A region of Super Powers’ chess board

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta

Looks like the South East Asia region is back into the active strategic play for the Super Power. At the on going Shangri-La Dialogue in Sinagpore, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made this announcement:

Panetta: Majority of US warships moving to Asia

Defense secretary provides first details of new strategy

By David Alexander

updated 29 minutes ago

US Defence Minister Leon Panetta, Indonesia President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono and Singapore Prime Minister Brig. Gen. (NS) Lee Hsien Loong during Shangri-La Dialogue 2012

SINGAPORE — The United States will move the majority of its warships to the Asia-Pacific in coming years and keep six aircraft carriers in the region, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Saturday, giving the first details of a new U.S. military strategy.

Speaking at an annual security forum in Singapore, Panetta sought to dispel the notion that the shift in U.S. focus to Asia was designed to contain China’s emergence as a global power.

He acknowledged differences between the world’s two largest economies on a range of issues, including the South China Sea.

“We’re not naive about the relationship and neither is China,” Panetta told the Shangri-La Dialogue attended by senior civilian and military leaders from about 30 Asia-Pacific nations.

“We also both understand that there really is no other alternative but for both of us to engage and to improve our communications and to improve our (military-to-military) relationships,” he said. “That’s the kind of mature relationship that we ultimately have to have with China.”

Some Chinese officials have been critical of the U.S. shift of military emphasis to Asia, seeing it as an attempt to fence in the country and frustrate Beijing’s territorial claims.

Panetta’s comments came at the start of a seven-day visit to the region to explain to allies and partners the practical meaning of the U.S. military strategy unveiled in January that calls for rebalancing American forces to focus on the Pacific.

The trip, which includes stops in Vietnam and India, comes at a time of renewed tensions over competing sovereignty claims in the South China Sea, with the Philippines, a major U.S. ally, and China in a standoff over the Scarborough Shoal near the Philippine coast.

The South China Sea is a flashpoint but, with about 90 percent of global trade moving by sea, protecting the teeming shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Malacca is equally vital.

“Maritime freedoms cannot be the exclusive prerogative of a few,” Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the forum. “We must find the balance between the rights of nations and the freedoms of the world community.”

Overlapping maritime claims – often fuelled by hunger for oil, gas, fish and other resources – are compounded by threats from pirates and militants, delegates said.

China’s ‘critical role’
China has downgraded its representation to the Shangri-La Dialogue from last year, when Defence Minister Liang Guanglie attended and met then-U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates. This year the Chinese military was represented by the vice president of Academy of Military Sciences.

Panetta, by contrast, was accompanied by General Martin Dempsey, the military’s top officer as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Admiral Samuel Locklear, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command.

Panetta said he was committed to a “healthy, stable, reliable and continuous” military-to-military relationship with China but underscored the need for Beijing to support a system to clarify rights in the region and help to resolve disputes.

Video: Panetta cautions troops against misconduct“China has a critical role to play in advancing security and prosperity by respecting the rules-based order that has served the region for six decades,” he said.

Fleshing out details of the shift to Asia, Panetta said the United States would reposition its Navy fleet so that 60 percent of its warships would be assigned to the region by 2020, compared to about 50 percent now.

The Navy would maintain six aircraft carriers assigned to the Pacific. Six of its 11 carriers are now assigned to the Pacific but that number will fall to five when the USS Enterprise retires this year.

Video: How will budget cuts impact the US Navy? (on this page) The number will return to six when the new carrier USS Gerald R. Ford is completed in 2015.

The U.S. Navy had a fleet of 282 ships, including support vessels, as of March. That is expected to slip to about 276 over the next two years before beginning to rise toward the goal of a 300-ship fleet, according to a 30-year Navy shipbuilding projection released in March.

But officials warned that fiscal constraints and problems with cost overruns could make it difficult to attain the goal.

Regional partnerships
Panetta underscored the breadth of the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific, noting treaty alliances with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and Australia as well as partnerships with India, Singapore, Indonesia and others.

He said the United States would attempt to build on those partnerships with cooperative arrangements like the rotational deployment agreement it has with Australia and is working on with the Philippines.

Panetta said Washington also would work to increase the number and size of bilateral and multilateral military training exercises it conducts in the region. Officials said last year the United States carried out 172 such exercises in the region.

(Additional reporting by John O’Callaghan; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Jonathan Thatcher)

****************

At the recently concluded 6th ASEAN Defence Minister Meeting in Phnom Penh, they have jointly agreed to strengthen the cooperation and working relationships and resolve all disputes within dialogues and bilateral relationships. ASEAN nations’ military is now actually an extension for diplomatic tools for and within the 10 neighbours.

The theme for this years’s ADMM is “Enhancing ASEAN Unity For A Harmonized and Secure Community” was very apt.

One of the agenda is to facilitate the formalization of the ADMM Plus dialogue, which will be an agenda of the 7th ADMM in Brunei next year. ASEAN Defence Ministers took the opportunity to jointly called on the Chinese Defence Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie on the evening the 6th ADMM ended, who was on official visit in Cambodia during the 6th ADMM.

Last year in Indonesia, United States was invited to the 5th ADMM and the concept of ADMM Plus started to roll, where the ASEAN Defence Ministers agreed to have an ADMM Plus every three years. This year in Phnom Penh, the dialogue would be shortened to two years.

Now that the Americans were quick to flex their muscle soon after ADMM’s cordial relationship with China has been strengthened, it seems that the ASEAN region now is back active as a strategic chess board between these Super Powers. During cold war and post fall of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to communist control, the stand off between United States and China and Soviet Union was so eminent, it even affected regional geo-politics.

The symbol of US military might; A Nimitiz Class nuclear powered aircraft carrier

Several South East Asian saw the changing of regimes and domestic conflicts escalate, because of the different vested factions are aligned and being supported by one Super Power against the other. Through out 60s to 80s, hostile change of government via coup d’etat were very common. One of the most severely affect was Cambodia. The Vietnam War provided the opportunity for the Americans to use Cambodia as a tool and staging area, which provided the backing for Gen Lon Nol topple King Sihanouk in 1970 during a state visit to Beijing. There on, the Americans staged a war from the side against North Vietnam and hundreds of thousands of Cambodians were killed because of the US carpet bombings on the ‘Vietcong Trail’, deep within Cambodian jungles.

That inadvertently provided opportunity for China backed communist Khmer Rouge to grow and continue build up in secret army under cover.

Upon the fall of Vietnam and Cambodia and complete abandonment of the US by April 1975, saw Khmer Rouge coming into power. Phnom Penh was captured on 16 April 1975. For the next 3 years and 8 months, the Khmer Rouge did the most brutal genocide tragedy in the region where 3 million innocent ordinary Cambodians were slaughtered and the Cambodian economy taken huge step backwards.

The ‘Super Powers’ strategic chess board’ in the region also saw several dictators came into power. The last one ousted was Gen. Suharto of Indonesia. Before that, Gen. Ferdinand Marcos, who is a known regional Cold War warrior and backed by the US. Currently, Myanmar is still under military junta.

Now that the recovery from all of these already progressing well and economies grew, ASEAN region is facing new challenges. ASEAN was formed in 1967 in the height on regional Super Powers backed Cold War and has been resolving joint borders and regional issues through dialogues and diplomatic means. Although some ASEAN neighbours do joint military exercises on their own, the community have as a whole avoided military option for common disputes in spirit of regional understanding and co-operation.

In Phnom Penh on Tuesday, ASEAN Defence Minister also agreed that this region is free from civil war and an ASEAN Security Masterplan. The 6th ADMM also took another significant step towards the realization of an ASEAN Political Security Community by 2015 through practical security co-operation. It is a lot to do outside military initiative per se. An example is that Malaysia’s approach of ‘prosper thy neighbour’ and creating a true ‘common wealth’ for the region, will ensure that peace and stability is continued to be fostered in the region.

Probably this ‘stand off’ could be made more productive if the two Super Powers along with the ASEAN ‘partners’ work closely on prevalent common issues in the region such as humanitarian aid disaster relief (HDAR) and anti terrorism, which include anti piracy exercises and probably joint operations. US could commit their readiness to do more information sharing within ASEAN countries in their bid to eradicate terrorism in the region.

About these ads
Published in: on June 2, 2012 at 13:30  Comments (14)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/a-region-of-super-power-chess-board/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

14 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I would like to offer a different view. I think American reaction is a graduated albeit belated response to PRC (China) growing assertiveness. While we hate the American for their domination of world affair, their inclination to preach and their pro-jewish stance, those were not our core national interest. Basicaly we have no major issue with them. Compare this to China, where we have a standing territorial dispute in the South China Sea (SCS). This link provide a very brief summary and importantly show on map the extend of Chinese territorial claim. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349. In other word, the Chinese insist that all of our oil fields offshore of Sabah and Sarawak actually belong to them. Bet none of us here heard about that right? Other than the above, lets not forget that we come from the opposite extreme of the ideological spectrum too.

    China ambition and hagemony should not be taken lightly. Today they have military capablity that were unthinkable of for them barely 5 years ago. They’ve certainly expanded their reach beyond the First Island Chain and they continue to expand at an alarming rate. While we opt for diplomatic solution and staying true to it, there is no clear sign that the Chinese is doing the same. Great majority of ‘military incident’ in SCS involved China vs other claimants. Although they frequently said that they are all for peaceful solution, but it come with a set of conditions, that China have ‘undisputed and non-negotiable sovereign right to the Spratly and Paracel group of Islands.’ Any statement made by other claimants country leadership (including Malaysia) contrary to that was met with strong repudiation, even warning. So where does that leave us? China has also proved to be untrustworthy. Time and again they demonstrated their willingness to breech any Code of Conduct that they are a signatory to. The general perception is that, they are abiding by Deng Xiaoping’s maxim – “hide your strength and bide your time”.

    As for the American increasing presence in the Pacific, I think it is not necessarily a negative. It is clear that Chinese assertiveness need to be balance by a power that is able and there is none in our region that have the means to do so. True they are not doing this as a favour to us, but to further their own interest, but if their interest co-incide with ours why not? I believe a carefully crafted foreign policy will be able to turn this to our advantages. At the very least it will discourage the Chinese from embarking on any action or military adventure in the SCS that is detriment to our national interest. If we choose not to engaged them (US), others will and we will be left out high and dry.

    • We would not hate America if they help keep the bullies away and so long as they don’t become bullies themselves. They were bullies when invading Iraq on grounds of Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, which were not found until to day. Then President George W Bush was goaded by the Jewish Neo Conservatives instigated by Zionist Israel.

      But Obama refused to be goaded by Benjamin Netanyahu to bomb Iran so-called nuclear weapons facilities. That’s good. Now let’s hope US play their role in checking China’s moves in the South China Sea. The Sea is so named but it doesn’t belong to them, haba haba.

  2. It’s good that US wants to engage with China, whatever that word will eventually mean. Hoping that no World War III “nuclear military engagement” occurs, I must confess to some conflicting thoughts – that I don’t mind a few nuclear bombs drop on China. They had been exporting communism to Malaya unsuccessfully and to most of Indochina successfully even as an economic pariah decades ago. I don’t trust them now that they are a strong economic power.

    Also good that US will now have their stinging military hardware floating in the Pacific, manpower in the Philippines and in Australia. I would rather have them next door in Japan but that country has a war renouncing constitution they chose to have after two atom bombs were dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima ending World War II. Japan rose from the embers of war to being the 2nd largest economic power in just 2 decades or so. They can become strong militarily very quickly if they want to and if allowed by the international community to balance the power of their fellow yellow skin cousins. But I also don’t trust the Japs from what they did in World War II.

    World power politics are such that the role of Russia, and maybe of the other huge-population country, India, will play a significant role, too. Britain and the European Union are has-beens for the foreseeable future – they can’t seem to agree in Iraq and Afghanistan, each one wanting to pull out fast like speedy Gonzales. Russia, despite losing some steam after the Soviet Union break up, still is in the calculation, for example in Syria. The West can’t encourage or railroad an Egypt or Libya regime change in Syria because the Russians play their politics there. Russia has a huge border with China. And they’ll surely tread very cautiously in their moves with or affecting China. So would India, though not strong militarily. And China seems to have been friendly with Pakistan, a nuclear power by some standards, which hems in India on the Western side.

    On wonders how much the US will try to be friendly with those countries to contain China. They should be mending ties with Pakistan which was sore at the gross violation of their territorial integrity during the killing of Osama Ben Laden. China has no problem with the “nuclear power” North Korea, unless the Dear Young Leader Kim behaves funnily on their refugees issue etc. I’d like to see Russia play an active role in the efforts to “contain China”. The Chinese top military brass can say what they like, but if they start flexing their muscle on territorial claims, others would want to contain them. They are now showing off their just tested aircraft carrier. Sure they’ll be producing as many as there are Americans ones in this area.

    Funny, we can only write lengthily about them. We can’t say a word about Malaysia’s role in all those, can we? And China claims rights to our wealth offshore Sabah and Sarawak, too? Damn.

    • Malaysia played a diplomatic role in Asean. But Asean has no teeth, only persuasion. Even on the changing of the attitude of the Burmese military on democratic measures in their country, not sure how much contribution Malaysia and/or Asean made.

      Malaysia’s former Ambassador to the UN was, upon retirement, retained by the UN to speak to the Generals but appeared to be able to speak only to the Opposition leader Aung San Su Kyi. Not sure who else in Asean had played a role in changing the generals’ attitude. When change finally appeared, Hilary Clinton stepped in. Promised recognition/ normal diplomatic relations and aid, and Su Kyi is now busy visiting Burmese refugees in Thailand and such encouraging acts.

      Malaysia has to continue such a role, however small it may be. But is it enough? Wasn’t Asean there when the North Vietnamese communists, aided by the Chinese, ran down South Vietnam? Fledgling Asean might have been then but those commies didn’t care two hoots. Laos and Cambodia also went flux.

      Has Malaysia got, or can Malaysia start a defence industry – manufacture of conventional weapons that are synergistic among member countries? Can Malaysia promote this among Asean member countries? Perhaps POSEIDON, Postgrad or any other participant here can throw some light or provide some views.

      • Wan, Malaysia have been (unsuccessfully I may add) promoting an ASEAN wide defense industrial coperation. The idea has not been well received mainly due to issue of trustworthiness. For your information, Malaysia is the only member of ASEAN that have a border dispute with al the other 6 original ASEAN members. It is not our fault, most of it is a legacy issue. When Britian and other colonial power in this region left, they did not leave a clear and comprehensive border. This ambiguity lead to today’s territorial dispute.

        Some of the reason why that idea didnt take off is – Indonesia see us as a threat to their teritorial integrity, so there is a strong sentiment against anything Malaysia, Singapore dont think they will benefit from it (as their defense industry is far ahead and profitable as it is), Brunei have no economy of scale, Thailand have a different orientation (Chinese technology is cheap and Chinese is trying very hard to keep them in their sphere of influnce), Vietnam too have Russian orientation and prefer more nationalistic, self reliance approach, Myanmar and Laos too far behind and only interested in making a quick bucks plus they seem to be living in their own world.

        As powerful as China seem, they are far from the US in term of national power. China is termed as Major or Great power but NOT Superpower. The sole Superpower in today world is the US. Not even Russia, the successor of Soviet Union has re/gain that title. The only element of national power that China perhaps come close to US is its Diplomatic clout. China may be that big scary Ikan Toman that hound every other fish in this Pacific lake. But lets not forget the 1000lbs Croc sunbathing by the lakeside that is US. As for us, well sadly we tend to masuk bakul angkat sendiri and think a little bit too highly of ourself. I admit we used to punch above our weight during Tun M time but we no longer do (thanks to Pak Lah). Today we are not even regarded as regional power by any means – just ‘other country’. Which remind me of Ikan Laga (siamese fighting fish) – quick to flare our gills and fins but forget what we are actualy capable of.

      • Thanks, POSEIDON.Would you give the criteria for determining a Superpower, pls.

        China has developed atomic or nuclear weapons since Mao Zedong’s days in the 1960s. Perhaps their weapons delivery systems are not yet sophisticated? They are implementing plans to send men to outer space and the technology will help improve inter-continental weapons delivery systems?

        Russia should have inherited good delivery systems from the Soviet Union days although they may lack weapons numbers – weapons stolen or sold by rogue generals etc during the Soviet break up. But the arms limitation treaty(ies?) didn’t allow them to catch up and be at par with US? Don’t they assume the rights of the Soviet Union as far as strategic arms limitation is concerned?

        If GB is not a Superpower, would we benefit much from a Commonwealth defence arrangement led by them against a major power China? Do the British have ICBMs in their arsenal? Pakistan has nuclear weapons but are still testing long-distance delivery systems.

        I’m looking for some lakes where Toman doesn’t breed – do you know of any? I’d like to be among only Jelawat, Paten and the gentler breeds!

      • Wan, Superpower is a loose term and have several definition depending on who you ask, but in essence it generally refer to a nation that possesses a comprehensive capacity to project a dominating power and influence anywhere at anytime in more than one places in the world. Due to competing ideological interest, in the aftermath of WW2, 2 block of nation (NATO vs WARSAW pact) was formed. Because of the rivalry and the need to maintain an edge over their rivals, the leader of these block of nation overtime built that comprehensive capacity, thus attaining the status of superpower. But since the demise of USSR, there is no one nation (or block of nations for that matter) that is able to challenge the pre-eminance of USA, thus we have moved from a ‘bipolar world’ to a ‘unipolar world’. Just to illustrate a point, US annual spending on its military is more than the rest of the world combined. (Yes, you heard right, US expenditure on defense is MORE than all of Europe + Russia + China + Asia + Middle East + Africa + everybodyelse.)

        China have the POTENTIAL to be a superpower but they are not there yet.

      • A bit late in putting out this view. But here goes:

        I agree that China has the potential to be a Superpower. But not sure if they will or how long they’ll be one. Because China’s history is full of internal strife and political turmoil. Don’t know if they’d squander this opportunity they have with fantastic economic growth rate. Or whether political in-fighting and huge corruption will bring them down again. What I read here and there makes me wonder.

        Over 2,000 years since Emperor Shih Huang Di united several states and formed what became known as China. He burnt books and professors to ensure no challenge to his reign. 2,000 years later in the 1960s Mao Zedong did the same – burnt books and humiliated professors – to ensure survival of his political power.

        Despite being a vast country with a huge population, China was invaded and ruled by the Mongols for 80 years in the 13th Century and by the Manchus for several hundred years until the 20th Century – a disgruntled Chinese general in charge of the north eastern defences opened the gates of the Great Wall to the Manchurians (Manchuria was not apart of China until after WWII).

        Because China was disunited, it was bullied by Western countries which came knocking on their doors, the British, Germans, French and others gained a lot of concessions during what was called “The period of Unequal Treaties”, signed under the barrel of the gun. They had over 1,000 inventions including gun powder but they used it only for firecrackers to throw away ghosts. The British even forced China to accept opium grown in British India as a means of ensuring a balance of trade with China. Britain managed to get a 100 year lease on Hong Kong, which was returned to China only in 1990. China was bullied by the Japanese prior to and during WWII.

        Despite China not being an open society, some news came out about purges being done on the top communist party hierarchy recently. Who knows if political turmoil comes about again and China becomes a pariah like during Mao Zedong’s time. Note that a powerful Soviet Union also broke up not long ago.

  3. In some ways, I hv to agree with Posseidon. Things were very much different when the Old Man was around, taking control of situation and calling the shots, ten years ago. Not only he was speaking his mind aloud, gathering support from the ‘under dogs’. The Old Man also had very good friends in the likes of Super Power leaders Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac. Even China was different under Jiang Zemin.

    Back then, Malaysia had geo-political clout. We speak our minds aloud. We took strong position on certain issues. We gathered support on some issues in the global scene.

    Now, we hv lost that ‘international currency’.

    We hv to start to build up what we lost at some point. PM Najib has started to make Malaysia very much closer to the US, particularly Democrat President Obama on the ‘Moderate Muslim’ angle & naturally, the combat against terrorism via religious extremists.

    We had other friends before. Our military co-operation FPDA no longer holds the same clout as what it was 40 years ago since Britain is no longer a military Super Power and we are not sure where Australia is at the moment. NZ has reduced her armed forces into a token one.

    Posseidon is right from the perspective China cannot be trusted, They keep agreeing on things on the table differently from what their armed forces have been doing in the South China Sea.

    In fact, we need the ‘check and balance’. I’m not sure whether US is the right partner for the job. Probably US Navy is but not the US foreign policy. We hv had ‘trigger happy’ US Presidents in the past and had no qualms using region such as South East Asia has their ‘chess board’. If lets say Mc Cain, who is a former prisoner in a Vietnamese prison be the next President, the scenario would be different if Pac Fleet could hv 4 out of its 6 carriers in this region.

    Let us not forget China have been supporting Malaysia’s communist rebellion for 44 years. 14 years of that is post PM Tun Razak’s trip to Beijing and fostered ‘friendship’, at the height of the Vietnam conflict and regional ‘Cold War’.

    In the light of domestic politics in some ways, the Min Yuens are coming out from word works is somewhat accredited to the mainland China’s moves in this region’s geo politics.

    Probably its high time that Malaysia rope in other The Commonwealth nations to do somewhat a FPDA like military co-operation, for the ‘club’. In the likes of India, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada on top of Great Britain and naturally of course, Singapore and Brunei.

    They should get this Commonwealth military co-operation rolling now, ahead of the ADMM Plus in Brunei next year. It would be interesting to hv this on at one end with China and US at the region’s rim.

  4. ….Malaysia is the only member of ASEAN that have a border dispute “with al the other 6 original ASEAN members”.

    Correction, its “with all the other 5 original ASEAN member”. (6 including Malaysia).

    Q E D, Thanks. I have the same idea too (Commonwealth military cooperation). But thats sure going to piss China like no tomorrow. I also agree with Min Yuen lurking in every corner of this country waiting to pounce at any opportunity, there is even greater need to have an ally that will enable us to stand up against China.

    That Pak Lah screw up takes a lot of undoing. I think it cost us at least a decade worth of effort just to get back to where we were before. That will include significant investment in renewing our Diplomatic, Economic and Military capability. If we dont start now, we will forever be that ‘other country’. Bottomline is government must have the guts and the will to do the right thing. Plus stop feeling sorry or insecure bacause of the opposition charges. It make me think perhaps there is a hidden opposition agenda to have a weak Malaysia.

    • That’s right.

      We are so behind in our military assets. Our armed forces definitely and gravely in need of better assets; more frigates, multirole ships, ASW choppers, maritime surveillance aircrafts, AEW/AWACs, in flight tankers, utility and heavy lift choppers etc. The need list. Is endless!

      Even backbone of peaceftime airforce operations is aging. The C130s at least 25 years old & S61 Nuris are at least 44 years old!

      Thanks to Pak Lah The Sleepyhead, the Govt isnt what it used to be & command the mandate they needed. That shortfall was capitalised & filled with anarchist-oriented-opposition. Since those dark belaka years of our moden history, they hv been politicising on every damn which cross their sordid minds! (Even Tuanku Sultan’s personal acquisition is raised!).

      We need the PM to be a ‘tyrant’, when it comes to issues of security & defense. Just like Winston Churchill. Just like Maggie Thatcher. The ‘leftists’ (as Churchill calls the Labour Party), is no different compared to the PKR monkeys, PAS baboons & Min Yuens that the Govt hv to face nowadays, esp on issues pertaining to security & defense.

      PM got to make these tough calls!

      There is this domestic ‘security’ issue that Malaysians hv to really take notice of. These anarchists really want to topple the Govt with ‘Malaysian Spring’. Lets be tough on them now & from that on, be stern on our policies & decisions pertaining to security & defense.

  5. Big Dog, there is another Dictator/Emperor you forgot to mention. The one south of Selat Teberau. From father to son to grandson eventually ………..They are waiting for M’sia to be under DAP, then the great reunification will begin …Padan muka orang Melayu M’sia..tak habis habis nak gadoh sama sendiri ….nanti bangsa tergadai, maruah pun habis sebab kena pijak …

  6. […] United States has committed to move majority of the warships of their Sixth Fleet into the region. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced this during last year’s Shangri-La […]

  7. […] of projection of force and projection of power. It is more prevailing since US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s announcement of “Moving majority of US warships in Asia-Pacific region to… at Shangri-La Dialogue almost two years […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: