 This
article is provided courtesy of DefenseWatch,
the official magazine for Soldiers For The
Truth (SFTT), a grass-roots educational organization
started by a small group of concerned veterans
and citizens to inform the public, the Congress,
and the media on the decline in readiness
of our armed forces. Inspired by the outspoken
idealism of the late Colonel
David Hackworth, SFTT aims to give our
service people, veterans, and retirees a clear
voice with the media, Congress, the public
and their services.
|
|
|
|
June 29, 2005
[Have an opinion about the views expressed in this article? Sound
off in the Hot Issues with Defensewatch Forum.]
By Nathaniel R. Helms
While most eyes focus on the Global War on Terror spreading across the Middle East , a much more ominous confrontation is reportedly brewing between the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) and the United States over who controls the vital waters of the western Pacific Rim . But whether there is a real threat there, or merely another bogeyman the United States never seems to lack, is not nearly as clear.
Who controls the Philippine Sea (blue rectangle) will dominate Taiwan Straits
However, a spate of recent articles in influential American and foreign journals suggests that a race for military supremacy in that vital region is already underway where much of the world's commerce now flows.
One view holds that China is reasserting its ancient influence in the region by developing and purchasing state-of-the-art weapons systems with the money it earns selling cheap Western knockoffs to price-conscious North American and European consumers.
The most likely flashpoint for a U.S.-Chinese conflict, of course, is Taiwan . China and the United States have been sparring without actually coming to blows over the Taiwan Straits since 1949 when American-backed Generalissimosso Chiang Kai-shek was sent packing by the Chinese Communists to Formosa (now Taiwan) – just 90 miles off the Chinese coast and 14,000 miles from American shores. Since then, the U.S. 7th Fleet has been tasked the job of keeping mainland China from invading the island.
Today, the United States still holds a crucial role in the 56-year-old dispute. It is a difficult and demanding balancing act designed to deter either side from sparking a war. If Beijing believes that American commitment is weak, then the Communist government, officially determined to unify Taiwan and China , might likely decide to employ its emerging military superiority to invade the island. If, on the other hand, the United States were to unequivocally guarantee Taiwan 's independence, then Taiwan might assert its independence, thus provoking the PRC into an unwanted military confrontation with us. Over the last half-century the United States has succeeded in maintaining this delicate balance, and the peace.
On 12 September 1954 , after threats from Red China to invade Taiwan , the U.S. announced the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Red China. On December 1 the U.S. announced it had signed a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan . A year later the U.S. Seventh Fleet came close to exchanging blows with the Red Chinese over the tiny islands of Quemoy and Matsu mere miles off the Chinese coast after the Communists conquered Ichiang Island, 210 miles north of Formosa and completely wiped out its R.O.C. garrison.
Tempers have simmered and boiled ever since the 1950s. The most recent flareups came in 1996 when Taiwan elected a new president and in response Beijing shot off a handful of guided missiles in Taiwan's general direction, and a lesser event four years later when China announced that either international meddling or a Taiwan's own declaration of independence would trigger an attack.
Public provocations then diminished until July 2004, when Wang Zaixi, vice minister of the mainland China's Taiwan Affairs Office, told reporters it was an "unwise move" for Taiwan to buy more advanced weapons from the United States because if it did so, China would not rule out war. Meanwhile, Taiwan reportedly spent $8 billion on American weapons systems.
The situation is now percolating again. In the June edition of the Atlantic Monthly , respected military analyst Robert D. Kaplan declared that "The American military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was."
Some largely unpublicized U.S. military moves have occurred that signal Washington 's quiet resolve over the situation.
In March, the Pentagon announced that it was sending a squadron of B-2 stealth bombers from their home base in Missouri to Guam on a rotational schedule to supplement both a conventional air force buildup and a strengthened naval presence around Japan . Strictly speaking, the move was an announced response to events in North Korea , but China undoubtedly realized the same moves could be made in reactions to problems over Taiwan .
Events over the last two decades suggest the PRC government remains skeptical that America is really prepared to ignite a war with them over Taiwan , even if it is one of the biggest markets for American arms in the world. There is no U.S. treaty requirement to do so since 1979, when President Jimmy Carter unilaterally withdrew from the 1954 mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and ignited a legal battle with the U.S. Senate that he ultimately won.
Even so, the United States is not without resources in the region. Anderson Air Force Base on Guam is a superbly equipped launching platform for attacks against either China or North Korea because it is a strategically located in U.S. territory where treaties and permissions to act from allies are not necessary. And it hosts literally acres of airplanes, full bomb dumps, outstanding harbor facilities, and communications equipment appropriate for a formidable American bastion in the Pacific.
Before the B-2s chimerically appeared on Guam, an editorial in the Japanese English-language Asahi Shimbun newspaper last Jan. 15 declared, "Policy-makers in Tokyo and Washington fear Beijing could trigger instability" and "Alarm bells are ringing in Tokyo and Washington over China's splurge in military spending." It continued:
"While the United States does not currently view China as a military threat, Washington fears it could become one if Beijing continues with its large-scale purchases of military hardware."
To counter Chinese expansionism the United States can always call on its mobile and reputedly invincible Navy aircraft carrier battle groups that dominate whatever space they occupy no matter who it belongs to – maybe. Despite their strength there are modernists who argue American carriers are simply targets waiting for a 21st century submarine fest, although that remains to be proven.
An American nuclear submarine commander who has both sailed those dangerous waters and knows the capabilities of a U.S. carrier battle group from the bottom up has warned against pooh-poohing a their capabilities. He spoke to DefenseWatch with assurances of anonymity.
"[They] (skeptics) look at them as if they were the HMS Prince of Wales heading north out of Singapore to take on the Japanese [in 1941]," the submariner said. "But CVNs do not fight alone today. Some will also draw parallels with the Brits in the Falklands Islands and how near the Argentinians came to taking out a carrier. But the Brits did not have the E2C Hawkeye , a near equivalent to the AWACS (Boeing E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System) . This aircraft enormously extends the radar horizon. Similarly, the BGs have subs with them. If we keep enough of these around, they can sanitize the area near the BGs," he explained.
"The rub then comes with the logistics re-supply ships," the sub skipper continued. "These must make the run between Hawaii and the BGs operating in support of forces. If we can't send jet fuel, bombs and repair parts, the sortie rate drops. Carrier aircraft operating against land-based aircraft with larger numbers will have a tough time of it ... and no matter what the (U.S.) Air Force says about 'Global Reach, Global Power' flying aircraft from Guam (or Okinawa, maybe) against mainland-based Chinese aircraft will be a daunting task."
From China 's perspective, American ability to project military power into the western Pacific is in itself a good enough reason for it to complain about the current status quo in the region. Last December, the official China's People's Daily Online screamed that, " Taiwan to become the largest client of American arms in next four years" before complaining, "The huge budget for arms procurement has aroused oppugn ( sic ) among the public in Taiwan . Recently the media exposed a stunning dope, saying that more than half of Taiwan 's US $19 bln [billion] funds for arm purchase were not used on arms, but to secretly finance the U.S. troops to station on a small island near Taiwan - the Shimoji Island ."
Although baseless in fact, the People's Daily rhetoric suggests that the leaders in Beijing are wary and concerned over the threat the U.S. military can still pose to them.
Another sign of slowly rising tensions appeared on June 4 when Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told a regional defense conference in Singapore that China was "upsetting the delicate military balance in Asia by expanding its ability to project power at a time when it faces no threat."
"China appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing it to reach targets in many areas of the world while also expanding its missile capabilities within this region," Rumsfeld said in a speech to a conference hosted by the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
So what does this all mean? The retired U.S. Navy submarine commander said that if anyone wants to know who is going to control the Pacific Ocean in the near or distant future, they need look no farther than the Philippine Sea , which separates the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan . He thinks that anyone fixated on the Taiwan Straits separating Red China and Taiwan is looking in the wrong direction.
"Those who focus on the Taiwan Straits have not thought through the operational restrictions [that] formations will face if they try to operate there," the submariner explained. "It's true the Chinese must cross [the straits] to get to Taiwan but we can control it from the Philippine Sea – if we can operate freely in the Philippine Sea – and just don't need to go there," he said.
But whether the United States has the military capability to convincingly make its presence felt at the present time if the Chinese dragon was to stir is something he declined to answer.
"We have to be able to put several carrier battle groups there and sustain them and their logistical ships for a long time," the former skipper said. "But you have asked me a question that my knowledge of policies from previous experiences prohibits me from answering."
Thankfully, it doesn't require a blabby submariner to discover that the Philippine Sea promises turbulent waters for more reasons than simply warm and cold currents colliding together. The mainland Chinese Navy is already in a position economically and technically to reestablish itself militarily in a region that became a U.S. lake at the end of World War II. American policy makers apparently don't like it despite promoting economic policies that have enabled the Chinese to carry our their unprecedented military buildup. Those systems alone raise the possibility – however slight – that they could keep us out of the Straits of Taiwan long enough to invade the island.
Most public intelligence assessments indicate that the Chinese already have 79 submarines of varying capabilities in the water and are building a modern fleet incorporating the best of the new air-independent-propulsion systems and nuclear propulsion plants built at home using technologies acquired from foreign sources.
The Chinese already have in service one huge Xia-class (Project 092) 7,000-ton SSBN that carries 12 ballistic missiles (and reportedly, supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles), and six 21-inch torpedo tubes that could put a serious crimp in U.S. carrier operations if it can get to a carrier group, something the American submarine skipper says is no easy task. According to several intelligence reports cited in news media the construction of four generic Chinese SSBNs began at the Huladao Shipyards in the late 1990s. The subs would carry at least 16 SLBMs, and will enter operational service beginning in 2009.
The American submariner said they are buying Western technology to study and improve upon it. "Let's face it, the Chinese are smart people," he said. "They will have their own designs that will eventually be very good, but the U.S. has to have nuc boats to reach and stay on the job so far away from the U.S. [mainland]. We would probably take out many of their boats through attrition but only a few have to get through."
China also has at least 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines either in the water or under construction; at least seven Russian-built "Kilo" class diesel-electric boats; as many as 49 old Soviet-era Romeo-class boats, and a Baker's dozen Chinese-built Song- and Ming-class diesel-electric boats that get no respect at all from Western intelligence sources. One source called the Mings a "cheap replacement for the Russian Romeos that insiders say are built to kill its own crew. On June 1, a Ming was discovered by the Japanese Navy being towed back into port after what they believe was an underwater fire.
While the Chinese submarine force would logically be China 's first line of offense and defense in a confrontation with the United States , China also has a growing, capable surface navy and air force with offensive capabilities that could challenge the U.S. carrier groups already when they arrive in Chinese-contested waters. And if for some remarkably unforeseeable reason the U.S. military found itself landing on the Chinese mainland, it would be confronted by a huge, ponderous, omni-present land force that would attack like ants on a stranded elephant.
Perhaps sensing platitudes are in order, Zheng Bijian, chairman of China Reform Forum, told a Washington audience on June 4 that viewing the world's most populous country as a threat was a "serious strategic misjudgment of China's direction in the 21st century."
Zheng claimed Beijing favored "open multilateralism" in Asia . Referring to the 70,000 American troops based in Korea and Japan , he said, "I want to stress here that China takes a pragmatic attitude toward the U.S. presence, including the military presence, in the Asia-Pacific region," he told the audience at the Brookings Institution.
"They can afford to wait," the American skipper explained. "The U.S. has been around two hundred and something years, they have been around 3,000. They have time to wait. They have patience."
Whether current events along China 's coast are a tempest in a teapot or a prelude to an Asian Cold War are already being shaped by current American hard-line policies that rely on 20th century thinking in the rapidly-changing world of the 21st century.
A clearer picture must wait for the time that American military policy in the region is clarified by events rather than rhetoric.
©2005 DefenseWatch.Contributing Editor Nathaniel R. "Nat" Helms is a Vietnam veteran, former police officer, long-time journalist and war correspondent living in Missouri . He is the author of two books, Numba One – Numba Ten and Journey Into Madness: A Hitchhiker's Account of the Bosnian Civil War, both available at www.ebooks-online.com . He can be reached at natshouse1@charter.net . Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com . All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
|
