Commentary: An Asia for Asians, the birth of a multipolar Asia?

Commentary: An Asia for Asians, the birth of a multipolar Asia?

Uneasy and uncertain about Trump's agenda for Asia, Asian countries are stepping up to assume the reins of leadership in shaping regional order, argues one expert.

LONDON: In 2014, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for an “Asia for Asians” as part of a proposed “Asian Security Concept”. This remark seemed provocative at the time, but today it increasingly reflects an emerging reality: That Asian powers are having to step up and assume the reins of leadership in enforcing regional order.

Three factors have contributed to this state of affairs: The rise of Trump and a broader shift towards greater burden-sharing in the US' alliance relationships in Asia; questions over the sustainability of the traditional ASEAN-led regional architecture; and the rise of China as an increasingly assertive and confident power.

TRUMP’S ASIAN AGENDA

First, significant uncertainty and disruption have been inflicted on the regional order from the Trump Administration’s America First agenda, exacerbated by President Trump’s proclivity to question basic principles of the US’ presence in Asia.

Some of the statements made by Trump on the campaign trail – such as questioning the US' alliance commitments in Asia – have been toned down since he assumed office. But the very act of flip-flopping on these fundamental issues has fuelled uneasiness in Asian capitals over the credibility of the US’ commitment to Asia.

The White House in April said President Donald Trump 'enjoyed the conversation' with his Philippine counterpart Rodrigo Duterte and looked forward to attending the key US-ASEAN and East Asia summits in the Philippines in November. (Photo: AFP/Mandel Ngan)

Moreover, the flip-flopping has continued in the first 100 days of the administration: Trump hinting at revisiting the One China principle following his phone conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in December and then reaffirming the principle during his conversation with Xi Jinping in February; threatening to label China a currency manipulator and impose tariffs on Chinese exports and then shelving this in exchange for Chinese cooperation in addressing the North Korea issue.

It also includes calling on South Korea to pay for the new THAAD anti-ballistic missile system and then reaffirming the agreed terms to cover the cost; statements by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during his confirmation hearing in January of a more confrontational approach towards China in its maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea and then pledging to develop a relationship with China on the principles of “non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation” during his visit to Beijing in March.

Exacerbating these missteps is the broader trajectory of US-Asia relations, which pre-dates Trump. Calls for burden sharing in US alliance commitments can be traced as far back as the Clinton administration while gaining momentum under Obama’s pivot and rebalance towards Asia.

WHITHER ASEAN CENTRALITY?

Exacerbating this trend in US policy is concern over the sustainability of the ASEAN-led regional architecture, which gained momentum in 2012 when ASEAN was unable to issue a joint communiqué following its leaders’ meeting, and again in 2016 when a draft statement was reportedly retracted over the apparent lack of solidarity on maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

This exposed fissures between the continental and maritime members of ASEAN, with the former generally being non-claimant states to the maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea that also tend to be more economically dependent on China (notably Cambodia and Laos), and thus prone to adopting a more conciliatory view of China.

ASEAN leaders at the opening ceremony of the 30th ASEAN Summit in Manila.

These disagreements have again been highlighted, as the recently concluded 30th ASEAN Summit hosted by the Philippines failed to make any mention of Chinese reclamation and military activities in the South China Sea.

These developments arise as ASEAN marks its 50th anniversary. ASEAN’s ambition to move beyond its initial mandate of confidence-building towards preventive diplomacy and eventually conflict resolution has failed to gain momentum.

This comes amid disagreements among its member states, while ASEAN’s norms of consensus and non-intervention relegate it to irrelevance in times of crisis. As a result, the principle of ASEAN centrality as a core feature of the Asian regional architecture has been eroded.

Further fuelling pressure on ASEAN is neglect by the region’s major powers. Indonesia under Jokowi appears to have developed an aversion to multilateralism that has prompted a loss of interest in ASEAN. Meanwhile, India’s Act East policy embraces an increasingly expansive strategic geography referred to as the Indo-Pacific, which includes countries from Bangladesh to the Pacific Island economies as well as the US, further sidelining ASEAN.

CHINA RISING

Amid these developments, the rise of China is the most significant structural shift undergirding the emergence of a new regional order. The era of China “biding time” and maintaining a low profile has been replaced by a more visible role on the world stage, as evidenced by recent statements from Chinese leaders about “guiding globalisation” and promoting a “China solution” to global issues.

This rhetoric has been supported by China’s Belt and Road initiative, marked in mid-May by the first Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, attended by leaders from 29 countries. Beijing has provided more than US$50 billion (S$69 billion) in financing for the Belt and Road initiative since its inception in 2013.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Argentinian President Mauricio Macri attend the Roundtable Summit Phase One Sessions of Belt and Road Forum at the International Conference Center in Yanqi Lake on May 15, 2017 in Beijing, China. REUTERS/Lintao Zhang/Pool

While these initiatives may have been launched for largely economic reasons – namely to export China’s industrial overcapacity and facilitate the economy’s shift to consumption-led growth – there are also underlying strategic dimensions.

Notably, the deployment in April of a flotilla of PLA Navy vessels to 20 countries that are part of China’s Maritime Silk Road demonstrates the PLA Navy’s newfound raison d'être in protecting the country’s growing overseas interests.

This has been further evidenced by the implementation of a comprehensive counter-terrorism law in December 2015; the establishment of the country’s first overseas base in Djibouti in 2016; and the launch of the country’s first indigenously built aircraft carrier this year.

Clearly, China’s naval ambitions have moved beyond the realm of so-called near-coast defense – aimed at deterring US intervention in the Taiwan Strait – and increasingly into the realm of “far-sea operations”.

This increasingly expansive view of China’s maritime interests not only includes power projection into the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, but also more assertive behaviour in the East and South China Seas, where China maintains contested territorial claims.

TOWARDS A NEW REGIONAL ORDER

Where do these three developments leave Asia?

Traditionally, the regional architecture in Asia has been dominated by the hub-and-spokes US-led bilateral alliance system (most notably with Japan, South Korea and Australia, but also the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) and ASEAN-led multilateral institutions. However, with regional powers having to step up and assume the reins of leadership in enforcing the regional order, a new component may be emerging.

Notably, the proliferation of mini-lateral or trilateral initiatives in recent years is evidence of an attempt by regional powers to develop a regional order minus the US, China or ASEAN.

While early mini-lateral initiatives were US-led – most notably with Australia and Japan; South Korea and Japan, and India and Japan – recent initiatives have excluded the US. These include an inaugural foreign secretary-level trilateral dialogue between Australia, India and Japan in June 2015; an India-Australia-Indonesia Trilateral Dialogue on the Indian Ocean.

Recent developments also include a track-2 dialogue between India, Japan and South Korea; a track-1.5 dialogue between India, Japan and South Korea and the conclusion of a trilateral cooperation agreement between India, Japan and Vietnam in December 2014.

Yet despite the erosion of Washington’s role, there is little indication of regional powers kow-towing to China. Most regional powers have maintained a policy of strategic hedging vis-à-vis Beijing. A notable exception is the Philippines under President Duterte, who recently welcomed the first PLA Navy port call to the Philippines since 2010 and chose to ignore last year’s ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration that challenged the validity of China’s nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea.

Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte prior to their bilateral meeting during the Belt and Road Forum on May 15, 2017. (Photo: REUTERS/Etienne Oliveau)

Otherwise, recent developments provide little indication that China is getting its way in the region: India permitting the visit by the Dalai Lama to Tawang in the state of Arunachal Pradesh, which is claimed by China as South Tibet; South Korea permitting the deployment of the THAAD anti-missile system despite protests from Beijing to name a few.

Recent developments also include Japan’s deployment of its largest vessel, the helicopter destroyer Izumo, to the South China Sea; Japan’s growing military cooperation with claimant states to the maritime territorial disputes with China; Taiwanese President Tsai-Ing wen’s rejection of the 1992 consensus as the basis for interaction with mainland China.

Also notable is Indonesia’s maritime fulcrum concept pledging a more robust defence of its maritime resources and sovereignty, including the Natuna Islands, which are disputed with China; and Australia’s scrutiny of China’s acquisition of and investment in natural resources and infrastructure projects.

All of these developments demonstrate that rather than band-wagoning with China, regional countries are more likely to balance it.

On the economic front, despite the US refusal to ratify the TPP, Japan and Australia have pushed for the remaining 11 participants to continue the initiative with the possible inclusion of other countries, such as China. Moreover, US withdrawal from the TPP may create impetus to reinvigorate the other major multilateral free trade initiative, the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

"TPP has not only economic benefits but also strategic significance. We will firmly seek its realisation," Japan's minister in charge of TPP, Nobuteru Ishihara, seen in 2012, told reporters in mid-May, according to state media. (Photo: AFP/Kazuhiro Nogi)

In the context of these developments, Japan is emerging as a major regional power. Tokyo has circumvented its pacifist constitution to develop a more muscular foreign policy facilitated by the establishment of a National Security Council, a reinterpretation of its constitution to permit collective self-defence, and a pledge to revise, by 2020, Article 9 of the constitution which renounces the threat or use of force.

These initiatives have translated into renewed efforts by Japan to engage with the region through, for instance, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s “Democratic Security Diamond” concept and “China Plus One” strategy of diversifying foreign investment (most notably in Southeast Asia).

India too has pledged a more proactive approach towards the region. While not as mature as China’s Belt and Road initiative, India has also promoted its own conceptions of regional order through initiatives such as Project Mausam and the cotton and spice routes.

So, rather than a Washington-Beijing G2 arrangement, a more complex regional order is emerging.

Xi Jinping’s “Asia for Asians” slogan may ultimately come to fruition, but rather than a rallying call for replacing the US-led regional order with the Chinese-led one, it may instead facilitate the emergence of a truly multipolar Asia.

Chietigj Bajpaee is principal analyst for Asia at Statoil and a doctorate candidate at King’s College London. This commentary originally appeared in The Interpreter. Read it here.

Source: CNA/sl

Bookmark