In his 1943 book U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic, journalist Walter Lippmann took successive US presidents to task. Starting in 1898, when Admiral George Dewey’s flotilla overpowered the Spanish fleet at Manila Bay, the US assumed vast commitments in the Asia-Pacific region, annexing the Philippine Islands and a series of lesser island outposts connecting the US with its modest empire in Asia.
For Lippmann, the problem was that Washington didn’t build a navy big or strong enough to defend its new Pacific holdings.
Among the presidents who served between the Spanish-American War and the outbreak of World War II, only US president Theodore Roosevelt received passing marks from Lippmann, who credited him with devising the rudiments of a workable Asia policy. But Roosevelt, arguably the finest soldier-statesman ever to occupy the White House, departed the presidency in 1909, leaving US policy in Asia adrift.
Lippmann warned that the US’ penchant for combining ambition with weakness spelled trouble. The lesson still applies today.
Why? Like nature, international relations abhors a vacuum. Rival maritime states — particularly Imperial Japan — sought to fill the vacuum created by US indifference to imperial defense and to the sea power needed to underwrite it. Between 1941 and 1942 the Imperial Japanese Navy evicted the US from the Far East, staking Japan’s claim to supremacy in maritime Asia.
Fateful, unintended consequences thus can flow from neglecting the military component of foreign policy. In the final analysis, a world power’s standing rests on the bedrock of force. This fact appears lost on today’s US, buffeted by economic and financial hardships. The US could forfeit its primacy in Asia if it turns inward, letting budgetary woes rather than strategic deliberations drive its policy in the region.
One trouble sign: The US Navy has seen its fleet dwindle from nearly 600 ships during the heady days of former US president Ronald Reagan’s buildup to 283 ships today. And escalating shipbuilding costs and stagnant acquisition budgets are driving these numbers inexorably downward. The modest 313-ship fleet espoused by the Navy leadership looks increasingly unaffordable. Estimates making the rounds in the defense community suggest the Navy could drop to as few as 150 ships.
Today’s Navy packs more punch than the Reagan Navy on a ship-for-ship basis. Still, numbers matter — especially in Asia, a predominantly maritime theater. Former US president George W. Bush’s administration reconfigured the global US force posture, concentrating assets at Asia-Pacific strongholds like Guam. Too severe a drawdown of the US Navy nonetheless might leave US allies and friends in the region wondering whether Washington will — or can — honor its guarantees of their security.
Should they conclude the US has become an untrustworthy partner, they will fend for themselves. That’s the logic of self-help, of threat and response.
Consider Japan’s plight. Japanese leaders might interpret US naval decline, coinciding with China’s rise, as portending a collapse of the US-Japan Security Treaty. Finding itself on what Chinese strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) called “death ground,” Tokyo might see no recourse other than to abrogate its self-imposed cap on defense spending (at 1 percent of GDP), freeing up resources to augment the Maritime and Air Self-Defense Forces.
A conventional arms race could ensue as China, Japan and even South Korea looked to their own defenses, hedging against one another’s military endeavors.
Worse, the unthinkable — a nuclear-armed Japan — could become thinkable under such nightmare circumstances. There’s no denying the potency of Japanese antinuclear sentiment. But even Japan’s “peace constitution,” which codifies these attitudes, is not a suicide pact. Should the US nuclear umbrella become unreliable — or be viewed as such — Tokyo would see the nation’s survival as at risk. This could warrant measures like developing a submarine-based deterrent.
There’s precedent for a conventional US drawdown spurring efforts at nuclear proliferation. South Korea interpreted the pullout of a US combat division from the Korean Peninsula in 1971 as a precursor to a withdrawal of the US nuclear guarantee — and launched a crash nuclear-weapons program in response. Similarly, China’s nuclear breakout in the 1960s, followed by US force reductions on Taiwan in the 1970s, prompted Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to initiate clandestine research into a Taiwanese bomb.
Washington prevailed on Taipei and Seoul to forego the nuclear option, in part by convincing them it remained committed to their defense and possessed the wherewithal to fulfill its commitment. Now as then, as Lippmann might counsel, the repercussions could be dire if Asian leaders lose confidence in the US armed forces’ staying power in the region.
James Holmes is an associate professor of strategy at the Naval War College. The views expressed here are his alone.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lin Wei-chou (林為洲) talked about “opposing the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]” in a recent Facebook post, writing that opposing the CCP is not the special reserve of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Not long after, many people within the KMT received a mysterious letter signed “Chinese Nationalist Party Central Committee” containing what looked like a declaration of opposition to, and a call to arms against, the CCP. Unexpectedly, the KMT’s Culture and Communications Committee came forward with a clarification, saying that the letter was not sent by the KMT and telling the public not to believe
Australia’s decades-long battle to acquire a new French-designed attack submarine to replace its aging Collins class fleet bears all the hallmarks of a bureaucratic boondoggle. The Attack-class submarine project, initially estimated to cost A$20 billion to A$25 billion (US$15.6 billion to US$19.5 billion at the current exchange rate), had by 2016 doubled to A$50 billion, and almost doubled again to A$90 billion by February last year. Because of delays, the French-led Naval Group consortium would not begin cutting steel on the first submarine until 2024, which means the first vessel would not be operational until after 2030 — and the last
When Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called for a reset of bilateral relations with the US, a White House spokesperson replied that Washington saw the relationship as one of strong competition that required a position of strength. It is clear that US President Joe Biden’s administration is not simply reversing former US Donald Trump’s policies. Citing Thucydides’ attribution of the Peloponnesian War to Sparta’s fear of a rising Athens, some analysts believe the US-China relationship is entering a period of conflict pitting an established hegemon against an increasingly powerful challenger. I am not that pessimistic. In my view, economic
If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was looking for some respite after the battering former US president Donald Trump gave it, it has been swiftly refused that hope. US President Joe Biden and his administration are making it clear that there is little chance of a return to the “strategic patience” of former US president Barack Obama’s era. In terms of the US’ approach to Beijing’s relations with Taipei, there has been a continuation of the selective strategic clarity the Trump administration favored over the “strategic ambiguity” of previous US administrations. One indication of this occurred during a virtual event on
RSS