The United States’ decision to “pivot” back to the Asia-Pacific is welcome among its allies. But what about its most assertive rising power?
Talks last week between Michèle Flournoy, U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, and China’s Gen. Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of the People’s Liberation Army general staff, were heavy on feel-good bromides about mutual interests and peaceful cooperation in the western Pacific. However, they predictably left the issues most roiling this critically important region unresolved.
Similar high-level talks, including those held last month between Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao during the APEC summit in Hawaii, are all part of a series of top-level discussions that have been taking place over the past year that have in part been aimed at mollifying a somewhat volatile Beijing in the face of America’s return to the Pacific.
Made possible by the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States’ strategic shift has come not a moment too soon for Washington's friends and allies in the region. These countries have long sought greater U.S. political support and military presence in the face of China’s aggressive employment of its growing power.
While U.S. focus has necessarily been on Southwest Asia, Beijing has been using its rapidly growing military to back up tendentious claims on energy fields hundreds of miles from its coast beneath the South China Sea. China’s attempt to mark claims lying within the Philippine and Vietnamese exclusive economic zones has sparked small-scale naval confrontations. Tensions continue to run high. China also maintains claims in the waters abutting Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei.
In flagrant breaches of international protocol, Chinese naval flotillas appeared unannounced near Japanese territorial waters several times over the past couple of years, unsettling Tokyo. Taiwan, a U.S. treaty partner, has also suffered from lack of attention in the security realm. The China lobby has thus far prevented the U.S. government from providing Taipei with new, sorely needed F-16 fighters. Instead, older models will be updated. Disappointingly, U.S. efforts to get Beijing to stand down the thousands of missiles pointed at Taiwan have met with little success. South Korea, another U.S. treaty partner, is both unnerved by North Korea’s continued bellicosity and frustrated by Beijing’s unwillingness to bring Kim Jong-il's regime to heel.
Though ostensibly employed to secure the transport of vitally needed energy resources, China’s “String of Pearls” strategy has still unnerved countries in the Pacific Rim. Beijing has established naval bases or secured docking and landing rights for its navy and air force in Sudan, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Burma. Accompanying the securing of such far-flung ports is China’s push to field a true “blue water” navy capable of operating thousands of miles from home.
Since the turn of the century, China has ramped up production of oceangoing warships including amphibious assault ships and nuclear-powered submarines, to replace what had been a fleet comprised primarily of coastal patrol vessels and short-range diesel-electric subs. China recently began sea trials of its first aircraft carrier, a refurbished Soviet model, and is developing its own indigenously designed and built carriers. Of particular concern is China’s DF-21D ballistic missile program, which could target aircraft carriers and other large ships. This satellite-guided weapon was clearly developed with deterring the U.S. Navy in mind.
Photo Credit: White House
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
ari
“The United States’ decision to “pivot” back to the Asia-Pacific is welcome among its allies. But what about its most assertive rising power?”
“Pivot”?!!
The U.S. is no pivot with China in the picture in East Asia. More likely, the word “pivot” should more likely be applied to China but be that as may, let’s assume it is not the pivot.
In my view, with two contending powers – one bigger power attempting to bully a smaller power – the key pivots in my opinion, are Indian and Japan; India more than Japan as Japan is already an obedient vassal of Washington.
India is still an independent and sovereign nation and have full freedom and control over its foreign affairs; Unlike Tokyo’s. Moreover, with 1.1 billion population, it has the potential to become another great power. IF.
India is on the Asiatic mainland. Its long term interest is in Asia and good relations with China and Russia and even Iran will benefit its people enormously. However, if it becomes a pawn of Washington, it will be used as a sacrifce, a “collateral damage” for Washington’s chess game with Moscow and Beijing. And if the game should go kinetic, millions of Indians will die. All for what? Because Washington wants it?
So, geopolitical realities would seem to dictate that New Delhi’s and India’s interest lies with the Asian mainland. And if New Delhi does indeed pivots to the Asian mainland via the SCO or a Eurasian Union, it must mean Washington, at one stroke loses influences and control; Not just over East Asia, but also over Central and West Asia (Europe). It means the “Asiatic Union” – that one contiguous land mass from Beijing to Paris or the East China Sea to the North Sea, including the Muslims heartlands south of the Caucasus and between the Caspian shores and the Tien Shan mountains, will draw closer as one “Eurasia” or “Asian Union” and break away from Washington’s orbit. Such is the potential of the consequence of New Delhi’s pivot away from Washington.
Then Latin America & Carribean States, and Africa too will pull away from Washington’s orbit or gravity. Leaving Washington isolated as London now is, with only the consolation of pulling the English speaking Anglo-Saxon countries such as Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa into perhaps an Anglo-Saxon United States.
I recommend strongly Mr Putin and Mr Hu starts sending its diplomats to New Delhi to woo it strongly to remain in Asia’s orbit and not America’s orbit. Washington is downright fearful of Mr Putin and his chess strategy and has now shifted attention and energy to ensure he doesn’t become President. Such is the fear of Washington over Mr Putin potential “checkmate” move against it.
ari
cont. …
A move which India is clearly the “pivot”. So whichever way New Delhi moves will have huge historical and game changing significance to Man’s history on the face of this planet for the next century at least.
jeff forsythe
If Red China is not a threat, then why did tens of thousands of American soldiers die in Korea and Vietnam? America seems to have forgotten its passion for such things as human rights and dignity in exchange for some greedy business deals with the brutal Chinese Communist Party.
There is a rebellion in Red China right now in a small village of twenty thousand where the Party did an unfair land grab. The people of the village sent a rep to Party Headquarters to negotiate and they tortured him to death. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Leonard R.
@Chris B: “Here is some evidence of my case.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8954315/Inside-Wukan-the-Chinese-village-that-fought-back.html”
—
God bless those courageous people.
Observer
Here are the BIG differences between US and china.
1. US did not claim Iraq and Afghan as “historic land” and took them by force as china did with Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang.
2. US did not attack, shot at, capture, and demand ransome money from poor and unarmed fishermen as china did with smaller neighbors.
3. US did not pollute its own land, air, and water as china is doing right now.
4. US did not create fake maps and documents and yell “historic evidences” to claim the whole sea as china is doing right now. As a matter of fact, no nation is behaving like china because it is so stupid to do so.
I can go on and on.
Grant
Be careful on numbers 1 and 3. We did do those sorts of things, it’s just that we stopped doing that* a while ago. If we want to criticize China then we should be honest about our own flaws.
*Well, we stopped doing it as much as we could on pollution. Also we’re far more honest about the conditions. Additionally we’ve never claimed Iraq or Afghanistan and have given back as much land to the First Nation groups as we can.
2 cents
US is or at least has been the largest contributor to world pollution, if I remember correctly. http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html#Biggest. When you add the context of population, your claim of USA not being a polluter is rather stupid. And remember pollution in China is also partly caused by you since you use it as your manufacturing base and India as a base to perform human tests just because you get it cheaply. STFU!!!
I do not know whether US demanded ransom from poor fishermen, but to give a blatant disregard for UN and attack a country on unfounded claims, with the intent of overthrowing or killing one human has never been done in recent history except by US.
Moreover, sidelining the sovereignty of an ally of a war, and to attack its own people without its knowledge has also never been done by anyone else.
If US has not faked maps, it has fakhttp://the-diplomat.com/2011/12/14/can-china-handle-america%e2%80%99s-return/2/?replytocom=23932#ed reasons to start a war with all the Weapons of Mass destruction back its home. I would be really enlightened, if you can spot out a single weapon which is more destructive with Iraq than what US had some 2 decades back.
The financial crisis, Two wars, Killings of innocent thousands, Disregard for UN, Asking CHina to appreciate currency while subsidizing your Agriculture, threatening others with military might, Selling crude for Dollars, contributing the largest to pollution and highest debt mostly if not all, being done by the only country which regards freedom and human liberty as its principle is rather ironic. Is it coincidence or rather a mask of hypocrisy that you people choose to relish.
Beway
1. When modern PRC was borned a century ago, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Taiwan were already part of China for the last few hundreds years during Qing Dynasty.
2. U.S killed millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Koreans, Latin Americans just for the last 30 years. And you have the cheek to criticise China when a few fishermen were arrested for transpassing.
3. There is no denial that China pollutes its own environment but then it’s their own country that they are polluting. So what is bothering then.
4. The sea will not be called South China Sea if China has no legitimate claim.
Rita Fairchild
Actually the Chinese revolution began on the grounds that the Manchus were not Chinese, and that China was being ruled by a group of foreigners. The Manchus were actually the ones who conquered Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. So basically, China was just conquered by the same group of foreigners that conquer Tibet, Taiwan, and Xinjiang. It should also be noted that Beijing’s power in Xinjiang had only really been consolidated in the 1850s and it had always allowed Tibet to remain autonomous in domestic matters.
John Chan
@Rita Fairchild,
You are wrong, it is the Han Chinese put down the rebellions incited by the foreign influences in Tibet, Xingjiang and Taiwan. Those Chinese wore Qing (established by Manchurian) uniform as Qing armed forced.
I don’t see anything wrong with China claiming territories as it accumulated thru the history as long as China can assert its sovereignty over what it claimed. It is the way works internationally, legalized and legitimized by the international community.
It is you are mistaken; you are making illegal statement saying that who can do this and who can’t do that arbitrarily and baselessly like a comedian. British and Spanish had been claiming lands all over the world even not bothering with excuses; unfortunately they just cannot keep most of them. British still claim Falkland Island, Gibraltar, Scotland and N. Ireland as their land.
BTW China has been administrating Taiwan before Christ.
Rita Fairchild
Also, China had given Tiawan to the Japanese in 1895 as spoils of war. They only had control over the Island since the late 1700s. So they really only had control (REAL control) over the island for about century. If you do the math, you’ll realize that they last had control 115 years ago.
Their historic claims over the South China Sea are patently ridiculous. If Beijing wants to adopt its territory from 225 BC then they relinquish their rights to Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. You can’t just say: “we claim all the territory we have ever had control of,” and expect to get away with it. If Britain, Spain, or Germany did that China would have a fit. Pick an era and stick with it.
China is just as imperialistic as any country in the west, but there’s some kind of misconception that it only really counts as imperialism if the aggressor has to cross an ocean to do it.
Fu Man-chu
Sorry Ms Fairchild, you’ve got your facts wrong, dead wrong! The extent of which behoves me to say, I shouldn’t waste my breadth on your comments more these two sentences.
Sing
@Rita,
I suggest you do more reading and go to library to look up history. Especially if you can find history books that written down form Tang and Sung; then you will see a whole different sky. Your info have been from English language (European & imperialistic) historian so they are bias. Taiwan does not start in 1700! Just like North America Columbia only discovered but it is there all along with natives! Engish language written about Taiwan history only started at that time with the landing of Portuguese in Taiwan they call Formosa. Chinese history is each dynasty have assimilated more peoples into herself and do not equate that as imperialism. As Chinese saying you are viewing the universe from the bottom of a well.
Rus
Observer, you talk nonsense! The U.S. is only 200 years old and have no historic save for the land it is on which was grabbed from the native Indians after decimating millions of them.
Mongolia became part of China proper after the Kublai Khan conquered it and moved his capital to Peking. By the rules of war, if you lose power, the land belongs to the successors or winners. You only get the land back by the magnaimity of the winner. Losers have no say as the Han had no say when the Sung lost. So when the minority Mongols were overthrown and removed by the Hans, they were in fact CONQUERED by the Hans. All the lands belonging to and under the control of Kublai Khan became the Han’s. Might rules, so stop whining like a pathetic dog.
Moreover, going by your illogic, all the lands that the Mongols captured from Xanadu to Budapatest should revert the original inhabitants of Central Asia and Europe. All the muslim Tartars, “Turks” and Mongols should had been kicked out of these lands and repatriated to Mongolia! The lands they conquered should revert to its original inhabitants and natives.
Grant
In re. to Beway:
By the logic of basing it on the Qing dynasty you could just as easily declare that it should be based on the Zhou dynasty.
Following that is two blatantly false statements. To start, Afghan and Iraqi insurgents are responsible for the lion’s share of the casualties and it certainly hasn’t been in the millions. Were you even trying to pretend that you were being honest? Iraq’s population is roughly 30 million.
If we go on the basis that a government has a right to rule because it protects its people then can the CCP claim they have a right to rule if they encourage and tolerate pollution that puts the Chinese people in danger?
Lastly we call the Pacific Ocean ‘pacific’ because it was less dangerous for European ships than the more turbulent Atlantic Ocean*. The Indian Ocean is named for India. That hardly means that the Pacific Ocean is required to be peaceful or that the Indian Ocean is only the property of India. Indeed, a good portion of the Indian Ocean isn’t even in the same hemisphere as India.
In re. to Rus:
There isn’t even a definite number on the First Nation populations but claiming millions ignores the fact that the U.S didn’t have the capability of killing that many people. It took widespread disease, total slavery and years of horrible conditions to kill that many. Lastly the U.S did apologize for the deaths that it can be shown to have had a role in.
After that are you claiming that any lands conquered by the Khans belong to China? Then you are claiming that China should own the Middle East, Turkey, the Koreas, Mongolia, a good amount of southern Russia, Central Asia and a lot of Eastern Europe. Is China accusing the U.S of imperialism when China effectively wants to own all of Eurasia? Perhaps I should warn Turkey that China is claiming sovereignty. Incidentally the Khans deliberately killed millions in their invasions, including vast numbers of civilians. Is China arguing that those deaths were acceptable?
Lastly if Japan had won WWII and stayed in China for a few hundred years would that mean that Japan’s invasion was justified?
*And the Atlantic Ocean is named that for the mythical island of Atlantis. That doesn’t mean that Atlantis exists.
Rus
@grant, what’s with your English comprehension? I am replying to Observer who’s “logic” raises the questions that you have just asked. You have just amplified the illogic of “Observer”. You should address your questions and comments to “Observer”. Sheesh!
Grant
Based on how it was written it looked very similar to the nationalist, anti-American statements I’ve seen here before.
Observer
@ 2 cents
US has EPA agency with rules and regulations to control pollution. What does china have? Nothing. Google “china pollution pictures” and open your eyes. No one is pulling a gun to make china to pollute its air, land, water, etc.
US is leaving Iraq and about to leave Afghan soon. What about china/chinese in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Paracel Islands, ect.? Nope, chinese is still there occupying, just like cockroaches.
It is better for you to take your own advise of STFU and here from me to you. GFYA and GTFOA.
Martin
I only could manage to get until halfway this tendentioous article. It seems odd to me, how this article seems to try hard to depict China as a brutal military threat, as ‘the bad guy’ if you will, when at the same time I always wonder how come US military presence in the countries surrounding China is so common, while military presence of China in Canada and Latin America is… none at all.
Does US diplomacy never wonder if China just might somehow conceive the US as a military threat rather than the other way around? Or does it just never mention that for propaganda reasons?
Anon
@Martin- The only reason China might see the US presence as a threat is because it conflicts with their own military and geopolitical aims. The US has been in the East Pacific since the 1900’s, and has had its current position since the end of WW2, no small length of time for a human being.