Indo Pacific strategy

[Ananda]

don't think it's anything like an Empire.
There might be an element of pax america, but that's not Empire.

Well let's agree to disagree. For me, it is behaving like an Empire with different touch of liberalism. However it is an Empire. Just like PRC will not be like themselves be call an Empire, but they are working just like an upcoming Empire.

What does pressure mean?

Not much different when you see the modern empires doing their 'pressure' or you can call it coersion. Whether US Empire or USSR empire and now an upcoming empire of Modern China. When you try to push your agenda to others, then you behave as like an empire.

US definetely behaving like an Empire. Using their domination throughout World Trade and Financial Market is behaviour of an Empire. Even US public see China as main competitor right know, because it is challanging US interest aka US dominance. That's imperial thinking.

There will be no benefit to the World of a Chinese

To the collective west do you mean ? Sometimes I chuckle when western politician and media synonimous put Collective West as the World. Like they call Russia is isolated by World, when in reality it is isolated by collective west and some allies, while the rest of the world still engage Russia more or less.

The truth is in ideal world, there's should be no "polar" that try to dictate how the World works. Those "polar" are the modern days Empire. However in the end there's no utopian ideal world.

 

[koxinga]

Small Asian powers will not have the resources and economy to independently build credible defence forces able to deter China. If they choose not to balance by entering alliance with other countries they will at the end of the day be forced to accept whatever China demands from them. The only other option to an alliance, would be to obtain nuclear weapons, but that comes with a lot of other issues (ref. NK, Iran). I understand that alliance is not an option to many smaller Asian powers. They will have to suffer the consequences as China grows stronger and more assertive. You can call it 'balancing' or something else, but at the end of the day, countries trying to go it alone will in the future have to accept orders given from Beijing. It's their choice to make of course, based on their history and their culture.

Working with China is of course a great idea but for smaller countries it will always be on China's premises and they have to meet China's demands and requirements.

@Ananda and @STURM has given insightful replies. But I can see where the difference is from your reply.

Correct me if I am wrong, @Vivendi , from the Western point of view, the rise of China and what it brings (political system) as unpalatable, which is why you see any form of acceptance to be kowtowing to that system/value.

Most Asians don't see it that way because we look at it at different layers.

1) Rise of China -> China returning to their historical place as the superpower in the region
2) Territorial disputes -> Countries like Indonesia, Vietnam will fiercely defend their rights, and China respects that.
3) Trade & Economic linkage -> Desire to leverage and obtain economic benefits, soft-loans from 1)
4) Politics -> As long as the Chinese don't stir ethnic tensions (given that many Asian countries has sizable Chinese dispora), we can turn a blind eye to Xinjiang and other stuff (and the Chinese turn a blind eye to whatever local politics, dictators etc)

For us, China is just another power/"empire" to deal with. You can, of course have preferences. Singapore is clearly tilted towards the US. But it is not stopping their collaboration at provincial and state levels such as Singapore-Tianjin Economic and Trade Council (STETC) https://www.mti.gov.sg/-/media/MTI/...teral-Economic-Platforms-and-Appointments.pdf

 

[Vivendi]

Whether we call the US an "empire" or not -- I strongly prefer to be closely allied with the US than any other alternative, and that included the USSR when it was around and also today Russia and China. Norway tried "neutral" during WW2 and that didn't work out.

China demonstrated their willingness to punish the whole of Norway when a small committee of Norwegians made the "mistake" to give the Nobel peace prize to a Chinese dissident. China would not accept that in Norway the government does not have absolute power and therefore cannot dictate what e.g. the Nobel committee would do (although the Norwegian government tried to influence the committee but failed).

Norway definitely had to "bow" to be able to sell salmon to China. I hope it was worth it, let's see.

 

[Ananda]

strongly prefer to be closely allied with the US than any other alternative, and that included the USSR when it was around and also today Russia and China. Norway tried "neutral" during WW2 and that didn't work out.

Off course and understandable. After all Europeans especially the West, North and South shares more values with US. US is a nation that build by Imigrants but mostly by European Imigrants (despite the rise of imigration from the rest of the world, it is still dominated by Euro value). Thus off course Euro/collective west will be much comfortable with US.

Personally on some points I also more comfortable with US empire then PRC empire, but as many Asian (asside Japan and ROK) not really confince US will back them all the way. Thus we asians have to live with an upcoming empire on our door step, and we have to balance it. Besides this empire is something that are more familiar with by most Asians.

@koxinga already sumarise more clearer on his four points, on how most Asians interaction with PRC this days. Whatever the collective west think of China, most of Asians can still see China that can be 'bargain' with. Bargaining even come with 'touch' of posturing is perhaps more an asian thing, if can be call that.

When China shown they become 'unbargainable' then most its Asian neighbours will adjust their 'balancing' action.

 

[Boatteacher]

Well let's agree to disagree. For me, it is behaving like an Empire with different touch of liberalism. However it is an Empire. Just like PRC will not be like themselves be call an Empire, but they are working just like an upcoming Empire.

Maybe agree to disagree is right. But an empire has a determined geographic extent.
If the US has an Empire, I fail to see what its geographic extent it.

The USSR empire, British Empire, Australian/Hungarian Empire (and that of other colonial powers in the late 19th century) all the way back to Roman, Macadonian, Hittite and Egyptian Empires could all be fairly clearly drawn on a map. The US one?

 

[STURM]

The US one?

True ''empire'' tend to have a geographic boundary or as you put it; extent. As it stands however the fact that the U.S. has treaties/alliances with numerous countries worldwide; has numerous military bases worldwide; exerts great political and economical influence worldwide; has the most powerful military unrivalled by anyone; has a navy which has long dominated power the Seven Seas and has a long tradition of applying military power to achieve its political goals; is also a reflection of it's status as an ''empire'' of sorts.

 

[Ananda]

Maybe agree to disagree is right. But an empire has a determined geographic extent.
If the US has an Empire, I fail to see what its geographic extent it.

Seems you are trying to focus on Geographical teritory and conquest as definition on Empires, while I'm more see on how modern empire come from domination ontrade and international relationship. How an empire influence smaller power to take on their agenda.

However if you want to see the geopgraphical 'conquest' as prove of an empire, well then see how US increase their teritory from 13 Colonies toward present possition. Then see how they are behaving toward Mexico and Spanish (by taking some their teritory) is not in line with imperial behaviour. How US keep colonies (ehm, teritories) in Pacific etc.

But again what's more important is throughout history is Empire has 'clout' to coerce smaller power into their agenda.

 

[Vivendi]

@Ananda and @STURM has given insightful replies. But I can see where the difference is from your reply.

Correct me if I am wrong, @Vivendi , from the Western point of view, the rise of China and what it brings (political system) as unpalatable, which is why you see any form of acceptance to be kowtowing to that system/value.

Most Asians don't see it that way because we look at it at different layers.

1) Rise of China -> China returning to their historical place as the superpower in the region
2) Territorial disputes -> Countries like Indonesia, Vietnam will fiecely defend their rights, and China respects that.
3) Trade & Economic linkage -> Desire to leverage and obtain economic benefits, soft-loans from 1)
4) Politics -> As long as the Chinese don't stir ethnic tensions (given that many Asian countries has sizable Chinse dispora), we can turn a blind eye to Xinjiang and other stuff (and the Chinese turn a blind eye to whatever local politics, dictators etc)

While there are countries with preferences (Singapore is clearly tilted towards the US), for us, China is just another power/"empire" to deal with.

I have no problems with China rising as such, that's fine and only natural. I am however concerned by how they go about it. I certainly don't appreciate it that China more and more restrict things like freedom of expression and democratic processes in my own country. China says one of their principles is of "non interference" but only when it suits China. As they grow and need more resources, but also as the world becomes more and more interconnected, they will more and more force other countries to follow their bidding, also countries far away from China.

As for territorial disputes, I think the most critical near-term will be Taiwan, but also the "nine dash line" of China. To me the "solution" seems to be that the countries affected in the end will have to accept the nine dash line, and hope that China will not ask for more concessions after that. I don't see e.g. Vietnam being able to do much about it by themselves. And why would China the superpower accept anything less than the nine-dash line as they have defined it? What would force them to accept a compromise? The Vietnamese navy? I don't see that happening. I may be wrong of course. The Philippines already tried to build a legal argument against China, that did not impress China much.

China's need for resources is affecting the whole world, including e.g., Latin America and Africa:
Chinese Fishing Fleet Wreaks Havoc in Latin American Oceans - Diálogo Américas (dialogo-americas.com)
Fishy Business: Report Details Chinese Fleet’s Illegal Operations in West Africa (voanews.com)
Chinese companies linked to illegal logging and mining in northern DRC (mongabay.com)
DRC: Illegal Chinese timber and mining companies rampant in South Kivu - new report (theafricareport.com)
The Devastating Environmental Impact of Chinese Influence in Latin America - Diálogo Américas (dialogo-americas.com)

 

[ngatimozart]

Small Asian powers will not have the resources and economy to independently build credible defence forces able to deter China. If they choose not to balance by entering alliance with other countries they will at the end of the day be forced to accept whatever China demands from them. The only other option to an alliance, would be to obtain nuclear weapons, but that comes with a lot of other issues (ref. NK, Iran). I understand that alliance is not an option to many smaller Asian powers. They will have to suffer the consequences as China grows stronger and more assertive. You can call it 'balancing' or something else, but at the end of the day, countries trying to go it alone will in the future have to accept orders given from Beijing. It's their choice to make of course, based on their history and their culture.

Working with China is of course a great idea but for smaller countries it will always be on China's premises and they have to meet China's demands and requirements.

What we are trying to get you to understand is that different cultures have different ways of doing things and everything is not so cut and dried, or black and white. Just because you may have a Eurocentric way of doing things doesn't mean it's the right way. After all to put it bluntly the Europeans weren't as smart as they thought they were. After all the Chinese had invented gunpowder long before any Europeans thought about it, and magnetic compasses, astronomy and so on. Polynesians were sailing the Pacific and trading with the Americas long before Columbus stumbled across it and probably before the Vikings found it. Also you could put a Polynesian navigator anywhere in the Pacific and he could immediate point to his home island. (Source: Lisby, Hannah, & Knight: The Polynesian Oceanic Empire: 2009, Part One, The Hydrographic Journal, 131 & 132, pp 17 - 25 & Part Two, The Hydrographic Journal, 2010, pp 15 - 25).

One of the reasons that we are here is to learn things and hopefully open our minds. In my own case I am lucky in that I was bought up in a western way with a western education, living and absorbing the world view, cultural mores and values. But I also have my own Maori cultural values, world view and cultural mores as well so I have feet in both worlds. The Maori are a Polynesian culture so it is relatively easy for me to understand the concepts of the wider Polynesian cultures. It is also interesting that the Melanesian cultures have similar values and concepts as well. But when dealing with the different Asian cultures although some values and concepts are similar many are not and many I don't understand. That's where the likes of @Ananda @STURM @Sandhi Yudha @koxinga and others are very helpful because they educate and enlighten the rest of us on their culture's way of thinking and why it does things in certain ways.

 

[koxinga]

Maybe agree to disagree is right. But an empire has a determined geographic extent.

There are territories that are directly governed which would form the actual line of control of the empire and there are tributaries where they are basically independent states and may not be in direct alliance with the empire but are paying "protection" money and then there are territories that remain totally independent but still remain deeply influenced by the regional superpower.

Using China as an example, at various stages of the dynasties, there have been plenty of tributaries. These will not be treated as part of the Chinese empire.

List of tributary states of China - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Does a tributory means they are subordinated to China? I don't think it is that simple. That's another story.

 

[koxinga]

China says one of their principles is of "non interference" but only when it suits China. As they grow and need more resources, but also as the world becomes more and more interconnected, they will more and more force other countries to follow their bidding, also countries far away from China.

And is that any different from... the US?

For us, Asians, we have no such illusions. China plays that "non-interference" card when it suits them and moves the goalpost under "this is an internal affair of China" to justify their aggressive, interventionist behaviour/actions. This is what they do. We know.

The difference is we see the West doing them same thing under different labels, today it is human rights, tomorrow it is protecting the environment.

Edit:
To clarify, I do believe between a US and Chinese system, the US one is generally preferable for most Asians. (Heck, we send our kids to the West for education), but it does not mean we see one system (the West) to be better than another. If there is an Asian "way", it is reconigising the flaws of both models and taking the best from each of them.

 

[STURM]

And why would China the superpower accept anything less than the nine-dash line as they have defined it? What would force them to accept a compromise?

It might not accept anything less but it might not enforce it and tolerate the presence/actions of others as long as certain agreed upon conditions/rules are maintained. Declaring something and actually implementing it are two very profoundly different things. It's not as if the Chinese have maintained that they will never compromise.

Many years ago a defence analyst [Asian but not from South East Asia] with a lot of experience in the region told me his opinion; China wanting to achieve regional dominance [naturally] but willing to make concessions with smaller/weaker states who acknowledge China's status and who reject attempts by the U.S. and its allies [the Chinese see them as outsiders meddling in things which aren't their business] to interfere or influence things. Once that is done China will make individual deals with the various Spratlys claimants; allowing them to maintain their presence in areas claimed by China and to engage in joint exploration for oil/gas - the ''compromise'' you mentioned. Naturally all this would be done with China as the most powerful/influential/domineering player; able to apply the needed pressure or shape things to its favour but this is no different with other major powers which use their greater influence/power for their benefit.

China's need for resources is affecting the whole world, including e.g., Latin America and Africa:

This is a known fact and is not a matter of dispute. What is also not a matter of dispute is certain things various Western countries have done which effects or has consequences on the whole world. It's not as if China has a monopoly of doing things for its own benefit at the expense of others. This is also not about who is right or wrong or better or worst; not as simplistic as that.

 

[spoz]

Like Asia, the West is not monolithic; NZ’s approach is different to the US, which in turn is different to Germany, France, etc.

While Australia might be currently have its issues with China, it understands quite well the approach of Singapore or Malaysia or Indonesia to China; we’ve been dealing with those countries for many years, and on an increasingly close basis with Singapore and Indonesia at least. What concerns Australia, I believe, is that it does not see in the Solomon Islands the same nuanced approach those countries, or indeed Fiji or PNG to a lesser extent, have adopted.

And that is what is worrying because while the nuanced approaches of the SE Asian countries do not affect Australia’s national interests, the less subtle arrangements with the Solomons potentially do.

 

[koxinga]

What concerns Australia, I believe, is that it does not see in the Solomon Islands the same nuanced approach those countries, or indeed Fiji or PNG to a lesser extent, have adopted.

The South Pacific nations are more susceptible to external influence than South East Asian countries because economies, size, political situation are vastly different.

South East Asia is a USD > 9 trillion economy with more than 680 million people. Most of SEA countries maintain large standing armed forces which reflects their historical (often bloody independence, Cold War frontline, internal conflicts) and political outlook that is uncommon compared to South Pacific nations.

 

[STURM]

Like Asia, the West is not monolithic

Indeed but unlike South East Asian countries; European countries are linked by the EU/NATO; have more similarities in the types of governments they have; have a much longer history of being sovereign nation states; are in more advanced stages of economic development and have a common threat; in the background is the dominant power which the Europeans rely on : the U.S. With South East Asia the various countries see China as a major challenge and a potential threat but are divided on how to deal with it. How each country goes about dealing with China is driven by history [Vietnam for example takes a harder approach but then it has had centuries of strife with China], the economy [some are more dependent than others] and internal politics.

And that is what is worrying because while the nuanced approaches of the SE Asian countries do not affect Australia’s national interests

There is - naturally - some overlap as far as interests go but there are and will continue to be areas where there is a difference of opinion; security wise. Ultimately despite the occasional disagreements; various regional countries have longstanding defence ties with Australia. Whilst the Chinese see Australia as a U.S. vassal or lackey; regional countries see it as a partner; one which took on a major role following the Brit East of Suez 1971 pullout and one which has had a long presence here.

do not affect Australia’s national interests, the less subtle arrangements with the Solomons potentially do.

As an outsider I will argue that from an Australian geo political/strategic perspective; South East Asia is of far more importance than Polynesia.

 

[KrustyKoala]

Indeed but unlike South East Asian countries; European countries are linked by the EU/NATO

can the same not apply to SEA and being linked by ASEAN?

 

[STURM]

can the same not apply to SEA and being linked by ASEAN?

To a much lesser extent. ASEAN is a purely political/economic grouping somewhat dissimilar to the EU. Officially it has a policy of non interference in the affairs of member states and it compromises members who are not as united or who share a common foreign policy as do members which comprise the EU/NATO; members with different forms of governance.

 

[Ananda]

Just add what @STURM post. To give in perspective for those who don't have familiar understanding of what ASEAN is. As Sturm posted it is build for Economics co-op in order to help the region growth together.

However it is more or less stop in there, and everything else each nations have their own independence policies. As I've mentioned on Asian NATO or SEATO perspective, rigid alliance will not work in the region. Thus ASEAN connotation more or less as far more loose economics alliance then EU.

Everything else including territorial dispute and defense interaction done by bilateral agreement. EU most talk 'bad boy' is Hungarian Orban. On that perspective imagine 3 to 4 Orban in ASEAN which will goes on their own way on matter of National interest.

On present situation it will be hard to see Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos or even eratic Philippines can have similar agenda on foreign policy toward China as with say Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia or Vietnam. However all try to work out area on regional co-op for enhancement of economics and trade environment.

So the linked will not be similar in nature as EU let alone NATO, and will not be like that for foreseeable future.

 

[koxinga]

ASEAN today is more like European economic committee (EEC) where the focus was largely economic rather than political union.

Compared to Europe, there isn't any raison d'être for political union. It is because there is a lack of an unifying, socio-political factor similar to WWI/WWII for Europe. The successive events reset European relationships and political landscape, forced the economies to restart from ashes (post WWII) and brought forth a generation of leaders determined to avoid the mistakes of the past.

For ASEAN nations, WWII did accelerate similar socio-political changes but in a much different way such as igniting nationalist movements (in part fanned by the Dutch/French colonial masters who, post WWII attempted no less to reimpose controls in Indonesia and Indo-China. The British in Malaya and Americans in the Philippines did no better), which has led to the current state.

 

[koxinga]

As an outsider I will argue that from an Australian geo political/strategic perspective; South East Asia is of far more importance than Polynesia.

There is no doubt about that, but I think the establishment view in Australia is to avoid being "flanked" in Polynesia by China.

I confess to have little knowledge of Australian policy towards the South Pacific nations over the decade. But it appears that policy is more like a donor/donee type relationship and there is a perceived inbalance, where because Australia is the biggest donor there, expects (even if it is unintended) to be treated as the elder brother/senior country. I also think COVID-19 opened up an opportunity for China there because their economies would have been significantly battered and Australia has been somewhat slow in that response to the region. I am happy to be corrected and educated if I am wrong.