All's not quiet on the eastern front
Josh HongPublished: Jan 21, 2011 8:25 PM | Updated: Jan 21, 2011 8:34 PM
As Chinese president Hu Jintao is touring the United States this week, an issue that is close to his heart is no doubt the heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
Ditching the interventionist approach in the 1960s through to the early 1970s - a period when China’s direct influence was clearly felt behind the communist insurgencies across South-East Asia - Deng Xiaoping announced on the eve of the reform era in 1978 that Beijing would in the decades to come “hide its capabilities and bide its time”. This has since come to be known in Chinese as tao guang yang hui .
The role played by others is critical.
As Chinese president Hu Jintao is touring the United States this week, an issue that is close to his heart is no doubt the heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
Ditching the interventionist approach in the 1960s through to the early 1970s - a period when China’s direct influence was clearly felt behind the communist insurgencies across South-East Asia - Deng Xiaoping (right) announced on the eve of the reform era in 1978 that Beijing would in the decades to come “hide its capabilities and bide its time”. This has since come to be known in Chinese as tao guang yang hui.
The logic was clear then - as it is now - that the most populous nation in the world needs to focus on socio-economic development before it can afford to play a pivotal role in global affairs. It would seem that the role of a ‘regional sheriff’ would only unnecessarily divert the utmost attention from bettering the lives of the Chinese.
Cui Tiankai, an Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, reiterated this stance prior to Hu’s US visit. Simon Shen, a prominent international relations scholar with a focus on China’s increasing participation in Africa, concurs, citing that deviation from a long-held position could be detrimental to Beijing’s interests in the long run.
But there are times when China is forced to do more than lip service. Politics in the Asia Pacific region, for one, has become more and more multi-polar since 2003, in tandem with the decline of American power following the catastrophic consequences of the Iraq War.
Involved in power realignment
Being the ultimate - albeit unintended - winner in the conflict, China is set to be involved in the power realignment in Asia. Even the Japanese media have begun to refer to a ‘non-polar’ age in tacit acknowledgement of the US losing its leverage over China.
The sinking of the South Korean warship Choenan in March last year marked the lowest point in the North-South relations in recent decades. Both Washington and Seoul were quick to apportion the blame on Pyongyang, while Beijing urged for restraint.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, the United Nations Security Council adopted a bizarre document that reflects the raw reality of power politics in the world arena: denouncing the attack without mentioning the culprit, which enables China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and the US to interpret the incident as they see fit.
In fact, in realising its dwindling bargaining power, the Obama administration has been calling for a return to the Six-Party Talks, arguing that it represents the best mechanism to contain the situation on the peninsula.
This is an area where Chinese interests and those of the US and Russia converge, but the irony is that the South Koreans are perhaps less willing to talk to their brethren in the north so long as Pyongyang remains nonchalant about the ramifications from the recent conflicts.
The Kim Jung-il regime has been maintaining its innocence in the sinking of the Cheonan, and made it clear a revisit of the case is necessary. Insofar as President Lee Myung-bak understands it, a reinvestigation could potentially undermine Pyongyang’s culpability. After all, the mysterious circumstances around the incident were too compelling for one to simply finger-point at one party.
Lee had initially hoped to ride on the anti-North sentiments and secure a better showing for his party in the local elections three months after the sinking incident. As things turned out, his colleagues suffered humiliating defeats as voters began to cast doubts on the official version. Now, he would be the most reluctant protagonist had a resumption of the Six-Party Talks was deemed essential by others.
Confidence-building structure
A series of negotiations and consultations by the parties involved have indeed produced fruitful outcomes in the past, so much so that many a scholar believes had a similar confidence-building structure been available in the Middle East with the presence of major powers such as China, Russia, Turkey and India, the calamities in Iraq could have been averted. (And the world would then have had to invent some ‘creative’ measure to handle villains like Saddam Hussein.)
If the situation is left unchecked, it is only likely to worsen the mistrust across the region, providing further pretext for states such as Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand the Philippines and Malaysia to raise their military expenditures in the years to come. Arms dealers and agents would, again, be laughing all the way to the bank.
But the Six Party platform is also one which the US and China both seek to exploit for their own purposes. The Council on Foreign Relations, for one, has argued vociferously that Washington must seize the opportunity to take the leadership and halt Beijing’s endeavour to set the tune.
Meanwhile, President Hu (left) will have a hard time defending himself amidst growing chorus for his government to demonstrate China’s strength by being more assertive on the Korean Peninsula, Japan and Sino-US relations.
Seen in this light, how to balance their respective interests will make the role played by others - including Russia - all the more critical. (And, typically, the Japanese will turn wherever the Americans tell them.)
South-East Asia, for now, is not in a position to intervene given its lack of economic and military prowess, despite that the region could have everything to lose should things turn sour. This, again, is another cruel reality in international politics.
JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.
Ditching the interventionist approach in the 1960s through to the early 1970s - a period when China’s direct influence was clearly felt behind the communist insurgencies across South-East Asia - Deng Xiaoping (right) announced on the eve of the reform era in 1978 that Beijing would in the decades to come “hide its capabilities and bide its time”. This has since come to be known in Chinese as tao guang yang hui.The logic was clear then - as it is now - that the most populous nation in the world needs to focus on socio-economic development before it can afford to play a pivotal role in global affairs. It would seem that the role of a ‘regional sheriff’ would only unnecessarily divert the utmost attention from bettering the lives of the Chinese.
Cui Tiankai, an Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, reiterated this stance prior to Hu’s US visit. Simon Shen, a prominent international relations scholar with a focus on China’s increasing participation in Africa, concurs, citing that deviation from a long-held position could be detrimental to Beijing’s interests in the long run.
But there are times when China is forced to do more than lip service. Politics in the Asia Pacific region, for one, has become more and more multi-polar since 2003, in tandem with the decline of American power following the catastrophic consequences of the Iraq War.
Involved in power realignment
Being the ultimate - albeit unintended - winner in the conflict, China is set to be involved in the power realignment in Asia. Even the Japanese media have begun to refer to a ‘non-polar’ age in tacit acknowledgement of the US losing its leverage over China.
The sinking of the South Korean warship Choenan in March last year marked the lowest point in the North-South relations in recent decades. Both Washington and Seoul were quick to apportion the blame on Pyongyang, while Beijing urged for restraint.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, the United Nations Security Council adopted a bizarre document that reflects the raw reality of power politics in the world arena: denouncing the attack without mentioning the culprit, which enables China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and the US to interpret the incident as they see fit.
In fact, in realising its dwindling bargaining power, the Obama administration has been calling for a return to the Six-Party Talks, arguing that it represents the best mechanism to contain the situation on the peninsula.
This is an area where Chinese interests and those of the US and Russia converge, but the irony is that the South Koreans are perhaps less willing to talk to their brethren in the north so long as Pyongyang remains nonchalant about the ramifications from the recent conflicts.The Kim Jung-il regime has been maintaining its innocence in the sinking of the Cheonan, and made it clear a revisit of the case is necessary. Insofar as President Lee Myung-bak understands it, a reinvestigation could potentially undermine Pyongyang’s culpability. After all, the mysterious circumstances around the incident were too compelling for one to simply finger-point at one party.
Lee had initially hoped to ride on the anti-North sentiments and secure a better showing for his party in the local elections three months after the sinking incident. As things turned out, his colleagues suffered humiliating defeats as voters began to cast doubts on the official version. Now, he would be the most reluctant protagonist had a resumption of the Six-Party Talks was deemed essential by others.
Confidence-building structure
A series of negotiations and consultations by the parties involved have indeed produced fruitful outcomes in the past, so much so that many a scholar believes had a similar confidence-building structure been available in the Middle East with the presence of major powers such as China, Russia, Turkey and India, the calamities in Iraq could have been averted. (And the world would then have had to invent some ‘creative’ measure to handle villains like Saddam Hussein.)
If the situation is left unchecked, it is only likely to worsen the mistrust across the region, providing further pretext for states such as Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand the Philippines and Malaysia to raise their military expenditures in the years to come. Arms dealers and agents would, again, be laughing all the way to the bank.
But the Six Party platform is also one which the US and China both seek to exploit for their own purposes. The Council on Foreign Relations, for one, has argued vociferously that Washington must seize the opportunity to take the leadership and halt Beijing’s endeavour to set the tune. Meanwhile, President Hu (left) will have a hard time defending himself amidst growing chorus for his government to demonstrate China’s strength by being more assertive on the Korean Peninsula, Japan and Sino-US relations.
Seen in this light, how to balance their respective interests will make the role played by others - including Russia - all the more critical. (And, typically, the Japanese will turn wherever the Americans tell them.)
South-East Asia, for now, is not in a position to intervene given its lack of economic and military prowess, despite that the region could have everything to lose should things turn sour. This, again, is another cruel reality in international politics.
JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.
View Comments0