CFR Presents

Asia Unbound

CFR experts give their take on the cutting-edge issues emerging in Asia today.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Ukraine’s Lessons for Asia

by Alyssa Ayres
March 5, 2014

A signboard is seen from the Indian side of the Indo-China border at Bumla, in the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, November 11, 2009 (Courtesy Reuters/Adnan Abidi). A signboard is seen from the Indian side of the Indo-China border at Bumla, in the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, November 11, 2009 (Adnan Abidi/Courtesy Reuters).

This post is one of a three-part Asia Unbound series on the implications for Asia of the crisis in Ukraine. See related posts from my colleagues Elizabeth Economy and Sheila Smith.

The most significant international crisis in recent years—Russia’s invasion of the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine—has left global and western institutions scrambling to respond. What lessons do these events offer thus far for Asia?

First, at a time when a focus of the U.S. strategy toward Asia has emphasized strengthening regional institutions to deal with differences—establishing strong “rules of the road”—the crisis in Ukraine shows the capabilities as well as limits of such rules. In the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Europe has strong economic and security institutions, with decades of experience working together, managing differences, facilitating shared security burdens, and coordinating the continent’s trade approaches to the world.

In many ways the system worked; there has been no Russian move into alliance members like Latvia or Lithuania, which also have Russian-speaking minorities. Ukraine, at the EU frontier and outside of NATO, is much more vulnerable by comparison.

But the crisis also reveals the limits of rules and norms. Moscow seemed unconcerned that NATO members might view an invasion of neighboring Ukraine as a direct threat. Nor did fear of possible alienation from the G8, or condemnation from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), dissuade Russia from an invasion in the name of protecting Russian speakers. The other side of the rules of the road argument would be their limited power.

So as the United States focuses in its Asia policy on shoring up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum, East Asia Summit, and ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus—all of which now include ASEAN, the United States, India, China, Japan, Russia, and others—the argument that establishing shared rules will enhance regional security has frayed a little at the edges.

Second, the Ukraine events illustrate the woeful failings of the UN Security Council (UNSC). Its vulnerability to veto power renders the UNSC in an awkwardly limited position. This is why Europe and the United States are examining persuasive and punitive responses centered elsewhere: on a “contact group,” national visa policies, economic fora like the G8, and possibilities of coordinated sanctions.

The UNSC’s vulnerabilities matter in Asia because of the possibility of conflict in several places, compounded by the more limited institutional mechanisms available for dealing with one, should it erupt. The Council on Foreign Relations’ Center for Preventive Action released its 2014 Global Conflict Tracker in January, and the places which global experts feared might be flashpoints in 2014 are instructive.

Across South Asia, post-2014 stability in Afghanistan, instability in Pakistan, Indo-Pakistan conflict, and Sino-Indian border conflict all made the list. Of these, Sino-Indian border conflict was ranked below the others in terms of likelihood. Yet that is also the one potential conflict where a permanent member of the UNSC (China) moved troops to the border with India last May, and about thirty Chinese soldiers pitched tents nineteen kilometers inside Indian territory. That episode lasted for more than three weeks before India and China defused the situation.

In addition, in recent years China has become increasingly more assertive in its claim to the Tawang area of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which lies just below the “line of actual control” between the two countries in place since the two countries’ 1962 border war.

Chinese authorities have refused to issue Indian citizens from that state visas in their Indian passports, offering only “stapled visas” instead, and have issued maps that depict the territory as part of China. In India, people view these Chinese claims with an increasingly wary eye; last May’s tent-pitching was just the most expansive demonstration of territorial claim in recent years. Last week one of India’s leading politicians, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s candidate for prime minister, Narendra Modi, gave a speech in India’s northeast in which he called for China to end its “expansionist mindset.”

But back to Ukraine: the Indian government has not taken a strong public position on the crisis, walking a tightrope between its deep historic ties to Russia, and its commitment to the inviolability of national sovereignty. The only indication of India’s position so far, despite a reported request from the government of Ukraine for India to support it against Russia’s claims, has been a response to a question on Twitter from the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson: “We are closely watching fast evolving situation and hope for a peaceful resolution.”

How this crisis unfurls in the coming days will matter greatly for Asia. If the combination of NATO, EU, OSCE, G7, and coordinated national responses effectively manage the crisis, then the lesson will be that violating international norms result in costs too steep to bear. But a prolonged period of indeterminate impact, with Russian troops digging in further in Crimea against all appeals otherwise, may lead to the conclusion that the most institutionalized region of the world has few arrows in the policy quiver to respond to territorial aggression—the worst possible lesson.

Follow me on Twitter: @AyresAlyssa 

Post a Comment 3 Comments

  • Posted by Prudence

    Who has the political will to stop China or Russia from taking whatever they want? The weak, strident rhetoric of Kerry is laughable.

    Giving a billion to Ukraine could limit the middle man by sending a check directly to Putin. We can just sell some more bonds to the FRB printing press while our poor get poorer and politicians get richer.

  • Posted by Yoshimichi Moriyama

    When the West extended the military cover of NATO to a few of the Eastern European countries, George F. Kennan said in the midst of everyone’s euphoria that it was the greatest mistake the West had made since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    It was and is very fortunate that NATO, of course including the United States, had not given the Ukraine any military commitment.

  • Posted by Mazo

    It is absurd and ironic for the West and NATO to lament the breach of international “rules and norms” when they have violated these very rules when it has suited their purpose however they please disregarding any objections from Russia or other members of the UNSC. Now these same “war-criminals” and “human rights” violators who run secret prisons and conduct illegal drone warfare casually murdering thousands of innocent civilians in their self-serving “War on Terror” and spreading chaos through out the Middle East without ANY international approvals or UN oversight have the temerity to castigate Russia and Putin ?

    Where was EUs and NATO “security institutions” when they sought to build missile defence installations right on Russia’s frontiers ? Where was NATO’s “rules and norms” as they covertly manoeuvred into former Soviet Republics one by one expanding not only the European Union’s economic union but also stretching the hand of NATO right to Russia’s doorstep ? There has been no Russian move into Latvia or Lithuania because neither Latvia nor Lithuania base the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet and neither have these states fallen into anarchy with neo-nazies and fascist right-wing groups spewing Russo-phobic invective threatening Russia’s strategic interests directly. You don’t need to be a great academic and foreign policy savant to recognize this.

    If establishing “shared rules” involves the US and its NATO tag-alongs doing whatever they want when ever they want irrespective of international law or UNSC mandate then it isn’t “shared rules and values” – but merely empty platitudes like they were meant to be. Shared rules and regional security were compromised a long while ago when the USA unilaterally invaded Iraq with the same self-righteous European underlings who are sermonizing right now with regards to Russia. The USA followed this up with its reckless march through the Middle east toppling one regime after another, waging remote wars through drones, destroying civilian property and lives casually without any consideration and toppling dictators and autocrats who didn’t suit its needs from Gaddhafi to the botched attempts in Syria without regard to the wider implications of their actions and how it would impact the global economy or other nations. In that period the USA demonstrated explicitly to the entire world – Putin in particular, that might is all that matters and the USA is not bound by any laws or rules or norms or even the UNSC in changing the world to suit its needs. Its too late to complain that Russia is now emulating the USA.

    India and China are well aware that the surest and most credible deterrent to armed conflict is now the good intentions and lofty rhetoric of diplomats but credible and tangible military power. This is what keeps China and India at status quo and this is also what keeps India and China interested in diffusing volatile situations before they escalate because both sides can decimate each other. Not “shared values and norms” but the simple fear of death.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required

Pingbacks