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.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS