The US Pacific Command, which controls US forces from the west coast of North America to the east coast of Africa, has fashioned a subtle revision in its strategy of reassuring friends and deterring potential enemies, notably China and North Korea.
The new strategy, approved this month by the command’s leader, Admiral Timothy Keating, is “based on partnership, presence and military readiness.” Earlier versions were more assertive, saying “it is a strategy rooted in partnership and military preeminence.”
In his cover letter authorizing the new strategy, Keating said “it underscores the fundamental importance of sustained and persistent cooperation and collaboration in times of relative peace to mitigate situations that could lead to conflict and crisis.”
Many Asians and some Americans have accused the US of going it alone and failing to consult with allies and friends, smacking of what some would call “unilateralism.” In his 15 months as the Pacific commander, Keating has sought to dispel that image and to stress collective action.
At the same time, the admiral said the emphasis on security cooperation “does not signal a departure from our primary responsibility to fight and win.”
Even so, he said, the Pacific Command would accentuate a posture intended to “preclude the necessity for combat operations.”
Officers at the command’s headquarters said the revised strategy was aimed at several audiences:
First, the officers of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force throughout the Asia-Pacific region, some of whom apparently believe that conflict with China is likely, maybe inevitable.
“The command wants to make sure that everyone understands that it is not inevitable,” one officer said.
Second, US government agencies other than the Department of Defense. An undercurrent rumbling through the armed forces contends that the State Department, Agency for International Development, Treasury and other agencies are leaving too many non-military tasks, such as reconstruction in Iraq, to the military.
Third, allies such as Japan and Australia and partners such as Singapore. Another undercurrent represents fears that the US may reduce its forces in the Asia-Pacific region or even withdraw. The strategy seeks to reassure everyone that the command will be “an engaged and trusted partner committed to preserving the security” of the region.
Fourth, known adversaries such as North Korea and potential opponents such as China.
“Deterring conflict on the Korean Peninsula continues to be a priority,” the strategy says.
It points to a “maturing US-China military-to-military relationship” while acknowledging that “tension remains across the Taiwan Strait.”
Taiwan, of course, is the most likely cause of war between China and the US. Beijing contends that Taiwan is part of China and has threatened to use military force to conquer it. The US insists that the fate of Taiwan be determined peaceably and in accord with the wishes of the people.
The revised strategy calls for a “whole-of-government approach,” asserting that security in the Asia-Pacific region “demands a high degree of coordination, integration and unity of effort” within the Pentagon and across other departments and agencies.
The document applauds Australia and Japan for joining the US “in developing a trilateral partnership dedicated to improving security in the region.”
It further points to trilateral cooperation among the US, South Korea and Japan, which may be no more than a diplomatic nicety as the Japanese disdain the Koreans and the Koreans distrust the Japanese. The US tries to deal with each even handedly but rarely do they work together.
Among the strategy’s more striking pledges is the Pacific Command’s commitment to freedom of movement, particularly through the Straits of Malacca and South China Sea. More ships sail through that passage in a year that through the Suez and Panama canals combined. The document flatly states that the command will not “tolerate disruptions to global supply chains or threats to lines of communication and commerce.”
On China, the Pacific Command has sought for more than a decade to assure the Chinese that the US is not out to contain or repress China. At the same time, Pacific commanders have cautioned the Chinese not to underestimate US military power in the Asia-Pacific region nor the willingness of the US to use it.
Even with the emphasis on partnership, the strategy concludes on an assertive note: In the Asia-Pacific region, the command is to be the “pre-eminent warfighter.”
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS