Lately there has been repeated talk about a possible Asia Concert. Hugh White already coined this term, as well as Henry Kissinger He already discussed the possibility of a Pacific Community. as possible solutions to the tensions between two great powers such as the United States and China. Let's see what the implications of carrying them out would be and whether it would be possible or not.
We start from the premises that for White to create an Asian Concert would reduce the probability of war between both powers and would stabilize the region; but that both states should abandon their dreams of leading Asia to treat each other as equals. Just as a place would have to be found for other great powers such as Japan and India, it does not matter that weaker countries remain marginalized, since the participation of a large number of countries would make it unlikely that any type of arrangement could be achieved between the actors. clue. In fact, it is quite difficult to imagine how regional integration could become an inclusive multilateral system for managing East Asian stability unless the powers first agree that regional stability is more important than competition between them.
For his part, Kissinger advocates a Peaceful Community in which these hegemons be part of a big company, which would replace to a certain extent the strategic unrest, and in contrast to White's idea, would allow other important countries such as Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, India and Australia to participate in the construction of a system perceived as a whole. This would reflect the current reality that the United States is just another Asian power, and that many of them demand that it be so. And at the same time it would respond to China's aspiration for a global role. Therefore, both would benefit from this.
Implications of both concepts
We assume, logically, that the United States is not an Asian country and that a co-leadership arrangement between China and it would lead to mutual acceptance as equals in East Asia. Furthermore, in the hypothetical case that Beijing and Washington managed to achieve a more constructive relationship, they would have to decide how to involve the rest of the major powers and, in turn, the smaller countries of the Asia-Pacific.
Let's talk about the United States then. Its role as a power in East Asia dates back to 1840, when This became the “China treaty power” and consolidated itself as a military power until today. This position includes a central security alliance with Japan, a network of bases and an important permanent naval presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, in addition to being part of the Pacific Rim. As several figures in the American political sphere commented, “The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay.”
However, is this enough to guarantee the long-term American role in East Asia? Let us remember that Great Britain was also a power, which once also had bases, an alliance with Japan, a naval presence and strong economic activities in the region, it even had extensive colonial territories. In the long term, said country stopped acting as a security actor in the area. However, there are clear differences between Great Britain and the US, as the latter is in a firmer position; It is directly connected to Asia, since it is part of the Pacific Rim.
Still, with the rise of China, these factors they do not guarantee the US permanent leadership in the region. Many Asian governments find this role useful in acting as a counterweight to China, however, as China gets stronger, it will become increasingly difficult for it to maintain its role. Furthermore, the US has an interest in perpetuating its status quo regarding the problems that divide China and its neighbors, while it is working for regional stability.
On the other hand, we found the acceptance of China as a co-leader. And affirming China as an equal partner in managing East Asia's stability would mean that The US would abandon any ambition it may have to be the sole leader of the region, as well as accepting the political system of the Asian giant, which is not possible, since Americans perceive the Communist Party as an existential threat. Another reason why the US is not inclined to accept China as an equal power is that it does not want China to be one. Firstly, the US is used to being a leader and wants to maintain that position at all costs; this implies a clear preference for a situation in which no power can match the American giant. And, thirdly, sharing power implies commitment, therefore the US should give up some of its interests, and it is not up to the task either. In turn, China's growth is undesirable from the American point of view, because it undermines the standing of liberal values internationally.
Third and last, we find the redefinition of alliances and multilateral institutions. Currently, the US has a dual approach towards East and Southeast Asia. On the one hand, it continues investments in security cooperation on a bilateral basis with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand complemented by alliances and cooperative partnerships in and around the region. On the other hand, in recent years it has made a strong effort to contribute to multilateral forums and initiatives (ARF, EAS, ADMM+…). If you were to work in a scenario where the Asia Concert is put into practice, important implications would appear. The main and most important consequence would be the emergence of a new four-party security consultation forum between Japan, the US, China and India, which would be more advantageous for Washington than a regional G-2 with only China, because the concert would encompass two powers that generally distrust China.
To move from an Asian Concert to a Peaceful Community, we should consider other important implications for the American. The basis for developing a multilateral framework for the existence of a Peaceful Community would be the East Asia Summit, supported by the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus. The US is contributing energetically to the construction of complex multilateral mechanisms and is positioning itself as the central axis in each of them. The fundamental pillar of the US regional leadership role is the country's bilateral security alliances with the rest of the region. However, if it were to recognize China as an equal partner in East Asia, its interest in a multilateral approach would outweigh the importance of its bilateral alliances, having to sacrifice some of its interests.
Graduated in International Relations at Loyola University, debater, and multilingual! I speak English, French, and here I go with the fourth language! I am passionate about the field of Security and Defense, and here I am to talk about international issues that concern us all. Do you read me?
