Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Over the last few days there has been a flurry of posts about the Big Pivot in grand strategy. Maybe it's too pro-Obama in tone...

To summarize, it seems that a few weeks ago Sec. Clinton made a speech about making the shift from focusing on the Middle East to focusing on the Pacific. Then last week on his Asia trip Obama made it explicit (notably in basing up to 2,500 troops in Australia).

China has been misbehaving lately, and annoying pretty much everyone. Second, China's strategy here is of a piece with their behavior over the past nine months or so, which, intentionally or not, could be characterized as "Pissing Off as Many Countries As Possible."
Seriously, it's a distinguished list. The Europeans are furious at China because of how the country acted at Copenhagen. The Japanese and South Koreans are furious at China because of how Beijing has handled the Cheonan incident. India is unhappy with China's naval aspirations, nuclear aid to Pakistan, trade imbalances, and an unsettled border. A fair number of ASEAN nations are upset with China's currency policies and its reassertion of territorial claims and spheres of influence in the South China Sea. And then there's the United States, where despite some understanding between Obama and Hu, the People's Liberation Army and the Ministry of Commerce seem bound and determined to derail any warming trend between the two countries.
This is a long and distinguished list of countries to alienate. It certainly signals a shift, intended or not, from the "peaceful rising" approach of the past decade or so. It also appears to be bad strategy -- simultaneously angering the countries that could form a balancing coalition is not an exercise in smart power. And as I've said before, China has badly overestimated how it can translate its financial capabilities into foreign policy leverage. http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/18/does_strategy_even_matter_in_foreign_policy

So in response, Obama orchestrated this: (from Walter Russell Mead, of all people!)

The cascade of statements, deployments, agreements and announcements from the United States and its regional associates in the last week has to be one of the most unpleasant shocks for China�s leadership � ever. The US is moving forces to Australia, Australia is selling uranium to India, Japan is stepping up military actions and coordinating more closely with the Philippines and Vietnam in the South China Sea, Myanmar is slipping out of China�s column and seeking to reintegrate itself into the region, Indonesia and the Philippines are deepening military ties with the the US: and all that in just one week. If that wasn�t enough, a critical mass of the region�s countries have agreed to work out a new trade group that does not include China, while the US, to applause, has proposed that China�s territorial disputes with its neighbors be settled at a forum like the East Asia Summit � rather than in the bilateral talks with its smaller, weaker neighbors that China prefers.
Rarely has a great power been so provoked and affronted. Rarely have so many red lines been crossed. Rarely has so much face been lost, so fast. It was a surprise diplomatic attack, aimed at reversing a decade of chit chat about American decline and disinterest in Asia, aimed also at nipping the myth of �China�s inexorable rise� in the bud....
[I]t was as decisive a diplomatic victory as anyone is likely to see. Congratulations should go to President Obama and his national security team. The State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House have clearly been working effectively together on an intensive and complex strategy. They avoided leaks, they coordinated effectively with half a dozen countries, they deployed a range of instruments of power. In the field of foreign policy, this was a coming of age of the Obama administration and it was conceived and executed about as flawlessly as these things ever can be.

If the last GOP debate was any indication (and if it isn't, what can we go by?) the candidates on offer pretty much back the neocons of the Bush years. Peter Beinert calls the new strategy 'off-shore balancing'.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/28/obama-s-foreign-policy-doctrine-finally-emerges-with-off-shore-balancing.html

I don't know if that name will last, or even if it's a good name, but it will do for now. I do think the public is sick to death of endless adventurism in the Middle East and is ready for another approach. (For decades, the GOP has held the advantage on foreign affairs, but that seems to be finally ending. Add that to their penchant for defending tax cuts only for the rich and increases for everyone else, and it is starting to look like conservatives are backing a losing horse.)

To add to all this, China is planning on adding 135 naval ships by 2030. That could be scary. But South Korea is adding 128 and India is adding 103. On the one hand, you have a militarization of Asia. Not good. On the other, you have allies standing up to play a major part in a configuration to balance any Chinese adventurism.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_stories_you_missed_in_2011

I am concerned about a new cold war. One was enough.

More heartinging is a US more ready to play a partnership role than an outright leadership role (see NATO vs Libya, Turkey vs Syria). I would like to see some draw-down in the number of US military personnel and more savings in 'defense'. But I do accept that we have a major role to play in international security, including buttressing allies like South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. I also like to see them standing up to play a more responsible role in their own defense.

It looks to me like Obama has set out a policy of less assertive US involvement, holding back and letting regional powers play a larger role, considering the constraints of US finances, while not turning to isolationism like some irresponsible Texas representatives would have us do.

Off-shore balancing, if that is to be the new term, is a balanced, responsible and progressive policy.

Any discussion?

[The Floating World]

China has been pissing countries off.

Amercia hasn't?

Discuss.

[comm]

[rollo]

Some of this was done at the request of allies. China has been throwing it's weight around. Also some of this is to prevent an arms race in Asia. but I think that it is too late to prevent that.

[itistime]

[Ya-ta Boy]

^
Good question. I don't know the answer.

I think today is the day Sec. Clinton arrives in Burma.

[Ya-ta Boy]

At risk of derailing my own thread:

[comm]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[bucheon bum]

It was what? 2500 marines stationed in (or near) Darwin? Big whoop: 100% symbolic gesture.

[Ya-ta Boy]

^
It starts with 250 and will sometime get up to 2,500.

[Nowhere Man]

First off, you've spliced a FP article from June 2010 with a US statement from Nov 2011. Isn't that just a little bit Eisenstein-esque?

Second, Drezner really seems to be digging deep to spin his list. The Japanese are furious over China's position on the Cheonan incident? Japan sided with SK, but how hot and bothered are they really about that? I think it was a diplomatic gesture, and it really isn't/wasn't a hot topic for them. Did damning, unequivocal evidence ever emerge?

China has territorial disputes with ASEAN countries, but its investment in SE Asia continues with a great deal of mutual satisfaction.

Moreover, the military and a couple of newspapers are hardliners, but are they really calling the shots?

And compare them to the neo-cons, who were happily enjoying front page conversations about the New American Century and how the US should behave like an empire.

If China were America, where we seem to have a tradition of sending our kids abroad to get medieval on people every couple of decades, the military build-up might be a concern.

On the other hand, the Chinese recall a long history of horrible misadventures of conquest visited upon their own soil. I believe the when they state that they have no such interests themselves (as seen through their world view if you want to bring up Tibet). There is, of course, Taiwan, but I don't think they think it's worth the potential trouble.

And, overall, I think "the Age of Conquest" has come to a close. Despite its faults, I think the UN has a lot to do with that.

As such, I don't think we're looking at another cold war.

In fact, with the economic advantages the PRC has, using its military as anything more than a projection of power seems a bit silly. Why use the military when they're financially turning a corner that was unthinkable 20 years ago?

And, as others have said, they still have a lot on their plate internally.

Which jumps us up to the 2011 statement. In an era where the US has floundered massively, we're ecstatic about this huge female dog slap we've just delivered to China? The US, as a superpower, has received many a slapping from both allies and enemies. The end result has been minor/negligible. These things happen when you're a superpower.

To look at things another way, all of the red lines that have been crossed is indicative of just how many areas where the Chinese have influence. "Haha! We hit them here, there, and everywhere." means they are here, there, and everywhere.

Should the Chinese start stationing troops in other countries to show off their huevos gigantes? If we don't want them to, then maybe we shouldn't be bragging about it.

[Ya-ta Boy]

^
Long response, but I'm not entirely clear on what you are saying. It's kind of disjointed.

It seems you are saying China's behavior does not need balancing. Is that the correct understanding of your position?

Are you saying it is not a big deal that we are shifting our primary diplomatic focus from the Middle East to the Pacific, and doing it in a multilateral way to boot?

[Ya-ta Boy]

One of the things that worries me about this is thinking like this:

The financial world is obsessed with stock market gyrations and bond yields. But the numbers that matter in the long run are those of U.S. warships. Asia has been at the centre of the world economy for decades because security there can be taken for granted, and that is only because of the dominance of the U.S. navy and air force in the western Pacific. (Robert Kaplan)

Isn't that backward? The numbers that matter are the $$$ in the bank that can be turned into warships at will.

However, he goes on to say this: There is no guarantee that this situation will last, however. In the 1980s era of high Reaganism, the U.S. Navy boasted close to 600 warships. In the 1990s, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, that number fell to about 350. The U.S. Navy�s current strength is 284 warships. In the short term that number may rise to 313 because of the introduction of littoral combat ships. Over time, however, it may fall to about 250, owing to cost overruns, the need to address domestic debt and the decommissioning of ageing warships in the 2020s. Meanwhile, the bipartisan quadrennial defence review last year recommended that the U.S. move toward a 346-ship navy to fulfil its global responsibilities.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/11/aegis-standard-towards-strategic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information+Dissemination%29

I do agree that we have global responsibilities, but it is a mistake to think only of US warships. It should be US + allies warships.

Anyway, the site has links to writers dealing with the issue. For example, here is an article from an Australian POV:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/11/us-primacy-in-asia-not-inevitable.html
Suggestions that China�s recent launch of one aircraft carrier and plans to build another are signs of a new belligerence are wide of the mark.

In that regard, I disagree with the underlying premise of the 2009 Australian White Paper that we should base our defence planning and procurement on the contingency of a naval war with China in the South China Sea. Prejudice or wishful thinking is not a substitute for coolly rational analysis.

As I said in London, this is no time for another �long telegram� or talk of containment. It makes no sense for America, or Australia, to base long-term strategic policy on the proposition that we are on an inevitable collision course with a militarily aggressive China...

But an Australian Government needs to be careful not to allow a doe-eyed fascination with the leader of the free world to distract from the reality that our national interest requires us truly (and not just rhetorically) to maintain both an ally in Washington and a good friend in Beijing � which is, after all, our most important trading partner and a principal reason why our unemployment rate is half that of North America or Europe.
...President Obama has made clear it is the policy of the United States to resist China's challenge to US primacy in Asia, using all the instruments of its power to strengthen and perpetuate the preeminent leadership the US has exercised in the region for decades. In a news conference in Canberra, Australia, on Nov. 16, President Obama described it as a mistake to suggest the U.S. fears China or is seeking to isolate the world�s most populous nation. He said, �The main message that I�ve said not only publicly but also privately to the Chinese is that with their rise comes increased responsibilities.� He went on to say, �It�s important for them to play by the rules of the road.�
Which is accurate, except it is also accurate to note that US policy is intended to insure they are US sanctioned rules and a road the US maintains some control over.

All of this strikes me as the first step in the attempt to manage the future while taking into account the situation created by the massive mismanagement of the US over the last 30 years.

[Nowhere Man]