Perfect Timing for Policy Change

Time magazine has an article out discussing the possibility that the report of the South Korean investigation regarding the sinking of the Cheonan will be released to the public very soon. The TIME magazine article doesn't contain any new information about the sinking, but it does end with an interesting point:

The report will have repercussions beyond Seoul. It could conceivably generate more heat for both China and Russia, given their role in carrying North Korea's water in the Cheonan affair at the United Nations. China originally even opposed the weak "Presidential statement" that the U.N. Security Council ultimately issued, diplomatic sources have said. Beijing modified its stance ultimately when presented with the joint investigative group's report earlier this summer, but then protested loudly when the U.S. and South Korea announced plans to stage five day naval exercises as a response to the attack. The Lee government invited the Chinese to send a delegation to review the findings of the Joint Investigation Group together, but Beijing declined.

That's probably not surprising. The report appears pretty damning, and once it goes public, Beijing, as the North's sole economic lifeline and diplomatic big brother, will likely just want to change the subject. It's hard to argue with South Koreans who believe the Cheonan attack was an act of war; and just as hard to argue that Pyongyang is paying much of a price for it.

Since the sinking of the ship in March, this issue has been one of the central events in the Pacific during the Presidency of Barack Obama. It is a big of part of the greater Pacific region policy being developed in that part of the world under his administration. The event has been both harmful and helpful for our interests.

The Obama administration came into office with a new approach to foreign policy. The speech in Egypt was his approach to the Middle East, and the Obama administration initially made several efforts to bridge relations with China. The administration weathered the volatile political adjustments in Japan very well, and despite their initial desires to back off from the close ties with the US, Japan and the US have found that they have an indispensable relationship with one another. The Obama administration has tried to change and encourage China to change, but after his first year it became clear that everything is still basically the same.

Beginning in 2010 a lot of folks began to legitimately question whether the Obama administration had the balls to stand up to China. The private jokes that Tim Geithner was hired to kiss ass in Asia are actually very funny - but worse, hard to argue with. In virtually every policy area, at the beginning of 2010 the United States was beginning to look weak and inept, and when the Cheonan was sunk off South Korea - it perpetuated the image of weakness by the United States once it became clear the Cheonan sinking was an attack, but the US wasn't going to do anything in response - for several legitimate reasons.

By July the US appeared to be on the brink of a serious perception and credibility problem in the Pacific, and at the same time Russia and China was heading to Seoul to discuss the Cheonan sinking. I strongly believe that China made a strategic miscalculation, because had China and subsequently Russia backed Seoul regarding the sinking - it would have been recognized by the region that China's influence on this major regional security event was greater than the influence of the US. Because China could not support the findings of the international Joint Investigation Group, it signaled to the rest of the region that China is still not a responsible or reliable partner in the security conditions of the Pacific. Despite what the tone of the TIME magazine article suggests, the government of every single major Pacific nation besides Russia and China believes the report that North Korea sank the Cheonan with a torpedo.

In mid-July I heard the questions being asked again - is there anyone in Washington that has the balls to stand up to China? Well, timing is everything, and after a year and a half of attempting a soft approach with China in an effort to open up the relationship - an attempt that had clearly failed - the Obama administration has changed policy in the Pacific.

The announcement by Hillary Clinton that the United States intends to play a prominent role in a new regional effort toward resolving territorial disputes in the South China Sea is the single most important foreign policy action by the United States directed at China in the 21st century. While a lot of serious people have been wondering who has the balls in Washington to stand up to China, it turns out that they have been hiding up Hillary Clintons skirt the whole time. Robert Gates was in the room in Vietnam when Hillary Clinton made this announcement - so this policy change isn't just some State Department rogue moment by the Secretary of State.

We do not know how this will play out or what is coming next, but this is an enormous change in policy towards China. I don't think the Obama administration wants a war with China, but they have no longer decided to be nice to China - because China sent the message that nice guys will finish last with them.

The question for readers of this blog is - what does this mean for naval forces? Right now, forward deployed naval forces are in Japan, and soon to be Guam. While effective for reaction to the north Pacific, it doesn't help sustain forward naval power in the South China Sea. Distances will be very difficult without some way to sustain logistics, and ultimately I don't see how this policy works without another DESRON somewhere in near proximity to the South China Sea.

Should be interesting to watch unfold.