Connect with us

East Asia

Why the world must listen more carefully to Asia’s rising powers

Published

on

The shifts in global power that began in the late 20th century have accelerated since the onset of the world economic crisis in 2008 and the subsequent EURO crisis. As the Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University and friend of MD, Barry Desker reports from Singapore, few lessons are available for the Western decision-makers.

The celebrations marking the EU’s Nobel Peace Prize are more likely to commemorate Europe’s past rather than shape its future. Europeans may highlight the “European model” as a contrast to Asia, which they see as still riven by conflicts rooted in the colonial era and World War II. However, as power shifts from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Asian views will increasingly command attention. Asian demands for the re-balancing of global institutions will grow, and Asian views that the region’s own institutions have played an effective role in ensuring Asia’s peace will become louder.

 

Ever since the mid-19th century, the global political economy has been dominated by the West. But this was not always the case; in 1700, Asia’s share of global GDP was 57.6% and China alone accounted for 22.3% of it compared to Europe’s 25.3%. By 1870, Europe’s share had increased to 37.7% while China’s fell to 17.2% and the whole of Asia accounted for 36%. Europe benefited greatly from the industrial revolution and colonial expansion, while China, India and South East Asia suffered from internal wars, foreign interventions and domestic stagnation. Now, the re-emergence of China, India and South East Asia over the past 25 years reflects stable governments, outward looking economic policies and rapid urbanisation. The change has drawn the world’s attention to the changing global power equation.

 

By 2030, Asia will overtake the United States and Europe in terms of GDP, population size, military spending and technological investment. China alone is expected to reach 19.8% of global GDP by then, in contrast to Europe which will sink to 14.6% and the United States to 14.5%. This change is likely to lead to a shift of power away from the unipolar world of 2000, in which America had emerged at the end of the Cold War as the sole superpower, to one in which a number of major powers will influence global developments.

 

The United States, Europe and Japan, will be joined by China and India along with emerging economies such as Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa and Nigeria. Because of the sheer size of China and India, these emerging economies will form a second tier. All this will highlight the shift to a world increasingly dominated by non-Western powers, accentuating the already discernible changes that have occurred since the financial and economic crisis began in 2008.

This shift in global power will not mean, though, that western states will grow poorer. Their relative hard power will decline but the United States and Europe will still enjoy high standards of living, economic growth and relative social stability. Europe will have to deal with an aging population, but the U.S. enjoys a higher birth rate and will continue to draw educated entrepreneurs as migrants from around the world, especially from Latin America, if its immigration policies are maintained. That means the U.S. is likely to remain a technological leader and a centre of innovation.

America’s challenge will be to recognise that as its relative economic power declines, U.S. military dominance and global hegemony cannot be sustained. Despite budget constraints, the U.S. is likely to retain its military advantage over possible adversaries at least until 2025.

Instead, the risk is that the U.S. will try to hang on to its pre-eminent role in the global governance institutions established after World War II, notably the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, rather than adopt new mechanisms which would allow rising powers to share responsibility for global leadership.

01qu

In the next two decades, alongside the United States and Europe, rising powers such as China and India will increasingly seek to shape global institutions and the global discourse on the critical issues facing the world

01qd
Reform of these institutions is currently proceeding at a snail’s pace. The imbalance in the IMF is a good example; not only do Germany, the United Kingdom and France each have a larger voting share than China, but so too do the Netherlands and Belgium when combined.
America and the Europeans might be more willing to share their leadership if they were to recognise the strength of their own soft power. It is the power of attraction generated by the culture and policies of the U.S. and Europe that draw followers and supporters from throughout our increasingly inter-connected world. Western hard power may indeed be in decline, but the influence of language, particularly English, along with Western ideas, norms and values will do much to shape the global outlook. Western music, popular culture, universities and football clubs will go on attracting audiences worldwide, exerting influence long after the powers that introduced them have faded.

This ability to shape preferences and influence the way others see you is durable and slow burning. Although the Catholic Church’s followers are now mostly in Latin America, Africa and Asia, Europeans (and above all Italians) still dominate its leadership. Other examples range from music and the arts to higher education, where Western universities, particularly in the English-speaking world, retain a special place.

Not all Western influences are so positive. Although European integration is generally viewed favourably, the current European recession and the travails of the eurozone have drawn attention to the negative impact of a common currency when it embraces varying standards of productivity and competitiveness. In the area of monetary and fiscal policy, the voices that had been championing a common Asian currency are now silent.

Asia will find its own way in an increasingly inter-dependent world. In contrast to Europe, Asian regionalism is broader and more outward looking, emphasising flexibility, adaptability and diversity. While European observers may criticise the overlapping structures in Asia, such as the ASEAN-plus Three framework, the East Asian Summit and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, Asian analysts emphasise the need for the inclusive and consensual approach that has been taken in the region. The result is that Asia will adopt a distinctive approach and will not follow the European model where so much sovereignty is transferred to a supranational organisation like the European Union.

In its external relations, the EU has highlighted the role of elected democracies, the sanctity of individual political and civil rights, its support for human rights and the ‘doctrine’ of humanitarian intervention. This led earlier to EU sanctions on Myanmar and a restriction on meetings with Myanmar’s leaders, bans on arm sales to Indonesia and strong criticisms of China.

In Asia, confidence in the growth paradigms of states in the region has reinforced an approach resting on a technocratic approach to governance, the significance of social rights and obligations, a re-assertion of the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference, coupled with support for freer markets and stronger regional and international institutions. Although there was in years past a preference in some countries for strong authoritarian government, the emergence of democratic governments in states like Indonesia and South Korea has meant that there are tensions within Asian regional institutions as member states attempt to shape these institutions in line with their own particular model.

In the next two decades, alongside the United States and Europe, rising powers such as China and India will increasingly seek to shape global institutions and the global discourse on the critical issues facing the world. India will certainly seek a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and there will be pressure from the emerging powers for a single permanent European seat to replace those of the United Kingdom and France now that the EU has a common foreign and security policy. There will also be mounting pressure from the rising powers for a greater share in the leadership of the global institutions for economic governance. Ever since 1945, the IMF and the World Bank have respectively been led by a European and by an American.

Just as global institutions will be influenced by the rise of Asia, Asia-Pacific states will have to adapt to the norms, values and practices of global society. Reform of the global governance institutions will have to occur so that they are more reflective of both the established and the rising powers. Europe can learn from the consensual approaches preferred in Asia, just as Asia can learn from Europe’s support for rules and strong institutions.

We all need to recognise that there are divergent norms and values present in international society and that those differences can sometimes lead to conflict. Inclusive global institutions could serve as agents of co-operation on a larger scale. That means the strengthening and broadening of global institutions so that they are representative of East and West is of critical importance.

In the 21st century, these global institutions need to derive their norms, values and practices from global society, not just from Atlantic or Asian perspectives. Instead of the victors of a war that ended almost 70 years ago shaping the world’s political and economic security, global institutions should be inclusive and should reflect the rising powers in terms of representation and the distribution of power. Only that can provide the basis of a new global consensus.

(First published by the Europe’s World, article re-posted per author’s permission)

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

The nature of contemporary Sino-Pakistani relations

Syeda Dhanak Hashmi

Published

on

China has played a crucial role in maintaining regional peace and security by upholding its concept of an inclusive, cooperative and sustainable security. This has clarified the country’s stance on issues of regional concern, contributing to long-term stability and development in Asia, which includes the promotion of common development, building of partnerships, improvement of existing multilateral frameworks, rule-setting, military exchanges and proper settlement of differences.

To ensure long-term stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific, China has put forward a number of proposals that have been highly valued by the international community. To ensure common development is the fundamental guarantee of peace and stability, and the ‘master key’ to solving security problems. The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative is not only a path of development but also a path of peace, as it will not only bring opportunities to the economic development of regional countries, but also provide ideas and solutions for them to solve security problems. The central theme behind the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is to open new economic and trade avenues that would lead to the overall social and economic prosperity of the region. The fruit of this economic cooperation is a market far larger in scope than the one that exists because of economic conflict in the region. The envisaged economic route from Gwadar to Kashgar can serve as an alternative and economically shorter sea route instead of the far longer straits of Malacca. This has always been the most compelling reason for multilateral and regional cooperation.

Two of the most reputable theories that support the idea of regional stability, regional integration and strategic cooperation can be stated in terms of ‘economic opportunity cost hypotheses and ‘neo-functionalism’. The first theory assumes that trade and economic interdependence increases stakes amongst economically integrated nations and thereby reduces chances of conflicts erupting. Whereas the proponents of neo-functionalism are of the view that cooperation in one area produces cooperation in other areas. CPEC will pass through Gilgit-Baltistan in the north which will connect Kashgar in China’s western province of Xinjiang. Almost 80% of China’s oil is currently transported through the Strait of Malacca to Shanghai. The calculated distance is almost 16,000km and takes two to three months, with Gwadar becoming operational, the distance would be reduced to less than 5,000km. When fully operational Gwadar will promote not only the economic development of Pakistan but also serve as a gateway to the Central Asian countries.

Keeping in view the regional stability, Pakistan and India are both important neighbours for China which wants to promote trade with its neighbours. Pakistan is a victim of terrorism and that all countries were responsible for contributing towards the eradication of terrorism. But the brutalities of the Indian army in Indian-held Kashmir cannot be ignored here.

Pivot to Asia: Status quo or a challengerpower ?

Hence, regional integration is not possible as long as regional trade is sacrificed for so-called security. Pakistan needs to follow the Chinese model whose trade with India had crossed over $100 billion despite serious political issues between them. Some elements also fear that if there is peace in the region, it will challenge their predominance in the business of the state. Furthermore, the dimension of CPEC that is ignored is its potential to defeat terrorism in the region by raising and improving socio-economic conditions of the people. The Sri Lankan polity, at first divided over the role of China in the region, has come to recognize that the Belt Road Initiative approach fits well with Colombo’s goals of rebuilding a war-torn economy through enhanced connectivity. China also calls for improving regional security architecture to lay a solid foundation for enduring peace and stability in the region, and also calls on countries to properly handle differences and disputes to maintain the peaceful and stable environment in the region.

In the context of Pakistan, CPEC is often termed a game changer for the weak economy of Pakistan. The corridor project carries vital significance as it promises to elevate Islamabad’s economic growth. Unlike US aid, the Chinese aid to Pakistan has offered infrastructure and energy projects that would serve as a means to improve Pakistan’s economy. Despite the cheapness of land, Pakistan is lagging behind in connectivity which increases the trade cost. However, under the umbrella of CPEC the cost would be minimised and export incentives increased. Pakistan expects 4% of global trade. The kind of toll tax, rental fees that Pakistan will gain is roughly $6 billion to $8 billion by 2020.

A strategic and economic balance of power in the region would ensure peaceful resolution of conflicts but also enhance strategic stability leading to a win-win situation. Or by words of professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic: “Asia has to answer itself whether the newest concepts – such as the OBOR/CPEC vs. Indo-Pacific oceanic triangling – are complementary to its development or the heartland-rimland sort of dangerous confrontation. Asia needs a true multilateralism, not a hostage situation of getting caught in a cross-fire.”

The CPEC itself with its focus on Gwadar, has also given impetus to maritime cooperation between China and Pakistan, and beyond. Both states wish to enhance bilateral cooperation in the fields of maritime security, search and rescue, and the blue water economy. Thus, it would not be wrong to say that CPEC has the potential of accruing strategic cooperation. This approach serves as strategic enabler in a rapidly transforming world order. It is therefore the need of time to move from archaic geopolitical vendetta of 19th and 20th centuries to interstate strategic play in the 21st century.

The pursuit of a state’s national interest in the international arena constitutes its foreign policy. A successful foreign policy should employ a balance of economic, diplomatic, and military tools. It is the national interest that shapes the possibilities of state to behave collectively. Through a balanced foreign policy approach, the South Asian region can achieve its mega development projects and establish into a peaceful integrated region. Confidence-building measures between regional players is the first step in this direction to uplift the socioeconomic standards of the people of this region.

An early version of this text has been published by the China Daily

Continue Reading

East Asia

Freedom, Sovereign Debt, Generational Accounting and other Myths

Published

on

“How to draw the line between the recent and still unsettled EU/EURO crisis and Asia’s success story? Well, it might be easier than it seems: Neither Europe nor Asia has any alternative. The difference is that Europe well knows there is no alternative – and therefore is multilateral. Asia thinks it has an alternative – and therefore is strikingly bilateral, while stubbornly residing enveloped in economic egoisms. No wonder that Europe is/will be able to manage its decline, while Asia is (still) unable to capitalize its successes. Asia clearly does not accept any more the lead of the post-industrial and post-Christian Europe, but is not ready for the post-West world.” – professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic diagnosed in his well-read ‘No Asian century’ policy paper. Sino-Indian rift is not new. It only takes new forms in Asia, which – in absence of a true multilateralism – is entrenched in confrontational competition and amplifying antagonisms.  The following lines are referencing one such a rift.

At the end of 2017, Brahma Chellaney, a professor with the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research, wrote an article titled “China’s Creditor Imperialism” in which he accused China of creating a “debt trap” from Argentina, to Namibia and Laos, mentioning its acquisition of, or investment in the construction of several port hubs, including Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Piraeus in Greece, Djibouti, and Mombasa in Kenya in recent years.

These countries are forced to avoid default by painfully choosing to let China control their resources and thus have forfeited their sovereignty, he wrote. The article described China as a “new imperial giant” with a velvet glove hiding iron fists with which it was pressing small countries. The Belt and Road Initiative, he concluded, is essentially an ambitious plan to realize “Chinese imperialism”. The article was later widely quoted by newspapers, websites and think tanks around the world.

When then United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Africa in March, he also said that although Chinese investment may help improve Africa’s infrastructure, it would lead to increased debt on the continent, without creating many jobs.

It is no accident that this idea of China’s creditor imperialism theory originates from India. New Delhi has openly opposed China’s Belt and Road Initiative, especially the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as it runs through Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which India regards as an integral part of its territory. India is also worried that the construction of China’s Maritime Silk Road will challenge its dominance in South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Based on such a judgment, the Indian government has worked out its own regional cooperation initiatives, and taken moves, such as the declaration of cooperation with Vietnam in oil exploration in the South China Sea and its investment in the renovation of Chabahar port in Iran, as countermeasures against the Chinese initiative.

Since January, India, the United States, Japan and Australia have actively built a “quasi-alliance system” for a “free and open Indo-Pacific order” as an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. In April, a senior Indian official attending the fifth China-India Strategic Economic Dialogue reiterated the Indian government’s refusal to participate in the initiative.

The “creditor imperialism” fallacy is in essence a deliberate attempt by India and Western countries to denigrate the Belt and Road Initiative, which exhibits their envy of the initial fruits the initiative has produced. Such an argument stems from their own experiences of colonialism and imperialism. It is exactly the US-led Western countries that attached their political and strategic interests to the debt relationship with debtor countries and forced them to sign unequal treaties. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is proposed and implemented in the context of national equality, globalization and deepening international interdependence, and based on voluntary participation from relevant countries, which is totally different from the mandatory debt relationship of the West’s colonialism.

It is an important “Chinese experience” to use foreign debts to solve its transportation and energy bottlenecks that restrict its economic and social development at the time of its accelerated industrialization and urbanization. By making use of borrowed foreign debts, China once built thousands of large and medium-sized projects, greatly easing the transportation and energy “bottlenecks” that long restrained its social and economic development. Such an experience is of reference significance for other developing countries in their initial stage of industrialization and urbanization along the Belt and Road routes.

In the early stage of China’s reform and opening-up, US dollar-denominated foreign debt accounted for nearly 50 percent of China’s total foreign debts, and Japanese yen close to 30 percent. Why didn’t Western countries think the US and Japan were pushing their “creditor imperialism” on China?

Some foreign media have repeatedly mentioned that Sri Lanka is trapped in a “debt trap” due to its excessive money borrowing from China. But the fact is that there are multiple reasons for Sri Lanka’s heavy foreign debt and its debt predicament should not be attributed to China. For most of the years since 1985, foreign debt has remained above 70 percent of its GDP due to its continuous fiscal deficits caused by low tax revenues and massive welfare spending. As of 2017, Sri Lanka owed China $2.87 billion, accounting for only 10 percent of its total foreign debt, compared with $3.44 billion it owed to Japan, 12 percent of its total foreign debt. Japan has been Sri Lanka’s largest creditor since 2006, but why does no foreign media disseminate the idea of “Japan’s creditor imperialism”?

In response to the accusation that China is pursuing creditor imperialism made by India and some Western countries, even former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa wrote an article in July using data to refute it.

Most of the time, the overseas large-scale infrastructure construction projects related to the Belt and Road Initiative are the ones operated by the Chinese government and Chinese enterprises under the request of the governments of involved countries along the Belt and Road routes or the ones undertaken by Chinese enterprises through bidding.

It is expected that with the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects and industrial parks under the Chinese initiative, which will cause the host country’s self-development and debt repayment ability to constantly increase, the China’s creditor imperialism nonsense will collapse.

An early version of this text appeared in China Daily

Continue Reading

East Asia

Arrogance of force and hostages in US-China trade war

Published

on

Even before the ink on the comments made by those who (just like the author of these lines) saw the recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires as a sign of a temporary truce in the trade war between the two countries had time to dry, something like a hostage-taking and the opening of a second front happened. The recent arrest in Canada under US pressure of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of China’s telecommunications giant Huawei, is unfolding into a full-blown international scandal with far-reaching consequences.

Meng Wanzhou faces extradition to the United States where she is suspected of violating US sanctions against Iran, namely by making payments to Tehran via the UK branch of the US bank HSBC. The question is, however, how come someone is trying to indict a Chinese citizen according to the norms of American law, and not even on US territory to boot?

China’s reaction was extremely tough with Deputy Foreign Minister Le Yucheng summoning the Canadian and US ambassadors in Beijing and demanding the immediate release of the detainee, calling her detention “an extremely bad act.” First of all, because this is yet another arrogant attempt at extraterritorial use of American laws.

Other countries, above all Russia, have already experienced this arrogance more than once; suffice it to mention the cases of Viktor Bout and Konstantin Yaroshenko, or of the alleged “Russian hackers,” who, by hook or crook, were taken out to the United States to face US “justice”.

Enough is enough, as they say. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who is usually careful in his choice of words, said that while Russia is not involved in the US-China trade war, it still regards Meng’s arrest as “another manifestation of the line that inspires a rejection among the overwhelming majority of normal countries, normal people, the line of extraterritorial application of their [US] national laws.”

“This is a very arrogant great-power policy that no one accepts, it already causes rejection even among the closest allies of the US,” Lavrov said. “It is necessary to put an end to it,” he added.

One couldn’t agree with this more. But first, I would like to know who really is behind this provocation, even though China’s reaction would have been much anticipated. The arrest of Meng Wanzhou sent US markets into a tailspin and scared investors, who now expect an escalation of the trade war between the United States and China.

The point here, of course, is Washington’s displeasure about Huawei’s activities, with The Wall Street Journal reporting that the US Justice Department has long been conducting a probe into the Chinese company’s alleged violation of US sanctions against Iran.

There is more to this whole story than just sanctions though. The US accuses Huawei (as it earlier did the Chinese ZTE) of the potential threats the company’s attempts to use tracking devices could pose to the security of America’s telecommunications networks. The United States has demanded that its closest allies (primarily Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, with whom it has set up a system for jointly collecting and using Five Eyes intelligence) exclude 5G Huawei products from their state procurement tenders.

I still believe, however, that the true reason for this is not so much security concerns as it is a desire to beat a competitor. Huawei has become a world-renowned leader in the development and application of 5G communications technology, which looks to the future (“Internet of Things”, “Smart Cities”, unmanned vehicles and much more.)

Since technology and equipment are supplied along with standards for their use, there is a behind-the-scenes struggle going on to phase out the 5G standard developed by Huawei from global markets.

As for the need “to put an end to this,” the big question is how. Formally, detainees are extradited to the United States in line with national legislation, but at Washington’s request (which often comes with boorish and humiliating pressure from the US authorities and is usually never mentioned in public).

Add to this the US Congress’ longstanding practice of changing, unilaterally and at its own discretion, already signed international treaties and agreements as they are being ratified – another example of “arrogance of power” as mentioned before.

The question could well be raised at the UN Security Council, but its discussion is most likely to be blocked by the US representative. However, there is also a moral side to the assessment of any political practice the work on international legal norms usually starts with.

If China and Russia, as well as other countries equally fed up with the “arrogance of power” submit a draft resolution “On the inadmissibility of attempts at extraterritorial use of national legislation by UN member states” to the UN General Assembly, it would most likely enjoy the overwhelming support by most of the countries of the UNGA, maybe save for just a dozen or so of the most diehard advocates of Washington’s policy…

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy