With North Korea going nuclear,
the impact on the security paradigm in North Asia is immense. The North Koreans
see the nuclear weapon as a way of regime security and they are correct, until
they use them when the response will be disproportionate. This is more so since
Gaddafi government in Libya gave up their WMD program only to have Washington
turn on them.
The Chinese are extremely afraid
of two possibilities, one the collapse of the regime sending large number of
refugees across the border and destabilising their North-East area and second a
merged Korea supported by United States at their border. The South Koreans do
not want a war given the proximity of Seoul to the North Korean border and its
artillery, notwithstanding nuclear weapons. The Japanese are more ambivalent of
the situation given the distance and whether North Koreans would like to draw
in practically all sides to war. The US is the only player really capable of
action against the North Koreans and it is they who have to decide whether they
could like to back down and use containment and deterrence or make war now. A
quick look at the table below highlights the defence disparities.
|
US$ bn
|
1995-1999
|
2000-2004
|
2005-2009
|
2010-2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
Cumulative >1995
|
|
Japan
|
41
|
42
|
41
|
41
|
41
|
42
|
904
|
|
China
|
31
|
59
|
106
|
171
|
214
|
226
|
2,274
|
|
India
|
22
|
29
|
39
|
49
|
51
|
56
|
805
|
|
Russia
|
19
|
25
|
38
|
53
|
66
|
70
|
811
|
|
US
|
410
|
484
|
658
|
695
|
596
|
606
|
12,442
|
Source: SIPRI, Defence Expenditure in Constant US$ 2015. Note: All 5-year
periods are simple-averages.
Military systems are acquired
over decades and it is not as much near-term but the long-range spending that
matters. And, above does not capture the spends of the 5 decades before that on
building up various bases and infrastructure. Training and perfecting the
procedures itself takes time. And, US is practically the only country in
permanent state of war. I am not looking to pass a moral judgment but real-life
situations on daily basis help perfecting not only the machines, communications
and bombs but also training of soldiers. Like
Thucydides said in his epic about the Greek world where the city state of
Athens was the maritime super power, “In other ways, too, the Athenians were no
longer as popular as they used to be: they bore more than their share of actual
fighting, but this made it all easier for them to force back into alliance any
state that wanted to leave it.”
The Chinese have been bartering
their leverage with North Koreans for decades for better trade deals with the
US. This is exactly how they played it in the first meeting between Trump and
Xi only hoping things would not get as far as they have now. But China does not
want to exact the ultimate price of stopping all fuel and critical supplies for
the fear of North Korea turning on them as well or causing a regime collapse. Only
reason they probably voted for UN sanctions was for the fear of trade
sanctions. They may be willing to go further for American concessions on
Taiwan. But that would be complete foolhardiness on the part of the US.
The real joker in the pack would
be if America were to signal a willingness for Japan and/or South Korea to go
nuclear in response to North Korean provocations. This would force China, North
Korea and Russia to re-configure their security plans dramatically. Japan
surely has the technologically capability of going nuclear given its
sophisticated industrial base and given the Chinese threat it is only a matter
of time where the Japanese may not feel fully comfortable with the American
security umbrella and American’s may be more comfortable with a shared security
burden, a direction in which Japan has been moving. The only big psychological
barrier is the history of Japan in World War II.
It is not that the Chinese are not aware of the possibility,
it is just not in the realm of reality yet.
The second is the state that
builds an alliance with Iran has the opportunity of creating a new security
paradigm in the Middle East. That the Saudis and the Iranians are fighting in
every nook and corner in the Middle-East is well known – Yemen, Iraq, Syria,
Bahrain or Qatar. But Iran is the more benign, powerful and stable of the two.
I had written about this in greater depth in April 2015 (http://poleconomyindia.blogspot.in/2015/04/re-engaging-ancient-empire.html).
If the US were to turn around at
some point and embrace the Iranians, it would create a frightening possibility
for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. These countries have enjoyed significant
patronage from the Americans. This has the possibility of stabilizing
Afghanistan given the large land border from Iran to offer a counter to Taliban
/ other networks and possibilities of achieving a solution in Syria. If the
Chinese, were to achieve this possibility despite American sanctions, it would
open the internal route to Iranian oil via Turkmenistan and Pakistan
stabilising the Uighur region. It would also open tremendous possibilities
within the Central Asian countries given the influence the two countries would
wield and would provide China an ability to emerge as a player in the Middle
East. Although, given the alignment with Pakistan is a concern for the
Iranians. For the Indians, Iran offers the only opportunity of opening up trade
and access routes to Central Asia and to establish a permanent land route to
Afghanistan and Pakistan’s restive province of Baluchistan. Both these are
impossible without Iran.
History moves in cycles.
Countries interests dictate their moves. These changes will occur, only
question is time and the manner.
