Hailed as the world's most advanced air-superiority aircraft, the F-22 Raptor, built jointly by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, is making many air forces water at the mouth. The chief of the Australian Defense Force, Air Marshal Angus Houston, has called it "the most outstanding fighter plane ever built." It is no wonder that countries like Japan and Australia have sought to acquire it.
But so far, Washington has been loath to provide even its closest allies with the aircraft, mostly over fears that the technology -- the F-22 has, among other features, stealth characteristics -- could be passed on to third parties.
In Japan's case, it is not so much that Tokyo would willfully sell the technology to a country such as China, but rather that it could be leaked. As Kyodo News agency reported in July, leaks of data pertaining to the US-built Aegis defense system by Japan's Self-Defense Forces, among others, have fed fears at the Pentagon that Japan cannot be fully trusted with advanced technology such as that found in the Raptor. Similar fears over the years have made it difficult for Taiwan to obtain some of the weapons it has sought.
But Washington could soon revisit its policy on the F-22 and other weapons systems. Despite ever-growing defense budgets, the US military is nevertheless starting to feel the pain of its various costly deployments in theaters such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of that overstretch could be remedied by further empowering its allies. NATO's encroachment into former Soviet territory since the early 1990s is a perfect example.
A similar phenomenon could develop in Asia, where the US is making efforts to retain its military lead. If, because of its responsibilities elsewhere, it continues to be unable to mobilize enough forces to counter what it perceives as a rising Chinese military threat, the US will feel inclined to increasingly rely on its regional allies. But reliance alone, without giving its allies the muscle they need to provide a credible countervailing force, would be meaningless.
In other words, the proxies will need to be given the weapons necessary for them to maintain a military edge over an opponent whose modernization of its own forces has made leaps in recent years and that, following the US' shooting down of a dead spy satellite last week and fears of an arms race in space, could soon accelerate.
Not only would this approach allow the US to contain or encircle China, but pressure from the military-industrial complex in the US will also lead to a relaxing of export controls that have stalled the sale of F-22s to other countries. As history has taught us, when business interests coincide with geopolitical considerations -- and the Asia-Pacific region certainly provides us with such an example -- whatever reluctance states might have to share what is theirs will evaporate.
During his visit to Australia on the weekend, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was once more asked by his Australian counterpart if the US would be willing to sell Australia F-22s to ensure air superiority over its northern neighbors.
While he did not make promises, Gates -- the same Gates who berated NATO for not doing or spending enough -- said he would raise the issue back home.
Odd as it may seem, approval may depend on Iran. If the situation there degenerates to the point the US feels the need for a military response, the Asia-Pacific will become of secondary importance to the US, which will need its regional proxies more than ever. If this happens, look for the F-22 in the skies Down Under.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
The 77th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 13. More than 10 overseas Taiwanese organizations had submitted a petition to the UN secretary-general, protesting that 23.5 million Taiwanese are excluded from representation. As president of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance, I also submitted a letter to the UN, saying that Taiwanese should have the right to be represented under the name of Taiwan. The government has been asking its allies to support Taiwan’s entry into the UN, but under its official name, the Republic of China (ROC). Doing so would have involved the right to represent China, with
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty