The 5 Eyes - An alternative to NATO? A Match for China

[CougarKing]

The premise, that China and some US led 'grouping' need to 'match' one another militarily is, in my opinion, faulty.

Furthermore, wouldn't such a grouping force China to form another alliance as a response to this?

We all probably remember the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) or the "Shanghai Six/Seven grouping" which includes China, Russia as well as a number of Central Asian states that are former Soviet satellites, such as Kazakhstan. As mentioned before, these nations made this grouping over common internal security concerns (e.g. unrest from militants in China's Xinjiang region).

Aside from the SCO, China might pursue its own Pacific Rim alliance in response to any of the aforementioned Western/Southeast Asian groupings. Such an alliance may include traditional allies/client states in the region such as Myanmar (Burma), North Korea and Cambodia (not sure about Laos). (The other Communist/totalitarian state in ASEAN, Vietnam, still distrusts China due to the Feb. 1979 abortive Chinese invasion and because of numerous border clashes during 1980s, even if there have been concliatory moves between them in the 1990s.)

 

[Retired AF Guy]

It is a commonly used term. Example of context is something classified secret eyes only CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ will be refered to as "Secret 5 eyes".

"4 Eyes" - AUS/CA/UK/US
"3 Eyes" - CA/UK/US

 

[a_majoor]

The Anglosphere group has massive amounts of political, economic and cultural power. The United States and India produce over 3000 movies per year combined, for example, and much of the global internet content is created in the Anglosphere as well. India's middle class population is the same size as the entire population of the United States, and all Anglosphere nations have substantial middle class components capable of powering both the investment that drives the economy as well as consumption.

Honouraries like the Netherlands and Japan for an Anglosphere+ just give the Anglosphere group even greater advantages in terms of political, economic and cultural power. Now the Anglosphere does not need to be a formal alliance or group like the G-8 or NATO, but considering we have common interests and backgrounds, it makes sense to focus our own political and economic efforts on fellow Anglosphere nations, as well as building formal and informal links between our fellow Anglosphere nations so we can deal with issues (or even form "Tiger Teams" for pressing issues as they arise).

 

[PanaEng]

I believe the term "Eyes" is just an evolution of the "I" as in the 5 Intelligence organizations of the allied English nations (CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ) immediately  after WWII and which included the newly formed civilian organizations, not just the military apparatus.

Anyway, we've been living in a poly-amorous relationships with one another (redundant, I know) for the last 50+ years, why spoil the party by getting 'officially'  hitched?

cheers,
Frank

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The Anglosphere group has massive amounts of political, economic and cultural power. The United States and India produce over 3000 movies per year combined, for example, and much of the global internet content is created in the Anglosphere as well. India's middle class population is the same size as the entire population of the United States, and all Anglosphere nations have substantial middle class components capable of powering both the investment that drives the economy as well as consumption.

Interesting that you added India to the mix.  I am actually convinced that China will implode, and perhaps even sooner that The US will - and India will be there to pick up the slack.  India will have a larger population that China within the next 30 years (IIRC), has a true middle class, strong domestic demand, and has been a democracy for some 60 years now.  If this was horse rate, \I 'd be betting on them.

 

[tomahawk6]

The economic collapse of the US would have international implications and could push the world into depression,which would also impact China's export industry.
If the US can cut spending and keep a robust defense posture,then our natural allies in the Pacific are Japan,the ROK and Australia. China probably see India as their #2 threat,maybe #1 due to proximity.It is in their interest to see India destabilized so that their military is focused on internal threats and Pakistan.

 

[CougarKing]

If the US can cut spending and keep a robust defense posture,then our natural allies in the Pacific are Japan,the ROK and Australia.

What about Thailand and the Philippines?

You're probably wary of the Philippines because their government told US troops to leave their bases like Subic naval base and Clark airbase in 1992, though in recent years their military has been exercising with US troops. There's even a small contingent of US troops in the Southern Philippines, who are mainly advisors (in the Philippines' war against Islamic seperatists) and engineers. Their government has always been traditionally friendly to the US though, apart from being a former US territory; their military capabilities, such as the lack of suitable modern fighter jets and modern warships, leave something to be desired, especially with the recent dispute over the Spratley Islands against China.

You might be wary of Thailand as well considering how their government has switched from Thaksin/Redshirt supporters to Abhisit/Yellowshirt supporters and back again to Redshirt supporters under Thaksin's sister, who was just elected as Prime Minister. But that political instability didn't seem to stop US forces from execising with them in the latest Cobra Gold exericse.

 

[a_majoor]

Thailand and the Philippines are second tier allies, and since they don't have the close cultural linkages of the Anglosphere group, would probably end up pulling in different directions based on their own national self interest (which would be rather different from ours). It is ok to think of them as allies so long as we remember potential limitations and liabilities.

As far as China is concerned, nations like Korea and Japan (and to a lesser extent Indonesia and the Phillippines) form a sort of outer barrier. In the current political climate, they are barriers to Chinese outward expansion into the seas; ideally, they will become Chinese clients and protect China from threats from the sea.

 

[tomahawk6]

It is unlikely that Japan would ever join a PRC alliance.Too much historical enmity. The counter to Chinese expansion is the USN. If there is a weak US government then the entire region would be under the influence of China.What country is going to fight the Chinese over the Spratley's ?

 

[CougarKing]

What country is going to fight the Chinese over the Spratley's ?

All those nations who have territorial claims on the Spratleys:

Note that the islets/outposts the Vietnamese occupy (22), while China occupies 10.

The Philippines comes in at third at 8. These three nations have exchanged shots/skirmished with each other in the past over this area.

 

[a_majoor]

It is unlikely that Japan would ever join a PRC alliance.Too much historical enmity. The counter to Chinese expansion is the USN. If there is a weak US government then the entire region would be under the influence of China.What country is going to fight the Chinese over the Spratley's ?

Japan would not have to ba an allied nation, simply a client state which is beholden to China rather than a US ally. Taiwan should also be absorbed into China as a part of turning the ring of nations into a shield rather than a barrier to outward expansion. If there is a need to fight, the USN will have to pass a number of "unsinkable aircraft carriers" through a series of choke points while under attack by large numbers of submarines, aircraft and missiles, a very difficult proposition at best. Far better to hand the Chinese some difficult problems to attract their attention and resources instead, as Edward suggests.

The problem with things like the Spratley's is the situation could spiral out of control since the number of players is so large, the stakes are high and the interests are overlapping but mutually exclusive. Since China does not have much of a blue water navy or force projection capability (yet), some of the other players might see a window of opportunity to stake claims before they can be effectively shut out.

 

[CougarKing]

Taiwan should also be absorbed into China as a part of turning the ring of nations into a shield rather than a barrier to outward expansion.

As discussed before in the China superthread, while some would say that reunification is inevitable between Taiwan and the mainland because of more integrated economic links as well as recent overtures between Taipei and Beijing, there will still be significant resistance within Taiwan to the mainland to the very end. The historical experience of the native Taiwanese/ben sheng ren, under both the Japanese colonial period from 1895-1945, as well as under Guomindang during the Cold War/martial law years, cannot simply be ignored and will continue to be a justification that Taiwan opposition parties would use to delay this unification.

 

[Kirkhill]

Anglo-centric as ever I find an analogous situation with the Channel Islands (Alderney, Guernsey, Jersey,Sark) .....little chunks of Britain off the coast of France.  France has wanted them for centuries to act as a buffer against Britain.  Jacques Cartier had to sail through them to get from St-Malo to Canada.  But despite France wanting them they remained firmly Pro-British in allegiance (or perhaps it might be more appropriate to say Anti-French).

I see Japan, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia as analogues to the Channel Islands in the discussions between China and the US.  China, like France, wants them but historical antipathy to the near neighbour is greater than antipathy towards the distant foreigner.

Britain has kept them as friendly "clients" since the middle ages by not interfering in their ancient governance.  They recognize the Queen as their Head of State but they have their own independent, feudal, government.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Britain has kept them as friendly "clients" since the middle ages by not interfering in their ancient governance.  They recognize the Queen as their Head of State but they have their own independent, feudal, government.

Kinda like us, huh?

 

[Kirkhill]

They've had a lot of practice.... ;D

 

[Infanteer]

It is unlikely that Japan would ever join a PRC alliance.Too much historical enmity.

Like Britain and France, or France and Germany?

 

[tomahawk6]

The PRC are communists and the other nations you mentioned are not - at least at the moment.

 

[Edward Campbell]

'Communist' is a loaded word. The PRC is governed by the Chinese Communist Party but communist implies a certain set of economic programmes like state own enterprises and a high degree of collectivization.

China does, still, have (too many) state owned enterprises but they are becoming increasingly rare - the rate at which they are disappearing is too slow but it is kept that way because the Chinese fear unemployment more than almost anything else.

There is very little collectivism left in China. It was never popular and, much more than in the old USSR, had to be imposed and enforced.

It many respects, at least in the East Coast provinces, China is no longer even socialist, except in name.

But there are several Chinas: each with its own past and future. Shanghai/Beijing are "leading change" but it is not clear, not to me, at least, that everyone else can or will follow.

 

[tomahawk6]

I guess what I am saying is that the PRC has a potent and growing Navy making it a regional power that Vietnam,the PI or any other country in the region would have difficulty defeating. Japan and the US are China's only obstacle to dominating the region from a naval point of view.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I guess what I am saying is that the PRC has a potent and growing Navy making it a regional power that Vietnam,the PI or any other country in the region would have difficulty defeating. Japan and the US are China's only obstacle to dominating the region from a naval point of view.

I agree. I think China's longer term goal is to displace the USA as the dominant naval power in the Western Pacific and the China Seas. Even longer term, China wants the USA off the Asian mainland - out of Korea and away from Taiwan.

Sino-Japanese relations are very, very complex: there are millennia, literally, of shared history - some of it fruitful, much bad. I think the Chinese want Japan to be a client but will settle, pretty happily, for Japan being further separated from the USA.

China has ancient "claims" on Indo-China and it perceives the Philippines and Indonesia as "junior" members of the Sinic community.

China must, always, look three way: North-West towards Russia, their "ancient enemy;" South-West towards India, the other "rising great power;" and East, towards the USA - the country it wants to displace in the world.