Asians can and must think strategically, not to be dominated by the West

Can Asians think?

CAN Asian Think is a provocative book written in 1998 by the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, Kishore Mahbubani, a prolific and brilliant thinker.

The book is a combative rebuttal of the idea that the dominant Western (read American) ideas are universalist, arguing that the Rest (of the World) has a lot to teach the West.

Re-reading it after more than 16 years, the questions raised by Mahbubani are as relevant as ever. Personally, I found the title rather condescending – of course Asians can think! The real issue is whether Asians can think strategically in their own interest, or whether they think that the dominant Western philosophy and values are so comfortable and relevant that they simply accept that the West is best.

The intellectual tide is going full circle. Since 1998, we have experienced two full-scale crises – the Asian financial crisis of 1998-1999 in which some Western polemicists gloated over Asian hubris, and the Great Recession of 2007-2009, when even Western intellectuals questioned whether unfettered capitalism was a dead end.

As one Asian leader said, when our teacher stumbles, what does the student do? This strategic question has not been completely answered, or at least the answers are different for different Asian countries.

Now that the West has begun to recover, we are going through a reversal of fortunes. Emerging economies are going to bear the brunt of global adjustment. At least three Asian economies are counted among the Fragile Five (India, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and South Africa), and there is considerable worry that China may be going through a hard landing.

President Obama’s trip to Asia was a belated personal confirmation of his “Pivot to East Asia” policy, first articulated in 2012 by then Secretary of State and Presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton. As the United States began to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and its discovery of shale oil making it less dependent on the Middle East, the Pivot strategy involved strengthening bilateral ties with allies in East Asia, and working relationships with emerging powers, such as China. The immediate unintended consequence of the Pivot policy was the eruption of the Ukraine crisis, whereby Russia took advantage of European weakness and diversion of US attention to effectively bring Crimea back to the Russian sphere of influence.

All of a sudden, the Cold War, defined as the struggle between Big Powers, re-emerged into the global risk equation.

Russian soldiers march at the Red Square in Moscow during a Victory Day parade. Thousands of Russian troops marched in Red Square to mark 69 years since victory in World War II in a show of military might amid tensions in Ukraine following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. -AFP

The word “pivot” originally arose from a paper “The Geographical Pivot of History”, delivered exactly 110 years ago by Sir Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), then director of the London School of Economics. In his second book in 1919, Mackinder, considered the father of geopolitics and geostrategy theory, enscapsulated his theory of the Heartland in a dictum: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.”

The Heartland is of course Central Asia, previously part of the Soviet Union, and the World-Island is the largest landmass of Euroasia, from Atlantic Europe to the East Asian Pacific coast, which commands 50% of the world’s resources. Many of today’s areas of geopolitical risk are at the frontiers of the Heartland – Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the South China Sea.

Mackinder’s innovation was to examine national strategy on a global scale, recognising that the British empire must use geography and strategic policy to its advantage against competing great powers.

Former British colonies understood very well the British strategy of “divide and rule”, playing off one faction against the other, so that Britain could rule a subcontinent like India without expending too much resources. But Britain did not hesitate to apply gunboats or cannon to maintain the strategic balance. Similarly, Britain played off one European power against another, until weakened by two world wars, her former colony, the United States emerged as the global superpower.

Seen from the long lens of history, we are in the second Anglo-Saxon empire, with America being the new Rome. Just as the Roman empire shifted its capital from Rome to Constantinople (now Istanbul) in the 20th century, power shifted westward from London to Washington DC.

In the 20th century, two island economies, Britain and Japan, played leading roles in intervening in the continents of Europe and Asia through maritime power, but by the 21st century, air and technological power through size and scale changed the game in favour of the United States. The United States is a continental economy defended by two oceans, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic, without a military rival within the Americas.

In contrast, Asia has been historically riven by war and territorial disputes.

In his new book, the Revenge of Geography, geostrategist Robert Kaplan argued how politics and warfare were determined throughout history largely by geography.

Even though the arrival of air travel and Internet suggest that the world may become borderless, the reality is that the world is becoming more and more crowded.

When the First World War broke out in 1914, the global population was only 1.7 billion, with a death count of 16 million. By the Second World War, the death count reached as high as 85 million, when world population was only 2.3 billion.

The next World War will be fought over water and energy resources, because there are limits to natural resources even as the global population exceeds 7 billion, going towards 9 billion by 2030.

For the world to avoid global conflict will require great skills and mutual understanding, because the geopolitical risks of political miscalculation and accidents are extremely high in an age of rising tensions due to inequality, chauvinism, religious and ethnic polarisation. As an old African saying goes, when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. In the next big fight between the nuclear powers, there will be no winners.

Now that is something that not just Asians must seriously think about.

 - Contributed by Tan Sri Andrew Sheng

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is Distinguished Fellow of the Fung Global Institute. The views expressed are entirely the writer's own.

China advises ASEAN to be independent

Don't be bystanders or tools of major powers, says Beijing

China has urged members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations not to be a bystander or "a tool of major powers" to cope with the new challenges in the current global political and economic atmosphere.

"ASEAN should exercise its independent judgment to move this region forward. If ASEAN takes sides, it would lose its relevance," Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Fu Ying told The Nation in an exclusive interview over the weekend.

"ASEAN has an important role to play with its tried-and-true ASEAN Way, as major powers are shaping their new relations in the region."

She said relations with ASEAN countries are of "unquestionable priority" for China. China will continue to support ASEAN's "centrality" in East Asian cooperation, she said.

Fu was in Bangkok over the weekend to meet Thailand's Foreign Affairs Permanent Secretary Sihasak Phuangketkeow. In July, Thailand is to take over the role of ASEAN's coordinator with China for the next three years.

Since the dialogue partnership was established in the early 1990s, ASEAN-China relations have enjoyed robust development, she said.

"We have also encountered a lot of challenges. Yet, rather than hurting our relations, these challenges were turned into opportunities to reinforce our relations," she said.

Asked about the United States' decision to "rebalance" its forces in Asia and the Pacific, Fu said: "China has no problem accepting the US presence and its positive influence in the Asia Pacific. We welcome a constructive US role in regional affairs."

She noted, however, that there is growing concern from media and academics in China over the heavy US emphasis on security in the region.

"I've noticed that the same concern has also been heard in other Asian countries. Some say China is the 'elephant in the room'. Some others worry about a possible return to the Cold War," she said.

"As I see it, maybe it's still too early to draw conclusions."

Asked whether Beijing is concerned about Washington's possible "containment policy" against China, she said: "The US has loudly denied any intention to contain China. We will just take them at their word."

She said she did not believe any country could "contain" another country in the current global environment.

"How can anyone contain 1.3 billion people of China from building better lives for themselves?" she asked.

Fu said China's industrialization is "only halfway" complete. Its huge population means that China's per capita GDP would remain low for a long time to come.

"We are still a developing country working hard to address the imbalances and the uncoordinated and unsustainable aspects of the economy," she said.

Regarding the South China Sea disputes, the vice-minister reiterated that China wants to handle the disputes peacefully through direct negotiations between countries concerned.

"At the same time, we must protect China's sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. We remain committed to working with countries concerned to reach a farsighted and wise solution," she added.

China and ASEAN countries signed the Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002. Central to the DOC is a commitment by all parties to "exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability".

The vice-minister said China and ASEAN are also involved in ongoing discussions on the formulation of a Code of Conduct. "This shows that safeguarding stability in the region and managing disputes appropriately remains the mainstream thinking in our region."

She added: "We sincerely hope that China and ASEAN countries will keep a cool head on this issue and exercise restraint through action, and that all parties will refrain from undermining the atmosphere for peace and stability in the region."

She pointed out that more than 80 percent of China's trade goes through the sea lanes in South China Sea.

"Safety of the navigation routes is of utmost importance for China. We will do all we can to ensure peace in this part of the world," Fu said.

By Suthichai Yoon  (China Daily)  
Suthichai Yoon is editor-in-chief of The Nation Group in Bangkok
The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:
Assets grow fast and furious! 
Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?

US Military Strategy to Asia: Poke a Stick In China's Eye

A military pivot to Asia

By TANG SIEW MUN

‘Pivoting to Asia’ is fast becoming the centrepiece of US strategic and diplomatic objectives.

IF there were doubts about America’s “return” to Asia, all were dissipated with the release of the new strategic guidance report by the Pentagon on Jan 5.

Washington’s grand objective can be gleaned from the title of the report, “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defence”.

While the report affirms US interests worldwide and renews its pledge to uphold its commitments to its allies and friends, it unambiguously stresses the importance of Asia. It states that the US “will of necessity rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific region”.

The report follows through the grand strategic vision enunciated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an article published in Foreign Policy where she declared that “the future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the centre of the action”.

“Pivoting to Asia” is fast becoming the centrepiece of US strategic and diplomatic objectives.

Before “pivoting” became the cornerstone of the US-Asia policy, the region was abuzz with the US “return” to Asia. China, understandably, was especially agitated.

Indeed, there are segments in China who view the US “return” to Asia with a sense of foreboding, as US initiatives are seen as stratagems to contain China’s growing influence and power in the region.

If hitherto there were concerns about the US return to Asia, then Washington’s “pivot movement” to Asia will certainly generate more discussion and potentially countervailing measures.

To be sure, “pivoting” is different from “returning”. In general, a US return would be marked by its heightened diplomatic engagement, especially with its newfound interest and support for multilateral initiatives such as the East Asia Summit.

A US “return” to Asia would be largely viewed by South-East Asia as a positive development, especially in an uncertain strategic environment punctuated by China’s expanding economic and military power.

In this regard, the US is seen as a reliable and indispensable power to balance and, if necessary, to check Chinese aggressive designs.

However, pivoting in the context of the Pentagon report may see an increased US military presence in the region.

South-East Asia is no stranger to the US military. Up until November 1991 when the Clark Air Base was returned to the Philippines, the US had maintained a large military footprint in the region.

The US has close relations with its treaty partners Thailand and the Philippines. In November 1990, the US negotiated an arrangement with Singapore that gave it access to and use of facilities in the city state.

Singapore is also home to the US Navy’s Logistics Group Western Pacific that provides logistics support for the US Seventh Fleet.

For many decades, the US had consistently maintained a high strategic profile through bilateral and multilateral military exercises and other military-to-military cooperation.

The hubs-and-spokes system of bilateral security treaties, which includes South Korea, Japan and Australia, has long been regarded as the backbone of the region’s security.

The strategic presence of the US in, and its engagement with, the region is often quoted as one of the primary reasons for South-East Asia’s stability and growth.

The argument goes that the US provided the security umbrella which allowed South-East Asian states to limit their defence outlays.

This argument was certainly valid during the Cold War era when the Asean states were undoubtedly pro-American and cooperated to varying degrees with the US.

In fact, when the US Air Force pulled out of the Clark Air Base, there was a sense of trepidation and the perception that the US was withdrawing from the region.

There was genuine fear about a power vacuum which would “invite” other major powers to supplant the US’ dominant role in regional security.

Fortunately, these fears were unfounded as the expected jostling for primacy in Asia and the feared US retreat did not materialise.

While the US’ diplomatic and political “return” to the region is applauded and welcomed, reception for its “pivot to Asia” may be less enthusiastic.

There are several reasons for such pessimism. Granted that the pivot strategy will be multifaceted and not uni-dimensionally focusing on military power.

However, it is the latter component of the pivot strategy that may prove to be most controversial.
To the extent that pivoting entails an enlarged and more visible military footprint, it will be destabilising and anathema to regional security.

An increased US military profile will generate what academics understand as a “security dilemma” and make China feel uncomfortable, to put it mildly.

A case in point is the recent announcement of the deployment up to 2,500 US Marines on a “rotational” basis in Darwin, Australia.

Washington and Canberra were quick to emphasise the transient nature of the deployment, but whichever way one attempts to slice and dice “Darwin”, in the eyes of the Chinese and the rest of South-East Asia, this move puts hundreds of well-trained and highly mobile US military personnel at the edge of the region.

It is a potential “beach head” for the US to organise and launch military expeditions into South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean.

We can also expect to see more of the Stars and Stripes in the region.

Last month, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert wrote in the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings that the US is contemplating deploying littoral combat ships in Singapore and “other places” in South-East Asia.



We must ask ourselves whether there is an imminent threat in the region that necessitates increased fire power from the US.

There is a point beyond which an increased military presence provides a negative marginal return. More is not always necessarily better.

There may be quarters in South-East Asia that embrace a larger US military role and profile. Notable among these are the “hedgers” who no doubt see the US as the ultimate “insurance policy” to guard against strategic uncertainty.

When it is diplomatically untenable and militarily impractical to balance against China’s expanding military might, then the growing presence of the US is reassuring, to say the least.

It cannot be denied that the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) growing muscle is being closely monitored and analysed.

While there is no unified response to this phenomenon, it is accepted that South-East Asia cannot match the PLA gun for gun.

A military response is destructive and ultimately futile. The preferred modality is to embed China in a web of regional and multilateral cooperation mechanisms.

The Asean China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) and the Asean Plus Three (APT) are but two examples.

South-East Asia should stay the course and continue its ongoing successful engagement of China. However, the military component of “pivoting” may serve to amplify the strategic divide and suspicions between China and South-East Asia.

The implications of “pivoting” are multiple. For a start, the US will seek a larger voice and role in the region.

Secretary Clinton spoke for many Ameri­cans when she asserted that Asia is the future and correspondingly the US must be in Asia.

The substantive question that needs to be asked is, “When the US leads, should Asia fall in line and accept US leadership?”

It would be unrealistic for Washington to assume that Asia will do this. Acceptance of US leadership is not universal, nor is it automatic.

Support for the US in Indonesia, South-East Asia’s largest country, is slipping. The Pew Global Attitudes Survey showed it has declined from 56% in 2009 to 49% in 2010.

Asia does not dance to the tune of Washing­ton, nor does it march to the beat of the Chinese.

While Washington sees its future in Asia, it needs to be mindful that the success of its “pivot” strategy is contingent on the concurrence and support of Asia.

The operative words are cooperation and collaboration.

The region’s strategic uncertainty – read as fear of China – cannot be resolved by the placement of more US troops in the region or through military grandstanding.

It is not about being pro-US or anti-China but how to build a stable, secure and prosperous future. The US pivot to Asia should be welcomed to the extent that it contributes constructively to a better and brighter future for Asia.

> The writer is Director (Foreign Policy and Security Studies) at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia. The views are his own.

Obama's New Defense Strategy: Poke a Stick In China's Eye And See What Happens 

This new "Defense Strategy" of President Obama's is a deliberate provocation of the Chinese, as was his trip to Asia last month when he made his none too cute "We're Back" declaration.  

Last Month in Australia Obama was quoted as saying, “Let there be no doubt: in the Asia-Pacific in the 21st century, the United States of America is all in.” 

If there was doubt in anyone's mind in Beijing, about American intentions Obama dispelled that doubt and any room for reasoned diplomacy by elaborating that this is a “deliberate and strategic decision” America is “here to stay”.    What an affront to the Chinese!  We were hoping the State Department would let this new offensive go quietly away.   Unfortunately, that is not to be.  Obama's "Strategy" is a dangerous road to take.  If it is intended to assist him in his re election efforts it will seriously backfire.  Unfortunately, the consequence won't be just Obama's and the Democrat Party.  The outcome of this foreign policy fiasco  will fall squarely on the shoulders of America and it's allies.  This new policy is literal insanity. It would appear Obama is playing right into the hands of Hu Jintao and the Chinese military leaders who are just chomping at the bit for a fight.    An Article in the Economist in a much more nuanced and cautious fashion discusses the concerns many other's have about the manner in which Obama is flexing his muscles and apparently bullying for a fight with the Chinese.  

China hasn't issued a stamp with this ferocious a dragon
since 1878 (Photo Xinhua)

This is the year of the dragon and they must be deft dumb and blind over in foggy bottom to have missed the significance the Chinese attribute to this auspicious event.  The dragon was a symbol of  China's Imperial Power and today it is a not too subtle symbol of China's Military, Political and Economic power.  That China chose to reissue such a ferocious stamp this year is no coincidence.

We have to ask ourselves why has Obama picked this time to insult and bully a world power that is vastly superior to our own, certainly in it's own backyard.  Does anyone think the Chinese are going to stand idly by as Obama in his arrogance, asserts his "right" to "ensure China's peaceful rise to power".    The implied threat in that statement from Obama and the Clinton State Department is palpable.  The US, in the person of Obama, is saying, "We're going to come into China's sphere of influence

and arbitrate and adjudicate any and all issues we decide have a national security interest to us."  Certainly, the United States should not cede it's position as a world power and it's interests but to do so in such an ignorant and arrogant fashion is inexcusable.

A bizarre thought occurs to us that given Obama's own love of Socialism and Marxism maybe his provocation of China is intended to give Hu and General Lin Yuan, (A possible successor to Hu) an excuse and license to go to war with America.

Posted by FarmerRicky

Related post:

• The role that the US plays in Asia: Containment of China!
• China warns US on Asia military strategy 
• ASEAN Sumit: US reasserts role as Pacific power ...
• G20, Apec without gusto; Asean for peace; US cold war ...

Related articles

• US Military Strategy to Asia: Poke a Stick In China's Eye (rightways.wordpress.com)

Pentagon planning Cold War against China - AirSea Battle concept!

Tweet

Pentagon battle concept has Cold War posture on China ...

By Bill Gertz The Washington Times

** FILE ** A security officer walks on the roof of the Pentagon. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

The Pentagon lifted the veil of secrecy Wednesday on a new battle concept aimed at countering Chinese military efforts to deny access to areas near its territory and in cyberspace.

The Air Sea Battle concept is the start of what defense officials say is the early stage of a new Cold War-style military posture toward China.

The plan calls for preparing the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to defeat China's "anti-access, area denial weapons," including anti-satellite weapons, cyberweapons, submarines, stealth aircraft and long-range missiles that can hit aircraft carriers at sea.

Military officials from the three services told reporters during a background briefing that the concept is not directed at a single country. But they did not answer when asked what country other than China has developed advanced anti-access arms.

A senior Obama administration official was more blunt, saying the new concept is a significant milestone signaling a new Cold War-style approach to China.

"Air Sea Battle is to China what the maritime strategy was to the Soviet Union," the official said.

During the Cold War, U.S. naval forces around the world used a strategy of global presence and shows of force to deter Moscow's advances.

"It is a very forward-deployed, assertive strategy that says we will not sit back and be punished," the senior official said. "We will initiate."

The concept, according to defense officials, grew out of concerns that China's new precision-strike weapons threaten freedom of navigation in strategic waterways and other global commons.

Defense officials familiar with the concept said among the ideas under consideration are:

• Building a new long-range bomber.

• Conducting joint submarine and stealth aircraft operations.

• New jointly operated, long-range unmanned strike aircraft with up to 1,000-mile ranges.

• Using Air Force forces to protect naval bases and deployed naval forces.

• Conducting joint Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force strikes inside China.

• Using Air Force aircraft to deploy sea mines.

• Joint Air Force and Navy attacks against Chinese anti-satellite missiles inside China.

• Increasing the mobility of satellites to make attacks more difficult.

• Launching joint Navy and Air Force cyber-attacks on Chinese anti-access forces.



Pentagon press secretary George Little said the new office "is a hard-won and significant operational milestone in meeting emerging threats to our global access."

"This office will help guide meaningful integration of our air and naval combat capabilities, strengthening our military deterrent power, and maintaining U.S. advantage against the proliferation of advanced military technologies and capabilities," Mr. Little said.

He noted that it is a Pentagon priority to rebalance joint forces to better deter and defeat aggression in "anti-access environments."

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said during a visit to Asia that U.S. forces would be reoriented toward Asia as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. The new focus will include "enhanced military capabilities," he said without elaborating.

The military officials at the Pentagon on Wednesday did not discuss specifics of the new concept. One exception was an officer who said an example would be the use of Air Force A-10 ground attack jets to defend ships at sea from small-boat "swarm" attacks.

China in recent years has grown more assertive in waters near its shores, harassing Navy surveillance ships in the South China Sea and Yellow Sea.

China also has claimed large portions of the South China Sea as its territory. U.S. officials said the Chinese have asserted that it is "our driveway."

The Pentagon also is concerned about China's new DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile that can hit aircraft carriers at sea. Carriers are the key power-projection capability in Asia and would be used in defending Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

"The Air Sea Battle concept will guide the services as they work together to maintain a continued U.S. advantage against the global proliferation of advanced military technology and [anti-access/area denial] capabilities," the Pentagon said in announcing the creation of a program office for the concept.

Although the office was set up in August, the background briefing Wednesday was the first time the Pentagon officially rolled out the concept.

The Army is expected to join the concept office in the future.

One defense official said the Army is involved in cyberwarfare initiatives that would be useful for countering anti-access weapons.

"Simply put, we're talking about freedom of access in the global commons. Increasing ranges of precision fire threaten those global commons in new expanding ways," said a military official speaking on condition of anonymity. "That, in a nutshell, is what's different."

Defense officials said some administration officials opposed the new concept over concerns it would upset China. That resulted in a compromise that required military and defense officials to play down the fact that China is the central focus of the new battle plan.

A second military official said the new concept also is aimed at shifting the current U.S. military emphasis on counterinsurgency to the anti-access threats.

The office was disclosed as President Obama sets off this week on trip to Asia designed to shore up alliances. He is set to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao in Hawaii on Saturday.

The concept grew out of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review that, in its early stages, had excluded any mention of China's growing military might.

China was added to the review after intervention by Andrew Marshall, director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis, at the time head of the Joint Forces Command.

China military specialist Richard Fisher said the new Air Sea Battle office is necessary but may be "late in the game."

"A Pentagon office focused on China's military challenges in Asia or beyond will be insufficient," said Mr. Fisher, of the International Assessment and Strategy Center. "This challenge will require Cold War levels of strategic, political and economic policy integration well beyond the Pentagon's writ."

Said former State Department China specialist John Tkacik: "This new Air Sea Battle concept is evidence that Washington is finally facing up to the real threat that China has become an adversarial military, naval and nuclear power in Asia, and that the only way to balance China is to lend the weight of U.S. air and naval forces to our Asia-Pacific allies' ground forces."

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times

Related artices:

Pentagon planning Cold War against China...