On the Tonight Show a couple nights ago, President Obama told Jay Leno that his bowling game had improved since his disastrous sub-100 game during his campaign. As the audience laughed, I wondered, "How good does he juggle?" As China and India continue their ascension into power in Asia, the White House is going to be forced to work with both closely to ensure United States interests in the region are secured.
United States interests in regards to India, require a delicate juggling act of India and Pakistan. India is a growing military power in the region and one we must work closely with. They are the only nation in the region with possible bluewater navy powers. They can control the entrance to the Persian Gulf - an area critical to the oil interests of the U.S. as well as the prime naval supply port for its troops stationed in the Middle East. Yet, India's arch enemy Pakistan recently provided a key tactical position to the United States' efforts in the Global War on Terror. In an unprecedented and shocking move, Pakistan willingly opened air space and air bases to the United States for operations in Afghanistan. The U.S. ability to run quick tactical strikes from Pakistan (had it not diverted to Iraq) could have finalized operations against the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. With their efforts refocused to this region again, Pakistan will be a key ally for the White House - to the chagrin of India. India has worked under the assumption that the United States "had its back" in respects to Pakistani aggression; now, they have to wonder where the loyalties would lie if a war between the two broke out.
In regards to China the issue is always Taiwan. DefenseNews (March 2 2009) detailed an important milestone in Pentagon-PLA relations as David Sedney, deputy assistant defense secretary visited to improve relations. Although reports from the meetings indicate it was one of the most positive in years, General Qian Lihua, director general of the Foreign Affairs Office, said, "We expect the U.S. side to take concrete measures for the resumption and development of our military ties" (page 10). Read - "Stop working with Taiwan!" How does Obama juggle the old Cold War agreement that brought the budding hope of democracy to the tiny island of Taiwan with the necessity of the White House to be on positive terms with the largest Communist government in the world?
The United States needs to have a good working alliance with China and India as they rise to power in Asia. President Obama; however, must be able to successfully juggle his relations with these rising powers while also maintaining credibility with their most hated rivals.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
China - Take them at Face Value
As the United States embarks on Obama's hopeful agenda for global peace and happiness, China once again reminds us that they are still--well China. Over the past couple decades China has fed the world its new improved friendly facade. Economically, they appear to have opened the gates wide and through these gates are attempting to sell the message that they have turned the corner and are ready to join the global community as a leading super power that can be trusted.
Obama's current administration is diving in this take out box of hope, knowing that as long as the United States plays nice (victim) with China and continues peaceful dialogue that this mammoth sized country will stay within their borders and play the good communist nation-state.
One example is the Obama Administration's request to establish a military-to-military hot line to ensure better cooperation, understanding and to avoid incidents. News Flash - this hotline had been established years ago and those phones were unanswered on 9 March 2009 as the unarmed USNS Impeccable faced an onslaught of harassment by Chinese vessels in the South China Sea. The United States Pentagon, in an attempt to assess the situation from the Chinese perspective met a dead response. Why? Because the only country on the globe who has to answer for aggressive actions is the United States. Furthermore, our quiet acceptance of these actions demonstrates not only to China, but also to North Korea that America is softening. For South Korea and Japan who rely on U.S. strength in the region for their survival - it must be unsettling.
This is not an advocation for a military retaliation on China; however, this incident met very little response from a White House that would rather keep the waters calm. From China's view point, it was an aggressive act by the United States - much as a slow-moving Navy P-3 was acting in agression as it "rammed" a Chinese F-8 fighter in the East China Sea in 2001. Both times, China reacted aggressively to United States activities in international waters - RECOGNIZED international waters. China is the only country to claim 100NM of the Pacific Ocean as well as the entire South China Sea as their soverign waters. How would the world react if the United States drew those same lines in the waterways adjacent to their shores.
The Obama Adminstration's attempts to engage China on an equal basis will fail because the Chinese do not believe they are on equal footing with the United States -- they are higher. Obama and the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met three days after the USNS Impeccable incident and although it was mentioned, no warnings from the White House were officially released.
As we move into the next decade, China has economically moved itself to the top of the food chain. Internally, their treatment of humans is atrocious; however, no one wants to rock the boat on that. Their push towards Tawain will increase - their ridiculous claims over the South China Sea and other littoral waters / islands assures us that once they claim something as theirs they will be the bully on the playground. Six-Party talks with North Korea will succeed as long as it is in China's best interest. A missile firing that doesnt breach Chinese airspace will most likely illicit little response. Unfortunately on this last point, even if United States condemns North Korea to the utmost along with Japan and South Korea, its desire to keep the waters still with China will ensure that the reaction will be nothing more than a strongly worded letter signed by Hillary.
Theodore Roosevelt agreed with speaking softly; however, he did it with a big stick at his side. If Obama's true desire is for us to lower our voices and sooth our rivals, he needs to set down the flowers and pick up the stick.
Obama's current administration is diving in this take out box of hope, knowing that as long as the United States plays nice (victim) with China and continues peaceful dialogue that this mammoth sized country will stay within their borders and play the good communist nation-state.
One example is the Obama Administration's request to establish a military-to-military hot line to ensure better cooperation, understanding and to avoid incidents. News Flash - this hotline had been established years ago and those phones were unanswered on 9 March 2009 as the unarmed USNS Impeccable faced an onslaught of harassment by Chinese vessels in the South China Sea. The United States Pentagon, in an attempt to assess the situation from the Chinese perspective met a dead response. Why? Because the only country on the globe who has to answer for aggressive actions is the United States. Furthermore, our quiet acceptance of these actions demonstrates not only to China, but also to North Korea that America is softening. For South Korea and Japan who rely on U.S. strength in the region for their survival - it must be unsettling.
This is not an advocation for a military retaliation on China; however, this incident met very little response from a White House that would rather keep the waters calm. From China's view point, it was an aggressive act by the United States - much as a slow-moving Navy P-3 was acting in agression as it "rammed" a Chinese F-8 fighter in the East China Sea in 2001. Both times, China reacted aggressively to United States activities in international waters - RECOGNIZED international waters. China is the only country to claim 100NM of the Pacific Ocean as well as the entire South China Sea as their soverign waters. How would the world react if the United States drew those same lines in the waterways adjacent to their shores.
The Obama Adminstration's attempts to engage China on an equal basis will fail because the Chinese do not believe they are on equal footing with the United States -- they are higher. Obama and the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met three days after the USNS Impeccable incident and although it was mentioned, no warnings from the White House were officially released.
As we move into the next decade, China has economically moved itself to the top of the food chain. Internally, their treatment of humans is atrocious; however, no one wants to rock the boat on that. Their push towards Tawain will increase - their ridiculous claims over the South China Sea and other littoral waters / islands assures us that once they claim something as theirs they will be the bully on the playground. Six-Party talks with North Korea will succeed as long as it is in China's best interest. A missile firing that doesnt breach Chinese airspace will most likely illicit little response. Unfortunately on this last point, even if United States condemns North Korea to the utmost along with Japan and South Korea, its desire to keep the waters still with China will ensure that the reaction will be nothing more than a strongly worded letter signed by Hillary.
Theodore Roosevelt agreed with speaking softly; however, he did it with a big stick at his side. If Obama's true desire is for us to lower our voices and sooth our rivals, he needs to set down the flowers and pick up the stick.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Japan's Insurance Policy
Following WWII, a defeated Japan was ordered to dismantle the military machine that wreaked havoc throughout the Pacific. Internally, the Japanese people were ashamed and agreed to abandon any offensive use of military weapons. This has evolved over time to what is known as their comprehensive security and omni-directional foreign policy. Both of these policies take a pacifist approach to their dealings with nation states. Comprehensive Security in summary is a way of protecting their interests by opening specific doors to specific countries based on their needs. Omni-directional policy looks to gain global power economically and ensuring their interests are protected by maintaining a policy of neutrality.
I have one problem with this utopian view of Japan. Their rise to economic power has been under the very large umbrella of United States protection. They have the luxury of remaining pacifist and neutral - there is a big brother who will protect them on their dollar.
I know my post comes across with a negative light; however, allow me this comparison:
As a middle income wage earner, I am more than able to afford my simple car, my small 3-bedroom home and support my two children. My car payment, mortgage and expenses are manageable; however, the black hole for my wallet is the money I dump into the protection of these things -- insurance. Car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, medical insurance -- all monies paid out to protect the "if". If I live my entire life never getting in an accident, watching my home burn down or getting deathly ill, I have easily spent 5-6000 dollars a year for something I never use. How much better would my finances be if I could invest all that money into my budget while my neighbor were to pay those things for me. I don't think I will knock on his door with that request anytime soon.
Japan spends less than 1% of their GDP on their defense budget because they don't have to. It must be comforting to lean on the United States for their offensive fire power who also has to deflect international scrutiny everytime they act on the behalf of another. Comprehensive Security and Omni-Directional Foreign Policy are nice terms and it is fantastic that Japan has the freedom to pursue these at the expense of the United States.
I have one problem with this utopian view of Japan. Their rise to economic power has been under the very large umbrella of United States protection. They have the luxury of remaining pacifist and neutral - there is a big brother who will protect them on their dollar.
I know my post comes across with a negative light; however, allow me this comparison:
As a middle income wage earner, I am more than able to afford my simple car, my small 3-bedroom home and support my two children. My car payment, mortgage and expenses are manageable; however, the black hole for my wallet is the money I dump into the protection of these things -- insurance. Car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, medical insurance -- all monies paid out to protect the "if". If I live my entire life never getting in an accident, watching my home burn down or getting deathly ill, I have easily spent 5-6000 dollars a year for something I never use. How much better would my finances be if I could invest all that money into my budget while my neighbor were to pay those things for me. I don't think I will knock on his door with that request anytime soon.
Japan spends less than 1% of their GDP on their defense budget because they don't have to. It must be comforting to lean on the United States for their offensive fire power who also has to deflect international scrutiny everytime they act on the behalf of another. Comprehensive Security and Omni-Directional Foreign Policy are nice terms and it is fantastic that Japan has the freedom to pursue these at the expense of the United States.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Effects of September 11th in Asia
The terrorist attacks of September 11th were meant to strike at the epicenter of American capitalism. The World Trade Center, a monument to economic strength to foreigners, was a statement. Its true goal was not to bring down man-made structures nor was it to spread panic or fear into the lives of Americans; although those were fantastic side-effects. No, its true target was the economic strength of the United States. Using the Soviet Union as a model, Osama Bin Laden and his chief planners weighed the cause-effect of such an attack. The Soviet Union, most capable military on the globe next to the United States in the 1980s, was decimated in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda predicted correctly that the United States would feel compelled to respond. That response would bring the Americans to the same failing grounds which swallowed up the Soviet ruble just two decades prior. Patiently riding out the initial American military onslaught, Al Qaeda has succeeded in dragging the Americans through a costly war, with little result, and bringing their economy down. Obviously, other factors played a roll, but to not look at the drain in resources caused by September 11th is to avoid a major factor in this current recession.
Where does all this factor in with Asia? To quickly summarize a century of history; the nations of Asia endured colonization from Western powers through World War II. After World War II, the age of colonization ended and the countries became nation-states. Due to the Cold War; however, the United States stayed in the region as the stabilization force. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained the world’s only super power. September 11th opened the eyes of the world. The United States was crippled for the first time in a long while. Although supportive of the United States in its initial efforts for the new “GWOT” (Global War on Terrorism), this was the crack in the armor that was needed. The following players in Asia are poised to take advantage.
China’s emergence in the global market has many nations in the region considering a closer option for regional security. Can the United States defend us when it can’t defend itself? Does the United States have the resources to support and defend us when they are being siphoned away by the billions in Iraq and Afghanistan? China is wisely testing the waters to see if they could replace the United States (and the Soviet Union) as the superpower in the east.
In a much darker corner awaits North Korea. Isolated from the global community, North Korea has used this time to rattle the sabers a little louder to get attention from the United States. Militarily, North Korea has been more overt against the United States in the Pacific than in years past – perhaps perceiving weakness. With its current financial troubles, it is extremely possible that North Korea could begin a stealthy proliferation campaign with the top threat in the region – terrorism. North Korean military technology in the hands of regional terrorists could unbalance the entire region.
Terrorism in this region is far more complex and dangerous than elsewhere on the globe. Many of these nations were formed by arbitrary lines from colonizing forces to mark territory. A country like Indonesia for example, spread out among several thousand miles of islands could house hundreds of terrorist cells with freedom to train, build, and import lethal weapons without anyone checking on their status. Countries with ethnic, cultural, or religious tensions heightened due to the arbitrary lines draw decades ago could find themselves in a civil war if a particular group is marked as extremist or a terrorist group. In the United States alone, sensitivity is high when a Muslim is searched at an airport. Imagine that attempt in the Philippines or other multi-ethnic region that has fully embraced the “melting pot” philosophy the United States still struggles with.
Where does all this factor in with Asia? To quickly summarize a century of history; the nations of Asia endured colonization from Western powers through World War II. After World War II, the age of colonization ended and the countries became nation-states. Due to the Cold War; however, the United States stayed in the region as the stabilization force. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained the world’s only super power. September 11th opened the eyes of the world. The United States was crippled for the first time in a long while. Although supportive of the United States in its initial efforts for the new “GWOT” (Global War on Terrorism), this was the crack in the armor that was needed. The following players in Asia are poised to take advantage.
China’s emergence in the global market has many nations in the region considering a closer option for regional security. Can the United States defend us when it can’t defend itself? Does the United States have the resources to support and defend us when they are being siphoned away by the billions in Iraq and Afghanistan? China is wisely testing the waters to see if they could replace the United States (and the Soviet Union) as the superpower in the east.
In a much darker corner awaits North Korea. Isolated from the global community, North Korea has used this time to rattle the sabers a little louder to get attention from the United States. Militarily, North Korea has been more overt against the United States in the Pacific than in years past – perhaps perceiving weakness. With its current financial troubles, it is extremely possible that North Korea could begin a stealthy proliferation campaign with the top threat in the region – terrorism. North Korean military technology in the hands of regional terrorists could unbalance the entire region.
Terrorism in this region is far more complex and dangerous than elsewhere on the globe. Many of these nations were formed by arbitrary lines from colonizing forces to mark territory. A country like Indonesia for example, spread out among several thousand miles of islands could house hundreds of terrorist cells with freedom to train, build, and import lethal weapons without anyone checking on their status. Countries with ethnic, cultural, or religious tensions heightened due to the arbitrary lines draw decades ago could find themselves in a civil war if a particular group is marked as extremist or a terrorist group. In the United States alone, sensitivity is high when a Muslim is searched at an airport. Imagine that attempt in the Philippines or other multi-ethnic region that has fully embraced the “melting pot” philosophy the United States still struggles with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)