The idea that the United States should abandon Southeast Asia to China is misplaced. Asia isn’t another Georgia, says James Holmes.
A couple of months back, writing in Foreign Policy, my colleague Prof. Lyle Goldstein likened the South China Sea today to the 2008 Russo-Georgian war. In a nutshell, he maintains that the United States unwisely staked its prestige on a weak, remote, strategically third-rate ally adjoining a far stronger nation that coveted its territory and its political subservience. The Bush administration had ‘showered’ Tbilisi with ‘high-level attention and military advisors,’ only to utter barely a ‘whimper’ when Moscow ordered armoured forces to crush the Georgian military and occupy much of the country. The United States’ credibility took a beating when it couldn’t reverse the outcome. Siding with a vastly outclassed Georgia was a clear loser as far as foreign policy ventures go.
Lyle paints a doleful picture. If US leaders heed his advice, they should shed most commitments in Southeast Asia, which he portrays as a region of trivial importance situated adjacent to an increasingly powerful China. He maintains that ‘Southeast Asia matters not a whit in the global balance of power.’ Otherwise, Washington risks a new diplomatic setback for no conceivable gain. Just as the Bush administration had ‘no appetite for risking a wider conflict with Moscow over a country of marginal strategic interest,’ the Obama administration will not—indeed, must not—tether its fortunes to weak Southeast Asian states. This adds up to a warning against supporting friendly yet ‘unimportant’ states fighting at an impossible disadvantage. The United States should abjure vain efforts to reverse facts already established on the ground. Better to shed needless entanglements while working with Beijing to combat piracy and terrorism in the region, in hopes of building a trustful relationship at sea.
If this were a straightforward entreaty for Washington to avoid getting embroiled in the intricate maritime territorial disputes roiling regional politics, I would second it unreservedly. As we Southerners say, the United States has no ‘dog in the fight’ over who controls which island, atoll, or rock, provided the power that does control them respects navigational freedoms enshrined in customary and treaty law. Accordingly, a standard talking point among US officials is that the United States’ only interests in the controversy are upholding free navigation through regional waters and seeing quarrels over territory settled without resort to arms.
But it’s far from clear that China will respect the law of the sea or refrain from using force. It has repeatedly proclaimed ‘indisputable sovereignty’ over international waters and airspace within certain lines on the map of the South China Sea. It has sought to proscribe activities such as flight operations, military surveillance, and military surveys within select parts of the global ‘commons’, much as coastal states may do in their ‘territorial seas.’ The territorial sea is a 12 mile belt of sea just offshore where the coastal-state government exercises complete jurisdiction. It’s not coastal states’ gift to rule the waters beyond, even though international law grants them exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources in the water column and seabed up to 200 miles offshore (farther if the underwater geography warrants). Washington is entirely correct to resist creeping Chinese encroachment on the rights of seafaring states.
The Black Sea analogy changes none of this, largely because the dynamics there were quite different from those prevailing in the South China Sea today. To my mind, a situation must pass three tests for the Russo-Georgian analogy to fit. First, it must pit a strong power against a weak power of peripheral interest to the United States. Second, the mismatch in military power must be so stifling that the stronger party can stage a fait accompli, overpowering the weaker contender before the United States and the international community can muster the resolve and physical might to intervene. And third, the distance separating US forces from the theatre of conflict must be so great that Washington cannot deploy forces in time to make a difference. US forces would lack forward bases for staging and sustaining assets near the scene of combat. Happily, the South China Sea meets none of these tests especially well.
First, consider the disparity of power between China and its smaller neighbours. It’s certainly true that China outmatches any Southeast Asia state in a one-to-one competition, and by a large margin. The Philippine government, for example, has pledged to double its defence budget—to all of $2.5 billion. The US Navy will spend about that sum on its next Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer. By contrast, China spent $91.5 billion this year according to official—and likely lowballed—figures. That’s over 36 times the Philippine budget. Another data point: the US Coast Guard recently transferred a 1967-vintage Hamilton-class cutter to the Philippines. This elderly law enforcement ship became the pride of the Philippine Navy, replacing a destroyer escort built for the US Navy in World War II. This speaks volumes about Manila’s weakness at sea. Small wonder Philippine leaders have invoked the US-Philippine mutual defence pact in hopes of coaxing Washington to support their maritime territorial claims. They need the help.
Photo Credit: US Navy
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Meerza
Let us not unleash our pro Obama election rehtoric upon the Diplomatic issues.
Let us not fancy the unachievable, gone are the days when nations surrendered to hegamony.
Any further USA should reform & bear common sense rather than acting like a bluffing bully.
China is a reality, the emerged Global Super Power & needless to say but the US dream of "New World Order" is shattered to pieces.
Citzens of the World say "Enough is Enough".
Moira G Gallaga
A must-read article on sovereignty issues in South China Sea. Why it is of strategic importance to the U.S. and why the Philippines’ and Southeast Asian countries’ interests on this issue coincides with U.S. strategic interests vis-a-vis China’s actions and intentions in the area.
Linh My
If ASEAN blockades China, China dies. China’s problem is that all of the choke points that China’s shipping goes through are, like The Strait of Malacca are 1500 km, or more distant from mainland China. I’ve sailed through The Strait of Malacca and 100 or so 50 year old T-54/55 tanks could absolutely shut down shipping. In actuality Malaysia and Singapore Armed forces are much better equipped than this. China has neither an Air Force or Navy capable of preventing ASEAN from shutting down China’s international shipping with out conquering Viet Nam and using Vietnamese Air Fields in South Viet Nam and or Cambodia.
I expect that I am the only one here who has actually fought against the Vietnamese Army(three tours US Navy, two in the Mekong delta). I may even be the only one who has actually fought in a war. Now, we had no intention of invading North Viet Nam and most of the people in South Viet Nam were not in favor of being conquered by North Viet Nam. That gave us a tremendous advantage in required troop strength. Our highest, American, troop level was a bit over 500,000 not counting South Vietnamese or allied forces.
Professional Armies have been fighting local irregular local forces for all of recorded history. Historically, it takes roughly 10 times as many Regular soldiers to defeat one irregular resistance soldier. Including reserve forces, Viet Nam has over 5,000,000 regular and irregular soldiers. By invading and conquering Laos and Cambodia, China could likely conquer Sai Gon(HCM city) with a couple of million troops. Protecting the Chinese Army’s supply lines would take a couple million more troops. Vietnamese casualties would be in the millions. Chinese Army casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands. Viet nam has a history of winning thousand year wars against China with these sorts of casualty numbers.
This level of Chinese brutality, and the knowledge that the same brutality would be directed at them next, would bring in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, India, Japan South Korea, as well as opening up Western China for a serious Islamic revolt and give Tibet a good shot at a successful revolt as well.
All the US needs to do, is state that the first country to use nuclear weapons in this war will be subject to a massive American nuclear response and that an attack on American forces or bases will be treated as an act of war.
So, if China goes to war over the East Sea, China as it currently exist, will no longer exist. In other words unless the Chinese leaders are insane, China is bluffing and will agree to reasonable borders, roughly corresponding to the 200 mile Economic Zone for all countries. Also note, all the US needs to do, is state that the first country to use nuclear weapons in this war will be subject to a massive American nuclear response and that an attack on American forces or bases will be treated as an act of war.
While China is a Great Power, China is not the center of the universe and is not the Supreme power in the world or even Asia. China should beware of and respect the sleeping giant of ASEAN and the rest of Asia.
The_Observer
I and my family emmigrated from the USA as I could see what is happening to the country. I will make a prediction. That, before the end of the next presidential term in 5 years time, the USA will have declined economically even more, will enact drastic control laws for her own population, and further involve herself in wars as a distraction for the her increasingly dumbed-down population.
Linh My
Wars and most other conflicts are not won by the most intelligent. They are won by those who make the least number of absolutely stupid mistakes. I hope that you moved somewhere that makes fewer stupid mistakes than America does. Forcing the rest of Asia into a war over the East etc. Sea would most likely be a non survivable mistake for China. Even as a negotiating ploy, I think it a bad mistake.
And Europe is doing so well??? I maintain two homes, one in America and one in Viet Nam. Mostly, I live in Viet Nam these days.
a_canadian_observer
@The_Observer: That’s good for USA. One less family of traitors to worry about.
The_Observer
@a_canadian_observer
Not traitors but merely expats with no immediate plans to return. By the way, how’s all the people in the different ethnic enclaves in BC getting along? Nothing like a little competition perhaps to spur Canadians’ creative juices, n’est pas???
Observer
@ LinhMy – nicely done.
Linh My
@The_Observer
Thank you. As to your predictions about America’s future, who knows?
The 800 lb Gorilla is automation. A few years ago, the bottle water plant down the road, here in Viet Nam automated it’s processing/bottling plant and fired roughly 400 of their 500 employes. Operating coasts are way down. Product quality is way up.
China and a lot of other Countries economic successes have largely happened because their people labor was cheaper than automated machinery. Automated machinery is a lot more efficient and cheaper per unit of output these days. During this downturn, American companies have been spending money on automation rather than hiring workers. I suspect that American society will more or less be able to deal with this. China and the other cheap labor countries . . .
The_Observer
I agree to a certain extent but there are already rumblings in the USA with unemployment – see occupy Wall Street. Also if the middle class that’s being so devastated in the USA has no money then spending will decrease which in turn pulls the economy down. Also see US house prices which are still declining in some major US cities. The possible scenario is that the USA could have another decade of deflation like the Japanese did (the latter only pulled out of it because of China by the way).