US allies in Asia fear losing their nuclear umbrella because US President Donald Trump suggested some global disengagement. Without the umbrella, as seen with Ukraine, a country’s independence is in jeopardy. It starts a new proliferation.
Washington is tempted to withdraw from some international pledges and is keen to pursue its agenda without much consultation or consensus with the allies. There are divergent priorities in the alliances.
Facing the North Korean atomic risk, the majority of South Koreans reportedly want the bomb. Japan, threatened by North Korea and scared by China, might quickly consider a nuclear defense. At that point, even Vietnam or Indonesia might contemplate fissile capabilities. And why not the Philippines or Thailand? India and Pakistan already possess a mighty stash.
The big question is Taiwan: will the island yield to Beijing or build its nukes?
China would be in a quagmire. It’d be the target of this arsenal and in a vicious circle – the more bombs it stocks, the more bombs its neighbors will stock. It’d be unprecedented with unfathomable consequences.
The environment in Asia is more complicated than in Europe, where two strong US-backed frameworks, NATO and the EU, have held the continent together for decades. Asia has thinner multilateral institutions and bilateral pacts with the US.
Countries in the region often don’t trust China or each other. If America steps back, everything will fall apart. China is not ready to provide free security guarantees to everyone, replacing American ones, and its guarantees could not be welcomed.
Asian alternatives
A strategy could be for Korea and Japan to ask France and the UK to stretch their nuclear umbrella to Asia. A similar agreement is under consideration in Europe, where France and the UK could extend their national protection across the continent. This could deepen the transatlantic rift, as the UK plus EU would develop greater room for maneuvering out of Wahington’s plans.
Besides, a Franco-British reach over Eurasia’s east side could spark fresh, not necessarily positive, global political and military dynamics. Alternatively, there could be greater political and military coordination among America’s allies, even with the US taking a step back.
The UK (with Keir Starmer), France (with Emmanuel Macron), Germany (with Friedrich Merz), and Japan (with Fumio Kishida), are possibly weaving the fabric of something new that other countries could join. In World War II, the US wanted to stay out of the fight, but then Churchill, with words and actions, helped to convince Roosevelt to change his mind.
China, America’s primary concern and preoccupation, could turn the situation by tackling it head-on. Beijing should force Pyongyang to forfeit its nuclear arsenal. It should press Russia to disarm partially, and it should shelve its rearmament plans. It would defuse the arms race.
It’d be challenging, but it’d be essential to start working on it.
It could also dissuade the US from leaving the region and persuade it to engage in a genuine negotiation on the RMB’s full convertibility, the complete opening of China’s internal market, and Beijing’s territorial claims.
US world
Underpinning this scenario is perhaps a reality that’s perceived vaguely in Beijing and taken for granted (thus similarly unclear) in Washington. America is not a country but a world order, just as Rome ceased to be a city when it cemented its empire around the Mediterranean.
This empire is not based solely on military might as was that of the Mongols. It has a sophisticated architecture comprising many elements besides strength: culture, rule of law, history, economic and financial prestige. If the US tries to withdraw, not only will the world order collapse but the United States will crumble, too. There’s no way back from “imperial America” other than suicide.
Naturally, the US feels immense strain after decades of vast responsibilities. Thus, many political and economic aspects must be renegotiated, but invading Greenland destroys the world order and the American nation.
It might superficially look like an opportunity for China to take up the US slack. However, Beijing could have far more problems than it currently faces, or it could face negotiating a broad deal with the US.
In all this, too many elements are up in the air, and the role of the Vatican as a disarmed yet knowledgeable and disenchanted mediator could be invaluable.
Many players would need to leave their present trajectory and comfort zone to turn the present undercurrents around. The US should rethink its direction and renegotiate its commitments. It’d be safer and less expensive than to gamble a global security overhaul. Perhaps Trump is pursuing this, but the public hears a different message.
Therefore, Asian and, thus, global nuclear proliferation is the likely scenario. The old Cold War set the terms of the previous arms race – it was run between two blocs. Now, alliances are unraveling, and every country could be basically on its own. This race would be different, more challenging, and full of unexpected incidents.
Everyone needs to step back and keep a cool head to avert a military tsunami.
Is this article an April fool’s joke?
Hegseth just said that U.S. main enemy in the world is China.
Main enemy of Taiwan, Viet, Indon, Malay, Jap, Korea, Russia, Tibet, Uighyrs and Indians is China.
Did I miss anyone out, oh yes the Ph !
another BS rant from a fake east asia expert – the US aint “withdrawing” or disengaging from asia, trump merely wanna push the US’ asian lapdogs to the frontline to do its dirty work – if the US is truly withdrawing, hegseth would not be in japan praising the genocidal imperialist japanese military as heroic “warrior” friends who have “shared values” with the americans, or in the philippines to tell little marcos that the US has its back on its claims on chinese territories … trump wanna MAGA by throwing others into the fire and if its really retreating, the world would become a much better place because the locals will finally have a chance to sort out their differences in their own way …
If by moving to the backline from the frontline is not withdrawal and cowardice, then what is? This is a disengagment. Its not hard to see a move from the backline back stateside. Its easier than going back to a hot frontline. This is cowardice. This isn’t shared values. Nothing in common about this move. The US has lost its edge and to lose a carrier or two would be the end of the perception of US hegemony. I think hegseth must have been installed by China some way.
Just remember last time you took on the Japanese. Nanking, when Moa ran away
This writer is a servant of U.S. empire. He wants all Asians to be slaves of U.S.
The last time China was well run was under the Japanese. Introduced better genes in Nanking too (when Mao ran away)
The last time China and the US went to war, the US lost. Retreated all the way back to Seoul. That’s the only history since ww2. A retreat. Pretty coward like. Every other war since has been a retreat. Vietnam, Afghanistan etc. Now Trump is retreating from Asia. Was inevitable. He needs to keep his powder dry and find some rare earth to rebuild his stockpile for the onslaught to come. The US and other western countries have basically lost most of their industries. Shipping, manufacturing, computers, electronics, chemicals. Cars are about to be the final Frontier. Which country has lost their car industry? It’s China that took it away.
Haah, at a huge cost to Chinese soldiers. But the CCP doesnt care.
Independent Taiwan forever. Don’t forget Nanking, leftover man.
A retreat is men running away with tail in between legs taking heavy casualties . Just like Western women retreating living their best lives in China. Working in factory. You got no factory. Just Indian women.
The last time the Japanese and Koreans went to war with China, it didn’t work out too well for the Chinese. Especially Nanking when Mao ran away.