Page 2 of 2 US the loser in Asia push
By Tanaka Sakai
One explanation that is circulating is that the Air-Sea Battle concept involves
a shift from the old way of attacking an enemy (China) by launching planes from
huge aircraft carriers to one of launching unmanned fighters and short-range
missiles from smaller warships. But the Pentagon has not clarified the
strategy.
The Bush administration, too, tended to keep the goals of "transformation"
secret, but the main goals were to upgrade US military technology, to make the
military smaller and lighter, and to ensure profits for the military-industrial
complex by pouring in huge development funds. The true aim of Air-Sea Battle,
too, may be to increase profits for the military-industrial complex while
suggesting that it is a strategy to counter China's growing military power.
The Obama administration made its "Asia First" announcement simultaneously with
announcing plans for the TPP and the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement. The timing
suggests a bargain: "Accommodating the wishes of Asian nations like Japan,
South Korea and Australia nervous about China's rise, the US will not withdraw
its forces from the Asia-Pacific. In exchange, Asian countries, through TPP and
FTA, must restructure their economic systems to assure US corporate profits".
[2]
Trampling with free trade agreements
In Australia, Obama emphasized that "reductions in US defense spending will not
- I repeat, will not - come at the expense of the Asia Pacific". This gives the
impression that the US government is increasing its military expenditures in
the Asia-Pacific despite overall budget reductions.
However, there is a 20-year-old pattern in which every time the Japanese
government has sought continued US military presence, the US has made it
contingent on Japan's increased share of expenditures for US bases in Japan,
resulting in a greater financial burden on Japan. If this pattern holds, the
Australian government will shoulder part of the cost of building new Marine
barracks and other expenditures for having US Marines stationed in Australia.
If some of the US Marines in Okinawa are to be moved to Australia, and if the
Australian government is to pay for the transfer, the US only dictates the
terms of the exchange. Neither the US nor the Australian government has
disclosed anything about cost. But given the dire state of US finances, it is
highly possible that Obama announced that "America will give Asia a top
priority (as long as Asia bears the cost)." It is reasonable to think that TPP
and US military presence come with an expensive price tag.
The US government has announced that it will shape TPP into a free-trade
agreement among countries that abide by a rules-based order. The US thinks that
China's lack of a rules-based order - it's a party dictatorship - makes it
ineligible to join TPP. However, Vietnam, with a one-party rule similar to
China's, has been allowed to participate in the negotiations. This suggests
that the US treats TPP as part of the anti-China containment ring that excludes
China politically.
If TPP is a US -led containment ring directed against China, the question
remains whether it is effective. My conclusion is that TPP will not be
effective in containing China. To many Asian countries, China is the biggest
trading partner, and China's importance will only increase in the future. By
contrast, the United States, which was long the greatest trading partner of
most Asian nations, has lost its middle classes' spending power and will lose
its status as a dominant trading partner.
Given the precedent set by the US-Korea FTA, moreover, participation in TPP
would compel Japan to change its economic rules modeled on American ones. The
United States in the past few years has been rife with corrupting tendencies,
allowing large corporations to change government rules to their liking through
lobbying activities. Japan, as a TPP member nation, would be put under constant
pressure to reshape its domestic economic institutions to benefit US
businesses. The "rules" in the US government's "rules-based order" are those
that are prevalent in the US and favor large US businesses.
China and Russia may take over WTO
Asian nations nervous about China's rise are begging the US not to leave Asia.
The US government is telling them: "We are not leaving Asia, but you must pay
for our base expenditures. In addition, join TPP or the US-Korea FTA and make
your domestic systems profitable for US companies."
The United States is not to blame. The dependency of Asian nations like Japan
is allowing the US to pursue a crafty strategy.
The more the US publicizes its anti-China containment, the more quickly China
will strengthen its military to counter it. The more China strengthens its
military, the more fearful Asian countries will become, increasing their
dependency on the US , and the United States will take advantage of the
dependency to impose a corrupt American-style economic system on Asia.
The corruption of their economic systems will in turn weaken Asian nations,
including Japan. China, which is excluded from TPP, will be spared this baptism
of corruption. China alone will profit from TPP.
On top of this, the United States will be an unreliable importer of Asian goods
while Asian countries will continue to increase their economic dependence on
China. The current US strategy toward Asia only reinforces China's superiority.
By the time Asian nations give up on a weakened America, their economic systems
will be in tatters as a result of TPP, and there will be no choice for them but
subservience to an even more powerful China.
The US Asia policy looks to be a "disguised multipolarism (polycentrism)" which
actually "strengthens China while pretending to contain it" and "pushes Asian
nations toward China while professing to ally with them."
In terms of the international trade system, Russia's accession to the WTO,
which is likely to occur by the end of this year, will benefit China. China and
Russia are fortifying their strategic ties. Once Russia is admitted to the WTO,
China, already a WTO member, will work together with Russia to recruit the
other BRIC countries - India and Brazil - and developing countries like South
Africa, to transform the WTO politically from a system favoring advanced
economies into one favorable to emerging and developing countries. [3]
The Doha round of the WTO has stalled for the past several years. It is
possible, however, that by the time the WTO gets moving again, it may have been
taken over by emerging countries and may try to dominate the world as a
completely transformed body.
Some people may think that China would not want to maintain a free-trade
system, but they are wrong. While weak economies tend to lose under a
free-trade system, it benefits stronger economies. The economic strengths of
BRIC are approaching the level at which it suits their national interests to
promote a free-trade system.
Hase Michiko taught women's studies at San Jose State University and the
University of Colorado at Boulder. She participates in Women for Genuine
Security and has served as a translator and interpreter at international
meetings.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
