Rajaram Panda
While it acknowledged the seriousness of new security challenges faced by many nations in the region, it failed to find solutions on how to cope with them, says Rajaram Panda
The Asian Security Summit, also known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, is a unique meeting of ministers and delegates from over 50 countries, organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a British think-tank, the 16th edition of which took place on June 2-4, 2017, in Singapore. Over 500 delegates representing 32 nations from across the Asia-Pacific and beyond gathered at the Shangri-La Hotel to examine the region’s most enduring security challenges, such as North Korea’s nuclear and missile programme, religious extremism and the South China Sea (SCS) disputes. These issues and many more dominated the debate. While the summit brought together defence ministers, top military officers and experts from the Asia-Pacific region as well as others like the US and Europe, India went unrepresented at the ministerial level with the Defence Minister unable to accommodate participation amidst his tight schedule, leaving the Indian High Commission officials to make India’s token presence felt.
INDIA’S ABSENCE
For some unknown reason, India has remained shy in attending some of the previous summits, though at the 15th edition in 2016, the then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar represented India. India’s longest serving Defence Minister AK Antony attended the summit meeting only once. In the 2015 Dialogue, neither the Defence Minister nor his deputy was present.
The Shangri-La Dialogue started in 2002 and over the years has acquired an important stature in the defence community to conduct defence diplomacy. The summit also provides for informal discussions among the delegates on the sidelines. Though the summit is a multilateral annual meeting of defence ministers, military affairs experts and other delegates mainly from Asia-Pacific, North American and European countries discussing security issues in Asia, there are critics who say that it has delivered little. That could be a minority opinion, however.
What were the highlights of the latest summit and was it successful in addressing the region’s security challenges? The answer could be both ‘yes’ and ‘no’, because while it acknowledged the seriousness of the new security challenges faced by many countries in the region, it failed to find solutions on how to cope with them. Nevertheless, the summit as a platform where leaders could discuss and debate on the challenges confronting the region was in itself useful, though unanimity, as expected, remained elusive.
THE US IN SPOTLIGHT
The US security policy, in particular its commitment to the region, hogged the spotlight at the summit. China, because of its recent assertive stance in regional issues, has remained at the focal point of discussion and smaller nations have voiced frustrations and concern about its policies, such as on artificial island building in the SCS, and territorial claims elsewhere. Because of China’s surge in expansionist policy, the US is seen as a security provider now more than ever before, even by those who are not alliance partners. There are also concerns that US President Donald Trump’s isolationist policy — demonstrated by changes in immigration laws, decision to exit the Paris Climate Agreement, the decision to dump the TPP and calls to renegotiate NAFTA and many more — could spill over into the security areas. These led to doubts about Washington’s global leadership role.
Trump’s dramatic policy overturns on critical global issues make analysts think if his “America First” policy moves are a sign that Washington is abdicating its global role. Others feel if by doing this, Trump has created space for Beijing to assert its expanding economic and diplomatic clout. There are others who see some hope in the recently introduced legislation, which if approved, would authorise $2.1 billion in spending for the Asia Pacific for capacity building, military training and munitions.
As if to assuage the feelings of small Asian nations, Secretary of Defence James Mattis assured the allies and others in the region that Washington shall not retreat. The robust delegation that he led to the security forum was a demonstration of this assurance. Yet the region looked for clarity from the US. In a region that has seen the fastest growth in terms of military spending and development of military capability, a definite statement from the Trump administration on what the US defense and security policies would be was what the nations in the region were expecting. It remained unclear if such expectations were fulfilled, though Mattis emphasised the need for “international order” in the region.
The Trump administration’s policy towards Asia remains unclear, though the desire to be engaged has been often made. It is also unclear if Trump’s Asia policy will be different from the Barack Obama administration’s “rebalance to Asia” policy. It remains to be seen if the same continues under some other name or becomes something entirely different. What also remains unclear is if the US allies and partners in the region remain convinced on the enduring commitment offered by Mattis.
SCS AND N KOREAN ISSUES
The issue of SCS was also discussed but there was no clear policy prescription on how the US is going to manage the issue, though statements have been made, which often look empty. The issue of China’s building of artificial islands is a matter of concern. The continued militarisation of the man-made features that Beijing controls in the hotly contested waters unnerves the smaller and weaker states in the region. In a warning to China, Mattis resolved the US intention to maintain the “freedom of navigation” operation — maritime patrols by the US military vessels and other ships — in SCS waterways as it “cannot and will not accept unilateral, coercive changes to the status quo”.
Mattis met regional allies and partners, including a trilateral with Japan and South Korea, besides having a unique get-together with all 10 defense chiefs from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. In his address, Mattis talked at length about the importance of rules-based international order and how every country, big or small, should have a voice in shaping the international system. Since Trump took office, both Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have made several trips to the region, highlighting Washington’s “enduring commitment” towards its security and prosperity. Mattis observed: “That enduring commitment is based on strategic interests, and on shared values of free people, free markets and a strong and vibrant economic partnership, a partnership open to all nations regardless of their size, their populations or the number of ships in their navies, or any other qualifier.” Mattis also stressed North Korea’s continued development of nuclear weapons and missiles and how those pose the “most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security in the Asia-Pacific”. He stressed the importance of coordination among nations to further strengthen the containment of North Korea.
While the US does not seek regime change, it seeks to increase diplomatic and economic pressure until Pyongyang abandons its nuclear programmes. The key to address the North Korean issue lies with China — if it recognises North Korea as a strategic liability, not an asset.
JAPAN’S STANCE
Joining Mattis, Japan’s Defence Minister Tomomi Inada made a reference to China’s activities in the East and SCSs, where China is engaged in unprovoked and unilateral attempts to alter the status quo. Without taking China’s name but in a clear reference to it, Inada observed: “In the East China Sea, government ships of a certain country continue to make periodic incursions into Japanese territorial waters.” She expressed concerns on the construction of outposts in the SCS and their use for military purposes. In a strong condemnation of North Korea, Inada called for ratcheting up pressure on Pyongyang, as according to her, the security threats posed by North Korea to the region and beyond have entered a new stage. While endorsing Trump’s “all options are on the table” statement, Inada urged North Korea to “abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner”.
Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull warned against a “coercive China”, saying that small powers will unite against Beijing if it tries to bully neighbours, which is what has already been happening, with India, Japan and Vietnam starting a trilateral dialogue process to find a solution to the common problem. In Hanoi, Vietnamese PM Nguyen Xuan Phuc said the issue of China’s unilateral expansion into the SCS should be resolved peacefully.
INDIA’S POSITION
India has stood for freedom of navigation and adhering to the international norms for peace and economic growth, amidst China flexing its muscles in the disputed SCS. Even though India’s defence minister was absent from this year’s summit, its principled stance on the SCS remains unchanged. PM Narendra Modi has termed sea lanes passing through the strategic SCS as the “main arteries” of global trade. India supports freedom of navigation and seeks “utmost respect” for international law.
In 2016, Modi had articulated India’s principled stance when he said “the threat or use of force” to resolve would complicate matters affecting peace and stability”. This remains unchanged. No wonder, at the Security Summit, Mattis praised India for taking such a position, reiterating that “respecting freedom of navigation and adhering to international norms (are) essential for peace and economic growth in the inter-locked geography of the Indo-Pacific”.
CHINA’S REACTION
China reacted strongly to Mattis’ remarks on SCS, calling them “irresponsible”. China’s spokesperson, Hua Chunying, stressed that they have indisputable sovereignty over Nansha islands and adjacent waters. She said China is committed to peacefully solving disputes through consultation and negotiation with countries directly concerned. What it means in practical terms is that China can impose its will based on its own terms backed by military strength.
ASSESSMENT
Given such divergent views and perceptions, it is anybody’s guess if the Asian Security Summit has proved to be an effective mechanism to address the troubling issues of the region. The merit of the forum, however, lies in the fact that the dialogue process as a means to resolution of conflict or at least minimise the scope of conflict has remained relevant and therefore ought to be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment