JULY
12, 2019, 4:20 PM
Imagine
a globe-spanning economic and security project—with a cost of over a trillion
dollars and whose members encompass 46 percent of the global economy—designed
to advance the interests and influence of the lead state, even as it binds the
smaller ones into an asymmetric interdependence. Recipients get large economic
rewards for participating, but they will find it even more expensive to extract
themselves from the network in the long run.
Perhaps
one day, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which by the most generous
definition of membership encompasses 40 percent of the world economy in its
sprawling infrastructure initiatives, will live up to this description. But the
United States’ Joint Strike Fighter program, peddling the F-35 fighter jet,
already does, something the recent brinkmanship between
Turkey and the United States makes clearer than ever.
On
Friday, Ankara received the first parts of a Russian S-400 missile defense
system, which Washington says is incompatible with Turkey’s participation in
the F-35 consortium. The Department of Defense has already stopped
training Turkish pilots on the aircraft at Luke Air Force Base in
Arizona, and Congress is threatening to kick Turkey out of the program
entirely. In the worst-case scenario for Turkey, the United States can
apply various
sanctions on the country under the Countering America’s Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act, ranging from denying visas to restrictions on almost any
Turkish arms exports to banning access to U.S. financial institutions.
The
F-35, a highly capable fifth generation aircraft, has been rightly criticized
for being over budget, long delayed, and burdened with design flaws. Yet the
“jet that ate the Pentagon,” to use one critic’s biting
phrase, has yet to lose out to any other fighter in any formal procurement
competition. And whereas many countries can build a port, albeit not as cheaply
as China, building weapons is different. No other country has yet built a
high-end fighter like the F-35 at any price.
Modern
fighters require thousands of subcomponents drawn from many different
technologies and involving a dizzying supply chain. The upfront development
costs of the F-35 are staggering and can only be offset by purchasing large
quantities. And once a country has several F-35s in its fleet, switching
to a (less advanced) competitor is unappealing. Meanwhile, laggard
states—facing the prospect of potential rivals buying larger, more advanced
jets—will be pressured to join the winning program, leading to market
dominance.
China
has been criticized for using Belt and Road-related debt coercively, for
example by taking
overa Sri Lankan port lease for 99 years after the country failed to
repay a loan. And China’s Defense Minister recently
confirmed that the initiative has a military component. But the F-35
program goes far further. It makes a state’s very security reliant on the
United States for decades—and Washington uses that leverage. In 2005, it suspended Israel’s
access to the program in retaliation for Israel selling drone parts to China.
Israel quickly stopped those sales.
Turkey
is even more dependent on the F-35 network, because its own aviation industry
supplies a number of F-35 components. It would face major losses if the United
States cut Turkey off for good. Whereas the Pentagon estimates that finding
alternate domestic suppliers to replace Turkey will cause at most a few months’
delay, Turkish production lines will be unable to so easily adapt, putting at
risk the $12 billion in component parts business Turkey expected. That figure
may be a rounding error for the trillion-dollar F-35 program, but it is
equivalent to eight years’ worth of all Turkish aerospace exports. Erdogan will
thus pay a high
cost if he crosses the United States and persists in his purchase of
Russian weaponry.
Before
the United States stopped sending F-35s to Turkey in April, Belgium ordered 34
planes, Singapore took steps to order 40 to 60, and Japan increased an existing
order by 105, more than making up for Turkey’s 100. Meanwhile, although Italy’s
governing Five Star Movement ran on a platform of canceling the program, it has
since backed down. As Five Star’s junior defense minister reported to
parliament in December 2018, “It is obvious we cannot deprive our Air Force of
a great air capability that puts us ahead of many other countries.”
Relative
to the fighter network, Belt and Road’s optimistic projections cover a larger
landmass and more
countries, and—crucially—the initiative brands itself as a generator of
wealth and peaceful co-existence on a global scale. But Joint Strike Fighter
membership provides its own benefits in terms of prestige, access to technology
and subcontracts, and close security ties with the United States. Sovereign
states will balance these benefits against the potential for dependency—and
indeed which country they will have to depend upon. Perhaps Belt and Road wins
out in the future, but the current reality favors the U.S. version.
No comments:
Post a Comment