The twenty first century brought out a whole new reality to the notion of Asia Pacific with the rise of countries like India and China, a reviving Japan, along with security and economic links right from the Indian Ocean to the Western Pacific, creating one large strategic unit. With over 21 economies, having a GDP which comprises of about 56 percent of the world’s economic output, the Asia Pacific region has become the key engine for the global economy. The region is of great geopolitical importance, as it consists of some of the world’s major energy and trade routes, and the largest militaries . With this tectonic shift in the world economy and the rapid rise of China, the first Obama administration in the latter half of 2011, announced that the US would be stepping up its role in the Asia Pacific region. Ever since, there has been a flurry of visits to the region, both at the presidential as well as the cabinet level. While some saw no results at all, a number of these meetings have translated into deeper bilateral and multi lateral ties. The US Rebalancing Strategy demands an enhancement of US diplomatic activism within the Asia Pacific region. The formation of new partnerships and alliances remains to be one of the major agendas of the rebalance, as they continue to be crucial in handling traditional security challenges and primary to tackling non-traditional security challenges in the region. A Brief on the US Rebalancing Strategy The initial steps towards
in the region. America’s presence in Guam and the Philippines and its support of China posed
The U.S. and Australian alliance share an interest in maintaining the peace and stability in the Asian- Pacific
In Asia, North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons, and the oppressive regime is threatening to the security in the continent, and especially to our allies in South Korea. Currently there are “more than a million service members on either side of the demilitarized zone on the Korean Peninsula” [25]. Therefore “vigilance and readiness” are a top priority in the region. China’s recent actions in their modernization and buildup of the county’s military show China’s assertion of their growing economic power. China,
The population of the Asia region of the world contributes a massive amount of exporting goods, and global business as a whole. The sheer number of people consuming goods that must be imported to support the large population force the need for trade with other regions. The demand for resources is high and the need to develop strong trade relations with other countries is vital to the continued growth and success of Asian countries.
The United States (US) is constantly looking for ways to improve relations with other countries and to follow their National Security Strategy (NSS). To aid the US in analyzing different countries, the PMESII-PT is used as a formula to keep everyone on the same page. The PMESII-PT contains eight different variables which help the United States analyze how different countries can affect their National Security Strategy. These variables include: political, military, economic, social, information, infrastructure, physical terrain, and time. These variables can be used to help better understand the situation and most important aspects of any country. Japan is a major country that can have a large impact on US relations and build on the current NSS. Throughout this paper, the PMESII-PT variables are examined to help educate and show how Japan can affect the United States’ NSS. After reading this paper, one can gain knowledge on how Japan can have a large influence on US interests in the Pacific/ Asian Command (PACOM) region.
With the election of Donald J. Trump, the United States has met a strong change of position in the international playing field. The Obama years, characterized by periods of soft power playing and reliance on international frameworks with intermittent reliance on military intervention, have been all but cast aside by a President often associated with ideals of isolationism. Foreign policy can change throughout administrations, but the scale at which these two administrations differ in how they see the world is unparalleled. Whether it be the willingness to work with Russia, a state condemned by the previous administration, in the pursuit of defeating ISIS, the hardline approach which Trump and his Defense Secretary General Mattis approach
The United States, throughout the course of its history, has attempted to steady the dynamic global climate in eras of strategic change. Examples of this abound: post-World War I, the post-Vietnam Cold War, and even the current post-long war environment. However, it is arguable that no era of strategic change was more critical to the development of contemporary international security than the interwar period between World War II’s end and the rapid communist advance across the 38th parallel that initiated the Korean War. Yet similarities exist with our current age, and one would be remiss to discount the invaluable experiences garnered during such a transformative period in global history. Comparatively, and based on current concepts and amphibious
President Richard Nixon once famously remarked, “The Cold War isn’t thawing; it is burning with a deadly heat. Communism isn’t sleeping; it is, as always, plotting, scheming, working, fighting.” If there is only one statement that captures the raw tension and scale of the Cold War, it is this. In fact, the real heat of the Cold War was often felt in Asia, rather than Europe or America itself. Real conflict broke out in Asia during this tense period of American history, such as in the correlated but separate spheres of Korea and Vietnam, but there was also diplomacy that took place, such as in China.
The period immediately prior to the 2011 announcement saw a gradual increase in US diplomatic interest within the Pacific region. Prior to this recent increase, the lack of US diplomatic support gave regional partners the impression the US role in regional affairs was on the decline just as Chinese influence was increasing. According to political
The United States’ status as the dominant power in Asia may become contested as China modernizes its military. America’s main source of power in the region comes from its air and naval forces, and if it cannot capitalize on freedom of movement, it will lose its strategic advantage. This paper postulates that if China continues to develop its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) forces that directly counter the United States naval and air forces, there may be future threats to American primacy in Asia. China’s response to the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis and its understanding of necessary strategic deterrence against external United States aggression has pushed it to improve its military capabilities. This essay is divided into four sections, with
In this article, “How to Deter China, The Case for Archipelagic Defense”, Andrew Krepinevich, includes various examples of China’s trait of bullying and how others, who are victim, may not be able to compete in the same way with other governments. He includes strategies that the United States may or may not be able to implement in order to aid in Asian peace. We are given information regarding our country’s planned action to address this issue. He gives examples of how China’s bullying and repression on other countries that are located within China’s reach occur. For example, Krepinevich writes, “China moved an oil rig into Vietnam's exclusive economic zone, clashing with Vietnamese fishing boats”. These actions would never lead to peace between Vietnam and China, however, it only proves who is the most powerful of the two. It is true that China is a world power that is very advanced and able to do the majority of what it wants, but this does not justify actions that cause problems among others. He brings up “Archipelagic Defense”, and this is just a country’s ability to stand firm and defend themselves with these issues. He explains how several countries like Vietnam and Japan in particular, are willing to put forth the efforts necessary for archipelagic defense. This defense is needed in responding to this
Australia cannot be secured in an insecure region (2000,2009). In Asia(Indo)-Pacific area where both countries have big stake, it is in Australia’s interests to maintain the U.S.’s primacy and avoid the region dominated by any other single power. With achieving this, it also helps to deter any serious conflicts between the regional countries. To fulfil these objectives, Australia’s expeditionary operations are important in coalition with the U.S. to support and legitimize its roles in other regions. This, in return, could help to maintain the U.S. commitment in Asia (Indo)-Pacific
Secondly, to encourage the U.S. to play a larger leadership role in the Asia Pacific as well as to provide non-threaten multilateral regional engagement opportunities.
The events that have taken place over the past couple of centuries, and more so the past decade, have monumentally impacted the relationship between the United States and China for better and for worse. Today, China and the U.S. have evolved into two of the most elite superpowers in the world, and they classify as some of the most prominent leaders in economics, military, technology, and universal innovation. Currently, the United States is just weeks away from electing their next president, cyber-attacks are being investigated exponentially, and the South China Sea Debate continues to be disputed. The outcomes of all these events will undoubtedly affect the relationship between China and the United States for the next 10 years.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become more integrated and willing to cooperate within the global political and economic systems than ever in its history. However, there is growing apprehension in the Asia-Pacific region and the U.S. in regards to the consequences of rising in economic and military power in China. Descriptions about Chinese diplomacy in the policy and scholarly are less positive lately concerning China’s obedience to regional and international rules. There was little debate in the U.S. and elsewhere in regards to whether China was or was not part “the international community.” Scholars and experts in the early 1990s have contended