Rebalancing the Rebalance

Abstract

Abstract: Since late 2011, United States has pursued a policy of toward Asia, taking steps to expand its already significant role in region. However, Washington has failed to check--and may have unwittingly provoked--new Chinese measures to erect multiple layers of security around contested areas in South and East China Seas. The United States should, therefore, consider new bilateral security initiatives with China and its neighbors to ensure security cooperation catches up with economic cooperation in dynamic Asia-Pacific rim. names be not correct, language is not in accordance with truth of things. If language be not in accordance with truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. ********** Confucius, Analects 13.3 Beginning in late 2011, Obama Administration unveiled its intention to rebalance US military, diplomatic, and economic efforts to Asia-Pacific region. Initially described as a pivot, this term was subsequency changed to rebalance, to describe more aptly repositioning of mainly military assets from a then 50-50 percent to a 60-40 percent split, favoring Asia-Pacific over Atlantic side of world by 2020. (1) In President Obama's November 2011 address to Australian parliament, he emphasized US policy goal is to ensure the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping [the Asia-Pacific] region and its future. (2) In practice, Asia-Pacific theater was slated to gain a rotational US Marine Corps detachment (already deployed to Australia) and an additional US carrier group: one aircraft carrier, seven destroyers, ten littoral combat ships, and two submarines, along with reconnaissance assets. (3) In contrast to limited permanent-base approach of 1980s, US military rebalance relies upon rotational deployments through several host-nation port facilities. (4) As Commandant of Marine Corps General James Amos explained, dispersing US forces beyond a few large bases makes them a harder target for ballistic missiles. (5) In addition, rotational deployments are more cost-effective by using air travel to rotate military personnel, while power of rebalance is augmented by US foreign military sales to region. (6) Scholars such as Christopher Layne have relabeled US rebalancing strategy as off-shore balancing--an attempt to contain rise of a potential hegemon, such as China, by relying on global and regional power balances to attain that goal. As Layne explains: * Economic limitations are pushing United States to reset priorities, withdrawing and downsizing its forces in Europe and Middle East and concentrating its military power in East Asia. * By reducing its military footprint in Middle East, United States may decrease incidence of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism directed against it. Safeguarding free flow of Persian Gulf oil can be ensured largely by naval and air power. * America's comparative strategic advantages rest on naval and air power, not land power, to manage security issues in Asia. * Off-shore balancing is a strategy of burden-sharing with Pacific Rim allies to protect freedom of navigation in East Asia. (7) Consistent with above interpretation, US Defense Strategic Guidance announced in January 2012 United States will no longer size its forces for long-term, prolonged stability operations (such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan) while projecting power in areas that are challenged by asymmetric means, notably, anti-access and area-denial environments in South and East China Seas. (8) Close on heels of President Obama's announcement, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton amplified importance of Asia-Pacific region, where half of world's population resides, indicating its development is vital to American strategic and economic interests. …