Obama cleaves Asian rift

[ajtr]

Obama cleaves Asian rift​

By M K Bhadrakumar

United States President Barack Obama's 10-day Asia trip exposed the limits of America's influence, though a short-term setback doesn't add up to the entire story.

"Sometimes because we've [US] gone through a tough couple of years, there's a tendency for us to think that somehow Asia is moving and we're forgotten,'' Obama told the media. "And in fact, I think everywhere in Asia, what I heard from leaders and people is that we are still central, and they want us there."

A meeting of foreign ministers from Russia, India and China on Monday confirms Obama's tidings that the US foothold in Asia is planted on firm ground. With the strengthening of US ties to Russia and India, and the aggravation of tensions in US-China relationship the backdrop in Wuhan, the ancient city on the banks of the Yangtze River, it was the Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle on which fissures were opening up.

Having got into bed over the Russian thought that the three Asian powers have a shared destiny which they should probably mould together, the ministers' 9th meeting was in a fix - like in the love-shack lyric by Noah and the Whale: "I'm a fox trapped in the headlights/And I'm waiting for the tires to spin over me ..."

The RIC originated from a growing realization by the mid-1990s that the Bill Clinton administration wouldn't accommodate Russia as a partner. Then Russian president Boris Yeltsin visited China in April 1996, and for the first time the two countries described their relationship as evolving into a "strategic partnership".

'Westernism' engages Russia
The wheel has come full circle today. As the RIC foreign ministers got into their breakfast on Monday morning, Russia's formidable Proton-M carrier rocket was delivering into orbit the SkyTerra 1 satellite - among the largest and most powerful telecommunications satellites ever built in the US with a 22-meter L-band reflector for mobile terminal links complemented by a 1.5 meter Ku-band antenna based on the famed Boeing 702 Geo-Mobile platform.

And as they opened their morning newspapers, the lead story was the meeting between Obama and the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at Yokohama on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. Obama spoke optimistically about getting US Senate ratification for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

Thanks to the "reset" with the US, Russia hopes to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2011; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has invited Russia to join its missile defense project for Europe; and Russia is about to partner NATO in Afghanistan.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said over the weekend that Moscow and NATO may "put an end to the post-Cold War period" at the upcoming summit in Lisbon on Friday. (Obama and Medvedev are scheduled to meet again in Lisbon). Lavrov revealed that the agenda was agreed during NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen's visit to Moscow in the previous week.

The odd man out is China. Again, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe is holding a historic summit in December in Kazakhstan, where Beijing is kept out. The Russian involvement with NATO in Afghanistan deprives the Shanghai Cooperation Organization of its gravitas.

What may hurt China most is that the US is rolling back the Caspian energy rivalries. The prospects for the South Stream and Nord Stream gas pipelines have brightened. Russia is assuming long-term obligations as energy supplier to the European market. Conversely, Moscow will be in no tearing hurry to find alternate Chinese markets for energy exports. The Russian-Bulgarian agreement on Friday on South Stream enables the project to take off ahead of schedule - Washington is applying brakes on Sofia no more.

The reset caught China by surprise. Chinese commentators were sanguine until recently that it was unworkable. But the reset vindicates Obama's belief that the preservation of American power is best achieved by jettisoning his predecessor's "unilateralism".

China snubs India
Similarly, what Obama achieved during his recent visit to India has been in effect to "reset" US-India ties. The US has gone far to meet Indian aspirations as an emerging power. The "strategic" content of Obama's visit was: US endorsement of India's bid to become permanent member of the United Nations Security Council; removal of restrictions for transfer of dual-use technology to India; support for India's membership of technology control regimes; and India's decision to effect massive arms purchases from the US.

Beijing has taken comfort so far that China is far more important to the US than India ever can be. Given the Pakistani military's hold on the jugular veins of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Beijing estimated that Obama was in no position to antagonize Islamabad by wooing Delhi. Factually, the estimation was correct, but then politics is not all about facts.

The overture to India comes at a time when India's economy is poised to rise at a sharper pace than China's. A People's Daily commentary concluded: "Obama's whirlwind tour to India is a proof that the US strategic focus has been shifted from Beijing to Delhi."

China is the only remaining permanent member of the UN Security Council withholding support for India's bid to join the club. Indian officials expected that Obama's endorsement would put Beijing under pressure. At Wuhan they were in for a setback. The joint communique retracts from the RIC's earlier stated position.

The last RIC meet in Bangalore in October 2009 went so far as to "[reiterate] that their countries attach importance to the status of India in international affairs and understand and support India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations." Whereas, the Wuhan formulation is: "The ministers of China and Russia appreciated the role played by India in international affairs."

As recently as last Wednesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said:
China supports reasonable and necessary reform of the Security Council. We maintain that priority should be given to increasing developing countries' representatives at the Security Council so that they can play a bigger role there ... Attaching importance to India's status in international affairs, China understands and supports India's aspiration to play a bigger role at the UN and will stay in contact and have consultation with other UN members including India on the UN and Security Council reform.
Indian staffers at Wuhan apparently tried to negotiate but Beijing wouldn't relent. What caused the sudden hardening of Chinese stance we do not know but an earlier meeting between Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna and his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi likely contributed. Taking exception to recent Chinese moves suggestive of a questioning of India's sovereignty in Kashmir, Krishna apparently expressed the hope China would be sensitive to the Kashmir issue "as we [India] have been to the Tibet Autonomous Region and Taiwan".

Intriguingly, Indian officials then took the unusual step of publicizing the sensitive exchange, which suggests Krishna was probably grandstanding. A series of calibrated Chinese moves have tested India's patience lately and hawkish sections within the Indian establishment are demanding a response. Krishna also came under criticism in India for being too passive during his visit to Pakistan recently.

At any rate, this is the first time Delhi drew such a dramatic parallel between Kashmir, Tibet and Taiwan issues. Beijing is unused to taking punches (including counter-punches) involving the status of Tibet and Taiwan and it is unclear how Delhi hopes to flesh out this complicated analogy - Tibet and Taiwan are not territorial disputes.

It will be unkind to say Obama prompted the Indians to get into all this although the buoyancy of his visit might have acted as a factor in Indian thinking. Significantly, Indian officials have claimed credit for rebuffing Chinese moves to introduce negative references to the US in the communique. Is anyone in Washington listening? Between the lines, Indian briefings show traces of irritation towards Moscow as well for identifying with the Chinese position on regional and international issues. Clearly, the fizz has gone out of the RIC.

In sum, the US inability to tighten its trade deal with South Korea and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner failed to get a Group of 20 deal on trade imbalances led to awful headlines for Obama. However, the larger implications of his Asia trip have been overlooked. The underlying theme was to develop regional counterweights to China, and there he is succeeding.

Neither Russia nor India will join any US-led alliance a such. Obama's brilliance lies in nonetheless promising tailor-made partnerships with the two countries, which meet their respective aspirations as emerging powers. The Kremlin is walking a tight rope and is steadily deepening Russia's strategic understanding with China while exploring the potentials of the Obama's offer of reset. In comparison, Obama has a far more receptive audience in the Indian elites.

Beijing is groping for an answer to Obama's statecraft. The Wuhan meet was a lost opportunity.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

 

[ajtr]

India has its way, fends off pressure from China on US​

​

India found itself fending off some well-orchestrated pressure from Russia and China to echo their concerns against the US and its partners like Japan on the question of security in the Asia-Pacific by endorsing a set of "non-bloc principles" in the Russia-India-China communique.
Not only did India resist this, but also ensured that the formulation which went into the joint communiqué was the one it had suggested and one that all countries found was "politically correct".

"The ministers stressed the need to develop an open, transparent, inclusive and balanced security and cooperation architecture in the Asia-Pacific region based upon universally agreed principles of international law and giving due consideration to the legitimate interest of all states. The ministers agreed that experts from three countries should study this issue."

The reference to non-bloc principles was removed and while India differed in its interpretations from Russia and China to what this formulation means, sources said, it was one with which none of the members could find fault. The other two countries, in fact, wanted India to agree to start a trilateral dialogue among officials on this but New Delhi said it was too pre-mature and instead suggested an exercise by experts and academics.

Much of this pressure flowed from the Russia-China joint statement in September last week that came right after the tensions in the South China Sea which saw the US threaten to move in some of its naval assets after Chinese claims on maritime channels in the area. Beijing took on Tokyo, when it raised a protest, and started laying territorial claims on islands which the Japanese thought had been settled.

This is one issue on which Russia is on the same page as China and has made it increasingly difficult for Japan by reopening the Kuril islands dispute. Both countries have stepped up tremendous diplomatic pressure on Japan which is also being felt by other Far East and South East Asian countries like South Korea and Vietnam. In this context, the US intervened and sought to assert itself in defence of what it termed the principle of freedom of navigation.

Over the past two days, Russian and Chinese diplomats have been working hard on the Indian side to make it agree on a new security architecture for Asia-Pacific. While agreeing to the basic premise of an open, balanced, transparent, inclusive architecture, the Indian side is clear that the US is also a stakeholder in the process and cannot be left out.

India's position is still evolving on the issue, but it is clear that it is not fully in agreement with Russia and China on this. Sources also pointed out that despite these differences, both Russia and China have strong bilateral relationships with the US.

The situation, as India views it, is far more complicated and one in which, perhaps, the principal target is Japan whose pre-eminence in Asia-Pacific stands challenged.

Here again, New Delhi's instinct seems to be more in favour of Japan. For these reasons, the conversation on Asia-Pacific dominated the proceedings here but failed to reach a conclusion that would have satisfied either Beijing or Moscow. On the other hand, New Delhi felt it held out well and yet, not closed its options.

But India anticipates the pressure to only increase, particularly with visits of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev lined up next month.

Interestingly, the one area where the three foreign ministers did not seem to have a major problem was Iran, where host Yang Jiechi began by saying that the three countries had no difference on this issue and preferred dialogue over confrontation. Yet, there were issues over mentioning UNSC or IAEA resolutions in the joint communiqué. Finally, neither was mentioned except for a reaffirmation on Iran's right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and call for dialogue as the principal means of settling any dispute.