RUSSIA'S ABORTED STRATEGIC PIVOT TO ASIA PACIFIC- THE CHINA FACTOR

Russian President Putin in the APEC Meet at Vladivostok in September 2012 had indicated Russia's intention for a 'Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific' presumably as a response to US President Obama's decision of United States earlier declaration of a 'Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific'.

The United States declaration incorporated the American response to the growing Chinese military aggressiveness in the region and more pointedly in the South China Sea where China then perceived that United States' power was on decline and therefore openings were presented to China to dent United States image as the Nett provider of regional security in the Asia Pacific. 

Analysed by me then was that Russian President Putin's indication could be a potential strategic game-changer even though the Russian President had not spelt out any military blueprint like the United States assertion that it was 'Rebalancing US Forces in Asia Pacific".

Even if the Russian President's assertion was political signalling it was a welcome signal that a resurgent Russia desired to be politically and economically integrated in Aria Pacific, especially to lure Japanese investments in Russia's Pacific littoral and Siberia.

The Russian President's assertion was promising in that it was the first indication of Russia moving out of China's shadows to which President Yeltsin had consigned Russia to in earlier years.

Subsequently, however, follow-up Russian moves indicated that the 'China Factor' had come into play to decisively abort any genuine desires for a 'Russian Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific' or even the initiation of an independent Russian line in Asia Pacific. Russia had obviously buckled under China's pressures.

Geopolitical readings of those years would indicate that Russia could not ignore China's sensitivities on any enhanced Russian profile in the Asia Pacific which could dwarf China's growing signature and footprints in the then Asia Pacific and China's yearnings to be geopolitically be considered as United States equal.

Russia for last two decades has been deferring to China despite Russia's resurgence under President Putin for two main reasons--namely, China's billion dollars purchases of Russian armaments and oil and gas; and secondly, because the 'Cold War Gladiators' on Capitol Hill in Washington had failed to recognise that the 'China Threat' to the United States was a more challenging and deadlier one than the 'Russian Threat' to United States.

For them Russia was the perennial enemy of the United States and China was amenable to be absorbed as a responsible stakeholder in Asia Pacific security.

The converse was more truer in the perceptions prevailing in Asian capitals then and now.

In 2020, what is visible is that because of the latter factor of the United States of giving primacy to China over Russia in its Asia Pacific policy formulations Russia stood pushed into China's strategic camp.

In terms of balance of power in the enlarged Indo Pacific today the visible picture is that the China-Russia Strategic Nexus has concretised as a powerful existential counterweight to the US-led Quadrilateral comprising United States, Japan, India and Australia.

However, as an analyst and keeping the history of China-Russia transactional relations, and their contentious differences and misgivings between these two mighty neighbours, I have reservations that in the event of a United States-China military conflict whether Russia would actively join hostilities against the United States.

Retrospectively, even if Russia seriously pursued its original intention of a credible 'Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific' would Russia contextually have delinked itself from China to pursue a Russia-Centric Asia Pacific Pivot?  The answer emerges as negative till such time China provoked an armed conflict with the United States.

Geopolitics also makes 'strange bedfellows' and the China-Russia relationship is certainly one notable one.

Peering into the future, one can advance the assessment that Russia would no more be tempted to a Russian 'Strategic Pivot to Asia Pacific' and rather prefer to watch amusingly as China keeps increasingly stepping into the minefield of a provocative armed conflict against the United States.

In the scenario above, no guesses need to be made as to who will be the ultimate winner.



 

SOUTH EAST ASIA'S CRITICAL ROLE IN INDO PACIFIC SECURITY

South East Asia geostrategically located astride the South China Sea maritime expanse which provides the maritime linkage between the Pacific and Indian Oceans is destined to play a crucial role in Indo Pacific Security in the 21st Century.

From the middle of the first decade of the 21st Century with the exponential and threatening military rise of China, the South East Asian countries have been engaged in beefing up their Navies perceiving that the China Threat as manifested in the South China Sea aggressions earlier against Vietnam and the Philippines now also encompasses Malaysia and Indonesia and more could follow.

Besides this regional context, there is the global context where South East Asia comes into focus with its geostrategic location astride the South China Sea. 

This pertains to the 'China Challenge' to the United States which stoutly maintains that the waters of the South China Sea are "Global Commons" as an international waterway and thus cannot be under illegal sovereignty claim of China or China can be allowed to impede free and unrestricted navigation both by sea and the skies above the South China Sea.

The South China Sea in 2020 portends to be the theatre of possible armed conflict between China and the United States with the sabre-rattling that China has commenced on all its peripheries.

Contextually, the South East Asian countries cannot escape the realities that geography has endowed on this immensely geostrategically significant region.

The developing conflictual scenarios edging towards an armed conflict between the United Sates and China due to China's provocative moves would leave no political or strategic space to South East Asian countries to sit on the fence as passive spectators.

ASEAN as the regional political grouping which for decades sought to engage China in dialogues and discussions by inviting China to be participating in various ASEAN mechanisms needs to do some soul-searching in relation to its future linkages with China.

What is unmistakeably clear in 2020 is that China had a certain credibility as long as China professed and acted as per its 'Soft Power' strategies. With switchover to China's 'Hard Power' strategies ASEAN nations like Vietnam and the Philippines were claimed as China's first victims of aggression. Moves have now become visible of China to move against Malaysia and Indonesia.

ASEAN should also not forget the historical context of China covetous design and strategies against South East Asia and claim this crucial geostrategic region as China's backyard. The China-inspired Communist insurgencies in Burma and Malaya were the opening moves.

Various security groupings emerged in intervening decades like SEATO and FPDA. Besides these security mechanisms
 ASEAN played around with ZOPFAN as a nuclear free Zone of Peace, Freedom & Neutrality in South East Asia.

ASEAN was lulled into complacency in the last decade of the 20th Century by Chinese duplicitous diplomacy as a responsible stakeholder in South East Asian security. China's cards are now lying open on the cards table and it doses not augur well for South East Asia.

In the contextual developing scenario with marked conflictual overtones it is a strategic imperative both for South East Asian countries to individually and also as ASEAN as their regional grouping to join the dots of China's military intentions in the South China Sea and its impact on their security.

The overall Indo Pacific Security Template can be greatly strengthened if the above dawns on South East Asian countries and ASEAN.

The Major Nations of the Indo Pacific and even Europe are seriously seized with deterring China from its military aggression in South China Sea  and therefore can South East Asian countries now afford to be a divided region when Indo Pacific security of which they are a part, stands endangered by China flouting all norms of international laws and conventions.

The stark realty that South East Asian countries and ASEAN as their regional political grouping has to face is that geographical configurations in relation to the South China Sea and China's unfolding intentions therein leave no scope for "Neutrality" !!!





 

SOUTH CHINA SEA NEEDS JOINT NAVAL PATROLS BY ASEAN NATIONS

South China Sea has been rendered as an explosive flashpoint in the Indo Pacific more pointedly after the advent of President Xi Jinping to power in Beijing. Under his leadership China significantly switched to 'Hard Power' strategies of a combination of muscular diplomacy and outright military aggression as manifested by China establishing 'Full Spectrum Dominance' over the South China Sea vast maritime expanse.

The South China Sea certainly was not historically a China Inland Sea as now China intends to convert it into. The term South China Sea was more of a geographical expression by Western colonial powers denoting the maritime expanse fractionally lying along China's Southern coastline, but not exclusively confined to the Chinese coastline.

In fact, the South China Sea commencing from Taiwan runs all the way to the Straits of Malacca with ASEAN countries having littorals on it.

Authoritative sources define the South China Sea as: "Geographically, the South China Sea plays a significant role in the geopolitics of the Indo Pacific. The South China Sea is bordered by Brunei, Cambodia,  China, Indonesia,  Malaysia. the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam."

Further, the South China sea is an arm of the Western Pacific Ocean and this vast maritime expanse extending from South of Taiwan to the Straits of Malacca is geopolitically described as "Global Commons" as it is of critical importance not only to the ASEAN littoral countries but to all the Major Powers of the world for strategic and economic reasons.

China with a fractional littoral on South China Sea as compared to ASEAN countries has coveted the South China Sea for strategic reasons to deny United States 'Close-In Military Intervention' should hostilities erupt. China also covets the vast mineral wealth and energy resources in which this Sea abounds.

China also intends that with complete military dominance over the South China Sea it can prevent or impede the military switchover of US Navy Fleets from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean and vice versa. China also intends that with such military dominance it can throttle the 'jugular vein' of staunch US Allies in the Western Pacific like Japan and South Korea.

China has illegally and by force has declared 'Full Sovereignty' over 90% of the South China Sea and established military control in recent years by capturing Vietnamese Islands and Philippines islets. It has also constructed fortified 'artificial islands in the South China Sea.

In 2020 China is in conflict with ASEAN nations like Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei---virtually the whole of ASEAN.

Against this contextual backdrop it becomes incumbent to ask as to why ASEAN as the notable regional grouping in South East Asia of long standing has not taken a united stand against Chinese aggression over the years against most of the ASEAN nations having vital stakes in the South China Sea?

The significant reason for this glaring omission was that China successfully created divides within ASEAN to prevent a 'United Stand' against China  by different inducements. Till recently major ASEAN countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were notable 'Fence-Sitters' in not taking strong positions against China.

In 2020 as China has stamped on the toes of Indonesia and Malaysia also in the South China Sea waters, possibilities now open for ASEAN Nations to adopt strong postures against China's creeping expansion of its footprints in the control of the South China Sea.

The first visible step of ASEAN Nations united resolve is to put into motion "Joint Naval Patrols" of ASEAN Navies in the South China Sea. China needs to be put on notice by ASEAN Nations that individual ASEAN countries are no longer purchasable by China to keep ASEAN divided.

Major Powers Navies are already frequenting the South China Sea by 'Joint Exercises' besides FONOPS by US Navy ships around disputed islands under illegal Chinese occupation and since fortified.

The South China Sea is inevitably headed for a global conflict as China has added too many incendiary overtones to its illegal occupation of ASEAN Nations islands. At some stage the Major Powers will be forced to lift China's illegal sovereignty claims and dominance impeding 'free and unimpeded maritime navigation in the South China Sea

In that eventuality, ASEAN Nations would not have the luxury to be passive spectators in a global conflict over the South China Sea. Strategic prudence dictates that ASEAN Nations "Stand-Up" to China and the best option contextually is to put into operation "Joint Naval Patrols" of ASEAN Navies in the South China Sea.

UNITED STATES TWO DIFFERING LEGACIES IN INDO PACIFIC-KISSINGER'S "CHINA MONSTER" AND GENERAL MACARTHUR'S "JAPAN AS ENDURING ALLY"

In mid-2020 as the world witnesses the United States waking up to the serious threat posed by China to Indo Pacific Security and China's bid to challenge US predominance as the reigning sole Superpower, two opposing images strike one's mind in terms of geopolitical and strategic legacy issues inherited by the United States from its 20th Century diplomatic history.

The immediate image and a disturbing one is that of the  "China Monster" created by the flawed China-centric foreign policy of US President Nixon in early 1970s goaded and manoeuvred by his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

In my assessment US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was mythicized as a great statesman imbued with retaining United States supremacy as the only Superpower. Perceptionally, Kissinger went overboard pursuing political expediency of balancing the Former USSR--then a opposing Superpower, by inducing China into a quasi-strategic ally of the United States.

How long did that last? By the 1980s the United States was having second thoughts on China as a strategic partner against the Former Soviet Union.

Kissinger's assessments of China and Pakistan which he used as an intermediary for openings to Communist China for normalisation of US-China relations in 1970 were deeply flawed.

Ironically today, China today has turned out as a 'Fire Spitting Dragon' engaged in undermining US national security interests all over the Indo Pacific and Pakistan as US Non- NATO Ally and recipient of billions of US dollars in aid has switched from being a 'Front Line State' of the United States to emerge in recent years as 'Front Line State of China' undermining US interests in Indo Pacific Western Segment. 

Obviously, Kissinger's geopolitical vision and formulations on China and Pakistan were grievously wrong in that within a span of 30 years or so both China and Pakistan have turned adversarial to the United States.

In marked contrast to Henry Kissinger's politically expedient legacy what shines out is General Douglas MacArthur's enduring legacy of Japan as an "Enduring Ally" of the United States which has steadfastly proven its Alliance commitments to US Security interests and to Indo Pacific Security for nearly 70 years plus.

In an act of far-sighted statesmanship General MacArthur transformed United States World War II vanquished Japan humbled into submission by two Atomic Bombings into the United States most enduring military ally with due respects and honours.

Japan has more than repaid General MacArthur's trust in Japan reposed on behalf of the United Sates. In 2020 the Indo Pacific Security Template led by the United States rests honourably on the shoulders of Japan as a great Asian Major Power. Japan is the pivot of US security interests.

China contrastingly having achieved exponential military and economic power courtesy 'Flawed China Policy' of Kissinger and follow-up United States policies of 'China Appeasement' and 'Risk Aversion Strategies' of US in relation to China has stabbed in the back the United States as its benefactor.

One wonders today as to why it took so long for US policy establishment to recognise that the 'China Threat' was evolving into United States most serious  security challenge. Presumably, US industrial giants lulled by Kissinger into massive US investments in China were looking more into their balance-sheets  than the 'China Threat ' -in-the-making because of US permissiveness.

The United States owes a great national debt of honour to General MacArthur.If the United States is firmly embedded in the Western Pacific even in 2020, the credit goes to General MacArthur far-sightedness Japan-policy post August 1945.

JAPAN 'S SIGNIFICANT ROLE AS MAJOR PLAYER IN INDO PACIFIC SECURITY

Japan with its geostrategic location in the Western Pacific virtually on the doorsteps of China and Russia,, (both conjoined presently in a 'Strategic Nexus')coupled with its technology advancements, self-reliant defence production and economic strengths stands uniquely placed as the linchpin of any security architecture in the Indo Pacific geopolitical expanse.

Japan's earlier significance as security pivot of the United States security architecture in Asia Pacific against the 'Soviet Union Threat' during the First Cold War now stands radically transformed to that of a crucial security pivot of the much wider Indo Pacific Security Template against the burgeoning 'China Threat' which in 2020 has all the dimensions of a Second Cold War 

Japan played a significant role in US security architecture for then Asia Pacific during the First Cold War hosting US Forward Military Presence against the then Soviet Union threat.

Japan continues to host a sizeable US Forward Military Presence during the Second Cold War whose advent I had pointed out in my writings in 2001 of China having generated the opening moves of the Second Cold War against the United States.

The 'China Threat' in 2020 is now palpably felt not only by United States and Japan but ASEAN nations like Philippines and Vietnam. Significantly, India as the other Major Asian Power has pronounced threat perceptions focus on China and the China-Pakistan Axis.

Notably therefore in 2020, strategic convergences on the 'Chia Threat' have crystallised between the United Sates, Japan and India and extending to Australia.

Thus we are witnessing presently a strategic coalescing of the Major Democracies of the Indo Pacific against the jointly perceived 'China Threat'.

Japan since the switchover by China of military strategies from 'Soft Power' to 'Hard Power' since 2008 and more muscularly with ascension of power in Beijing of President Xi Jinping has been giving a sustained attention to build up its defence capabilities including force projection.

China in recent years has consistently attempted political an military coercion against Japan by its aggressive brinkmanship around the Japanese Senkaku Islands and its submarines prowling in Inland Sea of Japan

Contextually, Japan today is thus uniquely placed to play a stellar role in Indo Pacific Security with its geopolitical and military experience of facing the 'Soviet Threat' during the First Cold War and in coping with the enlarging 'China Threat' for the last decade and a half.

China may have vast numbers on its side militarily but Japan off-sets this numerical advantage of China by hi-tech Japanese Armed Forces. In fact, I have always rated the Japanese Navy as one of the best Navies in the Indo Pacific after the US Navy.

While China may have established 'Full Spectrum Dominance' over the South China Sea and perceive that China is in a commanding position to throttle Japan's energy and economic lifelines traversing the South China Sea, it is my assessment that China would be in a rude shock  if it attempts to do so.

Expectedly, Japan and the United States would not be alone in checkmating China's military adventurism in the Indo Pacific. There is intense regional polarisation against China which stands intensified after the China Virus19 Pandemic emerging from Wuhan.

In terms of Indo Pacific Security, China fears Japan more as a potent threat to China than India as the other important Major Power in the US-led Indo Pacific Security Template.

The above by itself is a ringing testimony to Japan's unique positioning as a significant Major Power and major player in Indo Pacific security in the unfolding decades ahead. Notably, this unique significance rests with Japan presently not even having opted for a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Japan going nuclear, and which I have been advocating right from 2002 onwards, would pose nightmares in Beijing.

UNITED STATES & CHINA'S RECORD ON SECURITY IN INDO PACIFIC COMPARATIVELY ANALYSED

Ever since the end of the Second World War in 1945 with United States overwhelming victory over Japan and the emergence of Communist China in October 1950 as a Communist dictatorship in the then Asia Pacific, this Region has been characterised by strategic turbulence generated by Communist China unceasingly from the 20th Century and persisting as the second decade of the 21st Century draws to a close.

The question that begs an answer against the above backdrop is as to why the conflictual propensities of China have not watered down with passage of time of nearly 70 years? Why is that China after having embraced modernisation and globalisation facilitated by the United States generous impulses to ease China into the global system as a responsible stakeholder in regional security still persists with its aggressive impulses against China's neighbours with scant respect for international laws and conventions as is being seen in South China Sea against Vietnam sharing Communism ideology affinity with China?

Simply, the answer is that China is a "Revisionist State" which has a national agenda and blueprint to change the power and security structures in then Asia Pacific and now the enlarged Indo Pacific Region.

China perceives that the Western Pacific on whose littoral Mainland China resides is China's own backyard and wishes to transform all the 'Seas' from East Chin Sea to the South China Sea as one enlarged 'Inland China Sea' and that the United States is the interloper in the Region.

However, ironically for China, the nations in Western Pacific from South Korea, to Japan and the Philippines fearful of China imposing its writ of a 'China-Centric' geopolitical order and security system repose their trust in the United States and perceive that in the ultimate analysis the United Sates is the sole guarantor of their national security and the Indo Pacific Regional Security.

This then brings us to a brief comparative analysis of the demonstrated records of United States and China in the maintenance of peace and security in the Indo Pacific Region.

The analytical comparison is starkly against China and perceived as such in Asian capitals. China is perceived as the "Regional Destabiliser" intent on overturning the existent geopolitical and security template in the Indo Pacific and the harbinger of conflict, instability and Indo Pacific "Disorder" with attendant disruptive uncertainties.

The United States is perceived as the "Nett Guarantor of Regional Security" reinforced by United States challenging China's repetitive propensities for armed conflict commencing with the Korean War, through the Vietnam War and now China's aggression and brinkmanship in the South China Sea and in the Taiwan Straits.

More importantly, the United States generously assisted war-ravaged economies of Japan and South Korea to emerge as 'Asian Tigers' with high economic rates of growth and with democratic political systems. Even China's stupendous economic growth rates would not have taken place without US FDIs and high technology inputs.

In terms of future perspectives two crucial questions emerge contextually. Firstly, will the United States commitments to Indo Pacific Region continue steadfastly into the coming encodes? Secondly, can China be expected to emerge in the coming decades as a responsible and benign stakeholder in Indo Pacific Security?

Taking the second question first, as United States policy formulations are wholly dependent on China restraining its historical imperialistic impulses, the answer is a big NO. China's national impulses contradictorily intersect with any moves to emerge as a responsible stakeholder in the Indo Pacific

China is convinced that the United States stands as the 'bulwark' restraining China from imposing its own China-Centric geopolitical and security order in Indo Pacific and thwarting the 'Great China Dream' of Chinese Preside Xi Jinping who after capturing all the instruments of State Power in China, political and military, has further secured 'For Life' the office of China's President.

China under President Xi Jinping will obstinately stick to his 'Great China Dream' whose advent was marked by China switching from strategies of 'Soft Power' to 'Hard Power' manifested by intensified aggressive brinkmanship.

China will try all conceivable strategies to prompt a 'US Military Exit' from Western Pacific by inducing 'domestic political fatigue' in United States by China's disruptive 'Salami Slicing Strategies'.

Regrettably for China, the Indo Pacific geopolitical landscape today is characterised by 'Intense Polarisation' against China due to its aggressive brinkmanship and intentions to carry out a 'Revisionist Transformation' in the Indo Pacific.

Written by me elsewhere for years that China itself is to blame for this sorry and adverse image of China. What US diplomacy could not achieve for 50 years China handed the Asian polarisation on a plate to the United States.

In my assessment, the United States is hardly unlikely to endanger the 'Outer Western Pacific Defense Perimeter' of Mainland United States resting on nations of Western Pacific allied to the United States. Even the Philippines as a prodigal son is returning to the US-fold.

 Strategic imperatives of US National Security will ensure that the United States remains firmly embedded in the Indo Pacific.

United States transforming the US Pacific Command to 'Indo Pacific Command' under US President Trump reflects United States enlarged and intensified commitments to Indo Pacific Security stiffened by revised US threat perceptions that China cannot change and will continue as a 'Threat" to US Security and the security of its Allies and Strategic Partners like India.

Succeeding US Presidents can be expected not to lower the thresholds of US National Security against a militaristic China.

VIETNAM’S PIVOTAL ROLE IN INDO PACIFIC SECURITY-2020 PERSPECTIVES

Vietnam in 2020 acquires a renewed geostrategic and geopolitical significance in the context of a military aggressive China endangering Indo Pacific security with its expansionist designs in the South China Sea, whose littoral stands dominated by Vietnam and an unfolding scenario where United States will eventually have to check-mate China bent on challenging United States global predominance, more pointedly in the Indo Pacific.


Vietnam has been severely mauled by China in aggressive wars to take over Vietnam’s Spratlys and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea and even on date violating maritime sovereignty of Vietnam besides those of other ASEAN Nations.


Vietnam is the only Asian nation which outfought China’s aggressive War of 1979 and is a battle-hardened nation which in the last Century outfought Japan in World War II, the United States during the long Vietnam War and Communist China in 1979.


 But in 2020, Vietnam to withstand persistent Chinese military aggression in South China Sea would require external assistance, not in terms of military alliances, but military capacity building of Vietnamese Armed Forces and geopolitical support in international forums to ward off China’s aggressive impulses.


In terms of 2020 perspectives, Vietnam’s pivotal significance stands greatly enhanced when contextually viewed against the backdrop of China’s takeover of the dominance of the South China Sea and the unfolding scenarios where the United States belatedly under incumbent US President Donald Trump seems to be in the process of challenging China’s dominance over the South China Sea accomplished through military takeover of South China Sea islands/reefs belonging to Vietnam and the Philippines.


China additionally to establish full scale dominance over the South China Sea has constructed artificial islands and fortified them militarily with, airstrips, naval facilities and missiles emplacements.

In short, the South China Sea is an explosive powder keg which can by even a slight miscalculation by China in underestimating United States determination to prevent China from converting this maritime expanse into an ‘Inland Sea of China’ can ignite full-scale armed conflict between China and the United States.


Vietnam therefore in times to come is destined to play a significant role in United States strategic calculus pertaining to Indo Pacific security. In passing, it needs to be highlighted that the long Vietnam War of the 1960s-74 which pitted United States against China-aided North Korean takeover of South Vietnam was determined predominantly by United States strategic goals that Vietnam, even as a Communist State  should not be reduced to be China’s vassal State.


Ironically in 2020, the picture obtaining is that of United States again strategically determined not to allow China to establish hegemonistic control over Vietnam and South China Sea. And this time Vietnam would be on its side. That is why in recent years the United States ha silently embarked on capacity-building of Vietnamese Navy to withstand China’s continued aggressive brinkmanship in the South China Sea.


Vietnam’s pivotal role in Indo Pacific security stands recognised also by Major Asian Nations like Japan and India and in terms of 2020 perspectives is likely this recognition is likely to get enhanced in coming years as China shows no propensity to restrain its aggressive impulses in the South China Sea.


In 2020, Vietnam’s pivotal significance in the Indo Pacific Security Template finds a coincidental strategic convergence between the United States, India and Japan. 


While these Major Powers in their own respective strategic blueprints accord salience to Vietnam in their policy formulations there is also a heavy responsibility on Vietnam to move away from policies of deference to China and undue importance that Vietnam attaches to China’s strategic sensitivities at the expense of its long term security interests.


Concluding, I would like to emphasise that there is a greater call on the United States to unreservedly extend massive military and economic assistance to Vietnam to capitalise on Vietnam’s historical strengths, potential and geostrategic location to transform and buildup Vietnam as the ‘South East Asia Sentinel’ of Indo Pacific Security.

UNITED STATES AND CHINA’S COMPETING NARRATIVES IN INDO PACIFIC REGION 2020

United States and China have played out competing narratives in the earlier Asia Pacific ever since China emerged in October 1949 as a Communist giant monolithic State. Competing narratives of United States and China in mid-2020 have assumed hotly contentious confrontational contours in the now enlarged Indo Pacific Region.

United States and China’s competing narratives spin around fundamentally on the respective strategic goals of these significant major rivals on the security and stability of the Indo Pacific Region.

United States-China competing narratives are now no longer determined by ideological considerations of the Cold War era but now stand graduated to an intense geopolitical and military confrontation between China and United States as they jostle for power and influence over the vast maritime expanses of the Pacific and Indian Oceans and adjoining littorals with littoral countries nudged into taking sides.

Notably, the United States narrative on Indo Pacific draws many Asian capitals to United States point of view as in mid-2020  China suffers from ‘Severe Strategic Distrust’ in Asian capitals arising from its South China Sea military adventurism in wake of switching to ‘Hard Power’ strategies.  

The United States attaches prime importance to the Indo Pacific Region as the Western Pacific nations of Japan. South Korea and the Philippines tied in bilateral security alliances with the United States provide the Outer Perimeter of the defence of the US Homeland.

China perceives the Western Pacific as its maritime backyard and perceives Japan, South Korea and the Philippines (not now) with US Forces Forward Military Presence as springboards for possible US military interventions against China.

It needs to be highlighted that outweighing the above is the maritime significance of the Western Pacific sea-lanes traversing the South China Sea from the Straits of Malacca to the East China Sea in proximity of Japan and South Korea.

Conversely these sea-lanes traversing South China Sea are also the lifelines for China’s energy needs and commerce.  Besides the economic dimension the Western Pacific is perceived by China as its natural sphere of dominance as an aspiring Superpower challenger competing against the United States.

Tersely termed, the United States stands firmly embedded in the Western Pacific ever since August1945 with sizeable forward deployment of US Military Forces, US Air Force and US Navy and China as an aspiring Superpower wishes to prompt a United States military exit from the Western Pacific leaving the field open for China’s political and maritime aggrandizement.

The pursuit of respective United Sates and China’s strategic narratives has reduced the Asia Pacific Region earlier and now the enlarged Indo Pacific Region in United States and China in varying states of confrontation and conflict.

China’s propensity to engage United States in armed conflict extends from the Korean War of 1950-53, the Vietnam War of the 964-1972 and interspersed with military brinkmanship in the Taiwan Straits, against South Korea and Japan.

The United States contrastingly under the misperceptions of President Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger initiated a China Appeasement policy till recent years, followed by decades of ‘Risk Aversion’ policies against China.

China resultantly for decades stood emboldened to advance its Grand Strategy by intrusive political and military strategies in East Asia, South East Asia and South Asia. All this resulted in dents in US image all over Asia as a guarantor of security and stability in Asia.

Sensing the above but tied down by pressures of US ‘Risk Aversion’ strategies, the United States passed through various stages of its China policy formulations ranging from ‘Engagement’ to ‘Congagement’ and now in mid—2020 to teetering over ‘Confrontational Conflict’. 

The better part of the 21^st Century seems destined to witness political and military turbulence in the Indo Pacific Region as the United States and China play out their competing narratives in a region which witnesses in mid-2020 a China facing a hostile isolation from Major Asian Powers whose national security interests have a strategic convergence with those of the United States as regards China.

INDO PACIFIC REGION-THE GATHERING CONFLICTUAL STORM MID 2020

The United States would not be far wrong in perceptively viewing the China-originated and China-suppression of information on the Wuhan Virus 2019 outbreak resulting in nearly 70,000 US citizens dead and US economy losing trillions of dollars as akin to the Japanese Pearl Harbour attack on United States leading to United States opening its biggest World War II offensives in Asia Pacific.


Strategic analysts like me were anticipating that with the rapid strides being made by China in Cyber Warfare that should conflict breakout between United States and China a temptation would emerge for China to launch Cyber Warfare Pearl Harbour-type attack on the United States.


What has emerged in the wake of the global breakout of the Wuhan Virus 2019 Pandemic where circumstantial evidence points out that China by suppressing crucial information on the outbreak of Wuhan Virus 219 breakout has opened itself to accusations of deliberate suppression of information on the Pandemic outbreak with ulterior motives. Nor has China as recompense offered any apologies for the Pandemic outbreak as an inadvertent occurrence.

For the last few weeks both US President Donald Trump and US Secretary of State Pompeo have articulated assertions pointing accusing fingers at China on the lines outlined above. This should be considered as a ‘Tipping Point” in US-China relations and also for the security and stability of the Indo Pacific Region.

On May 4 2020 TV media reports indicate that a Five Nation Joint Intelligence Report has asserted that the Wuhan Virus 19 originated from China’s Virological Establishments located at Wuhan. US President Trump has warned China that China will have to account and pay for the losses suffered by United States and other countries in Europe and Asia.  


This has led to China being strongly critical of US President Trump and the US Establishment in some unprecedented Chinese hostile rhetoric never witnessed earlier in history of US-China relations.


The Indo Pacific Region stood already beset by conflictual overtones due to China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea against her weaker ASEAN neighbours and the hotly contested US-China Trade Wars.

Noticeable too in May 2020 is that while the United States stood preoccupied by managing the heavy losses in US lives and the ravaging impact on US economy arising from the Wuhan Virus 19 Pandemic, China instead of restraint and prudence has lately revived its political and military coercive aggression in the South China Sea against the Philippines, Vietnam and further adding to its list Malaysia and Indonesia.


Contextually, China today is being accused in the Indo Pacific Region of trying to exploit the strategic vacuum in the Western Pacific at the expense of the United States and its Allies and Strategic Partners. Contextually read it amounts to China relentlessly pursuing its strategy of controlled escalation against the United States.


Regrettably, in earlier US-China conflict-prone confrontations, leeway would exist for both the United States and China to resile from their extreme positions, the situation in mid-2020 is qualitatively different.


This time what has emerged as noticeably different is that in the United States bipartisan political support exists for United States to adopt Hard Line policies on China and domestic public opinion is also likewise. In China domestic dissent has emerged and with slowing economy this would gather pace resulting in brutal suppression by the Chinese President.


No leeways seem to hover over the horizon to suggest that the United States would let go of its ‘Hard Line’ approaches on China  on the question of accountability for the Wuhan Virus 2019 outbreak and nor has China till this moment exhibited any indicators of exit from its present ‘Hard Power’ strategies in the Indo Pacific Region.


In mid-May 2020, the strategic portents are that with had line postures of United States and China further solidifying in months to come a strategic conflictual storm is certainly gathering over the Indo Pacific Region.