The Diplomat's Assistant Editor Harry Kazianis speaks with U.S. Congressman James Langevin (D-RI) about the U.S. “pivot” to the Pacific, defense restructuring and emerging national security threats.
The United States appears to be shifting its focus from counter-insurgency efforts towards a stronger role in the Asia-Pacific. Is this the right move, and if so what rewards and challenges await the United States?
For too long we’ve let our interests in Asia and Pacific region take a backseat to the focus of our large ground war engagements in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Shifting focus towards programs and capabilities to reengage with our long term allies in the Pacific, and prepare our military to face a rapidly changing global security environment, is critical to maintaining U.S. military dominance across all domains for decades to come. To ensure both regional and global success, it’s vital that we lead in technological capabilities, including unmanned systems, underwater tactical and strategic systems, and strengthened cybersecurity to address current and emerging threats.
During President Barack Obama’s recent trip to Australia, there was much debate over the strengthening of U.S.-Australian ties and the basing of a small detachment of U.S. forces in Darwin. Do you agree with such a move?
I think this move is appropriate as part of our broader strategy to strengthen our ties in the Asia-Pacific region.
Some have argued that U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in the Pacific are nothing more than a veiled attempt to “contain China.” How would you respond to those who make such an accusation? What would you recommend to reduce tensions with China?
It’s important for the benefit of U.S. citizens that we foster a good working relationship with China, which has now become the second largest economy in the world. At the same time, their trade practices and foreign policy positions aren’t necessarily parallel, nor working in concert with our own. Maintaining a strong military presence in the Pacific is part of ensuring and continuing stability in the region to protect not only our interests, but those of our allies as well.
I believe tensions with China could be eased by opening more opportunities to work together in areas of mutual concern such as piracy, disaster relief, and search and rescue, but only if they in turn are open to changing some of their current policies which remain troublesome to the United States and our allies.
There has been a lot of coverage of recent plans to cut the U.S. defense budget. Do you agree with President Obama’s strategy? Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for example, argues such cuts will have a devastating effect on U.S. abilities to project power. How would you respond to such comments? Are there any areas you are particularly against or in favor of cutting?
The plan developed under the strong leadership of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta provides a sustainable and viable framework for reducing Pentagon spending in ways that ensure we maintain the strongest military in the world and strengthen our national security. Adm. Mullen said it well when he remarked that our national debt is our greatest national security challenge. We simply can’t be as secure as possible without finding responsible ways to deal with that debt over the long term. Particularly as we have withdrawn our forces from Iraq and are going to be bringing more troops home from Afghanistan, we can and must find efficiencies. For example, we are able to reduce the size of our military and our presence in Europe, while maintaining – and even increasing – its capabilities as we move away from protracted ground wars. We have to accept the reality that there’s no way for us to be everywhere all the time and direct our resources to the most important efforts, while continuing the president’s goals to strengthen our alliances so we can be victorious in places like Libya with less American involvement.
I am in favor of the Secretary’s priorities to:
Make the U.S. joint force smaller and leaner, with its great strength being its agility, flexibility, readiness to deploy, and innovative and technological advances.
Rebalance our global posture and presence, emphasizing the Pacific and the Middle East, which present the greatest challenges for the future.
Strengthen key alliances, building partnerships and developing innovative ways to sustain U.S. presence elsewhere in the world.
Shift the size and composition of our ground, air, and naval forces, so that we are capable of successfully confronting and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare.
And protect our investments in special operations forces, new technologies like Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissanceand unmanned systems, space and cyberspace capabilities and our capacity to quickly mobilize.
Being a ranking member on the House Emerging Threats and Capabilities Committee, where how would you rate China’s military rise in terms of a threat to U.S. interests? Much has been made of China’s capabilities in the area of access denial (A2/AD), for example.
The major emerging threat I’m concerned about is in cyberspace. While the military is making tremendous strides in protecting its assets, other nations, particularly China and Russia, and groups within them are getting access to sensitive information, stealing research and development worth hundreds of billions of dollars to U.S. businesses, and gaining the ability to damage our vulnerable critical infrastructure.
We should also be cognizant of China’s naval expansion in ensuring our interests are protected. That’s why I have been so supportive of maintaining an adequate level of submarines and have worked with Electric Boat in Rhode Island to increase the number of Virginia-class subs they are building. I’m pleased that Secretary Panetta has expressed his strong support for this program, and I am hopeful that it will remain a top priority.
Photo Credit: Flickr account of James R. Langevin
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
ke si qian
Dear Everyone,
Poster Liang1a is often on this forum making comments that are anti US, Western and only pro China. He most likely works for the Chinese government and his comments are inaccurate, mostly propaganda. Please do not reply to him, just ignore.
Khalil Arab
@Ke si qian .. sounds like sour grapes. You have a closed mind and an extremist who would go to war or have a fistcuff fight if you don’t agree or someone else does not agree with your opinion. You are either insufficiently educated or just lack intellect and appropriate emotional IQ to discuss an or debate any issue intelligent and know how to agree to disagree. Go back to school, young man. Come back when you have matured in being able to listen and understand other’s opinions. Unless you have other motives that is ..
Liang1a
James Langevin is acting and talking like it can tell China what to do. This guy needs to take a reality check. But while America no longer has the military capabilty to attack China or even to cause serious damages to China without suffering serious damages itself, China is in serious danger from its own elites who have become spies and traitors of the Americans. If the Chinese people are not careful these internal spies and traitors will sell out China. And America can control China without firing a single shot by controlling these elite spies and traitors. Remember one single man sold out Song Dynasty even when the Chinese armies were on the point of destroying the invaders. Chinese people must eliminate these elite spies and traitors completely.
DownRedChina
@Liang1a:
“China is in serious danger from its own elites who have become spies and traitors of the Americans. If the Chinese people are not careful these internal spies and traitors will sell out China. And America can control China without firing a single shot by controlling these elite spies and traitors. Remember one single man sold out Song Dynasty even when the Chinese armies were on the point of destroying the invaders. Chinese people must eliminate these elite spies and traitors completely.”
I support you. Do you mean Hu, Wen, Xi and Liang? You work with mainland china man to come up with a plan to over throw CCP. First thing first, mass gathering and protest at Tiananmen Square, destroy government properties at Beijing, capture and execute those elite CCP officials.
Liang1a
Quote from the article:
It’s important for the benefit of U.S. citizens that we foster a good working relationship with China, which has now become the second largest economy in the world. At the same time, their trade practices and foreign policy positions aren’t necessarily parallel, nor working in concert with our own. Maintaining a strong military presence in the Pacific is part of ensuring and continuing stability in the region to protect not only our interests, but those of our allies as well.
———————————–
Liang’s comment:
“Good working relationship with China” is actually code words for browbeating China to establish a master-slave relationship. Unfortunately, the cowardly Dengist CCP clique in the Chinese government is totally dominated by the comprador class who are already enslaved by the Americans. Therefore, fostering “good working relationship” with China means imposing dominance over China. That China’s “trade practices and foreign policy positions” are not parallel with America means China’s domestic economy is still not opened up enough to allow America to gain control of it; and that China is not following the wishes of America in its foreign policies. Therefore, for China to “work in concert” with America means China must obey America in every detail. For example, if America wishes China to import $500 billion of American soy bean or corn or genetically engineered seeds then China obeying America would be working in concert with it. But the obvious result of working in concert with America would turn China into a bigger version of Philippines. That is, China would lose all domestic ability to raise the standard of living of its people; and all its outputs would be sold cheaply to America while it imports useless and expensive American products until China is thrown back into the pre-industrial age. Then China would be no threat to America and totally “working in concert” with it.
Therefore, America’s ultimate goal is to use military power to intimidate China into obeying its every wish until China is reduced to a sick man and so low in technological level that it has no military capability and must obey America’s every wish. It is just typical American hypocrisy for it to throw in some talks about allies to rope in some dopy thugs in the region to gang up on China.
==========================
Quote from the article:
I believe tensions with China could be eased by opening more opportunities to work together in areas of mutual concern such as piracy, disaster relief, and search and rescue, but only if they in turn are open to changing some of their current policies which remain troublesome to the United States and our allies.
———————————-
Liang’s comment:
There is no way to ease tension with America other than to obey its every aggressive wish. China’s policies will always be “troublesome” to the US if it in any way place the national interests of China above that of the US. There is no way to work with America in any way because America’s ultimate objective is not mutual prosperity but to dominate China. If China’s goal is to enrich its people and strengthen the security of the Chinese nation then its policies will always be “troublesome” to the US because as I said above America’s goal is to make China weak and poor and unable to resist its aggression to dominate China.
Since America’s goal is now obvious there is no point for China to continue to try to please the US. The Chinese government’s hope is to create a large harmonious global village so that there will be common prosperity. The Chinese people were tricked into believing that joining the WTO is “entering the world” like debutants’ entering the high society to become a welcomed member of a harmonious club where everybody loves everybody else. I think the scale should finally fall from the eyes of the Chinese elites. The world is not a harmonious place but a place of demons and wolves. The global trend is not toward harmonious interdependence but for America and its thuggish henchmen to subjugate the rest of the world. And the best way for China to survive not to mention prosper is to do what its ancient military strategists had advised.
孙子兵法：
夫霸王之兵，伐大国，则其众不得聚；威加于敌，则其交不得合。是故不争天下之交，不养 天下之权，信己之私，威加于敌，故其城可拔，其国可隳 。
Translation:
The armies of the a great power can conquer big countries so that they cannot rally their peoples; and by intimidating its enemies by displaying its might it will prevent their allies to unite. Therefore, it needs not to compete for alliances nor should it cultivate others’ authorities. Trust in one’s own people by enriching them and cultivating their loyalty. Overawe the enemies with displayed might then their cities can be razed and their countries can be destroyed.
Ultimately, China must raise itself up on its own efforts through the development of indigenous technologies and the urbanization of the farmers. Once China’s technologies rise to the same level as that of the US and the Chinese people are as productive as the Americans on a per capita basis then China’s total output will be many times bigger than the US. And with such a big economy and advanced technologies China can deploy the most powerful military in the world and many times bigger than the American military to keep China safe. Chinese people must have more confidence in themselves. China will be destroyed by trying to seek security in friendship with the US. But China has the greatest potential to become the richest and the most powerful by being independent. China should try to be friendly as much as possible. But when enemies attacked then its appropriate response must be a vigorous military defense. And by using military power judiciously it will enhance its security by discouraging future attacks from its enemies. Mao fought the US in 1949. In 1972 Nixon went to China to bow to Mao. Foreign countries will not respect China’s soft power but will only disrespect it for being cowardly. Only strength will garner respect and security.
Cyrus14
false the Philippines is earning a trade surplus with the US not a deficit.
Liang1a
Cyrus14
February 3, 2012 at 6:11 am
false the Philippines is earning a trade surplus with the US not a deficit.
———————————–
Liang’s response:
First, where did I say in my comment to this article that Philippines made a deficit against the US. The US’s harm to the Philippines is in its suppression of the domestic development of its indigenous technologies so that its domestic economy cannot rise above a minimum level for the lack of domestically owned industries and businesses. Furthermore, American businesses do a lot of businesses in Philippines and remitted a lot of profits out of Philippines. For example, some $1.9 billion flowed out of Philippines.
In just the first half of 2010, Philippines made a trade surplus of $1.9 billion against China. Philippines made a total trade surplus against the US of only $0.6 billion for the “whole” 2010 year. It is safe to assume that Philippines made some $4 billion of trade surplus against China in 2010 and almost 7 times more than its trade surplus against the US. So, yes, Philippines made a trade surplus against the US but is far less than with China. In fact 7 times less. And trade with China increased some 15% in 2011, while it stayed practically flat with the US. It is safe to assume that Philippines trade surplus in 2011 maintained the same ratio as in 2010 which means its trade surplus against China in 2011 was some $4.6 billion.
The truth is, Philippines depends far more on China than on the US. But this ungrateful dog is biting the hand that feeds it and continues to insult China and invade its territories. The Dengist CCP government is unnecessarily gentle with this thug. China has been patient long enough with Philippines. China is hoping that Philippines would have some kind of sentiment for regional commality and cohesion and cooperate with China for regional security and prosperity and has not lifted a finger to punish its aggressions against Chinese sovereign territories in the S. China Sea. But if the Philippines continued to commit aggression against China then there must be a limit to its patience and forbearance and leniency. If Philippines did not stop its aggression then China must teach it a painful lesson for it to see the consequences of harming Chinese interest.
2010:
Philippines total trade with China: $27.76 bn
Philippines total trade with the US:$15.35 bn
Philippines total trade surplus with China: $1.9 bn for first 1/2 year, $4 bn total
Philippines total trade surplus with the US:$0.6 bn for all year
2011:
Philippines total trade with China: $32.25 bn (2 times bigger than with the US)
Philippines total trade with the US:$15.46 bn
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5650.html
http://www.dfa.gov.ph/main/index.php/news-from-rp-embassies/1801-philippines-china-trade-continues-to-increase
GACC statistics revealed that trade between the two countries during the first half of 2010 was in favor of the Philippines, as China’s exports to the Philippines was valued at US$5.6 billion, while China’s imports from the Philippines was pegged at $7.5 billion.
——————-
http://philembassychina.org/start/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134:bilateral-trade&catid=91&Itemid=513&lang=en
Philippines-China bilateral trade in 2011 has surpassed the 2007 high of US$30bn, and now stands at US$32.254bn, according to statistics of China General Administration of Customs. Bilateral trade hasjumped 35% from 2009 when total bilateral trade stood at US$20bn, at the height of the financial crisis, to US$27.764 bn in 2010. Trade grew by another 22% from 2010 to 2011 to US$32.254 bn.
The Philippines continues to register a trade surplus with China, with its strongest exports in the electronics sector. As party to the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, the Philippines has further opportunities for trade in agriculture, minerals, industrial products, and high-quality/design-intensive consumer goods. Both sides have been exploring further measures to diversify trade relations, to achieve the bilateral trade target of US$60bn by 2016, as committed by both sides during the State Visit to China of President Benigno Aquino III.
Regular Visitor
Liang1a – You still make no sense. You say Diplomat publishes your comments because you ask about them. If Diplomat wanted to delete all your posts they could. If they wanted to never publish your comments they wouldnt. Do you think the people who get tehir posts deleted by Chinese censors get their comments published because they “ask about them?” No. You defend a country that wouldnt allow you to do the things you are free to do in the west. But instead of being happy about your freedom to post and having a free form to post, you just complain. You seem like a hypocrite, and everyone I think sees that.
Liang1a
I had posted a response to Cyrus’ comment. Philippines earned some $4 billion of trade surplus against China while earning only some $.6 to $1.2 billion from the US. But the Diplomat censors don’t want to show that and had deleted it. What is Diplomat afraid of? Can’t it stand the truth?
Regular Visitor
Liang1a – if The Diplomat was “afraid” of you they wouldn’t publish anything you write. However every day I see comment, after comment after comment that you have posted, many of these comments are critical of The Diplomat and its authors. How is that censorship? Do you know how silly you of all people look when you say something like that?
Liang1a
Regular Visitor wrote:
February 4, 2012 at 11:19 am
Liang1a – if The Diplomat was “afraid” of you they wouldn’t publish anything you write. However every day I see comment, after comment after comment that you have posted, many of these comments are critical of The Diplomat and its authors. How is that censorship? Do you know how silly you of all people look when you say something like that?
————————
Liang’s response:
Do you know how many of my posts disappeared? They only appeared because I asked about them. Some never reappeared. If I kept quiet then they would just disappear. Furthermore, I’m not the only one protesting. Many others also protested. And they seem to be those who are critical of the West. If Diplomat doesn’t want to be accused of censorship then why not just let all the posts appear immediately. Then they can read them and delete them if they break some kind of legitimate rules such as the use of foul languages against some posters.
Cyrus14
it might have been censured in China but not here we could read it just fine.
Cyrus14
” its outputs would be sold cheaply to America while it imports useless and expensive American products”
Thus a trade deficit if in concise terms. I just proved to you it is not so.
Lukas
Interesting interview. Surprising the issue of Iranian nuclear proliferation never
came up.
Maximus
“I believe tensions with China could be eased by opening more opportunities to work together in areas of mutual concern such as piracy, disaster relief, and search and rescue, but only if they in turn are open to changing some of their current policies which remain troublesome to the United States and our allies”
In other words, Congressman James langevin is not in favor of reducing tensions with China. Why? Is China a threat to the U.S. which is halfway across on the other side of the world. Typical war-monger trying to defend U.S.’s Ponzi-like dollar system which is actually worthless.
If China and other major oil and commodity trading nations go wholesale in moving away from the US dollar, the US dollar will plunge in value to nothing overnight. So Beijing needs a stick over its head to ensure it is not allowed to make independent decisions.
Why do you think Washington went to war in Libya, iraq and now potentially, Iran? It’s all about oil which is currently denominated in USD. Any move from that would create massive problems for the USD and America’s economy.
Hence the regime change. That’s why all these military posturing. It is not to balance China. It is to threaten China.
Liang1a
Maximus wrote:
Hence the regime change. That’s why all these military posturing. It is not to balance China. It is to threaten China.
—————————
Liang’s comment:
You’re absolutely right. The whole thing is to threaten China with military attacks and not to work harmoniously with it. Unfortunately, the Chinese elites have been totally brainwashed into supporting this American bait of “working in concert”. China can never “work in concert” with the US unless it is willing to be an obedient dog like the human dog portrayed in Jet Li’s “Unleashed.”
Fortunately, as I’ve always said China has the potential to become many times richer and more technologically advanced than the US and can deploy a much bigger military than the US. Imagine China with twice the 4th and 5th generation fighters of the American fighters, and twice the number of attack nuclear subs of the US nuclear attack subs by 2020. And by 2040 China can have 5 times more advanced jet fighters than the US and can thoroughly dominated it anywhere in the world. China does not need to fear the US. Just kick the US and the Japanese out of China now and build up China’s technologies and its domestic economy and it will automatically become the richest and the most powerful. China must not be distracted with talks from such as James Langevin whose only hope for the US is to trick China into obeying America’s wishes in the pursuit of the illusive “harmonious world” which exist only in Chinese people’s day dreams.
Liang1a
America is floundering and declining. Its only desperate hope to keep itself economically afloat is to trick China into becoming its sacirficial victim so that it can suck China dry like a vampire to keep itself from going into a deep depression. China is already militarily strong enough to fight the US and its thuggish lackeys in the region to a draw. And the next war will not just devastate China but the US as well as China already has thousands of nuclear as well as conventional warheads that can reach the US by several means of delivery. There is no need for China to fear the US now. Mao never feared the US. There is even less reasons for China to fear the US now. China can only survive and prosper if it pursues its own national interests without regard for the interests of the US. The US can take care of itself. And if it cannot then it is its own problem.
China Pal
A rather empty interview, all said.