China Redux

In my post a few weeks back on “who’s who” in China policy, I identified the Commander of US Pacific Command as one of the most important figures in managing the US-China security relationship. I also noted that there is a new PACOM Commander, Admiral Timothy Keating, and that he replaced Admiral William Fallon, who recently became Commander of CENTCOM (with command over Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan).

Considering that senior military officers often rotate assignments, that Central Command has recently undergone significant leadership changes (including the departure of the previous CENTCOM Commander, Army General John Abizaid), and that Admiral Fallon is generally regarded as one of the military’s most experienced officers, a move such as this normally would not have garned much interest outside professional channels.

And yet I can’t help but think there’s some other dynamic going on under the surface. First, there’s the issue of appointing a Naval officer to lead wars largely being fought on the ground and in the air. Personally, that snipe sounds bogus to me. For years, the military has emphasized “jointness” and “interoperability” in its training, operations, and planning. What better way to send a signal that these ideas are being implemented than by appointing a experienced leader such as Fallon to this post. Then there’s the more cynical take on Fallon’s appointment: that the Bush Administration is preparing for war with Iran, which almost certainly would require significant naval operations.

What is more noteworthy in all this is Fallon’s record as PACOM Commander, where he was an outspoken proponent of increasing US military cooperation with China.  William Arkin, in a must-read post on his Early Warning blog, confirms that “Adm. Fallon indeed directed his planners in Hawaii not to prepare contingency ’strategic’ air strikes against mainland Chinese targets as part of U.S. options in a China-Taiwan contingency.” You can bet that a lot of people in the administration and the military did not like Fallon’s orders. In fact, Arkin reports that Fallon’s planners disobeyed him and went ahead with the contigency preparations anyway.

Fast forward to Fallon’s re-assignment to the prize position of CENTCOM Commander. Being named Commander of CENTCOM while the US is fighting two wars in the region is a major achievement and a vote of confidence from Fallon’s bosses and peers, right? Maybe so. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace would seem to support Fallon’s strategy in the Pacific, as I wrote about earlier. But the person who ultimately controls the administration’s foreign policy clearly does not. Remember that Fallon’s appointment is a political one. Might the Administration have given Fallon the prestigious CENTCOM Command just to get him out of the way in Asia? Certainly seems plausible.

Here’s Arkin on Fallon again:

Fallon then is either the very feckless figurehead that military insiders decry appointed to CENTCOM so that Darth Cheney can run the world; or he is a wise man brought in to ratchet down the tensions.

The other and more likely possibility is that Fallon is merely the symbol of institutional military impotence and failings in the face of ideology. High-ranking officers can have fabulous military intuitions and judgments; they can be intellectual giants. Still, if the ideologues want to do something, or if the secret warriors go off in their own direction, they will always find commanders, staff officers, bureaucrats and contractors to plan and implement the most dangerous courses of action.

And that, in a nutshell, is why the US is in a world of trouble — no matter where Admiral Fallon and his ilk of bright, professional servicemen may be posted.

ITT, the large engineering and electronics company with a long history in the defense business, has been fined a whopping $100 million by the Justice Department for releasing its night-vision technology secrets to China. It is the largest penalty ever under the Arms Export Control Act. A couple interesting things picked up from the WSJ’s story:

• ITT didn’t just share the night-vision technology with China, but also the U.K. and Singapore (and possibly others). So this isn’t necessarily a case of ballooning fines due to China’s involvement in the matter.
• Justice has offered to immediately suspend $50 million from the payment–half of the fine–if ITT develops a more advanced night-vision technology for American soldiers. In this case the US would retain “Government Purpose Rights” to the technology.

All in all, may not be such a bad deal for American taxpayers.

A friend who has spent a good deal of time covering US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at various bases and training sites in the US, recently made an interesting comment that really resonated withe me. He said that right now it feels as if there are two US militaries: one that is stuck fighting low-intensity (counterinsurgency) conflicts in in the Middle East and Central Asia, and one that is consumed with documenting and preparing for the rising “China threat.”

My sense is that he’s right, and that it comes down to money. There’s very little of it for the military in Iraq but there’s plenty for PACOM and its partners in East and Northeast Asia.

Now, it’s not like we are about to stop spending money in Iraq and Afghanistan. Significant appropriations for economic development and political assistance, peacekeeping, counternarcotics, and more will be necessary for many years to come (unless Democrats decide to just walk away and leave these countries in total disarray after we “bombed them back to the Stone Age,” but I don’t think that will happen).  But no longer does Iraq offer justification for new tanks and fighter jets.

Smart minds in the defense industry realized this some time ago and began turning their attention to China. And so the cottage industry of China “analysts” who lobby for additional defense and intelligence spending to counter the “gathering threat” from China continues to grow. Many of these people are the ones who whipped up support for the Iraq war but have since turned their backs on that conflict.  Others have made a career of anti-China polemicism.

These efforts have been widely effective on Capitol Hill, whose leaders hold decidedly unfavorable views of China, especially when compared with those of American business leaders and American citizens. Here’s Neil King, Jr.’s take from a recent (and good) story in the Washingtonian:

So perhaps it’s no surprise that in DC and the heartland, the span of public opinion toward China borders on schizophrenic. Two years ago, the Committee of 100, a group made up of top Chinese-Americans, released a poll on American attitudes toward China. Asked their impression of China, the general public was generally positive: six in ten said they viewed China “favorably.” Business leaders came in at 63 percent. But on Capitol Hill, eight in ten staffers held unfavorable views. More than a third of those staffers considered China a “serious military threat” to US national security.

Given the Hill’s deep distrust of China, it’s not impossible that we’ll see Congress curtail funding for Iraq but actually increase the overall US defense budget over the next 5-10 years in an effort to “keep up” with China. President Bush has already requested an 11 percent increase in defense-related spending for FY2008.  I don’t expect Congress to put up much of a fuss — beyond the dollars for Iraq, of course.

So the money’s still there for the military — only it’s a different miltary than five years ago.  Instead of the Humvees and tanks, we’ll be buying satellites and fast ships.   Because not even the most wild-eyed strategist could foresee us getting into a ground war with China.

Many thanks to Jeremiah at Granite Studio for the honor of being added to the (growing) list of “Thinking Bloggers,” or blogs that make you think. Here’s my list, which attempt to avoid redundancies with the other lists out there:

1. China Matters: Don’t let the long posts put you off; keep reading because it’s worth your time. Always incisive and deep analysis of foreign policy matters, including China.

2. Publishing 2.0: One of the non-China blogs I turn to most frequently. Hands-down one of the most thoughtful and valuable provocateurs writing on the business of technology, media, the worldwide web, and publishing. I frequently disagree with Scott, but his blog always forces me to reevaluate my assumptions and ideas.

3. Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal: Musings of the esteemed economist. There’s always something there to get me going.

4. Angry Chinese Blogger: One-of-a-kind China blog that always make me think. ACB frequently lives up to its mission of covering events and information in China that go unnoticed or misreported.

5. PCR Project Blog: Tracking all the post-conflict reconstruction issues you need to know about, from former colleagues at the estimable PCR Project at CSIS. I hope it will move towards offering more analysis, but the PCR blog team is prolific and comprehensive in a crucial area.

That’s a diverse group of five that always gets me thinking. So many more, so few awards to give out…

In the wake of Vice President Cheney’s biting comments about China and the ugly reaction that ensued (post from ACB), it looks as if the task of cleaning up the VP’s mess has been placed on the already-full plate of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace. Pace is currently in China, where he is meeting with his Chinese counterparts and will view Chinese air and ground capabilities in Shenyang, east of Beijing — a potentially important symbol of greater Chinese military openness. Here are highights of the considerably more friendly and diplomatic remarks from the Marine General, from a news conference at the American embassy in Beijing on Thursday:

• Capability and Intent: Pace acknowledged China’s not-insignificant military capability but disavowed the threat of any Chinese intent to start a war. “Clearly, both China and the United States have enormous military capacity,” he said. “But equally clearly, neither country has the intent to go to war with the other country. So absent intent, I don’t find threat.” Pace is smart enough to leave the door open. Time can change intent. And by establishing China’s “enormous” military capacity and juxtaposing it with US capacity, Pace enables the military R&D, hardware, and services industry’s case for more defense budget spending. Thus placating key parts of his military constituency.

  

• Military Coordination: It’s important that Pace went on record in support of increased military-to-military contact between the US and China. A number of program proposals emerged in this area from Pace’s visit to China: 1) an exchange program for young officers and military academy cadets and midshipmen; 2) Expanding joint search-and-rescue excercises; 3) Increased cooperation of humanitarian operations. Nothing earth-shattering here, but it’s better than nothing. Now we’ll see whether these kinds of cooperative measures actually move forward through the military command. Read the rest of this entry »

China has displaced the US to become the biggest source of exports to the European Union, reports the Financial Times. Imports from China into EU countries rose by 21 percent last year, while imports from the US rose by 8 percent.  Meanwhile, EU exports to China rose by 23 percent last year.

The trends in Chinese trade with the US and EU are showing strong similarities.  Both the US and EU are running large trade deficits with China.  Imports from China are growing at high rates, but not necessarily outpacing growth of exports to China.  This is the silver lining: perhaps the US and EU will catch up, over time, if EU/US export growth to China continue to exceed import growth.

Maybe.  But I’m skeptical — at the least, it will take a long time.  US and EU exports to China remain just a fraction of their imports from China (in the EU’s case, about 25 percent), so exports would have to grow much, much faster than imports in order to catch up in a short period.  More importantly, China is not stopping production at the lower-end of the value chain.  According to the FT, the fastest growth in Chinese exports to Europe has been in mechanical and electrical machinery.  As China continues to move its exports up the value chain….

It’s from that point that the the competition really begins.

Two items from CFR.org that I wanted to share with everyone.

The first is a podcast with Carl Minzner, an expert on Chinese domestic issues and former senior counsel at the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, in which he discusses the growing social unrest in China. This is a very timely report given recent protests in Jiangxi province (courtesy Peking Duck) and Zhushan (Angry Chinese Blogger).

Second is a very insightful exchange on the question, Does China Pose A Military Threat?, between Richard Halloran, a former NYT correspondent and Asia expert, and Keith Tkacik, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Add Russia to the growing list of countries with unsavory regimes being courted by China.

The People’s Daily Online is reporting that Chinese and Russian “companies” are expected to sign contracts worth more than $4.3 billion during President Hu Jintao’s visit to Russia next week. One of the larger deals expected to go through is between the two country’s railway authorities on the transport of crude oil.

According to the People’s Daily, the purpose of Hu’s trip is to “strengthen political trust and push forward the economic and trade partnership.” Russia is already one of the largest providers of natural gas to China, and has plans to pipe in some 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas to China each year, according to Russian Ambassador to China Sergei Razov. Russia is also in the process of constructing a 2,800 km-long crude oil pipeline to China.

The expanded bilateral economic ties are carrying over to the security sphere. The China Foreign Ministry announced today that China and Russia will hold a joint military drill in Russia this year aimed at “increasing collaboration to fight terrorism in the region.” I’m not sure which terrorists they are talking about here — Chechens, Uyghurs, Osama Bin Laden? This sounds more like a thinly veiled pretext to increase security cooperation and coordination between the two countries, which has serious implications for the United States. A robust Sino-Russian security pact could threaten US interests in Central and East Asia and counterbalance the strength of the US-Japanese alliance.

The US needs a strategy to entice China away from these types of deals, because what we’re doing right now isn’t working. China has every reason to join hands with the Russia’s and Sudan’s of the world: China desperately needs energy–its entire diplomatic strategy is based around this fundamental need–and it is an unfortunate (but not coincidental) fact that the world’s energy resources rest in the hands of troubled governments. How is the world’s superpower going to change China’s calculation on these matters? This is not a moral issue but a political one. Where is the political strategy, the carrots and the sticks, to help China make diplomatic and security decisions that are more beneficial to US interests? I just don’t see this kind of political leadership coming from the Bush Administration in the next two years.

I’m back after an action-packed trip through Ireland.

It amazes me how much can happen in just over one week. So for my first post back, I’m going to try to catch up by reviewing some of the most interesting posts to cross my screen over the past ten days.

• China raised interest rates and China Economics Blog had it covered here, as did China Confidential.
• Angry Chinese Blogger provides a rare, fascinating glimpse into riots in rural village of Zhushan.
• Must-read piece on Vice President Cheney’s efforts to “contain” China from China Matters.
• Another exceptional post from China Matters on China’s role in the Iran sanctions fiasco.  Reminds of a post I did on loan sanctions in the context of China’s financing illegitimate regimes in Africa.
• Good post from Richard Spencer of the Telegraph weighing on the China threat.
• Interesting post from Tim Johnson at China Rises on China’s new development deal with Sri Lanka, which has raised eyebrows in India.

I’m glossing over some great work and I’m certain I’ve missed many more, but I’m feeling caught up…

I am headed out of town for a week and will be out of pocket.

I’ll see you back in a week.