Beijing has declared the ancient Korean kingdom of Koguryo to be a Chinese province in its day. Koguryo was without doubt part of Chinese civilization. South Koreans, though, regard it as their founding civilization. They are, therefore, furious at China's new claim. The region in question included much of what is today called North Korea.
What this means is that Koreans -- whether they like it or not -- have been appropriated by China as part of their domain. This is part of Beijing's grand plan to reclaim all people and territories regarded as historically theirs. Take, for instance, the case of the islands in the South China Sea. China has already claimed the Spratly and Paracel groups of islands. As a result,
sea lanes in the South China Sea
have become national waterways under Chinese law, and therefore places where China can enforce its authority when it is powerful enough to do so. Other islands and territories are also claimed by China, giving Beijing the pretext at any opportune time to annex them.
No wonder South Korea is worried. As Kim Woo-jun of the Korean Institute of East-West Affairs has said, "This is not a purely historical issue. If Koguryo is incorrectly interpreted by China as China's old kingdom, the North Korean region becomes China's historical territory. And this can serve as a justification for future Chinese intervention."
Taiwan, of course, is regarded as a "renegade province," waiting to be annexed. There is now even speculation on how long Taiwan can last on its own if attacked by China.
According to one source in Taipei, "in the event of a `first strike,' the air force and the navy can preserve three quarters of their fighting capabilities while the army can maintain 80 percent of its fighting capabilities."
It added, "Under these circumstances, Taiwan can hold on for two weeks in the event of a war in the Taiwan Strait."
In the midst of China's military threat to Taiwan and its high-profile regional ambitions, it is hard to understand why the US has come out at this time with plans for redeployment of ground forces.
The plan involves thinning forces in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, where South Korea will lose about one-third of the 37,000 US troops stationed there. Japan will be similarly affected, with precise numbers unknown at this time.
The rationale is that the world has changed since the end of
the Cold War in the 1990s, and
that new threats require new responses and strategies. As US President George W. Bush has put it, "For decades, America's armed forces abroad have essentially remained where the wars of the last century ended, in Europe and Asia."
In future, the US would rely more heavily on special forces and small contingents of "forward forces" to provide a rapid response capability, while its roving naval deployment and high-tech capability will ensure global supremacy.
But the redeployment, by focusing on rapid reaction and high-tech resources, seems to overlook the possibility that future military threats are not likely to fit the American prescription. Take Iraq, for instance. It is true that the US military rapidly defeated the enemy. But the subsequent quagmire requires the commitment of increasing numbers of ground troops to create some sort of order.
Similarly, in Iran, where the regime is daring the US to take it on, the easiest part would be to rain destruction. But the subsequent task of putting together
an acceptable alternative to the present regime will require a recurring commitment of troops to crush the inevitable insurgency.
In the Asia-Pacific, for instance, reducing US forces does not send the right message to China and North Korea. China threatens Taiwan almost daily, while North Korea is thumbing its nose at everyone by holding on to its nuclear capabilities.
As the New York Times has rightly pointed out, "The plan makes little long-term strategic sense. It is certain to strain crucial alliances, increase overall costs and dangerously weaken deterrence on the Korean peninsula at the worst possible moment."
And the Christian Science Monitor worryingly asks: "Will the reported drawdown of 20,000 troops from East Asia make America look weak in this region, or give the appearance that Washington is abandoning its friends in Seoul or Taipei?"
The Washington Post gives it a broader perspective: "North Korea has pressed for US troop withdrawals for years; now that
it is misbehaving in the nuclear field, it receives a reward, and for no concessions. China is increasingly throwing its weight around Southeast Asia; countries there that want a US counterbalance, even if they do not always dare say so, will become less confident."
The point is that any drawdown of US forces will be perceived as lack of resolve and commitment to regional security. With China extending its reach and influence and flexing its muscle, more countries in the Asia-Pacific will willingly or otherwise accommodate themselves to this new reality. In other words, China doesn't have to match US power to become a serious contender. The US is doing it all by itself by appearing less resolute.
And where does Japan fit into this picture?
It has three options. First,
it might continue as a junior
partner within the US security umbrella.
But it will increasingly need to make greater military and financial contributions to the alliance. That will require amendments to its Constitution.
Second, it might become part of a Beijing-sponsored "East Asia pact," a "strategic partnership" of regional countries under Chinese leadership.
Or third, it might remilitarize to become a competing power.
In other words, the planned US redeployment in Asia is quite unsettling.
It is creating uncertainty at a time when China and North Korea are indulging in dangerous brinksmanship.
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with