Tag Archives: ASEAN

United Kingdom’s “Global Britain” Posture Facilitates Forward-leaning Indo-Pacific Policy


CogitAsia-CSIS, 30 January, 2019

This year has been marked by the return of British naval power to the Indo-Pacific. For the first time since 2013, the United Kingdom (UK) deployed warships to the region, not only consecutively deploying three vessels to the area, but also increasing its cross-service defense engagement with regional partners. First, HMS Albion carried out a freedom of navigation maneuver near the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, making the UK the only non-claimant state – other than the United States – to  openly challenge China’s excessive maritime claims; second, it took part in marine exercises with Japanese Self Defense Forces in Japan; and third, it expanded its trilateral relationship with Japan and the United States in an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) exercise off the coast of the Philippines in early 2019. However, the relative success of these operations has not stopped questions being asked both inside the UK and in the region around their long-term sustainability – particularly in the wake of Russia’s 2014 take-over of the Crimea, its hybrid war in Eastern Ukraine, and with the 2018 Skripal poisonings. All of this has produced an intense domestic debate over the future of Britain’s global posture, ranging from the government forward-leaning, Mahanian “Global Britain” position, to an “honest-broker” approach that attempts to sail precariously between the U.S.-China trade rift.

Global Britain

While it is true that Brexit has propelled a core part of the Conservative Party toward the notion of Global Britain, it should also be noted that a major shift took place in UK strategic thinking from 2014, which saw neo-authoritarian military revanchism in the Crimea and the South China Sea. China’s island-building in international waters had a profound impact on Britain, given its long history of safeguarding the principle of the freedom of the seas. The 2014 National Strategy for Maritime Security, for example, noted, “The UK has significant political and economic interests in the Asia Pacific…it is important that all nations in the region resolve any maritime disputes peacefully and within the rule of law, while protecting and promoting freedom of navigation and trade.” At the Shangri-la Dialogue in 2015, Secretary of State for Defence Sir Michael Fallon raised Britain’s concern about “the scale and speed of current land reclamation activities and the risk that these actions may pose to maritime freedom of navigation and to the stability of the South China Sea.”

So what?

Aside from the Royal Navy deployments, the UK has infused new urgency into what were steadily-growing political and security bilaterals with major regional players. Previously, many of these relationships puttered along, but lacked an overarching strategic logic. Now it would appear that Britain’s foreign and military policy establishment has linked the Global Britain vision with the “free-and-open” Indo-Pacific strategies of the region. In its Joint Ministerial 2+2 with Australia in July 2018, the UK foreign secretary and defence secretary agreed to “protect and promote the rules-based system,” while increasing cooperation and coordination over the South China Sea, within the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), seeking “opportunities for deeper maritime security cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.” The agreement was marked by Australia’s decision to purchase a British design for its Hunter Class frigates. At $26 billion, the deal is a highly-promising indicator for sustained defense collaboration, given the strong political pull of maintaining Britain’s impressive defense industrial capability (British shipbuilding, aerospace, and defense industries bring in revenues of $40 billion, exceeding even Russia’s $31 billion).

That defense industrial pull has also helped fuel UK-Japan collaboration – on the Meteor missile, for example – with both states promoting what some have called, “the closest security ties since the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance.” In addition to defense collaboration, a regular cyber dialogue, and increasing intelligence-sharing, there has been a seismic shift in strategic dialogue. On January 10, 2019, Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe visited London, welcoming the UK’s increased presence in the Indo-Pacific, and reiterating his support for the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The two sides pledged to collaborate further on infrastructure, 5G telecoms, cyber security, and maritime security.

In addition, London has also begun re-investing in its relations with South and Southeast Asia. UK officials made it a diplomatic priority last May to get Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India to attend the Commonwealth summit. His appearance and red-carpet treatment seemed to indicate a “reset” in ties. More recently, Britain has begun delinking its ASEAN policy from the European Union, welcoming Secretary General Dato Lim Jock Hoi to London this past month. As with Modi, the British policy class rolled out the red carpet, with Minister of State for Asia Mark Field, Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington, and a number of prime ministerial trade envoys meeting with the SG. As Field pointed out at during the gala dinner banquet, UK investment in ASEAN exceeds its investment in China and India combined, with ASEAN ranking as the third largest investor in the UK, with UK exports surging by 19 percent in 2017 alone.

Sustaining the momentum

China’s rise has seen it using that newfound power to implement shifts to the global order that favor its own strategic interests. It is no surprise that many regional states – allies and partners like Japan, Australia, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam – have emphasized the rules-based system in their pleas for a UK return to Asia. Given Russian revanchism closer to home, UK policymakers have framed the China’s behavior as a wider struggle. There are real questions about how sustainable all of this is, given the volatile nature of Britain’s domestic situation. However, Global Britain is in many ways an adroit repurposing of the UK’s strategic direction after 2014. These drivers have economic as well as strategic weight, something that should make them “Brexit-proof” in the long term.

In terms of how the UK engages with regional partners, the fact is there are a number of directions that British power could go in Asia. As a recent Henry Jackson Society report recommended, Britain could create a policy of collective freedom of navigation maneuvers by using a “ship-rider” program, with NATO or ASEAN flag officers aboard British hulls. It could also suggest a “plane-rider” program, putting British officers aboard U.S. and Japanese surveillance aircraft. Most of all, it could help internationalize and multilateralize the issue so that it is not obscured by U.S.-China strategic competition. The South China Sea, after all, accounts for transit of nearly one-third of total global maritime trade. And that is just as much a UK issue as it is an American one.

Global Britain in the Indo-Pacific


Henry Jackson Society,  22 May, 2018

The weight of the global economy is going to Asia, it is going by sea – and the United Kingdom must act now if we are to build a truly Global Britain, according to a new report from The Henry Jackson Society.

Global Britain in the Indo-Pacific notes how the future of both the economic order and the rules-based international system will be decided in the Indo-Pacific. China’s growing naval power, its militarisation of sea lanes and its Belt and Road Initiative indicate not only a power determined to become wealthy, but one determined to set the rules of the coming age. However, many of China’s Asian neighbours seek to defend rules over power.

With Britain looking for new opportunities abroad in the wake of Brexit and the economic and demographic realities pointing east, the report argues that the UK must reinvigorate its partnerships with historic allies in the region, not least India and Japan – while also redeveloping new “special relationships” with Commonwealth countries such as Singapore.

The report highlights that:

  • The global middle class will grow 50% by 2030, with much of that growth taking place in the Indo-Pacific – spawning hundreds of new cities, industries and opportunities.
  • Over 90% of global trade is carried by sea and that maritime trade will only increase as regional powers struggle to bring consumer goods and energy to these new cities.
  • China seeks to exert control over these sea lanes in order to protect its own sea lanes, constrain India’s rise and set the rules for the coming era.
  • The Indo-Pacific is becoming a forum for competing visions of international relations – with many of Britain’s historic allies beginning to align in loose security groupings based on respect for maritime conventions and law.
  • The UK, dependent on the rules-based order and the sea lanes in the region, will ultimately have to adopt the “engage and balance” approach that most Asian powers have adopted towards China.

While endorsing the ‘cautious engagement’ approach of Prime Minister Theresa May to China, the report recommends that Britain should:

  • Seek a number of overlapping security relationships across the Indo-Pacific with large numbers of partners – including the ‘Quad’ of the United States, Japan, India and Australia.
  • Create “special partners” in ASEAN – not least Singapore, where Britain should explore the possibility for regular ‘2+2’ meetings between the two countries’ defence and foreign ministers.
  • Renew her security relationship with Australia – a useful “node of access” for the UK, as Australia is developing closer relations with key allies including the US, Japan and France.

Standing up for the rules-based international order in the face of the challenge from China should also involve:

  • An incremental increase in Britain’s defence spending, from the current 2% of GDP to 3%. This, with a particular focus on the future of naval and air power, would equip the UK with the requisite tools to have a truly ‘global’ influence.
  • Invest in soft power diplomacy to improve ties with Asian countries. These should involve a rise in funding for language programmes at British universities, particularly in Japanese, Chinese and Hindi; and providing help financing infrastructure development across the region, to counter the Belt and Road Initiative.

Read the full report here.

Law Not War in the South China Sea

The Diplomat, Nov 23, 2011

Years of school-taught nationalism has complicated efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the South China Sea dispute. Time to try the legal route.


The recent APEC and ASEAN summits in Honolulu and Bali, respectively, saw renewed efforts to solve the South China Sea issue using a regional diplomacy-based approach. Tensions around the conflicting claims over various islands and maritime space have grown since 2009, when China, Vietnam and Malaysia formally submitted their claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

China’s apparent willingness last year to use new naval and air assets to demonstrate support for its claims – and the reaction this sparked from claimants Vietnam and the Philippines – has pushed regional tensions to new heights. Yet the limited diplomatic gains of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation and Association of Southeast Asian Nations summits in tackling this issue underscore the shortcomings of the strategies employed by regional states.

Broadly speaking, there have been four main strategies:

The first has been to attempt to negotiate at the bilateral level. China has repeatedly indicated its preference for this method, but disparities in size and economic influence mean that this approach is widely seen as heavily weighted in Beijing’s favor by the other claimants. Furthermore, there are suspicions that China’s intention is merely to negotiate a freeze on resource development in contested oil fields, rather than to compromise on sovereignty issues. On the other hand, the bilateral channel has been used to good effect to reduce bilateral tensions, as seen by Vietnam’s recent six-point agreement with China, which established a few new mechanisms for consulting on border issues.

The second strategy has been to try take the issue to a variety of regional fora and solve it at a multilateral level, where states feel China’s advantages of scale are more muted. ASEAN has been the main organization chosen, and for many in the region, this is one of its most formidable tests of whether it can handle regional security issues. But the diversity of interests, the strength of the ASEAN way, and the fact that only four ASEAN states out of ten are involved in the South China Sea issue has meant that an ASEAN solution remains – as yet – out of reach. China’s ability to detach Burma, Laos, and at times, Indonesia from Vietnamese and Philippine positions reveals the weakness of such an approach.

A third strategy has been to develop closer diplomatic and military relations with the United States. With 36 attack submarines and six carrier groups in the Pacific, the United States remains the predominant military force in the region, and states like Vietnam and the Philippines have sought strategic reassurance through new or renewed military agreements with Washington. Vietnam’s nuclear and military medical agreements are largely seen in this light, as is Clinton’s visit to Manila following the APEC summit, where she reaffirmed the U.S. defense commitment to the Philippines in the Manila Declaration and announced the delivery of another coast guard cutter to the Philippine navy.

Moving away from its previous position of non-involvement over the issue, the United States has increased engagement with both states, for a number of reasons. First, the U.S. is concerned with the larger implications on international maritime law of China’s claims, particularly the “U-shaped line.” Second, the prospect of potential Chinese control over these vital sea lanes of communication (SLOC) for North East Asian allies like Taiwan, Japan and South Korea makes U.S. policy makers uneasy. China’s willingness toblock resources as part of political pressure has already been demonstrated during the Senkaku fishing boat incident in September 2010. For Manila and Hanoi, these new ties with the United States are simultaneously a hedge against Chinese military assertiveness as well as a form of pressure on Beijing to compromise at the diplomatic fora.

But as Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s speech to ASEAN leaders at Bali indicates, China has recently adopted a softer tone, indicating that it’s willing to seek a peaceful resolution to the disputes, promising massive investment to the region. Still, Wen also warned against involving foreign powers in the disputes. While this is widely read to mean the United States, it’s also meant to include other powers.

For ASEAN powers have also used a fourth strategy – internationalizing the issue by involving non-regional states like India and European powers in the exploitation of carbon energy resources in disputed waters. India’s recent agreement with Vietnam to carry out joint development of a gas field in Chinese-Vietnamese disputed waters falls into this category, and India’s state owned ONGC joins a number of other foreign companies already involved in Vietnam including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP and Zarubezhneft.

All this means that the only strategy that hasn’t really been seriously tried by any of the claimants is to utilize the various international legal mechanisms that have been developed for precisely these types of disputes – the arbitral tribunals under the jurisdiction of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). China has, of course, repeatedly rejected efforts to legalize the disputes, recently dismissing a Philippine request to take their disputes to ITLOS. This fact is often cited by regional experts as the reason why there’s a preference for attempting an ASEAN-based diplomatic solution.

The problem with attempting a diplomatic solution is the reaction any concessions would prompt with the populations of various states. Take, for example, Chinese public opinion on the U-shaped line. According to public opinion polls, there’s near-universal support among China’s public for its claim over this large area, with little understanding of the principles of contemporary international law, continental shelves, or exclusive economic zones. Instead, Chinese public support for these claims has developed through the education system, where Chinese students are taught that Chinese authority over this area extends back to the Chin Dynasty. Despite the weakness of historical claims, they have a strong hold over the imagination of the public and this support makes it impossible for any Chinese government to make concessions on what are considered issues of sovereignty. Compromise in this situation would be perceived as a betrayal of national sovereignty, and this isn’t just a Chinese problem. The utilization of legal bodies, however, neatly sidesteps this problem, by placing the responsibility of the decision with a third party. Furthermore, legal decisions are made according to principle in an open and transparent way, unlike diplomatic maneuvering.

Throughout history, state-on-state disputes have traditionally had two potential solutions: military or diplomatic. The Melian Dialogue in Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War states the infamous dictum that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” While it remains true that global international relations are still fed by disparities in state size and power, the current global order seeks to assuage those disparities with different types of economic, political, and dispute settlement mechanisms.

While it’s true that China has refused to utilize these dispute settlement bodies, the simple fact of the matter is that they aren’t a popular option with the other claimants in the region. There is, for cases taken to the ITLOS, no right of appeal although in some cases, ITLOS will reconsider or revise findings). This means that once a case is decided, there is no recourse, and governments must accept the decision of the court. This is a singularly unappealing prospect to many of the governments in the region. However, it must be tried.

The current trend towards a Code of Conduct seems to be attempting to utilize the political, rather than the legal, but this is precisely why these mechanisms were created. It seems dangerous and pointless to continue pursuing diplomacy over an issue with such national sensitivities, in which movement is unlikely on either side. Diplomacy in this instance will only serve to freeze the conflict for a generation or more, making any possible chance at a legal solution a more and more distant possibility.

Given the high stakes, it’s imperative that the region collectively push for the legal route. While it’s true that China is initially unlikely to shift its opposition to using dispute settlement bodies, it may well do so if ASEAN pursues this policy with unity. Furthermore, ASEAN and Chinese leaders could provide funds for workshops and seminars on international law for both their diplomats and their universities, and attempt to soften public perceptions over the decade or so that the legal process would take.

A ruling by a neutral body, while unpopular, is less likely to cause problems between a state and its populace, which is certainly a major factor in state approaches to this issue. This approach would also make a significant impression on international society, and renew the legalization of international relations that seems to have been put on hold since 2001. It should be remembered why this process began in the first place. History teaches us that human political units unconstrained by law, traditionally resort to various applications of power, soft and hard. While the application of power is and will remain a central process in global politics, it’s not our only process.

The application of principle and the subordination of self-interest to legal principles are other newer options. In this case, they may be the only solution that has a chance of public acceptance. Leaders in the region would do well to note this.

South China Sea Tensions Rattle China’s Neighbours

BBC East Asia Editor, Charles Scanlon

A Chinese frigate sits berthed in Shanghai on September 22, 2011.

China’s growing naval power has encouraged it to be more assertive

Chinese leaders like to talk about their country’s “peaceful rise” – and Europe’s financial traumas are giving Beijing plenty of scope to assume the role of a benign new force on the world stage.

President Hu Jintao has presented himself as a “friend in need” during encounters with European supplicants while stopping short, for now, of committing China to a specific contribution.

But China has been showing a very different face to countries closer to home in an increasingly tense confrontation over rival claims to the resource-rich waters of the South China Sea.

It is a region where the peaceful nature of China’s rise is starting to be questioned as it pushes a long-standing maritime claim that stretches deep into South East Asia.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

If these countries do not want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sound of cannons”

Global Times

“China is becoming much more confident in the region and there are signs it is becoming giddy with success. It has become much more influential much more quickly than it expected,” says Dr Kerry Brown of the Asia Programme at Chatham House in London.

Vietnam and the Philippines in recent months have seen the snarl of a resurgent regional power that is fast losing patience with the gripes of smaller neighbours over maritime borders.

“If these countries do not want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sound of cannons. It may be the only way for the dispute in the sea to be resolved,” said the state run newspaper, the Global Times, in a recent editorial.

Hard powerChinese officials have been more restrained in their comments, but foreign ministry spokesmen have issued a series of warnings about what they see as encroachments into Chinese waters.

Beijing says it does want a peaceful solution. But Vietnam and the Philippines say Chinese ships have stepped up harassment of vessels involved in oil exploration and fishing.

Vietnamese sailors patrolling on Phan Vinh Island in the Spratly archipelago June 14, 2011China’s stance on the South China Sea is making neighbours like Vietnam worried

“The growth of Chinese military spending is beginning to translate into hard power,” says John Hemmings, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute.

“This is the first major sign that a more confident Chinese grand strategy is emerging. It is in the South China Sea that there is a real risk of discord between the US and China.”

The disputes are about oil and gas reserves, lucrative fisheries and sea lanes that are crucial to the giant industrial economies of East Asia. But they also point to a strategic contest with the United States, which has been the dominant military power in the western Pacific since 1945.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

China is driven by a nationalistic agenda – it won’t find it easy to make compromises over what are seen as crucial resources, such as energy in the South China Sea”

“China has a containment mindset,” says Kerry Brown. “It thought that the United States was ceding influence but it sees the US is still active all around its borders from Afghanistan to Japan.”

In the latest incident, Beijing responded sharply to an announcement by the American company, Exxon Mobil, of a new oil find off the coast of central Vietnam.

It appears to be well within Vietnam’s 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. But China issued a now familiar warning that it has indisputable sovereignty to large parts of the sea.

“We hope foreign companies do not get involved in disputed waters for oil and gas exploration and development,” said a foreign ministry spokesman.

Vietnam vulnerableChina’s maritime claim is ill-defined but it resembles a giant U shape extending for more than 1,000km (621 miles) off its southern coast and reaching into what Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei see as their own waters.

It recently warned Indian firms to stay away after they signed exploration agreements with Vietnam. India has nettled its giant neighbour by developing a “strategic partnership” with Vietnam – in China’s view an intrusion into its own backyard.

Vietnam appears most vulnerable. Its leaders have been stung into an unaccustomed flurry of foreign visits as they seek help from the region and beyond.

“Vietnam feels out on a limb,” says John Hemmings. “It understands that a naval conflict with China could be over very quickly. The Vietnamese are much more exposed than they first thought.”

Vietnamese anti-China protesters marching in Hanoi on 24 July 2011, remembering Vietnamese soldiers killed by the Chinese in the South China Sea.

The South China sea dispute raises intense passions in Vietnam. Some believe it will be very hard for China to back down.

“China is driven by a nationalistic agenda, It won’t find it easy to make compromises over what are seen as crucial resources, such as energy in the South China Sea,” says Kerry Brown.

Whatever its intention, China has succeeded in frightening traditional US allies such as Japan and South Korea firmly back into the American fold, along with a host of new suitors.

US officials have tried to underline their commitment to the region, at a time when some allies are questioning Washington’s staying power.

US naval mightIt will be years before China’s growing military power can challenge the overwhelming naval might of the United States, backed as it is by a network of military bases across Asia.

But China’s development of new land based missiles designed to target aircraft carriers is a sign of its fast-growing capabilities.

“I want to make very clear that the United States is going to remain a presence in the Pacific for a long time,” said the defence secretary, Leon Panetta, on an Asian visit late last month “If anything, we’re going to strengthen our presence in the Pacific.”

President Barack Obama is expected to underline this commitment when he hosts Asian leaders at the APEC conference in Hawaii this month.

China may have found in the South China Sea dispute an arena to test US resolve and attempt to nudge it out of the region.

If Washington fails to live up to its rhetoric, China’s smaller neighbours will have little choice but to accept the new realities of what the US itself is calling the “Pacific Century”

Map locator

An East Asian Community?

RUSI Newsbrief, 26th January, 2010


In the run up to the September 2009 election, Japan’s new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama unveiled his vision for an East Asian Community (EAC) in a series of policy statements and speeches.1 It was to be, he asserted, a vision of regional co-operation based on the model of the European Union, underscored by principles of fidelity and brotherhood. While the idea for such a community has been promoted by various Asian leaders since the late 1990s, and has been considered rather pie-in-the-sky, this latest incarnation of the vision is interesting because of Japan’s weight as a regional leader.

Hatoyama’s proposal comes hot on the heels of a similar proposal made by Australian Premier Kevin Rudd, whose 2006 Asian-Pacific Community was met with withering criticism at home and deafening silence in Asia. Both proposals reveal the growing trend for integration in Asia and the obstacles facing that integration. The editor-in-chief of the Jakarta Post, Endy Bayuni, put it succinctly when he said, ‘While no one disputes the need for closer regional integration, the question always quickly gets bogged down by mechanism, about who is in and who is out, as well as what the most appropriate regional architecture might be.

To continue reading this article, please click here.

Understanding Hatoyama’s East Asian Community idea

East Asia Forum

January 2010

Hatoyama’s plan for an East Asian Community, first mentioned in a September 2009 op-ed in the New York Times, is an interesting symbol of the split personality in Japanese foreign policy. Almost from the first, the idea raised hackles in both Beijing and in Washington, who view Japanese leadership and independence in the region warily for different reasons. In the article, Hatoyama tied together two arguments: that Japan needed to redress the imbalance in its relationship with the United States, and that Japan was an Asian power and should contribute to any discussion of regional architecture. The first statement raised hackles in Washington while the second raised hackles in Beijing. Naturally, Hatoyama’s point that Japan’s ‘proper place of being’ is as an Asian power which should shape the destiny of one of world’s fastest growing regions makes perfect sense from a Japanese point of view.

How can Japan’s sudden support for regional integration be explained?

Hatoyama’s plan can be seen in the light of three factors: Japanese history as an ‘Asian outsider’, Japan’s current situation, and the current situation of the United States. In dealing with the first, it should be remembered that modern Japanese history is essentially one of coming from a position of weakness in its relationship with China and Korea to a position of dominance during the 20th century using the power, tools and technology of the West. This has created in Japanese policy-makers a tendancy to view foreign policy as a bipolar choice between the West and Asia. Adding to this historical dilemma has been the fact that Japan’s security has depended directly or indirectly on Western states while its economic security has depended on Asian markets. Indeed, it is a facet of Japan’s modern identity that it has tried and often failed to straddle both worlds. Following its victory over Tsarist Russia in 1905, Japanese thinkers promoted Koa-ron (Asian-facing policies); while simultaneously developing strong security ties with Great Britain.

During the Cold War, these two choices were synthesised as the US became both a security guarantor for Japan as well as its biggest export market. Only after the end of the Cold War did Japan have to face the future with renewed uncertainty. Its economic relationship with the US had become a long-running battle over protection of its homemarket, while the loss of the Soviet threat in the North Pacific emptied the meaning from the security relationship. While the US-Japanese military and economic relationship was repaired and renewed, Japan also began to reconsider its relationship with the region. In 1993, Japanese diplomats helped midwife the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), a security wing of ASEAN, and then in 1997-1998, Japan tried unsuccessfully  to create an Asian Monetary Fund to help deal with the Asian financial crisis. In all three instances, Tokyo realised that any chance of success depended on the acquiescence of either Beijing or Washington.

If history provides Japanese thinkers with the outlines of an Asian versus Western foreign policy, what pushed Hatoyama into supporting the former over the latter?

The obvious reason is the change of relative power that has taken place over the last decade between Japan, the US, and China. Japan is now speaking of lostdecades rather than a lost decade, and trying to balance a declining economic share of power in the region with an aging workforce. Its share of trade with ASEAN fell from 20.2 per cent in 1993 to just over 12 per cent in 2008, while conversely China’s share rose from 2.1 per cent to 11.3 per cent over the same time span. It is clear that China’s economic integration into the region is growing at a faster rate, while Japan’s is actually declining relative to China.

Hatoyama’s op-ed piece also talks of the end of the US-led globalism, spurred by the Iraq wars and financial crisis. Japan could keep its wagon hitched to the US, or it could begin to look to the rising star in the east. Since East Asia accounts for 25 per cent of the world’s GDP and is expected to reach 40 per cent by 2030, it has been clear what Hatoyama’s answer for Japan is. Furthermore, the sooner that Japan makes this move, the better since time only seems to favour China and hurt Japan.

But has Hatoyama moved Japan too soon? After all, this is not the first time that the US has been called a declining power. In the wake of Vietnam, Washington’s reputation was in tatters in the region, and more famously, Paul Kennedy predicted the end of US power in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in 1987, just before it reached its great ascent to lone superpower status.  As always with these arguments, time will tell who was on the right side of history.

Jeremy S. Maxie

Energy & Political Risk Consultant

southseaconversations 讨论南海

China comments on the South (China) Sea disputes

Christopher Phillips

Academic, Writer, Commentator


(does america)

Philosophical Politics

political philosophy of current events

Minh Thi's blog

pieces of me

North Korea Leadership Watch

Research and Analysis on the DPRK Leadership


Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates


Sam Greene - London & Moscow


Musings on research, international development and other stuff

The Rights Angle

Francesca Pizzutelli's blog on human rights and human beings

Bayard & Holmes

If you're in a fair fight, you're using poor tactics

Grand Blog Tarkin

A roundtable of strategists from across all space and time.

Sky Dancing

a place to discuss real issues


A Blog Focused on Bringing Policy and Chinese language Translations Relating to Separatists and Terrorism


4 out of 5 dentists recommend this site

Variety is the Spice of Life

A palette of general thoughts & travel stories from all around the world


novels. poetry. screenplays. endless musings...

Top 10 of Anything and Everything - The Fun Top Ten Blog

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More

Eleanor Yamaguchi

Associate Professor at Kyoto Prefectural University and Specialist in Japanese History and Culture and UK-Japan Relations 京都府立大学文学部准教授(国際文化交流)山口 エレノア


Futurist | Disruptor | Coach | Reformer

Small House Bliss

Small house designs with big impact

Europe Asia Security Forum

European perspectives on Asian security, and vice-versa

Shashank Joshi

The Economist


Adventures in (Post) Gradland

Thoughts on life after the PhD


Just another site

James Strong

Junior academic working on British foreign policy

Justice in Conflict

On the challenges of pursuing justice


Sino-NK is a research website for Sinologists and Koreanists.

Iconic Photos

Famous, Infamous and Iconic Photos

China News

News and Feature Articles About China

The Strategist

Analysis of top regional issues from the research team at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies. Please note that the views expressed on this blog do not represent the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.