The military intervention by the Western nations in Libya has raised several important questions. Here I seek to give my opinion on the issues being raised.

The Jasmine revolution originating in the nation of Tunisia was followed with great interest by the international community. It was the first of the Arab countries to rise against decades of suppression and deprivation of fundamental democratic rights. The protests were peaceful and successful and acted as an inspiration to the most populous of the Arab nations – Egypt. International interest increased exponentially. Events in Egypt were liable to affect not only the Arabic and Islamic nations but could also indirectly affect most of the world. Economically Egypt was certainly no heavy weight but politically its position in the African continent and its role in the Israel conflict allowed it a certain degree of prominence on the world stage. The protests this time around were longer drawn out and contained some instances of violence. Eventually Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down and the army took over. There were great celebrations all around in what was being touted to be a success for democracy. In the meanwhile however the situation in Libya was rapidly changing. Mass protests had erupted and were being brutally suppressed by the dictator Col. Qaddafi. In this context the first question to be raised was the international treatment of Col. Qaddafi and Hosni Mubarak. Political analysts pointed out that they had been extensively patronised and supported by the Western powers in the previous years being treated as legitimate leaders at multi-lateral forums. One of Britain’s most prestigious institutions – The London School of Economics – has recently been quagmired in row regarding the thesis of Qaddafi’s son who had completed his P.hD. from the university. Subsequently Howard Davies, the head of the institution has resigned. Furthermore Hosni Mubarak has been received at the White House by the American President. The question raised was: “Why had the Western world ever recognized these leaders when they were fully aware of the suppression of democratic rights in their nations?”

In the face of such arguments it is important to examine the question in a strategic light. Yes, these pictures do seem embarrassing in the face of vociferous protests, civil war and brutal suppression. Yet it is important to examine the history of the Western nations, primarily America. Their most significant war in the 2nd part of the 20th century – the Vietnam War – earned them vast unpopularity across the globe. The war and the draft were both deeply unpopular in the United States too. Indeed the primary objective had been achieved. The domino effect of spreading Communism had been prevented. The price however had been extremely heavy. The war had dragged on for years and destroyed most of the infrastructure and farm land of Vietnam along with massive casualties of American soldiers and Vietnam civilians. Following the Vietnam War was the War in Afghanistan followed by the invasion of Iraq. These wars had a deep impact on the Islamic and Arabic world. The United States was accused of waging wars with the objectives of securing oil and strategic interests in the region, while all its explanations of nuclear weaponry and flushing out terrorists were ignored. There were no nuclear weapons to be found and the war enraged the radical Muslims and provided them with fuel to fan the burning embers of hatred against the America. This led to even more radical Muslims taking up arms even as Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks remained at large. Iraq meanwhile continued to be a mess having no infrastructure, governance, institutions or democratic structure. Saddam Hussein’s regime had been over thrown but not much had changed. Obama predicted in 2002 that the war would lead to the strengthening of the recruitment arm of the Al-Qaeda. It did.  Thus in terms of achieving objectives all three wars were not spectacularly successful; they were long drawn out, expensive, led to loss of lives, fanned hatred and did not substantially help the citizens that the United States had set out to rescue.

In the face of these issues the United States was not in a position to intervene into every non-democratic nation in the world. To impose democracy through force was out of the question. And to impose democracy through sanctions is also not a wise option. Studies have shown that long term sanctions seek to harm only the hapless citizens of the nation rather than the government. On the other hand inclusion of these nations on the international stage would be mutually beneficent. Egypt has played a substantial role in maintaining peace between Israel and the other Arab Nations. Libya, at the head of the African continent and a prominent exporter of oil to the European Nations was also important. Exclusion and bycott at the international stage would have ultimately led the citizens of those nations suffering. Thus cooperation and inclusion was the best option for the prosperity of Egypt and Libya while the USA and Europe too gained from the alliances. After protests erupted in Egypt and grew to popular uprisings the Western Nations were stuck in a quandary. There were 2 contrasting opinions. The protesters represented a new order, a new governing structure. To recognise the protesters would mean severing ties with their traditional allies in the region. However as the Egyptian protests grew in terms of scale and visibility at the international stage, the Western Nations, after much strategic analysis recognised the aspirations of the people and demanded that Hosni Mubarak should leave. Silvio Berlusconi made an utter fool of himself and his nation while calling Hosni Mubarak a ‘wise man’ in the midst of the ferocious protests in the now famous Tahrir Sqare.Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy was virtually the last prominent European Nation to side with the protesters. Thus now that the Egyptians were themselves demanding change it made sense for the Western Nations to change their alliance. And I personally believe that they should not be called either hypocritical, opportunistic or greedy for their tactical change of allegiance. It just makes sense.

Libya

Should the Western Nations have intervened in Libya?. Yes.

Firstly I shall present the arguments and questions presented against the Libyan intervention.

1) The primary arguments suggest that the United States should not get embroiled in another conflict that does not threaten their national security. Non-interventionists argue that the US has no stake in the fight.

2) While the Arab League has supported the intervention the real opinions and feelings of the Islamic world are much harder to gauge. Is the United States again fanning the fire of hatred of the Islamic Nations? Would it be another demonstration of Western imperialism?

3) In view of the poor record of the past interventions in the region, why would this be any different?

4) Will this intervention not lead protesting citizens from other nations to expect military aid too? (argument specific to Arab region protests)

5) The Western Nations did not intervene in other much bloodier conflicts in Africa and other parts of the world. Then why only Libya? Imperialistic ambitions related to Libya’s oil are at play here.

6) Most importantly they argue that the plan has no specified objective, no exit timetable and no specific definition of the mission.

I shall counter these arguments.

1. What primarily differentiates this military expedition from Iraq and Afghanistan is that this is not an invasion, the people of Libya had themselves appealed for help in the face of the threat of brutal retribution from the dictator. The Arab League itself called upon the United Nations Security Council to impose a No Fly Zone. Thus many of the comparisons are invalid. The United States does not at this stage even have troops on the ground and does not intend to. I believe that the United States and European Union have a moral responsibility to protect the people of Libya. The Libyan case is very unique from any other. Where political analysts sometimes fail is their tendency to draw parallels in all scenarios. In the Libyan case the Western powers were in a unique position to help without establishing a physical presence. There was a direct threat to human life that could be prevented. I feel that the main argument to justify the Western intervention is that fact that thousands of lives have already been saved. By clinically debilitating the Libyan Air Force the western intervention has already achieved its prime humanitarian goal and saved thousands of lives. This fact in itself is enough to justify the intervention. Moving on to other arguments however. It is said that the United States has no stake in the region. That is not completely true. The Libyan civil war needs to be reviewed in a wider context. The jasmine revolution is yet fragile with success achieved in only 2 nations – Egypt and Tunisia. Across the Arab world more nations are struggling towards democracy. Had the Western nations not intervened and the dictator been allowed a free hand to carry out his promised brutalities the Jasmine Revolution would have died a young death. The United States and Europe both have a lot to gain from a democratic Arabia. Democracy, freedom of press and access to international culture would lead to modernisation of thoughts and ideals and the concept of Islamic radicalism and jihad would die a natural death thus eliminating terrorism at its roots. Integration with international culture and globalisation would allow for rapid growth and diversification in regions that are over dependent on oil for revenues. Perhaps a democratic Tunisia and Libya would start looking more like the United Arab Emirates. The developed nations can develop deeper economic links that go beyond oil and natural gas. The fate of an entire region is potentially at stake in Libya and the United States and Western Europe must be lauded for looking at the wider aspects of the intervention. For now the Western Nations have set a positive precedent. The move against Gaddafi shows that where struggle for democracy is countered with brutal suppression in those circumstances the Western nations are ready to step in and rein in the dictators from destroying their own nation. Some contrasting parallels may be drawn with the Vietnam War. While that war sought to prevent a domino effect of Communism this war seeks to promote a domino effect of democracy. The Arab world deserves a chance at reform. Cynics that scoff at the idea of Arab democracy say that the Arabs cannot govern themselves in democratic institutions and say, “The Arabs have never done democracy”. Yet they do not sense the dawning of a new era, where an entire generation has been exposed to the ideas of the world through globalization and the power of the internet. This new generation of Arabs share similarities with their Western and Eastern counterparts. They demand their fundamental democratic rights, the right to free speech, free press, right to express and the right to dissent. Having being suppressed for long the new generation of Arab youth has awoken to take up the torch of democracy. The Western world ought to give them a chance instead of looking behind their shoulders at their past mistakes. Now that Egypt and Tunisia are in the process of establishing democracy the United States should seek to buy goodwill through sponsoring infrastructure and educational programs. In Libya the United States will have to help in rebuilding efforts. Gaining the trust of the Islamic Community was always going to be Obama’s biggest challenge. The support of the Arab League does lend an air of legitimacy to the military operations. The United States can never hope to gain the trust of Iran where misguided clerics slam the United States as a greedy imperialist while I personally believe the United States led by President Barack Obama has followed the highest moral standards of power and democracy. In terms of the argument regarding citizens expecting military help in every conflict I believe that that fear in unfounded. The sequence of events must be imported from Egypt. Non violent protests for democracy are raised by the citizens. Then the dictator will not retaliate brutally BECAUSE of the threat of international intervention. This shall allow the non violent protests to grow in momentum and stature meanwhile allowing Western nations to apply soft power. They can offer amnesty to the beleaguered rulers and allow them a quick exit. While such a move may be unpopular with a vengeful populace it does however allow a quicker transition to democracy. Had Qaddafi been offered a credible amnesty plan at an early stage in the protests the situation may or may not be different. It is difficult to predict what may have been the case because of the complex psychological mindset of Muammar Qaddafi. Therefore I am of the opinion that the Western Intervention has set a precedent for dictators NOT protesting citizens. With regard to the argument aasking why the W.N. (western nations) have not intervened elsewhere in the world in a similar manner, I reiterate that the Libya situation is positioned uniquely. For one it is part of a larger struggle for democracy and could have wider spread implications and thus begets the highest level of international importance. Even more importantly the W.N. were able to help without establishing a ground level physical presence while effectively grounding the Libyan Air Force. Thus by virtue of the uniqueness of the Libyan case I believe that comparisons with past conflicts, wars, invasions and interventions are unjustified.
2. It is true that the W.N. intervened without a defined exit strategy or timetable. The primary objective was to prevent genocide and that called for quick action. The United Nations Security Council also acted expediently and was successful in preventing mass murder. However now that that goal has been achieved and the war has inched closer to a stalemate questions are being asked, especially in the corridors of power in Britain and US. The British defense ministry has been known to have informally asked the members of parliament to settle in for the long haul. In United States the non-interventionists lament that the US is embroiled in another long lasting Arab war. Meanwhile reports emerge that NATO air-strikes have killed civilians and rebels too apart from the Loyalist forces. Collateral damage is high in civilian areas. Britain and France however pressurized the United States for the usage of armed predator drones and succeeded. Obama authorised the usage of drones that could attack from a lower height with greater precision and accuracy. This is a step forward in the right direction. I believe that the W.N. must now target regime change. They must attempt to oust the dictator as soon as they can. Every passing day of the civil war leads to further destruction of the nation’s infrastructure. Casualties amongst civilians and rebels continue to mount. I firmly believe that while no ground troops must enter the battle themselves, the next round of attacks from the air must concentrate on destroying the chain of command of the Tripoli High Command. Destroying the vital infrastructure that allows Qaddafi to run his army may well prove to decisive. A large number of the Loyalist forces are mercenaries with loyalties that may come into question if they believe that the cannot win the war. Presently they have much to gain from fighting for Qaddafi. Once the rebellion is quelled they would all look for the spoils of war and would seek to be richly rewarded. However if they start believing that the war cannot be won and that they are risking their lives for a lost cause, they will be first to desert the Loyalist army. Without the expertise and number of the mercenaries the Loyalist army would be considerably weakened. Although by targeting the vital infrastructure of Qaddafi’s high command in Tripoli NATO may be accused of getting political I personally believe that the only way forward is to now aim for regime change.
3. Without a change of regime the Civil war may perhaps drag on indefinitely and in case the Loyalists manage to reclaim lost territory the brutalities inflicted on the supporters of the rebellion will be too horrific to imagine. It shall also dampen the mood of optimism in the Arab world that the Egyptian revolution was able to project. Thus it is essential for the nations to redefine the mission from a humanitarian angle to that of regime change despite the political implications. Muammar Qaddafi must go and the Western Nations must do everything they can to accomplish that even if it includes bombing the Presidential Palace. Politically this shall ensure the support of the reformed nations. The Libyans would be grateful while Egyptians and Tunisians would approve. Syria meanwhile would be inclined to be more hopeful. Iran will rant and rave as it always does. But now that the Western Nations are already in the War, they are going to come out victorious only if they are able to establish a working democracy in Libya. That will help them gain the goodwill of the youth of the Arab world while also gaining substantial brownie points with their electorate. The intervention is already looking like one of the few major highlights of Sarkozy’s career. President Obama too has much to gain in time for the elections in 2012. But only if they are successful. A final push towards regime change will require political courage and determination but it is essential.

Opinions welcome. Readers may send in their views and opinions to Manan Vyas at the following e-mail address:

mananvyas93@gmail.com

The American Background – Foreign Policy Focus on the Middle East

The Bush administration initiated Operation Enduring Freedom on the 7^th of October 2001. The stated objective:

“Find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbour to it.”

Amidst the rubbles of the 9/11 terror attack the invasion of Afghanistan received substantial support from the American people. However as the war stretched on and Osama Bin Laden remained at large and the Al-Qaeda infrastructure just fragmented, not completely destroyed, the war began to lose support. Currently CNN polls state that opposition to the war is at an all time high with 62% of the people polled saying that were opposed to the offensive. From the point of view of legality  the War in Afghanistan is flawed as stated by Majorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyer’s Guild:

“Under the UN charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan.”

The Bush administration initiated Operation Iraqi Freedom on 20th March 2003 to free the nation of Iraq from the ensnarement of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship claiming that the United States of America aimed to, quoting the then President George Bush, “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people”.

The USA administration had been monitoring the Saddam Hussein regime closely and was growing increasingly suspicious that the government had managed to procure Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In 2002 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission found no evidence of WMD and stated that Iraq was cooperating in terms of access.

In a remarkable turnaround in January 2002 Chief UN inspector Hans Blix noted amongst other things that 1,000 short tons of chemical agent was unaccounted for and that no convincing evidence had been presented with regard to the destruction of 8,500 litres of anthrax coupled with the fact that information on Iraq’s VX nerve agent program was missing. This was followed by a statement in February by the then Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN at which he presented evidence that Iraq was hiding unconventional weapons.
The stated objectives of the invasion were;

“End the Hussein regime; eliminate whatever weapons of mass destruction could be found; eliminate whatever Islamist militants could be found; obtain intelligence on militant networks; distribute humanitarian aid; secure Iraq’s petroleum infrastructure; and assist in creating a representative but compliant government as a model for other Middle East nations.”

The invasion though quick, decisive and successful in its primary objective of toppling the Saddam regime was soon faced with fresh challenges. The period immediately following the invasion saw massive civil disorder including the looting of public and government buildings and drastically increased crime. Then followed the report by the 1,400 member strong US-led Iraq Survey Group that stated that:

Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991. Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG. Saddam’s regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995.

Across the globe the United States of America lost much moral high ground as these reports came out. Within America too the Republican Party was criticised for the reckless and ruthless war that had accomplished only the continued anarchy of a failed state. In 2004 Kofi Anan declared the Iraq War illegal stating categorically,

“I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.”

Analysing the Afghanistan war we observe that as it dragged on indiscriminately it gradually lost support.

Opposition to the Iraq war was a campaign centre-piece for Obama who has maintained this stance since the beginning. Quoting his famous October 2002 anti-Iraq War rally:

“I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances… I don’t oppose all wars…  What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics…  I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

This is significant; Obama believed that it was essential to transfer troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama believed that the war on Iraq was costing the USA the support of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East, he believed it was wiser to deploy more troops in Afghanistan to attain substantial results, maintaining that the Iraq War was completely careless and unjustified. Having being elected into power though Obama’s primary priority was the Global Financial Crisis, the worst recession since the 1930’s, a phenomenal mess that required most of his time and efforts. Obama took some responsible Keynesian decisions, authorising a $700 billion bailout that included the rescue of many of Wall Street’s largest institutions . This led to Obama gradually sliding down the approval ratings as bailouts of symbols that represented the worst of America’s profligate capitalism and greed irked a population suffering from double digit unemployment and massive salary cuts. Obama’s hands were however tied behind his back as decisive action was required in the face of crisis and he effectively guided his administration through the period. On the war front however Obama realised that the situation was more complicated than he had originally thought and that troop withdrawal as a process would be long – drawn. Obama started drawing up plans for the same but it was probably the loss of Edward Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, the appointment of General Petraeus and the impending mid-terms elections that finally galvanised Obama into taking the definite step of troop withdrawal from Iraq and the infusion of 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

Even as the combat operations of the Iraq war officially end on 31^st August; 50,000 US troops remain in Iraq with the primary objective of continued training of domestic troops and fighting a shadow battle with insurgents. The focus is on reducing the damaging media coverage while maintaining support to the young and inexperienced security forces of Iraq. In Afghanistan Obama aims to produce tangible results before the Mid-term Elections (in November) in which the Democrats appear likely to lose multiple seats in the Senate.

The conclusion that can be drawn from the above analysis of the wars is that they occupied a major part of public consciousness and subsequently political consciousness  as well. The years following 9/11 have seen intense focus on the Middle Eastern region with a particular focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict apart from the two wars.

As a consequence of this focus on a singular region there was a lack of foreign policy focus on East Asia, particularly China.

Three decades of consistent double digit economic growth had propelled China into the list of the world’s top 5 economies. It was during the Global Financial Crisis that China was finally acknowledged on the world stage as the economic superpower it had morphed into. The meltdown exposed the flaws of the capitalist model propagated foremostly by America. Prominent economists even examined the Chinese growth model, comparing it to the Western free market economy. It was the first time since the decline of the Soviet Union that the debate between the Socialist and Capitalist model been seriously reconsidered. It is China’s astonishingly rapid ascent that dazzled thinkers and policy makers across the globe. This article examines American foreign policy in the context of the co-incidence of the Global Financial Crisis and China’s acknowledgment on the world stage.

The background establishes that Middle East received primary focus but it is also important to examine Chinese foreign policy in the context of America’s Asian influence. China and America are firmly divided on a wide range of issues including Iran, North Korea, Taiwan, Tibet, the South China Sea amongst others.

Examining each of these issues in brief:

North Korea-South Korea: With  a $1.356 trillion advanced economy, high per capital income and HDI score and the fastest broadband access (coupled with highest broadband penetration) in the world, South Korea has been a showcase of development. North Korea on the other hand remains an under-developed Command economy ruled by a dictatorial dynasty. America has maintained strong relations with South Korea since the Korean War with the USA having supported South Korea as a staunch bastion against Communism since 1945. America and Japan continue to remain primary trade partners of South Korea while China remains the most important ally of North Korea. China is North Korea’s biggest trade partner and its main source of food, arms and fuel. According to the Council for Foreign Relations:

“China has helped sustain Kim Jong-Il’s regime and opposed harsh international economic sanctions in the hope of avoiding regime collapse and an uncontrolled influx of refugees across its 800-mile border with North Korea.”

North Korea’s nuclear program has complicated the situation, especially after the second nuclear test in May 2009. China shares longstanding historical and ideological ties with North Korea and China has significant leverage over the North Korean government, but the main priority for China is to maintain support for Pyongyang (Capital-NK) as it ensures a friendly North Eastern border and maintains a buffer zone with democratic South Korea, a firm ally of the United States of America and one of the few nations in the world to see USA in a completely positive light (according to a Gallup poll conducted in SK). Chinese is gaining economically as well investing in North Korea (although considering the gigantic size of the Chinese economy these gains are not significant) but the primary objective is to maintain a stable regime in the neighbouring country as instability will push thousands, possible lakhs of refugees feeling from the violence. For the United States, South Korea is an ideal democratic development model and useful ally in a sensitive region. To bolster alliances further the US Navy conducted joint Naval exercise with South Korean Navy in the Yellow Sea (in the same place where the South Korea ship Cheonan was blown by a torpedo) with the objective of increasing pressure on North Korea, accused of sinking a South Korea warship (The Cheonan) without provocation. To highlight the importance of the American stake in the region the US Navy pulled out all stops to put up a spectacular show with the involvement of the USS George Washington, the world’s largest aircraft carrier and the crowning glory of the United States Navy.

Iran

Iran is currently China’s third largest supplier of crude with trade exchanges between China and Iran reaching $25 billion in 2010 and expected to increase to $50 billion by 2015. Iranian officials say that China and Iran mutually complement each other with Iran importing industrial goods and arms from China and accounting for 12% of China’s total oil consumption. Iran remains important to China for strategic reasons, especially energy security, a mission that Beijing has embarked on, on a high priority basis. Hu Jintao stated in 2009:

“We are quite confident that friendly and profound economic relations between the two countries should continue forever.”

The United States and China clash primarily on the issue of the aim of procurement of Weapons of Mass Destruction by Iran. In his famous “Axis of Evil” speech in 2002 George Bush described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an axis of evil and warned them against the development of long range missiles and nuclear weapon research. Since 2003, the United States has alleged that Iran has a government sponsored program to develop nuclear weapons while Iran has maintained that their nuclear program focuses only on energy generation. In April 2010, the United States increased pressure to impose a new round of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

China has shown support for Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear technology with Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao stating in July 2008 that China “believes that sanctions, especially unilateral sanctions, are of no help.”

The US and several European countries have accused China of circumventing sanctions against Iran by selling dual-use metals that Iran could use to manufacture advanced weaponry, including long-range nuclear missiles. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson has reiterated China’s position that sanctions are not the appropriate method to deal with Iran’s nuclear enrichment. In February 2010, China declined to support Western diplomats’ efforts to levy further sanctions on Iran, instead calling for continued negotiations in order to resolve the international stand-off over Iran’s nuclear program. The US ambassador to China has called upon the foreign ministry to not allow tensions related to Tibet and Taiwan “…Prevent us from working together to…prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability” and added that the US “looks to China to support strong sanctions should Iran continue to stall on the dialogue track.”

Obama’s government has clarity on the issue with the President categorically stating “the Chinese are obviously concerned about what ramifications [a proposed ban on investment in Iran’s hydrocarbon sector] might have on the economy.” Till the time China continues to depend upon Iran for oil imports and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues his ambitious nuclear program the USA and China will stand divided on the issue.

Taiwan Issue

China believes that Taiwan is a part of the territory of The People’s Republic of China while the USA acknowledges Taipei’s claim as an independent territory as it is located in a strategically important position in Asia Pacific, sharing the same Democratic ideals. Taiwan is an important trade partner as well, currently the 9^th largest trading partner with trade exchanges hovering around the 50 billion dollar mark in 2009. China and USA clash basically on the acknowledgement of Taiwan as an independent country with USA maintaining extensive relations with Taiwan based on the framework of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. The US also objects to China’s military threats against Taiwan countering them by providing security assurances and selling arms, a policy that is considered offensive to China’s foreign office. There is expected to be little change in the situation as the US shall continue to express its importance as a stake holder in Pacific Asia.

Recent times have seen; quoting The Economist, “the most comprehensive burst of diplomatic and military activity in Asia, particularly South-East Asia, in decades from an American administration.“

Following the high profile naval exercises with South Korea the US Navy parked the USS George Washington off the coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea, a disputed territory (China claims the South China Sea as territorial waters, a claim long contested by Vietnam). The gesture was to commemorate the completion of 15 years since diplomatic relations between the two countries had resumed (after Bill Clinton lifted the trade embargo on Vietnam in 1994). Hillary Clinton even declared the South China Sea a “national interest”.

The administration states that is simply reasserting a “national interest” and traditional role in East Asia. We have established in the background above that the region had been neglected due to the focus on the Middle Eastern situation. However in Asia, China’s rapid ascent has complicated consequences for the region. China’s administration has a high level of opaqueness due to which there is ambiguity surrounding China’s strategic aims. China is currently focusing on economic security through energy and resource security across the globe. China’s massive trade surplus and foreign reserves (exceeding the GDPs of more than 180 countries in the world) allow it to potentially wield vast influence on several smaller economies. Unlike the USA however the Chinese government policy is close knit and secretive, USA declares its foreign policy ambitions loud and clear across the globe, China prefers to keep its strategic ambitions to itself. And it is this secrecy and opaqueness that has caused unease across Asia. China’s rapid ascent adds another layer of mystery and unease. In this context, after dealing with the high priority financial crisis and the Middle East the US swung its attention to Asia to reassure allies of continued American support and strategic stake in the East Asian region. The USA basically seeks to reassert its role as a counter balance in the region (except this time its against China, not Russia). Between Robert Gates and William Burns (Undersecretary of State – Political Affairs) 5 South East Asian nations have been covered in this outburst of diplomatic activity .  Added to this the naval exercises of South Korea and Vietnam and we have the following statements:

The Economist:

“Chinese commentators detected an old bogey: an American attempt to “contain” China by bolstering alliances with its neighbours. “

“…Many in China see all this as part of a new containment doctrine ”

There is a distinct element of accuracy in these statements; it is precisely what the United States is trying to do. But I now present my analysis of future American foreign policy in the Asian region.

It is important to balance and counter-balance the Asian region against the threat of Chinese dominance. For this I believe USA must establish very strong and very close ties with three nations that are ideologically similar to the USA – India, South Korea and Japan.

Few nations in the world are ideologically similar to China, but North Korea is, and China has established strong social, cultural, economic, political and military linkages with its north eastern neighbour. Similarly USA must build up on a triangle of democratic nations that are ideologically similar – India, South Korea and Japan.

The rationale behind this is:

Economic Rational

These three countries have a combined GDP (PPP) of around $500 billion more than China. Japan is the largest foreign holder of American public debt (surpassing China in early 2010). Japan, South Korea and India together make up 9.7% of America’s total trade, 8.9% of its total exports and 9.8% of its total imports. For each of India, Japan and South Korea the USA is primary trade partner with the USA accounting for 22.9% of Japan’s total exports (largest export market) and 12.7% of total imports (2^nd after China) while USA has been India’s largest trade partners for years until this fiscal when trade with China surpassed Indo-US trade for the first time. The USA is a critical export market for South Korea with total trade predicted to cross $50 billion this fiscal. Japan maintains strong economic and cultural relations Taiwan although it has ignored diplomatic relations so far due to pressure from China.

America’s intent of containment of China may also be observed in the insistent pressure by the US government on China to appreciate the value of the renminbi. Appreciating the value of their currency would make their currency would make the Chinese exports less competitive. Now the United States does not compete directly with China in the exports market. In fact it the primary importer of Chinese goods and appreciating the value of the Chinese currency would make Chinese goods more expensive for the US market. America’s primary interest however lies in correcting global trade imbalances caused due to China’s artificially low currency rate. China’s competitive exports were hurting America’s allies in Asia Pacific, South Korea and Japan. It is in America’s interest that they are economically strong in the face of a rampaging China.

 

Form of Government: Democracy

China remains the last viable Communist government on the globe, neighboured by North Korea, a semi-failed state ruled by a dictator under the guise of pseudo-socialist ideals. Technically East Asia can be said to have the highest concentration of Communist activity in the world with China accounting for 1/6^th of the world’s population. The US invaded Vietnam with a view to stop the Communist domino effect across Asia, while this course of action is not viable in the Chinese situation the USA would prefer to have to strong links with Asian countries that are staunchly democratic, India, the world’s largest democracy also plays host to 1/6^th of the world’s population. This triangle of democratic countries and their development record (India’ per capita GDP PPP is behind China, but catching up. Japan and South Korea are developed nations with high per capita GDPs) would be enough to deter increased communist activity in the region. The US Department of States states that, “All postwar Japanese governments have relied on a close relationship with the United States as the foundation of their foreign policy and have depended on the Mutual Security Treaty for strategic protection.” It further states that, “The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of U.S. security interests in Asia and is fundamental to regional stability and prosperity.”

Stability in the region, policy on North Korea and Iran:

The US Department of States states that, “In Southeast Asia, U.S.-Japan cooperation is vital for stability and for political and economic reform”. Japan has been the world leader on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and is staunchly opposed to the nuclear programs of both North Korea and Iran.Japan strongly supported the United States in its efforts to encourage Pyongyang to abide by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). South Korea has had hostile relations with North Korea since the Korean War and is also staunchly opposed to North Korea’s nuclear program.The U.S., Japan, and South Korea closely coordinate and consult trilaterally on policy toward North Korea, and Japan participates in the Six-Party Talks to end North Korea’s nuclear arms ambitions. The USA considers support from India – which is on the 35-member board of Governors at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)- crucial in putting up obstacles to the Iran nuclear program. Despite extensive trade relations centred on crude oil imports India voted against Iran’s nuclear ambitions in an IAEA meet in 2005. India’s current policy is to continue trade relations but to align with the USA against the nuclear program.

All three nations are aligned in policy and opinion with the USA on the key issues of nuclear arms possession by renegade nations like North Korea and Iran.

Individual Issues:

India-China

Being billed the battle of the 21^st century the Indo-China economic rivalry is well documented. However it is the Kashmir and Arunachal border disputes that would concern India more. The brief 1962 war still rankles in Indian military circles and China shows traces of hostility frequently with regard to the border dispute; even as economic exchanges between the countries touch new highs. For a stable 21s century a new triangle of cooperation is required:

By 2050 China, USA and India will be the world’s largest economies (according to most estimates, some vary). This triangle I believe is futuristic and will evolve over time but will together be a behemoth that will be the most influential force of the 21^st century.

Concluding Analysis

Till the dynamics of East Asia stabilise completely which I believe is likely to occur sometime in the next 25 years when China’s growth slows down to a more moderate percentage; till that time I believe it is this democratic triangle of influence of India, South Korea and Japan brought together by the USA that will act as an effective counter balance to the over-ambitious strategic aims of the People’s Republic of China.

 

Opinions welcome. Readers may send in their views and opinions to Manan Vyas at the following e-mail address:

mananvyas93@gmail.com