|
20 August 2010
U.S.-China Conflict: From War Of Words To Talk Of War
Part I By Rick Rozoff On August 16 the U.S. and its South Korean military
ally began this year’s Ulchi Freedom Guardian military
exercises in South Korea. The ten-day warfighting
drills involve 56,000 troops from the host country and
30,000 from the U.S. Last year’s version of the annual
war games featured the same amount of South Korean
soldiers but only a third as many American troops,
10,000. The commander in charge of the American
forces, General Walter Sharp, described the current
exercise as “one of the largest joint staff directed
theater exercises in the world.” In all over 500,000
South Korean military and government participants are
involved. [1] Ulchi Freedom Guardian 2010 is the latest and
largest in a series of almost uninterrupted war games
and naval maneuvers conducted over the past five weeks
in the region: The Korean Peninsula, the seas on
either side of it, and the South China Sea. Three of the four nations involved are regional
actors: South Korea, China and Vietnam. The other is
not: The United States. Washington led the four-day Invincible Spirit joint
war games with South Korea in the Sea of Japan off the
east coast of the Korean Peninsula from July 25-28,
which were highlighted by the participation of the
almost 100,000-ton nuclear-powered supercarrier USS
George Washington among 20 warships, 200 warplanes
including F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, and 8,000
troops. A Chinese news agency said of the exercises
that “they were no ordinary war games” but “were
unprecedented in the past three decades both in terms
of scale and weaponry. The resources involved were
said to be enough for launching a full-scale war….” “The US-South Korean war games were said to be
aimed at preventing a repeat of incidents like the
sinking of South Korea’s Cheonan warship and
maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula. However,
the war games were more than enough to intimidate the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea….They were
actually a show of force against China….” [2] After their completion, the South Korean government
announced that the U.S. and Seoul will conduct “a
joint military exercise every month until the end of
the year.” [3] The Nimitz class aircraft carrier George Washington
returned to its base in Japan only to head to the
South China Sea eleven days later to engage with
another major U.S. warship in the first-ever joint
naval exercises with Vietnam in the neighborhood of
the Spratly and Paracel islands. The docking of the
USS John S. McCain destroyer in a Vietnamese harbor
and the “lurking” of USS George Washington in the
South China Sea near the two island chains were both
unprecedented events. The maneuvers were an open challenge to and clear
act of defiance toward China, following by two weeks
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement
in the Vietnamese capital that the U.S. was prepared
to intervene in territorial disputes over the
above-mentioned islands on behalf of claimants
Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei, the Philippines and Malaysia
against China. Two days before throwing down the gauntlet to
Beijing, Clinton and Robert Gates, Admiral Michael
Mullen, and Admiral Robert Willard – the last three
America’s top defense official, top military commander
and chief of its largest overseas combat command, U.S.
Pacific Command – were in South Korea to commemorate
the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean
War. The conflict whose start they marked soon
escalated into the U.S.’s first war with China, a
point hard to miss in the current context. While in South Korea, Gates, Mullen and Willard
confirmed plans for regular U.S.-South Korean joint
military exercises, including in the Yellow Sea off
the west coast of the Korean Peninsula. The bulk of
the sea’s coastline is Chinese territory. The four-day U.S.-South Korean naval exercises late
last month were initially to have been conducted in
the Yellow Sea, but were moved to the other end of the
Koreas, the Sea of Japan, because of Chinese
objections. If the ongoing Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise is
an annual event and one scheduled well in advance, the
U.S.-led naval exercises off Korean and Vietnamese
shores were not. And if the Invincible Spirit war
games were announced as strictly targeted at North
Korea, joint maneuvers with Vietnam in the South China
Sea had nothing to do with the March 26 sinking of the
South Korean Cheonan warship. The past month has witnessed an unbroken succession
of military activities near and off China’s coasts;
some scheduled, some hastily arranged; some routine,
some extraordinary; some conducted by one or another
regional state, several under the lead of the U.S. To place matters in perspective, on March 4 the
Chinese government announced a $78 billion defense
budget for 2010 with the lowest annual growth rate –
7.5% – since 1989, half that of recent years.
According to a New York Times report on the topic and
on the date in question, “China’s military spending is
still dwarfed by that of the United States, which has
about $719 billion in outlays this year for national
defense.” [4] Assuming the accuracy of the above
figures, U.S. military spending per capita this year
will be almost forty times that of China, $2,330 to
$60. The U.S. has eleven aircraft carriers, ten of them
nuclear-powered supercarriers, and eleven carrier
strike groups. China has no aircraft carriers. Unlike
the U.S., China is not building a global interceptor
missile system with land, sea, air, and space
components nor is it developing an equivalent of the
Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike project to strike any
spot on earth within minutes. China has not been guilty of military aggression
against another nation since 1979, when it attacked
northern Vietnam (with Washington’s blessing). In anticipation of the deployment of USS George
Washington to what at the time what thought to be the
Yellow Sea, China’s People’s Liberation Army held a
military supply exercises in that sea on July 17 and
18. Codenamed Warfare 2010, drills were held “amid
reported tension over a scheduled joint exercise
between the United States and Republic of Korea (ROK)
navies.” [5] The exercises were held “deep in the Yellow Sea”
[6] and “aimed at improving defense capabilities
against long-distance attacks.” “Four helicopters and four rescue vessels were
deployed for the exercise….Tanks were also loaded onto
vessels at a port in Yantai, Shandong
province….Similarly, rail[s] transported tanks to
ships and other military equipment was transferred to
vessels….The exercise focused on transporting military
supplies for future joint battles….The drill came at a
sensitive time with Washington and Seoul scheduled to
hold a joint military exercise in the Yellow Sea.” [7] As the U.S.-South Korean naval, air and
anti-submarine exercises began on July 25, China’s
navy (People’s Liberation Army Navy: PLAN) “conducted
a large-scale, live-ammunition exercise in the South
China Sea,” days before the arrival of USS John S.
McCain and USS George Washington in the sea. They were
supervised by Chen Bingde, commanding general of the
People’s Liberation Army General Staff Department. “Main battleships, submarines and combat aircraft
from the PLAN’s three fleets took part in the drill,
believed to be the largest naval maneuver since 1950
when the PLAN was formally formed….State media say
China’s military forces this week conducted the
largest exercise of its kind since the founding of the
military, known as the People’s Liberation Army. The
official Xinhua news agency reports numerous warships,
submarines, and combat aircraft took part in live fire
exercises held Monday [July 26] in the South China
Sea.” [8] On August 3 China launched major air defense
exercises which included 12,000 troops and 100
aircraft. China’s five-day exercise, called Vanguard
2010, took place “over the central province of Henan
and the eastern coastal province of Shandong, which
borders the Yellow Sea.” [9] The maneuvers also
involved air defence missiles and artillery units. Two days later South Korea began its largest-ever
anti-submarine drills in the Yellow Sea with several
thousand military personnel, 29 ships and 50 aircraft.
Marines based on islands close to the border with
North Korea conducted live-fire exercises during the
five-day event. A report at the time provided details: “The
military practiced sinking enemy submarines, and
responding to coastal artillery fire. It also
conducted a drill to deal with North Korean
commandos….Some 4,500 people from the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marines and maritime police are taking part in
the exercise. The military has mobilized nearly 30
naval vessels, including the 14,000-ton amphibious
landing ship Dokdo, 4,500-ton KDX-II class destroyers,
and about 50 aircraft, including KF-16 fighter jets.”
[10] No sensible observer can believe that all of the
above developments – moves and countermeasures, drills
and counter-drills – are actuated by the sinking of a
South Korean corvette with the death of 46 sailors
almost five months ago. The Chinese military
establishment is not buying the argument. In the last two and a half weeks articles have
appeared in the Chinese press containing language that
has not been heard in decades, perhaps in half a
century. Warnings of military threats, appeals for
caution and conciliation, fundamental reevaluations of
U.S.-Chinese relations, pleas for de-escalation, and
at times uncharacteristically harsh criticism of U.S.
motives and actions. Toward the end of July General Ma Xiaotian, deputy
chief of general staff of the People’s Liberation
Army, and Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang “spoke
out against foreign warships entering, and military
aircraft passing over, the Yellow Sea or any other
offshore areas, because they pose a threat to China’s
security.” “China has to be alarmed when other powers display
their military might near its territory. Will the US
allow China to conduct military drills with
neighboring countries in the Gulf of Mexico? “Geographically, the Yellow Sea is the door to the
Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, which has important
security implications for the Bohai Sea Rim, an
important economic zone in China,” Xinhua pointed out.
[11] The same feature mentioned that USS George
Washington has an operational range of 600 kilometers
and the warplanes on its deck a speed of 1,000
kilometers an hour, leaving even the Chinese capital
of Beijing vulnerable to attack. To confirm Chinese apprehensions, on August 6 a
U.S. armed forces publication disclosed “The USS
George Washington will participate in a joint
U.S.-South Korean military exercise in the Yellow Sea
in the near future, despite China’s opposition to the
aircraft carrier operating near its eastern waters.” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated on August 5
that the nuclear-powered supercarrier will participate
in war games in the Yellow Sea which will “include
anti-submarine, show-of-force and bombing exercises.”
[12] The George Washington may join the recently
commenced Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises which
continue to August 26. Rear Admiral Yang Yi, former head of the Institute
of Strategic Studies at the People’s Liberation Army’s
National Defense University, said of the news that
“China will definitely react harshly to the move. It’s
hard to predict its specific reaction, but that will
for sure cast a shadow over Sino-U.S. military
relations.” [13] An unsigned editorial in the Global Times of August
9 titled “Taking a stand on US provocation” reacted to
the Pentagon’s latest threat to dispatch the George
Washington to the Yellow Sea. “The words added to the already sizable distrust
accumulated recently between China and the US. They
also shattered the illusion of some Chinese over how
the US treats China. “In a short period of time, the Sino-US
relationship has ebbed quickly and seems to be still
in a downward trend. “Various US politicians have expressed that the US
does not see China as an enemy. However, words like
these and recent actions by the US to contain China’s
growth suggest otherwise.” The piece continued in language one would be
hard-pressed to recall reading since the early 1960s
on the Chinese side, where for four decades Henry
Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski have been the most
revered foreign political personalities: “It seems as if the US is good at playing games. US
politicians are sweet-mouthed but then stab you in the
back when you are not looking. “This year the US is testing China’s resolve over
issues ranging from China’s offshore ocean
sovereignty, to the Chinese yuan, to trade. Each time
it seriously damages the mutual trust previously
built. “Sovereign unity and national resurgence are two
missions China must accomplish. “The biggest obstacle to fulfilling those missions
comes from the US, especially from the Pentagon.” [14] A feature of the same day in the ruling Communist
Party’s People’s Daily also commented on the
deployment of the U.S. supercarrier, reminding its
readers that “The Pentagon reportedly said Thursday,
August 5, that the U.S. aircraft carrier USS George
Washington would participate in a series of United
States-Republic of Korea (ROK) joint naval exercises
in the Yellow Sea. This series of U.S.-ROK military
exercises includes anti-submarine maritime
interdiction operations, bombing and special armed
forces’ operations for a ‘show of strength.’” After quoting the president after whom the aircraft
carrier was named that his nation should strive to
cultivate amity and justice toward all and peace and
harmony among nations, the Chinese newspaper asked:
“With a lapse of more than 200 years, what kind of
strength is the aircraft carrier named after this
great American statesman to show?” [15] Also on August 9, a commentary by Major General Luo
Yuan of the Academy of Military Sciences bearing the
title “Chinese people won’t stand for US naval
provocation,” was published which contained these
excerpts: “Just imagine whether the Chinese people will
believe US President Barack Obama’s statement that
‘the US does not seek to contain China’ or US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claim ‘we are in
the same boat’ if a US aircraft carrier bursts into
the Yellow Sea.” Until recently “the US could pretend to not know
the likely reaction, saying that its military exercise
with South Korea was just over the Cheonan issue. Yet
now, as the Chinese government has clearly shown grave
concern over the US action, the US remains hard-set on
going its own way. This is a deliberate provocation.” The author, in what a Western newspaper called “a
remarkably forthright view from such a senior military
figure,” [16] also implied a reaction of a
non-military nature: “Imagine what the consequence
will be if China’s biggest debtor nation challenges
its creditor nation….They should know that China’s
rise is the general trend, and no weapons could resist
it. China is the world’s largest market, so offending
China means losing, or at least decreasing, market
share.” And he provided an example of the saying that
turnabout is fair play: “Imagine how the US would feel
if China showed the same ignorance of US interests and
security as the US is doing now, and operated military
exercises with US neighbors or competitors in its
neighboring or sensitive regions.” [17] Four days later another article by the same writer
appeared in the People’s Daily under the title “US
engaging in gunboat diplomacy.” As “the United States
has insisted on sending aircraft carriers to the
Yellow Sea to provoke China,” it is clear to the
military strategist that “the foreign policy of the
United States is still showing three features that
have long been part of its global strategy.” The three components identified are hegemony,
gunboat diplomacy and unilateralism. Luo Yuan defined and gave examples of each: Hegemony: “The philosophical foundation of the
American hegemonic mindset is the deep-rooted
‘manifest destiny’ theory held by some Americans. “According to the theory, the American nation is
the most outstanding nation in the world. Its
leadership in the world, which is bestowed by God, is
undeniable. Therefore, Americans have the
responsibility to handle world affairs and will appear
wherever problems take place. Nevertheless, the
results are usually the opposite – things become worse
with the involvement of the United States….They
believe that the American nation is the most
excellent, so they must ‘lead the world’ and other
nations have no choice but to follow them.” Unilateralism: “The philosophical foundation of
American unilateralism is based on a zero-sum game and
its basic principle is: what I obtain must be what
others lose and vice versa, so what others obtain must
be what I lose.” With an imaginary articulation of Washington’s
policy, the author wrote: “No matter how many people
it involves, I am superior to all others, and I can do
whatever I like. Everything must bend to American
interests and will.” Gunboat diplomacy: “The best example of U.S.
gunboat diplomacy is the Naval Operations Concept 2010
approved by the U.S. president in May of this year,
which vividly described U.S. ‘maritime interests.’
According to the 2010 concept, U.S. naval forces will
develop six core competencies: forward presence,
deterrence, maritime security, sea control, power
projection and humanitarian assistance.” [18] He analysed the document’s six key elements [19] ad
seriatim: > so-called forward presence means that the United
States can send its gunboats to every corner of the
world, tyrannize the weak and extend its security
boundaries to others’ doorsteps. This way, the United
States can even claim the Yellow Sea and the South
China Sea are covered within its security boundary.
> so-called deterrence is no different from bully
tactics, namely that “if you do not obey me, I will
punch you.” > so-called maritime security is to ensure the
inviolability of U.S. gunboats. The United States only
cares about its own safety, and it should not be
expected to ever care about others’ safety. > so-called sea control applies the logic of
“whoever controls critical sea lanes controls the
seas, and whoever controls the seas controls the
world.” > so-called power projection is obviously for war
rather than peace. > so-called humanitarian assistance is only for the
Americans and U.S. allies, while others only receive
brutal and rough treatment from the United States. A blunt indictment which also included the
observation that “Ironically, the United States, which
has a blind belief in its military force and ‘speaks’
only through its gunboats, is at once embarrassingly
trapped in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” [20] The day before the above comments appeared, Ni
Lexiong, professor of international relations at the
Shanghai University of Political Science and Law,
wrote that “a potential military crisis is hidden in
the gradually ‘maturing’ Sino-US relations. Why do
both sides regularly organize military exercises?
There must be specific imaginary enemies in military
exercises. Regular and repeated military exercises are
tests of national strategic plans and tactical
details. “Before the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the
German army had long been practicing the Schlieffen
Plan, which called for a sudden attack on France on
one side before Russia could mobilize on the other.”
[21] The following day Rear Admiral Yang Yi, the former
director of the Institute for Strategic Studies at the
People’s Liberation Army National Defense University
who was quoted earlier, said in an analysis called
“Cold War mindset harms peace” that: “Washington has held intensive military exercises
with allies in the Pacific Ocean and Northeast and
Southeast Asia over the past months, quite close to
China and its surrounding region….US-led exercises
this year have drawn more concerns among regional
members because of the unequivocal motive behind the
exercises and the sensitivity of their locations….The
large-scale military exercise [Invincible Spirit] is
intended to send an unambiguous message to other
regional countries, including China, that the US is
still the strongest military power in the world and
that Washington’s military dominance in Northeast
Asia, and the wider Asia-Pacific region, cannot be
challenged….As the world’s sole superpower with an
unchallenged armed force, no single nation in the
world can stop the US from conducting such activity,
but Washington will inevitably pay a costly price for
its muddled decision.” He also warned that the global military colossus
may have feet of clay: “When the long-established
global strategic pattern changes to the US’
disadvantage, Washington’s adherence to the Cold War
mentality and its excessive dependence on military
means to resolve international disputes will lead the
superpower to bigger strategic setbacks.” [22] Last week a Chinese source added to Major General
Luo Yuan’s use of a term once thought outdated,
gunboat diplomacy, another one from the same era and
mindset, brinkmanship: “Washington and Seoul have
chosen to ignore China’s security concerns time and
again, and this should not be allowed to fester at
China’s doorstep. This brinkmanship is an open
defiance of China’s security environment.” [23] The Chinese press (on both sides of the Taiwan
Strait) has recently published several features on the
threat of the U.S. surrounding China with an Asian
NATO, both analogue and extension of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. [3] On August 14 the Xinhua News Agency wrote: “The real intention of the US maneuvers in the
waters of Northeast Asia…is to consolidate the
US-South Korea and US-Japan military alliance and
boost US military presence in the region, and
therefore intimidate and contain China.” “In addition to more troops in Afghanistan, the US
military is transforming Guam into its new strategic
strike center that could cover large areas of the Asia
Pacific. It redeployed 60 percent of its nuclear
submarine fleet to the Pacific and has been
consolidating its bases in Japan, South Korea and the
Philippines.” [25] Late last month an English-language Taiwanese
newspaper reported that “According to Chinese media
reports, the US’s support for Vietnam in its bids for
the Spratly and Paracel islands is meant to threaten
China’s core interests and build a grand strategic
alliance surrounding the country. “The US is capitalizing on the contradictions among
East Asian countries to form a front against China….”
[26] A recent piece in the People’s Daily minced no
words in reiterating the point: “Relations between China and the United States have
become decidedly testy in recent days and the US is
anxious to find its proxies in the region by inciting
their discontent with China and pulling them to the
American side.” The dynamic is being exacerbated with “tensions
building and mounting in recent weeks over events in
the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea, and with the
signs that the US is trying to meddle [with] and
dominate issues involving China.” “The U.S. decision to include an aircraft carrier
in the [upcoming Yellow Sea] exercise is considered
especially provocative, and some Chinese suspect that
Washington is sending a ‘strong message’ about
American power to China as well as North Korea. And
that the US carrier maneuvered to its former foe
Vietnam arouses wild speculations about whether the US
is bent on building up a NATO in Asian version.” “The Obama administration…is experimenting with a
new, more insidious but very risky diplomatic strategy
in the region, where it has for long played [the role
of a] hegemonic power, to contain an emerging great
power: Drifting from confrontation to confrontation
with a rising China, as Washington is now doing. This
will bring about the doomed fallout. In a not very
long American history, perhaps, the only bitter lesson
to the super war machine was taught by China – which
has never rewarded it with a single chance to declare
a complete victory on whatever occasion.” “Like a contemptible wretch making trouble, these
mean and petty actions taken by the so-called super
power would fail to help it get the desired fruit – to
effectively counterbalance China in Asia.” [27] Military strategist Colonel Dai Xu of the Chinese
People’s Liberation Air Force wrote on August 11 that
“One needs to have a basic understanding of the nature
of the United States and its global strategy in order
to comprehend its recent provocations in the Yellow
Sea and the South China Sea. The 2010 US defense
report said first and foremost the U.S. is a nation at
war. “From a historical perspective, the U.S. has
continuously found enemies and waged wars. It has
become part of its social formula. Without wars the US
economy loses stimulus. Without enemies the U.S.
cannot hold the will of the whole nation. “Its recent military drills in the Yellow Sea and
announcement to intervene in South China Sea affairs
were efforts made to encircle China. It is attempting
to build an ‘Asian NATO’ with Japan, South Korea,
Australia and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN).” He added a recommendation to combat that U.S.-led
siege: “In order to prevent the U.S. from surrounding it,
China needs to draw a clear bottom line. The U.S. is
not allowed to coerce China to give in on matters
concerning China’s territory and maritime sovereignty,
national solidarity and regional issues. And it is not
allowed to jeopardize China’s national interest by
collaborating with neighboring countries….If the U.S.
is adjusting its global strategic emphasis, China
needs to reevaluate its strategy toward the U.S. China
loves peace, but it will staunchly safeguard its
national interests.” [28] A Global Times editorial of last week provided this
perspective: “In recent months, the US has been busy cementing
alliances in Northeast Asia and inking a new agreement
with China’s Southeast Asian neighbor Vietnam. The US
intention is clear: to stir negative sentiment against
China among neighboring countries. “The US is trying to consolidate its scattered
influence in the region. To some extent, it can manage
to do so, given its geographic detachment, its global
influence and its economic might….The US is returning
to Southeast Asia with a clear political agenda. It is
trying to expand US influence and strengthen
cooperation with countries in the region, but seeds of
distrust are also being planted with its attempt to
contain China. Countries around the region must see
these tactics for what they are.” [29] The French statesman Talleyrand, never burdened by
either scruples or principles, said that we were given
speech not to disclose but to disguise our thoughts.
(La parole nous a été donnée pour déguiser notre
pensée.) The words of major Chinese military leaders and
strategists quoted above, however, are not those of
dissimulation or evasion, vainglory or bravado. They
should be interpreted at face value: As the most dire
of warnings, particularly the references to World War
I and the Korean War. An armed conflict between the
world’s two main economic powers would be a
catastrophe for more than just Northeast Asia and the
Pacific Ocean region. Part I: U.S.-China Conflict: From War Of Words To
Talk Of War http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/../
u-s-china-conflict-from-war-of-words-to-talk-of-war-part-i 1) United States Department of Defense http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60455 2) Xinhua News Agency, August 14, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/../world/asia/05china.html 5) China Daily, July 20, 2010 http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/
commentary/2010-08/561460.html 18) People’s Daily, August 13, 2010 http://www.navy.mil/maritime/noc/NOC2010.pdf 20) People’s Daily, August 13, 2010 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/
2010-08/13/content_11148032.htm 23) China Daily, August 10, 2010 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/../
u-s-expands-asian-nato-to-contain-and-confront-china 25) Xinhua News Agency, August 14, 2010 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/
90002/96417/7102696.html 28) U.S. building ‘Asian NATO’ to encircle China http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/
editorial/2010-08/561496.html |
Add Comments