JAPAN, EU AND ASIA: SYNERGIZING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

A century and a half ago, with the Meiji Restoration in 1868, Japan commenced its ascent as a global power. The race towards industrialization was gripping the West, and not wanting to be left out Japan adopted the slogan ‘Fukoku Kyohei’ meaning ‘Enrich the Country, Strengthen the Armed Forces,’ and  joined the rapacious pursuit of grabbing power through the establishment of a colonial empire. The empire grew rapidly, military success followed, and so did defeat, resulting in occupation, dissolution of the empire and the promulgation of a new constitution in 1947.
 

Seven decades later Japan is not merely a rising star of the East, but has achieved that which was envisioned in 1868 - a state which is industrially advanced, economically sound and politically crucial. Whilst the nuclear attacks caused untold devastation, what was more destructive was the loss of prestige and position the country had hitherto enjoyed. Yet those who attacked, also sought to re-build, and ensured the newly emerging state would be able to regain that which it lost and more importantly, a former enemy became a close ally. The formula that worked in Japan is one that America has attempted to replicate elsewhere. From intervention in numerous states in Asia and the Arab world, the United States has sought to attack and rebuild, change regimes and introduce new players, critically crush and then financially support, but that which worked in Japan, does not appear keen on reaching fruition in other conflicts.

Through its control of the Asian Development Bank, Japan has been able to win over former enemies through financial assistance. A country once detested in most of Asia for its colonial past, is today admired, respected and relied upon across the world. Thus the trade deal with the European Union is being touted as a ‘slap in the face’ of Donald Trump whose preferences for protectionism over free trade has seen America turning its back on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and opting instead to protect all things American.

Yet the deal, hailed as a landmark, could be viewed from three angles for its advantageous nature and opportunity - for the Japanese, the Europeans and Asians.   

Facing stiff competition in the region and globally, Japan and China have found it difficult to put the past behind them. While the Mukden Incident in 1931 led to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the defeat of the Chinese and the creation of the puppet state of Manchukuo eroded normalcy and led to continued strife. The animosity continues to date. With China going global with its One Belt One Road initiative as it uses its historic trading paths and partners, Japan doesn’t want to be left out.  

Visiting Washington in February 2017, Shinzo Abe explored the possibility of a trade deal with Trump. As the new American President had opted to turn his back on the TPP, Japan was hopeful of using the hard bargaining that had been done in the past over the TPP but Trump wasn’t interested in what had been done and instead chose to nitpick over trade barriers that existed. A deal with America is still far off.

While the Americans dragged their feet with the Japanese, the Europeans didn’t. Embittered by the Brexit issue, the EU now in its sixtieth year, is looking for success stories and where better to find one that with a star of the East. Whilst the last year has been disastrous for moving integration further down the road, as the EU reeled from the British vote, the Europeans waited for the invocation of Article 50. In true British fashion, Theresa May delayed invoking it, and soon thereafter called for a snap general election in one of her worst gambles, which she must certainly regret today.

The European model has evolved over time. From the Coal and Steel Pact to what it is today, the EU is unsurpassed in regional integration. The opportunity of collaborating with countries like China and Japan enhance the potential of the grouping and the countries within it. The OBOR and China have already been embraced in much of the EU. Xi Jinping is welcome across the region and countries have been at pains to improve cooperation mechanisms with China, having realized the scope such relationships portend for their own future.

With the breakdown of the TPP, the EU saw opportunity in speeding up trade talks with Japan, which had commenced in 2013. EU exports to Japan are expected to increase by 34%, while Japan’s exports are forecast to rise 29%. Coming soon after the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada in May, the EU has added another feather to its cap, in expanding free trade. Aspiring towards a similar arrangement with the world’s fastest growing economy, the Europeans are focused on India, where a market of 1.2 billion is as lucrative as they could ever hope for.     

Irrespective of whether the trading arrangement is with China, Japan or India, the region that would benefit is Asia. In the spirit of realizing the Asian Century the contributions being made by China, Japan and India are massive. The numerous countries of Asia, irrespective of inherent differences, bear an ‘Asian’ identity, are geographically joined and politically maintain strong linkages with some or all of these three. The spillover effects of such trading arrangements such as the Japan - EU Economic Partnership Agreement provide hitherto untapped prospects, especially for smaller states in Asia, and those which are closest to the big three.  

Apparent as it is, that each of these states possess immense potential through their cooperation with the world, potential and possibility would be insurmountable if they choose to work together, and use that synergy in their global interactions. History remains relevant, yet past misgivings only cloud a bright future.

-         

 -          -    Awarelogue Editorial

GUEST COMMENTARY: HEGEMONIC STABILITY THEORY AND THE RISE OF CHINA

Two of the most polemic topics in international Politics in the 21^st century pertain to the pace and depth of globalization and the rise of China.In this essay I aim to briefly examine the rise of China and the possibilities this may augur to the world as America’s influence begins to recede.

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) - a theory which was principally applied in the study of International Political Economy- developed through the writings of Kindleberger, Keohane, Gilpin, Modelski, Snidal and Lake. “Cooperation and a well-functioning world economy” according to Grunberg is “dependent on a certain kind of political structure, a structure characterized by the dominance of a single actor. Dominance by a hegemonic power constitutes the optimal situation for ensuring and maintaining an open and stable world economy.”

Postulating the HST, Wohlworth says that “powerful states tend to seek dominance over all parts of any international system…fostering some degree of hierarchy within the overall systemic anarchy.…the theory's core prediction (therefore) is that any international order is stable only to the degree that the relations of authority within it are sustained by the underlying distribution of power.” Snidal goes on to argue that the fundamental propositions of HST require the following conditions: 1) that the hegemony’s domination should benefit all (especially the weaker members of the international system) as well as that 2) the presence of a dominant state should lead to greater stability in the international system.

Advocates of HST support the notion of “American predominance in world affairs and declare  American predominance in world affairs and declare American hegemony an indispensable element for a better, peaceful and prosperous world.” Under the present conditions of globalization, American hegemony has played a principal role in norm creation, as well as in maintaining the contemporaneous global security architecture. Whilst a considerable body of literature has deconstructed the notion that the terminology of ‘Hegemon’ applies solely to America any longer, I maintain that the US-made institutional structures, norms and regimes are part of its hegemonic influence. However with the rise of China such structures are increasingly under threat of dissolution, relative insignificance or even impotence. 

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), New Development Bank and the related Contingent Reserve Arrangement were spearheaded by the Chinese leadership under President Xi. These institutions validate Chinese attempts to alter the global financial architecture constructed by the Bretton Woods institutions. Over the past 15 years, China has experienced an eightfold increase in GDP, enabling it to serve as the primary  engine  of  global  economic  growth  in  the  early  21st  century. This economic power has enabled China to leverage its position as one of the most influential states in the world.  The recently concluded One Belt One Road (OBOR) forum in Beijing with the participation of heads of state from Europe to Africa encapsulates China’s rise in influence and soft power. 

At the forum President “ Xi announced an additional $124 billion in funding for the OBOR initiative, including loans, grants, and $8.7 billion in assistance to developing countries. According to Chinese state media, some $1 trillion has already been invested in OBOR, with anoter several trillion due to be invested over the decade.” Such actions juxtaposed against America’s shift away from the TPP and the ‘Pivot/Rebalance to Asia’ policy towards a form of nativist ‘economic nationalism’ serves to heighten fears of the decline of American influence in the global economic architecture.

China’s military   budget  grew  at  an  average  of 9.8 percent per year in inflation - adjusted terms from 2006 through 2015 and the People’s Liberation Army has recently been involved in counter piracy patrols, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief exercises, and sea lane security operations in the pacific and Indian ocean. China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea and East China Sea and its alleged threat of war to Philippines over oil drilling in disputed territories, emphasizes the rise of a rival hegemon to USA. American actions to stop China’s island building in the east china and South China Sea have proved futile. Moreover inconsistencies in US foreign policy have resulted in increased anxiety among the traditional allies of USA. Thus the American made global security architecture is also under increasing pressure - especially as China begins to assert its claims utilizing the 9 Dash Line ignoring the arbitration tribunal judgment. 

Contrast China’s rise to the USA and the West. Mounting budget deficits, slow growth in GDP, Western Investment ratios that pale in comparison to China’s recent investment projects in Asia, Latin America and Africa, the financial weaknesses and structural problems in the EU, decline in American competitiveness, and President Trump’s rhetoric which has led to the loss of US soft power have all challenged the American hegemonic position of late. The inability of the International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to adequately support developing economies in avoiding economic malaise - post 2009; along with the rise of the economic superstructure - OBOR - demonstrates a shift in the global power dynamic. In the Theory of Hegemonic Stability: Changes in the International Economic Regimes Keohane argues that the decline of a hegemonic structure of power can be expected to presage a decline in the strength of corresponding international economic regimes. With the rise of China and the increased protectionist sentiment of an ‘America First Foreign Policy’ this is clearly discernable. However this also translates to the decline in import of the American made security architecture that characterized earlier decades. While this decline is not overtly perceptible today, cracks have already emerged. The question therefore continues to be whether China wishes to work within or outside the Western made global order.

Scholars such as Graham Allison claim that conflict between the nascent hegemon and USA will be inevitable – a form of Thucydides Trap between the two. Professor Joseph Nye Jr particularizes the possibility of a Kindleberger Trap emerging in the global order, if China does not take up the mantle of providing global public goods following the weakening and eventual demise of USA. Others believe that China will rise ‘peacefully’ as the new global hegemon provided that USA is willing to accommodate the intensifying national interests of China. At this stage it is still uncertain how China’s rise will pan out on a geospatial context. Consequently the coming decades bring substantial uncertainty to the world. 

Will the American hegemony crumble similar to the British in the 20^th Century or will an infusion of a robust US foreign policy mitigate this decline? Recently President Xi reiterated his support towards the process of a globalized community in Davos but the implications and fallout from the recent rise of populism, first in Latin America (with the Pink Tide movement) and then more overtly in Western Europe signals the pressures that exist on globalization. Regardless of our conjectures for these questions we can no longer doubt that the US hegemony is increasingly under threat and will continue to be in the years to come. Where China stands on the norms, institutions and regimes and to what degree the Asian Dragon alters these structures (and thereby the international order) will have significant ramifications on the forces of globalization and the global security architecture. What has transpired thus far leads to a mixed bag of apprehension and uncertainty that can only be answered in the years to come.

-        - Guest Commentary : Shakthi De Silva

Hong Kong and the Chinese ‘Empire’

The marking of anniversaries in global politics is usually confined to the creation of new states through the cessation of provinces or regions, by generally violent means as has been experienced at varying times in history. The unification of Germany is a critical exception that stands out. Yet 2017 marks a unique anniversary of the unification of a country that is fast emerging as the greatest powerhouse the world has ever known.

When Chris Patten sailed out of Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbour on board HMS Britannia in June 1997, it was not merely a handover of governance from the United Kingdom to China, but more importantly the curtain falling on one empire and gradually rising on another. The presence of the British in southern China since the founding of the Hong Kong Crown Colony on 26 January 1841 had been a long and arduous task, as was the experience between all colonizers and their respective colonies.

Occupied in the midst of the First Opium War which lasted from 1839 to 1842, Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in the Treaty of Nanking, the signing of which saw the ending of the War as the Chinese were defeated. Yet it was the 1898 Second Convention of Peking that saw the establishment of a 99 year rent-free period, giving the British what seemed to be an indefinite stay in the territory. With the opening of discussions between the British and Chinese in 1982 when Deng Xiaoping stressed the need for the handover to Margaret Thatcher, the result was the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, and the stage was set for the dismantling of control over yet another jewel in the crown. 

Today the statue of Deng Xiaoping positioned as it is in Shenzhen ‘walking’ towards Hong Kong is more than symbolic. His tedious efforts of reclaiming Hong Kong from the British were seen through his steadfast position that Hong Kong would return to China, highlighted through his assertion that pursuant to a lapse of a year or two, China would announce her intention to recover the territory. Unlike in the Falklands, Thatcher didn’t have the opportunity to assert British sovereignty over Hong Kong and had to abide by the 1898 Convention.

The twentieth anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong is an opportune moment to reflect upon the vast changes taking places in China as a whole and the position the country has come to occupy on the global stage. Large countries, such as China, which Martin Jacques claims is ‘not just a nation-state, it is also a civilization-state’ given the gigantic nature of size, the magnitude of population and the propensity to effect change, have much at their disposal. He goes on to say that the term China encompasses ‘its history, the dynasties, Confucius, the ways of thinking, the role of government, relationships and customs, the Guanxi or network of personal connections, the family, the filial piety, ancestral worship, the values and distinctive philosophy, all of which long predate China’s history as a nation-state.’

Yet diplomacy is a key tool, and it is complimented with a variety of other embellishments. Such continent-like countries strategize on equivalent terms but they too realize that in the global community the need exists to cooperate with all. The China of today is well equipped and is using all its diplomatic capabilities to its advantage.

The current Chinese global policy direction through the amalgamated One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative and the AIIB brings several countries closer to China through trade, investment and economic cooperation. Lest we forget China is the largest holder of US treasury bonds. During the global financial crisis, China did not trim its bond holdings, but actually increased them, a move which ensured stability in the United States, mobile financial markets, eased its credit crunch and promoted trade financing, thus being beneficial to the country’s goal in macroeconomic regulations.

President Xi has been at pains to stress that ‘the pursuit of the Belt and Road Initiative is not meant to reinvent the wheel. Rather, it aims to complement the development strategies of countries involved by leveraging their comparative strengths.’ President of the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) Ambassador Su Ge recently noted that China is ‘looking for a more inclusive world order with more respect for diversity, not a new world order.’ It is here that a clear thought-process becomes relevant. The comprehension of contemporary China calls for primarily understanding the contemporary world.

Chou Enlai succeeded in dispelling qualms and apprehensions that existed sixty years ago and thrust China into the global arena. Xi Jinping has marked the milestone with far reaching vision and cemented the position of China as a key leader, in world affairs. His initiatives in resurrecting the ancient Silk Road and thereby creating an ‘economic belt’ has widely enhanced the influence of China not only across the Asian region but beyond into Africa, the Middle East and Europe as investments are targeted in the areas of road, rail, port and pipelines across scores of countries.

Furthering interest and engagement in the region, China’s assumption of the chairmanship of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA), saw a reiteration of the Chinese policy of integrating to a greater degree. President Xi stressed that ‘with our interests and security so closely intertwined, we will swim or sink together and we are increasingly becoming a community of common destiny.’ The close affinity being nurtured through investment and commerce has benefited countries throughout the region and is expected to bear more fruit as the growth of the relationship expands.

While the British saw the sun set on their empire when they left Hong Kong, the Chinese sun is on the ascent and so is their ‘empire.’ With a growing global presence, which is physical, economical, financial and political, the building of an empire, is evident.

-          Awarelogue Editorial

THE FUTILITY OF ISOLATING QATAR, THE WORLD’S RICHEST NATION

Qataris awoke on Monday, 05^th June 2017 to a rapid movement of events in which certain Arab states severed diplomatic ties with them and issued consecutive decrees. Seen as a spilling over of simmering discontent with an Arab ally, the action taken by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which was followed by others including the Maldives, which has become a key backer of Saudi Arabia, has been aimed at isolating Qatar over allegations of linkages to terrorism. Yet Qatar as a state is not alien to intervention. Ever since the intrusion of Britain in the Bahraini-Qatari War in 1867 and the installation of the Al-Thani family as the rulers of Qatar, the relatively small state has experienced outside intervention and attempts to coerce the country into bidding dictates from elsewhere. 

From its annexation to the Ottoman Empire in 1871, to it becoming a British protectorate in the midst of the First World War in 1916 as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Qatar has also seen internal royal squabbles. Whilst Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani staged a palace coup in which he seized power from his cousin a year after Qatar received its independence from Britain in 1971, he took part in the first Gulf War in support of America and the attempt to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion of the time. Seen as pro-Saudi, Sheikh Kahlifa was to lose power to his son, Crown Prince Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani in 1995.

That year was critical for Qatar’s relations with Saudi Arabia. Making its first shipment of liquid natural gas from the offshore North Field, which is shared with Iran, saw the transformation of Qatar. Although animosity with Iran saw the Saudis take umbrage at Qatar’s action, the country prospered, becoming the richest nation in the world according to per capita income. Since oil was discovered in 1939, the country which had relied on pearls and fishing, now suddenly faced immense wealth, which it was prudent to use effectively. 

After Crown Prince Hamad bin Khalifa become ruler he sought to establish low-level ties with Israel, which were abandoned subsequently, and launched the Al-Jazeera satellite news network which even aired footage of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden sparking American criticism, whilst its Arab Spring coverage earned the wrath of Arab leaders. In 2012 he was the first Arab leader to support military intervention in Syria, sparking further outrage among Arab neighbours. Two years later Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain recalled their ambassadors from Doha following a political rift over Qatar’s tacit support for the Muslim Brotherhood, but returned the envoys eight months later following Kuwaiti mediation pursuant to which Qatar forced members of the Brotherhood out of the country.

The current action seen as a ‘counter revolution’ for Qatar’s role in the recent past, might be justified by some quarters of the Arab world as necessary to tame or chastise an Arab neighbour, but what seems to allude such perceptions is the potential, power and pragmatism with which Qatar has functioned thus far. From a backward port city to its emergence on the global stage as the richest nation, Qatar has earned many allies in the right places. Capable of mingling with the rich and powerful, through heavy investments, Qatar has developed strong bonds of friendship with less forceful nations through the provision of employment for their nationals and further investment. The network built up over the last several decades is today its strongest asset, and perhaps an area some in the Arab world failed to assess.

Whilst providing America with a military base in Al-Udeid at a cost of US$ 1 billion, Qatar invested significantly in real estate in Washington and New York. Qatar injected US $ 2.7 billion into Russia’s state-run Rosneft Oil company. France is the second largest recipient of Qatari investments, which amounted to more than US$ 22 billion in 2016, and Germany has seen Qatar generously support Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen. In Britain, Qatar recently pledged £5 billion in investments over the next three to five years. China has looked to Qatar as a partner in the OBOR project, receives 20% of their LNG from Qatar and are building the 2022 FIFA World Cup stadium. Turkey has signed a military agreement with Qatar, while Canada was to be the next stop for Qatari finances as the head of the Qatar Investment Agency met with Prime Minister Trudeau just last month.

Allies exist across the divide. Despite having a population of just 313, 000 people, Qatar is home to nearly 2.3 million, the majority of which are from India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Philippines, Egypt, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia and the list tapers on.  The provision of a livelihood, in addition to investments in these countries has seen the earning of allies, who assist at times of need. Indian External Affairs Minister pointed out that the crisis precipitating in the Arab world was an internal matter of the Gulf countries. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, among others have refrained from taking sides given the need to cooperate with both Saudi Arabia and Qatar, although the Philippines immediately halted the deployment of its citizens in Qatar.

Qatar exerts immense power, which it refuses to wield in a vulgar manner, choosing instead to tread a path of cooperation with countries across the world. With a sovereign wealth fund worth an estimated US$335 billion, Qataris have thought of the future.  Having planted ‘food farms’ through the acquisition of large swathes of villages overseas, the desert country, has today addressed food security concerns through projects in Sudan and Australia. This economic diversification and agricultural enhancement has pushed Qatar towards greater self-sufficiency.

Thus isolating Qatar would prove futile.

Given the global position, economic capability and financial scope of Qatar, the Foreign Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani drove the message home, noting that Qatar had ‘been isolated because we are successful and progressive.’ The accusations of terrorism and links to terror networks ring hollow in light of the reality. After all people in glass houses don’t usually throw stones, although they have on this occasion. 

- Awarelogue Editorial

TRUMP, TEMPERATURE AND TIME

The attacks in London, explosions in Kabul, terror attacks in Manila, incidents in Melbourne and diplomatic turmoil in the Arab world, all increased the threats of the times, as manmade tragedies abound and levels of fear remain high. Yet amid the obvious destruction being wrought, the globe continues to slide into further peril as temperatures rise and climate change is probably our silent enemy.

Forty five years ago, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment deemed it necessary and timely to integrate human interactions and the environment. The landmark decision in 1972 saw the commemoration of the first World Environment Day in 1974. Action over the decades has included commitments on the part of states, which haven’t always been realized owing to the nature of that which has been pledged. The reductions beings sought are from the industry, which states have to convince and entice into respecting. Irrespective of the nature of the arrangement, the undertaking has been considerable.

On the eve of the 2017 commemoration, the American President opted to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which had taken tremendous effort and courage to finalize, and which came into operation in November 2016. Seen as new course in the global climate effort, the Agreement saw states trying to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by maintaining a global temperature rise well below two degrees in the 21^st century.

Prerequisites set by the United States for ratifying such international treaties are many. Back in the nineties at the height of negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the US Congress passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution which made it compulsory for developing countries to first actively participate in the setting of global emission targets, if America was to be a signatory. The effort in 2015 was equally challenging, though then President Obama claimed it was due to ‘strong, principled American leadership’ that the accord was finalized. One and a half years later, that American President isn’t in office, neither is his French counterpart, Francois Hollande, or the Chairman of the Conference, former Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, nor even the then UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. The leadership has changed, yet the commitment is expected to remain resolute.

Trump’s decision to withdraw unless the Agreement is re-negotiated or a new one is evolved, indicates the supremacy with which he views the world, the lack of understanding of the environment and more importantly the inability to comprehend the destruction that America has wrought on the planet. Speaking in the Rose Garden, he stressed that ‘exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability.’ He also revealed that with the opening of new coal mines in ‘Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia (and) so many places’ American workers, whom he loves very much, given the consecutive expression of endearment, would benefit. The risk posed to humanity as a whole, appears irrelevant.

The creation of the United States Climate Alliance has seen the Governors of California, New York and Washington pledging their support to the Paris Agreement. Inviting other states to follow suit, the Alliance being established has the support of three key states that jointly contribute one-fifth of the American GDP and at least ten per cent of American greenhouse gas emissions. In calling for states and cities to join the effort, the move could be one towards the rise of such entities, reversing the international order, as city-states return to the forefront, as was seen with London in the Brexit vote.

Efforts have been made in the last several decades to curb environmental harm, degradation and destruction. From the 1962 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, to the Ramsar Convention of 1971, the MARPOL Convention and CITES in 1973, the Montreal Protocol of 1987, the Basel Convention of 1989, the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio as well as the Kyoto Protocol, have all aimed at preserving the planet, from diverse threats created by humanity.       

Climate change remains as real as it ever has been. Trump need not look too far to see climate change in action. When the 27^th American President, William Howard Taft created the Glacier National Park in 1910, it encompassed 150 glaciers, which have been reduced to a mere 30 a hundred years later, as the area has shrunk by two-thirds. As environmentalist Daniel Glick warns, ‘from the Arctic to Peru, from Switzerland to the equatorial glaciers of Man Jaya in Indonesia, massive ice fields, monstrous glaciers, and sea ice are disappearing, fast.’

Yet the world has been reminded of the importance of American coal workers, and the preservation of their jobs, casting aside concern that those very same workers’ future generations might not be around to carry on the work envisaged for them. Until and unless greater concern is demonstrated for the wellbeing of the other, nature will ensure that the threat of rising temperatures remains our foremost enemy. Unfortunately time for action, maybe fast running out.

• Awarelogue Editorial