Joint naval exercises by US and South Korean forces, announced some time ago, are finally under way. The war games became a focus of attention even before they started, as China declared its objections. For its part, North Korea, being the target of the exercises, warned it was prepared to respond by launching a “retaliatory sacred war.” For the time being at least, tensions in Northeast Asia are running high.
The US and South Korea’s main purpose in holding the naval exercises is to put pressure on North Korea as a way of expressing their anger at the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan, allegedly by a North Korean torpedo, and to deter the North from committing similar acts of aggression in future.
In addition, the US wants to use the maneuvers to express its determined support for the South Korean government, strengthen the US-South Korea military alliance, confirm the US’ leading position in the Asia-Pacific and put a check on China’s fast-growing influence in the region.
However, it is doubtful whether this action by the US and South Korea will really discourage provocative behavior by North Korea or help maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula. Following the sinking of the Cheonan, North Korea has expressed its wish to restart six-party talks with China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the US on its nuclear weapons program.
Even if the US and South Korea think North Korea made this offer just as a means of dodging the issue, they should still take the opportunity to get the six-party talks going again.
Renewed talks could be a forum for resolving controversy over who was responsible for the Cheonan’s sinking, as well as moving forward with discussion on stopping North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons.
Experience suggests that using joint military maneuvers to put pressure on Pyongyang will only provoke more headstrong responses by North Korea, rather than persuading it to give ground.
Just as expected, the North’s immediate reaction to the naval exercises was to warn that it would respond with “powerful nuclear deterrence.”
Although this is just bluster, and North Korea would not dare to attack the allied US and South Korean forces, it still means that relations between South and North Korea are going to get worse.
Besides, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s government has said again and again that South Korea has no intention of going to war with the North.
Indeed, no country in East Asia wants to see military conflict between the two Koreas.
What is the point, then, of provoking North Korea with large-scale military exercises? Given that neither the US nor South Korea wants a war, and that war games will not make Pyongyang yield, but will rather strengthen its resolve to resist, there is a clear contradiction between the two allies’ intentions and their actions.
Another notable development is China’s outspoken reaction. The US-South Korean exercises were originally supposed to put pressure on North Korea, so the two allies probably didn’t expect China to object so strongly.
One reason for China’s displeasure at the US-South Korean maneuvers was its worries that they would prompt countermeasures by Pyongyang, adding to tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
These worries are based on Beijing’s familiarity with the North Korean leadership’s mentality, and the North’s fiery response shows that China’s judgment was quite accurate.
Another reason for Beijing’s displeasure is that the maneuvers are being held too close to China’s territorial waters, plus the fact that these naval exercises are on a larger scale than ever before.
The US fleet includes the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington, whose operational range reaches over China’s territory and poses a threat to its national security.
In the past, China has quietly put up with similar military exercises. Besides, China’s own submarines often approach Japanese and US territorial waters, so it is in a shaky position when it criticizes the US and South Korea for doing the same thing.
Beijing’s repeated public objections this time are a sign of China’s confidence in its own growing power. As China extends what it sees as a security zone around its territory, it can no longer tolerate the US or other countries holding threatening military exercises within what it considers its sphere of influence.
Reports say that the US has already decided not to send the USS George Washington to take part in any maneuvers in the Yellow Sea — a decision intended to allay China’s objections.
This subtle interaction between the two countries shows that while the US is anxious about the spread of China’s power in East Asia, it must also pay it its due respect. These unfolding developments are signs that power relations between the two countries in East Asia are being readjusted.
Wang Kao-cheng is a professor in the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies at Tamkang University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS