“Finlandization” describes the commitment to strategic neutrality that a small country might make, to avoid provoking a much larger and more powerful neighbor. The term is derived from Finland’s long-standing policy of strict military non-alignment with either the Soviet Union or the West — a policy that it maintained vis-a-vis Russia after the end of the Cold War, but that its recent application for NATO membership has upended.
However, even as Finland abandons Finlandization, many Asian countries might well be set to adopt it.
Unlike Finland and its European partners, most Asian countries have refrained from vocal or vociferous condemnations of Russia’s war on Ukraine. Of the 35 countries that abstained from the UN General Assembly’s March 2 vote on a resolution demanding that Russia end its invasion of Ukraine, 11 were in Asia.
Two of those abstaining countries were large powers: China and India. For China, the decision to abstain might have been less about Russia, with which it signed a cooperation agreement just weeks before the invasion, than about the West. China’s leaders harbor plenty of skepticism about Western values, and they fear the weaponization of Western-led international institutions. If and when China decides to invade Taiwan, it hopes to avoid the high international costs Russia has incurred over its aggression in Ukraine.
India, for its part, probably abstained because of its long-standing ties to Russia. India led the Non-Aligned Movement in the 1950s and the 1960s — a period when it also pursued Soviet-style socialist economic policies. India abandoned those policies in the early 1990s — around the same time communism was collapsing in Europe — but has continued to rely on Russia for military supplies, including warplanes and tanks.
Given the importance of these supplies, India cannot afford to alienate Russia, despite the Kremlin’s increasingly close partnership with China, which has been waging a stealth war with India in the Himalayas.
The smaller abstaining countries — Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan and Vietnam — are even more likely to be replicating a version of Finlandization, reflecting pressures from Russia and China.
Meanwhile, Japan and South Korea remain the West’s front line in the region, confronting threats from both powers, along with North Korea, which voted against the resolution.
US President Joe Biden was last week in Asia attempting to strengthen that front. In his meetings with South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, Biden has sought to lay the groundwork for deeper cooperation, including by planning for a variety of contingencies, such as a North Korean missile attack on any of the three countries’ territories. Biden has even vowed to defend Taiwan militarily in the event of an invasion.
However, Biden has held separate bilateral meetings with Yoon and Kishida. For the front line to hold, South Korea, Japan and the US must construct a viable three-way strategy to confront the security challenges Asia faces.
Here, Yoon’s electoral victory in March offers reason for hope. Having defeated the incumbent party’s candidate, Yoon is expected to break from the foreign policy of his predecessor, Moon Jae-in. This includes abandoning Moon’s appeasement policy toward North Korea, the biggest military threat to the South, and replacing his policy of “strategic ambiguity” in the Sino-American rivalry with deeper ties to the US. During their meeting, Biden and Yoon affirmed the critical importance of extended deterrence in their joint policy toward the North Korean regime.
Another policy mistake Moon made was to allow South Korea’s relationship with Japan to be poisoned by historical disagreements dating to World War II. Rather than remaining weighed down by the burden of history, the leaders of South Korea, Japan and the US must together carry the burden of peace. One hopes that Yoon understands this.
Kishida, too, is breaking from his predecessors’ policies, which embodied a gentler approach to Russia, in the hope that Russia would return to Japan the four Kuril Islands that Stalin seized at the end of WWII. Shinzo Abe — Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, whose tenure ended in 2020 — met with Russian President Vladimir Putin 27 times between 2012 and 2020, and provided Russia with substantial economic assistance.
Those efforts turned out to be for naught. Putin never came close to engaging in serious negotiations about the islands. In any case, Japan has now abandoned the enterprise. Following the invasion of Ukraine, Kishida’s administration swiftly announced that it would join the rest of the G7 in imposing strict sanctions on Russia. It has since suspended most of its economic engagement with Russia.
Japan and South Korea seem committed to maintaining a united front with the US and Europe in confronting Russia. That unity must be maintained — at the very least, until the voluntary Finlandization of Asia that the Ukraine war has spurred begins to be reversed.
Takatoshi Ito, a former Japanese deputy vice minister of finance, is a professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University and a senior professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS