Playing With Fire:Obama's Risky Oil Threat to China
Michael T. Klare* | January 27, 2012
[Originally published in Tomdispatch.com, December 6, 2011]
Sea Hawk helicopter approaches USS Nimitz in the South China Sea (U.S. Navy photo).
When it comes to China policy, is the Obama administration leaping from the frying pan directly into the fire? In an attempt to turn the page on two disastrous wars in the Greater Middle East, it may have just launched a new Cold War in Asia -- once again, viewing oil as the key to global supremacy.
The new policy was signaled by President Obama himself on November 17th in an address to the Australian Parliament in which he laid out an audacious -- and extremely dangerous -- geopolitical vision. Instead of focusing on the Greater Middle East, as has been the case for the last decade, the United States will now concentrate its power in Asia and the Pacific. "My guidance is clear," he declared in Canberra. "As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region." While administration officials insist that this new policy is not aimed specifically at China, the implication is clear enough: from now on, the primary focus of American military strategy will not be counterterrorism, but the containment of that economically booming land -- at whatever risk or cost.
The Planet's New Center of Gravity
The new emphasis on Asia and the containment of China is necessary, top officials insist, because the Asia-Pacific region now constitutes the "center of gravity" of world economic activity. While the United States was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the argument goes, China had the leeway to expand its influence in the region. For the first time since the end of World War II, Washington is no longer the dominant economic actor there. If the United States is to retain its title as the world's paramount power, it must, this thinking goes, restore its primacy in the region and roll back Chinese influence. In the coming decades, no foreign policy task will, it is claimed, be more important than this.
In line with its new strategy, the administration has undertaken a number of moves intended to bolster American power in Asia, and so put China on the defensive. These include a decision to deploy an initial 250 U.S. Marines -- someday to be upped to 2,500 -- to an Australian air base in Darwin on that country's north coast, and the adoption on November 18th of "the Manila Declaration," a pledge of closer U.S. military ties with the Philippines.
At the same time, the White House announced the sale of 24 F-16 fighter jets to Indonesia and a visit by Hillary Clinton to isolated Burma, long a Chinese ally -- the first there by a secretary of state in 56 years. Clinton has also spoken of increased diplomatic and military ties with Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam -- all countries surrounding China or overlooking key trade routes that China relies on for importing raw materials and exporting manufactured goods.
As portrayed by administration officials, such moves are intended to maximize America's advantages in the diplomatic and military realm at a time when China dominates the economic realm regionally. In a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine, Clinton revealingly suggested that an economically weakened United States can no longer hope to prevail in multiple regions simultaneously. It must choose its battlefields carefully and deploy its limited assets -- most of them of a military nature -- to maximum advantage. Given Asia's strategic centrality to global power, this means concentrating resources there.
"Over the last 10 years," she writes, "we have allocated immense resources to [Iraq and Afghanistan]. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership [and] secure our interests... One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region."
Such thinking, with its distinctly military focus, appears dangerously provocative. The steps announced entail an increased military presence in waters bordering China and enhanced military ties with that country's neighbors -- moves certain to arouse alarm in Beijing and strengthen the hand of those in the ruling circle (especially in the Chinese military leadership) who favor a more activist, militarized response to U.S. incursions. Whatever forms that takes, one thing is certain: the leadership of the globe's number two economic power is not going to let itself appear weak and indecisive in the face of an American buildup on the periphery of its country. This, in turn, means that we may be sowing the seeds of a new Cold War in Asia in 2011.
The U.S. military buildup and the potential for a powerful Chinese counter-thrust have already been the subject of discussion in the American and Asian press. But one crucial dimension of this incipient struggle has received no attention at all: the degree to which Washington's sudden moves have been dictated by a fresh analysis of the global energy equation, revealing (as the Obama administration sees it) increased vulnerabilities for the Chinese side and new advantages for Washington.
The New Energy Equation
For decades, the United States has been heavily dependent on imported oil, much of it obtained from the Middle East and Africa, while China was largely self-sufficient in oil output. In 2001, the United States consumed 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, while producing only nine million barrels itself. The dependency on foreign suppliers for that 10.6 million-barrel shortfall proved a source of enormous concern for Washington policymakers. They responded by forging ever closer, more militarized ties with Middle Eastern oil producers and going to war on occasion to ensure the safety of U.S. supply lines.
In 2001, China, on the other hand, consumed only five million barrels per day and so, with a domestic output of 3.3 million barrels, needed to import only 1.7 million barrels. Those cold, hard numbers made its leadership far less concerned about the reliability of the country's major overseas providers -- and so it did not need to duplicate the same sort of foreign policy entanglements that Washington had long been involved in.
Now, so the Obama administration has concluded, the tables are beginning to turn. As a result of China's booming economy and the emergence of a sizeable and growing middle class (many of whom have already bought their first cars), the country's oil consumption is exploding. Running at about 7.8 million barrels per day in 2008, it will, according to recent projections by the U.S. Department of Energy, reach 13.6 million barrels in 2020, and 16.9 million in 2035. Domestic oil production, on the other hand, is expected to grow from 4.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5.3 million in 2035. Not surprisingly, then, Chinese imports are expected to skyrocket from 3.8 million barrels per day in 2008 to a projected 11.6 million in 2035 -- at which time they will exceed those of the United States.
The U.S., meanwhile, can look forward to an improved energy situation. Thanks to increased production in "tough oil" areas of the United States, including the Arctic seas off Alaska, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and shale formations in Montana, North Dakota, and Texas, future imports are expected to decline, even as energy consumption rises. In addition, more oil is likely to be available from the Western Hemisphere rather than the Middle East or Africa. Again, this will be thanks to the exploitation of yet more "tough oil" areas, including the Athabasca tar sands of Canada, Brazilian oil fields in the deep Atlantic, and increasingly pacified energy-rich regions of previously war-torn Colombia. According to the Department of Energy, combined production in the United States, Canada, and Brazil is expected to climb by 10.6 million barrels per day between 2009 and 2035 -- an enormous jump, considering that most areas of the world are expecting declining output.
Whose Sea Lanes Are These Anyway?
From a geopolitical perspective, all this seems to confer a genuine advantage on the United States, even as China becomes ever more vulnerable to the vagaries of events in, or along, the sea lanes to distant lands. It means Washington will be able to contemplate a gradual loosening of its military and political ties to the Middle Eastern oil states that have dominated its foreign policy for so long and have led to those costly, devastating wars.
Indeed, as President Obama said in Canberra, the U.S. is now in a position to begin to refocus its military capabilities elsewhere. "After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly," he declared, "the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region."
For China, all this spells potential strategic impairment. Although some of China's imported oil will travel overland through pipelines from Kazakhstan and Russia, the great majority of it will still come by tanker from the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America over sea lanes policed by the U.S. Navy. Indeed, almost every tanker bringing oil to China travels across the South China Sea, a body of water the Obama administration is now seeking to place under effective naval control.
By securing naval dominance of the South China Sea and adjacent waters, the Obama administration evidently aims to acquire the twenty-first century energy equivalent of twentieth-century nuclear blackmail. Push us too far, the policy implies, and we'll bring your economy to its knees by blocking your flow of vital energy supplies. Of course, nothing like this will ever be said in public, but it is inconceivable that senior administration officials are not thinking along just these lines, and there is ample evidence that the Chinese are deeply worried about the risk -- as indicated, for example, by their frantic efforts to build staggeringly expensive pipelines across the entire expanse of Asia to the Caspian Sea basin.
As the underlying nature of the new Obama strategic blueprint becomes clearer, there can be no question that the Chinese leadership will, in response, take steps to ensure the safety of China's energy lifelines. Some of these moves will undoubtedly be economic and diplomatic, including, for example, efforts to court regional players like Vietnam and Indonesia as well as major oil suppliers like Angola, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. Make no mistake, however: others will be of a military nature. A significant buildup of the Chinese navy -- still small and backward when compared to the fleets of the United States and its principal allies -- would seem all but inevitable. Likewise, closer military ties between China and Russia, as well as with the Central Asian member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), are assured.
In addition, Washington could now be sparking the beginnings of a genuine Cold-War-style arms race in Asia, which neither country can, in the long run, afford. All of this is likely to lead to greater tension and a heightened risk of inadvertent escalation arising out of future incidents involving U.S., Chinese, and allied vessels -- like the one that occurred in March 2009 when a flotilla of Chinese naval vessels surrounded a U.S. anti-submarine warfare surveillance ship, the Impeccable, and almost precipitated a shooting incident. As more warships circulate through these waters in an increasingly provocative fashion, the risk that such an incident will result in something far more explosive can only grow.
Nor will the potential risks and costs of such a military-first policy aimed at China be restricted to Asia. In the drive to promote greater U.S. self-sufficiency in energy output, the Obama administration is giving its approval to production techniques -- Arctic drilling, deep-offshore drilling, and hydraulic fracturing -- that are guaranteed to lead to further Deepwater Horizon-style environmental catastrophe at home. Greater reliance on Canadian tar sands, the "dirtiest" of energies, will result in increased greenhouse gas emissions and a multitude of other environmental hazards, while deep Atlantic oil production off the Brazilian coast and elsewhere has its own set of grim dangers.
All of this ensures that, environmentally, militarily, and economically, we will find ourselves in a more, not less, perilous world. The desire to turn away from disastrous land wars in the Greater Middle East to deal with key issues now simmering in Asia is understandable, but choosing a strategy that puts such an emphasis on military dominance and provocation is bound to provoke a response in kind. It is hardly a prudent path to head down, nor will it, in the long run, advance America's interests at a time when global economic cooperation is crucial. Sacrificing the environment to achieve greater energy independence makes no more sense.
A new Cold War in Asia and a hemispheric energy policy that could endanger the planet: it's a fatal brew that should be reconsidered before the slide toward confrontation and environmental disaster becomes irreversible. You don't have to be a seer to know that this is not the definition of good statesmanship, but of the march of folly.
*Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet. A documentary movie version of his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available from the Media Education Foundation. To listen to Timothy MacBain's latest Tomcast audio interview in which Klare discusses the American military build-up in the Pacific, click here or download it to your iPod here.
A Korean Spring?Christine Ahn* | January 18, 2012
[Originally published in Foreign Policy In Focus, January 4, 2012]
Spring of Korea at Seomjin River, by Jeong-Woo Nam, Coreegraphic.com.
As 2011 came to a close, the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il took the world by surprise (including the CIA which, like the rest of us, only learned of his passing 48 hours later). Given the dearth of understanding about North Korea in the West, the media could only speculate about the future of the new regime in Pyongyang. The usual pundits also took the opportunity to renew their calls for regime change. After all, 2011 was the year when the masses rose up to overthrow repressive regimes; could the same fate be in store for North Korea?
If anything has become clear in the weeks following Kim Jong Il's passing, it is that regime collapse is not in the cards for North Korea. In fact, since 2008, the world has known of Kim's failing health. Furthermore, North Korea has experienced succession before: in 1994,Kim Il Sung passed away during an incredibly tumultuous time, domestically and internationally. Kim Jong Il took over the reins of power at a time when the socialist trading bloc had collapsed, essentially eliminating overnight North Korea's historic allies and trading partners. Not only did it lack critical imports such as fuel to run tractors, North Korea faced a new world in which its historic enemy—the United States— was the world's sole superpower. North Korea also endured the difficult period of serial droughts and floods, which contributed to the food crisis where up to one million North Koreans are thought to have perished in the famine during Kim Jong Il's rule.
By all accounts, the current succession is going as planned. On December 30, Kim Jong Il's son, Kim Jong Un was named the supreme commander of the Korean People's Army, reflecting the backing of the Military Commission and the Worker's Party. While Kim Jung Un's ascendancy won't likely bring about any significant short-term changes politically, economically, or militarily to North Korea, his reign contains a number of question marks. Little is known about him beyond the fact that he is young, was educated partly outside of North Korea in Switzerland, and didn't grow up during the Cold War.
What happens in North Korea, however, is also clearly influenced by what happens in Seoul, and the winds of change are blowing strong south of the Demilitarized Zone where grassroots movements are challenging the country's retrograde neo-Cold War leadership. After four long years under President Lee Myung Bak's repressive and hard-line policies, 2011 marked the revival of democracy in South Korea thanks to three particularly inspiring developments for peace, economic justice, and anti-corruption.
Korean Spring South
One grassroots movement that is successfully challenging the militarization of South Korea and the ROK-U.S. alliance is the inspiring organizing of farmers, fishermen, and women sea divers of Gangjeong village working relentlessly to stop the construction of a naval base on Jeju Island. If all goes as planned, by 2014, the base will host 20 warships, nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, and two Aegis destroyers integrated with the U.S. Missile Defense System. And this isn't just any village on any island. Gangjeong is home to a UNESCO World Heritage site, a UNESCO biosphere reserve, and a government-designated "absolute preservation area" characterized by rare rock formations, abundant and fertile farmlands, pristine fresh and sea waters, and endangered marine life. Although villagers have been waging a nonviolent struggle for nearly five years, 2011 was a turning point in their ability to gain both national and international attention, including major coverage in top-tier media and global peace solidarity.
Using direct action tactics, including using their bodies to block construction trucks and dredging ships, Gangjeong villagers delayed base construction by nearly eight months. As international coverage of their struggle grew, so did the repression by the South Korean government and Navy. Dozens of activists and villagers were beaten, fined and arrested, including Gangjeong village mayor Kang Dok-kyun. Undeterred, the activists and villagers—backed by hundreds of religious, peace, and environmental groups throughout South Korea and internationally—continued to stage daily protests at the construction site.
Good news finally arrived on December 30 when the National Assembly cut 96 percent of the 2012 budget for the naval base. According to Gangjeong activist Sung-Hee Choi, "such a tremendous defense budget cut is unprecedented in the history of the Republic of Korea." Although this cut heralds a major victory for Gangjeong villagers, Choi cautions that nearly 75 percent of the 2011 budget of 151.6 billion won was not used due to the delay in construction, which the Navy will likely use for 2012 and to justify more funding for 2013.
Labor Protests
Another example of inspiring organizing that has sparked a national discussion on the growing inequality in South Korea came from Busan, a port city in the southeast. There, Kim Jin Suk, the country's first woman welder, staged a one-woman protest against layoffs by Hanjin Heavy Industry and Construction. In January, Kim climbed up a 35-meter high crane after Hanjin announced plans that it would layoff 400 workers. For 309 days, the 51-year old Kim lived in the cab of the crane, surviving typhoons, monsoons, and heat waves.
After 100 days when Kim's spirit began to flag, thousands of citizens from around the country hopped on hundreds of "Hope Buses" to show their support of Kim's protest. Riot police used water cannons and tear gas to stop the first wave of 7,000 bus riders traveling on 185 buses.
On November 10, Kim finally climbed down after the company and the union worked out a temporary agreement to reinstate 94 workers within one year, compensation for dismissed workers, and the withdrawal of lawsuits. Kim's protest reflected the growing anger among South Korea's middle and working classes who have felt shafted by the Lee administration's pro-business policies and the systematic dismantling of the country's social safety net.
Fighting Corruption
A third development in South Korea that has become legendary for raising tough issues of corruption by President Lee and other political leaders is the hugely popular weekly online talk show that launched in April. Named after the nickname given to President Lee by his most vocal critics, "NaneunGgomsuda" ("I am a petty-minded creep")covers corruption within South Korean politics and the dominance of the conservative, pro-business, and pro-government media. NaneunGgomsuda is the nation's most popular podcast with approximately six million downloads per week. According to New York Times journalist Choe Sang-hun, "NaneunGgomsuda has emerged as an influential channel of anti-government views." In December, former National Assembly member Chung Bong-ju, one of the four co-hosts of the show was sentenced to one year in prison for allegedly spreading rumors that President Lee had been implicated in a stock market scandal, a transparent attempt by the political elite to censor the show and intimidate its hosts.
Not only has the podcast served as an influential medium for expressing the outrage of many South Koreans, it played a major role last November in the outcome of the mayoral re-election in Seoul. NaneunGgomsudawas among the first to highlight an attack by hackers on the national election commission website, later discovered to have been coordinated by a ruling party official and aimed at ruining the chances of independent candidate Park Won-soon. In a landslide victory, Park beat the likely frontrunner Na Kyung-won of the ruling Grand National Party. This was a significant win for many reasons. For one, Park is known as the grandfather of modern South Korean civil society for founding many liberal institutions, such as the nation's premier watchdog group People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and the philanthropic organization Beautiful Foundation. He now governs Seoul, the nation's capital with a population of over 10 million people that commands half of the country's GDP. Furthermore, the election in Seoul is a bell weather of what's to come in next year's national assembly and presidential elections.
The changes occurring in South Korea may not only usher in a more progressive regime in 2012 and greater social justice; it will undoubtedly influence the way that Pyongyang chooses to engage with Seoul. It took both North and South Korean leaders to make the sunshine policy possible, though the South Korean leaders got most of the credit.
The popular uprisings in the south will no doubt influence prospects for reconciliation, peace, and the reunification of Korea. These changes on the Korean peninsula present a unique opportunity for the Obama administration to take a constructive approach on Korea for a change, instead of blindly following an unpopular South Korean president whose time is up.
*Christine Ahn is Executive Director of the Korea Policy Institute, a policy and research analyst with the Global Fund for Women and a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.