Connect with us

East Asia

How Trump’s Covid-19 Response Has Provided a Free Ride to Beijing

Published

on

A timeframe of seven months has never been so critical in the history of modern human beings as of now. The COVID-19 outbreak, supposed to be from China’s Wuhan market by December last year, has engulfed  the socio-economic and political spheres of the entire world within this short run. The Beijing’s failure in early diagnosis and its later success, the breakdown of European health administration, Trump administration’s delinquency in fighting virus, U.S.-China blame game over virus mishandling, declaration of American withdrawal from W.H.O., and finally, China’s Health Silk Road could expedite reforms in the existing world order. Although having limited impact, these upshots are enough to fast-track the ongoing restructuring.

Unfolding Virus Spread

The world had never imagined such a grave global health catastrophe imputed to a debilitating economic recession is impending, when first Covid-19 recorded positive at China’s Wuhan in December 2019. According to the BBC, the total cases in China had surged up to 1200 by January end. Multiple expert analyses indicating the Chinese economic slowdown and the ramifications this could have on the much anticipated BRI projects were available in a while. PRC’s National Bureau of Statistics in March projected that around five million people job loss in the initial two months of 2020.

The Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, launched in 2004, in the wake of the SARS outbreak, was broadly charged for its inefficiency in early virus detection. The international criticism mounted over Beijing for punishing Chinese doctor Li Wenilang who posted an alert on the new virus in his medical school alumni group. Later, his demise, infected by the same, gave rise to a damning indictment of the Chinese governance model for its infringement of freedom of expression and shortfall in transparency. On 24th January, the first human to human transmission was corroborated by WHO in a Vietnamese national who has had no foreign travel. In the Aftermath of worrying spread, both in numbers and virus hit regions, on 31st January, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it as a global pandemic.

Mounting Criticism

The international criticism raged up against Beijing over its negligence in reporting the virus outburst in its beginning itself. The situation in countries like United States, Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Iran, and the U.K. went aggravated by mid-March as the entire health systems crumbled following the crisis in many of these states. The World Trade Organization (W.T.O.) has prognosticated a drop of 13-32% in global commercial activities. The economic crunch and deepened political predicament triggered howls of outrage from these governments to probe into the origin of the infection and Beijing’s alleged mishandling of the disease.

Subsequently, Mr. Trump explicitly pronounced he would seek reimbursement from Beijing for its lapses. A German Newspaper published an invoice of 130 Billion Euros compensation for Berlinin return for the financial damages due to China’s Covid-19 response. The motion for an independent inquiry into the origin of the deadly virus gained the support of 122 nations incorporating the European Union, Russia, and India at the 73rd World Health Assembly. These events were a slap in the face of the world’s second-largest economy and rising superpower. Beijing’s international reputation got severely hampered. 

But, despite this, the situation evolved dramatically when many European powers with several other North and Latin American heavyweights began to groan under the swift spread of the virus. The PRC’s relative success in bringing the outbreak under control helped it to win-back its lost face for the missteps at the initial stage to some extent. Beijing responded quickly to this opportunity by revitalizing its ‘Health Silk Road’ when many nations have been reeling under the epidemic. As per the report by Xinhua news agency, over eighty countries all over the world have taken Beijing’s assistance to fight the pandemic. The recipient’s list encompasses a wide range of states from Nigeria in Africa, Serbia, Czech Republic, and Italy in Europe to Iran, and the Philippines in the Asian continent.

Albeit the border disputes, Beijing extended its helping hands to neighbor Philippines sending 2000 rapid test kits. Italy, one of the worst-hit nations, obtained three rounds of expert assistance and shipped consignment containing millions of Masks to the Czech Republic. Liberia got flown gloves and PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) kits, and Nigeria acquired the service from the Chinese medical team. Colombo was offered $500 million along with three batches of medical shipments to combat the virus. The Covid-19 related medical supply worth 432 million  euros was made available for Spain through commercial channels to address the shortfall. Serbia’s President was present at the airport to welcome the Chinese material assistance and unreservedly praised Beijing and the Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Czech minister applauded P.R.C. being the sole country capable of providing much needed medical devices in bulk quantities. The Italy and Serbia, desperate over the absence of support from the E.U., pitched into public criticism against the European solidarity.

Trump’s Covid-19 Response

The United States pandemic administration, both in terms of internal and external, has poured water to Beijing’s mill. First of all, the U.S. failure in keeping the virus at check has damaged its outlook as a global leader capable of taking the lead during the emergencies. The United States is currently one of the most severely affected nations since the coronavirus outburst was confirmed. The American response to the epidemic has generated a trust deficit over the credentials of American institutions. Beijing’s much higher degree of success in virus control and its active diplomatic outreach, compared to the United States has quietly enhanced its global stature or at least have substantiated its toehold in some pockets.

Contrary to the protagonist role played by White House while the 2014-15 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, Trump’s America with internal focus is stepping back from the frontlines of coronavirus battle.  The Coordination, leadership, and aid from the United States during this pandemic hardly meet international expectations. Rush Doshi serving as director of China Strategy initiative at Brookings, describes the Covid-19 outbreak being the first instance in decades without meaningful American leadership and with substantial Chinese presence

The United States hasn’t yet spent a third of the $1.59 billion pandemic assistance package approved by the U.S. Congress, three months before, aimed to deliver through U.S. Agency for International Development and the country’s state department to the nations in need. Apart from this, many actions by Trump administration are eroding the country’s global credibility and the leverage which it enjoys over the international institutions. Trump’s attempt to strike an exclusive deal with German biopharmaceutical firm CureVac, to secure priority for the U.S. in vaccine supply brought Berlin and White House to loggerheads. The US president on similar lines preferred to stay out of the jointly funded venture to develop an effective drug for Coronavirus convened by European Union in May. A group of nations that include Canada, Norway, Japan, and Australia pledged to raise around $ 8 billion for the proposed mission.

Donald Trump’s withdrawal plan from the World Health Organization (WHO), marks another instance of his policy formulations based on misconceptions. The United States has been the largest donor and contributor of WHO since its formations in 1948. Even in the latest funding cycle, Washington retains its top spot with $893 million (15%) in the list. Although Mr. Trump’s announcement is hard to meet the constitutional norms, the unilateral proclamation has harmed U.S.’s image as a responsible global leader that it pushed for many decades and has allotted more space to Beijing for expansion in a critical international body. The Beijing, cashing in on this opportunity, stepped in with an additional $30 million contribution besides the $20 million offered for the Covid-19 prevention. Even though the Chinese contribution remains far lower than the U.S., the President’s move has strengthened its position at the cost of the United States. 

President Trump, having been campaigned on to ‘make America great again’ never seems to realize the fundamental pillars of the U.S.’s leadership and the role of international institutions in this process.  Trump’s decisions like the recent withdrawal proposal from WHO and the exit from the Paris Climate Agreement are all boomerangs that undermine America’s position in the international arena. To counter Beijing’s expansionist ambitions, the White House needs to spring into action, reclaiming the political space which it has granted to Beijing. 

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

Shared Territorial Concern, Opposition to US Intervention Prompt Russia’s Support to China on Taiwan Question

Published

on

image credit: kremlin.ru

The situation around the island of Taiwan is raising concerns not only in Chinese mainland, Taiwan island or in the US, but also in the whole world. Nobody would like to see a large-scale military clash between China and the US in the East Pacific. Potential repercussions of such a clash, even if it does not escalate to the nuclear level, might be catastrophic for the global economy and strategic stability, not to mention huge losses in blood and treasure for both sides in this conflict.

Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow continued to firmly support Beijing’s position on Taiwan as an integral part of China. Moreover, he also underlined that Moscow would support Beijing in its legitimate efforts to reunite the breakaway province with the rest of the country. A number of foreign media outlets paid particular attention not to what Lavrov actually said, but omitted his other remarks: the Russian official did not add that Moscow expects reunification to be peaceful and gradual in a way that is similar to China’s repossession of Hong Kong. Many observers of the new Taiwan Straits crisis unfolding concluded that Lavrov’s statement was a clear signal to all parties of the crisis: Russia would likely back even Beijing’s military takeover of the island.

Of course, diplomacy is an art of ambiguity. Lavrov clearly did not call for a military solution to the Taiwan problem. Still, his remarks were more blunt and more supportive of Beijing than the standard Russia’s rhetoric on the issue. Why? One possible explanation is that the Russian official simply wanted to sound nice to China as Russia’s major strategic partner. As they say, “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” Another explanation is that Lavrov recalled the Russian experience with Chechnya some time ago, when Moscow had to fight two bloody wars to suppress secessionism in the North Caucasus. Territorial integrity means a lot for the Russian leadership. This is something that is worth spilling blood for.

However, one can also imagine that in Russia they simply do not believe that if things go really bad for Taiwan island, the US would dare to come to its rescue and that in the end of the day Taipei would have to yield to Beijing without a single shot fired. Therefore, the risks of a large-scale military conflict in the East Pacific are perceived as relatively low, no matter what apocalyptic scenarios various military experts might come up with.

Indeed, over last 10 or 15 years the US has developed a pretty nasty habit of inciting its friends and partners to take risky and even reckless decisions and of letting these friends and partners down, when the latter had to foot the bill for these decisions. In 2008, the Bush administration explicitly or implicitly encouraged Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili to launch a military operation against South Ossetia including killing some Russian peacekeepers stationed there. But when Russia interfered to stop and to roll back the Georgian offensive, unfortunate Saakashvili was de-facto abandoned by Washington.

During the Ukrainian conflicts of 2013-14, the Obama administration enthusiastically supported the overthrow of the legitimate president in Kiev. However, it later preferred to delegate the management of the crisis to Berlin and to Paris, abstaining from taking part in the Normandy process and from signing the Minsk Agreements. In 2019, President Donald Trump promised his full support to Juan Guaidó, Head of the National Assembly in Venezuela, in his crusade against President Nicolas when the government of Maduro demonstrated its spectacular resilience. Juan Guaido very soon almost completely disappeared from Washington’s political radar screens.

Earlier this year the Biden administration stated its firm commitment to shouldering President Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan in his resistance to Taliban advancements. But when push came to shove, the US easily abandoned its local allies, evacuated its military personal in a rush and left President Ghani to seek political asylum in the United Arab Emirates.

Again and again, Washington gives reasons to conclude that its partners, clients and even allies can no longer consider it as a credible security provider. Would the US make an exception for the Taiwan island? Of course, one can argue that the Taiwan island is more important for the US than Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ukraine and Georgia taken together. But the price for supporting the Taiwan island could also be much higher for the US than the price it would have paid in many other crisis situations. The chances of the US losing to China over Taiwan island, even if Washington mobilizes all of its available military power against Beijing, are also very high. Still, we do not see such a mobilization taking place now. It appears that the Biden administration is not ready for a real showdown with Beijing over the Taiwan question.

If the US does not put its whole weight behind the Taiwan island, the latter will have to seek some kind of accommodation with the mainland on terms abandoning its pipe-dreams of self-determination and independence. This is clear to politicians not only in East Asia, but all over the place, including Moscow. Therefore, Sergey Lavrov has reasons to firmly align himself with the Chinese position. The assumption in the Kremlin is that Uncle Sam will not dare to challenge militarily the Middle Kingdom. Not this time.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

East Asia

Russia-Japan Relations: Were Abe’s Efforts In Vain?

Published

on

Expanding the modest elements of trust in the Japan-Russia relationship, talking through reciprocal concerns before they lead to conflict, avoiding bilateral incidents, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic cooperation is the way forward.

One year after the end of Shinzo Abe’s long period of leadership, Japan has a new prime minister once again. The greatest foreign policy challenge the new Japanese government led by Fumio Kishida is facing is the intensifying confrontation between its large neighbor China and its main ally America. In addition to moves to energize the Quad group to which Japan belongs alongside Australia, India, and the United States, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has concluded a deal with Canberra and London to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines which in future could patrol the Western Pacific close to Chinese shores. The geopolitical fault lines in the Indo-Pacific region are fast turning into frontlines.

In this context, does anything remain of the eight-year-long effort by former prime minister Abe to improve relations with Russia on the basis of greater economic engagement tailored to Moscow’s needs? Russia’s relations with China continue to develop, including in the military domain; Russia’s constitutional amendments passed last year prohibit the handover of Russian territory, which doesn’t bode well for the long-running territorial dispute with Japan over the South Kuril Islands; and Russian officials and state-run media have been remembering and condemning the Japanese military’s conduct during World War II, something they chose to play down in the past. True, Moscow has invited Tokyo to participate in economic projects on the South Kuril Islands, but on Russian terms and without an exclusive status.

To many, the answer to the above question is clear, and it is negative. Yet that attitude amounts to de facto resignation, a questionable approach. Despite the oft-cited but erroneous Cold War analogy, the present Sino-American confrontation has created two poles in the global system, but not—at least, not yet—two blocs. Again, despite the popular and equally incorrect interpretation, Moscow is not Beijing’s follower or vassal. As a power that is particularly sensitive about its own sovereignty, Russia seeks to maintain an equilibrium—which is not the same as equidistance—between its prime partner and its main adversary. Tokyo would do well to understand that and take it into account as it structures its foreign relations.

The territorial dispute with Russia is considered to be very important for the Japanese people, but it is more symbolic than substantive. In practical terms, the biggest achievement of the Abe era in Japan-Russia relations was the founding of a format for high-level security and foreign policy consultations between the two countries. With security issues topping the agenda in the Indo-Pacific, maintaining the channel for private direct exchanges with a neighboring great power that the “2+2” formula offers is of high value. Such a format is a trademark of Abe’s foreign policy which, while being loyal to Japan’s American ally, prided itself on pursuing Japanese national interests rather than solely relying on others to take them into account.

Kishida, who for five years served as Abe’s foreign minister, will now have a chance to put his own stamp on the country’s foreign policy. Yet it makes sense for him to build on the accomplishments of his predecessor, such as using the unique consultation mechanism mentioned above to address geopolitical and security issues in the Indo-Pacific region, from North Korea to Afghanistan. Even under Abe, Japan’s economic engagement with Russia was by no means charity. The Russian leadership’s recent initiatives to shift more resources to eastern Siberia offer new opportunities to Japanese companies, just like Russia’s early plans for energy transition in response to climate change, and the ongoing development projects in the Arctic. In September 2021, the annual Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok did not feature top-level Japanese participation, but that should be an exception, not the rule.

Japan will remain a trusted ally of the United States for the foreseeable future. It is also safe to predict that at least in the medium term, and possibly longer, the Russo-Chinese partnership will continue to grow. That is no reason for Moscow and Tokyo to regard each other as adversaries, however. Moreover, since an armed conflict between America and China would spell a global calamity and have a high chance of turning nuclear, other major powers, including Russia and Japan, have a vital interest in preventing such a collision. Expanding the still very modest elements of trust in the Japan-Russia relationship, talking through reciprocal concerns before they lead to conflict, avoiding bilateral incidents, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic cooperation is the way forward. The absence of a peace treaty between the two countries more than seventy-five years after the end of the war is abnormal, yet that same unfinished business should serve as a stimulus to persevere. Giving up is an option, but not a good one.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

East Asia

Kishida and Japan-Indonesia Security Relations: The Prospects

Published

on

image source: twitter @kishida230

In October, Japan had inaugurated Fumio Kishida as the new prime minister after winning the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) presidential election earlier. Surely this new statesmanship will consequently influence Tokyo’s trajectory in international and regional affairs, including Southeast Asia.

Not only that Japan has much intensive strategic cooperation with Southeast Asians for decades, but the region’s importance has also been increasing under Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP). Southeast Asia, as a linchpin connecting the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, is key to Japan’s geostrategic interest and vision.

Since the LDP presidential election debate, many have identified Kishida’s policy trajectory, including in the defense and security aspect. Being bold, Kishida reflected its hawkish stance on China, North Korea, and its commitment to strengthening its alliance with Washington. Furthermore, Kishida also aimed to advance the geostrategic and security initiatives with like-minded countries, especially under FOIP.

One of the like-minded countries for Japan is Indonesia, which is key Japan’s key partner in Southeast Asia and Indo-Pacific.

This article maps the prospect of Japan’s security cooperation with Indonesia under the new prime minister. It argues that Prime Minister Kishida will continue to grow Japan’s security cooperation with Indonesia to adjust to the changing security environment in Indo-Pacific.

Japan – Indonesia Common Ground

In its basic principle, Japan and Indonesia shared the same values in democracy, rules-based order, and freedom of navigation in developing strategic cooperation, especially in the maritime security aspect. 

In the geostrategic context, Japan and Indonesia also have significant similarities. Both countries are maritime countries and seeking to maximize their maritime power, as well as having formally synchronized geostrategic vision. While Japan has FOIP, Indonesia has Global Maritime Fulcrum (Poros Maritim Dunia) and leading initiator for ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP).

In capitalizing on this shared vision, since Shinzo Abe and Joko “Jokowi” Widodo era, Japan and Indonesia have initiated much new security cooperation ranging from a high-level framework such as 2+2 Foreign and Defense Ministers’ Meeting in 2015 and 2021 to capacity building assistances and joint exercises. Furthermore, defense equipment transfers and joint technology development were also kicked off under Abe-Jokowi.

Kishida’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Profile

Compared to his predecessor, Suga Yoshihide, Prime Minister Kishida is more familiar with foreign affairs.

Personally, Kishida comes from a political family and spent several years living in the United States, reflecting his exposure to the international and political environment from an early age. This is significantly different from Suga, who grew up in a strawberry farmer family in a rural area in Akita Prefecture.

Politically, served as foreign minister under Shinzo Abe, Fumio Kishida is the longest-serving foreign minister in Japan’s history. This reflects his extensive understanding of current world affairs, compared to Suga who spent most of his prime political career in the domestic area such as being chief cabinet secretary and minister for internal affairs & communication.

Specifically, in defense and security posture, Prime Minister Kishida is willing to go beyond the status quo and not blocking any key options in order “to protect citizens”. During his policy speeches, he stated that he is not ruling out the option to build attacking capabilities due to the severe security environment surrounding Japan. Also, Kishida will not limit the defense budget under 1% of Japan’s gross domestic product if necessary.

Future Security Cooperation Trajectory with Indonesia 

In short, policy continuity will play a huge role. One of the reasons why Kishida was able to win over more popular Kono was due to his moderate liberalness, demonstrating stability over change. This was more preferred by faction leaders in LDP.

In defense and foreign affairs, the continuity is boldly shown as despite appointing entirely new ministers in his cabinet, the only two ministers retained by Kishida are Foreign Minister Motegi and Defense Minister Kishi. By this, it sent the narrative to the international community that there will not be significant turbulence caused by the changing leadership on Japan’s side.

As a background context on Indonesia, Fumio Kishida was the foreign minister from the Japanese side behind the 2+2 Foreign and Defense Ministers’ Meeting with Indonesia in 2015. Indonesia is the only country Japan has such a high-level security framework within Southeast Asia. This framework has led Japan and Indonesia to have a second edition of the 2+2 meeting in 2021, resulting in many practical cooperation deals in defense and security.

The other setting supporting Kishida’s policy continuity, especially in the context with Indonesia is that his foreign minister’s counterpart, Retno Marsudi, was still in charge from the last time Kishida left the foreign minister post in 2017, until today. Initiating the 2+2 framework together, it will be easier for Kishida to resume his relationship with both President Jokowi and Foreign Minister Retno in advancing its strategic cooperation with Indonesia, especially in the defense and security area.

The prospect of continuity is also reflected in Kishida’s commitment to continue the geostrategy relay of both his predecessors, Shinzo Abe and Suga Yoshihide, in achieving the FOIP vision.

Not only that Indonesia is having a similar vision of maritime prosperity and values with Japan, but Indonesia is also concerned with South China Sea dynamics as it started to threaten Indonesia’s remote islands, especially Natuna Islands. As this is a crucial cooperation opportunity, Kishida needs to continue assisting Indonesia to improve the security and prosperity of its remote islands. Thus, as Kishida also admitted that Indonesia is a major country in ASEAN, having favorable relations with Indonesia is important for Japan’s geostrategy.

Challenges

To capitalize on the potentials with Indonesia, Kishida needs to support Indonesia’s strategic independence as well as to make the best of his position as one of the United States’ allies in Asia.

Despite his tougher stance on China and Taiwan issues, Kishida cannot fully project Japan’s rivalry with China to Indonesia. In addition to its strategic independence, Indonesia has and needs strong strategic relations with China to support many of the vital development projects surrounding Indonesia. This cannot be touched.

Also, Japan needs to bridge Indonesia, as well as other like-minded Southeast Asian countries, with the Quad and AUKUS proponents. Indonesia is formally stated that it is concerned about the ownership of nuclear-powered weapons by its neighboring countries. On the other side, Japan supported AUKUS and is a close ally of the U.S. Kishida’s ability to grab this opportunity will solidify Japan’s credibility and position among Southeast Asians.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Putin erdogan sochi Putin erdogan sochi
Russia17 mins ago

Russia, Turkey and the new geopolitical reality

The recent Russia – Turkey summit in Sochi, even though yielding no tangible outcomes (as became clear well before it,...

Defense2 hours ago

Iran in the SCO: a Forced “Look East” Strategy and an Alternative World Order

On September 17, a package of several dozen documents was signed in Dushanbe at the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation...

Africa4 hours ago

Shaping the Future Relations between Russia and Guinea-Bissau

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Guinea- Bissau Suzi Carla Barbosa have signed a memorandum on political consultations. This aims...

Tech News6 hours ago

Online game showcases plight of our planet’s disappearing coral reefs

One of the world’s leading producers of online word games joined a global effort to help protect the planet’s coral...

South Asia8 hours ago

A Peep into Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s Tricky Relations with Afghan Taliban

To understand the interesting relationship between the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as Pakistani Taliban, and the Afghan Taliban, one...

Environment13 hours ago

Act Urgently to Preserve Biodiversity for Sustainable Future — ADB President

The world must act urgently to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity for the sake of a sustainable future and prosperity, Asian...

Health & Wellness14 hours ago

Stockholm+50: Accelerate action towards a healthy and prosperous planet for all

The United Nations General Assembly agreed on the way forward for plans to host an international meeting at the highest...

Trending