from its re-interpreted constitution, lauded Japan for its peaceful international conduct since the end of WW11, and even praising the heroism and patriotism of its soldiers, at times, during the war. In a parliamentary speech, Abbot said that Australians admired Japanese soldiers for “the skill and the sense of honour that they brought to their task, although we disagreed with what they did.” To which the Chinese news agency, Xinhua, riposted that Mr Abbot  “probably wasn’t aware that the Japanese troops possessed other ‘skills’ to loot, to rape, to torture and to kill.” And Beijing is not amused at Australian foreign minister, Julie Bishop’s, remarks in a press interview that “China doesn’t respect weakness.” In other words, Australia is on the right track to cultivate powerful allies.

All these developments do not bode well for the stability of this region. And if it continues, it might inexorably create an explosive situation. 

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au 

  

Australia, US and China

Australia, US and China

S P SETH

Australia’s US alliance is almost an article of faith in this country. It was, therefore, a bit of a surprise when Malcolm Fraser, a former conservative prime minister, wrote a book titled, Dangerous Allies, that is a searing critique of its security alliance with the US. It is even more surprising that Malcolm Fraser, in his earlier role as the country’s defence minister, was somewhat of a warhorse supporting the country’s involvement in the Vietnam War. And as Prime Minister he was highly critical when the Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan, fearing that this might lead to a new world war. And now he has penned down a book that is entirely at odds with his advocacy in office for standing behind the US in Vietnam War and in almost all situations.

Fraser might have had a conversion on the road to Damascus, as they say, but the country’s establishment across the political spectrum is solidly aligned with the US. If anything it has been further strengthened with a new army base for the rotating US forces in Darwin as well as other planned facilities. And the vital Pine Gap surveillance base, according to Fraser, is now an integral part of the US “offensive war machine” to target, he believes, China’s nuclear arsenal in case of war. At present, as Fraser told an interviewer, it provides information for drone strikes against Islamist militants and unlucky bystanders in the “war on terror” which he describes in his book “as the weapons of terrorists.”

At 84 Fraser might be a yesterday’s man, but by writing this book he is certainly trying to start a new debate to warn his country against tying itself to the US’ strategic interests to contain China in the Asia-Pacific region. The context is China’s regional assertiveness for sovereignty over South China Sea and its islands, as well a group of islands in the East China Sea under Japanese control. He fears that this regional tug of war between China and some of its neighbors and the US, by virtue of its military alliance with the Philippines and Japan, might lead Australia into an unwanted war. As he puts it: “To make sure that America doesn’t have a capacity to force Australia into a war which we should well and truly keep out of.” And to this end, Canberra should start winding down and ending its military alliance with the US.

Fraser might be whistling in the air because Canberra is really petrified at the way China is projecting its power in the region though, on surface, they welcome China’s rise. Canberra is, therefore, trying a difficult balancing act between its security alliance with the US, principally as a safeguard against a perceived Chinese threat, and its burgeoning and highly lucrative trade relationship with China. And it even tends to occasionally interpret China favorably to the Americans as its well-wisher. For instance, during his recent US visit, Prime Minister Tony Abbot had this to say to a meeting of the American Chamber of Commerce, “As citizens of a great power, it is understandable that Americans should be wary of potential rivals, [but] for Americans to begrudge what the Chinese haven’t achieved [probably referring to the absence of democracy in that country] more than to admire what they have, is out of character—especially as the movement, in just a generation, of hundreds of millions of Chinese into the middle class is a transformation unparalleled in human history.”

Canberra hopes that such attempts at balancing its relationship between China and the US will somehow mellow China on the question of Australia’s participation in the US security nexus. Beijing regards all such security connections as part of a US-led containment ring around China. Australia certainly feels threatened by China’s power projection in the region, as it is disrupting/threatening US naval supremacy regarded ‘benign’ by Canberra. However much Canberra might think that it would be able to adroitly play the balancing game, Beijing certainly is not buying it. But, over time, and with expanding economic ties in trade and investment areas, China might be able to have some leverage to influence Australia’s strong security links with the US.

Already, there are some powerful discordant voices cautioning against Australia becoming a pawn in US-China power game. Malcolm Fraser is one, as we have mentioned. Paul Keating, another former prime minister, is another critic. Professor Hugh White, at the Australian National University, wants Australia to play a facilitating role with the US in favour of accommodating China’s strategic interests in the region. But this is to assume that Canberra has some sort of a say in US foreign and strategic policy. Fraser debunks this idea because, as reported in an interview (paraphrased): The US, in his experience as Australia’s defence minister and later prime minister, has no capacity to listen to other countries because great powers do not reward loyalty. The US will do whatever is in its interests.

But Canberra continues to live with the illusion that it can influence US policy in the region. But at the same time it lives with the fear that the US might one day decide to withdraw from the region and leave Australia high and dry and to its own devises. After WW11 and the start of the Cold War pitting US-led alliance against the Soviet Union (and with the emergence of communist China and the Vietnam war), Australia was as much in fear of the dominoes’ theory of regional Asian countries falling to communism, as was President Johnson who formally started war on Hanoi. Now that communist China is keen to elbow out the US from the region, Australia is working hard to keep it committed in the region. It was in the Australian parliament in 2011 that President Obama announced the US policy of  “pivot” to Asia to increase its naval deployment in the region. And it is against this background that Canberra has agreed to provide more facilities in Australia for the forward basing of US military assets.

But Australia’s burgeoning economic ties with China, largely in its favour, are creating some unease in the US. An Australian journalist reflects this in a recent interview with Hillary Clinton, until recently the US secretary of state and a likely Democratic Party presidential contender in 2016. On the question of Australia’s growing economic dependence on China, she said, “… It is a mistake, whether you’re a country or a company or an individual to put… all your eggs in the one basket… It makes you dependent, to an extent that can undermine your freedom of movement and your sovereignty—economic and political.” For pointed emphasis she referred to the situation Europe finds itself in for gas supplies from Russia. In other words, while the security nexus between the US and Australia is stronger than ever but the fluidity of economic, political and strategic situation in the region makes it for very uncertain and even dangerous times.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com. au