Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
The United States has significantly increased its warships and aircraft deployed in Asia despite Washington's budget woes, adding punch to its "pivot" to the region, a senior naval commander said.
Rear Admiral Mark C Montgomery, commander of an aircraft carrier strike group homeported in Yokosuka, Japan, said the expanded military presence would have a calming effect on simmering tensions and territorial disputes in the region.
"The strategic rebalancing has resulted in an extremely higher number of surface combatants, cruisers and destroyers that support the strike group," Montgomery told AFP in an interview aboard the aircraft carrier USS George Washington in the South China Sea.
"What we've seen is an increase in surface combatant presence here in the Western Pacific... so these ships are spread throughout those areas," he said, in the interview at the flag bridge of the nuclear-powered supercarrier as fighter jets took off and landed on the deck as part of drills.
"Having more ships gives us more presence. It allows us to have a greater force."
Montgomery said U.S. defense budget cuts and the recent 16-day partial U.S. government shutdown have not affected his command.
The shutdown forced President Barack Obama to skip two Asian summits this month, triggering concerns about the extent of U.S. commitment to the region as China becomes more assertive.
"Operations and maintenance decisions have not affected us. The strategic rebalance is continuing in earnest," the admiral said.
"We have sufficient funds for our operations... there is in fact a strategic rebalancing in place that has resulted in more ships and aircraft being out here."
Last year, then U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in Singapore that the Pentagon would shift 60% of U.S. naval assets to the Pacific region by 2020 as part of an Asian "pivot" announced by Washington.
Montgomery, a 25-year veteran in the U.S. Navy, said ships and planes from San Diego, California and Pearl Harbor in Hawaii are being deployed to Asia for up to eight months as part of the rebalancing.
"That gives me a lot more flexibility, a lot more presence," he said.
Montgomery commands Carrier Strike Group Five from the the nuclear-powered George Washington, which was in international waters in the South China Sea last week when journalists and other visitors were flown in from Singapore.
A carrier strike group packs a powerful punch as it comprises an aircraft carrier, backed by at least one guided missile cruiser, a destroyer, a supply ship and a fast attack submarine.
It is a key element in the U.S. strategy of projecting its military power across the world.
The George Washington heads the U.S. Navy's largest carrier strike group and the only one homeported outside the U.S. It operates in three theaters, including the waters off the Korean Peninsula where tensions between North and South Korea are simmering.
It also operates in the sea off Japan where Tokyo and Beijing are locked in a territorial dispute, and in the South China Sea, where China and four Southeast Asian states as well as Taiwan have overlapping claims over territories.
Montgomery's carrier strike group held military exercises with South Korea and Japan off the Korean peninsula this month, sparking a sharp rebuke from Pyongyang which denounced the drills as a "serious military provocation" and an "attack on our efforts for peace".
This week the group was cruising the South China Sea while holding smaller military exercises with the Malaysian navy and air force and later in the month with its Singaporean allies.
"I'm an element of any contingency response. I think a carrier strike group is always a critical element of it," Montgomery said, when asked about the role of his command in any military conflict in the region.
China claims almost all of the waters in the South China Sea, including those approaching the shores of smaller countries like the Philippines, a former U.S. colony with which Washington has a mutual defense treaty.
Manila, which is the most vocal in criticizing China's alleged aggressive moves in the sea, and Washington are in talks over a deal that will expand U.S. military presence in the Philippines, which evicted fixed U.S. military bases in the early 1990s.
Montgomery said the increased U.S. military presence in the region is a stabilizing factor.
"Presence always has an assuring and calming effect," he said. "I think the fact that we're here (now) says a lot whether or not we will be here if there was a crisis."
© (C) 2013 AFP
11 Comments
Login to comment
nath
If the US was not in Asia, there would be war.
OssanAmerica
You are correct. China would feel free to bully it's smaller Asian neighbors with impunity. The U.S. is keeping the peace.
Yogizuna
There would be war or some countries would become "Chinese satellites" out of fear of China without a strong U.S. presence in the area.
Louis Tan
Another nonsensical report to help Abe's credibility and boost his war mongering. Dumb are the people to allow this clown to destroy their country and their lives.
gokai_wo_maneku
Preparing for WWIII. I can see myself being vaporized in an atomic blast.
SamuraiBlue
@gokai_wo_maneku
Before WW3 PRC will fall into pieces. Historically mainland china follows the same route.
Sentiments
I must agree with the development of internal instability. Most signs point in that direction. So far I think the PRC has made a good job in keeping the giant together. But in the end they are fighting a loosing battle against the threat of a major breakdown, not very different from former Jugoslavia in Europe. If the leadership are sensible they will draw up plans for different peaceful variations of internal division (progressing de-centralization etcetera). Otherwise it may become very bad crisis in the area, even the ignition for a major conflict between states.
nath
Ha! Pivot to Asia strengthening? What's the indication of that? The worsening of relations between Japan and China? I guess "Pivot to Asia" will be considered mission complete when the two countries go to war. You are all willing pawns in the game played by the Americans.
OssanAmerica
China has been stopped from taking the Senkakus by force. They are afraid of sending military ships to the islands or landing on them.
nath
I don't think China intended to take the island. It seems that Obama told Xi "don't do it" when they met in California earlier this year. So landing on the island would not be an option.
This whole problem happened really, after japan nationalized the island. It wasn't a big deal from Japanese point of view, but to the Chinese the move was symbolic. Japan was de-facto controlling the island for the last 40 years or more. Why was it necessary to provoke a change? There was some miscalculation.
It is not entirely useless of course, as it supported Abe's ambition to boost Japan's defense industry. For that you need an imagined enemy. This sort of things happened throughout the US history so many times it's not even worth counting. It's very typical. But the political price is high.
Japan wants to become independent of the US in terms of defense. This is a long term goal. North Korea is not big enough a threat to be convincing. South Korea has island dispute with Japan too, but it's a US ally. There's no other foe in the region. Only China can be used for that purpose. One can only hope this game does not escalate.
Abe did not really need to do this. The Japanese public will support boosting defense anyway, and so long the economy improves, Abe will remain popular. The recent history saw Japanese PMs changed quickly. Abe might have felt politically insecure, especially considering his first term. But now he has trapped himself.
I suggest he sets up a "renegade" minister to express something politically incorrect, i.e., conciliatory toward China. And he can decide how to follow up by gauging public reaction and that from China. If the reaction is good, he can show toleration to this expression and so create a stepping stone for dialog with China. If the reaction is bad, he can continue on to his current policies. I think it's worth trying.
Another approach might be to send some of those civilian or industrial people who advocate for better relations to go to China and express some sympathy. Then China may decide it has gone too far, and take the opportunity to receive them in high profile. Then neither China nor Japan do anything that might be seen as provocative for the next 2 months. Provided that the American politicians don't intervene, the two countries may slowly start a dialog and be on the way of recovery. I would think China now is probably also looking for an excuse to change course. But since China blames Japan for the first wrong move on the island, it's much more difficult politically to take the first conciliatory move.
In any case, the first dialog cannot happen by Abe, even though he eagerly calls for it. The Chinese see him in the same light as Adolf Hitler trying to resurrect a militant Germany. This my sounds ridiculous to the Japanese. But that's how bad the situation has become. Except a few radicals, most Japanese people are too complacent. I wish they would wake up quickly. A war in this day and age is unthinkable.
toshiko
Is China ready to attack Japan? They insist to learn History. So, they must remember that until Japanese militarism got big idea to seize USA, it was hopeless in vicious Japanese forces for many years. Well, even Japan was being defeated, until Aug 15 1945, it never had significant win at all. That was when current Taiwan became Chinese Govt. Then Chinese commies kicked out Chan;s people to Taiwan, It is not that kind of time, Electronic and technology era. Which country have more advantage if China-Japan war occurs/ This time not people but drones will attack back China. / Next year, Japan will receive advanced military gadgets. How much USA owes to Japan? Payment to USA weapon makers is no problem. Meanwhile USA has to clean up middle east. Maybe China has to seek USA help on weapons. USA owes to China too much,