The speeches and discussions were at several occasions
remarkably open and direct.
The strongest impression that remains with me (as a
European) is that the crisis in Ukraine, and Russia’s ambitions to regain its
status as an international heavyweight, were hardly mentioned at all. From an
Asian perspective there are several other problems, far more serious.
Furthermore, several of the delegates showed a surprisingly (from a European
perspective) understanding attitude toward the way Russia is acting: “Isn’t
Crimea really a part of Russia, there are mostly Russians living there – are
there not?” This undeniably brings thoughts about how isolated, or perhaps not,
Russia is from a global perspective. In this context one cannot ignore that
Asia contributes to some 50% of the world’s GDP. Europe (and the US) are no
longer the centre of universe.
One area where the Asian countries and “the West”
however do seem to have a strong common interest is the fight against
terrorism. A recurrent mantra in many of the speeches was the threat from
“extremism, terrorism, and separatism”. The interpretation of these words were
in many cases quite diverging, but my impression
is that IS, Al Qaida and other similar organisations are considered as serious threats
in many Asian countries.
Future developments in Afghanistan are therefore a major
source of worry. Although several countries, including China, would like to see
a reduced US presence in Asia, there is a certain ambivalence to this question.
Who will now stop Afghanistan from becoming a base for extreme Islamic
movements? This makes it probable that SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Organisation
– China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) will play
a larger role as a security policy instrument in the future, compared to the
relatively unclear role it has had so far. This in particular when it comes to
fighting “extremism, terrorism, and separatism”.
The biggest international challenges when it comes to
security in East Asia, and which was also mentioned by most speakers, are the
territorial conflicts at sea. First and foremost in the South China Sea, where
China, Viet Nam, the Philippines, and Brunei, among others, have overlapping
demands.
There are also different interpretations regarding
“freedom of navigation” within exclusive economic zones (EEZ). China and the US
have very diverging views on this. China claims that there should be
restrictions when it comes to military activities, while the US claims that
there should be an unlimited right for anyone to carry out for example military
exercises in international waters. There have been several incidents at sea as
well as in the air where both parties have claimed that their interpretation
should prevail.
Another territorial conflict which might lead to armed clashes
is the dispute between Japan and China regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.
It was obvious during the conference that all countries
that are involved, one way or another, directly or indirectly (e.g. Singapore),
are seriously concerned about the possible consequences of these disputes.
The smaller (everything being relative) Asian countries
have ended up in a difficult dilemma. None of them can alone balance China’s
growing political, military, and economic power. They are therefore interested
in a continued strong presence by the US in South East Asia. Their military
cooperation with the US has in many cases increased during the past few years.
This is the case for example of the Philippines, Japan, and Singapore.
It is unlikely that they, even together, could create a
counterweight against China without the direct support of the US, mainly due to
historical reasons. The relationship between the two strongest economies (apart
from China), namely Japan and South Korea, is still infected due to Japan’s
behavior in Korea during the Second World War.
Although some Asian countries see China as a threat,
they nevertheless see cooperation with China, and with each other, as the key
to their economic development. When it comes to manufacturing, East Asia is
more integrated today than the EU. To further complicate matters, there is a
common pride, which they share with China, in being the part of the world which
leads the development of the global economy and having broken free from Western
dominance. These two last factors should not be neglected, when Europe
considers (and most certainly overestimates) its influence on world affairs.
In spite of all the problems and risks which were
debated during the conference, there is also a clear will to find constructive
solutions. In addition to increased transparency and dialogue, two things were
particularly in demand: developed structures for conflict resolution and crisis
management, and also confidence building measures. Contrary to Europe, where different mechanisms were developed during
the Cold War to reduce the risk of an armed conflict: OSCE, the CFE-treaty,
inspections of each other’s military activities etc., there is little of this
in Asia.
There are however challenges to overcome. Several countries
find it difficult to accept the concept of for example intrusive inspections on
each other’s territory. In addition to this, both the US and China wish to
limit the other’s influence, which also makes it difficult to build functioning
structures for crisis management. However, as stated by Singapore’s defence
minister: “I think it is fully possible, but instead of aiming at conceptual
solutions, let’s do what is practically feasible”.
Some speakers also pointed out the future responsibility
of the Asian countries for global security. Today, it is mainly the US that
guarantees the security of world shipping. In line with the diminishing
dependency by the US on energy from the Middle East, its presence in the Indian
Ocean will probably diminish as well. This will increase risks for China and
Japan as well as for many other Asian countries, in need of Middle Eastern oil.
No solutions were suggested, but thoughts of potential consequences were many:
what would India think about a strong Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean; the
smaller Asian countries would become more dependent on Chinese benevolence;
what will the countries in the Middle East think about Asian military presence
in their immediate proximity; does China and/or other Asian countries want to
take on the role as “world police, or might this be a common interest which
could lead to increased collaboration and trust between the East Asian
countries?
Finally, an optimistic assessment made by several
speakers. Natural disasters such as Aceh and the earthquake in Sichuan, as well
as the search mission for the MH370 flight, led to an, in many cases, spontaneous
and improvised collaboration between military and civil authorities from many
countries, including the US. It showed that there are areas in which there is a
will, and an ability to cooperate also with military assets. These are
hopefully important, although small, steps, through which tensions in the
region can be reduced.
On the whole, an extraordinarily interesting and well-arranged
conference, and to a certain extent necessary reminder that the world is larger
than Europe.
KN
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar