The agenda for President Donald Trump's 12-day visit to Asia included North Korea and trade issues. Of course, he at the same time made it clear that he was also on a mission to correct mistakes made by his predecessors in the region, in particular by President Obama. On all those issues what he actually achieved remains rather very debatable.
In view of North Korea's strategic objective to continue to strengthen its position militarily rather than resorting to any diplomatic settlement with the USA, nothing much could have been achieved on that front. So he did what he could do under the circumstances: put North Korea back onto the list of countries which sponsor terrorism.
Trump quite emphatically expressed his view that he did not like multilateral treaties and he would prefer to negotiate bilateral treaties where the US would be able to negotiate trade treaties on the one-on-one basis to its advantage, thus giving substance to his "America First" doctrine. Such totally misguided trade policy can create serious economic havoc in the region. No wonder that he could not find any taker for this, rather all countries in the region have solidly committed themselves to multilateralism.
However, he found in North Korea a bilateral trading partner for trading in personal insults. Overall, the threat of an armed conflict in the Korean Peninsula appears to have receded but the stalemate continues.
Trump has already ditched Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and also does not use the term "pivot'' or "rebalance'' any longer. But he has the same objective as his predecessor Barack Obama in the Asia-Pacific region - China's economic rise must be contained. Trump also shares the strategic rationale as developed during the Obama administration for the massive deployment of US armada in the region. This deployment is premised on the assumption that the economic and military rise of China will lead to armed conflict of the USA with China. To reaffirm the US position, the Pentagon had co-ordinated a massive display of its armada to coincide with Trump's tour of Asia. But Chinese leaders have repeatedly told the USA that the Pacific is big enough to accommodate both the USA and China, yet there is a growing concern in the USA that China is slowly but surely easing out the USA form the region.
Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping is promoting a multilateral trading system and sustainable development goals which are in sync with all other regional countries.
Trump's attempt to gather war coalition against North Korea to use it as a political leverage against China did not work out as planned. His offer to mediate in the dispute between China and other littoral countries over territorial claims in the South China Sea did not arouse any response. Even his new-found friend, the Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte declared that the South China Sea issue was "better left untouched''. In effect, China has reached an agreement with 10 countries in the region to work out a protocol for the disputed area thus sidelining the USA completely.
If trump's central goal was to reaffirm the USA's commitment to the region, his America First agenda did not help to alleviate the concerns about the future role of the USA in the region. Also, the tactic to use North Korea as a pressure point to pressurise China did not work.
Now it has become clear that China's rise is inexorable; a new game plan is needed to contain China, if not to stop its rise. During his Asia visit Trump started to mention the Indo-Pacific rather than the Asia-Pacific. These two terms imply very different two sets of actors and interests. So the idea of the Indo-Pacific offers another response to China's rise or more precisely, another approach to contain China. In this strategic framework India becomes a key player and the US and its key strategic allies, Australia and Japan, find it very attractive to let India provide another important counterweight to growing Chinese influence in the region.
QUADRILATERAL SECURITY DIALOGUE RESURRECTED: So, now comes the resurrection of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) comprising Australia, India, Japan and the USA or simply the Quad, 10 years after it was mooted in 2007 at the instigation of Japan. The resurrection of the Quad is attributed to concerns felt by US allies, especially Australia and Japan, in the region due to the rise of China. What are those concerns have not been made clear given that both countries have very strong economic relations with China. India, of course, shares those unspecified concerns.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi India has more vigorously than before steered India out of its non-aligned past and has gone for embracing (in fact, literally if one recollects his embrace of Trump in Washington) US suzerainty to become a 'vassal state'. Apparently, in line with this US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited India last month to promote intensified military cooperation between the two countries. Tillerson in effect alluded to use India as an attack force to advance US strategic interests in the region.
The Modi government is also pursuing a policy of confrontation and rivalry with China. Modi appears to be blinded by animosities of the past rather than looking forward to the future where mutually beneficial relationships could be built with China. India should further take lessons from China how the country (China) has thwarted the US fantasy to turn China into a strategic client state like Japan and positioned itself not only as a truly independent country but also a global power.
Tillerson must have taken great comfort when in early September, India's Army Chief General Bipin Rawat declared as his Prime Minister was in China to attend the BRICS summit, that China is his country's "northern adversary''. It is not surprising that the first visit to India by a senior cabinet member of the Trump administration was General Mattis, the defence secretary. General Rawat also foresaw an all-out war along the entire front from the north to the west. One must have to remember that three countries - China, India and Pakistan - that are involved have nuclear weapons and the General's comments are quite irresponsible, to say the least. Such comments have the potential of creating an environment of increased armed hostility. India is now the second largest buyer of US armaments. After all, it now appears that the US armaments industry is the major exporting industry in the country and wars and war-like situations are good for the business for this industry.
During the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Manila, a meeting was held between Australia, India, Japan and the US officials for exploratory talks and on regional security architecture but no ministerial-level Quad meeting has been held yet. But the USA is definitely pushing for the coalition to take shape. Both Japan and India also consider the Quad as a means to advance their strategic interests against China. Australia has always been a frontline supporter of the USA in its every war since the end of the second world war. Australia and Japan, since the end of the second world war, accepted the position of strategic clients of the USA. They also accepted the USA as the singular guarantor and thereby to that guarantor they forfeited their right to pursue independent policy. Now India is quite willingly joining that club.
Any serious attempt to push ahead with the Quad now is caught up with Trump's "America First" trade strategy replacing multilateral TPP which was clearly designed by the Obama administration to contain China economically. But renegotiating trade deals on a bilateral basis with close allies such as Japan and South Korea and others is raising the question how feasible it (the Quad) would be.
The Quad will incur substantial costs and commitments and also risks. India may have confidence in its military prowess but the country still remains a very poor country. In today's world merely having a very big army and nuclear weapons does not make a country great power - it just gives an illusion of it. If one applies similar criteria, a couple other countries are also eligible to be great powers on that score. A recent report entitled Indian Income Inequality, 1922-2014: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj by French economists Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty rather paints a very sorry picture of the Indian economy, in particular, who are appropriating the benefits of India's economic growth.
In effect the Quad may prove to be counterproductive. The Quad has already become a contentious issue because China considers it as an effort to contain its economic rise. China also feels threatened by the USA. Japan's aggression and occupation of China is still vivid in the memory of the Chinese people. Besides, China has long-standing border disputes with India.
Given that Australia, India and Japan have very high levels of economic engagements with China, ganging up against China does not really serve economic interests of any of these countries. Attempts to hurt China's economic interests will inexorably hurt economic interest of these three countries.
The final word is, the USA cannot be the solution to any country having any problems with China.
The writer is an independent economic and political analyst.
muhammad.mahmood47@gmail.com