Geopolitical Developments in Asia Pacific Region: Beyond US-Sino Rivalry Narrative - Part 1 BA Hamzah1

Introduction

Predicting the geo-political future of our region is always a daunting task. In a fast-globalised geo -political environment, everything is so virtually interconnected making any forecast beyond five years an exercise in despair. Fast changing events put at risk any analysis. For example, who would have thought that President Trump has agreed to meet Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un of North Korea 2018 after trading insults with each other?

The geo-political dynamics in Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia have changed in the last one decade. A new power balance is in place without many realising it. The move towards a more multipolar power structure picked up speed following the election of President Donald Trump. The policies of President Xi-Jing Ping of China and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan have also contributed to the development of the new power balance in the region. The decision of North Korea to test the delivery missile systems has also affected the power dynamics in the region albeit on a small scale. North Korea remains a side-show in Northeast Asia!

In the next five years, I believe the South East Asian and the Northeast Asian region will face greater political uncertainty or disarray (after Richard Haas) as the big powers continue to compete with each other for the control of mainly the ocean space in the South China Sea and in the North-East Sea. As a corollary of the US-China rivalry, for example, we see states realigning their positions in response to a new power balance taking shape in the region. The formation of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising the United States and its two allies, Australia and Japan, plus India is cited as one cooperative strategy with a focus on guarding access through the sea-lanes of communication (SLOCS). Other geopolitical permutations may take place in the near future. For example, I view the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) not only demonstrates Japan’s diplomatic skill but rather an attempt to provide some economic counterweight to China.

The politics of the region is not all about the major powers but other state and non-state actors too. One cannot understand militancy at Marawi, the Philippines, for example, without understanding the motivations of the Abu Sayyaf group and or the aspirations of the Maute movement within the overall context of longstanding Moro insurgence in Southern Philippines. Likewise, the political violence and lawlessness in the Sulu Sea could be traced to the longstanding unresolved Moros’ demand for political autonomy.

The following are likely to pose challenges to regional security.

An assertive China is viewed by some as destabilising. The contrary view is of a peaceful friendly China with deep pockets providing an economic life-support to many. Its easy money policy-when compared with other funding agencies-in dispensing capital and loans for investments and trade has been a boom to many cash-strapped third world countries.

Critics believe China that has a global reach could pose a challenge to the strategic interests of some status quo powers. The extensive Belt and Road Initiative is often cited as an example of China’s soft power to transform the global economic landscape. China is expected to consolidate its soft and hard power influence beyond the region with recent decision to remove the two term Presidential terms.

China’s current policy in the SCS-seen by some as assertive- will not go unchallenged, though. However, China is not likely to withdraw from the SCS after investing heavily on the construction of artificial islands complete with airstrips and gun placements. China has also deployed missile batteries and building a resort at Woody Island that they promise to open to the public by early 2018.

Come what may, China is expected to defend the SCS against any intruder. I do not think China can be easily intimidated in the SCS.

China needs a strong military to challenge the US dominance. Currently, anyone who has studied Chinese military power knows, by all measures, China’s military might has a lot of catching up to do. China is years behind the US in naval power, for example. China’s PLA (Navy), for example, is often described as brown water with a limited number of aircraft carriers in comparison with the US Navy. Being a brown water Navy, China’s PLA (Navy) has a very limited strategic reach.

Today, China has one small naval facility at Djibouti. The US has more than one thousand naval, army and air facilities globally through a network of alliances, according to one China’s Think Tank on maritime affairs. At US$ 175 billion, China’s defence expenditure for 2018 is miniscule compared with $700 billion for US. Japan and India plan to boost up their military spending by $45 billion for and $46 billion respectively in the same year.

A remilitarised Japan will have an impact on regional security, the extent of which still unknown. However, we did learn from history that in the 1940s its Imperial Military invaded South East Asia, Taiwan, Korea and China to establish the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. I do not think Japan intends to re-enact the GEAPS. However, no one can predict what its hawkish Premier Abe-san grand strategy is all about.

A remilitarised Japan will change the geo-strategic equation in the region. Under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan is beefing up its military ostensibly as a hedge against an assertive China and an unpredictable North Korea. Tokyo’s real objective is to become a global military player probably in the same league as the United States. Towards this end, the Prime Minister plans to upgrade the Japanese Self Defence Forces, already one of the finest fighting units in the region. He is set on removing Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution to re-embrace the right of belligerency that it renounced following defeat seventy years plus ago. The long –term consequences of a policy change on regional security are debateable.

Japan can now export military weapons. In April 2016, it almost won the bid to supply Australia in March 2016 with the latest- state -of- the- art submarines. Currently, Japan is the fifth largest defence spender in the world. Under his watch, Shinzo Abe has increased the defence budget for five successive years.

An inward looking Pax Americana may leave behind a geo-political vacuum. Pax Americana remains the most pre-eminent external player in the region, despite President Donald Trump’s flip-flop US policies. Although Washington has exhibited signs of declining strategic influence and international prestige, Washington continues to call the shot in the region. The cancellation of President Obama’s policy of pivoting/rebalancing military posture to the East has sent conflicting signals to the region- particularly the treaty allies. The US proposed tariffs on steel and aluminium are likely to create imbalance in the global trading system that has snowballed into retribution. For example, China has hit back against Donald Trump's new tariffs on 128 US products estimated at $3 billion. An unwanted trade war can spill over into other areas. How the actors in the region adjust to this phenomenon will be interesting to watch. Bandwagoning or hedging is a policy option for some. Isolation will be a silly policy, though!!

The risk of inter- state conflicts especially among the big powers is very high. There are a few scenarios or permutations. They include conflicts with China and Russia. In our part of the world the US- China rivalry may end in a conflict. This presentation, however, takes the view that while the US-Sino rivalry will have an impact on defence planning in the region, our prognosis of the regional geo-political dynamics MUST GO beyond the conventional US-Sino rivalry narrative. I am not suggesting that the current US-Sino rivalry is no longer important in understanding the new geo- political dynamics in our region. It remains relevant and retains a significant influence on the geo-political character of the region.

There are cynics who believe that China and the US are destined for war. Professor Graham Allison observes that the US, an established power, paranoid that its time is up, fearful of rising power, may clash with China. Steve Bannon believed the SCS could be the battlefield between the US and China. 

[1] Adapted from a lecture.