Responsibility of the Irresponsible
Washington's maneuvers in the Asia Pacific region not only contradict its statements that the United States is not seeking to contain China; they also fail to set an example of the responsible behavior the U.S. is calling for from the Asian superpower. The United States is responsible in a different sense of the word: it is responsible for the unpredictable consequences of its actions.
A significant number of political analysts believe that U.S. military presence in northern Australia, agreed to during Obama's state visit in November 2011, is part of a renewed strategy to obstruct the China's growing influence in the Asia Pacific region.
The director of the Center for United States Studies at China's Renmin University, Shi Yinhong, assured the Chinese daily Global Times that the maneuvers were another measure in the attempt to contain China. The U.S. president, however, in a press conference with Julia Gillard on Dec. 16, 2011, denied that the U.S.-Australian agreement had anything to do with China, insisting that China's peaceful ascent was welcomed by his administration.
Obama justified his country's military deployment in Australia's Northern Territory by arguing that it would satisfy the demands for training and field exercises from many partners who would like to feel that the United States had the capacity to maintain security architecture in the Asia Pacific. At the same time, it would allow the U.S. military to be brought into line with the demands of the 21st century and respond more rapidly to a wide range of challenges, such as humanitarian crises and natural disasters, which up to now had sometimes been difficult to do because of the vast size of the region.
The following day, the U.S. president reiterated these statements in an address to the Australian parliament in Canberra, saying that his administration would be seeking opportunities to develop a relationship of cooperation with Beijing, which includes promoting greater communication and better understanding between both countries' militaries. In fact, this speech is nothing new. Obama first declared that the U.S. had no intention of trying to contain the Asian superpower on Nov. 15, 2009, during an official visit to China. Since then, Obama himself and other high-ranking figures in his administration have used the same rhetoric over and over again. The Mexican government news agency Notimex reported that U.S. Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy recited the very same phrases, as if from a lesson learned by heart, on Dec. 7, 2011 during a 12th round of talks on defense issues between the United States and China.
Obviously, it would be extremely naive to simply believe statements made by representatives of an administration which hasn't exactly been noted for its candor, and which has unscrupulously lied in order to achieve its own strategic objectives.
To take a few recent examples, consider Washington's machinations in order to convince the rest of the world that the aim of the bombing of Libya, in North Africa — initiated by the U.S. and continued by NATO — was to protect Libya’s civilian population. Or the way in which the U.S. is distorting reality in its demonization of Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria, blaming it for the violence of which Washington is one of the main instigators. Or how they are misrepresenting the true aims of Iran's nuclear program.
Then again, increased U.S. military presence in the South Pacific is not an isolated fact. There are other signs that raise doubts about the sincerity of Washington's claims that it is not trying to “contain” China. Among these is Obama's announcement to Congress on Sept. 21, 2011 that his government planned to upgrade Taiwan's fleet of F-16 fighter planes, a move viewed by Beijing as a grave interference in Chinese internal affairs. At the beginning of 2010, Washington's approval of the sale of an arms package to Taipei (Taiwan) valued at around 6.4 billion dollars — including 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, communications equipment for Taiwan's F-16 fleet, two Osprey minesweepers and 12 Harpoon missiles — caused Beijing to suspend high-level exchanges on military issues with the Obama administration.
Also worthy of consideration is the fact that the United States has consolidated its military alliances in the Asia Pacific region, with Japan and South Korea as well as Canberra. Hilary Clinton used a recent trip to Thailand and the Philippines to reaffirm existing alliances with those countries, too. During her visit to the Philippines in November 2011, the U.S. secretary of state committed to providing greater support in strengthening the Philippines' capacity to defend itself in territorial disputes like the one in the South China Sea, an area that the United States considers strategic to its own interests. During an address to the Australian parliament on Nov. 17, Obama pledged more joint exercises with the Philippine armed forces and more frequent American naval visits to Philippine ports.
According to [Spanish language news agency] EFE, the Philippine defense secretary, Albert de Rosario, reported on Jan. 27 that his government was currently negotiating the expansion of U.S. military presence in the Philippines through an increase in the number of troops deployed on a rotational basis — the Philippine constitution prohibits the permanent stationing of foreign troops in its territory — and staging more joint military exercises to improve the operational effectiveness of the Philippine military.
The United States has effectively interfered in a regional conflict which only concerns the parties involved. Its meddling becomes further evident when it insists that disputes between China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia over sovereignty of the Spratly Islands, and those between Hanoi and Beijing with respect to control of the Paracel Islands, should be debated in an international forum.
Washington's behavior should come as no surprise to those who recall what the U.S. secretary of state said during a visit to the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Nov. 10, 2011: that the safeguarding of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea was one of the challenges currently facing Asia Pacific that would require leadership from the United States.
At the sixth East Asia Summit, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao defined his country's position: the South China Sea dispute should be resolved through consultation and discussion among the nations directly involved and no external force should, under any circumstances, interfere.
Faced with an American “offensive” in the Asia Pacific, China has no intention of standing idly by. President Hu Hintao, in a meeting with his Central Military Commission on Dec. 6 , called on the Chinese Navy to move faster on its upgrading and intensify combat preparation, in order to be able to more effectively fulfill its mission to safeguard national security. In a press release on the Chinese government's website, quoted by [French news agency] AFP, the Chinese president emphasized the need to concentrate on the issue of national defense and strengthen the country's military capacity.
Indonesian Foreign Secretary Marty Natalegawa's concerns, quoted on the Australian TV channel ABC on 17 November, seem perfectly logical: an expansion of the U.S. presence in the Pacific could generate a vicious circle of tension, suspicion and mistrust.
The implications of Washington's actions for the region cannot be predicted, but one thing seems certain: they are unlikely to contribute to greater stability in the region, as affirmed by the Australian Prime Minister and the Philippine president. The opposite scenario is far more probable, as most of the other member states of the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] believe.
It is paradoxical that Obama insists — he did it again in Australia on Nov. 16 — that China must accept the obligations that go with its status as a world power and respect that it must “play by the rules.” He speaks of responsibility, that the Chinese government must take greater care and pay greater attention to what it decides and what it does, when it is his own country's government which has demonstrated once again by its actions in the Asia Pacific that it has no sense of responsibility at all.
The People's Daily, the most important newspaper in China, points out that Washington has got it totally wrong if it thinks it can, on the one hand, expect China to act as a responsible superpower and cooperate with the United States on a wide range of world issues while irresponsibly and for no reason harm the vital interests of the Asian superpower on the other.
The comment was made in response to Obama's announcement in September 2011 that his administration intended to upgrade Taiwan's fleet of F-16 fighter-bombers, but it is equally applicable to the White House's whole strategy for consolidating its leadership in Asia Pacific.
The United States is acting irresponsibly and, though it might seem a contradiction in terms, it is responsible at the same time: responsible for the consequences of its own actions.
A significant number of political analysts believe that U.S. military presence in northern Australia, agreed to during Obama's state visit in November 2011, is part of a renewed strategy to obstruct the China's growing influence in the Asia Pacific region.
The director of the Center for United States Studies at China's Renmin University, Shi Yinhong, assured the Chinese daily Global Times that the maneuvers were another measure in the attempt to contain China. The U.S. president, however, in a press conference with Julia Gillard on Dec. 16, 2011, denied that the U.S.-Australian agreement had anything to do with China, insisting that China's peaceful ascent was welcomed by his administration.
Obama justified his country's military deployment in Australia's Northern Territory by arguing that it would satisfy the demands for training and field exercises from many partners who would like to feel that the United States had the capacity to maintain security architecture in the Asia Pacific. At the same time, it would allow the U.S. military to be brought into line with the demands of the 21st century and respond more rapidly to a wide range of challenges, such as humanitarian crises and natural disasters, which up to now had sometimes been difficult to do because of the vast size of the region.
The following day, the U.S. president reiterated these statements in an address to the Australian parliament in Canberra, saying that his administration would be seeking opportunities to develop a relationship of cooperation with Beijing, which includes promoting greater communication and better understanding between both countries' militaries. In fact, this speech is nothing new. Obama first declared that the U.S. had no intention of trying to contain the Asian superpower on Nov. 15, 2009, during an official visit to China. Since then, Obama himself and other high-ranking figures in his administration have used the same rhetoric over and over again. The Mexican government news agency Notimex reported that U.S. Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy recited the very same phrases, as if from a lesson learned by heart, on Dec. 7, 2011 during a 12th round of talks on defense issues between the United States and China.
Obviously, it would be extremely naive to simply believe statements made by representatives of an administration which hasn't exactly been noted for its candor, and which has unscrupulously lied in order to achieve its own strategic objectives.
To take a few recent examples, consider Washington's machinations in order to convince the rest of the world that the aim of the bombing of Libya, in North Africa — initiated by the U.S. and continued by NATO — was to protect Libya’s civilian population. Or the way in which the U.S. is distorting reality in its demonization of Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria, blaming it for the violence of which Washington is one of the main instigators. Or how they are misrepresenting the true aims of Iran's nuclear program.
Then again, increased U.S. military presence in the South Pacific is not an isolated fact. There are other signs that raise doubts about the sincerity of Washington's claims that it is not trying to “contain” China. Among these is Obama's announcement to Congress on Sept. 21, 2011 that his government planned to upgrade Taiwan's fleet of F-16 fighter planes, a move viewed by Beijing as a grave interference in Chinese internal affairs. At the beginning of 2010, Washington's approval of the sale of an arms package to Taipei (Taiwan) valued at around 6.4 billion dollars — including 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, communications equipment for Taiwan's F-16 fleet, two Osprey minesweepers and 12 Harpoon missiles — caused Beijing to suspend high-level exchanges on military issues with the Obama administration.
Also worthy of consideration is the fact that the United States has consolidated its military alliances in the Asia Pacific region, with Japan and South Korea as well as Canberra. Hilary Clinton used a recent trip to Thailand and the Philippines to reaffirm existing alliances with those countries, too. During her visit to the Philippines in November 2011, the U.S. secretary of state committed to providing greater support in strengthening the Philippines' capacity to defend itself in territorial disputes like the one in the South China Sea, an area that the United States considers strategic to its own interests. During an address to the Australian parliament on Nov. 17, Obama pledged more joint exercises with the Philippine armed forces and more frequent American naval visits to Philippine ports.
According to [Spanish language news agency] EFE, the Philippine defense secretary, Albert de Rosario, reported on Jan. 27 that his government was currently negotiating the expansion of U.S. military presence in the Philippines through an increase in the number of troops deployed on a rotational basis — the Philippine constitution prohibits the permanent stationing of foreign troops in its territory — and staging more joint military exercises to improve the operational effectiveness of the Philippine military.
The United States has effectively interfered in a regional conflict which only concerns the parties involved. Its meddling becomes further evident when it insists that disputes between China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia over sovereignty of the Spratly Islands, and those between Hanoi and Beijing with respect to control of the Paracel Islands, should be debated in an international forum.
Washington's behavior should come as no surprise to those who recall what the U.S. secretary of state said during a visit to the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Nov. 10, 2011: that the safeguarding of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea was one of the challenges currently facing Asia Pacific that would require leadership from the United States.
At the sixth East Asia Summit, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao defined his country's position: the South China Sea dispute should be resolved through consultation and discussion among the nations directly involved and no external force should, under any circumstances, interfere.
Faced with an American “offensive” in the Asia Pacific, China has no intention of standing idly by. President Hu Hintao, in a meeting with his Central Military Commission on Dec. 6 , called on the Chinese Navy to move faster on its upgrading and intensify combat preparation, in order to be able to more effectively fulfill its mission to safeguard national security. In a press release on the Chinese government's website, quoted by [French news agency] AFP, the Chinese president emphasized the need to concentrate on the issue of national defense and strengthen the country's military capacity.
Indonesian Foreign Secretary Marty Natalegawa's concerns, quoted on the Australian TV channel ABC on 17 November, seem perfectly logical: an expansion of the U.S. presence in the Pacific could generate a vicious circle of tension, suspicion and mistrust.
The implications of Washington's actions for the region cannot be predicted, but one thing seems certain: they are unlikely to contribute to greater stability in the region, as affirmed by the Australian Prime Minister and the Philippine president. The opposite scenario is far more probable, as most of the other member states of the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] believe.
It is paradoxical that Obama insists — he did it again in Australia on Nov. 16 — that China must accept the obligations that go with its status as a world power and respect that it must “play by the rules.” He speaks of responsibility, that the Chinese government must take greater care and pay greater attention to what it decides and what it does, when it is his own country's government which has demonstrated once again by its actions in the Asia Pacific that it has no sense of responsibility at all.
The People's Daily, the most important newspaper in China, points out that Washington has got it totally wrong if it thinks it can, on the one hand, expect China to act as a responsible superpower and cooperate with the United States on a wide range of world issues while irresponsibly and for no reason harm the vital interests of the Asian superpower on the other.
The comment was made in response to Obama's announcement in September 2011 that his administration intended to upgrade Taiwan's fleet of F-16 fighter-bombers, but it is equally applicable to the White House's whole strategy for consolidating its leadership in Asia Pacific.
The United States is acting irresponsibly and, though it might seem a contradiction in terms, it is responsible at the same time: responsible for the consequences of its own actions.