China’s Military Modernization and Implications for Northeast Asia
An Interview with Christopher W. Hughes
By Sarah Serizawa
August 2, 2012
August 2, 2012
Christopher
W. Hughes is Professor of International Politics and Japanese Studies
at the University of Warwick. He is the author of the chapter "Japanese Military Modernization: In Search of a 'Normal' Security Role" in Strategic Asia 2005–06: Military Modernization in an Era of Uncertainty.
China’s
ambitious military modernization program and increasing defense
spending have raised questions about the future security and stability
of the Asia-Pacific region. NBR spoke with Christopher Hughes
(University of Warwick) to assess U.S. and Northeast Asian attitudes
toward China’s military
modernization. Dr. Hughes is the author of “China’s Military
Modernization: U.S. Allies and Partners in Northeast Asia,” which will
appear in the forthcoming volume of Strategic Asia, to be released on October 3. This year’s volume examines China’s military modernization and U.S. and Asian responses to it.
How
have Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and Taiwan sought to strike a
balance between their increasing economic interdependence with China and
their concerns over Chinese military modernization and strategic aims
in the region?
I
think that hedging, rather than building a strong strategic or military
balance, has been the approach that these countries have taken toward
China’s military modernization in the last few years. That is, while
they still see China’s military modernization as alarming, they are also
aware that increasing economic dependence on China is inescapable. So,
as they continue to hedge, they are hoping that economic growth will
eventually moderate China’s behavior, lead to diplomatic engagement, and
counterbalance the asymmetric dependence that is building up. All three
countries recognize their significant economic dependence on China and
are seeking to develop deeper diplomatic relationships with other
regional actors while simultaneously advocating for a continued U.S.
presence in the region to act as a strategic balancer. Japan, in
particular, provides us with a good example of this strategy. Japan has
sought to
strengthen relations with Russia, as well as with the nations of
Southeast and Central Asia, in order to diversify its diplomatic and
economic prospects, while concurrently drawing itself closer to the
United States to ensure its security.
As
China is its largest trade partner, Japan benefits significantly from
and accepts its economic engagement with China. In fact, Japan is
pursuing a “mutually beneficial strategic partnership” with China, which
would allow both countries to focus on the same key areas—such as
energy, food security, natural disasters, etc.—in order to maintain
economic engagement and also develop better relations. But at the same
time, Japan is building up its Self-Defense Forces in reaction to
China’s expanding maritime capabilities. This is the kind of very quiet
military hedging game that Japan is
playing with China.
South
Korea presents a very similar picture. Until the end of the last
decade, South Korea seemed to be tilting much more toward China as a
result of increasing economic dependence. However, the nation is
beginning to realize that its economic relationship with China is too
asymmetrical and thus not healthy. China, which still stands behind
North Korea, could be the next greatest threat to South Korea,
particularly as it increases its ability to project power into the sea
lines of communication (SLOC) around the Korean Peninsula. In response,
South Korea is beginning to try to back away somewhat from China
economically while engaging in its own military modernization program to
guard (among other things) against Chinese expansion. It will also need
to reconsider how to strike a balance between China and the
United States.
As
Taiwan is very dependent on China’s economy, it is trying actively to
boost relations with Southeast Asia. Under President Chen Shui-bian,
Taiwan-U.S.-China relations soured considerably but have improved
significantly since Ma Ying-jeou came to power. As a result Taiwan has
begun to think in new ways about the importance of the United States as a
resource and hedge against China.
How have U.S. allies and partners in Northeast Asia responded to the U.S. plan to rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific?
Broadly
speaking, all three countries welcome U.S. re-engagement in the
Asia-Pacific region and expect the United States to get back into the
balancing game with China. I think the key question is: how much is the
United States able to actually refocus on Asia, given the
challenges—such as its declining economy—that it faces as it attempts to
maintain primacy? While the pivot back to Asia is very welcomed, the
United States will need to convince some of these countries that it can
progress beyond the rhetoric and maintain a strong presence in the
region.
At
the 19th ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) held in early July, security and
stability issues in the Asia-Pacific—particularly the South China Sea
territorial disputes—were key discussion points. The United States has
been urging countries to
resolve the disputes while remaining neutral. What are the implications
of the U.S. attitude toward the South China Sea disputes for security
and stability in Asia as a whole?
I
think what’s going on in the South China Sea carries important
implications for the future strategic environment of Asia, because the
U.S. response to this issue will inform regional actors as to the
firmness of the U.S. security guarantee in Northeast Asia. At the ARF,
there was a hope that the states involved in the South China Sea
disputes would generate a binding resolution on preventing disputes.
However, nothing really came out of it; partly because the ASEAN states
are all parties to the disputes and could not agree much among
themselves. Of course, as a member of
the ARF, the United States is clearly concerned about the disputes;
nevertheless, it does not take a position on sovereignty, and its actual
willingness to intervene in support of some of the Southeast Asian
countries is uncertain. Just as there is a potential for China to claim
greater power over the South China Sea, there is also a potential for
China to seize greater territory in the East China Sea. In that sense,
the United States’ ambivalent stance toward these territorial disputes
undermines not only the ASEAN countries’ but also Japan’s confidence in
the United States as a security guarantor.
In your Strategic Asia
chapter, you note that a “quiet arms race is developing in Northeast
Asia.” Does this dynamic increase the potential for minor disputes to
escalate rapidly into major conflicts that
necessitate U.S. involvement?
What
I’m referring to is a kind of slow-motion understated arms race. It’s
not a purely classical, symmetrical kind of arms race because not all
countries are trying to match China plane by plane, ship by ship, etc.
In some cases, they’re trying to match China’s asymmetrical buildup with
their own kind of even more asymmetrical capabilities. But, there is
also some form of a more classic arms race in terms of a tit-for-tat
matching of particular kinds of weapons. We can see this in terms of air
defense capabilities, with both sides pursuing advanced ballistic
missile defense, surface-to-air missiles, and early warning radar
systems in addition to fourth- and fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
China and Japan
are also both expanding their maritime capabilities by building more
advanced destroyers and submarines as well as developing a maritime air
power projection component.
There
is always a risk for conflict. An arms race spirals upward, generating
the potential for mistakes. The result is a classic security dilemma,
which exacerbates tensions and increases the likelihood of
miscalculation. However, the United States obviously does not welcome
conflicts in the first place, especially because it would be obliged to
intervene on behalf of its allies.
At
the moment, Japan is taking a nonmilitary approach in the East China
Sea to defend its interests around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.
Nevertheless, if China
increases its activities in the East China Sea and were to deploy more
capable assets that outmatch the Japanese coast guard, then Japan would
be obliged to deploy its defense forces, which could potentially lead to
provocations and miscalculations. However, since such a minor conflict
could escalate quickly, it is in everyone’s interest to keep a lid on a
major arms race.
What are Japan’s main strategic concerns? What new capabilities does Japan believe are essential to its defense strategy?
While
North Korea is currently Japan’s most immediate security challenge,
China is its main and long-term strategic concern.
Japan in the past was quite sanguine about China’s military
modernization as it related to Taiwan. Japan understood that China had
some legitimate security interests, although it clearly does not want to
see any destabilization in Taiwan due to actions by any power. Japan is
most concerned with maintaining its territorial sovereignty in light of
China’s developing anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) aircraft and
maritime power projection capabilities within the first island chain and
the East China Sea in particular. This is a new and much more immediate
concern for Japan, which has, until now, not stood on the front line of
these territorial security issues.
As
I argue in the chapter, despite U.S. rebalancing, Japan’s confidence in
U.S. willingness and ability to intervene over issues like the Senkaku
Islands dispute is
declining. In Japan, there is now a shift from the passive and reactive
defense approach, which had been focused simply on defending its own
immediate territory, toward a more dynamic defense stance epitomized by a
new willingness to confront provocations by North Korea and China. In
order to ward off China from stepping over Japan and the United States,
Japan is augmenting its own submarine forces and introducing light
helicopter carriers to counter the Chinese maritime buildup. Japan is
also repositioning many of its most capable air defense assets and
elements of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force to the south, to more
directly meet the threats emanating from China and the Korean Peninsula.
How
have South Korean attitudes toward the U.S.-ROK security alliance
shifted over the past decade? What problems persist and what
steps are the United States and South Korea taking to address them?
I
think South Korea has always been supportive of the alliance. There’s
always an exaggeration about what state the alliance is in, and I think
that while the alliance is in pretty good shape, relations can
fluctuate. Under the ROK’s previous administration, there was greater
political tension in the alliance at the elite and especially public
opinion level. However, the alliance was still quite strong because the
ROK was doing all kinds of things with the United States—dispatching
troops to Iraq, moving ahead with plans to support the U.S. Global
Posture Review in terms of relocating army and air force bases in South
Korea.
There
has been a delay in the transfer of operational control (OPCON) of its
military forces to South Korea even though both sides have been putting
in place quite elaborate structures to ensure that plans are executed
smoothly. The ROK probably has sufficient command and control
capabilities to lead the response in the event of a North Korean
contingency. While I am not privileged to the precise details of the
military planning, I do believe that all the necessary preparations have
been laid out. While the United States believes that the ROK has the
capabilities to take over, South Korea lacks the confidence in its
ability to lead because of heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula
coinciding with the original timetable for handing over OPCON due to the
deterioration of North-South relations. Nevertheless, I do not see why
it would not be feasible for the ROK to take
control by 2015.
There
are still problems of confidence and abandonment issues that come with
alliances. As the U.S. military has become more flexible and partly
disengaged from the Korean Peninsula in order to operate region-wide,
abandonment concerns in South Korea have grown. These worries depend on
the strength of the U.S. commitment to defend South Korea—whether
Washington is willing to intervene in the event of a contingency, or
will scale back its commitment. Overall, however, I think that the
ROK-U.S. relationship is quite solid.
How
strong is the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s security? What are the
prospects of a crisis emerging in the near term, and under what
circumstances would the United
States intervene?
It’s
a million dollar question, really. Taiwan is different from Japan and
South Korea because it is not a formal treaty partner. First, there is
the Taiwan Relations Act which commits the United States to provide
Taiwan with the capabilities to defend itself and the Taiwan Strait.
This is likely to be an enduring commitment. Because it is a legislative
agreement rather than an executive agreement, Congress is always going
to be able to exert its influence on the U.S.-Taiwan security
relationship. Historically, Congress has exhibited a strong interest in
making sure the United States assists in maintaining the security of
Taiwan, so in that sense, the U.S. commitment is relatively strong.
Furthermore, China’s expansion has
made the United States more sensitive to maintaining stability in the
Taiwan Strait.
That
said, the strength of the U.S. commitment to Taiwanese security really
boils down to the large strategic questions: How important is Taiwan to
the overall Sino-U.S. relationship? How willing is the United States to
immerse itself in cross-strait issues? It is difficult to know.
Whether
the United States will intervene will also depend on the circumstances
of the conflict. In the event of conflict, Taiwan will likely attempt to
hold out long enough for the United States to arrive on the scene to
deter China from further aggression. However, this will depend on the
military deployments on the ground. If you look at the
assets the United States has now, there is one school of thought that
argues that the United States would find it difficult or too costly to
intervene because of China’s A2/AD capability. It really will depend on
what the United States does in terms of the Asia pivot. Emerging battle
concepts would give the U.S. military the muscle it needs to get into
the Taiwan Strait, so it is more hinged on the willingness, political
capability, and credibility of the United States to act as a security
guarantor for Taiwan. Japan is watching these developments closely
because if the United States cannot project its power in the Taiwan
Strait, it may have implications for the East China Sea and, more
broadly, for continued Japanese reliance on the United States for
security.
Japan,
South Korea, and Taiwan have each recently announced
their own military modernization programs to counter growing Chinese
military strength. Can these countries afford to allocate the necessary
resources to maintain a symmetrical advantage or just parity? How might
current economic difficulties constrain their ability to pursue a hard
hedge against China?
The
answer depends on the country. There is a mixed approach to the
military buildup to counter China. Japan and South Korea are attempting
to match China symmetrically, while Taiwan is doing so asymmetrically.
Japan, as one of the largest economies in the world, can counter China
if it has the political will to use its resources, knowledge, and
capabilities appropriately. South Korea, on the other hand, has not been
meeting the targets for
military spending seen as necessary if it is to balance China
symmetrically. The country is definitely not in a bad economic state,
but there is a lack of resources or political consensus that prevents it
from meeting its defense ambitions, which are centered on a stronger
navy to hedge against China. Taiwan’s asymmetrical approach clearly
shows it is aware that it cannot balance against China symmetrically. A
declining defense budget has made it difficult to meet the challenge
presented by China’s military modernization symmetrically. So, for
Taiwan, it requires stronger defensive resilience so that it is not
invaded by China. This approach, articulated in part as the “hard ROC”
concept, would increase Taiwan’s asymmetric defensive capabilities
designed to achieve cross-strait stability through defensive deterrence
bolstered by counter-force interdiction and strike capabilities.
The
outlook is different for each country. They will definitely struggle to
hedge against China on their own, so they clearly need the United
States. As I argue in my chapter, as much as there is danger, there are
also myriad opportunities for the United States in the region. The
United States wants to be careful about being drawn into local issues,
but it can certainly provide political reassurance as a security
guarantor. The idea in the past was that, under the previous
administration, the United States was losing Asia, and that Asia was
gravitating toward China. However, I argue that the United States still
has not lost Asia. If the United States can back its rhetoric with
capabilities, it can continue to be the key balancing power and make a
difference in the Asia-Pacific.
Sarah Serizawa is a Strategic Asia Intern at NBR.
______________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment