The economic, diplomatic and military world of East Asia these days has a lot in common with pre-World War I Europe, minus the colonial drive.
Economically, the rapid rise of China is creating challenges throughout the Asia-Pacific region, with older established economic powerhouses such as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan scrambling to find a market niche that can take advantage of China’s economic might, while protecting themselves from over-reliance on the juggernaut.
Diplomatically, there is a heavy reliance on secret regional agreements that are either meant to constrain the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or create secret alliances against the hegemonic power — the US — just as secret agreements before World War I created alliances against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Militarily, East Asia is beset by a balance-of-power dynamic devoid of any regional multinational alliances meant to stop conflict, such as the League of Nations, UN or EU, just as Europe had no mechanisms to stop a war from breaking out prior to 1914.
Academics have described the 20th century as a long, drawn-out attempt to constrain the economic might of Germany. After Germany’s unification in the late 1800s, it experienced World War I, the reparations regime in the inter-war period, World War II and division during the Cold War, before melding itself to the EU. All these upheavals were in effect a painful means of integrating the German economy into the wider European sphere.
China is about 30 years into a similarly rapid economic expansion, although it was sparked not by unification, but by the end of the Cultural Revolution and the ascension of economic reformers into leadership roles. The countries around China still have not figured out how best to benefit from this opportunity without being absorbed.
Taiwan jumped in earliest, but perhaps due to its history, it is not faring that well — the nation risks being absorbed economically by China. South Korea seems to have figured out how to protect itself while still increasing trade, but Japan is in the doldrums, from which it cannot seem to extricate itself. And this is only the beginning.
The secret agreements taking place are best represented by the closed-door meetings between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP, which began in 2005 and were promptly followed by the election of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), his signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement with China and more recent talk of a cross-strait peace pact. It seems obvious the KMT and CCP came to an agreement on all these issues in secret.
Another example is what appears to be US consultations with Beijing before selling arms to Taiwan, a move that would be against US law.
The effect of these secret agreements is that people have no way of knowing where their governments’ loyalties actually lie and where they would stand if conflict broke out.
As to the military sphere in East Asia, might makes right, which is why countries employ balance of power strategies, hoping this will prevent a war, just as the Europeans did before World War I. However, these strategies only work as long as the regional powers are actually balanced. US power is waning, China’s is expanding, Taiwan is almost defenseless, the Koreas are at a stalemate and Japan is trying to quietly build up its military in a way that does not alarm its neighbors.
Moreover, the lack of a regional security mechanism increases the chance of conflict — China defines the Taiwan Strait problem as a domestic issue and the Koreas are basically in a state of civil war.
East Asia has a lot in common with pre-World War I Europe. Let’s hope Asian leaders can steer clear of the mistakes the Europeans made.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers