China's relations with Southeast Asian countries are on an upswing, as demonstrated at the recent ASEAN summit in Laos. The Free Trade Agreement with ASEAN countries is supposed to become the economic powerhouse for regional economies.
The leading English newspaper of the largest Southeast Asian country, Indonesia, was full of praise. Mindful of the fact that it will hurt Indonesia's manufacturing sector from Chinese exports, the Jakarta Post still opined: "Nevertheless, taking a deeper look, it can be concluded that the potential upsides will outnumber the downsides, and the potential gains will outweigh any losses." It approvingly quoted Indonesia's Trade Minister Mari Pangestu to the effect that "a FTA with China will lead to the formation of a regional production center with China as the core and countries in the region as alternative supply sources or complements to China."
The telling thing about this view is that ASEAN countries seem increasingly resigned to become the spokes in China's juggernaut. According to the Jakarta Post, "Not only that [economic gains], the FTA with China will bring another, bigger gain to the region, i.e. stability. The FTA with China will complement China's signing of a non-aggression pact with ASEAN -- the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation."
Not long ago, countries in the region feared China's expansionist designs. The dispute over the ownership of South China Sea islands was a constant thorn in China's relations with a number of Southeast Asian countries. It is interesting that even though these issues are still unresolved, China has been able to sideline them through its charm offensive and the prospect of economic benefits.
What has brought this about? Economics. The US is still the global economic powerhouse; it reportedly absorbs about 40 percent of China's exports, accounts for about one-third of Japan's exports and 20 percent of exports from South Korea, Taiwan and ASEAN countries. Despite this, there is a perception that China is an emerging superpower with limitless scope for economic opportunities for the region.
The US is also suffering from an image problem and because of the war in Iraq and its focus on global terrorism, Washington appears to be neglecting the Asia-Pacific region. China has been able to slip into this political vacuum, emerging as a benign power interested in lifting the region politically and economically.
On the other hand, the US appears heavy-handed in pushing Asian countries into according top priority to fighting terrorism. Some of these countries, like Indonesia and Malaysia, are predominantly Muslim where America's priority of fighting terrorism above all else doesn't always go well with the sensibilities of many local people. China has no such problem.
It is not suggested that the regional countries have turned against the US. They would still like the US to be around, and not having to live as China's satellites. In any case, it will take China many years (if at all) to replace the US as an economic powerhouse. However, with China's growing political and economic clout, they wouldn't like to be on Beijing's wrong side. In other words, the US will find it increasingly difficult to have regional allies against China.
For the present, China is keen to have the US on its side, and it isn't keen on challenging the US supremacy. According to Robert Sutter, "They [Chinese leaders] recognize that rising powers of the past, such as imperial Germany before World War I and imperial Japan before World War II, became powerful in ways that challenged the prevailing international order. In the event, other powers aligned against and destroyed them."
As one Chinese diplomat has put it: "With the US, we don't believe we are rivals?We believe cooperation with the US is very important for us. We are not interested in competing for world power. We have too many people to worry about." In other words, China wants to mind its own business, and is not worrying about US global dominance. In fact, China is keen to establish the Asia-Pacific region as its co-prosperity sphere, without committing the mistakes of imperial Japan. It hopes to achieve what Japan couldn't by emphasizing its "peaceful rise" (or "peaceful development") by neutralizing or co-opting the US.
There are problems; Taiwan is an obvious one. China can't annex Taiwan, with the US committed to defend it. With a view to pressure Washington into watering down its Taiwan commitment, it is following a carrot-and-stick policy. The recent comments by US Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed designed to politically placate Beijing, without weakening US resolve to defend Taiwan if attacked. But as a global power, if the nature of its relationship with China is competitive and combative (as is the case over a period), Washington can't afford to let China walk away with Taiwan.
Japan is another problem because of its security alliance with the US, and because Tokyo increasingly regards China as a security threat. In its recently released defense policy document, "China, which has significant influence in the region's security, is pushing forward its nuclear and missile capabilities." It adds, "It is also trying to expand its scope of naval activities and attention must be paid to these developments."
Who would blame Japan after detecting a Chinese submarine and a survey vessel in its waters. Beijing has some leverage on the North Korean nuclear proliferation issue, where the US needs its help. Will it deliver? And is the US prepared to pay the price of turning the Asia-Pacific region into a Chinese lake? It doesn't fit into the US global strategy.
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS