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.
As the incursions by China into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone intensify, the international community’s anxiety has risen over the question of whether the US military would become directly involved in the case of an attack on Taiwan. Washington’s long-held policy of “strategic ambiguity” does little to ease the trepidation. The rationale universally espoused on “strategic ambiguity” is that an announced commitment from Washington to directly defend Taiwan would encourage Taiwanese independence and consequently bring forth a Chinese military attack and a possible nuclear confrontation between two superpowers. However, this line of argument could soon lose steam if the subject is viewed from
Having deceived the world about its nuclear capabilities while preparing for an arms race, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is now using its increasing nuclear forces for virtual nuclear coercion. This new threat will continue until the United States, Japan, and Taiwan can restore the CCP’s sense of fear. This dynamic is a familiar one for Taiwan. As the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) capabilities have grown, its inhibitions about conducting larger and more frequent coercive military demonstrations have shrunk. The PLA now more openly practices for the destruction of Taiwan’s democracy and the murder of its citizens. In the nuclear realm,
In an unprecedented move, a group of democratic nations led by the US, UK and EU in a joint statement on Tuesday accused the Chinese Ministry of State Security of having carried out a major cyberattack earlier this year and stealing data from at least 30,000 organizations worldwide, including governments, universities and firms in key industries. Western officials were reportedly perplexed by the attack’s brazen execution and unparalleled scale. In an article on the attack, BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera wrote: “Western spies are still struggling to understand why Chinese behavior has changed.” The attack raises the fear “that they [China]
At the conclusion of the G7 Leaders’ Summit on June 13, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who participated virtually, called for the reform of multilateral institutions as the best signal of commitment to the cause of open societies. His comments are significant in light of China’s ongoing and successful efforts to control international organizations, and, in particular, to keep Taiwan out of critical health agencies amid the COVID-19 pandemic. China’s influence over the WHO is well known. It has used this control to deny Taiwan a place at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the decisionmaking body of the WHO. Taiwan’s absence