Search

Begin New Search Topic Defense Policy Political Geography China

281. Japan’s National Defense Program Guidelines 2010 and Its Implication to South Korean Security Policies

Author:
Young-June Park
Publication Date:
01-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
On December 17, 2010, the government of Japan updated its most strategically important document entitled “National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG), FY 2011-” following confirmation from both the Security Council and the Cabinet. The new defense plan released along with the “Mid-Term Defense Program for FY2011-2015” addresses the objectives and the methods of the Japanese Self Defense Forces. Moreover, the plan also outlines Japan’s future military strategies as well as the fundamental tenets of its defense policy. Whereas in the United States, the White House, Pentagon, and Joint Chiefs all release new guidelines each time a new administration comes to power, Japan does not have such a regular format for its defense plan. This makes the National Defense Program Guidelines a comprehensive strategic document that covers every aspect of Japan’s military defense. First introduced in 1976, the Guidelines has only been updated twice in 1995 and 2004. The NDPG in 1976 reflected Japan’s security and military strategy during the Cold War, while the 1995 and the 2004 guidelines reflected strategies for the post-Cold War era and the beginning of 21st century after 9/11, respectively. What then do these updated guidelines in 2010 signify? And in what context should this defense plan be seen? Firstly, the structural changes that have occurred in the security environment of East Asia should be taken into consideration. North Korea conducted nuclear tests twice in 2006 and 2009. In 2010, it displayed new levels of provocation by sinking the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan and shelling Yeonpyeong Island. These actions not only threaten the Korean Peninsula but also the entire region. Added to that, China surpassed Japan as the second largest economy after the United States and has become more assertive over maritime disputes with Japan. How all these military and economic changes are projected in the document deserves close analysis. Secondly, unlike previous NDPGs that were written during the long years under the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the 2010 Guidelines are part of the first strategic document that reflects the strategic outlook and security approach of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). Since the DPJ assumed power, it has long tried to differentiate itself from LDP in its decision making procedures and actual policies. Such tendencies are naturally reflected in its security policies as well. How do these guidelines differ from the NDPGs issued under the LDP? In short, the National Defense Program Guidelines 2010 is the best resource with which to understand how Japan perceives the changed security environment, and what strategic concepts and military capability it is preparing for in face of future security challenges.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, Military Spending, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

282. China and the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review

Author:
Lora Saalman
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
China is increasingly factored into U.S. nuclear strategy. When President Obama released the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)—a document that guides America's nuclear policy, strategy, capabilities, and force posture for the next five to ten years—in April 2010, China was named 36 times. By contrast, China was barely mentioned in the last NPR completed in 2002. The United States expressed its desire to enhance strategic stability with China, but there needs to be a better understanding of how China perceives America's nuclear posture.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
United States, China, and Israel

283. The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use

Author:
Michael S. Gerson
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Despite heightened expectations for significant change in U.S. nuclear policy—especially declaratory policy— the Obama administration's Nuclear Posture Review changes little from the past. The NPR's declaratory policy retains the option for the United States to use nuclear weapons first in a variety of circumstances, including in a first strike against Chinese, North Korean, Russian, and (perhaps) future Iranian nuclear forces. Equally important, the United States can threaten the first use of nuclear weapons to deter and, if necessary, respond, to a variety of nonnuclear contingencies, including large-scale conventional aggression by another nuclear power such as China or Russia and chemical or biological weapons (CBW) attacks from states such as Iran and North Korea.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, and North Korea

284. Australia and Japan: Allies in Partnership

Author:
Malcolm Cook and Thomas S. Wilkins
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
The post-Cold War era in the Asia-Pacific has not witnessed the triumph of low over high politics. Rather, it has seen the simultaneous intensification of both economic integration and security cooperation and competition. This is true both at the level of the region, and for China and most other countries in the region.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Cold War, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, and Australia

285. Chinese Military Transparency: Evaluating the 2010 Defense White Paper

Author:
Phillip C. Saunders and Ross Rustici
Publication Date:
07-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The People's Republic of China (PRC) State Council Information Office released the seventh edition of its biennial defense white paper, "China's National Defense in 2010," on March 31, 2011. This document aims to communicate the latest information on China's military development, strategy, capabilities, and intentions. China began publishing defense white papers in 1998, partly as a means of increasing transparency in response to regional concerns about the growing capabilities and actions of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Despite the systematic release of these documents, many of China's neighbors and other regional powers continue to express concerns about China's lack of military transparency. The Chinese maintain that they are becoming more open over time and highlight the importance of transparency about strategic intentions rather than capabilities.
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
China and Israel

286. China's Military Build-up: Implications for U.S. Defense Spending

Author:
Gary J. Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly
Publication Date:
03-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
Over the past year, actions by the People‘s Republic of China (PRC) have called into question its previous assertions that its rise to great-power status would be peaceful. Whether it was scolding countries around the world about the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Chinese dissident Liu Xiabo, declaring that its ?core interests? now included some 1.3 million square miles of the South China Sea, dismissing complaints of neighbors as failing to recognize that "China is a big country," ignoring North Korean acts of terror, challenging U.S. naval ships on the high seas, creating new confrontations with Japan over disputed islands, slashing its export of rare earth elements, continuing cyber attacks on American defense and commercial entities, or testing a new stealth fighter during the visit of the American secretary of defense, the picture that emerges is of a China that believes it can now throw its considerable economic and military weight around. It‘s a challenge that the U.S. has been slow to meet and, as a result, led to considerable uncertainty among friends and allies about whether the U.S. is up to that challenge—uncertainty fed in no small measure by prospects of a declining American defense budget.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Arms Control and Proliferation
Political Geography:
China and America

287. China's Positions and Interests in the South China Sea: A Rational Choices in its Cooperative Policies

Author:
Su Hao
Publication Date:
09-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
After the Cold War, although the danger of conflict and war between the east and west has been removed, some latent hot issues have emerged in the East Asia area, among which the South China Sea issue became a prominent regional security problem. Because this issue is related to China-the fast developing big power in this region, it then turned into an important foundation for the so-called "China threat" theory which has been prevalent since the 1990s. The western countries have always been taking advantage of the South China Sea issue to damage China's image, and at the same time some claimant states in the South China Sea also made use of the complicated Asia-Pacific security situation to extend their own interests in the South China Sea. Due to the interweaving historical factors, differences in current security interests, disagreements in sea boundaries, and the ambiguousness in international law, the South China Sea issue, therefore, is exceptionally complex and complicated. However, thanks to the only big power of the South China Sea-China's responsible attitude and rational position, the South China Sea conflict has been well managed, the occasional friction has never upgraded to military clash, and the tensions caused by some countries' irresponsible acts have been effectively controlled. All those constructive functions exerted by China are possible to be realized only on condition that China abides by its explicit standpoint and principles, takes a rational and responsible attitude, and acts through coordination and cooperation.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Regional Cooperation
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Australia/Pacific

288. China’s Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) Satellite Developments: Implications for U.S. Air and Naval Operations

Author:
Ian Easton and Mark Stokes
Publication Date:
02-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
A review of authoritative Chinese writings indicate that the People’s Republic of China is researching, developing, testing, and deploying a number of electronic intelligence (ELINT) satellites for the tracking and targeting of mobile air defense systems and ships at sea. This program has potentially serious and immediate implications U.S. and allied air and naval operations in the Asia-Pacific region.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Intelligence, Armed Forces, and Satellite
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

289. Measuring Transparency in Military Expenditure: The Case of China

Author:
Sam Perlo-Freeman
Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
This policy brief discusses the key dimensions of military expenditure transparency and assesses them in relation to China. While spending transparency relates most obviously to the availability, reliability, detail, and comprehensiveness of information, it cannot be completely separated from broader defense policy formation issues. China has a robust framework for developing, implementing, and monitoring defense policy, budgeting, and expenditure, and producing readily-accessible budget and expenditure data in English and Chinese; however, these processes are largely carried out behind closed doors.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Affairs, Budget, Military Spending, and Transparency
Political Geography:
China and Asia

290. A Complex Strategy to Overcome the Yeonpyeong Incident

Author:
Young-Sun Ha
Publication Date:
12-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Since North Korea’s deadly artillery barrage on Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea has been stepping up efforts in its defense posture and international cooperation. In preparing against any further provocation from the North, Seoul has been reinforcing forces on the island, strengthening defense and deterrence capabilities, and drastically increasing its defense budget. Somewhat belatedly, it has also been taking up actions to reexamine the strategies of the ROK-U.S. military alliance, demanding cooperation from China and Russia while maintaining the traditional trilateral cooperation with the United States and Japan. Of course, analyzing the causes of the weak response to the shelling and preparing to prevent further provocations are undoubtedly important. However, reading the bigger picture and formulating key strategies for the future is a far more critical task. The Kim Jong-il/Kim Jong-un leadership in November 2010 conducted two consecutive moves—revealing its uranium enrichment facilities and launching an artillery strike on Yeonpyeong Island. Understanding the situation of the whole East Asian region, while at the same time anticipating Pyongyang’s strategies and taking preemptive actions will be the main challenges ahead for Seoul. Firstly, it is important to understand the range of North Korea’s strategic options from aggressive diplomacy to peaceful diplomacy. The Korean Peninsula went through the Korean War in 1950 and following of the ceasefire, both Koreas were stuck between ‘hot war’ and ‘cold war.’ Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has passed the stage of ‘cold peace’ and moved towards a ‘hot peace.’ In spite of this global shift, North Korea has been frequently using combinations of ‘cold war,’ ‘hot war,’ ‘cold peace,’ and ‘hot peace’ on the international strategic chessboard. For example, during the Cold War period North Korea provoked the South in a number of cases: Rangoon bombing (1983), bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 (1987), attempted Blue House raid (1968), North Korean infiltration in the Uljin and Samcheok areas (1968). Even in the post-Cold War period, nuclear tests, naval battles in the Yellow Sea, the sinking of Cheonan naval ship and the shelling on Yeonpyeong Island ensued. At the same time, Pyongyang has been aggressively demanding for a peace agreement to this day. The possibility for limited warfare on the Korean Peninsula came dangerously close with the recent Yeonpyeong shelling, more so than the last North Korean provocation, the sinking of the Cheonan. As the pendulum of war and peace on the Korean Peninsula swung from the ‘cold war’ to ‘hot war,’ greater chaos arise. It is expected that the Kim Jong-il/Kim Jong-un regime will try to maximize the use of this pendulum of peace and war in order to strengthen Kim Jong-un’s weak power base. In spite of the dangers, merely worrying about the possibility of war is not going to help. Rather, we have to understand precisely why the North has raised the bar of aggression from acts of terrorism to that of a direct artillery attack on South Korean territory. It is likely that the North would pursue a ‘cold peace’ offensive to utilize the amplitude of the pendulum. A complex picture emerges when looking back on the recent comments made by top officials from North Korea, the United States, and China. Seoul and Washington have called for Pyongyang to engage in measures for active denuclearization and reengagement in inter-Korean relations as preconditions for resuming the Six-Party Talks. North Korea on the other hand has taken precisely the opposite measures. To read what the North Korean regime has in mind we have to think of the situation not as a motionless snapshot but as a moving footage. Furthermore, South Korea must do more than just respond to North Korea’s actions. Instead it should focus on making strategically preemptive moves. For this, it is necessary to examine why the North Korean regime expanded the pendulum’s amplitude and find measures to make the leadership pursue a survival strategy that does not include huddling around nuclear weapons.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Alliance, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America