Asia Braces for Nuclear Fear Amid Superpowers’ Rivalry

For many people, the prospect of a nuclear cataclysm in Asia seems inescapable. There are three common perspectives about this alarming situation: either they believe it’s inevitable, they’re convinced that a higher power won’t intervene, or they completely deny the existence of a higher power. As a result, the entirety of Asia – spanning Israel, Iran, Indonesia, and Japan – is bracing for a potential international nuclear conflict. The typical responses seem to be strengthening alliances, building armies, and procuring more weapons, in a paradoxical belief that preparing for war might deter it.

The United States and its allies across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region are spending staggering amounts on modern armaments and additional personnel. Similarly, the Eurasian bloc countries including Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), are eagerly following suit. This trend persists despite the proven inefficiency of Western hegemony and power politics in ensuring peace, a lesson learned from the post-1991 failure, when the previous global superpower, the Soviet Union, was dismembered.

Looking back at the era of the US-Soviet competition between 1945 and 1991, each decade was marred by substantial conflicts, especially within Asia, stoking confrontations between the two global blocs. Rather than a direct battle, proxy wars became the norm, such as the Korean War of 1950-1953, the Vietnam War of 1957-1975, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan from 1979-1989, and multiple Middle East wars with US-aligned Israel on one side and Soviet-backed Muslim nations on the other.

These events, in essence, comprised a large-scale war across Asia through proxy contests, narrowly avoiding a direct – potentially nuclear – face-off between the superpowers. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the Soviets nearly positioned atomic missiles in Cuba following the American deployment in Italy and Turkey, was a perilously close call. A nuclear clash was thankfully avoided when all missiles were withdrawn, but conflicts persisted.

After the dismantlement of the Soviet Empire and its division into independent states, the Russian Federation assumed control of the previously communist superpower’s nuclear arsenal, armed forces, and international influence, even taking over the Soviet Union’s seats on the United Nations and Security Council. But instead of proxy wars driven by superpowers, the world saw the US and its allies, NATO, in particular, championing wars that advanced the West’s interests, with Washington assuming the role of rule-maker for a better world.

NATO found itself at war in Serbia during the disintegration of Yugoslavia, as well as in Afghanistan, which harbored the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States. American-led coalitions also launched two wars against Iraq, first in 1991 to liberate Kuwait, and later in 2003 over allegations of secret weapons of mass destruction – an accusation later proven to be false. The Russian Federation, meanwhile, launched its conflicts against close neighbors, most notably Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, which revealed its intentions to join NATO.

This move threatened Russia, as NATO’s eastward expansion pushed the nuclear threat at its doorstep. Russian President Vladimir Putin had warned as early as 2008 that Ukraine’s entry into NATO would lead to its desolation. Western leaders had assured the last Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not encroach further, yet it did, reaching Russia’s northern borders against the advice of Western diplomats and defense champions, including George Kennan, the mastermind of Washington’s Cold War policy.

Elsewhere, the enduring Israel-Arab conflict shows no signs of abating, fueled in part by Western weaponry and the opposing influences of Moscow and Beijing. Escalating tensions and the rising nuclear stakes involving the United States, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, and potentially, Iran, are also concerns. The United Nations General Assembly’s near-universal condemnation has failed to deter incursions in Ukraine and Gaza.

Numerous geopolitical aspects explain the persistence of these conflicts over the decades, varying from ancient tribal, colonial, or religious ambitions, to a sense of national survival against perceived threats. War’s one constant, however, is armament. Large-scale conflicts arise as the result of massive militarization and weapon deployment by both the involved nations and their superpower sponsors. The situation in Ukraine is a recent example, where peace almost prevailed in March 2022, but the encouragement from Washington and London for the continuous resistance altered the course.

At present, despite enormous military buildups inciting conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, Asia is now also witnessing an escalation in arms and armies. To counterweigh Beijing’s growing influence, Washington is working tirelessly to solidify and broaden its alliances in the region. A notable leader has even encouraged ASEAN nations to increase their military prowess as a precaution against potential Chinese incursions into Taiwan.

Fortunately, ASEAN, while strengthening its military capabilities, has largely refrained from employing a balance-of-power approach and has instead favored pursuing peace and consensus building. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, and the end of Vietnam’s lengthy occupation in Cambodia, both Europe and Asia had the chance to disengage from heavily armed rivalry. Unlike NATO, which chose expansion and military enhancement at the expense of Russia, ASEAN welcomed Vietnam, its previously feared neighbor, as a member state in 1995, before other socialist nations.

Abandoning the power-struggle mindset, ASEAN has established dialogue platforms promoting discussion rather than military confrontation. A recent event showcased positive deliberations among global leaders, even announcing that a significant power is ready to heed ASEAN’s long-standing call for a nuclear weapon-free Southeast Asia.

As the leader of ASEAN, Indonesia has prudently opposed superpower rivalry in the region, choosing to strengthen ties with competing mega-powers and buying weapons from opposing nations in an attempt to maintain neutrality. This, coupled with ASEAN’s peacebuilding initiatives and anti-nuclear policies, should serve as the model for international relations, rather than the West’s balance-of-power tactics, which thrive on fear of war and military-industrial benefits. The world would be well served by following this path of peace, a goal worthy of our collective prayers