The ASEAN summit meetings starting from November 12-15 will address issues which have challenged the Southeast Asian region this year, and much of the initial work has been discussed under the Vietnam chairmanship during the summit meetings. In fact, one of the critical areas which we discussed during ASEAN preparatory meetings and also during the subsequent East Asian Summit will be related to maintaining peace and also addressing the peaceful resolution of disputes, particularly in South China Sea, outlining the need for compliant to the UNCLOS, abiding by the principles of international law.
It is acknowledged that the different aspects related to regional security, trade and investment, addressing challenges related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4th IR), developing mandate and consensus with regard to the ASEAN community vision, and also developing common consensus on environment protection, marine debris, river water pollution and transboundary haze. One of the important milestones that ASEAN has achieved in the last two decades has been expanding its external relations with countries such as Canada, Chile, EU and many other countries which contribute to the development and foreign direct investment in this region. These existing partnerships need to be complemented with new partners which can accelerate economic development and growth prospects.
It is acknowledged that the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) has been challenged in the past but new countries such as Cuba, Colombia, and South Africa have signed the treaty. The TAC has been discussed as an important element of maintaining regional peace and stability, and there is need for strengthening this process so that new entrants can be accommodated. The important aspect which have been really outlined last year has been with regard to the ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific concept. Therefore, there will be discussions that how complementarities could be explored between the organisation and the geopolitical concept. As in the ASEAN outlook towards Indo-Pacific it has been outlined that the cooperation can be explored in the terms of maritime connectivity, security, promoting sustainable development, and outlining new avenues for economic operation.
The issue of new membership in ASEAN might also be discussed. In the past few years countries such as Timor-Leste have been seeking to consider for their entry into the ASEAN but Timor need to fulfil certain basic criteria which can be discussed during these ASEAN meetings.
For ASEAN, the vital issue will be to engage the new US administration under the democrats and maintain their attention that US has been given to this region particularly in terms of SCS and also supplying military hardware to many of the countries which are facing tensions with China. Given the fact that Indonesia and Vietnam have been elected as a non-permanent member of the UN it is possible that the dialogue partners and these two countries would outline important areas which can be addressed at the highest level.
One of the areas that the ASEAN can explore can be undertaking extensive corporative arrangement with the United Nations as many countries within Southeast Asia are representing their cases to the UN and its associate agencies, synergy between the two organisations is foreseen. The ASEAN also needs to work on the emergency response and assessment team which includes rehabilitation and repatriation of displaced persons across this region in the wake of COVID-19.
Refugees has been a major bone of contention among Southeast Asian nations. In this regard it is pertinent that the ASEAN will seek indulgence of countries such as Myanmar and also address problems with regard to rehabilitation of the Rohingya refugees.
The safety with regard to the South China Sea and maintaining freedom of navigation and overflight would be critical for the regional maritime trade and commerce as well as civil aviation. The 2002 Declaration of the Code of Conduct of parties in the SCS has not been valued by dialogue partners such as China. Therefore, it is critical that the Code of Conduct (COC)should be discussed during the meetings with the dialogue partners. It is acknowledged that the mutual trust between the claimant parties has been on the downslide and the deficit in mutual trust has disturbed the peace and tranquillity in SCS.
The developments with regard to Korean peninsula and the dialogue with the US have given a hope that the Korean peninsula might seek peace and as two Southeast Asian countries (Singapore and Vietnam)were involved in the dialogue process between US and North Korea. The possibility of continuing the process under nee US administration might be discussed on the side-lines. This year has been harmed southeast Asian economies because of pandemics and floods, and therefore a consensus is required with regard to medicine, standard protocols and also into ASEAN cooperation among member countries.
One of the important initiatives that has been taken by the Vietnam was the ASEAN defence ministers meeting in February 2020, in which it was noted that coronavirus disease has been making a major impact in the regional security and stability, and there was a need for acknowledging it as a public health emergency. The chairman statement with regard to ASEAN collective response was acknowledged. It was stated that there should be a strong collaboration in terms of military medicine, and collaboration through a network of chemical, biological and radiological specialists across the southeast Asian countries. Another initiative which have been taken during the meeting has been to enhance practical cooperation among the defence establishments so as to address this pandemic and bring about best practices as well as engaging the ASEAN Centre for military medicine in undertaking research related to this. This meeting proclaimed that there is a need for exploring new initiatives and ways to contact fake news which might increase public anxiety and also hinder any collaborative activities within ASEAN.
With regard to theASEAN mandate it was critical that the impact of the COVID-19 on labour and employment need to be addressed so that the right of the migrant workers as well as developing progressive labour practices could be undertaken for enhancing competitiveness within the organisation as well as promoting safety and health protocols within the region.
The ASEAN has been addressing has been promotion of human resource development as well as developing networks for technical education and skills development. While the organisation has been preparing for promoting the fourth industry revolution and therefore it has become important to utilise technology for better inclusive and sustainable growth which can provide regular employment and growth opportunities among the labour across the region. Many of the countries in Southeast Asia have been large concentration of small and medium enterprises and are providing employment opportunities. Consequently, it has been found that there is a need for developing better labour practices as well as protecting the rights of the labour.
As discussed earlier one of the important meetings which was being held in April 2020 was to seek affirmation from the 15 countries participating in the RCEP programme to accelerate their efforts in actualising this regionwide free trade area, and Vietnam has been insistent that India should be invited to partake in the negotiations once again.
In one of the statements made by the ASEAN chairman in June 2020 it was acknowledged that public health emergencies and the need to control the pandemic would be important for promoting resilience societies and healthy workforce. Importantly, since many of these ASEAN nations are export dependent economies, it will be critical that the resilience supply chain and a captive market is promoted in a big way. The dialogue between the health sector professionals as well as promoting technical exchanges related to big data, telemedicine and surveillance of the diseases need to be taken on in the forthcoming ASEAN meetings. It would be prudent that the ASEAN response fund and supporting economic recovery programme at regional level would help many nations through cross sectoral collaboration as well as mitigating the impact of this pandemic.
While it is acknowledged that the ASEAN community meeting would highlight the midterm review of the ASEAN community blueprints for the year 2025, it would also be critical that issues such as gender sensitivity, women in parliament, promoting ASEAN youth and also in the ASEAN Parliamentary assembly would be areas where Vietnam would like to take the lead. As the mandate for this year’s ASEAN meeting is “cohesive and responsive ASEAN” and therefore stress will always be there with regard to solidarity and centrality of this organisation.
The year 2020 would be a judicious milestone to look out into the future plan of action and how the organisation as a whole could work with regard to medical supplies, equipment, addressing public health emergencies and developing research and vaccine development program within the region itself. In the past the organisation has worked remarkably with regard to addressing environmental concerns, non-traditional security issues, and also taking security initiatives at the regional level.
Initiatives related to ASEAN integration among the mainland Southeast Asia countries would be a priority so that economic complementarities and division of labour as well as better production facilities should be developed across Southeast Asia. In terms of the connectivity within the organisation, the discussion would be related to infrastructure projects, supply chain resilience, building people to people connectivity and also promoting higher education linkages between the dialogue partners and the ASEAN member nations.
One of the important elements which have been often discussed within the organisation has been developing the smart cities network, incorporating capacity building initiatives, developing repository of knowledge, and sharing best practices so that sustainable development as well as better resource management within the cities could be done. Dialogue related to the ASEAN community, aspects related to political security and cultural issues will be taken up as usual but it will be also critical that the associated organisations such as East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum and other associate organisations would be discussing international developments. It is expected that South China Sea and building consensus on single draft a letter to code of conduct would be a priority under UNCLOS provisions.
One cannot deny the fact that even though majority of the ASEAN meetings throughout the year have been done in cyber and online mode but the agreements and the understanding that have been developed through ASEAN meetings would require concerted effort and sincerity on the part of member countries and the ASEAN Chairman to bring it to a logical conclusion. The ASEAN chairman Vietnam has waved the magic wand and the outcome would be interesting to watch.
Impunity for desertion of the Constitution
A collection of scratches depicting the nuances of “totalitarianism” (repressive actions of state stakeholders tend to be authoritarian) and “radicalism” (civil society groups that rebel against the authoritarian system through deep understanding and hard actions) are still etched in the minds of the nation’s children.
In 1955, September was the holding of voting in selecting members of the DPR in the first general election in Indonesia, which was attended by 29 political parties and individuals. Where the election left a sad one, the general election committee was kidnapped and killed. The tragedy of the massacre in 1965-1966, the Tanjung Priok incident in 1984, the Semanggi II incident in 1999, the murder of Munir in 2004, to the brutality of the apparatus in the “Corruption Reformasi” action in 2019 yesterday caused one of my friends in the struggle who was a student at Halu Oleo University to be shot dead by the police. in action.
All of the above events took place in September, which the author calls “September Mourning”. The historical record has shown that from time to time the civilization of the Indonesian State has not yet ended with problems that pose a great risk, especially regarding the loss of life. This collection of tragedies in September demonstrates an understanding that what happened was an act of desertion.
Desertion, usually used in the military world with the aim of describing the conditions for the defection of soldiers from unitary discipline. But in this article, the author contextualizes desertion to express defection to the constitution. This means that any conscious action intended to straddle the constitution is defiance. Both the perpetrators from civil society, the military, and even the president, must be brought to justice!
In Indonesia, constitutional deserters often occur, ranging from murder, kidnapping, corruption, selling state assets, and other actions that are detrimental to the state. However, in this discussion, the constitutional desertion that the author wants to discuss is the constitutional position for deserters between civil society and the government which can control the civil apparatus.
Many civil society groups were declared by the government as deserters to the constitution until they were disbanded. For example, HTI organizations, FPI, and others. And there are even civil society groups declared as deserters of the constitution which were then massacred to the max. For example, civilians who were victims of the struggle between the military and the PKI during the Old Order had claimed millions of lives.
Civil society who deserted the constitution in the midst of conflicting elite interests was faced with a dilemma. Although they may have strong complaints about the survival and sustainability of their generation, they face the problem of the government’s incompetence in managing the country, so they choose to fight ideas and ideas against the resistance movement.
This dilemma arises because of the extreme risks associated with the desertion process on the one hand and the fact that the relationship between deserters is dominated by mistrust on the other. The first problem makes the potential cost of desertion very high because civil society is certain to face a credible threat of punishment. Second, the potential rewards of desertion are uncertain because deserters have reason to believe that rebellion is the last resort for their ideas to be accepted by the State even though lives are at stake. The second problem implies that the perpetrators of desertion from the regime’s instructions will be very difficult to be punished fairly by the constitution.
But what is clear is that the constitutional position for deserters from civil society has always been made firm. It is even permissible to carry out massacres by simply using the term “in order to maintain the integrity and sovereignty of the State” as happened in 1965-1966. The death toll against innocent civilians and civil servants is not treated fairly by the State. The State should apologize for the incident, but not apologize to the PKI or to the military.
However, the regime’s uncompromising attitude and violent strategy of arrogance have led to further escalation of the conflict and caused increased anxiety at the level of civil society. A repressive ruling elite, a regime that often relies on military forces creates harsh and deteriorating conditions. Such as the kidnapping and murder of the election committee in 1955, the 1984 Tanjung Priok incident, and the 1999 Semanggi II incident.
Likewise with the murder of Munir in 2004, in fact it is a form of victimindividual desertion which later grew into a phenomenon of anger as well as mass fear. This is due to the unfair positioning of the constitution to punish deserters from the regime.
It is as if the regime’s position is higher than the constitution and interprets it at will. In almost every regime in this country, the constitution is weak and fails to bring the deserters entrusted by the regime to be punished fairly. This means that the impunity of desertion to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is sweeping freely. This issue is a serious homework that must be realized as soon as possible by all elements of the State to make improvements.
We must position the constitution as forming a harmonious life order for the nation and state. By him forming all elements of the State as nationalists who forbid massacre, become humanists with basic principles, socialists without restraining society, and capitalists who prioritize the welfare of the people.
The Race of Supremacy in the Indo-Pacific Region
Amid the growing US-China rivalry for the supremacy, the geopolitics has been altered to gain favour for oneself and outsmart rival. This time the battlefield is Indo-Pacific region. Since US has forged AUKUS, the regional countries are concerned over this move. AUKUS is a defence agreement- comprising Australia, UK, and US- which is aimed to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific with nuclear-powered submarines potential on patrol and the deal enables Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.
China retorted it and termed it “Cold War Mentally” and claimed such partnership is anti-china clique. They do not have any definite purpose behind this agreement but to contain China’s rise. Signing such deals will destablise the peace and trigger an arm race in the region. She claimed that they, in order to contain China’s growth, are throwing military net around it in waterway like the South China Sea and attempting to halt China’s economic development.
Also, Malaysia and Indonesia fuss with this move and are of the view that this will speed up arm race and aggression in the region; North Korea chastised this maneuver claiming it as undesirable and dangerous and stated that it will underscore North Korea to continue developing its arsenals of atomic weapons; Some Russian Diplomatic officials dubbed it an step to accelerate arm race and undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Besides regional countries, France was also ticked off with AUKUS, due to cancellation of previously signed deal of $66 billion between France and Australia for conventional submarines, which will cost France jobs and revenue.
On the contrary, India and Japan, the antagonists of China and member of an anti-china pact namely Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as QUAD), have warmly welcomed this measure. But in reality, the AUKUS is nothing more than a potential hazard for the region, in which Washington is adopting Asian versus Asian strategy to pit them fight to contain China’s rise and sell its weaponry. However, the results of this gathering storm can be far beyond the thoughts of political scientists and eagerly participating Australia.
The first unanticipated loss of this pact is the deteriorating ties of Australia with France. Reportedly, this in consequence has kept Australia away to finalise a free trade agreement with the European Union. Apart from this, Scott Morison’s, Australian Prime Minister, planned visit to Indonesia has been cancelled, because Indonesian President Joko Widodo is no longer available. Australia has been victimised in the US-China rivalry which has its first consequence in the loss of robust ties with France and Indonesia.
Apart, Since the Australia had close economic relation with China, Australian Trade Union has opposed this maneuver; It has shamed AUKUS deal and insisted they do not want war with China and warned of dangers to country on multiple fronts. Also, the Maritime Union of Australia has opposed this deal and verbalised that Prime Minister should not engineer such secret deals instead supply vaccines and help lockdown affected.
Moreover, a China state-owned newspaper, Global Times, warned arm race and grimly stated that Australian soldiers were likely to be first to die if China counterattacks.
To sum this deal, without having any challenge to Australia, buying nuclear-powered submarines is a potential step toward endangering and victimising itself for nothing but US gain.
Apart from this alliance, US have Quad and Five Eyes to focus the China and keep China’s power from spreading. Quad is consisting of US, Japan, India and Australia. The main purposes of this alliance were economic and security interests that span the Pacific and Indian oceans. Quad was actually tailored for tsunami relief efforts, which lay dormant until 2017. Later, it was revived by Trump to challenge China from every front. And, Five Eyes is pertaining to US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
All the Quad members have poor diplomatic relations or even face-off with China, which strengthens US position in the region and collectively they are sparing no effort to undermine China’s rise.
On September 24, Quad had an in-person summit, in which they had discussed vaccine export, trade, and technology. They also said, “We stand for the rule of law freedom of navigation and overflight, peaceful resolution of disputes, democratic values, and territorial integrity of states.” besides this the main purpose behind the meeting was to opt strategy to counter China.
In addition to this, Biden administration had made clear that it desires to forge a united front of democracies to deal with China across the board- on security, trade, technology, and human rights. Actually, the desire is to make alliance of democracies to defeat China. All the maneuvers US is taking are not to safeguard any human right but to contain China’s economic influence and military power.
However, Chinese spokesman, Mr. Lijian said: “Faced with the common challenge of fighting the epidemic and economic recovery, the people of the Asia-Pacific region need growth and employment not submarines and gunpowder.” He further vocalized, “Individual powers have repeatedly dispatched military aircrafts and warships to South China Sea that spark trouble and deliberately provoke conflicts on maritime issues. And, Chinese determination to safeguard national and territorial sovereignty, maritime rights and interest is unwavering, and all will continue to properly handle differences with the countries connected through consultation and negotiations.” This statement clarifies that China does not want war rather prefers consultations, but it is not necessary that it is the reality; China has already focused military power. If both rivals escalate military power, then danger will loom and exacerbate already worsened diplomatic ties.
Furthermore, Japan is another active member of Quad, who is ardently participating in the US-China rivalry. However, the participation can be equally annihilatory for Japan.
Li haidong, a professor at the Institute of International relations of China Foreign Affairs University, viewed that Japan has been leaving no stone unturned to use the anti-China clique to gain an upper hand in its territorial conflicts with China, Russia and on the Korean peninsula issue.
Further, Chinese analysts also warned Japan, India and Australia that if they went too far in following the US strategy of containing China, they will become cannon fodder as China will steadily safeguard its interests.
Additionally, China’s rocketing influence and military power deters America. If China finds any danger from US, China’s missile arsenal could annihilate American bases in Asia during opening hours. Equally gruesome for US is China’s rapidly growing economic reach, which has expanded state-owned companies buy up strategic assets such as ports around the globe that could be harnessed in times of war.
To encapsulate, this ebbing situation can destablise peace in the region. Both the powers should repair their completely dysfunctional relationship and evade forging blocs in the region. If the region divides in the blocs, the regional as well as global peace will be at risk.
The Indo-Pacific Conundrum: Why U.S. Plans Are Destined to Fail
That U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris paid an official visit to Singapore and Vietnam in late August 2021 signifies clear intention of Joe Biden’s democratic administration to forge ahead with the course taken by his predecessor to build A Free and Open Indo-Pacific. According to the statement made by the second-highest political office-holder in the U.S., fostering partnership with the countries of the Indo-Pacific, including those in Southeast Asia, is Washington’s priority in foreign policy. Kamala Harris reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the international rules-based order, ensuring freedom on the seas, unimpeded commerce and advancing human rights. Although the U.S. Vice President noted that China continues to coerce and intimidate, Washington’s engagement in Southeast Asia, she argued, is not against any country, nor is it designed to make ASEAN member states choose between countries. At the same time, almost all Indo-Pacific states, either known as the so-called Quad—the United States, Japan, India and Australia—or those willing to join the initiative on a less binding basis, have already failed to escape the adverse effects of the rapidly deteriorating U.S.-China relations.
Top Secret (or maybe not)
Previously classified as secret and unintended to be publicly released before 2042, the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific was made available in May 2021. Experts believe this to be a guarantor of continuity in the Asian dimension of Washington’s foreign policy, regardless of the party affiliation of the country’s leadership. The document provides for a tougher confrontation with China in the military and economic spheres, which may negatively be perceived by some Indo-Pacific states and complicate their relations with the United States.
The policy outlined in the document seems inconsistent, which may cause misunderstanding on the part of allies and partners, resulting in a discussion about the real priorities and intentions of the United States. For example, it is difficult to explain the differing interpretations of India’s role. In the declassified NSC document, the nation is equated with Washington’s leading partners in the region, which implies an allocation of significant assistance from the U.S. Department of State, the military and the secret services in order to enhance “India’s capacity to address continental challenges.” Meanwhile, the 2019 Indo-Pacific Strategy Report of the U.S. Department of Defense ranked India among small and medium-sized states of Asia, which are not considered U.S. allies and are, therefore, not eligible for considerable assistance.
The ASEAN Way
Australian experts note that the deliberately declassified document reveals the need to consolidate the leading role of ASEAN in the security architecture of the region. At the same time, there is no consensus among the union’s member states regarding the essence and degree of priority of such important for the United States categories as freedom of navigation, trade and investment, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The so-called universal liberal values are of less importance to them as compared to the practical benefits coming from bilateral relations with China. According to Indonesian experts, such a divergence of views signifies apparently little sense of the specifics of Southeast Asia and regional processes on the part of analysts in Washington. They believe that the United States has not yet been able to convince the ASEAN nations of the need to create a counterbalance to Beijing as the U.S. cannot guarantee their security. As a result, the region has to face invidious choices since they find themselves at the intersection of the U.S.-China confrontation. Some countries seek to develop ties with Beijing within the Belt and Road Initiative (Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar), while others opt for equidistance (Vietnam, Singapore) or adopt a wait-and-see approach (Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia). At the same time, the latter increasingly tend to re-establish ties with the U.S. in order to benefit from American partners and put pressure on the Chinese leadership.
Among the measures on claiming superiority over China, the architects of the U.S. Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific envisage to deny the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) air and sea dominance within the first island chain in a conflict (Japan, Taiwan, northern Philippines). However, this merely is a further extension of the “rebalancing” policy carried out without much success by the Obama administration. A restoration of this course is predetermined by the fact that the plans of the former U.S. President Donald Trump for the massive rearmament and more American troops to be stationed in the Indo-Pacific never received proper financial support. The doldrums seem to be rooted in the Biden administration officials being skeptical about these grand in scale military goals in the Indo-Pacific, which they believe are neither affordable nor necessary to balance China and protect U.S. interests in Asia.
The underlying theme of the National Security Council report is “the U.S. remaining the region’s dominant actor.” However, analysts believe that Washington’s fundamental interest is effectively about ensuring access of national manufacturers to the markets and resources of the region rather than maintaining U.S. hegemony there. To this end, the American authorities are invited to clearly define how they could help the states of South and Southeast Asia in resisting pressure from China. At the same time, experts rely on the Cold War experience, when the U.S. could justify its military and economic presence by the menacing spread of communism. Consequently, the notion of an authoritarian the Chinese Communist Party and the need to sever ties with communist China are gaining popularity in the American establishment.
The Pacific Deterrence Initiative and the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance provide for a change in the U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific, taking into account its reorientation to ensure an effective response following the loss of unconditional dominance over the PLA.
The key pillars of the revised strategy to deter China were presented by Navy Adm. Philip S. Davidson in March 2021, at that time the commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM). He believes that China’s military capabilities will enable it to upset the status quo in most of East Asia, especially in the Taiwan Strait, the East China and the South China Seas, over the next six years. In order to prevent a further erosion of the rules-based order, he suggested putting a premium on “exercises, experimentation, and innovation” within the U.S. military in the Indo-Pacific as “critical enablers to deter day-to-day, in crisis, and key to our ability to fight and win.”
The Pentagon plans to provide for the allocation of USD 4.68 billion for the force design and stronger military capabilities in 2022, with another USD 22.69 billion spanning from FY 2023 through FY 2027. One of the focus areas is the creation of forward-based joint rotational forces under the auspices of INDOPACOM that would be capable of responding to challenges that require immediate and joint solutions.
Earlier on, one of the authors of this initiative, former U.S. Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite, argued that the U.S. Navy should create a new First Fleet  that would take some load off the U.S. Third and Seventh Fleet (respectively based in San Diego and Yokosuka). According to American experts, the Seventh Fleet, overloaded with combat and training under the present conditions, is experiencing difficulties in supplies and staffing, since it is actually forced to operate in a vast area of the western Pacific and eastern Indian Oceans (from the dateline to India–Pakistan border). At the same time, the strength of the Third Fleet, whose AOR is the east and north of the Pacific, is excessive to fulfill the tasks facing it now.
Spare the Triarii
The U.S. military envisage the allies and partners of the United States to become the basis of the security system of “A Free and Open Indo-Pacific.” In the meantime, close attention will be paid to the compatibility of branches of the armed forces, interaction of units and formations, improving the exchange of information as well as leveling the technology of the region’s nations in the field of defense to be similar to the U.S.
The U.S. Department of Defense considers it justified to maintain an emphasis on forward deployment at foreign bases and the rotation of operational formations (mainly aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups), based on the specific situation. In this regard, Washington relies on India’s and Singapore’s assistance in the deployment of American units and formations as well as their logistic support. Promoting cooperation with the Maldives in this area is not ruled out either, with a defense agreement being signed in 2020. The prospects for a partial renewal of the substantive provisions of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines, which provided for the deployment of the U.S. armed forces on its territory, look rather realistic. Earlier in February 2020, Rodrigo Duterte, President of the Philippines, announced the suspension of the Visiting Force Agreement, but his position towards the U.S. softened, given the complications in relations between the Philippines and China.
First Chain Bound
Based on the rhetoric of the U.S. military leadership representatives and the published reports, Washington must constantly demonstrate its ability to deter China, denying China actions in critical regions and deploying sufficient U.S. forces in these regions to defeat the PLA. In alignment with the situation, the Pentagon finds this possible through creating local superiority zones within the so-called first island chain, using Fleet Forces, Air Force, mobile air missile defense systems as well as high-precision short- and medium-range missiles. In addition, an integrated Indo-Pacific anti-missile and air missile defense system is designed to ensure stability for the second island chain (from the Bonin Islands through the Mariana Islands to New Guinea). The U.S. Department of Defense is planning to allocate funds to improve space detection and tracking systems for a timely response to the PLA’s unwanted activities. These actions are designed to fulfill the Pentagon’s mission to increase the lethality of the Integrated Joint Force to prevent any enemy from dominance in land, sea, air, space and cyberspace conflicts.
The plans presented by Washington are built around the futility of military operations against it within the Indo-Pacific and are coupled with high losses for any potential adversary. At the same time, the presented strategy does not provide for inevitable retaliatory measures from China. Relying on allies and partners seems controversial as well, including when it comes to the deployment of additional U.S. Armed Forces. Most Asian states would prefer to retain the benefit from furthering cooperation with Beijing and are afraid of being abandoned by Washington in the event of a serious threat to their security, with the situation in Afghanistan already serving as an illustration.
Apparently, the Biden administration, even in the face of the declared defense budget austerity, will still increase the costs to strengthen U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific. On the one hand, this approach reflects the intention to reach a compromise with the Republicans. On the other hand, it is aimed at putting pressure on China and persuading it to negotiate such important areas of bilateral cooperation as trade, arms control and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. This policy has already shown itself at the meeting of the U.S. and China representatives in Anchorage in March 2021 as well as at the meeting of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman with China’s State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in July 2021.
Most likely, the United States will not give up on its attempts to establish a multilateral Quad-based security system in the Indo-Pacific in the foreseeable future. It is also planned to gradually involve other participants in this format, as evidenced by the increased contacts with Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia. Taipei has a critical role to play in the U.S. strategic plans in the Indo-Pacific, while the development of military and technical, trade and economic cooperation, and the exchange of intelligence information with it deserves particular attention.
Today, Beijing is no longer going to hide its capabilities and bide its time, rather pursuing policies to advance its own security and development interests. China’s activities, not being directed against anyone, are perceived by the United States and its allies as an expansion and an attempt to crash the liberal world order, which is habitually defended by the liberal military force.
- An operational formation with AOR in the Northwest Pacific and the same name already existed from 1946 to 1973.
- The total number of warships (aircraft carrier, landing ship, cruiser, destroyer, frigate, multi-role nuclear submarine) is almost five times greater.
From our partner RIAC
The Curious Case of Russian Cyberattacks in India
As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, the technological shifts have made working remotely a reality for millions of...
Cryptocurrency Lending vs. Bank Lending
Cryptocurrencies have entered the mainstream, and they are redefining financial transactions. Today, these coins are lent and borrowed. This industry...
The neoliberal project strikes back: Upcoming regime-change in post-pandemic Bulgaria?
In the last few years, Eastern European politics has hit the headlines around the world rather often. However, commentaries on...
Future of Mid Size Business Economies & Bureaucracies of the World
The Agrarian age morphed into an industrial age over a millennia, sometime later industrial age advanced to computer age in another...
Rare-earth elements between the United States and China
The “rare-earth elements”, also called rare-earth metals or rare-earth oxides, or lanthanides are a set of 17 white soft heavy...
Is the US mainstream media the spying arm of the Biden Administration?
The US mainstream media is biased. We’ve all heard this before. There is a reason why so many have turned...
Impunity for desertion of the Constitution
A collection of scratches depicting the nuances of “totalitarianism” (repressive actions of state stakeholders tend to be authoritarian) and “radicalism”...
South Asia3 days ago
Afghanistan may face famine because of anti-Taliban sanctions
Middle East4 days ago
Turkish Geopolitics and the Kabul Airport Saga
Finance4 days ago
Clean Skies for Tomorrow Leaders: 10% Sustainable Aviation Fuel by 2030
Middle East4 days ago
Lessons Learned: US Seek to Salvage their Relations with the Syrian Kurds
Economy2 days ago
Turkish Economy as the Reset Button of Turkish Politics
Finance4 days ago
50 Firms Collaborate to Champion Next Gen Careers in Industry
South Asia3 days ago
What, in fact, is India’s stand on Kashmir?
Development3 days ago
Iraq and the World Bank to Boost Iraqi Women’s Economic Empowerment