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

사세보 해상자위대자료관 · 오다열 · 와세다대학교

들어가며

규슈 지방은 일본열도를 구성하는 4 개의 거대한 섬 중에 하나입니다. 일본 남서부에 위치하는 규슈 지방은 오랫동안 서양제국과 조선과 교류를 해왔습니다. 무역과 문화의 중심지였기에 규슈는 일본의 국제정치의 틀과 방향을 이해하기위해서는 필히 방문을 해야하는 장소입니다. ‘왜 일본은 중국 그리고 한국을 제치고 가장 먼저 서양문물을 받아들이고 변화할 수 있었을까’라는 궁금증을 마음에 품고 12 월 26 일 사랑방 9 기는 연구답사의 길을 나섰습니다. 평소 일본의 역사와 문화에 어느 정도 익숙했던 저 역시 이번 기회를 통해 국제정치학에서 규슈지방이 갖는 특별한 의미를 깨달을 수 있었습니다.

사진 1. 2017.12.27 사세보 해상자위대자료관 앞에서 사랑방 9 기 그리고

하영선 선생님과 함께

후쿠오카 공항에 내려 규슈의 북서지방을 돌면서 저는 규슈의 일본 지도자들은 무엇을 보고 깨닫고 어떤 신념을 가졌을지 곰곰이 생각해 보았습니다. 4 면에 접한 바다, 천황과 막부의 권력 경쟁 등 정치적 혼란 속에서 꽃을 피웠던 일본 근대화의 지도자들은 변해가는 세계의 힘의 구도를 어떻게 읽었던 것일까요? 한국에서도 서양 문물을 받아들이고자 하는 시도가 있었음에도 실패한 반면, 왜 일본은 비교적 평화로운 문명의 근대화를 이룩해낼 수 있었을까요? 무엇보다 이 두 4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_사세보 해상자위대자료관 가지 질문이 2 박 3 일의 답사 기간 동안 저의 머릿속을 괴롭혔습니다.

어려서부터 저는 태평양전쟁과 한국의 일제강점기를 다룬 작품들을 보면서 일본의 제국주의와 군국주의에 증오심을 가졌었습니다. ‘어쩌면 서양의 제국주의가 동양에 뿌리내리지 않았다면 적대감에 둘러싸인 현재의 동아시아 국제관계도 존재하지 않지 않았을까’, ‘왜 하필 서양의 부국강병 패러다임이 일본에 가장 먼저 닿았을까’라는 의문이 들었습니다. 이번 사세보 해상자위대자료관 방문을 통해 이런 의문을 어느 정도 해소할 수 있는 발견을 할 수 있었습니다.

제가 바라본 일본의 국제정치의 시작은 ‘모방’ 그리고 ‘창작’이라는 두 단어를 통해 설명할 수 있습니다. 점점 강해지는 서양제국들의 모습들을 보며 두려움을 느꼈던 일본의 지도자들은 외부세력들과의 교류를 전면적으로 금지하는 결정을 번복하고 그들의 문물을 적극적으로 받아들였습니다.

사진 2. 사세보 해상자위대자료관 기념촬영부스 사세보 해상자위대자료관을 처음 방문했을때 무엇보다 저의 두 눈을 의심했던 것은 일본이 영국 그리고 미국의 해군 기술력을 흡수해 강력한 해군을 구축한 역사였습니다. 지금까지 일본이 보유해왔던 구축함, 항공모함, 해군전력 자산, 그리고 무기들을 자세히 분류하고 나열한 그들의 노력을 보며 한편으로는 경이로웠으나 한편으로는 안타까웠습니다. 아직까지 세계에서 으뜸가는 해군력과 역사를 가지고 있다고 말할 수 없는 대한민국의 처지, 그리고 현재 방위의 목적으로 창설된 일본 해상자위대와 일본제국주의 해군의 역사를 동일시하는 그들의 역사적 인식에 대해 안타까움이 느껴졌습니다. 어쩌면 제가 민감하게 반응한 것일 수도 있지만 사세보에 주둔하고 있는 해상자위대와 미해군에 대해 좀더 연구하고 알아보고 싶다는 지적 호기심은 사세보 해상자위대자료관을 통해 시작되었습니다.

4. Waging a Nerve War in Asia-Pacific Theater_사세보 해상자위대자료관 사진 3. 사세보 미해군기지 공중 촬영 사진

다양한 자료들을 보고 종합해본 결과, 저는 사세보

미해군기지는 과거 그리고 현재까지 동북아의 안보와 힘의

균형에 영향을 미치는 중요한 존재라는 결론을 내리게

되었습니다. 물론 일본에 주둔하고 있는 미 7 태평양 함대의

주력은 오키나와(沖縄)와 요코스카(横須賀)에 위치하고 있지만

계속해서 변화하고 있는 동아시아의 정세, 그리고 중국의

팽창주의에 팍스 아메리카나(Pax A mericana)는 어떤 전략의

카드를 쥐고 있을지 의문입니다. 그렇다면 미국과 굳건한

동맹을 유지하고 있는 일본은 중국이 현재 적극적으로

영향력을 행사하고 있는 남중국해에 관련해 어떠한 생각을

가지고 있을까요?

사세보 해군기지의 중요성을 강조하기 위해서 미국과

중국이 아시아태평양이라는 무대에서 어떠한 것에 집중을 하고

있는지, 그리고 무엇 때문에 아시아태평양이 해상

영유권갈등의 중심지로 변화하였는지 조사해보았습니다.

마지막으로 일본의 사세보 해군기지가 왜 앞으로 전개될

미국과 중국의 영향력 싸움에 중요한 영향을 미칠게 될지

적어놓았습니다.

2 박 3 일 동안의 일본현장답사, 그리고 5 개월 동안의

토론과 배움을 통해 동아시아 군사적 국제정치의 방향을 현실주의 시각에서 풀어 보았습니다. 아직까지 많은 부족함이 있지만 저의 생각의 지평에서 바라보는 동아시아 국제정치의 시각이 앞으로 국제정치를 접할 사람들의 연구에 조금이라도 도움이 되길 희망합니다. 마지막으로 부족한 저를 이해하고 이끌어주셨던 하영선 선생님과 사랑방 9 기에게 감사함의 말씀을 전해드리고 싶습니다.

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_사세보 해상자위대자료관 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)

According to the

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_사세보 해상자위대자료관 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_사세보 해상자위대자료관

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_사세보 해상자위대자료관 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_사세보 해상자위대자료관 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_사세보 해상자위대자료관 (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_사세보 해상자위대자료관

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