The unusually rambunctious APEC summit that shuddered to an ill-tempered halt at the weekend proved one thing beyond any doubt: The US and China are intent on doing to the Indo-Pacific region in the 21st century what the US and the Soviet Union did to Europe in the last. Namely, use it as the primary battleground in a global turf war for power and influence.
The jousting superpowers — described by Papua New Guinean Prime Minister and APEC host Peter O’Neill as the “two big giants” in the room — managed to turn what is supposed to be a peaceable platform for advancing multilateral cooperation into a noisy reprise of Captain America versus the Evil Empire.
This is not what then-Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and treasurer Paul Keating had in mind when APEC was launched in Canberra in 1989.
On this showing at least, the forum’s 21 members, including Taiwan and Hong Kong, must decide whether they want to play Cold War 2.
Several have already taken sides, or are in the process of doing so, possibly without sufficient consideration.
By partnering with the US in planning a major military base on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, Australia signaled that its shares the hawkish view of US President Donald Trump’s administration — frankly insulting to Beijing — of the need to “contain” China.
Already on the US team is Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s rearming of his nation. Given Tokyo’s smouldering history of bilateral enmity, periodically rekindled for political purposes by Beijing, where else has it to go?
New Zealand can pretend it has its own, independent process, but when the chips are down, it does not.
Other, weaker actors worry about China’s behavior, but worry more about offending it. Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines fit this category.
One remarkable aspect of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) command performance in Port Moresby was his evident indifference to other leaders’ views.
The Global Times, a state mouthpiece, declared it was “no big deal” the summit ended without the customary joint communique. Apparently China objected to a reference in the text to “unfair trade practices.”
It shows just how guilty China’s president must feel that he assumed this phrase referred to him. (It did, of course.)
Accustomed to having his own way, Xi does appear to have been surprised by the resistance he encountered at the summit. It seems he was anticipating an easy win for Chinese soft power diplomacy and pecuniary influence-peddling, given the absence of Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Xi arrived early, bearing gifts, including US$4 billion for Papua New Guinea’s roadworks — this on top of US$1.3 billion in soft loans previously extended to various Pacific islands. However, when officials excluded non-Chinese media from Xi’s private mini-summit with selected leaders, they were taken aback by the ensuing row about freedom of the press — a concept foreign to Beijing.
More serious pushback was to follow, in the compact form of US Vice President Mike Pence.
Pence had already paraded his boss’ many China grievances at the preceding ASEAN summit in Singapore. Now he doubled down, publicly demanding China “change its ways” on trade, intellectual property and human rights, and mocking Xi’s prized “One Belt, One Road” multinational infrastructure initiative as a “debt trap” for the unwary.
Pence added insult to injury by suggesting Trump could impose yet higher, punitive tariffs on Chinese goods in January, and by holding a meeting with Taiwan’s representative — a very deliberate provocation.
All this closely followed inflammatory remarks by the US commander in the Pacific.
Speaking in Canada, US Admiral Phil Davidson accused China’s military of “a sustained campaign to intimidate other nations in the East and South China seas” by militarizing artificial islands.
China was constructing “a great wall of SAMs [surface-to-air missiles],” he said.
However, if Xi got more than he bargained for in Port Moresby, he can take solace from the fact that, tough talk aside, the US and its would-be allies as yet lack a coherent, joined-up plan to counter China’s growing sway in the Indo-Pacific region.
Unlike former US president Barack Obama, who “pivoted” to Asia, it is clearly not a priority for Trump. He snubbed both ASEAN and APEC, and preferred to go to Paris instead to argue with French President Emmanuel Macron.
America First nationalism, contempt for multilateral alliances and a whimsical, transactional policy approach are not the way to build a winning ideological and geopolitical strategy. Trump and his people appear intent on drawing a line; in Port Moresby they deliberately picked a fight with China, but do they have any real idea what comes next as China pushes ahead anyway, relentless, regardless, step by patient step?
Little wonder Xi was not too worried. So far, he is winning.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs