If we thought that we live in the most war-affected ocean, developments in East Asia and, big power and super power reactions, will make us feel a bit safer. The threat in East Asia is of nuclear war.
Sure, we too live in a nuclear neighbourhood – with India and Pakistan just north of our little island – but it is an impoverished neighbourhood with a nuclear weapons stockpile of possibly a hundred units (missile warheads, bombs) between the two countries.
In contrast, East Asia, comprising China, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the Asiatic region of Russia is a region with armies in the millions, and sophisticated nuclear weapons stockpiles probably in the tens of thousands of units. Combine that with the threateningly large presence in East Asia of an extra-regional super power, the US, being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. Add to that potent mixture the volatile and seemingly aggressive nature of the North Korean dictatorship and we have a recipe for a terrifying disaster in that otherwise affluent, highly cultured and even glamorous region.
That those countries themselves are worried where the current geo-politics will lead them is evident by an even more scary development: some of them are talking about ‘pre-emptive strikes’ and ‘first strikes’!
What are ‘pre-emptive strikes’ ? This is the military doctrine of one entity – a state, polity or simply a military force – attacking another, usually without warning, before a state of war between the two entities has actually begun.
The classic example of a pre-emptive strike is the surprise attack by Japan on the massive United States naval base in Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. Japan argued that its attack was in anticipation of US military moves.
Pearl Harbour is perhaps the most documented ‘pre-emptive strike’ in human history, but is just one in probably a long list of similar military actions throughout history and even pre-history. The rationale for such ‘pre-emptive’ action is inherent in the doctrines of ancient political and military theorists such as Kautilya and Sun Tzu. Kautilya’s logic for pre-emptive and surprise attacks is laid out at strategic level in his famous ‘Mandala’ theory of interstate relations and, in military deployment doctrine. Sun Tzu emphasises the advantages of being “the first in the field” of battle.
China’ Foreign Minister, Wang Yi may have had his ancient sage’s teachings in mind when, last Wednesday, he held a crucial press conference on the sidelines of the 12th National People’s Congress sessions (the Chinese parliament) in Beijing. At the packed media conference, televised live by CGTV, Foreign Minister Wang focused attention on the current flashpoint arising from North Korea’s recent missile tests close to Japan and the US’ deployment of sophisticated and powerful THAAD anti-missile missiles in South Korea. Using a railway metaphor, Wang compared North Korea and the US-South Korea alliance as two accelerating trains, racing toward each other.
He called for dual freezes on both sides: North Korea to halt its missile testing and for the US-South Korean alliance to suspend THAAD missile deployment in South Korea.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) is the acronym for a sophisticated short range (200km) ‘smart’ missile that is very fast and, more importantly, can swiftly target and destroy incoming enemy missiles early in flight thereby minimising impact on home soil. Deployment of such missile systems in South Korea means that North Korea’s rapidly strengthening missile force could be neutralised. Of course, the missile forces of even bigger powers in the region, namely, Russia and China, will also be similarly affected.
Both these world powers have protested the deployment of these sophisticated American weapons so far from the US and so close to their own territories. Imagine if Russia and China were to set up massive military bases in Canada and Mexico! This is what the US has been doing throughout its post-World War 2 reign as a super power.
The former Soviet Union and Russia today, remains encircled by US bases right on its doorstep and backyard whether in Poland, or the Central Asian republics or Japan and South Korea. China, too, has the same perception.
That is why Beijing is annoyed at the US’ active hostility to its setting up of maritime surveillance points in small islands in the South China Sea. Despite American sabre-rattling there, Beijing is busy negotiating with the ASEAN countries adjoining the South China Sea over China’s presence there.
For The Philippines, Vietnam, and Brunei, China’s overpowering proximity, including the growing advantages of Chinese investments, trade and even a regional security umbrella, may offer more pluses than by being hostile to China’s naval deployments.
South Korea is trapped between its increasingly close economic ties with China and the tiring burden of a hostile North Korean neighbour on the one hand and its reliance on a somewhat outdated Cold War era military alliance with the US. In fact, Japan, too, may begin to think similarly in the near future although its current posture is a reflexive reaction to the sudden landing of North Korean missiles near its shores.
The US news media is speculating about Washington’s new internal discussions about a pre-emptive strike to blunt North Korea’s growing military capacities. Senior parliamentarians in Japan have also begun discussing the need for more re-arming of that one-time imperial Asian power in response to North Korea’s recent actions. ‘Pre-emption’ is part of the discourse in Tokyo.
Analysts argue that if Pyongyang’s testing of missiles was provoked by the holding of US-South Korean joint military exercises last month, the US’ deployment of the THAAD system was more to do with anticipation of political change in Seoul rather than an imminent threat of a North Korean strike.
After all, North Korea may have an estimated several thousand nuclear weapons, but its capacity to scale down weapon sizes to be used with missiles is doubted.
Rather, the successful impeachment of maverick South Korean President Park Geun-hye last week has opened up the prospect of a regime change in Seoul that could see a new government that is less enthusiastic about South Korea’s current intimate military embrace with the US.
The head of the main opposition Democratic Party, Moon Jae-in, is leading in the opinion polls for the presidential elections that now must be held in South Korea by May the latest. Moon is a popular social activist and also famed for his past as a South Korean special forces’ soldier. The Democratic Party that he now leads is known for its policy of better ties with the North and rapid steps towards different kinds of ‘re-unification’ measures. Being part of the post Cold War generation of Korean politicians, Moon does not have the same loyalty to the US many of his older predecessors had.
Some analysts feel that Washington used the excuse of the North Korean missile tests to rush to deploy THAAD missiles in South Korea before any new regime in Seoul began to discourage such a level of enhanced militarization of an already heavily militarized Korean Peninsula.
Fortunately, neither Japan, South Korea nor Taiwan have nuclear arsenals. But, the US, which has bases in Japan and South Korea, and close military ties with Taiwan, always refuses to publicly acknowledge whether or not any of its weapons systems (wherever it is located) is nuclear armed. Certainly, Russia and China, both with extensive territories adjoining the Korean Peninsula, are heavily nuclear armed along with impoverished but adventuristic North Korea.
Pre-emptive strikes are not necessarily nuclear attacks and, more likely, could involve conventional weapons. These could be almost as devastating but, worse, could lead to an escalation of war in which the big power allies of regional antagonists could feel compelled to militarily act in support of their client states.
This is why China’s call for a ‘de-escalation’ of tensions in East Asia must be taken seriously. Sadly, with Washington absorbed with simplistic ‘one-upmanship’ politics, the rest of the world is left to wonder whether anybody is listening, in either the White House or the State Department.