Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater: The United States vs. People’s Republic of China

Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum · Oda Yeol · Waseda University

Introduction

Kyushu is one of the four major islands that make up the Japanese archipelago. Located in southwestern Japan, Kyushu has long had exchanges with Western empires and Joseon. As a center of trade and culture, Kyushu is an essential place to visit to understand the framework and direction of Japan's international politics. Carrying the question, 'Why was Japan able to adopt Western civilization and change before Korea and China?' in our hearts, the 9th cohort of Sarangbang set out on a research trip on December 26th. Although I, who was already somewhat familiar with Japanese history and culture, was able to realize the special significance of the Kyushu region in international politics through this opportunity.

Photo 1. December 27, 2017, in front of the Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum with the 9th cohort of Sarangbang and

Professor Ha Young-sun

Upon arriving at Fukuoka Airport and touring the northwestern part of Kyushu, I deeply contemplated what the leaders of Kyushu observed, understood, and believed. How did the leaders of Japan's modernization, who flourished amidst political turmoil such as the four surrounding seas and the power struggles between the Emperor and the Shogunate, interpret the changing global power dynamics? While attempts to adopt Western civilization in Korea failed, why was Japan able to achieve a relatively peaceful modernization? Above all, these two questions plagued my mind during the three-day, two-night trip. 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum

From a young age, I harbored animosity towards Japanese imperialism and militarism after viewing works about the Pacific War and Japan's colonial rule of Korea. I wondered, 'Perhaps if Western imperialism had not taken root in the East, would the current East Asian international relations, surrounded by hostility, not exist?' and 'Why did the Western paradigm of wealth and power reach Japan first?' Through my visit to the Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum, I was able to make discoveries that somewhat resolved these questions.

The beginning of Japan's international politics, as I observed it, can be explained through the two words: 'imitation' and 'creation.' Feeling fear at the sight of the increasingly powerful Western empires, Japan's leaders reversed their decision to completely ban exchanges with external forces and actively adopted their culture and systems.

Photo 2. Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum photo booth. The first thing that astonished me upon visiting the Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum was the history of Japan's absorption of British and American naval technology to build a powerful navy. Seeing their efforts to meticulously classify and list the destroyers, aircraft carriers, naval assets, and weapons Japan had possessed, I felt awe on one hand and regret on the other. Regret stemmed from the situation of the Republic of Korea, which cannot yet claim to possess the world's leading naval power and history, and from their historical perception that equates the current Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, established for defense purposes, with the history of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but my intellectual curiosity to research and learn more about the Maritime Self-Defense Force and the US Navy stationed in Sasebo began at the Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum.

4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum Photo 3. Aerial photograph of Sasebo US Naval Base

After reviewing and synthesizing various materials, I concluded that Sasebo

Naval Base is an important entity that influences the security and balance of power in Northeast Asia, both in the past and present.

While the main force of the US 7th Fleet stationed in Japan is located in Okinawa and Yokosuka, I wonder what strategy Pax Americana holds in response to the constantly changing East Asian geopolitical landscape and China's expansionism.

Therefore, what are Japan's thoughts regarding the South China Sea, where China is currently actively exerting influence, given its strong alliance with the United States?

To emphasize the importance of the Sasebo Naval Base, I investigated what the United States and China are focusing on in the Asia-Pacific arena, and why the Asia-Pacific has become the center of maritime territorial disputes.

Finally, I have written about why the Sasebo Naval Base in Japan will significantly influence the future struggle for influence between the United States and China.

Through the three-day, two-night field trip to Japan and five months of discussion and learning, I have analyzed the direction of East Asian military international politics from a realist perspective. Although there are still many shortcomings, I hope that my perspective on East Asian international politics will be of some help to the research of those who will encounter international politics in the future. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Ha Young-sun and the 9th cohort of Sarangbang for their understanding and guidance.

I. Overview

In the midst of escalating tension between the United States and People’s Republic of China (PRC) regarding the Asia-Pacific region, there has been a speculation that such discord will embark a conflict between the two great powers. Unbeknownst to how the future of the Pacific theater will unfold, it is evident that whoever establishes a steadfast presence in the area will maintain or inherit the title of ‘Global Hegemon’. The rationale behind this statement is that Asia-Pacific theater is widely recognized as a central hub for various activities, it is the focal point that facilitates maritime free-trade, harbors diverse marine lives and resources, and serves as a strategic location for maritime military operations. The future and the well-being of the rising power, PRC, hinges on the guaranteed access to those functions. In response to this underlying significance, PRC has been painstakingly working on improving and expanding its influence in the Asia-Pacific region. However, it is also in the interest of the United States and other nations in the region to procure continued access to the area, it is inevitable that the current status quo in the Asia- Pacific region will undergo turbulences.

In this paper, I will be writing about apparent and hidden interests coexisting in the Asia-Pacific theater, in particular, South China Sea. To illustrate, I will explain what constitutes the dispute in that strategic location, territorial and maritime claims in the region, and the strategies of the main actors. Branching off from the main actors’ 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum strategies regarding the Asia-Pacific region, I will further relate Sasebo naval base as a strategic option that the United States will adopt countering PRC’s rapid armament in the Asia-Pacific Region. Although Sasebo Naval Base no longer goes first in the strategic importance with the current military affairs in US-Japan alliance, its importance will escalate once Asia-Pacific region encounters a shift in the status quo.

II. Asia-Pacific Theater (South China Sea)

To emphasize the importance of the Sasebo Naval Base, the United States and

According to the

is, and why the Asia-Pacific is a maritime

United Nation’s report on current estimates on the South-China Sea, it alone accounts more than 10 percent of global fisheries production and approximately 11 billion barrels

and 190 million Figure 1. Why the South China Sea Matters, by the cubic feet of Numbers

natural gas and

oil reserves (US DOD 1). But most importantly, two-thirds of the world’s oil shipment transit via international waterways in India-Asia-Pacific region (US DOD 2). Due to the material and commercial significance in the area, freedom of commercial transit has been protected at all costs by the international society. In addition, deploying maritime forces in the region not only safeguards the commercial transit but it also establishes security interests. To elaborate, deploying military assets in the region functions as a security deterrence, undercutting possible threats before it escalates. With respect to newly acknowledged economic and military interests, although the United States has been officially announced its role as a mediator in the region, there have been multitudes of territorial and economic disputes among the nations from Asia-Pacific region.

PRC, in particular, has been flexing its naval muscles to expand its sphere of influence. Currently, under the international law or Law of the Sea Convention, it grants sovereign nations with Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). EEZ is a sea zone that grants rights for a country to exploit the zone economically that extends 200 nautical miles from its coast to the baseline (UN Article 56). However, granting the right has raised many doubts when mainly China and other nations started to create artificial reefs. Putting artificial reefs under the protection of EEZ is still a debatable case, potentially raising disputes among nations in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides the exclusive economic right, the rule of law in the sea dictates that the freedom of the seas; permitting foreign vessels including the military to freely navigate the international waters (Congressional Research Service 2017 14). However, applying and interpreting the rule of law in the sea differs among the Asian-Pacific nations, generating military disputes as well. All in all, the Asia-Pacific maritime and material disputes can be largely accredited to the rising conflict of interests in the region, militarization, and the vagueness of the law in the international waters.

III. Main Actors in the Asia-Pacific Theater

In spite of various nations having complex interests in the Asia-Pacific region, I will especially focus on the two main powers: The United States of America and PRC. These two powers meet the following conditions: 1) A nation that has relatively bigger economic and security interests linked to the Asian-Pacific theater; 2) it owns military capabilities that could possibly tip the balance of power in Asia-Pacific region.

Linkage of Interests (The United States)

“The United States wants to ensure the Asia-Pacific region’s continued economic progress… Eight of the world’s 10 busiest container ports are in the Asia-Pacific region, and almost 30 percent of the world’s 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum maritime trade transits the South China Sea annually, including approximately $1.2 trillion in ship-borne trade bound for the United States”

(Department of Defense United States of America, Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy)

As it is clearly mentioned in the report, the United States has economic incentives to safeguard the maritime trade and improve military readiness in the region thereby eradicating possible adversaries disrupting the free flow of trades in the region.

Linkage of Interests (People’s Republic of China) PRC’s

and 190 million Figure 1. Why the South China Sea Matters, by the cubic feet of Numbers

unprecedented level of growth in the economy has raised an alarm against the politburo leaders

the urgency of Figure 2. PRC’s Energy Consumption & Production securing energy Growth

PRC, in particular, has been flexing its naval muscles to expand its sphere of influence. Currently, under the international law or Law of the Sea Convention, it grants sovereign nations with Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). EEZ is a sea zone that grants rights for a country to exploit the zone economically that extends 200 nautical miles from its coast to the baseline (UN Article 56). However, granting the right has raised many doubts when mainly China and other nations started to create artificial reefs. Putting artificial reefs under the protection of EEZ is still a debatable case, potentially raising disputes among nations in the Asia-Pacific region. Besides the exclusive economic right, the rule of law in the sea dictates that the freedom of the seas; permitting foreign vessels including the military to freely navigate the international waters (Congressional Research Service 2017 14). However, applying and interpreting the rule of law in the sea differs among the Asian-Pacific nations, generating military disputes as well. All in all, the Asia-Pacific maritime and material disputes can be largely accredited to the rising conflict of interests in the region, militarization, and the vagueness of the law in the international waters.

III. Main Actors in the Asia-Pacific Theater

In spite of various nations having complex interests in the Asia-Pacific region, I will especially focus on the two main powers: The United States of America and PRC. These two powers meet the following conditions: 1) A nation that has relatively bigger economic and security interests linked to the Asian-Pacific theater; 2) it owns military capabilities that could possibly tip the balance of power in Asia-Pacific region.

Linkage of Interests (The United States)

“The United States wants to ensure the Asia-Pacific region’s continued economic progress… Eight of the world’s 10 busiest container ports are in the Asia-Pacific region, and almost 30 percent of the world’s maritime trade transits the South China Sea annually, including approximately $1.2 trillion in ship-borne trade bound for the United States”

(Department of Defense United States of America, Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy)

As it is clearly mentioned in the report, the United States has economic incentives to safeguard the maritime trade and improve military readiness in the region thereby eradicating possible adversaries disrupting the free flow of trades in the region.

Not only the economic significance, but the Asia-Pacific theater is also the United States’ main theater of operations with her allies and partners including Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, The Philippines, Thailand, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam (US PACOM 2017 25-29). As an acknowledged global hegemon, the United States has linkages of security interests to protect her allies from any potential threat and uphold the rule of law that goes in favor of the United States’ leadership in the Asia-Pacific region.

Linkage of Interests (People’s Republic of China) PRC’s

unprecedented level of growth in the economy has raised an alarm against the politburo leaders

the urgency of Figure 2. PRC’s Energy Consumption & Production securing energy Growth

resources. In

response to the mounting energy needs, they have been searching means to constantly run their industry engine. Unfortunately, along with the heavy dependence on foreign energy supplies, the current economic diagrams already point the PRC’s waning growth in the economic power. Yet still increasing, the economic and social inequality and ineffective domestic policy lead to decrease in economic growth in PRC (U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission 2017 3). The worsening circumstance along with the environmental issues in PRC not only necessitated the decision makers to devise a sustainable and eco- friendly energy source that could substitute the imported fuel, it also enforced the leaders to acquire safe energy transit free of foreign interference (Erickson 2017 131-152). This volatility puts PRC to set adamant policy acquiring military stronghold in Asia-Pacific region where its secure logistics transit can take place.

Moreover, the current research on natural resources has confirmed that the natural resources hidden under the sea bed of South China Sea could become a game changer for PRC, for it could vitalize and provide constant flow of energy production in the future. To be specific, in 2011, the PRC government has positive conjectures that the region will serve as a “Second Persian Gulf”, supplying over 213 billion barrels of oil (Blazevic 2012 84-85). China estimated over 100 billion barrels of oil buried under the Spratly Islands and another 100 billion barrels of oil under the rest of the seabed in the South China Sea. Although the estimates seem somewhat exaggerated contrary to the United Nations report on the South China Sea, it still plays a role in reducing PRC’s reliance on foreign energy imports. It is important to note that maintaining the constant supply of energy resource is the primary concern for all nations. Therefore, securing and expanding its sovereignty over the region is the stepping stone that PRC has to take in order to stay on top of the international competition.

PRC politburo also views their marital and diplomatic actions in the sea from historical terms; their decisions are overdue response to the century of humiliation that China has gone through. In other words, setting aside the energy potential in the region, PRC leaders perceive security significance in the Asia-Pacific region. This is because China was helpless and disadvantaged in deterring the hostile nations from encroaching in their sovereign territory in the past (Blazevic 2012 80). Throughout the history of China, it is not hard to comprehend PRC’s motivations and political discourse that come from the long records of foreign invasion via the South and East China Sea. 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Archives

To sum up, there are complex reasons including security and economic interests and historical context that account PRC’s obsession towards the Asia-Pacific region, especially South-East China Sea. Therefore, it is rational enough for PRC to relentlessly endeavor to break the balance and establish a different paradigm in the region that is favorable to them.

Military Capabilities According to the figure

3.1, it shows that Asia- Pacific region is the congregation of military powers that could escalate into a major war if not contained. It is important to note China’s growing military presence in the region. Although the figures are not enough to pinpoint the modernization of PRC military, the figure

alone yet sufficiently

Figure 3.1. Military Personnel stationed in the accounts that PRC

Asia-Pacific Region

surpasses other military

capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, since I am mainly concentrating on the naval powers in the region, PRC by far has a great number of Naval personnel and assets that could tip the balance of power in the Pacific if they are destined to do so.

I will further analyze another major actor, the United States. Figure 3.2 shows the number of the US military personnel and assets deployed in the Asia-Pacific region. Although the figure does not indicate the level of military modernization, it at least gives the rough numbers that the United States forces serve as a major contestant of PRC in the Asia-Pacific region. To elaborate, the United States primarily deployed its troops and assets on the East side of the Pacific theater; US Military powers in Japan, Guam, Hawaii, and South Korea are detrimental to the region’s balance of power.

It is important to

clarify that the potential conflict in the Asia- Pacific will not escalate between the two major powers, but a bipolar conflict lead by the two major powers and their allies. In this respect, the sheer consequence of breaking the balance of power in the region will not only mark an end to the safe transit of goods

accompanying Figure 3.2: US military personnel deployed in diplomatic hostilities in the Asia-Pacific Region

the region, but also

possibly engendering irreversible conflict that could destroy the entire area.

The United States

The United States Department of Defense has officially announced its prime objectives in the Asia-Pacific: protecting the freedom of the seas, deterring conflict and coercion, and promoting adherence to international law and standards (DoD 2015 1). The executive reckons Asia-Pacific’s role of continued economic progress not only for the region but also for the United States. Therefore, it is in the United State’s interest to safeguard economic order in the Asia-Pacific region and establish its stronghold presence to prevent any crisis from disrupting the status quo. In addition, bearing in mind that maritime security environment in the Asia-Pacific region is in the interests of all 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Archives nations, The United States articulates that any potential spill-over effect incurred in the Asia-Pacific region is intolerable (USPA COM 2017 2). To be specific, any allies or partners of the United States will be deeply influenced if the order in the region is disrupted thus crippling the commercial transit. Last but not least, the United States upholds international law in the Asia-Pacific region to perpetuate peace, stability, and prosperity in the region. In this regard, rigid adherence to uniform rules enables peace among the Asia-Pacific nations under the guidance of the United States.

While the United States currently holds the strategic advantage over other powers in the Asia-Pacific region, pointing PRC as one of their challenges in the Asia-Pacific region is important (USPA COM 2017 5). Admiral Harry B. Harris, the commander of U.S Pacific Command mentioned that “If USPACOM has to fight tonight, I don’t want it to be a fair fight. If it’s a knife fight, I want to bring a gun. If it’s a gunfight, I want to bring in the artillery of our allies.” The reason why I quote this statement is because the United States is attempting to break through its critical shortcomings present in the region: rapid militarization/fortification in the region especially PRC, critical munition shortages, and budget uncertainty. In this respect, the United States seeks to make use of diplomacy and strategic alliance to safeguard its interests in the region. In particular, the United States stressed the importance of trilateral military alliance (US-JP-KR) and Multi-Domain Battle (MDB) system.

In a nutshell, despite the growing power of PRC, the United States has been using means at its disposal to maintain strategic superiority in the Asia-Pacific region.

People’s Republic of China PRC’s ‘one belt-one

road’ initiative dictates expanding its leverage on other nations by establishing economic and military ties in the Figure 4. China growth rate of real gross

domestic product (GDP) Asia-Pacific region (Chohan 2017). This policy is mainly intended to undermine the United State’s influence on the Asia-Pacific theater by connecting the two main channels of commerce: the land-based Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) and the ocean-based Maritime Silk Road (MSR). To illustrate, the initiative invites nations in the Asia-Pacific regions to cooperate and establish diplomatic ties with PRC; a bold move targeting a decrease in overall influence that the United States has over the region.

However, the economic situation in PRC is not as bright as it seems due to heavy governmental regulations on the domestic market (U.S-China ESRC 2017 1). On the other hand, there are also pros for such policies, the government has indirect control over the private entities thus allowing systematic advantage to extract core intelligence from the world market, especially in the United States (U.S-China ESRC 2017 2). PRC’s economic future heavily relies on the constant flow of foreign resources, especially on fossil fuels. This urgency implies that PRC has utmost interest in securing safe energy transit and safeguarding the commerce channels. However, PRC currently lacks in a strategic alliance to defend the region, which incentivizes them to construct and fortify artificial islands in the South China Sea. The leadership in PRC believes that the fortification of the Spratly Islands rules out potential armed conflict in the region because it acts as a deterrent effect on other claimant states in the Asia-Pacific region (Martinson 2017). On top of that, shrewdly counter-balancing in the Asia-Pacific region is long sat PRC’s maritime dispute strategy, which accounts the incongruities in Chinese behavior. The current leadership views the balance of power is slowly tilting towards their advantage thus making America more assertive and restless in the Asia-Pacific International Politics. They believe that the scale and intensity of any future crisis can be kept under control, the current government does not seek any disputes from escalating because it could imperil the current period of “strategic opportunity” (Martinson 2017).

PRC has been expanding its naval capabilities by adhering to the two main strategies: improving naval powers and adopting Regional 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Archives Maritime Law Enforcement Forces. The figure 7.1 and 7.2 below point PRC’s increased naval power.

Figure 5.1. 2015 Regional Naval Figure 5.2. 2015 Regional

Combatants Comparison Maritime Law Enforcement

Comparison

The increase in the number of Regional Maritime Law Enforcement Forces or Coast Guard Units in the Asia-Pacific Region is worth noting because it indicates that all claimant states are expanding their non-military assets. This is significant because the figures verify that PRC is pursuing protracted war, “long-term, patient and comprehensive contest to master the strategic initiative” which allows PRC to evade any military conflict with the United States (Martinson 2017). By shunning unnecessary conflict with the United States, this allows PRC to acquire some time; increasing its sphere of influence in the region and improving military capabilities that would equally match with the United States in the likely future. To sum up, PRC is expansionary in aim, incremental by design, and realist in orientation. The future of PRC relies deeply on the area because its security and economic interests are too big to overlook. Rather than merely using military powers to influence the region in an abrupt manner, PRC has chosen an initiative that perpetuates soft and real powers. By building economic relationships and promoting ‘protracted war’ that will painstakingly off-balance the United States’ leverage on the Asia-Pacific theater, PRC leadership is looking forward to becoming the new hegemon in the region.

IV. US Fleet Activities Sasebo

The US Fleet Activities Sasebo

epitomizes the bilateral relationship between the United States and Japan. Although the current mission and objectives of the naval base do not clearly indicate its potential uses during any times of security crisis in the Asia-Pacific region, I foresee that the US Fleet Activities Sasebo can transform into a major location for U.S. Marines amphibious operations. Sasebo port harbors vessels of the Japan Maritime Self

Defense Forces and the United

Figure 6: The geographic location of States Seventh Fleet. Its prime

Sasebo

objective is to provide

logistical support to the naval

power especially ships for amphibious operations (CNIC Commander Fleet Activities Sasebo History 2017). The ships that are currently homeported at Sasebo are USS Essex (LHD-2), USS Tortuga (LSD-46), USS Harpers Ferry (LSD-49), USS Denver (LPD-9), USS Avenger 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Archives (MCM-1), USS Defender (MCM-2), USS Guardian (MCM-5) and USS Patriot (MCM-7) (US Fleet Activities Sasebo Project Overview 2017). These ships all fall into the group of amphibious mission capability. Since 1889, Sasebo Naval Base has long been serving as headquarters for the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Third District, employing over 50,000 people to facilitate naval operations in the Pacific and building naval vessels during the peak of World War II (World Port Source 2016). On September 1945, after the surrender of Imperial Japan and their counterparts including the Japanese Imperial Navy, the U.S. 5th Marine Division landed at Sasebo and the port formally functions as U.S Fleet Activities Sasebo as of now. Sasebo used to be a small fishing village until Imperial Japanese Admiral Togo Heihachiro decided to found the place as a Sasebo Naval District due to its geographical advantages. Sasebo is a natural fortress that could fend off foreign powers strategically; it is also a deep-water harbor, its close proximity to China and Korea account the reason why Sasebo was chosen as a major naval base to the end of the World War II by the Japanese military leadership (CNIC 2017).

To briefly list the historical context of the US Fleet Activities Sasebo, the port has long since been serving as the main launching point for the United Nations and the U.S. Forces during the Korean Civil War in 1950, homeporting Self Defense Forces after the Korean War, providing heavy support to the expanded U.S. Seventh Fleet during the Vietnam War in the 1970s, and playing a vital logistics role during Operation Desert Storm in 1990-1991 (World Port Source 2016). In this respect, the history of Sasebo explains its underlying features: a full operative naval base that could serve beyond the functions of logistical support, the main transfer or the starting point for the amphibious attacks in the Asia-Pacific theater. Although some may not agree my conjectures, it is evident that the Sasebo’s capacity is maintained in its lowest level. Therefore, it is rational enough to think that once the security in Asia-Pacific region is at peril, The United States Combined Forces in the Pacific have a reliable naval base on their side waiting to be ran fully operational.

V. Conclusion

Asia-Pacific region is the vital channel for global commerce as it is directly related to each nation’s economic activity and success. However, beyond economic interest in the region, PRC’s future hinges on securing and expanding its foothold in the region for it is directly related to their security interests as well. While both superpowers are waging a war without an actual fight, they are using any means at their disposal to contain each other in the Asia-Pacific theater. Since PRC has been fortifying military powers in the artificial islands in the South China Sea and proclaiming its ‘one belt-one road’ initiative which projects China’s economic power, I believe that the United States also has an option to fortify locations bearing strategic advantages like Sasebo Naval base. Regardless of the interdependence between the two nations, I stand in the realist point of view that there will be an ongoing war between the two great powers, whether it escalates into a full-scale military war or not, until one relinquishes its power to the other.

Reference United States of America Department of Defense. 2015. The Asia-

Pacific Maritime Security Strategy.

United Nations, 28 April 2011. Part V – Exclusive Economic Zone,

Article 56 Law of the Sea.

Statement of Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr., U.S. Navy Commander, U.S.

Pacific Command, 26 April 2017.

2017 Report to Congress of the U.S. – China Economic and Security

Review Commission, U.S-China Economic and Security 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_Sasebo Maritime Self-Defense Force Archives

Review Commission, November 2017, One Hundred

Fifteenth Congress First Session

Andrew S. Erickson and Austin M. Strange, 2017. China’s Resources

Drive into the South China Sea, New York: Lynne Rienner

(2017), Page 131-152.

Jason J. Blazevic, 2012. Navigating the Security Dilemma: China,

Vietnam, and the South China Sea, Journal of Current

Southeast Asian Affairs, Page 84-85

Usman W. Chohan, University of New Soutch Wales, 2017. What is

One Belt One Road? A Surplus Recycling Mechanism

Approach

Three PLAN Officers May Have Just Revealed What China Wants in

the South China Sea, Ryan Martinson and Katsuya

Yamamoto, The National Interest (5th December 2017) CNIC Commander Fleet Activities Sasebo History, Official US Navy

Website,

https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrj/installations/cfa_sas

ebo/about/history.html

US Fleet Activities Sasebo Project Overview, Naval Technology,

https://www.naval-

technology.com/projects/usfleetactivities/ Port of Sasebo Review and History, World Port Source (17 March 2016)

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/review/JPN_Port_of

_Sasebo_1413.php