Tension and Unrest in East Asia: How Will It Affect the U.S.?

From fraying relations between Japan and South Korea to political unrest in Hong Kong, tensions across East Asia are mounting. Part historical grievances and part human rights violations, Hudson experts weigh in on how this disharmony will impact the United States.

Last week, South Korea ended a military intelligence sharing agreement with Japan, further souring relations between the two countries. John Lee examines the deteriorating alliance in The Diplomat, writing: 

Escalation is a legitimate tool of statecraft, but it pays to know who one’s true enemies really are. South Korea faces difficult and even existential challenges in a dangerous neighborhood. Japan is the least of Seoul’s problems and might even be the only genuinely benign nation for South Korea in Northeast Asia.

...

It is in neither country’s interest that relations between two of the United States’ democratic allies in Northeast Asia deteriorate to the extent that is occurring. But the consequences for South Korea will be worse than for Japan.

In an interview on BBC Newshour, Patrick Cronin considers what worsening South Korea-Japan relations means for the two countries, the U.S., and China. 

Rob Spalding considers the implications for missile defense and other military operations in the region in the Washington Examiner. 

The historic protests in Hong Kong have entered their thirteenth week. The demonstrations of protests against the erosion of individual freedoms and extension of China's oppressive security apparatus have been inspiring.

In an interview on Fox Business, Rebeccah Heinrichs discusses whether or not China will use military force to crack down on Hong Kong.

In an interview with CNBC’s Squawk Box, Rob Spalding discusses the staying power of the ongoing Hong Kong protests.

And Michael Pillsbury describes how the protests in Hong Kong will impact trade talks between the U.S.-China on CNN.

Hudson Highlights

New Episode of the Realignment

Listen to the latest episode of The Realignment podcast where Hudson Chief Operating Officer and former drug czar discusses drug control policy at home and abroad.

Commentary

India’s Kashmir Crackdown

Husain Haqqani and Aparna Pande discuss the Modi’s Kashmir crackdown in The Sunday Guardian:

Noted South Asia expert, Aparna Pande of the Hudson Institute, tells The Sunday Guardian, “The decision of the Modi government to repeal Article 370 is meant to resolve the long-standing issues of national integration and international legitimacy with respect to Kashmir.”

According to Pande, “While the decision may, in Delhi’s mind, resolve the issue of legitimacy, in itself it is not sufficient to end either Pakistan-backed terrorism or the restiveness of Kashmir’s population. For that, a lot more needs to be done on ground. If in a few years from now, young Kashmiris still feel alienated, repeal of Article 370 will mean little for India’s security or national integration.”

As a democracy, India will need to ease restrictions in the valley and return to normalcy soon, otherwise there will be continued global scrutiny, she says.

…

Another top Kashmir and Pakistan expert at the South and Central Asia Center in Hudson Institute, Husain Haqqani too feels that “Pakistan needs to change its ‘inflexible position’ on Kashmir”.

Haqqani, the former Pakistan ambassador to the US, was quoted in the media and on his Hudson website saying, “India’s latest moves might require a change in Pakistan’s inflexible position that Kashmir is the unfinished business of Partition. That view, notwithstanding its legal merits and the strong sense of injustice among Pakistanis that stems from it, has fewer takers internationally than ever.”

…

Adds Pande: “New Delhi is benefitting from the international community’s willingness to no longer see Kashmir as an international dispute. There might be little or no support for Pakistan when it tries to raise the matter at the United Nations Security Council.”

Walter Russell Mead suggests that the Gulf States largely quiet response to India's Kashmir crackdown is due to strong economic ties between the two countries in his column for the Wall Street Journal.

Missile Defense and National Security

Rebeccah Heinrichs on keeping THAAD missile defense system under the Missile Defense Agency in Defense News:

Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said: “I’m afraid the Army won’t fund THAAD if it’s their responsibility. We need to free up more money in MDA so it can focus on research and development, so we have a dilemma. Something has to give.”

Short of the defense secretary directing the services to fund and support systems like THAAD, Heinrichs said, “they’re probably just going to have to stay in MDA. That means we need a much bigger top line in MDA ... to fund the new technologies needed for advanced threats, especially.”

Masashi Murano on the constitutional limitations to U.S.-Japan defense operations in VOA Korea:

Masashi Murano, Japan Chair Fellow at Hudson Institute, non-profit American think tank based in Washington, D.C., told VOA that "there are some limits to the Japan Self-Defense Forces' involvement if the U.S Forces Japan (USFJ) engages in offensive operations because of constitutional restrictions."

"Because the U.S.-Japan alliance does not have a single integrated command and control structure, as is the case with NATO and the U.S.-ROK alliance, there is a limit to the extent to which Japan can be involved in U.S. military operations. The U.S.-ROK alliance is not necessarily an appropriate command and control system for us, but if Japan accepts U.S. ground-based missiles, when and how the U.S. will use them could directly affect Japan's security. Then, instead of taking on the military risks of deploying these missiles, U.S.-Japan should re-design the alliance structure that would involve more specific coordination of combined operational plans and command and control over their target selections. "

Patrick Cronin on U.S. alliance building in Asia to counter China in the Washington Examiner:

But U.S. officials doubtless are eager to keep a close watch on the ballistic missiles that Chinese media have dubbed the "Guam Killer."

…

That ominous nickname is a clue to how Pompeo’s meetings in those far-flung islands and Esper’s trek to a landlocked former Soviet satellite state are part of the same project. If China ever gains control of a port in Micronesia or on other Pacific Islands, Cronin and other analysts suggest, the People’s Liberation Army might be able to “sever the lines of communications” that connect this vital U.S. territory to Australia and Hawaii.

“If we were going to get into a major altercation with China and we didn’t have the capacity to resupply [Guam], then we would have no effective deterrence,” Cronin said. “We would have no effective ability to shape the region and would be essentially spending resources and money for an indefensible objective. And China would love for us to come to that realization and then just dominate the region.”

Maximum Pressure Campaign on Iran

Mike Pregent on Iran’s new missile defense system in Washington Times:

“The maximum pressure campaign is working despite Iran’s provocations,” Michael Pregent, a former U.S. intelligence officer and senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, said Wednesday at a panel discussion hosted by the institute.

“We have put in a defensive capability in the Middle East to absorb these attacks,” said Mr. Pregent. “This is what war with Iran looks like. Everybody’s caught up in this narrative that war with Iran is an invasion of Iran with 100,000 American troops. That’s not what war with Iran looks like.”

“As an international body we can literally absorb these attacks and continue to put sanctions on,” he added. “[Iran] cannot do a lot.”

In Case You Missed It