By Dawn's Early Light

Kim Jong-il in a Bunker Listening to the Smiths

"ASK ME, ASK ME, ASK ME
Because if it's not love
Then it's the bomb
the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb, the bomb
That will bring us together" - The Smiths' song 'Ask'

On America's Independence Day, the North Korean Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, attempted and succeeded in some fireworks of his own, with a failed ballistic missile launch.  I couldn't help but imagine frizzy hair, bugged-eyed Kim, in some North Korean bunker, listening to the Smiths' "Ask" song, once again miscalculating the world around him outside of his Hermit Kingdom.  While neither the world, or Kim's neighbors, may love him, his desire for a bomb surely can bring the world together.

The Context

The United States had tracked the fueling and preparation of a potential test launch of the North Korean Taepodong 2 ICBM over the past weeks.  This missile is an upgrade to the 1998 Taepodong 1 missile fired over Japan.  The Taepodong 2 has an estimated range of 6,700 km (4,200 miles) and can carry up to a 1,000 kg warhead. (For a history of North Korean missile development and its arsenal, see this excellent Asia Times story).  The North Koreans fired this missile along with 6 others (of lesser strategic value) over a two-day period.  This is in violation of their 2002 pledge not to test missiles.

What Does it All Mean?

1. North Korea's ability to sell "sophisticated" weapons for hard currency may be in greater jeopardy than before the test firing. The failure of the test is a great humiliation to the North Koreans. Possibly more North Korean missiles will rust in warehouses of weary buyers, like with the UAE in 1989.

2. North Korea has given the populations of South Korea and Japan one more great reminder of why a military partnership with the United States is in their strategic national interest.  While Russia and China will not support economic sanctions for the test firing, the international community has roundly condemned the launch.

3. Missile defense will only increase by regional players, including India, which is deciding between the US Patriot-3 system and the Israeli (with American support) Arrow missile defense system.

4. China, which blocked any UN announcement after the 1998 test firing, has allowed the issue before the whole Security Council, especially as they hold a critical seat as a sponsor of the 6-party talks that the North Koreans refuse to attend. 

5. US defense coordination with its allies in the region will only continue, along with the R&D required to continue to field a viable defense.

6. North Korean promises, statements and agreements are less reliable than their Taepodong 2 missile.

It is hard to see how the North Korean regime comes out ahead, based on this failed display of power.  For people who had no interest in the realpolitik arguments of deterrence and national security, they are taking another look and seeking protection from their governments.  This can only lead to greater international security cooperation in Asia with the United States.  A growing consensus is emerging that the threat of a North Korean nuclear "bomb" is bringing the world together.

International Commentary for additional reading

Australia - "Test Firing Linked to Closure of Foreign Banking Channels"
                "Rouge's Missile Menace"

Russia - "Russia blasts N. Korea over missile tests, balks at sanctions"

Philippines - "Politicians agree N. Korea missile launch worrisome"

India - "North Korean Missile tests Suit India"

Japan - "North Korea Launches 7 Missiles"
            "North Korean move triggers annoyance, bewilderment across Japan"

Australia Anti Terror Measures Nab 17

The results of 16 months of investigation brought forth the arrest of 17 terrorism suspects in Sydney and Melbourne early on Tuesday morning, according to this Washington Post article.  This comes on the heels of major legislation put forward by Prime Minister John Howard to give the government more power in taking down terrorist organizations in the country [see DEL post here]

The attorney for 8 of the suspects "said one of those arrested in Melbourne was the outspoken radical Muslim cleric Abu Bakr, an Algerian-Australian who in the past has called Osama bin Laden a 'great man.'"  The article goes on to describe the new legislation that made the arrests possible:

"Also last week, the Australian Parliament approved an amendment to the country's existing anti-terrorism laws that allows police to arrest people involved in the early stages of planning an unspecified terror attack. Nixon said some of the arrests Tuesday were made possible by the new legislation."

The Australian Courier-Mail reports that computers seized in the raids may be useful in tracking links to this terrorist cell to other cells in foreign countries, though none were directly named.

It appears in initial reports the planned attack was bomb or chemical related, though a location of the attacks has not been identified.  The Global War on Terrorism continues, and this is a clear victory for the Australians and the Western world.

Australia a Terror Target?

Australian Prime Minister John Howard called on parliament to pass legislation quickly to give police broader powers in the War on Terror after his government received specific information regarding a planned attack in his country.

The Age of Australia reports:

"'The government has received specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat,' he told reporters in Canberra.

'We have seen material. It is a cause of concern.

'We have been given advice that if this amendment is enacted as soon as possible the capacity of the authorities to respond will be strengthened.

'And I am satisfied on what I have been told, and the government and the national security ministers in cabinet are satisfied, that that is the case but I do not intend and cannot and will not go into any of the operational details.'

All state premiers and the federal opposition have agreed to support the changes, which will be rushed through parliament tonight and tomorrow in a special Senate sitting."

It is easy for people to be cynical that Mr. Howard is using this as a ploy to enact tougher laws with little debate.  However, as The Age points out, the legislation has opposition support, which gives credence to the government's claim that it is seriously investigating a terrorist plot.  Given the tragic attacks in nearby Bali against Australians and other non-Muslims, it is good the government and opposition is united in taking all steps possible to thwart an attack.

Rumsfeld's Asian Perspective

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave an important speech in Singapore at the International Institute for Strategic Studies on June 4, 2005.  His message to the 19 other defense ministers from around the Pacific Rim and parts of Europe and North America is important from many perspectives.  Sec. Rumsfeld expanded on 1) democratic progress, 2) the the War on Terror, 3) future threats to the US from China and 4) the US effort to grow Pacific alliances.

Democratic Successes

"Much has changed in the world since we met here last year.    The past year has been a time of promise as the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine,  Kyrgyzstan,  Lebanon,  and elsewhere have demanded at ballot boxes the freedom that they deserve.    Dictatorships around the world are losing sway, as more and more people recognize the greater opportunities a life of freedom affords  --  economic freedom and political freedom as well."

Mr. Rumsfeld affirms the core focus of US foreign policy in promoting democratic reforms.  The first two of the five countries he lists were the direct result of US military intervention, the other 3 are a byproduct and response to US efforts in Afganistan and Iraq.  The fruits of American military efforts have spread beyond just the countries with US forces deployed by encouraging a democratic movement through the Middle East and beyond.

War on Terror

Sec. Rumsfeld, while giving a speech on the US focus beyond the War on Terror, was quick to point out:

"But that might have suggested that the War on Terror  --  the struggle against extremism  --  is over.    It is not over.    Violent extremists continue to pose a danger to civilized nations,  and we need to work together to recognize that the threat is a serious one.

The United States is working with many of the nations represented here in this room in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan,  helping their people build countries that will no longer pose a threat to the international order."

The threat of WMD, unstable regimes such as North Korea, and terrorist organizations may have been reduced, but by no means eliminated.

"Perhaps the greatest impetus for modernization and cooperation is the specter of lethal threats confronting all free nations.    Among them is the toxic combination of dangerous weapons,  rogue regimes that seek to export those weapons,  and violent extremists determined to destabilize civilized societies and kill men, women, and children."

Winning the War on Terror is vital for US and our democratic allies' national security.  Losing focus on this war will only make America more vulnerable to future threats.

Freeing the Rising Dragon

China, as a non-democratic nation, is a potential threat to US security interests and the economic and strategic interests of its Asian neighbors.  Mr. Rumsfeld expands on the US desire for greater liberty and reform in Asia:

"A nation that expects its people to unleash their productive energies into the economy  --  but stifles free expression  --  will eventually have to choose between tyranny and progress.    A society that supports political reform  --  but fails to protect its citizens or provide security for them  --  encourages instability and civil strife.    And a secure state that permits neither political nor economic freedom is a system that, in the end, may fall to its understandably restive people."

The heart of his speech with respect to China tackles the double-digit growth in Chinese military spending.

"Although the Cold War is over, this region,  unfortunately,  is still burdened by some old rivalries;  and military budgets are escalating in some quarters.  These are matters that should be of concern.

China’s emergence is an important new reality in this era.   

Indeed, the world would welcome a China committed to peaceful solutions and whose industrious and well-educated people contribute to international peace and mutual prosperity. 

A candid discussion of China, however,  cannot neglect to mention areas of concern to the region.

The U.S. Congress requires that the U.S. Department of Defense report annually on China’s perceived military strategy and its military modernization.     The Department’s 2005 report is scheduled to be released soon. 

Among other things, the report concludes that China’s defense expenditures are much higher than Chinese officials have published.    It is estimated that China’s is the third largest military budget in the world, and clearly the largest in Asia.
 
China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world, not just the Pacific region, while also expanding its missile capabilities within this region.  China also is improving its ability to project power,  and developing advanced systems of military technology.

Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder:

• Why this growing investment?
• Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?
• Why these continuing robust deployments?"

The three questions asked and the concerns raised by their potential answers are driving other Asian nations into the US sphere of influence to counter a more aggressive and assertive China.  From Japan's strengthening of military ties with the US to Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia's agreement to have the US patrol the oil rich Malacca Straits, to major US overtures towards India, China's emergence is not bringing stability to the region.  This is leading to the US having a golden opportunity to expand its alliances and partnerships in Asia.

Expanding Alliances

While tragic, the December 2004 tsunami afforded the US military an opportunity to work towards humanitarian goals with its Asian neighbors and build goodwill.  It is important to note the countries Mr. Rumsfeld points to in working to solve the crisis outside of the regular NGO and UN organizations:

• "India not only met the needs of its own people;  but,  to its credit,  it also sent troops to help to distribute aid in Sri Lanka;
• Thailand,  despite its own casualties and tragedy,  quickly consented to the use of its bases to serve as the combined support facilities for the relief efforts;
• Malaysia made its airfields available,  facilitating logistical support;  and
• Singapore was first on the scene with life-saving aid,  offering the use of its airfields and port facilities.

Years of bilateral and multilateral meetings and cooperative operations made possible this swift,  team response  --  as  America’s military joined quickly with Australia,  Singapore,  Thailand,  Indonesia,  and many others to provide assistance."

The countries in bold are important for they all are nations that the United States has advanced  diplomatic and military ties with in 2005 from Sec. of State Rice's and Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick's 12-nation tours, to US military vists as well.  These nations represent old and new allies not only in the War on Terror but in the US efforts to contain China.

"From time to time,  some question the priority America places on its Pacific partnerships.    Yet the atmosphere in the tsunami’s aftermath  --  as well as the recent earthquake in Nias  --  demonstrated again that whenever friends and allies in this region confront threats or hardship  --  whether caused by man or by nature  --  we stand at their side.   

These long relationships among nations -- the nations of the Pacific -- led many in this hemisphere to pledge support to the American people after the attacks of 9/11.    And we are deeply grateful.    I am confident that our long friendships will continue to unite us against the common threats ahead."

While it is easy to pass by this statement, it is important.  The US stands by its allies and Mr. Rumsfeld is making clear that the US will continue to work strategically to build a prosperous Asia by backing our allies from future threats.

This year will be a very important year in US foreign policy as we seek to consolidate our successes in the Middle East and promote democracy around the world.  The alliances the US strengthens this year, because of the example demonstrated by its steadfastness in supporting its allies, will be pivotal for securing a leadership role in the new century.

US Center of Gravity Continues to Shift in Asia

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is on his way today to Singapore to meet with 19 other defense ministers to discuss regional Asian security concerns, including North Korea.  Sec. Rumsfeld has added China to the list of topics he will be discussing with American allies at the Shangri-la Dialogue 2005 Conference hosted by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. 

Sec. Rumsfeld is to give a speech on "The US and Asia-Pacific Security Beyond the War on Terrorism" (conference schedule).  This will be an important address before a diverse body of regional players interested in the future of Asia.  Mr. Rumsfeld made some interesting comments regarding North Korea, China and India prior to leaving on Friday:

North Korea

• "Our policy is what it is, and it's well-known." [2]

China

• "With respect to China, it's not completely clear which way they're going because of the tension... between the nature of their political system and the nature of their economic system." [1]
• "With respect to the Peoples Republic of China, it is what it is. It's a big country, with a fairly rapid growth rate.... Its defense budget is growing apace with their economy, and they are a major weapons purchaser in the world, largely from Russia but from other countries as well, and have been deploying a great many ballistic missiles and ships and other military capabilities over a period of years now.... The tension will grow as they move through the years. To the extent that the Republic of China leans toward a freer political system, they will be a considerably more successful country and a more influential country in the world. To the extent they don't do that, there will be pressures against their economy, they will grow less fast, and they will be a less influential country in the world." [1]
• "As a matter of fact, a portion of our Quadrennial Defense Review has to look at the more conventional threats in the world, and we all know that China's economy's growing rapidly.  We know it's been investing in double digits in its military capabilities, that it's been buying a great deal of weaponry from Russia.  And it's a country that is going to reach a fork in the road.  It wants to grow its economy, and to do that it has to have a relatively free economic system, and it wants to maintain its strong control over the political side of its government, which is inconsistent with having a free economic system. So they're going to feel that tension, that stress in the years ahead." [3]

India

• "It's pretty clear where India's going, and one would anticipate the relationship with India will continue to strengthen as we go through the period ahead...."[1]
• "'We have what I would characterize as an excellent relationship with India. From a military-to-military standpoint it has improved in strength every year over the past four and a half years.' The military relationship, which has included joint exercises, 'has been very much leading the other aspects of the relationship, which is a good thing. We are finding many things to cooperate on,' he said. Calling India a 'major power,' the secretary highlighted its standing as the world's largest democracy, its 'relatively free economic system,' and its educated population."[1]

What is important to note in the reports above (the AP and AFP reports completely missed Sec. Rumsfeld's quotes on India) is that it demonstrates the US long-term policy of promoting democratic India over Communist China.  His comments are in line with Sec. of State Rice's comments and overtures towards India (See DEL here).  The title of Mr. Rumsfeld's speech also speaks to a forward-looking US position after the War on Terror.  The terrorism address for the conference is being given by defense ministers from Australia, Singapore and the Philippines.  It is also interesting to note that the only other US-given speech is from Admiral William Fallon, Commander, US Pacific Command, on "Enhancing Maritime Security", which includes the Malaysian defense minister.  Since the US and Malaysia just came to terms about the US patrolling the oil-important Malacca Straits (see here and here), their joint presentation can be seen as a signal to China as well.

The US is shifting forcefully its center of gravity in Asia to India with a firm commitment and alliance with Japan and Australia to contain China at worst and hopefully encourage greater democracy in China at best.  Mr. Rumsfeld's speech, given his comments, will be very telling indeed of US foreign policy goals "after the War on Terror".

Bonus Report on North Korea:  ABC News is reporting

"Rumsfeld would not discuss whether the Pentagon is planning for military options if North Korea goes ahead with a nuclear test. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other Bush administration officials have said they are worried such a test could set off a nuclear arms race in Asia.

North Korea has condemned a U.S. plan to send 15 F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters to South Korea. The Pentagon said last week the move was part of a long-planned training exercise. Also last week, Washington suspended its program to search for Korean War dead in North Korea, saying the situation there was too dangerous for the American search teams.

Statements from the North's official Korea Central News Agency have been in conflict this week. North Korea first called Vice President Dick Cheney a 'bloodthirsty beast' in response to his telling CNN that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was irresponsible and oppressive. Then North Korea offered rare praise of President Bush for referring to Kim as 'Mister' during a news conference."

The US is sending 15 F-117As to South Korea and suspending its Korean War dead operations in the North, and then North Korea praises "Mr." Bush.  Could the US be sending a more clear signal to North Korea to come back to the six-party talks?

Sources:

[1] Times of India
[2] ABC News
[3] DOD News (This was a part of a radio interview on June 1, 2005)

Australia to give Vietnam Candy for Ice Cream

Vietnam's Prime Minister, Phan Van Khai, was received in Canberra, Australia today by Prime Minister John Howard.  Each PM has a very clear goal.  For the Vietnamese, it is economic.  For the Australians, it is political.  While former enemies, their current objectives have created an interesting possibility for a new relationship.

Australia wants membership to ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, but does not want to be bound by their regional "Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia" (Feb. 24, 1976), which states nations cannot interfere with one another.  The nations that make up ASEAN are:

• Myanmar (former Burma)
• Laos
• Thailand
• Cambodia
• Vietnam
• Philippines
• Malaysia
• Brunei
• Singapore
• Indonesia
  • Papua New Guinea has observer status

ASEAN would benefit substantially from Australian membership.  Vietnam, on the other hand, wants Australian support to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in exchange for their public support.  As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"A former enemy, the communist government of Vietnam, has pledged to press for Australia to be admitted to the East Asia summit.

Vietnam's Prime Minister, Phan Van Khai, gave the undertaking yesterday after meeting the Prime Minister, John Howard, at Parliament House in Canberra.

Mr Khai said Australia should not be forced to sign the regional non-intervention treaty in order to be invited. The summit is intended to link the Association of South-East Asian Nations with other countries - including China, Korea, Japan and India. Mr Howard has criticised the treaty and has said Australia will not sign it.

This stance is being reviewed, but sensitive negotiations lie ahead, and Vietnam's backing for Australia to have a place at the summit is expected to be helpful.

Mr Howard yesterday gave conditional support to Vietnam's attempt to conclude a 10-year campaign for entry into the World Trade Organisation.

Before the talks a Vietnamese official linked the two issues. "It can be like kids - you give me some ice-cream and I'll give you some candy," the official said."

Deputy Sec. of State Robert Zoellick has the Thais on board for helping ASEAN attempt to keep its respectability.  That, no doubt, has to be helpful to the Australians. The Financial Times reports:

"Thailand yesterday suggested that military-ruled Burma could skip its turn to take the alphabetically rotating chairmanship of the Association of South East Asian Nations, amid concerns that Rangoon's leadership could diminish the stature of the bloc.

"As Asean grapples to prevent its image being tainted by Burma's generals, Kantathi Suphamongkhon, the Thai foreign minister, said 'one of the possibilities' was for Rangoon to back away from the group's leadership.

"Mr Kantathi's comments came after Robert Zoellick, US deputy secretary of state, said Washington would face 'severe limitations' on its engagement with a group led by the Rangoon junta, which severely represses its population and keeps Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest."

Kudos to the United States for working with its friends and allies to deter repressive regimes with poor human rights records.  The US and Australia are making substantial overtures to Vietnam, their former enemy.  It is an impressive strategic move, and I wish both nations success in their diplomatic efforts.

Robert Mayer of Publius Pundit Produces the Smoking Gun

Robert Mayer was extremely kind in hunting down this excellent piece by Willy Lam of the Jamestown Foundation "Beijing's Alarm Over New 'US Encirclement Conspiracy'" reprinted in UCLA's Asia Media.

It would appear to confirm the Dawn's Early Light predictions about the US foreign policy objective of containing China along with India and Japan.

Mr. Lam writes:

"One of Beijing's worst nightmares seems to be coming true. Having apparently steadied the course in the Middle East, the Bush administration is turning to Asia to tame its long-standing 'strategic competitor.' While this particular term has been shelved since 9/11 – and Sino-U.S. relations have improved thanks to China's cooperation with Washington's global anti-terrorist campaign – there are signs at least from Beijing's perspective that Washington is spearheading multi-pronged tactics to contain the fast-rising Asian giant."

As the US makes significant advances in the Greater War on Terror (GWoT), the US foreign policy focus will shift towards creating a democratic China.  A democratic China would significantly benefit the United States regarding North Korea, economic issues, human rights issues and the growing issue of Taiwan independence.

Mr. Lam backs up that the Chinese view themselves as being constrained:

"In the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership, the new doctrine of encirclement and containment was spelled out during a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tokyo, part of a recent tour through Asia. Echoing President Bush's State of the Union address [DEL: post on Bush text here, relation to the region here], which pushed a foreign policy predicated upon 'spreading democracy,'  Rice noted in a speech at Sophia University that 'even China must eventually embrace some form of open, genuinely representative government.' And she dropped hints that the U.S. would somehow bring about a democratic China through joint actions with its Asian allies. 'I really do believe the U.S.-Japan relationship [DEL: here, here and here], the U.S.-South Korea relationship, the U.S.-India relationship [DEL: here, here and here] – all are important in creating an environment where China is more likely to play a positive role than a negative role,' she added.

"It didn't help that Rice saluted in her Sophia speech the father of the anti-Soviet containment policy George Kennan – who had just passed away – as one of the 'great architects of American foreign policy.' [DEL: See Rice comments here] Kennan had written in a celebrated 1947 Foreign Affairs piece that 'the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.' The Chinese must be very nervous about the possibility that Rice – and Bush – will simply substitute PRC for USSR. After all, it was Rice who coined the phrase 'strategic competitor' in a 2000 Foreign Affairs [DEL: see page 4] article about the need to adequately take on a fast-emerging China. 'It is important to promote China's internal transition through economic interaction while containing Chinese power and security ambitions,' she wrote."

It is important to remember Sec. of State Rice's background.  She was a Soviet expert.  Her academic understanding of the success of the US containment policy is second to none probably in the Bush Administration.  While one can argue that China is not the Soviet Union, as Simon's World has, I believe the pattern of US foreign policy intentions is increasingly clear.

"The U.S.-Japan statement referred to the looming threat of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and, most irksome for Beijing, it cited for the first time the maintenance of peace in the Taiwan Strait as a 'common strategic objective' of the allies [DEL: covers quote here]. '[The] meeting may mark the end of the extended Beijing-Washington honeymoon which came about because of 9/11,' the source said. 'Even now, of course, Washington requires Chinese help or acquiescence in its dealings with countries, including Iran and North Korea. But Bush seems to have picked up his pre-9/11 agenda of containing China, or at least slowing down its progress toward quasi-superpower status.'  And the Chinese are well aware that Rice, who had advised President George H.W. Bush on ways to sink the Soviet Empire, was instrumental in shaping then-presidential candidate Bush's relatively hostile posture toward China."

Another great contribution Mr. Lam makes to the discussion that I have not addressed is Kyrgyzstan, which shares almost 700 miles of border with China.  Kyrgyzstan is extremely well covered by PuliusPundit (click here for all links).

The Chinese view is that the American containment policy will fail.  I have left off South Korea from the analysis because I believe the government would not be an active player.  It is already quite passive, in my opinion, in its diplomacy with North Korea, a clear and present danger to the South.  However I do believe that Australia would be a natural US ally in the containment strategy, as I have commented prior.

The counter-argument on a US-India and US-Australia alliance is also addressed:

"New Delhi-based People's Daily journalist Ren Yan indicated that 'India will not blindly follow the lead of the U.S.' because the strategic partnership that Washington wanted to forge with the South Asian country was 'centered on American interests.' One purpose of Premier Wen Jiabao's trip to India this month is to consolidate China-Indian cooperation through means including resolving the decades-old border dispute between the two countries. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing was keen to push Sino-Indian relations to a 'new high.' Analysts said despite the suspicion between the two neighbors – as well as Beijing's warm ties with Islamabad – the CCP leadership is confident that dramatic improvement in ties with India the past few years would at least persuade New Delhi not to become a pawn in America's anti-China machinations.

"Indeed, Beijing is upbeat that China's fast-expanding global clout – and especially the vast China market – has better enabled the country to drive a wedge between the U.S. and quite a few of its traditional allies. Take Australia, which was one of the staunchest supporters of Washington's war against Iraq. Earlier this year, Prime Minister John Howard made it clear that Canberra would not join in the U.S. effort to lobby the European Union to persevere with its embargo on arms exports to China. And last summer, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer indicated that despite the Australia-U.S. joint defense agreement, Canberra could remain neutral if American forces were involved in a war over the Taiwan Strait. Immediately afterward, Singapore, another close friend of the U.S., made known a similar stance of neutrality regarding a possible U.S.-China military conflict over Taiwan."

Mr. Lam concludes:

"Indeed, another unfortunate result of growing tension between Beijing and Washington is that Sino-Japanese relations are fast heading toward a vicious cycle. Given the intensification of the U.S.-Japanese military alliance – as well as joint U.S.-Japan efforts to persuade Brussels to hold on to its anti-China arms embargo – Beijing is close to giving up hope that it could turn around worsening China-Japan ties in the foreseeable future."

It is truly an excellent piece and lays out the arguments much better than this blog has done.  A new diplomatic struggle is being played on in Greater East Asia.  Hopefully it will not be a "vicious cycle".  Nevertheless, US and Chinese foreign policy goals are moving in opposite directions, and either a change in the Chinese government or a humbled America will be required to change it.

Update: The Washington Post carries a Robert Burns AP story today "Rumsfeld Reassured on U.S. Base in Kyrgyzstan": "The acting prime minister, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, discussed the base and other issues with Rumsfeld during a brief stop before Rumsfeld returned to Washington. 'The Kyrgyz republic will comply with all international agreements,' including those with the United States, Bakiyev said during a joint news conference with Rumsfeld."

I imagine Sec. Def. Rumsfeld has more than just the GWoT on his mind in securing the base for future US use.

Winds of Change Challenge (Bringing It All Together)

Joe Katzman of Winds of Change was kind enough to wade through the Dawn's Early Light arguments that the US and India will forge an alliance to counter China.  Mr. Katzman has argued and continues to rationally argue and support reasons why the Indians may pursue more Russian SU-30MKI or the French Mirage 2000 and still take the US up on its offer to propel India into a "21st Century Major World Power". (For a summary of DEL's arguments and key posts on China click here, here, here and here and for India click here, here and here).

In this post, Dawn's Early Light will attempt to:

1. provide a brief summary of the growing Chinese military capability
2. describe the challenge China poses to Taiwan and other affected nations including the US, Japan, India and Australia
3. argue why the US will create strong alliances with India and continue to strengthen its Japanese and Australian security arrangements to avert a war over Taiwan and wait it out for a democratic China.

I.  A Quick History on Chinese Military Capabilities

Before responding, I would like to first point readers to several solid pieces on the US-China-Taiwan-India issue(s) that have been written lately.

From the Blogosphere:

• Redhunter's excellent piece "War with China: 2008-2010?", April 11, 2005.  His analysis believes that China's window to attack Taiwan must occur after the 2008 Olympics (a point DEL failed to consider) but before 2010, when Taiwan and the US could pull well ahead of China's ability to invade.
• Belmont Club's always insightful "Taiwan and China" post from April 13, 2005, discussing the James Dunnigan Strategy Page "out of the blue" attack scenario.  He seems to see it as unlikely because of the US navy's ability to thwart "China's string of pearls" goal of a steady pipeline of oil.
• The Daily Demarche, "Odds and Ends-Corrected", April 11, 2005, with an excellent collection of China links.
• Publius Pundit, "Riots Spreading in China", April 13, 2005 on Chinese nationalism directed at Japan.
• tdaxp argues in "Preventing War with China", April 11, 2005 that a nuclear Taiwan would be a stabilizing force in Asia.
• Between Worlds has a good deal of the cultural attitudes of the "warrior culture" (April 12, 2005) or lack thereof in Taiwan, which could also go for Japan and South Korea as well.

From the Professional Journalists/Analysts

• Jane's Defense Weekly "China: Ready, steady, go ..." (subscription required for full article) argues "An emerging consensus among long-time PLA observers, including within the US intelligence community, is that the Chinese military has successfully achieved a far-reaching qualitative advancement in its warfighting capabilities since the beginning of this decade. The PLA is quickly becoming an increasingly credible threat against Taiwan and could even begin to pose a challenge to US military preponderance in East Asia in the next decade if the momentum is sustained."
• Defense Tech's "China Threat, Round Three", April 13, 2005 (HT: Instapundit)
• Report to Congress "Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China", July 28, 2003 which states in its Executive Summary: "While seeing opportunity and benefit in interactions with the United States -- primarily in terms of trade and technology -- Beijing apparently believes that the United States poses a significant long-term challenge.
  In support of its overall national security objectives, China has embarked upon a force modernization program intended to diversify its options for use of force against potential targets such as Taiwan, the South China Sea and border defense, and to complicate United States intervention in a Taiwan Strait conflict. Preparing for a potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait is the primary driver for China’s military modernization. While it professes a preference for resolving the Taiwan issue peacefully, Beijing is also seeking credible military options. Should China use force against Taiwan, its primary goal likely would be to compel a quick negotiated solution on terms favorable to Beijing." (Also see key pages 4-10 of 52 total for the Key Developments section of Chinese military improvements)
• Report to Congress "Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China", 2004 has several "Lessons Learned" for the PLA from the US success in Iraq, which include:
  • "The PLA is rethinking the concept inferred from Operation ALLIED FORCE that airpower alone is sufficient to prevail in a conflict.
  • The speed of Coalition ground force advances and the role of special forces in OIF have caused PLA theorists to rethink their assumptions about the value of long-range precision strikes, independent of ground forces, in any Taiwan conflict scenario.
  • Other OIF “lessons learned” impacting PLA thinking include the integration of psychological operations with air and rapid ground operations designed to target enemy leadership, its ability to communicate, and its will to fight.
  • Allied weapon system integration/interoperability has reinforced the PLA’s decision to accelerate acquisition of improved information technology and improvements to its weapons mobility, firepower, and precision weapons capabilities.
  • The success of Coalition joint operations has confirmed the PLA’s decision to improve its joint operations capability by developing advanced C4ISR [DEL see here for description] systems and improving inter-service cooperation.
• SinoDefense, "China Seeks Heavylift Aircraft", October 1, 2004 is seeking to purchase An-124 (Condor) heavylift aircraft from Ukraine.  These aircraft, the largest in the world: "can carry 448 troops or 268 paratroops, or 16 pallets of cargos for airdrops, each weighting up to 4.5 tonnes, outperforming any strategic transport aircraft in service with the Western air forces."
• Washington Post, "China Builds a Smaller, Stronger Miliary", April 11, 2005 (summarized by DEL here)

2.  US Interest to Deter China from Invading Taiwan

While the above articles may have some disagreements, they all point to a vastly improving Chinese military that soon will have the capability of being a credible threat to Taiwan.  Just as Japan was able to strike quickly at Pearl Harbor, China may be able to strike quickly against Taiwan, but like Japan circa 1941, China does not have the access to oil and the ability to hold off a militarily superior United States.  Nevertheless, the United States, in its own interests, must deter China from a Taiwan invasion, and it will attempt to do so by pursuing a military and diplomatic front with Japan, India and Australia to severely restrict Chinese options.  As part of this American commitment and continued adherence to the One-China policy that President Bush has publicly supported, Taiwan must do its part to maintain a credible defense and not seek a change in the status quo.

To believe the above, one must first answer "Why does Taiwan matter?" as several readers and bloggers have asked in the comment section of this blog.  I will refer back to my comments on George W. Bush's second inaugural address:

"President Bush's charge and the heart of his message came early:

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

The speech brought to mind John F. Kennedy's inaugural address when he eloquently said:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

While the United States did help promote democracy during the Cold War, it did not do so with the passion and energy our nation needs to now pursue it.  The Cold War was about pragmatic compromises, supporting unsavory dictators as well, especially in the Middle East, to keep countries in the US sphere rather than the Communist sphere. 

In a post Cold War world, where different ideologies dominate the world debate, the old paradigm of working with unsavory nations cannot continue to ensure US security. 

I believe President Bush was not just trying to hold ground and promote his democratic changes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead was laying down the gauntlet to totalitarian states:

'All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know:  The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.... The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.'"

If the US fails to defend a democratic Taiwan from China, then it destroys any credibility won in the War on Terror with other nations.  If we fail Taiwan, what is our response to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Ukraine, Japan, Australia, our European allies, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and many other nations that depend on American security?

Additionally, allowing China to take Taiwan by force would automatically make the 21st century a Chinese century, as the ability for the US to promote and defend global security would crumble.  Any century that has a non-free government at the apex of the international order will not be a century of peace, economic development and the expansion of liberty.

3.  US Crafting Strategic Alliances with Democracies to Contain Chinese Nationalism

To promote security in Greater East Asia and Australia, the United States has been working during the Bush Administration to forge close diplomatic, economic and strategic ties with important regional and international countries.  The main countries of US interest are Japan, Australia and India.

Japan

Japan's short-term to mid-range goals are to secure a seat on the UN Security Council (which the US supports), which the Chinese government has allowed to become a cause for a national protest that has grown out of control.  Simon has an excellent analysis of the Sino-Japanese tensions:

"The Chinese riots [DEL: against Japan receiving a UNSC seat] also reflect a major domestic political change. The Chinese Communist Party has long ceased to be a party of Communism. It has instead switched to becoming a party of nationalism. It suits to use such occasions as an outlet to allow people to vent. It would much rather that anger is directed externally than people look inwardly and discuss Government failings, such as the riots in Dongyang. The problem is China will find it hard to contain the emotions unleashed and that will be to its detriment.

China and Japan are both rising global powers. They are both grappling with China's economic rise but also with their emergence as global rather than only regional players. Sometimes that requires setting aside self-interest for a broader global good. It's an issue the United States constantly grapples with. This time China has a chance to assume the mantle of world statesman and deal with this situation. It makes good sense for Japan to join the UN Security Council. In the longer term it will be to China's benefit to have Japan there."

While I agree with Simon, I very much doubt the Chinese government feels the same way about the long-term benefits of a Japanese UNSC seat.  For the Chinese, it is a zero sum game, and Japan's gain must be China's loss.  Nationalism is a driving force and a necessary ingredient of the current Chinese government's continued hold on power.

Because of Japan's fears of a rising Chinese dragon, they have extended their military relationship with the US to include defending Taiwan (see DEL here).  If war was to break out in the Taiwanese Strait, the economic engine of Asia and possibly the world would grind to a halt.  It is in Japan's long-term political, national security and economic interests to work with the United States in providing a proper deterrent to China.  It is encouraging that Japan has boldly taken this step.

Australia

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia has proven to be a leader and ally of the United States on par with Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom.  The United States is moving forward with this relationship and is proving to the Australians that their partnership and friendship is important.  While the popular press accords this to the War on Terror, which I agree with, I imagine it also relates to regional issues as well.

Note this little reported (in the US) story of the Bush Administration's treatment of the retiring popular Australian Ambassador Mr. Thawley as reported April 7, 2005 by the Australian:

"George W.Bush just wanted to say goodbye to Mr Thawley, Australia's ambassador to the US, who is due to leave the post in a few weeks.

But the fact that so many of the President's senior cabinet turned up as well indicates Australia's diplomatic punch in the US these days is well above its economic and military weight.

Rarely do ambassadors of any country command this kind of crowd in the Oval Office, but they all turned up for Mr Thawley and his wife Deborah at a private mid-afternoon get-together: Vice-President Dick Cheney, White House chief of staff Andy Card, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy - and soon to be World Bank president -- Paul Wolfowitz; and the US's top military officer, General Richard Myers."

What is surprising about the neocon guest list is how defense heavy as opposed to State Department heavy it was.  This comes after an important visit by Joint Chief's General Richard Myers' visit to Australia (incidentally, he flew to Mongolia on the same trip, which adds to the containment concept).  Gen. Myers discussed "regional issues and continuing U.S.-Australian projects".  It is likely these regional issues included Taiwan.

Australia, much like Japan, would endure economic issues with any conflict over Taiwan.  In promoting regional security, Australia's interests include increasing "military to military" exchanges and exercises with the US and supporting a "peaceful" resolution to the One-China policy. 

India

India presents the greatest paradigm-shifting opportunity for the United States in Asia and in ultimately deterring China from an invasion of Taiwan.  Dawn's Early Light argued the following on March 25, 2005:

"My guess is that Secretary Rice offered the following [DEL: to the Indian government]:

1. India should purchase the US F-16s (up to 125 aircraft)
2. The US will approve a smaller sale of F-16s to Pakistan, with New Delhi's knowledge
3. The US will offer future, more advanced military hardware including:
   • missile defense
   • nuclear reactor technology
   • high tech programs
   • other advanced US weapon systems
4. The US will engage in a long-term strategic relationship with India to contain China and proactively work to propel India into being a major 21st century world power."

The United States currently has an economy too heavily dependent on Chinese exports.  Shifting a portion of this imbalance over to a democratic India is very much in the US economic interest.  India has an extremely well educated, economically growing society that the US is already increasingly investing in.  Indian companies like Tata (see related The Economist articles here) and others have the ability to and currently do compete on a global scale. 

While a popular Indian worry about any future US arms deal would be the possibility of another arms embargo, as happened with India and Pakistan over the 1996 nuclear testing, this scenario is unlikely to repeat itself because the US strategically needs New Dehli, and New Dehli is not likely to start a war with Pakistan.

While there is strong evidence for US interest in such a partnership, the evidence on the Indian side is equally strong, if not more so. 

• On an economic level, increased trade with the United States would be a great benefit to the Indian economy. 
• The energy needs, specifically the US offer of nuclear technology, would greatly reduce India's need for an oil pipeline running through Pakistan.  The national security implications of this cannot be overstated for India. 
• Providing India with another source of military technology on top of French (EU) and Russian hardware would help make India's armed forces superior to many NATO members. 
• The crown jewel, however, is the US commitment to make India a "major world power in the 21st century". 

While the United States has been rather quiet on its view of an Indian UNSC seat, I believe it is part of the continued discussions and horse-trading between DC and New Dehli.

The most telling anecdotes are in these two recent news items:

1. External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh will meet President Bush and Sec. State Condoleezza Rice this Thursday to discuss greater US-Indo relations and moving forward on the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP).
2. April 12, 2005 Daily Press Briefing: "QUESTION: Just one last thing on that. Have U.S. officials had any discussions with the Indian officials, and especially the Foreign Minister, who is coming here this week, on exactly what might be their concerns about China and China's buildup and then what might be the limit to the India-China relationship?  MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if we've had any discussions in New Delhi in view of the visit that just occurred. I think it just finished. So I'm sure we'll be talking to both sides about how this relationship is going and what they foresee. And as you pointed out, the Secretary does have an opportunity to talk to the Indian Foreign Minister later this week."

The above two items point to the US making an intensive effort at strengthening ties with India.  Secretary Rice's comments after her meeting with Minister Singh will shed more light on India's future direction.  The subject of India and China's recent economic cooperation is also covered in the briefing and mentioned as a potential positive.

I do agree with Mr. Katzman that New Dehli could stiff the American offer on the F-16s (block 70)  or F-18s and still collude with the Americans on strategic regional interests.  However, I believe New Dehli will want to firmly take a step into the American defense market.  Once a sale is concluded, it will open up greater opportunities for more advanced equipment, including naval weapons, missile defense, transport and logistics.  The possibility of purchasing US fighters is not an "end" in itself.  While Dawn's Early Light appears to be in a minority opinion on the consummation of a US sale, I still think it is likely.  With high level talks taking place this week, I imagine the US will conclude a good strategic deal with India for both nations.

Regardless of India's final decision, I believe they will join the US alliance in containing China, for the benefits are many. 

China Constrained

A successful US forging and strengthening of alliances with Japan, Australia and India will severely limit China's mid- to long-term nationalistic goals with consolidating all Chinese into a One China by force.  As Redhunter (above) points out, it is unlikely China would take any steps to repeat the Soviet mistake of invading Afghanistan in 1979 prior to their 1980 Olympic hosting and subsequent Western world boycott.  China has much to show the world in 2008, and they will keep their nationalism in check and continue their strong military buildup, biding their time.  The United States, along with democratic countries in Eastern Asia, have an opportunity to build a constructive alliance to deter China from seeking its goals militarily, but they must act now and wait for an emerging dragon to reform democratically.