tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35549820127596474922024-03-18T21:35:38.905-07:00Warm Oolong Tea Analysis of East Asian politics, state military capabilities, culture, and current events. Focused primarily on Taiwan, China, North and South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, and Japan. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-38365226783433139302015-02-04T16:44:00.000-08:002015-02-04T16:44:21.026-08:00North Korea's ABC (Anybody but China) Diplomatic Strategy is Going to Face a Harsh Reality <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKeVXnEz_KxY-GtOvtSgOdGrA7vtfOyjEsjhFpXdvm84pkKl8izh7p-NiO-cpss6QPju8Bpt0LodxtwhjC25dRH0HE0ImGNX42XZ4UhiEHj39jFa5A_aP5h9wTglB8nknj9FkHFZQlL8c/s1600/North_Korean_Soldier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKeVXnEz_KxY-GtOvtSgOdGrA7vtfOyjEsjhFpXdvm84pkKl8izh7p-NiO-cpss6QPju8Bpt0LodxtwhjC25dRH0HE0ImGNX42XZ4UhiEHj39jFa5A_aP5h9wTglB8nknj9FkHFZQlL8c/s1600/North_Korean_Soldier.jpg" height="280" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Photo: wikicommons)<br /><br /><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2015/02/04/north-koreas-abc-anybody-but-china-diplomatic-initiatives-will-face-a-harsh-reality/">My recent article </a> featured in the University of Nottingham's China Policy Institute attempts to show how the North Korean leadership's initiative to "break out" from its heavy reliance on China will run into a brick wall of reality....Enjoy! </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-67907288876991940122014-12-21T09:20:00.000-08:002014-12-21T09:20:08.755-08:00The Gripen Solution <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd85-6fEdjfALCG5muCv0TBt9MpTwNjcT8Tl3Yo_-xvbzgnOGW2FFgRyuTMg9KgFJ9vlfAhFnb5zXbavWgxn4FvTdeRIYheHjfkxU8ahojI_tQj_V8HlrVOnlKkkIbcD-oOzH4x5pbZQw/s1600/Saab-JAS-39_at_ILA_2010_05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhd85-6fEdjfALCG5muCv0TBt9MpTwNjcT8Tl3Yo_-xvbzgnOGW2FFgRyuTMg9KgFJ9vlfAhFnb5zXbavWgxn4FvTdeRIYheHjfkxU8ahojI_tQj_V8HlrVOnlKkkIbcD-oOzH4x5pbZQw/s1600/Saab-JAS-39_at_ILA_2010_05.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sweden's Gripen provides great value for the cost (photo: Wikicommons)<br /><br /><br /><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Brian Benedictus & Michal Thim </span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<em style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">This piece was originally published in <a href="http://issuu.com/strategic_vision/docs/sv18" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">Strategic Vision vol. 3, no. 18</a> (December, 2014). </em></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) appears to be a formidable force on paper, wielding 300-plus fighter jets (excluding the obsolete F-5E/F used for training), but its most recent purchase was 150 F-16A/Bs and 60 Mirage 2000s, both approved in 1992. Earlier this month, Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou reiterated the need to procure advanced fighters from the United States in order to fulfill the pending shortage of Taiwan’s air power projection capabilities. The shortage will come due to the retirement of older F-5 jets by 2019, as well as the government’s desire to retire its current batch of Mirage 2000-5Di/Ei.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The sale of American F-16 C/D fighters has been in limbo for years; with Republic of China (ROC) officials recently stating that they no longer wish to pursue such a purchase. While there have been statements issued by the ROC government expressing an interest in acquiring the F-35 5th generation fighter currently in development by the United States, the likelihood of such a sale is unrealistic at the moment due to reasons that range from the high per-unit cost and American concerns of a harsh Chinese reaction to the sale, to Taiwan’s position at the bottom of a long waiting list of other countries which have already completed agreements with the United States for the F-35.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">One option would be for the ROCAF to look elsewhere. Although the Russian market produces impressive fighter jets with competitive price tags, it is closed to Taipei due to Moscow’s close relationship with Beijing, as well as its rather rigid interpretation of the One China policy. Moreover, the introduction of Russian weaponry would create another logistical headache because, under current conditions, Taiwanese jets already need to use a range of US, French, and Taiwan-made missiles on their planes, and the availability of spare parts and general service requirements would be another issue complicating their use.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Other options are no less complex. The Eurofighter Typhoon is expensive, and France most certainly would not risk angering China by offering to sell Taiwan its Rafale fighters. Taiwan, however, could choose to think outside the box in terms of seeking to acquire new jets by looking at Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen. Granted, the political ramifications that make sales difficult are not insignificant, and in many ways are not too different from the cases outlined above. Nevertheless, the Gripen would fit well with Taiwan’s defense needs, and pursuing the bid would be a worthwhile effort, even if it ultimately is destined to fail.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">A sale, however unlikely, would make sense for both sides for a number of reasons. For Taiwan, adding the Gripen into its air-power portfolio would be a major upgrade in terms of overall capabilities. The newest model, the JAS 39E, would come packed with improvements over previous models. Such upgrades include a multispectral sensor suite—a system that allows the aircraft to engage stealth targets—and the ability to fly at Mach 1.25 without the use of afterburners. Moreover, the Gripen comes equipped with the Meteor ramjet-powered air-to-air missile, which is believed to have five times the lethality of the American-made AMRAAM.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Gripen has another quality that makes it suitable for Taiwan’s conditions. As a result of Sweden’s own precarious position due to its close proximity to Russia, Sweden has always stressed the short take-off and landing (STOL) capability for its fighter jets. That also suits Taiwan’s needs very well, as part of the latter’s plan is to utilize highways and other large paved roads in times of war. F-16s and other jets in the ROCAF inventory are capable of STOL, but unlike the Gripen, they are not expressly designed for that purpose.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Sweden has also made its previous agreements buyer-friendly; with perks that have included an offer to Indonesia that encompasses a 100-percent technology transfer, as well as an agreement with Brazil that will result in the South American country building nearly 80 percent of the airframes domestically that it purchases from Sweden. If Taiwan were to be able to negotiate a similar offer in a Gripen sale, it would be a major boost to its domestic aviation industry, particularly for the country’s Aerospace Industrial Development Corp. This would, of course, be an ideal scenario, in which Taiwan would be relieved of the logistical burden of relying on imported spare parts.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<em style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Licensed production</em></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">While Sweden might, under certain conditions, be willing to sell Gripens to Taiwan, agreeing to licensed production is a whole different matter. European manufacturers offer licensed production to keep their products competitive against US companies that are usually unwilling to offer such deals (Japan is a notable exception, together with partner countries in the F-35 JSF program).Thus, this particular scenario works well when the seller is competing with other offers, and Taiwan’s major problem is that sellers are not exactly lining up to sell weapons to the country.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Perhaps equally important as performance is the issue of cost, and the Gripen appears to be a bargain. The per-unit price tag of Switzerland’s recent purchase of 22 Gripens is believed to have been near US$150 million. This amount also includes training, technical support, and spare parts.</span></div>
<div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_1118" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); display: inline; float: right; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin: 0.75em 0px 1.5em 1.5em; max-width: 99.6999969482422%; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 410px;">
<a href="https://michalthim.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/gripentails.jpg" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black;"><img alt="Image Credit: CC 2.0 by Tomas Öhberg/Flickr" class="wp-image-1118" height="198" src="https://michalthim.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/gripentails.jpg?w=400&h=198" style="border: 0px; display: block; height: auto; margin: 4.90625px auto 0px; max-width: 98%;" width="400" /></span></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: 1.2rem; font-style: italic; font-weight: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.8075em; margin-top: 0.8075em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Image Credit: CC 2.0 by Tomas Öhberg/Flickr</span></div>
</div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The platform is also efficient to fly and maintain, as it has an estimated per-hour operating cost of nearly US$7,000 and only requires six support personnel to handle maintenance—an efficient number that the demographically-challenged Taiwan would welcome. In contrast, per-unit cost estimates of the F-35 have been unreliable: While the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin hope to bring down the cost of the various F-35 models to below US$100 million, the final price tag for each unit may very well reach twice that amount.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">While per-unit estimates vary, the per-hour operating cost of the F-35 can be pegged at nearly US$31,000 per flight hour, and although the total flying hours of the entire fleet is still relatively low, this would not bode well for budget-conscious legislators in Taiwan, who would not be keen to share these numbers with their constituents, especially considering the government’s plans to move forward with another expensive outlay: the ROC hopes to build four submarines of its own by 2025.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Considering all the above, it should be stressed that per-unit costs are not a very reliable indicator, as there are multiple variables affecting price. Thus, these figures need to be taken with a grain of salt. Ultimately, it also depends a great deal on whether Taiwan would be able to secure a military contract, or if the sale would go through civilian intermediaries, with the latter option making the sale and servicing significantly more expensive. Nevertheless, it is safe to assume that overall costs of a Gripen purchase would be much cheaper than the F-35 alternative currently being speculated about.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<em style="background-color: white; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Interim solution</em></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Arguably, a Gripen sale would not need to be put forward as a competing alternative to an equally hypothetical F-35 sale: Rather, it would be an interim solution that would allow the ROCAF to retire some older combat planes without necessarily replacing their original roles (such as in the case of the Mirage 2000, which is a high-altitude fighter; a role for which there is no clear replacement) and ease the burden on the existing fleet. Moreover, Gripens can be easily integrated with existing ROCAF armaments, which would ease the logistical burden associated with acquiring a completely new plane.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">All things considered, there are of course fairly obvious political obstacles on the road should Taiwan’s government proceed with the request. If the United States feels compelled to stall the sale of F-16C/Ds for nearly a decade, allegedly over worries about the Chinese reaction, why should Sweden be any different? One counter-argument is that Sweden’s economic links with China are not particularly strong: In 2012, China constituted just 3 percent of Stockholm’s exports, and 4 percent of imports. The second argument is that the sale of 60 JAS-39E/F would be the most successful foreign sale for the Swedish aerospace company Saab by a long shot. More so considering that the market for jet fighters is shrinking.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Russia, France, and the United States are producing fighter jets domestically. India recently concluded a deal for the French-built Rafale. Other potential buyers are off the table due to their involvement in and standing orders for the F-35 program. There is no other offer on the horizon that could potentially be as good as what the Taiwan offer could be. Third, some elements in the United States would be interested in making the sale happen, too; the Gripen still has several US-made parts, including the F414G-39E engine, and thus certain US defense contractors would still benefit from the deal.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">That being said, obstacles do not end with Stockholm’s potential worries about retaliation from Beijing; London has the capability to block the sale due to sensitive UK-made parts (especially the scanned-array radar) used in the Gripen. Britain is arguably more economically entangled with China than Sweden is, though not significantly more so; with 3 percent of exports and 8 percent of imports in 2012 (although one could argue that this imbalance would make China be the one to feel the pain, should it move to restrict trade).</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Moreover, Saab is heavily invested by the influential Wallenberg family, which also owns companies like Ericsson and Electrolux that have strong investment stakes in China. Thus, whereas incentives for the sale are strong, obstacles are formidable, too.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">As noted above, Taiwan’s disadvantage is that its options are generally limited to US-made platforms in the absence of competing offers. In other words, Taiwan is usually at the wrong end of a monopoly scenario. At the very least, pursuing an acquisition elsewhere could serve to re-energize the long-stalled F-16C/D deal.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">If all else fails, there is one more lesson that Taiwan can learn from looking at Sweden: A relatively small non-allied nation determined to defend its territory against a potentially hostile great power with the capability of developing its own high-quality weapon systems (albeit in cooperation with other states, technology-wise) ranging from excellent submarines and offshore defense corvettes to capable jet fighters.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background-color: white;">There is a sense of acknowledgement among Taiwan’s defense planners that domestically built weapons are increasingly the better choice within a narrow field of options. There is no doubt that it would take a great deal of effort to develop the know-how and requisite investment in human resources. Cooperation with the United States would be required as well, but that may be less of a problem as selling parts may be less controversial in Washington circles than selling combat-ready platforms. Taiwan is not yet in a situation to become like Sweden in terms of its own defense industry, but it very well may be in 20 years’ time. Long-term investment in developing this capability has to start at some point, and there is no better time than the present.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; font-family: 'Droid Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-77285903558699602932014-11-05T10:08:00.002-08:002014-11-05T10:08:23.159-08:00China's Korea Problem <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfX56OqzPrLHXXfKoBDsb3Q1ukTN_UxykBSoFQF-CqnFHJvdkedjuJ2MKQwBBXHA7DQZJ8qdLxtJAq2LFqsN3EvarfsxZaKrYepxX9oPk7uM7NQEdTRiKBh7ag9sWztaMZ3iAJINgsVvQ/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfX56OqzPrLHXXfKoBDsb3Q1ukTN_UxykBSoFQF-CqnFHJvdkedjuJ2MKQwBBXHA7DQZJ8qdLxtJAq2LFqsN3EvarfsxZaKrYepxX9oPk7uM7NQEdTRiKBh7ag9sWztaMZ3iAJINgsVvQ/s1600/images.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Wikicommons)<br /><br /><br /><div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: left;">
In my piece published today by the University of Nottingham's China Policy Institute, I discuss the challenges that China faces in attempting to balance an increasingly complex set of relationships which involve North and South Korea. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/11/05/the-yin-and-the-yang-chinas-delicate-balancing-of-north-south-korea-relations/">The full article can be accessed here </a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-62539071062021500122014-09-22T07:04:00.001-07:002014-09-22T07:04:07.129-07:00Taiwan's Impending Independence Surge <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoMA-KelAwodMdAk_B4UqaSD_urs2rTvqUaTD-CVLq8-fEcvraLotS9p5Ki84LlWhnRmQPmgr2VV5ODJFnep0OomDVL4eIM500T6CFMO-Hup6gNwEWxAsEf0UKX0wRXfjMInImPHaEAuI/s1600/TW.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoMA-KelAwodMdAk_B4UqaSD_urs2rTvqUaTD-CVLq8-fEcvraLotS9p5Ki84LlWhnRmQPmgr2VV5ODJFnep0OomDVL4eIM500T6CFMO-Hup6gNwEWxAsEf0UKX0wRXfjMInImPHaEAuI/s1600/TW.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Photo: Wikicommons)<br /><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Open Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 27.2000007629395px;">The fact that the occupation of the Taiwan legislature by student activists earlier this spring was woefully under-reported, is disappointing for a number of reasons. Primarily, the world missed an opportunity to see the changes in social and political identities sweeping across the island nation. These generational changes that are taking place in Taiwan, along with external factors such as China’s treatment of Hong Kong and its increasing bellicosity in its littoral areas, are going to reshape local politics in a way that suggests in the not-too-distant future, there is going to be a powerful new impetus for independence in Taiwan.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Open Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 27.2000007629395px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Open Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 27.2000007629395px;"><b>(The full article written by <a href="http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/">Michael Turton </a> and myself for Ketagalan Media <a href="http://www.ketagalanmedia.com/2014/09/21/coming-taiwan-independence-surge/">can be accessed here.</a> </b></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-88232073754016278032014-09-16T10:37:00.001-07:002014-09-17T20:16:37.728-07:00Missing the Point on Taiwan's Pursuit of Submarines <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj15abWnH93fehAAc9ATpP9Ee1ExHlflwHaP43b9NJHydm77SgHsxq7iZR45CQZyftsRy3iA-0XDKj4i0N6WwQWLWQUJ4UsXDz5_Skv-CUBmYti5DcEfxx6etnvC_AX6ScyniTSnC3aiTU/s1600/sub.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj15abWnH93fehAAc9ATpP9Ee1ExHlflwHaP43b9NJHydm77SgHsxq7iZR45CQZyftsRy3iA-0XDKj4i0N6WwQWLWQUJ4UsXDz5_Skv-CUBmYti5DcEfxx6etnvC_AX6ScyniTSnC3aiTU/s1600/sub.jpg" height="280" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Photo: Wikipedia)<br />
<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Yesterday Lauren Dickey of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote a <a href="http://blogs.cfr.org/davidson/2014/09/15/taiwan-wants-to-buy-u-s-subs-this-would-be-a-bad-deal-for-both-countries/">a piece</a> that advocated against Taiwan acquiring submarines, as well as the United States assisting in supplying them. While Dickey touches on a number of interesting aspects involving the longstanding-saga behind Taiwan's quest to obtain a modern sub fleet, there were a number of widely accepted notions that have often been passed along as facts regarding this issue.<br />
<br />
Dickey says that "the interest of the Ma Ying-jeou government in developing indigenous submarine capabilities has resurfaced", when in fact Taiwan's interest has remained constant for decades. A number of House and Senate staff members have told this author that officials from Taiwan have consistently approached them (albeit discreetly) with various proposals outlining scenarios in which the United States could assist Taiwan in its quest to acquire modern submarines--either with American industrial/logistical support or through America's diplomatic maneuvering with a third country that would be willing to partake in such an endeavor. These meetings between Taiwanese officials and Congressional Members and their staff are not a new development. While Dickey does correctly state that the Bush Administration's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program was evaluated to have a high cost (over ten billion) leading to political posturing between then President Chen's Administration and the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), it doesn't necessarily mean that Taiwan's government could not compromise in reaching adequate funding for such a program. In fact, submarine acquisition is one of the few national security areas that both sides of the political spectrum in Taiwan agree is a necessity. <br />
<br />
Dickey goes on to state <i>"...one can only begin to wonder why the Taiwanese defense establishment isn't looking elsewhere to fulfill its wish list."--</i>Only to answer her own question in the following paragraph, stating that the only option for Taiwan in recent years has been to acquire weapons from the only country that is willing to disregard China's threats (up to a certain point) which has been the United States. <br />
<br />
As I stated earlier, Taiwan is actively looking for a third country to assist in the providing either plans for a submarine design or, less likely, the actual sale of subs to Taiwan directly. Due to constant Chinese pressure, Taiwan realizes that cannot simply send a delegation to Germany, Sweden, or Japan requesting a bilateral sale of modern submarines, or it would have undoubtedly done so years ago.<br />
<br />
Taipei is seeking to keep its options open,which requires innovative thinking, and its desire in acquiring a modern fleet is by no means a recent "ask" by the Taiwanese government. Due to the fact that the U.S. has not produced diesel submarines in well over a half century means that a 3rd country will <i> have</i> to be involved if any deal is reached. It has been a long-standing request approved by the Bush administration over 10 years ago. Yet with so many instances involving U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, the submarine question is one remaining in limbo.<br />
<br />
From a strategic standpoint, Dickey argues that<i> "any submarines acquired by Taiwan may actually do more harm than good, due to their vulnerabilities to existing Chinese weapons.", </i>citing Professor William Murray's well circulated "Porcupine Theory" in which he states Taiwan would be best served in developing its defense capabilities at the expense of maintaining high ticket items, such as fighter jets and submarines. <br />
<br />
While I believe that many of Murray's ideas that Dickey advocates make a great deal of sense strategically for Taiwan from a defensive point of view, the notion that Taiwan should abandon a lethal asymmetrical platform like modern submarines--a platform that is widely believed to be an PLAN Achilles Heel when it comes countering such platforms---and instead investing the overwhelming bulk of its military assets in preparation for being perpetually pummeled by a Chinese military that would have a seemingly infinite supply of offensive weapons at its disposal--sounds more akin to an Alamo strategy rather than a sound defensive strategy.<br />
<br />
I do however, agree with Dickey in that Taiwan should continue to invest in its ASW capabilities in order to monitor PLAN submarine activity. Yet there is a dilemma if Taiwan were to follow Dickey's (and by extension Murray's) ideas at face value: If Murray is in fact correct in his belief that the majority of Taiwan naval surface fleet would be destroyed at the outset of a China-Taiwan conflict, and that Taiwan's air force would be rendered impotent due to the PLA 2nd Artillery Corps missile salvos that would destroy most, if not all of Taiwan's air strips, there are two questions that need to be answered. First, how would Taiwan utilize their newly acquired antisubmarine aircraft, and second, even if said aircraft were able to be deployed under combat conditions, of what use would this data be if Taiwan has no platforms in which to counter the Chinese underwater threat? Surveillance cameras would not hold much value in the deterring potential criminals if they knew that a society had no means of force to counter such actions.<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, for Dickey to state that Washington doesn't have the "time nor money" requisite to help Taiwan develop its submarine program, while it has ample time and resources to strengthen relationships with other long-standing allies (Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, and the Philippines), and cultivating new ones (Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia) is a massive oversimplification of the current situation regarding Taiwan's long standing request of a modern submarine fleet, and the topic deserves a much deeper examination than given by Dickey.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-32282193465016293732014-09-04T07:40:00.000-07:002014-09-04T07:40:03.712-07:00Tempering Expectations...Why a Vietnam-U.S. Strategic Alliance might Not be all its cracked up to be<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlJC0SdT6yDmH2gEHEkvQxx51kJkQluJWkIzYdgCQYkME8QuxlcwUZcyzMtNLeDqcE6GpdRkmjpcYJDW4IcoKzhIf2hcsErbt3DR6rrUQiSn93u7OQzN2cnaYMIU0kPkQzwK6WNHjneL8/s1600/118px-Coat_of_arms_of_Vietnam.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlJC0SdT6yDmH2gEHEkvQxx51kJkQluJWkIzYdgCQYkME8QuxlcwUZcyzMtNLeDqcE6GpdRkmjpcYJDW4IcoKzhIf2hcsErbt3DR6rrUQiSn93u7OQzN2cnaYMIU0kPkQzwK6WNHjneL8/s1600/118px-Coat_of_arms_of_Vietnam.svg.png" height="320" width="314" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Courtesy of Wiki commons) </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In an article featured today in <i>The Diplomat, </i>I questioned the reality of a meaningful security partnership between the United States and Vietnam developing, and what might stand in the way of said partnership taking place. While Patrick Cronin and General Dempsey both make insightful and compelling arguments for doing so, this author is skeptical weather the countries could align their interests enough to make such a partnership viable.<br />
<br />
The full article can be accessed <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/us-and-vietnam-should-tread-carefully-on-relations/">here</a>.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-89772216305877492612014-08-31T08:40:00.003-07:002014-08-31T08:40:21.268-07:00Why China and Taiwan are really different (My latest for Ketagalan Media) <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-mWYwNLr-PPjge_AmkO35QsDPxLyIQhGAWUjfdiSD2ja4_UE7khKdj9aUQrtVCUE9mg7Mbhbq_fQHgqQrPEcLRVbQcRdFnbE-PsVENHY_MC_PlLFuJnWIXKgxkMvcH0Hal6Cr3gbJKhM/s1600/CHINA_-_TAIWAN.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-mWYwNLr-PPjge_AmkO35QsDPxLyIQhGAWUjfdiSD2ja4_UE7khKdj9aUQrtVCUE9mg7Mbhbq_fQHgqQrPEcLRVbQcRdFnbE-PsVENHY_MC_PlLFuJnWIXKgxkMvcH0Hal6Cr3gbJKhM/s1600/CHINA_-_TAIWAN.jpg" height="221" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(photo credit: asianews.it)<br /><br /><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The topic of ethnicity and nationality can be a sensitive topic. Today I discussed how the Chinese Communist Party perceives them in both their current social policies within China, as well as how it applies said issues towards Taiwan. (Special thanks to Ketagalan Media's co-founder Chieh-Ting Yeh for adding some great edits and insight into the article as well).<br />
<br />
Full article access can be found <a href="http://www.ketagalanmedia.com/2014/08/31/why-china-taiwan-divided-really/">here</a>, at Ketagalan Media's excellent site. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-7817960989753646702014-08-28T06:35:00.003-07:002014-08-28T06:35:45.045-07:00Golf and Lightning-The Odd Realm of Sports in North Korea <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRj6FqayGUHQvUHufd5YgWjU-mR5rkiqM2M_7g_shgQwHlZHXgPh7QYGBHGusGaioA1zyDJ58IICI223vd2JEsF084Yb-UMsz3TxuyZL4Wv57HGdu6q93QBR39k3dF448tt7-bCI9gMMc/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRj6FqayGUHQvUHufd5YgWjU-mR5rkiqM2M_7g_shgQwHlZHXgPh7QYGBHGusGaioA1zyDJ58IICI223vd2JEsF084Yb-UMsz3TxuyZL4Wv57HGdu6q93QBR39k3dF448tt7-bCI9gMMc/s1600/images.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Photo from Wiki Stock)<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(A brief sample of my
article from today's <i>Diplomat): </i></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br />
<br />
Among the adjectives that can be used to describe The Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (DPRK), “dull” is not one that can be easily applied. Many
stories that come from the DPRK’s state media are cloaked in mythical overtones
(take for instance </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45763055/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/red-skies-stormy-seas-heralded-kim-jong-ils-death-state-media-says/#.U_jOFfldV8E" target="_blank"><span style="background: white; color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">this official</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"> DPRK account of the events surrounding the death of
former leader Kim Jong-il), while others seek legitimacy in the form of
“official studies” done by its government. In 2011, for example, the DPRK
released the results of </span><a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-rice-bowl/north-korea-the-worlds-second-happiest-nation" target="_blank"><span style="background: white; color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">a study</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"> that revealed its citizens were residing in the second
happiest nation on earth, with China taking the top spot (one guess as to </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" target="_blank"><span style="background: white; color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">which
country</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #333333;"> placed
dead last, in 203rd slot).<br />
</span><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">(The complete article
can be accessed <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/golf-and-lightning-the-odd-realm-of-north-korean-sport/"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a> at <i>The Diplomat. </i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Bonus Link!------ Did
you know that North Korea recently claimed to have developed a new sports
drink? From mushrooms? Somehow I doubt Gatorade is worried about its market share. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/north-korea-mushroom-sports-drink">Read more about it here. </a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-35324627274955727522014-08-06T15:49:00.001-07:002014-08-06T16:09:10.140-07:00From the Vault.....<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEillt3fKjm4_X5f8n56hYgmybBSD4n5kqw_JpSQp6vAXJIaj5FUbSzvN9IsFPJ1Mh4BjRegfheiO5uptqbWDTdHAp9D-29g5P6WUVFiXzkkn1OBGhw2RXhyphenhyphenQbcokDkv-5gjuhsmn3IxOmE/s1600/120502_china_us_ap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEillt3fKjm4_X5f8n56hYgmybBSD4n5kqw_JpSQp6vAXJIaj5FUbSzvN9IsFPJ1Mh4BjRegfheiO5uptqbWDTdHAp9D-29g5P6WUVFiXzkkn1OBGhw2RXhyphenhyphenQbcokDkv-5gjuhsmn3IxOmE/s1600/120502_china_us_ap.jpg" height="216" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Photo from Politico)<br />
<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">(I came across this piece that I forgot to publish a few months back, so here you are...) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> Professor J.M. Norton of China's
Foreign Affairs University (CFAU), penned an article for <i>The
Diplomat </i>in which he gave his theories as to the <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-sources-of-us-china-strategic-mistrust/">sources of US-China strategic mistrust </a></span><span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> Within the piece Norton lays out not only what he perceives to be
Beijing's perspective on the distrust within the relationship (as well
appearing to espouse his own views on the issue as well). While Norton
makes the argument that the dynamics of American relationships with both
Taiwan and Japan are the primary causes of distrust, he does so while
misinterpreting American positions on a number of issues, as well as
ignoring actions taken by Beijing that play a large role in forging
distrust between the two nations. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
<br />
<span style="background: #FEFDFA;"> Norton states that while<i> "The
1972, 1979 and 1982 joint communiques serve as the cornerstone of U.S.-China
relations"</i>, they also<i> "paradoxically undermine bilateral
ties in two vital areas: Taiwan and Japan." </i>Norton,
like the PRC, appear to grant documents such as joint communiques and
declarations a much higher status than is warranted. As far back as 1982
Assistant Secretary of State John H. Holdridge in his <a href="http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65728.pdf">testimony </a></span></span><span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said
that:</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
<br />
<i><span style="background: #FEFDFA;">"We should keep in mind that what we
have here is not a treaty or agreement but a statement of future U.S. policy.
We fully intend to implement this policy, in accordance with our
understanding of it." </span></i><br />
<br />
<span style="background: #FEFDFA;"> The State Department has
also clearly stated that "<i>...non-binding documents exist in many forms,
including declarations of intent, joint communique and joint statements
(including final acts of conferences), and informal arrangements." </i>This
is important to note because Norton also states that "<i>At the conclusion
of the war, the U.S. along with other powers in the Cairo, Potsdam and Yalta
agreements returned Taiwan to China". </i>I would counter this by
making two points. First, these declarations <i>did not </i>state
a transfer of sovereignty of Taiwan--they merely called for Japan to cease its
sovereignty over the island that it held since the Treaty of Shimonoseki in
1895--and did not specify what the status of Taiwan was to become.
Secondly, these declarations only signaled intent, and were not treaties
of legally binding character.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: #FEFDFA;"> Norton later goes into the
1982 joint communique stating that "<i>The Chinese leadership has been and
continues to be confused by some sales and discussions of proposed sales of
weapons with offensive capabilities, which reach as far back as 1992 when the
U.S. sold F-16 A/B fighters to Taiwan. </i>While it is true that a number
of weapon platforms sold by the US to Taiwan could be used for offensive
purposes, it is often in the eyes of the beholder of what constitutes an
"offensive" weapon, as well as taking common sense into account of
what a military would realistically use a weapon for. The leadership is
well aware of why Taiwan purchases such hardware, and know that they need not
fear the day where ROCAF F-16's are flying off the coast of Fujian Province
attempting to establish air superiority in a prelude to a Taiwanese military
offensive. While Norton emphasizes Beijing's stance that Washington has
not fully adhered to the principles of the joint communiques, he only in
passing mentions Beijing's continued build up of its missile arsenal along its
coast---nearly all of which are directed at Taiwan--and attempts to portray the
PRC as an innocent peacemaker who wishes merely to have a dance with the United
States, only to see itself alone on the dance floor without any rational reason
why. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: #FEFDFA;"> Norton then moves on to
the next bone of contention---the U.S.-Japan relationship, where he looks to
frame Beijing's perception of the United States enabling Japan's ambition of
reawakening it's dreams of a Pacific Empire:</span><br />
<br />
<i><span style="background: #FEFDFA;">"Right now the Chinese leadership sees
the U.S. as the main driver of Japan's resurgence and as lacking the political
will to restrain an increasingly assertive Japan. Further, the current
Japanese leadership's growing assertiveness takes place in the context of
growing nationalism with an imperial twist." </span></i><br />
<i><span style="background: #FEFDFA;"><br />
</span></i><span style="background: #FEFDFA;"> Norton states
that these "American motives" violate the spirit of the previous
communiques, while not specifying what exactly constitutes Japanese
assertiveness. Japan, for its part, has not made any new territorial
claims in recent years that could be construed as "growing assertiveness",
only it has made clear to other potential claimants that its long claimed
territories of the Senkaku islands, as well as the Exclusive Economic Zone that
falls within in it, are under the jurisdiction of Japan, an area in which the
United States recently clearly <a href="http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-senkaku-islands-fall-under-usjapan-defense-treaty/1899996.html">clarified </a></span></span><span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">. Norton would do well to look towards Chinese
actions in the East Asian region to find the source of many areas of contention
in the region. One area that concerns China,
ironically, is Japan's renewed commitment towards modernizing its
military capabilities, is due primarily to Chinese actions and aggressive behavior--not
from American prodding. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
<br />
<span style="background: #FEFDFA;"> Chinese military action in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/world/asia/beijing-and-manila-ease-tensions-in-south-china-sea.html?_r=0">Scarborough Shoal </a></span></span><span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">, <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/china-philippines-tension-over-south-china-sea-reef-escalates_921629.html">The Second Thomas Shoal </a></span><span style="background: #FEFDFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">, increased rhetoric towards Vietnam
regarding territorial disputes, and of course the ongoing Senkaku island
disputes have alarmed not only Japan, but other nations in the region as well
who are now looking to modernizing their
respective military capabilities Finally, Norton says that the Chinese
leadership believes that<i> "American leadership has ambitious
regional designs that include a major role for Japan. And for obvious
reasons this undercuts commitments made in the 1972 and 1978 communiques."
</i>Once again China (and Norton?) make the mistake of placing
American joint communiques with China on the same level as an American security
treaty with Japan, which they are not. Yet China is correct in assuming
that the United States has ambitious regional designs in regards to Eastern
Asia---as the United States has played the role of primary peacekeeper in the
region since the end of the Second World War, and under such an arrangement has
created an atmosphere of stability in the region in which many countries have
seen their economies flourish. The United States maintains core interests
in the areas of trade and security in the region, and it would be illogical to
not include a long time security partner in Japan from such interests--China
fails to see that their policies are the root cause of many issues in the
region--not American relationships with Taiwan and Japan, and J.M. Norton does
Beijing no favors in glossing over what could be deemed fairly obvious.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-66705209555184115422014-08-01T20:50:00.001-07:002014-08-01T20:50:38.517-07:00The Thunder Dragon Caught Between Two Tigers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-eRdS7isQX-xh-kOBlw0OkEHTKudFMiXJcFeYuijOih4DgMbcEsSueLXXjDdRHZwB_esyLEedns7WnJzPaJDZ_mgJcNsY6CHReyuJfMEfUcKYxMkV5xXGCXKQC8_iPReOKhZoOMGRe-I/s1600/Flag_of_Bhutan.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-eRdS7isQX-xh-kOBlw0OkEHTKudFMiXJcFeYuijOih4DgMbcEsSueLXXjDdRHZwB_esyLEedns7WnJzPaJDZ_mgJcNsY6CHReyuJfMEfUcKYxMkV5xXGCXKQC8_iPReOKhZoOMGRe-I/s1600/Flag_of_Bhutan.svg.png" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;">At first glance, the Kingdom of Bhutan would not seem to be a country that would factor heavily in the calculus of regional powers. With a land mass smaller than that of the Dominican Republic and with fewer people than Fiji, this landlocked Himalayan country has nonetheless become increasingly important strategically to both New Delhi and Beijing. The reason for this interest is not untapped mineral riches or a large consumer class, but Bhutan’s geographical location. As the Kingdom has only in recent years begun to open itself up to the outside world (only </span><a href="http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bhutan/journey.html" style="background-color: white; color: #cc0000; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">legalizing television and the internet in 1999 </a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;">), it finds itself caught up in a discreet but high stakes diplomatic battle being waged between India and China.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px;">My article in its entirety, published today on <i>The Diplomat, </i>continues <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/bhutan-and-the-great-power-tussle/">here</a>. </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-52941768518888605472014-07-30T16:04:00.001-07:002014-07-31T09:25:21.026-07:00The Mandatory Disclaimer-- Why do so many Western media articles about Taiwan have to sound the same? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRwkadS6wO4HkquKcXsMjT1aWaRiA4F6BOlqEl0T5FQtwsumfciYxIdo0igeH7f5nLbqABSZzXTUBwh3x5Fa0K0bT__hVhOGGcPUzM8ZHeAQdSm0MLCzf59G3DQCuH782y3aQ6imhjhOM/s1600/Man_reading_Las_%C3%9Altimas_Noticias.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRwkadS6wO4HkquKcXsMjT1aWaRiA4F6BOlqEl0T5FQtwsumfciYxIdo0igeH7f5nLbqABSZzXTUBwh3x5Fa0K0bT__hVhOGGcPUzM8ZHeAQdSm0MLCzf59G3DQCuH782y3aQ6imhjhOM/s1600/Man_reading_Las_%C3%9Altimas_Noticias.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(photo: wiki commons)<br />
<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Disclaimer: I am a news junkie when it comes to Taiwan. I enjoy its political scene (and unique international status), the David vs. Goliath narrative involving China, the security-military dynamic, and of course the eclectic makeup of Taiwanese culture that makes Taiwan, well, Taiwan. I rarely skip an article posted on <a href="http://thinking-taiwan.com/">thinking-taiwan</a>, <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/us-policy-and-international-law-taiwans-friend/">the diplomat </a>, <a href="http://taiwan-in-perspective.com/">Taiwan in Perspective </a>, and of course we can't forget my good friend <a href="http://michaelturton.blogspot.com/">Michael Turton </a>. Much of the reading on these sites, however, could be a bit confusing (or even intimidating based on the day) for someone who doesn't have at least a basic understanding of Taiwanese history and/or current events that have transpired throughout Taiwanese society in recent years (or even months). Normally however, I make it a point to simply bypass Taiwan-related news stories from major Western media outlets. <br />
<br />
<br />
When it comes to reading Taiwan related pieces or stories in major Western media outlets, I often bypass them (when there are even any to read) for two reasons. The first is time constraints--there only so many hours in a day, and thanks to the internet there are seemingly infinite quality options to choose from that often go into much deeper into a story than you will find from the said outlets. And the second reason should be more troubling to Taiwan supporters, which is the 'cookie cutter' mentality that seems to be increasingly making its way into mainstream media Taiwan related articles. Call it quite simply-lazy journalism. To prove my point try a quick experiment: Google "Taiwan" and pull an article from any major media publication over the past few years that involves Taiwan and its international status, Taiwan and China relations, or a similar topic of your choice. I can safely assume that the following phrase will show up in your chosen article in some form or another:<br />
<br />
<i>"China considers Taiwan a renegade province and considers it to be a part of its territory, and vows to reclaim the island by force if necessary." </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
While any regular observer of Taiwan will all likelihood glance right over this statement (after you've read it 724 times you hardly realize its there), the troubling part is that for many people who <i>are not </i>regular observers of Taiwan--this sentence could essentially create a false narrative in their way of thinking about Taiwan--and what it is or is not. And seemingly every major news story about Taiwan that is covered by Western media has to throw this line in their reporting. Every. Single. Time. So for the casual reader who was savvy enough to sift through all of the articles covering <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370">Malaysian Airlines Flight 370</a> in March (and into April) to discover that in Taiwan a student led protest movement had swelled to the point of occupying its countries' legislative chamber to protest a shadowy trade deal during the same time, they likely would have read some basics of the event, along with the obligatory 'China considers Taiwan.....' disclaimer. Well that's just peachy that the journalist felt the need to disclose the official position of the <i>Chinese government, </i>but isn't the article supposed to be about Taiwan? <br />
<br />
The Chinese position is by no means unimportant; it does affect Taiwan in a variety of ways. But isn't there another side to the story that should be told? After all, wouldn't a reader who is new to the Taiwan dynamic be left wondering, "W<i>ell, why is Taiwan not a part of China now? Why does China have to take it by force? Did Taiwan leave China?"---</i>All perfectly fair questions. So instead of potentially creating a false perception of Taiwan being a "renegade province" (renegade (adj.)-having treacherously changed allegiance); which could in itself foster negative connotations of Taiwan "breaking away" from its country for reasons unknown, other options are available. Maybe something like this:<br />
<br />
<i>"Although China considers Taiwan part of its territory, since its creation in 1949 The People's Republic of China has never governed Taiwan, nor had any jurisdiction over its citizens."</i><br />
<br />
Different eh? Perhaps even such a phrase could leave a reader new to Taiwan with a different initial impression about what China says and what reality actually is.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-2216541564323851992014-07-16T14:41:00.004-07:002014-07-16T14:41:55.334-07:00U.S. Policy and International Law: Taiwan's Friend <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKFNW-GwtrlchPxhJkk6NNLKugMmplpkU8Q_ditDhQqfTIKk0rjj7tTJubrsUfjBLWEpNhBiolTowZofXvZ8NnxBh8AZtW0AY5DBmkyhKtbtX_WzMufyBjE29xoyl4TJufhD30zfIJpDQ/s1600/Taiwan_map_pink.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKFNW-GwtrlchPxhJkk6NNLKugMmplpkU8Q_ditDhQqfTIKk0rjj7tTJubrsUfjBLWEpNhBiolTowZofXvZ8NnxBh8AZtW0AY5DBmkyhKtbtX_WzMufyBjE29xoyl4TJufhD30zfIJpDQ/s1600/Taiwan_map_pink.png" height="400" width="332" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Fellow Ohio native (and suffering Browns fan) Michael Turton and myself teamed up to pen an article in <i> the Diplomat </i>to refute Julian Ku's claim that an American-Japanese defense of Taiwan in the case of a Chinese military attack would be against international law. Mr. Turton and myself decided to use controversial tactics--reason, facts, precedent, and yes international law to make our case. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Julian Ku’s two recent pieces <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/international-law-is-taiwans-enemy/%3e" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">in <i>The Diplomat</i></a> contending that a PRC invasion of Taiwan would be legal and that the U.S. and Japan both recognize that Taiwan is part of China betray a shocking lack of understanding of U.S. policy on Taiwan and its international status. Ku asserts:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;">
<em><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“I get that this is a complicated issue, but I don’t think I am ‘misreading’ historical documents when I write that 1) the U.S. recognizes the PRC as the government of China and that the U.S. accepts that Taiwan is part of China, and 2) Japan recognizes the PRC as the government of China (see the 1972 Joint <a href="http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Communique</a>), and Japan accepts that Taiwan is a part of China. Sure, neither country recognizes that Taiwan is a part of the PRC, but both the U.S. and Japan have made clear that China is a single legal entity that includes Taiwan, and that the PRC is the sole government in charge of this entity.”</span></em></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Actually, this is not a complex issue; it is a simple issue: the U.S. does not recognize that Taiwan is part of China. Any version of China. Rather, the U.S. position is that the status of Taiwan has yet to be determined. It has been that way for more than six decades. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The article <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/us-policy-and-international-law-taiwans-friend/">in its entirety can be accessed here.</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;">
<em><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> The initial post that began the debate is <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/taiwan-and-japans-collective-self-defense/" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">available here</a>, and follow-ups in the debate can be found <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/why-defending-taiwan-is-illegal/" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/why-defending-taiwan-is-not-illegal/" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/international-law-is-taiwans-enemy/" style="color: #cc0000; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></em></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-8629051883056387402014-07-09T17:41:00.002-07:002014-07-09T17:41:33.895-07:00The Greatest Arms Sale Never Sold- How Taiwan could enhance its security by moving closer to its long time friend <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsbnfCQ0krRWsKFRpzKHD9xBFQ6ILvmmyvy4E3nhrUjYscMJLTTfTRug9iT-r9TxlWzAIHlPOzx50K-7mkGVc1aCY7PyJ8EPVT6OW1CIeuCN8UZ4-F-DN4ygI51Ea9e87v4ILTsoeMcHE/s1600/Taiwan-Japan-flags.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsbnfCQ0krRWsKFRpzKHD9xBFQ6ILvmmyvy4E3nhrUjYscMJLTTfTRug9iT-r9TxlWzAIHlPOzx50K-7mkGVc1aCY7PyJ8EPVT6OW1CIeuCN8UZ4-F-DN4ygI51Ea9e87v4ILTsoeMcHE/s1600/Taiwan-Japan-flags.jpg" height="320" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Photo-china-screen-news.com)<br /><br /><br /><div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #666666; font-family: 'Open Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b>Imagine for a moment a scenario in which Taiwan was presented a security alliance that was so politically sensitive that it was never to be mentioned by the governments of either country. Any questions regarding such an agreement would be neither confirmed nor denied by the states involved. In the event Taiwan was the victim of an unprovoked attack, it would conditionally receive the support of a modernized and capable navy—frigates and destroyers kitted with AEGIS combat systems, helicopters and aircraft that would provide the latest in anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and diesel submarines widely recognized as being among the best in service. Taiwan could also be the recipient of support from this ally’s air force—highly trained pilots flying fourth and fifth generation aircraft that would provide support under such dire conditions. All that is asked of Taiwan in return is that it continues its trajectory of maintaining a long-standing friendship with this country.</b></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #666666; font-family: 'Open Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b>This agreement however, comes with a major caveat: This ally gives no actual guarantee that it would commit to Taiwan’s defense, and would only reveal its intentions shortly before or immediately following the commencement of hostilities. The United States, you say? That’s so Cold War. Taiwan’s potential ‘silent partner’ lies much closer to its shores—the state of Japan. </b></div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #666666; font-family: 'Open Sans', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b>The full article can be accessed <a href="http://www.ketagalanmedia.com/2014/07/09/greatest-arms-sale-never-sold/">here at Ketagalan Media</a>. </b></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-35469848243291144882014-07-06T18:17:00.001-07:002014-07-06T18:17:32.823-07:00Vietnam's 'Silent Service' Challenge <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw2T6Hlt0Z5p8uwgxIN10FK82zX3JJf4fhAJoWFgBa5Q9wMexzD8NqIBVkiRqC5_gNu4vaYAg3fR53MGHzyWjJQnOr4LRZWSbWAlR8-n5xqc3WJSuSQGfxsqFCFf4XK2SiqwF1cHIZDDY/s1600/Tau-ngam-Kilo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw2T6Hlt0Z5p8uwgxIN10FK82zX3JJf4fhAJoWFgBa5Q9wMexzD8NqIBVkiRqC5_gNu4vaYAg3fR53MGHzyWjJQnOr4LRZWSbWAlR8-n5xqc3WJSuSQGfxsqFCFf4XK2SiqwF1cHIZDDY/s1600/Tau-ngam-Kilo.jpg" height="226" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #535353; font-family: Verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.5px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">My recent piece for the University of Nottingham's China Policy Institute: </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #535353; font-family: Verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.5px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #535353; font-family: Verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.5px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> On May 28<sup style="line-height: 0;">th</sup><span class="apple-converted-space" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span>at the Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg, Russia,<span class="apple-converted-space" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://www.janes.com/article/38880/russia-lays-down-vietnam-s-final-kilo-class-submarine" style="border: 0px; color: #535353; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">the last</a><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">of six<span class="apple-converted-space" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </span><i>Kilo-</i>class diesel electric submarines (SSK) purchased by the government of Vietnam, was laid to complete construction. The vessels, for the People’s Army of Vietnam Navy (VPN) in 2009, are expected to become the capital ships of the PAVN upon their completion and delivery (the third vessel is expected to be delivered to Vietnam in </span><span lang="EN-US" style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/18469/second-russianbuilt-kiloclass-submarine-arrives-in-vietnam" style="border: 0px; color: #535353; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" target="_blank">November</a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">, with the remaining three expected to be delivered in 2015 and 2016).</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #535353; font-family: Verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.5px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="border: 0px; color: black; font-family: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Decision makers in Hanoi are certainly not calculating that this platform purchase will give the VPN some level of parity with the China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). It could, however, force China’s hand in showing how far it is willing to escalate its territorial disputes with Vietnam if the territorial disputes are not resolved by the time the vessels enter into active service. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #535353; font-family: Verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16.5px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b>The full article can be accessed at The University of Nottingham's China Policy Institute site</b> <a href="http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/07/07/vietnams-silent-service-challenge/">here</a>. </div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-9039130699260348972014-06-13T08:21:00.004-07:002014-06-13T12:50:24.873-07:00More U.S. Resolve Needed to Counter China's Growing Aggression in East Asia <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr6fHB1lMEBTpjqtETJj_xgZAbFZUWQcwCaCvs5y8HhX-MwncW1WousS356g6aLd8VQu6Wo8CSn0xOFHUhlPR_zFOpWFS-NGqe8hvISXIUjPl4Wy9axOd8DPrYKhRkIvRhexpSrHbjE44/s1600/President_Ford_makes_remarks_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China_-_NARA_-_7062599.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr6fHB1lMEBTpjqtETJj_xgZAbFZUWQcwCaCvs5y8HhX-MwncW1WousS356g6aLd8VQu6Wo8CSn0xOFHUhlPR_zFOpWFS-NGqe8hvISXIUjPl4Wy9axOd8DPrYKhRkIvRhexpSrHbjE44/s1600/President_Ford_makes_remarks_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China_-_NARA_-_7062599.jpg" height="208" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Photo-Wiki Commons)<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size: small; text-align: left;">My recent article in The University of Nottingham's China Policy Institute Blog countering ideas proposed by Harry White's </span><a href="http://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-would-push-america-towards-war-china-10592" style="font-size: medium; text-align: left;">recent piece</a><span style="font-size: small; text-align: left;"> in the </span><i style="font-size: medium; text-align: left;">National Interest </i><span style="font-size: small; text-align: left;">that the United States would be better served by abandoning Taiwan for the sake of better relations with China is available </span><a href="http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/chinapolicyinstitute/2014/06/13/american-resolve-not-concessions-needed-to-maintain-stability-in-asia/" style="font-size: medium; text-align: left;">here</a><span style="font-size: small; text-align: left;">. Thanks for reading! </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-8954142970405144132014-04-29T18:01:00.002-07:002014-04-29T18:03:05.968-07:00New Legislation Introduced in US Congress would greatly enhance American Security Interests in Asia <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9b1wK8ogqc4TiM_3WccLxo27mfhDyutJXI26M1fqV7WNfTUXpcjyFTKDYuMbCpkaQMVB_xehETSoskp6Yj0o9LM-sSKmkXcfOTdeO8F1SYPjGVje7GaMOg4pw7u-43pccTwhmyQplcsg/s1600/Randy_Forbes,_official_Congressional_photo_portrait,_standing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9b1wK8ogqc4TiM_3WccLxo27mfhDyutJXI26M1fqV7WNfTUXpcjyFTKDYuMbCpkaQMVB_xehETSoskp6Yj0o9LM-sSKmkXcfOTdeO8F1SYPjGVje7GaMOg4pw7u-43pccTwhmyQplcsg/s1600/Randy_Forbes,_official_Congressional_photo_portrait,_standing.jpg" height="320" width="242" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Rep. Forbes </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
On Monday, it was announced that Chairman of the House Armed Services Sea power and Projection Forces Subcommittee and Chairman of the Congressional China Caucus Randy Forbes (R-VA) and Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI) co-authored legislation titled the "Asia-Pacific Region Priority Act"--which they plan introduce this week. If enacted into law, this bill would add a series of Congressional mandates into America's Asian security posture intended to strengthen current relationships with allies in the region.<br />
<br />
While portions of the bill seek to strengthen ties by economic means ("requesting a a direct report on future U.S.-Republic of Korea Security and Trade cooperation)--much of the bill focuses on military posture and analysis.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Some of the bill's proposals include:<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkjmOS7J7ynb8WqtTt_gt2IWDPYUge3wm6aAflC4DWZarJ5t45hRAM1xm2ApLQVPGXe2yAuv7sotfZ4sJI_wVOO7e3_U7tGSI2N7GhKrITS9uLz3W8sVPYW0nEe144rMbc5L6FcMW3wis/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkjmOS7J7ynb8WqtTt_gt2IWDPYUge3wm6aAflC4DWZarJ5t45hRAM1xm2ApLQVPGXe2yAuv7sotfZ4sJI_wVOO7e3_U7tGSI2N7GhKrITS9uLz3W8sVPYW0nEe144rMbc5L6FcMW3wis/s1600/download.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Rep. Hanabusa </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Requiring an Independent Assessment of Anti-Access/Area-Denial Challenges </li>
<li>Requiring Net Assessment of Chinese Naval Modernization to conduct a study of the maritime balance of forces in the Asia-Pacific</li>
</ul>
-This provision will be interesting to those who have heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Net_Assessment">The Office of Net Assessment</a>; a secretive Pentagon-based think tank that was created under President Nixon (and whose director, 91 year old Andrew Marshall still reigns as the director). The ONA has been thought of (often negatively by its critics) as being "obsessed" with China in military terms for the better part of the last 20 years, and such a report would likely paint a menacing picture of Chinese naval capabilities. <br />
<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Requiring the Department of Defense to submit a report on cross-Strait balance of maritime forces between China and Taiwan</li>
</ul>
-This report would also likely show the ever-growing gap between Chinese and Taiwanese naval capabilities--and be used by China hawks and supporters of Taiwan in Congress to place additional pressure on the current Administration to make available modern naval platforms for sale to Taiwan, as well as possible American assistance in aiding Taiwan's desire to develop it's own domestic submarine program.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Requiring Development of a Pacific Command Munitions Strategy </li>
<li>Directing improvements in missile defense cooperation and capabilities</li>
</ul>
--The bill specifically mentions missile defense cooperation with Japan and the Republic of Korea<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see if the bill gains traction on the Hill in the form of additional co-sponsors, which will be the tell-tale sign of this bill moving forward in the House. Rep. Forbes does hold substantial sway with his Committee assignments and tenure in Washington, so the bill would appear to have a chance of gaining momentum in the coming weeks.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-84612924312857022482014-04-29T15:19:00.003-07:002014-04-29T15:19:34.433-07:00Are the "Six Assurances" still a Cornerstone in US-Taiwan Relations? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbncHfBTCyoUZhZxjEdFSxsorsEGl6aQfHY5hEDKuej9ZWfxQEP4daW7mCIV3n7Xckoi2ojhOTca21qHAjbndA8XIYADJ2e8aLCZex-QEu-GHGTDck8ZV3oYmdwpHBcWtkuIj0CYKX75U/s1600/50498_210998785327_5206631_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbncHfBTCyoUZhZxjEdFSxsorsEGl6aQfHY5hEDKuej9ZWfxQEP4daW7mCIV3n7Xckoi2ojhOTca21qHAjbndA8XIYADJ2e8aLCZex-QEu-GHGTDck8ZV3oYmdwpHBcWtkuIj0CYKX75U/s1600/50498_210998785327_5206631_n.jpg" height="238" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
There are a number of questions following the recent Senate Foreign Relations East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee Hearing on U.S. policy towards Taiwan that took place two weeks ago that were left unanswered. Perhaps the most prevalent of these questions is if current U.S. policy towards Taiwan still includes the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances">Six Assurances</a> doctrine as one its primary components. My full letter to the <i>Taipei Times </i>that was printed today can be viewed <a href="http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2014/04/30/2003589210">here</a>. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-18908776334911605032014-04-28T16:28:00.000-07:002014-04-28T16:48:23.439-07:00Taiwan's past with nuclear weapons research <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0dFSn5E2ax35DIgB1kXGJLyu0yvcKPQAEuGVOxlGw3RL6wIDnasUpOnZAuI96FMSm_HFGx852HT8TDaUW8tHljOTk3AFE5RhbNyX65VYinBxfjld9POo2uFQZ3E1ZWOqAaAawhulVx9k/s1600/Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0dFSn5E2ax35DIgB1kXGJLyu0yvcKPQAEuGVOxlGw3RL6wIDnasUpOnZAuI96FMSm_HFGx852HT8TDaUW8tHljOTk3AFE5RhbNyX65VYinBxfjld9POo2uFQZ3E1ZWOqAaAawhulVx9k/s1600/Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg" height="272" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
While a number of protests and high-profile hunger strikes are currently gripping Taiwan over the objections of completing the island's 4th nuclear power plant, there was a time in the not so distant past where the country's leadership was secretly looking to use nuclear technology for a darker purpose---nuclear weapons. For a fascinating look into this program, one should look no further than <a href="http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB20/">The National Security Archives</a> to read "New Archival Evidence on Taiwanese "Nuclear Intentions", 1966-1976." While a great deal of Taiwan's nuclear weapons program is still classified by both the American and Taiwanese governments, this 1999 publishing has a great deal of information. Some of the more interesting aspects include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>A highly sophisticated game of cat-and-mouse between two allies, with the government of Chiang Kai-shek seeking to develop nuclear capabilities; and looking outward to Israel, Canada, and West Germany for assistance, while trying to convince the United States and the IAEA that it was not seeking nuclear weapon capabilities. </li>
<li>Further information on the death of IAEA inspector Pierre Noir, who died in 1978 while inspecting Taiwan's nuclear program. Conspiracy theorists have even stated that his death was not accidental (although declassified documents over the past decade seem to have put this idea to rest). For more on the circumstances behind Noir's death, <a href="http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/5262/pierre-noir-revisited">this link </a>will be of interest. </li>
<li>A deeper look into why the United States government was petrified of Taiwan's program (it was not a coincidence that the US took a more aggressive posture towards the program during the Nixon and Ford administrations as both were seeking a closer relationship with the PRC)</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The documents, however, still fail to answer some major questions about Taiwan's program. For example, there has yet to be a definitive answer as to who exactly in Taiwan's leadership was the driving force behind the program. Although CKS was believed to be the original driving force of attempting to develop a program, he would have needed additional support for such an endeavor (Chiang's son and eventual successor, Premier Chiang Ching-kuo is widely believed to have also played a major role). Additionally, it is not known what type of sticks the United States threatened Taiwan with in order to have the program stopped. While the report does not fully lift the veil of secrecy from the program, it does make for a fascinating read. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For a related story: Jeffrey Lewis of "Arms Control Wonk" recently published some <a href="http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/7248/taiwan-research-reactor">satellite pictures </a> of Taiwan's decommissioned research reactor that was used for weapons research, which was complete with an unsafeguarded exit port in the reactor's fuel pond---which means that it was highly likely fuel was being diverted for a nuclear weapon. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-6986655418252507862013-10-17T14:05:00.001-07:002013-10-17T14:05:41.255-07:00Warning Shot: Why the time May be Right for another U.S. Arms Sale Package to Taiwan <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgT6vY-rMARKN6lRhJGPKhOeu4gCqBUdtgPN8nG0AIaXqdXROjKytP8x9ECU5MdbBKxmq2crIqu4BVyvweC5ydbfL_DCzQDGOSbsTlpXcb2qDWnfa6r_dFYbRwEayXT1nA8zXYvFbrg3uM/s1600/ROCpic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgT6vY-rMARKN6lRhJGPKhOeu4gCqBUdtgPN8nG0AIaXqdXROjKytP8x9ECU5MdbBKxmq2crIqu4BVyvweC5ydbfL_DCzQDGOSbsTlpXcb2qDWnfa6r_dFYbRwEayXT1nA8zXYvFbrg3uM/s640/ROCpic.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
During last week's APEC Summit in Indonesia, Chinese President Xi Jinping stated to the Taiwanese envoy that Beijing and Taipei must begin taking steps to close the political divide between them. While such statements could have been taken in an attempt to garner and maintain support from the leadership of the People's Liberation Army, it is equally as likely that the absence of American President Barack Obama emboldened Xi to take an increasingly assertive tone towards Taipei. If the Obama Administration is serious about security commitments to its Asian allies, the time may be optimal for it to fire a "diplomatic warning shot" across the bow of the PRC in the form publicly declaring its willingness to be open to new military platform requests from its longtime ally Taiwan.<br />
<br />
<b>Sorry President Ma, you're not winning the Nobel Peace Prize </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Taiwan's President Ma has been doing everything but taking out space in <i><a href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/">the People's Daily</a> , </i>in an attempt to angle himself to be in a position to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in next year's APEC summit in China. Now that China has <a href="http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1333253/beijing-ends-ma-ying-jeous-dream-meeting-xi-jinping-next-apec-summit">smacked down</a> that idea, the President with the 9.5% approval rating in Taiwan does not have to take Beijing's feelings into as much consideration if he wished to ponder the possibility of reengaging with the United States regarding long-stalled military platform purchases. The President could also look to regain some credibility within his country among those who feel that he has given China far too many concessions in the economic arena, which has placed Taiwan's already fragile sovereignty at great risk. New platform purchases could also boost the morale of Taiwan's military, which has suffered greatly due to the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324769704579008471763297750">scandal</a> that plagued the army earlier this year. <br />
<br />
<b>Mr. President, show us something</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
There are also a number of reasons why arms sales to Taiwan could be of interest to the United States as well. One of the great fears among American allies in the region is that the United States could elect to reduce its military presence in the region, forcing them to take more accommodating positions with China that would rather not take. Earlier this year, the United States looked to show the new leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un (as well as the DPRK's powerful generals) that the United States stood strong with South Korea, and would stand with them and fight if necessary. This <a href="http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2013/03/28/1226608/778808-b2-stealth-bomber.jpg">message</a> was delivered loud and clear. While joint military operation exercises between the United States and Taiwan would be far too politically sensitive at this time, the resumption of talks regarding arms sales to Taiwan would not. The administration could state its willingness to discuss the sale of platforms long desired by Taiwan's forces, such as the F-16 C/D, AEGIS capable naval vessels, and missiles for Taiwan's air force fleet. Additionally, Randy Schriver of Project 2049 has stated on multiple occasions that there is data that supports the notion that whenever major arms sales have taken place between the United States and Taiwan, diplomatic breakthroughs between Taiwan and China have soon followed. The administration would also be showing its support for Taiwan by showing that it will not allow China to pressure or coerce Taiwan into political talks that it does not want to enter at this time, something that China in the past has promised not to do. Such a sale, or at least the willingness to talk about one, could be effective at countering China's attempt to back Taiwan into a corner, and showing its citizens that they still have a reliable ally who does not plan on leaving the Pacific anytime soon.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-89502029025364266572013-10-12T15:40:00.000-07:002013-10-12T15:40:06.601-07:00The Truths (and Myths) of Air/Sea Battle <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNS8O8DLValnPEJgy_dgSv9eAFGVQbLinjcC_YNvYJ1i88yWwx15H8rdfvJZka-YJ-PySnXH5qHkcMqKH__G60ksLFkB8Xyptox6AQZ3ZVxWnsYvCPpVflXkGJOzltZu3J3JNvtC6S2j8/s1600/airseabattle1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNS8O8DLValnPEJgy_dgSv9eAFGVQbLinjcC_YNvYJ1i88yWwx15H8rdfvJZka-YJ-PySnXH5qHkcMqKH__G60ksLFkB8Xyptox6AQZ3ZVxWnsYvCPpVflXkGJOzltZu3J3JNvtC6S2j8/s400/airseabattle1.jpg" width="292" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b> </b>On Thursday, the House Armed Service Subcommittee on Sea Power and Projection Forces conducted a hearing on the lengthy topic of<i> "USAF, USN and USMC Development and Integration of Air/Sea Battle Strategy, Governance and Policy into the Services' Annual Program, Planning, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process." </i>The hearings allowed leadership from the branches of the armed forces that are most involved in the Air-Sea Battle Concept (ASB) to express their respective objectives in the process, as well as clarify realities and dispel myths that accompany the concept.<br />
<br />
The focus of this article is not to explain the basic tenets that make up the foundation of ASB, ( click <a href="http://www.defense.gov/pubs/ASB-ConceptImplementation-Summary-May-2013.pdf">here</a> for a more thorough introduction of the Air-Sea Battle Concept) but rather to highlight the primary talking points from the military leadership that was present at the subcommittee meeting (the major points that were said by the military during the meeting will be bold and in italics, and the opinions of this author will precede them-but these are not direct quotations from the witnesses, but rather a summary of their comments during the meeting).<br />
<br />
<b>It IS NOT an Overhaul of Current American Military Doctrine </b><br />
<b><i>Air-Sea Battle is not a strategy but an approach or framework </i></b><br />
<b><i>Not a strategy but a concept--a method to obtain specific capabilities </i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
There seems to be some misconception among those who follow the Air-Sea Battle concept, as many believe that it is to eventually be the guiding principle of a new unified American military doctrine. This does not appear to be the case. Specific geographic areas were repeated among the witnesses as likely areas in which the ASB concept could be utilized: Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Pacific Rim, and the Eastern Mediterranean. This hardly encompasses the entire globe. While ASB does have a potentially wide range in which it could be used by American forces, it is not without limitations.<br />
<br />
<b>It IS in the Early Stages of Development</b><br />
<b><i>Air-Sea Battle is still developing and we are unsure what is needed </i></b><br />
<b><i>Air-Sea Battle mission focus areas are still being developed </i></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Perhaps the most surprising response that came from the military witnesses was in an answer to Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA) question, in which he asked quite simply: "What more do you need from us?" Forbes is known to be one of ASB's core Congressional supporters, and his potential voice of support for military platforms that would be requested by military brass would hold some serious weight. Yet ASB is still such a new concept that there is a great deal of uncertainty of what is needed, as well as what a definitive concept will entail. It should be of no surprise that the answers to Congressman Forbes questions were answered with a high level of uncertainty. The phrase<i> Air-Sea Battle exercises allow all the branches to look through a prism to see what future needs may be</i> was uttered more than once.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOS6u3QIO42s6x9uBAcWSIa7wIsw6xGM_NeTdXFt1fRSyvVCq8KTrJv4O5pC8RNB5A_mFPUfEQFNhlxWv78eIdVmR_4ETymICm9zzb0D2SfeRiXx-smPeFmF2nmOMiArMduvUJ1qu9iHw/s1600/airseabattle2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOS6u3QIO42s6x9uBAcWSIa7wIsw6xGM_NeTdXFt1fRSyvVCq8KTrJv4O5pC8RNB5A_mFPUfEQFNhlxWv78eIdVmR_4ETymICm9zzb0D2SfeRiXx-smPeFmF2nmOMiArMduvUJ1qu9iHw/s320/airseabattle2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b>The Army DOES Have a Role to Play in ASB </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
While the primary focus of ASB is to integrate the capabilities of the Air Force, Navy, and Marines into a layered network that will allow for enhanced cohesion during military operations, the army will likely a niche role in the concept. Witnesses from the army spoke about exercises that have taken place with the navy in which army <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache">apache </a> helicopters were positioned on navy carriers and used naval radar capabilities to track down small fast moving maritime targets in exercises. While it seems likely that the marine corps is being counted on to bear the majority of "boots on the ground" responsibilities under the current ASB framework, the army will likely have an increased role to play as the concept develops further.<br />
<br />
<b>The Air-Sea Battle Concept IS NOT Based on Platform Procurement (...Yet) </b><br />
<b><i>Strategy is not based on procurement </i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
Military witnesses stressed that platform procurement was not a requirement for ASB to be developed and integrated into the military lexicon. There was, however, an emphasis by the branches on the need to maintain the F-35 joint fighter, the development of a new long-range strike bomber (LRSB), and the KC-46 refueling air tanker. The first two platforms, especially, are of high importance. One of the primary tenets of ASB is the need to counter potential threats by means of enhanced stealth capabilities. If such capabilities are slow to come online, it could prevent ASB from reaching its full potential.<br />
<br />
<b>Air-Sea Battle COULD Involve Varying Levels of Preemptive Maneuvering and Strikes</b><br />
<b><i>The Primary Focus of Phase 0 in Air-Sea Battle is the attempt to shape the battle space</i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
One witness stated that there could be scenarios in which the US military would need to rely on stealth capabilities in order to place assets inside a potential area of conflict in order to shape a potential battle space. From the American perspective, this mindset is encouraging in that it shows a proactive mindset that may be favored in circumstances in lieu of a reactive approach that the US military has had the luxury of undertaking in recent decades following the Cold War.<br />
<br />
"<i>Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted"</i><br />
<i>-Sun Tzu </i><br />
(More on Mr. Sun's country of origin later)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeD1Zzovqb9NgnRv4DXbVuZvoRPd1SJPvGkQ6oFBk3H02XBOo-rqNYah1PiUnbLc_ARTGP4b79yPD91nWwpXDDjynZZMwgUyMlRWbCsE0mR8de_P-w7UpTJ0Zy25i7ognI6cyvWrdm_ho/s1600/airseabattle7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeD1Zzovqb9NgnRv4DXbVuZvoRPd1SJPvGkQ6oFBk3H02XBOo-rqNYah1PiUnbLc_ARTGP4b79yPD91nWwpXDDjynZZMwgUyMlRWbCsE0mR8de_P-w7UpTJ0Zy25i7ognI6cyvWrdm_ho/s400/airseabattle7.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Air-Sea Battle WILL Rely Increasingly on the Dispersion of US Military Assets </b><br />
<b><i>Air-Sea Battle requires rapid and tight coordination </i></b><br />
<b><i>A2AD Ranges have expanded </i></b><br />
<b><i>There is a need to build sustained operations </i></b><br />
One of the primary ASB was deemed necessary by the US military was that new military capabilities by potential enemies: cruise and ballistic missiles with enhanced range, quiet diesel submarines and stealth aircraft, and the uncertainty within the realms of cyber and space, could leave assets that were concentrated into limited areas vulnerable to attack. Since the ASB concept requires not only "breakthrough" ability in terms of pushing through an enemies defense; but also a need to sustain control over choke points and vital areas within the conflict, the US has looked to diversify its military real estate portfolio in recent years--in particular the Eastern and South Pacific. The following has taken place within the past 2 years.<br />
* Hardening of bases in Guam<br />
* Increased rotations or Marines and Air Force assets into Australia<br />
*Refurbishing of World War II airfields in Tinian and Saipan<br />
* Negotiations with the Maldives about a large scale naval presence on multiple locations within the country<br />
* Negotiations with the Philippines regarding a resumption of an American presence<br />
* Invitation from Palau to resume a US military presence<br />
<br />
In addition, the US Air Force is currently splitting its 40 F-22 fighters into a highly elusive, four plane "Rapid Raptor Packages". It also should be noted that the Marine Corps is planning to do the same with its F-35B joint fighters. With military assets spread among such a wide array of locations, ASB development will be critical in order for join force communication and actions to maintain optimum levels.<br />
<br />
<b>Air-Sea Battle IS Directed Towards the People's Liberation Army </b><br />
<b><i>Air-Sea Battle is not focused on a particular adversary or region but towards accessing area challenges </i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
China. The elephant (or perhaps more geographically accurate, the obese panda) in the room. While the country was only mentioned once by name (and not at all by members of the military), the primary focus of ASB is undoubtedly focused on the capabilities of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). While there can be some focus on regional actors such as Iran and North Korea, an entire military concept is not being developed simply because these countries have some enhanced range on new ballistic missiles. When speaking about ASB, nearly all academics and analysts look to its potential strengths and pitfalls by measuring it against the capabilities of China. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_22dypgkQJYeXa5wqyTioqdMh9e5g5sTV0JwqkHCXudVQ9m7AdM6b7FN0KWIethYLqTZI42uyaP48vY9JdoXWV20JsUSXvSy6aUebF8CJhYpYXqLNzFrFadjF0b8KEr1rFJ8hL5ucq-w/s1600/airseabattle3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_22dypgkQJYeXa5wqyTioqdMh9e5g5sTV0JwqkHCXudVQ9m7AdM6b7FN0KWIethYLqTZI42uyaP48vY9JdoXWV20JsUSXvSy6aUebF8CJhYpYXqLNzFrFadjF0b8KEr1rFJ8hL5ucq-w/s400/airseabattle3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
There is virtually no conflict scenario in which the ideas of a developed Air-Sea Battle concept would not be of use against a conflict vs. the PLA in the East Asian region. Although there are undoubtedly regions and maritime choke points in which ASB could be utilized, the necessity of such a complex and expensive undertaking of creating Air-Sea Battle would not be necessary if the military did not believe that a clear threat existed, or would in relatively short time--As was the primary reason <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirLand_Battle">AirLand Battle</a> was developed by the United States, which was to counter the Soviet military threat in Europe. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>American Allies WILL BE a Major Part of the Air-Sea Battle Concept </b><br />
A US Marine General who was a witness to the hearing stated that<i> "One of the most asymmetric advantages that the United States has is our allies". </i>Although in very early stages, the United States has begun to reach out to its allies to inform them of how ASB is developing, and the respective role that they could choose to have. One example of this is the sale of the F-35 to allied countries. Once brought online, these countries will be implemented into the United States joint communication network. There will likely be further moves made to implement allies into ASB in the areas of naval vessels, satellite communication, cyber security, and infantry.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrJBIFk6k5S99T3nd_vHkZu-4UC2xcmRHW3gkx9W0S34uGBvwzDHDOVB5jwJlquGr2rJkutCUE46jnS78Dl6Z-ihkPQ75YGsHtGxn3kSVXUo2ggL_CCOzT5WZ51INGlpk7879vI94xY0U/s1600/airseabattle6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrJBIFk6k5S99T3nd_vHkZu-4UC2xcmRHW3gkx9W0S34uGBvwzDHDOVB5jwJlquGr2rJkutCUE46jnS78Dl6Z-ihkPQ75YGsHtGxn3kSVXUo2ggL_CCOzT5WZ51INGlpk7879vI94xY0U/s400/airseabattle6.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
While there is still a great deal of speculation of what ASB will become, there at least can be some understanding of what it is not--which is small thinking.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-6373545099666183932013-10-08T13:29:00.002-07:002014-06-15T12:48:41.465-07:00The Northeast Project: What China's "Study" of Ancient History Says about Beijing's Strategy of Pursuing Territorial Claims <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYeaBM8hgCeDrYJ1jU7QWq4dT-jYOQagUKuBJTA-_8yep105gTvmUSZTUdUcOaR5kwOR5MoQFeC6WhMeneLJftE7-F_RFmt01eLVSr_2Q-DyCMQsWSEiC8jxsu8Uqoec6mxQ_BNP18MZ0/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYeaBM8hgCeDrYJ1jU7QWq4dT-jYOQagUKuBJTA-_8yep105gTvmUSZTUdUcOaR5kwOR5MoQFeC6WhMeneLJftE7-F_RFmt01eLVSr_2Q-DyCMQsWSEiC8jxsu8Uqoec6mxQ_BNP18MZ0/s400/download.jpg" height="273" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Since taking control of the country in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party has sought to solidify its claims on disputed territories (i.e. the "autonomous regions" of Xinjiang and Tibet) by claiming that such regions have been a part of China "since ancient times". Additionally, regions that are not currently under the jurisdiction of the PRC (Taiwan, wide swaths of maritime areas in the East and South China Sea, and Okinawa) have been claimed by Chinese government officials and scholars alike-- pointing to historical "knick-knacks" such as tribute payments, parched maps drawn over a thousand years ago by Chinese Imperial officials, and poems written by sailors as justification for Chinese claims over territory. <br />
<br />
Even though Chinese territorial claims that are based on historical merit have little or no value under the pretext of international law, such claims warrant attention due to the fact that these claims are being made by a state that has the world's second largest economy, as well as an increasingly assertive military. The continuing "research" that is being done by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) with its Northeast Project, is a look inside the mindset of Beijing's territorial strategy towards Korea, as well as its method of contorting history in order to help achieve multiple foreign and domestic policy objectives.<br />
<br />
<b>What is the Northeast Project? </b><br />
According to Yoon Hwy-tak, a Professor of Chinese History in South Korea, the project was begun by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in 2002. Coined the Northeast Project, the endeavor was an extension of the Ancient Civilization Research Center, created to conduct studies in the Chinese provinces of Liaoning, Jilin, and Heilongjiang, with the premise that such studies were to "research and organize the culture, society, and social system of the Chinese mythic era of the Five Mythical Emperors, and the origin and formation of the Chinese nation and its relation to ancient civilization." The primary purpose of the study, however, was to show that the ancient Korean Kingdom of Koguryo was in fact part of "China". The most recent research that has been conducted by the project (as late as July of this year) has been deemed "closed" by Beijing and the findings not released to the public.<br />
<br />
<b>What is the Korean Kingdom of Koguryo? </b><br />
<b> </b>The Kingdom of Koguryo was the largest of the three kingdoms that divided Korea until 668 AD. The Kingdom was said to have been founded around 37 BCE in the Tongge River Basin of present day North Korea. As shown by the image below, the Koguro Kingdom extended well into Manchuria, which is situated in modern day China.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiETBR-rtkwar-wD-bs6ZMx91cpBrRxL9romPsEUWBTTWZ-ot7R1GoKoE79hc0bClIFiGs_n-JB2ZuwmCvAT1oLYrGwqUUWpf0GP98x_roPOovJpk1GtPItvguNfCQC0VLL4q53qj0m-7Q/s1600/Three_Kingdoms_of_Korea_Map.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiETBR-rtkwar-wD-bs6ZMx91cpBrRxL9romPsEUWBTTWZ-ot7R1GoKoE79hc0bClIFiGs_n-JB2ZuwmCvAT1oLYrGwqUUWpf0GP98x_roPOovJpk1GtPItvguNfCQC0VLL4q53qj0m-7Q/s320/Three_Kingdoms_of_Korea_Map.png" height="320" width="254" /></a></div>
<br />
<b> </b><br />
<br />
In 2003, The South Korean newspaper <i>Chosun Ilbo </i>reported that on June 24th, the CCP journal <i>Guangming Ribao </i>stated that<b style="font-style: italic;"> "Koguryo was an ancient nation established by a Chinese minority tribe", </b>a notion that was repeated by the PLA Foreign Minister on multiple occasions following the publication. Later "findings" of the Northeast Project stated that the Korean Kingdoms that later followed the Koguryo: The Gija Chosun, Puyo, and Barhae--were also part of <i>Chinese </i>history and even stated that China's realm extended as far as Korea's Han River.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrgWzZr0s6-hZHO4GjCmhByk8FYZkSyQjzhVdSBY-9RxPsz4KyIWxRLiJG2EaXhQoiUh8IIK3bHJzKQo_AhjUrWdowpW3c6Lx1aIEEIJt5cNgbJ4sHF56NSTES9Ac_NQ4IXQHtJUG8eIk/s1600/CNE.3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrgWzZr0s6-hZHO4GjCmhByk8FYZkSyQjzhVdSBY-9RxPsz4KyIWxRLiJG2EaXhQoiUh8IIK3bHJzKQo_AhjUrWdowpW3c6Lx1aIEEIJt5cNgbJ4sHF56NSTES9Ac_NQ4IXQHtJUG8eIk/s320/CNE.3.png" height="252" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
As noted by the image, the Han River lies deep within South Korea's borders, passing through Seoul.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Why does Beijing Rely so Heavily on "Historical Claims"? </b><br />
<br />
The heavy reliance of history for contemporary Chinese territorial claims serves a number of purposes for Beijing. First, China's attempt to increasingly incorporate the Xia and Shang Dynasties into historical territorial claims is a savvy one due to the fact that neither has a clear beginning and end date, so therefore China's history is without a clear starting point, so it is able to expand deeper into history without constraints . Secondly, China uses its historical claims to serve a political purpose, which is to defend itself against a separate ethnic history developing within China among its multitude of minority ethnic groups. The PRC considers China to be a multi-ethnic state, and therefore all ethnic groups that are or have been part of the current territory that comprises the PRC are "Chinese" and therefore all people of the ancient Korean empires should be considered "Chinese". This rationale also extends to the ethnic groups within Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, Yunnan, and other provinces throughout China, as well as territories outside its current jurisdiction--allowing for historical "discoveries" from Chinese historians to be used in justifying future PRC territorial claims.<br />
<br />
<b>What are China's Concern's Regarding North Korean Territory? Isn't North Korea China's Most Reliable Ally? </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Of the myriad territorial disputes that China is currently involved in, the PRC-DPRK border is an area that is most likely to directly involve China either politically, militarily, or both in the near future. The 880 mile (1,416 KM) border that China shares with the DPRK is important to China for a number of reasons. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicjCr-J0lbQJrs3Fm0JMT9Vrq0LUpaylAPzT01PZK6QZTM3a29LEu6HZJE1mLU7iEuiS_FwIQ46E2PDyWE9bWyv8lXMX15uSx5eqUknCTnMnplOeZ6FaH8I3j5kkzgVVaZ3MtDquRXtMw/s1600/border.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicjCr-J0lbQJrs3Fm0JMT9Vrq0LUpaylAPzT01PZK6QZTM3a29LEu6HZJE1mLU7iEuiS_FwIQ46E2PDyWE9bWyv8lXMX15uSx5eqUknCTnMnplOeZ6FaH8I3j5kkzgVVaZ3MtDquRXtMw/s320/border.png" height="193" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Carla Freeman of John Hopkins University points out, "as a result of territorial losses in the 19th century, Chinese territory falls about 11 miles (17km) short of the sea, leaving China's Tuman Delta region landlocked." Freeman also points out that a railway bridge between Russia and North Korea at the mouth of the river acts as an effective block to any shipping at all on the river. As a result, China signed a thirty year lease with the DPRK for use of its port facilities in Chongjin. <br />
<br />
China also has legitimate concerns about the stability of the current regime in the DPRK, and the fallout that could result in its collapse. A Recent RAND Corporation study regarding potential scenarios following a DPRK collapse theorized that most outcomes would involve the PRC on at least some level. In recent years the PLA has conducted exercises in which it has simulated the crossing of the Yalu river with the objective of rapidly securing territory inside the DPRK in the event of its collapse. If China were to have its military cross over into North Korea, it is likely to justify the action by citing the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance signed by China and North Korea in 1961. It is entirely plausible that Beijing is looking to use the "findings" of the Northeast Project in order to justify any future occupation or annexation of Korean territory, by claiming that such territory has been an "inseparable part of China since ancient times". Sound familiar?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguy_dmAIraGI9s0OFmOB7EyeGd34uJI4phUy7Q5ubUyUThkoXj2JzOfeSWkZQ1Xr5mDp3oHtJz964D8lgle9nN6cBuuVPB-3n3Dqh8rvtarv6a4xzKjHN1k7EteVub0PLvjXPfwg38x68/s1600/CNE.4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguy_dmAIraGI9s0OFmOB7EyeGd34uJI4phUy7Q5ubUyUThkoXj2JzOfeSWkZQ1Xr5mDp3oHtJz964D8lgle9nN6cBuuVPB-3n3Dqh8rvtarv6a4xzKjHN1k7EteVub0PLvjXPfwg38x68/s1600/CNE.4.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Perhaps the issue of most concern to the leadership in Beijing is one of a domestic nature. Chinese thinking about security has always linked the management of frontier affairs to its domestic security, and within the past 5 years, the PRC has placed the Yanbian autonomous prefecture on its watch list of regional security concerns as a "sensitive area". The prefecture borders North Korea, and for centuries has been home for a sizable ethnically Korean population. Much in the same way that similar methods that have been used in provinces that have traditionally had the <i>han </i>Chinese ethnic group (the group that comprises 95% of the population of the PRC) in the minority, Yanbian has seen an influx of han migrants in recent years. The percentage of ethnic Koreans living in Yanbian has fallen from 60% in 1953 to 36% in 2000, and is expected to drop to 25% by 2015 in an effort to weaken Korean territorial claims. In the event of a unified Korea, the issue of Yanbian belonging to Korea would be one issue in which all Korean citizens could rally around---potentially a political nightmare for China to deal with. A number of nationalistic Koreans have called for the invalidation of the 1909 Gando Convention between Imperial Japan and the Qing Dynasty, in which Japan recognized China's claims to Jiandao, and Japan received railroad concessions in Northeast China. <br />
<br />
The Gando Convention could also be a geo-political landmine for the PRC to negotiate, as the PRC has stated that other treaties signed during the Qing Dynasty period are invalid (including the treaty of Shimonoseki, which granted Japan sovereignty over Taiwan), due to such treaties being signed by the Qing while under duress. <br />
<br />
In conclusion, China's constant practice of revisionist history needs to be understood in its proper context by international actors if Beijing's actions are to be understood and countered. Otherwise, Mongolia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Bhutan, and Thailand could someday be considered a vital part of China.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-88507236963608947512013-09-29T10:12:00.001-07:002013-09-29T10:12:20.598-07:00When is Enough Enough? China's Increasingly Assertive Demands to the U.S. Warrant Attention <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmUYolXKh9sRk68cf4Kva29uZaaEkDJMhZDN6dB2K8VZCUMr-cI2qAiKoNhPFjJbPWP-yVv37qTZGQHr5zCsSF2VelynnM7MRPinjZKlYMmJVph7Fp0SqbYxrkc2NN9-ZlNOOyo4xVgFQ/s1600/%7B3c8b9d96-94b8-4872-a21d-a0ee436c904a%7D.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmUYolXKh9sRk68cf4Kva29uZaaEkDJMhZDN6dB2K8VZCUMr-cI2qAiKoNhPFjJbPWP-yVv37qTZGQHr5zCsSF2VelynnM7MRPinjZKlYMmJVph7Fp0SqbYxrkc2NN9-ZlNOOyo4xVgFQ/s400/%7B3c8b9d96-94b8-4872-a21d-a0ee436c904a%7D.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><i>"Thus the enemy is established by deceit, moves for advantage, and changes through segmenting and reuniting" </i></b><br />
<b><i>---Sun Tzu </i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
In recent months, the leadership of the People's Republic of China has quietly attempted to test the limits of the Obama Administration in terms of how far it is willing to go in aiding President Xi Jinping's vision of a "New Type of Great Power Relationship". While dialogue between global heavyweights such as China and the United States can beneficial if a mutual respect is given, actions speak louder than words. Thus far in this modern chapter of the relationship, China has taken a pattern of increasing its military assertiveness in the East-Southeast Asian region as its military capabilities have modernized and expanded--thus challenging the long established status-quo of stability and economic prosperity in the region, largely a result of the established (and for the most part welcomed) U.S. military presence in the region. China has also used its rapid economic rise to pressure countries, including to a great extent the United States, to various economic and geo-political concessions that gives China a unique advantage when pursuing its strategic objectives. <br />
<br />
Some within the halls of Capitol Hill and academia subscribe to the notion that by embracing China now will result in a future China that can be "molded and crafted" into a benevolent state that adheres to Western values and democracy in the future. While the future cannot be judged, the present actions of the PRC can. China has been of little or no help to American interests in either Asian or global affairs, or in the areas of a fair economic relationship between the two states. There has been no help by the PRC in the American interests of stopping Iran's or North Korea's nuclear programs. In fact, it is widely accepted that the PRC has sold substantial quantities of arms to both countries. China has also threatened to disrupt the stability of the East Asian region, with claims of territorial sovereignty of the Japanese controlled Senkaku Islands, as well as the Philippine-administered Mischief Reef. The idea of the Western perception of human rights penetrating the PRC has also been an abject failure. The PRC continues to rule the Xinjiang and Tibet Autonomous Regions with an iron fist: Destroying thousand-year old towns, forced relocation of families, and even monetary bonuses given to newly-married couples who are of the Han-minority mixed race status. As King Edward "the Longshanks" stated in the movie Braveheart,<i> "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4DEfQzmdWUJJE058GKIM3wnKS93o64DveLACgXDZKPNfDg2YYWm1O7KN38DT3SDaszpJ2KIFG7ZJQv8QalPQ2zmZQQKsVNuVnDd_Al9FV6OP23MtYNnQ4VAdE1mmiwNCbiSdLBoFPOv8/s1600/Police_notice,_Tibet,_1993.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4DEfQzmdWUJJE058GKIM3wnKS93o64DveLACgXDZKPNfDg2YYWm1O7KN38DT3SDaszpJ2KIFG7ZJQv8QalPQ2zmZQQKsVNuVnDd_Al9FV6OP23MtYNnQ4VAdE1mmiwNCbiSdLBoFPOv8/s400/Police_notice,_Tibet,_1993.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Warning sign placed by CCP government in Tibet </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
Now China wants more.<br />
<br />
According to multiple <a href="http://freebeacon.com/china-seeks-weaker-export-controls-on-military-equipment/">reports</a>, China feels assertive enough under its new leadership, led by President Xi Jinping, to make some rather bold requests to the U.S. regarding current trade restrictions that are currently in place. Among the alleged requests:<br />
<br />
---The lifting of all sanctions imposed by Congress after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre<br />
<br />
---The removal of limits of commercial satellite cooperation and exports, unfettered access of integrated circuit technology, and greater access to U.S. aerospace and electronics technology.<br />
<br />
--Requests that the State Department's arms export control list, be downgraded and administered by the trade-oriented Commerce Department. This change would allow the export of sensitive defense technology to China.<br />
<br />
The last request is perhaps the most troubling. The PRC has long had a standing policy of non-interference of other countries internal affairs. Beijing often points to this policy when asked about it's lack of action taken towards well-documented human right abuses in areas such as the Sudan and Syria. Yet, Chinese leadership feels confident enough to breach this protocol and "request" that the United States make <i>major </i>changes in its federal government's weapons-proliferation regulation system. <br />
<br />
<br />
There's more<br />
<br />
Beijing has also asked the Obama administration to allow for China's Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) to be named a "validated end-user", which would permit easier exports of sensitive defense-related aircraft technology. This controversy has previously arisen within the halls of Congress, as in 2011 Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA) stated the concerns of many within the U.S. lawmaking body about the joint venture between the American company General Electric and Chinese state owned aircraft company AVIC, in which the technology that was being used to help AVIC develop avionics for its aspiring domestically produced jumbo airliner could easily be converted for military use. If restrictions were lifted, such future joint ventures would be less likely to come under the jurisdiction of Congress, and therefore be permitted unfettered. It is not a secret that most (if not all) major Chinese corporations have a strong but often silent hands in the form of Communist Party officials who have access to the latest technological advancements that these companies acquire and produce. Increased access to American companies will allow for such officials to gain easier access to sensitive technology that the People's Liberation Army so greatly covets.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-LOkABJtTRJlQg5nEf4uS9sBpxd8yXofMIDIvZQEMfsdupIrgtrqvx7fbmI6o5IHMaJXQCP_dB7ZB7Jewz3h0L6aybgJ7TquiJkUga7zg_j9a5ndoyXwpeMMZqT6OXWCVcG8hVjvQwns/s1600/00221917e13e104bb93610.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-LOkABJtTRJlQg5nEf4uS9sBpxd8yXofMIDIvZQEMfsdupIrgtrqvx7fbmI6o5IHMaJXQCP_dB7ZB7Jewz3h0L6aybgJ7TquiJkUga7zg_j9a5ndoyXwpeMMZqT6OXWCVcG8hVjvQwns/s320/00221917e13e104bb93610.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Will this...........................</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPKswRPahI3Qd5g79u3i8NbEYceWp0kpIbR_c7Os-CxY09-mVyqzcWtn1pKIA-tbizJsi18LxpXhhQFnTs0bCz-LBs5ZZN27z-BE-S0kjZ8aTtOl1ittaS8oqSFFohBfAfLBPraKzx8-0/s1600/new+J-31+60+17+18+212+25++fifth+generation+stealth+export+paf+pakistan++fighter+aircraft+prototype+People's+Liberation+Army+Air+Force++OPERATIONAL+pl-10+12+aam+bvr+missile+ls+pgm+gps+LS6+cv-16+aircaft+carrier+landing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPKswRPahI3Qd5g79u3i8NbEYceWp0kpIbR_c7Os-CxY09-mVyqzcWtn1pKIA-tbizJsi18LxpXhhQFnTs0bCz-LBs5ZZN27z-BE-S0kjZ8aTtOl1ittaS8oqSFFohBfAfLBPraKzx8-0/s320/new+J-31+60+17+18+212+25++fifth+generation+stealth+export+paf+pakistan++fighter+aircraft+prototype+People's+Liberation+Army+Air+Force++OPERATIONAL+pl-10+12+aam+bvr+missile+ls+pgm+gps+LS6+cv-16+aircaft+carrier+landing.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Lead to this?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
It is not yet known which, if any of the demands made by the PRC will be accepted by the current administration. One hopes, however, that with the current threat of a government shutdown and debt ceiling issues taking most of the attention and headlines out of Washington, that the PRC requests will set off alarm bells before such an arrangement can be quietly agreed upon.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-28068314576812373562013-08-29T15:06:00.000-07:002013-10-15T21:18:28.317-07:00The Link: Why a Free Taiwan is Vital to Japanese National Security (Revised Edition) <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsmmrxIweBjD1dNlxBkMHVXg2D8ymGgzLhjFwPpxpqN3kzxigl4Yuo_B6wWPKL9A03Ee-klLsXcd1wvYIW_CxHh99CKQ1F-84WSkyiAc6RwatLOl85yHnLbZP1BL7U4EGxvre7QdnPeZ4/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsmmrxIweBjD1dNlxBkMHVXg2D8ymGgzLhjFwPpxpqN3kzxigl4Yuo_B6wWPKL9A03Ee-klLsXcd1wvYIW_CxHh99CKQ1F-84WSkyiAc6RwatLOl85yHnLbZP1BL7U4EGxvre7QdnPeZ4/s400/images.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
All too often when policymakers in Washington think about the importance of Taiwan in regards to American interests in the East Asian region, it is done with a relatively narrow point of view. What this means is that often when policy is discussed regarding Taiwan, there is a tendency to focus only on areas which have direct tangible for American interests: The American trade and military relationship with Taiwan and how these relationships effect the American-China relationship are usually the primary focal points within Washington. Yet the argument could be made that Taiwan's importance to other American allies is nearly as important as the US-Taiwan relationship itself. Which brings us to the state of Japan: America's closest ally in the Asian Pacific. To understand why Taiwan's status should be of paramount importance to American interests, this article will show why a free Taiwan is so vital for not only Japan's national security interests, but for East Asian regional stability, and American interests as well.<br />
<br />
<b>It's All About Location </b><br />
Taiwan is located in a strategically important location within the Pacific Ocean. In any direction from Taiwan, there are vital sea lanes that a resource-poor Japan relies upon for its trade and energy resources. Two of these primary trade arteries, The Taiwan Strait, and the Luzon Strait, are shown below.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEM8TQ0Da_THsROCwn9H4HcLTtakrSvqAja_84VDr0PQ7is-FqzPxuqgeW-frr04qYV4wzR8HOEdT9oeKSPa6pzZ3wRyC4b6Z8_XAxZ9cYA-INStewVO5w7IbVODRxnnzSfZUKAPa8o1Q/s1600/taiwan.taipei.lg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEM8TQ0Da_THsROCwn9H4HcLTtakrSvqAja_84VDr0PQ7is-FqzPxuqgeW-frr04qYV4wzR8HOEdT9oeKSPa6pzZ3wRyC4b6Z8_XAxZ9cYA-INStewVO5w7IbVODRxnnzSfZUKAPa8o1Q/s320/taiwan.taipei.lg.jpg" width="272" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
Both the Taiwan and Luzon Straits are shipping lanes in which most Japanese imports that originate from the Persian Gulf and Central Asia are shipped through en route to ports in Japan. If Taiwan were to lose its sovereignty and fall under PRC jurisdiction, China could use its naval power to cut-off these sea lines of communication that are vital to Japan's means of acquiring goods and energy. The mere threat of doing so could force Japanese concessions in areas that China currently does not have the leverage to enforce to the degree that it would like (ie. Senkaku/Diaoyu territorial disputes). There would also be security concerns for Japan and the United States, which will be covered later.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3CtK3UtbJcCANUKMBPzHrfk18RxeVE4mMUytQw5gCu3qPZoLtbPj2v6TXmEXFAnGYJkDZqv-I4Hp4_rrVwbNkHR-MG-5494pm0OTe3AOeO5DyHk-q-1FiCz_jpADrieUVDGF1OZYUe7A/s1600/karte-6-611.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3CtK3UtbJcCANUKMBPzHrfk18RxeVE4mMUytQw5gCu3qPZoLtbPj2v6TXmEXFAnGYJkDZqv-I4Hp4_rrVwbNkHR-MG-5494pm0OTe3AOeO5DyHk-q-1FiCz_jpADrieUVDGF1OZYUe7A/s320/karte-6-611.gif" width="276" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A Chinese-controlled Taiwan would also allow the Chinese Navy (PLAN) greater access to the South China Sea, an area in which nearly 60 percent of Japan's energy supplies are shipped. Additionally, nearly one third of all global trade passes through the South China Sea maritime shipping lanes. Any disruption of these trade routes by either blockade or conflict could not only cripple the Japanese economy, but send shock waves through the global economic system that would leave no country untouched in its wake. China's territorial ambitions in the South China Sea makes the scenario of a Chinese-controlled Taiwan even more precarious for Japan's security interests. Former Japanese diplomat Hisahiko Okazaki stated in 2003 that<br />
<i>"Occupation of Taiwan means control of the northern entrance of the South China Sea. Then, the large part of the South China Sea would become a kind of China's inner water. If China claims exclusive jurisdictions there, in case of emergency, the only safe seaplane for Japan in Asia will be the passage through the Lomboc Strait in Indonesia through the east coast of the Philippines."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Too Close for Comfort </b><br />
From the Japanese perspective, Chinese control of Taiwan would cause immediate concern, as the Senkaku Islands would see the already small geographic buffer between the two countries all but erased. Currently the islands are located 200 nautical miles from China, but if China were to control Taiwan, that distance would be nearly halved to 120 nautical miles. Richard Fisher, Senior Fellow of Asian Military Affairs for the International Assessment and Strategy Center, states that "with forces on Taiwan the PLA can better take control of the Senkakus and Sakashima islands, which then give defensive depth to their forces on Taiwan." Fisher also states that in the long term, the island of Okinawa could be a future target of Chinese territorial ambition, stating "Chinese possession of any of the Ryukyu chain will strengthen its claim to Okinawa. We can be sure that China is helping to stoke Okinawan independence sentiment. You can be assured that the PLA would like to control Okinawa as well." Fisher also says of Taiwan's importance to Japan: "Taiwan bisects Japan's southern strategic horizon. If Taiwan is under PRC control then Japan's sea lines of communication are effectively cut. Aircraft and missiles on Taiwan can reach thousands of kilometers into the Pacific to interdict Japanese commerce."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRGkvtko6rcUD87_t8BsTAkIswZwozwMafzmR0r_LRvdG8Sm0Za6z_TU5HjPwpOZbaiQgrJabPTS4NAluH3BU4SPdjZBzz3o8mtxFOY-HklsRYzf4S8BzXWrjeJL6v3Pa654aeD8Qw8Xs/s1600/ryukyu+islands.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRGkvtko6rcUD87_t8BsTAkIswZwozwMafzmR0r_LRvdG8Sm0Za6z_TU5HjPwpOZbaiQgrJabPTS4NAluH3BU4SPdjZBzz3o8mtxFOY-HklsRYzf4S8BzXWrjeJL6v3Pa654aeD8Qw8Xs/s400/ryukyu+islands.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<br />
The Ryukyu island chain is part of the "First Island Chain" that the PLAN must negotiate through in order to move into the open waters of the Pacific.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Taiwan's Importance to the PLAN's Maneuvering & the Aftermath of PRC- Controlled Taiwan </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
China's navy currently has a number of constraints it must overcome in order to move its vessels into the open water of the Pacific (This author previously compared these restraints to a Pacific version of the <a href="http://warm-oolong-tea.blogspot.com/2013/01/americas-pacific-maginot-line-advantage.html">Maginot Line</a>). A Chinese annexation of Taiwan would greatly relieve these constraints on a number of levels. Currently, the lack of deep waters on its coast remains an achilles heel of the PLAN, as described by Okazaki:<br />
<i><span style="background-color: white;"> "</span><span style="background-color: white;">Chinese submarines have to sail on the surface for a considerable distance and dive near the Ryukyu Archipelagoes in order to operate in the Pacific. As a result, Chinese submarines are presently not a serious threat. In contrast, Taiwan's east coast is directly faced with the deepest sea in the Pacific. If China controlled Taiwan, China could utilize Taiwanese ports for submarines to operate freely throughout the Western Pacific." </span></i><br />
<br />
PLAN submarine ports in Eastern Taiwan could critically hinder the advanced submarine surveillance capabilities of the Japanese Defense Forces (JDF) if it lost the capability to track PLAN submarines once they left port, as they would not have to traverse through JDF-monitored maritime space near the Ryukyu Island Chain.<br />
<br />
If Taiwan were to fall under Chinese control, China could then move on to redirecting its military capabilities towards territorial claims in the Pacific region. Its increasingly advanced aircraft, naval vessels could be turned towards pressing its claims in the East and South China Sea. China has been in negotiations with Russia for over 5 years in an attempt to secure a sizable order of Sukhoi-35 fighter jets. If a sale is completed, these aircraft have extended fuel tanks which would allow for increased periods of time that the PLAAF would have in patrolling the skies over the Senkaku islands. The ability for the PLAAF to take off from airfields in Taiwan (in lieu of bases in Southeast China) would greatly increase the patrol times of the aircraft as well. Such a move would force Japan and/or the United States to increase their respective patrols of the skies, thus increasing the possibility of conflict, or allowing the PLAAF to patrol over the area unimpeded. Additionally, the PLA 2nd Artillery Corps could focus its nearly 1,600 ballistic missiles based in Eastern China towards new adversaries, with Japan being a likely target. The PLAN would also have the ability to extend its reach directly towards the American military hubs in the region: Guam and Hawaii--unimpeded. The "boxing in" of the PLAN would be no more.<br />
<br />
<b>Reason for Optimism? </b><br />
There are experts, however, who believe that such a scenario is highly unlikely, if not impossible under current conditions for both military and political reasons. Ian Easton, a Research Fellow at <i>Project 2049 Institute, </i>believes that "for a number of reasons, the PLAN will not be able to compete with us and our allies for <i>at least 20 years." </i>He also states that Japan has a tremendous ASW, mine sweeping, and air defense capability--and the 7th Fleet relies on the JMSDF to a great degree in these areas. For its part, Taiwan is rapidly developing and fielding the means to destroy any PLAN surface operation within some 100-200 nm of her coastline with land, air, and sea launched anti-ship missiles. (The) PLAN is extremely vulnerable to Taiwan's missiles---and USN submarines and F-18s. The more aircraft carriers China builds, the more vulnerable it will be."<br />
<br />
Regarding the much-publicized 1,600 missiles that China's 2nd Artillery Corps has aimed in the direction of Taiwan, Easton states that Taiwan appears to be developing and implementing the capabilities to counter what is thought by many to be Taiwan's most serious military threat. "These are a real threat," he states, "but one that Taiwan is well positioned to counter through a combination of passive air base hardening and resiliency measures, active BMD interceptors (PAC-3 and TK-3), and conventional strike (and cyber) attacks on PLA launch units and command nodes. Japan and the U.S. are less well prepared to defend against Chinese missiles, and have much to learn from Taiwan." <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Easton is also confident that the United States and Japan have little to fear of such a scenario because "that scenario is absolutely impossible." He goes on to say that </span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 16px;">Taiwan, as a democracy, will not surrender on its territorial sovereignty, no matter how much money it is able to make through sweet-heart trade deals with the PRC. Even President Ma, Taiwan's most "China-friendly" leader in history, is rock-solid on this issue. He doesn't even acknowledge the legitimacy of the CCP and doesn't recognize the PRC as a "real" country. In that sense, he's a lot tougher diplomatically than we are." </span></span><br />
<br />
<b>The Big Picture </b><br />
Finally, what would the long-term ramifications be for Japan and the region if such a scenario were to unfold? First, it would likely mean a regional arms race, a diminished role for the United States in the region, states increasingly accommodating an assertive PRC, and a new order in the Pacific region. Mr. Fisher offers two points on this scenario. <br />
<br />
On an imminent regional arms race:<i> " <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">A free Taiwan plus the continued engagement of the Americans allow Japan the luxury of not having to rearm completely. Japan has the luxury of stressing those forces most needed to assist US military operations only for the defense of Japan. A loss of Taiwan will mean that such an era is over for Japan, it will have to build a full nuclear deterrent, which will spur ROK, Australia and Vietnam to follow suit."</span></i><br />
<i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span></i>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif;">On the aftermath of a Chinese-controlled Taiwan: </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><i> "At this point an unfree Taiwan becomes not just a liability for Japan but also for the US as well. An Asia in which most states have daggers and nuclear daggers drawn on most of their neighbors is a recipe for incalculable instability, and a grand loss of the benefits of our vast commercial relationship with Asia. In a post free Taiwan era, the US security network in Asia will be based not on an extended US nuclear deterrent, but upon our willingness to proliferate, give nuke weapon tech to our closest friends, which would make inevitable the very instabilities for our children that our predecessors prevented from befalling our generation."</i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><i><br /></i></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikxCEfrwQm1C7_oXINW7k2UYmLBCElKFYeEjb9NlnvR799Ey6P1PSlV10Tx6F0UNGhbB1DjrG9OQgvvRI6PaSgJNW3UJugRw-kjQlU8A2acmyz5nDEI44BLTaJ90VhssPFI9BAXi-ZDYY/s1600/24navy01_span-articleLarge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikxCEfrwQm1C7_oXINW7k2UYmLBCElKFYeEjb9NlnvR799Ey6P1PSlV10Tx6F0UNGhbB1DjrG9OQgvvRI6PaSgJNW3UJugRw-kjQlU8A2acmyz5nDEI44BLTaJ90VhssPFI9BAXi-ZDYY/s400/24navy01_span-articleLarge.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
For Japan and the United States alike, a Chinese-controlled Taiwan could aid China in its goal of <a href="http://warm-oolong-tea.blogspot.com/2013/02/chinas-vision-of-south-china-and-why.html">reshaping the regional maritime order </a>that has been a bedrock of stability for not only the economic development of the region, but for the overall stability of it as well. Oftentimes, the interests of a state and one or more of its allies will directly intersect, creating an scenario in which a mutual interest can be found. In the case of a Taiwan free from PRC control, Japan and the United States should not find it hard to see that there is a mutual interest in maintaining the current order in the Pacific.<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-60438331466843125922013-08-25T12:40:00.003-07:002013-08-25T12:40:47.337-07:00"Document Number 9": The Secret Chinese Government Memo and why it matters<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipwY8mr0jfbmqr_E0TXDUcGcVqsr5m7L6MHYAD4bRfeLpOEbZu2y2bFtgL-wwayhN1sjYOBxyZtdeLTp4nqVz1ygjIIn1_9O3eKElTAiH_Vl-CfEVAXSpVWra8i44AxdWSdA9qTmy76n4/s1600/red-guard-11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipwY8mr0jfbmqr_E0TXDUcGcVqsr5m7L6MHYAD4bRfeLpOEbZu2y2bFtgL-wwayhN1sjYOBxyZtdeLTp4nqVz1ygjIIn1_9O3eKElTAiH_Vl-CfEVAXSpVWra8i44AxdWSdA9qTmy76n4/s320/red-guard-11.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
For decades there has been a strong voice among some Washington policymakers that are of the school of thought that believes if the United States approaches its relationship with China in a way that does not intend to shake the current political and social status quo within that country, that China would inevitably find itself embracing the lure of Western democracy, and the capitalist economic system and basic tenets of social freedoms that come with it. While the notion is admirable in its intentions, the reality is that the leadership of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees these same ideals as threats to its grip on power, and has given the notion of interacting with China with "kid gloves" perhaps a mortal blow in the form of <a href="http://www.infowars.com/the-secret-document-that-proves-china-considers-the-united-states-to-be-a-mortal-enemy/">Document Number 9 </a> .<br />
<br />
Before focusing on the mentioned document, a quick reflection back into recent Chinese history. Former Chinese President Deng Xiaoping stated that it was wise to "hide your strength and bide your time". During his time as leader of the PRC (which lasted in various forms from 1976 to 1989), China was just waking up from a Mao-induced economic coma that lasted nearly thirty years. Additionally, Chinese society was in tatters from the Cultural Revolution that wasted a decade of potential economic growth, as well as sorely needed economic and society building that was essential for stabilizing the country. Deng realized this and toned town China's hostile tone towards Western states in general, as well as laying the foundation that was soon to become an economic boom within China. The idea seemed to be for China to be patient, adopt specific aspects from the West that were needed in order to revitalize China, and to lie dormant until China had the strength politically, economically, and militarily to pursue its goals of once again placing China atop the global pecking order of the international system. Success was to be measured in decades; not in election cycles. China could afford to be patient, as there was no electorate to answer to, and no opposition party to fear.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJbnKhKAZeIMsvLPpdwpGLmwzF0cSuu6SYSj2_TCZHKlq6U5Ynuq3W95GsDdJNF6SHRNOybP3glYnk_qFw3tg4WnZC4YRcVO012sBU_QkNBVhc-nxS6Ke68ZYF52QQk8XSe3XegJlDVhY/s1600/1228500101200209254.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJbnKhKAZeIMsvLPpdwpGLmwzF0cSuu6SYSj2_TCZHKlq6U5Ynuq3W95GsDdJNF6SHRNOybP3glYnk_qFw3tg4WnZC4YRcVO012sBU_QkNBVhc-nxS6Ke68ZYF52QQk8XSe3XegJlDVhY/s400/1228500101200209254.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Many countries, including the United States, saw the potential for a consumer market of one billion people, and a cheap labor force in which to manufacture their goods. For many countries, the opportunity was too good to pass up. It was naively believed by many in the West that if China were to "become exposed" to Western capitalism, as well as its liberal social values that coincide with it, it would eventually itself liberalize and happily join hands and walk into the sunset with the rest of the liberal international order. This mindset was fraught with problems with the outset. It did not take into account that a liberalization would likely spell the end of one party rule in China, that China was not one of the states who helped form the new international order following World War II and did not want to be subject to its restraints, and that many within Chinese society feel that their country was shamed by Western encroachment in the past century, and there are scores that have yet to be settled properly.<br />
<br />
Yet Beijing was content to play the Western game as long as it needed to. During this patient phase, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 was of grave concern to the CCP leadership, as it saw its future if it did not take steps to ensure its own security within China. Even today, mandatory classes are given to CCP members about the lessons from the downfall of the Soviet Union--and how they can be avoided. From the portions of Document Number 9 that were released, it appears that Xi Jinping has taken these lessons to heart, and the West should take note, as perhaps Beijing feels that its long period of slumber is now over.<br />
<br />
Portions of the document, obtained by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html?_r=2&">New York Times</a>, appears to run counter to Xi Jinping's statements about a desire to come to an agreement with the United States on a new "Great Power" Consensus, and instead views many aspects of Western society as threats to the Communist Party in China.<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.1875px; margin-top: 12px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<b><i>"Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society.</i></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.1875px; margin-top: 12px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<b><i>These seven perils were enumerated in a memo, referred to as Document No. 9, that bears the unmistakable imprimatur of Xi Jinping, China’s new top leader. The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past."</i></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.1875px; margin-top: 12px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.1875px; margin-top: 12px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>While Xi has used Maoist themes in a number of his speeches and decrees since coming to power, it has been widely assumed that it was done in order to placate the leftist factions within the CCP in order to consolidate his power base, as well as an attempt to appease supporters of the ousted Bo Xilai, the once popular Central politburo member now on trial for corruption. Document Number 9 seemingly shows that the hope of liberalizing China through means of engagement and liberal economics will not work, and that the CCP will continue to play by their own rules. Potential American concessions to China in the areas of human rights, economics, Taiwan, and other issues should not be given simply because there has been little or no reciprocation from China regarding American interests elsewhere in the world. Memo Number 9 makes clear that Western values and norms are not welcome in the eyes of the CCP in China. The era of American concessions to China in the hope that liberalization would occur should cease. The ruling party appears to feel confident enough in its abilities to rise from its slumber. It will take an equally strong resolve from the United States to maintain its place of supremacy globally, and no amount of goodwill shipped from Washington to Beijing will alter the CCP's stance of feeling threatened by Western liberal values. </div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3554982012759647492.post-69081663512166524932013-08-20T18:11:00.000-07:002013-08-20T18:11:18.035-07:00Taiwan and China take yet another step towards economic integration <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A short snippet taken from April's edition of<i> Monocle </i>magazine.<br />
<br />
"China and Taiwan might be diplomatic adversaries but their economies have never been more tightly intertwined. Businesses and investors on both sides of the strait can now exchange Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollars without having to convert to US dollars first. It's part of a gradual warming of economic ties with China that Taiwan's president, Ma Ying-jeou, has pursued since taking office in 2008. Taipei's hope is that it will become a regional financial centre; <b style="font-style: italic;">the more likely scenario is that Taiwan adds to renminbi trading, raising the Chinese currency's profile overseas (</b>emph. added), says Frances Cheung, senior markets analyst at Credit Agricole CIB in Hong Kong."<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Mr. Cheung is probably right with his analysis. Until Taiwan makes the difficult decision to deregulate its banking and energy sectors, moves such as the one described above will simply enhance the international perception that Taiwan is moving ever closer towards near-total economic dependency on China. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06411069860625371628noreply@blogger.com0