Biden unapologetic on US Pacific power

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

So, okay, my title isn't exactly different from the original article, but I did think this was an interesting article. Linky

Now, I think that perhaps Joe Biden has overstated, or at least misinterpreted, what the USA has done in the Asia-Pacific region (which personally I'd prefer the area wasn't labelled as such. Why one can't just have East Asia and Pacific separate regions boggles my mind).

Now, I'm certainly no 'America is Kenyan 4th Reich' crazy man, and America is certainly, at this time, the most powerful state in regards to military and economic capability with a pacific coastline, but his statements have made me think about what exactly Ameria has done for the region, including and not limited to his quotes from the article

- "Our mere presence in the Pacific is in and of itself the basis upon which stability of the region is built. You are the glue that holds all this together"

- "The truth of the matter is our resident power status is the reason why this area of the world is able to grow and be stable"

These comments seem a little on the arrogant side. To claim it is because of the US that the entire Asia-Pacific region is 'stable', and that as a result of American presence in an area that stretches from New Zealand to the Northern Chinese border that is able to "grow". Although America certainly has had an impact, and is probably, at least in the eyes of most of the world, the reason why the Chinese economy has exploded and why North Korea won't move south, there seems to be a fair amount of accepting credit for things it doesn't really deserve, as well as claiming credit for stuff that hasn't actually occurred.

Regardless, what are your opinions NSG? Has an American presence resulted in a region which really is more stable?

[Bodobol]

-waits for Frisivisia-

[Blasveck]

Dammit Fris...

[Thafoo]

That's what happens when Frisivisia's youth gets stolen by Obama.

[Regnum Dominae]

Oh Fris, what have you done now...

[TaQud]

Fris is needed ASAP

[Strykla]

Fris goddamnit....

[The Texan Confederation]

That is the second best thing that Joe Biden has ever said, the first being the suggestion to get a shotgun for self-defense.

[Beta Test]

Why does everyone on this website care about what Joe Biden says so much? Is it because of Fris?

[Thafoo]

That is the second best thing that Joe Biden has ever said, the first being the suggestion to get a shotgun for self-defense.

Damnit, at least we had seven posts mentioning Frisivisia. CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE

[Blasveck]

Why does everyone on this website care about what Joe Biden says so much? Is it because of Fris?

Biden is Fris. Don't you know that?

[Shofercia]

Fris, how many times have I told you to read what the speechwriter wrote, without embellishing it? Huh?

[Beta Test]

Why does everyone on this website care about what Joe Biden says so much? Is it because of Fris?

Biden is Fris. Don't you know that?

Of course I know that everyone know that.

[Regnum Dominae]

-waits for Frisivisia-

Dammit Fris...

That's what happens when Frisivisia's youth gets stolen by Obama.

Oh Fris, what have you done now...

Fris is needed ASAP

Fris goddamnit....

[Thafoo]

Sorry guys, Mr. Biden is not currently online. Something about Guinness, I hear.

[Beta Test]

Sorry guys, Mr. Biden is not currently online. Something about Guinness, I hear.

That's a shame. The 47th Vice President always has a good explanation for what he does and why he does it.

[The Scientific States]

Oh Fris.

[Forsher]

What do you mean by stable? I mean, there's things like East Timor and whatever every now again and the US does (next to) nothing in that regard... it's most Aussie.

There's little international instability because few countries actually border each other and most are too poor/too small/too governed by larger entities defence wise to actually do anything to cause conflict. Too far away definitely comes into it as well.

Certainly, in WWII the USA was crucial and the legacy of that does remain to an extent. On the other hand the Vietnam War would've finished much earlier than 1975 without the US, so...

And then there's definitely the odd military coup as well (Fiji) etc.

It comes down to geography, really.

The whole Asia/Pacific thing is just the result of the European and the American dominance of the political landscape as well as the Pacific being full of island nations and Australia. I don't actually think of the US as a Pacific nation at all, I certainly see the centre as Australia. The lumping of the two areas together is definitely misleading.

[Costa Alegria]

Regardless, what are your opinions NSG? is it a result of American presence that the Asia-Pacific is so stable?

I'm not so sure about Asia but it certainly isn't with regards to the Pacific. The last time the Americans did anything major with regards to bringing peace and stability to the Pacific was kicking out the Japanese. They did bugger all in East Timor, did nothing in Bougainville, did nothing in the Solomon Islands and also did nothing when Tonga decided it wanted to see what rioting was like. Does American government aid keep various Pacific and some East Asian countries afloat? Nope. All the US is interested in in maintaining its territories and making sure the North Koreans don't press the Big Red Button. The Pacific, in all intents and purposes, to the US, is a sideshow.

Fris can say what he wants but the truth is, the US, nor many Americans for that matter, don't give a flying rat's arse about the Pacific and its happenings. It's more interested in Asia. Fair enough, but I wouldn't go around boasting that its mere presence in the Pacific is the reason why it is peaceful and stable. Because that isn't the case.

[Onekawa-Nukanor]

It should be noted that when I said 'is it a result of American presence that the Asia-Pacific is so stable?' I wasn't meant to be stating it was stable, rather was it stable due to the American presence?.

Of course, I worded it poorly, and will make changes accordingly. Sorry for the confusion.

[Costa Alegria]

It should be noted that when I said 'is it a result of American presence that the Asia-Pacific is so stable?' I wasn't meant to be stating it was stable, rather was it stable due to the American presence?.

Of course, I worded it poorly, and will make changes accordingly. Sorry for the confusion.

Either way, the answer is no. There are still issues with regards to places like the Solomon Islands and there are tensions between Fiji and Tonga, not to mention all the shit going down lately in Tonga itself.

[Divitaen]

I'm gonna be very careful espousing my opinion on this, because based on the comments above me, it looks like Fris may have a very strong opinion on this issue of US military presence in Asia. As someone who lives in Southeast Asia, I've talked to lots of friends and relatives about US military bases in Southeast Asia and East Asia. Very few of them hold a positive opinion about a US military presence, even those of US 'allies' such as South Korea and Japan.

I'm going to sidetrack a bit and just express my opinion about US military bases in Asia in general, because US interference in the Spratly Islands dispute and the Senkaku Islands dispute is interrelated. I can't speak on Biden's behalf, but I'm guessing when US military and political leaders call a US military presence a "stabilizing force to the region", they are usually referring to a US presence and support for regional allies in these disputed conflicts, and I think the US has actually made the situation worse for these countries.

Let's look at the situation in the East Asian islands or Southeast Asian islands disputes, especially over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute. China and Japan have sent vessels and coast guards in fear of the other side making a dangerous move. In Southeast Asia, China has built cities such as Sansha over disputed regions, and rising military tensions have led to problems such as Scarborough Shoal conflict with the Philippines. Why do I mention all this? To me, it is the failure of a US military presence in allies such as Japan and Philippines, in a failing attempt to meddle in what should have been a purely Asian affair.

What is worse is that US politicians always use this as evidence of "Chinese aggression". That always seems to be the justification for these military bases, by portraying China as this belligerent, expansionist, imperialistic force that the US must act as a counter-balance to. That is not true. China has participated in diplomatic talks, especially in ASEAN, over the disputed islands, and any of their belligerent actions are not different from that of Vietnam, Philippines or Japan. The only reason they act like this is because of US military presence in the Pacific. Think about it, how would the US react if Russia signed MDAs with Canada, Mexico and Cuba, then installed military bases in all these places while adding a nuclear-armed submarine fleet West of California? Would you blame the US if they start to act a bit edgy with all of their neighbours? What about North Korea? Sure, you may think their paranoid, but you have a right to paranoid if the US has military bases south of your border, conducts regular Foal Eagle military exercises and even sends bomber planes flying near your aerial space with the capacity of being nuclear-armed. It is upsetting to see the US media portraying China and DPRK as the villains in every conflict, when logically this is the natural result of a US encirclement policy in the Pacific and Asia as a whole.

This, on top of the fact that the US base in Okinawa is famous for conducting rape of innocent Japanese women, crimes which most of the time go unreported and almost never prosecuted, and the fact that these bases are sitting on agricultural fertile land on economically-impoverished Philippines. It is time for the US to recognize what a destabilizing, and not stabilizing, force they have been in the Pacific and in Asia, how much they have added to the diplomatic tension between China and her neighbours.

Sorry if I got off topic a bit, and for Fris, I'm not blaming Joe Biden for the mess the US has made of the region. In many ways he cannot help it. But as a Singaporean, I have been hearing so much in my media over the Biden visit to my country and I've been wondering why my government or Shinzo Abe refuses to highlight the main issue facing my region, and that is how destabilizing the US military presence has been, and it is time for nations like Japan, South Korea and the Philippines to wake up and start demanding a gradual withdrawal of US troops, rather than to claim that they are there for security.

[Shofercia]

It should be noted that when I said 'is it a result of American presence that the Asia-Pacific is so stable?' I wasn't meant to be stating it was stable, rather was it stable due to the American presence?.

Of course, I worded it poorly, and will make changes accordingly. Sorry for the confusion.

Either way, the answer is no. There are still issues with regards to places like the Solomon Islands and there are tensions between Fiji and Tonga, not to mention all the shit going down lately in Tonga itself.

Wait a sec, Tonga is worse than Fiji?

[Forsher]

I'm gonna be very careful espousing my opinion on this, because based on the comments above me, it looks like Fris may have a very strong opinion on this issue of US military presence in Asia. As someone who lives in Southeast Asia, I've talked to lots of friends and relatives about US military bases in Southeast Asia and East Asia. Very few of them hold a positive opinion about a US military presence, even those of US 'allies' such as South Korea and Japan.

I'm going to sidetrack a bit and just express my opinion about US military bases in Asia in general, because US interference in the Spratly Islands dispute and the Senkaku Islands dispute is interrelated. I can't speak on Biden's behalf, but I'm guessing when US military and political leaders call a US military presence a "stabilizing force to the region", they are usually referring to a US presence and support for regional allies in these disputed conflicts, and I think the US has actually made the situation worse for these countries.

Let's look at the situation in the East Asian islands or Southeast Asian islands disputes, especially over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute. China and Japan have sent vessels and coast guards in fear of the other side making a dangerous move. In Southeast Asia, China has built cities such as Sansha over disputed regions, and rising military tensions have led to problems such as Scarborough Shoal conflict with the Philippines. Why do I mention all this? To me, it is the failure of a US military presence in allies such as Japan and Philippines, in a failing attempt to meddle in what should have been a purely Asian affair.

What is worse is that US politicians always use this as evidence of "Chinese aggression". That always seems to be the justification for these military bases, by portraying China as this belligerent, expansionist, imperialistic force that the US must act as a counter-balance to. That is not true. China has participated in diplomatic talks, especially in ASEAN, over the disputed islands, and any of their belligerent actions are not different from that of Vietnam, Philippines or Japan. The only reason they act like this is because of US military presence in the Pacific. Think about it, how would the US react if Russia signed MDAs with Canada, Mexico and Cuba, then installed military bases in all these places while adding a nuclear-armed submarine fleet West of California? Would you blame the US if they start to act a bit edgy with all of their neighbours? What about North Korea? Sure, you may think their paranoid, but you have a right to paranoid if the US has military bases south of your border, conducts regular Foal Eagle military exercises and even sends bomber planes flying near your aerial space with the capacity of being nuclear-armed. It is upsetting to see the US media portraying China and DPRK as the villains in every conflict, when logically this is the natural result of a US encirclement policy in the Pacific and Asia as a whole.

This, on top of the fact that the US base in Okinawa is famous for conducting rape of innocent Japanese women, crimes which most of the time go unreported and almost never prosecuted, and the fact that these bases are sitting on agricultural fertile land on economically-impoverished Philippines. It is time for the US to recognize what a destabilizing, and not stabilizing, force they have been in the Pacific and in Asia, how much they have added to the diplomatic tension between China and her neighbours.

Sorry if I got off topic a bit, and for Fris, I'm not blaming Joe Biden for the mess the US has made of the region. In many ways he cannot help it. But as a Singaporean, I have been hearing so much in my media over the Biden visit to my country and I've been wondering why my government or Shinzo Abe refuses to highlight the main issue facing my region, and that is how destabilizing the US military presence has been, and it is time for nations like Japan, South Korea and the Philippines to wake up and start demanding a gradual withdrawal of US troops, rather than to claim that they are there for security.

You know, it never struck me that Frisivisia could actually care about Mr Biden's opinions but it seems obvious now... why else would he pretend to be him?

What you've written is actually very interesting, particularly because it's a different perspective to the one in the OP, mine and Costa's which are more Pacific orientated (particularly the last two). I can't really add to it but I think it supports the case that Mr Biden is in the wrong.

[Genivaria]

Yeah the US Navy does a pretty good job.