A readworthy article about America's rebalance to Asia and the reasons why it may backfire

[Cossack25A1]

Exactly my point right now China has bitten more than it can chew

Though it could present are far more aggressive China; if they have the same capability as the 90s US military, then they are likely more confident on their military's capability in expanding their "influence' in Asia-Pacific and even in South Asia without shooting or dropping anything.

 

[Aepsilons]

China displayed it's hand too soon, if only it could have waiting 5 - 10 more years then things would have been very different.

They cannot help it, it is arrogance on their part in trying to juxtapose their hegemonic designs on the region and expecting a mitigated response from the region. Perhaps over calculation on Beijing's part. O well, their loss is our gain.

 

[Cossack25A1]

They cannot help it, it is arrogance on their part in trying to juxtapose their hegemonic designs on the region and expecting a mitigated response from the region. Perhaps over calculation on Beijing's part. O well, their loss is our gain.

Most likely, they are trying to escape the stigma which is the Century of Humiliation.

 

[Aepsilons]

Though it could present are far more aggressive China; if they have the same capability as the 90s US military, then they are likely more confident on their military's capability in expanding their "influence' in Asia-Pacific and even in South Asia without shooting or dropping anything.

Hardly. China does not enjoy the predicated clout of American military. While the United States has mastered the art of geostrategic statecraft and forming multi-axial defense partners and zones of engagement on a multidimensional framework, the Chinese have largely remained unprogressed on that part and have developed strategic alliances only on their immediate neighborhood. Notwithstanding let us not try to compare the Chinese military's abilities with that of the United States , a hyperpower that has experience in engaging and executing extra-hemispherical military operations with definite accuracy and devastating effect. The Chinese PLA's position has always been biding time and operates on a non-proactive framework. The last time the PLA has seen combat on large scale was in 1979, and even then it suffered a devastating tactical and strategic defeat. Aside from UN peace forces, the Chinese have no experience in extrahemispherical troop deployment, and from the look of their position now, won't have such ability for the long term future.

Most likely, they are trying to escape the stigma which is the Century of Humiliation.

Well, regardless of their national perception or national yearning, that does not affect nor does it influence international perception. Their tacit allowance and failure to even halt any USN vessels in areas they claim repudiates their supposed claim of said bodies of water of regional interest.

In the end of the day the USN steams through said bodies of water.

 

[Cossack25A1]

Hardly. China does not enjoy the predicated clout of American military. While the United States has mastered the art of geostrategic statecraft and forming multi-axial defense partners and zones of engagement on a multidimensional framework, the Chinese have largely remained unprogressed on that part and have developed strategic alliances only on their immediate neighborhood. Notwithstanding let us not try to compare the Chinese military's abilities with that of the United States , a hyperpower that has experience in engaging and executing extra-hemispherical military operations with definite accuracy and devastating effect. The Chinese PLA's position has always been biding time and operates on a non-proactive framework. The last time the PLA has seen combat on large scale was in 1979, and even then it suffered a devastating tactical and strategic defeat. Aside from UN peace forces, the Chinese have no experience in extrahemispherical troop deployment, and from the look of their position now, won't have such ability for the long term future.



Well, regardless of their national perception or national yearning, that does not affect nor does it influence international perception. Their tacit allowance and failure to even halt any USN vessels in areas they claim repudiates their supposed claim of said bodies of water of regional interest.

In the end of the day the USN steams through said bodies of water.

Thus they are investing a lot in ballistic missiles - they know the PLA military have disadvantages in certain fields and they see ballistic missiles to balance things when the US gets involved. But we have to remember that even though the Chinese have patience, their might be a few elements within their military that is rather impatient...well vocally impatient, specifically a few "loud" hawkish PLA generals.

But this could have some implications - that last time the US did something like this is the 1996 Taiwan issue, where two US aircraft carriers passed through the Taiwan strait, and both Mainland and Taiwan have geopolitical issues. The end result was that the PLAN hastened its development. While the one that passed through SCS is a destroyer, it would certainly have an impact on PLA's strategic thinking in regards to SCS.

 

[Aepsilons]

Thus they are investing a lot in ballistic missiles - they know the PLA military have disadvantages in certain fields and they see ballistic missiles to balance things when the US gets involved. But we have to remember that even though the Chinese have patience, their might be a few elements within their military that is rather impatient...well vocally impatient, specifically a few "loud" hawkish PLA generals.

But this could have some implications - that last time the US did something like this is the 1996 Taiwan issue, where two US aircraft carriers passed through the Taiwan strait, and both Mainland and Taiwan have geopolitical issues. The end result was that the PLAN hastened its development. While the one that passed through SCS is a destroyer, it would certainly have an impact on PLA's strategic thinking in regards to SCS.

Rest assured there are contingency and tertiary-contingency plans. Rest assured the military of the great Pacific Alliance have prepared for every single scenario.

The end result was that the PLAN hastened its development. While the one that passed through SCS is a destroyer, it would certainly have an impact on PLA's strategic thinking in regards to SCS.

Let them develop; it is the basis for counterdevelopment.

 

[mike jones]

Most likely, they are trying to escape the stigma which is the Century of Humiliation.

What you mean?

 

[Aepsilons]

What you mean?

In the 19th century, China was subject to foreign spheres of influence at point of gun, remember? Russia, Japan, United States, UK, France, Germany, et al --- had imposed their will on China.

I suppose this era was a catastrophic time for the Chinese state.

 

[Carach Angren]

Their tacit allowance and failure to even halt any USN vessels in areas they claim repudiates their supposed claim of said bodies of water of regional interest.

Why even try though? Should they have entered into a confrontation with the US ships, China would have shown the region what it's trying not to, in that it's not engaged in a "peaceful rise" and is committed and willing to engage in confrontations with larger nations, not just the confrontations between it and smaller powers like Vietnam.

China did nothing, which domestically might be considered weakness, on forums like this too where nationalism is in abundance, but it shows they know restraint and can use it. They shadowed, but did not confront US ships, ramming or interfering with one was never a realistic prospect to begin with and the Chinese aren't stupid enough to risk a confrontation anyway, but they've now demonstrated this to the remaining SCS nations... where or not they believe China's show in the face of past actions is another story.

Still, China had nothing to gain from halting the US' passage though those waters, it would have demonstrated a commitment to aggressive acts, a lack of commitment to international law (ironically, it was China's failure to adhere to WTO standards that lead to the TPP being formed, so they've a historical reference to note when deciding whether or not to challenge the international order when more than the US is involved) and shown its less powerful, more frightened neighbors that the US, and not China, is right in its stance towards the other.

China played its card right, the alternative would be deadly. It's worth noting that aggression or rational action, the region still has its own historical examples of China's actions towards them. I suppose no action, peaceful or otherwise, will change this dynamic for Chinese-SCS relation. China could have made things worse... it didn't.

 

[jhungary]

After reading half of Part 1, I fail to see how this article is read worthy.

The writer ignorance on Asian Pacific geopolitical situation is quite laughable at best, culpable at worse.

An Asian style NATO organisation existed and failed, that was called SEATO. Basically SEATO lacking both leader and common enemy to make it stand. The only instant I can see SEATO can at any way, form and structure existed as a logical organisation is when China or Russia introduced as a member and they form an common alliance to a common enemy. However, there are no single common enemy to all the SEATO member (Some hates US, Some hates China, Some hates Russia) so SEATO cannot unite their member for their common enemy. Hence it failed.

Another point is that a Japan-Vietnam-Philippine coalition cannot contain China by itself. At present, only japan have remotely some power to control their own sea lane to and from China toward the Pacific. How would Vietnam + Philippine control their sea lanes when they turn hostile toward China? This cannot be done.

Another point why this article is that if you have 2 parallel alliance as the article suggested, the J-V-P and Japan-South Korea, then they would not be supporting each other. Either they merge into J-V-P-SK or they will go at each other.

Last point being this article "Assume" a lot. Especially come the part when the article talk about Australia. The article assume Indonesia is Australia biggest enemy, and Chinese problem is not as big as the problem facing Indonesia, and hence when such a coalition formed with Australia, Australia will do nothing but lip service to please it big brothers.

This cannot be any further from the truth. in fact, Indonesia is considered Allied to Australia all the time beside the period where Indonesia invaded East Timor. in fact, 2014 claim to be the high point of Australia-Indonesian Relationship with both PM visited each other country Joko Widodo visited Brisbane and Tony Abbots visit Jakarta. The imagined conflict and friction between Indonesia and Australia does not actually exist. The only problem as usual is people smuggling and regional security issue.

If I have to say, Australia have a more forthcoming relationship with Indonesia than China.

Base on that, the OP Article is way off the mark. And I only read about 3/4 of part 1.

 

[Aepsilons]

China played its card right, the alternative would be deadly.

Deadly on them. I have said this before , and I reiterate my position on this as a former officer of the JMSDF. In a hypothetical engagement, there is no way the PLAN would survive against the mobilization of the Combined Fleet of the JMSDF, and the US 7th Fleet + other area fleets (2nd, 3r, 4th, 5th, 6th).

 

[Cossack25A1]

What you mean?

Well the Mainland use this "Century of Humiliation" as a fuel for their nationalistic rhetoric - it started with British Opium Wars while its end varies on who interprets it.

How Humiliation Drove Modern Chinese History - The Atlantic
'Century Of Humiliation' Complicates U.S.-China Relationship

 

[Aepsilons]

Another point is that a Japan-Vietnam-Philippine coalition cannot contain China by itself. At present, only japan have remotely some power to control their own sea lane to and from China toward the Pacific. How would Vietnam + Philippine control their sea lanes when they turn hostile toward China? This cannot be done.

Operationally speaking, the VPN, and the Filipino Fleet can engage the PLAN South Sea Fleet. This would leave only the PLAN'S East Sea and North Sea Fleet left to defend against the Combined Fleet of the JMSDF (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Escort Fleets would be combined) and would merge with the 7th Fleet ---- to eradication of the PLAN's North Sea and East Sea Fleets.

Once this was completed, the JMSDF and the USN 7th Fleet would steam south and crush the remaining PLAN South Sea Fleet.

Of course the VPN and Filipino Fleets would have accomplished their duties in this paradigm.

 

[Carach Angren]

Deadly on them. I have said this before , and I reiterate my position on this as a former officer of the JMSDF. In a hypothetical engagement, there is no way the PLAN would survive against the mobilization of the Combined Fleet of the JMSDF, and the US 7th Fleet + other area fleets (2nd, 3r, 4th, 5th, 6th).

Yes, that's what I meant. Should China has opted for a confrontation, it would have had political, economic and militaristic consequences as the regional nations, not that they don't already, would have looked towards the US to further entrench itself and its commitments/actions in the region to counter a perceived or realized aggressive China. Already we see regional nations looking towards the US for support, Japan too as it comes out of its post-war shell. China has nothing to gain from a confrontation and everything to lose, no matter what folks on this forum want to posit.

Already China's behavior have spurned the TPP into existence, to counter their regional dominance economically, further military integration and cooperation with India, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, the US and other regional nations seeks to maintain a peaceful, but deterring balance too. Politically China's cards are mainly economic, which is a big incentive to not shut out China completely from any of the SCS nations, but beyond this it has little to offer at a time when others are approaching one another with greater urgency.

They played their cards right.

 

[Aepsilons]

Yes, that's what I meant. Should China has opted for a confrontation, it would have had political, economic and militaristic consequences as the regional nations, not that they don't already, would have looked towards the US to further entrench itself and its commitments/actions in the region to counter a perceived or realized aggressive China. Already we see regional nations looking towards the US for support, Japan too as it comes out of its post-war shell. China has nothing to gain from a confrontation and everything to lose, no matter what folks on this forum want to posit.