US-Russia: dangerous brinkmanship

S P SETH

One doesn’t want to seem alarmist but the sound and fury of recriminations between the US-led west and Russia over Syria is worrying, to put it mildly. Russia’s military intervention on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s regime has made quite a difference and now they are pushing ahead with seeking control of the entire city of Aleppo, which already is a scene of devastation with contribution from Russian-led bombings. Russia justifies it to help Syria fight terrorism, and believes that they might have saved Syria from becoming a vast terrorist network. In the US, there is strong pressure on Obama to jump into the fray militarily with one reported suggestion being to carpet bomb Syria’s airfields to deny the Assad regime control of the skies, which gives them such an important advantage.

In this brutal conflict neither side is acting with any kind of restraint. The rebels/jihadis/terrorists have committed some heinous crimes and are continuing to do so but, for some time now, they appear to be on the defensive because of Russian military involvement on behalf of the Assad regime. The more lethal recent phase of the conflict started with the breakdown of the ceasefire between the two sides, which had been agreed to between the US and Russia to facilitate relief supplies to the besieged residents of east Aleppo. All hell broke loose after the US said it had mistakenly bombed the regime’s forces killing 60 of their soldiers, which the Assad regime described as deliberate and Russians apparently agreed. The response from the Damascus regime was instantaneous with more intensified bombing of eastern Aleppo, killing a number of civilians, and hitting some medical facilities. Since then, Moscow has come in for serious criticism, accused of committing war crimes.

The French have taken the lead by more or less uninviting President Putin who was scheduled to visit France for some official ceremonies. President Francois Hollande told Moscow that Putin’s visit, if it went ahead, would only be concentrated on seeking explanations from the Russian president about the criminality of its Syrian operations. Not surprisingly, Putin cancelled his visit. At the same time, the British were not behind in castigating Putin, with the British foreign minister, Boris Johnson, calling for demonstrations outside the Russian embassy in London. The US is visibly angry, with secretary of state, John Kerry, showing exasperation at Russia’s continued participation in military operations with Assad regime against rebels in Aleppo, highlighting civilian deaths and targeting medical facilities.

Both Damascus and Moscow, on the other hand, are emphasizing the anti-terror nature of their operations, maintaining that the US is unwilling to distinguish between terrorists and other rebel groups. This heightened war of words between Russia and the US-led west is not just empty rhetoric. Fearing US intervention, Moscow has reportedly deployed the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria and reinforced its military presence by sending three missile ships to the Mediterranean. A Russia naval flotilla passed through the English channel heading towards Syrian waters.

It is worth remembering that the heightened tensions over Syria comes against the backdrop of already toxic relations between Russia and the US and its NATO allies over Ukraine, where the crisis continues to simmer after the Russian occupation of Crimea and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. This crisis followed when Ukraine’s pro-Russian president was overthrown in an uprising that, according to some reports, had CIA backing, as he opposed his country’s virtual inclusion in European Union and, possibly, in NATO. The eastward expansion of NATO to include Baltic and eastern European states as its members, has created security fears in Moscow. At the same time, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine has further strengthened fears of its Baltic neighbors and others that now are also NATO members, seeking visible US and NATO military presence to deter Russia. Which has already happened.

It is, therefore, a vicious circle with both sides keen to show that they mean business. Moscow has increased its military presence both in the Mediterranean and Baltic regions, and has also suspended a nuclear non-proliferation treaty with the US. Russia has stationed missiles’ equipped ships in its Kaliningrad enclave, sandwiched between NATO members Poland and Lithuania, which can carry nuclear warheads. Poland’s defence minister said the action caused the “highest concern.”

A Russian TV presenter, Dmitry Kiselyov, reportedly warned on his Vesti Nedelyi program that, “Offensive behavior towards Russia has a nuclear dimension.” And Alexei Pushkov, a Russian senator, reportedly raised the prospect of a confrontation like the 1962 Cuban missile crisis between the US and Russia. Which, if it were to happen, would take us back to the height of the Cold War days. It has led the former Soviet Union president, Mikhail Gorbachev, to warn of dangers ahead.

Rationally, neither Russia nor the US-led NATO can afford to let the volatile situation in Syria and Ukraine get out of control, simply because of its nuclear dimension, even if uttered loosely by non-state actors. At another level, an implicit understanding is developing between Russia and China to confront US, as both have serious security issues with Washington--- South China Sea in the case of Beijing. Whether this will lead to a formal pact/alliance is difficult to predict at this stage. In any case, by taking on the US to demonstrate power parity, at least at broad military level, Putin appears to have restored Russia’s prestige among its people after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And this has reportedly made him immensely popular in his country.

But this might turn out to be illusory in the medium and long term, simply because Russia can’t sustain a war of nerves because of its relatively weak economic situation. With international oil price around half or less than a decade or so ago, Russia’s revenue coffers are not too healthy. And western economic sanctions from the Ukrainian crisis, and threat of even more of the same, only add to this. But the danger is that both sides might become a prisoner of their own rhetoric and hard positions leading inextricably to a showdown of some sort. And that might overshadow all other conflicts in the world.

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

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au  

Australia’s China dilemma

S P SETH

Australia’s China dilemma is getting ever more serious regarding the need to strike the right balance between its strategic relationship with the US and increasingly deeper economic ties with China. Indeed, when a Chinese company was sold a controlling interest in the Port of Darwin in the country’s north, it raised such concern in the US that President Obama reportedly raised the matter with the visiting Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Darwin is an important strategic base for US military. More recently, when two Chinese companies were seeking to buy a controlling interest in an electricity grid (Ausgrid) in the state of New South Wales, the country’s treasurer (finance minister) disallowed it on national security grounds. The security concerns were not spelled out, though the treasurer is said to have acted on the recommendation of almost all the country’s security agencies. Earlier, however, Chinese investment in some other electricity assets had been allowed without any fuss.

Which led a former Australian foreign minister, Bob Carr, now heading Australia-China Relations Institute, partly funded by China, to describe the government’s decision to block the long term lease of Ausgrid to China as “a policy sacrifice to the witches’ Sabbath of xenophobia and economic nationalism stirred up in the recent federal election.” This only creates more confusion because Chinese money is seen in some quarters as not only seeking gradually to control Australia’s economic arteries, but also corrupting its political system, with reports of donations to political parties from Chinese interests at home and abroad. Taking aim at Bob Carr’s withering criticism of blocking the sale of electricity grid to China, Peter Hartcher, the Sydney Morning Herald’s international editor, wrote, “As for [Bob] Carr, he should understand the paramount importance of national security. When the federal government barred China’s Huawei [internet conglomerate] from bidding to build the National Broadcasting Network in 2012, Carr, as foreign minister, said that Australia was entitled to defend its national security.” Elaborating, he said, “In 2012 he [Bob Carr] was paid to represent Australia. Today, his partly Chinese-funded institute pays him to be part of the Chinese bluster.”

Speaking at the partly Chinese funded, Australia-China Relations Institute, which is headed by Bob Carr, a former prime minister, Paul Keating, suggested that Australia needed a foreign policy that was more accommodating of China’s regional primacy and not “caught up in some containment policy of China… to assist Americans in trying to preserve strategic hegemony in Asia and the Pacific.” Keating incidentally is a member of the advisory committee of state-run China Development Bank. This sort of ‘heresy’ is relatively new in Australia. Despite this, Australia’s US alliance remains the corner stone of its foreign policy.

However, Australia’s deepening economic relationship with China, further reinforced with a recently signed free trade agreement between the two countries, is likely to underpin Australia’s economic prosperity into the foreseeable future. China is now Australia’s biggest trading partner, taking about 35 per cent of its exports, and supplying about 20 per cent of its imports. A recent major Australian economic study, Partnership for Change, remains largely optimistic about the future direction of Australia-China economic relationship. Trade aside, China is also a major source of new economic investments in Australia estimated at 46 billion Australian dollars last year; though the US reportedly has the biggest accumulated stock of investment at 860 billion Australian dollars as of last year or 28 per cent of the total at the end of 2014-15. But China is steadily coming up, with a quarter of the new investments last year.

Australia’s prosperity has been built on foreign investments but China’s acquisition of Australian assets, considered economically, politically and strategically sensitive, is creating some problems. Not surprisingly, Beijing reacted strongly to Canberra’s decision to block Chinese investment of a controlling share in a New South Wales’ electricity grid. Its foreign ministry described the decision as a matter of “deep concern”, urging Australia to “avoid discrimination and provide a fair environment.” China’s commerce ministry said that, “This kind of decision is protectionist and seriously impacts the willingness of Chinese companies to invest in Australia”, suggesting that Chinese investors might start looking elsewhere.

By and large, China and Australia have a complimentary trade relationship based on Chinese demand for Australian goods and services for its growing and diversifying economy, and Australia is well served with Chinese consumer products, with a comfortable trade balance in Australia’s favour. The dilemma arises because Australia’s strategic nexus with the US puts it in the US camp when it comes to security issues. China’s projection of power in South China Sea is a case in point, where US and Australia are critical of China laying claim to a string of islands and dredging new ones to establish military facilities, making South China Sea into a virtual Chinese lake. Both Washington and Canberra favour a peaceful regional solution between China and its neighbours. The crunch might come if this issue were to develop into military conflict to involve Australia as US’ ally. And that might seriously damage their economic relationship.

However, Canberra hopes that it will not come to this and Australia might be able to juggle both its primary economic relationship with China and strategic nexus with the US. In any case, it is sometimes argued that Beijing has been aware all this time that Australia and US are strategic allies and this hasn’t stood in the way of their deepening economic relationship. Therefore, Australia need not be squeamish or defensive when asserting its national security interests, as with its decision to block China’s controlling investment in an electricity grid. The argument goes that despite Australia’s decision to block Chinese investments on national security grounds in some cases, the two countries’ have gone ahead to sign a free trade agreement. To quote Peter Hartcher again, “Chinese bluster is part of the theatre.” China probably is thinking long term that with Australia’s prosperity increasingly tied to Chinese trade and investments; there will be greater scope to loosen Australia’s strategic ties with the US. 

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

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

  

Philippines’ new political order

S P SETH

Who is this guy Rodrigo Duterte who promised to call President Barack Obama the “son of a whore” to his face? Well, he did say it but not to Obama’s face because he didn’t get the opportunity. Duterte is the new president of the Philippines recently elected with a comfortable majority. And he won kudos with his people promising to eradicate the country’s druggies, both the addicts and the pushers, and to do it in his own rough and ready way that he practiced so successfully as mayor of the city of Davao. His record in that city was his main qualification, which got him elected as president. And his method is a mix of vigilante justice and police killings of those in the business of using and promoting hard drugs. He doesn’t believe in any due process of law. The police and the vigilantes have lists of suspects and, unless they surrender before hand and then sent to overcrowded jails, they are simply disposed of. So far, in the short period he has been the country’s president, quite a few thousands have been summarily killed and their number is rising.

How does Obama come into the picture here? Duterte’s brand of justice has come in for criticism for violation of human rights. Obama was expected to raise this issue with Duterte during their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the recent Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting and East Asian summit. Duterte was seeking to preempt it by loudly announcing how he would respond to the anticipated criticism by calling Obama the “son of a whore”, because he had no business lecturing Duterte who is the elected president of a sovereign nation. And, for added effect, he said that the Philippines had ceased to be the US colony for a long time. The Philippines was US colony from 1898 to 1946, apart from a brief period of Japanese occupation. Obama cancelled the planned bilateral meeting, describing Duterte as a colourful guy. Duterte reportedly claimed that, “I purposely did not attend the bilateral talks with the president of the United States [as]… you cannot just [lecture] a president of a sovereign state. That is why I swore against him.”

Where is this leading? One can see that Duterte is as rough a character as they come. But that is not how he sees it. He sees himself as authentic as they come, representing the rustic and straightforward virtues of the common man and saying it as it should be said. And he is reinforced in his authenticity as he reportedly has the support of 90 per cent of the people of his country. And they find in him a man of action, and going by his record as mayor of Davao, likely to clean up his country from the scourge of drugs and corruption. He has no patience and tolerance for criticism, internally and externally, of his methods. Faced with criticism from the UN human rights agencies, he has threatened to quit the UN. And he has countered the European Union criticism by reportedly telling them to “fu..you.” He has also likened his promised slaughter of three million addicts in his country to Hitler’s killing of Jews. He has told foreign investors, uncomfortable with his ways and obscene language, to “Leave his country. Then we can start on our own. I can go to China. I can go to Russia. I have to talk to them. They are waiting for me, so what the hell?”

Duterte is the sort of character who must take his fight to the end, as he sees it. This might mean reviewing the Philippines’ relationship with the US. The first salvo in this was to declare that some the US troops based in Mindanao in southern Philippines “have to go…there are too many whites there”. Some US special forces have been involved in operations against long persisting Muslim insurgency in that region, which also doubles up as a crime syndicate of sorts, including kidnapping foreigners for ransom and drug running. The order is said to reflect “new direction towards coursing an independent foreign policy.” Duterte seems to believe that US presence only accentuates the problem. He reportedly has claimed some Muslim ancestry. This ancestry claim and ordering US troops out of Mindanao might be his way of reaching out to Muslim insurgents.

Interestingly, Duerte regime didn’t appear to show any enthusiasm for the findings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague against China on the sovereignty issue over the South China Sea islands. It was Manila that had taken the issue to the Court seeking its arbitration on China’s construction of military structures on Mischief Reef that the Philippines claim. Indeed, it is keen not to upset Beijing by becoming part of the US’ freedom of navigation patrols through the Chinese claimed waters. Duterte has also announced that, after the upcoming military exercises between the US and the Philippines, his country would be withdrawing from this periodic routine. He reportedly said, “I am serving notice now to the Americans, this would be the last military exercise …”.

All this would suggest that Manila, under the Philippines’s new political order, might reevaluate its relations with China. This would involve considerable softening, if not withdrawal, from its long and close security relations with the United States. Their security ties had been further reinforced recently against the backdrop of disputed sovereignty claims over some islands in the South China Sea. The case brought out by the Philippines against China in the Hague court was a test case of sorts over the South China Sea islands sovereignty issue. With the US finding hard to rally a regional united front against China over the sovereignty question, Manila’s defection might be a major setback.

It might not be as simple as that, though, because any political advance in the matter would require concessions from Beijing to accommodate the Philippines’s position regarding its own sovereignty claim. It has been a highly charged national issue in the Philippines. China might find it hard to dilute its sovereignty position for fear of opening up the whole issue that also involves other regional claimants.  

As for the Philippines, any appearance of surrender of its sovereignty would have national repercussions in that country, as it has been a highly charged issue. But China might seek to buy off Manila with offers of increased trade and investment in industry and infrastructure. The US is, therefore, on notice by the Philippines’ new mercurial president to upend regional politics and security. However, he will not be an easy customer for China to deal, going by his tendency to say outrageous things.

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

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au