China Not Backing Down – USA Gov Policy

A rising China does not foretell a disaster in the Indo-Pacific unless the United States decides not to compete in the region. Last week Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) published a commentary in Defense News calling on the Biden Administration “to answer fundamental questions about how it intends to support Taiwan and secure a free and open Indo-Pacific for generations to come.” The tide is changing in favor of Beijing. In September 2012 China launched its first aircraft carrier, a refit of an old, Soviet era ship. In 2019 the PLAN launched its second carrier and earlier this month floated a third. Its latest carrier, the Shandong, is an indigenously built, advanced ship. In just under a decade China has emerged as a major sea power in the Indo-Pacific region threatening to control close to 90% of the South China Sea.

During the same period the number of US naval forces in the Indo-Pacific Command barely rose above those assigned to it in 2012. The US today fields 167 lethal ships while China floats 285 modern naval combatants and smaller warships. While Biden Administration officials point out the president’s commitment to stability in the region, Rep. Wittman points out inconsistencies in US policy.

“The Biden administration does not want to build an ‘Asian NATO’ or an anti-hegemonic coalition, but neither does the administration intend to rapidly arm Taiwan, allowing it to serve as its own credible threat against Chinese aggression. If the US will not harden Taiwan or work more closely with allies in the Indo-Pacific, while still seeking to prevent Beijing from subjugating Taiwan, then more US forces should be committed to the Indo-Pacific,” according to Wittman, the Vice Ranking Member of the House Armed Service Committee and Ranking Member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Numerically China now has the world’s largest naval and standing ground forces, as well as the largest air force in the Indo-Pacific region. China outnumbers the US in hypersonic weapons, which are capable of evading current missile defenses and are fueled by stolen US technology. It has completed hundreds of new silos capable of launching nuclear-armed missiles. It also is closing the gap in qualitative factors. Wittman points out that China is fielding anti-ship missiles capable of holding US ships at risk far offshore. President Xi Jinping has pledged that by 2030 China will be the world leader in artificial intelligence technology. It already is making strides in this area and is competitive with US teachnology.

Where does that leave the United States and other free democratic states in the Indo-Pacific? Recent People’s Liberation Army (PLA) publications claim that “as soon as Taiwan is reunified with Mainland China, Japan’s maritime lines of communication will fall completely within the striking ranges of China’s fighters and bombers.” Wittman argues that the time has arrived for the US to begin making the hard decisions about how to treat the Chinese existential threat. He offers several areas where the Department of Defense (DOD) can make immediate improvements. He says the Department can be directed to “identify how more varied and expansive regional military training exercises might be conducted to more aggressively operationalize our friendships.” On the Congressional side he suggests the US must “lend support in efforts to enhance cooperation with Taiwan’s military — particularly via programs involving the US National Guard.”

Perhaps what will be most important in the US-China competition for leadership in the Indo-Pacific in the coming year is the Biden Administration’s recognition that that United States cannot afford to shrink the size of the US Navy at a time when China is expanding the quantity and quality of its forces, the geographic area in which they are active, alongside a more aggressive military policy toward Indo-Pacific states refusing to comply with Chinese demands. “Congress must prevent the Biden administration from pursuing a dangerous path that would shrink our military forces, corrode our readiness and prematurely cede the Indo-Pacific to China. The 2022 National Defense Strategy agrees that China is the pacing threat in the priority theater,” notes Wittman.

The US must accept that China is not backing down. After President Biden’s remarks in late May that the US would defend Taiwan should China invade, PLA Eastern Theater Commander Col Shi Yi retorted, “On the Taiwan issue, the US side says one thing and does another, giving repeated encouragement to ‘Taiwan independence’ forces. This is hypocritical and futile and will only lead the situation to a dangerous situation, and it will also face serious consequences.” Soon China will be capable of delivering the “unbearable cost” it promises the United States.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.