# The 5 Eyes - An alternative to NATO? A Match for China



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jul 2011)

I had an interesting discussion with a colleague the other day concerning China and its rise in the world.  We talked about how eventually... next 30 years, China will most likely be able to match the United States economically if not militarily; however, matching the 5 Eyes is an entirely different story.  

The thing that intrigues me the most about this is that realistically The US, Great Britain, Canada,  Australia, and New Zealand share remarkable similarities and for the most part have common interests in this world.  One of the biggest problems with NATO is the fact that there is a growing fracture among members into factions within the alliance.  On top of this the primary reason behind NATO's creation no longer exists.  The Soviet Union is no longer a state and the Russian Federation, no matter how much they pretend to be, are not the Soviet Union.  

So to start the discussion here, do the members of army.ca view the relationship between the US, Canada, the UK and Australia/New Zealand as increasingly important and is the 5 Eyes a realistic alternative to NATO in the future?


----------



## Sythen (8 Jul 2011)

Just curious why you call ABCA and New Zealand the "5 Eyes"?


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Just curious why you call ABCA and New Zealand the "5 Eyes"?



It is a commonly used term. Example of context is something classified secret eyes only CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ will be refered to as "Secret 5 eyes".


----------



## Sythen (8 Jul 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is a commonly used term. Example of context is something classified secret eyes only CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ will be refered to as "Secret 5 eyes".



Thanks. Never heard it before, so was just curious.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Thanks. Never heard it before, so was just curious.



Another example for the CF is some EW work, that is shared within only CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ.....it is often referred to as the "5 eyes community". There are many other applications of the term but always refers to these countries.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2011)

As far as the question goes, i don't think we should consider this as a "Leave NATO, focus on ABCA". Both have their uses and both have their drawbacks. 

In the Pacific, 5-eyes is dominated by the US just like NATO is. The other 4 countries don't have that much to offer in opposing China. Canada's military is not very large and lacks many assets needed to influence the region, New Zealand is in the same boat ( even lacks fighter aircraft of any sort) and UK military forces are shrinking fast.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jul 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> As far as the question goes, i don't think we should consider this as a "Leave NATO, focus on ABCA". Both have their uses and both have their drawbacks.
> 
> In the Pacific, 5-eyes is dominated by the US just like NATO is. The other 4 countries don't have that much to offer in opposing China. Canada's military is not very large and lacks many assets needed to influence the region, New Zealand is in the same boat ( even lacks fighter aircraft of any sort) and UK military forces are shrinking fast.



Potentially maybe the creation of a broader new Alliance is in order then?  Lets say one that includes Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, AUSNZ (I group them together because realistically they operate together), the UK, US, Canada etc.  I don't think eastern europe or even some countries like Spain and Portugal have even remotely the same values or strategic objectives that we do and I am thinking more in terms of 30 years from now.  I think our future and the US future lies not with Europe but with South east Asia and we need to re-orient our focus there.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2011)

Too large a group and you risk paralysis and inaction, or hamstrung coalitions with wildly varying degrees of national caveats.

Regular meetings to exchange ideas?  Good.

Coming together with ad hoc groupings as required?  Fine as well.

Standing alliances?  Look around Southern Afghanistan, see which NATO members are present, and then we can talk.


----------



## Webgear (8 Jul 2011)

I believe you will see more focus place on ABCA and the New Zealand in the future. I understand that certain elements of the military are shifting their OUTCAN positions to reflect this change for the 2012 APS.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Japan,



Japan would be a key partner but it is politicly difficult. Remember that they do not actual armed forces and who they can play with at this time is limited. Bilateral cooperation between the US and Japan is one thing, multilateral cooperation or even military cooperation with single other nations is more sensitive.


----------



## kawa11 (8 Jul 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> I had an interesting discussion with a colleague the other day concerning China and its rise in the world.  We talked about how eventually... next 30 years, *China will most likely be able to match the United States economically if not militarily*; however, matching the 5 Eyes is an entirely different story.


Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the PLA already 50% bigger than the USAF - with the potential to "conscript" a military equal to the entire US population?

I always thought China was the last remaining "Super power."
Their economy is one of the biggest in the world, their workforce [I believe] is the biggest. Tonnes of farmers, commercial prospect, low taxes and a strangle hold on precious metals used in electronics..
They export whatever they don't use and import very little.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2011)

kawa11 said:
			
		

> a strangle hold on precious metals used in electronics..



Not quite. While China certainly has a hold on current production of Rare Earths, it does not have a stranglehold on supply. Rare Earths are far from "rare" and many nations have plans for their own production.


----------



## kawa11 (8 Jul 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not quite. While China certainly has a hold on current production of Rare Earths, it does not have a stranglehold on supply. Rare Earths are far from "rare" and many nations have plans for their own production.



[quote author= Wikipedia]Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust[/quote]
Damn misleading titles.

I used the example based on recent news stories about how China will begin building their own stockpiles over the next few years and everyone else is scrambling to find ways to extract it efficiently.

Furthermore, from Wiki:
[quote author= Wikipedia]China now produces over 97% of the world's rare earth supply, mostly in Inner Mongolia[/quote]


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jul 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Too large a group and you risk paralysis and inaction, or hamstrung coalitions with wildly varying degrees of national caveats.


Agreed. 
Hell, why not re-create SEATO? It didn't work the first time; much like the League of Nations failure was re-created as the equally useless UN.

Individual national interests seldom translate well into effectively functional standing organizations (in the absence of a clear and common threat).


----------



## CougarKing (9 Jul 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> Hell, why not re-create SEATO? It didn't work the first time; much like the League of Nations failure was re-created as the equally useless UN.
> 
> Individual national interests seldom translate well into effectively functional standing organizations (in the absence of a clear and common threat).



Isn't there already a lot of cooperation among the aforementioned nations in this thread through military exercises without the need for a formal alliance? Isn't the latest article below an example? What about annual the CARAT and Cobra Gold exercises in the Pacific?

Granted, aside from the now defunct SEATO, you have the ANZUS pact (US, Australia, NZ) and then you have the Five Powers Defence Agreements (FPDA, which includes the UK, Australia, NZ, Malaysia and Singapore) as other examples of alliances in the Asia-Pacific region. 

But would a bigger multilateral organization offer significant advantages over these alliances or even over bilateral security agreements that the US already has with Japan, Thailand, the Philippines and South Korea? 



> *US, Japan, Australia plan West Philippine Sea drill*
> 
> Agence France-Presse
> 7:47 pm | Friday, July 8th, 2011
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jul 2011)

For some insights from an Australian perspective, their journal, _Security Challenges_, is available online. The Winter 2010 edition in particular has a series of articles on tensions in the South China Sea.

As noted by John Hemmings in a recent RUSI Journal article,1 the Aussies are between the rock and the hard place having to balance their key security ally (USA) and their largest trading partner (China).

-----------------
1. John Hemmings, "The Potential for Sino‐US Discord in the South China Sea," _Royal United Services Institute Journal_, Vol. 156, No. 2, April/May 2011, 90–95.



[/academic geekness]


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2011)

See here for some five year old thoughts on the topic.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2011)

This idea has also been floated under the term "Anglosphere", which I encourage you to look up both here in Army.ca and on Google.


----------



## cobbler (10 Jul 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Potentially maybe the creation of a broader new Alliance is in order then?  Lets say one that includes Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, *AUSNZ (I group them together because realistically they operate together), * the UK, US, Canada etc.  I don't think eastern europe or even some countries like Spain and Portugal have even remotely the same values or strategic objectives that we do and I am thinking more in terms of 30 years from now.  I think our future and the US future lies not with Europe but with South east Asia and we need to re-orient our focus there.



Just have to put my 2 Aust Cents here: All those countries operate together. But none of the others you group together. Because they are all different nations, with different militaries, governed by different governments, with some markedly different diplomatic approaches. 
Just as all the others mentioned in this thread, Australia and NZ are not one conjoined state.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2011)

The premise, that China and some US led 'grouping' need to 'match' one another militarily is, in my opinion, faulty.

China will, likely, become the world's dominant single economy - but not until after it has overcome some serious domestic, structural problems. China will, during and after that _rise_, want to compete with all comers (America, Europe, India, etc) in a variety of arenas: economic, social, political and, to some degree, militarily. But, in my view, the Chinese are following a fairly long term, strategic plan which has *Soft Power* as its centrepiece. (Unlike e.g. Canada in the Trudeau/Chrétien era, China understands what soft power is and how it works - they especially understand, as Pink Lloyd Axworthy and his Liberal colleagues never did, that soft power exists only when it grows on a firm base of hard, military power.) Thus, China will continue to expand and improve its hard power, but not, I think, in any way attempting to 'match' the USA. In fact, my _guesstimate_, China wants the USA to continue to spend wildly on defence - every dollar the USA spends on being the world's unchallenged policeman, wanted or not, is a dollar that cannot be spent on the areas where China does intend to surpass the USA: politics, economics and culture.

We, the entire non-Chinese 'world' need to make ourselves ready to cope with the inevitable rise of a huge, increasingly well educated, entrepreneurial and sophisticated nation: China. We will not be challenged militarily but China will aim to _defeat_ us with their soft power.

Our main weapons are our banks, movie studios, symphony orchestras, universities and so on - all supported from a firm base of enough hard power to do more than just a fair share of preventing the chaos that infects so many countries, today. But we need to force the Chinese to share that burden; that, not more aircraft carriers will disrupt their master plan.


----------



## CougarKing (10 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The premise, that China and some US led 'grouping' need to 'match' one another militarily is, in my opinion, faulty.



Furthermore, wouldn't such a grouping force China to form another alliance as a response to this?

We all probably remember the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) or the "Shanghai Six/Seven grouping" which includes China, Russia as well as a number of Central Asian states that are former Soviet satellites, such as Kazakhstan. As mentioned before, these nations made this grouping over common internal security concerns (e.g. unrest from militants in China's Xinjiang region).

Aside from the SCO, China might pursue its own Pacific Rim alliance in response to any of the aforementioned Western/Southeast Asian groupings. Such an alliance may include traditional allies/client states in the region such as Myanmar (Burma), North Korea and Cambodia (not sure about Laos). (The other Communist/totalitarian state in ASEAN, Vietnam, still distrusts China due to the Feb. 1979 abortive Chinese invasion and because of numerous border clashes during 1980s, even if there have been concliatory moves between them in the 1990s.)


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Jul 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is a commonly used term. Example of context is something classified secret eyes only CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ will be refered to as "Secret 5 eyes".



"4 Eyes" - AUS/CA/UK/US
"3 Eyes" - CA/UK/US


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2011)

The Anglosphere group has massive amounts of political, economic and cultural power. The United States and India produce over 3000 movies per year combined, for example, and much of the global internet content is created in the Anglosphere as well. India's middle class population is the same size as the entire population of the United States, and all Anglosphere nations have substantial middle class components capable of powering both the investment that drives the economy as well as consumption.

Honouraries like the Netherlands and Japan for an Anglosphere+ just give the Anglosphere group even greater advantages in terms of political, economic and cultural power. Now the Anglosphere does not need to be a formal alliance or group like the G-8 or NATO, but considering we have common interests and backgrounds, it makes sense to focus our own political and economic efforts on fellow Anglosphere nations, as well as building formal and informal links between our fellow Anglosphere nations so we can deal with issues (or even form "Tiger Teams" for pressing issues as they arise).


----------



## PanaEng (10 Jul 2011)

I believe the term "Eyes" is just an evolution of the "I" as in the 5 Intelligence organizations of the allied English nations (CAN/US/UK/AUS/NZ) immediately  after WWII and which included the newly formed civilian organizations, not just the military apparatus.

Anyway, we've been living in a poly-amorous relationships with one another (redundant, I know) for the last 50+ years, why spoil the party by getting 'officially'  hitched?

cheers,
Frank


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Anglosphere group has massive amounts of political, economic and cultural power. The United States and India produce over 3000 movies per year combined, for example, and much of the global internet content is created in the Anglosphere as well. India's middle class population is the same size as the entire population of the United States, and all Anglosphere nations have substantial middle class components capable of powering both the investment that drives the economy as well as consumption.



Interesting that you added India to the mix.  I am actually convinced that China will implode, and perhaps even sooner that The US will - and India will be there to pick up the slack.  India will have a larger population that China within the next 30 years (IIRC), has a true middle class, strong domestic demand, and has been a democracy for some 60 years now.  If this was horse rate, \I 'd be betting on them.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Jul 2011)

The economic collapse of the US would have international implications and could push the world into depression,which would also impact China's export industry.
If the US can cut spending and keep a robust defense posture,then our natural allies in the Pacific are Japan,the ROK and Australia. China probably see India as their #2 threat,maybe #1 due to proximity.It is in their interest to see India destabilized so that their military is focused on internal threats and Pakistan.


----------



## CougarKing (13 Jul 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If the US can cut spending and keep a robust defense posture,then our natural allies in the Pacific are Japan,the ROK and Australia.



What about Thailand and the Philippines?

You're probably wary of the Philippines because their government told US troops to leave their bases like Subic naval base and Clark airbase in 1992, though in recent years their military has been exercising with US troops. There's even a small contingent of US troops in the Southern Philippines, who are mainly advisors (in the Philippines' war against Islamic seperatists) and engineers. Their government has always been traditionally friendly to the US though, apart from being a former US territory; their military capabilities, such as the lack of suitable modern fighter jets and modern warships, leave something to be desired, especially with the recent dispute over the Spratley Islands against China. 

You might be wary of Thailand as well considering how their government has switched from Thaksin/Redshirt supporters to Abhisit/Yellowshirt supporters and back again to Redshirt supporters under Thaksin's sister, who was just elected as Prime Minister. But that political instability didn't seem to stop US forces from execising with them in the latest Cobra Gold exericse.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2011)

Thailand and the Philippines are second tier allies, and since they don't have the close cultural linkages of the Anglosphere group, would probably end up pulling in different directions based on their own national self interest (which would be rather different from ours). It is ok to think of them as allies so long as we remember potential limitations and liabilities.

As far as China is concerned, nations like Korea and Japan (and to a lesser extent Indonesia and the Phillippines) form a sort of outer barrier. In the current political climate, they are barriers to Chinese outward expansion into the seas; ideally, they will become Chinese clients and protect China from threats from the sea.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jul 2011)

It is unlikely that Japan would ever join a PRC alliance.Too much historical enmity. The counter to Chinese expansion is the USN. If there is a weak US government then the entire region would be under the influence of China.What country is going to fight the Chinese over the Spratley's ?


----------



## CougarKing (15 Jul 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What country is going to fight the Chinese over the Spratley's ?



All those nations who have territorial claims on the Spratleys:

Note that the islets/outposts the Vietnamese occupy (22), while China occupies 10. 

The Philippines comes in at third at 8. These three nations have exchanged shots/skirmished with each other in the past over this area.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jul 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It is unlikely that Japan would ever join a PRC alliance.Too much historical enmity. The counter to Chinese expansion is the USN. If there is a weak US government then the entire region would be under the influence of China.What country is going to fight the Chinese over the Spratley's ?



Japan would not have to ba an allied nation, simply a client state which is beholden to China rather than a US ally. Taiwan should also be absorbed into China as a part of turning the ring of nations into a shield rather than a barrier to outward expansion. If there is a need to fight, the USN will have to pass a number of "unsinkable aircraft carriers" through a series of choke points while under attack by large numbers of submarines, aircraft and missiles, a very difficult proposition at best. Far better to hand the Chinese some difficult problems to attract their attention and resources instead, as Edward suggests.

The problem with things like the Spratley's is the situation could spiral out of control since the number of players is so large, the stakes are high and the interests are overlapping but mutually exclusive. Since China does not have much of a blue water navy or force projection capability (yet), some of the other players might see a window of opportunity to stake claims before they can be effectively shut out.


----------



## CougarKing (16 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Taiwan should also be absorbed into China as a part of turning the ring of nations into a shield rather than a barrier to outward expansion.



As discussed before in the China superthread, while some would say that reunification is inevitable between Taiwan and the mainland because of more integrated economic links as well as recent overtures between Taipei and Beijing, there will still be significant resistance within Taiwan to the mainland to the very end. The historical experience of the native Taiwanese/_ben sheng ren_, under both the Japanese colonial period from 1895-1945, as well as under _Guomindang_ during the Cold War/martial law years, cannot simply be ignored and will continue to be a justification that Taiwan opposition parties would use to delay this unification.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jul 2011)

Anglo-centric as ever I find an analogous situation with the Channel Islands (Alderney, Guernsey, Jersey,Sark) .....little chunks of Britain off the coast of France.  France has wanted them for centuries to act as a buffer against Britain.  Jacques Cartier had to sail through them to get from St-Malo to Canada.  But despite France wanting them they remained firmly Pro-British in allegiance (or perhaps it might be more appropriate to say Anti-French).

I see Japan, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia as analogues to the Channel Islands in the discussions between China and the US.  China, like France, wants them but historical antipathy to the near neighbour is greater than antipathy towards the distant foreigner.

Britain has kept them as friendly "clients" since the middle ages by not interfering in their ancient governance.  They recognize the Queen as their Head of State but they have their own independent, feudal, government.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jul 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Britain has kept them as friendly "clients" since the middle ages by not interfering in their ancient governance.  They recognize the Queen as their Head of State but they have their own independent, feudal, government.



Kinda like us, huh?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jul 2011)

They've had a lot of practice.... ;D


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jul 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It is unlikely that Japan would ever join a PRC alliance.Too much historical enmity.



Like Britain and France, or France and Germany?


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Jul 2011)

The PRC are communists and the other nations you mentioned are not - at least at the moment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jul 2011)

'Communist' is a loaded word. The PRC is governed by the Chinese Communist Party but _communist_ implies a certain set of economic programmes like state own enterprises and a high degree of collectivization.

China does, still, have (too many) state owned enterprises but they are becoming increasingly rare - the rate at which they are disappearing is too slow but it is kept that way because the Chinese fear unemployment more than almost anything else.

There is very little _collectivism_ left in China. It was never popular and, much more than in the old USSR, had to be imposed and enforced.

It many respects, at least in the East Coast provinces, China is no longer even _socialist_, except in name.

But there are several Chinas: each with its own past and future. Shanghai/Beijing are "leading change" but it is not clear, not to me, at least, that everyone else can or will follow.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jul 2011)

I guess what I am saying is that the PRC has a potent and growing Navy making it a regional power that Vietnam,the PI or any other country in the region would have difficulty defeating. Japan and the US are China's only obstacle to dominating the region from a naval point of view.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jul 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I guess what I am saying is that the PRC has a potent and growing Navy making it a regional power that Vietnam,the PI or any other country in the region would have difficulty defeating. Japan and the US are China's only obstacle to dominating the region from a naval point of view.




I agree. I think China's longer term goal is to displace the USA as the dominant naval power in the Western Pacific and the China Seas. Even longer term, China wants the USA off the Asian mainland - out of Korea and away from Taiwan.

Sino-Japanese relations are very, very complex: there are millennia, literally, of shared history - some of it fruitful, much bad. I think the Chinese want Japan to be a client but will settle, pretty happily, for Japan being further separated from the USA.

China has ancient "claims" on _Indo-China_ and it perceives the Philippines and Indonesia as "junior" members of the _Sinic_ community.

China must, always, look three way: North-West towards Russia, their "ancient enemy;" South-West towards India, the other "rising great power;" and East, towards the USA - the country it wants to displace in the world.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....China must, always, look three way: North-West towards Russia, their "ancient enemy;" South-West towards India, the other "rising great power;" and East, towards the USA - the country it wants to displace in the world.



Does China have any natural friends amongst its neighbours?  Surely, after millenia of existence I they (Edit: Freudian Slip  ;D)  must have learned how to get along with some of the neighbours?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jul 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Does China have any natural friends amongst its neighbours?  No. Surely, after millenia of existence I must have learned how to get along with some of the neighbours? Quite the contrary ...




... The Chines have, for 2,500 years looked upon their neighbours, indeed the whole non-Chinese world, as barbarians or, at least, less than wholly 'civilized' people. Even when the Chinese first practiced "soft power," about 1,500 years ago, the results were poor - they could not stop at exporting Chinese culture to e.g. Japan, they had to try to impose more: imperial government and so on.

Plus, in the 21st century, the Chinese are big, Big *BIG* and their neighbours are, naturally, fearful. Consider our relationship with the USA (1:10) and then consider how e.g. Viet Nam feels at a ratio of 1:15.


----------

