S Korea must stay neutral in standoff

By: Azhar Azam

The Republic of Korea (ROK), commonly known as South Korea, has been caught in the middle of the China-US tensions. Seoul seeks to steel its security alliance with Washington over threats from Pyongyang, a historic Beijing ally, and rivalry with Tokyo as well as wants to protect its high economic stakes in China.

Seoul’s exports to Beijing, nearly 26% of its total exports and a trade volume that is larger than the ROK’s trade with Japan and the US combined, is the backbone of the country's economy. The East Asian country therefore can hardly afford to strain ties with China and push its economy in a myriad of woes.

Frictions between Beijing and Seoul, over ROK’s deal with the US to deploy THAAD anti-missile system, flared into an outright diplomatic bickering in February 2016 once former warned the bilateral relation could be “destroyed in an instant” and latter argued the decision was made to counter “North Korea’s growing nuclear and missile threats.”

Under then-new South Korean President Moon Jae-in, largely due to Seoul’s’ dried out exports to Beijing and sinking Chinese tourist arrivals, diplomatic impasse finally broke in October 2017 and the country fostered détente with China in an effort to head off the imminent economic crisis by bringing “exchange and cooperation in all areas back on normal development track.”

Moon’s three noes – no more deployment of THAAD, no integration into a US-led regional missile defense system and no formation of trilateral military alliance with America and Japan – contributed in thawing the China-ROK relationship and helped Asia’s fourth largest economy ship goods to its biggest export market.

Even as Moon had so far refused to support “the Quad” or “the Quad plus alpha” and has been ambivalent promote the US “free and open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)” vision – he acknowledged the importance of the Quad and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and agreed to align ROK’s ASEAN-centered New Southern Policy (NSP) with the FOIP including freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea (SCS).

The joint statement is being dubbed in South Korea as a tilt toward the US, backtracking from the country's neutral position in the China-America conflict and throwing weight behind Washington. But the ROK president – who travelled to the US after skipping foreign tours since December 2019 when he visited China to seek Chinese cooperation in several sectors and believed Hong Kong and Xinjiang were China’s internal affairs – still delicately balanced the tone of the shared declaration.

While the joint statement mentioned China not once, Moon didn’t touch the chaffing security aspect of the Quad that Beijing labels an anti-China coalition, talked cautiously on the Taiwan issue in a way not to provoke Beijing and cleverly linked his NSP – which before his arrival at the White House called for substantive cooperation with Washington in seven health, technology and infrastructure areas – with the FOIP through “respective approaches.”

It is also important to note that for three years in a row, South Korea has been cancelling the biannual joint military exercises with the US to prevent stirring tensions with North Korea. On the other hand, former Moon adviser urged the government to pursue a “transcendental foreign policy” as taking side with the US, peace and prosperity would be “hard to guarantee” in the region amid intensifying China-US conflict.

Before the summit, the Biden administration reportedly pressed Moon to act as a decumbent US ally and take up strong language against Beijing. But the ROK president – very well aware of huge political, economic and security implications – had no choice except balancing his stance between the existing and nascent superpowers to safeguard the nation's security alliance with the US and economic interests in Beijing, a popular consensus building in domestic politics.

Unfortunately for the US, it is not just progressives who have been searching for a middle ground between Beijing and Washington; no prominent conservative national security experts think the country should join the Quad, indicating there might not be any changes in the ROK China policy even if conservatives win in the 2022 election.

The US President Joe Biden is willing to meet North Korea’s President Kim Jong-un and diplomatically engage the country for complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula if he makes serious commitment to discuss dropping his nuclear ambitions. He appointed Obama’s era US ambassador to Seoul, Sung Kim, as his special envoy for Pyongyang.

However following close consultations with Seoul during months-long review of the North Korea policy and staying “deeply concerned” about Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions – the White House, having declined to offer incentives ahead of the summit, didn’t give any specifics of concessions it would extend to bring North Korea back on the table. It was despite Kim’s conciliatory moves not to conduct nuclear tests or firing intercontinental ballistic missiles since 2017.

There are fears in South Korea tipping in the US favor – oblique support for the Quad and FOIP alongside upsetting remarks for China on Taiwan and the SCS – would enrage Beijing, perhaps the only country that can help to reengage Pyongyang for denuclearization and missile launches.

Pew poll is often cited to indicate 83% of the South Koreans lack confidence in Chinese President Xi Jinping about his handling of “world affairs” and 75% of them see Beijing somewhat or very unfavorably. But it is also a historical fact many in the Korean peninsula are closely associated with Chinese civilization and feel proud of being “Sojunghwa” or “little China,” while Beijing is making efforts to further promote cross-country cultural exchanges with Seoul.

Then how could it be discounted that the former ROK President Park Geun-hye, jailed for 20 years over corruption charges, in 2015 visited China to commemorate the end of World War II with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Tiananmen square where she stressed on the importance of strategic cooperation with Beijing.

Washington’s narcissistic strategy, idle talk on denuclearization, unpredictability as a reliable South Korean partner and Trumpization of the US politics, like many countries, have been withering the chances of a clear ROK support for America in the China-US standoff and were the factors that pressed Moon to stick to a neutral position at the White House.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "Bangkok Post": 

https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2123547/s-korea-must-stay-neutral-in-standoff

America's longest war is far from over

By: Azhar Azam

The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. immediately enlivened sore memories of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor during World War II in the United States. But unlike Japan's unconditional surrender and Iraq and Kosovo wars where America had territorial objectives or the U.S.-led NATO suffered few combat deaths – the U.S. war in Afghanistan was a formidable challenge.


Fearing anti-American sentiments, dissent within the societies and large civilian casualties – no major regional state or Arab nation contributed troops for the Afghan war. Additionally, despite Europe's concerns, the U.S. will bridge too far in its fight against terrorism, American and British forces carried out initial military operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan alone.

Even as the U.S. has announced troop withdrawal, the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan won't be over soon. Washington and allies will reportedly keep a "less visible" presence in the country, and the departure won't include thousands of "off the books" servicemen and private contractors. The plan gives a clear message: Washington still wants to engage itself in Afghanistan more militarily and less constructively.

It's no mystery that American goals in Afghanistan have been predominantly military, in order to achieve which the U.S. excluded the Taliban from the political process for many years. Yet, the use of sheer force to defeat the Taliban failed to fetch America a victory and stop militants from expanding their influence.

Nearly 20 years on and with Taliban having outlived the blood-curdling counterinsurgency operations of the so-called world's most powerful security alliance, NATO – the U.S. war on terror is nastier, brutish and longer than it was originally thought, reminiscent of the Cold War. The Taliban are in a stronger position than at any point since 2001 and with 55,000 to 85,000 full-time fighters, the group today controls vast swathes of the country.

Washington's defensive posture in Afghanistan since 2015 – staying and praying that the Taliban make abundant strategic mistakes to its advantage – failed utterly and the superpower was forced to engage a government in peace talks it labeled a significant foreign policy concern and deposed almost two decades ago.

After the Soviet Union pulled out from Afghanistan, the U.S. created a power vacuum in historically a messy state by walking away from the scene. Once felt done militarily, Washington in May 2014 again announced to keep fewer than 1,000 troops by the end of 2016 to guard the U.S. embassy and train Afghan troops with a security assistance component like it did in Iraq.

Throughout years of military campaigns, the U.S. didn't focus on building political consensus and conflict resolution among several Afghan factions, which would have allowed them to work together for Afghanistan's stability and reconstruction. By the time the U.S. realized the importance of dialogue, Afghanistan had roiled into further volatility.

Arguments such as the U.S. shifted emphasis on Iraq and exclusion of the Taliban from the political process to justify America's funeral pace failure in Afghanistan wasn't only due to a good war waged poorly; the U.S. wanted to dominate the weaker nations simultaneously through power albeit alternatives available to war to prevent hundreds of thousands of displacements and killings.


The U.S. official data claimed since FY2002, more than $143 billion was spent on reconstruction and related activities in Afghanistan by December 2020. But with $88 billion incurred on security and $19 billion (or 30 percent of the $63 billion cumulatively reviewed) lost to waste and others – there was very little left for Kabul to bind the Afghan wounds that were delivered by the U.S. strikes in the form of 111,000 casualties and economic and fragile infrastructure devastation.

America invaded Afghanistan to destroy terror networks, posing threats to the U.S. and international security. While almost $1 trillion dollars military spending hasn't changed anything on the ground, unabated violence in Afghanistan warns America with a scant military presence was leaving behind a destabilized country from economic, security and political perspectives besides threatening the crucial Afghan peace process and regional stability.

The perplexing conception in the U.S. to make Afghanistan a "security headache" for China and distract it from the South China Sea and other areas is even more dangerous for peace in the wider region. The omission of combating terrorism from the U.S. priority agenda and lay the onus on vulnerable Afghan people "step up to defend their own country" only to concentrate on China could be catastrophic for regional and global peace as downplaying terrorism would inspirit the extremist organizations to regroup in Afghanistan.

As Western analysts agree, China isn't a revisionist power in Afghanistan and doesn't intend to intervene or has never supported foreign intervention in independent states. Beijing's interest in Afghanistan is a broader political reconciliation among all warring parties that could prompt internal stability to pave the way for Afghan economic recovery and post-war reconstruction.

Washington has bled out in the longest war in American history; it's the U.S. cupidity to ensure dominance in the region, for which America should blame no one else except itself. With Kabul facing a dense economic crisis and tensed political talks ahead, Washington should not shed responsibility for Afghan reconstruction.

The U.S. cannot abandon Afghanistan and the Afghan people once again. Washington is vamoosing from the country with a little military footprint, but the U.S. war on terror is far from over. Some core U.S. challenges in Afghanistan, such as countering terrorism, resolving differences and making a meaningful contribution to the Afghan peace process to achieve peace and stability as well as resume reconstruction and economic development, remain unaccomplished, and the U.S. is obliged to undertake these vital tasks.

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)": 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-05-20/America-s-longest-war-is-far-from-over-10qe59penCM/index.html

Biden is being influenced by Trump's 'China, China, China' mantra

By: Azhar Azam

The economically nostalgic Donald Trump talked about China so much that he looked weird when a compilation was cobbled together with the number of times the former U.S. president babbled about China. In the end, both his narrowed approach toward Beijing and hardly a half-phrased foreign policy – China, China, China – floundered badly and his presidency is now history.

During the presidential campaign, he roasted Joe Biden for being soft on China and launched a smear campaign, "Beijing Biden," to damage his rival politically. Although Trump lost his second bid for the White House, he left lawmakers who would keep reminding Biden that America's foreign policy issue for the entire 21st century will be "China, China and China" and it is likely to be on Biden's top foreign policy priorities.

Washington's Beijing dilemma is all about the fall of military adventurism and interventionism and the rise of cooperation and economic integration. As global leaders doubt that America could lead the world even through an old gory fashion and question if it somehow manages to do that, how long would it survive – the U.S. perspective on China as a rival state for global influence perhaps will never change.

Biden is making efforts to end the U.S. isolation at the global stage by quashing Trump's "America First" policy. But Washington's European allies, aware of Trumpism in U.S. politics, are concerned they could come across another president in 2024 who would again take the country back to isolationism, insult and humiliate them and pull out of the Paris Agreement.

China, by comparison, is now considered a real political and economic power that in addition to winning "hearts and minds" of global citizens, it is maturing itself from being a rules-follower country to the rules-setter nation. Therefore, Biden sees the U.S. standing at a "great inflection point" and falling behind in competition with China to win the 21st century.

In his remarks on America's place in the world, Biden said there wasn't any country that could match America. With 50 women killed by inmates every month, systemic racism plaguing the country and 250 Americans shot dead in the streets within a week between mass shooting events in Georgia and Colorado – the U.S. is obviously a peerless state, which isn't losing international relevance not because of rivals instead over growing intolerance and violence.

The U.S. has finally comprehended no matter how powerful, it cannot address the challenges alone and multilateral cooperation is the absolute necessity. Unfortunately, the good sense is confined to soft-soaping only as the Biden administration most recently has taken coordinated actions on Xinjiang, issued a stroppy joint statement with Japan vis-à-vis peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and tried to gang up Group of Seven (G7) nations against Beijing.

However, officials in the administration have little faith that strategy to rally allies to confront China would work as Beijing in the past few years had substantially evolved into a robust and resilient international force and a major economy with advanced technological capability, which can withstand extreme pressure and come out more strongly whenever it is put to test.

It was hence albeit criticism on China over alleged human rights abuses and "coercive economic policies" – some of the key G7 member states refrained from taking any practical measures against the world's biggest market while tone of the joint communique – hailing China's centrality to fight the global challenges – was very circumspect.

The opposing views further described not all countries within the grouping agreed that the confrontational diplomacy was worth consideration, let alone be pursued to stir up tensions with the world's second largest economy. This trend would go on to force Biden, who's keeping Trump's unilateral policies intact in his dealing with Beijing, to make some changes in his foreign policy on China.

Some say China is a "paper dragon," arguing its economic, technological and military advancements are vastly exaggerated and asking Americans to hear the "perspective of confidence." But the lopsided analysis still dismissed trade protectionism and trade war.

After all, neither will a potential clash benefit two nations and the world grappled with the pandemic nor does it contribute to the global peace and security. Any frictions between two powers will cripple global fight against the pandemic and help terrorists across regions to regroup and exploit the catastrophe to promote and impose their extremist views.

China was a political buzzword that handed over Trump the U.S. presidency in 2016. Four years later, the hocus-pocus can't beguile Americans and Biden took over on issues relating to health and economy. Biden's parroting of "China, China, China" through advisers or allies won't fulfill promises he made to nation. For that, he is required to engage China and make full use of the biggest market in the world.

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)": 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-05-11/Biden-is-being-influenced-by-Trump-s-China-China-China-mantra-10aE0Xm0rII/index.html