Pangoal Institution
International Situation Monthly
February, 2017 (Vol. 2)
The Turbulent Asia-Pacific Security Situation and Complicated Expectations for China-US Relations
Is the Three-Post Era Coming?
For the international situation in February, 2017, one begins with a look at the annually held Munich Security Conference (MSC). The conference, which gathers a number of prominent influencers, offered a window into the changes in international situation in recent years. Due to Donald Trump’s assumption of office, the acceleration of rightist trend in Europe, and the increasingly complicated Asia-Pacific security situation, the 53rd MSC, held on February 18th through 19th, took place in a particularly gloomy atmosphere. The participants had grown more uncertain about the future of the world.
Prior to the MSC, European observers released the Munich Security Report 2017 with the platform of the conference, in which they introduced the topic of the conference: post-truth, post-West, and post-order. The three words serve as a summary of the loaded issues facing the international relations community, which has observed the “unprecedented changes since the end of the Cold War” over the last year. They point to a question of common concern: Is the old international order collapsing and the new one emerging?
According to Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger of the Munich Security Conference, “post-truth” means that the rampant spread of disinformation and fake news on Internet and social media deconstruct the truth, thus impacting people’s judgments and choices, and posing substantive challenges to world peace and international cooperation; “post-West” refers to a situation in which illiberal ideas outweigh traditional Western ideas and democracies, adversaries of open societies are onthe offensive, and the Western decline is accelerating. The combined effects of “post-truth”and “post-west” raise questions about the future of the international order and effectiveness of the currentinternational regimes, namely “post-order.”
The previous International Situation Monthly released by the Pangoal Institution asked similar questions, highlighting that such a feeling of confusion and uncertainty was prevalent throughout the Western liberal world. People perceived that the order of the liberal world, derived from the Wilson Doctrine and established after World War II, was witnessing dramatic changes. Due to the US’s weakened ability to lead the world and the deterioration of its role, the demise of the “Pax Americana,” which presented itself shortly after the Cold War, has been accelerated, and almost all actors in international relations are making alternative plans.
The perspectives of the MSC have taken people’s reflection on the future order a step further, and the notion of a “shared burden” simultaneously proposed by several sub-forums reflected the real needs of the international community. However, the remarks of participants from Europe and the US appeared to be lackluster, with too much attachment to the old order: the Westerners who considered the US as “a whale carrying the world” began to blame the US for current uncertainties and Europe’s division; failing to conceal the fear that the US might leave NATO, they talked at length about how Europe-US cooperation worked as an example of multilateralism after World War II; Ukraine continued to complain about Russia’s invasion of its territory; Russia urged European countries to reflect on why they always addressed new problems with old mindsets; US Vice President Mike Pence promised that the Trump administration would continue to stand with Europe and Japan, and accused Russia of meddling with the US presidential election, but his address was considered “vacuous” and “insincere” by someof the audience.
In an indirect manner, the MSC called for a return to the liberal meritocracy; however, it cannot serve as a solution to the global crises. No matter how badly the Westerners want a stop, the overall rightist trend and the decline of liberalism in Europe are increasingly clear and seem to be unstoppable. The changes will deepen the division of Europe; meanwhile, Russia waits in the wings, and the US hesitates—a geopolitical drama is emerging.
The realities inEurope are constantly outlining the arguments above. Just ahead of the MSC, sources from France said that among the four candidates of France's presidential election (the far-right leader Marine Le Pen, the former French Economy Minister and independent candidate Emmanuel Macron, the former Prime Minister Francois Fillon who represents moderate and conservativeRepublicans, and former French Education Minister Benoît Hamon nominated by the ruling center-left Socialist Party), Le Pen’s popularity rating is surging, and Fillon, who has been considered a competitive candidate after Nicolas Sarkozy’s withdrawal, is expected to fall due to scandals involving his wife and the illegal gains of his children. Polls suggest that Le Pen is unlikely to win in the first round of ballot in April, but the chance of her election as president in the second round in May is greatly increased.
Prime Minister Theresa Mary May of the UK, another leader of neo-conservatism in Europe, paid a visit to the White House as the first foreign leader to meet Trump since the inauguration. After reaffirming the special relationship between the UK and the US with Trump, she extended an invitation, on behalf of the Queen,to visit Englandduring the year to President Trump. Although millions of UK people have voiced their opposition with petitions, and Trump will be barred from addressing Parliament, Prime Minister May reiterated that the invitation would stand. Trump may visit the UK around the election period of France, which can be seen a gesture encouraging Europe’s right turn.
The Complicated Changes in the Asia-Pacific Security Situation
Regarding the Asia-Pacific security situation, the 53rd MSC is most concerned about three issues.First, after the 19th CPC National Congress, will China pursue more “assertive” foreign policies and confront “Trump’s America” which appears to be equally tough? Second, as the US is wavering on its commitment to help East Asia’s security and economy, will its allies, such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea, review their choices and decide to draw closer to China economically ahead of the US? Thirdly, will the North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs be able to directly strike the west coast of the US, and will the North Korean issue intensify conflicts between China and the US? Based on these three issues, the MSC released a chapter titled “East Asia: Pacific No More?” in the report.
Regarding these questions, Chinese participants observed that, in order to achieve lasting security in the Asia-Pacific region, all concerned parties should figure out which path they would pursue: the alliance exclusive security, or the inclusive security.
MSC is the not the only one concerned about the Asia-Pacific security situation. In February, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) issued The Annual Assessment of Global Military Capabilities and Defence Economics, suggesting that the military spending of Asian countries was enormous and had been 1.3 times that of European countries in 2016; the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released The Global Arms Trade: Assessing Trends and Future Outlook, claiming that the international arms volume in the Asia-Pacific region from 2012 to 2016 accounted for 43% of the global volume.
Although military spending is not the only consideration to take into account in reviewing security situation, the Asia-Pacific security situation is growing increasingly intense. After Trump entered the White House, the political game between leading powers in the Asia-Pacific region may witness a new round of adjustments, which will trigger the further evolution of the Asia-Pacific security situation.
The Pangoal Institution holds that, with regard to the Asia-Pacific security situation in February, 2017, there are several issues which in particular are worth mentioning.
First, as the situation on the KoreanPeninsula grows unprecedentedly grim, what is waiting ahead: war or sudden turnaround?
At 7:55 AM local time on February 12th, North Korea launched a ballistic missile at the east coast of the KoreanPeninsula, which was its first missile test in 2017. On February 13th, a North Korean man, believed to be Kim Jong-un’s elder brother Kim Jong-nam, was assassinated in Kuala Lumpurairport of Malaysia. Speculation emerged immediately, which has added to uncertainties concerning the intense, complex, and complicated situation on the peninsula.
With a land area of only 220,000 km2, the KoreanPeninsula is considered the most densely armed region in the world.Trump harshly criticized Obama administration’s policy of “strategic patience” towards North Korea a couple times, and always sounded tough. Hence, many predict that the North Korean issue may, replacing the South China Sea issue, become the biggest hidden crisis in the Asia-Pacific region.
Undoubtedly, North Korea’s missile test is partly aimed at breaking technical bottlenecks. However, under such circumstances, the move is certainly motivated by multiple political purposes, such as to display its nuclear and missile capabilities and see the US’s response. In addition, around the time of its test, Trump was hosting a feast for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and the US and South Korea were about to jointly conduct the annual Key Resolve and Foal Eagle military exercises, which would be the largest exercise ever.Hence, it can be concluded that North Koreaalso sought to diminish the results of Abe’s visit to the US and strike back at the US-South Korea alliance.
Trump claimed that the US would deal with North Korea’s move “very strongly.” A spokesman for the USDepartment of Defense stated that the US would take all necessary measures to deter and thwart the threats posed by North Korea. Additionally, determined to deploy the THAAD system on its own territory, South Korea is strengthening its efforts to promote its offensive missile capabilities.
Meanwhile, North Korea attempted to seek bilateral contacts with the US, but failed to get positive response from Washington under current conditions. US media said that North Korea planned to send Choe Son Hui, a seniorofficial of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to visit the US and have a “Track 1.5” discussion with the former government officials of the US. But Choe was eventually denied a visa. Moreover, Trump, during the presidential election, used to claim that he and Kim Jong-un “should be eating a hamburger on a conference table”. On February 23, he refused to close off the possibility that he would meet with Kim in an interview with Reuters.But he also expressed outrage overNorth Korea’s moves, saying that “it may be very late.”
At present, the situation on the KoreanPeninsula is directly challenging China. For one thing, China has to handle its strategic divergence with North and South Korea simultaneously; for another, the international community keeps blaming China for the difficulty of addressing the situation on the KoreanPeninsula. China shall adjust to the “isolation” in solving the issue, act in its own interests, and judiciously promote the peace talks and put a halt to the chaos. These tasks are testing the composure and capability of Chinese diplomacy.
Second, as the US continues to build stronger relations with countries in the Asia-Pacific region, are they seeking a new balance after a “rebalance”?
The issue of Asia-Pacific “rebalance” has been an inevitable topic in assessing the Asia-Pacific security situation. As Trump became president, the new administration decided to discard the notion. However, since the notion was the continuation of the US successive administrations’Asia policy, as well as the outcome of balancing all parties’ interests, it has framed Trump’s policy choices with regard to the Asia-Pacific region.
On February 3rd, shortly after he entered office, the US DefenseSecretary James Mattis visited South Korea and Japan, and he was the first minister-level official from the Trump administration to make an overseas diplomatic trip. From February 9th to 13th, as the firstAsian leader to meet with the new American President, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe paid a visit to the US, held several rounds of talks, and played golf with Trump. During his visit, the US promised to continue its security commitment to Japan. To appeal to Trump, Abe unfolded a cooperation package including a“150-billion-dollar investment and 700,000 job opportunitiesin theUS.”
Trump has committed to reorganize the US military capabilities, with navy power as the focus. One of his critical moves was to build the USfleet from its current 274 ships to 355 ships, and deploy more ships to the Asia-Pacific region. On February 9th, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments released Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture of the United States Navy, suggesting that large high-end platforms, like carriers, might fail to effectively offer speedy high-energy firepower which could be difficult to destroy. Such firepower, however, may be needed to deter China’s aggression on the sea. The better approach would be to employ submarines and water surface ships as tools of deterrence and reassurance, and deploy carriers on international waters.
In light of Trump’s actions, he has continued almost all of Obama’s Asia-Pacific policies except the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Meanwhile, the new US administration continues to confront the problems in Asia-Pacific policies, such as the dilemma between consolidating alliances and stabilizing China-US relations in the Asia-Pacific rebalance. Prior to Prime Minister Abe’s visit in the US for a stronger Japan-US alliance and joint containment of China, the leaders of China and the US finally spoke by phone, and the call was described as “extremely cordial” by Trump, an action which Abe certainly would not like to see. In addition, if Trump still adheres to the principle of “America first” in the development of US-Japan economic and trade relations, the cooperation package for strengthening the US-Japan’s special relationship will be vehemently opposed by Japanese people, no matter how hard Abe tries.
Inheriting the basic framework of Asia-Pacific policies, the Trump administration must overcome internal conflicts and realize the new balance beyond the strategy of “rebalance”—this will be a momentous test of their diplomatic capabilities.
In addition, the USnavy deployed the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group to patrol the South China Sea. Is this an act which “sets free a tiger,” or an act intended to maintain the delicate balance in the region?
After becoming president, Trump rarely commented on the South China Seaissue, while US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made it clear that, “What we have to do is exhaust all efforts, diplomatic efforts, to try to resolve this properly,” and further clarified that “at this time, we do not see any need for dramatic military moves at all.” Meanwhile, China and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are speeding up the negotiation of the “Code of Conduct (COC) in the South China Sea”; China-Philippines relations are warming up, and Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte proposed to join hands with Beijing to combat pirates; China-Vietnam relations and China-Australia relations are thawing as well. Under the influence of various factors, tensions in the South China Seaappear to beeased, which has been long-waited.
Nonetheless, the stability in the South China Sea will not last long, because the US policy for the waters remains varied. On February 18th, the US Navy issued a statement sayingthat the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group had begun patrolling the South China Sea. They called it part of maritime "routine operations" in the waters. Still, at a time when the Trump administration has not yet defined clear policies concerning the South China Sea, it seems to be a move to force the White House to take a clear stand on the waters. It also indicates that the mode which “the military forces the White House to follow its steps in the South China Sea,” and which also appeared in the last days of the Obama administration, is changing:the US military’s capability for independent actioncontinues expanding.
Trump selected many army men on active duty and veterans as senior government officials, and the US military has assumed a tough stance on the South China Sea dispute in recent years. Taking these factors into consideration, the White House’s weakening control over the US military is worrisome. At the same time, however, China-US relations are now stabilizing even as the situation in the US and the international community constantly changes. Hence, we have every reason to expect the Trump administration to adopt more rational policies for the South China Sea. Eventually, we believe China and the US will achieve a delicate balance in the region.