Robert Kaplan: The center of military power in the world is moving to Asia

In an interview, Robert Kaplan says: 'The United States can preserve the peace [in the Asia Pacific] by seeking not domination, but a favorable balance of power with China. It must at some level allow China its rightful place in the Western Pacific.'

Christophe Ena/AP
Chinese President Xi Jinping, waves to reporters as he leaves a meeting with France's Prime Minister Jean Marc Ayrault in Paris, March 27.

Robert Kaplan is the author of “Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific.” He spoke with WorldPost and Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels on March 25.

NATHAN GARDELS:China’s efforts to enhance its influence as a rising power in an assertive way will backfire and result in an unintended encirclement of China by her neighbors. The irony is that this ‘security dilemma’ was exactly what happened in Europe when Kaiser Wilhelm II, confident of rising power of Germany, began to practice a muscular diplomacy in 1890.”

This is a quote from former South Korean foreign minister Yoon Young-kwan in a recent WorldPost article. Like many others, including Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he suggests that the situation in East Asia in 2014 is analagous to 1914 in Europe.

Do you see it that way? In what ways yes, in what ways no?

ROBERT KAPLAN: The better comparison is not with the Kaiser’s Germany or World War I, but with American policy in the 19th and early 20th century for the Greater Caribbean.

China sees the South China and East China seas as blue water extensions of its continental land mass, just as a younger America saw the Greater Caribbean that way. Domination of the Greater Caribbean gave the United States strategic control of the Western Hemisphere, allowing it to affect the balance of power in the Eastern Hemisphere throughout the 20th century.

China believes it is its right to be the preponderant power in its adjacent seas, thus unlocking the door to the wider Pacific and Indian Ocean for the Chinese navy.

World War I was a history- and culture-transforming event because of its interminable length and massive body count. Asia by contrast is a maritime sphere that could have short intense wars over blue sea with no civilian casualties.

GARDELS: What are the dimensions of the arms race in East Asia? What is its fundamental motivation?

KAPLAN: China is on its way to having one of history’s great navies. The other states are responding in kind. These are not 20th century land armies that are being built, but postmodern navies, air forces, missile systems, and cyber-warfare capacities.

The center of military power in the world is moving to Asia. The reason: Sustained capitalist expansion leads to military acquisitions. As states consolidate their institutions at home and do more trade and business abroad, they seek militaries in order to defend their new interests. Asian states like China, Japan, and Vietnam are no longer internally focused, but projecting power out – and thus their territorial claims clash and overlap. So we have a great military build-up.

GARDELS: What can be done to prevent East Asia from going the way of Europe in the 20th century where rival nationalisms led to war? Can China and the US share power to stabilize the Pacific?

KAPLAN: The United States must not let China Finlandize its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific. But neither can the United States allow Japanese, Filipino, or Vietnamese nationalism to force the United States into a military conflict with China. The United States can preserve the peace by seeking not domination, but a favorable balance of power with China. It must at some level allow China its rightful place in the Western Pacific. 

© 2014 The WorldPost/Global Viewpoint Network, distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Hosted online by The Christian Science Monitor.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.