- Is Napoleon’s ‘sleeping giant’ about to be stirred?
What were the intervening variables which drove the United States to transfer a large chunk of its military forces from the Middle East to Asia Pacific? Why is the Asia-Pacific region increasingly becoming a military hotspot? And, above all, why is the shadow of a balancing coalition looming over the region – against China? For the last couple of years, Asia-Pacific has become a central topic of debate among strategists and scholars who are busy analysing various aspects of the growing uncertainty in the area. The growing importance and relevance of Asia-Pacific with that of international politics and especially great power politics is something to be probed.
Traditionally, the Asia-Pacific region has remained the pathway of great powers. The islands of the Pacific have acted as military garrisons while ensuring the trade to fuel the ambitions of great powers. Especially during the Second World War it was imperative for the Imperial Japan to dominate the Pacific to guarantee its mastery in the region. The pre-emptive Japanese attack on US naval base at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, was the true manifestation of such great power aspirations and ambitions – which in the chief architect of the attack Japanese Admiral Yamamoto’s words was “awakening a sleeping giant.” While talking about sleeping giants, French general and emperor Napoleon declared China to be a sleeping giant long before Yamamoto’s assertion. Nevertheless, is Napoleon’s ‘sleeping giant’ about to be stirred?
Historically, when the fierce Mongols invaded China and unleashed a series of military expeditions resulting in considerable Chinese losses, the latter built the Great Wall while exhibiting anti-access and area denial tactics and subsequently prevented Mongols from overpowering the Chinese. They could not foresee a naval incursion that slowly yet steadily turned China into spheres of influence, protectorates, colonies and other means of Chinese subversion to the foreign masters. Eventually, the foreign masters needed consumers of their ‘merchandise’ and turned China quite cunningly into a land of opium. The nineteenth century witnessed such injustices done to the Chinese people which are perhaps unprecedented in history. Likewise, the end of the nineteenth century and US Secretary of State John Hay’s ‘Open Door Policy’ for China was the culminating point of embarrassment for China. The Chinese activities in Asia-Pacific are the direct result of fears deep rooted in its strategic culture and history.
Ostensibly, China has resorted to ‘Ring Defence Policy’ in the Asia-Pacific region. Chinese policies in the East China Sea especially related to Sinkaku and Diaoyu Islands and in the South China Sea the same in relation to Paracel and Spratly Islands exhibit clear signs of Chinese desperation. John Mearsheimer, an American political scientist argued in 2004 that “Why China’s Rise will not be Peaceful” and asserted that China will enforce a ‘Monroe Doctrine’ of its own while ensuring that no extra-regional power can project power in the Asia-Pacific. Realism assumes that all great powers behave the same way and Mearsheimer being an advocate of offensive realism is right in his approach. Nevertheless, until now China is showing great restraint and its rise is still peaceful; however, while keeping in view western provocative activities in the Asia-Pacific it remains uncertain that for how much long the ‘Red Dragon’ remains peaceful.
In May 2013, United States navy published a document that outlined a new war-fighting instrument titled as “Air-Sea Battle”
In May 2013, United States navy published a document that outlined a new war-fighting instrument titled as “Air-Sea Battle.” The document called for a joint strategy to meet the challenges posed by anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) tactics. The Air-Sea Battle Doctrine was born. The doctrine is interchangeably named as Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC); nevertheless, perhaps, Air-Sea Battle specifically addresses the A2/AD challenges and aims to overpowering them by means of overwhelming lethal force. JOAC on the other hand calls for ensuring freedom of navigation in the global commons and especially the high seas. However, both terms are used interchangeably. India intends to play a great power role in the Asia-Pacific and its membership in the Malabar Naval Exercises is a testament to that. New Delhi is modernising its naval forces along with other branches of armed forces to be a part of the action. Interestingly, India provided BrahMos cruise missiles to Vietnam under its Act East Policy – the latter is deeply dependent on American Pivot to Asia Policy – both together are sowing the seeds of confrontation in the Asia-Pacific. Stephen P. Cohen Sunil Dasgupta in their book “Arming without Aiming: India’s Military Modernisation” (2010) argued the same.
Geopolitics is now and has always been the pedestal of international relations. The growing heated up scenario in the Asia-Pacific has its roots in geopolitics considerations rather than geo-economic ones. With the increased or perhaps forceful presence of the United States and its allies having absolutely offensive military doctrines, unprecedented quest for freedom of navigation, assertive Chinese maritime activities while successfully turning its naval forces into a blue water navy, with the drawing of new lines, turning of islands into military bases while building artificial islands for increased exclusive economic zone, advancement in anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare – the coming of a war in the Asia-Pacific is becoming imminent.
