Pacific Geopolitics: Reaping Promises and Avoiding Perils

Power or Powder Keg? - let me give three reasons why we should worry about the security situation in the Asia-Pacific, and three reasons why we should be optimistic.

Potential Sparks

The first reason I think we should worry is that defence spending in Asia has surpassed that of NATO Europe in absolute terms - USD$400 billion. Asia has surpassed Europe and the rate of increase has been impressive. For China, 170% increase over the last decade. Southeast Asia, 150% over the same period. Much of this spending is I think justifiable - economies have done well, Asian countries are playing catch-up.

But, the second point of worry - there is, as my esteemed colleagues have said, there is no well-developed security architecture in which this military modernisation and increased defence spending is taking place. It is well known that leaders of countries in Northeast Asia do not talk to each other much. Few platforms exist, whether it is between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK), whether it is between China and Japan, whether it is Japan and the ROK and between China and Taiwan. Similarly, militaries of these countries do not interact much. ASEAN has done slightly better - the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM), the East Asia Summit (EAS), and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). However, these are very young institutions that will require much more time to fully build up their capacity and prove their worth.

The third reason for worry in Asia - there is no strong collective will to protect the global commons. There is no equivalent of a "never again" moment in the collective consciousness of Asian countries, that bound Europe after two World Wars, and has translated into the political will to create formal structures and alliances.

In reality, Asian countries are disparate. Disparate languages, cultures, religions, and a different historical perspective. Indeed, there are unresolved animosities from WWII which continue to hamstring efforts to build ties, and leaders from China, Japan, and India have all taken strong nationalist positions as their political platforms.

You'll remember at last year's MSC, Mr Kissinger said that Asia reminded him of Europe, 19th century Europe, at risk of a conflagration.

Reasons for Optimism

Let me counterbalance these three concerns with three reasons to be optimistic.

First, Asia is experiencing rising prosperity. And I think Asian leaders are fully aware that they have the most to lose if there is instability. As Singapore’s Prime Minister said, "In Asia, trade is strategy."

Top officials in China have signalled that it would be open to be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). And the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is being negotiated.

President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have met on the APEC sidelines, and both the US and China have agreed to notify each other of major military activities and adopt a code of conduct for conduct of safe naval and air military encounters.

Second reason to be optimistic is there are multiple stakeholders in the Asia-Pacific region who are committed to be present. Whether it is US, India, Australia and the EU.

The third reason I think we should be optimistic-there is an unprecedented rise of the middle class in Asia. And by 2030, whether it is China, India or ASEAN, two thirds of the population are projected to be middle class. And all of us who are leaders of middle class populations will know how difficult politics are for national leaders. We can expect a push for more democratic ideals and individual rights. And I think middle class politics may support nationalism, but not hegemony. Thank you.