Observations of an ex pat: The Battle for the Pacific

The argy bargy over North Korea is part of a much bigger geopolitical battle.
That is not to say that the denuclearisation of an authoritarian and unstable rogue state such as North Korea is unimportant. It is vitally so.
But the prize at stake is huge– control of the Pacific East Rim. And what a prize it is. Excluding contender China, the combined GDP of the region is $12.9 trillion dollars and growing fast. The size of the market is one billion consumers.

For centuries the Pacific Rim was a Chinese lake and primary source of wealth for the Middle Kingdom. Then at the end of the 15th century , Europe simultaneously discovered America and the sea routes to Asia. The power axis shifted to the other end of the Eurasian land mass.

By the start of the 20th century China had slipped from producing an estimated 30 percent of the world’s wealth to a mere nine percent in 1913. After the World War I an exhausted Europe faltered and a rising Japan and America competed to fill the vacuum. The Second World War and two atomic bombs settled that row.
Since 1945 the US has been the undisputed political, economic and military master of both sides of the Pacific. There was a blip called the Vietnam War, but the United States’ solid links elsewhere in the region remained intact and the US and Vietnam now enjoy good relations. America’s annual trade with the Eastern rim is worth nearly $900 billion a year. America’s next biggest trading partner is the EU at $720 billion a year.

In military terms, America’s position is protected by its Pacific Fleet with 200 ships, 2,000 aircraft and a quarter of a million naval and marine personnel. On the ground it has 39,000 soldiers in Japan and 23,500 in South Korea. Then there is the nuclear umbrella with 1,800 deployed warheads.

The Chinese are catching up fast on all fronts. But just how fast and how and how successful they are depends on their economic success. They need cash to compete, which is why they are starting to worry about Donald Trump’s tariffs and the resultant trade war.

The Trump Administration likes to portray its imposition of tariffs as protecting American industry from unfair Chinese trading practices. The reality is that that a more fundamental geopolitical view of the world lies at the root of the Trump tariffs. It is that the real estate tycoon turned president believes in winner-takes-all zero sum competition rather than win/win cooperation.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Beijing this past week to pressure the Chinese to push the North Koreans faster and further down the de-nuclearisation road. He was snubbed. Pompeo was denied the normal audience with President Xi Jin Ping and foreign minister Wang Yi largely ignored the North Korean issue to launch a barrage of complaints against American tariffs. The message was clear: Chinese cooperation on North Korea is tied to tariffs.

North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is dragging his de-nuclearisation feet . He wants US sanctions lifted before he trashes his bombs. The Trump Administration refuses to lift sanctions until the missiles are gone. The Chinese main aim is the withdrawal of American forces from the Korean Peninsula as this would be a key component in re-establishing Chinese hegemony in Asia—along with control of the strategic South and East China seas and the absorption of Taiwan.

The Chinese take the long view. Both back into history and forward into the future. They have long memories to match an ancient civilisation and that historical perspective tells them that patience, planning, hard work and the natural advantage of geography will restore them to their pre-eminent position in the region. Many diplomats believe that eventual Chinese success is an historic inevitability and that there is little alternative than learning to work with Beijing. Trump disagrees.

* Tom Arms is the Foreign Editor of Liberal Democratic Voice. His book “America Made in Britain” has recently been published by Amberley Books. He is also the author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War.”

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Useful summary but there is a blind spot. USA is the agressive bully in China’s back yard. Dangerous. One example: S. Korea mentionned, how would you feel if China had 23,500 soldiers in, say, Venezuela?

  • A second blind spot is that it is clear modern China does not respect the national boundaries, largely set after WWII.

    Justifying its expansionist claims by selective reference to Chinese history, not eradicated by Mao: once upon a time a previous Chinese civilisation/dynasty occupied Tibet, thus Tibet is rightfully part of modern China, once upon a time various islands in the South China Sea belonged to a previous Chinese civilisation/dynasty, thus they and the intervening sea belong to the modern Chinese dynasty…

  • Robin Bennett 13th Oct '18 - 8:08pm

    rick: Against the wishes of the Philippines and Malaysia, China has annexed islets and reefs near these countries and far from China and is converting some of them into military bases. Ask people in these countries (or for that matter in South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore or Indonesia) which nation’s intentions they fear most – China’s or those of the US?

  • David Evans 13th Oct '18 - 9:00pm

    rick, How would you feel if China had supported another nation attempting to annex your entire country (and very nearly succeeding), costing over half a million deaths and over 300,000 civilians abducted?

    Liberals know no nation has a back yard it can expect to be subservient to its interests, perhaps you believe otherwise.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to           show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Paul Holmes
    This is why we need a properly elected revising chamber or Second Chamber. Unelected people should not be passing/amending laws in a democracy. Although of c...
  • john oundle
    Lorenzo Cherin 'I favour a split , BBC Public, BBC Private. One funded by commercial ways, adverts, subscriptions, and sponsers. One, a grant from a new Broa...
  • theakes
    Tell that to all the lives that were saved because of the restrictions. They may have come too late on most occasions but they did come. Really Catherine....
  • Helen Dudden
    Not many children could escape the continuous bombarding of news that would cause them upset and distress. I remember when I wrote about my 8 year old great...
  • Paul spiller
    This is why we need the House of Lords. My heartfelt thanks to peers from all parties who stood up to this nonsense....