What Shape will a Military Standoff Take in Asia?

 Valery Kulikov

Over the last 70 years, countries in APAC (Asia Pacific) have shown rapid economic growth, thereby attracting more and more interest to this region from world players, which has resulted in a battle for influence among them in this part of the world. During this period, Japan was the first to embark on its path towards development and prosperity, then Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and some other nations in South East Asia followed suit. At present China, India and a number of other countries have also set off on a similar journey.

For a long time, bilateral relationships served as the foundation that ensured regional security in Asia. However, the situation in this part of the world is constantly changing, and the nations in this region are becoming more and more interdependent from an economic and political perspective. Their military bodies are also starting to form alliances as a result. They are fostering closer ties in order to meet a common challenge of ensuring security and stability, which are key to a prosperous future built on sound principles. Currently, these relations are at the core of any efforts to create and develop joint plans, or to stage joint exercises and trainings.

As far back as 1951, a Western idea to form a military and political alliance capable of countering the threat posed by China (which was even then viewed by Washington as one of its key regional rivals) became a reality when three English-speaking nations signed the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS).

Four years later, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was established (with its headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand) and comprised of Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, the USA, France, Thailand, Pakistan and the Philippines. The aim of this entity was to block any further gains made by national freedom movements in South East Asia and the Pacific Ocean region. However, soon after disagreements began among SEATO members, and in 1977 the organization was officially disbanded.

At present, only ANZUS continues to exist but it also has its issues. For example, when New Zealand refused to allow American ships carrying nuclear weapons to enter its ports, the bilateral agreement on cooperation between these two nations was severed.  Still, military units from all three member-states, i.e. the USA, Australia and New Zealand, took part in the Afghan and Iraqi military campaigns.

In the current climate and also because of a substantial rise in tensions between the USA and China, in recent years the United States has used its military alliance with Japan and South Korea in the APAC region as a strategic instrument in order to increase U.S. influence in Northeast Asia and to deter the DPRK, China and Russia. There have been increased efforts to reinforce it after the 15th annual inter-governmental forum on security issues in Asia Pacific (APAC), the so-called Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD), was held in Singapore in 2016. Hence, as early as 2016, the United States began to expand its military presence in the region with the 1st Armored Division comprising 3,500 soldiers in South Korea; sixteen F-35 ‘stealth’ combat aircraft based in a Marine Corps military facility in Japan; the largest U.S. navy destroyers (Zumwalt class), and sizable Wasp class amphibious assault ships carrying the newest fighter jets. Extensive and varied preparations to establish an Asian version of NATO, which will be headed by the United States, have also begun. Washington is actively striving to include Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, India, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines and Malaysia in the new military alliance as its key members. The main aim of the new organization, as envisioned by U.S. strategists, is to counter China’s growing influence in the region.

As of recent, aside from anti-Chinese and anti-Russian military alliances, led by the United States, an openly anti-Iranian shift has become more evident, illustrated by, among other things, the fact that Washington is actively striving to create a so-called Arab NATO as well as an anti-Iranian coalition in the Persian Gulf.

It was, therefore far from unexpected that Iran’s Minister of Defense, Hossein Dehghan, suggested that Russia, India and China join their efforts to combat terrorism advocating takfirism during a Conference on International Security, held in Moscow in April of this year.

In the aforementioned climate, it is not surprising that the PRC and the Russian Federation, which openly oppose a unipolar world dominated by Washington from a political, economic and military perspective, also intend to create alliances and coalitions to rival the U.S. equivalents. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), founded in 2001 and comprised of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, is one such alliance. It began at the signing of the Treaties on Deepening Military Trust and on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions by the heads of states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Russia and Tajikistan in 1996-1997. However, it is not a military alliance (as for example NATO is). The key aims of this organization are to improve stability and security in the vast region, where the member-states are located; to combat terrorism, separatism. extremism and drug trafficking; to enhance economic, cultural and scientific cooperation, and to prioritize joint energy projects.

During the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), which was held for the 5th time since 1992 on 15 June in Tajikistan shortly after the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit, Beijing made an important proposal. China’s leader Xi Jinping urged Asian nations to create a security organization similar to NATO. In his speech during the forum, Xi Jinping focused on the fact that Asian countries face common challenges from the viewpoints of security, national territorial integrity, and trade and economic development.

During this Conference, representatives of Russia as well as Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, also criticized the current US approach that has enabled it to circumvent existing rules and norms recently. They supported the direct challenge issued by PRC’s leader to the United Stated, having reached a reasonable conclusion that the new steps taken by China to create an “Asian alliance” would certainly act as a counter-weight to the Asian version of NATO, headed by the USA.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reminded others at the Forum that enhancing security had become one of the key challenges for the multi-ethnic Asian continent: “Truly sustainable stability system in Asia can obviously be achieved only through settling existing crisis situations and conflicts, and persistently combatting the threat of terrorism. To do that, cooperation should be stepped up in identifying and neutralizing terrorist groups and cutting off their financing, including from drug trafficking. It is a priority to do everything in our power to prevent terrorists from getting hold of chemical, biological or other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, and to thwart propaganda of extremist ideas.” In addition, participants of CICA highlighted that the world, first and foremost from the perspective of economic ties, is becoming a battlefield where no rules apply primarily because of U.S. actions.

Currently members of CICA include the following nations: Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Vietnam, Egypt, Israel, India, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Qatar, Kyrgyzstan, China, Mongolia, the United Arab Emirates, Palestine, Pakistan, South Korea, Russia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka. In Dushanbe, the leaders of the following 13 nations were in attendance: Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, China, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka. Hence, the proposal, made by PRC’s leader, to create an “Asian alliance” has every chance of coming to fruition.

Valery Kulikov, expert politologist, exclusively for the online magazine ‘New Eastern Outlook’. 

Economic war on Iran is war on Eurasia integration

US sanctions on Iran should be interpreted as a piece in a much larger chessboard, says Brazilian analyst Pepe Escobar in his investigative article for Asia Times, titled: “Economic war on Iran is war on Eurasia integration”.

Hysteria reigned supreme after the first round of US sanctions were reinstated against Iran over the past week, yet the key aspect of the economic war unleashed by the Trump administration has been overlooked.

The US sanctions offensive, launched after Washington’s unilateral pullout from the Iran nuclear deal, should be interpreted as an advance gambit in the New Great Game at whose center lies China’s New Silk Road – arguably the most important infrastructure project of the 21st century — and overall Eurasia integration.

The Trump administration’s maneuvers are a testament to how China’s New Silk Road, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), worry the US establishment.

On closer look we find Eurasian integration on the rise. Eurasian integration is on display in Astana, where Russia, Iran and Turkey are deciding the fate of Syria, in coordination with Damascus.

Iran’s strategic depth in post-war Syria simply won’t vanish. The challenge of Syrian reconstruction will be met largely by President Bashar al-Assad’s allies: China, Russia and Iran.

Echoing the Ancient Silk Road, Syria will be configured as an important BRI node, key to Eurasia integration.

In parallel, the Russia-China strategic partnership – from the intersection between the BRI and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) to the expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the solidifying of BRICS Plus — has immense economic stakes in the stability of Iran.

The complex interconnection of Iran with both Russia (via the EAEU and the International North-South Transportation Corridor) and China (via BRI and oil/gas supplies) is even tighter than in the case of Syria in the past seven years of civil war.

Iran is absolutely essential for Russia-China for the partnership to allow any “surgical strike” — as floated in Syria — or worse, hot war initiated by Washington.

A case could be made that with his recent overture to President Putin, President Trump is trying to negotiate some sort of freeze in the current configuration — a remixed Sykes-Picot for the 21st century.

But that assumes Trump’s decision-making is not being dictated or co-opted by the US neocon cabal that pressed for the 2003 war in Iraq.

If the situation turns volcanic when the US oil sanctions on Iran kick in by early November, an actual remix of the recent North Korea scenario would be in the cards. Washington simultaneously sent three carrier battle groups to terrify North Korea. That failed – and Trump ended up having to chat with Kim Jong-un.

Despite the US record around the world — endless threats of a Venezuela invasion with the only tangible result an amateurish, failed drone attack; 17 years of endless war in Afghanistan, with the Taliban still as immovable as the Hindu Kush peaks; the “4+1” – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Lebanon’s Hezbollah – winning the war in Syria — US neocons scream and shout about striking Iran.

As with North Korea, Russia and China will send unmistakable signs that Iran is in their closely coordinated Eurasian sphere of influence, and any attack on Iran will be considered an attack on the whole Eurasian sphere.

Stranger things have happened, but it’s hard to see any rational actors in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh wishing to have Beijing and Moscow — simultaneously — as lethal enemies.

All across Southwest Asia, there are no doubts the official Trump administration – and in fact, the whole Beltway – policy on Iran is change of government, as if the Islamic Republic is a pushover.

So from now on, short of hot war, the new rules of the game spell out stepped-up cyber-warfare.

From Washington’s point of view, in terms of return on investment that’s a relative bargain; cyber-warfare keeps the Russia-China partnership away from direct involvement while in theory digging deeper into what they envisage the economic collapse of Iran, heavily advertised as imminent by Trump administration officials.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry could not be more explicit on the US effort to re-impose sanctions on Iran. It said: “China’s commercial cooperation with Iran is open and transparent, reasonable, fair and lawful, not violating any United Nations Security Council resolutions.”

That echoes the Russian Foreign Ministry on the US sanctions: “This is a graphic example of Washington’s continued violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and trampling upon the norms of international law.”

Trump for his part has resorted to threats, saying any nation that violates the sanctions against Iran will not do business with the US.

Good luck with having support from Turkey or Qatar – completely dependent on Iran for food, use of civilian airspace and sharing gas exploration in South Pars. Not to mention Russia-China assuring Tehran’s back on all fronts.

The die is cast. China not only will continue but also will increase its purchase of Iranian oil and gas. The Chinese auto industry – currently with 10% of the Iranian market – will simply take over as the French leave. Chinese companies are already responsible for 50% of auto parts imported into Iran.

Russia for its part has pledged to invest as much as $50 billion in Iranian oil and natural gas. Moscow is very much aware of the Trump administration’s next possible step; imposing sanctions on Russian companies investing in Iran.

Washington simply can’t “not do business” with China. The entire US defense industry is dependent on China for rare earth materials. Since the 1980s, US multinationals set up their export supply chains in China with direct encouragement of the US government.

The EU for its part has enforced a Blocking Statute – never used before, although in existence for already two decades — to protect European companies, even coming to the point of imposing fines on businesses that pull out of Iran because of plain fear.

In theory, that shows some guts. And yet, as EU diplomats in Brussels told Asia Times, there’s a major conditional: US satrapies/vassals abound across the EU, so quite a few EU-based companies, as in the case of Total and Renault, in the end, will simply roll over.

Meanwhile, what Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said about US unilateralism – the world “is sick and tired” of it – keeps echoing all across the Global South.

This means any wrong move by the US to take military action will result in the unleashing of the ‘Mother of All Financial Hurricanes’.

Those clamoring for war with Iran cannot possibly understand that the nightmare scenario of a Strait of Hormuz/Persian Gulf energy transit closure – the choke point for 22 million barrels of oil a day – would represent, ultimately, the death of the petrodollar.

The Strait of Hormuz can be configured as the Achilles heel of the entire West/US economic power; a closure would detonate the mother of all hurricanes in the quadrillion-dollar derivatives market.

Unless China does not buy Iranian energy, US sanctions — as a geo-economic tool — are essentially meaningless.

Certainly not, of course, for the “Iranian people” so dear to the Beltway, as more day-to-day financial grief is already setting in, side by side with a sense of national cohesiveness in the face, once again, of an external threat.

China and Russia have already pledged to continue to implement the JCPOA, alongside the EU-3; after all, this is an UN-endorsed multilateral treaty.

Beijing has already informed Washington in no uncertain terms that it will continue to do business with Iran. So the ball is now in Washington’s court. It will be up to the Trump administration to decide whether to sanction China for its unwillingness to stop trading with Iran.

It’s not exactly a wise move to threaten China – especially with Beijing on an irresistible historical ascendancy. India’s Jawaharlal Nehru threatened China and lost a big chunk of Arunachal Pradesh to Chairman Mao. Brezhnev threatened China and faced the wrath of the PLA on the banks of the Ussuri River.

China is able to cut the US off in a minute from its rare earth exports, creating a US national security catastrophe. Now that’s when a trade war will enter real incandescent territory.

The post-hegemonic era: Greater uncertainty or sustainable security?

By Mahmood Monshipouri

Two contrasting scenarios paint radically different visions in a world after hegemony.  Richard N. Haass (“World Order 2.0”) notes that at the global level, the international community is no longer heavily influenced by a sole superpower and/or hegemonic power.  

 There is overall less consensus among the major world powers concerning governance and the new order. The fall of trade agreements, or as some would like to say the demise of the Transpacific Partnership (TTP), points to several convergent trends with potentially uncertain consequences. The decentralization of decision-making at the global level since the post-Cold War period has created a different balance of economic and political powers. The U.S. invasion of Iraq has thrown the Middle East into a region festering sectarian tensions. 

Subsequently, the Arab Spring uprisings, which led to a significant authority void in Libya and civil war in Syria, indicated that an emerging new regional disarray that often spills over into other countries.  The rise of populism and the resiliency of authoritarian in the Middle East are likely to shape its political climate in the coming years.  The spread of oligarchic rule and/or power throughout different regions will produce an alarming order for those interested in the persistence of human rights and liberal governance.

While Asia has come to dominate the global scene in terms of population and trade size, the European Union has encountered new challenges, some of which undermine its promise of unity, prosperity, and security.   The old glue that held Europe together has weakened if not totally faded away.  What is striking at this stage of world history is the absence of a hegemonic power capable of sustaining an order upon which world security can steadily balance.  

Absent a hegemonic power, multilateralism has become axiomatic or even inevitable. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and cybersecurity have revealed the dark side of globalization, producing both political tension and economic stagnation.  The United States has lost its economic hegemonic status to China, yet still remains active in advancing its naval dominance and power across the globe.  Absent a global consensus on rules, norms, laws, and sovereign obligations, the dangers of regional wars and the spread of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism would necessitate the active participation of U.S. leadership, only this time in a totally new context and with massive costs and unpredictable consequences.  The United States may or may not be ready to fully take that mantle of leadership in large part because it can no longer afford to be in the business of nation-building and regime change, if for no other reason than the fact that those tasks have proven to be daunting, costly, and untenable over time. 

     Given these realities, several questions are raised: Who will then punish international criminal and terrorists? Who will intervene in the case of genocide or ethnic cleansing?  Who will prevent the rise of another terrorist group such as ISIS?  The alternative to the previous order or the status quo may be worse or better; however it is difficult to predict future trends at this juncture.  

     A different view of the rapidly changing international system is provided by Michael J. Mazarr (“The One and Future Order”) who argues that the post-hegemonic order requires taking a more pluralistic approach to international relations and its institution, rules, and norms. In this new, multipolar order, U.S. leadership will still be critical to global stability.  

     Some of the proponents of this view regard the post-hegemonic world as one in which countries coalesced around key regional actors and blocs, namely China, Russia, India, the EU, Brazil, Japan, and the United States.  China’s “One Belt, One Road,” project, which promises more than $1 trillion in infrastructure, in over 60 countries across Europe, Asia, and Africa, and which connects Iran to Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, is the prime example. Still others such as Joseph Nye, Jr. (“Will the Liberal Order Survive?”) argue that China is unlikely to exclude the United States from the western Pacific, much less exercise global military supremacy. U.S. security guarantees in Asia and Europe continue to provide critical reassurance for the stability essential to upholding the liberal order.

     The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and NATO will prove to be crucial to the maintenance of the regional order.  Global issues of climate change, poverty, pandemics, refugee crises, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the campaign against terrorism render global cooperation between/among different regions all the more inevitable.  Regional cooperation is imperative to prevent economic stagnation and the unraveling of the international system.  Multilateralism becomes integral to sustainable security, economic development, and the rule of law.  Cooperation is possible even when there is no hegemonic power.  Under such circumstances, Robert O. Keohane (After Hegemony, 2005) claims that international “regimes” can work to foster cooperation between nations, even though there is no dominant power to enforce any agreements.  Increased cooperation, Keohane goes on to argue, does not necessarily cultivate democratic or liberal values in contemporary world affairs.  Different regional actors and blocs, therefore, will have to work together to maximize prosperity and minimize conflict.  No major shift in international relations is conceivable beyond the general diffusion of power away from governments toward non-state actors. I tend to concur with such a vision, in part because the alternative would be far worse.
   

Mahmood Monshipouri, PhD, teaches Middle Eastern Politics at San Francisco State University and the University of California, Berkeley.