CHINA AGREES TO ESTABLISH MILITARY HOTLINE WITH JAPAN AMID RISING TENSIONS

In a marked change from China's stances for last ten years of dithering and responding firmly in establishing a military hotline between Beijing and Tokyo, on December 27 2021 after a two hour video conference between Japanese Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi and Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe, it was announced that both countries had agreed to establish the hotline before end of 2022.

Analytically, China's changed stance arises from increased military tensions between China and Japan over Chinese military provocations not only around the Japanese Senkaku Islands in East China Sea which China claims but also in Chinese submarines prowling around in Japanese waters.

Japan has retaliated to China's increasing military provocations by substantially increasing its defense budget, shifting the weight of Japanese military deployments southwards, increase in its offensive punch of its weapons systems and anti-ballistic missiles systems.

China's current strategic concerns on Japan's increasing military profile transcends seemingly into the geopolitical domains also where Japan has lately taken strong positions over China's threats of military invasion of Taiwan.

More than the above, what seems to have rattled China was the strong postures that Japan has taken over the Taiwan issue in asserting that it is seriously concerned with China's escalating of military tensions in the Taiwan Straits.

Indicative of the above were also media reports suggesting that Japan would actively side with any United States military actions that were aimed to deter China from a military invasion of Taiwan.

Reading in between the lines, one can conclude that the above virtually amounts to Japan not subscribing to China's 'One China' formulation and that Taiwan is a part of China.

On another plane, China's willingness to establish a military hotline with Japan may be arising from Chinese calculations that by setting up a direct hotline with Tokyo, it could possibly open up direct lines of communication with Japan m independent of United States.

Concluding, whatever be the current compulsions of China to finally set up a military hotline with Japan, one thing is certain and that is that Japan would not succumb to Chinese overtures to wean away Japan from the US-Japan Mutual Security Treaty  which covers under Article 5 contingencies that may arise over Senkaku Islands and Taiwan too.

Analytically, China's changed stance on the desirability of establ a military hotline with Tokyo arises from increase military tensions between China and Japan over  

UNITED STATES UNDER SCRUTINY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA ON INDO PACIFIC SECURITY COMMITMENTS - DECEMBER 2021

 On the verge of he year 2022, major Southeast Asian nations like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand pereceptionally seem to be either unsure of United States commitments on Indo Pacific security or overly weighed down by China's potential displeasure on South East Asia tilting towards United States. The latter fear arising from China generating domestic conflict in these countries.

In the last two years, the United States has given a lead in the revival of the US-led QUAD Security Initiative which now is active with participation of Major Powers of Indo Pacific, namely India, Japan and Australia. The QUAD undeniably is China-centric deterrence in manifestation.

In yet another strategic assertion aimed at deterrence of China and imposing potentially nuclear "Dissuasion" on China's propensity for disruptive military adventurism in Indo Pacific, the United States this year also set up the AUKUS comprising Australia, UK and US. AUKUS is potentially nuclear deterrence in play against China.

In tandem Major Powers of NATO like France and UK have lately been vocally and assertively veering towards more active roles in Indo Pacific security contributing and supplementing the overall efforts of the 'Arc of Democracies', so aptly named by Former Japanese PM Shinzo Abe, to impose deterrence on China.

Against this backdrop, it is surprising that South East Asia countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand should still be uncertain on US resolve to honour its commitments to underwrite Indo Pacific security.

Aware of this strategic wavering and fear of China's strategic reverberations on tilting towards US-led  security mechanisms, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken recently undertook a three nation tour of South East Asia beginning with Indonesia and follow-up visits to Malaysia and Thailand.

It was in Indonesia, the largest and influential ASEAN Nations that US Secretary of State Blinken made the strongest reiteration of United States security commitments to Indo Pacific security. China by name was cautioned against its predatory military adventurism.

Understandably, Indonesia and Malaysia, with sizable Chinese expatriate Chinese communities in their midst and Indonesia having suffered widespread racial riots in the past should be wary of being perceived by China as joining the US-led posse' against China.

Partly, these South East Asian nations uncertainty on US-resolve to guarantee  Indo Pacific security may be arising from United States demonstrated historical pattern from US unceremonious military exit from Vietnam, US shying away from confronting China in its South China Sea depredations in initial stages, and the strategic ambiguity on defence of Taiwan currently the target of China's political and military coercion.

In order that Indo Pacific Region, and specifically, the wavering South East Asia nations, rallies around US-led Indo Pacific security initiatives to deter China, strategic imperatives exist for United States to demonstrate by assertions by US President and by demonstrated actions by use of visible US military power in confronting China. 

RUSSIA MUST NOT BE ON WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY IN INDO PACIFIC 2021

Russia as an erstwhile Superpower and with aspirations to re-emerge as an alternative global power centre regrettably stands out on the wrong side of history in Indo Pacific security environment in 2021. Notably so, because Russia is perceived to be siding with China which has polarized the entire Indo Pacific against it.

The entire Indo Pacific vast expanse from Japan to India and from South Korea to Australia is geopolitically and strategically ranged against China because of its propensity to use military force on its peripheries to impose the Chinese writ.

In the highly polarized Indo Pacific security environment where the United States has been successful in rallying China-beleaguered Nations to align with it in countervailing security mechanisms against China like QUAD and AUKUS, surely, Russia should be asking itself questions of re-setting an exit the Russia-China strategic nexus? from

Russia far far too long has subordinated its own global strategic stature to China's strategic aims, more out of expediency rather than Russia's national security interests. Can Russia afford to continue this trend any further in the emerging Indo Pacific security environment?

China's military arrogance arising from past US timid responses against China's South China Sea depredations has emboldened China now to challenge United States over its plans to annex Taiwan by use of military force.

The above scenario inherently has the potential to ignite an armed conflict between China and the United States. Chinese military brinkmanship may not wot work any longer.

Russia in the above conflictual scenario would be in a serious strategic dilemma. Should it align with China militarily against the United States-led coalitions like QUAD and AUKUS which may then emerge  more actively assertive?

Would Russia as an alternative opt for being a passive spectator and let a US-China armed conflict play out to its logical conclusion?

In both cases Russia would perceptionally lose out to being on the wrong side of history in terms of its strategic stature and standing in the Indo Pacific. All of this for the single reason because of its strategic alignment with an aggressive China perceived as a 'Revisionist Power' bent on challenging the established world order,

Russia desperately needs serious course-corrections in its strategic policy formulations.

UNITED STATES IMPERATIVES TO RETRIEVE MYANMAR FROM COMMUNIST CHINA'S STRATEGIC CLUTCHES

Myanmar  has intrinsic geostrategic and geoeconomic significance for Indo Pacific security which dictate pressing imperatives for the United States to retrieve Myanmar from Communist China's strategic embrace as it were US policies of demonisation of Myanmar military rulers which pushed this Nation into this unwilling embrace.

Repetitively emphasised for last two decades in my writings was the singular fact that it was Communist China which grasped Myanmar into a gridlock strategic embrace and it was not Myanmar that wooed Communist China.

Demonisation of Myanmar was indulged by United States and the West even during the turn of the Millennium and continues till today. The singular charge against Myanmar is that Human Rights excesses take place by military regimes.

Double -standards should not be applied by United States as worse Human Rights excesses took place in Pakistan and which were ignored by United States. At the height of US-China bonhomie Communist China was indulging in ethnic and cultural genocides in Occupied Tibet and Xinjiang. United States never demonized Pakistan and Communist  China .

Undoubtedly, it has to be conceded that it were the military regimes in Myanmar that could prevent the disintegration of Myanmar by forcefully neutralising host of externally-inspired insurgencies on its peripheries, mostly by Communist China.

Plagued by externally generated insurgencies and demonisation and economic sanctions by United States, the military rulers in Myanmar pushed into a corner became an unwilling victim for Communist China's strategic embrace.

The United States did make a political outreach to Myanmar under President Barrack Obama but that initiative was not followed up by successive US Administrations.. 

India realised the folly of  diplomatic isolation of Myanmar followed by United States and relations were reset by PM P V Narasimha Rao in early 1990s to consequent strategic advantages for India

Fresh initiatives by the United States to retrieve Myanmar from Communist China's strategic clutches are a pressing imperative for the United States in the context of its escalating military confrontation with Communist China.

Concluding, surely the military planners in Washington need a fresh strategic reality check on the significance of Myanmar as a strategic asset for Indo Pacific security architecture for the coming decades. 

Myanmar solidly with the United States and Major Powers of Indo Pacific would provide United States with a foothold on Beijing's Southern underbelly, heighten Beijing's Malacca Dilemma and shut out the Bay of Bengal completely to Communist China.

Surely, it is a small price for United States to pay by dispensing with 'Human Rightism' evangelism for exponential strategic gains for Indo Pacific security.

NIXONIAN 1972 ILL-ADVISED PREMISES OF UNITED STATES CHINA-POLICY BY HENRY KISSINGER INVALID IN 2021

Contextual security environment of Indo Pacific Region and Red  China's pronounced adversarial postures challenging United States supremacy in 2021 render "Invalid" the ill-advised United States China-policy premises of 1972 by then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to President Nixon.

Geo-politically it may have been tempting for United States in 1972 to balance USSR with Red China as a quasi-strategic ally but in 2021 when Red China and Russia are in a strategic nexus opposing the United States, Nixonian approaches in US China-policy are geopolitically invalid

This needs to be highlighted in November 2021 with the prospects of a 'Virtual' Meet of US President Joe Biden with Red China's President Xi Jinping due anytime soon.

There is a clamor in American strategic community that US President instead of persisting with Trump Administration 'Hard Line' policies on Red China should strive towards "Management of China". Implicit in such advisories is once again the old elements of 'China Hedging' and 'Risk Aversion'.

The United States has in past decades paid a heavy price for such ill-advised premises of US China-policy which emboldened Red China to indulge in disruptive military brinkmanship all across Indo Pacific at the expense of United States image as the undoubted provider of global security and stability.

In 2021 Red China with President Xi Jinping casting himself in mold of Chairman Mao Tse Tung, and apparently aspiring to outshine him, has set Red China on an inevitable clashing trajectory with the United States.

Would any of the proponents of "Management of China" advocacy in the American strategic community amplify or assert that this does not amount to 'Red China Appeasement'? Would these proponents not concede that this sort of advocacy is 'Chamberlainisque" in content and reminiscent of 'Peace at Any Cost' by then UK Premier and which set the stage of World War II?

In 2021, the United States is at an inflexion-point with a highly militaristic and aggressive Red China bent on Hitlerian grandiose blueprint of a glorious 'Great China". Asia is watching whether the United States would stand upto Red Chinese imperialism or wilt under ?

In 2021, clearly two US Presidents in succession have reset American policies to meet the unfolding 'China Threat', and very rightly too.  In tandem,the United States has been pro-actively crafting security mechanisms across Indo Pacific like QUAD and AUKUS, it would be a serious 'breach of faith' with countries like Japan, India and Australia who have joined hands with the United States to checkmate the Red China Threat to peace.

The United States in 2021 can also ill-afford to indulge in ;Management of China' on two different planes of 'Security & Trade Appeasement' of Red China and on a different plane expecting India, Japan & Australia to be sensitive and respond to Red China Threat.

US President Joe Biden and the American policy establishment should be alive to and respect the security sensitivities of members of QUAD and AUKUS as United States prepares its policy positions for the Virtual Meet of US & Red China Presidents.