Comments on: The Asia Pivot: Old Policy, New Name

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:47:54 +0000

China is the future antagonist. Beijing has carefully positioned itself as neither friend nor enemy, and is carefully waiting until the moment that it has a clear advantage to act. It’s motives are mostly clear: regional hegemony by China. Other motives include, resource acquisition (South China Sea), naval blocking and anti-acceess ability (directed at any country who does not comply with their wishes, first and foremost, Japan).

The ultimate motive will bring Beijing to the center of power in the region in the long term, and allow them to dictate terms to everyone else. The first targets will be the (perceived to be easier to influence) ASEAN countries, with whom China has already been cultivating increasingly warm relationships (Malaysian and Indonesia here. Laos and Cambodia already follow the Chinese line with Burma). Thailand, Vietnam and the Phillipines still stand out in opposition (although the Thais are too pre-occupied with their own problems at the moment). China will use its economic leverage over Australia to drive a wedge into its alliance with the US over the long term, a major gamble.

Ultimately China’s desired position will allow it to totally humiliate Japan, a long term strategic goal of theirs, and the China-Japan relational dynamic is the most critical and sensitive in the region by far. China will attempt to provoke Japan into an open conflict, when Beijing can choose the timing and setting of the battle, without adequate US support. Think 2025 for that one.

China has numerous problems, and it will not move toward democracy in our lifetimes. It is not in the nature of the regime or the culture. The regime requires total control of the population, resources, and politics, and the guiding hand over capital and institutions. It will maintain this at any cost. It will endeavor to overcome its problems, and is doing so pro-actively. It will keep the lid on any problems using materialism, populist programs, fear and intimidation, and force when necessary. They have become experts at social control, surpassing the Nazis who are the ones they most admire and are trying to perfect their methods (carried over by Stalin, and thence to Mao, etc).

The challenges for the US in this theater are numerous, long, term and complex. Little can be done to influence the Chinese. They are arrogant and indifferent to us and laugh at us, demanding that way "respect" them. Instead, coordination among the other regional players and out-playing the Chinese in diplomacy (especially in South Korea, and the ASEAN countries) is key. Maintaining a high level of military intelligence, readiness and both numerical, and technological edges over the PLAN are also key. The third area would be to carry out deeper anti-PLA and anti-CCP informational warfare, and limiting their options for gaining critical resources with which they can solve their problems.

This will be challenging indeed. We shall all see one of the world’s greatest geopolitical chess games played out in real life on the world stage of the Asia-Pacific theater in our lifetimes. Let us hope we can play well, and better, than the opponent.

By: bruce shand

bruce shand — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:15:07 +0000

The author fails to state any actual benefits from maintaing this policy or pitfalls of not doing so. Mere projection of power seems inadequate reason. And as we’ve seen in the changes of Southeast Asia, China and Russia over twenty years is that markets ulimately trump military power. Hence the wisdom of the founders in welcoming trade but eschewing political ties with foreign powers.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:03:01 +0000

Great point. Two problems with “pivot”. First, it appears to be a slight of hand to obscure a capitulation in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Second, it may wrongly signal to China a threat of expanded US presence in East Asia/Pacific regions.

By: adifarid

adifarid — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:50:52 +0000

ever since the WWII in 1945 erupted…..the pacific waterways had always been the most important linked to many military powers worldwide…..like in WWII it has been the stage where for many super carrier control these routes….n as to respond in matter of seconds….

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:39:30 +0000

Has anyone ever run a cost benefit analyses of the maintenance of the amount of power we project in the Asian Pacific compared to the stable trade (etc.) we receive as a result? Our continued presence in Japan and Korea appear to many of us to be more of an economic and political liability with little in the way of replicating benefit.

By: TJ Avatarici

TJ Avatarici — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:46:08 +0000

After a long slumber the Asian dragons are awakening.
The fleets and air forces (and space forces) will be built and a soft, weakened, unresolved US society will be eased out of the to-be-determined Chinese sphere of influence.

By: leonard

leonard — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:26:44 +0000

The second paragraph says it all. Holding freinds together. Perhaps the title including PIVOT might be more descriptive it was edited to ASIAN GUDGEON

By: DJ MARLER

DJ MARLER — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:17:22 +0000

Succint article. Re the key second sentence: "It has long been British policy to prevent the emergence of a single power dominating Europe, and British planners have carefully maintained a European balance of power since the days of the Napoleonic wars." The analogy is too close for comfort these days as troubling island disputes in the region mimic those in the Balkans prior to 1914.

By: Quinton Payne

Quinton Payne — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:51:48 +0000

The origins of our foreign policy in the Asia Pacific germinated in Teddy Roosevelt sending his diplomatic / colonial delegation in 1905, the reverberations of which continue to this day. An excellent reference of this is the book "The Imperial Cruise" by noted author James Bradley.

By: Fawad Haider

Fawad Haider — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 05:30:11 +0000

I think that US should keep its nose where it belongs. A big preacher of human rights on one side and on the other it is the biggest abuser of those rights. What hypocrisy. For a change, people should be left to live their lives in the way they want to. I have nothing against the article but the American mindset needs serious tuning for sure.