China is surrounded by at least 16 countries, some with common borders and territorial disputes with her. Japanese PM’s proposal in 2005 to form a Quad alliance (US, Australia, India and Japan) is seen by China as the introduction of Cold War in the Asia Pacific. Former Australian Ambassador to China, Geoff Raby provides a deep insight why Australia should not be a part of it. The analysis of individual countries surrounding China revealed that the BRI initiatives are making an impact on the recipient countries and they are more likely to be neutral or distance themselves from the Quad. India and Japan are likely to changes sides when it suits their national interests and that leaves Australia holding the unwanted baby.
There are more than 16 countries surrounding China and they include ROK, DPRK, Japan (east), Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia & Australia (south) and India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan (west).
It would appear that the Battle of the South Pacific has rekindled the Quad forum.
https://publish.pearlsandirritations.com/anthony-pun-the-battle-for-the-south-pacific/
The Quad, first proposed by Japanese PM Abe in 2005 with India, Australia, Japan and US as members is seen by Beijing as containment. Geoff Raby also made the comment that Beijing was perplexed why Australia would want to be part of the Quad when “its been a leader in promoting deeper regional integration through APEC, the ASEAN Regional Forum and various ASEAN-plus mechanisms. More recently, Australia had also initiated the Bali Process on People Smuggling.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/30417a4e35597a6333566d54/share_p.html
China BRI initiatives are making headways in the western flank and India is being given the red carpet treatment and priorities in several summits in the last 6 months with additional inducers such as helping to cool the India-Pakistan conflict. As for the Himalaya border conflicts, China is astute enough to keep the status quo and put the issue on the back burner when discussing bi-lateral relations with India. Deep down, India is still a non-aligned country and her relations with China dates back at least 2,000 years. China cannot afford to lose India.
China does not interfere with the domestic politics of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar and accepting China BRI initiatives for their infrastructure developments are more palatable than Western investors who asked too many curly questions.
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/tag/bri/
http://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/news/174349/Bangladesh-a-possible-major-beneficiary-of-BRI
Sri Lanka also welcomes BRI initiatives.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-07/28/c_137354233.htm
On the eastern flank, the main arch rival is Japan. Although PM Abe and the military appear hawkish and pro-American, the people of Japan are peace loving and would not like to see another war. The lack of natural resources is the main reason Japan went to war. The Japanese have not forgotten who “nuked” them. If China can give what Japan wants, Japan will become non-aligned. A warm China-Japan relations is a fundamental to peace in East Asia.
The BRI initiatives will ultimately reach the shores of the Philippines, Indonesia, ROK (South Korean) and DPRK (North Korea) and any territorial disputes with these countries including Japan & Vietnam, can be settled among the party nations without outside interference. Sharing of resources in the disputed islands is a better way to resolve conflicts.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/one-belt-one-road-one-korea/
According to a Philippines government report, “the Philippines-China relations have gone through dramatic changes in recent months. Following the Duterte Administration’s pronouncements signalling a change in the approach towards China, with USD 24 billion worth of Chinese funding and investment pledged”.
The proposal to cut a canal in Southern Thailand will bring shipping to the Indian Ocean without having to travel through the straits of Malacca and boost the Thai economy.
In Indochina, the Laos and Cambodia can be considered as China’s friend.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d414f78517a4d78457a6333566d54/share_p.html (Laos)
https://globalriskinsights.com/2018/01/money-talks-chinas-belt-road-initiative-cambodia/
It would appear that Vietnam could be playing both sides, but in the end, the wiser decision would be to have a closer relations with a powerful country who shares a common border with your country.The China border skirmish and territorial disputes can be settled and it is in China’s interest to keep Vietnam happy. Despite the difficulties, China and Vietnam will make it together.
In Malaysia, the new PM plans to visit China to review China’s investment in the infrastructure deal. The interview of PM Mahathir by CNN cable TV indicated that the PM is not buying into any containment politics by the US and commented that any issues should be resolved by Asians themselves.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/25/asia/malaysia-mahathir-mohamad-interview-intl/index.html
Our northern neighbour is also involved with the BRI. An uptick in lending for BRI infrastructure projects in Indonesia has led China to overtake Japan as the country’s second-largest foreign investor in 2017.
https://reconnectingasia.csis.org/analysis/entries/china-becomes-indonesias-no-2-investor-bri/
China has additional advantage over Australia in influencing these countries such as ROK, DPRK, Japan, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, They have common cultural and religious heritage.
The above analysis of countries surrounding China, predicts that in the long term, most if not all countries would eventually be aligned with China, not as military allies but as economic allies for co-prosperity and peaceful coexistence.
If Australia intends to proceed with a Cold War front in Quad, Australia would end up as the lone Deputy Sheriff with India and Japan drifting off in the sunset. The other worry is whether the US Sheriff would also change sides. Egg on Face!
There is still time to steer Australia into safe waters and play a major influential role in Asia Pacific affairs and enjoy the co-prosperity and peace in the Asia Pacific as suggested by many distinguished authors in Pearls and Irritations. Inclusion of China is better than Isolation, lest we be isolated in our region.
Postscript: Australia, Japan and the US have proposed to start a new “BRI” initiative to compete with China.IT now looks like the Quad is reduced to the “Pacific Trio”. However, competition is fair game but containment is a risky business.
Dr Anthony Pun OAM, is the current National President of the Chinese Community Council of Australia Inc.
Dr Anthony Pun OAM, is the National President of the Chinese Community Council of Australia (CCCA);
Comments
3 responses to “ANTHONY PUN. The Battle for Indo-Pacific.”
What is disheartening about this and other well-reasoned articles on this site is that they do not seem to be resonate in Canberra. I find no echos from either Turnbull’s government or from Shorten’s opposition. They seem to be simply not listening.
Instead we join the US and Japan in a paltry fund ( a few million vs many billion) to counter OBOR and “contain” China. And yet OBOR if implemented will change the world. Our opposition will not.
We join in the demonisation of Iran, a move that is of benefit to no one except possibly Israel, although the proof of that is in a pudding still cooking. Possibly we think we are helping the US gain a land base in Halford Mackinder’s southern rim countries, but the chance to do that might be already gone.
We continue to play the anti-Russia card by parroting alarm over the discredited Skirpal affair, the cloudy MH17 shootdown and the legitimate desire of Crimea to rejoin Russia after the Maidan coup. By doing so we look increasingly foolish.
And we refuse to engage with Southeast Asia as friends and neighbours even though we live here.
In short, we need a change of focus and a change of attitude.
What is truly disheartening when reading this and other well-reasoned articles on this site is that none of it seems to be getting thru to Canberra. I detect no awareness in Turnbull’s government, and none in Shorten’s opposition either.
Instead of joining China’s OBOR , we join a mismatched (millions to counter billions) proposal to counter OBOR.
Instead of constructively engaging with Russia, we continue to push the discredited Skirpal affair, the cloudy MH17 shootdown and the legitimate desire of Crimea to rejoin Russia after the Maidan coup.
We parrot the demonisation of Iran, a move that benefits no one except Israel, altho the proof of that is in a pudding still cooking.
And instead of engaging with Southeast Asia in building up our part of the world, we join the US in a forlorn attempt to “contain” China. And yet we live here. If we wish to continue to live here, and live well, a change in attitude is needed.
What’s disheartening, when not frightening, is that despite reasoned comments found on this site and on others discussing Australia’s current and projected role in an emerging realignment of the world order, the message does not seem to be getting thru to Canberra. I detect no awareness in the Turnbull government, and none in Shorten’s opposition either.
Instead we join with some fanfare a proposal to counter China’s OBOR worth billions with a counter offer of a few million from the US, Japan and Australia. If implemented, OBOR will change the world. Our counter offer will not.
Meanwhile, we continue to push the discredited Skirpal affair, the cloudy MH17 shootdown, and the clearly legitimate desire of Crimea to rejoin Russia in the aftermath of the Maidan coup. None of these stances make sense, but they do serve to alienate Russia.
Making even less sense is our refusal to engage with China and Southeast Asia as neighbours and friends. We live here. If we desire to live well here, a change in attitude is called for.