Singapore kiasu (怕输) in a rising China


The republic is concerned about China’s rising economy resulting in an expanding maritime force at a time when the US military might is weakening.

ImageFOR a few days last week, Singapore’s prime minister left behind his troubles at home to face a tricky foreign policy matter that his father once excelled in.

Lee Hsien Loong paid his second visit to the United States in six years that was evidently aimed at deepening Singapore’s strategic ties with Washington at a time of rising tensions in Asia.

In a meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House, Hsien Loong appealed to the economically-weakened United States to stay committed in Asia despite plans for big defence cuts.

Of late, Asia has been plagued by territorial claims and counter-claims involving China and at least a dozen countries, sometimes resulting in frictions and warning shots being fired.

While Hsien Loong was in America, former Singapore prime minister Goh Chok Tong arrived in China for a seven-day visit, where he met the new Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

The Singaporean leader’s US visit took place as many foreign leaders were sending congratulations to Xi on his assumption of office.

It comes in the wake of a decision by the American president and Congress to cut the Pentagon’s budget by US$487bil (RM1.498 trillion) over the next decade. The cut took effect on March 1.

Singapore has become more concerned about China’s rising economy resulting in an expanding maritime force at a time when the US military might is weakening.

His attempt to maintain a balance in the republic’s ties with China and United States had long been the forte of founding leader Lee Kuan Yew. It had kept Singapore in good stead with both.

Despite this, Singapore has been placing greater trust on the protection of the United States.

Although Singaporeans are predominantly Chinese and have built up strong economic and other ties with Beijing, the city has strong military and strategy relations with Washington.

Singapore is more worried about China’s soft encroaching use of its power in the area than any prospect of it starting a war in Asia.

For example, Beijing has begun using a new passport which shows a map showing several disputed territories as part of the nation of China.

This has instilled regional worries, leading several countries involved to strengthen ties with the United States.

In a new book released in February, Kuan Yew – now a passive 89-year-old Member of Parliament – voices worries about China’s rise in power.

“Many small and medium countries in Asia are concerned (and are) uneasy that China may want to resume the imperial status it had in earlier centuries,” Kuan Yew says.“They have misgivings such as being treated as vassal states.”

“China tells us that countries big or small are equal, that it is not a hegemon,” Kuan Yew writes.

“But when we do something they do not like, they say you have made 1.3 billion people unhappy. So please know your place.”

It prompted Singapore to move closer militarily to the United States years ago by offering passing facilities for its air force and navy, including aircraft carriers.

Hsien Loong’s visit probably has another purpose. Singapore is reportedly on the verge of making a decision to buy America’s F-35 fighter jets to upgrade its air force.

Singapore’s defence minister Ng Eng Hen said last week that the air force “has identified the F-35 as a suitable aircraft to further modernise our fighter fleet”.

“Our F-5s are nearing the end of their operational life and our F-16s are at their mid-way mark,” he said in parliament. “We are now in the final stages of evaluating the F-35.”

The order could be for 12 F-35Bs (estimated cost: US$2.8bil (RM8.6bil)), which can take off and land vertically, a useful feature given Singapore’s limited air space.

However, it is not known if there are further plans to buy more in future. Reuters quoted industry and US sources as saying Singapore may buy up to 75 F-35Bs eventually.

Singapore was the world’s fifth-largest importer of conventional weapons in 2008-12, at 4% of the global total, the Stockholm Inter­national Peace Research Institute says. It trailed behind India, China, Pakistan and South Korea.

The visiting Hsien Loong was assured by US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel that the United States remained “committed to­­wards the Asia-Pacific region”.

Of growing US focus is China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, which is projecting the country’s new maritime power.

Although Hsien Loong became prime minister eight years ago, this is his first real test of his diplomatic skill in a major foreign policy without Cabinet guidance from his father.

This visit – and the consequences – will determine if he could succeed in steering Singapore through the intensifying rivalry of China and the United States.

In his after-dinner speech in Washington, Hsien Loong said Singapore got along well with both.

One reason he implied was China needed to look at his city-state to try to understand how it could balance its own economic and social goals while growing.

The Chinese needs Singapore as a political model for them to learn from, without political reforms, Hsien Loong told the Americans.

What of China’s intention? Kuan Yew says he is certain China’s leaders want to displace United States as the leading power in the Asia-Pacific.But in speeches published, he says he is less worried about the current generation of leaders than he does about the next.

  Insight: DOWN SOUTH By SEAH CHIANG NEE

Related posts:
Singapore warns US on anti-China rhetoric!
South-East Asia in the frontline of US containing China
Bridging the rich-poor gap in Singapore
Foreign worker flow choked in Singapore
Singapore millionaires who don’t feel rich 
Singapore job growth high, unemployment low

Chinese Navy defends South China Sea


Play Video

A unit of the Chinese Navy has conducted a routine drill in the South China Sea to improve its combat capabilities.

An official with the fleet said missile-equipped vessels tested their capabilities, including emergency docking and undocking, over-the-horizon missile attack, joint air defense, and combined assault against enemy warships. On Tuesday, the fleet held an oath-taking ceremony at Zengmu Reef (James Shoal), the Southernmost part of China’s territory. They vowed to safeguard China’s sovereignty.

The Chinese navy has a right to patrol the South China Sea, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said at a daily press briefing on Thursday.

Hong Lei’s remark came after a four-ship Chinese Navy fleet that has conducted patrol and training missions on the South China Sea over the past few days reached Zing Reef, the southernmost part of China’s territory, on Tuesday.

The country’s stance on the South China Sea is consistent and clear, Hong said, noting that China has played a vital role in keeping the region peaceful and stable.

Zengmu Reef (James Shoal)

South China Sea_James Shoal
James Shoal underlined in red.
.

“The visit to James Shoal, known as Zengmu Reef to China, was unusual for the firepower brought to bear on a territory also claimed by Malaysia and Taiwan (a province of China).”

Depending on who you are speaking to at any given particular moment, these “islands” called:
Zengmu Ansha [Chinese], James Shoal [English], Beting Serupai [Malaysian]“.
.
“James Shoal is a small bank in the South China Sea, with a depth of 22 metres (72 ft) is claimed by Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, and the Republic of China (Taiwan).”
.
Claimed by three parties, China, Taiwan and Malaysia. These “islands” about fifty miles from the coast of what used to be called Sarawak, the James Shoal at the southern most point of the Nine Dash Line.

China will not be passive in sea disputes

Chinese naval fleets recently conducted patrols on the South China Sea, reaching as far as Zengmu Reef, the southernmost part of Chinese territory. In an oath-taking ceremony on board Tuesday, the troops and officials vowed to safeguard China’s sovereignty.

Earlier this month, a Chinese vessel fired two warning signal shells into the sky to prevent illegal fishing operations by Vietnamese fishermen. Both showed China’s firm determination to insist upon its stance amid the South China Sea disputes.

Washington expressed its concerns in both cases, reinforcing its attitude that the US can interfere in the South China Sea issue any time.

Despite the fact that John Kerry, the new US secretary of state, has stepped into office and some side effects brought by his predecessor’s aggressive approach are in decline, the US stance on the South China Sea will not fundamentally change. Behind China’s frictions with the Philippines and Vietnam is actually the rivalry between Beijing and Washington over the South China Sea.

After Hillary Clinton’s four-year intervention into the South China Sea issue with her “smart power” diplomacy, and Manila and Hanoi’s frictions with Beijing, all kinds of risks within the South China Sea issue have become evident. All parties involved now have a clearer understanding of each other’s national strength and determination.

China, through powerful countermeasures against Manila and Hanoi’s provocations, has changed its passive status. Beijing had been worried that frictions on the South China Sea would cause deterioration in its surrounding environment and thus undermine its period of strategic opportunities. Now most of its concerns have been dispelled.

Crises like the Huangyan Island standoff have made one thing explicit – those were, after all, conflicts between countries whose strength were unequally matched. Manila and Hanoi would not have any chance of victory if the South China Sea issue escalated into a confrontation of national strength.

China has no plan to wage a war and recover all the islands illegally occupied by the Philippines and Vietnam. However, China has become more resolute in terms of strikes against the two’s provocations.

China’s growing leverage over the South China Sea issue stems from stable domestic development. Meanwhile, Manila and Hanoi are witnessing a reduced ability to provoke Beijing over those disputes. Washington is also seeing an increasing number of restraints in its South China Sea policy. The Philippines and Vietnam would face more troubles if they choose to seek fierce confrontation with China.

China should focus on peaceful development. But meanwhile, it is not afraid of adopting resolute measures to protect core national interests. China should avoid external misjudgments toward it, which is pivotal to the nation’s long-term strategic environment.

Sources: CCTV, Peace and Freedom, Global Times

China sends fighters to counter Japan’s war planes


China’s Ministry of National Defense has denounced Japanese military aircraft disrupting the routine patrols of Chinese administrative aircraft.

At a press conference, an official with the ministry confirmed that China sent two J-10 fighters to the East China Sea, after a Y-8 aircraft was closely followed by two Japanese F-15 fighters. The Y-8 aircraft was patrolling the southwest airspace of the East China Sea oil platform on Thursday.

According to the official, the two J-10 fighters were sent to monitor the Japanese fighter jets tailing the Y-8 as well as another Japanese reconnaissance plane spotted in the same airspace. The official said Japanese military aircraft have been increasingly active in closely scouting Chinese aircraft.

The official said the Chinese military will be on high alert and China will resolutely protect the security of its air defense force and uphold its legitimate rights. The official also called for the Japanese side to respect relevant international laws and to prevent security disputes by taking effective measures.

Chinese Foreign Ministry:
 
China reaffirms routine military flights over East China Sea
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei made the comments at a press briefing on Friday, responding to media reports that Japan deployed fighter jets to head off a number of Chinese military planes over the East China Sea on Thursday. Full story >>

China urges Japan to pursue peaceful development
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei has urged Japan to draw lessons from history and pursue a path of peaceful development. Hong Lei made the remarks at a regular press conference on Thursday, expressing China’s stance towards Japan’s plan to raise its defense budget in 2013. Full story >>

Japan responsible for plight with China
A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry on Friday urged the Japanese government to “face reality” in Sino-Japanese relations. Spokesman Hong Lei said at a daily press briefing that Japan single-handedly pushed Sino-Japanese relations into a difficult situation. Full story >>

Ministry of National Defense:
 
Japanese military aircraft disrupting the routine patrols of Chinese administrative aircraft

At a press conference, an official with the ministry confirmed that China sent two J-10 fighters to the East China Sea after a Y-8 aircraft was closely followed by two Japanese F-15 fighters as it patrolled the southwest airspace of the East China Sea oil platform on Thursday. Full story >>

Related stories

 Japan tracer bullets will bring war closer

According to Japanese media, the Japanese government is considering permitting Japanese self-defense forces’ fighter jets to fire tracer bullets as warning shots against Chinese surveillance planes which have “infringed” upon Japan’s “territorial airspace” over the Diaoyu Islands.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said yesterday that China has consistently opposed Japan’s infringement upon China’s sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. China “remains vigilant against attempts to escalate the tensions.”

The Chinese spokesman’s statement is not enough to express the Chinese people’s strong determination to fight back against Japan’s unscrupulous action.

We believe that if Japan starts using tracer bullets, it will definitely trigger a military confrontation between China and Japan. Chinese people will certainly ask the government to send naval and air forces to retaliate.

Tracer bullets were used by Japan to warn Soviet Union surveillance aircraft above the Okinawa Prefecture in 1987. However, the relationship between the Soviet Union and Japan was one of war and invasion. The Diaoyu Islands are a typical disputed area.

We believe that China is carefully assessing plans to deploy combat aircraft to the Diaoyu Islands due to the imbalance between China’s surveillance aircraft and Japan’s fighter jets. If Japan uses tracer bullets, Chinese fighter jets are bound to be sent to the Diaoyu Islands.

China’s replacing surveillance aircraft with fighter jets does not mean they will conduct military operations there. These are upgrades of China’s ability to defend its sovereignty in the face of Japan’s provocations. All of East Asia would face tension in that scenario, but we have no choice. We do not wish to begin a war with Japan. However, if Japan insists on provocations, we will follow it through to the end.

If the Chinese government does not earnestly prepare for it, it will certainly suffer huge political losses. The public wouldn’t understand that and they would not accept any interpretations by the government.

China may fall into military conflict with Japan eventually. We hope we can continue our peaceful development, but our risk management strategies are more complex due to various pressures.

There is little room for concessions. Therefore, let us abandon all hesitation and seriously prepare for mutual warnings and confrontation with Japan over the Diaoyu Islands. If the situation goes awry, we must make Japan pay more of a price than China.

The Diaoyu Islands dispute will test the Chinese government’s leadership for a long time. But we should have confidence: our rival is a bully which can even bear US military occupation. As long as we keep tough, we will not lose this test of wills. - Global Times

World Insight 01/13/2013 China-Japan relations CCTV News – CNTV English.

Related posts:
Japan’s war planes F-15 fighter jets against a Chinese suvenance plane over Diaoyu Islands 
Dispute with China takes toll on Japan

Global arms market hits post-Cold War high point


Experts say increase due to rising security risks around the world

Despite the gloomy world economy, Chinese observers have cast their sights to a prosperous global arms market, which has hit the post-Cold War peak in 2012 according to a Russian report issued earlier this month.

The seemingly abnormal situation, driven by complex factors including turmoil in the Middle East and big appetites of international arms dealers, is likely to cast shadow over the already troublesome situation in East Asia, they said.

According to the report Russia’s Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade issued in early August, global military equipment exports are to hit $69.84 billion this year, the highest level since the end of the Cold War.

It is a 3.84 percent increase on the $67.26 billion in 2011, which was already nearly 20 percent higher than the $56.22 billion in 2010.

Increases in 2010 and 2011 were a result of weapon deals that had been delayed by the financial crisis that started in 2008, said the report.

Li Qinggong, deputy secretary of the China Council for National Security Policy Studies, said the recent surge is due to rising security risks around the world, especially turmoil in West Asia and North Africa, and escalating terrorism threats.

“Many countries, not only the ones in West Asia and North Africa, now feel more threatened. The traditional risks are still there, and new ones keeping emerging,” Li said.

“Major weapon exporting nations are also trying to support the industry to stimulate the dim economy,” he said.

Li said the trade had also benefited from countries worldwide updating their weapons.

Su Hao, an expert on political and security affairs with China Foreign Affairs University, noted escalating tensions in East Asia.

“Rising uncertainties in the region is also a contributing factor,” he said.

Tensions on the rise

Tensions in the South China Sea have increased in recent months following a confrontation between China and the Philippines near China’s Huangyan Island in April. The US and Japan have announced plans to help further equip the Philippine armed forces.

The Russian report said exports will hit $77.5 billion in 2015, after a slight drop in 2013 and 2014. The peak in 2015 is due to “huge contracts” signed between the United States and Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Near East, it said.

“Turmoil in the Middle East is likely to maintain and even escalate in the near future, so it is not hard to understand Saudi Arabia’s need to better equip itself,” Su said.

“In another view Western countries also need a strong Saudi Arabia and other regional powers to balance their traditional enemies such as Iran.”

According to the report, Russia is the world’s second-largest weapon supplier in 2012, with an export volume of $13.29 billion – 19 percent of the world market.

Russia had a good sales result, although it lost markets in Iran and Libya due to arms sanctions on the two nations and partly lost the Syrian market. It has also been crowded out of the market in Saudi Arabia by the US.

The Russian report showed France ranked third, with $5.61 billion in exports, a figure expected to rise to $19 billion by 2015.

France is followed by Germany, which has $4.57 billion in exports, the United Kingdom with $3.24 billion and Iran with $2.8 billion. Italy, China, Spain and Sweden rank successively after Iran.

Hu Siyuan, an expert with PLA Defense University, said China’s weapon exports are second-class compared with the world’s leading exporters, “especially in the fields of material and sensing technique”.

Li Qinggong said China sells combat fighters to Pakistan and training jets to other countries.

Japan relaxed its self-imposed decades-old ban on military equipment exports in December 2011, and the Philippines became its first consumer.

Japan is not a big player in the world arms market, but it is now trying to have a finger in the pie to help boost the domestic economy, Li said.

“But Japan may not manage to achieve that goal, as Washington will not allow it to sell weapons based on technology mainly learned from the US,” he added.

US leads market

The US leads the global arms market, with its export volume hitting $25.52 billion, or 36.53 percent of the global figure. Its status will further be consolidated in 2013, accounting for 40 percent of the world share.

Chen Fei, a scholar majoring in international issues at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law based in Central China’s Hubei province, said on a TV program on Sunday the Obama administration’s fanning of tensions in East Asia is partially driven by US arms dealers.

“Congressmen, political figures and arms dealers in the country have formed a close mutual interest community,” he said.

Neither presidential candidate has talked about domestic gun control this year, as it has been deemed a “politically toxic” topic.

Chen said that under such a political environment, the Obama administration has to create a more favorable outside environment for arms dealers through moves including its high-profile strategic pivot to East Asia.

In late July, on the last day of a UN conference involving the 193 member nations aimed at forging a world regulation on weapon deals, Washington blocked efforts by insisting that all member nations should have veto rights on the document.

By Li Xiaokun, Zhou Wa  (China Daily)

US military still strongest in the world


Despite the impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the financial crisis, the U.S. military is still the most powerful military in the world, a report released Tuesday in Beijing said.

The report “U.S. Military Assessment Report 2011″, published by the China Strategic Culture Promotion Association, contains six chapters, 14 sections and three appendixes, including the U.S. strategic points, the U.S. military strength and deployment of troops, the defense budget and procurement of weapons and equipment, the U.S. structural and organizational reform, the new development of the U.S. combat theory and the U.S. joint military exercises, and summarizes the development situation of the U.S. military strength between 2010 and 2011.

The report pointed out that the internal and external environment faced by the United States has undergone major changes over the past two years. At home, the impact caused by the financial crisis on real economy has not been fundamentally alleviated; the national economy continues to decline; the budget deficit hits record highs and the unemployment keeps high. Outside the country, the United States is faced with the challenge to its leadership position brought by the multi-polarization of international forces and the rise of emerging powers.

On the occasion of withdrawing from Iraq and ending the war in Afghanistan, the United States shifted its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region. The Obama administration has formulated new national security strategy, defense strategy and military strategy and accelerated the global deployment of troops. It is making efforts to strengthen army building in terms of institutional establishment, weapons and equipment, combat theory and military training and enhance the ability of war and non-war military actions.

The report said that although the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis began in 2008 had an important impact on the comprehensive strength of the United States, the impact on its military capabilities has not yet been seen. The U.S. troops are still the most powerful in the world and it still has the ability to simultaneously start two large-scale regional wars and some small-scale emergent battles. It can provide strong support for the United States to return to the Asia-Pacific region and shift the strategic focus eastward.

The report also said that on one hand, China should remain vigilant on the United States’ returning to Asia-Pacific region, intervening in the territorial disputes on South China Sea and transfer of its strategic focus eastward; on the other hand, China should also see the common interests in the deep economic integration of the two countries and in maintaining the peace, stability, development, cooperation and prosperity of the world.

In line with the spirit of mutual respect and mutual trust, equality and mutual benefit, both sides should strengthen the cooperation and exchange especially that of the two militaries and jointly cope with the challenges and threats of the 21th century.

The China Strategic Culture Promotion Association is a national non-profit civil society group composed of experts, scholars and social activists who are engaged in studies of international issues, Taiwan issue and cultural issues. The association was founded in Beijing on Jan. 5 2011, aiming at promoting security and stability of the Asia-Pacific region and encouraging the peaceful development on both sides of the Taiwan Strait through the studies, dissemination and exchange of Chinese strategic culture.

Read the Chinese version: 中国智库:美国军队仍然是世界上最强大的军队,author: Yang Tiehu

Newscribe : get free news in real time

China’s military rise


AT A meeting of South-East Asian nations in 2010, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi, facing a barrage of complaints about his country’s behaviour in the region, blurted out the sort of thing polite leaders usually prefer to leave unsaid. “China is a big country,” he pointed out, “and other countries are small countries and that is just a fact.” Indeed it is, and China is big not merely in terms of territory and population, but also military might. Its Communist Party is presiding over the world’s largest military build-up. And that is just a fact, too—one which the rest of the world is having to come to terms with.

That China is rapidly modernising its armed forces is not in doubt, though there is disagreement about what the true spending figure is. China’s defence budget has almost certainly experienced double digit growth for two decades. According to SIPRI, a research institute, annual defence spending rose from over $30 billion in 2000 to almost $120 billion in 2010. SIPRI usually adds about 50% to the official figure that China gives for its defence spending, because even basic military items such as research and development are kept off budget. Including those items would imply total military spending in 2012, based on the latest announcement from Beijing, will be around $160 billion. America still spends four-and-a-half times as much on defence, but on present trends China’s defence spending could overtake America’s after 2035 (see chart).

All that money is changing what the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can do. Twenty years ago, China’s military might lay primarily in the enormous numbers of people under arms; their main task was to fight an enemy face-to-face or occupy territory. The PLA is still the largest army in the world, with an active force of 2.3m. But China’s real military strength increasingly lies elsewhere. The Pentagon’s planners think China is intent on acquiring what is called in the jargon A2/AD, or “anti-access/area denial” capabilities. The idea is to use pinpoint ground attack and anti-ship missiles, a growing fleet of modern submarines and cyber and anti-satellite weapons to destroy or disable another nation’s military assets from afar.

In the western Pacific, that would mean targeting or putting in jeopardy America’s aircraft-carrier groups and its air-force bases in Okinawa, South Korea and even Guam. The aim would be to render American power projection in Asia riskier and more costly, so that America’s allies would no longer be able to rely on it to deter aggression or to combat subtler forms of coercion. It would also enable China to carry out its repeated threat to take over Taiwan if the island were ever to declare formal independence.

China’s military build-up is ringing alarm bells in Asia and has already caused a pivot in America’s defence policy. The new “strategic guidance” issued in January by Barack Obama and his defence secretary, Leon Panetta, confirmed what everyone in Washington already knew: that a switch in priorities towards Asia was overdue and under way. The document says that “While the US military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific region.” America is planning roughly $500 billion of cuts in planned defence spending over the next ten years. But, says the document, “to credibly deter potential adversaries and to prevent them from achieving their objectives, the United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged.”

It is pretty obvious what that means. Distracted by campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, America has neglected the most economically dynamic region of the world. In particular, it has responded inadequately to China’s growing military power and political assertiveness. According to senior American diplomats, China has the ambition—and increasingly the power—to become a regional hegemon; it is engaged in a determined effort to lock America out of a region that has been declared a vital security interest by every administration since Teddy Roosevelt’s; and it is pulling countries in South-East Asia into its orbit of influence “by default”. America has to respond. As an early sign of that response, Mr Obama announced in November 2011 that 2,500 US Marines would soon be stationed in Australia. Talks about an increased American military presence in the Philippines began in February this year.

The uncertainty principle

China worries the rest of the world not only because of the scale of its military build-up, but also because of the lack of information about how it might use its new forces and even who is really in charge of them. The American strategic-guidance document spells out the concern. “The growth of China’s military power”, it says, “must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region.”

Officially, China is committed to what it called, in the words of an old slogan, a “peaceful rise”. Its foreign-policy experts stress their commitment to a rules-based multipolar world. They shake their heads in disbelief at suggestions that China sees itself as a “near peer” military competitor with America.

In the South and East China Seas, though, things look different. In the past 18 months, there have been clashes between Chinese vessels and ships from Japan, Vietnam, South Korea and the Philippines over territorial rights in the resource-rich waters. A pugnacious editorial in the state-run Global Times last October gave warning: “If these countries don’t want to change their ways with China, they will need to prepare for the sounds of cannons. We need to be ready for that, as it may be the only way for the disputes in the sea to be resolved.” This was not a government pronouncement, but it seems the censors permit plenty of press freedom when it comes to blowing off nationalistic steam.

Smooth-talking foreign-ministry officials may cringe with embarrassment at Global Times—China’s equivalent of Fox News—but its views are not so far removed from the gung-ho leadership of the rapidly expanding navy. Moreover, in a statement of doctrine published in 2005, the PLA’s Science of Military Strategy did not mince its words. Although “active defence is the essential feature of China’s military strategy,” it said, if “an enemy offends our national interests it means that the enemy has already fired the first shot,” in which case the PLA’s mission is “to do all we can to dominate the enemy by striking first”.

Making things more alarming is a lack of transparency over who really controls the guns and ships. China is unique among great powers in that the PLA is not formally part of the state. It is responsible to the Communist Party, and is run by the party’s Central Military Commission, not the ministry of defence. Although party and government are obviously very close in China, the party is even more opaque, which complicates outsiders’ understanding of where the PLA’s loyalties and priorities lie. A better military-to-military relationship between America and China would cast some light into this dark corner. But the PLA often suspends “mil-mil” relations as a “punishment” whenever tension rises with America over Taiwan. The PLA is also paranoid about what America might gain if the relationship between the two countries’ armed forces went deeper.

The upshot of these various uncertainties is that even if outsiders believe that China’s intentions are largely benign—and it is clear that some of them do not—they can hardly make plans based on that assumption alone. As the influential American think-tank, the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) points out, the intentions of an authoritarian regime can change very quickly. The nature and size of the capabilities that China has built up also count.

History boys

The build-up has gone in fits and starts. It began in the early 1950s when the Soviet Union was China’s most important ally and arms supplier, but abruptly ceased when Mao Zedong launched his decade-long Cultural Revolution in the mid-1960s. The two countries came close to war over their disputed border and China carried out its first nuclear test. The second phase of modernisation began in the 1980s, under Deng Xiaoping. Deng was seeking to reform the whole country and the army was no exception. But he told the PLA that his priority was the economy; the generals must be patient and live within a budget of less than 1.5% of GDP.

A third phase began in the early 1990s. Shaken by the destructive impact of the West’s high-tech weaponry on the Iraqi army, the PLA realised that its huge ground forces were militarily obsolete. PLA scholars at the Academy of Military Science in Beijing began learning all they could from American think-tanks about the so-called “revolution in military affairs” (RMA), a change in strategy and weaponry made possible by exponentially greater computer-processing power. In a meeting with The Economist at the Academy, General Chen Zhou, the main author of the four most recent defence white papers, said: “We studied RMA exhaustively. Our great hero was Andy Marshall in the Pentagon [the powerful head of the Office of Net Assessment who was known as the Pentagon’s futurist-in-chief]. We translated every word he wrote.”

China’s soldiers come in from the cold

In 1993 the general-secretary of the Communist Party, Jiang Zemin, put RMA at the heart of China’s military strategy. Now, the PLA had to turn itself into a force capable of winning what the strategy called “local wars under high-tech conditions”. Campaigns would be short, decisive and limited in geographic scope and political goals. The big investments would henceforth go to the air force, the navy and the Second Artillery Force, which operates China’s nuclear and conventionally armed missiles.

Further shifts came in 2002 and 2004. High-tech weapons on their own were not enough; what mattered was the ability to knit everything together on the battlefield through what the Chinese called “informatisation” and what is known in the West as “unified C4ISR”. (The four Cs are command, control, communications, and computers; ISR stands for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; the Pentagon loves its abbreviations).

Just another corner of the network

General Chen describes the period up to 2010 as “laying the foundations of modernised forces”. The next decade should see the roll-out of what is called mechanisation (the deployment of advanced military platforms) and informatisation (bringing them together as a network). The two processes should be completed in terms of equipment, integration and training by 2020. But General Chen reckons China will not achieve full informatisation until well after that. “A major difficulty”, he says, “is that we are still only partially mechanised. We do not always know how to make our investments when technology is both overlapping and leapfrogging.” Whereas the West was able to accomplish its military transformation by taking the two processes in sequence, China is trying to do both together. Still, that has not slowed down big investments which are designed to defeat even technologically advanced foes by making “the best use of our strong points to attack the enemy’s weak points”. In 2010 the CSBA identified the essential military components that China, on current trends, will be able to deploy within ten years. Among them: satellites and reconnaissance drones; thousands of surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles; more than 60 stealthy conventional submarines and at least six nuclear attack submarines; stealthy manned and unmanned combat aircraft; and space and cyber warfare capabilities. In addition, the navy has to decide whether to make the (extremely expensive) transition to a force dominated by aircraft-carriers, like America. Aircraft-carriers would be an unmistakable declaration of an ambition eventually to project power far from home. Deploying them would also match the expected actions of Japan and India in the near future. China may well have three small carriers within five to ten years, though military analysts think it would take much longer for the Chinese to learn how to use them well.

A new gunboat diplomacy

This promises to be a formidable array of assets. They are, for the most part, “asymmetric”, that is, designed not to match American military power in the western Pacific directly but rather to exploit its vulnerabilities. So, how might they be used?

Taiwan is the main spur for China’s military modernisation. In 1996 America reacted to Chinese ballistic-missile tests carried out near Taiwanese ports by sending two aircraft-carrier groups into the Taiwan Strait. Since 2002 China’s strategy has been largely built around the possibility of a cross-Strait armed conflict in which China’s forces would not only have to overcome opposition from Taiwan but also to deter, delay or defeat an American attempt to intervene. According to recent reports by CSBA and RAND, another American think-tank, China is well on its way to having the means, by 2020, to deter American aircraft-carriers and aircraft from operating within what is known as the “first island chain”—a perimeter running from the Aleutians in the north to Taiwan, the Philippines and Borneo (see map).

In 2005 China passed the Taiwan Anti-Secession Law, which commits it to a military response should Taiwan ever declare independence or even if the government in Beijing thinks all possibility of peaceful unification has been lost. Jia Xiudong of the China Institute of International Studies (the foreign ministry’s main think-tank) says: “The first priority is Taiwan. The mainland is patient, but independence is not the future for Taiwan. China’s military forces should be ready to repel any force of intervention. The US likes to maintain what it calls ‘strategic ambiguity’ over what it would do in the event of a conflict arising from secession. We don’t have any ambiguity. We will use whatever means we have to prevent it happening.”

If Taiwan policy has been the immediate focus of China’s military planning, the sheer breadth of capabilities the country is acquiring gives it other options—and temptations. In 2004 Hu Jintao, China’s president, said the PLA should be able to undertake “new historic missions”. Some of these involve UN peacekeeping. In recent years China has been the biggest contributor of peacekeeping troops among the permanent five members of the Security Council. But the responsibility for most of these new missions has fallen on the navy. In addition to its primary job of denying China’s enemies access to sea lanes, it is increasingly being asked to project power in the neighbourhood and farther afield.

The navy appears to see itself as the guardian of China’s ever-expanding economic interests. These range from supporting the country’s sovereignty claims (for example, its insistence on seeing most of the South China Sea as an exclusive economic zone) to protecting the huge weight of Chinese shipping, preserving the country’s access to energy and raw materials supplies, and safeguarding the soaring numbers of Chinese citizens who work abroad (about 5m today, but expected to rise to 100m by 2020). The navy’s growing fleet of powerful destroyers, stealthy frigates and guided-missile-carrying catamarans enables it to carry out extended “green water” operations (ie, regional, not just coastal tasks). It is also developing longer-range “blue water” capabilities. In early 2009 the navy began anti-piracy patrols off the Gulf of Aden with three ships. Last year, one of those vessels was sent to the Mediterranean to assist in evacuating 35,000 Chinese workers from Libya—an impressive logistical exercise carried out with the Chinese air force.

Just practising

Power grows out of the barrel of a gun

It is hardly surprising that China’s neighbours and the West in general should worry about these developments. The range of forces marshalled against Taiwan plus China’s “A2/AD” potential to push the forces of other countries over the horizon have already eroded the confidence of America’s Asian allies that the guarantor of their security will always be there for them. Mr Obama’s rebalancing towards Asia may go some way towards easing those doubts. America’s allies are also going to have to do more for themselves, including developing their own A2/AD capabilities. But the longer-term trends in defence spending are in China’s favour. China can focus entirely on Asia, whereas America will continue to have global responsibilities. Asian concerns about the dragon will not disappear.

That said, the threat from China should not be exaggerated. There are three limiting factors. First, unlike the former Soviet Union, China has a vital national interest in the stability of the global economic system. Its military leaders constantly stress that the development of what is still only a middle-income country with a lot of very poor people takes precedence over military ambition. The increase in military spending reflects the growth of the economy, rather than an expanding share of national income. For many years China has spent the same proportion of GDP on defence (a bit over 2%, whereas America spends about 4.7%). The real test of China’s willingness to keep military spending constant will come when China’s headlong economic growth starts to slow further. But on past form, China’s leaders will continue to worry more about internal threats to their control than external ones. Last year spending on internal security outstripped military spending for the first time. With a rapidly ageing population, it is also a good bet that meeting the demand for better health care will become a higher priority than maintaining military spending. Like all the other great powers, China faces a choice of guns or walking sticks.

Second, as some pragmatic American policymakers concede, it is not a matter for surprise or shock that a country of China’s importance and history should have a sense of its place in the world and want armed forces which reflect that. Indeed, the West is occasionally contradictory about Chinese power, both fretting about it and asking China to accept greater responsibility for global order. As General Yao Yunzhu of the Academy of Military Science says: “We are criticised if we do more and criticised if we do less. The West should decide what it wants. The international military order is US-led—NATO and Asian bilateral alliances—there is nothing like the WTO for China to get into.”

Third, the PLA may not be quite as formidable as it seems on paper. China’s military technology has suffered from the Western arms embargo imposed after the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. It struggles to produce high-performance jet engines, for example. Western defence firms believe that is why they are often on the receiving end of cyber-attacks that appear to come from China. China’s defence industry may be improving but it remains scattered, inefficient and over-dependent on high-tech imports from Russia, which is happy to sell the same stuff to China’s local rivals, India and Vietnam. The PLA also has little recent combat experience. The last time it fought a real enemy was in the war against Vietnam in 1979, when it got a bloody nose. In contrast, a decade of conflict has honed American forces to a new pitch of professionalism. There must be some doubt that the PLA could put into practice the complex joint operations it is being increasingly called upon to perform.

General Yao says the gap between American and Chinese forces is “at least 30, maybe 50, years”. “China”, she says, “has no need to be a military peer of the US. But perhaps by the time we do become a peer competitor the leadership of both countries will have the wisdom to deal with the problem.” The global security of the next few decades will depend on her hope being realised.

Correction: The following definitions have been changed in the main table of this article: “Main battle tanks” to “Modern main battle tanks”; “Armoured infantry vehicles” to “Armoured infantry fighting vehicles”; “Intercontinental ballistic missiles” to “Intercontinental ballistic missile launchers”; “Transport helicopters” to “Heavy/medium transport helicopters”; “Transport aircraft”  to “Heavy/medium transport aircraft”; “Tanker and multi-role aircraft” to “Tanker aircraft”. Additionally, the data are from 2011 not 2010 as originally reported. These changes were made on 6th April 2012.

Related posts:

India, Asia #1 world’s top weapons importer!

Pentagon planning Cold War against ChinaAirSea Battle concept!

US Military Strategy to Asia: Poke a Stick In China’s Eye

Singapore ‘warns’ US on China bashing

G20, Apec without gusto; Asean for peace; US cold war

Appearances aside, not yet all at sea: US vs China!

India Upgrades Its Military With China in Mind!

Is China still a developing nation?

India’s ‘Look East Policy’


India put forward the “Look East Policy” in the beginning of the1990s and it was considered as an important foreign strategy of India. At that time, led by Treasury Secretary Manmohan Singh, the government of Rao began promoting economic reform, changed Indian development patterns and actively developed the economic relations with foreign countries. Due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and eastern European countries were beset with a crisis and the cooperation between India and these countries sagged seriously.

In addition, its relations with the neighboring countries were not developing very smoothly; as a result, it was difficult for India to establish international economic cooperation in the South Asia. Under that circumstance, the Southeast Asiancountries that flourished in economic development became India’s first choice to develop its foreign economic cooperation because they have deep historical and geopolitics relations with India.

Overall, the focal point of the “Look East Policy” of

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

India at that time was put in economic cooperation. Due to various reasons, India did not positively promote the “Look East Policy” at that time and the Southeast Asian countries had paid their attention to East Asia and underestimated India. Subsequently, the “Look East Policy” did not exert obvious effects.

Since the acceleration of globalization and change of Asian pattern in the 21st century, the “Look East Policy” of India has shown new vitality and rising trend.

India began adopting specific action, transforming to all-round cooperation from exclusive economic exchanges and enlarging its foreign policies from the Southeast Asia to East Asia and Australia.

India strengthened its association with the Southeast Asian countries, joined the treaties of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, established free trade zone with the Southeast Asian countries and participated in the East Asian cooperative mechanisms and the security forum of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The cooperative contents also expend to the military and cultural fields from exclusive economic cooperation.

The “Look East Policy” has become an important part of India’s diplomatic strategy.

Is the “Look East Policy” related with the eastward transfer of American strategic focus?

The facts above show India is much earlier in promoting the “Look East Policy” than the eastward transfer of American strategic focus. In order to realize the strategy of eastward transfer, the United States positively encouraged India to participate in the East Asian affairs.

As the strategy of eastward transfer catered to the psychology of India’s misgivings and precautions against China, India also manifested its enthusiasm. India lately held a trilateral dialogue with the United States and Japan, and it has also close contacts with Vietnam, Burma and some other Southeast Asian countries.

However, it cannot be deemed as the collaboration of the United States and India. India has been pursuing the independent foreign policy and mainly considers its own interests. It is hard to imagine that India will completely follow the foreign policies of the United States. India has an all-round diplomatic policy and it both maintain relations with the United States and takes much count to the relations with other countries. India always keeps a close contact with Russia, Japan and the European Union countries and its relation with China is also positive.

In the state leaders meeting of the BRICS just closed in New Delhi, India proposed a series of positive proposals, hoping deepening the relations of the BRICS, strengthening cooperative mechanism of these countries and enlarging the role of the international economy and political life of these countries, which again embodies India’s all-round diplomatic policy. Therefore, it is groundless to think its “Look East Policy” and the American strategy of eastward transfer are converging.

By Pei Yuanying (Jiefang Daily)

Newscribe : get free news in real time

India, Asia #1 world’s top weapons importer!


A study has found India to be the biggest weapons importer.

STOCKHOLM AFP — Asia leads the world when it comes to weapon imports, according to a study released Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Globally the volume of international transfers of major conventional weapons was 24 percent higher in the period 2007-11 compared to the 2002-06 period, the report said.

Over the past five years, Asia and Oceania accounted for 44 percent in volume of conventional arms imports, the institute said.

That compared with 19 percent for Europe, 17 percent for the Middle East, 11 percent for North and South America, and 9 percent for Africa, said the report.

India was the biggest arms importer in the period covered, 2007-11, accounting for 10 percent in weapons volume.

India is the world’s largest arms importer (AFP/File, Raveendran) File photo shows Indian soldiers firing a Bofors gun

It was followed by South Korea (6 percent), China and Pakistan (both 5 percent), and Singapore (4 percent), according to the independent institute which specialises in arms control and disarmament matters.

These five countries accounted for almost a third, 30 percent, of the volume of international arms imports, said SIPRI.

“India’s imports of major weapons increased by 38 percent between 2002-06 and 2007-11,” SIPRI said.

“Notable deliveries of combat aircraft during 2007-11 included 120 Su-30MKs and 16 MiG-29Ks from Russia and 20 Jaguar Ss from the United Kingdom,” it said.

While India was the world’s largest importer, its neighbour and sometime foe Pakistan was the third largest.

Pakistan took delivery of “a significant quantity of combat aircraft during this period: 50 JF-17s from China and 30 F-16s,” the report added.

Both countries “have taken and will continue to take delivery of large quantities of tanks,” it also noted.

“Major Asian importing states are seeking to develop their own arms industries and decrease their reliance on external sources of supply,” said Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme.

China, which in 2006 and 2007 was the world’s top arms importer, has now dropped to fourth place.

“The decline in the volume of Chinese imports coincides with the improvements in China’s arms industry and rising arms exports,” according to the report.

 File photo shows Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) …

But “while the volume of China’s arms exports is increasing, this is largely a result of Pakistan importing more arms from China,” it added.

“China has not yet achieved a major breakthrough in any other significant market.”

China is however the sixth largest world exporter of weapons behind the United States, Russia, Germany, France and Britain.

In Europe, Greece was the largest importer between 2007 and 2011, the institute said.

Between 2002 and 2011, Syria increased its imports of weapons by 580 percent — the bulk supplied by Russia — while Venezuela boosted its imports over the same period by 555 percent, it reported.

Throughout the Middle East as a whole, weapons imports decreased by eight percent over the period of the survey.

However SIPRI warned “this trend will soon be reversed.”

Tunisia, where mass protests ousted strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali early last year, launched the so-called Arab Spring and inspired similar movements in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere.

“During 2011, the governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria used imported weapons in the suppression of peaceful demonstrations among other alleged violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

“The transfer of arms to states affected by the Arab Spring has provoked public and parliamentary debate in a number of supplier states,” the report said.

The volume of deliveries of “major conventional weapons” to African nations increased by a massive 110 percent in 2007-2011 over the previous five-year period, with deliveries to North Africa up by 273 percent.

Morocco saw its own imports increase by 443 percent, the report added.

Related posts:

India Upgrades Its Military With China in Mind!

India sees China as ‘de facto competitor’

China to Overtake USA !


HSBC: China to become world’s Largest Trading Nation by 2016

Deutsch: Weltkarte mit Fokus auf Asien English...
Image via Wikipedia

By Sophie Leung

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) — China will overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest trading nation by 2016, as intra-Asian commerce and rising demand from emerging markets boost shipments, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.

Trade in China and the Asia-Pacific will grow at an annualized pace almost twice as fast as the world average over the next five years, driven by shipments within the region and expanded ties with Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, HSBC said in a global trade report issued today.

Demand from traditional consumer markets in the West is expected to slow as the evolving European debt crisis threatens the global outlook. China, the world’s second-biggest economy, will stimulate growth with fiscal stimulus and an acceleration in infrastructure projects, raising its imports of commodities from Latin America and the Middle East, HSBC said.

“The world’s largest businesses are continuing to broaden their supply chains across Asia-Pacific” that will boost trade within the region, Simon Constantinides, HSBC’s regional head of global trade, Asia-Pacific, said in an interview in Hong Kong. “As China expands its global reach, especially into South America and Africa, its substantial energy demand and higher manufacturing output will drive strong imports and exports within these sectors.”

Largest Exporter

HSBC estimates the value of China’s trade will rise at an annualized rate of 6.6 percent over the next five years, compared with 6.5 percent gains for Asia and 3.8 percent for the world, according to today’s reports.

“The developed markets will slow,” Constantinides said. “Everybody is going to trade with China.”

China’s share of global imports and exports will increase to 12.3 percent in 2026 from 9.8 percent last year, the bank estimates. The nation overtook Germany as the world’s largest exporter in 2009.

Vietnam and Bangladesh will become the region’s top emerging trade partners over the next five years for ready-made garments, textiles and rice, while Peru, Norway and Brazil will become major partners for trade in iron ore, soya and oil, HSBC said.

Printing and machinery will become the fastest emerging industry in the Asia-Pacific as global supply chains locate in the region, evidence of a shift toward higher value production, HSBC said in its report.

–Editors: Nerys Avery, Iain Wilson

Pew Research Center

U.S. Favorability Ratings Remain Positive

 China Seen Overtaking U.S. as Global Superpower

Overview

In most regions of the world, opinion of the United States continues to be more favorable than it was in the Bush years, but U.S. image now faces a new challenge: doubts about America’s superpower status. In 15 of 22 nations, the balance of opinion is that China either will replace or already has replaced the United States as the world’s leading superpower. This view is especially widespread in Western Europe, where at least six-in-ten in France (72%), Spain (67%), Britain (65%) and Germany (61%) see China overtaking the U.S.

Majorities in Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, Mexico and China itself also foresee China supplanting the U.S. as the world’s dominant power. In most countries for which there are trends, the view that China will overtake the U.S. has increased substantially over the past two years, including by 10 or more percentage points in Spain, France, Pakistan, Britain, Jordan, Israel, Poland and Germany. Among Americans, the percentage saying that China will eventually overshadow or has already overshadowed the U.S. has increased from 33% in 2009 to 46% in 2011.

At least some of this changed view of the global balance of power may reflect the fact that the U.S. is increasingly seen as trailing China economically. This is especially the case in Western Europe, where the percentage naming China as the top economic power has increased by double digits in Spain, Germany, Britain and France since 2009.

In other parts of the globe, fewer are convinced that China is the world’s leading economic power. Majorities or pluralities in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America still name the U.S. as the world’s dominant economic power. In the Middle East, Palestinians and Israelis agree that America continues to sit atop the global economy, while in Jordan and Lebanon more see China in this role. Notably, by an almost 2-to-1 margin the Chinese still believe the U.S. is the world’s dominant economic power.

These are among the key findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted March 18 to May 15.1  The survey also finds that, in the U.S., France, Germany, Spain and Japan, those who see China as the world’s leading economic power believe this is a bad thing. By contrast, those who name the U.S. tend to think it is good that America is still the top global economy. In developing countries those who believe China has already overtaken the U.S. economically generally view this as a positive development. Meanwhile, in China, those who believe the U.S. is still the world’s leading economy tend to see this as a negative.

Compared with reaction to China’s economic rise, global opinion is more consistently negative when it comes to the prospect of China equaling the U.S. militarily. Besides the Chinese themselves, only in Pakistan, Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Kenya do majorities see an upside to China matching the U.S. in terms of military power. Meanwhile, the prevailing view in Japan and India is that it would not be in their country’s interest if China were to equal the U.S. militarily; majorities across Western and Eastern Europe, and in Turkey and Israel, share this view.

U.S. Image Largely Favorable

Despite the view in many countries that China either has or will surpass the U.S. as the leading superpower, opinion of America remains favorable, on balance. The median percentage offering a positive assessment of the U.S. is 60% among the 23 countries surveyed. The U.S. receives high marks in Western Europe, where at least six-in-ten in

France, Spain, Germany and Britain rate the U.S. positively. Opinion of the U.S. is also consistently favorable across Eastern Europe, as well as in Japan, Kenya, Israel, Brazil and Mexico.

As in years past, U.S. image continues to suffer among predominantly Muslim countries, with the exception of Indonesia, where a majority expresses positive views of the U.S. One-in-five or fewer in Egypt, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey view America favorably. In Lebanon, opinion of the U.S. is split, reflecting a religious and sectarian divide; the country’s Shia community has overwhelmingly negative views of America, while Lebanese Sunnis and Christians are more positive.

Views of the U.S. in the Muslim world reflect, at least in part, opposition to the war in Afghanistan and U.S. efforts to fight terrorism. Moreover, few in predominantly Muslim countries say the U.S. takes a multilateral approach to foreign policy. Fewer than a quarter in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey say the U.S. takes the interests of countries like theirs into account when making foreign policy decisions

In Western Europe, fewer than half in Britain (40%), France (32%) and Spain (19%) say the U.S. takes the interests of other countries into account when making foreign policy decisions. Only in Germany does a majority feel otherwise. In Eastern Europe, a third or less believe America acts multilaterally.

Interestingly, a majority of Chinese (57%) credit America with considering the interests of other nations, although last year more (76%) held this view. Elsewhere, majorities in Israel, India, Japan, Brazil and Kenya describe the U.S. as multilateral in its approach to foreign policy.

Majorities or pluralities in nearly every country surveyed say the U.S. and NATO should remove their troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible; the only exceptions are Spain, Israel, India, Japan and Kenya, where more say troops should remain in that country until the situation is stabilized than say they should be removed. However, in many parts of the world, there is strong support for the broader, American-led effort to combat terrorism. About seven-in-ten in France (71%), two-thirds in Germany, 59% in Britain and 58% in Spain back U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. Majorities in Eastern Europe also support the U.S.-led fight against terrorism, as do most in Israel and Kenya.

U.S. Viewed More Favorably Than China

Across the nations surveyed, the U.S. generally receives more favorable marks than China: the median percentage rating China favorably is 52%, eight points lower than the median percentage offering a positive assessment of the U.S.

However, the number of people expressing positive views of China has grown in a number of countries, including the four Western European countries surveyed. China’s image has also improved in Indonesia, Japan, Egypt and Poland. Opinion of China has worsened substantially in only two countries surveyed: Kenya (down 15 percentage points from last year) and Jordan (9 points lower than in 2010).

U.S. image, meanwhile, has declined in most countries for which there are trends. Compared with last year, favorable views of America are lower in Kenya (11 percentage points), Jordan (8 points), Turkey (7 points), Indonesia (5 points), Pakistan (5 points), Mexico (4 points), Poland (4 points) and Britain (4 points). However, the largest downward shift has occurred in China, where the number expressing a positive view of the U.S. has fallen 14 points – from 58% in 2010 to 44% today.

In Japan, by contrast, opinion of the U.S. has improved dramatically. A year ago, roughly two-thirds (66%) held a favorable view of America; today, more than eight-in-ten (85%) assess the U.S. favorably. This huge boost in U.S. image is attributable in part to America’s role in helping Japan respond to the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck the island nation’s northeast coast in March. A majority (57%) of Japanese say the U.S. has done a great deal to assist their country in responding to this dual disaste

Views of Obama

Assessments of President Obama track fairly closely with overall U.S. ratings. Obama is viewed most positively in Western Europe, where solid majorities say they have confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing when it comes to world affairs. At least two-thirds in Kenya, Japan and Lithuania also express confidence in Obama, as do smaller majorities in Brazil, Indonesia and Poland.

As is the case with the overall U.S. image, Obama receives his most negative ratings among predominantly Muslim countries. In the Arab world, majorities in the Palestinian territories (84%), Jordan (68%), Egypt (64%) and Lebanon (57%) lack confidence in the president. Roughly seven-in-ten in Turkey (73%) and Pakistan (68%) say the same. Indonesians are the exception, with 62% saying they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs.

Overall, the U.S. president continues to inspire more confidence than any of the other world leaders tested in the survey. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is next most trusted, at least in Europe and Israel. Majorities across Western Europe endorse the German leader’s handling of world affairs, as do most in Eastern Europe. In fact, in Russia and Ukraine she is more trusted than Obama; this is also the case in Israel.

Broad trust in Obama’s leadership does not mean foreign publics necessarily agree with the U.S. president’s policies. For example, in nearly every nation surveyed majorities or pluralities disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many also disapprove of Obama’s handling of Iran and Afghanistan, while reactions to the way he has dealt with the recent calls for political change in the Middle East are mixed.

In general, Obama receives his highest marks for his handling of global economic problems. Majorities across Western Europe, for example, endorse Obama’s approach to economic issues, with the highest approval (68%) found in Germany. Large numbers in Kenya, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil and Lithuania also approve of how the U.S. president is dealing with the challenges facing the global economy.

Reactions to China’s Growing Power

Across the globe, public reactions to China’s growing economy are far more positive than opinions about the country’s growing military power. Positive assessments of China’s growing economy are most widespread in the Middle East, where majorities in the Arab countries surveyed, as well as Israel, agree that China’s economic growth benefits their country.

Most in Kenya, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, Britain, Brazil and Spain also say China’s growing economy is good for their country. Within Asia, only Indians offer negative views, with just 29% describing an expanding Chinese economy as a good thing and 40% saying it is a bad thing for their country.

When China’s emerging power is framed in military terms, publics in most surveyed nations react less favorably. Majorities or pluralities in all but four of the nations surveyed say China’s increasing military might is a bad thing for their country. This is especially the case in Japan, the U.S., Western Europe and Russia, where at least seven-in-ten have negative views of China’s growing military power.

In contrast, about seven-in-ten Pakistanis (72%) see China’s growing military might as a good thing for their country, as do 62% of Kenyans and Palestinians. Indonesians, by a slim margin (44% to 36%), concur with this view.

Economic Concerns

Opinions as to whether the U.S. or China is the world’s leading economic power, and whether China will supplant America as the dominant superpower, are taking shape against a backdrop of widespread uncertainty about the future and unhappiness with economic conditions at home. In most of the nations surveyed, people say their country’s economy is in bad shape and express dissatisfaction with the way things are going in their country. Moreover, few expect economic conditions to improve in the next year.

Frustration is especially intense in Pakistan, where roughly nine-in-ten say they are displeased with the way things are going in their country, but large majorities across the globe are also dissatisfied. For example, in Spain, dissatisfaction with the country’s direction is at its highest level (83%) since 2003. Meanwhile, the number of Americans who think their country is headed in the wrong direction has swelled from 62% to 73% over the past year.

Only in a handful of countries do more than half express satisfaction with their country’s direction. Among these exceptions are China, Brazil, and India – all dynamic, emerging economic powerhouses, regionally and globally. In Egypt, too, there is substantial satisfaction with the country’s direction (65%), likely reflecting renewed optimism about the country’s future, following the democratic uprising earlier this year

In many instances, levels of overall satisfaction are linked to assessments of the economy. In the U.S., France, Britain and Spain, eight-in-ten or more offer a negative assessment of the national economy, and majorities in these countries see rising prices and a lack of jobs as very big problems.

Inflation worries are especially pronounced outside the industrialized West. Overwhelming majorities in Pakistan, Kenya, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, India and Indonesia describe price increases as a major problem. In Spain, Britain and the U.S., unemployment weighs more heavily than rising prices on the minds of average citizens.

The Chinese public is the most upbeat about economic conditions, with nearly nine-in-ten describing the domestic economy as good. In Germany, two-thirds echo this view, while smaller majorities in India, Israel and Brazil favorably assess the economic situation in their country.

Inflation and a lack of job opportunities are also seen as less urgent issues among Chinese and German respondents. In Germany, for instance, only about a third of the public describes either price increases or unemployment as very big problems. In China, 37% say a lack of jobs is a major concern, while about half are worried about inflation.

Despite economic concerns, publics in all regions express substantial support for growing international trade and business ties with other countries. No fewer than two-thirds in each country say increased international trade is very or somewhat good for their country.

Also of Note:

  • Among those who describe the economic situation in their country as bad, most place the primary blame on government. To a greater degree than others, Western Europeans fault banks and other financial institutions for economic troubles at home, with as many as 75% of those who say the economy is bad in Britain and Spain taking this view.
  • Worldwide, people tend to blame outside forces, rather than individuals themselves for unemployment in their country. In Western Europe and the U.S., roughly seven-in-ten or more attribute unemployment to forces beyond the control of individuals.
  • The United Nations generally receives positive marks among the 23 nations surveyed. However, opinion of the international body is negative in Israel (69%), the Palestinian territories (67%), Jordan (64%) and Turkey (61%).
  • In most predominantly Muslim countries there is widespread opposition to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Only in Pakistan does a majority (61%) support Iran’s nuclear ambitions, although significant numbers of Palestinians (38%) and Lebanese (34%) back Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear arsenal.

Related Articles:

US-China heralded a new ‘great power relationship’

China’s next president: Xi Jinping, a ‘princeling’ with a big personality

China and the US: the princeling and the professor

US Military Strategy to Asia: Poke a Stick In China’s Eye


A military pivot to Asia

By TANG SIEW MUN

‘Pivoting to Asia’ is fast becoming the centrepiece of US strategic and diplomatic objectives.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

IF there were doubts about America’s “return” to Asia, all were dissipated with the release of the new strategic guidance report by the Pentagon on Jan 5.

Washington’s grand objective can be gleaned from the title of the report, “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defence”.

While the report affirms US interests worldwide and renews its pledge to uphold its commitments to its allies and friends, it unambiguously stresses the importance of Asia. It states that the US “will of necessity rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific region”.

The report follows through the grand strategic vision enunciated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an article published in Foreign Policy where she declared that “the future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the centre of the action”.

“Pivoting to Asia” is fast becoming the centrepiece of US strategic and diplomatic objectives.

Before “pivoting” became the cornerstone of the US-Asia policy, the region was abuzz with the US “return” to Asia. China, understandably, was especially agitated.

Indeed, there are segments in China who view the US “return” to Asia with a sense of foreboding, as US initiatives are seen as stratagems to contain China’s growing influence and power in the region.

If hitherto there were concerns about the US return to Asia, then Washington’s “pivot movement” to Asia will certainly generate more discussion and potentially countervailing measures.

To be sure, “pivoting” is different from “returning”. In general, a US return would be marked by its heightened diplomatic engagement, especially with its newfound interest and support for multilateral initiatives such as the East Asia Summit.

A US “return” to Asia would be largely viewed by South-East Asia as a positive development, especially in an uncertain strategic environment punctuated by China’s expanding economic and military power.

In this regard, the US is seen as a reliable and indispensable power to balance and, if necessary, to check Chinese aggressive designs.

However, pivoting in the context of the Pentagon report may see an increased US military presence in the region.

South-East Asia is no stranger to the US military. Up until November 1991 when the Clark Air Base was returned to the Philippines, the US had maintained a large military footprint in the region.

The US has close relations with its treaty partners Thailand and the Philippines. In November 1990, the US negotiated an arrangement with Singapore that gave it access to and use of facilities in the city state.

Singapore is also home to the US Navy’s Logistics Group Western Pacific that provides logistics support for the US Seventh Fleet.

For many decades, the US had consistently maintained a high strategic profile through bilateral and multilateral military exercises and other military-to-military cooperation.

The hubs-and-spokes system of bilateral security treaties, which includes South Korea, Japan and Australia, has long been regarded as the backbone of the region’s security.

The strategic presence of the US in, and its engagement with, the region is often quoted as one of the primary reasons for South-East Asia’s stability and growth.

The argument goes that the US provided the security umbrella which allowed South-East Asian states to limit their defence outlays.

This argument was certainly valid during the Cold War era when the Asean states were undoubtedly pro-American and cooperated to varying degrees with the US.

In fact, when the US Air Force pulled out of the Clark Air Base, there was a sense of trepidation and the perception that the US was withdrawing from the region.

There was genuine fear about a power vacuum which would “invite” other major powers to supplant the US’ dominant role in regional security.

Fortunately, these fears were unfounded as the expected jostling for primacy in Asia and the feared US retreat did not materialise.

While the US’ diplomatic and political “return” to the region is applauded and welcomed, reception for its “pivot to Asia” may be less enthusiastic.

There are several reasons for such pessimism. Granted that the pivot strategy will be multifaceted and not uni-dimensionally focusing on military power.

However, it is the latter component of the pivot strategy that may prove to be most controversial.

To the extent that pivoting entails an enlarged and more visible military footprint, it will be destabilising and anathema to regional security.

An increased US military profile will generate what academics understand as a “security dilemma” and make China feel uncomfortable, to put it mildly.

A case in point is the recent announcement of the deployment up to 2,500 US Marines on a “rotational” basis in Darwin, Australia.

Washington and Canberra were quick to emphasise the transient nature of the deployment, but whichever way one attempts to slice and dice “Darwin”, in the eyes of the Chinese and the rest of South-East Asia, this move puts hundreds of well-trained and highly mobile US military personnel at the edge of the region.

It is a potential “beach head” for the US to organise and launch military expeditions into South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean.

We can also expect to see more of the Stars and Stripes in the region.

Last month, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert wrote in the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings that the US is contemplating deploying littoral combat ships in Singapore and “other places” in South-East Asia.

We must ask ourselves whether there is an imminent threat in the region that necessitates increased fire power from the US.

There is a point beyond which an increased military presence provides a negative marginal return. More is not always necessarily better.

There may be quarters in South-East Asia that embrace a larger US military role and profile. Notable among these are the “hedgers” who no doubt see the US as the ultimate “insurance policy” to guard against strategic uncertainty.

When it is diplomatically untenable and militarily impractical to balance against China’s expanding military might, then the growing presence of the US is reassuring, to say the least.

It cannot be denied that the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) growing muscle is being closely monitored and analysed.

While there is no unified response to this phenomenon, it is accepted that South-East Asia cannot match the PLA gun for gun.

A military response is destructive and ultimately futile. The preferred modality is to embed China in a web of regional and multilateral cooperation mechanisms.

The Asean China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) and the Asean Plus Three (APT) are but two examples.

South-East Asia should stay the course and continue its ongoing successful engagement of China. However, the military component of “pivoting” may serve to amplify the strategic divide and suspicions between China and South-East Asia.

The implications of “pivoting” are multiple. For a start, the US will seek a larger voice and role in the region.

Secretary Clinton spoke for many Ameri­cans when she asserted that Asia is the future and correspondingly the US must be in Asia.

The substantive question that needs to be asked is, “When the US leads, should Asia fall in line and accept US leadership?”

It would be unrealistic for Washington to assume that Asia will do this. Acceptance of US leadership is not universal, nor is it automatic.

Support for the US in Indonesia, South-East Asia’s largest country, is slipping. The Pew Global Attitudes Survey showed it has declined from 56% in 2009 to 49% in 2010.

Asia does not dance to the tune of Washing­ton, nor does it march to the beat of the Chinese.

While Washington sees its future in Asia, it needs to be mindful that the success of its “pivot” strategy is contingent on the concurrence and support of Asia.

The operative words are cooperation and collaboration.

The region’s strategic uncertainty – read as fear of China – cannot be resolved by the placement of more US troops in the region or through military grandstanding.

It is not about being pro-US or anti-China but how to build a stable, secure and prosperous future. The US pivot to Asia should be welcomed to the extent that it contributes constructively to a better and brighter future for Asia.

> The writer is Director (Foreign Policy and Security Studies) at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia. The views are his own.

Obama’s New Defense Strategy: Poke a Stick In China’s Eye And See What Happens

This new “Defense Strategy” of President Obama’s is a deliberate provocation of the Chinese, as was his trip to Asia last month when he made his none too cute “We’re Back” declaration.

Last Month in Australia Obama was quoted as saying, “Let there be no doubt: in the Asia-Pacific in the 21st century, the United States of America is all in.”

If there was doubt in anyone’s mind in Beijing, about American intentions Obama dispelled that doubt and any room for reasoned diplomacy by elaborating that this is a “deliberate and strategic decision” America is “here to stay”.    What an affront to the Chinese!  We were hoping the State Department would let this new offensive go quietly away.   Unfortunately, that is not to be.  Obama’s “Strategy” is a dangerous road to take.  If it is intended to assist him in his re election efforts it will seriously backfire.  Unfortunately, the consequence won’t be just Obama’s and the Democrat Party.  The outcome of this foreign policy fiasco  will fall squarely on the shoulders of America and it’s allies.  This new policy is literal insanity. It would appear Obama is playing right into the hands of Hu Jintao and the Chinese military leaders who are just chomping at the bit for a fight.    An Article in the Economist in a much more nuanced and cautious fashion discusses the concerns many other’s have about the manner in which Obama is flexing his muscles and apparently bullying for a fight with the Chinese.

China hasn’t issued a stamp with this ferocious a dragon
since 1878 (Photo Xinhua)

This is the year of the dragon and they must be deft dumb and blind over in foggy bottom to have missed the significance the Chinese attribute to this auspicious event.  The dragon was a symbol of  China’s Imperial Power and today it is a not too subtle symbol of China’s Military, Political and Economic power.  That China chose to reissue such a ferocious stamp this year is no coincidence.

We have to ask ourselves why has Obama picked this time to insult and bully a world power that is vastly superior to our own, certainly in it’s own backyard.  Does anyone think the Chinese are going to stand idly by as Obama in his arrogance, asserts his “right” to “ensure China’s peaceful rise to power”.    The implied threat in that statement from Obama and the Clinton State Department is palpable.  The US, in the person of Obama, is saying, “We’re going to come into China’s sphere of influence and arbitrate and adjudicate any and all issues we decide have a national security interest to us.”  Certainly, the United States should not cede it’s position as a world power and it’s interests but to do so in such an ignorant and arrogant fashion is inexcusable.

A bizarre thought occurs to us that given Obama’s own love of Socialism and Marxism maybe his provocation of China is intended to give Hu and General Lin Yuan, (A possible successor to Hu) an excuse and license to go to war with America.

Posted by FarmerRicky
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 690 other followers