The writer was Pakistan’s ambassador to the EU from 2002-2004 and to the US in 1999
In a situation already fraught with grave dangers, whether because of China’s increasingly assertive policies — as claimed by the US — or because of the Obama Administration’s forceful ‘Asia pivot’ strategy (as feared by China), election results in Japan and South Korea, though welcomed in Washington, have generated concern in the region.
In Japan, Shinzo Abe’s success brings back to power a ‘nationalist’ leader, who has long advocated a ‘tough approach’ towards China. During his earlier stint as prime minister, he favoured a robust role for Japan in the region. To this end, he advocated strengthening strategic ties to the US and pushed for the ‘Quadrilateral Initiative’, a partnership framework between Japan, the US, India and Australia, arguing that these initiatives were aimed at restraining Chinese ambitions in the Pacific. But more recently, he indicated willingness to re-examine Japan’s self-imposed restrictions on spending more than of one per cent of GDP on defence, while hinting at acquiring highly sophisticated offensive weapon systems. While these pronouncements cheered right-wing nationalists, moderate parties expressed the fear that these initiatives would set Japan on a collision course with China, with serious consequences for the country, especially in view of its current economic difficulties.
Last week’s election of Park Geun-hye brought the first female to South Korea’s presidency and represented a partial redemption for the former military strongman, Park Chung-Hee, credited with impressive economic growth, though coupled with brutal policies. Like her father, President Park is likely to seek closer ties with the US and yet support conditional rapprochement with North Korea, which would be at variance with the Obama Administration’s policy towards Pyongyang. Her nationalist credentials could also lead to new strains in relations with Japan, given their historic differences and emotion-charged relations, especially over the disputed islets of Dokdo or Takeshima.
Earlier, the 18th Communist Party Congress in China saw the election of a new collective leadership led by Xi Jinping, who takes over the Party and state at a time of economic slowdown, political uncertainties and acerbic relations with the US. There is no doubt that the current state of US-China relations would be of concern to both capitals. While their public spats may refer only to differences over currency and trade matters, what has profoundly disturbed their relations is their deep strategic distrust, which has escalated ever since the Obama Administration’s declaration of the pivot. Both countries blame each other, with Washington convinced that China’s economic success has made it belligerent, while Beijing sees in the ‘pivot’ a cover for America’s implacable hostility, now focused on drawing Japan, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia within a ‘cordon sanitaire’ around China.
Concern in the region is understandable. Though many of the smaller countries favour a vigorous US presence, they are loath to be caught in a Sino-US confrontation. They fear becoming the proverbial grass that would be trampled in any jostling between the two elephants. This explains why many of them are advocating a regional solution to the dispute over ownership of the islands, known as Senkaku by the Japanese and Diaoyu by the Chinese.
For both Xi and President Barack Obama, the challenges are enormous; resisting pressure from the ‘hawks’ in their midst and the temptation to promote narrow, short-term interests will not be easy. This explains why the smaller countries are urging that the major powers not to permit unbridled ambitions, reflected in their attachment to exclusive zones of sphere, to disturb peace. But for this to happen, Washington must not see the election of pro-US governments in Tokyo and Seoul as ‘opportunities’ to be exploited, while the Chinese leadership would do well to recall Deng Xiaoping’s counsel to remain focused on the economy.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 26th, 2012.
COMMENTS (15)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@gp65: Your prejudice against people from across border pretty much drips from leveling geography accusations against a former diplomat. Do you honestly believe that the diplomat can confuse geography 101 ? I did refer to the fact that directions is a relative term and there are geopolitical, economic and mere geographical directions. I did back it up with HQ analogy of corporations, a good atlas and newspaper world views. Regarding headings of articles, it is more of an editorial and marketing decision rather than entirely being up-to the author, which was again already mentioned. There is always a controversy when a major book releases because the title is generally provocative due to insistence of the marketing chaps despite what author might think. There is the case of Christopher Hitchens writing the book "god is not great", which again was titled due to the intransigence of the publisher.
All your rebuttals missed the geography part as well as the headline part.
I called you insensitive because accusing a former diplomat of messing up geography is beyond insensitive. It also lacks objectivity since your definition of internalizing corporate HQ based geography is amusing to me. Failure to accept facts smacks of self-righteousness. And failure to adhere to the letter and spirit of the article and indulging in parochial grand standing does point to prejudice. The holier-than-thou lesson in geography was prejudice. Are you really trying to tell the former diplomat what ASEAN is ? If you can make implicit comments on the author what is wrong is me stating the same about you. Are you really that upset with the comments ?
What I wrote was my subjective analysis of your comment. It was certainly in much better taste than having tapeworms. And next time if you do respond do not beat around the bush but rather address the actual concerns raised.
I know what projection is but I tried to refrain from directly commenting on it since from your perch if a former diplomat lacks understanding of geography 101, well I won't lose sleep over being called insensitive, self-righteous, subjective and prejudiced. But we, the poor tapeworm carrying folks (who lacked you english teacher) can't state such analysis about her holiness, can we ?
PS I will apologize if you are hurt over being called insensitive, self-righteous, subjective and prejudiced. But are you really ? I honestly can't believe that the comments were offensive though they sure were personal.
@varuag: You make very personal comments about me as an individual without backing it up with any facts and I am the one that has deep seated prejudice. You are the one that screams (that is what posting in bold amounts to) and I am the one that needs a chill pill?
Again sir, do look up the word 'projection'.
@Winner: East Asia, Far East are all terms using what people in US or UK use to refer to the combination of South East Asia and North Asia. Sometimes Australia and New Zealand are included to call it Asia Pacific. Had the author used the term Far East, Asia PAcific or East Asia when he was talking about Japan, China, South Korea I would not have commented as I did.
The point is when the term South East Asia is used - it refers to the ASEAN countries and does not include Japan, South Korea or China ever. People who talk specifically of South East Asia instead of East Asia tend to refer to the Northern Part of East Asia as simply North Asia. The reason they do not refer to the ASEAN countries as South Asia is because it is the Indian subcontinent which is called South Asia.
@gp65: "I have lived in Singapore for several years. Most corporations have a ASEAN and a North Asia division. The North Asia division will typically include China, JApan, SOuth Korea, Taiwan and HK. While technically Russia is partly in Asia and partly in Europe, for all practical purposes everyone considers it a European country not an Asian one." We were talking about geography. Please again refer to any world atlas or any newspaper's world section to get a feel of geography as it is and not as what specific entities utilize it for. Most corporations have a tendency to refer to divisions with respect to their HQ as central areas. So with Singapore as central place your analogy of North Asia may be true but for any world citizen it will invite ridicule. I worked in Japan and SK and business wise it made sense for them to denote East/West based on location of HQ but I did not internalize the process because we still have a world-wide acceptance of East/West based on geography that everyone follows. Do you really still wanna get into a debate of what is North Asia ? Is debating trivia all that matters ? You forgot the centrality of my comment. Take a Chill Pill
"There is no righteousness involved in correcting a geography error. It is also unclear how my comment is bereft of objectivity when it purely factual and there is no opinion involved. Unclear what deep seated prejudice it takes to describe Japan China and South Korea as North Asia. I would describe your comment as a projection. Please look that word up." You are still stuck with your notions of geography. You know its really hard to unlearn something even if it is wrong. Please get an orient-longman/oxford atlas. This comment was a projection of the self-righteous feeling that one gets from reading all your comments.
"My English teacher would often say that only 2 types of people can describe themselves in first person plural – royalty and people with tape worms. Which category are you in Sir?" I wouldn't mind the latter since I cannot be the former and you have left with no alternative other than the two. But I would not be overtly worried since I think your English teacher and Geography teacher were sharing the same school.
@gp65 and varuag: what is Far East?
@gp65: An "Objective" reply!!!
The main reason for concern (both for China's authoritarian rulers as well as other stakeholders in the region) is the rising tide of nationalism in China and popular demand for strong action befitting a future global leader and regional hegemon. In the 20th century, China always tip-toed around possible flashpoints like Taiwan (and earlier Hong Kong) but relied on building nationalist spirit to legitimize its authoritarian rule and draconian laws like the one-child policy and brutality in Tibet. Today this nationalist spirit is spiraling out of control with the growth of new media and unreasonable expectations among young educated Chinese fueled by their country's meteoric rise. The incessant saber-rattling is forcing China to take a hardline position from which a climb-down could result in serious domestic discontent just when a new government is taking charge, and is a much greater source for concern for Xi Jingping than, say, Shinzo Abe's return. Japan is Asia's closest US ally, and any escalation in this theatre will have serious repercussions that are undesirable to all parties involved (including the US) - and is hence unlikely.
@gp65:
Generally the title of an article has inputs from the editors and marketing dept. in a newspaper. While not being aware of the process in ET, I would most certainly believe the esteemed diplomat would not have messed up geography. So the blame lies at the junior editors of ET, if at all. Your comment is insensitive, self-righteous, bereft of objectivity and points to deep seated prejudices. Take a chill pill ...........
While not being a student of geography, your classification of North Asia as China, Japan and SK is also wrong as they constitute East Asia while North Asia is the tundra and taiga of Russia. We have drastically reduced the quality of discourse in this op-ed to arcane trivia.
"In a situation already fraught with grave dangers, whether because of China’s increasingly assertive policies — as claimed by the US...." This is a phenomenal attempt at casting the perpetrator and victims as equals. Chinese want to act like the mafia who become rich, get new arms and then go around claiming everything in the neighbourhood. The situation is fraught with dangers because the Communist bully only knows how to command and control - it neither has respect for facts nor the temperament to resolve things through dialogue. It respects only force and power. It will find plenty of both in the neighborhood that it seeks to intimidate.
For a former ambassador, your knowledge of world's geography is surprisingly poor. China, Japan and Korea are not part of SOuth East Asia. They are all North Asia. The South East Asian countries which go by the name Asean include Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philipines, Vietnam, Brunei, Burma, Campodia , Laos.
China has historically used military force to resolve border disputes - whether it's Vietnam, Soviets, India or Tibet - the USA is the only thing which has put a damper on their ambitions in the South China Sea. The USA establishing a larger presence in Australia is part of it's obligation to it's allies within the region - just a reminder to China that the USA will honor it's military commitments and that use of bullying tactics will have a cost. The USA's position has been consistent - the disputing parties should sit down at the negotiating table and work things out peaceably - something that obviously irritates China.
Dark clouds of WWIII are gathering! If China is the Fascist leader, Germany, of this war, Pakistan is its Italy and North Korea its Japan. We all know the results of WWII. Results of WWIII are not going to be any different - rout of the fascists - except China will most certainly lose Tibet and perhaps Xinjiang, too, and relinquish any claims on Taiwan. Pakistan, like Italy then, will be the clown of this theatre. China should prepare itself to rescue Pakistan just as Hitler had to do with Mussolini!
Having easily annexed Tibet and East Turkestan China has been for smelling fresh blood. In fighting the Americans to a standstill in Korea and decisively defeating India on a border just a few hundred kms from Delhi, and far from the Han hinterland, China had sent a clear message to the its Asian neighbors: kow tow to China or expect to be be crushed. In the modern economy China creates nothing, copies everything, and is arrogant, conceited and belligerent. Manipulating international currency rules and then using the "free trade" mantra to its advantage China's idea of trade is to undercut its competitors, dump cheap manufactured goods in return for raw materials. The world is slowly waking up to China's shenanigans. In claiming the whole of the whole South and East China Seas the Chinese may have finally overstepped and overplayed its hand. It will be interesting to see how the Chinese deal with this incredible expression of collective greed, seeing that almost all of China's neighbors are recoiling in disgust at China's overt aggression.
This is one of the few balanced articles from Mr.Fatemi