Sunday, December 18, 2016

Talking Point: The awakening of a superpower RANDALL DOYLE, Mercury

Talking Point: The awakening of a superpower

AS the tumultuous year of 2016 ends, trepidation and uncertainty loom for the Asia-Pacific region. 
No matter where you look, there are disconcerting signs and troubling trends. Whether it be economic stagnation, overt military activities or increasing global instability, a consensus is emerging among most Asia-Pacific observers that rough waters lie ahead.
In November 2011, in his visit to Canberra, US President Barack Obama announced to the Australian Parliament that the US was initiating a “pivot” toward the Asia-Pacific. This geopolitical proclamation caught Australian politicians and the nation’s citizenry by surprise. Everyone knew this dramatic statement was directed toward China. The US has inadvertently created an economic and military Frankenstein in East Asia. Corporate America, and much of the West, in its endless pursuit of bottom-line profits, had jump-started a lethargic nation from a 150-year hibernation.
China is now almost every nation in the world’s number one or number two trading partner. Its military prowess has shown parallel growth. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese now want their due from the West. They want the respect denied them since the early 19th century. China wants no more historic delays; or economic or military compromises; or Western diplomatic attempts that deny them their place as a global power. For the Chinese, the future is now. This realisation, by the US and President Obama, prompted America’s pivot. The US had finally acknowledged China’s rising stature in Asia-Pacific. Conversely, Australia and Asia-Pacific had already recognised this geopolitical truth many years earlier.
Former US ambassador J. Stapleton Roy, who served in an ambassadorial capacity in China, Singapore and Indonesia, said in an interview with The Diplomat that Obama has initiated at least four major changes in policy to Asia since November 2011.
First, South-East Asia is now part of America’s overall strategy for the region. Secondly, the US would now attend the annual East Asia Summits instituted in December 2005. Thirdly, the pivot to Asia was a pragmatic approach that recognised the new geopolitical reality. Finally, the negotiating of the Trans-Pacific Partnership indicated the US was not abdicating its role in this volatile region.
China is now almost every nation in the world’s number one or number two trading partner. Its military prowess has shown parallel growth.
The Obama legacy appears to represent a logical, sound stratagem for the 21st century. However, President-elect Donald J. Trump stated repeatedly in his presidential campaign that the TPP is dead. We’ll see. The other signatories of this agreement have stated publicly they are willing to move on without the US as a member. Not a good sign. And, a worst scenario has potentially emerged. China says it is willing to take America’s place in the TPP.
In October, the Chinese Communist Party gave President Xi Jinping a new title, “core leader”. It was another overt attempt by the power structure to bolster the image and popularity of a president who is increasingly beleaguered by domestic and international problems.
In November, Chris Buckley, reporter for The New York Times, wrote from Beijing that President Xi’s newest political accolade cannot deflect the real dangers and risks confronting him, China and the CCP. These challenges can potentially send China into a dangerous tailspin. Issues such as a slowing economy, rising national debt, rising unemployment, industrial output overwhelming global demand, corruption at all levels of government, a growing sense that local and provincial governments are refusing to implement the central government’s reforms, and rising global tensions, particularly with the US.
China’s economy continues to grow at a solid rate, but its overall annual growth figures are down. This economic reality has affected Chinese society on many levels. President Xi’s “China Dream” has slowed. Issues relating to jobs, corruption, good governance, national debt, environmental pollution and Xi’s ability to find resolutions for these dilemmas have become big concerns for many Chinese citizens. The title, core leader, looks another attempt to lift the credibility of a leader in trouble.
In many capitals in the Asia-Pacific, there are whispers and, increasingly, not so quiet comments, that the US does not have the wherewithal to meet the security needs of its allies and friends in Asia-Pacific. Why?
First, they have become very unsettled by the recent actions of Trump. Upon being elected, he returned a phone call from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen. Immediately, China expressed shock and dismay at this disrespectful diplomatic act. Taiwan has not been recognised as legitimate by China since 1979. In fact, Taiwan is considered a renegade province in the eyes of Beijing. To add an exclamation point to this sordid event, the Chinese Government announced it had two H-6K long-range bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, fly around Taiwan a couple of days before Trump’s phone call to the Taiwanese leader. This type of provocative military act had never been attempted before by the Chinese Government.
To make matters worse, Reuters News Service, as reported by David Brunnstrom, published a report that China had installed anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems on all seven artificially created islands in the South China Sea. The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Central Strategic and International Studies has provided satellite images that show these islands are being armed and near operational.
China’s leadership originally stated the islands, which are located within one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, would not be militarised. It appears the Chinese leadership has had a change of heart. Does anyone in America, Australia and the West see this development as positive?
A couple of days ago, Japan’s government lodged a serious complaint with China’s concerning an incident involving a Japanese fighter plane and a “dangerous” midair confrontation with Chinese military planes. Both governments provided different interpretations of the event. The “dangerous” confrontation occurred in the East China Sea near the contested Senkaku Islands. Both China and Japan claim ownership of this small cluster of islands. This situation occurred just weeks after Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met Trump in New York City.
Trump does not have any “Asia” people around him. None of his cabinet selections and other government appointments possess real experience and knowledge of East Asia or the western Pacific.
Being of Irish heritage, I do not believe in coincidences. In my opinion, the Chinese Government was sending Taiwan, the US and Japan a message. China subtly, but firmly, has informed the US and its allies and friends that the western Pacific is soon to become a Chinese lake. And the future role of the US military in the region was going to be increasingly neutralised for the following reasons: China’s growing air and naval presence; the serious militarisation of the artificially created islands in the South China Sea; the steady erosion among the region’s leaders concerning their belief the US was going to make the commitment needed to contain Chinese power; finally, President Xi is facing increased pressure at home. Expect a stronger show of military force in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. Nationalism is making a big comeback in China and the Asia-Pacific.
Trump does not have any “Asia” people around him. None of his cabinet selections and other government appointments possess real experience and knowledge of East Asia or the western Pacific. This has been the case, however, for most presidents-elect since WWII. Even the elder statesman and legendary figure, Henry Kissinger, had to literally contact the best Asian minds at the elite Ivy League schools and have them come to Washington to tutor him on China before he left for his secret mission to China in 1971.
The critical question that demands an immediate answer is whether the US provides the degree of commitment and leadership required to stabilise the region. For now, I have reservations.
In closing, perhaps we need to look at the global situation. The well-respected Freedom House came out with its annual report about global freedom. The numbers indicate reason for concern. For the first time in a decade, freedom declined.
After evaluating 195 global entities, the report stated that 72 countries had experienced a decline in freedom. And, that 55 were judged to be “partly free”, and 51 were “not free”.
The Middle East, North Africa and Eurasia were the worst. Overall, 40 per cent of nations were judged “free”; 24 per cent “partly free”; 36 per cent “not free”. In other words, 106 nations were either “partly free” or “not free”.
After reading the report, I was grateful to be living in a nation with historical respect for the rule of law. We in the West too often take this for granted.
In October, the International Monetary Fund published its findings for 2016. It stated that the global economy grew at its slowest pace since 2009. Obviously, oil prices will remain low. Commodity prices will remain low. Jobs growth will remain low. Political and social stability will become problematic for many countries. And prospects for 2017 do not hold any great hope for the hundreds of millions of unemployed and underemployed throughout the world.
Next year represents great uncertainty for the Asia-Pacific and the world. America, Australia and the Asia-Pacific must be prepared intellectually, psychologically and even spiritually for whatever comes their way.
Rising nationalism, troubling economic numbers and disconcerting global trends will confront us all. They are inescapable no matter where we live on this planet.
Based in Michigan, Dr Randall Doyle is a regular visitor to Tasmania. He is researching a book on Australia’s geopolitical importance in the 21st century.

No comments:

Post a Comment