Australian Minister for Defence Stephen Smith last week announced that Canberra would “seriously” consider the possibility of holding trilateral military exercises with China and the US; a move that, in a perfect world, would probably make sense.
However, the world is far from perfect, and Smith’s idea, which Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono purportedly raised with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard at the ASEAN summit in Bali the week before, fails to take current realities into account.
Live-fire exercises involving the US in the Asia-Pacific symbolize a key role for Washington in a region that China considers its own backyard. Rather than seek to reinforce the legitimacy of a US military role in Asia, Beijing has worked effortlessly to undermine such a role, mostly by dealing with its neighbors on a bilateral basis. This has been one of the principal reasons for the failure of regional powers to resolve long-standing tensions in the South China Sea, with Beijing refusing to participate in multilateral negotiations on the matter.
The recent announcement that the US could deploy as many as 2,500 marines at a base in Darwin, Australia, is likely to make Beijing even less inclined to give its seal of approval to such a relationship, as the deployment is anathema to China’s desire for a reduced US presence in what is rapidly becoming a key geopolitical and economic region.
Although the US has conducted search-and-rescue exercises with its counterparts in the People’s Liberation Army, live-fire exercises involve platforms and weapons that are substantially more sensitive and which the US — and China — would be loath to expose to the other’s scrutiny. Other than the weapons themselves, the communication channels that ensure inter-operation between US and Australian forces are hardly the kind of thing either would like to share with the Chinese.
Behind Smith’s proposal was a reluctance on the part of Canberra to take sides, which makes sense given its geographical location and trade relationship with the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 economies.
However, for a good many years to come, the game of alliance in the Asia-Pacific is likely to become zero-sum, or, to use language from former US president George W. Bush, one in which lesser powers are either “with” or “against” the major players.
Despite efforts in the past decade or so by Beijing to strengthen a web of alliances — through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, for example — that more often than not excludes the US, anxieties in the region over China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea, among other areas, are undermining Beijing’s strategy. This is happening to such an extent that South Korea is giving serious consideration to a request by the Philippines for arms sales, a development that just a few years ago would have been regarded as improbable, given Seoul’s reluctance to alienate its neighbor amid growing economic ties and the perceived need for Beijing to rein in North Korea’s nuclear program.
Even more stunning is the recent rapprochement between Vietnam and the US over the South China Sea dispute.
It is hard to tell which came first: China’s assertiveness or Washington’s decision to “re-engage” with the region. However, the end result will likely be the same: Relations in the Asia-Pacific are turning zero-sum and countries will find it increasingly difficult to have it both ways, which will force them to choose sides.
The only way such a dangerous situation can be avoided is for Beijing to embrace multilateralism and to do so in a way that does not allow it to dominate other participants. In other words, multilateralism that allows for US participation. Absent this, countries like Australia will find it very difficult to engage in the kind of trilateral relationship envisioned by Smith and his like.
Oppression is painful, and not being able to express it increases the pain 10-fold. This level of pain is something that Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians understand all too well. A question often posed to Uighurs in the international arena is: “You say you are facing genocide, but why don’t we see corpses, like in Rwanda and in Bosnia?” If you were a Uighur, what would you say? What if you replied: “The source of the problem is your lack of vision. It’s an indication of your weakness and China’s strength, and it is not a matter of our sincerity.” Such a harsh response would
Double Ten Day, Oct. 10 every year, is an important day for Taiwan, as it marks the Republic of China’s (ROC) National Day. Major holidays are usually a time for celebration and commemorative activities, but among all the clamor and excitement, Double Ten reflects one essential fact: that Taiwan is still not a normalized society. As usual, there was a large parade in front of the Presidential Office Building, displaying to the world Taiwan’s social diversity and its soft and hard power, and President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) gave an address, relaying her message to the nation and to the world, while the
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Double Ten National Day address has attracted a great deal of analysis and many different interpretations. One core question is why Tsai chose this occasion to discuss Taiwan’s national status. What was her main motive and what effect did she intend to have? These are issues that clearly need further clarification. The section of Tsai’s speech that attracted the most attention internationally was, not surprisingly, the part where she laid out “four commitments” that she said should serve as common ground for all Taiwanese, regardless of political affiliation. The commitments were to liberal democracy and constitutional government; that the
Ever since former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was recalled last year, “Han fans,” as well as the KMT hierarchy, have made pro-Taiwan lawmakers their enemy No. 1, and Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) has been on top of that list (“Recall part of ‘generational war’: expert,” Oct. 19, page 3). Chen has always been one of Han’s harshest critics, and Han fans have vowed revenge. Former legislators Yen Kuan-hen (顏寬恆) and Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), being such sore losers, were not amused about losing to Chen democratically and have amassed significant resources backed by