(Getty Images)
While one war ends and another continues in protracted stalemate, the Obama administration appears to have opened a new Asian front in the worldwide quest for overwhelming American influence.
Despite a burgeoning debate over both the Pentagon’s soaring budget, the wisdom of a significant expansion of the United States military’s global footprint after two disastrous conflicts, and a public that has lost its appetite for foreign conflict, the simmering feud between the United States and China has rapidly become the new focus of American foreign policy and the instigator of a controversial expansion of the U.S. military’s presence overseas.
During a celebrated presidential stop in Australia this week, President Obama made the unprecedented announcement that as many as 2,500 U.S Marines would soon be stationed at what is described as a “de facto” American military base in the northern part of the country. Both military personnel and an unknown quantity of air power will operate out of an Australian base in Darwin beginning next year, marking a major escalation of the current U.S. presence in the region.
The president said the decision is meant to be seen as the United States “stepping up its commitment” to the rapidly growing Asia-Pacific region. Placing U.S. combat troops on the soil of close ally Australia will “update” the “security architecture” of the area, said the president.
President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Wednesday unveiled plans to deepen the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific, with 2,500 U.S. marines operating out of a de facto base in northern Australia.
China, already worried the United States is caging it in, immediately questioned whether strengthening military alliances would help the region when economic woes put a premium on cooperation.
“With my visit to the region, I am making it clear that the United States is stepping up its commitment to the entire Asia-Pacific region,” Obama told a joint news conference with Gillard in Canberra.
From next year, U.S. troops and aircraft will operate out of the tropical city of Darwin, only 820 kms (500 miles) from Indonesia, able to respond quickly to any humanitarian and security issues in Southeast Asia, where disputes over sovereignty of the South China Sea are causing rising tensions.
“It is appropriate for us to make sure…that the security architecture for the region is updated for the 21st century and this initiative is going to allow us to do that,” Obama said.
What is the target of a new Marine base in a region of the world that is basically peaceful and secure? China, which through its unstoppable economic growth has become the dominant force in Asia. Such growth has cut off any level of detente between the two nations and unnerved both the American political establishment and military leaders eager to shift to a new, more expansive conflict after repeated failure in the Middle East.
Tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel and equipment are already based closer to China in Japan and South Korea. But those troops have been stationed there for decades, since the end of World War II and the Korean conflict, and are not seen as a direct challenge to Chinese influence. Building a new base in Australia at a time of both growing friction with China sends an unmistakable message.
During his Australian trip to announce the base, Obama was unusually direct in criticism of China’s monetary [policy and human rights record, insinuating that these are the reasons for America’s “larger and long-term role” in the region.
With most of the world’s nuclear power and some half of humanity, Asia will largely define whether the century ahead will be defined by conflict or co-operation, needless suffering of human progress,” Mr Obama told the parliament.
“As President, I have therefore made a deliberate and strategic decision – as a Pacific nation, the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and it’s future – by upholding core principles and in close partnership with our allies and friends.”
……….
He committed the US to building a cooperative relationship with China, which has expressed misgivings over the strengthened US focus on the region and it’s strengthened defence ties with Australia.
“We will do this even as we continue to speak candidly to Beijing about the importance of upholding international norms and respecting the universal human rights of the Chinese people,” Mr Obama said.
He praised China’s assistance in defusing tensions on the Korean Peninsula as an example of what could be achieved when the two nations worked together.
But he honed in on China’s refusal to revalue its currency, its poor labour standards and disregard for intellectual property rights.
“We need growth that is fair; where every nation plays by the rules; where workers rights are respected; where businesses can compete on a level playing field; where the intellectual property and new technologies that fuel innovation are protected; and where currencies are market-driven, so no nation has an unfair advantage.
The American military expansion was mt with a predictably nervous response from China. Experts there describe the Obama administration as “overreacting” with the Australian base announcement.
While Beijing’s public response to President Barack Obama’s more muscular China policy has been muted, behind the scenes the U.S. president’s sudden moves to contest rising Chinese power are setting the capital on edge.
During his ongoing nine-day swing through the Asia-Pacific region, Obama has already unveiled a plan for an expanded U.S. Marines presence in Australia, advocated a new free-trade area that leaves China out, and called on Beijing not to buck the current world order.
The Beijing government is trying to understand the shift, tasking academic experts to review the initiatives and submit options on how to respond.
“The U.S. is overreacting,” said Zhu Feng, an international relations expert at Peking University who was asked to study Washington’s moves and make recommendations. He said the government may feel bewildered by the Obama initiatives.
Besides the more serious consequences for U.S.-Chinese relations, the president’s embrace of military expansion poses a significant juxtaposition with calls for a reduced global military presence and cuts to the Pentagon’s budget at a time of serious debate over mounting American debt and deficit.
The costs of maintaining an Australian base are not known, but President Obama made it clear that those costs would not be an issue in what he said was to be an “enduring presence” in the region.
“Our enduring interests in the region demand our enduring presence in this region,” Obama said in remarks to Australia’s Parliament today. “The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay.”
The 25-minute address in Australia’s capital of Canberra is intended to be the anchor of Obama’s nine-day trip to the region as he outlines what he called a “deliberate and strategic decision” to put the U.S. in position for a long-term role in an area that accounts for half of the global economy. Obama is seeking to address concerns that the U.S. won’t be able to act as a counter-weight to China’s rising military and economic influence because of domestic budget constraints.
“Reductions in U.S. defense spending will not — I repeat, will not — come at the expense of the Asia Pacific,” Obama said. “As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region. We will preserve our unique ability to project power and deter threats to peace.”
Tensions between the United States and China, and especially between the two nations’ military leadership, have been growing for years. While the economic relationship and dependency between America and China has never been more vital, tough rhetoric and generally passive intelligence skirmishes have colored official relations.
What many say is an ongoing “cyber war” being waged by both sides has upped the proverbial ante in U.S.-Chinese communication and led to real fears of a terrestrial response to perceived virtual aggression.
Regular cyber-raids on military and civilian infrastructure in the United States by Chinese hackers that some believe are linked to the Chinese government and military have led to direct threats by U.S. military officials of a “real world” response that includes the option of “putting a missile down one of your smokestacks.”
“We operate in five domains: air, land, sea, outer space and cyberspace,” says Dan Kuehl, a professor of information operations at the National Defence University in Washington. “An ever increasing amount of what we do has dependencies on cyberspace; a guy typing on a computer is one of the new faces of war,” Kuehl told Al Jazeera, stressing that he is not speaking for the US government or his elite military university.
“A response to a cyber-incident or attack on the US would not necessarily be a cyber-response. All appropriate options would be on the table,” Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said recently
One US defence official told The Wall Street Journal newspaper: “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” in rhetoric likely aimed at China. For its part, the Chinese government categorically denied any involvement in the cyber attacks, which Google reported to the US state department and media outlets last week.
Military preparation for a potential conflict with China goes beyond a Marine base in Australia. Despite pressure to cut back a skyrocketing budget, Pentagon officials have begun requesting an expansion of military infrastructure with an eye to broader conflicts than the counter-terrorism strategy that has been adopted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Pentagon points specifically to what they say is a concerning military build-up from China as a reason to block defense cuts and ramp up production of heavy-duty military equipment through massive contracts for bombers and other projects with defense contractors. The aim is to compete with China for global and regional military superiority, no matter what the costs.
One example of an escalating U.S. military arsenal is the recent delivery of a new 30,000 pound “bunker-buster” bomb manufactured by Boeing. Several times bigger than anything currently in the hands of the Air Force and costing $32 million for eight such devices, the bombs are meant to be used in penetrating deep underground for destruction of hidden nuclear or military facilities.
The Air Force has taken delivery from Boeing Co. of a new 30,000-pound bomb capable of penetrating deeply buried targets.
The Air Force Global Strike Command started receiving the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed for the B-2 stealth bomber, in September with additional bombs expected last month, Air Force spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jack Miller said in a short statement to Bloomberg News.
The deliveries “will meet requirements for the current operational need,” he said.
Command head Lieutenant General James Kowalski told the annual Air Force Association conference in September the command “completed integration” of the bunker-buster bomb with the B- 2, “giving the war-fighter increased capability against hardened and deeply buried targets.”
The bomb would be the U.S. military’s largest conventional penetrator. It’s six times bigger than the 5,000-pound bunker buster that the Air Force now uses to attack deeply buried nuclear, biological or chemical sites.
Speculation is that such massive bombs are designed to take out Iran’s supposed nuclear facilities that are reportedly hidden in underground sites. But the addition of such a powerful airborne weapon to the American arsenal only days before the announcement of a new U.S. base housing unspecified aircraft in the Asia-Pacific region could just as easily be meant as an unmistakable deterrent to China.
I’d really like to see more soldiers brought from overseas locations where it is expensive back to the U.S. mainland which would actually boost our economy in many ways – base expansion, new jobs, and the soldier money would contribute to our economy instead of an overseas economy. However if there has to be a presence in Asia then this is a very clever idea. Australia is an ally we should continue to build ties with. President Obama is savvy.
Remind me why the US has to have 100s of bases in other countries… and why therefore China, say, shouldn’t have bases in 100s of countries too?
Might the US not be regarded as a tad militaristic by the rest of the world?
Just plain stupid. Cut Social Security to station troops in Australia. Genius.
I heard about this earlier on TV “news.” My brain went “WTF?!?
I don’t see the reason for all these paranoid military ops, whether it’s to move troops around or build new bases (make no mistake: if we’re in Oz long enough, you know as well as I do that the US will finance some kind of building projects there and then establish a permanent military base for some concocted and vaguely “patriotic” reason that will only benefit corporations who now write legislation to keep their coffers filled while they pay our Congress Critters to vote for what they want).
I’m seriously sick and tired of this corporate doublespeak militaristic crap that fosters the Bushista doctrine of “pre-emptive” and perpetual war and costs us tax dollars that could be better spent on creating jobs, designing a fair and equitable health program, fixing our infrastructure and creating energy that will get us off of the dependency on foreign oil, among other things.
So it’s ok for US to station troops in Australia to curb Chinese influences. Would it be ok for China to station troops in Cuba and South America to curb American influences?
Last I checked, America has the highest record in terms of foreign military interventions. If anybody needs checking, it’s America.