Asia is now becoming increasingly important for the US, a fact reflected in the formulation of a new doctrine that goes by the name of ‘US rebalance in Asia’. What does this new doctrine mean for South Asia and Nepal?
We live in a world of nation states. There are around 200 independent countries on our planet. Classifying them on the basis of their economic and military might, they range from a superpower like the US to great, medium, small and tiny powers. [break]
In this universal set, each and every nation has its own perception of national interest that it would like to promote in its dealings with other nations. What constitutes national interest of a nation, no matter how small or large, is basically defined by its perception of political, economic and security considerations in its dealing with other nations.
Demise of containment
During the Cold War containment of the then Soviet Union was the overriding goal of the United States. Soviet Union was then viewed as representing a rival philosophy and a governance model that was at its core anti-capitalistic. South Asia viewed from the perspective of US national interest was then probably at the periphery. But over the last two decades many things have changed.
First, Asia is emerging as the new economic powerhouse. Apart from Japan, South Korea, China and now India are emerging as new centers of economic growth. Each of the latter two has over a billion people aspiring for economic growth and prosperity. During the last 30 years China has grown at an astounding rate of 10 percent and India, though significantly behind, is also determined to chart a new economic prosperity for its citizens. Other countries in the region including Nepal aspire for the same goal.
Second, economic growths in China and India are also being reflected in the security environment of the region. The increasing economic might of both China and India finds expression in enhancement of their military capabilities and a willingness to project it for what is viewed as their national interest. Politically, China has now emerged as a growing quasi-ideological economic and military power on its way to becoming a superpower in the next 15-20 years.
Essentially there is a new kid on the block that is willing at times to flex its muscles to assert its interests which may or may not always converge with those of the already established power.
Opportunity and threat
These two new developments in Asia and its possible future trajectory make our region a zone of both opportunity as well as potential conflict. For the United States and the developed world the new emerging economic scenario in Asia, particularly India, China and other South East Asian countries represents new economic possibilities for the expansion of trade, investments and exports in the region.
For the next 20-30 years China and India will probably remain new growth centers of world economy. The US rebalance or a new focus in Asia probably represents the recognition of this new reality vis-à-vis its own national interest. Mutually beneficial economic interaction of this nature between and among nations can provide a win-win situation. It will however not be smooth-sailing.
Question of security
Apart from the economic dimension, the rebalance doctrine, as I see it, also concerns security. A core component of national interest of each nation is the security environment in a given region and its impact on its security and this includes issues like counterterrorism, drug trafficking, border disputes, maritime security, internal subversion and so on.
Serious disagreements on any of these issues can lead to inter-country tensions and confrontations. Given the rise in military spending in the emerging countries, especially China, a rebalance doctrine clearly implies increased focus of American military might in Asia working in collaboration with its traditional as well as new allies. The logic, it seems, is to maintain a security equilibrium that should ideally encourage dialogue and negotiation rather than confrontation to find common space for mutual benefit.
There is also the argument that the rebalance doctrine is an attempt to contain China. This line of reasoning is problematic on two fronts. First, the Chinese economy is increasingly market-driven and this trend is likely to continue in the future. Future gains in labor productivity in China will require major structural changes in the economy and this will mean exposing the state sector to capitalist competition over time. On the other hand it is also true that politics in China does not fit the normal model of democracy based on the principle of independence among different organs of the state.
China’s politics is quasi-ideological and different from an alternative model based on political pluralism. It provides the political superstructure for the rising economic and military might of China, deriving its legitimacy from the Marxist doctrine based, ironically, on capitalist foundations. After the initiation of economic reforms China’s economic interaction with the rest of the world has taken a great leap forward.
However, there is also sense of mutual doubt and unease on questions of economy as well as security perception that needs constant attention from all sides so that there is no damage to peace and stability in the region. The proliferation of different kinds of economic groupings that provide a seat at the table for all stakeholders for consensus through dialogue and multilateral diplomacy is a case in point.
South Asia
A quasi-ideological system and its one party structure based on capitalist foundation delivered a miracle in terms of increasing income and output in China. But there are other economies with pluralistic political structure in Asia like India, the giant in South Asia, where economic dynamism under a pluralistic system is taking roots.
In this scenario the US rebalance in Asia seems primarily aimed at making India a counterpoint to China. Similarity in political values and shared interest in both economy and security may reinforce this trend but Indian and American perception on regional and global issues are not always the same. A nation as proud as India of its great civilization and its destiny as a future superpower is certain to have its own perceptions in international affairs that may diverge from that of an established power like the US.
Nevertheless, the logic embedded in the rebalance doctrine would indicate that in South Asia Indo-American relationship will continue to gain positive momentum in the future. As for other smaller South Asian countries like Nepal the actual implications of the rebalance doctrine is not clear. On the positive side it is claimed that one of the focal points of the rebalance doctrine is to promote regional economic interaction and integration so as to create a new basis of economic partnership that acts as a kind of binding constraint against any notion of containment and the Cold War mentality.
For smaller countries like Nepal this is a constructive scenario. In line with this thinking one hopes that the rebalance doctrine encourages countries in South Asia to design and implement what I would call new “cooperation triggers,” preferably with the help of a strengthened SAARC. Cooperation triggers are policies and projects of regional nature that help enhance regional cooperation that people can actually see and feel.
It also means a dynamic new approach that links industrial development of smaller countries like Nepal with the growth structure of more advanced countries in the region that could include product fragmentation and industrial relocation, something similar to the famous flying geese model that was first articulated in the case of East Asian countries. On the negative side, there is the fear that in the worst case scenario, smaller countries may experience some form of subcontracting of components of foreign policy by the US to bigger countries in the region. Let us hope that this kind of possibility does not find space in US rebalancing in Asia.
The author is a senior RPP leader and former foreign minister
Related story
Balance in a turbulent world
