Features
Asia-Pacific becomes global politics storm centre
The Asia-Pacific region’s undoubted economic strength and prowess led to this century being dubbed the ‘Asian Century’ by the world but it is plain to see that the latter phrase is acquiring heavy political overtones as well. This is on account of the region becoming a storm centre of global politics.
If one needs fresh evidence that economics, indeed, drive politics, it’s all here in the Asia-Pacific. In degree to the proportion to which the Asia-Pacific emerges as a world economic hub of the first degree, to the same extent do international politics tend to gravitate heavily on the region. The COVID-19 pandemic, to be sure, has blunted the Asia-Pacific’s economic vibrancy and strength to a degree, but the region could be expected to remain the foremost growth centre of the world. This will be true to the extent to which the West continues to lose its global economic and political clout.
The commentator would be stating the obvious by saying that the Asia-Pacific is home to the world’s most powerful economies. In an economic sense China dominates South-East Asia and the Far East, for instance, while India is predominant in South Asia. Moreover, there’s the ASEAN Ten and Japan to also contend with.
However, in tandem with these economic realities, the Asia-Pacific has come to bristle with international military and political tensions which have the potential to render the region a zone of endemic armed confrontation, provided the Asia-Pacific’s several flash-points are ably managed by the relevant states and the international community. For example, it is quite some time since China came to be suspected of aiming at territorial gains in the South China Sea at the expense of some regional players who are also becoming notable global economic powers; Vietnam and the Philippines being just two of these. There is also China’s continuing squabble with Japan over a cluster of islands in their adjacent seas which needs to be watched closely and ably managed.
The fact is that the Asia-Pacific region has sizeable gas and oil reserves and these assets needs to be seen as setting the stage, to an extent, to the above conflicting territorial claims. China is home to a vast population and it ought to be plain to see why she should be making territorial claims in the South China Sea and other areas of contention. Moreover, almost all the notable economic players of the Asia-Pacific have been fast-industrializing states that are power and energy-hungry. They cannot afford to lose hold of territory that is considered resource-rich.
Elaborating on this development, commentators said that the Quad is focused in the main on countering China’s ‘wolf-warrior diplomacy’ and on keeping sea lanes open that link West and East on the economic plane in particular. Of added significance is the fact that the Quad consists of four major democracies. In a sense, a democracy versus authoritarianism stand-off could also be considered as shaping-up in the region, since China is an authoritarian state. If not a hot war, then a cold war of sorts seems to be in the offing, since political systems are a vital factor in this regional power struggle.
The region’s security-linked concerns could also be expected to be heightened by the signing of a military pact between India and Japan sometime next month. Reports said that a highlight of the formalizing of this pact between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will be the signing of a military and logistics agreement titled, ‘Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement’. The impending military pact ought to be seen by China as a further hindrance to its efforts at strengthening its influence and power in the Asia-Pacific.
One of the most significant indicators that the Asia-Pacific is the new theatre of big power rivalry is the US’ increasing alliance with India, besides its continuing support for Japan on a number of fronts. The US is on record as backing India’s entry to the UN Security Council and although the world would not see the latter effort bearing positive results any time soon, US support for India in this connection amounts to sealing an alliance that both the US and India see as urgently needed in view of China’s increasing power and influence in the Asian region and outside it. The fact that the US and India are seen as the world’s foremost democracies ought to have a solidifying impact on the strengthening alliance.
These developments are also of vital significance as the UN records its 75th year in existence. It has done well to keep the world largely intact over the years but its most important organ in the keeping of world peace, the Security Council, suffers from the limitation of being unrepresentative of the current international distribution of power.
At the time of the founding of the UN, global power was seen as being mainly wielded by the US, USSR, China, France and the UK. Accordingly, they comprised the Permanent Membership of the UNSC. But today, there are many more countries that are seen as wielding substantial global power and influence and they too are tapping on the UNSC’s door, seeking Permanent membership. Among the latter are, India, Germany, Brazil and South Africa.
In degree to the proportion to which China’s global power increases, the US’ support for India’s bid to achieve Permanent Membership of the UNSC is bound to increase as well. However, since the UNSC would not be in a position to increase its membership in the short and medium terms, due to a number of reasons, it will remain unrepresentative of the world’s new power configurations.
India is bound to remain an International Law abiding country but future steadfast support for UN agencies and organs on the part of US central administrations, particularly if they are of the orientation of the present one headed by President Donald Trump, would be difficult to guarantee. Such considerations should prompt the UN in the direction of swift, progressive reform.