America's rebalance towards Asia has many talking. The U.S. Navy will be at the forefront of such efforts. Adm. Locklear gives us his take.
As the United States military’s most important and largest overseas command, U.S. Pacific Command, otherwise known as PACOM, covers a jurisdiction that is half the Earth’s surface, 50 per cent of the world’s population and has one-fifth of the U.S. military’s total strength under its command. PACOM Commander, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, spoke to Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe on what the upgraded U.S. presence in the region will imply, including initiatives to neutralize the growing transnational challenges like violent extremism; the impact of the pivot on relations with Indonesia and Indochina; and, importantly, the likely reverberations for U.S.-China relations.
When you say that the U.S. is rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific, what was different about the activities of PACOM prior to the global war on terrorism?
Admiral Locklear: After the end of World War II and before 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States had a continual presence in the Asia-Pacific. This presence enabled the growth and sustainment of a secure environment that I believe engendered economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. It also facilitated the rise of competent militaries that are participating broadly in the security environment today.
Before 9/11, much of the resources of the U.S. military were dedicated to ongoing operations in the Asia- Pacific. Although we did pivot away from the Asia-Pacific for over ten years, we still had assets dedicated to combat operations in the region.
When you say "rebalancing", what precisely do you mean?
Admiral Locklear: U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is coming to a close, and President Obama and the Secretary of Defense are looking to the future at what our defense force will look like post-Afghanistan and our global priorities. They recognize that the most significant national interest of the United States, and the interests of five of our seven allies and emerging partners, lies here in the Asia- Pacific.
Through rebalancing in the next few years, we want to have the right forces in the right mix in the right places in the Asia-Pacific, so that peace and security can continue to prosper in this region.The U.S. forces operating in this region, both rotational and forward stationed, are crucial to our strategy in this part of the world and ensure we have the right formal presence and are ready to provide the right assistance to our allies and partners.
At some level we are providing the right level of deterrence so we can ensure peace and security in the region. This is a continuum of our security role in northeast Asia, which is still a critical element of the overall PACOM strategy, and it will require us to take a different view of how we operate with our allies and partners and how we rotate our forces in and out with our partners and allies in several locations. For instance, in Australia we have been pursuing the cooperation between our Marine Corps and the Australian forces, specifically in Darwin. That is a good example of how we are working differently in the region in positioning ourselves to build a better collective security environment.
The United States puts together a calendar of events where countries with whom we have ongoing dialogue come together. These events include dialogue at the chiefs of defense level and at lower tiers. There can be dozens of such events and they extend from high-level talks to individual unit exercises. We host an annual Chief of Defense conference one year in Hawaii and co-host it another year in another country. In 2012, we co-hosted the conference with Australia in Sydney. We invited the Chiefs of Defense from most of the countries in this region, including India, China, Russia, Pakistan, France, and the United Kingdom, to get together and have frank discussions on their security interests. These are the type of discussions that help with commerce and lead to peace. When these don’t occur that’s when we have problems.
We are trying to build mutual trust and figure out areas of shared interests. There are real opportunities for us to build bilateral and multilateral relationships with all these countries so everyone can be a productive participant in the security environment. That’s all the way from the United States to China to Australia to India. Think about it, a peaceful security environment means prosperity for all. That may sound simplistic, but I think it can be realized in the Asia-Pacific because of the nature and maturity of the countries here and what they can build if they work together.
Photo Credit: U.S. PACOM (Flickr)
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Alex Thorp
Who are the 'seven allies' Adm. Locklear mentions?
"They recognize that the most significant national interest of the United States, and the interests of five of our seven allies and emerging partners, lies here in the Asia- Pacific."
nirvana
I would list: SKorea, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Thailand, Singapor and Taiwan.
Be Way
SKorea – Unlikely
Japan – Always a monster
Australia – Unlikely
Philippines – Maybe
Thailand – 99% unlikely
Singapore – 0.1% chance
Taiwan – Impossible.
So that leave Japan as a only evil monster who continues to create nuisance and death in Asia.
humble
You CCP's mouthpiece are always living in denial. I sometimes wondered why not so many its neighbors hate commie China, now I know due to its bullying nature.
Jeff
Interesting that there was no discussion of North Korea and the tremendous opportunity that exist right now to change the strategy with a new leader. Part of the rebalance should be an overhaul of a failed strategy with North Korea. Over the past 60 years the US-ROK alliance has said that a nuclear North Korea was unnacceptable yet the north now has nukes. The alliance has said that a nuclear North Korea that could strike the US homeland was unnacceptable yet the north just successfully tested a missile that can reach the US. The rebalance should look at engaging with North Korea to help build their economy and connect them to the rest of the world. Over tha long haul a rebalance strategy that keeps pressure on The Kim regime, economically connects the DPRK to the rest of the world and supports change due to internal pressure as opposed to forcing them to change with the barrel of a gun will be much more likely to set the conditions for a ROK led reunification of the peninsula than will our failed 60 year strategy. Nice pie Adm Locklear.. But you are missing a piece.
Charles
Concur with Jeff's sentiment and most of his comment. His error is that the Korean Peninsula is NOT in Admiral Locklear's area of responsibility, it is in General J. D. Thurman's AOR, the commander of U.S. Forces-Korea and the Combined Forces Command, both headquartered in Seoul.
Matt
The Korean peninsula is absolutely in PACOM's AOR. USFK is a sub unified command. Bottom line, GEN Thurman reports to ADM Locklear, even though they're both 4 stars.
vic
By "rebalancing", does it mean that there are excess military units, after the Afghan and Iraq wars, with no place to go to except Asia? For Asia, it would be nice if the excess American units simply go home and stay home; the region does not need to see the likes of American excesses like what happened in Vietnam.
humble
Who are you when talking about "region"? I can see most of China's neighbors happy to see American's pivot, of course except the Chinese.
Reason
@ Alex Thorp – US has Mutual Defense Treaties with with five countries in the region – Japan, Philippines, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia. This means if they're attacked, the US goes to war with them and visa-versa.
On top of this it has close ties with a number of ASEAN countries like Singapore, Indonesia.
And of course an undefined defense relationship with Taiwan, which the US would defend, despite what doubters would have you believe.
The US never left APAC and isn't leaving anytime soon.
Reason
and Thailand
John Chan
There are some fallacies in Locklear’s response.
1. Destruction follows the USA, where USA focuses where wars, destruction and misery surmount. After WWII and before 9/11, when the USA had a continual presence in the Asia-Pacific, there were two major wars in Asia-Pacific, regressive authoritarian governments dominated in Asia-Pacific, hostility prevailed in the area, and poverty was the major theme in the area too. It is totally contradictory to what Locklear said; USA’s continual presence in Asia-Pacific at that time was the prime factor of instability resulting poverty, and misery in Asia-pacific.
2. After 9/11 when the USA pivoted to Mideast and Muslim; USA’s absence from Asia-pacific has “enable the growth and sustainment of a secure environment that engendered economic prosperity in the Asia-pacific region” under the leadership of China.
3. Since the USA’s pivoting to Asia-Pacific again, the area returns to its instability, hostility and economy decline. USA is the plague of Asia’s peace and prosperity.
4. The correct definition of Violent Extremist Organizations (VEO) – its headman is the predatory Imperialist USA, its mentor the old school imperialist UK as the lieutenant, the barbaric henchman Japan as the major vassal state, and a host of second tier associate lackey nations, they collectively is also called the Westpac.
Jean-Paul
@ John Chan
It seems like there are some factual errors in your propaganda that you have just posted, let me spread some truth onto your claims so you can see that the Westpac is only interested in the peaceful development of the world:
1. Before 9/11 and after World War 2 many economies had experienced record economic growth coupled with the start of industrialization in many poor Asian countries. The examples of this peaceful development include: Japan which, after being a regressive fascist nation before WW2, was now one of the most peaceful nations after WW2 and industrialized to the 2nd biggest economy in 1980's. South Korea, which, after resisting the commie invasion in the 1950's went on to industrialize and create some of the worlds most successful companies such as Samsung. China, which began its industrialization in the 1980s due to western assistance and technology. These countries, among others like the Asian tigers Singapore and Taiwan all developed during this period thanks to the great western nations.
2. China did not lead the development at all, Japan, south korea, taiwan, singapore etc… all developed before 9/11 and China has done nothing to develop its poor neighbours such as north korea, burma, cambodia, vietnam etc… All these countries are still 3rd world and China refuses to help them advance.
3. China is the one that is resisting the west's pivot to Asia and thus is creating hostilities with Philippines, Vietnam, Japan and even North Korea due to its endless territorial disputes and bullying behaviour.
4. The Violent Extremist Organizations (VEO) are actually supported by China such as Al Qaeda and Taliban and the Westpac is committed to stopping these VEO's. In fact France is taking the lead in stopping VEO's from committing more atrocities. Currently, France is helping in Mali as the Malian government has asked France for military assistance in dealing with the Chinese backed Al Qaeda threat. The UK and USA and Germany, being good members of the international community are also supporting France and the Malian government.
By France intervening in the Malian terrorist attacks, it is showing that it is the master of Africa, not Al Qaeda or China. USA is showing goodwill to France by appointing it to the master of Africa position, just like it appoints Japan to the master of Asia position.
Schminner
I don't think the U.S. is interested in unifying the Koreans. They're more interested in taking countries apart.
Bankotsu
"The rebalance should look at engaging with North Korea to help build their economy and connect them to the rest of the world."
I agree with the policy of U.S ending its hostile policy towards DPRK. But U.S must be careful not to piss off Japan in its engagement with DPRK as Japan sees DPRK as an opponent. If U.S disregards Japanese interests with respects to the engagement with DPRK and thus alienates Japan, Japan might turn to BRICS. It might become BRICSJ. lol.
Anon
Blah, blah, blah…contain China, seize Chinese maritime resources with Japan and SEA "allies" as proxies…blah, blah,blah….contain Russia…blah, blah, blah…that's all folks! There will be war, wait till China and Russia make their moves.
ACT
except that China has no legitimate claim to the islands, Anon, as i've stated multiple times. And even if China's claims could be validated by actual documents from the period that proved beyond doubt that the Ming and Qing considered the Senkaku isles to be sovereign territory rather than navigation landmarks, there's still a few points to consider.
1. we have actual photographic evidence that Japanese fishermen and collectors did settle the islands from roughly 1895 onwards, awarding them actual sovereignty in a court of arbitration
2. Fishing boats, which are part of the PRC's ancient claim, did not have the technology to reach the islands until the early 20th century
3. from the late 1400s onwards–well into the rule of the Qing Dynasty–there was an effective ban on sailing by Chinese subjects, and Chinese trade effectively relied on land routes or the sailors of other nations actively seeking the Chinese out
4. for all intents and purposes, the PRC claim to the Spratly and Parcel islands, again from roughly the same period, appears to rely on the idea that since the governments that the Ming and Qing once recieved tribute from are long gone, the PRC can claim their territories in violation of international law as well as the deliberate attempt to not recognize their current governments.
Anon
I wonder why he is so certain of SEA help, especially from Indonesia? They are a staunch Islamic nation, all opposed to Israel and the meddling of NATO in the Middle East. They have no idea what the sentiments on the ground is like, the way they have underestimated Mali!
humble
The Indonesians might not like American's policy in Middle east but one thing for sure they don't like commie bully China. China's sea grabbing ambitions already scared its neighbors to death.