Impeding a Rising China

U.S. Interest Analysis: Cambell; Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, writes: “It is clear that America’s success in the 21st century is tied to the success of the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. As Secretary Clinton has noted, much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia. There is no question that the region’s influence is growing and holds the key to our shared future. Asian nations are vital to the life-blood of the global economy. Their opinions and decisions have profound influence from Latin American to the Middle East and Africa on addressing complex and emerging transnational challenges, like climate change. Despite the Asia-Pacific region’s tremendous growth, the region still faces some of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. North Korea and Burma remain outliers to the region’s prosperity and continue to be sources for insecurity and instability. Many of today’s most critical issues -- military competition, nuclear proliferation, violent extremism, financial crises, poverty, weak and ineffective governments, unresolved territorial disputes, growing competition over energy and natural resources, climate change, and disease -- transcend national borders and pose a common risk in the region.” [1] This point is probably the least contended point in the strategic debate over East Asia, but it is important to note these interests to contextualize the vital nature of a successful strategy. Through globalization economies has become much more interdependent and interwoven meaning every other nation’s actions directly affect the U.S. Transnational security threats and an increasing amount of proliferation also direct affect the security of the U.S. homeland, the current alliance regime and general global stability. C1: China has been acting more aggressively as its military and economic prowess grows [3] Webb writes, Over the past two years Japan and China have openly clashed in the Senkaku Islands, east of Taiwan and west of Okinawa, whose administration is internationally recognized to be under Japanese control. Russia and South Korea have reasserted sovereignty claims against Japan in northern waters. China and Vietnam both claim sovereignty over the Paracel Islands. China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia all claim sovereignty over the Spratly Islands, the site of continuing confrontations between China and the Philippines…The potential conflicts stemming from the creation of this new Chinese prefecture extend well beyond the Paracels. Over the last six weeks the Chinese have further proclaimed that the jurisdiction of Sansha includes not just the Paracel Islands but virtually the entire South China Sea…[2] NBR writes, “The end of the Cold War and China’s rapid economic growth enabled the PRC to move from focusing almost exclusively on homeland defense to developing a second layer of advanced capabilities for the “near seas” or “three seas” (the Yellow, East China, and South China seas).” [3] C2: Hedging Advantages [4] [5] First, the Philippines: Air power deters Chinese land grabs. As the PAF (Philippine Air Force) has reduced its capabilities the Chinese have aggressively claimed sovereign Philippines islands as Chinese territory. This lack of PAF capability prevents the Philippines from establishing clear sovereign borders. Moreover, China has been increasingly harassing economic and industrial sectors of the Philippines in these areas. (Refer to source)Thus, an economic hedging tool is to promote U.S.-Philippine air force cooperation. Lohman writes, “In November 2011, President Aquino expressed an interest in the acquisition by the PAF of two squadrons of second-hand F-16C/Ds through the U.S. Excess Defense Articles (EDA) program. The interest is linked directly to China’s growing naval presence in the South China Sea near the Malampaya natural gas project, located at the westernmost province of Palawan facing the Spratly Islands.” Second, South Korea/Japanese Military Alliance. Due to historical grievances South Korea and Japan have yet to create a military alliance. The disadvantage of this is that China has been expanding its naval power (as mentioned above*) into the South China Sea with little deterrent opposition. The U.S. moreover has failed to facilitate cooperation between these two countries. Thus, my hedge proposal is to form a trilateral defense alliance, under the pretense of containing North Korea. My name for this is the “kill two birds with one stone” strategy. By containing North Korean adventurism exacerbated by China, this trilateral alliance will form a defense umbrella around the South China Sea. Klinger writes, “A senior South Korean official commented that the need for South Korea and Japan to share military intelligence “became clear each time North Korea tested a nuclear weapon or launched a long-range missile, but the lack of an accord made that impossible. We decided to rush things [after the April 2012 missile launch].” Tokyo saw benefits to exchanging information with South Korea after it failed to detect the North Korean missile launch, which would have flown over Okinawa if the missile had not blown up shortly after…” “By linking U.S., South Korean, and Japanese sensors, the allies could “defeat any future North Korean missile attack, protect vital U.S. military capabilities based in Japan or Guam, minimize the risk that an intentional North Korea provocation could lead to an all-out war, and help prevent Japan from taking an independent response,” according to South Korean Vice Admiral Jung Ho-sub. However, implementing a regional missile defense network would require Seoul and Tokyo to share security information. Thus, the collapse of the GSOMIA prevents progress on implementing a regional missile defense network that includes South Korea.” “Japan has strong ASW and mine-sweeping capabilities. The GSOMIA would enable Seoul and Tokyo to share intelligence on the North Korean submarine threat, enhancing joint exercises and cooperation. The South Korean and Japanese navies are “uniquely suited for multilateral cooperation because of their intrinsic unobtrusive nature as over-the-horizon security forces, out of public view.” C3: Hedging prevents a nuclear arms race in East Asia, thereby minimizing the potential for Chinese preemptivism [5] Cheng writes, “In terms of human capital and technological sophistication, and increasingly financial wherewithal, many Asian states, such as Japan and South Korea, have the potential ability to develop their own nuclear deterrent. That they have not done so may be attributed, in part, to the American extended deterrence guarantee. Although often perceived as only a nuclear guarantee, the U.S. commitment to provide extended deterrence includes “the full range of military capabilities, to include the U.S. nuclear umbrella, conventional strike, and missile defense capabilities.” It is striking how, as American military resources are in decline, the Republic of Korea (ROK) has openly raised the possibility of asking for American tactical nuclear weapons to be reintroduced to the peninsula.” [1] http://www.state.gov... [2] http://online.wsj.com... [3] http://nbr.org... [4] http://www.heritage.org... [5] http://www.heritage.org...