U.S Admiral: Asia is crucial priority
-
For US Navy, Asia is crucial priority: admiral
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Oct 19, 2011
The US Navy views the Asia-Pacific region as a top strategic priority even as it faces possible budget cuts that could curtail other global missions, the naval chief said Wednesday.
With China's clout rising and its military might expanding, President Barack Obama's deputies and military commanders increasingly portray Asia as a key to American national security.
The new chief of naval operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, echoed that view and suggested growing pressure on the US defense budget would not derail plans to focus on the Pacific region.
"Asia will be clearly a priority and we will adjust our operations accordingly," Greenert told reporters in a teleconference.
The Navy now constantly maintains an aircraft carrier -- the USS George Washington -- in the Pacific, compared to 10 years ago when a carrier was available only 70 percent of the time, he said.
US officials have vowed to expand the American naval presence in Southeast Asia and to uphold "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea, despite China's territorial claims in the area.
Apart from Asia, the Navy also needs to ensure a presence around the world but budget pressures will require having to make "trade-offs" when it comes to operations and joint exercises with partners, the admiral said.
"If you're not in some areas of the world at all, then things can fester there and become a bigger problem later," he said.
"The trade-offs become how we distribute our Navy around the world both from the perspective of security operations and also exercises with allies," he said.
With the Pentagon preparing to cut $450 billion over the next decade, the Navy will have to find "innovative ways" to maintain its commitments partly by stationing ships and crews in ports closer to strategic "choke points," he said.
Greenert cited a new agreement to station four US destroyers in the Spanish port of Rota for NATO's new missile defense system as an example of more efficient "forward" deployments, which are designed to save time, fuel and personnel costs.
But compared to 10 years ago, the Navy has fewer ships and personnel at its disposal even as the pace of operations has accelerated, Greenert said.
In 2001, the Navy had 320 ships in its fleet compared to 284 vessels now, and had 375,000 personnel compared to the current force of 325,000, according to the Navy.
The pace of operations has increased in the past decade due to the new missile defense mission using Aegis ships, counter-piracy and counter-proliferation efforts and a decision to keep two aircraft carrier groups in the Arabian Sea at all times as well as amphibious ship groups, according to Greenert.
US officials have yet to make a decision about whether to withdraw one of the aircraft carriers in coming years once American forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan as planned by 2015, he said.
Some analysts, including retired army general David Barno, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, have raised the possibility of cutting one of the country's 11 aircraft carriers to absorb budget cutbacks.
"Everything is on the table," Greenert said when asked about cutting carriers or aircraft.
He described budget discussions as "a clear-eyed, open look at the future at what the nation needs."
Greenert, who took over as naval chief last month, spoke to reporters from Newport, Rhode Island, where he addressed an international conference on sea power.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/For_US_Navy_Asia_is_crucial_priority_admiral_999.html
-
'Return-to-Asia' strategy questioned
By Zhong Sheng (People's Daily)
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton published an article titled "America's Pacific Century" in the latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine, in which she has made it clear that the United States will shift its strategic focus to Asia in the future.
Clinton said in the article, "The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region"
Clinton's remarks appear to lack something new. She once proclaimed in Thailand last summer, "The United States is back." The United States has paid more attention to the Asian-Pacific region than ever, particularly military spending. The "return" of the United States will deeply involve the country in the issues concerning Asia's politics, economy and security.
"The United States is back" is a famous phrase of Douglas Macarthur. The U.S. general, who once lost to the Japanese army during the Pacific War, said the words to announce the success of the U.S. counterattack when landing the territory of the Philippines again. Today's Asia is totally different from what it was six decades ago because the United States has neither been defeated by any Asian country nor suffered a loss in Asia. The United States has achieved enormous returns from Asia's development over the past two to three decades. Certainly, Asian countries have also benefited greatly from their cooperation with the United States.
Since the United States has never left Asia, why will it need to "return" to Asia? Given rapid economic development of Asian countries over recent years and the gradual formation of a new type of cooperation pattern, the United States is afraid to miss the express train of Asia's development and accordingly lose its dominance of regional affairs. The U.S. move to "return to Asia" aims to gain more interests from Asia's regional development and cement its dominant position in Asia. Clinton has got it straight that the United States is willing to continue to get involved and play leading roles.
The United States faces at least two challenges as it "returns" to Asia.
First, it should learn to get along with China. Its "return" to Asia has drawn people's attention back to a possible confrontation between itself and China. Many Western scholars believe that the reassertion of the leading U.S. role in Asia is directed against China because only China's rise can pose a potential challenge to its hegemony. Furthermore, a few Asian countries hope to take advantage of the United States, especially its military power, to strike a so-called strategic balance with China. If the United States adopts this mentality in "returning" to Asia, it will face a zero-sum game with China, and will neither benefit from Asia's development nor play a positive role in promoting th regional security.
Second, a leading role requires more than ambition. The United States' status in Asia ultimately depends on its input. It should play a more constructive role in promoting the regional economic development and cooperation in multiple fields, instead of expanding its military presence to show off its irreplaceability because it has proven to be a dead end. Certain Asian scholars are worried that once the United States finds itself unable to maintain its leading role, it may extort more money from Asian countries in the name of protection and even stir up trouble by playing dirty tricks.
Asia's development is an unstoppable trend, and Asian countries will get closer and closer to one another during the process of development. Asia is a big stage and has enough space for the "return" of the United States. In this regard, the superpower's priority should be putting itself in the right place and working out an appropriate and practical strategy.