By coincidence, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of US forces in Asia and the Pacific, were in India at the same time last month and for the same reason: to entice India into closer security relations with their respective nations.
Then, US President George W. Bush, in Australia this weekend for the APEC leadership summit, conferred at length with Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Iraq and on wider issues of security in Asia.
Even as they spoke, warships from Australia, India, Japan and the US, plus Singapore, were training together in the Indian Ocean.
Taken together, Australia, India, Japan and the US are forging an informal defensive pact based on shared national interests and democratic values. An Indian commentator, Sudha Ramachandran, has called it a "quadrilateral axis of democracy" or "quad."
While he was in India, Abe was quoted in the Hindustan Times as saying: "A broader Asia, that broke away geographical boundaries, is now beginning to take a distinct form." He called it an "open and transparent network."
China was quick to assert that the quad was an attempt to contain Beijing's influence.
The Chinese contended that Japan in Northeast Asia, Australia in Southeast Asia, and India in South Asia were lined up against them, with US military power in the Pacific Command as backup.
Senior officials in all four nations were equally quick to deny they were engaged in a concerted plot against China.
"There's no, let me emphasize no, effort on our part or any of those other countries, I'm sure, to isolate China, to put them in a closet," Keating told reporters.
Indeed, each nation has sizeable trade relations with China that leaders are anxious not to jeopardize. Moreover, each has domestic political restraints that would crimp an anti-China stance. In India, for instance, nationalists rail against the possibility that India would be drawn into a security posture subordinate to the US.
No one in authority is talking about a formal alliance like NATO. Rather, officials indicated that they are building atop existing US-Japan and US-Australia treaties, plus newly fashioned US-India security relations.
Despite the constraints, leaders of the four nations have expressed concern that China's military modernization may eventually constitute a threat. They are walking on a razor's edge between engagement and deterrence as they hedge against that day.
In India, another commentator, Prem Shankar Jha, has written that "epochal changes in the international order" after Sept. 11 include India's emergence as an economic power and a spurt in international respect for its democracy.
Jha contended the major powers have felt a need "to broaden the base of the informal consensus among larger countries to cope with the progressive disintegration of the international order, the spread of new threats that require collective action, the rapid decline of US hegemony, and its need for friends after its misadventure in Iraq."
For its part, India has been lessening its reliance on Russia for weapons, remained unhappy with China's alliance with its archrival, Pakistan, and still has border disputes with China. Indian leaders have expressed unease over China's gradually increasing presence around the Indian Ocean.
Australian Minister of Defense Brendan Nelson justified Canberra's reliance on collective defense in a recent speech. He noted that dangers from weapons of mass destruction, the prospect of failing states, and transnational crime and terror required joint action. He was worried that the US would turn to isolationism after Iraq.
Nelson said that his nation of 20 million people was limited in providing for its own security.
"We need to work with other people," he said.
Collective defense, however, must be realistic, not just for show and talk.
Australians, he said, "are pragmatic. We don't generally believe in traveling dinner clubs."
In Japan, strategic thinkers have pointed to open hostility from North Korea, barely concealed hostility from South Korea, and anxiety over long-term threats from China despite recent moves by Beijing to take steps to reduce the antagonism.
Tokyo has begun to enhance its modest self-defense force and to revise its constitution to permit Japan to take part in a collective defense.
Nonetheless, for the foreseeable future, Japan will remain dependent on the US for much of its conventional defense and all of its nuclear defense.
For the US Pacific Command, the guideline for collective action set by several recent commanders has been: "No nation is so big it can go it alone, and no nation is too small to contribute."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
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