The offense-defense combination with long-range strike capability is a more effective strategy than a defense-only strategy to counter China’s territorial expansion. Say, if Japan and India possess long-range strike capabilities, this combined capability makes China defend multiple fronts. Even if China decides to expand its territories along the India-China border, China still needs to expend a certain amount of its budget and military force to defend itself against Japan.
This document clearly mentions that Japan will increase official development assistance (ODA) for a strategic purpose. For the purpose of deepening security cooperation with like-minded countries, apart from ODA for the economic and social development of developing countries and other purposes, a new cooperation framework for the benefit of armed forces and other related organizations will be established. It will affect the whole part of the Indo-Pacific. For a long time, a ‘hub and spoke’ system has maintained order in the Indo-Pacific. In this system, the hub is the US and the many spokes are the US allies such as Japan, Australia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific. A feature of the current system is that it heavily depends on the US. For example, even though Japan and Australia are both US allies, there is no Japan-Australia alliance. However, China’s recent provocations indicate that the current system has not worked to dissuade its expansion. Between 2011 and 2020 China increased its military expenditure by 76 percent, and the US decreased its expenditure by 10 percent. Even if the US military expenditure were three times bigger than China’s, the current “hub and spoke” system would still not be enough As a result, a new network-based security system is emerging. The US allies and partners cooperate with each other and share security burdens with the US and among themselves. Many bilateral, trilateral, quadrilateral, or other multilateral cooperation arrangements—such as US-Japan-India, Japan-India-Australia, Australia-UK-US(AUKUS), India-Australia-Indonesia, India-Australia-France, and India-Israel-UAE-US(I2U2)—are creating a network of security cooperation and sharing the regional security burden. Japan’s latest security strategy is based on such an idea. Japan will share the security burden with the US by possessing strike capability and providing arms to countries in this region as one of the security providers of the US-led circle. Could you elaborate on Japan’s South Asia policy, its priorities, and its interest in this region? In the past, Japan did not have a strategy in South Asia. Japan supported many infrastructure projects in South Asia purely because Japan tried to contribute to the local society. However, since China expanded its influence in South Asia and provoked Japan in many places in the Indo-Pacific, Japan’s attitude has changed. Because China’s infrastructure projects are the ones with high-interest rate, it created huge debt and Sri Lanka needed to give China the right to control Hambantota port. This is one typical example of how dangerous China’s hegemonic ambition has become. This time, the National Security Strategy of Japan clearly wrote “Strategic Use of ODA.” Japan will continue many infrastructure projects in South Asia as pure assistance. But at the same time, Japan will increase the projects to save local countries and dissuade China’s hegemonic ambition. How do you see the growing rivalry between the US and China in the Indo-Pacific region? The most recent US National Security Strategy indicated that US-China competition will escalate. The document states: “The PRC is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it. And three factors indicate that America is on the road to win the competition with China. First, the US is still stronger than China. A SIPRI database indicates that the US military expenditure in 2020 was three times bigger than China’s. In addition, the US has more allies. The number of political partners has been a decisive factor in geopolitical competition. For example, in WWI, the winning side comprised 32 countries, but the losing side was composed of just four countries. In WWII, the winning side had 54, but the losing side had only eight. In the case of the US-Soviet Cold War, the winning side had 54 countries, but the defeated side had 26. In the case of the current US-China competition, the US has 52 legal-based formal allies including NATO, the Central and South American countries, and Middle East and Asian allies like Japan. But China has only North Korea as a formal ally. The history of the US indicates that the US will win the competition with China. 246 years ago, the US was a single colony of the British Empire. But they transformed into the world’s only superpower now. During this time, all rivals of the US, including Germany, Japan, and the USSR, disappeared. This means that the US system is a successful system to be powerful and win the competition. And indeed, the US had a long-term plan to win the competition. For example, before WWII, the US had an “Orange Plan” to defeat Japan and implemented it. But when that plan was declassified in 1974, the world was surprised to learn that there were also other plans, including a “Red Plan” to defeat Britain and Canada. Both in WWI and WWII, the US supported the British. But because the world is changeable, it is understandable that the US was prepared for any type of contingency. If the US National Security Strategy states that “the PRC is the only competitor,” it is natural to conclude that the US has the plan to defeat China. US Republicans and Democrats share many similar goals toward China. The Trump administration’s so-called ‘high-tech war,’ which banned products from Huawei and ZTE, started when the Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE was published in 2012, during the Obama administration. The current Biden administration also continued the policy. The US’s objectives in this competition have bipartisan support. Therefore, considering these situations, we should stand with the US because being on the winning side is beneficial. And three factors indicate that America is on the road to win the competition with China Where does India stand on the US-China rivalry? India and Japan share the same set of problems. For example, in the sea around the Senkaku Islands of Japan, China has employed its coast guards and increased its activities. In 2011, the number of Chinese vessels identified within the contiguous zone in the waters surrounding the Senkaku Islands in Japan was only 12. But the number increased to 428 in 2012, 819 in 2013, 729 in 2014, 707 in 2015, 752 in 2016, 696 in 2017, and 615 in 2018. By 2019, the number had reached 1097. A comparison between the number of Chinese vessels identified within the contiguous zone in the waters surrounding the Senkaku Islands in Japan and China’s incursions in the Sino-Indian border area are similar. In 2011, India recorded 213 incursions in the Sino-Indian border area, but in the following years, the numbers were larger: 426 in 2012, 411 in 2013, 460 in 2014, 428 in 2015, 296 in 2016, 473 in 2017, 404 in 2018, and 663 in 2019. These incursions are similar to China’s activities around the Senkaku Islands of Japan. Based on the number of Chinese incursions in the India-China border area and Chinese activities in the sea around the Senkaku Islands, it becomes apparent that China has increased its assertiveness in 2012 and 2019 in both regions. Therefore, India should cooperate with the US, Australia and Japan. However, cooperation also has a risk. In the QUAD, India could be the first target of China to make pressure. India shares a land border with China and the US, Australia and Japan do not. It is easier for China to provoke India by using ground and air forces. In addition, India is not a treaty-based formal ally with the US like Australia and Japan are. View from China is that India is the weakest link. If China wants to make pressure to disband QUAD, India could be the first target. Therefore, India wanted to be low profile in the QUAD military cooperation despite India promoting military cooperation with other QUAD members. However, China’s recent provocation against India on the India-China border changed India’s attitude. The more China escalates the situation, the more the QUAD should become institutionalized and cohesive. What are your suggestions to the countries like Nepal regarding the conduct of foreign policy in this turbulent geopolitical environment? The above mentioned answer indicated two things. Firstly, China’s infrastructure projects and economic support could be a ‘debt trap’. Japan’s one is workable and far better. Second, America is on the road to winning the competition with China. The winning side is always beneficial. But when Nepal shows a clear stance against China, China will provoke and try to punish Nepal. Therefore, Nepal should gradually distance itself from China. For Nepal to cooperate with the QUAD side more deeply and steadily is the best policy.
