Russia and Australia should be partners in the Asia-Pacific. Instead Canberra seems perennially paranoid about the Russian threat. This paranoia is nearly as old as Australia.
In the 1850s at the height of the Crimean War – fought primarily between Russia and Britain –Australia was gripped by paranoia of a Russian invasion. As rumours spread that the Russian Navy had invaded the port of Melbourne, the British colony started building coastal fortifications to repulse the invasion – that never came.
Russophobia is back in fashion in Australia. It almost reached a crisis point at the December 2014 G-20 summit in Brisbane when the Tony Abbott government said it wanted to ban Russia. The Australians backed off after India and China reminded them the G-20 wasn’t a private western club.
Abbott then said he would “shirtfront” Vladimir Putin at the summit. Shirtfront is defined in Australian Football Rules as an aggressive front-on body check challenge. The irony is that had Abbott implemented his threat, it would have been Putin the judoka who would have come out on top.
At any rate, instead of wasting words Putin despatched a Russian Navy flotilla towards Australia ahead of his visit.
It is clear that Australia’s political leadership doesn’t tend to view Russia favourably. Russia has returned the favour by blocking Australia’s involvement in the Syrian peace negotiations.
Australia’s place in the world
Australians are an easy going people, but their problem is the country’s leadership which is way over its head in events it can’t begin to understand. This was best illustrated by author David Horne, who wrote in 1960, “Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck.”
Indeed, the Australian political class tends to react to the rapidly transforming world order around them with hysteria rather than level headed thinking.
Take the sudden end of the Cold War. Australians were initially thrilled with the unexpected decline of Russia’s global power, which had left the West supreme. But the euphoria didn’t last long because the rise of China and India among other countries plus the re-rise of Russia checked the West’s expansion. Australians watched with dismay the world go multi-polar and the western economies crumble in slow motion.
For a country of just 23 million, Australia has outsize global ambitions. Despite the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force can barely find enough pilots to man its existing squadrons, Australian leaders like to think of their country as integral to the maintenance of the West’s hegemony. Over the decades, they have blindly followed the US and have been loyal foot soldiers in a string of American-inspired conflicts around the world — Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria. Plus, with old co-hegemon Britain’s defence forces shrinking because of budget cuts, Australia is keen to take over the role of America’s closest ally.
America’s adversary is, therefore, Australia’s adversary. During the 2008 Georgian War, the Christian fundamentalist Prime Minister Kevin Rudd threatened to cancel a 2007 agreement on the sale of uranium to Russia. The Rudd government’s argument was specious – that Moscow would use Australian uranium to make nuclear bombs.
Only someone belonging to the Flat Earth Society would have made such an argument. Russia not only had enough nuclear warheads to destroy all NATO countries, but it had thousands more in cold storage. In fact, the Russian government is in the process of dismantling these stored warheads as a security measure.
Again, during the Ukraine crisis, Australia joined the US and Europe and imposed sanctions on Russia. This included asset freezes and travel bans on 50 individuals and 11 Russian companies, including SMP Bank, Bank Rossiya and the Volga Group.
However, while Russia is targeted for acting entirely within its area of influence, Australia looks the other way when it comes to China. According to Saleem H. Ali, Chair and Professor of the University of Queensland, “the moral outrage being exhibited on the matter needs to be tempered with some broader perspective on what gets tolerated in the annals of Australian foreign policy”.
Ali explains: “Ultimately, nation states make decisions on relations based on a balance of economic expediency and national security. Australia’s ambivalent relationship with China is perhaps the most direct comparison in this regard. Marginalization of dissent, lack of democratic institutions and regional hegemonic tendencies are appropriately tolerated by Australia as well as many other western nations because the broader importance of engaging with China trumps such matters. A similar modicum of care is in order when dealing with Russia.”
To be sure, Australia has legitimate security concerns. Most of its limited population is concentrated on the east coast while the sparsely populated north and west are closer to crowded Indonesia than Sydney or Melbourne.
Fuelling Australia’s paranoia are other strategic developments in the region. China’s naval expansion is a big worry for the Australian defence forces and curiously the Australian political and military leadership at one time viewed India as a threat. The Indian Navy’s current high-octane growth will no doubt be in Canberra’s calculations. Add in the fact that Indonesia is re-arming – with the deadly Sukhoi Su-35 aircraft – right next door, and you can see why the Australians are getting jittery. (It is worth mentioning that during World War II, more bombs were dropped on Darwin than were used in the attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, during 1942-43 the Japanese launched as many 100 raids on Australia.)
In this backdrop, the Australians feel only an alliance with Anglo cousin America can ensure their security.
However, Australia needs to relax about Russia. It’s been over 200 years since the invasion scare and there’s still no sight of a Russian fleet. The reality is that Moscow has never had designs on Australia. Even during the height of the Cold War, Russians were content with a minor presence in the region. It was almost a career dead end for a Russian diplomat posted to Australia.
Being small and a lightweight in diplomacy, Australia could benefit from Russia’s friendship. As Ali says, “For all his many dismissals of smaller states like Australia, President Putin made a gesture in 2007 to visit Australia on an extended visit for the APEC summit, making him the first serving Russian president to give the country a measure of diplomatic respect.”
On the flip side, Moscow can squeeze Australia where it hurts as it showed by elbowing out Canberra from the Syrian negotiations. Both countries are commodities exporters to China but it is Russia that holds more leverage with Beijing. Describing Australia as a “Paper Cat”, a Chinese newspaper says Beijing should attack Australia if it enters the borders of the South China Sea.
Australia is currently waiting for the Americans to supply the F-35 stealth fighter to replace its aging F-18 jets. However, Russia is supplying the stealth-killer Su-35 to Indonesia and China. If Australia had any friends in Moscow, these sales may have been blocked or delayed just like Russia had delayed the sale of the S-300 anti-missile system to Iran and Syria partly because of Israeli pressure. Once bitter Cold War adversaries, Tel Aviv and Moscow enjoy an easy relationship today. There is no reason why Russia-Australia relations cannot be on the mend.
From October to October: Youth and politics in Thailand
When I think of the 6th and 14th of October, I think back to my years as an elementary school child, when my parents would take my sister and I to events commemorating those days at Thammasat University. At those events, we would meet people who were trying their best to keep the stories alive, keep the history going, so that no one would forget what happened in Thailand.
October was a month that made me feel like I was living in a parallel world; outside of these events, it seemed as if the nation had completely forgot what had happened. None of my friends understood what was going on. I think I only had two history teachers ever make a comment about the 6th or 14th of October.
It was a month of great importance for my father. Every year, as we got closer to those dates, he would start talking about the events. He would give interviews, be involved in talks and lectures and projects, and yet, it seemed as if absolutely no one else in the country had any clue what was happening.
He asked us every year if any teacher or text book mentioned what had happened in October, and every year, the answer would be the same: no.
Sometimes I worried it hurt his feelings, but he never deterred. It seemed, at moments, he and his friends were speaking into an empty void. But one year, when I was in high school, a middle school student attended one of my dad’s lectures and told my father he was interested in learning more about October, and why it was important to Thailand. My dad talked about that student for days after, even encouraging me to add him as a friend on Facebook.
Years later, when I look back to that time, I realize the reason he kept on pushing was quite simple: if he could teach one young person about what happened, if he could get one person to even care about October, if he could make sure younger people kept learning about it,it would be successful in paving the way for change.
If he had ever feared that the movement would not get passed on to the younger generation, this past month has proved him wrong.
The power of young people has always been underestimated in Thailand. But there is nothing more powerful than the thought of having no say in our future, of seeing other countries move forward in ways we can’t because we haven’t faced the past. There is nothing more frustrating than asking for the chance to draw up what the future should look like for us and getting our requests shot down.
But the baton, it seems, hasnow been passed down from the time my father was speaking into the void; it just kept getting passed around without a receiver. Now, the youth are ready to take on the task of helping others face the past. We are ready to hear about what has had happened in our country’s history, and take on the demands of the youth of the past and move it forward.
Crisis and Future of the Regime Stability in Southeast Asian Countries
The world has encountered a crisis several times. In facing a crisis, every nation’s leader will need to strive to prevent the existing disaster from having a major impact on the country’s economy. This is because the economic crisis can have consequences for the reputation and the stability of the political regime itself.
Unlike the crises caused by unregulated economic practices such as during the Great Depression in 1929 or the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, the catastrophe that the world currently confronting today is prompted by the COVID-19 virus. This new type of disease has eventually sparked into the global pandemic and already created tremendous negative disruption toward economics and businesses around the world.
Of course, the panacea for this problem is not easy since it takes the extraordinary capability of the state to bear with a load of health costs and prevailing economic burden to its society.
Most of the countries having a really hard time coping with this ‘black swan’ event. While, for some emerging economies with weak public health capacity, and slow policy process has already struggled with the socio-economic impact of the virus.
In this backdrop, although countries in Southeast Asian (SEA) regions have already made an impressive economic achievement post-Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, they have to swallow the bitter pill again as their economy agonized from this significant blow.
The countries within the ASEAN have suffered a great economic loss due to the pandemic. According to the latest forecasting report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB),the GDP growth rate of Indonesia and Laos has been contracted to minus 1 percent and 2.5 percent respectively. Other nations such as Cambodia, Malaysia, and Singapore have been predicted to befall averagely under minus 4 percent. While the Philippines and Thailand have even major severe shocks as their economy sharply contracting in excess of minus 7 percent. Only several states such as Vietnam, Brunei Darussalam, and Myanmar have performed slightly better.
This phenomenon is indeed very upsetting, especially because these countries are highly dependent on foreign investment, trade, and the tourism sector as the main engine to drive economic growth respectively.
The tricky part comes when the state cannot provide its citizen with adequate support and accountability. Apart from the debate about which ideological system is best in dealing with a pandemic, we need to understand well that political turmoil is often triggered by the inability of the state to meet the needs of its people. The public health emergency coupled with the economic crisis, and problematic policy selection can swiftly turn into unrest since the society vigorously looking for justice and protection over their wellbeing.
Compared to other ASEAN member states, Vietnam and Singapore are effectively tolerate the impact of turbulence because of their impressive management of public health systems. While other nations in the region seem to have different stories.
In Indonesia, regime stability has been affected by COVID-19. From the beginning of the outbreak, among other ASEAN member states, Indonesia was the latest one who got struck by the virus. But it turns out that Indonesia becomes a country with the largest infected cases in the region. The lack of government coordination and assistance in tackling the pandemic has made the economic condition of the country worsen. In addition, the most recent enactment of the omnibus law of job creation that predominantly in favor of businessmen and investors has triggered the wide-spread protest toward the government across the archipelago since early October.
Likewise, the Philippines also has to face the fatal economic damage caused by the pandemic as the unemployment number and poverty rates have significantly risen. Despite the government’s extreme militaristic measures to contain the pandemic, the number of infected cases and death ratio still upsurging, second only to Indonesia. Yet, this has sparked both national and international criticism on President Duterte’s repressive approach.
In Malaysia, the government must engage with the second wave of the pandemic. After generally succeed in the first attempt to tackling the outbreak, the infected rate has steadily increased particularly in Sabah, after holding local elections on 26 September. Apparently, the political upheaval began to appear when Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin insist to put the country under a state of emergency. Although in the end the proposal was later rejected by Malaysia’s King Sultan Abdullah, the declaration to suspend the parliament was roundly condemned by opposition figures in the country and also mounted concern among Malaysians.
Amongst other countries in the SEA region, Thailand currently in the state of a serious political crisis mode provoked by a series of anti-government demonstrations. The Thai people demanding to reform the Thai constitutional monarchy and removal of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha from his office. This situation has made Thai authorities announced the country to entered the emergency decree. Though the protester vigorously attacked the government solely for the political reform motives, the issue of the economy has virtually played a quite larger part. Previously, the country’s strategy in responding to the outbreak of the disease domestically had relatively efficacious. However, the long period of the lock-down policy has brought down deep frustration on the government since the economic inequality, poverty rate, and desperateness for the job among the young generations have ominously increased.
Conclusively, the pandemics of COVID-19 have become an interesting setting for testing the stability of the political regime in ASEAN. The virus has considerably contributed as a catalyst for the economic crisis. Clearly, the pattern of political turmoil and civil disobedience has gradually begun to appear as the countries started to be overwhelmed by the collision of the crisis.
It’s no doubt that Indonesia and the Philippines will deeply fall into another economic recession which can potentially ignite another massive civil unrest toward the regime. Malaysia similarly could face another heated political situation. Yet, the country’s capacity to handle the crisis still can make the regime to be relatively stable. While Thailand on another hand will face difficult circumstances. As the public has already tired of their flawed constitutional system, civil unrest will most likely continue to take the place. Consequently, the future political-economic outlook of Thailand in the near future will somewhat look worrisome.
Quad, Quad Plus, and the Indo-Pacific: The Core and Periphery
Indo-Pacific has been seen as one construct which identifies US strategy and brings in subscribers to the concept; thereby adding value to this concept. At the same time, it has been working on defining political, economic and security contours of this geo-political imagination. Indo-Pacific has defined as the fusion of two oceans -Indian and Pacific. It has brought the regional powers-India, Japan and Australia within the whole narrative. There are issues related to the Indo -pacific and how it will address security and political concerns but given the fact that Chinese aggression has brought in more countries into its fold, the idea is gaining momentum.
The pronouncements made by the UK, France and Germany as their approach towards Indo-Pacific shows that there is synergy which might emerge between the Euro- Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi did propose that Indo-Pacific should become an inclusive concept and opened a window for China to be included into the configuration. However, this was never reiterated by Modi in the subsequent speeches and it seems that the bon homie between the two Asian powers dissipated because of Chinese aggressive moves in the Indian borders.
The evolution of Quad 1.0 which gave heft to Malabar exercises, and involvement of Singapore and Australia into larger scheme of things dissipated as the Australian government withdrew in later editions after succumbing to Chinese angst. The Quad 2.0 which gained steam in the early 2018 has now come a full circle with Australia again joining the Malabar exercises scheduled to be held later this year in the Indian Ocean. The latest approach has brought strategic momentum. The Quad 2.0 has outlined few of the larger objectives during the Tokyo submit earlier in October, and it is seen that in terms maritime security, space, cyber and encrypted communication networks there are possibilities between the four countries. India has already signed the BECA agreement and there is a possibility of greater understanding in technology sharing and intelligence domain between the four partners.
The Quad 2.0 is seen as having teething problems because of the changing political dispensation in Japan and the US while India and Australia are steadfastly showing their commitment to the cause. However, the Quad needs a blueprint and also a joint status paper which should outline the utility and purpose of this formation. With ASEAN the question of centrality has been resonating and even the former Singapore Permanent secretary has stated that Laos and Cambodia are unnecessary baggage in the ASEAN homogeneity and consensus as the two countries has been acting as surrogates of China. The problem of placing ASEAN centrality in larger objectives of Quad and Indo-Pacific would grow in future.
There have also been proposals of Quad plus which should include South Korea, Vietnam and New Zealand for the purpose of expanding the logistics and support network, and undertake concerted measures for protecting maritime commerce and build institutional linkages. While Quad Plus identifies the new players into this circuit but it fails to recognize Indonesia and other such regional players which might be useful in meeting the long-term objectives.
One of the aspects which has been highlighted that Indo-Pacific should work in the field of economic integration and bring about various regions such as South Asia, Southeast Asia into one umbrella of Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor. While digital and scientific cooperation has been envisaged but concerted plan of action for building resilient supply chains among the subscribers of the Indo-pacific might be a good initiative.
Along with Quad and Quad plus there are many trilaterals which have been taking shape and have made a unique strategic matrix. The trilaterals which have been taking shape include France, Australia and India. The other two trilaterals are Track II -Australia, Japan and India, as well as India, Australia and Indonesia, thereby expanding the expanse of the trilaterals acting as nodes in the overall edifice. Therefore, if Quad plus expands and Indo-pacific geographic outlines remains as envisaged then there would be a structural overlap between the two. India within its Ministry of External Affairs has already commissioned a new Oceania division which would look into the work of divisions such as ASEAN, Indo-Pacific and the Southern Asia.
The need of the hour is to develop the priority areas for the Quad. One of the areas that Quad can develop capacities is developing maritime security architecture with willing subscribers and logistics providers. Cyber is another area where Quad can develop joint partnerships and also support building better digital architecture. The important aspect is that within maritime security architecture Quad need to develop Quad grid which should integrate ports with facility for the navies of Quad countries to congregate, work out interoperability, and develop cooperation in maritime domain. This should include maritime theatre awareness and conducting joint Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations. The maritime Quad grid can comprise of Djibouti, Diego Garcia, Andaman, Darwin, Guam and Okinawa-the big ‘W’ in the Indo-Pacific. Also, developing cooperative mechanisms in sectors such as rare earths, interlinking defence research networks and securing channels of communication through sharing of satellite data would give required teeth to the Quad.
As already discussed, it is likely that Quad plus and Indo-Pacific would run parallel and even develop symbiotic relationship which might expand in political, economic and strategic domains. Quad would address defence and strategic requirements while a possible Indo-Pacific Regional Cooperation institution would address political coherence. In economic field the inclusion of India in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) would help in transition of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to Indo-Pacific Economic Cooperation. While these propositions are there on the table but the realization would be critical to make these ideas and geopolitical imaginations get a concrete shape.
Millions affected as devastating typhoon strikes Viet Nam
A major typhoon has struck central Viet Nam, affecting millions of people – including about 2.5 million children – in...
Escaping the ‘Era of Pandemics’: Experts warn worse crises to come options offered to reduce risk
Future pandemics will emerge more often, spread more rapidly, do more damage to the world economy and kill more people...
Poland ‘slammed the door shut’ on legal and safe abortions
A group of UN independent human rights experts have denounced a court ruling in Poland that bans abortions on the...
2020 Climate Action Award winners shine ray of hope
In a year that has cast darkness upon many, the 2020 UN Global Climate Action Awards, announced on Tuesday, shone...
Sudan Normalize Ties with Israel: A “New Stab in the Back” For the Palestinians?
Less than three months President Donald J. Trump has brokered a peace agreement between Arab-Muslim nation and Israel. Sudan have...
The crisis of positivist, “evidence-based” political science in US
Right from its birth in the 18th century, the United States of America emerged as one of the most advanced...
The Destruction of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Cultural Heritage
Nagorno-Karabakh has been in the news for the renewed hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This enclave in the Caucasus has...
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Armenia: Lies and realities
Defense2 days ago
How Mercenaries in Nagorno-Karabakh can destabilize the situation
Defense3 days ago
European defence still matters but not for Lithuania
Southeast Asia3 days ago
The Role of Malaysia in ASEAN
South Asia3 days ago
Kashmir Bleeds, International Community Sleeps
Middle East3 days ago
What is the public sphere today in Turkey?
Europe3 days ago
Taking For Granted … Be Wary
East Asia2 days ago
What prevents Japan from ratifying the recently assented Nuclear Ban Treaty?