1. Many Asian countries are living under the burden of history as they have yet to establish strong bilateral or multilateral forums to manage relations. This is holding the region back from realizing its full economic potential. 2. Rising tensions between China and Japan over territorial disputes threaten to undermine stability in East Asia. Both countries are strengthening military ties with the US which escalates distrust between them. 3. The report warns that South Asia faces major internal and external shocks in the coming years that could trigger broader regional instability, and even potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan cannot be ruled out. Weak governance across the region exacerbates these risks.

1. BURDEN OF HISTORY IN AN ASIAN
CENTURY
KESHAV PRASAD BHATTARAI
Many writers have referred Elie Kretty - one of the captains of Napoleon Bonaparte during his
military adventure to Egypt (1798-1801). Kretty in his book - Souvenir Historiques, have quoted
Napoleon that says - “Europe is too small; great reputations can only be made in the orient.” And the
oriental countries from Japan and South Korea to China and India with their massive economic
success have confirmed Napoleon - in making such reputations in modern history.
The first such oriental reputation had begun with Japan‟s victory over the Great Russian Empire on
May 1905. During that time, the country of the Rising Sun under the command of Admiral Tōgō
Heihachirō destroyed almost all Russian naval power that was led by Admiral Zinovy Rozhestvensky
in the Battle of Tsushima strait between Southern Japan and Korean peninsula.
In the Battle of Tsushima Admiral Rozhestvensky had reached by steaming over some 29,000
kilometers with 11 battle ships, 8 cruisers and 9 destroyers manned by more than 10,000 armed
personnel and sailors. The historic battle in Tsushima to some historians and European statesmen
has remained the greatest and most important naval battle since the Battle of Trafalgar – a war
fought one hundred years ago that ultimately wiped out the greatest threat to British security for
200 years and proved the invincibility of British navy over Napoleon's Franco-Spanish fleet.
According to Pankaj Mishra “. . . for the first time since the middle ages, a non - European country
had vanquished a European power in a major war” and people from Turkey to China were stirred at
the news. Mishra has further mentioned the imagination caught by the Japanese victory that the
newly born child in India were named after Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō and even the great Indian
litterateur Rabindranath Tagore who later won Nobel Prize “led his students in an impromptu
victory march” in a school run by him. A flurry of excitement was also felt by from the great people
like Gandhi, Mao, Sun Yat -sen and Kemel Ataturk.
But it is Europe that made greater reputations. Within a period of 20 years, Europe went to Great
Wars two times – the wars known as the First and Second World War. But after World War II –
Western Europe abandoned all its centuries‟ long animosities and returned to the longest and
greatest period of peace in human history. The unprecedented achievement they attained was the
success in building trusts in their relations and build institutions to expand and ensure trusts among
them. After the end of Cold War it was extended up to its Eastern flank. They have challenges,
they may have found themselves at the cross roads over some of the challenges, but militarily they
are not threat to each others. They do not float fear among them. Wars among them are now
unthinkable and indubitably, it is their greatest contribution to humanity.

2. In Europe, with regional bodies they constituted – they are working fine and have succeeded in
managing their problems with each others in an inspiring way. The institutions they have created
have worked as most effective shock absorber among and between them. But Europe ended wars
but unfortunately Asia carried the war inheritance.
1. COLLIDING COURSE IN EAST ASIA AND ASIAN CENTURY
Ironically, the countries that have built enormous power to control the global economy and
characterize it as an Asian Century are living under the burden of history. They are yet to create
some bilateral or multilateral forums to discuss on issues that are churning their relations since the
beginning of the last Century and manage them amicably. For their inheritance to unpleasant history
– they lacked trusts, do have no strong institutions to manage them and hoist flag of hopes and
courage in their relations. They are managing their relations under the forces of globalization – but
fear and distrusts have ruled them.
Take note of China and Japan. Japan‟s Liberal Democratic Party head Shinzo Abe – who after
winning a land slide victory over the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has clearly outlined the
major priorities of his incoming government as follows: first to recover the health of national
economy, second: strengthen relations with United States and upgrade Japan's Self-Defense
Forces (SDF) to a national military so that it can operate beyond its border under the rules of
engagement.
It is a matter to note that constitutionally Japan cannot engage in any wars beyond its territory
and posses offensive weapons. Abe has hinted that his government is willing to amend the Article 9
of its constitution that renounces war as a means of resolving international conflicts.
According to international media sources Abe‟s strategic announcement is intended to provide its
military more assertive role that is visible in its waters and discourage China from extending its
reach into waters that Japan claims its own. Obviously Japan has one of the most advanced and
effective military in the world - together, it wants to play some larger strategic roles as an alliance
of U.S. and NATO forces.
And third priority of the Abe government will be to try to improve its relations with China, but with
two geo-political considerations one: rebuilding and re-strengthening the alliance with the United
States. And the other: the unfailingly strong national determination to protect its territory
including the ownership over Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands.
According to Asahi Shimbun – Japan‟s most reputed daily newspaper, Abe in a speech last month
said "Let us assume Japanese and U.S. naval ships are defending the Senkaku Islands and the U.S.
ships come under attack. Whether or not the Self-Defense Forces can come to the help of the U.S.
military will depend on whether the right of collective self-defense can be exercised. If it did not
help, that would mean the end of the Japan-U.S. alliance."
Some days before Abe made this statement, Japan‟s defense minister Satoshi Morimoto had
expressed his country‟s willingness to revise his country‟s security alliance with the United States
and build more spaces for Japan in addressing the growing threat from China especially to the

3. islands that were at the center of a territorial dispute. Japan‟s defense white paper – Defense of
Japan 2012 has given list of intensified Chinese naval and aerial activities surrounding Japanese
territorial waters.
The US Strategic Defense Guidance 2012, announced earlier this year by President Barrack Obama
and Japan‟s Defense Whitepaper have endorsed each other‟s position on strategic import of China‟s
military rise and its impact on their security in variety of ways mainly in East Asia and in Asia-
Pacific. Both countries, in unequivocal terms, have spelt out their strategic policy in expanding their
networks of cooperation to ensure collective capability and capacity for securing common interests.
Obviously Asia is big enough to make great history but much bigger are its challenges - when
compared with any other continent. They may any day cause biggest danger to human society. In no
other region such divisions - within the countries, among the countries and among the major global
powers on Asian security, exists. It does have no any common political and defense framework to
look after their common cause. Asia in all areas of major concerns - cultural, political, economic and
strategic, is weak and have exhibited that it will remain weak for long.
2. DREAMING OF WAR AND WORKING ON WAR
It seems when Asia sleeps it dreams war and when it awakes it works on war – war among countries
and wars among peoples is Asia‟s lovely game. Relations among Asian countries are more complicated
than in any other region - whether it is East Asia, South Asia or Middle East.
South Asia has been a typical example of this. According to American National Intelligence
Council's (NIC) recent report released on December 10 : Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds
“South Asia faces a series of internal and external shocks in the next 15-20 years” and is likely to
trigger broader instability in the region and the Asian continent as whole.
South Asia - where the potential course of conflict is rising and going intense, if goes to war in
future - most probably involving China or India and Pakistan, they are most likely to involve multiple
forms of warfare including the use of nuclear weapons, the NIC in its report appallingly anticipates.
It has also shockingly disclosed that among the 15 countries that are at high risks of state failures
– three are in South Asia: Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The report concludes that the
situation will not improve until 2030.
The report further claims that although the pressures exerted by China and United States, have
persuaded both India and Pakistan to “increase their strategic dialogue and to begin open trade
flows”, Pakistan‟s envy over India‟s rapid economic growth has further fueled distrust and
suspicions and that has motivated Pakistan to continue its nuclear modernization programs.
South Asian neighborhood “has always had a profound influence on internal developments in all the
countries”- that somehow has been the source of major sense of insecurity in the region-
contributing to shored up military expenditures , it stated.
In way in finding some kind of deterrence and balance against India‟s conventional military
advantages – “If a Mumbai – style terrorist attack from Pakistan backed Islamic militants is
repeated with many casualties followed by „Pakistani fingerprints‟ would put a weakened Indian

4. government under tremendous pressure to respond with force, with the attendant risk of nuclear
miscalculation”, the report has made a clear warning.
To a large extent, post U.S. led NATO forces withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 is likely to make
conflicting Indo-Pak strategic competition over Kabul desperately dangerous and “hedging
strategies of other Afghanistan‟s neighbors will “make it difficult to develop a strong regional
security frame work.”
Identifying the region‟s most tricky aspects of bilateral and multilateral relations the report
asserts that water may become a more significant source of contention than energy or minerals out
to 2030 at both the intrastate and interstate levels. Obviously South Asia – that mainly belongs to
the world‟s major belt of water stress with its ever increasing population pressures, has attained
limited capacity in managing with its mounting water stresses.
While China, for long, has played a pivotal role in almost all regional strategic profile of South Asia -
from sharing of water resources to nuclear weapons and India for obvious reasons, on the other
hand, has developed a threat perception vis-à-vis China - for its role mainly in supporting Pakistan
and gaining critical strategic advantages over the region.
On this background, the report has further suggested that a crisis-prone global economy has been
bringing rapid and vast geo- strategic changes in and around South Asia. And this when coupled
with a governance gap in the countries of the region - potential for increased conflict, wider scope
of regional instability, impact of new technologies, and the ability of the United States and China to
manage their relationship and the nature and intensity of their relations with India, will by and
large define the stability of the global system.
3. A RISING AND A RISKIER ASIA
What China achieved in eliminating poverty and bringing prosperity for its people within a period of
three decades is unparallel in human history. However, what China‟s leadership and its state
controlled media display at times says that the enormous economic and military power it enjoyed -
is yet to be translated into level of confidence and trust in its behavior with other major regional
and global power.
As quoted by Joseph S. Nye Jr. in the New York Times President Hu Jintao in the beginning of this
year said “We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot
of Westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their
long-term infiltration.” Hu further said “the international culture of the West is strong while we
are weak.”
Similar is the case with India. In a book - South Asia‟s Weak States (OUP, 2011), T.V. Paul, an
Indian Scholar working in Canada has identified four types of weak states in the region: “failed
states, very weak states, weak states and strong weak states”. According to Paul while Afghanistan
comes close to failed states category, Nepal falls under the second grouping. Rests of the countries
except India come close to the „weak states‟ type and the most powerful country of the region and

5. an acclaimed economic giant of the 21st Century world – India typifies itself as a “strong weak
state” of South Asia.
This way, including India all South Asian states on varied degree are weak states and have often
failed to meet the core need of their national security, face the threats to their internal security
effectively and build minimum institutional capacity to tackle the complexity of multidimensional
security challenges they face.
When even the major global powers like China and India – right at the vanguard of an Asian
Century, exhibit dire inefficiency in building institutions in enhancing trust with countries in their
neighborhood and fail in taking effective actions against the situations that threaten their
security, ensure stability and sustain economic growth, the buzz word of Asian Century may end into
an odd joke of history.
What drives politicians is still a great puzzle in Asia. It seems they are yet to learn that - history
can always be corrected but the geography is always to be respected and realized with greatest
faith, trust and hope.
Refraining from nurturing its enthusiasm in advancing its strategic edge over India in other South
Asian countries and assuring its neighbors against its territorial ambition in East and South East
Asian waters, China can build a great moral political force that becomes fair to the size of its
economy and its sustenance.
Similarly if India succeeds in maintaining internal peace and stability - effectively and boldly in
addressing the concerns of its small neighbors in South Asia; undoubtedly, with the great reserve
of moral strengths it generates - India confidently can lead the Asian century.
However Herculean task it may be until India and China including countries like Japan, South
Korea, Indonesia and Pakistan gain ability in structuring an institutional framework to consult
each-other in all areas of bilateral and multilateral relations, their massive geo-political edge and
economic clout cannot be realized at the regional and global level.
Eurasia Review December 20, 2012
www.eurasiareview.com/author/keshav-prasad-bhattarai/