From last year to this year’s “two sessions” of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the top echelon of the CPC has, on the one hand, shouted “prepare for war”, revised the “Army Logistics Regulations” and “National Defense Law”, issued mobilization orders to the entire army for training, issued threats of war, and sent signals that “war On the other hand, it has frequently conducted military exercises in the South China Sea and other waters, and has continuously sent military aircraft to harass Taiwan. The Chinese Communist Party‘s actions have aroused the international community’s concern and attention, and the United States has also issued a warning.
On January 4, the U.S. State Department website published an article “China’s Nuclear Madness” written by then-Secretary of State Pompeo and Special Envoy for Arms Control Billingsley, which was immediately forwarded by the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. The article states that the U.S. is aware of the Chinese Communist Party’s nuclear weapons development and feels that the Communist Party is on the move, and that the U.S. has evidence that the Chinese military is taking an “early warning launch” posture. In response, the U.S. calls on the Chinese Communist Party to be responsible and transparent about its nuclear weapons, like other nuclear-armed states, and to work with the U.S. and Moscow to develop a new arms control agreement that includes all nuclear weapons.
It is clear that through this article, written by a heavyweight, the U.S. is warning the Chinese Communist Party not to cross the red line and use nuclear weapons, and that the U.S. will not stand idly by as a threat to the U.S. homeland, its allies and partners, and that if faced with a threat, the U.S. and its allies will strike back.
I don’t know if it was because it didn’t understand the U.S. warning, or if it deliberately pretended not to understand, or if it wanted to test the new government’s reaction, but after Biden took office, the Chinese Communist Party did not restrain itself, and in addition to continuing to send military aircraft to disturb Taiwan, it also raised military spending again during the two sessions. During the two sessions, Wu Qian, spokesman for the Chinese military and armed forces delegation, said the 6.8 percent increase in the defense budget was mainly in response to land border disputes, island-territory issues and maritime delimitation disputes, and he explicitly stated that it was related to the situation in the Taiwan Strait.
Xu Qiliang, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission and considered Xi’s most trusted general in the military, also told the National People’s Congress that “the mainland should increase military spending to modernize and thus prepare for the inevitable war.
The Communist Party’s latest statement and boost in military spending, as well as its actions in Hong Kong and its shirking of responsibility for spreading the virus around the world, have raised the alarm in the West. Once again, the U.S. military has issued a warning to Beijing.
Recently, Nikkei Asian Review published an analysis by James Stavridis, a retired U.S. admiral and the 16th Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, identifying which actions of the Chinese Communist Party are considered to have crossed the “red line” and describing the future strategy of the U.S. military against the Chinese Communist Party in the Pacific.
After retiring from the military, he served as the dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and later appeared frequently in the media, commenting on national security and foreign policy issues, and wrote hundreds of articles for different publications. Therefore, it is not too much to say that his article this Time represents the views of the U.S. military, which the Chinese Communist Party’s military and top brass absolutely cannot ignore.
In his article, Stavridis lists what the Chinese Communist Party does that would be considered crossing a “red line” in the military confrontation option. These “red lines” include: any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons action by the CCP or North Korea against the United States or its allies; any military attack by the CCP against Taiwan or its offshore islands, including an economic blockade or major cyberattack on Taiwan’s public infrastructure and institutions; any military attack by the CCP against Japanese forces defending Japan’s Senkaku Islands ( Diaoyu Islands) and its surrounding East China Sea Exclusive Economic Zone; any significant hostile actions by the CCP in the South China Sea to further occupy and militarize neighboring islands, to deter other neighboring countries from making claims with a show of force, or to prevent U.S. and its allied forces from conducting free navigation at sea; and any attacks by the CCP on the sovereign territory or military installations of U.S. allies.
These red lines listed cover all aspects of the CCP’s potential provocations, and the CCP’s recent actions and petty calculations in the South China Sea and around Taiwan have been no exception since. By specifying the red lines, the U.S. is warning Beijing not to act rashly and not to hit the stone with an egg, or it will pay a painful price.
Once the Chinese Communist Party crosses the red line, Stavridis also explained how the U.S. military will respond, mainly in three ways: first, high-tech “guerrilla warfare at sea” with armed Drones, cyber attacks and special forces. That is, Marine commandos would use armed drones, cyber offensive capabilities and anti-aircraft missiles, and even more lethal weapons, to attack the Communist Party’s maritime forces and even its land bases of operations. For example, the CCP’s militarized artificial reefs in the South China Sea will be the primary target of attack.
The second is to bring in more allies to join the free navigation in the South China Sea. So far, the United States, France, Germany, and Britain have all sent or agreed to send warships across the South China Sea. And at a recent meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, NATO held consultations on the threat from the Chinese Communist Party. In addition, the United States intends to convince Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam to participate in such sea patrols.
Third, the dispersal of more strategic bombers and fighters to Asia in response to future U.S.-China military conflicts. This decentralized deployment would increase the mobility of U.S. forces, which would also be supported by U.S. space forces in terms of intelligence and networks.
Stavridis concludes with a nod to the fact that the U.S. military is strengthening its operational capabilities in the Western Pacific region and positioning itself for conflict with the Chinese Communist Party in the coming decades.
There is no doubt that even after Biden’s rise to power, the U.S. military’s Perception of the CCP has not changed and its vigilance against the CCP threat has not diminished. The Stavridis article makes this clear to Beijing, and it is even clearer to Beijing that in the face of strong U.S. military power and the support of its allies, any red line Beijing chooses to touch will spell doom. Can Beijing really afford such consequences?
Recent Comments