Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp.

368376, September 2004

Asia-Pacic securitythe current balance of power

ROBERT A. SCALAPINO

Power is a many-faceted force in the contemporary world. Unquestionably, military strength, including the capacity to keep abreast of the revolutionary changes in military strategy now taking place, is of critical importance in assessing a nations role in a regional or global balance of power. However, a nations strength is also determined by such factors as size and location and, notably, by its economy, its political stability, and its overall relations with key external nations. Thus, it is not sufcient to focus solely on a states military capacities, vital as these are, in assessing its strength. Within the Asia-Pacic region, Northeast Asia is unquestionably the most vital region in assessing power in all of its dimensions and in seeking to estimate the relative strength of real or potential contenders for inuence. This region contains either geographically or in terms of extensive involvement, the four major powers of the contemporary world: the United States, China, Japan and Russia. It is also the locus of a current source of major tension, namely, North Korea. If Taiwan, on its peripheries, is included, another critical issue, especially for China and the United States, is posed. Both of these problems test powerdomestic and internationalin their various dimensions. Within Northeast Asia, there are no exclusive regional institutions although the states of this region are members of a wide range of external bodies from the United Nations to broader Asian organisations. However, here as elsewhere, multilateralism has advanced most meaningfully through informal dialogues involving three, four or six parties, generally focused on a given issue or set of issues. Nonetheless, power in its strategic dimensions is primarily dependent upon bilateral relations, and to these we shall turn after a brief assessment of the relative domestic power of the key Northeast Asian states. As is well known, the United States is the sole global superpower at present, and this is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. US power in its military dimensions is underwritten by a formidable economy that despite problems and a recent recession, accounts for nearly one-third of global
ISSN 1035-7718 print/ISSN 1465-332X online/04/030368-09 2004 Australian Institute of International Affairs DOI: 10.1080/1035771042000260138

Asia-Pacic securitythe current balance of power

369

economic productivity. Japan, the worlds second largest economy, is presently two-fths the size of that of the US. American economic potency derives from a variety of factors: extensive strength in science and technology, enabling the US to stay at the top of the high-tech eld; a relatively open market economy with a strong managerial class; a trained labour force supplemented by immigrant workers in the lower-skilled elds; a strong domestic consumer market, and extensive trade and investment abroad. While most experts predict continued US economic strength, with growth in the range of 3% per annum, the current system is not without its challenges. Protectionism has its proponents, especially in situations where the trade decit is extensive or foreign violations of fair trade occur such as in the case of China. Outsourcing is also a rising political issue. Yet US economic prospects appear relatively favourable. On the political front, moreover, democracy having had a lengthy history and being buttressed by high living standards, is well established. Politics are sometimes bitter, and a free media committed to sensationalism plays upon divisions and, when available, scandals. But relative political stability exists with a strong middle class underwriting the democratic order. In foreign policy, the United States is in the process of altering its unilateralist actions of the recent past, and seeking support from the UN as well as individual nations. As Afghanistan and Iraq graphically illustrate, the costs of unilateralism are extremely high, and American public support has wavered as has happened at times in the past. Save lives and spend our money on needs at home becomes the cry. In Asia, in contrast to the Middle East, a more multilateral policy has continuously prevailed, with participation in informal groups, consultation with allies, and cooperation with others taking place. Even here, however, public support for American policies has declined, posing a challenge with respect to public diplomacy. Meanwhile, the scene in China is equally if not more complex. In military terms, the PRC is steadily advancing, both with respect to more advanced weapons and more sophisticated strategic policies. China is currently the strongest Asian military power. However, there is little likelihood that it can match American power in the decades immediately ahead. Its economy presents a picture of remarkable advances in the past two decades and continuing problems of a serious nature. Chinas growth rate has been in the vicinity of 8 to 9% on average or higher since the early l980s, and a growing middle class now plays an important role in the society. At the same time, the rural-urban gap continues to expand, state-owned enterprises generally stand in need of more extensive reform, unemployment continues to be a major problem, and the banking-nancial system remains fragile. Recently, moreover, the issue of overheating has loomed up. Thus, while China represents an economic success story on balance, the problems to be handled are formidable.

370

R. A. Scalapino

Fortunately, Chinas fourth generation leaders are more pragmatic, less ideological than most of their predecessors. Moreover, lacking charisma, they must depend upon performance if stability is to continue. In the course of the post-Mao era, China has moved from a hard authoritarianism to authoritarian-pluralism, with an ever wider arena of political rights for the populace. The PRC is not a democracy nor will it become such in the foreseeable future given the omnipresent threat of instability. However, leadership is now more collective, complaints and needs more forcefully expressed, and a society as well as an economy increasingly separate from the state is emerging. Hence, Chinas insistence that in its foreign policies it will abide by the ve principles of peaceful coexistence and resolve differences through dialogue, as well as its efforts to establish favourable relations with all neighbours, is rooted in a perception of national interest. Yet Chinas massive economic strength together with its rising military power causes some private apprehensions within the Asian community, especially since nationalism has now largely replaced ideology as a unifying force. Moreover, the complex problem of Taiwan along with certain territorial issues with neighbours, North and South, remains to be resolved. Nonetheless, Chinas current relations with the other major powers, and with the remaining Asia-Pacic nations are better than at any time in the recent past. Moreover, its participation in various multilateral undertakingsformal and informal has greatly expanded. While a strong nationalism prevails, China has embraced internationalism with enthusiasm. Turning to Japan, the onset of a new era seems to be emerging. Not only is Japan modernising its military force; it has begun an expansion of its strategic commitments, reaching out beyond its southern borders, accepting non-combat roles in Iraq and elsewhere, and moving toward cooperation with the United States on a missile defence program. The likelihood is strong, moreover, that Japan will undertake constitutional revision in the near future so as to permit it to have the military options of a normal state. While the strategic alliance with the US remains rm, moreover, Japan wants to shift from the past patron-client relationship to one of partnership, with greater independence in making and executing foreign policies. Nationalism is rising here as elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Japanese economy appears to be en route to a sustainable recovery after a lengthy recession. However, the difculties in enacting signicant reforms remain, with a nation once the model for East Asia loth to adjust to the demands of an era of globalisation. At this point, moreover, with domestic consumer demand still modest, the trends with respect to the Chinese and American economies are vital to Japans prosperity. The political stability of Japan remains rm, with rising prospects that its one and one-half party system (the Liberal Democratic Party perpetually in power, either singly or in alliance) is being altered with a two party system

Asia-Pacic securitythe current balance of power

371

emerging, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) having seemingly become a signicant competitor. The foreign policy of Japan combines alliance with extensive effortsboth bilateral and multilateralto reduce tensions in the region and resolve existing issues. The recent visit of Prime Minister Koizumi to North Korea exemplies current trends. At the same time, despite its recent economic difculties, Japan remains a prime aid giver in Southeast Asia. However, the historical background of Japans activities in East Asia continues to constitute a cloud over relations with China and the two Koreas. Russia remains a military force with extensive nuclear reserves as well as a sizeable conventional force including modern air and naval equipment. However, the morale of the Russian armed forces has reportedly declined, and military operations in East Asia have been greatly reduced. The Russian economy, after a period of serious remission, is improving but portions of the Federation, among them, the Russian Far East, remain in trouble. Resources, especially oil and gas, should offer hope for the future. Meanwhile, President Vladimir Putin remains a symbol of strength to a large majority of the Russian people as his impressive showing in the 2004 Presidential election illustrated. While some observers worry about signs of increasing authoritarianism, most Russians are more interested in strong leadership than in institutions. Political stability appears to be more secure that at any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Under Putin, Russia is seeking to rebuild its position as a global power. At an early point, he sought to improve relations with the West, and especially with the United States. While relations with both the EU and the US were subsequently troubled by the expansion of EU membership into Eastern Europe and the American attack on Iraq, compromises have been reached and Moscows reaction to the placement of American forces in Central Asia has generally been subdued. More recently, Russia has also sought to improve its relations with Asia, especially China, through participation in such organisations as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and various informal dialogues as well as high level visits. In sum, among the major nations in Northeast Asia, the United States remains the dominant power; China is a rapidly rising regional force; Japan retains economic inuence and promises an increasing strategic presence, but one still modest; and Russia is seeking to rebuild its status, still limited by events of the post-Soviet era. In this setting, bilateral relations constitute a crucial determinant of international stability and the balance of power in its most basic sense. The US-Japan strategic alliance remains a key to strategic equilibrium throughout East Asia. Economic interaction and political compatibility fortify the alliance. At the same time, as noted, Japan is increasingly motivated to reestablish its status as an independent power, pursuing policies in its national interest. It thus hopes to increase the political and strategic dimensions of its regional role

372

R. A. Scalapino

to accompany those in the economic realm. The revolution in military affairs, moreover, will place greater US emphasis on state-of-the-art weaponry, rapid deployment, and forward bases kept in readiness, thereby expanding the strategic responsibilities of allies. Despite various complexities, however, the US-Japan relationship will continue to be vital to the overall balance of power in Asia-Pacic. US relations with China, while based upon different premises, are also of critical importance to a strategic balance in Asia. Both nations now pursue a dual strategy. On the one hand, continuous efforts are being made to build a bilateral relationship that is on balance positive, with divisive issues resolved or contained through dialogue. At the same time, both parties are seeking to ensure that the strategic power of the other is balanced in some degree. Thus, China has made the effort to construct a buffer against American power by cultivating its neighbours while the United States has maintained its alliances together with a broader presence throughout Asia. At the same time, both parties assure the other that its objective is that of strengthening peace and harmony throughout the region. The critical issue relating to US-China relations at present is Taiwan. Chinese leaders are adamant in demanding that Taiwan accept the One China principle, with Taiwan a part of China, and with the One China-Two Systems formula applied. Beijing has no trust whatsoever in Chen Shui-bian, Taiwans current President, and continues to issue tough edicts and expand its missiles on the coast opposite Taiwan. Chen and his party, earlier prone to promote Taiwan independence, have resorted to greater moderation, partly in response to American pressure. The US continues to support the principle of One China (undened), but opposes either the use of force by China or a declaration of independence by Taiwan, while continuing to sell weapons to Taiwan for its defence. Its efforts to restrain Chen while appealing to Beijing for moderation have had some effect, but the situation remains delicate. Both China and Taiwan want the US to play a more active role on their behalf. The only logical approach at present is a continuance of the status quo, with efforts to reestablish ofcial negotiations. Patience and a willingness to compromise are needed if a peaceful outcome is to be achieved, but neither is guaranteed at this point. Meanwhile, as noted, Russia intends to reestablish itself as a global power, and to this end, relations with both the US and China are critical, Thus, Moscow has made strenuous and largely successful efforts to keep bilateral relations with these two nations positive. While Russian military strength remains formidable, no nation regards Russia as a current threat, even Japan, despite the unresolved South Kurils issue. Indeed, Japan has strong hopes of being able to benet from an energy pipeline that would run to Nakhodka, with supplies then being shipped across the sea. Increasingly, Northeast Asia is becoming a Natural Economic Territory (NET), with the combination of assets and needs providing the basis for ever

Asia-Pacic securitythe current balance of power

373

closer economic interaction across national boundaries at every level. Conditions are also putting pressure on all states of the region to undertake the reforms necessary to adjust to the new economic age. While this provokes intense domestic controversy on occasion, the tidal wave of economic interdependence is conducive to a stronger need for regional stability and peace. The US, moreover, although not a part of the region geographically, is very much a part of its economy. Thus, its economic strength remains vital to the growth of others. As is well known, the problem of North Korea is the most serious security issue currently existing in this region. Recent trends offer some basis for cautious optimism. First, the neighbours of the DPRK together with the US remain committed to resolving the issue through dialogue, not through force. Even the US where internal divisions over policies toward North Korea have existed, wants to avoid another conict, given the price that is being paid for those ongoing in the Middle East. Thus, dialogue not only through the six party talks, but by intensive consultation between and among the parties concerned and, in addition, bilateral talks with North Korea are taking place. Certain advances in North-South relations have recently occurred, as well as between the North and Japan. In addition, creative proposals have been advanced, including the ROK suggestion of a three-stage approach to the full dismantlement of the Norths nuclear weapons program, with reciprocal actions by the DPRK and the ve outside nations at each stage. Since the two key issues are verication and timing, namely, the sequence of actions and responses of the involved parties, compromise will be difcult but not impossible. Also encouraging is the growing evidence that the North Korean leadership has determined that it must undertake changes to emerge from its economic morass. The DPRK has been a failed state economically. It began reform efforts in mid-2002 on a modest scale, and more recently it has turned to the ROK seeking increased trade and investment via the Kaesong economic zone and other channels. Both economic and military bilateral talks are now taking place between the two Koreas. The recent Koizumi trip to Pyongyang also produced an agreement to return abductees children in exchange for economic aid, thereby illustrating another of the Norths tactics for obtaining assistance. US-DPRK relations remain constrained, with the US demanding complete, veriable, irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of the Norths nuclear weapons program and gradual steps toward economic and political interaction rather than the simultaneous action demanded by Pyongyang. The US also stands by its stance in favour of a multilateral agreement on non-aggression rather than a bilateral treaty. However, despite internal differences, the Bush administration has shown increased exibility. It is possible that the DPRK will procrastinate until after the November elections, hoping for a Kerry victory, but in any case, an escalation of tension seems unlikely.

374

R. A. Scalapino

Developments with respect to North Korea illustrate the importance of non-institutional multilateral undertakings bringing together nations having a common interest in a given problem or issue. The Asia-Pacic region has no regional institution similar to the European Union (EU) or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). ASEAN, now thirty-seven years in operation, and the associations it has spawned including the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), ASEAN Plus Three, and the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM), serve important purposes. ASEAN bonds the ten Southeast Asian nations, and all of the above bodies bring leaders together, enable a discussion of important issues, and frequently result in sideline bilateral talks. Moreover, in the economic realm a future course producing free trade has been charted. With respect to peace-making and peace-keeping, however, these organisations are essentially talk not action bodies. The diversity of membership, with signicant differences of political system and stages of development, the commitment to consensus in decision-making, and the wide range of issues pertaining to security confronting each nation preclude effective action at this point. While the attitude of Southeast Asian nations toward security varies, however, on the international front, policies with respect to two key nations, the US and China, show remarkable similarity. Virtually without exception, these nations want to establish positive relations with China, reciprocating that nations pledge to live by the ve principles of peaceful coexistence. At the same time, however, in the light of Chinas rapid rise in both economic and military terms, and its ever deeper involvement in the region, virtually all Southeast Asian nations want an American strategic presence in the area, although such a desire may not be expressed publicly and it does not usually involve a request for American forces or bases. Strategic ties currently exist between the US and Singapore, the Philippines, and Thailand. Even Vietnam has sought to move past the war and create a closer relation with the US that focuses on, but goes beyond economic ties. Thus, in a variety of ways, Southeast Asia is contributing to a broad equilibrium or power balance in Asia-Pacic. At the same time, this sub-region illustrates the likelihood that the traditional security concerns will be supplanted by new security threats. Traditional wars between states, especially those involving major powers, while by no means inconceivable, seem less likely, at least in terms of the use of all available force. Given developments with respect to weaponry and the rise of economic interdependence, such wars can rarely if ever be won in meaningful terms. In the nal analysis, victor as well as defeated will suffer massive economic and political damage. Thus, most traditional-type wars in recent times have been limited wars, especially when major states have been participants. Nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II. The Korean conict centrally involved China and the US, and casualties on both sides were heavy. Yet the US refrained from taking the conict into Chinese territory.

Asia-Pacic securitythe current balance of power

375

Similarly, during the Vietnam War, US attacks against the North were limited, and even more so with respect to the Chinese despite the fact that their involvement, including ground forces, was extensive and well known. Ironically, China itself later limited its attack on Vietnam and quickly withdrew after teaching the Vietnamese a lesson. Similarly, the China-India border conict in the Himalayas was a classic limited conict. Most signicantly, moreover, India and Pakistan, two nuclear states, have kept their conict over Kashmir conned primarily to skirmishes. Meanwhile, in its Middle East conicts, the US while making use of a major strike capacity, has sought to concentrate upon military installations or operating bases. The future cannot be guaranteed, but it seems probable that the most serious security threats will be ve in number, each relatively new, at least in its present form. The rst is now obvious, namely, global terrorism. To meet this threat, a broad coalition of states going beyond traditional alliances is necessary. Moreover, it is clear that an effective response to terrorism cannot be achieved by force alone. An effort to meet the legitimate grievances and inequities affecting large numbers of people must be undertaken. A second challenge that is steadily growing has been labelled human security, namely, issues such as resource management, environmental degradation, and demographic factors being among the more prominent examples. Illustrative of the challenge is the growth of an acute water shortage in Northeast Asia. An increasing need for energy is another concern. The pollution affecting Asias major urban centres is massive. Further, the aging of societies like Japan poses an acute problem for the future. These issues require international cooperation, but the attention given to them is far from adequate at present. A third problem is that of failing or faltering states, spewing their debris over others or resorting to acts of desperation in an effort to distract the attention of their people or to obtain external assistance. Fortunately, failing states in the Asia-Pacic area are not numerous, but North Korea and, many would add, Myanmar illustrate the problem. A number of other states while not in the same category, are troubled with domestic difculties sufcient to create security threats to the government and in some instances, to the citizenry at large. Finally, there is the advent of the revolution in military affairs (RMA), producing the need for all nations to reexamine their strategic policies. Modern weaponry, including missiles, makes the close proximity of military forces and bases less essential, especially if rapid deployment is possible. It may also greatly increase the threat of any nation, even those small and underdeveloped, to exact a heavy cost upon others. Hence, a reexamination of strategies and policies is required by all states. Thus, in assessing the current balance of power in the Asia-Pacic region, all threats, and hence potential uses of power, must be considered. As has been noted, power in the region today is relatively balanced, weighing all of its

376

R. A. Scalapino

dimensions. A combination of domestic and regional factors generally provides stability despite the revolutionary nature of our times. Changes and challenges are inevitable, but in comparison with the past, an elaborate set of approaches to security issues has been constructed in the Asia-Pacic region bilateral ties, multilateral institutions and initiatives, and activities labelled Track II, namely non-ofcial studies and dialogues exploring questions and making suggestions. Each of these approaches to the security issues of our times must be strengthened. There is no single approach to security that sufces. Yet hope can be taken in the relative balance that has been achieved and the variety of approaches to the problems of international relations now being practised. In this connection, let me turn briey to the role of Australia. Three considerations would seem to be in order. First, Australias strategic ties with the United States provide a foundation for the important role that it is playing in the broader balance of power in Asia-Pacic. Thus, continuance of that relationship is eminently logical. In this connection, moreover, Australia should not hesitate to provide counsel and advice to the US with respect to those issues with which it is most familiar, especially those involving the sub-region of which it is a part. Secondly, Australia must be especially concerned with respect to the states in its immediate vicinity, notably, Indonesia, Papua-New Guinea and the Pacic island states. In helping these states meet their diverse problems, care must be taken not to appear obtrusive or overbearing, but a range of programs, some of which are now on-going, are of potential benet. For example, to furnish higher education in such elds as business administration and science and technology can be highly important. Legal studies, moreover, represent another vital need. One of the supreme challenges for many Asian societies is to move from the over-personalisation of politics to the rule of law. Finally, Australia should seek to become a part of those sub-regional organisations that are exploring the future. As noted earlier, the Asia-Pacic region is probably not ready for formal organisations like EU or NATO although proposals for sub-regional security bodies such as a Northeast Asia Security Association are being advanced. However, to work with others in meeting security problems in all of the dimensions noted earlier is vital to future peace and stability, and in this respect, Australia along with others has a role to play.