Beyond militarization

Daryl Guppy

Not satisfied with already surrounding China with more than 300 military bases, United States President Joe Biden used the Camp David summit with Japan and the Republic of Korea to further advance his agenda to contain China. The US, Japan and the ROK agreed to a new “duty to consult” security pledge committing them to speak with each other in the event of a security crisis or threat in the Pacific.
The statement seems superfluous because such consultations already take place. But its intent signals a greater threat to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region because it is an extension of US efforts to expand NATO into a global network. What motivation brings these uneasy participants together? Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is a willing partner because the deepening US engagement supports Japan’s wish to remilitarize. Japan has abandoned the principle of a defence-oriented strategy and boosted its counterstrike capability. Japan has also allowed the US to station an advanced Marine Corps unit in Okinawa. This is all painted as a defensive response to alleged adversaries but it begs the question – who is planning to disrupt trade with China, Japan’s largest trading partner? It’s certainly not China, although that is the clear focus of the Camp David summit.
Some in Japan fear that bolstering security cooperation will lead the country into an economic Cold War with its biggest trading partner. Others in the region worry that Japan’s military objectives extend further, perhaps supporting the US’ attempts to stir up the situation across the Taiwan Strait. The ROK remains beholden to the US as a necessary bastion of support in the continuing conflict with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea because the ROK refused to sign the Korean Armistice Agreement. There is a 70-year truce in hostilities but technically a state of war still exists. It is little wonder that the DPRK feels it is under constant threat of attack. Being reliant on US military support, the ROK chose to accede to US policy directives at Camp David despite the widespread lingering distrust of Japan’s political motivations and commitment to peaceful stability. This distrust is the legacy of the World War II massacre of civilians, and torture and slavery in mines and factories, along with enduring disagreements over disputed territory.
ROK President Yoon Suk-yeol announced that the ROK would use its own funds to compensate Koreans enslaved by Japanese companies. Polls show that a solid majority of people in the ROK oppose Yoon’s handling of the forced labor issue and this reflects a wider unease about Japan’s commitment to regional peace. The idea that the Camp David summit produced a rapprochement between Japan and the ROK is a media release concocted under pressure from the US. The motivations of Japan and the ROK in complying with the policy objectives of the Camp David summit sit atop a set of policy assumptions that inherently destabilize the Asia-Pacific region.
The Camp David summit is part of the plan to involve US-led allies in a more direct and coordinated attempt to contain China. Measures include physically threatening trade supply routes, using economic sanctions and weaponizing the US dollar. The US’ security alliance with Australia and the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and new military agreements with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, and the attempt to expand NATO are all part of this China containment policy mix. It is a policy initiative based on the assumption that China will somehow damage global trade by taking some unspecified action in the South China Sea. Just why China would ever choose to block its vital trade routes, or why any of its largest customers would block seaborne trade with China and so injure their own economies, is not explained. The illogical basis of the China threat is apparently beyond question by those who line up behind the US. The illogical thinking underpinning this complex situation makes it difficult for Asian countries and the Global South to find the right choice. China has shown no inclination to develop a wide net of military bases in the region or the Global South, let alone close to the coast of the US.Chinese submarines do not probe US coastal waters or hold freedom of navigation exercises between Florida and Cuba. Nor has China entered into military agreements similar to those promoted by the United States.
This means Association of Southeast Asian Nations members and the Global South would better adopt diplomatic and economic solutions led by China. Diplomatic solutions include support for an increased global role for BRICS through widening its membership to include more countries of the Global South. It includes active participation in trade agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and strengthening activities in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Central to both economic and diplomatic solutions are the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative and other initiatives advocated by China. Many of these programs and initiatives are dismissed or reviled by the US and its allies, but they provide a choice of solutions to the Global South and ASEAN. It is economic prosperity that delivers peace and stability to these regions. It is the open arc of future economic growth that delivers power to the Global South, and with it, increasing levels of political influence in the structures of global trade. Alongside this diplomatic environment is the spread of the digital economy bringing with it freedom from US dollar dominance and unilaterally imposed sanctions and trade blockages. This, not narrow militarization, is where the future of peaceful stability lies.
The China Daily