Dialogue is essential when relations between countries turn confrontational. The tragedy is that not only are the stakes greater during such times, but dialogue itself becomes synonymous with appeasement. This phenomenon was observable in coverage of the meeting of US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska that yielded no tangible results.
The Trump administration’s engagement with Putin, whether part of a quest for world peace or total capitulation, sets the tone that the next years would be those of illusory “grand bargains.”
With all its unresolved disputes and geopolitical tensions, would the leaders of the Indo-Pacific region have to put on such an act to entertain the cameras?
Resolving all matters in the Indo-Pacific in a single summit would be impossible, but gathering the region’s leaders to agree on a set of principles is not unimaginable. Fifty years ago, European leaders gathered in Helsinki to establish a new regional security framework. All agreed to uphold the principle of territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders and respect for human rights. The result was a fundamental agreement to disagree peacefully. More importantly, it bought time for the US and the Soviet Union, with the former reeling from the trauma of the Vietnam War and the latter seeking ways to reconcile its excessive military spending with a stagnating economy.
However much we want to draw parallels between the Cold War and US-China relations, it is in the ties that bring the two together where we find fundamental differences with this historical analogy. Beijing and Washington are not competing for world influence as leaders of two distinct and isolated systems; they are two centers of power in a single mutually dependent system. It is only after the appreciation of this fact that the Indo-Pacific could imagine a newfound regional security framework.
The leaders of the Indo-Pacific region must agree on a set of “rules of the road” to create an environment where intentions can be clarified and actions are not misconstrued. There must be a reaffirmation of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, even if left ambiguous. Likewise, emphasis on dialogue, even if substantive matters are unresolved, is still better than the absence of interaction.
Progress made under former US president Joe Biden has been reversed by Trump. The Indo-Pacific needs to foster regionalism internally first, making it the center of gravity. Attempts to create a regional framework, whether through APEC, the East Asia Summit or ASEAN, vary in success. One dilemma remains constant: What do we do about China? Asian states depend on trade with Beijing, just as Washington does, but how can a comprehensive and sustainable regional peace depend on deciding between isolation and interaction? We cannot have both.
Taiwan’s geopolitical situation remains in a state of uncertainty. While its largest trading partner is China, its defense capabilities are dependent on Washington. The past decade has shown that such dilemmas are unsustainable. The war in Ukraine shows that relying on wavering — although powerful — backers can lead to undesirable outcomes.
One nation’s choice to defend their sovereignty should not come at the expense of another’s security. This is unavoidable in our interdependent world. A comprehensive “grand bargain” is a far-fetched aspiration for the Indo-Pacific, but can we accept that the only answer to insecurity is “peace through strength”? These options should be viewed in tandem with diplomatic solutions and not exclusively.
Strength can be built during times of peace. If we fail to appreciate this, we would continue creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that our adversaries are out to destroy us while they fear that we seek to do the same to them.
Nigel Li is a Singaporean journalist and writes on Eurasian geopolitics and nuclear arms control.
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS