In November 2011, an agreement was reached between the United States and Australia on the deployment of an American military base ¹ in the north of the Australian continent. The agreement provoked a negative reaction from the leadership of the People's Republic of China, which saw it as an attempt to militarily contain its policy. Contrary to the expectations of the White House, the agreement with Australia provoked an escalation of a number of territorial disputes between China and its neighbors, causing a wave of negative expectations about the threat of military escalation of the situation in the South China Sea.

In the short term, the announced shift in the focus of the US military presence to Australia will not affect the state of regional security. In essence, we are talking about the relocation of a small contingent of American Marines from Japan (2.5 thousand people). The planned future establishment of a naval base in Darwin will require much more time and resources than the announced cuts to the US military budget. In addition, the existing structure of the US military presence in the world at the beginning of the 2010s is strongly biased towards the Middle East, and its change will take a decade.

Nevertheless, the incident is an important signal of a shift in the focus of American interests from the Middle East to the Asia - Pacific region. "The U.S. military will continue to contribute to global security, but as necessary, we will shift the focus of our military presence to the Asia-Pacific region," according to the doctrine document "Maintaining American Global Leadership: Defense Priorities for the 21st Century", released by President Barack Obama in January 2012.2

The main object of American concern in the region is the growing power of the PRC. In connection with recent events, Beijing has little reason to be optimistic. The regional political and security system in the Asia-Pacific region was formed in the context of a weakened China and was aimed at isolating it. Therefore, the growing power of the PRC in its current dynamics is a threat to regional security, and the only one in which the prospect of a regional war is visible. The United States aims to contain Beijing militarily by deploying its forces forward, forming military-political coalitions, and ensuring transparency about China's military program. Another element of Washington's strategy is to align the US trade balance with China and other Asia-Pacific countries. With this one

In November 2011, the United States announced the preparation of a multilateral trade agreement with the participation of Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam, Chile and Peru to create a preferential trade regime in the Asia-Pacific region (trade turnover with these countries in 2011 amounted to $ 171 billion, with China - $ 457 billion)., with Japan -181 billion). The project was named "Pacific Partnership" ³.

The maximum task for the United States is to prevent a revision of the existing order. It is planned to do this by involving the PRC in the system of Pacific relations so that it can fulfill the roles prepared for it through a combination of incentives and restraining impulses. But is there any reason to believe that this process will be smooth and conflict-free?

1

In the early 2000s, the PRC made local attempts to resolve a number of territorial disputes on its borders in its favor. According to the Center for a New American Security, since the mid-20th century, more than half of situational and local military clashes in the Asia-Pacific region have involved China, and 80% of them took place in the last ²² years4.

Disputes between China, the Philippines and Vietnam over the control of low-habitat reefs in the South China Sea and the exclusive economic zone around them are particularly tense. These territories are not only rich in oil, but also a key transit point for maritime trade in the region (the volume of annual trade transit is up to $ 5 trillion). Spring 2011 The United States intervened in the confrontation in the South China Sea on the side of the Philippines. At the same time, Washington is sending encouraging signals to small and medium-sized countries in the region that have disagreements with China. In addition, the United States encourages Chinese clients, such as Myanmar, to break with their dependence on Beijing.⁵

In response to the increased US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, on March 4, 2012, China announced an increase in the open portion of its defense budget by 11.2% to 106 billion US dollars. ⁶ Speaking at a meeting of the Central Military Council of the People's Republic of China, Chairman Hu Jintau stated the priority of strengthening the combat power of the Chinese navy. Alarmist sources estimate that China's military budget is close to $ 200 billion a year7. A new stage of US-Chinese tensions coincided with the Russian-Chinese naval exercise "Sea Interaction-2012", which took place in the Yellow Sea on April 22 - 27, 2012. The purpose of the exercise was to work out cooperation to prevent military conflicts in exclusive economic zones. Some reputable Chinese experts from among the retired military openly advocate a military alliance with Russia.

The United States is closely monitoring China's growing military power. Since 2000, the Department of Defense and the Defense Intelligence Agency, in cooperation with other agencies, have annually submitted to the US Congress a report on the Armed Forces and Security Policy of the People's Republic of China. On May 18, 2012, the latest conclusions of American analysts were published. The report's conclusions can be summarized in four paragraphs.

First, the PRC is implementing a long-term program for deep modernization of the armed forces, the purpose of which is to improve the capabilities of the Chinese Armed Forces to conduct "short-term local wars" in conditions of informatization and high intensity of combat operations.

Secondly, the "unforeseen deployment of military operations in the Taiwan Strait" is a model of a local collision for the PRC.

Third, the creation of modern naval forces to ensure China's territorial claims in the East and South China Seas is a priority.

Fourth, the PRC has increased funding for nuclear weapons, ballistic and cruise missile development programs,as well as the commissioning of the first carrier strike group (AUG) with a modern air defense system. The main focus was on "counter-intrusion" in the field of information infrastructure and in outer space.⁸

The United States believes that in order to avoid regional tensions, the strengthening of China's military power "should be accompanied by greater transparency of its strategic plans."⁹. To this end, the United States has initiated a program to enhance military contacts between the two countries, which aims to increase confidence in the military field. Over the past 20 years, five formats have been developed: annual US-China defense consultations, meetings in the framework of the implementation of the Agreement on Naval Consultations, the annual dialogue on the coordination of US-China defense policy, the annual US-China forum "Strategic and Economic Dialogue" and the existing since 2011 "Dialogue in the Future". areas of strategic security".

2

However, the main focus of the United States is on maintaining the armed forces of the Pacific Command in combat readiness and forward basing them in the Asia-Pacific region. The logic of the United States military doctrine is typical for developed maritime powers, whose well-being is based on maritime trade. It consists in controlling key maritime communications through the permanent forward deployment of a fleet capable of operating in the open ocean, and the creation of a system of military alliances that ensure the fleet is based in remote geographical locations.

In addition to the main naval bases located on the west coast of the United States in San Diego (California), Everett (Washington) and Hawaii, in the Asia-Pacific region, American armed forces are stationed in a number of allied states. The first overseas US military bases were established on the territory of their colonies in Cuba (1898) and the Philippines (1899). The United States made a breakthrough in expanding the presence of its naval forces after World War II. In the Mediterranean in the 1950s, the United States enlisted the support of Italy (1951), Spain (1953), and Greece (1957), which took over American naval bases on their territory. In the Asia-Pacific region, having gained the upper hand over Japan and becoming the main ally of South Korea after the Korean Peninsula war, the United States was able to place its bases on the territory of these states. In 1951, the United States, Australia and New Zealand formed a military alliance (ANZUS). At the same time, during this period, the military base on the island of Guam, which is part of the United States, in the western Pacific Ocean, was strengthened and modernized.

Since the end of the Cold war, the US global presence has changed: It weakened in Pacific Asia, but increased in the Middle East. In 1992, two of the largest U.S. bases in the region were shut down by the Philippine Parliament. In order to partially reduce the negative effect of this loss, in the same year the United States entered into an agreement with Singapore on the use of a naval base on its territory. In response to the threats posed by Iraq and Iran, starting in 1995, the United States was able to establish a permanent presence in the northwestern Indian Ocean and in the Persian Gulf, having reached an agreement with Bahrain and Kuwait on the establishment of naval bases.

In May 2012, the US Pacific Command had a total of 325,000 troops, the bulk of which were in the Navy and Marine Corps. The US Pacific Fleet included six of the eleven carrier strike groups (AUGS), about 180 ships (66% of the total Navy).

It is important to clarify that the Pacific Command consists of three fleets: the 3rd, 5th and 7th. The 5th Fleet is on combat duty in the Persian Gulf region). In the Asia-Pacific region, two-thirds of the US Marine Corps forces are deployed (about 85 thousand people) and about 10% of the ground forces (60 thousand people).¹⁰.

It should be borne in mind that these impressive forces are dispersed over the vast expanse of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The U.S. Navy has a limited number of vessels serving simultaneously in different parts of the world. In August 2012, only 49% of the fleet's vessels (140 units) were on combat duty, and only four of the ^eleven AUT were on duty: two in the Persian Gulf and two in the Pacific ocean11. Due to the fact that the Chinese armed forces and navy are mobilized and locally concentrated on its borders, during a short-term local clash in the region with the United States grouping, the PRC may gain a temporary tactical advantage.

The United States takes this fact into account when announcing a program to reduce military spending for the next 10 years in the amount of 487 billion rubles. United States dollars. Despite the fact that two of the eleven carrier strike groups will fall under the reduction program (the cost of building one aircraft carrier of a promising modification and equipment for it reaches 12.3 billion US dollars) ¹², Washington firmly states that the reduction in military spending will not affect the US military presence in the "critical region" of the Asia-Pacific region ¹³.

Regional priorities of the US military doctrine in the Asia-Pacific region are covered in more detail in the document "Strategic Guidance of the US Pacific Command" ¹⁴. According to it, US military policy in the region has five priorities: allies and partners, China, India, North Korea and cross-border threats. The first goal will be implemented in the format of strengthening military alliances and partner countries. Special attention is paid to supporting the development of India as a "leading and stabilizing force in South Asia". With regard to China, the wording is different: "to promote the maturation of relations between the US military and the PRC," which essentially means conducting world-supporting and monitoring activities.

With the reorientation of US military priorities in the Asia-Pacific region, China feels vulnerable. In Beijing, the argument goes like this: if the United States wants to involve us in cooperation, then why do they provoke us? What is seen in Washington as encouraging China to play a "constructive role in the region" ¹⁵ is seen by some American international scholars as blackmail16. In fact, the United States is inviting China to join the security system that has developed in the region, but in strictly assigned roles. In the foreseeable future, Beijing will not be able to challenge this state of affairs. The main threat may come from those US partner clients who, in their confrontation with China, may take too literally the security guarantees that Washington has given them.

Resume

The main task of US regional policy is to prevent a revision of the existing order in Pacific Asia, centered around Washington's military alliances with Tokyo, Seoul and Canberra. It is planned to do this by involving the PRC in the system of Pacific relations so that it fulfills the roles prepared for it. There is reason to believe that this process will be smooth and conflict-free. A threat to stability may arise as a result of a local conflict between China and any of the minor allies of the United States.

Keywords: US foreign policy; Asia-Pacific security; US-China relations; US military strategy

Abstract

The main task of U.S. regional policy is to prevent revision of a military and political order in the Asia-Pacific region, which has been centered on military alliances between Washington and Tokyo, Seoul and Canberra. The plan is to engage China in the Pacific ties on prepared role both through engagement and containment. There is a reason to believe that this process will be smooth and peaceful. Threat to stability may result from a local conflict between China and some of the minor U.S. allies.

Keywords: US foreign policy; security in Asia Pacific; US-China relations; US military strategy

Notes

^{Calmes J.} 1 A U.S. Marine Base for Australia Irritates China // New York Times, 2011. November 16. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/11/17/worid/asia/obama-and-gillard-expand-us-australia-military-ties.html (дата обращения: 17.08.12).

^{Sustaining U.S.} 2 Global Leadership: Priorities for 21^st Century Defense. Department of Defense. January 2012. URL: http://www.defense.gov/ news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance. pdf (accessed: 12.08.12)

^{Obama В.} 3 Remarks by the President in the Meeting with Trans-Pacific Partnership. Honolulu, Hawaii. November 12, 2011. URL: http://www. whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/ 12/remarks-president-meeting-trans-pacific-partnership (дата обращения: 10.08.12).

⁴ Flashpoints: Security in the East and South China Seas. Center for a New American Security. URL: http://www.cnas.org/flashpoints/overview (accessed on 17.08.12). The author's attention was drawn to this trend by the Russian Americanist I. A. Istomin.

^{Fuller Т.} 5 As Myanmar Changes, So Does Its Leader // New York Times. 2012. April 3. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/worid/ asia/myanmar-president-praises-weekend-elections.html (дата обращения: 9.08.12).

^{Perlez J.} 6 Continuing Buildup, China Boosts Military Spending More Than 11 Percent // New York Times. 2012., March 4. URL: http://www.nytimes. com/2012/03/05/worid/asia/china-boosts-military-spending-more-than-11 -percent.html (дата обращения: 17.08.12).

^{Hille K., Hoyos C.} 7 Chinese defence budget set to double by 2015 // Financial Times. 2012. February 13. URL: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/ s/0/7b58ac0a-5592 - 11e1 - 9d95 - 00144 feabdc0.html#axzz2520WlafZ (дата обращения: 2.08.12).

⁸ Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2012. Annual Report to Congress. Office of the Secretary of Defense. May 2012. URL: http://www.defense.gov/pubs/ pdfs/2012_CMPR_Final. pdf (accessed on 3.08.12).

^{Sustaining U.S.} 9 Global Leadership: Priorities for 21^st Century Defense. Department of Defense. January 2012. URL: http://www.defense.gov/ news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance. pdf (accessed: 12.08.12)

¹⁰ The United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) Facts and Area of Responsibility (AOR). May 2012. URL: http://www.pacom.mil/about-uspacom/ facts.shtml (session date: 15.08.12.

¹¹ Status of the Navy as of August 30, 2012. URL: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_ hr.asp?id=146 (дата обращения: 30.08.12).

^{Tiron R.} 12 U.S. Navy Bets $42 Billion on Carriers in China's Sights // Bloomberg Business Week. 2012. June 19. URL: http://www.businessweek. com/news/201 2 - 06 - 1 9/u-dot-s-dot-navy-bets-42-billion-on-carriers-in-china-s-sights (дата посещения: 16.08.12).

^{Obama В.} 13 Remarks by the President on the Defense Strategic Review. The White House. January 5, 2012. URL: http://www.whitehouse. gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review (дата обращения: 6.08.12).

¹⁴ United States Pacific Command Strategic Guidance. URL: http://www.pacom.us.com/ uploadedFiles/USPACOMINST%200031%20 final. pdf (accessed on 8.08.12).

¹⁵ Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21^st Century Defense. Department of Defense. January 2012. URL: http://www.defense.gov/ news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance. pdf (accessed: 12.08.12)

^{Etzioni A.} 16 In China's Shoes // The National Interest. January 23, 2012. URL: http:// nationalinterest.org/commentary/chinas-shoes-6366 (accessed on 17.08.12).

Permanent link to this publication: