Asia's shifting geometry

Last week, on the occasion of Hu Jintao's visit to Moscow, I wrote this post, suggesting that while China and Russia may appear to be moving ever closer together, there are good reasons to think that both Russia and China will be seeking greater flexibility in the Asia-Pacific region.

Two recent articles develop this idea further.

First, in Japan Focus, M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat, argues that Sino-Russian ties are weakening, and Sino-American ties are deepening, citing the symbolism of General Pace's visit to Beijing just before Hu went to Russia. Notably, Bhadrakumar calls attention to Chinese concerns about becoming too dependent on Russia for energy -- suggesting that China, the US, and the EU may be moving towards a consensus on coping with Russia as energy superpower. And he concludes by quoting a researcher at the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who calls attention to the new wind in the Sino-US relationship: "The Sino-US relationship is moving beyond the bilateral scope to cover regional and global security and economic matters. Exchanges at various levels and between diverse sectors, trade and economic cooperation in particular, are going ahead in a big way. By all accounts, the two countries share more interests and are becoming increasingly dependent on one another strategically and economically."

Obviously there are still plenty of outstanding bilateral issues between China and the US, not least the nature of the Chinese regime, but Washington increasingly sees in China a partner in preserving the stability of the region, a fundamental interest of both Washington and Beijing. Bhadrakumar's essay is useful in measuring the degree to which the region's arrangements are in flux.

That impression is confirmed in an essay by Ian Bremmer (hat tip: RealClearPolitics), author of the book The J Curve, who points to the "mutually assured economic destruction" intrinsic to the Sino-US relationship to argue against the idea of a new cold war between the US and China (or Russia). I would not be so foolish as to suggest that armed competition or conflict is impossible, but the terms of the relationship between the US and China have changed. Each country needs the other; each country needs to engage the other constructively to address issues of mutual concern. Accordingly, expect more initiatives on the order of the US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue.

With the US embracing flexibility in its Asia policy, the big question is whether Japan has adjusted accordingly. Despite Abe's early visits to China and South Korea, I strongly suspect that Japan remains wedded to a strategic concept -- a maritime alliance of democracies off the coast of Asia -- that seems increasingly out of favor in Washington. The "continentalists" are in control, and stability, not democracy, is increasingly the watchword of US Asia policy.

Putin meets Hu

I feel like the title of this post could be the beginning of a corny geopolitics-themed Abbot and Costello parody.

But seriously, the Japanese media seems to be keeping a close eye on the meeting in Moscow between Presidents Hu and Putin. This Mainichi article, for example, calls attention to the two countries agreeing to strengthen their "strategic partnership. Yomiuri, meanwhile, ran two articles about the China-Russia summit, this one on the facts of the meeting and a longer, analytic article that does not appear to be online.

While it is entirely appropriate for the Japanese press to watch discussions between two of the four powers constituting the East Asian strategic quadrangle -- the subject of this book by Robyn Lim -- I suspect Japan's media, particularly conservative publications like Yomiuri, are interested in part because closer relations between China and Russia plays into the "antagonistic Asia" storyline. Two large continental empires with illiberal political system versus...the maritime democratic allies, standing shoulder to shoulder as they did during the cold war, except this time Japan would no doubt love to play a more active military role.

I think, however, that observers should not overestimate the value of the China-Russia partnership. While there are a number of areas in which Beijing and Moscow have reasons to cooperate -- perhaps starting from their joint defense of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states -- neither state, but Russia in particular, will benefit from being tied too closely to the other. And let's not forget that there is plenty of friction between the two, not least the millions of Chinese flowing into Siberia. Frankly, the less fettered Russia's position in the region, the better. Following up last month's visits to Japan by several Russian officials to talk energy, I would not be surprised if momentum builds towards a Japan-Russia rapprochement. The more Russia can triangulate between energy-hungry China and Japan, the more it will gain and the more secure its position in the Far East will be.

So while Russia and China may find international cooperation useful in, for example, the UN Security Council, I have doubts about whether Beijing and Moscow will be especially chummy in East Asian matters. The regional security environment is becoming increasingly fluid, militating against a firmer Sino-Russian partnership, and, I fear, more intense political cooperation between the US and Japan.