By STATFOR agrees with me that the moving of the USS George Washington to the Sea of Japan was yet another victory for the Chinese as well as the North Koreans:
Summary
The repeated delay of a bilateral U.S.-South Korean anti-submarine warfare exercise is taking on far-reaching importance for the U.S.-South Korean alliance. Combined with the American hesitance to deploy an aircraft carrier because it might antagonize Beijing, Seoul is beginning to ask itself serious questions about the long-term trajectory of its defense reform. No doubt the American behavior in the wake of the ChonAn sinking will be discussed in Seoul for years to come.
Analysis
From the streets of Washington, it would be hard to tell that a crisis is brewing over an American aircraft carrier — not in the Middle East but in northeast Asia. Far more important than the routine movement of U.S. carriers in the Middle East is the already much-delayed bilateral U.S.-South Korean naval exercise originally scheduled for early June and the question of whether the USS George Washington (CVN 73) will ultimately participate. The Washington put to sea from U.S. Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan, on July 9 and is currently operating in the Pacific Ocean, but it is unclear whether it will take part in the joint naval exercise, whenever (if ever) it finally takes place.
A formal investigation of the March 26 sinking of the South Korean corvette ChonAn (772) determined that a Russian (Soviet-era) or Chinese torpedo almost certainly launched from a small North Korean submarine was responsible for the sinking. On May 27, a week after these findings were released, the U.S.-South Korean anti-submarine exercise was announced, scheduled for early June. This would have been a fairly rapid turnaround for an exercise, and the purpose was purely psychological — to demonstrate a strong American commitment to South Korea and to showcase their close defense relationship. The South Korean media immediately began to play up the involvement of the USS George Washington.
The aircraft carrier is not the principal American anti-submarine warfare asset (which, doctrinally, is the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet), and a carrier is hardly an appropriate or necessary asset that close to South Korean air bases on land and disputed waters off shore. But the presence of a carrier — still one of the strongest symbols of U.S. military power — would be important from the South Korean perspective to emphasize the depth of American support and that U.S. support was about more than just anti-submarine warfare. The more important message would be the American willingness and capability to counter North Korea, even amid Chinese opposition.
In short, South Korea needed to show both North Korea and its own citizens that the United States remained strongly committed to South Korea’s defense, particularly since the sinking had once again degraded public perception of Seoul’s defensive capabilities and perhaps reshaped North Korea’s perception as well. As a result, while a delay for organizational reasons and a hesitancy to dispatch a U.S. carrier are not necessarily without grounds, the repeated delay has had an impact in Seoul.
The underlying American hesitancy has been over the consequences of antagonizing Beijing. Though American carriers transiting and operating in the Yellow Sea are not unprecedented, the idea of U.S. naval forces approaching the Shandong Peninsula and Korea Bay — the maritime approach to Beijing itself — is naturally unsettling to the Chinese public as well as the political and military leadership, posing a potential domestic political problem. While they are aware that it would be a political maneuver, not a military one, the symbolism would hardly play well in China.
Adding to the perception troubles for Beijing, China’s navy has been trying to assert Chinese claims over the South China Sea, but such an ambition would seem unrealistic if Beijing were shown to be unable to keep a U.S. aircraft carrier out of the much closer Yellow Sea. Given the importance of the American-Chinese relationship, the U.S. decision to engage in a naval exercise with the South Koreans — to say nothing of deploying a carrier — must be made in the context of the broader management of that relationship.
But what Seoul has seen is the U.S. hesitation to fulfill what South Koreans perceive to be a basic and fully justified request of its closest ally in an important — albeit limited — crisis. Watching the United States fail to honor that request for fear of inviting some Chinese ire (the potential deployment of the USS Washington has been all over the Chinese news media and government statements for weeks) has resonated deeply in the South Korean psyche as a sign that the American security guarantee is not reliable.
South Korea is trying to use the naval exercise and the American carrier in order to pressure China to dial back its support of a once-again emboldened regime in Pyongyang. A minor American-Chinese crisis does not necessarily harm South Korea’s interests, and forcing an overt demonstration of the American military commitment to South Korea only strengthens it.
But both attempts have backfired. South Korea has failed to pressure Beijing directly and failed — very visibly thus far — to obtain an American show of force. Indeed, even before the ChonAn incident, Seoul was realizing that it would have to request (and the United States has now accepted) a delay in the scheduled handover of operational wartime control of the South Korean forces (which the United States has held since the Korean War). The transfer, originally slated for less than a year and a half from now, will not take place until the end of 2015.
While this delay has been building for some time, the ChonAn incident only compounded signs of South Korean military weakness, making the demonstration of the American commitment to Seoul through a show of force all the more important. Desperate to actually get the joint exercise under way, Seoul has even offered to conduct them on its eastern coast in order to sidestep Chinese and American concerns. But a symbolic exercise far from the intended target of the symbolism is unlikely to fully satisfy South Korea, and much of the damage may already have been done.
In other words, South Korea is now facing a post-crisis rethinking of the ChonAn incident and the country’s ability to defend itself, concerned as it is about an ally and security guarantor it fears can be intimidated into inaction by China. While South Korea does not have any alternative but to continue to work closely with the United States, the U.S. delay and reluctance has already made a deep impression on the defense establishment in Seoul, and it will undoubtedly be an important aspect of internal defense planning in the years ahead.
Meanwhile, Pyongyang has pulled off another coup — not only getting away with an act of war without meaningful reprisal but also bringing world attention back to its doorstep. The six-party talks — opposed for the moment by Seoul because it knows once the talks begin the ChonAn incident will be overshadowed by broader issues (exactly what North Korea wants) — now seem on the verge of resuming. Perhaps even more troubling for Seoul is the prospect of bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea, possibly facilitated by China, which would leave South Korea somewhat on the sidelines. If either one of these scenarios plays out, Pyongyang will have succeeded in outmaneuvering Seoul after making it appear militarily impotent and by creating the circumstances for Seoul to question the strength of the American commitment.
You can sign up for STRATFOR intelligence reports at this link.
What I don’t understand about this whole situation is that it was obvious from day one that the Chinese were going to have objections to this exercise. What if the Chinese had a naval exercise complete with an aircraft carrier off the Atlantic Coast from Washington, DC? I’m sure the US government would raise objections. I thought from the announcement of this exercise it was a good way to at least cause the Chinese government some loss of face in response to their coddling of the North Korean regime after the sinking of the Cheonan. I figured the US government would never announce an aircraft carrier being so near the Chinese capitol if it wasn’t serious about carrying it out. Obviously I was wrong.
That is what gets me about this decision, why announce a carrier is going to the Yellow Sea if there was no political willpower to actually follow through with it? The exercise should of just had the carrier based out of the Sea of Japan to begin with then. All this waffling has done now is enhance the Chinese government in the eyes of not only their own people, but with other nations who see that the Chinese are powerful enough to make even the US military backpedal. It has also caused an unneeded strain between the US and ROK defense establishments all to the delight of the North Koreans.
In my opinion this all could have been avoided if the politics of the decision matched the military planning from the start.
So what does everyone else think? Vote below:
10:10 am on July 16th, 2010 1
GI Korea says, "What if the Chinese had a naval exercise complete with an aircraft carrier off the Atlantic Coast from Washington, DC? I’m sure the US government would raise objections." The Chinese have the right to exercise off our coast, and we have the right to exercise off theirs. We should go ahead and send the George Washington to the Yellow Sea. They must not be permitted to claim any more rights over the ocean than they legitimately have under international law.
11:11 am on July 16th, 2010 2
This is only going to hasten the Finlandization of Korea vis vie the Chinese.
12:22 pm on July 16th, 2010 3
GI Korea: "That is what gets me about this decision, why announce a carrier is going to the Yellow Sea if there was no political willpower to actually follow through with it?"
It's only caving IF the Cheonan sinking was an overt, planned event, and not the result of errors on the part of agencies or individuals on both sides of the disputed NLL. That the event occurred is becoming less interesting than the question of how it happened. But, hypothetically, let's say some NK individual went rogue or some agency or chain of command took responsibility in error AND that the SK's didn't respond well to whatever happened. The smart play is for Seoul's government to bluster to hide its error, and for Pyongyang to take the free gift without acknowledging any details. Seoul maintains its bluster, and then the US backs it, to help it save face. China steps in to save Pyongyang's face before any investigation gets too close to the truth. Beijing adjusts its peg to the yuan and then the US accepts NK's offer for negotiation and changes its war-gaming plan without stopping it fully.
But what's most clear is, that no one wants to go to war. It creates a bad precedent for foreign policy for any responsible state to respond this emotionally to what is in any evaluation a mistake – either of commission or omission – AND it's bad for business. I mourn the loss of the 46 sailors. But, if this how we honor them, by stupid bellicosity and destruction, then that's as whacky as a conspiracy theory. Soldiers serve in the interest of peace, not war, and the one way the morons who most probably caused this fiasco can atone for their errors is by not falling all over themselves to murder people more honorable than they are.
1:24 pm on July 16th, 2010 4
This is a glaring example of the geopolitical ramifications of the U.S. financial situation.
Eventually, there will be the definitive Suez Canal incident that signaled the end of the British Empire. I think that'll happen within 3 years, maybe even 2011.
If you're American here comes hyperinflation and currency devaluation.
5:52 pm on July 16th, 2010 5
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by GIKorea, Weight Loss Guru. Weight Loss Guru said: STRATFOR Report On Joint US-ROK Naval Exercise | ROK Drop http://bit.ly/cuKGk9 [...]
7:24 pm on July 16th, 2010 6
nuckfuts 5: hyperinflation? Are you sure?
http://washingtonindependent.com/91735/u-s-experi…
8:08 pm on July 16th, 2010 7
Is the North taking "credit" for sinking the Cheonan? http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?a…
8:11 pm on July 16th, 2010 8
Glans, the reason why inflation is low right now is because China has been buying our debt at low interest rates. However, China has already started getting rid of U.S. treasuries and soon those interest rates will skyrocket. Once that happens, IT IS OVER!
Forecast for the U.S.:
1. The jobs ain't coming back within 5 years, probably longer
2. Because of runaway debt, the currency will devalue
3. The successful countries (China, Russia, India, Brazil) will continue to squeeze the U.S. More countries will become rogue states as that's another way to successfully defeat the U.S. Right now Iran is well backed by Russia, North Korea is well backed by China. It's a great game-plan!
4. WARNING! WARNING! At the appropriate time China will stop buying our debt, the U.S. will have to sell it's debt at high interest rates. WARNING! WARNING!
5. WARNING! WARNING! Eventually the price of oil will skyrocket, this is a double-whammy! WARNING! WARNING!
6. Because of 4 and 5 the U.S. will suffer hyperinflation and currency devaluation.
7. Somewhere along this line there will be a "Suez Canal" incident to the U.S. Similar to what happened to Great Britain. This incident is known as the end to the British Empire. Look it up.
8. The geopolitical ramifications of all this is HUGE. A new world order. A possible World War 3. The U.S. will no longer be able to project it's power across the world, they will (willingly or unwillingly) have to withdraw its forces from key points across the globe.
9. Thankfully the world will find someone else to hate. If they think the U.S. is full of a bunch of assholes, wait until these clowns take over.
9:12 pm on July 16th, 2010 9
^ and the US will get their asses kicked in and sent all the way back to the US land, while their soldiers have to swim their way back because they have no money for airfare.
GTFO of Asia, you guys are done.
9:13 pm on July 16th, 2010 10
9:15 pm on July 16th, 2010 11
I voted for "back peddle".
10:07 pm on July 16th, 2010 12
This is unfortunate for "weak ass" South Korea, who've proven they can't take care of themselves. Without American protection there will be blood in the water. It's too bad the Koreans can't get along with anyone, of course they'll be forced to saddle up to the Chinese. How humiliating.
11:36 am on July 17th, 2010 13
#9, believe me when I say this, the United States will first see this entirely planet go up in flames and have no record of it's own or mankinds existence before it is ever "done" as you put it.
10:22 am on July 18th, 2010 14
Ok and exactly -who- are these STRATFOR guys and how are they representing our military intelligence / command and control? Ohh ok ….
11:06 am on July 18th, 2010 15
Nuckfuts 8, if our currency devalues against China's, their exports to us become more expensive, ours to them become cheaper. They buy our debt to keep our currency up. Interest rates are at historic lows. Higher rates would give banks an incentive to lend money to productive businesses.
You've put a time limit on point 1 but no others. When will we see hyperinflation? If it doesn't happen by then, will you stop making predictions?
2:29 pm on July 18th, 2010 16
Glans, great points and questions. I don't know if you know this about China but they are working hard in different markets. Plus, as their middle class is rising so fast they can sell within. Because they're smart, they are metaphorically the tortoise and the U.S. is the hare. It's all really beginning now, I think (but I'm not absolutely positive) the only thing that's preventing the apocalypse is that oil is only around 70-80 dollars a barrel. That's how China wins, all Americans care about is the price of oil, Americans don't care about their personal debt (credit cards, mortgages, etc) nor their national debt (14 Trillion Dollars!).
See, it's an ideology; the Americans are spending themselves to disaster, almost every single one of them. It's a falling Empire, not just because of the politicians, it's the ideology, the culture, the greed. I hate to be predicting such dire consequences but it's just simple math. I don't even ask people to believe me, just spend a couple of hours doing your own research.
The only way I've been able to "prove" my points are 1. Aircraft carriers, since they're projections of U.S. power and 2. The fact that China is starting to dump our treasuries (debt) which they stared last month. So my answer as to when is really now. It can be a long, slow, decline but it is a definite decline. Just watch this upcoming election, watch the way these politicians behave (whether they're Dems or Reps), they will act in the most bizarre and desperate ways, another really bad sign of the future imo. Heck, watch how the voters behave!
In conclusion Glans, I'm predicting dire consequences and I believe it's happening NOW. I'm watching the aircraft carriers, the dumping of debt, the oil prices, the politicians, the currency exchange rates, the Japanese, the Europeans, The Chinese, Russians, Iranians, NK, etc. It's all interconnected and nothing is bodes well for the U.S. future. I just hope Its just a nightmare or I'm just dead wrong.
12:45 pm on July 19th, 2010 17
Wow no matter how much real info gets put out there, people still confuse themselves about how debt works.
I've stated previously that China owns a very small fraction of total US debt. Foreign owned US debt is a fraction of total US debt. China owns 877bn USD of debt, that comes to 23.4% of total foreign owned debt. Japan is #2 at 768bn or 20.5% of total foreign owned debt. Current total foreign owned debt is 3.7 trillion USD, current gross national debt is 13.2tn USD with net debt (gross – saved funds) is 8.7tn USD. There for China owns 6.64% of total gross US debt. While being considerable in its own right, its no where near enough to break the US economy and cause the apocalypse people keep predicting.
The only area this would have an impact is in the speculation markets, aka stocks and bonds. A Chinese sell off would spook investors so stock prices would plummet, but would do so on a temporarily basis of a year or so. Exchanges are very VERY susceptible to fear in the short term, the news of the day dominates the price fluctuations. Long term its pretty stable though. This is why its smart to plan investments for long term gain and not short term. New reports don't effect company profits, but the do effect stock prices. Stock prices are a reflection of the perceived future profitability of a company not its actual current profitability. I know many people who have gotten rich by playing against the market and investing in a company during a stock crisis. During this last recession would of been prime time to invest money, prices were at an all time low, it would of been a steal to dump money in traditional industries.
6:24 pm on July 19th, 2010 18
Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times says the George Washington will arrive in Busan Wednesday. She doesn't say if this Nimitz-class carrier will go to the Yellow Sea. Maybe she doesn't know. Gates, Clinton and their Korean counterparts are making final plans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/world/asia/20mi…
8:23 pm on July 20th, 2010 19
From Sunday to Wednesday, the George Washington will participate in the exercises in the Sea of Japan. Later exercises will be in the Yellow Sea, but we're not told if the George Washington will be there.
"China Warily Eyes U.S.-Korean Drills" Elisabeth Bumiller and Edward Wong, NY Times.