Indo Pacific strategy

[ngatimozart]

My question is whether there's even a need for a NATO type alliance in the region - will really lead to enhanced peace and stability or will it just benefit a select few countries? Is a NATO type alliance really needed or it is something which looks sound but might not solve anything or actually deter anybody [read China]. Might lead to a more insecure China which becomes more assertive. Also, to have a meaningful impact such an alliance should include various regional.countries and not countries which are already closely aligned to the U.S.

The way I see it is that whilst Japan, South Korea, and Australia already have defence and security treaties with the US; NZ has but is suspended, the other Indo Pacific nations especially most of the ASEAN members prefer to have a more non aligned status and they also prefer discussions and mutual agreement over hard and fast Treaty based systems.

As it stands the Philippines and Thailand are non NATO treaty allies of the U.S; Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea are treaty linked; Singapore is not treaty linked but has close ties and Malaysia is officially non aligned but has longstanding and extensive defence ties with the U.S. and Australia and plays host to the only base Australia has on foreign soil. As for India it seeks closer ties with the U.S. but actually being part of an alliance might not be in line with its interests.

NZ isn't in a defence Treaty relationship with any other nation except Australia.

@Vivendi You need to look at history and SEATO didn't work because the Asian nations weren't interested. It didn't suit their style or the Asian way of doing things. It's very much a cultural thing and in their eyes it would have the look of something being imposed upon them by outsiders; a colonial imposition and they had just got rid of their colonial overlords. The Americans didn't understand that then and I doubt if they understand it now. The Australians may understand it a bit more but not much because they still have a very Eurocentric ethnic viewpoint. Geographically they and NZ are of Asia, but culturally and ethnically whilst their indigenous populations are Aboriginal and Polynesian, culturally they are very much still white Anglo Saxon Protestant, although NZ is slowly changing culturally. Australia has just started on that journey. If you look at the way the Pacific Islands Forum works you will find a similarity to how the likes of ASEAN works.

The next thing that you need to consider is the individual countries, their ethnic and religious divisions, their stability, the relationship that each country has with each other, their colonial history, and how their borders were drawn by the colonial powers. That all makes a huge difference and if your look at Myanmar / Burma the British drew arbitrary boundaries that didn't reflect the ethnic, political and religious divisions on the ground. The same with the Dutch in Indonesia, British in India, French in Indo-China and so on. You see the same in the Middle East when the French and British drew arbitrary lines on a piece of paper dividing up the region between them - the infamous Picot-Sykes Agreement, which turned out real good didn't it So it's a lot to think about and is not just a binary solution.

 

[Ananda]

need to look at history and SEATO didn't work because the Asian nations weren't interested. It didn't suit their style or the Asian way of doing things. It's very much a cultural thing and in their eyes it would have the look of something being imposed upon them by outsiders; a colonial imposition and they had just got rid of their colonial overlords

All the media or analysts hypes for Asian NATO always mostly come from Western mainstream media and pundits. Most Asian ones not going to bring this up, because it is not going to work on how most Asians doing things. SEATO not working as you have put is something that being push by US toward some newly independence nations in SEA (except Thailand).

I believe in ASEAN thread some posts during Shangrilla Security Workshop in Singapore being put. What Prabowo's put in his session eventough represent Indonesian possition, however also reflect what most SEA or even other East or South Asians thinking.

Most present Asian Nations borders are based on collonials legacies. However the cultures within those borders also remembers their common historical interactions. They remember Asian region has always has one strong Chinese Empire, Some large Indians Kingdoms that control trades in Indies, and several Kingdoms in Malayan Archipelago that act as middleman throughout the trading wheels systems in the region.

What happen now are Asians trying to regain their own identities and try to workout their interactions. Thus culturally most Asians aknowledge there's going to be one Chinese empire that need to be respected. However they also try to see if the present Chinese empire also will honour smaller neighbours as the old Chinese empires done. The South Asians (especialy India) also want to see if this Chinese Empire also aknowledge Indians influence in the indies.

However Asians also knows there are western regional powers like Aussie and NZ that are playing part in the region, and US that like it or not is Pacific power also. Thus if they decided to have security agreement with US, it is their choice but not something or some model that being push by US or Collective West as before in SEATO.

Asians will determine themselves how they are going to interact with each other on their own neighbourhood. That's why again this Asian Nato talk mostly being push by Western pundits, while most Asian pundits don't bring this up.

 

[STURM]

especially most of the ASEAN members prefer to have a more non aligned status and they also prefer discussions and mutual agreement over hard and fast Treaty based systems.

Various countries are officially non aligned. Although they maybe tilted towards the U.S. and Australia from a security perspective; they won't want to be part of any legally binding alliance. They don't want to be tied down; to be seen as taking/picking sides; especially now when they are being courted by both the U.S. and China to certain things.

Thus culturally most Asians aknowledge there's going to be one Chinese empire that need to be respected. However they also try to see if the present Chinese empire also will honour smaller neighbours as the old Chinese empires done.

A China that needs to be handled properly and tolerated. A major challenge for regional countries is to please both the U.S. and China [both willhave certain demands]; having cordial relations with both whilst also avoiding taking sides.

That's why again this Asian Nato talk mostly being push by Western pundits, while most Asian pundits don't bring this up.

Indeed and I also suspect that the U.S. might not at present be too keen on a NATO type alliance in the region. It's a minefield; what if a treaty nation gets involved in a skirmish with China over a reef in the Spratlys? As it is the U.S. is already over stretched; it has treaty partners in Europe, the Middle east and the Asia Pacific; akin to issuing numerous cheques and hoping they're not all cashed at the same time.

 

[Ananda]

China that needs to be handled properly and tolerated. A major challenge for regional countries is to please both the U.S. and China [both willhave certain demands];

I put this old photo of Soeharto (Indonesia 2nd dictactor and the longest serving ruler for those who don't know), and Jiang Zemin. This is taken in 90's not long before Asian economy crisis 1998 and his demise.

I put it here because it is reflect even Soeharto that can be considered as one of most anti CCP Asian Ruler, in the end acknowledge the need to reengage with China. This is the dictator that within his 30 years of rule, put the most draconian anti Chinese Cultural policy, to eradicate what he sees potential CCP influences within Indonesian Chinese community. This is the guy that basically told the Indonesian Chinese to just make money in trade but forget politics and civil service.

Still after Mao's dies and Deng's practically eradicated his main followers, he begin to see how to reengage China. This photo with Jiang can be call as the result of this reengagement.

This is why an action being push by US and Collective West to ask Asians to containt China will not work. Not even with US strongest allies like Japan and ROK. Even one of the most anti CCP leader like Soeharto knows, you need to keep engaging China in the end.

So an alliance like NATO (that whatever call defensive, in the end is aim to containt Russia), in Asia (which change the containment to China) will never sell to most Asians. Just like China need her neighbours, the other Asians also need China. I remember during my Uni day, one of my Proffessor (whichs also part of Soeharto team), told in one of his lectures: "one of catastrophe in Asia economically and socially, is if China breaking up".

This is what I believe many in West don't understand. Asia need strong China, at same time Asia need to balance their act for that strong China not to missbehave. That's why many Asian need to continue mordernise their military just to shown stronger China to think more on missbehaving. However at same time keep engaging China.

 

[recce.k1]

This is what I believe many in West don't understand. Asia need strong China, at same time Asia need to balance their act for that strong China not to missbehave. That's why many Asian need to continue mordernise their military just to shown stronger China to think more on missbehaving. However at same time keep engaging China.

As an aside I wish the NZ Govt would better understand the need to continue to modernise our military also just to show to a stronger China (because as been said, behind the "smiles of friendship" the CCP will look down on a weaker nation)!

But on the other hand this doesn't quite fit in with why the CCP has been openly hostile to our Aussie friends who not only have a very powerful/stronger military in the wider region (and abiding by and strengthening the international rule of law in this same wider region, to the benefit of many nations etc), they also have very influential military and intelligence connections with not only the US, but also significant liaison/co-operation with say Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia as examples.

What then in your opinion drives the CCP to be so openly hostile? Is it a "facade" (as in being deceptive), eg is it really perhaps to demonstrate to other ASEAN nations that the CCP is the "tough guy" and not to stand up to them (because the CCP will provoke a powerful military even like Australia as a warning)? Or are the CCP worried/threatened about more "outsiders" (as in non-Asian, historically speaking) nations standing up to them and are trying to invoke "anti-colonial" sentiments in support? Or something else? Asking because other ASEAN nations will be concerned about CCP's disregard of international conventions/imposing themselves in disputed territories so I find it an unusual tactic to be openly hostile to more and more nations (eg Canada too now) as it surely can't be winning the hearts and minds of other ASEAN nations?

 

[Ananda]

the other hand this doesn't quite fit in with why the CCP has been openly hostile to our Aussie friends who not only have a very powerful/stronger military in the wider region

I'm no expert on CCP behaviour, nor Chinese Cultures (I'm not an ethnic Chinese), and Greater China is not my speciality market. However based on assesment and conversation with some of colleagues and friends in HK or Shanghai that have more understanding on CCP and Chinese cultures, they say CCP seems see Australia as ungratefull and untrustworthy trading partner.

Base on my understanding on their explenation, China/CCP see that their dispute with SCS neighbours should be handle by them and those neighbours alone and not some fussy white guys down under. They are also see Australia as untrustworthy and ungratefull business partner that stab them in the back after long mutual profitable business relationship. So in CCP (and Chinese online public) mind, they are retaliating to Australian attack. This is their punishment for an ungratefull trading partner.

Again this is my understanding base on discussion with some Colleugues in Greater China market. I also know some members in here have more understanding then me on China and CCP. So perhaps some other can provide better explanation.

Personally I do see CCP think what happen in SCS or internal politics in China are not Aussie business, and Aussie not their (CCP) equal to try to meddling, on something that not concern them. So they see this as US told Aussie to do meddling, and they want to give warning to Aussie and other US allies not to involve with China and US posturing. Basically they told Aussie to back off and not getting involve on big boys game.

 

[Arji]

China/CCP see that their dispute with SCS neighbours should be handle by them and those neighbours alone and not some fussy white guys down under.

Well of course they want that. They have significantly more resources than any of them, and it's not like their neighbors are a united front against China.

 

[Gooey]

Dear/G'day/Kia ora Nga

WRT your comments: "The Australians may understand it a bit more but not much because they still have a very Eurocentric ethnic viewpoint. Geographically they and NZ are of Asia, but culturally and ethnically whilst their indigenous populations are Aboriginal and Polynesian, culturally they are very much still white Anglo Saxon Protestant, although NZ is slowly changing culturally. Australia has just started on that journey."

It's an interesting and huge discussion.

For me, and perhaps some others, yes and no.

NZ has a strong Anglo-Saxon background, culture, and traditions which are largely being ignored by the non-productive 'bed-wetters' (possible one of the best Australian expressions, ever) of our modern society. The increased recognition of our Polynesian connections is of course to be welcomed as history is a dynamic, constantly changing thing. The other side of this coin is that to ignore another side is counter productive. I would argue that the NZ inwards, exceptionalism, navel-gazing since the 1980s has strongly contributed to its current national security position in that its looking backwards; not forward. I love a bit of pom-bashing, All Blacks following, nationalism, but when you start believing your own propaganda is how you end up with a tiny navy and no air force because the world just simply loves Aotearoa.

Additionally, Australia is very far from being a mono culture that is 'white Anglo Saxon Protestant' dominant. Yes there are differences b/w how Aboriginal and Poly's have outcomes in both countries but that is because a huge range of factors. As my company sergeant major said when he was pointing out the error of my ways for hitch-hiking in uniform and advising how the local mog's would 'rip off my head' because of my threads, there are many types of folks.

Ngā Mihi | Kind Regards

 

[ngatimozart]

Dear/G'day/Kia ora Nga

WRT your comments: "The Australians may understand it a bit more but not much because they still have a very Eurocentric ethnic viewpoint. Geographically they and NZ are of Asia, but culturally and ethnically whilst their indigenous populations are Aboriginal and Polynesian, culturally they are very much still white Anglo Saxon Protestant, although NZ is slowly changing culturally. Australia has just started on that journey."

It's an interesting and huge discussion.

For me, and perhaps some others, yes and no.

NZ has a strong Anglo-Saxon background, culture, and traditions which are largely being ignored by the non-productive 'bed-wetters' (possible one of the best Australian expressions, ever) of our modern society. The increased recognition of our Polynesian connections is of course to be welcomed as history is a dynamic, constantly changing thing. The other side of this coin is that to ignore another side is counter productive. I would argue that the NZ inwards, exceptionalism, navel-gazing since the 1980s has strongly contributed to its current national security position in that its looking backwards; not forward. I love a bit of pom-bashing, All Blacks following, nationalism, but when you start believing your own propaganda is how you end up with a tiny navy and no air force because the world just simply loves Aotearoa.

Additionally, Australia is very far from being a mono culture that is 'white Anglo Saxon Protestant' dominant. Yes there are differences b/w how Aboriginal and Poly's have outcomes in both countries but that is because a huge range of factors. As my company sergeant major said when he was pointing out the error of my ways for hitch-hiking in uniform and advising how the local mog's would 'rip off my head' because of my threads, there are many types of folks.

Ngā Mihi | Kind Regards

Kia ora & G'day Gooey,

I am using it in passing as an observation and yes it is a very wide subject. But in general it is also correct as well when you look at both countries at the macro level and at how their governments interact with other nations in the region. That's the level I am discussing it at and I am avoiding drilling down into specifics at meso and micro levels because in this particular discussion it serves no purpose. This is just a general example that I was using and it is important because it illustrates the difference between both countries and the rest of Asia, as well as the differences between the two countries in how they operate. I don't particularly want to get into population distributions etc., at all because it's a PITA and I haven't really done it since first year papers at uni.

Now if my comment is taken as an attack on long held views then what do you think your CSM would've said? I have served under many WOs & SNCOs in both the Navy & Air Force, most of whom served at Trafalgar and Waterloo in the ranks held when I knew them. Some of the Navy senior rates served on the Ark with Noah. I know what they would've said and it would've lasted at least 15 minutes, couldn't be said in polite company, and they wouldn't've repeated themselves once.

So let's leave it there eh.

Nga mihi e hoa,

NG.

 

[Vivendi]

@Vivendi You need to look at history and SEATO didn't work because the Asian nations weren't interested. It didn't suit their style or the Asian way of doing things. It's very much a cultural thing and in their eyes it would have the look of something being imposed upon them by outsiders; a colonial imposition and they had just got rid of their colonial overlords. The Americans didn't understand that then and I doubt if they understand it now. The Australians may understand it a bit more but not much because they still have a very Eurocentric ethnic viewpoint. Geographically they and NZ are of Asia, but culturally and ethnically whilst their indigenous populations are Aboriginal and Polynesian, culturally they are very much still white Anglo Saxon Protestant, although NZ is slowly changing culturally. Australia has just started on that journey. If you look at the way the Pacific Islands Forum works you will find a similarity to how the likes of ASEAN works.

The next thing that you need to consider is the individual countries, their ethnic and religious divisions, their stability, the relationship that each country has with each other, their colonial history, and how their borders were drawn by the colonial powers. That all makes a huge difference and if your look at Myanmar / Burma the British drew arbitrary boundaries that didn't reflect the ethnic, political and religious divisions on the ground. The same with the Dutch in Indonesia, British in India, French in Indo-China and so on. You see the same in the Middle East when the French and British drew arbitrary lines on a piece of paper dividing up the region between them - the infamous Picot-Sykes Agreement, which turned out real good didn't it So it's a lot to think about and is not just a binary solution.

Thanks! I understand better now. I also appreciate very much that you take your time to explain what is probably self-evident to most people from the region, to people (like me) who lack the background knowledge -- it is highly appreciated!

I suspect many countries in the region will struggle mightily due to China's rise. Those that are part of the "hub and spokes" (San Francisco System - Wikipedia) are probably a bit safer than the rest, as long as the US does not become completely overstretched in Europe and the ME. For most other countries in the region the outlook seems pretty bleak to me. As @OPSSG posted in another thread (China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical. | Page 36 | Defence Forum & Military Photos - DefenceTalk ) China has now set the legal basis for it's military to perform "armed forces operations" when Chinese interests are threatened.

Churchill once said: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning". I suspect we are not yet at the end of the beginning. Unfortunately I think we have interesting times ahead of us.

 

[STURM]

Those that are part of the "hub and spokes" (San Francisco System - Wikipedia) are probably a bit safer than the rest, as long as the US does not become completely overstretched in Europe and the ME. For most other countries in the region the outlook seems pretty bleak to me.

Remains to be seen and is why various countries maintain regular bilateral exercises [such as CARAT, SEACAT, Cope Taufan, etc] with the U.S. as well as other forms of cooperation. There are also mechanisms or platforms such as the Shangri-La Dialogue; ASEAN Defence Minister's Meeting, etc; intended to foster understanding and cooperation.

It's interesting to note that China for some reason has not decided to raise the number or extent of bilateral exercises it has with regional countries to rival what the U.S. is doing. It also has not - to my knowledge - decided to host a multi lateral naval exercise; its version of the U.S's RIMPAC or India's MILAN. Should it do so various countries would find it hard to decline participation; it would be a case of the Chinese saying ''you can train with the Americans but not with us''?

 

[Gooey]

NG

1. Thanks for your considered reply. Whilst I note that we are speaking very generically, as you say let's leave it there. As my parting note, I believe that we may need to reexamine our over emphasising of aspects of Australian and NZ characteristics to better prepare our nations for the future.

2. For CSM Sam H: he was a quietly spoken, Vietnam veteran, of few words who was good enough to point out to a naive farm-boy that not all the citizenry of NZ are well intentioned. I greatly appreciated his time. He also understood the necessity of training hard with live ordnance, real friction and fatigue, and bayonet.

3. From RNZ and the ever opinionated Kim Hill this morning:

Pacific security should be a matter for 'Pacific family' - Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong

Australia should be more engaged in the Pacific, something the previous government failed to do sufficiently, says Australia's Foreign Minister.

www.rnz.co.nz

Quote: "Wong was also working on First Nations foreign policy and said it was something she wants to speak to Nanaia Mahuta about. Her emphasis on indigenous foreign policy I think is really quite world leading."

I recall my eye rolling during a large 2017 AS/US table top exercise of vast conception, when our senior Aussie sir (male) talked of the important place of female leadership in conflict prevention/deescalation by providing off-roads for their men to be encouraged to use. Of course I was only interested in the kinetic and non-kinetic coordination and employment, not this hippy stuff. Just perhaps I need to consider that Minister Mahuta is well placed to employ real soft power in our Pacific over the CCP Wolf-warrior culture?

What ever, the good Minister has to also work on her character by-pass and startle rabbit expression. Also, NZ is woefully prepared for any hard power options ... anywhere.

Rgds

Goo

 

[Boatteacher]

I'm no expert on CCP behaviour, nor Chinese Cultures (I'm not an ethnic Chinese), and Greater China is not my speciality market. However based on assesment and conversation with some of colleagues and friends in HK or Shanghai that have more understanding on CCP and Chinese cultures, they say CCP seems see Australia as ungratefull and untrustworthy trading partner.

Base on my understanding on their explenation, China/CCP see that their dispute with SCS neighbours should be handle by them and those neighbours alone and not some fussy white guys down under. They are also see Australia as untrustworthy and ungratefull business partner that stab them in the back after long mutual profitable business relationship. So in CCP (and Chinese online public) mind, they are retaliating to Australian attack. This is their punishment for an ungratefull trading partner.

Again this is my understanding base on discussion with some Colleugues in Greater China market. I also know some members in here have more understanding then me on China and CCP. So perhaps some other can provide better explanation.

Personally I do see CCP think what happen in SCS or internal politics in China are not Aussie business, and Aussie not their (CCP) equal to try to meddling, on something that not concern them. So they see this as US told Aussie to do meddling, and they want to give warning to Aussie and other US allies not to involve with China and US posturing. Basically they told Aussie to back off and not getting involve on big boys game.

I'm replying to this one because it contains elements of what i want to comment on, but not all of them are embodied in this quote.

But the first relates to the 'lack of gratitude' comment. Yes, Australia is one of the few countries that has a positive balance of trade with China. But if this is correct international behaviour, where is the Chinese gratitude to the rest of the world, which admitted it to the WTO before it was really eligible, lets it run enormous trade surpluses with them, steal their IP and manpuliate their currency to favour themselves, breech WTO rules with impunity and generally take advantage of the rest of the world. Gratitude seems to be a one way street.

Secondly, what was the 'stab in the back'. The real punishment started when Australia caled for an international investigation of how COVID came about. China wasn't mentioned (although their reaction is almost of itself an admission of guilt). We also refused to muzzle our press. What exactly did we do that wasn't simply standing up for our basic principles and recognised international norms. What it really was was an attempt to make an example out of Australia. China demands we - and everyone else - bow to their desires and flaunting of international rules or be punished, hoping that treating us this way will be a warning to others. In this case it backfired badly.

Finally, in response to the question of Asia collectively standing up to China (by being part of a sort of NATO or otherwise) instead of recognising the Asian way of bowing to the bigger power and living with it, the World has substaintially changed since that model. Were it not for the US, Australia and other like countries standing up for the law of the sea, by 'meddling' so it seems, China would destroy all Asian finshing grounds and take for itself all offshore resources under the nine dash line. International law was meant tos top the bully big guy from taking over the smaller one. Ether you collectively stand up for it, or you die one by one alone.

 

[ngatimozart]

NG

1. Thanks for your considered reply. Whilst I note that we are speaking very generically, as you say let's leave it there. As my parting note, I believe that we may need to reexamine our over emphasising of aspects of Australian and NZ characteristics to better prepare our nations for the future.

2. For CSM Sam H: he was a quietly spoken, Vietnam veteran, of few words who was good enough to point out to a naive farm-boy that not all the citizenry of NZ are well intentioned. I greatly appreciated his time. He also understood the necessity of training hard with live ordnance, real friction and fatigue, and bayonet.

3. From RNZ and the ever opinionated Kim Hill this morning:

Pacific security should be a matter for 'Pacific family' - Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong

Australia should be more engaged in the Pacific, something the previous government failed to do sufficiently, says Australia's Foreign Minister.

www.rnz.co.nz

Quote: "Wong was also working on First Nations foreign policy and said it was something she wants to speak to Nanaia Mahuta about. Her emphasis on indigenous foreign policy I think is really quite world leading."

I recall my eye rolling during a large 2017 AS/US table top exercise of vast conception, when our senior Aussie sir (male) talked of the important place of female leadership in conflict prevention/deescalation by providing off-roads for their men to be encouraged to use. Of course I was only interested in the kinetic and non-kinetic coordination and employment, not this hippy stuff. Just perhaps I need to consider that Minister Mahuta is well placed to employ real soft power in our Pacific over the CCP Wolf-warrior culture?

What ever, the good Minister has to also work on her character by-pass and startle rabbit expression. Also, NZ is woefully prepared for any hard power options ... anywhere.

Rgds

Goo

No probs, I was in when we had problems with the likes of the PYM (Progressive Youth Movement) and our uniform was spat at. They only did it once because some gentle persuasion took care of that. I remember helping clean out the Christchurch Square one Friday night of long hairs after a soldier from Burnham had been stabbed by a long hair a previous night. Web belts with brass fittings were great things. That was a Burnham Wigram OP. Many of us were arrested a few times each that night by the cops, thrown in the paddy wagon, driven around the other side of the Square and let loose again. The cops just waited until the army & air force were finished, then arrested the PYM still found in the Square, charged them with affray or similar and through them in the cells. We just went to the pub and then parties as you do.

Have you ever played against women in rugby? I have in a couple of friendlies; the WAAFS vs the Airmen / Cpls. We treated it as friendly games, but the WAAFs didn't. Having been forewarned I wore a cricket box both times and I am glad I did. I wouldn't underestimate the value of females in conflict prevention / de-escalation because they do think differently to us males. I also wouldn't underestimate their value in combat either because they can be just as violent as us guys and sometimes more vicious. Just ask the Germans who came up against the female Soviet Partisans during WW2. Those women were very brutal to any Germans they caught, especially SS. They died very painfully, very slowly.

1NZSFR use women on OPs in areas such as Afghanistan where they can talk with local women to gain intel. The women aren't required to pass the NZSAS course, but they are required to pass a course that is between the standard 1RNZIR infantry course and the NZ Commando course. I believe that they have no shortage of volunteers and those that make the grade.

Rgds,

NG.

 

[Ananda]

response to the question of Asia collectively standing up to China (by being part of a sort of NATO or otherwise) instead of recognising the Asian way of bowing to the bigger power and living with it,

Asian way of recognising one big power is not same as bowing to that power. There's no mention on bowing to China on my post or Sturm on the matter. Collectively like NATO is useless for Asia as SEATO already shown. Because NATO model is for 'containment' disguise as 'defensive'.

Asian smaller power will continue build up their own power, they will make China understand it will cost them to cross the line. However they will also work with China because strong China also work for Asian developement. All Asian economic development is intertwine to each other.

What my post and (I believe) sturm point out is containment will not work in Asia. What's working so far is 'balancing'. However it is not the same with 'bowing'. Something that many in West or those with Western thinking seems not easy to understand.

Balancing can also work toward flexibilities. It is working in fluid matter, which means very potential some Asians will work collectively toward China on case by case base. This is will not work on rigid collective alliance model like NATO, and which is why it is one of reason why SEATO not working.

 

[Vivendi]

Asian smaller power will continue build up their own power, they will make China understand it will cost them to cross the line. However they will also work with China because strong China also work for Asian developement. All Asian economic development is intertwine to each other.

Small Asian powers will not have the resources and economy to independently build credible defence forces able to deter China. If they choose not to balance by entering alliance with other countries they will at the end of the day be forced to accept whatever China demands from them. The only other option to an alliance, would be to obtain nuclear weapons, but that comes with a lot of other issues (ref. NK, Iran). I understand that alliance is not an option to many smaller Asian powers. They will have to suffer the consequences as China grows stronger and more assertive. You can call it 'balancing' or something else, but at the end of the day, countries trying to go it alone will in the future have to accept orders given from Beijing. It's their choice to make of course, based on their history and their culture.

Working with China is of course a great idea but for smaller countries it will always be on China's premises and they have to meet China's demands and requirements.

 

[Boatteacher]

What my post and (I believe) sturm point out is containment will not work in Asia. What's working so far is 'balancing'. However it is not the same with 'bowing'. Something that many in West or those with Western thinking seems not easy to understand.

I suppose these are the words I simplified as 'bowing'...
"Thus culturally most Asians acknowledge there's going to be one Chinese empire that need to be respected. However they also try to see if the present Chinese empire also will honour smaller neighbours as the old Chinese empires done. "

So you're accepting "Empire", which infers accepting forced expansions and domination and sort of hoping the old rules of mutual respect might apply.
And yet, with it's nine dash line and enforeced claims of soverignity over it and ambitions of more, and the severance of water supplies to downstream countries, the present Chinese approach offers a very improvished 'honouring' of their neighbours.

The World has been changed by population pressures. China's approach is a beggar thy neighbour one where keeping its own population happy can come at infinate cost to their neighbours.

World trading has also changed. Any sensible western corporation must be worried about China based supply chains. China going rogue - as it threatens to do - will have severe effects on supplies to western countries. A reliable alternative is there for the bulding.

Finally there is meant to be a rules based system which China is working hard to destroy and the Asian countries will be the first line sufferers if it is not supported.

I don't know that the old ways can be relied on as much as in the past.

 

[STURM]

Small Asian powers will not have the resources and economy to independently build credible defence forces able to deter China.

Firstly they are not trying to ''deter'' but ''handle'' China'. Secondly if you look at all the claimants in the Spratlys dispute it will be evident that they each have a different way of ''handling/balancing'' China. Plus, as has been pointed out before there is a reason why various countries participate in regular exercises with the U.S. as well as other forms of cooperation including exchanges and participation in U.S. hosted multilateral exercises. There are also platforms for dialogue such as the Shangri-La Dialogue and the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting.

It's their choice to make of course, based on their history and their culture..

Based on their threat calculus; internal politics; level of trade with china and a host of other factors. Some feel more vulnerable than others; some like Vietnam; because of historical factors [was a vassal state and occupied by China centuries ago; fought a border war with China and lost the Paracels and other islands to the Chinese] views China in a slightly different light when compared to its neighbours.

they have to meet China's demands and requirements..

Even the likes of the U.S. and others have to make certain compromises or trade offs when dealing with China and here we are talking about smaller South East Asian countries

 

[Ananda]

You can call it 'balancing' or something else, but at the end of the day, countries trying to go it alone will in the future have to accept orders given from Beijing. It's their choice to make of course, based on their history and their culture.

Well that's your opinion. However again 'balancing' is not same thing as 'bowing'. West is always think China going to dictate, but in truth on many cases it can be like 'bargaining' business. Will China going to dictate as their power growth ? Very probable, but then not much dictate that US demand.

All of that again base on coercion from each economics and trade cloud each empire has. Smaller power had to balance on that. Especially in Multipolar Globalisation that this situation come to.

you're accepting "Empire", which infers accepting forced expansions and domination and sort of hoping the old rules of mutual respect might apply.

What do you call of US as this just another "empire" ? Don't tell me the rest of collective West not working under some pressure from US empire for time to time.

 

[Boatteacher]

What do you call of US as this just another "empire" ? Don't tell me the rest of collective West not working under some pressure from US empire for time to time.

No, I don't think it's anything like an Empire.
There might be an element of pax america, but that's not Empire.
It does not tell us what to do and I have no sense that our country will be invaded or punished if we do not accord with its wishes.
It (with other Wesern Countries) has been instrumental in establishing and maintaining the rules based system we have all benefited from.
There will be no benefit to the World of a Chinese Empire.

What does pressure mean?
If there is coersion, it is entirely an attempt at moral persuasion (often ignored by the way; the French do it very well, among others), with certainly no threat of military enforcement (yes I agree, Iraq is not a great example, but it was never to be part of an American Empire; its rationale was completely different).

Empiires are controlled by the ruling country and militarily enforced; sometimes more harshly than others.