Tensions in the South China Sea continue to mount, as global fears wane over the coronavirus pandemic. America continues to add strength in the Pacific to counteract Chinese activities in the South China Sea that are considered to have taken advantage of moment of distraction of pandemic, especially on the artificial island, Shasa City, which is believed by America to be the military base of the People Liberation Army (PLA). America even openly involved the British Aircraft Carrier, the Australian Navy and the Japanese Self Defense Army in several sea convoys in several months ago, to demonstrate power in the Pacific region. Recently, US sends back two Aircraft Carriers to balance China’s Drill in South China Sea
“The tittle like “Can’t stand the US anymore,” is the usual headlines in some of China’s leading newspapers about since several month ago. The tittle refers to the US naval convoy that seems very provocative in the South China Sea. Even in the last month, the US has taken down three aircraft carriers from its three main bases. The average content of the mainstream Chinese media positions the country as a victim of provocative action of US power. But the fact is not entirely so. China is actually considered by America to be performing the “playing victim” card. While in the eyes of the US, China actually claims more than one-sided 80 percent of the South China Sea , which is actually not legally according to international law.
If paid attention in detail on the map, for example, nine dash lines are very far off the mainland of China, visible protruding far down the sea. China does not recognize UNCLOS’s decision. But there is no alternative excuse other than the excuse of nine dash lines, the provisions of the coriander age that remain exalted for the future. With the same frame and reason, China also does not recognize Taiwan, Tibet, Arunachal Pradesh in India, and some areas in Bhutan. Because of these unilateral reasons, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan are often straddled just like that, like several weeks ago firing on Vietnamese fishing vessels unilaterally, bullying other disputing countries as they wish, even Indonesia that is not directly related to being bullied in the Natuna Islands.
China also went even further by building artificial islands and new cities (Sansha City) in the Paracel and Sparkly Islands. Satellite sightings clearly show the presence of a millitary base, the appearance of missile launchers, air force bases and naval bases, and always deny such militarization actions. Then when the US began to get frustrated with the many offside actions, China again played playing victim cards, just like the Coronavirus (CCP Virus) cover-up, attacking and bullying Pompeo that alluded to the origin of the CCP Virus, selling up organs of opponents of the regime from Falun Dafa practitioners and Tibetans, or cover up concentration camps for the Uighiur in Xinjiang, and more. On the other hand, the US also has an excuse, after all it is usual for the International Freedom Navigation convoy there, along with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, England, and others. For the US, the South China Sea is an international sea.
Not a few who champion China, especially the thinkers of defense in Asia, because they are considered to have had various types of new military equipment to complement the US military. Just like Senyang aircraft variants, for example, or Chengdhu J aircraft variants, Harbin variant helicopters, Dong Fang / DF missile rockets, or Liaoning and Shandong aircraft carriers, and others, and an average 10 percent increase in defense budget annually . Although when seen in detail, almost all of them seem to be the fruit of imitation, plagiarism of technology from other countries (America call it as theft of technology), the subtle language is “reversed engineering methode,” especially from Russia and the US.
But sometimes it is too detailed to talk about weapons comparison, comparison of types of warplanes or aircraft carriers, based on my knowledge, the US is still at the top in terms of quality and various other aspects, compared to China which uses more “imaging technology” with its mainstream media ( state run media) as well as international media networks affiliated with the CCP. Even later the US State Department of Justice revealed, Chinese media in the US issued billions of dollars in budget for propaganda in mainstream American media.
So it would be better if seen from the global constellation. Very many countries will gang up on China if they really want to fight on behalf of the South China Sea. There are Australia, New Zealand (Anzac), England, Canada (Norad), Israel, France, Germany, Sweden, India, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, which are ready to be invited by the US, and possibly Malaysia, Turkey, the United of Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and others, who are also ready if they are in accordance with their interests.
Except for Indonesia, which in general is not yet clear on its position, but it has implicitly indications of partiality, especially from the top Indonesia official remarks, although Indonesia has recently rejected Chinese control of the South China Sea. And it is very possible, Russia also did not take part if it sees the constellation. In fact, Russia continue to update its missiles on the Russian-Chinese border as a sign of alert for China’s expansion, of course, because too often the technology has been engineered by China, including the question of the rather odd closeness between Trump and Putin.
It may be that the US looks busy with the constellation of domestic politics, which is suspected by the US to often be infiltrated by China using the money process, but actually the dynamics are dynamics as usual in the US. Including cases of racism and police brutality, which always happens in every regime. If compared, China actually has more difficult in its internal dynamics. Certainly, it’s not easy for China to manage political dynamics more than a billion people, some of whom are getting frustrated with intimidation, co-optation, and lies. Even worries about the economy with investors who are ready to leave China, move to India, Vietnam, Thailand, Bangladesh, over the threat of Trump. Later it was also rumored to be diverted to Indonesia for pharmaceutical investment after Jokowi spoke with Trump. Likewise, Japan issued a policy on incentives of billions of dollars for investors to move investment from China to other Southeast Asian countries.
Included in the context of religious freedom, Russia today is even better than China. Russia seems to have begun to understand the important role of religion in its country. After all history records, Russia grew larger because The Great Vladimir brought Roman religiosity to the Russian empire. Now the Chenchen tribe in Chechnya enjoys enough freedom of religion and culture after the endless war with Russia. The Lezginka dance, for example, the collaboration of Islam and local culture, becomes an official dance at every Chechya state event. In Grozny, you can see the second largest mosque in Europe or a mall with classy Muslim clothing store outlets, which shows that Russia is still quite tolerant than China
Compare that with China, where many churches have been demolished, the Uighiur must be brainwashed first in concentration camps, and spiritual practitioners of Falun Dafa must be killed and traded organs in the Party Hospital. If there is a community who misses a little in social media, the PLA will come to the house of the perpetrator. In fact, this applies to Chinese students abroad. If they oppose CCP in social media, then they will have problems or their families will have problems in the mainland. In fact, if China continues to use methods that have the effect of increasing international hatred, it will be difficult for China to hold strategic partners to deal with America, except for traditional partners such as North Korea and Iran. It may be that the Belt and Road Initiative (OBOR) has influenced many countries, but for matters of war with America, China is believed to be still having trouble finding strategic partners.
South Korea’s Potential for Global Influence is Weakened by its Mistreatment of Women
In recent years, the Republic of Korea has become a pop culture juggernaut.
Eight years after “Gangnam Style” went global, K-Pop still reigns supreme with boy band BTS topping charts and issuing IPOs. Bong Joon-ho’s film “Parasite” swept last year’s Oscars, kimchi now has UNESCO cultural heritage status, while Samsung smartphones are used all over the world, second only to the mighty Apple.
The global appeal of the Korean Wave, known as “Hallyu,” recently attracted the attention of a report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which argued that this rising soft power could in turn boost South Korea’s global influence and drive diplomatic leadership on a broad range of transnational issues, from climate change to public health to democracy promotion.
This all sounds great, but there remains a nagging problem. Despite its flourishing culture, there have also been a string of scandals highlighting the plight of women in the country, who facing everything from inequality to workplace discrimination and rampant sexual harassment.
By any measure, the problem is significant and costly to the country’s interests. According to a 2019 report by the World Economic Forum, South Korea ranks 124 out of 149 countries in the world in terms of economic opportunity for women, while another report cites the highest gender pay gap among OECD nations at 35%. This low level of female participation in the economy is not only a drag on future GDP growth, but also coincides with a parallel mental health crisis: suicides among Korean women in their 20s have jumped by more than 40 percent in the last year, at the same time that male deaths are in decline.
Mistreatment of women in Korea may be a feature, not a bug, of the system. A recent string of sexual abuse scandals has reached the highest levels of the country’s political elites.
This past July, the country was shocked to wake up to the news that the popular Mayor of Seoul Park Won-soon had committed suicide when accusations of sexual assault against his secretary were made public. Mayor Park had built his image as stalwart champion of women’s rights, and yet, the secretary, who has been threatened and blamed following the suicide, says that she “felt defenseless and weak before the immense power” of the Mayor.
Months later, we are discovering the very people meant to protect the victims instead act to protect the alleged perpetrators. Congresswoman Nam In-soon, one of South Korea’s highest profile women’s rights activists, is being called on to resign after it was revealed that she leaked news of the sexual harassment investigation into Mayor Park. Another member of congress, Yoon Mee-hyang, was forced out of the ruling Democratic Party after facing criminal charges of embezzlement from the “comfort women” charity she used to direct, which raised money for survivors of World War II military brothels.
Before Mayor Park’s suicide and the comfort women scandal, there were many others. Last year, South Chungcheong Province Governor Ahn Hee-jung was convicted on nine counts of rape and sentenced to three and half years in prison. Mayor of Busan Oh Keo-Don was forced to resign following the assault accusation. Ahn Tae-geun, a former senior prosecutor whose case had become symbolic for the #MeToo movement, had his conviction overturned earlier this year.
These patterns stand in stark contrast to the image the government seeks to project.
In public speeches, President Moon Jae-in frequently advocates in defense of women’s rights in speeches and interviews. Speaking at the last UN General Assembly, he declared a commitment to inclusiveness and reducing inequalities. The ruling DPK has long associated itself with rights activists, and has made gestures toward combating misconduct and mistreatment of women – but critics say they aren’t doing enough. A headline on CNN last summer went so far as to call out the hypocrisy: “South Korea’s President says he’s a feminist. Three of his allies have been accused of sex crimes.”
Despite numerous protest movements and well supported marches, Korea has not yet experienced a breakthrough #MeToo moment. According to media testimonials, many women continue to face significant obstacles to advance in their careers. Even after 70,000 women marched last year to protest the prolific abuse of spy cams set up in bathrooms and changing rooms, patriarchal attitudes continue. This month, guidelines published on an official government website advising pregnant women to cook, clean, and to lose weight for their husbands after childbirth caused a social media uproar.
This is a deeply concerning problem. As highlighted by the Carnegie report, Korea’s role as a “middle power” in a such a volatile region would be highly welcome, and not just on things like climate and coronavirus vaccine distribution, but also their crucial role in containing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and holding firm in the shadow of China’s expanding authoritarian reach.
Some Korean groups have advocated internationally against gender-based violence, which is undoubtedly a very worthy cause. But until the Moon government can get serious about tackling these inequalities and abuses at home, its efforts to project influence abroad will fail to meet potential.
Considering the Continental Dimension of the Indo-Pacific: The Mongolian Precedent
The Indo-Pacific is now the site of global great-power competition and contestation. And, as a reflection of its growing importance in international discourse, a number of extra-regional actors adopted the concept last year. Among those adoptees, Mongolia set a unique precedent for the regional security discourse to actively consider the continental dimension of the Indo-Pacific by highlighting geopolitical convergences with other regional actors, and the strategic threat posed by Beijing’s “Silk Road Economic Belt”.
Mongolia in the Indo-Pacific
Actors who have adopted the Indo-Pacific concept vaguely define it as beginning in the Arabian Sea and ending in the Western Pacific Ocean. Much of the discourse is also driven by the US-China strategic competition in Southeast Asia, and the US’ attempt to counter Chinese influence in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, along with its regional partners and allies, e.g the India-Australia-Japan-US ‘Quad’. As a result, actors in the Indo-Pacific have generally focused on the development of maritime military and economic measures.
In early October, during a Japan-Mongolia Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, both sides agreed to continue consolidating their efforts in pursuing a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”, in line with the promises of the 2018 Japan-Mongolia Summit.
Mongolia’s participation as a continental, extra-regional actor with limited maritime significance, shifts the geopolitical locus of the theatre, ever so slightly, north of Southeast Asia (the current focus). Ulaanbaatar’s adoption of the geostrategic theatre appears to be driven by continued Chinese antagonism, and a result of its “third neighbour” policy.
China continues to threaten Mongolia’s territorial sovereignty by claiming Inner Mongolia,clamp down on its cultural identity, and impose costs on Mongolia’s export-oriented economy. The last issue is critical, since Mongolia’s largest export partner, approximately92.78 percent of overall exports, is China. Enclosed between two large countries, Russia and China, Mongolia has traditionally maintained a “third neighbour” policy approach: building political and economic relationships with actors other than the aforementioned.
Given the continued animosity with Beijing, Ulaanbaatar has increasingly emphasised these other relations over the years. e.g. with the UK, the US, Japan, etc. In 2019 President Khaltmaagiin Battulga visited New Delhi to develop deeper ties with another “third neighbour” state. Mongolia also shares the “like-minded” characteristics – a liberal democracy – to maintain and preserve a “free, fair, open and rules-based” order in the US-Japan Indo-Pacific strategy.
And so, actors looking to potentially partner with Mongolia or others with similar economic and connectivity deficits in Central and West Asia, will have to include, within their Indo-Pacific approaches, measures that involve non-littoral actors.
The BRI and Continental Asia
China’s rise as an expansionist Asian military and global economic power is at the core of the Indo-Pacific security discourse. Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea (SCS), China’s growing naval power, and the colossal Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) form the major strategic threats to regional multilateralism and collective security.
The most long standing threat among them, the BRI, is divided into the transcontinental “silk route” and the maritime “silk road”. However, much of the Indo-Pacific discourse is dominated by the silk road, especially those projects directed towards the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). BRI projects in the IOR are crucial to Beijing’s expanding influence in South Asia and control on international energy and trade supply routes. Also hidden among the maritime/trans-continental connectivity and infrastructure projects, is China’s growing security presence in the region.
However, Mongolia’s entry directs attention to a dimension unique to the current maritime Indo-Pacific discourse –the silk route, that cuts across Central Asia, towards Europe and South Asia, with a similar number of projects in Southeast Asia.
Among the six ‘silk route’ projects, Mongolia’s concern is the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC) that cuts through Eastern Mongolia, beginning in Ulanqab (or “Jining”) in Inner Mongolia, and ending at Ulan-Ude, in BurYatia, Russia. Similar projects include the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the China-Central Asia-West Asia Economic Corridor (CCWAEC).
Connecting the continental to the maritime is the main goal of the BRI. In fact, the project was first announced during a Chinese state visit to Central Asia in 2013. President Xi Jinping proposed the “Silk Road Economic Belt” with a vision to connect the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea. Beijing’s vision of comprehensive global economic and military power requires a built path to various regions of the world, i.e infrastructure to facilitate dual-use logistics. Given the recent spate of BRI loans going bad, this vision continues to remain unfulfilled.
The continental dimension, Asia, is what makes the Indo-Pacific a theatre of global concern. Trans-continental connectivity, between and within Europe and Asia, narrows the distance between actors, and the shared interest in maintaining regional multilateralism and collective security ensures their continued participation in the Indo-Pacific. As more actors like Mongolia adopt the Indo-Pacific concept, connecting the continental to the maritime and vice versa, sans BRI, will become a strategic concern.
Mongolia’s entry into the theatre offers a unique precedent for those involved in maintaining and preserving a “free, fair, open and rules-based” Indo-Pacific to evaluate and initiate relationships between non-littoral actors and the maritime dimension.
The On-Ground Reality
However, there are a number of obstacles to actively consider continental Asia in the Indo-Pacific discourse. The two most important are geography and geopolitics.
Mongolia for example, is completely enclosed by two actors – Russia and China – who are averse and hostile to the idea of the Indo-Pacific. And, any “counter-BRI” connectivity project envisioned by other regional actors will have to go through their territories. The case of Afghanistan is similar. Divergences in geopolitical interests and ties with actors in the Arabian Sea, particularly with regard to Iran and Pakistan, stays the idea of trans-regional connectivity between Kabul and the world.
The geopolitical obstacle here is the dependent economic relationships that non-littorals in Asia have with Beijing. Mongolia is just one among many Central and West Asian states that have local economies indelibly tied to the political whims of Beijing. During the coronavirus pandemic, a period that saw considerable anti-China sentiment in the international community, Beijing has managed to maintain a level of trust and shared security with many Indo-Pacific states. National vaccination plans are based on the delivery of Chinese vaccines.
There is another reason why the security discourse on the Indo-Pacific is focused on maritime measures – maintaining and preserving the integrity of international Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) and the respect for territorial sovereignty. In that endeavour, multilateral platforms like the Quad allows members to share historic and strategic advantages in the IOR and Pacific Ocean to counter Chinese expansionism in the Indo-Pacific’s various sub-regions. On land however, in Central and South Asia, for example the clash in the Galwan river valley last year, Chinese incursions provoke bilateral responses giving it leeway to act with relative impunity.
While there are a number of real obstacles to consider the continental dimension of the Indo-Pacific, Mongolia sets a geopolitical precedent for a comprehensive geographic definition, one that includes both the maritime and continental. From this year on, states participating in the Indo-Pacific now have a reason to approach and include non-littoral actors in the Indo-Pacific.
This precedent also highlights the need to include the continental ‘silk route’ in the Indo-Pacific security discourse. Devising such a definition will be a similar exercise as to the amalgamation of the terms “Indo-Pacific” and “Asia-Pacific” to form the “Indo-Asia-Pacific”; now used at times in geostrategic discourse.
Time to play the Taiwan card
At a time when the dragon is breathing fire, India must explore alternative tactics, perhaps establishment of formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan can be a landmark step
The standoff on the Ladakh border between the Indian Army and the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) continues amid failing talks and casus belli measures being unleashed by the Chinese regime. While the union government and the armed forces make it clear that they will do whatever it takes to protect India’s sovereignty and integrity, precious little has been done on the foreign policy front. While India and its democratic allies which comprise the Quad security grouping declare their intent to form the ‘Asian NATO’, the Quad continues to suffer from indecisiveness which was pretty much evident when the Quad did not even issue a joint statement to condemn China at the foreign ministers meeting held last year, only America publicly called out China.
In such a situation, it is imperative that India explore alternate diplomatic and militaristic routes to tame the dragon.
Establishing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan after recognizing should be vigorously pursuing by South Block. Indo-Taiwan ties date back to the early 1950s when Chiang Kai Shek, the ex Chinese president and former head of state fled to the island of Formosa following the victory of Mao Zedong in the long drawn out Chinese civil war called on Nehru to establish and further ties with Formosa, however Nehru believing that Chiang was nothing but a “peanut” decided to ignore his call, choosing instead to concentrate on building ties with People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Seven decades on, plethora of changes has taken place on the foreign affairs front, while both China and India have developed considerably both militarily and economically the dragon has surpassed elephant to become an economic powerhouse in its own might. It has now embraced aggressiveness to enforce its 5th century vision of the ‘Middle Kingdom’. In such a situation providing legitimacy to the existence of Taiwan is a necessary first step.
Paradigm shift in policy
Establishing formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan will bring about a paradigm shift vis-à-vis India’s foreign policy. It will enforce the idea that liberal democracy is the last word in the battle of ideologies as Francis Fukuyama had visualized in his landmark book ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ and that there is no alternative to human rights and liberties, not even the Chinese model of ‘authoritarian development’. It will be the boldest step that any global leader has taken, not even the mighty US which has no formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan has taken this step.
Recognizing Taiwan will entail a lot of benefits for the mandarins of India’s foreign policy regime- firstly, Taiwan is a robust democracy with a booming economy, it will prove to be an alternative to China albeit in a relatively less proportion, secondly, India can bolster the legitimacy as the leader of the democratic world at a time when the democratic institutions in the US-often regarded as the cradle of democracy has been undermined.
Thirdly, India can get the support of another powerful ally in its attempt to carve out a new supply chain alliance which India-Japan-Australia formalized recently. Fourthly, recognizing Taiwan will make it clear to China that India means some serious business and if the need arises then India will not back down from sending dedicated naval and air assets in the disputed South China Sea region to enforce freedom of navigation principle in the resource rich region. Lastly, the Quad security grouping will be institutionalized which in the near future can even be extended to include new members, it will be the first time that India will be a part of any dedicated military and economic alliance which will deter the aggression of the Chinese war machine in the strategic Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific Region.
However the recognition may invite severe ramifications for India. China will be infuriated and can choose to ratchet up tensions with India. India must be extremely careful while dealing with China as China is our second largest bilateral trade partner and a key export partner of India with regard to raw materials and goods. According to a FICCI report, India imports more than 40% of several important goods like the API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients), television, chemicals, chips, textiles and many more.
The dragon will as a possible retaliatory measure can activate its propaganda machinery to wage psychological warfare with India. It can also activate its terror financing networks which for years remained a chronic internal security for India in the northeast of the country. China will also collaborate with its ‘iron brother’ Pakistan to try and deter India by intensifying terrorism in the Kashmir valley and elsewhere. Further, China can use its potent disinformation empire to try and peddle fake news about the credibility of India’s indigenous vaccines at a time when the light at the end of the tunnel of a pandemic stricken world has appeared.
Keeping all the dangers in mind, the Modi government must keep national interests in mind. Despite all the risks, it must work with all the like- minded countries to take own the mighty dragon responsible for unleashing a deadly virus which has wrecked havoc on humanity. For the sake of the free world, India must take the hard step which will reinforce India’s position in cementing its place as the leader of the free world.
Has The European Integration Process Reached A Dead End?
As part of the Geneva Lecture Series concepted and conducted by prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, President of the Republic of...
ILO and LinkedIn launch data insights partnership
The International Labour Organization (ILO), the Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) and LinkedIn have launched a two-year data...
The leading causes behind today’s unstable Iraq
Nawshirwan Mustafa, Southern Kurdistan’s leader, writer, historian and a prominent head of the region’s leading opposition party who passed away...
Sudan: 250 killed, over 100,000 displaced as violence surges in Darfur
A sharp uptick in intercommunal violence in Sudan’s Darfur region has forced more than 100,000 people to flee their homes...
South Korea’s Potential for Global Influence is Weakened by its Mistreatment of Women
In recent years, the Republic of Korea has become a pop culture juggernaut. Eight years after “Gangnam Style” went global,...
COVID ‘vaccine hoarding’ putting Africa at risk
Africa is in danger of being left behind in the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines as countries in other regions strike...
Is Sino-Russian partnership posing a strategic threat to U.S. and democracy worldwide?
Despite significant divergence between China and Russia in both regional and international arenas, the countries have striven to expand their...
Middle East3 days ago
An Enemy Among Us
South Asia2 days ago
Arnab Goswami’s whatsApp leaks show power of propaganda
Middle East2 days ago
Post Trump Palestine
Economy3 days ago
U.S. Trade Deficits Increase from Covid
Economy3 days ago
Indian Farmers Protest Against the Parliament’s Encroaching Bills
Arts & Culture3 days ago
World Economic Forum Announces 2021 Crystal Award Winners
Terrorism2 days ago
Global War on Terror: Pakistan’s Role and Evolving Security Architecture for sustainable peace
Americas2 days ago
Latin America and China: The economic and debt situation and the U.S. discomfort