This Week at War: China Rules the Waves

What the four-stars are reading -- a weekly column from Small Wars Journal.

BY ROBERT HADDICK | OCTOBER 16, 2009

Learning to share the oceans with China

On Sept. 22, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) released a report, China's Arrival: A Strategic Framework for a Global Relationship. Journalist and CNAS senior fellow Robert Kaplan, wrote a chapter in the report called "China's Two-Ocean Strategy" (see page 45).

Kaplan asserts, "China is in the midst of a shipbuilding and acquisition craze that will result in the People's Liberation Army Navy having more ships than the U.S. Navy sometime in the next decade." Since 1945, U.S. diplomatic and political strategies in Asia have been predicated on U.S. naval domination in the western Pacific and Indian oceans. The U.S. Navy's control of seagoing lines of commerce from the Middle East to all points in Asia has been a major component of America's alliance system in the region and its relations with potential adversaries. Kaplan's essay reminds us that over the next decade or so, the rise of China's naval power will scrap the assumptions underlying the United States' Asian diplomacy.

According to Kaplan, the collapse of the Soviet Army in the 1990s removed China's most significant land-based threat. With its territorial security established, China's leaders could afford to spend money on naval forces. This shift coincided with the massive expansion of China's international trade. Kaplan reminds us that China's energy imports from the Middle East -- which travel across the Indian Ocean, through the Strait of Malacca, and up the western Pacific -- will double over the next decade or two. China's ocean-going commerce currently receives protection from the U.S. Navy and its allies in the region. But as an arriving global power, China's leaders are not likely to tolerate this vulnerability to potential U.S. leverage. China's naval shipbuilding program indicates China's response.

According to Kaplan, by 2015 China will surpass South Korea and Japan to become the world's most prolific shipbuilder. China will achieve this position because its growing shipbuilding expertise will combine with its labor and capital cost advantages to make it the preferred shipbuilding vendor. China's cost advantages in "metal-bending" industries will compare very favorably against U.S. naval shipbuilders who are best known for gross cost overruns, long delays, and problem-ridden deliveries. U.S. military acquisition officials have hoped that U.S. technological advantages will offset an adversary's numbers. But such a focus on technology might be part of the problem, rather than the solution. Looking out over the next two decades, military shipbuilding trends do not favor the United States.

The solution is expanded diplomacy. Kaplan discusses how the United States and China will find common interests protecting shipping from piracy, terrorism, and natural disasters. In addition, China and the United States share an interest in keeping open the ocean's lines of communication -- both countries are highly dependent on trade and energy imports from the Middle East. With many common interests, China's arrival as a naval power need not result in conflict.

But will the United States be able to maintain its Asian alliance system if its naval hegemony comes under challenge? Will America's friends in Asia drift into China's orbit if the U.S. military cannot maintain its investment in naval power? This decade's land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have absorbed huge sums that might have otherwise gone into naval recapitalization. The looming fragility in America's position in the western Pacific might be the best reason for it to wind up its affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Guang Niu/Pool/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

JPWREL

6:01 PM ET

October 17, 2009

The situation discussed by

The situation discussed by Robert Kagan is a prime example of imperial overstretch. The United States like many other mature powers in the past has not balanced its critical long-term strategic interests with how it spends its scarce resources. By spending vast sums to initiate regime changes in countries of marginal interest to us we have neglected the real core of our international presence and that is strategic naval power.

Involving ourselves in Asian land wars was the height of folly even if the wars were successful which as it happens does not seem to be the case. Iraq appears to be on a path to a Shiite autocracy linked to their co-religionists in Tehran and Afghanistan travels a path possibly to another Vietnam like calamity.

We have definite interests in the area but as per usual out of miscalculation, the hubris of politicians and a certain inept arrogance on the part of the military we assume we can hammer our way out of any situation. In the meantime China not only steals a march on us in naval terms but in financial and economic terms as well. Our house is on fire but we are too busy chasing rats in somebody else’s garage down the street.

It is time we get that house put back in order and safe guard our interests overseas by using the appropriate amount of strength commensurate with the nature of the threat. Al Qaeda needs to be hunted down and destroyed, this is not going o be accomplished by setting the middle east ablaze but rather with cooperative intelligence gathering, highly trained special operations forces (U. S. Navy SEAL’s and British SAS) and discreet air interdiction (UAV’s).