June 21, 2012
Changing Dynamics in the Asia-Pacific and ASEAN
Diplomatically Speaking@http://www.thestar.com.my
By Dennis Ignatius
ASEAN has always been comfortable with a strong US presence, but it might be getting more than it bargained for this time around.
A ruinous battle for supremacy in the Asia-Pacific has begun that could see the region divided and ASEAN itself marginalised.
At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore earlier this month, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta (left) announced that the US plans to shift 60% of its naval assets to the Pacific theatre by 2020 as part of President Barack Obama’s policy of “pivoting back” to the Pacific.
In line with this, six out of the eleven US aircraft carrier groups and the majority of the US Navy’s cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships, submarines and the very best of US missile defence technology would be redeployed to the Pacific.
Already Washington is moving to regain access to its former bases and other operational facilities in places like Subic Bay and Clark Field in the Philippines, Cam Ranh Bay and Danang in Vietnam, and U-Tapao Naval Airfield in Thailand.
At the same time, US-led military and naval exercises like Cobra Gold, which
this year included Indonesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Singaporean and South Korean military forces, are being expanded.
These moves appear to be part of a wider strategy that seeks to draw together the Asean countries, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand into a network of interconnected political, economic and military partnerships under US leadership.
While the US has repeatedly emphasised that the new policy is not aimed at China, no one, least of all the Chinese, believe it. The US is clearly worried about the long-term threat posed by a rapidly rising China and is working to quickly put in place a new and ambitious containment infrastructure.
As well, the possibility of vast new oil and gas deposits in disputed waters in the South China Sea gives the region an added strategic dimension that was not there before.
China’s military is indeed growing exponentially as a result of double-digit increases in military spending over the past twenty years. The Chinese defence budget for 2012 is estimated at over US$105billion (RM331billion) though many experts believe the figure is much higher.
It is, however, still small compared to the US which spends more than US$700bil (RM2.2 trillion) (2011) on defence.
For the most part, China’s defence spending is aimed at simply playing catch up and should come as no surprise. However, China is still something of an enigma; its neighbours just don’t know with any certainty how China will behave when it acquires the capacity to project its power well beyond its shores. Its handling, thus far, of territorial disputes with its neighbours has not exactly inspired confidence either.
China clearly does not appear to appreciate just how much this uncertainty fuels nervousness and unease within the region. And neither does it appear to understand that small countries on the peripheries of a big power will always see the need for some kind of fire insurance.
ASEAN, for its part, has always been comfortable with a strong US presence in the region but it might be getting more than it bargained for this time around.
For one thing, the new and more aggressive US approach will leave little room for fence-sitters; sooner or later, the ASEAN countries will have to make hard choices.
Indeed, some choices are already being made.Malaysia has hailed the US shift as a stabilising factor, Singapore has agreed to host additional American warships, Vietnam is moving to grant the US regular port access, and the Philippines is giddy with excitement over the prospect of the Americans returning to Subic and Clark.
Perhaps ASEAN is trying to have its cake and eat it too: develop close relations
with Beijing at the bilateral level while ganging up on Beijing at the regional level. The Chinese are unlikely to play along.
Whatever else might be said of former strongmen like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, they had both the chutzpah and the guile to play off the big powers against each other; the same cannot be said of most Asean leaders today.
The other casualty could well be APEC itself. The Trans-Pacific Partnership now being promoted by the US as part of its new Asia-Pacific architecture will invariably undermine the efficacy of APEC. APEC will, of course, linger on but the substance would have been sucked out of it.
Even ASEAN could be subsumed and reduced to a mere bit player.The most ruinous consequence of this latest contest for supremacy in the region, however, is that it is bound to drag ASEAN into an arms race it can ill afford. American defence strategy, after all, demands not just common approaches amongst its allies but common, and preferably US-made, weapons systems as well.
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over, America’s military industrial complex needs a new boogeyman to keep its arms industry humming. Africa is too poor, Europe is caught up in a crisis of its own and the Middle East is already maxed out. That leaves the Asia-Pacific region ripe for the plucking.
There’s an old saying that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. If ASEAN, which was established in part to manage big-power rivalry in the region, is not careful and more innovative in its responses, it could soon find itself squeezed on all fronts.
How will Wisma Putra handle the changing dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region with increasing US military presence? What happens to ASEAN’s Zopfan (Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality)? Keep talking ASEAN with no action. Cry Geranimo as ASEAN is no more. So is APEC, replaced by Trans-Pacific Partnership led by the US. The isolation of China is a strategic error for ASEAN.
I do agree with the writer on his comment with regards to the all powerful
US arms industry, please refer to the Vietnam War, it was milking the American economy dry,it’s all about the money.
Accomodating the US does not mean abandoning zopfan. But it is a tricky policy to execute. ASEAN needs to hedge very very carefully by working with china and US so as not to give the idea that we are balancing against China or trying to support US in it’s containment policy. ASEAN’s reaction or reaction of its some of its members so far doesn’t inspire much confidence that strategic thinking is taking place.
With Big Guns playing their strategic game of balancing power, we small nations within Asean would be that much safer….Security is number one so as to be able to carry on with our respective Economic life for everybody’s good or well-being.
The US Military Command and the Pentagon is SUPPORTED by all Western nations, that’s for sure. The Q is Why ? No other than b’coz of their Interest to maintain their hegemony of preserving World Economy in the way they have pepertuated Capitalism for so long : the Military stratedic Command is precisely to ” protect” their interests or concern rightly or wrongly, and it is Secondary to the Primary Economic Agenda, hence it is not about ” war “- the whole world is dying for Peace…..
Frankly, the americans should learn from the british…..How they rule such as a massive empire with fewer troops. Though with such a big navy but one thing I admire about them is their ability to bluff their way through. Just read through the lyrics of anthem, you would understand
The americans & you guys should watch this
The US has 42 Military bases around Iran and will have a similar number soon in our part of the world. Why is this so? Many of us are buying obsolete weapons systems and the corruption that runs through the region makes it easy for the weapon merchants to fatten their bank accounts at the expense of our security.
You know why the South Vietnamese militay was no match for their brothers in the North Vietnamese military. Contractors who supplied ration to the South Vietnamese Militatry use to cut white nylon cords to the size of rice and pack it with the rice ration to make a good profit. The contractors and the government purchasing officer won the battle while the South Vietnamese Military lost the war.
If we do not become serious we will end up like the teams that many developing countries send to the 2012 Olympic games in London. Yes we have made great strides in sports and the teams that we send to London 2012 would have won gold medals in the 1912 Olympic Games. The world will not stop spinning for us to catch up. When we climb that others will also be climbing and if we do not double up we will never catch up.
By the way the analysis made by the Retired Ambassador is very good. But infortunately while other countries keep their key diplomatic personnel well after retirement age what we do is give them a Three Year Contract after retirement in posts that do not require such experienced personnel.
Piece of writing writing is also a fun, if you be familiar with after that you can write otherwise it is difficult to write.