Asia's Free-Riders

The U.S. turn to the East makes sense. But tacitly telling its allies in Asia that it's going to foot the bill for their security is foolish and unsustainable.

BY JUSTIN LOGAN | NOVEMBER 9, 2011

It's on the record. President Barack Obama's administration wants to pivot U.S. foreign policy away from the Middle East and toward East Asia. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent Foreign Policy article exemplified this thinking. "The future of the United States is intimately intertwined with the future of the Asia-Pacific," Clinton wrote, touting Washington's "irreplaceable role in the Pacific."

The desire to focus on the Asia-Pacific is sound, but the administration's policies there are not. The impulse to reassure America's Asian allies that the U.S. commitment to their security is rock solid perversely makes it likely that they will continue to free-ride on America's exertions -- in an era when Washington has less and less money to spend.

Both Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, during their tenures as U.S. defense secretaries, have traveled to Europe to hector allies there for not spending enough on their militaries. This is not a new phenomenon in Europe -- even during the Cold War, America's European partners were only supporting actors in the drama between Washington and Moscow. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disparity has grown worse: Only four of the 27 non-U.S. NATO militaries spend the agreed-upon 2 percent of GDP on defense.

The reason these NATO allies have shirked on their defense commitments is because they are smart. They know that if they fail to provide for their own defense, Uncle Sam will do it for them. This has allowed the Europeans to spend their resources on a variety of goods other than defense, from expansive welfare states to impressive infrastructure programs. U.S. taxpayers -- and now their creditors -- are left footing the bill for Europe's defense.

As far back as the 1960s, U.S. policymakers puzzled over the low levels of defense spending among the European members of NATO. In a 1966 article, economists Mancur Olson Jr. and Richard Zeckhauser showed that in the provision of collective goods (like security) in organizations (like alliances), the largest members will tend to bear a "disproportionately large share of the common burden." When a group declares something a common interest, it is rational for the poorer members to shirk and allow the wealthier members to carry a disproportionate portion of the load.

Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Charles Oki/U.S. Navy via Getty Images

 

Justin Logan is director of foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute.

SCOTTABC

6:30 PM ET

November 9, 2011

Its the Defense Industry getting a free ride

Corporate defense contractors would love to see S. Korea, Japan and others spending more money on their military. However, I think those countries recognize first, that in a real war even 'victory' would result in unthinkable devastation and second that excessive military spending destabilizes the economy and society. The example of the U.S. spending more than the rest of the world combined while major economic and social problems mount hardly serves as a good example to emulate.

 

PBOXELL

9:18 AM ET

November 10, 2011

To "sow doubt" is naive and dangerous

I agree with the comment. Moreover, to "sow doubt" plays on deep political, cultural and economic differences. We must work with the PR China, not undermine with macho opacity. I trust Ambassador Locke and hopefully Secretary Clinton strive to do this. But the Clinons are renown for their Attitude. China borders 13 countries. Finally, Chinese are traveling to and from Taiwan. PR China has a pivotal role in North Korea. But we should understand with proposals such as this article, we force the PR China to respond in kind.

 

DELTA22

7:50 PM ET

November 9, 2011

Even if America cuts back

Even if America cuts back, can countries like Japan and South Korea really pick up the slack? In absolute terms, 1% of America's GDP is a lot more than 1% of Japan's.

 

SOULSEARCHER

9:44 PM ET

November 9, 2011

The article is running on an

The article is running on an unproven assumption that China is in any way intent on attacking Japan, Korea or another U.S. ally in Asia Pacific. I challenge the author to provide any reasonable evidence supporting this assumption. Evidence can include any remark by a Chinese official actually threating another country as well as any action having the same effect.
On the other hand, if Japan and Korea want U.S. assurances on defense against either North Korea or a terrorist threat, I think both Japan and Korea need to realize that the U.S. has the will that may not necessarily match its ability to defend the two countries. How can a country still mired in a war in Afghanistan while looking at Iran next on its target list has the ability to look after every ally in the world. I agree both North Korea and Iran are legitimate threats not because of their nuclear capabilities but because of their unstable leaders. In the case of Iran though I do not think that war, including aerial assault, is an option unless there is credible threat that Israel's security is at stake with an unstable nuclear-armed Iran. In the case of North Korea diplomacy remains the best option.

 

PUBLICUS

6:35 AM ET

November 11, 2011

@SOULSEARCHER

Congratulations on your choice of a username because the Chinese aren't in search of any kind of soul, nor have the Chinese ever considered they (or others) might have a soul.

The CCP considers Japan and S Korea small potatoes. Beijing wants the United States. The CCP belief is that Japan, Europe and the rest of the world will follow Beijing once the PLA forces have succeeded in destroying the United States. Here are some excerpts from former PLA defense minister, Air Force Gen Chi Hotian:

"Would the United States allow us to go out to gain new living space? First, if the United States is firm in blocking us, it is hard for us to do anything significant to Taiwan and some other countries! Second, even if we could snatch some land from Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more living space can we get? Very trivial! Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.

"Only by using special means to “clean up” America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. This is the only choice left for us. This is not a matter of whether we are willing to do it or not. What kind of special means is there available for us to “clean up” America? Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of “cleaning up” America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focus instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country.

"From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be China’s colony, because America was first discovered by the Chinese. But would this work? If this strategy does not work, then there is only one choice left to us. That is, use decisive means to “clean up” America, and reserve America for our use in a moment. Our historical experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do anything about us. Furthermore, if the United States as the leader is gone, then other enemies have to surrender to us.

"We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the United States], the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!"

And how's this for a zinger of a concluding statement:

"The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan, but in fact is aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites.

"Marxism pointed out that violence is the midwife for the birth of the new society. Therefore war is the midwife for the birth of China’s century. As war approaches, I am full of hope for our next generation."

* * *

 

AFGHANGOOD

12:25 AM ET

November 10, 2011

Reduced Military Spending

Reducing our commitments to a reasonable level...some will say "How irresponsible!" For me, one has to wonder how irresponsible to threaten the security and viability of the United States to show off to the rest of the world. People who speak about our commitments to our international partners, while happily cutting our commitments to our citizens...truly disgusting!

 

MASYNEE

3:21 AM ET

November 10, 2011

It's happened before

History often repeats.

It wasn't Great Britain's role to save France. It wasn't Russia's role to protect Poland. But turning the other cheek when it comes to international affairs only delays the inevitable.

The plight of Europe would have been a lot different if those with the power stood up early enough to the aggression of Hitler.

Not that China is a Hitler ruled Germany, but just saying, the responsibility ultimately falls on those that have the power. It certainly would be ideal if other nations pulled their weight as well.

 

MASYNEE

3:28 AM ET

November 10, 2011

Australia

Just out of interest, does anyone know what Australia spends on defence as a percentage of GDP?

 

MICHAELTURTON

7:12 AM ET

November 10, 2011

Michael Turton

Haha. The US doesn't spend 5% on defense. If only! It spends massive sums killing people all over the Middle East to no purpose except needlessly angering people who otherwise might be friendly. Other nations are not shirking their duties. They are refusing to join in the insanity of killing their young boys and expending their treasure to make central Asia safe for Chinese expansion.

In his complaints about the defense position of Asian states Logan forgets that the US often refuses to sell weapons systems, as we recently saw in the F-16 sale debacle.

Of course, Logan also conveniently elides the fact that we have signed mutual defense treaties with Japan and the Philippines and have made their defense our business.

Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan

 

ANON45

2:29 PM ET

November 10, 2011

Your idea of 'massive sums'

Is officially called 5% for whatever you feel it is being used for. If you don't want to believe official records from the US that's fine, but then anyone can say its 50%, no one can prove them wrong or right.

 

KASEMAN

11:10 AM ET

November 10, 2011

US wamongering addiction

This military stance is a continuation of the anti Chinese and racist attitudes that white America has wallowed in for centuries, reaching its height during the Cold War. The Chinese nation goes back 3000 yearsand has always had an interest in the neigborhood being stable. especially today when its bent on the most rapid economic development andraising 400 million out of poverty. The neighbors are its biggest trading and investment partners, growing at pehnomenal rates. On top of that USand Taiwan firms are its biggest exporters to the US its biggest market and destination for $2 trillion of cash.

It has no interest in military adventures. That is the US addiction. Border tension are there because every border mile has been drawn by white Christians in London, Paris, Moscow and Washington and are thus illegitimate. Rectification is a regionan task opposed by the US with its stance of no change, preserve the status quo. Impemented with dazzlling success in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc, etc

Success in running up $10 trillions of economic damage, tens of millions of jobs lost, spiralling deficits (funded with more and more loans from China !!) , massive profits for the military-security-Israel complex and loss of standing globally.
Empires fade away and the faux states they spawn fail

 

ANON45

2:42 PM ET

November 10, 2011

False and laughable.

first off, anti-chinese isn't racism, unless you posit that China is a different race unto itself, it's prejudice. Second you can hardly use the same old tired cliche of America being a 'white' country constantly trotted out by anti-american foreigners (and deluded domestics) when we currently have a black president. Rather its rather more apt and akin to calling China 'yellow China'. You are exceedingly generous with what you define as Chinese history, scholars typically date a 'Chinese' History at 2000 or so years, before that being an associated hodgepodge of independant kingdoms that were no more a single Chinese country than rennaissance Europe was a single 'European' country.

China doesn't have an interest in its region being stable, or at least it isn't its overriding interest, else it would have long since allowed North Korea to be reintegrated into South Korea, dropped all astoundingly greedy claims to the near entirety of the South China Sea and Arunachal Pradesh. China's interest is dominance, its historical interest has been dominance, and its interest in stability has only been so far as to fulfill its historic arrogance and hubris (middle kingdom...says it all). Even today the goal is often repeated as to regain its 'rightful' place and to by association put other Asian countries in their 'rightful' place. Rather more racist and prejudice than anything from the US right?

Your idea of rectification is called imperialism in reality KASEMAN. You are advocating imperialism against China's neighboring countries and you advocate an arrogant mindset by espousing the oft spoken of myths of China's past and present.

Your last paragraph is not even a coherent thought, let alone worthy of reply.

 

WICKBAM

4:46 PM ET

November 10, 2011

 

PUBLICUS

7:03 AM ET

November 11, 2011

Racism & warmongering

For anyone interested in racism and warmongering, here are some excerpts from the former defense minister of the CCP-PRC, Air Force Gen Chi Hotian:

"As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humanity as a whole originated from one single mother in Africa. Therefore, no race can claim racial superiority. However, according to the research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are different from other races on earth. We did not originate in Africa. Instead, we originated independently in the land of China. The Peking Man at Zhoukoudian that we are all familiar with represents a phase of our ancestors’ evolution. 'The Project of Searching for the Origins of the Chinese Civilization' currently undertaken in our country is aimed at a more comprehensive and systematic research on the origin, process and development of the ancient Chinese civilization.

"We used to say, 'Chinese civilization has had a history of five thousand years.' But now, many experts engaged in research in varied fields including archeology, ethnic cultures, and regional cultures have reached consensus that the new discoveries such as the Hongshan Culture in the Northeast, the Liangzhu Culture in Zhejiang province, the Jinsha Ruins in Sichuan province, and the Yongzhou Shun Emperor Cultural Site in Human province are all compelling evidence of the existence of China’s early civilizations, and they prove that China’s rice-growing agricultural history alone can be traced back as far as 8,000 to 10,000 years. This refutes the concept of 'five thousand years of Chinese civilization.' Therefore, we can assert that we are the product of cultural roots of more than a million years, civilization and progress of more than ten thousand years, an ancient nation of five thousand years, and a single Chinese entity of two thousand years. This is the Chinese nation that calls itself, 'descendents of Yan and Huang,' the Chinese nation that we are so proud of. Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far superior to the Germans.

"We must greet the arrival of the Chinese Century by raising high the banner of national revitalization. How should we fight for the realization of the Chinese Century? We must borrow the precious experiences in human history by taking advantage of the outstanding fruition of human civilization and drawing lessons from what happened to other ethnic groups.

"The lessons include the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as the defeats of Germany and Japan in the past. Today I’d like to talk about the lessons of Germany and Japan. Germany was defeated in utter shame, along with its ally, Japan. Why? We reached some conclusions at the study meetings of the Politburo, in which we were searching for the laws that governed the vicissitudes of the big powers, and trying to analyze Germany and Japan’s rapid growth. When we decide to revitalize China based on the German model, we must not repeat the mistakes they made. For example, when the time came for them to be ruthless, they turned out to be too soft.

"The fundamental reason for the defeats of Germany and Japan is that history did not arrange them to be the 'lords of the earth,' for they are, after all, not the most superior race.

"Ostensibly, in comparison, today’s China is alarmingly similar to Germany back then. Both of them regard themselves as the most superior races; both of them have a history of being exploited by foreign powers and are therefore vindictive; both of them have the tradition of worshipping their own authorities; both of them feel that they have seriously insufficient living space; both of them raise high the two banners of nationalism and socialism and label themselves as 'national socialism'; both of them worship 'one state, one party, one leader, and one doctrine.'

"And yet, if we really are to make a comparison between Germany and China, then, as Comrade Jiang Zemin put it, Germany belongs to 'pediatrics'—too trivial to be compared. How large is Germany’s population? How big is its territory? And how long is its history? We eliminated eight million Nationalist troops in only three years. How many enemies did Germany kill? They were in power for a transient period of little more than a dozen years before they perished, while we are still energetic after being around for more than eighty years. Our theory of the shifting center of civilization is of course more profound than the Hitler’s theory of 'the lords of the earth.' Our civilization is profound and broad, which has determined that we are so much wiser than they were.

"Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages.

"These two heritages determined that we have a stronger ability to survive than the West. That is why the Chinese race has been able to prosper for so long. We are destined 'not to be buried by either heaven or earth' no matter how severe the natural, man-made, and national disasters. This is our advantage.

"Take response to war as an example. The reason that the United States remains today is that it has never seen war on its mainland. Once its enemies aim at the mainland, they enemies would have already reached Washington before its congress finishes debating and authorizes the president to declare war. But for us, we don’t waste time on these trivial things. Comrade Deng Xiaoping once said, 'The Party’s leadership is prompt in making decisions. Once a decision is made, it is immediately implemented. There’s no wasting time on trivial things like in capitalist countries. This is our advantage.' Our Party’s democratic centralism is built on the tradition of great unity. Although fascist Germany also stressed high-level centralism, they only focused on the power of the country’s executive, but ignored the collective leadership of the central group. That’s why Hitler was betrayed by many later in his life, which fundamentally depleted the Nazis of their war capacity.

"The bottom line is, only China, not Germany, is a reliable force in resisting the Western parliament-based democratic system. Hitler’s dictatorship in Germany was perhaps but a momentary mistake in history.

"Germany’s dream to be the 'lord of the earth' failed, because ultimately, history did not bestow this great mission upon them. But the three lessons Germany learned from experience are what we ought to remember as we complete our historic mission and revitalize our race. The three lessons are: Firmly grasp the country’s living space, firmly grasp the Party’s control over the nation, and firmly grasp the general direction toward becoming the “lord of the earth.”

END OF EXCERPTED QUOTES FROM GEN CHI HOTIAN.

 

KASEMAN

11:24 AM ET

November 10, 2011

addendum

For those ignorant of Chinese history, the Chinese have suffered brutal invasions and centuries of subjugation by Mongols, Manchus, British, Germans, Japanese among others. Twice the US threatened to nuke it.
Can't blame them for being a touchy about the US bellicosity.

 

WICKBAM

4:46 PM ET

November 10, 2011

oh please

as if the Chinese haven't practiced imperialism for thousands of years in Northern, Central, and Southeast Asia.

It is perfectly rational for them to defend and even expand their interests but don't paint them as wise and serene victims. They've been playing the great game before the West even existed.

 

BENNJM01

2:33 PM ET

November 10, 2011

Bandwagon fear

The biggest US fear is that, in the perceived absence of American support, Asian nations will bandwagon with China to address their security concerns vice balancing against China. The US views the current balancing/alliance approach as being worth the extra $50 bn (wild guess) or so that underwriting regional security costs. This is pretty basic Great Power decision making. We benefit by maintaining bi-polar Great Power relations with China instead of a regional multi-polar balance of power that increases the chance for war and massive de-stabilization of the world economy. This chaos would cost the US much more then $50bn (or whatever the amount is) and disrupt our national consumtive lifestyle.

At least that's what I would say if I was a neo-realist.

 

CHARLESFRITH

6:40 PM ET

November 10, 2011

The perpetual war machine.

Comes to Asia if Asia is the focus of the Pentagon. You can count on it.

 

JGARBUZ

6:48 PM ET

November 10, 2011

Militarily China does not threaten anyone, except maybe Taiwan.

The last thing China would want is a nuclear Japan, and a nuclear South Korea, and a nuclear Taiwan, et al. Naturally, China is a powerful country and wants to have modernized military capability, but I see no evidence of any territorial ambitions outside possibly of Taiwan maybe a few offshore islands at most. Any sign of any serious Chinese bellicosity would lead immediate to Japan and Taiwan and others going nuclear.

And I don't think China wants the US to leave the Pacific either. If the US withdraws from the Pacific, that too would force the neighbors to think about a nuclear deterrent. I don't saw any point in any major changes in the US status in the Pacific. The real threat is from Iran in the Persian Gulf overlooking the oil supplies.

 

KUMAR282011

8:07 PM ET

November 10, 2011

I dont think so.....

China is waiting for the right moment to become a dominant player in Asia... In my opinion they want to control all of Asia... They are an all weather ally of Pakistan... I mean freaking Pakistan... where terrorism is sponsored 100% by the state players... China constantly poke Indian borders & make regular incursions... Support Iran's nuclear program .... China feels that whole of South China sea as their own backyard... threatening all the east Asian countries... I can go on and on...

I am not sure where you get your theory about no evidence of any territorial ambitions of China... get your facts straight...

In Chinese culture, they don't say no to your face... they will still smile and go with it until they get the upper hand...its in their culture... don't judge the book by its cover...

 

AADILASN

12:37 AM ET

November 11, 2011

Couldn't agree more with Kumar

Apart from pakistan now their plan is to have military bases in sri lanka. Thier intention is clearly to dominate Asia and they will go any length to do it.

Ri Industries septic tanks

 

THE SIX

12:31 AM ET

November 11, 2011

prejudice

to KUMAR282011,

You're an indian, right? So close ur mouth on this issue. you r fooled by ur government and medias.

 

AADILASN

12:40 AM ET

November 11, 2011

Which country you belong to?

if you could trust your media thats run by your governement, why can't we trust our media thats independent.

 

PUBLICUS

9:21 AM ET

November 11, 2011

India

A democratic society with a free press/media vis the dictatorship and censoring fascist CCP of Beijing. India has people, China has sheeple.

 

SYED ARBAB AHMED

1:12 AM ET

November 11, 2011

China is not a war maniac like USA!!!

Neither China a war maniac nor wants to have its forces in every country like USA

http://bit.ly/lq2c5I (Sum up of the whole topic)

Twitter: @SyedArbabAhmed
http://syedarbabahmed.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/actionsfurysroar
4m
Karachi, Pakistan

 

XTIANGODLOKI

1:57 PM ET

November 11, 2011

This article is about the US

IMO it would be in the interest of the US to pull back military spending in places like Asia and the mid east. At least in the Mid East, Americans are getting oil by keeping dictators in power. American troops kept in places like Japan and Korea are hated by locals far more than they hate the Chinese. US exports to its Asian "allies" are also abysmal. Let's be honest here, all Asian nations want to use the US economically but none truly care about American people. American politicians on the other hand do not exactly care about Asians either, but they do care about their friends in the Defense lobby.

 

SNICKIES5

4:11 PM ET

November 12, 2011

Our priority number 1 is to

Our priority number 1 is to come up with and actually implement sound solutions to our economic problem. Until long-term and chronic unemployment are addressed as well as our monetary system, the strategy of taking on a new set of countries to fund in terms of their national security is not sustainable. The United States will weaken itself even further. How can we help others if we can't help ourselves?

 

KEYBASHER

8:37 PM ET

November 13, 2011

China isn't that great a military threat ...

... but when their economy collapses at the end of this decade and the people demand democracy, the CCP/PLA complex may try a patriotic distraction with an attack on Taiwan a la the Argentine junta on the Falklands in 1982, a scenario which they've rehearsed since Mao. How will Washington react then?

 

CHANGS

11:35 PM ET

December 1, 2011

China isn't that great a military threat?

Any nation that has nuclear weapons and the method to deliver can be a threat to its neighbors in time of disruption of the country. Especially countries that are ruled by dictatorships or religious extremists who want to stay in power.

Unfortunately the United States no longer has the economic nor the military power to be the World's guardians. The rest of the World must take up some of the burden and must spend larger portions of their GNP to support that burden.

It's no longer a matter of whether the United States wants to work as Global Policemen, it is a matter that the United States no longer has the ability to function as the World's policemen.

The United States has become like an old man with rheumatoidarthritis . His mind still sees him as being young and wanting to take on the whole world but his body knows it is old, worn out and unable to do very much any more.