SOME countries in the Asia-Pacific region are critical of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and worried that this development might lower the threshold for similar attempts to change borders by the threat or use of force in their own region.
The recent Trilateral Commission Task Force Report, done at Harvard University by experts on the Ukrainian crisis, revealed that, at the United Nations (UN) Security Council, Japan and South Korea voted in support of the resolution to deny the validity of the referendum on the status of Crimea, which Russia vetoed as China and India abstained.
Other countries also voted for the UN resolution calling on states and international organizations and agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea and Sevastopol, expressing their concern, among others, that “China, whose choice between solidarity with Moscow and relations with the West has been sharpened as a result, that it would have a distractive effect on the United States with its ‘rebalancing to Asia’ policy, and that it might diminish East Asian countries’ opportunities for economic and regional cooperation with Russia.”
The report said: “That, from a Chinese perspective, the Ukrainian crisis is the product of residual Cold War mentality. Russian President [Vladimir] Putin is believed not to back down in face of sanctions imposed by the West. Ukraine is seen as not only as a link among East European countries, but also a region of immense importance for Russia’s security in the south.”
“What [the] Western media called ‘a new Cold War’ triggered by the Ukraine crisis is in no one’s interest. If Ukraine, at this point, is forced to choose between the US/Europe and Russia, the situation will be further destabilized and the country risks another round of disintegration after it lost Crimea, and if the European Union breaks with Russia for supporting Ukraine and the two end up in a new Cold War, the interests of both sides will be jeopardized, as the costs far outweigh the gains,” it added.
The report also said that, to balance the interests of the US/Europe and Russia, Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should be agreed on as the red line that should not be crossed. An ultranationalist government in Ukraine will not be in the interest of peace and stability in the country, it added.
From a midterm perspective, with focus on the Asian balance of power, an Indian member of the trilateral task force concluded that enduring tensions between Russia and the West in Europe will work to the advantage of China and the disadvantage of India.
India’s apparent tilt toward Russia in the Ukraine crisis is seen to have underlined Delhi’s enduring political ties with Moscow, despite the significant improvement in the South Asian nation’s relations with the US and Western Europe.
The report said India’s partnership with Russia remains politically viable, if increasingly limited as the consequence of Russia’s closer relations with China and the improvement in India’s relations with the US and Europe. In the future, it will be significantly influenced by Moscow’s approach toward two important bilateral relations: with Pakistan and China.
Put in perspective, Russia’s profile in the Asia-Pacific region has remained low since the end of the Cold War. Moscow has been giving foreign-policy priority to Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian relations over engagement in Asia-Pacific diplomacy.
More significant in the regional context, the post-Cold War economic decay and the consequent depopulation of Eastern Siberia and the Far East (with the exception of Sakhalin) have deprived Russia of the means to expand its presence in the region, where economic interdependence has been the primary focus of international relations.
Moreover, Russia has recently been overshadowed by China economically, as well as in terms of political influence. The rapid growth of the Chinese economy has drastically transformed geopolitical dynamics in the region, giving Beijing increased weight in regional diplomacy.
The expansion of Chinese military power has made the US-China strategic balance the focus of the Asia-Pacific geopolitics, while the US-Russia balance is not relevant to regional security, at least so far.
The trilateral report said: “Relations between Russia and Asia-Pacific countries are diverse. President Vladimir Putin’s executive order of 2012 elaborates Moscow’s country-wise foreign-policy priorities in the region according to the following order: ‘deepening equal, trust-based partnership and strategic cooperation with China,’ ‘deepening strategic partnership with India and Vietnam,’ and ‘developing mutually beneficial cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and other key countries in the Asia-Pacific region.’”
“Asia-Pacific countries’ relations with Russia, too, are different from each other, particularly in the political agenda they pursue. China is trying to strengthen its partnership with Moscow as part of its strategy to realize a ‘multipolar’ world order that should replace what Beijing sees as a unipolar world dominated by the US,” the report pointed out.
Japan, on the other hand, pursues the goal of recovering its “Northern Territories” under Russian control and concluding a peace treaty with Moscow that has not been signed since the end of World War II.
South Korea needs Russian cooperation for the denuclearization of North Korea and the reunification of the Korean peninsula. But, Seoul, like Washington and Tokyo, counts more on Beijing than Moscow for political influence over Pyongyang.
Considering all these, cooperation between Russia and Asia-Pacific countries would be better pursued bilaterally, rather than multilaterally, at least in the near future.
E-mail: cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.