|
|
|
Planning for a war with China appears to be quite advanced at the Pentagon. A war in which the US moves militarily to defeat an "unstable" China on an adventurist course that includes "occupying more of the Philippines' sea territory" and "intervening in a riot-wracked Indonesia" is one of the scenarios anticipated in a restricted US Department of Defense study entitled Asia 2025. The study, conducted at the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, in the summer of 1999, provided one of the key inputs to the recently released Pentagon global strategy document, Joint Vision 2020, which foresees more and more of US military concern shifting to Asia from Europe owing to the rise of China, which it identifies as a "peer competitor." Participants in the Asia 2025 study included a high-level team of defense specialists from the US Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, as well as well-known defense analysts Graham Fuller of Rand Corporation, the US Air Force think tank, Aaron Friedberg of Princeton University, and Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. In each of the five possible scenarios or contingencies identified by the study, one of the key "recurring geopolitical developments" is the emergence of China as "a force for instability and constant competitor." Another is the rise of India as a regional power that could be a "potential partner of choice for the United States." India's potential role as partner might lead the US to "rethink its strict anti-proliferation policy, as some states that acquire nuclear weapons may actually contribute to American national security goals." As a result of these developments, the US Defense Department faces several key "recurring challenges." One is the necessity of shifting the focus of strategic planning and military resources from Europe to Asia. Another is embarking on a "substantial" strengthening of the US military presence in the region which, in contrast to Europe, is said to be marked by a lack of bases, poor infrastructure, inadequate force structure, and long distances. Two Chinese "Operas" Five possible scenarios are detailed in the report. In the "Unstable China" scenario, foreign adventurism is an attempt to whip up nationalist sentiments to regain government legitimacy that is being frittered away by a slow-motion economic crash that triggers growing urban and rural unrest. With the defeat of Chinese incursions in Southeast Asia by US naval intervention, Chinese politics enters a tailspin that is accelerated by a "de facto" coup by the military in 2010 that launches China onto a new round of expanionism, this time directed at seizing "energy assets" in Siberia, the Russian Far East, and Kazakhstan, which ends with Russia and China on the brink of nuclear war. The Pentagon is also preparing for a "Strong China" scenario. Here, China consolidates its dominance in continental Asia, achieving hegemony in Southeast Asia, establishing virtual protectorates in Central Asia, and carrying out extensive economic penetration of the Russian Far East and Siberia. Continental consolidation is accompanied by a maritime strategy aimed at breaking the US-Japan maritime dominance. This involves "nibbling away" at the South China Sea and island Southeast Asia, buying off a weak India, neutralizing a unified Korea, isolating Japan, and assuming de facto control of Taiwan. Through a versatile and sophisticated combination of military threats, selective military action, and opportunistic diplomacy, China is able to achieve the "permanent strategic subservience" of Japan and an end to the US military alliances and presence in Asia. The end result is an Asia that China dominates but does not conquer or occupy, much along the lines of the pre-colonial system of imperial suzerainty over tributary states, which the report characterizes as China's "only positive historic model." One senses that, in the minds of the Pentagon's analysts, this might be the most likely scenario that could transpire, and the most difficult one for Washington since it would involve pitting the US against a foe that makes very calculated moves that do not box it in a position that exposes it to a hardline military reaction, where Washington has the advantage. The Rise of India This is the reason why what happens in South Asia is critical to the Pentagon's analysts, since India can either be a counterweight to or an ally of China. In the "New South Asian Order," the chronic state of economic and political crisis in Pakistan deepens into anarchy while political and economic reform strengthens India. Islamic forces infiltrate Kashmir, and in a chain reaction of events, India uses conventional strikes against Pakistan's nuclear missiles, provoking a retaliatory nuclear strike by Pakistan. The US moves in, taking sides by launching conventional strikes against the remaining Pakistani nuclear positions, and warning China to stay out of the conflict. In a parallel process, the Taliban fail to establish their hegemony in Afghanistan, resulting in its descent into chaos, provoking Iran, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to move in to annex territory controlled by their own ethnic groups. Iran emerges as a key player, and this is partly due to the fact that its "moderation and democratization" have led to an improvement in its relations with the United States. Pakistan disintegrates after the war with India, and the Indian Army "moves in to restore order and establish control." An Indian Confederation emerges that becomes a regional hegemon that solidifies its ties with Iran and the other Gulf states. China is a big loser from this event. However, it turns its attention to penetrating the Russian Far East, the Indochina peninsula, and other rimlands. A new regional alliance emerges, its key actors being the US, India, and Iran. "The Asian energy security environment changes fundamentally," notes the report. "The United States finds unexpected partners, to wit, in India and Iran. Together India and Iran take on enhanced SLOC (sea lanes of communications) protection responsibilities, potentially reducing US responsibilities in the Gulf and Indian Ocean." There are two other scenarios played out in the report, one entitled "Asia Realigns", the other "The New Sino-Indian Condominium." The key lessons underlined in these contingencies are the emergence of China as the greatest regional threat to US interests, the need to address the lack of forward operating bases in Southeast Asia and Southeast Asia if Washington is to remain a key player in these regions, the emerging strategic potential of India, and the need to prevent at all costs a China-India alliance. Some Implications Reading this document raises the issue of how the Defense Department views the Clinton administration's approach toward China, which stresses "engaging" that country to allow US financial and industrial firms to reap opportunities from exploitation of the China market. The administration, backed by corporate power and the financial lobby, is also a big force supporting China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), hoping that the application of WTO rules will push China to end its protectionist trade and investment structure and weaken the currently strong state regulation of the operations of transnational corporations. One suspects from Asia 2025 that people at the Pentagon are not happy with the current policy, which might be viewed as a way that the country they identify as the US's strategic rival could strengthen itself both economically and strategically, using US investment and trade. This line of thinking would most likely see China as the net gainer in a stronger economic relationship with the United States. If this is the likely outcome, then the policy is mistaken. One does not strengthen a strategic rival; one cuts it off as the pass. In short, it is likely that that the conflict between "engagement" and "containment" as the strategic approach towards China will come to a head, perhaps in the near future. What are we to make of all this? The lesson is clear: with the consistent identification of China as the US' rival in all scenarios, the study speaks volumes about the Pentagon's grim determination to counter any significant threat to US strategic hegemony in Asia. Focus on the Global South (FOCUS), c/o CUSRI, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330 THAILAND. Tel: 662 218 7363/7364/7365/7383 Fax: 662 255 9976 E-mail: N.Bullard@focusweb.org Web Page www.focusweb.org . .
|
