The Asianist

Chietigj Bajpaee in an Asia Times Online article makes some keen observations of the shifting patterns of alliance and conflict in Asia:

Numerous recent and seemingly unconnected events have highlighted the emerging fulcrums of potential alliances in Asia, as well as the possible focal points of conflict.

One such emerging alliance is that between Russia and China:

Third, Russia and China held unprecedented joint military exercises this month. Entitled "Peace Mission 2005" and comprising of 7,000 mainland troops and 1,800 Russian forces, the exercises have come under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with the intention to prepare for intervention in a state overcome by ethnic conflict. While claiming that the war games were not targeted at any third party, they were held in the Shandong peninsula and the Yellow Sea, in close proximity to Japan, Taiwan and the Korean peninsula.

The exercises included a naval landing, which is unusual given that they come under the SCO framework, which would imply involvement in landlocked Central Asia. Furthermore, the US was not invited to observe the exercises although the four other SCO members (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) along with SCO observer states, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan, were [emphasis mine].

Much of the tension is fueled by the rising might of China and the US response to this alteration in the balance of power:

Sino-US tensions have also flared over a series of provocative statements by officials on both sides. On the Chinese side, Major-General Zhu Chenghu in a speech at the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club in mid-July stated that China would initiate a nuclear first-strike on the US if it were to intervene in a conflict over Taiwan [emphasis mine].

Whether this statement was made in a personal capacity as the Chinese government claims or as an attempt by the central government to test international reaction will only be verified in the coming months when it is established if Zhu has been censured or promoted for his statement.

In response to such changes, Asian nations are largely refraining from action (from choosing sides) and are instead watching carefully and preparing for many contingencies:

At present there are no clear alliances in Asia. Instead, there are numerous permutations and combinations of alliances that may be formed. All sides are hedging their bets and preparing for every possibility...

Nevertheless, certain combinations are more likely than others. In all likelihood, China and Russia will grow closer as will Japan and the US. Apart from disputes over Taiwan, China's exchange rate, quotas on Chinese-made textiles, intellectual property rights infringements and China's human rights record, the US is growing increasingly frustrated with China's relations with dictatorial regimes, including Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, King Gyandera in Nepal and Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, as well as support for "rogue" or anti-US regimes such as Myanmar, Iran, Sudan and Venezuela. Russia and China have also opposed US unilateralism on the world stage.

India and South Korea are sitting on the fence and could go either way depending on how events play themselves out. For example, Chinese support for Pakistani aggression could put India on the side of the US against China, while aggressive and unilateral military action by the US could solidify an Asian alliance. The current Sino-Indian rapprochement could also be unraveled by a flare-up over their territorial disputes in Aksai China and Arunachel Pradesh, energy competition on the world stage and China's encroachment into India's "sphere of influence" as seen by its improving relations with Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, attempts to join the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and growing naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

Bajpaee's analysis is overall very thought-provoking. One area in which I disagree with Bajpaee, however, is the idea of the "return to power politics," a cyclical return to the past, only with higher technology, better weapons and so on. Bajpaee neglects new variables such as the increasing democratization of parts of Asia that could fundamentally change the patterns of alliance and conflict (not necessarily for the better, of course).

Nonetheless, the Bajpaee article is an interesting, coherent analysis and is worth reading in its entirety.