RSS

Today, the US sees China as its only real rival. It fears to be outflanked economically. Energy and valuable minerals played an important role in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, commodities which the US wants to keep under its exclusive control. Japan has acquired a tremendous foothold in China that will prompt Japan in the long term to opt for China. The future of Japan is in Asia, not least of all in Siberia. In contrast to China, Japan has the means to ensure economic development there. With the growth of a domestic market in China, Japan will gradually forsake its more Western orientation. The arrival of the Hatoyama administration signaled new Japanese self-confidence. Of the 700 US military bases abroad, 90 are located in Japan. With 35 on Okinawa, near-panic broke out in the United States when Hatoyama wanted to close one of these bases. This is very indicative of the concerns of the US in the Obama era. To safeguard its world domination, the US is expanding its army even further.

Early this year, US-China relations deteriorated strongly following the sale of sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan, including 200 Patriot missiles. The header "US Arms for Taiwan Send Beijing a Message" in the New York Times was telling. China responded with the suspension of military ties with the US and continues to cause bad blood even today. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates canceled a visit to Beijing, and both the White House and the Pentagon sent unambiguous messages to China. The US confronted China before. The newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced: "The Government is working on improving the relationship with a number of Latin American countries in response to the growing influence in the Western hemisphere of Iran, China and Russia." Tensions increased when the US sent three of its most modern submarines to South Korea, the Philippines, and Diego Garcia, and finalized the move of 60% of its 53 attack submarines to the Pacific Ocean. China perceived the move as display of power unrivalled since the Cold War, amounting to a siege of China and proving Washington's determination to safeguard its military dominance in Asia.

The US keeps China tightly encircled with US forces settled in Japan and South Korea, back in the Philippines, and military agreements with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mongolia, Taiwan, and India. With the Afghanistan war in its tenth year, China sees no sign of the departure of foreign troops from its backyard. The US has 60% of its Tomahawk cruise missiles in waters that China considers its sphere of interest. And the US jumped on the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan to increase the pressure. China should adopt a tougher stand on the issue of the North Korean nuclear arms. What the press now describes as "messages" was once called gun boat diplomacy. No country, coalition, or international organization has ever arrogated the right to divide the world into operational military zones. The US is doing just that. The Pacific Command consistutes the largest of these. It covers 50% of the world, 36 countries, 60% of the world's population, and has 300,000 US troops deployed within its borders. This dominance is further reinforced by treaties with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Phlippines, and South Korea.

The fact that the US uses the Cheonan incident to put pressure on North Korea is indicative of how vulnerable the US feels in the face of a changing geopolitical landscape. The claim that the disaster was caused by a North Korean torpedo has been challenged. The enquiry was carried out by a consortium led by South Korea, while North Korea and China were excluded. The report was not signed by the experts. Questions arise: why did the Cheonan not detect a North Korean submarine, why would the 58 survivors not make an official statement? A Russian enquiry shows that there were no North Korean submarines near the Cheonan. The ship lies at the bottom of the sea, with fishing nets around the screw. It is likely that it sank after hitting a mine. The eagerness with which the United States jumped on the incident reminds of the war rhetoric aimed at Iraq at the time, and at Iran today. The U.S. does not tolerate a nuclear power neither in the Middle East in competition with its ally Israel, nor on the Korean peninsula.

The Western way of war seems to be out of date. However destructive the weapons systems, they provide no victory. There are just two countries in the world which have not yet understood this message: the US and Israel. Both continue to believe in military superiority. In their political language "peace" is a code word for "permanent subjugation of the opponent." Military dominance no longer translates in concrete political advantage. Force incites resistance. Resistance movements will no longer be intimidated, self-confident countries will protect themselves with nuclear arms against attacks with conventional weapons. Today, the term "victory" is a chimera. The future belongs to "soft power." Twenty years ago, Madeleine Albright asked: "Why do we have this superior military power if we cannot use it?" Today, the West must wonder: What is the point of the continuous deployment of our superior military, if that simply does not work? Any avoidance of this question argues the corruption and dishonesty of our political class.

Paul Lookman is a political activist. He writes a blog on international politics in Dutch and English called "Geopolitiek in perspectief"

Related Material:

• Stephen Szabo: US can't look to NATO or the EU to Support its Russia Strategy
• Stanley Sloan: Permanent Alliance: Is There an Alternative?
  

August 14, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

While the much ballyhooed desire to embrace more "soft power" should in fact be embraced it should be done so within reason. The truth is that hard power, in other words militarily coercive power, does still count.

Certainly, hard power is not without challenges and the author is correct that resistance is often incited when hard power is utilized, however, deterrence still appears to work in many situations, and deterrence is still largely predicated on military capacity and a willingness to employ it under certain circumstances.

Absent the American presence (and threats) since the ceasefire that ended the shooting phase of the Korean War (since it is still technically a war), who can reasonably think another invasion would not have happened? I realize that no actual force has been used (though considered several times), but, does not the "threat" of force, by definition, imply it could be used? So we come to a point where even if the military is not used, it still serves a useful purpose that could not be achieved in its abscence.

As for hedging against China, this is prudent. Again, America should be careful to not be overtly provocative and it is also true that conflict between China and America is not preordained (notwithstanding numerous "realist" theories which would make it quite inevitable). However, it is a possibility and only the naive would not do what they can to be prepared.

In the absence of American resolve what might be the reaction of Japan, South Korea and India to possible Chinese aggressive assertiveness? Might not they conclude they need an even greater deterrent than they already have? What kind of arms build ups would that precipitate?

Stability is based on the threat of the use of force. While sheathing the blade may well be the right option in many, if not most cases, the perennial threat must be there to keep all actors fully aware that there are consequences to aggressive actions.

It is highly unlikely that a global retrenchment by America will yield the positive gains so many yearn for. Probably, it will yield the opposite.

August 17, 2010

Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (295)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr Lawson: coercive power stands for offensive weapons and a readiness to attack. With your own logic: it would be prudent for China to hedge against the US, a power with a track record for armed interventions. With “stability” a code for “opponent coerced into compliance” (source: Noam Chomsky), rather than “stability is based on the threat of the use of force”, my motto would be “peace is based on the threat of retaliation”. For your other points, please consult three reactions to your article “Opening the Door to Great Power Conflict?” of May 25, 2010:

• Eva Maria Krockow suggested that it was not so much American [hard] power, but multilateral organisations and increasing international cooperation that led to the relative stability following the world wars of the early twentieth century. A situation of colonial powers with selfish motives, was replaced by an international community of states, greatly reducing the role of single players (even if as powerful as the US). She argued that it is not the US’s influence but rather the growing concern for a global community that forms the constant underlying relative peace.

• Jennifer Margaret Anne Morrison concurred, and added that the increased demand for international co-operation regarding environment, security and economy makes a state of global instability too risky in a globalised world. Thus all countries are more inclined to ''play safe'' and not rock the boat in order to protect their own interests.

• Daren Adam Cheatham put the threat from non-state actors in perspective. He mentioned the interdependence between nations, making it less likely that states would risk to support non-state actors with evil intentions. Consequently, Daren would be inclined to put less focus on Great Power conflict. Interestingly, in Daren’s view it will be up to the West to peacefully reconcile China’s growing energy needs, with diplomacy playing a great role “and lowering our naval capacity may be a small step”.

All views which argue for the US to rebalance its hard en soft power. Will the US ever understand the message?

August 17, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Lookman:

Thank you for the comments. I would agree that by my logic, it would be prudent for China to hedge against US power. I believe they are doing this. One cannot blame them or cast aspersions upon them for prudence.

This is, to borrow from Mearsheimer, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics." At the most fundamental level, there is no grand adjudicator capable of keeping all in line, consequently, it is always prudent to do everything within one's power to balance threats (unfortunately both real and perceived).

Yes, internationalism and cooperation matters. But it will always only matter within the context of perceived interests. Therefore, we should never be surprised to hear one thing and see actions that fail to correspond to rhetoric. Yes, the US does this. So does Europe and so does China.

It is possible that Global Warming could eventually be perceived by all as such a systemic threat that cooperation will superscede competition. However, even under that circumstance, once the immediacy of the danger has subsided (or been perceived to have subsided), competition will re-emerge because there is no fundamental solution to the "security dilema."

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org