The power game between the US and China in South China Sea

The power game between Beijing and Washington in the South China Sea has now changed so dramatically that even the US, with all of its combat capabilities, is struggling to keep up with the extraordinary pace of China’s military build-up. The visit to Taiwan by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, did more than just antagonise Beijing and provide justification, in its view, for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to launch an invasion rehearsal. It also gave the planners back in the Pentagon an eye-opening reminder of the technological advances made by the Chinese military in recent years, notable among them the huge inventory of anti-ship ballistic missiles. An American aircraft carrier strike force operating in the South China Sea always used to be the most potent symbol of US firepower, and the biggest deterrent to Beijing’s ambitions to grab Taiwan and totally dominate the region. However, the presence of a nuclear-powered carrier and escorting guided-missile warships and submarines may no longer be enough to stop Beijing from invading Taiwan whose future fate could provoke a full-scale war between China and the US within the next decade? In the so-called third Taiwan Strait crisis between July 1995 and March 1996 when the PLA launched missiles into the waters surrounding Taiwan, the US dispatched two aircraft carrier groups. The nuclear-powered carrier, USS Nimitz, steamed through the Taiwan Strait as if it owned the waterway, and the PLA could do nothing about it. During the display of massed PLA aggression towards Taiwan as a result of the Pelosi visit, the US had one carrier in the South China Sea, the USS Ronald Reagan. It stayed well clear of the most aggressive display of PLA firepower ever witnessed by Taiwan. Despite rumours to the contrary, there was never any intention on Washington’s part to send the carrier up the Taiwan Strait either before or after the PLA had completed its invasion drills. John Kirby, press secretary to the National Security Council, indicated that US warships would pass through the strait in the weeks ahead to demonstrate America’s right of navigation in international waters. “But there are no plans for the Reagan to go through the Strait, that was a rumour circulating but not accurate,” a US defence source told The Times. The Ronald Reagan is now back in port at its forward base in Japan. For an American carrier to sail through the Taiwan Strait today, not only Admiral John Aquilino, commander of Indo-Pacific Command, has to give his approval, but General Mark Milley, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Lloyd Austin, the defence secretary, and the National Security Council all have to be involved. It’s that sensitive. Since the US started switching military assets to the Indo-Pacific under President Obama in recognition of the growing threat posed by China – including the militarisation of disputed islands in the South China Sea - the Pentagon has been trying to build a force in the region capable not only of deterring Beijing but also of winning any future war. However, the Obama “pivot” of resources lacked real muscle. President Trump continued with the strategy but there was no dramatic shift, and today the US Navy is arguing over how many warships it wants to build over the next few years, let alone deploy to confront China. The current US-China warship balance is: US, 293, China, 350, although America has far greater carrier power with ten against China’s three. However, a new analysis by the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment predicts that the PLA has the resources to field up to five carriers and ten nuclear ballistic-missile submarines by 2030. The think-tank assumes China’s military budget will grow at three per cent above inflation for the next decade. “The PLA has been engaged in a stunning military build-up. The advances they have made are staggering,” said Ian Easton, a China expert and author of The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia. “They have militarised the whole of society,” he said. The US has the largest defence budget in the world, $777 billion. But with all its global commitments, and the billions of dollars currently being spent to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia, would the US be capable of defeating China? The devastating interim conclusion of the war game carried out by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington this month suggested the US would lose hundreds of warships and aircraft in a conflict with China over Taiwan. Losses that would take years to replenish. “The big issue here is the growing disconnect between US words and capabilities,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a China analyst and former Pentagon official. “The [Biden] administration talks as though the military balance has not changed in 20 years, yet it has, and dramatically so in China’s favour,” he said. By coincidence or by design, at the time of the Pelosi visit to Taiwan, the communist party of China (CCP) released its first White Paper on Taiwan in 22 years. One heading put it simply: “External forces obstructing China’s complete reunification [with Taiwan] will surely be defeated”. “The wheel of history rolls on towards national reunification and it will not be stopped by any individual or any force. We will always be ready to respond with the use of force or other necessary means to interference by external forces,” the white paper said. This sort of belligerent language, while not surprising or even new, still serves as a warning for the future. The growing imbalance in the power game in the Indo-Pacific region will deteriorate further unless the US invests in additional warfighting capabilities to take on the Chinese. “We should not give the CCP the impression that their recent activity [over the Pelosi trip] has changed our position on Taiwan [going to Taiwan’s aid in the event of a PLA invasion, as pledged by President Biden],” Krepinevich said.