BY RAMESH K. RAJ
Power transition and Alliance Formation
The world politics is remarking power transition where the established hegemon US (economically, militarily and ideologically) is challenged by growing hegemon China (struggling for unilateral economic, militarily dominance and own version of world view through community of shared destiny). This phenomenon can be understand theoretically through power transition theory, work paper by Ronald L Tammen and co-authors in 2011 which argues — there is hegemonic stability in presence of established for a certain period but then it faces challenges from rising hegemon and before the new rival takes over to established hegemon there is a period of instability and heightened risk of war (Ronald L. Tammen, 2011). There is fear for established hegemon to lose its position trying to take down rival for which it starts balancing internally (militarily preparation) and externally (alliances). Compliment to power transition theory is Kenneth Waltz’s Balance of Power (Structural realism) theory which argues leading power will automatically face balancing coalitions against it by relatively weaker powers based on aggregate power and military power considerations. Under which, Structure forms like coalitions of rising and relatively weaker power India, Japan and Australia would be balancing with China against US. But the scenario seems different as assembly of power and relatively weaker power is against China. Why? It can be answered basically applying various theoretical lenses of constructivism and neo-realist theory of balance of threat. Constructivism claims the interaction between the states mostly depends on the perception and ideas that is shaped for each other. The entire indo-pacific region is traditionally shaped by ideas, beliefs and practices of democratic values and capitalist economyin practice by major regional powers like India, Japan, Australia, and South Korea after demise of Soviet Union that failed to construct socialist idea politically and economically. Therefore, it seems major regional player easeto interactwith US led democratic values and that has been dominating the region after successful survival in ideological confrontation with Soviet Union. Democratic values and capitalistic economy best survived and exemplified as best way to excel national interest of these countriesthat builds common understanding for emerging political environment to form democratic assembly against socialism in the region.
The second theoretical approach to understand the phenomenon of alliance formation is Stephen Walt’s Theory of Balance of threat. Author’s assessment of balance of power through his work in Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power 1985 assumes the balancing approach based on adding two further criteria over Waltz’s assumption of threat. Offensive Intensions (Perceived) and Geographical Proximity (Walt, Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power, 1985). This has created a dilemma for regional players like India and Japan to be more concerned about the Chinese power rather than US. And US has utilized the perception of threat across the region to contain China through formal alliances and strategic partnership in the China’s country yard.
Entire Development of Indo-Pacific
This power transition has created fragile situation in world politics remarked by economic competition, trade war, militarily aggression (internal) and forming camps or alliances (external capabilities). The challenge to unilateralism and responding power transition has led major competitors to increase its sphere of influence even seen in the form of territorilisation of sea. Relocation of power from land to the sea through aggressive maritime posture, building artificial islands and sea-ports as means of dual response to economic activities and military purpose. Therefore, dynamics has beencreated in increasing sphere of influence occurred by different geo-economic and geo-strategic tools. China led BRI as challenging unilateralism through interconnectivity and economic diplomacy while US led Indo-Pacific strategy as stopping China’s growth byinternal and external balancing measures.
The Us Indo-Pacific strategy 2019 points China as most beneficial state from present world order who has marched economic prosperity, overcome mass poverty and gain of international status. However blames China for undermining the current world order and acting as revisionist power who can threaten the entire region for its interest. (The Department of Defense, 2019). On the other hand China’s Interest in entire West Pacific Primarily and Indian Ocean Secondarily seems to maintain Regional Polarity-challenging Unipolar, Increase global Influence – for ‘favorable voice’ at global level, Increase and defend Maritime Transportation through easy access and protecting International Shipping Lanes (ISL) and Access to Maritime Resources hydrocarbons and minerals, including seabed minerals as stated in China’s blue book on Indian Ocean 2013(CASS, 2013).
For this China has aggressively engaged in South China Sea claiming sovereignty over its various region, building artificial island and ports, aggressive maritime posturing and huge investment to build deep sea ports along the rim of Indian Ocean from Gwadar in Pakistan through Kyaukpyu in Myanmar, Chittagong in Bangladesh to Hambantota in Sri Lanka.
This major strategic engagement and deploy of Hard power means by US and Smart power by China along the region has led dynamism in regional Balance of power. The regional Powers like India with Act East policy 2015 and SAGAR doctrine (MOEA, INDIA, 2015), Japan’s White paper 2017 arguingdynamism createdtwo ocean and region (MOFA, JAPAN, 2017). Australia’s Foreign Policy White Paper 2017 claiming power shifting to Indo-pacific region (Australian Government, 2017), ASEAN and South Asian countries perception, relations and interaction with this global and regional powers has ledentire IP region as global convergence of power.
Fate of smaller countries in the region
The smaller countries in this region have different kind of interaction with super and major powers in the region. The major trading partners of US and China is the ASEAN countries in the region. However, it seems countries like Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia having power asymmetry and trust deficit with China by South China Sea dispute has created the condition of “perceived threat” that has led to greater coalition with US strategy of Indo-Pacific.
While on the other hand BRI and MSR has as soft power approach has balanced such coalition where many ASEAN countries are strategic partner of China. Coming to South Asian Countries like Nepal, Sri-Lanka and Bangladesh, Pakistan, Maldives have no any kind of offensive intension (perceived) that favors China as balancing tool. These countries are BRI recipients and have great geo-strategic advantage for balancing potential rivalry between China and US. It seems the rivalry between the superpowers has foothold the region with many opportunities with challenges for minor players. These countries has realized greater connectivity with the projects under BRI and Indo-pacific strategy along with huge prospectus of economic advantage due to involvement of major economic power in the region. While on other hand, there lies outmost fear for these smaller countries to survive in the great power politics and chances of to be used as tools against one another.
Therefore, smaller and less influential states should realize their national power and needs to adopt balancing approach in the region. Alike cold war era, powerful countries always try to influence smaller sates with geo-strategic importance through “carrots and stick” to increase their “sphere of influence”. In the situation, smaller states also become one of the essential actors of BoP where they need to be more responsible to balance against each other. The geopolitical advantage better can be used to meet national interest of own country rather tool against other. The national power of smaller states are comparatively low in terms of economy and military and cannot afford the alliance to survive in great power politics. Thus they need to act tactfully and pragmatically for their interest and mediating for making the region more stable and secure.
(The writer is the research fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), Sichuan University, Chengdu, China Masters in International Relations and Diplomacy, MIRD, TU, Nepal, He can be reached at: rajramesh674@gmail.com)
Login to add a comment