Berlin (EAST SEA) Friday, December 14th, 2018 / 04:23 AM

The Situation along the East Asian Sector of the Eurasian Arc of Instability and Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea

          Global Geopolitical Trends and External Factors that Impact the ASEAN

To be able to comprehend the influence of global trends on the situation in East Asia in greater detail, it is appropriate to recall the “Three Grand Imperatives of Imperial Geostrategy” formulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski, which he believes are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together”. This is the exact logic followed by the US in its foreign policies, however, even under the most favorable conditions after the end of the Cold War, the US failed to ensure either financial stability or security in the world. The ultimate result was that themajor global trends are currently as follows: a change in the balance of forces, the political crisis and a split within the US elites, gradual weakening of the American posi-tions, crisis of legal mechanisms on the international are-na, the growth of regional conflicts. This provides a clue to the understanding of what has been happening at the regional level in East Asia.

         

          Modern Regional Geopolitics and Inner Conditions within the ASEAN

The situation in the security field in East Asia has revealed a conspicuous tendency towards deterioration, because of the aggravation of geopolitical controversy. The East Asian segment of the Eurasian Arc of Instability, which embraces North East and South East Asia, features a process of a gradual reopening of the old territorial disputes and the stirring of new ones, hence, the situation has been developing in the direction of uncontrollable regional destabilization. The reason for that is “to keep the barbarians from coming together”. With this end in view, migration flows and terrorist acts are planned, new hotbeds of tension are created. All this is vividly illustrated by the broad transcontinental front stretching from North Africa to East Africa, and also by a lower, regional level front stretching from East Asia and North Korea to the South China Sea, and also from Myanmar to the Phil-ippines. The essence of such policy is to build up a clandestine system of managing conflicts among other nations.

The Northern wing of the East Asian segment of the Eurasian Arc of Instability lies from the North to the South across contended territories from the Kuril Islands through partitioned Korea and partitioned China to Vietnam, where, as a result of the Indochina wars, it was possible to reunite continental Vietnam and to alter the configuration of the central element of this segment, by shifting it southwards. During the Cold War, the conflicting parties made a lot of investment into the installation of a deeply echeloned defense, which is impossible to break by the Armed Forces formations without suffering severe losses nowadays. The conflicting parties are actively engaged in the modernization and upgrading of the Armed Forces, therefore, the region, overall, has been a platform for the unprecedented arms race. China’s growth, that has been in evidence over the recent dec-ades, has altered the balance of power in favor of Beijing, but this has brought about a vehement opposition in Washington. The fact that China, as a rising power, has blatantly disregarded the interests of small and medium-sized regional nations, has prompted those nations to seek patronage from the US, which tried to build up an anti-Chinese coalition back in the 2010s. The component exposed to the highest degree of security vulnerability is the maritime zone of the South China Sea (SCS), whose uncertain legal status is prone to trigger more fierce terri-torial controversy among the five contenders. In the 20th century, the PRC made several attempts to bolster its influence in the SCS: in 1956 (by capturing the Eastern sector of the Paracel Islands), in 1974 (by capturing the Western sector of the Paracel Islands), in 1988 (by intruding in the Spratly Islands). Currently, the PRC is engaged in the expansion of its zone of control and in the building of artificial islands in the area of Spratly Islands, where elements of military infrastructure have been deployed.

At present, we can witness the growth of tensions at various wings of the East Asian segment: the Russian Armed Forces growing presence in the Kuril Islands, the unstable situation in the Korean peninsula, the arms race on both sides of Taiwan Strait, likewise around the South China Sea, reaching the level of military confrontation of the government forces against religious radicals in My-anmar and in the Philippines. On the Western and Eastern flanks of the East Asian segment, the process of active formation of new conflict zones is well underway, it is closely related to the uncontrollable migration flows from Bangladesh towards Myanmar and Thailand. Those flows moving across the territories from Bangladesh to the Philippines have fueled the growth of influence of radical terrorist groups which are funded from the Persian Gulf. Owing to the technologies of hybrid and information wars, as well as provocations and the now-traditional employment of fake news by the Western me-dia, small local conflicts can have wide-ranging repercussions on a global scale. At the same time, from the point of view of geopolitical analysis, the anti-Chinese nature of such crises and the active involvement of external forces are visible in all attempts to instigate them.

The ASEAN member states have demonstrated their total inability to cope with the external interference in the field of resolving sectarian conflicts. A while ago, East Timor was separated from Indonesia under the pressure from the West. Similarly, the current crisis underway in Myanmar shows that the number of those who want to participate in the “butchering” of yet another regional victim exceeds the number of those who really want to help.

Today, this “conflict of civilizations” that was fueled from outside, has split the ASEAN on the basis on faith, which, of course, significantly reduces the potential to resist the external pressure put to bear by Beijing and Washington, and also to develop a coherent stance within South East Asia. Under an increasing geopolitical pres-sure from the radical extremist groups, a new Islamic Arc is being currently formed in the Southern part of the South China Sea, it runs from the South of Myanmar through Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia to the Southern areas of the Philippines. In the aftermath of the major ISIS bases being defeated in Syria and Iraq (this terrorist organization is banned in Russia), the religious radical elements from South East Asia are actively involved in discussing plans for the establishment of the ISIS capital in the Pattani province (Thailand), the state of Sarawak (Malaysia) or the Mindanao island (the Philippines). Under such circumstances, predominantly Buddhist countries of continental South East Asia have begun the discussion about building up an alternative project of a Buddhist Confederation (Suwarnabhumi), “the Golden Land”, by way of retaliation. All this allows us to assume that the West has been preparing to cut off the PRC from the Indian Ocean by destabilizing South East Asia through stoking controversy among the Buddhists and Muslims, which poses a mortal danger to the ASEAN.

All these global (external) and regional (internal) factors have been instrumental in creating a certain geo-political climate around the South China Sea. Overall, it is not favorable for the existing regional players. Both small and medium-sized nations of the region could potentially raise their status through negotiating a deal with the PRC, if only they could build up a united front and act in unison, but they have elected to yield preference in the foreign and domestic policies to meet their egoistic goals rather than pursue their common cause. The rela-tions among South East Asian states can be described in the context of gaming theory, within the framework of the so-termed Prisoner’s Dilemma. By following the ego-istic strategy of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, i.e. while seeking to protect their interests at the expense of neighboring counties, South East Asian states de facto acknowledge their impotence through transferring the powers to settle the territorial disputes and such other regional conflicts to the supra-national level and thus creating a situation for the external actors, whereby the latter receive a carte blanche to handle the regional problems to suit their own interests.

The growing instability in South East Asia can lead only to the weakening of the position held by small and medium-sized regional players. Therefore, the likelihood of joining forces with a view to defending their positions will keep reducing for the South East Asian nations, who have apparently preferred to act within the framework of the Prisoner’s Dilemma paradigm, unless something extraordinary happens. It should be remembered that it is not in all capitals that power is in the hands of sovereign governments, who are concerned with the protection of national interests. Given the present external and internal environment, there are three options for the development of the situation:

1)The regional states can reach an agreementamong themselves and will undertake actions, proceeding from their common interests, which will raise their chances in the struggle against extra-regional nations.

2)The regional states will be guided only bytheir egoistic goals, which will lead to the weakening of their power and a huge cumulative damage.

3)The regional states, by pursuing their egoistic goals, will support those, who share the same reli-gious beliefs with them, which will lead to the fragmentation of the region based on the confessional principle: Muslim states vs Buddhist states and one Catholic state, which will lead to even greater cumulative damage.

Under the present external and internal conditions, the likelihood that 10 regional states will be able to come to an agreement and will undertake steps proceeding from their common interests is close to zero. Consequently, the remaining factor is the cynical egoism and the fragmentation of the region on the basis of political and religious principles, which will entail far-reaching negative ramifications.

Suffice to mention that the above options will offer no benefit for the PRC either. Beijing has demonstrated its egoistic behavior in full compliance with the rules of the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”. From our point of view, the PRC will be much better off, if it manages to reach an agreement with the regional states on the mutually-advantageous partitioning of the South China Sea maritime areas so that none of the territorial claimants feel to be deceived, and thus to set itself free from the trap, however, the desire to gain sole control over the South China Sea to the detriment of small and medium-sized nations has driven the entire region in the direction of a conflict, which seems to play into the hands of external forces.

Currently, the situation in the South China Sea reminds me of a wellknown funny story about neighbors who cannot agree about who is the cow’s owner. Each wants to get the cow in full and rejects the claims of the competitors altogether. They all try to pull the poor animal apart, dragging it by the horns and the tail, and they yell at each other very loudly drawing the attention of others to their problem. As a result, while the competitors are busy fighting each other, exchanging abuses, an invited foreign lawyer sits quietly in the middle milking the cow and leaving all its milk to himself, of course.

When the situation is getting more intense, the excitement and egoism of the players tend to increase. Theyconcentrate on the local developments and do not see what is going on around them. Thus, the likelihood that the South East Asia nations, under conditions of feasible aggravation of the situation around the South China Sea, being overwhelmed by their egoistic motivation, will start to carry out intrigues against each other and end up falling regional victims to the global controversy, is very high. This was the way they behaved during the time of colonization, when most of the states lost their sovereignty.

An effective remedy for the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” is formulated in several phrases coined by Ho Chi Minh in an utterly laconic fashion: “Consolidation, consolidation, great consolidation. Success, success, great success”. However, the entire region has yet to learn to attain such a level of politics. The rules of the game in the present situation are as follows: all of them will either win or all of them will lose. The main problem is that each Asian state is tempted to act in accordance with the well-known slogan of ancient Chinese warlord Tsao Tsao (Cao Cao): “I’d rather betray others than have others betray me”, but this policy inevitably incurs a huge cumulative damage, as it has repeatedly occurred in the history of the region.

Under the circumstances, when the PRC vies for the establishment of its monopolistic control practically over the entire maritime area of the South China Sea, a number of nations have advocated for the US to play a more powerful role, hoping to gain the US support to protect them against Beijing’s ambitions. However, an unbiased review of factual evidence and developments has revealed that Washington does not seek to offer support to the South China Sea nations, but to destabilize the region and bring the export of instability as close to the PRC as possible. It is the most reliable way of containing its geo-political competitor, which has been tested on a multiple basis in a theater of Cold War military operations. The primary task facing the West is neither the protection of the ASEAN, nor of the international law, but the containment of China accomplished by someone else, in full conformity with the stratagem “to kill the competitor with someone else’s knife” (借刀殺人). The regional states will be doomed to play the part of a “knife in someone else’s hands”, if they fail to pluck up enough wisdom and strength to get united and to protect their common interests. The future of the entire region will depend on whether the PRC and the ASEAN member states, under the present conditions, can display wisdom and implement in practice the most optimal scenario acceptable to all of them, or they will fall victim to a whole array of the most complicated regional and global con-troversy which will gratify the interests of external powers./.

Professor, Doctor Vladimir Kolotov

Aufrufe: 121

Related Posts