Uncle worried about Asia

US’s rising worries in the Asia-Pacific

April 23, 2014, 12:00 pm 

US President Barack Obama’s current tour of some of the Asia-Pacific’s foremost states freshly underscores the region’s continuing importance for Washington. Reassuring its allies in the region of US support and succour in times of crisis is apparently one of Obama’s primary aims in visiting South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Malaysia, but indicating that the US could square-up fully to China’s rising economic and military presence in the region may be a closely connected reason for the wide-ranging tour as well.

It could now be said with some certainty that the ‘Asia-Pacific Age’ is upon the world but with rising regional economic vibrancy has come fresh security concerns for particularly the US and its allies in this new growth centre of the globe. Not least of these apprehensions is how these powers could deal with the rising economic, political and military stature of China in the ASEAN and East Asian theatres.

The Asia-Pacific region is rife with some perplexing dilemmas for the powers concerned. The region’s economic inter-dependence with China would not permit these powers to enter into a collision course with the latter. However, they could in no way submit to any perceived Chinese hegemonic dominance either. These issues come into focus in the territorial squabbles many of these South East Asian powers have with China currently. The tensions are quite marked in the case of Japan and South Korea, for instance.

On the other hand, the point is unlikely to be missed on China that a degree of peaceful coexistence with its neighbours is essential for its economic sustenance, although it cannot be argued that China is overwhelmingly dependent on them in this respect. Some commentators have cited a 7 percent growth rate in these neighbours as the economic vibrancy desired by China and it ought to be clear that this growth pace cannot be achieved amid security tensions in the region. Accordingly, unruffled inter-state ties are likely to be desired by China and its neighbours on pragmatic considerations.

The same goes for US-China relations. The degree of economic inter-dependence between the countries is quite considerable although China’s economic integration with its neighbours gives it a distinct edge over the US in some respects. For instance, it is estimated that in 2007, the contribution of BRICS, of which China is a member, to global economic growth, outstripped that of the US for the first time, 30 percent to 20 percent.

So, clearly, the US has reason to be worried. It is at a risk of losing some of its influence and control in the South East Asian region in particular and this prompts it to bolster its ties with its allies in the region. It is possible that the US would play on the security concerns of those states it sees as its allies to further entrench its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region without rousing the animosity of China.

However, the proverbial writing is on the wall to the effect that in the current world order where economics is increasingly driving politics, Western power would be increasingly on the decline in the next couple of decades or thereabouts. It needs to be also considered that an Eastern economic bloc is taking shape, comprising of countries, such as, India, China and Indonesia, whose productivity would constitute one fifth of the world economy, 20 percent of world trade and possess $ 1.5 trillion in monetary reserves.

Accordingly, although military strength would prove important in determining the power of states, it is national economic vibrancy which would emerge as the more crucial factor in their ability to wield global influence, in the final analysis. In fact, economics and not politics is proving to be so crucial that even the ‘classical’ norms of inter-state conduct, such as the inviolability of state boundaries, could be undermined by the major powers with impunity.

This has occurred in Armenia, but the West seems to be impotent in the face of this breach of International Law. The farthest the West could go in this issue is to slap sanctions of numerous kinds on Russia, but we are yet to witness any punitive military action against the latter. The reason for this inner paralysis on the part of the West lies in economic and material considerations. Too much is at stake, in an economic sense, for the parties concerned in this crisis, and they would prefer not to compromise these interests by unleashing tensions of a military kind on each other. Economic globalization, apparently, has generated an unbreachable interdependence among states.

Considering the foregoing, the West would do better to acquire a measure of economic prosperity and independence, if it is to counter-balance the economic vibrancy and productivity of the East. This would enable it to recapture some of its power and influence of the past. A military capability minus economic strength would not prove very effective in current times, where ‘markets’ are prized above almost all else. Nevertheless, military power cannot be sustained by states without sizeable economic might. The Soviet Union learned this the very hard way in the late eighties.

The course to be followed by the developing world or the one-time Third World in this order of things is all too clear. They need to integrate their economies very closely with the best of those in the Asia-pacific region. This would enable them to achieve a degree of economic vibrancy and thereby acquire some political independence.

However, the developing countries would also need to ensure that they bring about within their boundaries equitable economic growth. This would help in narrowing the gap between their vampirical political elites and the masses. Right now, it is clear that the growth path being traversed by the developing world is only benefiting the powerful in their midst. This is a recipe for national destruction.

The West would do better in this situation to help the UN and like international organizations in their trying task of bringing about true development in the Third World. Economic betterment in the developing world would enable the powerful states of the globe to enter into fruitful economic ties with these poorer countries and thereby generate advancement which would benefit all.

The same goes for US-China relations. The degree of economic inter-dependence between the countries is quite considerable although China’s economic integration with its neighbours gives it a distinct edge over the US in some respects. For instance, it is estimated that in 2007, the contribution of BRICS, of which China is a member, to global economic growth, outstripped that of the US for the first time, 30 percent to 20 percent.

pic

UNITED STATES, Oso : US President Barack Obama delivers remarks at the firehouse in Oso, Washington, April 22, 2014, after touring the devastation left by a recent landslide. The death toll from the devastating landslide in the western US state of Washington rose to 41 with the discovery of two more bodies on April 21, 2014, officials said. Dozens of dwellings in the rural town 60 miles (95 kilometers) from Seattle were wiped out in the landslide, which also destroyed part of a highway. AFP