Hey, neighbors, how about joining us in a little agreement? It's perfectly innocuous:
China wants 10 small Pacific nations to endorse a sweeping agreement covering everything from security to fisheries in what one leader warns is a “game-changing” bid by Beijing to wrest control of the region.
A draft of the agreement obtained by The Associated Press shows that China wants to train Pacific police officers, team up on “traditional and non-traditional security" and expand law enforcement cooperation.
China also wants to jointly develop a marine plan for fisheries — which would include the Pacific's lucrative tuna catch — increase cooperation on running the region's internet networks, and set up cultural Confucius Institutes and classrooms. China also mentions the possibility of setting up a free trade area with the Pacific nations.
China’s move comes as Foreign Minister Wang Yi and a 20-strong delegation begin a visit to the region this week.
Wang is visiting seven of the countries he hopes will endorse the “Common Development Vision” — the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea.
Wang is also holding virtual meetings with the other three potential signatories — the Cook Islands, Niue and the Federated States of Micronesia. He is hoping the countries will endorse the pre-written agreement as part of a joint communique after a scheduled May 30 meeting in Fiji he is holding with the foreign ministers from each of the 10 countries.
One of the invitees ain't sold on the idea:
But Micronesia’s President David Panuelo has written an eight-page letter to the leaders of other Pacific nations saying his nation won't be endorsing the plan and warning of dire consequences if others do.
Panuelo said in his letter, which the AP has obtained, that behind attractive words in the agreement like “equity” and “justice” are many worrying details.
Among other concerns, he said, is that the agreement opens the door for China to own and control the region's fisheries and communications infrastructure. He said China could intercept emails and listen in on phone calls.
Panuelo said in his letter that the agreement is “an intent to shift those of us with diplomatic relations with China very close to Beijing’s orbit, intrinsically tying the whole of our economies and societies to them.”
He warns the agreement would needlessly heighten geopolitical tensions and threaten regional stability.
In his letter, Panuelo said the Common Development Vision is “the single most game-changing proposed agreement in the Pacific in any of our lifetimes,” and it “threatens to bring a new Cold War era at best, and a World War at worst.”
I concluded yesterday's Precipice piece on the Biden administration's foreign policy with this concern:
My concern is whether or not anyone with a foreign-policy-related portfolio in the administration truly grasps the magnitude of the foundational changes happening to the overall world order. The way things have been for the past seventy-seven years is not the way they’re going to be going forward. The world stage is not going to be the nice, safe environment for trade and cultural exchange to which we’ve become accustomed. It’s going to be a lot more raw now.
Mackenzie Eaglin of the American Enterprise Institute is likewise concerned, and far more equipped that I to flesh it our with details:
America’s military leaders state time and again that China’s forcible assault on Taiwan, and therefore our response to it, is a near-term challenge. Given the lengthy time to plan, program, build and field credible combat power, a 2027 problem is really one of today. Alarm bells should be ringing in Congress as the president’s latest defense budget cuts readiness.
Given that ongoing support for Ukraine is straining some key U.S. military supplies and munitions, everyone should be concerned the China fight would demand even more and faster. As this Pentagon team is plagued with “next war-itis” by overly biasing research and development dollarsto prepare for future wars over purchasing from hot production lines today, the result is the erosion of our few remaining competitive advantages.
For fiscal 2023, the administration requested $119.4 billion in readiness compared to the fiscal 2022 request of $109 billion. The 9.84% increase is a decrease in real terms. To simply match 2019 (pre-pandemic) purchasing power under the 2.2% inflationary estimates that the Pentagon and White House are using to tout a “record” budget, the military would need to invest $133.84 billion. That still would only be a flat budget under today’s inflation.
The Army, Navy and Air Force are confronting a $26 billion gap between what the budget request provides them once adjusted for inflation and the levels of funding they would need to maintain buying power at 2019 levels.
In 2013, similar across-the-board cuts came in the form of sequestration, or a self-imposed spending freeze that disproportionately harmed the military due to inaction by politicians on debt reduction. Uniformed leaders described the abrupt cuts as the “biggest challenge to the military’s readiness.” The result is not “tough but necessary choices,” but rather destructive early decommissionings and retirements, along with extended deployments and unsafe work environments for troops.
The administration is shooting itself in the foot by not sustaining the readiness of the very systems they seek to modernize. By overusing systems and facilities without adequate maintenance, they won’t be prepared for modernization upgrades once they become available. In other words, lack of sustainment delays innovation implementation.
China's hegemonic ambitions are not a sometime-down-the-road thing. We'd better get hustling.
No comments:
Post a Comment