Jura The idiot
General
Apr 15, 2013 article
What Exactly Does It Mean That the U.S. Is Pivoting to Asia?
South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
What Exactly Does It Mean That the U.S. Is Pivoting to Asia?
Yes and the US is going further than that. It is actively tightening the noose around China by taking sides against China in territorial disputes in deed while demonizing China in word regardless of the facts. The US goal is to at a minimum maintain the colonial era setup in Asia based on a weak China. Since China is now stronger and will continue to be on a strengthening trajectory despite a slower one, the US is choosing to actively weaken China.
The US has maintained military encirclement of China since the end of WW2 by taking over or continuing colonial era forward military basing in pursuit of maintaining a colonial/neo-colonial world order including having Japan to keep areas acquired through aggression such as the Ryukyus. US lead involvement in the Korean War and continued military presence effectively made a neo-colony out of South Korea. The US actively supported the French attempt to maintain first colonialism then neo-colonialism in Vietnam. The Philippines was a US colony and continued to be a neo-colony until the end of the Cold War. The US also directly maintains military basing in locations
Obviously a now stronger China is actively trying to alter the colonial/neo-colonial setup in Asia based on a weak China thereby stepping on the toes of all those who directly benefit from the weak China setup. These countries are not naturally powerful enough to challenge China on their own but make great pawns for the US to manipulate.
China actually has more weight now which is why it will at a minimum naturally be pushing back against the weight the US as well as other smaller countries have gotten used to throwing around at China without resistance.
Jura The idiot
General
... so
After U.S. show of force, China takes hard line on South China Sea
source:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The term 'pivot to Asia' was first used sometime in late 2011, which means that article was merely giving unsubstantiated opinions some 18 months after the pivot formally started (the US would have floated the idea to allies and friends and started laying the necessary ground work before publicly announcing it a fair well beforehand as well).
Its no co-incidence that what would have been a historic landmark settlement between China and all other claimants in the SCS during the 2010 ASEAN summit in Vietnam, which insiders have leaked was almost a done deal, suddenly collapsed after then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived on the scene.
Indeed, if one bothered to read her speeches made around that time, some interesting themes emerges, which meant little at the time, but when viewed with hindsight now, is quite significant.
The public stressing of territorial disputes was a very significant development, which was no doubt discussed at length behind closed doors with interested parties.
See how far back this Freedom of Navigation line goes, long before China even started building islands, which has now been retrospectively credited as the reason for US concerns for FON in the SCS.
Up to that point in time, absolutely nothing had happened to even suggest that FON was under any sort of threat to warrant it being so highlighted.
From the following speech given a few months later, even more explicit clues could be gleamed.
So the Pivot to Asia was pretty much on the cards from day 1 of the Obama administration. If you look, you can spot a lot of the prototype language and terms in those speeches that would later be distilled into the formally declared Pivot.
That is a lot of emphasis effort being put into cultivating security ties with South East Asian nations and actively encouraging India to expand their military activities into the SCS and beyond as a counterweight to China.
Clinton even spelt out that "underwriting region security" was a key tool of American efforts to expand its influence in all of Asia, including the SCS.
There was no mention or even hint of Chinese "bullying" in the SCS, because nothing of the sort had happened.
The most damning thing they could bring to bare to support the heavy military focus of America's SCS engagement method is to stress Chinese military build up as a possible source of "anxiety" for countries that have territorial disputes with China. Which is de facto admission that China had not tried to use its growing military might to leverage negotiating advantages with other claimants, because if China did, you can be sure Clinton would be highlighting and stressing that rather than hypothesising about possible "anxieties".
This was at a time when even Clinton praised China for the efforts it had been making to ease tensions as a step towards finding a peaceful, negotiated resolution to the SCS territorial disputes.
In that context, the heavy military emphasis on its engagement would seem distinctly odd, since it would appear to be a tool looking for a mission. And the arguments presented to support this heavy military emphasis is clearly very weak source.
How very "fortunate" indeed then, that tensions suddenly spiralled soon afterwards thanks in no small part to the direct actions of countries the US has spent considerable time and resources courting. Actions that as numerous independent research papers and reports have pointed out, have been judicially avoided by the overwhelming majority of western mainstream media outlets.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia
March 28, 2012
Blackstone
Brigadier
Thanks for the thoughtful response to my original statement "I don't know what US policymakers expect to achieve with recent actions in the SCS," your post was a good read and made some points that deserve further discussions and debate.
By this, are you saying recent US actions in the SCS were meant to stop Chinese build ups in the disputed SCS islands/rocks/features? If so, are the actions likely to produce desired outcomes? And if not, why do them? Why not try something else?
Oh really? "The Pivot" was the brainchild of Secretary Hillary Clinton in 2011, years before Chinese artificial island building and dual use facilities expansions in the Spratlys. That doesn't that jive with your claim Chinese actions in the SCS lead to "The Pivot."
True statement. And isn't that evidence our strongest Asian allies don't see Chinese actions in the SCS as real threats to their well being? Yes, we all hear lots of dire warnings and complaints from Tokyo and Canberra, but in the real world, actions speak louder than words.
So, you think recent US actions are meant simply as a buffer? Really? You don't believe we should take Obama's words it's about who leads in Asia? You go on to admit China will not be deterred from their mission to gain control of the SCS, and I think you're right. So, that leads back to my original question what US policymakers are trying to achieve with recent SCS actions, doesn't it?
No my friend, not so simple. Because...
- China said about half a decade ago it no longer accepts US primacy as basis of the Asian security order, and have been busy creating alternatives. Does US actions in the SCS address that problem?
- China has been testing US resolve to create doubt in the region of US willingness to continue security guarantees in face of stiff Chinese opposition. Has China created doubt and are US responses sufficient to counter it?
- What happens if even US treaty allies can't count on US military intervention? Does Manila honestly believe US would risk war with another great power over a few rocks in the SCS? Keep in mind the US public and its political betters are probably on opposite end of that equation.
- China is trying to take control of the SCS, a-la US and Caribbean. Is US willing to take draconic measures to stop China from establishing its own Monroe Doctrine?
- Would regional countries support US draconic measures to contain China, even if it means years of conflicts?
Blackstone
Brigadier
US-lead Asian order was established after WW2, with substantial support from most Asian countries. It is definitely not colonial in nature, since US has no designs on Asian territories. Facts show US lost territories since WW2, and that isn't in keeping with your Yankee colonialism claim.
This is demonstrably false, since US ended Japanese colonialism and supported China against the Soviet Union, after Mao and Nixon came to an agreement on China accepting US primacy in exchange for protection and development assistance.
Dude, get real. US was the bulwark against the Soviet Union and had real concerns about Communist expansions all over the world. Like other nations in the world, it pursued its national interests with gusto and remains the only empire in the world with no designs on other people's territories. Save your breath, I'm sanguine about millions of native Americans murdered through official and unofficial US policies, but we're talking about post Bretton Woods.
The Middle Kingdom is reemerging from about 150 years of decline, and at the minimum, it wants to co-lead Asia. US is the status quo hegemon and it wants to retain its lofty position. You could question if US policies are wise or even achievable, but let's can the colonial crap. I say again, the United States of America is the only empire with no designs on other people's territories. It has plenty of its own, especially when you consider Canada is basically the 51 State.
Now you get it; not colonialism after all but contests between an existing hegemon and a reemerging one.
Stoney, I only responded? because you asked, I am the first born son of a Cold Warrior. As a boy, I celebrated my 5th birthday on Okinawa, several years later I almost moved to "Formosa". Four of the "heavy chain" C-130Es that my Dad would later fly in Vietnam were based there. My Dad was in Saigon, at the US Embassy from Aug 67 to Sep 68, employed by MACVSOG, I was aghast as the TET offensive unrolled, thankfully my DAD survived all that and came home in the Fall of 68.
At every step along the way, the US had two main antagonists, both communist, both of those countries killed millions of their own citizens because those citizens opposed the communist take-over of their countries. As a US citizen, I vote for my own leaders, and I enjoy all of the freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution, my own DAD was in a foreign country attempting to defend the freedom of those people, who ultimately lost their freedoms and many their lives as Communist North Vietnam invaded the South.
So this is personal for me, as well as it is for you, respectfully bax.
solarz
Brigadier
This is definitely OT, but I feel obligated to correct you on two factually wrong statements.
First, the US prevented a free election in Vietnam that would have saw an overwhelming majority vote for the Vietnamese Communists. So no, the US was not there to defend the freedom of the Vietnamese.
Second, the vast majority of Chinese supported the Chinese Communist Party when they took over the country. And by "vast majority", I mean something like 99.5%. The Nationalists who fled to Taiwan installed a regime of white terror that lasted until 1987. The so-called "millions killed" in China were the result of disastrous economic policies and the social upheaval of the Cultural Revolution. Definitely NOT because "those citizens opposed the communist take-over".
Geographer
Junior Member
solarz, the Communist Chinese government has never allowed free elections, either, so how can you say 99.5% of the population supported them? If you're going to use the lack of free elections argument to deny South Vietnamese government legitimacy, you have to apply it to China as well.