South China Sea and China (2011-2017) [Archive] - Page 3

carl

08-04-2012, 02:09 PM

Dayuhan: You stated above that nobody is challenging freedom of navigation. That is not true. The Red Chinese claim sovereignty over the South China Sea. One of the things sovereignty means is you get to set the rules within the area over which you are sovereign. If you are not interested in telling people what to do within a said area, why would you care if you had sovereignty or not? And the Red Chinese seem to care about that quite a bit, which is why they keep slicing that salami (thank you Mr. Haddick).

Now being that the Red Chinese are a bunch or right bastards for whom lying, cheating, stealing, torturing and killing are common instruments used within areas over which they have sovereignty and given their history over the whole existence of the Party in every area in which they've ruled, I think it inevitable that if they gain sovereignty over the South China Sea, navigation will be restricted at the whim of the Party.

You are right that wars start when one side won't back down. The Red Chinese should back down in the interests of peace since they are the aggressors in this. And besides those Viets are pretty feisty, if the Vietnamese government wants to avoid internal problems, they may be forced to fight by public opinion if the Red Chinese keep pushing. The best thing to do would be for the Red Chinese to back off and avoid provoking the Vietnamese populace beyond tolerance.

Finally (or not) regardless of how independent the Viets or the Malaysians or the Japanese are, not one of them would be doing anything but asking the Central Committee how high they should jump if the USN didn't exist. Anything they do at all contrary to Red Chinese wishes is because of the existence of the US and the USN.

Ray

08-05-2012, 06:43 AM

China calls in U.S. diplomat over South China Sea

BEIJING (Reuters) - China's Foreign Ministry has called in a senior U.S. diplomat to protest remarks by the U.S. State Department raising concerns over tensions in the disputed South China Sea, in the latest political spat between the two countries.
In a statement released late on Saturday, China's Foreign Ministry said Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Kunsheng summoned the U.S. Embassy's Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Wang to make "serious representations" about the issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-calls-u-diplomat-over-south-china-sea-013307250--business.html

I wonder why is China so het up with the US when all the US is trying to do is ensure the freedom of navigation and nothing more.

In fact, the US has not interfered in the spat China is having with ALL its neighbours, as Dayuhan has been repeatedly stating!

Ray

08-05-2012, 06:49 AM

I wasn't trying very hard. I'm sure it's reasonable to say that India will no longer rely exclusively on Russian hardware (even the Russians don't want to rely exclusively on Russian hardware, buying ships from France and all...), bur "Russian hardware is history" seems a bit of an exaggeration.

Surprising you were not trying hard.

You usual try very hard to exhibit your views.

If one compares what was the Russian inflow vs the inflow of military hardware from non Russian sources earlier, to what is happening now, one would realise that it has become 'history'.. Sadly that cannot be changed just to prove that you are right.

I would take it that it would be immensely foolish of any country, India in particular in this case, to abandon, having paid good money, the deals done earlier or the various collaborations.

Out of curiosity... is that actual manufacturing, or assembly of imported components?

What category would you place Transfer of Technology and then manufacturing?

Bill Moore

08-05-2012, 05:31 PM

Ray

08-05-2012, 05:46 PM

It will be a chaotic scene.

China has to placate the Shia (namely Iran) and Syria is under the Shia regime.

It helps China to play along with the Shia countries (of course, without upsetting the Sunnis) so that there is a continuous belt of influence from West Afghanistan to Eastern Saudi Arabia (where I believe most of the oil lies).

ganulv

08-05-2012, 06:56 PM

China has to placate the Shia (namely Iran) and Syria is under the Shia regime.

It helps China to play along with the Shia countries (of course, without upsetting the Sunnis) so that there is a continuous belt of influence from West Afghanistan to Eastern Saudi Arabia (where I believe most of the oil lies).

Shia Muslims are in the demographic majority in four countries: Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Bahrain. The government of Bahrain is headed by a Sunni, an inversion of the Syrian situation. I am not an area expert, but my impression is that notions of Shia influence tend to be undertheorized when noted at all. Some things to take into account would include:

Percentage of all Muslims whom are Shia (I don’t know that a consensus exists, but you’ll often see figures somewhere in the range of 10%–20%).
Percentage of (a) national population(s) made up of Shia Muslims.
Number of Shia Muslims within a national population (there are roughly as many Shia Muslims residing in India as in Iraq, for example).
Whether a national government can reasonably be said to be Shia-dominated.

It would probably also be worthwhile to formulate some bullet points at the sub-national level and to note their potential for interaction with national demographics and governance. Like I said, I am no area or subject matter expert here, so take it for what it’s worth.

carl

08-05-2012, 08:30 PM

Bill:

I don't think introduction of various multinational oil companies really changes the nature of the problem in the South China Sea. It is still, at its base, about which country controls what. The Red Chinese want it all and giving an oil lease in territory Vietnam says is Vietnamese is just another marker thrown down. Last time an islet, the time before that fishing rights, this time oil leases. All are just more slices of salami.

The blog article by Robert Haddick on the possible Red Chinese strategy is very good.

Bill Moore

08-05-2012, 11:26 PM

Carl,

Multinationals are not new player there, but I think they add complexity to the problem. Consider if an Exxon or BP ship conducting exploratory work is challenged (or worse) my one of the regional Navies. Perhaps not probable, but what if Exxon is drilling in area XX for China and the Vietnamese Navy fires warning shots at them. In response the PLAN responds to provide protection. Now we potentially have the aggressor China who facilitated illegal exploration providing protection to a multinational that I believe is predominantly U.S.. You don't think that would influence the strategic decision making for all concerned? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this move seems intended to do just that.

Dayuhan

08-06-2012, 12:05 AM

I can't help but wonder if China views the troubles in Syria as positive if it delays or prevents the U.S. military's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. Assuming that is true, what actions would the Chinese take to foment more trouble in the region other than being an objectionist in the UN?

I don't think the Chinese are likely to make troubkle in the Middle East. Trouble in the Middle East typically means higher oil prices and potentially even interruptions; they are major buyers and they have a strong vested interest in not rocking that boat. Of course they are also opportunists, and if we give them a chance to score a propaganda point or two, they'll take it.

Nightwatch recently reported that the China National Offshore Oil Corp invited foreign firms to bid on oil blocks that encroach on territory being explored by Vietnam.

Interesting approach, you get multinational corporations involved in the disputed areas and it changes the decision calculus for external actors who potentially benefit from this business venture.

I suspect the Philippines and Vietnam are doing the same thing. The question I have is, does internationalizing the situation by bringing multinationals into the fray increase or decrease the risk of conflict?

The Philippines put several blocks up for bidding in the last few weeks, and the Vietnamese have done the same in the past. These are exploration contracts and the major multinationals are generally not involved; the bidders are generally smaller exploration-focused companies. The major players won't come in unless initial surveys yield positive results.

It will be a chaotic scene.

China has to placate the Shia (namely Iran) and Syria is under the Shia regime.

The Middle East is always a chaotic scene, but why would China have to placate Iran? More the other way around... with sanctions in place China is one of the only major buyers willing to take Iran's oil and gas and one of their only suppliers for arms and many other goods. Iran needs China way more than China needs Iran.

carl

08-06-2012, 12:38 AM

Bill:

Dayuhan makes a good point that the exploration is likely to be done by smaller companies. But small or large company, I don't see the situation you describe as being likely to develop because the companies aren't going dispatch rigs and ships unless they are very confident that they aren't going to end up targets. If I was running one of the companies it would be difficult to explain to shareholders, board members and creditors why I sent very expensive rigs and crews someplace where they were emulating half of Jones' pronouncement-slow ships going into harm's way.

Now if it were a Red Chinese or Vietnamese company that would be different.

Dayuhan

08-06-2012, 01:13 AM

Dayuhan: You stated above that nobody is challenging freedom of navigation. That is not true. The Red Chinese claim sovereignty over the South China Sea.

If sovereignty is a de facto challenge to freedom of navigation, then Egypt is challenging navigation in the Suez Canal and Panama in the Panama Canal. Much of China's oil passes through the sovereign waters of Indonesia and the Philippines. Of course you're welcome to say that sovereignty is a challenge to freedom of navigation only when the sovereign power is one you dislike, but it will be tough to justify that in any international forum, or justify a claim that sovereignty or a claim of sovereignty is in itself a challenge to freedom of navigation.

Now being that the Red Chinese are a bunch or right bastards for whom lying, cheating, stealing, torturing and killing are common instruments used within areas over which they have sovereignty and given their history over the whole existence of the Party in every area in which they've ruled

We can use that line domestically, but if we try to use it to justify actions in any international forum we're likely to be reminded of our own track record of bullying, sanctioning, bombing, invading etc to get our way. We may see this as good standing up to evil, but to much of the world, and even in SE Asia, it's more about two large dangerous self-interested powers seeking their own advantage. The smaller players will try to use that to their advantage and will try to stay out of the way if it comes to blows, but don't expect anyone to buy into our propaganda.

You are right that wars start when one side won't back down. The Red Chinese should back down in the interests of peace since they are the aggressors in this.

I think they should back down and I would love to see them back down, but since they aren't going to back down, what you or I think they should do is pretty much a moot point. Ordering them to back down is only going to make them less likely to be reasonable, so I don't see much point in it. Again, the thing that needs to be recognized about this situation is that nobody's willing to back down, but nobody wants to fight either. That makes for an awkward status quo, but blustering in trying to force a resolution is more likely to provoke conflict than to alleviate it. In reality the SCS is disputed and will remain disputed for some time. We're not going to change that.

If we want to influence Chinese behavior we should be looking less to military threats than the possibility of economic and financial moves, which they know we might actually use (they know we aren't going to war over fishing and resource exploration rights in the SCS) and which are likely to cause them more problems than saber-rattling.

And besides those Viets are pretty feisty, if the Vietnamese government wants to avoid internal problems, they may be forced to fight by public opinion if the Red Chinese keep pushing. The best thing to do would be for the Red Chinese to back off and avoid provoking the Vietnamese populace beyond tolerance.

I don't think the Chinese have any desire at all to provoke an armed confrontation with Vietnam

Finally (or not) regardless of how independent the Viets or the Malaysians or the Japanese are, not one of them would be doing anything but asking the Central Committee how high they should jump if the USN didn't exist. Anything they do at all contrary to Red Chinese wishes is because of the existence of the US and the USN.

I don't see any reason to make that assumption, but you're welcome to make it if it pleases you. The Vietnamese certainly know the US isn't likely to help them out in any confrontation, and they've known it all along. Even the Filipinos are figuring it out.

Bill Moore

08-06-2012, 01:51 AM

Posted by Dayuhan

I don't think the Chinese are likely to make troubkle in the Middle East. Trouble in the Middle East typically means higher oil prices and potentially even interruptions; they are major buyers and they have a strong vested interest in not rocking that boat. Of course they are also opportunists, and if we give them a chance to score a propaganda point or two, they'll take it.

Applying simple logic based on your personal perception of the matter doesn't reflect China's strategic outlook. It is much more complex than this, and as China has demonstrated this past year they have no problem rocking the boat. This is wishful thinking not reflected in China's strategic behavior.

Posted by Carl

Dayuhan makes a good point that the exploration is likely to be done by smaller companies. But small or large company, I don't see the situation you describe as being likely to develop because the companies aren't going dispatch rigs and ships unless they are very confident that they aren't going to end up targets. If I was running one of the companies it would be difficult to explain to shareholders, board members and creditors why I sent very expensive rigs and crews someplace where they were emulating half of Jones' pronouncement-slow ships going into harm's way.

Yes and no, I have been in a lot of conflict zones and there was never a shortage of major oil companies being present. They'll take the risk if they think the profit is sufficient. The fact that Exxon is making a deal with Kurds against the wishes of Baghdad is putting their southern assets at risk, but Exxon publically stated they think the risk is worth it. They have to compete with other oil companies to get their claims/bids in, which appears to force them to move faster and accept more risk, or assume the greater risk of not being able to produce oil there. Oil companies have been attacked several times by terrorists in the Middle East, North Africa, West Africa, South America, and even in SE Asia, not to mention pirates, etc. These companies will definitely take on risk up to a point.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-southchinasea-china-idUSBRE8701LM20120801

Analysis: China unveils oil offensive in South China Sea squabble

"The Chinese government's stance is clearer than ever ... They want to take on and develop this region," said an executive at a global oil major, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

"China's view is that the little countries, like Vietnam and the Philippines, are increasingly stealing its resources and it must demonstrate it is serious about upholding its claims," said Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

"There are hundreds of independent upstream companies in the world willing to go anywhere for a small volume of oil to turn a profit," said Kang Wu, managing director of consultancy FACTS Global Energy.

"Companies will go to the disputed South China Sea and rely on the Chinese government to protect them and ensure that drilling is safe. If they cannot get those guarantees, then they don't drill, don't spend a penny, and don't lose."

Read the entire article, it provides some useful insights. This is exactly what I was making reference to, American companies, among other others, asking for Chinese protection.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-27/vietnam-warns-china-to-halt-oil-bids-in-area-awarded-to-exxon

Vietnam Warns China to Halt Oil Bids in Exxon-Awarded Area

PetroVietnam will “unwaveringly oppose” any foreign companies that sign contracts with China to explore for oil in the nine areas, Hau said. “The Vietnamese government will not allow any implementation of these exploration activities.”

“This is one way for China to assert its maritime territory,” he said by phone. “There’s probably more to come. Domestic pressure was building up so they had to do something.”

China’s blocks overlap with Vietnamese areas that have been awarded to Exxon, Moscow-based Gazprom (OGZD), India’s Oil & Natural Gas Corp. and Talisman Energy Inc. (TLM), according to a PetroVietnam map shown to reporters in Hanoi.

Exxon has not responded to querry yet.

Dayuhan

08-06-2012, 02:42 AM

Applying simple logic based on your personal perception of the matter doesn't reflect China's strategic outlook. It is much more complex than this, and as China has demonstrated this past year they have no problem rocking the boat. This is wishful thinking not reflected in China's strategic behavior.

I didn't say I don't think the Chinese are willing to rock boats, I said I don't expect to see them rocking boats in the Middle East. Like anyone else, their choice of rocking or not rocking will be based on perceptions of profit, loss, and risk. The risk in rocking boats in the Middle East is high, given China's dependence on imported oil: even if they aren't specifically dependent on oil from the Middle East, any interruption in oil supplies from the Middle East will send their import bill through the roof. What do they stand to gain that would warrant that risk?

Also worth noting that outside their own immediate neighborhood, the Chinese have actually been pretty restrained about meddling in other people's affairs... unlike some other global powers. Is there any tangible evidence of Chinese boat-rocking in the Middle East?

carl

08-06-2012, 03:33 AM

Dayuhan:

Believe or not, but when somebody builds an argument to make a point, as I did in post #504, you are supposed to respond to the point being made. You are not supposed to pull out individual sentences to create points pleasing to you then address those. Noooo, for that is illegitimate argument.

Now I will admit that my point took two paragraphs to explicate and there are some who would have been confused by that. But you were not. You just created something that wasn't and proceeded. Clever in cocktail parties and the women probably flutter their eyelids or maybe even swoon but of little real value. Please address the point.

If I am ever called upon to teach an English, writing or rhetoric class, I am going to use your comparing the Suez and Panama Canals to the South China Sea, as far as sovereignty and freedom of navigation on the high seas go, as a most perfect example of comparing apples to oranges, or maybe apples to left-handed monkey wrenches. I must cut it out, the students will see it straight away.

You think we should appease the Red Chinese. I don't. You think that will pay in the long run. I think it won't. That is the heart of our disagreement.

You're right, the Red Chinese have no intention of provoking and armed confrontation with Vietnam. Their intention is to get what they want by using the salami strategy Mr. Hakkick outlined thereby avoiding fighting. They are taking a calculated risk though. If they figure wrong and the Vietnamese get their backs up, there will be fighting, even though the Red Chinese didn't intend for it to happen. Armed robbers generally arm themselves because they have no intention of there being a tussle with the victim. Doesn't always work out that way.

If you can't see how the mere existence of the USN and decades and decades of an American policy of seeing that freedom of navigation be preserved upon the high seas is what allows the smaller countries around Red China to even think about resisting, if you can't see that old Sir...there ain't no getting through to you.

carl

08-06-2012, 03:58 AM

Bill:

I read both articles. I think they might be cited as well to say that these companies don't want to go in until the situation is resolved as to say that they are willing to push it in order to get in first. One of the articles seemed to say that even when blocks are awarded exploration is not being made because the situation is too dicey.

You have much more experience in conflict zones than I but I wonder if a terrestrial conflict zone is the same as a maritime one. Things may be different when at sea and possibly subject to the attentions of warships. I am not trying to be a smart aleck when saying this, it just seems that this kind of thing might be very different.

The Reuters article said the Red Chinese state oil company, the CNOOC, views one of their drilling rigs thusly "CNOOC has described the vessel as "mobile national territory". That is a bit alarming, since that rig can be moved almost anywhere and that anywhere is then viewed as Red Chinese national territory. That is the kind of thing I was meant when I mentioned how a state run oil company is different from the other oil companies when it comes to roaming around in disputed waters.

Bill Moore

08-06-2012, 07:42 AM

I read both articles. I think they might be cited as well to say that these companies don't want to go in until the situation is resolved as to say that they are willing to push it in order to get in first. One of the articles seemed to say that even when blocks are awarded exploration is not being made because the situation is too dicey.

Carl, I agree with what you stated, but some of these companies are already there. And as you pointed out there may be no intention of escalating to hostilities, but it can still happen, and perhaps is more likely to happen the more they challenge each other with these contracts over the same piece of water.

To clarify I have no experience in these maritime matters, so I'm not sure how they differ from say a disputed land border. Suspect it is a little bit harder to occupy a piece of water that doesn't have an island or shoal in the vicinity there of, but as you pointed out.

CNOOC, views one of their drilling rigs thusly "CNOOC has described the vessel as "mobile national territory".

Ray

08-06-2012, 06:30 PM

China lambasts US over South China Sea row
Beijing accuses Washington's intervention in the region of 'fanning the flames and provoking division'

Analysts fear the South China Sea has become a major potential flashpoint, as tensions have risen sharply between China – which claims almost all the sea – and Vietnam and the Philippines. Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia also lay claim to parts of the sea, which contains valuable energy reserves and fisheries and sees an estimated $5 trillion of cargo – half the world's shipping tonnage – pass through its sea lanes annually...

No one wants military conflict, not only because of the inevitable disruption of trade. The smaller countries would have to take on mighty China, while such a conflict "would undermine [Beijing's] peaceful rise thesis, cause irreparable damage to its image and foreign policy in Asia and push other countries far closer to the US....

Yet should it come to an exchange of fire, even the US could feel compelled to become involved – with great reluctance – to defend its credibility as an ally not only to the Philippines but countries across Asia, argued Medcalf.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/06/china-us-south-china-sea?newsfeed=true

Ray

08-06-2012, 07:01 PM

The issue is whether it is Washington's intervention in the region of 'fanning the flames and provoking division' or is China angered that it is not allowed it historical imperialist expansion to continue and continue now with concocted history which are more of fables than reality.

I am sure the China expert and their supporters would clarify this conundrum for the western media is so biased against China which remains ever so benign and so bravely takes the flak with great compassion!

Dayuhan

08-06-2012, 09:46 PM

Believe or not, but when somebody builds an argument to make a point, as I did in post #504, you are supposed to respond to the point being made. You are not supposed to pull out individual sentences to create points pleasing to you then address those.

The point is simply that while the idea that a claim of sovereignty constitutes de facto interference with freedom of navigation may be arguable here, it won't stand up as a casus belli either domestically or internationally. Your own ideas about the US and China as the literal incarnations of good and evil respectively are of course something you're entitled to hold, but you have to realize that in much of the world that perception isn't shared.

You think we should appease the Red Chinese. I don't.

Only if you think that anything other than confrontation is appeasement.

You're right, the Red Chinese have no intention of provoking and armed confrontation with Vietnam. Their intention is to get what they want by using the salami strategy Mr. Hakkick outlined thereby avoiding fighting. They are taking a calculated risk though. If they figure wrong and the Vietnamese get their backs up, there will be fighting, even though the Red Chinese didn't intend for it to happen.

I don't sisagree with that, but I don't see how a blustering confrontational approach is going to do anything beyond making it worse.

If you can't see how the mere existence of the USN and decades and decades of an American policy of seeing that freedom of navigation be preserved upon the high seas is what allows the smaller countries around Red China to even think about resisting, if you can't see that old Sir...there ain't no getting through to you.

Well, after 30+ years of paying close attention to this particular conflict I think that entire premise is based on invalid assumptions and highly overrated, so I guess there's no getting through to me.

carl

08-07-2012, 07:13 PM

Bill:

I got to thinking about something. Let's say an American oil company got a lease in a disputed territory and began drilling. One side or the other got mad and sent a warship in the direction of the rig. I don't think the oil company would call on the navy from the country from whom they obtained the lease for protection, they would call on the U.S. Navy to save them. Politically it would be suicide to call on say, the PLAN to save them. That would not look at all good. If somebody took a lease and got in trouble, the American Navy would be involved whether it wanted to be or not. That ploy by the Red Chinese will complicate things a lot.

The more I think about this, the more I think there will be some fighting, maybe serious, in the next few or 5 years unless Red China backs off. They seem to think they can figure with enough certainty what other people will do to avoid it but that never works out. You probably know the countries in the area well enough. Who do you think will have had enough first? I figure Vietnam, only because I am old enough to remember how hard they can be when they want to be.

carl

08-07-2012, 07:17 PM

The point is simply that while the idea that a claim of sovereignty constitutes de facto interference with freedom of navigation may be arguable here, it won't stand up as a casus belli either domestically or internationally. Your own ideas about the US and China as the literal incarnations of good and evil respectively are of course something you're entitled to hold, but you have to realize that in much of the world that perception isn't shared.

No, that wasn't the point. Go back and read it again.

Only if you think that anything other than confrontation is appeasement.

Ultimately it comes down to that. If you ain't willing to confront and back it up, your only choice is to appease and hope for the best.

Ray

08-08-2012, 10:30 AM

he point is simply that while the idea that a claim of sovereignty constitutes de facto interference with freedom of navigation may be arguable here

If one has the sovereign rights, then it can apply its own policy and rights including debarring ships from using its waters.

Only if you think that anything other than confrontation is appeasement.

World War II and why it happened does indeed haunt me.

What if UK took a stronger stand?

Maybe history would not have been so bloody!

Dayuhan

08-09-2012, 12:23 AM

Let's say an American oil company got a lease in a disputed territory and began drilling. One side or the other got mad and sent a warship in the direction of the rig. I don't think the oil company would call on the navy from the country from whom they obtained the lease for protection, they would call on the U.S. Navy to save them.

Do you really expect the US military to run out and "save" the assets of American companies working in high-risk areas? Not likely, and the companies know it.

Ultimately it comes down to that. If you ain't willing to confront and back it up, your only choice is to appease and hope for the best.

That's kind of the core of it, isn't it?

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no will to "back it up". Do you really think the US is going to dispatch military forces to eject a Chinese fishing fleet from Scarborough Shoal, or to prevent China from bidding out an oil exploration block in waters claimed by Vietnam, or to evict a Chinese garrison from an island in the Paracels?

You suggest that we tell the Chinese that their claim is unacceptable and the SCS must remain international waters. So what? Just words. The Chinese will respond, inevitably, that there is no "claim" involved, and the territory involved is in fact theirs. They will probably step things up a bit: send a huge fishing fleet off the Philippine coast, plant some more flags and bunkers on a few more rocks, bid out some more exploration blocks. Then what do you do? That's the predictable, expected response, so what's your next move?

You could sail a fleet through the area, or hold an exercise. They denounce, ignore you, and carry on. Then what?

I just don't see the point in issuing big words unless there are specific things you're willing to do - not say, but do - to manage the expected response.

There are a few things you could do. You could encourage US oil companies to bid on Vietnamese or Philippine exploration offerings, and promise to indemnify or protect them. That might not be so attractive, as it creates that old "all about oil" impression, and makes it look like you're offering the US Navy as company security guards.

The Vietnamese are already buying hardware as fast as they can absorb it, but we could offer some preferential trade deals to help them pay for it. Competing industries in the US will scream their lungs out (think shrimp fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico, already up in arms about Vietnamese frozen shrimp).

You could give the Philippine a bunch of hardware (they can't afford to buy it) and teach them to use it. Giving away a few tens of billions worth of stuff to a government with prominent corruption and revenue collection issues might be a politically rough road, but it could be done.

None of these require a bold statement: you can simply do them, assuming you think you should, doubtful in each case.

I could see having someone announce, possibly in response to a question, that in our opinion the SCS is and should always be international waters. Then have someone ask what we'll do if China interferes with shipping. Then the person making the statement smiles and says it's not useful to single out any single power, but certainly the US is deeply concerned with freedom of navigation, and if that freedom were interfered with there could be military options on the table. There are other possibilities as well: the interfering nation could be excluded from US ports or have its trade with the US restricted, or face interference with its own shipping in other international waters, all of course very hypothetical.

There's no point in pulling out your saber and waving it around while shouting, especially when everyone knows you won't use it. Why not just leave a veiled hint at something you actually might do. of course it won't stop the Chinese from doing what they're doing, but neither will the shouting.

If one has the sovereign rights, then it can apply its own policy and rights including debarring ships from using its waters.

Yes, they can. The ability to do something and actually doing it are two different things. One is not a casus belli, the other is.

World War II and why it happened does indeed haunt me.

What if UK took a stronger stand?

Maybe history would not have been so bloody!

Do you really think Hitler would have backed down if the UK had threatened him? I don't buy it. He was planning to fight them from the start.

JMA

08-09-2012, 04:34 AM

Well, after 30+ years of paying close attention to this particular conflict I think that entire premise is based on invalid assumptions and highly overrated, so I guess there's no getting through to me.

So I now everyone will just have to wait patiently for you to present your opinion on how things should have/should be handled in this situation?

Ray

08-09-2012, 08:42 AM

Do you really think Hitler would have backed down if the UK had threatened him? I don't buy it. He was planning to fight them from the start.

Hitler was arming Germany and then he started claiming territory because of Lebensraum.

He also took over territory.

You maybe right that Hitler was aiming to fight it out.

I see a similar pattern.

Peaceful Rise and rapid rearmament.

Claim territory and even occupy the same.

And you say it is all in the manner of a day's work done!

I take it that it is kosher because it is but against, Dollar Imperialism, right?

carl

08-09-2012, 08:00 PM

Dayuhan:

I would very much expect the US military to "rescue" and American owned drilling ship especially if it had a number of Americans in the crew and the company was clever enough flag it American. So would the rest of the country. That is one of the reasons we pay for a Navy. They have to earn their keep occasionally.

Well you sum up your case for appeasement quite nicely. The nut of your argument is that there is nothing we can do and even if there were something we could do we wouldn't do it. Ok. That is what you think. I don't. You think the best we can do is pray the CCP is nice to us and we might be able to help that if we kowtow to them. If we don't they might be angered and smite us a mighty blow. I don't think that. If you think that we are weak and got nothing, and they are strong and got it all, your argument makes perfect sense. I don't think that cowering in the face of aggression by maybe the most murderous regime in the history of the world is a good idea. You do.

Do you really think Hitler would have backed down if the UK had threatened him? I don't buy it. He was planning to fight them from the start.

Yes actually. Herr Hitler was interested in winning mostly, fighting was secondary. He got awful far by bluffing. If the French had moved against the German troops that moved into the Rhineland they would have skedaddled lickety split and who knows what effect that would have had on Hitler's grasp on power. If the British and French and stood against Hitler in Munich, well who knows what would have happened. Some German generals were planning to act against Hitler if it came to war, the Soviets had a mutual defence treaty with Czechoslovakia and the Czech Army would have been intact, so WWII might not have happened at all or would have had a very different look to it.

So if the British and French had shown some backbone, there is a very good possibility that many many people who died, wouldn't have died so soon.

You have spent 30 years looking at the disagreements in the South China Sea. My point addressed the American and before that British commitment to freedom of navigation on the high seas. Your 30 years of looking just to the west might not really be of much help when addressing my point.

Ray

08-09-2012, 08:28 PM

Herr Hitler was evil.

Chinese are lovable giant Red Pandas.

The Americans, as I learn from here, are rattlesnakes!

jmm99

08-10-2012, 12:20 AM

Since 1776 (http://www.usflag.org/gadsden.html):

http://www.usflag.org/historical/gadsden.gif

Regards

Mike

Ray

08-10-2012, 08:17 AM

Russia plans to deploy Borey-class subs in Pacific

Russia plans to deploy the first two of its new Borey-class strategic nuclear submarines in the Pacific region, the country's First Deputy Defence Minister has said.

"I am absolutely certain that the first two subs will be initially placed with the Northern Fleet and will be redeployed to the Pacific Fleet after all the infrastructure there is ready," Alexander Sukhorukov, the First Deputy Defence Minister of Russian Federation, was quoted as saying by Ria Novosti on Wednesday.

The first two Project 955 Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) - Yuri Dolgoruky and Alexander Nevsky - are presently undergoing sea trials in the White Sea and are expected to be commissioned into service by the end of this year.

http://brahmand.com/news/Russia-plans-to-deploy-Borey-class-subs-in-Pacific/9896/1/10.html

Ray

08-10-2012, 08:19 AM

China's peaceful rise and peaceful interference in the SCS is only helping to make the area a complex web!

Dayuhan

08-10-2012, 10:45 PM

I would very much expect the US military to "rescue" and American owned drilling ship especially if it had a number of Americans in the crew and the company was clever enough flag it American. So would the rest of the country. That is one of the reasons we pay for a Navy. They have to earn their keep occasionally.

Do you really think that if (in an extreme case) the Chinese were to detain a US exploration ship and bring it to a Chinese port, the Navy would charge in with a "rescue"? Not a snowball's chance in hell. That would be settled by negotiation, as such things always are.

In any event no such thing is likely to happen any time soon. If the Chinese want to make an issue they'll send unarmed ships from CMS, as they always do, and they'll harass and demand withdrawal, as they do, and the US company will pull it's ship out, probably happily, as they will certainly have a clause in the contract saying they get paid even if the Chinese run them out. As has already been observed, the Chinese strategy is to never provide sufficient provocation to justify military force being deployed; that seems to be working, so why would they change it?

Well you sum up your case for appeasement quite nicely. The nut of your argument is that there is nothing we can do and even if there were something we could do we wouldn't do it.

That's not at all what I said. I said that neither military force nor threat and bluster are likely to accomplish anything. How do you get from there to "there's nothing we can do"?

You have spent 30 years looking at the disagreements in the South China Sea. My point addressed the American and before that British commitment to freedom of navigation on the high seas. Your 30 years of looking just to the west might not really be of much help when addressing my point.

You sometimes sound as though navigation has been under constant threat, and only exist through eternal Anglo-Saxon vigilance. I'm not sure that's actually the case. From whom, exactly, have we been protecting freedom of navigation? Who's threatening it?

More later... I'm at a highway rest stop between Manila and Subic, and it's time to get back on the road...

Dayuhan

08-12-2012, 11:47 PM

Rainy day in Subic, as good a place as any to look at the South China Sea. Drove by Alava Pier yesterday; the USN is in town, submarine and a fairly substantial cargo ship (USNS Washington Chambers, for those who care). The locals say there's a fairly steady stream of Navy ships coming through, with many more submarines in particular than has been the habit before. Nobody's talking about turning Subic back into a US base, but there's certainly a stepped up tempo of flag-showing.

Of course the Chinese will carry on doing exactly what they've been doing, as they could and would even were the entire 7th fleet parked in Subic. We're not going to send a carrier to chase a fishing fleet out of Scarborough Shoal, ask a sub to prevent the Chinese from bidding out oil exploration rights, or dispatch a cruiser to toss a few Chinese sailors off a rock in the Spratlys. It's not a situation amenable to solution by force, but the frequent visits probably make the Philippine military feel better. Most average people don't even know about the visits; they are getting frequent enough to be barely noticed in the local press. China and the SCS aren't much in the news these days; things fade fast.

JMA asked above what I think the US ought to do about all this. First step in coming up with that, of course, is defining a goal. What is it that we wish to accomplish?

I do not think our goal should be to force the Chinese to renounce their claim to the SCS or to withdraw all forces from the area. They won't do that in any event, we haven't the means to force them to do it, and it makes us look like we're giving them orders, which reinforces their victimization narrative and lets them portray themselves domestically as heroic by defying us without facing any actual risk. It's not a practical or achievable goal.

This body of water has been disputed for many years and will be disputed for many more years. US interests at stake are somewhat overrated, and overreaction is more likely to cause conflict than to alleviate it.

So, given that military force isn't going to accomplish much (no discrete target for it) and threats and ultimatums are counterproductive, what do you do?

The declared position, which is not action but is a basis for action and a definition of where we stand, should for me avoid singling out China: they want us to bully them and issue orders, which they can then defy. That makes them look good, So you announce that freedom of navigation is a high priority, and that if it's interfered with the interfering nation may face a range of military and non-military responses, including trade sanctions (an issue for the Chinese) and potentially interference with their shipping in other waters. You take no position on territorial disputes but urge non-violent rules-based resolutions. Our position on UNCLOS is equivocal as a non-signatory, but we could point out that since all parties to the dispute are signatories, the UNCLOS definitions of territorial waters would make a good starting point. That's taking sides without mentioning names, as China's claim has no basis at all under UNCLOS.

That's all words and accomplishes nothing (same can be said of threats and ultimatums) but it sets out a position without looking provocative. That's somewhat analogous to what the Chinese are doing: push without ever pushing hard enough to provoke.

Start with what's been done: reaffirm US commitment to freedom of navigation, announce a military pivot to the Pacific, keep to the existing exercises schedule but expand the exercises a bit, run a bunch more ships through the area, etc. That doesn't "solve" the problem (neither will anything else", but it makes a point.

Of course future steps would be incremental, you don't want to jump on all options at once. It's not a war and there's no winning it, more like an extended shadow-boxing ritual aimed at gaining perceived advantage.

Robert Haddick suggests arming and assisting other contending parties. That's certainly an option. The Vietnamese are already heavily armed and have as much on order as they can pay for, but the US could boost economic cooperation to increase their ability to pay (as stated before, some domestic political issues there) and could offer intelligence and surveillance cooperation, access to satellite data, etc. These are all cards that can be played one at a time, when and if deemed desirable.

The US could urge US oil companies to bid on Vietnamese oil exploration blocks, but that could also be dodgy as stated above. If I were driving I'd quietly urge the Vietnamese to give Gazprom some key disputed blocks, and get the Russians into the picture on their side. Handing deals to some Indian companies would also not be a bad idea.

Arming the Philippines is of course more complicated. They have little money (larger GDP than Vietnam but terrible gov't revenue issues) and they're starting from such a low point that the capacity to absorb and use a large influx of modern equipment (even if we were willing to give it away) has to be doubted. They desperately want big ticket display items (fighters and ships) but their capacity to support and maintain is questionable. My preferred move there would be to offer to work with them to develop a modern coastal and air defense system, which could be justified as purely defensive but would extend over some disputed areas. Again there could be offers to "cooperate" on surveillance and intel efforts.

Other nations would also be involved: Japan is going to provide a dozen Coast Guard patrol boats, which will allow the Philippines to confront civilian ships without the escalation of bringing their Navy into the picture.

Of course at the same time the diplomatic effort urging progress on the much discussed "code of conduct" has to go on.

None of this of course will "solve" the problem or "resolve" the issue. This one isn't going away, it's been there a while and it will be there a while; it's something we're trying to manage, not resolve. There is no conclusive option available and trying to find one would likely blow things up and make matters way worse.

Overall, we need to stop looking at China as an enemy we need to defeat and see them as another power with which we have a relationship that's involved in some disputes with other powers with whom we also have relationships. Resolving those disputes is not our business, trying to help manage them may be... of course that will require some subtlety, not our strongest suit.

Gotta go, could enlarge but some other time...

So I now everyone will just have to wait patiently for you to present your opinion on how things should have/should be handled in this situation?

Entropy

08-13-2012, 02:18 AM

Good post Dayuan. I think it's in keeping with the traditional role of the US Navy, as least as I remember it (it's been over a decade now since I wore cracker jacks).

The territorial disputes in the SCS and elsewhere are ultimately political disputes and they won't get "solved" anytime soon. I see no reason, at the present time, for the US to take a side for one claimant or another. You mention freedom of Navigation and I think that is (and should be) the primary US interest in the SCS.

The US Navy routinely conducts "FONOPS" (Freedom of Navigation Operations) in which US Navy vessels challenge claims that exceed the definition of UNCLOS .

Upthread Ray said:

If one has the sovereign rights, then it can apply its own policy and rights including debarring ships from using its waters.

FONOPS challenge "sovereign rights" that depart from the UNCLOS definition all the time and, in addition, exercise the right of "innocent passage." So what are "sovereign rights?" The old adage "talk is cheap" comes to mind. I don't think there has been any serious response to these challenges by the US Navy since Libya stupidly decided to act on its "line of death" across the Gulf of Sidra in 1981. Countries can make claims beyond UNCLOS but none, at present, are willing to try to enforce those claims - at least against the US Navy.

The US should continue this practice. Other than that, I don't see much role for the US military beyond normal mil-to-mil relations and monitoring the situation in order to provide strategic warning.

I think the US should invite China to participate in the next RIMPAC. It would develop more mil-to-mil relations with China and allow us to learn more about their capabilities.

carl

08-16-2012, 04:04 PM

Do you really think that if (in an extreme case) the Chinese were to detain a US exploration ship and bring it to a Chinese port, the Navy would charge in with a "rescue"? Not a snowball's chance in hell. That would be settled by negotiation, as such things always are.

That wasn't what I thought. That is what you decided I thought after not reading what I wrote that outlined what I thought. (I should be used to that by now). I could go through the series of exchanges and the serial distortions but that would be tiresome (feel free to use that as a straight line). So I will say that if an American flagged ship had a Red Chinese ship headed this way they damn well would call on the USN to save them. Absolutely. Especially since if a US flagged ship were to place itself in such a situation they would likely have done it with the tacit approval of the powers that be. They would not have done it if the powers that be had said "you guys are on your own." So that is what I think despite melting snowballs.

That's not at all what I said. I said that neither military force nor threat and bluster are likely to accomplish anything. How do you get from there to "there's nothing we can do"?

Sorry about that. My mistake. I'll try not to let it happen again. I just naturally figured that when dealing with a bunch of murderous thugs, if you eliminate warnings and the determination to back warnings with physical action, that leaves you with nothing you can do since they don't actually recognize anything else. Mea culpa.

You sometimes sound as though navigation has been under constant threat, and only exist through eternal Anglo-Saxon vigilance. I'm not sure that's actually the case. From whom, exactly, have we been protecting freedom of navigation? Who's threatening it?

Asked and answered...again and again and again. Please refer to the history of navies and sea borne commerce. There is no threat because the mere existence of the RN, USN and their centuries old policies.

Hey, that reminds me. How come I have to pay taxes to pay cops? I ain't been robbed lately.

carl

08-16-2012, 04:35 PM

Dayuhan you have said all these things.

You say

So, given that military force isn't going to accomplish much (no discrete target for it) and threats and ultimatums are counterproductive, what do you do?

You say

So you announce that freedom of navigation is a high priority, and that if it's interfered with the interfering nation may face a range of military and non-military responses, including trade sanctions (an issue for the Chinese) and potentially interference with their shipping in other waters.

You say

Start with what's been done: reaffirm US commitment to freedom of navigation, announce a military pivot to the Pacific, keep to the existing exercises schedule but expand the exercises a bit, run a bunch more ships through the area, etc. That doesn't "solve" the problem (neither will anything else", but it makes a point.

You say

It's not a war and there's no winning it, more like an extended shadow-boxing ritual aimed at gaining perceived advantage.

You say

I could see having someone announce, possibly in response to a question, that in our opinion the SCS is and should always be international waters. Then have someone ask what we'll do if China interferes with shipping. Then the person making the statement smiles and says it's not useful to single out any single power, but certainly the US is deeply concerned with freedom of navigation, and if that freedom were interfered with there could be military options on the table. There are other possibilities as well: the interfering nation could be excluded from US ports or have its trade with the US restricted, or face interference with its own shipping in other international waters, all of course very hypothetical.

There's no point in pulling out your saber and waving it around while shouting, especially when everyone knows you won't use it. Why not just leave a veiled hint at something you actually might do. of course it won't stop the Chinese from doing what they're doing, but neither will the shouting.

You say

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no will to "back it up". Do you really think the US is going to dispatch military forces to eject a Chinese fishing fleet from Scarborough Shoal, or to prevent China from bidding out an oil exploration block in waters claimed by Vietnam, or to evict a Chinese garrison from an island in the Paracels?

You suggest that we tell the Chinese that their claim is unacceptable and the SCS must remain international waters. So what? Just words. The Chinese will respond, inevitably, that there is no "claim" involved, and the territory involved is in fact theirs. They will probably step things up a bit: send a huge fishing fleet off the Philippine coast, plant some more flags and bunkers on a few more rocks, bid out some more exploration blocks. Then what do you do? That's the predictable, expected response, so what's your next move?

You say all these things.

Remember the scene in 12 O'Clock High where Dean Jagger is sitting in a chair with a drink in his hand, drunk, and he says to Gregory Peck "I am confused."? Remember that?

Well that's me. I am confused. You seem to me anyway to say military force and warnings about the use of it are for naught. But then you say that the veiled threat of it isn't. But then you say that a warning of no value because everybody knows you won't do it but maybe they don't really know that. So what I am hearing is that military force is of no value because we won't back it up but we should threaten to use it. That confuses me. It confuses me because in my life I have learned that the surest way to get into deep trouble is to make a threat, veiled or not, that you can't back up, and yet that seems to be what you advocate.

(Just as an aside, when I first saw 12 O'Clock High many years ago, I identified with the young bomber pilots. Then later I identified with Gen. Savage and Maj. Cobb. Now I identify with Harvey Stovall. Old age changes how you see a movie.)

Ray

08-19-2012, 03:44 PM

FONOPS challenge "sovereign rights" that depart from the UNCLOS definition all the time and, in addition, exercise the right of "innocent passage." So what are "sovereign rights?"

Entropy

And you feel China cares for FONOP and UNCLOS?

Dayuhan

08-20-2012, 05:50 AM

And you feel China cares for FONOP and UNCLOS?

Of course they don't. FONOPS are simply a declaration that the US cares as little about China's declaration of sovereignty as China cares about UNCLOS. A gesture, of course, but most of what goes on in the SCS is composed of gestures of one sort or another. I've yet to see any very credible suggestions for what the US - or anyone else - could or should do that isn't already being done.

Ray

08-21-2012, 08:44 AM

Jesus Saves!

In reality, the US Saves!

China, the Communist country, surprisingly also reluctantly subscribes to this - the US Saves whatever they (the Chinese) covet!

The Chinese being pseudo Communists may have not read Exodus 20:1-17

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, or thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Ray

08-22-2012, 12:47 PM

On the issue that the Filipinos were not really concerned about China's action in the area Philippines claims as theirs, one Filipino sent me these images from Philippines

http://www.intellasia.net/en/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/china.sea-dines201205afp.jpg

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/globalnation.inquirer.net/files/2012/05/601x403xchina-back-off.jpg.pagespeed.ic.SFK2zvbDNV.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iIqbGxDLHzQ/T6SkAp9HtiI/AAAAAAAATGE/-Iy-esK9J0M/s1600/May+7.jpg

Dayuhan

08-22-2012, 01:12 PM

The rallies last May drew a few hundred people in each of a few cities, after which attention went elsewhere. This country tends to have a short attention span on issues; the local expression is ningas cogon, referring to a brushfire: all fired up on something today, tomorrow the attention is elsewhere.

People are aware of the issues. A very few are very concerned, more are mildly concerned, most have other things to worry about. I could post a vigorous anti-China message on Facebook and probably have a few dozen "likes" in an hour. I doubt that the problem would be high on the priority list of any of the people clicking the button.

Dayuhan

08-28-2012, 11:30 PM

Discussion of the proposed LCS presence in the South China Sea:

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/01/17/america%E2%80%99s-new-asiatic-fleet/

America’s New Asiatic Fleet?

I’m a reluctant convert to the idea of stationing a detachment of Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) in the South China Sea. The Pentagon has been flirting with such a deployment for some time, and it now appears the idea will become reality...

...Rowden espoused “aggressively fielding the LCS fleet in order to meet our vital war-fighting gaps and forward-deploy additional American flags on LCS halyards.”

Call it the Woody Allen principle of maritime strategy: ninety percent of life is just showing up.

I can see some point in showing the flag, and in showing it in a way that's fairly unobtrusive (relative to the appearance of major combatants). What it's all meant to accomplish, beyond reassuring allies, is another question. I don't see it deterring the Chinese from doing what they're doing.

Ray

09-29-2012, 07:08 AM

Chinese Strategic Miscalculations in the South China Sea

China’s unilateral claims of sovereignty over the years to the South China Sea has made the majority of Chinese citizenry mistakenly believe that China does indeed own the entire area within the U-shaped line and that the line makes up China’s southern border.

However, newly discovered maps in 1904 dating from the Qing Dynasty do not show the Paracel and Spratlys Islands. Instead, it is Hainan Island that is depicted as China’s southern most border. Unfortunately, this U-shaped line is now very much like a bone in China’s throat that it cannot swallow or remove.

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/private/apb_181.pdf

JMA

09-29-2012, 01:30 PM

Chinese Strategic Miscalculations in the South China Sea

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/private/apb_181.pdf

Found an old map? That's an easy one... declare it a forgery.

Don't expect the Chinese to curb their expansion plans based on some old map!

.

Ray

10-12-2012, 08:27 AM

Found an old map? That's an easy one... declare it a forgery.

Don't expect the Chinese to curb their expansion plans based on some old map!

Recipe for 'Peaceful Rise'?

Ray

10-15-2012, 05:07 AM

http://dwqovw6qi0vie.cloudfront.net/article-imgs/en/2012/02/14/AJ201202140040/AJ201202140041M.jpg

Agreement on Guam transfer reflects U.S. urgency to respond to China
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201202140040

Ray

10-15-2012, 05:13 AM

Guam central to Pacific military operations

Among the news media tracking the U.S. military buildup on Guam is the People’s Daily Online, an organ of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing.

On its “People Forum” earlier this month was a discussion of how facilities at Andersen Air Force Base on the island were being hardened and air defense systems were being moved in to protect against Chinese attack.

“The American island of Guam is getting bomb proof shelters for aircraft, fuel and ammo supplies and vital equipment,” said one entry, which also pictured American B-52s sitting on a runway.

Guam would be central to American operations if the United States and China go to war because of miscalculations by either regarding Taiwan, developments on the Korean peninsula or access to the South China Sea, many defense and foreign analysts say.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/10/gannett-guam-central-to-pacific-military-operations-101911/

Ray

10-15-2012, 05:17 AM

The new Guam doctrine

A translation of both dimensions of the Obama doctrine would look like this: 'We're going to be here for a long time yet, but we are certainly ready to talk about new ways to run the neighbourhood.' Or to put it more formally: the new doctrine will link a continuing assertion of US military capability to a willingness to think new thoughts about Asia's security architecture and a concert of powers.

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2010/04/14/The-new-Guam-doctrine.aspx

Ray

10-15-2012, 09:37 AM

US Military Bases on Guam in Global Perspective

Officially, as of late 2008 (the last date for which the DoD has made such data public) over 150,000 troops and 95,000 civilian employees are massed in 837 US military facilities in 45 countries and territories, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan. There, the US military owns or rents 720,000 acres of land, and owns, rents or uses 60,000 buildings and manages structures valued at $145 billion. 4742 bases are located in the domestic United States. These official numbers are quite misleading as to the scale of US overseas military basing, however. That is because they not only exclude the massive buildup of new bases and troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also secret or unacknowledged facilities in Israel, Kuwait, the Philippines and many other places.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-catherine-lutz/3389

Ray

12-12-2012, 08:11 AM

Philippines eyes greater US military presence

Manila (AFP) Dec 10, 2012

US and Philippine officials will meet this week to discuss expanding American presence in the Asian nation, a senior diplomat said, amid tensions with China over its claims to vast waters in the region....

In October, a Philippine official said a former US naval base in this country, facing the South China Sea could play a key role as a hub for American ships as Washington moves to strengthen its presence in the Asia-Pacific.

Tensions with China have increased since April following a standoff between Philippine and Chinese ships over South China Sea shoal which both claim as their territory.

Sorreta said China should not be alarmed by the effort to improve Philippine-US ties.

But, he stressed, "with our without the Americans, we will take our stand".

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Philippines_eyes_greater_US_military_presence_999. html

Dayuhan

01-22-2013, 10:18 AM

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/61891/palace-confirms-stranding-of-us-minesweeper-in-tubbataha

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/us-navy-fined-illegal-entry-philippine-reef-073407618.html

A US minesweeper has somehow managed to run aground on the Tubbataha reef, a protected marine reserve. Getting a lot of press here. US authorities are pointing to the possibility of inaccurate maps, but people still wonder how a modern naval vessel failed to detect the presence of a rather large expanse of shallow coral.

If this is true...

The Tubbataha marine park superintendent, Angelique Songco, said Monday that park rangers had warned the USS Guardian by radio that it was nearing the reef, but the ship captain insisted they raise their complaint with the US embassy.

It means this old joke more or less came true...

US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

It's not quite as funny in reality, and if the investigation now said to be in progress reveals that the ship's captain actually did ignore warnings that he was entering a no-navigation zone and risked running onto a reef one would expect some consequences.

Ray

01-22-2013, 01:45 PM

Philippines 'to take South China Sea row to court'

The Philippines says it will challenge Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea at a UN tribunal.

Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said the decision came after Manila had exhausted "almost all political and diplomatic avenues" to resolve the maritime dispute with Beijing.

He said he hoped arbitration would help bring a "durable solution" to the row.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21137144

Dayuhan

01-22-2013, 11:34 PM

We got no ships, no missiles, no aircraft... deploy the lawyers!

Ray

01-23-2013, 05:26 AM

With no nothing but lawyers that possibly is the best option available.

One wonders if lying supine and impotent surrendering sovereignty is the better option that is suggested.

Dayuhan

01-23-2013, 11:39 PM

Surrendering sovereignty over what? Hard to surrender what you never had.

Of course there's not much else they can do; capacity here is zero and the US is not going to get involved in a fight over Scarborough shoal, or for that matter over Pag-asa island. It wouldn't surprise me if China decided at some point to expel the Philippine garrison on Pag-asa, and I think they could probably get away with it.

The arbitration is probably the only option for the Philippines, but it still seems a bit pathetic, especially since the arbitration body in question has no enforcement power whatsoever.

Ray

01-25-2013, 05:52 PM

Surrendering sovereignty over what? Hard to surrender what you never had.

Good to know that Philippines is not a sovereign nation!

And that never had what they had!

And good to know that they allow others to enjoy their hospitality when such people are sold to China!

Very tolerant people, indeed!

Dayuhan

01-25-2013, 09:28 PM

Has the Philippines ever exercised meaningful sovereignty over the areas currently in dispute?

Ray

01-26-2013, 11:19 AM

Depends on what you mean meaningful.

If not meaningful, do elaborate what you mean by that?

China claims Taiwan. Does she have a meaningful sovereignty over Taiwan.

What about the meaningful sovereignty China exhibits over islands that she claims?

Does China have any meaningful sovereignty over the Japanese islands China claims?

Ray

01-26-2013, 11:21 AM

US is not going to get involved in a fight over Scarborough shoal, or for that matter over Pag-asa island. It wouldn't surprise me if China decided at some point to expel the Philippine garrison on Pag-asa, and I think they could probably get away with it.

China believes so and so do those who are China fans.

I wonder if you feel that Ms Clinton is being a mere hot air balloon.

What were those naval exercises with Philippines and Vietnam all about? And what was the effect?

It is called 'Threat in being'.

It works without going to war!

Dayuhan

01-26-2013, 11:07 PM

Depends on what you mean meaningful.

If not meaningful, do elaborate what you mean by that?

Actual physical control. A claim is not sovereignty. The Philippines claims Malaysia's Sabah Province, but does not have and never has had meaningful (as in "existing outside the imagination) sovereignty over it.

China claims Taiwan. Does she have a meaningful sovereignty over Taiwan.

No.

What about the meaningful sovereignty China exhibits over islands that she claims?

They have sovereignty over the ones they physically control.

Does China have any meaningful sovereignty over the Japanese islands China claims?

No.

China believes so and so do those who are China fans.

Has China got fans? I wouldn't know, but I don't think any realsitic assessment would suggest US will to fight over Scarborough Shoal or the Spratly Islands. The US has already said, repeatedly, that it takes no position on the conflicting claims over disputed territory.

I wonder if you feel that Ms Clinton is being a mere hot air balloon.

She's being a diplomat, which is different: diplomats are incapable of unassisted flight. Has Ms. Clinton ever said anything to suggest that the US was willing to fight over the disputed territories?

What were those naval exercises with Philippines and Vietnam all about? And what was the effect?

They seemed to be about going through the motions and showing the flag. There has been no noticeable effect on Chinese policy or practice.

It is called 'Threat in being'.

It works without going to war!

Has it worked? What has it accomplished?

China has already effectively seized Scarborough Shoal, to the extent possible. Of course you can't put people or permanent structures there, there isn't enough "there" to put people or permanent structures on, but they keep ships in the area almost continuously, weather permitting. There has been no response, and won't be any: the Philippines can't respond and the Americans won't. US ships visit Subic (nearby) and hold exercises in the area, the Chinese keep doing as they please.

My own personal assessment is that the Chinese probably could escalate to the point of seizing Pag-asa Island (the island in the Spratlys that the Philippines now holds) without eliciting an intolerable response from the US. Of course there would be strong words, some ships would sail around, etc as usual, but would the US fire shots or impose significant trade sanctions? I doubt it.

That of course is just an opinion. Not saying that's right or wrong or good or bad, just that I think they could probably get away with it.

carl

02-06-2013, 10:35 PM

Here is a link to a Naval Institute blog that comments on the words of Captain James Fanell, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and Information Operations for US Pacific Fleet at a panel last week.

http://blog.usni.org/2013/02/06/honesty-can-be-uncomfortable

And here are some select quotes from Capt. Fanell.

(China’s) expansion into the blue waters are largely about countering the US Pacific fleet.’
* The PLA Navy is going to sea to learn how to do naval warfare…Make no mistake: the PRC navy is focused on war at sea, and sinking an opposing fleet.’
* On China Marine Surveillance, which supervises and patrols China’s claimed maritime territory: ‘If you map out their harassments you will see that they form a curved front that has over time expanded out against the coast of China’s neighbours, becoming the infamous nine-dashed line, plus the entire East China Sea…China is negotiating for control of other nations’ resources off their coasts; what’s mine is mine, and we’ll negotiate what’s yours.’
* China Marine Surveillance cutters have no other mission but to harass other nations into submitting to China’s expansive claims…China Marine Surveillance is a full-time maritime sovereignty harassment organisation’.
* In my opinion, China is knowingly, operationally and incrementally seizing maritime rights of its neighbours under the rubric of a maritime history that is not only contested in the international community but has largely been fabricated by Chinese government propaganda bureaus in order to “educate” the populous about China’s rich maritime history, clearly as a tool to sustain the Party’s control.

There is a link on the blog entry to video of the panel discussion during which Capt Fanell made his remarks.

Dayuhan

02-06-2013, 11:15 PM

To the cynical ear that could easily sound like a budget appeal.

I personally suspect that China's naval expansion is aimed as much, maybe more, at the Indian Ocean than at the Pacific. Certainly they feel a need to be able to dominate within the first island chain, but beyond that the Indian Ocean probably has more strategic significance to them, as a conduit for a very large percentage of their merchandise exports and commodity imports. Right now a rival with superior naval force could effectively shut down their economy by controlling that area, and there's really not much they could do about it. I don't suppose that thought leaves them feeling entirely secure. I can't imagine what Americans would think if that circumstance were reversed.

carl

02-06-2013, 11:57 PM

Dayuhan:

I knew that would smoke you out.

And you respond just like you always respond, 'well how would we feel?' and 'it's exaggerated'. You didn't include this time 'they are misunderstood' or 'we don't see it correctly' or 'can you blame them' (or maybe you did) or 'you have to understand their history'. The new one this time is 'it isn't really directed at us.'

All this stuff used to be said about the Soviets during the cold war.

The one thing it never is is that Red China wants to put a lot of ocean under their control and Finlandize a lot of countries.

Dayuhan

02-07-2013, 12:05 AM

Why would you assume that a Chinese reaction to a perceived existential threat would be any different from an American reaction?

Speaking of the Cold War, has it ever occurred to you that China could do to us exactly what we did to the Soviet Union... as in provoke the antagonist into an unaffordable and completely unnecessary arms race and watch them collapse under the economic burden?

Of course in this case the Chinese are likely to collapse economically before we do, but that's still no reason to play the arms race game.

carl

02-07-2013, 12:07 AM

Dayuhan:

See my post above.

Dayuhan

02-07-2013, 01:54 AM

So a large, wealthy and powerful country is behaving as large, wealthy and powerful countries, including us, have always behaved. Shall we panic?

Seems to me that panic and hysteria rarely achieve anything productive and often provoke bad decisions. Why bother? Certainly I can see how those who see a potential increase in their budget would want to provoke a bit of hysteria, but that's not something I'd want to see a nation falling for.

If you asked the source of the comments cited for a solution to the problem, how much do you want to bet that the solution offered would center around "give us more money"?

carl

02-07-2013, 02:37 AM

Dayuhan:

I forgot about the 'it's a play for money' response. Thanks for reminding me. And also the return of 'panic' and 'hysteria'. Haven't seen those in a while.

Dayuhan

02-07-2013, 08:26 AM

I forgot about the 'it's a play for money' response.

You forgot that agencies of the US Government have been known to exaggerate the need for their services when the prospect of budget cuts is in the air? That's like forgetting to zip your pants after taking a leak.

...also the return of 'panic' and 'hysteria'. Haven't seen those in a while.

I guess you're not watching Americans talk about China.

Bill Moore

02-16-2013, 04:16 AM

Good read to understand the context of our attempted rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. We're not talking about chasing terrorists, but attempting to preserve our status as a global leader and our economic system. In my view it is worth debating what are most significant strategic interests we must protect, and other than a catastrophic attack which terrorists can't launch, even if they get one nuke, I suspect it our economic system. Where else is it threatened (other than by our politicians) geographically? It seems the major threats to our economic system are in the Persian Gulf and the Asia-Pacific region.

http://www.fpri.org/articles/2013/02/geopolitical-transformation-southeast-asia

The Geopolitical Transformation of Southeast Asia

Capabilities are one thing; intentions are another. Here the crystal ball becomes cloudy. As noted, Chinese officials have been very insistent that China’s intentions toward Southeast Asia are entirely benign—nothing other than to join with the region in a common endeavor of economic development and regional peace and security. Nevertheless, doubts arise—on several grounds. In 1992 a PLA civilian analyst with close ties to China’s most senior leaders held an extended discussion with a handful of US security analysts. After some time in a moment of refreshing candor he made the following comment. “You keep asking about China’s strategic intent. I will tell you how the PLA views Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific Rim. The PLA is determined to build sufficient capability to accomplish two things: first, solve the Taiwan problem by force if necessary and second, expel the U.S. military from this region. You Americans have playgrounds all over the world where you can play—in the Atlantic, in the Caribbean, and in the central and eastern Pacific. But this playground (Southeast Asia and its environs) is ours. You have no business being here and we are determined to move you out.” Nothing that has happened in the subsequent two decades invalidates that formulation; quite the contrary. Chinese scholars writing with official sanction a few years later characterized U.S. strategic intentions toward China as “encirclement” and “strangulation.” They identified Southeast Asia as the weak link in this chain and the point where China could break through and defeat America’s attempted “containment.” In private Chinese diplomats have been known to use the Churchillian phrase “soft underbelly” to refer to Southeast Asia in relation to the rest of the region.

Still, by the spring of 2010 the relationship between the ASEAN countries and China remained overtly and determinedly cordial. But in July Foreign Ministers from the 26 nations that make up the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) convened their annual meeting. The ARF is distinctive because it is a forum to discuss regional security issues. There were two aspects of this particular meeting that were additionally distinctive. It was the first ARF meeting held in Hanoi which meant Vietnam controlled the agenda and the American Secretary of State was attending for the first time. For several years Vietnam had been trying to get the South China Sea on the ARF agenda but previous ASEAN hosts had refused knowing that to do so would anger China. But now Secretary of State Clinton (clearly in consultation with Hanoi) agreed to raise the issue in her statement to the Forum. In that statement the Secretary made two quite ordinary assertions: (1) the South China Sea was an arena with multiple claimants and such disputes should be addressed through a multilateral negotiation; (2) the sea lanes through the South China Sea, like major international sea lanes elsewhere, were a “global commons” and not within the territory of any state—they belonged to the world. This was pretty much standard diplomatic boilerplate and might have generated only minimal attention. But eight of the ten ASEAN Ministers in their statements endorsed Secretary Clinton’s remarks. Then things got really interesting. It was Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi’s turn to speak. Instead of a perfunctory response, his reaction was incendiary. He grew red in the face, he shouted, he sweated—and he had to leave the room to compose himself. When he returned he glared at the Singapore Foreign Minister (an ethnic Chinese) and observed that there are “big countries” and “small countries.” The message was unmistakable.

Dayuhan

02-16-2013, 10:32 PM

It seems the major threats to our economic system are in the Persian Gulf and the Asia-Pacific region.

What would the Chinese do to our economic system that wouldn't do as much damage to theirs?

A lot of the "China threat" articles seem disturbingly generic. It would be easier to discuss the threat in specific terms: what specifically are we afraid the Chinese will do, and how specifically would those actions affect us?

Bill Moore

02-17-2013, 01:29 AM

What would the Chinese do to our economic system that wouldn't do as much damage to theirs?

A lot of the "China threat" articles seem disturbingly generic. It would be easier to discuss the threat in specific terms: what specifically are we afraid the Chinese will do, and how specifically would those actions affect us?

Dayuhan,

I'll address your specific question, admitted with limited expertise in economics and expand upon it a bit. First off the U.S. doesn't consider China an adversary, at least yet, but China's behavior is more than a little concerning and is in fact driving the rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific militarily (the rebalance is about much more than the military, but it is China's aggressive behavior that driving the demand for more U.S. forces in the Pacific).

The U.S. National Security Strategy list four enduring national interests, which I listed below. I believe the way China is currently behaving challenges all those interests.

1. The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;
2. A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that
promotes opportunity and prosperity;
3. Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and
4. An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity
through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

1. China doesn't necessarily threaten the U.S., but it could with its nuclear weapons "if" we ever went to war. However, China has been threatening our allies (both Japan and the Philippines), and a number of partners in the region as they use their military power to assert their territorial claims. It is bigger than firing shots at Filipino fishing boats, harassing U.S. Navy vessels, locking it radar on a Japanese Coast Guard vessel, and cutting the cables of Vietnamese oil vessels (none of which you expect from a civilized nation who desires to live peacefully with its neighbors).

It is bigger in the respect that this behavior also challenges interests 2-4 above also. It is driving a resurgence in nationalism in the region, and in my view Asian nationalism can be on the same level of extremism as Al-Qaeda's warped view of the world. This threatens peace in the region that could definitely undermine our economic interests, and worse potentially drag us into a war defending our allies or potentially not getting in the conflict and losing our leadership role in the region. If that happened I suspect the consequences would be quie severe over time. If China was ever successful in denying us access to the region and over time marginalized our interaction with the world's largest economies in that part of the world (the economic power center) the results to our nation would be devastating.

China's military might isn't and won't be as powerful as the U.s.'s on a global scale, but regionally they'll develop some asymmetric advantages with the ASBMs which can keep U.S. ships out of the region, and in theory making hard for us to respond to regional contingency without substantial risk. This is a normal development historically between nations, technology advances and any country that desires to be regional or global power will seek military advantages over others. While not out of the norm, combined with their recent behavior it is reason for concern. No one would think twice if Singapore developed and fielded the same weapon systems. China can't make an argument they're for self-defense when they're challenging other nations in the region militarily.

The biggest threat to U.S. economic interests in the near term is the ongoing Cyberwar China is waging. They are stealing billions of dollars worth of intellectual property from the U.S.. This is a state sponsored transnational criminal activity that undermines the economies of other nations. It invalidates the argument that China is somehow superior in the education field, since it appears most of their advances are based on reverse engineering the great ideas from other nations where people have the freedom to pursue intellectual pursuits.

That gets to U.S. national interest number 3, respect for universal values. At the end of the day China is still communist, and while not currently practicing the extremes that Mao did, there is little doubt that Tibetans, Uyghers, and other minority groups in China enjoy anywhere close to the freedoms we do.

China can modify its behavior and pursue its ends peacefully, the fact that it doesn't appears to imply something to me that we aren't comfortable talking about.

Ray

02-17-2013, 08:56 AM

Rather well summed up.

China should approach international issues with maturity and statesmanship.

Dayuhan

02-18-2013, 03:10 AM

At the end of the day China is still communist, and while not currently practicing the extremes that Mao did, there is little doubt that Tibetans, Uyghers, and other minority groups in China enjoy anywhere close to the freedoms we do.

A Cherokee or a Najajo might have something to say about that. China expanded and treated its fringe minorities in pretty much the same way the US did, we just did it before adopting the "universal values" we recognized after our expansion was reasonably well settled.

Again, what's missing are specifics. What exactly are we afraid that the Chinese will do? More of what they're doing now, the pushing, shoving and harassment that stops short of actual violence? Restrict maritime traffic in the South China Sea? Invade or blockade Taiwan? Force Philippine or Vietnamese armed forces off islands they now occupy?

In each case, what would the likely impact be on us? That's important to determine a proportional response. What would we be willing to do to preempt or respond to each scenario?

These things need to be looked at in a specific sense - as in specifically, what do we fear - because only by looking at them specifically can we determine what might realistically be done to prevent what we fear and what we would realistically be willing to do to respond in a given scenario. Generic fear makes a very poor basis for planning, unless of course the goal is to get a budget increase.

davidbfpo

04-07-2013, 10:58 AM

A strange twist to Chinese diplomacy, initially for the Paracel Islands, as the BBC reports:
China is to begin running tourism cruises to a chain of disputed islands in the South China Sea by next month, state media reports.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22056661

An astute move, even more worrying if such a ship cruises into a hotly disputed area.

Incidentally this week IISS have a book launch on the disputes:http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/2013-events-archive/april-2013/regional-disorder-the-south-china-sea-disputes/

Ray

06-29-2013, 05:16 AM

US floats nuclear subs option

The United States has indicated for the first time it would be willing to lease or sell a nuclear submarine to Australia in a move that will inflame tensions with China and force the Coalition to declare its policy on #bolstering regional defence.......

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s 2009 defence white paper, predicated on the potential threat posed by China, called for 12 submarines, much larger than the Collins class – around 4000 tonnes compared to the current 3050 tonnes......

Kokoda Foundation founder Ross Babbage, a proponent of the nuclear submarine option, said a smaller fleet of nuclear powered boats would serve Australia better than any available conventional submarine. “You would not need 12, you could probably get away with 9 or 10, they are much larger than a conventional sub, can carry more weapons and would have far greater range and endurance than a conventional sub,’’ he said.

“It would also be great step forward in terms of Australia’s interoperability with the United States.’’.....

Though the idea has been criticised as unworkable because Australia doesn’t have a nuclear industry to support a nuclear submarine fleet defence sources suggest the Australian fleet could be maintained at a US base in the Pacific Ocean or a US nuclear submarine base could be established in Australia........

http://www.afr.com/p/national/us_floats_nuclear_subs_option_uPMgRrev3KjNwBLfFxpd eO

Dated, but indicative of the concern with which the shenanigans in the SCS is being watched.

ganulv

06-29-2013, 05:31 AM

http://www.afr.com/p/national/us_floats_nuclear_subs_option_uPMgRrev3KjNwBLfFxpd eO

Dated, but indicative of the concern with which the shenanigans in the SCS is being watched.

This would perhaps explain the Australian naval officer’s visit last year to the GD facility in my part of the world.

davidbfpo

06-29-2013, 10:21 AM

A number of nations over time have expressed an interest in having nuclear submarines (SSN), I was not aware Australia had such an interest. The RAN has a big problem already with manning its existing submarines, which has been in the public domain for sometime.

There a number of non-submarine components needed for an effective SSN operation, the most expensive ones being a shipyard and a waste facility. Even the UK has struggled at times, especially storing waste.

IIRC the really difficult component is recruiting, training and retaining key crew members, probably reactor operators.

Switching continent and seas for a moment Brazil has expressed an interest, if not requirement for acquiring SSN(s) and have held talks recently with the UK on what it really means.

One could argue that the opening of new basing facilities to the USA in Australia is a far better, cheaper strategic option that SSNs.

Bill Moore

06-29-2013, 05:32 PM

The situation remains tense.

Australia upgrading its submarine fleet

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/11/21/Australia-upgrading-its-submarine-fleet/UPI-56651353513031/

Chinese Media Warn Philippines Of 'Counterstrike' If 'Provocations' Continue In South China Sea

http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-media-warn-philippines-counterstrike-if-provocations-continue-south-china-sea-1328649

Japan to take Phl's side in South China Sea dispute

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/06/27/958907/japan-take-phls-side-south-china-sea-dispute

ganulv

06-29-2013, 10:41 PM

That one is worth remembering.

Not to make light of a very serious situation, but I can’t let the opportunity to drag out the photo below slip by.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/amygeek/tGcHmCcvylrwomItdtaIHAajxhIznGIullxAiGGIovafguvfya qHvoCFFGbj/media_http2bpblogspot_sBqfi.jpg.scaled500.jpg?AWSA ccessKeyId=AKIAJFZAE65UYRT34AOQ&Expires=1372543555&Signature=5OnPgeLKS5xKJaFopZ8VegmU%2FJY%3D

Ray

06-30-2013, 05:52 AM

A lot of the "China threat" articles seem disturbingly generic. It would be easier to discuss the threat in specific terms: what specifically are we afraid the Chinese will do, and how specifically would those actions affect us?

Summed up by this quote from Helen Keller -

The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.

The so called 'disturbingly generic' 'China Threat' articles if read will indicate to the not so blind but with vision that they are not so generic as one would like to portray them to be.

I wonder if one could explain as to what the US aims to gain by 'spawning' 'generically disturbing' "China Threat" articles?

To believe that Nations on the periphery of China are blindly toeing the US party line on the 'China Threat' would be suggesting that they were but vassals of the US and such a suggestion would be insulting to their intelligence and nationhood.

I am sure such a suggestion is misconceived and disingenuous.

Dayuhan

06-30-2013, 06:08 AM

The situation remains tense.

Chinese Media Warn Philippines Of 'Counterstrike' If 'Provocations' Continue In South China Sea

Japan to take Phl's side in South China Sea dispute

These stories are getting a lot of play here, naturally. The threat is of course nothing new; it's been repeated many times. That doesn't mean they won't go through with it, of course, especially if the domestic economy hits a rough patch and they think it expedient to whip up a bit of jingoism.

What exactly they will do remains, of course, open to question. Removing the Philippine garrison form Second Thomas Shoal (a few marines lodged in a wrecked freighter, notoriously the worst duty in the Philippine military) would be a logical choice; they could do it easily and it's not likely that there would be serious repercussions from the US or anyone else. If they want to go further, they could force the Philippines out of Pag-asa island, though that would be a bit more complex.

I'd guess that they could get away with either move without much in the way of repercussions. If it escalated to the point of shooting and a Philippine ship got sunk, that would complicate matters, but I still doubt that there would be much beyond a verbal response.

There is some hope about that Japan would assist in the event of conflict, but I think that's an illusion: Japan's constitution would not permit it, for one thing. The Japanese will provide some hardware (they have offered 12 patrol boats to the coast guard, but no military assets that I know of) and diplomatic support, but I wouldn't expect much more.

Ray

06-30-2013, 07:26 AM

Japan’s constitution
Back to the future

Many Japanese who do not support Mr Abe’s right-wing views also favour revision, at least of article nine. This is what makes the constitution a pacifist one, for in it Japan renounces war as a sovereign right and even vows not to keep a standing army, air force or navy. Japan’s sense of itself as a pacifist nation remains extremely popular. But according to the constitution’s current interpretation, Japan may not even come to the aid of allies if they are attacked. Re-interpreting, rather than amending, the constitution would legitimise collective self-defence. Still, for many Japanese it rankles that Japan’s “self-defence forces”, formed in 1954 and among the world’s most sophisticated armed forces, cannot call themselves a standing army. There is broad support for changing the constitution, which has never been amended, so that they can. It is a matter of national pride as much as anything else.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21578712-shinzo-abes-plan-rewrite-japans-constitution-running-trouble-back-future

Ray

06-30-2013, 07:31 AM

US Commander Issues Stern Warning on S. China Sea Disputes

June 06, 2013

The top American military commander in the Pacific issued a stern warning to any country that might try to seize control of disputed areas in the South China Sea:

“We will oppose the change of status quo by force by anyone,” Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said during a visit to Malaysia on Wednesday. “We need to retain the status quo until we get to a code of conduct or a solution by party nations that is peacefully accepted.”

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-commander-issues-stern-warning-on-south-china-sea-disputes/1676582.html

Bill Moore

06-30-2013, 07:50 AM

These stories are getting a lot of play here, naturally. The threat is of course nothing new; it's been repeated many times. That doesn't mean they won't go through with it, of course, especially if the domestic economy hits a rough patch and they think it expedient to whip up a bit of jingoism.

What exactly they will do remains, of course, open to question. Removing the Philippine garrison form Second Thomas Shoal (a few marines lodged in a wrecked freighter, notoriously the worst duty in the Philippine military) would be a logical choice; they could do it easily and it's not likely that there would be serious repercussions from the US or anyone else. If they want to go further, they could force the Philippines out of Pag-asa island, though that would be a bit more complex.

I'd guess that they could get away with either move without much in the way of repercussions. If it escalated to the point of shooting and a Philippine ship got sunk, that would complicate matters, but I still doubt that there would be much beyond a verbal response.

There is some hope about that Japan would assist in the event of conflict, but I think that's an illusion: Japan's constitution would not permit it, for one thing. The Japanese will provide some hardware (they have offered 12 patrol boats to the coast guard, but no military assets that I know of) and diplomatic support, but I wouldn't expect much more.

I don't think anyone knows what they will do, but most agree the risk of a misstep during times of heightened tensions in the region could result in a chain of events no one anticipated or desired. I get tired of hearing how old and great the Chinese culture is as though that is even relevant. As a world power they're new kids on the block and their foreign policy is very clumsy and amateurish. They're about two steps up from the North Koreans, which means they're still in the basement.

My irrational side at times suggests we should just sink their entire Navy since they only seem to it use it to intimidate developing nations, and I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to do, but of course that isn't practical and it ultimately won't achieve much but make the world a more dangerous place. But it is important to realize they're not as powerful as they think they are, it is important to the overall context. Someone is going to bite China back eventually, and then the nationalists and media throughout the region will more than likely spin the event beyond control of those who may have a more responsible approach. At that point buckle your chin strap, we'll all be in for a bumpy ride.

Ray

06-30-2013, 09:01 AM

No country grudges China's rise in all spheres.

It is only when China uses that 'clout' to intimidate and illegally occupy areas that are traditionally not theirs, is when hackles are raised since it indicates hegemonic ambitions that is dangerous to regional peace, stability and harmony, and finally international peace.

Mealy mouthed homilies and pious platitudes by China and their international fanboys downplaying the realities and turning a blind eye towards such imperialist, colonial and hegemonic mindset and pursuits, if allowed to influence international realities, will finally end in a very tangled and dangerous world.

There are those who will criticise the US and their 'imperialist' attitudes of yore, to include those who claim to be Americans. They fail to realise that the US has evolved. No longer they proclaim such attitude in governance. Therefore, much reviled earlier, the US does appear very acceptable.

Such acceptability, to some and may appear to the uninitiated, as vassaldom, but it is not so. It is merely the convergence of mutual security interests.

There are no friends or enemies in international politics. There is merely national strategic interests!

And that is not selling oneself as a vassal!

It would, in such circumstances, be natural for all to assume China's missteps in translating their new found strength, as arrogance to recreate the days of imperial conquests and colonial expansionism, which in today's international environment, is passé!

Lebensraum is today a four letter word!

China and their supporters, need to grow up and realise that the world is a changed place from the days, when imperialism, colonialism and hegemonic aspirations were the order of the day.

Even Burkina Faso, purely on humanitarian grounds, cannot be taken over without international condemnation!

Bill Moore

06-30-2013, 08:32 PM

Posted by Ray

There are those who will criticize the US and their 'imperialist' attitudes of yore, to include those who claim to be Americans. They fail to realize that the US has evolved. No longer they proclaim such attitude in governance. Therefore, much reviled earlier, the US does appear very acceptable.

There does seem to be some truth in this statement. We're morally terrified of repeating what is widely perceived to be our past sins to the point that we tend to view our foreign policy through an anachronistic perceptional lens that impedes our ability to act accordingly now and in the future.

Most, if not all, have recognized the world has changed, but we have still failed to adapt in any major way. Our COINdista brothers have developed a very narrow view of the world's current security environment, and unfortunately this view (although fading) has diverted too much attention from a range of other challenges and deep thinking about how they should be approached.

Former SECDEF Gates was absolutely right when he said we need a balance of capabilities to include the ability to more effectively engage in the full spectrum of irregular warfare. As a nation we have always had security hobbyists who focus on a particular threat spectrum (cyber, space, nuclear, terrorism, internal instability, etc.), but as a collective we tend to see the world in bi-polar terms. Us against the Axis, us against the communists, us against terrorists, and then to miss that one threat doesn't displace another, it only fixates our attention and thinking. Fortunately our CJCS recognizes this complexity and the need to develop a comprehensive strategy and force to adequate shape and respond to the real world, not the just the portion of it we tend to myopically focus on. Without giving a specific example, it has been sadly entertaining to watch our security community discard the threats we were watching in the 90s and totally focus on Al-Qaeda, and now that state actors are making ripples again, you see a shift that suggests we should forget about Al-Qaeda and focus on a particular state actor. The reality is we have to address all threats that are a threat to our national interests. We can't choose just one and hope the others magically and hope all others will disappear. I think we delude ourselves when we base our strategic thinking on the priority of the day (priority logic). That means we can never move beyond the 5 meter knife fight.

Dayuhan

07-01-2013, 05:19 AM

My irrational side at times suggests we should just sink their entire Navy since they only seem to it use it to intimidate developing nations, and I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to do, but of course that isn't practical and it ultimately won't achieve much but make the world a more dangerous place. But it is important to realize they're not as powerful as they think they are, it is important to the overall context. Someone is going to bite China back eventually, and then the nationalists and media throughout the region will more than likely spin the event beyond control of those who may have a more responsible approach. At that point buckle your chin strap, we'll all be in for a bumpy ride.

I agree, but I'm not sure the Chinese really think they are all that strong, though they badly need to be seen as strong, both regionally and domestically. I do not think the Chinese have any intention of crossing the line into shooting with the Japanese, as the outcome of such an encounter could easily go badly for them. Even Vietnam has the capacity to bite back: they couldn't win a full scale war with China, but China wouldn't want a full scale war and getting spanked in a skirmish would be a very unattractive prospect for them. That's why the focus is on the Philippines, where China can act aggressively (domestically they would say "assertively") with essentially no risk.

The danger, of course, is that as the Chinese economy runs into reality, the government will rely more and more on jingoism and patriotism to keep the populace in line. That could easily create a position whee they feel that talking strong isn't enough, and they feel the need to do something. Where that would go is far from clear, bit my guess is that the target would be the Philippines and the scale would be calibrated to fall below any level that would elicit anything beyond a verbal response from the US.

I don't think the Chinese want a war: they have little to gain and a great deal to lose. At the same time, their perceived need to look strong and keep proving that they have "made China great again" may put them in a spot where they feel they must do something.

There are those who will criticise the US and their 'imperialist' attitudes of yore, to include those who claim to be Americans. They fail to realise that the US has evolved. No longer they proclaim such attitude in governance. Therefore, much reviled earlier, the US does appear very acceptable.

Has anyone criticized the US history of imperialism in any context relevant to this particular situation? Seems to me that the issue is not whether the US is or is not “acceptable”, but what the US is or is not willing to do. The US has embraced strategic ambiguity as a useful tool, but I do not think anybody in this picture really believes that the US would impose serious military or economic repercussions on China over a scuffle in the Spratlys. It’s possible that this assessment could be wrong… but I doubt it.

Lebensraum is today a four letter word!
Certainly so, but since nobody has invoked the word or the concept, it seems a bit of a straw man. The Spratly, Paracel, and Senkaku islands are irrelevant from a lebensraum perspective, all of them combined wouldn’t sustain the population of one Shanghai city block. Have the Chinese said or done anything that suggests an intent or desire to acquire lebensraum through conquest?

China and their supporters, need to grow up and realise that the world is a changed place from the days, when imperialism, colonialism and hegemonic aspirations were the order of the day.

Even Burkina Faso, purely on humanitarian grounds, cannot be taken over without international condemnation!

Of course the last one in the door always wants it closed behind them.

Certainly one cannot take over other countries without international condemnation, not that the Chinese care much about international condemnation, unless it is backed up by action. The Chinese haven’t taken anyone over, though. What imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions would you assume that they have, and why?

Ray

07-01-2013, 06:26 AM

Has anyone criticized the US history of imperialism in any context relevant to this particular situation?

If I may remind you of this post (Post 575) of yours:

A Cherokee or a Najajo might have something to say about that. China expanded and treated its fringe minorities in pretty much the same way the US did, we just did it before adopting the "universal values" we recognized after our expansion was reasonably well settled.

Certainly one cannot take over other countries without international condemnation, not that the Chinese care much about international condemnation, unless it is backed up by action. The Chinese haven’t taken anyone over, though. What imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions would you assume that they have, and why?

The Chinese haven't taken over?

What about the islands in the SCS?

Dayuhan

07-01-2013, 08:06 AM

If I may remind you of this post (Post 575) of yours:

A Cherokee or a Najajo might have something to say about that. China expanded and treated its fringe minorities in pretty much the same way the US did, we just did it before adopting the "universal values" we recognized after our expansion was reasonably well settled.

That's not criticism of the US imperial history, just an attempt to point out that China is acting as rising powers have always acted. More restrained than other rising powers of modern history, actually, though that's mainly, I suspect, because they feel they can get away with less. We should hope that rising China continues to be more restrained than, say, the US, Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union were in their days of rising, but there's not much moral high ground to ride while hoping.

The Chinese haven't taken over?

What about the islands in the SCS?

I said "The Chinese haven't taken anyone over". They've seized a few disputed and uninhabitable rocks. That hardly seems in a league that could be compared to conquering Burkina Faso, or any other nation.

What imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions would you assume that they have, and why?

I don't think the attempt to gain unquestioned supremacy over these islands has anything to do with lebensraum, or even resources. More a matter of pride, I think.

Ray

07-01-2013, 05:48 PM

That's not criticism of the US imperial history, just an attempt to point out that China is acting as rising powers have always acted. More restrained than other rising powers of modern history, actually, though that's mainly, I suspect, because they feel they can get away with less. We should hope that rising China continues to be more restrained than, say, the US, Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union were in their days of rising, but there's not much moral high ground to ride while hoping.

An interesting comment that conveniently avoids the historical timeline.

What was acceptable in Medieval days, would be acceptable in today's contemporary thought?

Would Inquisition be OK with you?

Appears so.

Hope that China is more restrained?

Actions speaks for itself!

False hope is a terrible thing, if its the only thing keeping you alive you'll be dead by dawn.

I said "The Chinese haven't taken anyone over". They've seized a few disputed and uninhabitable rocks. That hardly seems in a league that could be compared to conquering Burkina Faso, or any other nation.

What imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions would you assume that they have, and why?

I don't think the attempt to gain unquestioned supremacy over these islands has anything to do with lebensraum, or even resources. More a matter of pride, I think.

What is seizing a few disputed and uninhabitable rocks?

Comparable to a loveable domestic pussy cat slurping a dish of milk illegal taken?

What in your opinion would constitute t imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions?

Making China the centre of the world? The Middle Kingdom?

Pride?

The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.

Dayuhan

07-01-2013, 11:44 PM

An interesting comment that conveniently avoids the historical timeline.

What was acceptable in Medieval days, would be acceptable in today's contemporary thought?

Would Inquisition be OK with you?

Appears so.

Hope that China is more restrained?

Actions speaks for itself!

Yes, they do. A modern inquisition would be unacceptable. If China did what the US, Japan, Germany, or the Soviet Union did in their days of rising power, that would be totally unacceptable. If China acted as the US and Soviet Union did during the Cold War, that would be completely unacceptable. Since they haven't done any of those things, that's a bit of a moot point.

In actual quantitative terms, China has been more restrained than any of the above. That's demonstrable. We judge them by what they do, not by a few people's assumptions about intention.

False hope is a terrible thing, if its the only thing keeping you alive you'll be dead by dawn.!

False hope is thinking that port calls and joint military exercises will prevent the Chinese from seizing whatever shoal or rock they choose to seize... still, I don't expect anyone to be dead by dawn as a consequence of that false hope.

What in your opinion would constitute t imperial, colonial, or hegemonic ambitions?

Making China the centre of the world? The Middle Kingdom?

An imperial or colonial ambition would be the acquisition of colonies or the establishment of an empire. A hegemonic ambition would be more along the lines of what the US and the Soviets did in the developing world during the Cold War: removing governments that refused to subordinate themselves to the hegemon, installing and propping up compliant dictators, etc. If China chose to interfere in the domestic politics of SEA nations in the way that the US used to play around in Latin America only a few decades ago, that would be something to be concerned about.

I've never said that the SCS situation isn't something that warrants concern. It's just not a situation that's going to be helped by overreaction and bluster or by drawing lines in the sea that we aren't willing to enforce anyway. A bit of perspective is called for, and a bit less fear.

Pride?

The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.

And fear... don't forget fear. Scared people do all manner of stupid things.

AdamG

08-30-2013, 07:41 PM

The Philippines and Japan’s charm offensives towards China appear to have failed as Beijing seeks to isolate both powers within the region.

http://thediplomat.com/the-editor/2013/08/30/china-moves-to-isolate-philippines-japan/

AdamG

01-15-2014, 01:49 AM

MANILA, Philippines - A Chinese news network has reported that China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) is planning to seize the contested Pag-Asa Island in the Spratlys Group of Islands this year in what can be an explosive military confrontation.

Business and strategy news platform Qianzhan (Prospects) reported that Beijing condemned the Philippines' move to deploy Air Force and naval contingents to Pag-Asa Islands early this month and called the occupation illegal and "arrogant."
http://m.philstar.com/314190/show/e02c7725f29d1fafc8c0431ba50020b7/?

The following report is a translation from Chinese media. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily Mail.

Relying on US support, the Philippines is so arrogant as to announce in the New Year that it will increase its navy and air force deployment at Zhongye Island, a Chinese island that it has illegally occupied for years.

It will be an intolerable insult to China

According to experts, the Chinese navy has drawn a detailed combat plan to seize the island and the battle will be restricted within the South China Sea.

The battle is aimed at recovery of the island stolen by the Philippines from China.

There will be no invasion into Filipino territories.

A report in the Philippines Star confirmed the Philippines military buildup on the island.

http://chinadailymail.com/2014/01/11/chinese-troops-to-seize-zhongye-island-back-from-the-philippines-in-2014/

carl

01-15-2014, 02:54 AM

I wonder how we'll weasel our way out of backing the Filipinos on this one.

Dayuhan

01-15-2014, 03:57 AM

I wonder how we'll weasel our way out of backing the Filipinos on this one.

We already have. The US has pretty consistently stated that it sees the Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal, etc as disputed territory, not part of the Philippines. Of course we also say that the disputes should be settled peacefully, but realistically I doubt the US response to a seizure of Kalayaan Island would go much beyond verbiage and a few arms sales to Manila. I don't see the US wanting to go to a military confrontation over the islands. Some kind of economic reprisal, possibly. I'm not sure what the options are on that side, would be interesting to see discussion from people who know more about it.

I actually don't expect this to happen yet, though it could, especially if the Chinese government feels a pressing need to rally some nationalist spirit by beating up someone who can't fight back. More likely we'll see some fishing boats seized and/or chased out, more harassment of oil exploration missions, possibly an ADIZ over the South China Sea. These threats have been tossed around before, usually through semi-official channels.

carl

01-15-2014, 06:53 AM

Dayuhan:

That is a pretty good analysis.

AdamG

01-20-2014, 04:19 PM

JAPAN- A longtime no-war pledge has disappeared from Japan's Liberal Democratic Party's annual working policy revealed on Sunday, while the ruling party vowed to continue visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine and push ahead constitutional revision, in another move leading the country in a far-right direction, observers said.

At its 81st LDP annual convention in Tokyo, the party removed the pledge that Japan would "never wage a war", China Central Television reported on Sunday.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/japan-drops-no-war-pledge

jmm99

01-31-2014, 07:48 PM

carl

01-31-2014, 09:59 PM

Mike:

Those blue lines exclude Europe. We have been in three wars, two hot, one cold in order to keep Europe in a state we would prefer it to be in. I don't see how things have changed so much that we wouldn't do it again if a threat arose.

Also I don't think a map display of areas we are interested in does justice to the desire to preserve the system of free navigation the Royal and United States Navies created and maintained over the last 200 years. That system is a fundamental that has become so normal that we all take it for granted. We shouldn't. And that is the biggest threat Red China's expansionism pose's in my mind, the disruption of that system.

jmm99

02-01-2014, 03:45 AM

Those blue lines exclude Europe. We have been in three wars, two hot, one cold in order to keep Europe in a state we would prefer it to be in. I don't see how things have changed so much that we wouldn't do it again if a threat arose.

Yes, they exclude all the continental masses of the Old World, including Europe. The US is good at breaking things using high tech, very violent methods to which most Europeans are opposed. Even if we could keep Europe "in a state we would prefer it to be in" (a doubtful proposition), hegemony over Europe would entail costs which would be better expended in the Americas.

If a threat to the United States (and it would have to be existential or close to that) arose from the continental masses, we have more than adequate reach to neutralize that threat - preferably, by targeted direct actions, but also by more violent actions to include nuclear.

Do not completely despair, however, because in order to protect our far littorals, we must have at least co-operative relations with the littoral nations of the Atlantic and Pacific. Those nations all have their own special interests re: the more interior countries. So, a gigantic alliance of littoral states, pressed fit into "one size fits all", simply won't work. Moreover, in power and uses of power, all countries are not equal - one cannot compare Mauritania with the UK and France, which are nuclear powers. Thus, the US would have to protect its far littorals the old-fashioned way via bi-lateral arrangements, individually negotiated and maintained.

Also I don't think a map display of areas we are interested in does justice to the desire to preserve the system of free navigation the Royal and United States Navies created and maintained over the last 200 years. That system is a fundamental that has become so normal that we all take it for granted. We shouldn't. And that is the biggest threat Red China's expansionism pose's in my mind, the disruption of that system.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1789&d=1391197528

Those light blue lines include all of the World's oceans, except for the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the Inland Seas. Primary responsibility for those waters should rest on the nations enclosed by the orange line. Again, bi-lateral relations are indicated, with realization that each of those nations has different interests with respect to China. Air and Naval exercises (and limited landing exercises) are not foreclosed because in certain circumstances (e.g., blockade of China) US forces would have to cross the blue line. Our standard global nuclear policy would remain in effect.

An SME on the military strengths of the "orange line" countries can inform us of their ability to take on maritime control of the Indian Ocean and the more coastal waters from Vietnam to Japan.

The map is a containment structure vs. Red China's expansionism. I don't think China will push the envelope against the US. If it engages in a conventional war, its assets (all those bonds and stocks) and its nationals' assets within US jurisdiction will be forfeit to the US. If that war went nuclear, China could severely hurt us with varying estimates of US casualties (depending on first strike, etc. - 10-100 million), but China's concentrated coastal and near interior populations (most of its population) would cease to exist - as would China as a nation. The "orange line" countries each have different considerations re: China, as do Australia-NZ. One size won't fit all; and the US must realize that.

Regards

Mike

Bill Moore

02-01-2014, 08:00 PM

I thought I'd post this image to relate our "Pacific Pivot" to the areas to the west of what I believe are the far littorals that the US must protect.

1789

That is, the areas to the west of the limit of US force projection to protect that littoral (blue line), which have Aus-NZ separate (dark blue line); and then the non-Chinese East, Southeast and South Asian countries (orange line), not to include Astan and Pstan. The US "pivot to the Pacific" began well over a hundred years ago and most of the islands are either part of the United States or are states freely associated with the US.

The states ringing China have somewhat different interests than the US vis--vis China; and cannot, without losing credibility, be seen as American lapdogs. Therefore, separate China policies are indicated, but co-operation is also indicated.

In a recent speech, the new Indian ambassador emphasized India's "shift to the east".

Regards

Mike

Your blue lines indicate a conventional threat we must be prepared to block at your proposed defensive line. I don't think a conventional military threat to the U.S. proper exists in my opinion in East Asia. Instead we are faced with a number of asymmetric/unconventional threats ranging from long range missiles, WMD, to cyber that drawing defensive line in the water won't protect us from.

Furthermore, half the population of the earth and the economic center of the global economy lies beyond your blue line, and the U.S. has strategic economic interests it must protect in that region, which is the driving reason for our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. This is also the reason the rebalance isn't all about the military, but unfortunately the military gets 95% of the media coverage which creates a terrible misrepresentation of what we're trying to do.

Bob's World

02-02-2014, 03:20 PM

Bill,

It just dawned on me the parallels between your argument (PACOM's argument) above today, and the one they routinely made 7-10 years ago.

Then it was about how many Muslims lived in that region. How Indonesia was the largest Muslim populace nation on the planet, the numbers of Muslims in Malaysia, India, Philippines, etc. All true, but they were selling those demographic facts as rationale for greater war on terrorism activity; completely discounting that there was very little terror threat to the US in those areas.

PACOM hated the war on terror though, as it robbed them of resources as we shifted everything that wasn't nailed down over to CENTCOM, and they hated how it marginalized the Big Navy, Big Airforce missions in the Pacific with traditional Cold War threats and missions.

But now the statisticians are back. Today it is not facts about demographics, but rather facts about economics. Ok, so true enough, the Asian region is a massive engine of economic growth these days. True enough, but just like the Muslim facts of the last decade, I have to wonder if this doesn't add up to a military threat to the US either....

I can see where it could very well be the problem PACOM proclaims it to be...but I also have a very strong sense of Deja vu; and I also know how the people in that building think. Dominated by Air and Naval officers, the world always tends to look a whole lot like what they do for a living.

Bill Moore

02-02-2014, 06:12 PM

Not exactly a novel idea that the world looks different depending upon where you sit. For example, I know there are some people in USSOCOM who tend to view the world through a population centric lens and think DOD should be focused on engaging populations around the world because in their view nation-states no longer matter. Of course they like that view because they believe it gives them a competitive advantage regardless of how inaccurate the claim is. As for economic interests, those comments are from our national leadership, not PACOM. Unlike some, PACOM leadership does listen to what national leadership tells them to focus on. They don't have the luxury of pursuing their priorities.

jmm99

02-02-2014, 10:36 PM

Your blue lines indicate a conventional threat we must be prepared to block at your proposed defensive line. I don't think a conventional military threat to the U.S. proper exists in my opinion in East Asia. Instead we are faced with a number of asymmetric/unconventional threats ranging from long range missiles, WMD, to cyber that drawing defensive line in the water won't protect us from.

Lines, whether "lines drawn in the sand" or "lines drawn in the sea", are symbolic representations of real policies. Thus, we have the Line of Gaius Popillius Laenas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Popillius_Laenas) (a Containment Zone) and the Lakshman Rekha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshman_Rekha) (a Protective Zone); and both legends provide us useful advice.

My little lines drawn in the seas establish both a Containment Zone (vis-a-vis China; is your "East Asia" a euphemism for China ?); and a Protective Zone (for the Americas, by extending force projection to the far littorals of the Atlantic and the Pacific). With respect to the Americas, cultivation of strategic co-operation (bi-lateral) between the US and those American states that can afford to join in far littoral naval force projection is indicated. Brazil is an easy example.

You and I certainly don't want to engage in a semantic debate about defining "conventional" and "unconventional", or "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical", in this thread. So, I'll take your "conventional military threat" to mean something like carrier task forces, divisional landing faces and air wings - Normandy, Okinawa, etc.

So long as a solid Protective Zone exists, the "U.S. Proper" will face little risk of large conventional attacks from anywhere in the World. That type of attack (the Red Dawn Scenario) would play into our high-tech, highly violent abilities. However, the "U.S. Proper" could face risk from attacks by smaller conventional forces - whether an independent group of TVNSAs, or a proxy group for another state. Moreover, in the "Inland Sea" area from Japan-Korea to Taiwan, and in the "Guam Salient", a US-China conventional armed conflict might well have an unpredictable outcome.

I look at carrier task forces, divisional landing faces and air wings + your "long range missiles, WMD, to cyber" as being part of our tool chest - and part of the aggregate "tool chest" of our possible opponents. Not all are as blessed individually in certain areas as we are; but we cannot continue to engage them on their terms. We have to pick and choose our fights, remembering that both the military struggle and the political struggle must be included in our plans.

My "defensive line" (your words, twice used) is scarcely that. Of course, since WWII and the UN Charter, the concept of "Aggressive War" has been outlawed. So, we Americans start with something of a "defensive posture" - no "first strike" (but, that has exceptions ranging from an all-out nuclear attack to the smallest direct action targeting one person - "It all depends ..."). My views are not one of "passive defense", where one will get his a$$ knocked around the boxing or wrestling ring. My views are best viewed as those of aggressive counter-punching and counter-grappling - with multiple attack options. Some are local, some are regional, and some (because of the nature and source of the threat, especially if existential or near so) are global. Some are directly USAian and some would be via "proxies". They do include DIME and more.

I could go on to everyone's boredom; so, I'll simply say that in policy and strategy (political and military working together), my view is along the lines suggested by Andre Beaufre - e.g., Introduction to Strategy (with particular reference to Problems of Defense, Politics, Economics, and Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age) (http://www.amazon.com/INTRODUCTION-PARTICULAR-REFERENCE-ECONOMICS-DIPLOMACY/dp/B000XRD1ME) (and link to following review (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-particular-reference-Economics-Diplomacy/dp/B000NNGM2E)):

In a book of searing brilliance, General Andre Beaufre contends that the West has failed to develop a strategic method of thought in politics, economics, and diplomacy to employ in the dialectic of two opposing wills on the world scene. We have assumed, wrongly, that military strategy is the only strategy (and military strength the most important strength) and because military strategy has often failed, we have relegated the whole strategic art to the museum shelf.

General Beaufre constructs a modern "algebra of war" that incorporates classic military strategy as well as nuclear and indirect strategies - examining them as abstract concepts of attack, surprise, deception, and showing how and when they can be used most effectively in achieving specific aims in global conflict. In our time, when the awesomeness of nuclear weapons, imposes limits on the use of military strength, it is the other aspects of strategy that must come to the fore. Indirect strategy is the strategy of the future.

"I am convinced that in strategy, as in all human affairs, it is ideas which must be dominant and the guiding force. In war the loser deserves to lose because his defeat must result from errors of thinking, made either before or during the conflict."

and, Deterrence and Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/Deterrence-Strategy-Andre-Beaufre/dp/B005BKFXE2):

General Beaufre applies his capacity for clear logical thinking and lucid expression to this basic problem of deterrence. He shows that it is governed by special laws, differing according to degree of force employed and the number of participants in this frightening game. He analyzes its effect upon military structure in the nuclear age and gives a thought-provoking picture of the world problems which may face us the year 2000.

Both books are needed to understand where Beaufre is coming from and going to. See also, Liddell-Hart, Strategy: the indirect approach (http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Basil-Henry-Liddell-Hart/dp/B0007HHK4A); and Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-The-Logic-War-Peace/dp/0674839951), are useful companions to Beaupre - besides Clausewitz (http://www.amazon.com/On-War-Carl-von-Clausewitz/dp/0691056579), Jomini (http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-New-Appendices-Maps/dp/B001LY5B7G) and Frederick the Great (http://www.amazon.com/Frederick-Great-Art-War/dp/B0007HK3FS), a masterful counter-puncher and counter-grappler.

Regards

Mike

jmm99

02-02-2014, 10:47 PM

I invite examples and discussion as to Bill's comment:

Furthermore, half the population of the earth and the economic center of the global economy lies beyond your blue line, and the U.S. has strategic economic interests it must protect in that region, which is the driving reason for our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. This is also the reason the rebalance isn't all about the military, but unfortunately the military gets 95% of the media coverage which creates a terrible misrepresentation of what we're trying to do.

Yes, there are lots of people, land and wealth in Eurasia and Africa. Besides, MacKinder told us in 1904 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Theory) that we had to focus our Worldview there.

Later, in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory as:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island controls the world."
(Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 106)

Any power which controlled the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world's resources. The Heartland's size and central position made it the key to controlling the World-Island.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Heartland.png

Of course, we "dumb" Americans and TR were ignoring MacKinder back in 1904 (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmh/summary/v070/70.2hagan.html):

A century ago, on 25 January 1904, Halford J. Mackinder delivered a paper entitled "The Geographical Pivot of History" to an audience of the Royal Geographic Society. The distinguished English geographer contended that the age of sea power was ending and land power was about to become the key element of global strategic dominance. The new pivot in Mackinder's system of geographical determinism consisted of "the closed heartland of Euro-Asia" (p. 8), that is, Russia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. He believed that if Russia were to ally with Germany they would form the strongest empire in the world. Britain, the United States, and Japan—the world's most powerful sea powers—would be at a fatal strategic disadvantage and powerless to contest with the heartland powers for control over the economic, military, and political future of the world.

Mackinder had the bad fortune to deliver his prescient paper at precisely the moment when each of the three major sea powers was making its distinctive bid to demonstrate the controlling power of navies. Japan was challenging Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–5) and demonstrating that a relatively small nation with a major navy and shrewd naval strategy could resoundingly defeat Mackinder's potentially all-powerful land power. The United States, under the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, was building almost two battleships per year and had just commenced construction of the Panama Canal. This combination would enable the U.S. Navy to exert Mahanian command of the seas in both the western Atlantic and throughout much of the Pacific Ocean. England was about to launch the super battleship Dreadnought, which would render all other major naval combatants hopelessly inferior and obsolescent—much as would be the case with the American super carriers of the Cold War era.

So, what the hay, why should we bow to that long-deceased monument today ?

Seriously, I am interested in your statement:

... the U.S. has strategic economic interests it must protect ...

If you could, I'd appreciate some examples to have a framework for a reasoned discussion. My general questions about "US strategic economic interests" are the following:

1. Is the economic interest "had" by the US people; i.e., the US as a nation state "owns" it; or

2. Is the economic interest "had" by US special interest groups; they "own" it; or

3. Is the economic interest "had" by a foreign state or foreign interest groups; it or they "own" it.

Another set of questions applicable to all three situations is whether:

1. The economic interest is of direct strategic import to the "US as a nation-state", and/or to "US special interest groups"; or

2. The economic interest is of indirect strategic import to the "US as a nation-state", and/or to "US special interest groups", but of more direct strategic import to US "allies, partners, etc." (and whether they are capable or not of protecting that interest themselves).

I'm open to discussion.

Regards

Mike

Bill Moore

02-03-2014, 12:25 AM

If you could, I'd appreciate some examples to have a framework for a reasoned discussion. My general questions about "US strategic economic interests" are the following:

Quote:
1. Is the economic interest "had" by the US people; i.e., the US as a nation state "owns" it; or

2. Is the economic interest "had" by US special interest groups; they "own" it; or

3. Is the economic interest "had" by a foreign state or foreign interest groups; it or they "own" it.

Another set of questions applicable to all three situations is whether:

Quote:
1. The economic interest is of direct strategic import to the "US as a nation-state", and/or to "US special interest groups"; or

2. The economic interest is of indirect strategic import to the "US as a nation-state", and/or to "US special interest groups", but of more direct strategic import to US "allies, partners, etc." (and whether they are capable or not of protecting that interest themselves.

I'm open to discussion.

Mike,

Fair enough, this is my initial response and then I'm watching the Super Bowl :D

I'll start with I feel very comfortable with what we're trying to accomplish in PACOM AOR with our allies and partners for a number of reasons. First there is general consensus it is a good thing for all concerned, to include the nations we compete with economically. Second, in my opinion of course, our moral compass is on target, since it is supportive of overall development, supportive of human rights, and recognizes each nation's sovereign interests (they're equals at the table). This wasn't the case during my years in PACOM in the 80s when we were supporting tyrants to maintain our status quo with the USSR. While most of us understood the logic we couldn't help but feel a bit dirty at the end of the day.

You can go to PACOM's website and look at it unclassified strategy, a key component of it is:

In accordance with national guidance, our desired end state is that the Asia-Pacific is secure and prosperous, underpinned by U.S. leadership and a rules-based international order.

Our National Defense Strategy also points to economic interests (largely protecting the international economic system that so many countries are dependent upon).

The maintenance of peace, stability, the free flow of commerce, and of U.S. influence in this dynamic region will depend in part on an underlying balance of military capability and presence. Over the long term, China’’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the U.S. economy and our security in a variety of ways. Our two countries have a strong stake in peace and stability in East Asia and an interest in building a cooperative bilateral relationship. However, the growth of China’’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region. The United States will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that we maintain regional access and the ability to operate freely in keeping with our treaty obligations and with international law. Working closely with our network of allies and
partners, we will continue to promote a rules-based international order that ensures underlying stability and encourages the peaceful rise of new powers, economic dynamism, and constructive defense cooperation.

You mentioned a containment strategy in your posts, but the U.S. doesn't have a containment strategy. There are a lot of concerns with growing tensions between China, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, and a number of other states in the region, but the intent is to resolve those issues using the existing rules instead of these nations resorting to military coercion or force, which could (though it doesn't have to, which is important to keep in mind) escalate into a much larger conflict which in theory would rock the global economy. I'm not an economist, so I can't assess if those arguments are overstated or not, but there seems to be general consensus globally that continued stability and economic growth in the region is in everyone's best interests. To your question above, that means 1-3.

From the Department of State

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2013/12/218291.htm

Economic Aspects of the Asia Rebalance

The past few decades have produced an extraordinary period of prosperity in the East Asia-Pacific region. It has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty across the entire region and fostered dynamic, innovative economies that today are fueling global growth. The World Bank recently projected that the East Asia-Pacific region will contribute 40 percent of global growth this year, and some forecasters expect that nearly 50 percent of world growth over the next two decades will be generated in this region, yielding hundreds of millions of new middle class consumers.

Tapping into the economic dynamism of the East Asia-Pacific is vitally important for U.S. interests. Even as we continue to lay the foundation for future economic ties, we are already seeing progress in many areas. For instance, trade with the East Asia-Pacific region grew by 22 percent between 2008 and 2012, far outpacing the 13 percent growth in global U.S. trade. In 2012, U.S. exports of goods and services to the East Asia-Pacific region totaled nearly $555 billion, an increase of 31 percent since 2008, which supports an estimated 2.8 million U.S. jobs.

Another one from State,

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/pl/2013/218776.htm

Benefits for the United States

Through the rebalance, we are positioning the United States to better promote its interests as the center of global politics, economics, and population growth continues to shift to the East Asia-Pacific. By increasing our engagement in the region, the United States is:

Supporting efforts that create and sustain American jobs (in 2012, $555 billion in U.S. exports of goods and services to the region are estimated to have supported as many as 2.8 million U.S. jobs); Making America safer and more secure; Helping expand the ranks of democratic and prosperous states.

One can argue over the "how" we protect our interests in the region, but I think one would have to be pretty irrational to make a claim we don't strategic interests there. Unlike Bob's outdated perceptions of current strategy, the reality is as stated in a recent SWJ post we're still pre-strategic when it comes to China. We have a action officer level discussion on what if, but that doesn't reflect policy or senior leadership views in uniform necessarily. We do have a regional strategy that is focused on maintaining peace through engagement and deterring aggression in the region for all the reasons stated above (and more). This gets to my point about your lines only addressing half of our strategy. Of course protecting the homeland is always a priority, but we have interests beyond that require us to engage and assure the nation-states beyond that line that we intend to maintain regional security, which doesn't mean advocating for a large land force to dominate the Asia land mass, but expanded partnerships and posturing the "right" capabilities to deter and respond to a crisis in the region. How we should that will be debated from here to eternity.

jmm99

02-03-2014, 04:10 AM

Thank you for the references above, but particularly for your suggestion to get the information directly from the PACOM website (http://www.pacom.mil/). Besides the basic background items (USPACOM Strategy, Defense Strategic Guidance, Facts, Exercises & Engagements, History), the Asia Pacific Economic Update page (http://www.pacom.mil/about-uspacom/asia-pacific-economic-update.shtml) (2005-2012, with 2 to 4 volumes per year) will give me a take on PACOM's viewpoint and increase my understanding of the AOR's economies. So, I've some reading to do.

My eventual conclusions may differ from those of PACOM and the Asia-Pacific Chamber of Commerce.

The AOR map (no lines drawn in the seas there !):

http://www.pacom.mil/images/New-AOR_map_07-19-2010-l.jpg

leads me to believe that my little lines drawn in the seas (if effected, which seems highly improbable in the New World Order) would change PACOM's rice bowl into this:

http://img1.etsystatic.com/039/0/8043278/il_340x270.508919757_76yz.jpg

I will also look for our strategic plan for Mongolia - I'm told that they like Americans. :)

Regards

Mike

carl

02-03-2014, 06:18 AM

Mike:

Europe remains an area of vital interest to the US for the same reason it did in the past century, it is hugely important economically. We couldn't afford to let that economy slip from amongst our trading partners. That would cost us economically, a lot. Granted right now there isn't much around to threaten them and thereby us. But things change. I think us Americans don't really see that they do. Guys like JMA do though because of where they live. Yes, the Euros aren't too interested in fighting anybody now, but then they weren't in the 20s and 30s either. But when a threat came, they changed their minds and we responded.

I am a little unclear about how you feel about the Red Chinese threatening to essentially take over the South China Sea, thereby overthrowing the system of free navigation the RN and USN established and preserved. That is the prime danger in my view, the overthrow of that system. And ironically I think the overthrow of that system would hurt more than any other nation, Red China itself. The reason for that is they would have clearly demonstrated that a nation can take over a portion of the high seas and the USN won't stop them. If that happens, the Red Chinese will look into the mirror and say to themselves 'Hey, if we can do that, somebody else can do that, like the Indians!.' Every other nation will see that too. When that happens it will lead to nautical anarchy, which will lead to a lot of wars and will severely curtail free trade which will impoverish a lot of people in the world. I don't think we realize the importance of a merchant vessel being able sail around unimpeded without having to pay tribute to the PLAN here, say the Ukranian navy there or the South African navy down way down under.

jmm99

02-03-2014, 08:11 AM

In the Best Interests of the Sugar Market

So, in any area that is economically important to US business interests, the US military must become the Better Business Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, Smart Zone Incubator - and throw in a lot of muscle whenever US trade flow is threatened ?

I don't think so; but that seems to have become the rallying cry for the New World Order globalists, especially those of a liberal-progressive Wall Street bent.

Rough Riders, Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK8XiUinllI), at about 1:57:45 to about 1:59:10 - Why We Are Here > Not For The Sugar Market. But that was then; and the New World Order is definitely now.

--------------------------------
Containment in the South China Sea

PACOM has no containment strategy for China (Bill Moore's post above). But, USPACOM Strategy (http://www.pacom.mil/about-uspacom/2013-uspacom-strategy.shtml) does announce this BLUF for China:

The United States believes that a strong U.S.-China partnership is essential for peace, prosperity, and both regional and global security.

Do you think that the Land of Unrestricted Warfare is going to be our "partner" ? Let's all just get along and sing Kumbayah.

Moreover, as Bill pointed out in his post:

You mentioned a containment strategy in your posts, but the U.S. doesn't have a containment strategy. There are a lot of concerns with growing tensions between China, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, and a number of other states in the region, but the intent is to resolve those issues using the existing rules instead of these nations resorting to military coercion or force, which could (though it doesn't have to, which is important to keep in mind) escalate into a much larger conflict which in theory would rock the global economy.

My position is simple. Let the people of the region decide whether they are willing to die to defend their territorial sovereignty. The Indians and Vietnamese have made that commitment in defending their borders. What is the position of the other "orange line" countries ? If they are not willing to "draw a line in the sea" and defend it to the death, why should we defend it for them ?

It could well be that some "orange line" nations will talk a good game about territorial sovereignty, but will accept baksheesh (like a couple in South Asia) and allow its impairment - hoping that China will be a kind and gentle "partner". Ultimately, it's their choice and not ours.

Regards

Mike

carl

02-03-2014, 05:59 PM

Mike:

The fact of the matter is a maritime trading nation like ours can't prosper unless we have pretty free access to world markets, especially the wealthy ones like Europe, and they have pretty free access to ours. What threatens that threatens our prosperity and our standard of living. People and nations will fight to avoid being poor. If our ability to trade goes down so does our standard of living. Not too noble sounding I'll grant but being poor sucks and not being poor is worth fighting for, especially your children not being poor.

From that we get the importance of freedom of the seas. It is not enough that each little nation tries to defend its freedom of the seas. That is impossible. The Netherlands can't make sure that their merchantmen can sail unimpeded on any body of international water in the world. Nor can they make sure international waters stay international waters. They depend upon the system we have in place now to do that. And that system ultimately depends upon the USN and allied navies backing it. If the USN stopped doing that, the allies would have nothing to coalesce around and the system would collapse. The US would be hurt by that because it would hurt world trade and that would hurt us, along with everybody else to include Red China and Japan and India and other rich powerful countries that would start taking action. Things would get dark and ugly pretty quick.

This is a small wars site and I think we don't tend to see how vitally important free navigation is to the welfare of the world and how important sea power is to maintaining free navigation.

Steve Blair

02-03-2014, 06:35 PM

Actually one could contend that many of our (the US's) external small wars resulted from the desire to secure or preserve freedom of navigation (the need for provisioning/coaling stations comes to mind, along with preventing other nations from securing locations that might block navigation). We've "backed into" a number of involvements for those reasons.

Dayuhan

02-04-2014, 12:22 AM

I am a little unclear about how you feel about the Red Chinese threatening to essentially take over the South China Sea, thereby overthrowing the system of free navigation the RN and USN established and preserved. That is the prime danger in my view, the overthrow of that system.

A declaration of sovereignty over the South China Sea is not in itself interference with trade, any more than Panama's declaration of sovereignty over the canal was in itself interference with trade. Given that the vast majority of the maritime traffic in the region is coming to or from Chinese ports, and that China depends more on maritime trade than any other nation on earth and would be intensely vulnerable to teat-for-tat responsive restraint elsewhere, it's hard to see any incentive for them to interfere.

Not that I think we should accept or recognize their claim, but there's little to be gained by going all irate over it. Insisting that they drop the claim is pointless, because they won't and we can't force them to. The status quo for some time has been that they claim, others counter-claim, everybody ignores everybody else's claim, and the pushing and shoving stays at a fairly low scale. That's liveable. The current policy of "we don't take sides on the claims, but we'd like to see them settled peacefully and without restraint on navigation", combined with ambiguity on what would or wouldn't provoke a response, seems reasonable to me. I don't see how getting all truculent and confrontational would improve matters.

Dayuhan

02-04-2014, 12:33 AM

This, from Bill's PACOM citation:

In accordance with national guidance, our desired end state is that the Asia-Pacific is secure and prosperous, underpinned by U.S. leadership and a rules-based international order.

seems to me a likely sticking point, both with allies and potential antagonists. We need to remember that despite all the rhetoric about the obsolescence of the nation-state and the rise of the non-state actor, East Asia remains the domain of traditional nation-states with substantial amounts of nationalism in play. The East Asian nations do not consider themselves to be inferiors or natural subordinates. If we expect to "lead", as in we decide and others follow, we're not going to do very well. Obviously that doesn't mean we submit to the dictates of others, but there's a thin line to be walked, and if we wade into The Pivot with the assumption that we are The Leader there's likely to be some messy times.

Dayuhan

02-04-2014, 12:53 AM

Rough Riders, Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK8XiUinllI), at about 1:57:45 to about 1:59:10 - Why We Are Here > Not For The Sugar Market. But that was then; and the New World Order is definitely now.

The "New Worl Order" might not be so new, and there might have been things the Rough Riders didn't know. Elihu Root had in private law practice ably served the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the great industrial conglomerates of the day, and the ASRC had a quite surpassing interest in bringing cane sugar production inside the tariff wall. Of course the acquisition of actual and potential sugar producing territories under Root's administration may have been completely coincidental.

My position is simple. Let the people of the region decide whether they are willing to die to defend their territorial sovereignty. The Indians and Vietnamese have made that commitment in defending their borders. What is the position of the other "orange line" countries ? If they are not willing to "draw a line in the sea" and defend it to the death, why should we defend it for them ?

Will and capacity are two different things. Our problem is what to do if they have the will but not the capacity. Realistically, that will depend on our assessment of our interests at the time and under the specific circumstances in question.

It could well be that some "orange line" nations will talk a good game about territorial sovereignty, but will accept baksheesh (like a couple in South Asia) and allow its impairment - hoping that China will be a kind and gentle "partner". Ultimately, it's their choice and not ours.

Less to do with hoping for kindness and gentleness than with not wanting to get stomped. When a Jack Russell Terrier faces off with a Rottweiler, the choices are limited. The terrier can keep up in the bark department, but when it comes to biting he's either going to accommodate or get chomped.

How the US can or should respond to any of this is anything but clear, especially as the manner of China's evolution going forward is anything but clear. I do not see "lines in the sea" or red lines of any description being terribly useful, especially if we're not 100% sure we're willing to back them up. It's not a situation with a clear answer, beyond maintaining presence, engagement, flexibility, and ambiguity.

jmm99

02-04-2014, 01:42 AM

The "New World Order" might not be so new, and there might have been things the Rough Riders didn't know. Elihu Root had in private law practice ably served the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the great industrial conglomerates of the day, and the ASRC had a quite surpassing interest in bringing cane sugar production inside the tariff wall. Of course the acquisition of actual and potential sugar producing territories under Root's administration may have been completely coincidental.

I'm well acquainted with the "New World Order" of the Spanish-American War, and better acquainted with the NWO which led to the Panama Canal. So were those Rough Riders whose families were involved in those NWOs. Sgt. Ham Fish KIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Fish_II_(Rough_Rider)) was a type for that family background, though he did not accept their financial investments as a basis for his going to war (or so says John Milius' script).

The movie clip reflects a number of different reasons for going to war. The ending viewpoint of the clip - that one should not go to war for the benefit of the "Sugar Market" - is one shared by me and by Smedley Butler, War is a Racket (https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket) (1935), although I add the caveat that he had his era and context and I have mine.

The remaining two "points" of your message are generalized rhetorical snipping - as to which your "Jack Russell Terrier faces off with a Rottweiler" is an excellent metaphor.

Regards

Mike

Bill Moore

02-04-2014, 06:11 AM

This, from Bill's PACOM citation:
seems to me a likely sticking point, both with allies and potential antagonists. We need to remember that despite all the rhetoric about the obsolescence of the nation-state and the rise of the non-state actor, East Asia remains the domain of traditional nation-states with substantial amounts of nationalism in play. The East Asian nations do not consider themselves to be inferiors or natural subordinates. If we expect to "lead", as in we decide and others follow, we're not going to do very well. Obviously that doesn't mean we submit to the dictates of others, but there's a thin line to be walked, and if we wade into The Pivot with the assumption that we are The Leader there's likely to be some messy times.

There are many ways to provide leadership that are not offensive, and I think most nations in the region appreciate U.S. leadership both from a regional/global security model and economic model perspective since it benefits many and is a known system. That doesn't mean they want the U.S. to be a hegemon, so of course we need to lead in a way that is non-offensive and non-threatening to our friends. I'll buy there is a thin line to be walked, which overall we seem to do fairly well. We fully anticipate messy times, but taking the long view as long as we're generally on track and accept the messy times as a bump in the road we'll be fine.

jmm99

02-04-2014, 08:19 AM

The issue of protecting trade routes in the Pacific, the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean is not a new issue for American policy makers and strategists. It existed in 1900, when Mahan published his collection of articles, The Problem of Asia and Its Effect Upon International Policies (https://archive.org/details/problemofasiaand005885mbp). The material at pp.177-181 (attached as a pdf) seems material to your post and may answer some of your questions.

Mahan introduces a factual situation not unlike that of today, with flexible suggestion for its resolution (emphasis added in all snips):

... we shall find ourselves one of several powers rivals in interest, — competitors, — with the danger, incident to competition, of degenerating into antagonism. The fact does not call upon us to circumscribe our independence of action by formal alliance with one, or declared opposition to another; but it does demand that we rid our minds of the caricature of independence, which receives frequent expression in words, probably because it reflects a condition of our popular consciousness. Each man and each state is independent just so far as there is strength to go alone, and no farther. When this limit is reached, if farther steps must be made, co-operation must be accepted. In that case the only certain foundation for harmony of action and continuance of relations is to be found in common interests and common habits of thought.
...
Co-operation, therefore, is indicated; but it is a mistake to assume that co-operation, which act by act is voluntary, necessitates or implies abnegation of that moral responsibility, involved in freedom of choice at each moment, in the retention and observance of which alone is real independence of action preserved, and which a treaty — of alliance, or of arbitration, if unconditioned — may impair culpably, because it pledges the unknown future.

Thus, the Mahanian basis of my disfavoring alliances and instead favoring co-operation between countries, with as much preservation of their independence and sovereignty as possible.

Mahan then went on to look at the two major trade routes which must be protected - a situation present today, with changed parties:

In final analysis the great lines of communication to the farther East are two, from Europe and from America. The former is by way of Suez, the latter by the Pacific ; but the present distribution of our national wealth, and its communications with our seaboard, require, and doubtless will insure, the opening of access for our Atlantic slope by way of the Central American Isthmus. In that case the American line of communications to China may be correctly said to be by Nicaragua, — or Panama, — as that of Europe is by way of Suez ; and as the Mediterranean, Egypt, Asia Minor, the Red Sea, and Aden, designate the points decisive of control by the one route, so do the Caribbean Sea and the continental surroundings of the future canal, with Hawaii and the Philippines, fix those of the other, the importance of which to ourselves make it our especial interest.

Today, we still have the US Navy for the American route across the Pacific. The logical successor to the Royal Navy for the European Route is the Indian Navy, with such of its neighbors as it can enlist in that co-operative venture.

Just after this point, Mahan takes up the question of quid pro quo:

I do not mean here to affirm an obligation of benevolence to other nations, strong enough to take care of themselves. I mean, on the contrary, that because of great common interests — with Great Britain especially, though not solely — in the Pacific commerce of the future, and in the nature of the development of China, we need to receive and to give support, and should be ashamed to receive more than we give, in proportion to our means and opportunities.

As an example, apportionment of trade route usage could determine the respective cost burdens of keeping trade routes open.

In conclusion, Mahan states what I have stated here:

From the conditions, we must be in effective naval force in the Pacific. We must similarly be in effective force on the Atlantic; not for the defence of our coasts primarily, or immediately, as is commonly thought, — for in warfare, however much in defence of right, the navy is not immediately an instrument of defence but of offence, — but because the virtual predominance of our naval power in the Caribbean is essential to preserve the use of the Isthmian Canal to our commerce, and to give our navy quick access to the Pacific.

The main adversary to all of this is China - although the USG certainly wants to put a sugarcoating on that Land of Unrestricted Warfare. In Mahan's time, China was a semi-feudal, semi-colonialized nation. Japan was the rising Asian power, even in 1900 - soon to prove itself in 1905. China is naturally following the same path; see, Ronald O’Rourke, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf) (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 5 September 2013), RL33153.

I've written of containment vis-à-vis China - not a USG policy, for sure. Containment can backfire; one can make a decent argument that Japan was pushed into WWII by an over-containment policy of the US and its allies.

Let's look at an example of a Containment Zone that I cited earlier - a line drawn in the sand. I give you Gaius Popillius Laenas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Popillius_Laenas).

He was sent as an envoy [an Army of One] to end a war between Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt (then weakly ruled by co-kings). On being confronted with the Roman demands that he abort his attack on Alexandria, Antiochus played for time. Laenas is supposed to have drawn a circle around the king in the sand with his cane, and ordered him not to move out of it until a firm answer had been given. Antiochus' answer implied submission; and in fact, the Syrians withdrew.

Why was Laenas there ? Was it because Rome felt an obligation to assist a smaller, weaker nation that was not able to defend itself against the neighborhood bully ? Not likely.

No, Roman was there because of Egypt's grain, which with North Africa's grain, were existential to Rome (see, Grain supply to the city of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_supply_to_the_city_of_Rome)). As one author (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1988_Oct/ai_6955866) put it:

Those who read about ancient Rome are often struck by the importance attached to the shipping of grain from Egypt. Without Egyptian grain, Rome must starve.

Rome knew power and the uses of power - a Thuycidean Realist in some ways, though we have better ways to preserve peace and avoid war (see, Stein (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/astein/Papers/realism%20vers%203-2%20for%20dist.PDF)).

I also earlier cited another legend; this one also dealing with a line drawn in the sand, but setting up a Protective Zone - the Lakshman Rekha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshman_Rekha).

The Lakshman Rekha was a line drawn by Lakshmana around the dwelling he shared with his brother Rama and Rama's wife Sita. The three had to flee their homeland because of their main adversaries, the shape-shifting Rakshasas. Rama was drawn away from the home by a golden deer (actually Rakshasa Maricha who had shifted shapes).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Rama_stalks_the_demon_Marica%2C_who_has_assumed_th e_form_of_a_golden_deer.jpg

Sita pled with Lakshmana to search for his brother. Lakshmana agreed subject to his condition that Sita not cross the protective line he draws. Only Rama, Sita and himself can cross the line without being fried by flames erupting from the line.

Once Lakshmana left in search of Rama, the Rakshasa king Ravana came in the form of a mendicant and asked Sita for alms. Not expecting a trick, she unsuspectingly crossed the Lakshman Rekha to provide alms to him and Ravana kidnapped her.

After a long and arduous search tested his personal strength and virtue, Rama fought a colossal war against Ravana's armies. In a war of powerful and magical beings, greatly destructive weaponry and battles, Rama slew Ravana in battle and liberated his wife.

The salient points are that dangers exist outside the Protective Zone; the Protective Zone is not completely safe; and that defeat of external enemies requires leaving the Protective Zone to fight them on their own turf.

Regards

Mike

Firn

02-04-2014, 02:13 PM

Just a couple of short points:

1. There is no doubt the free trade is a pillar of prosperity, be it for the Western world or China. Arguably strong and profitable economic ties decrease the incentives to go to war, but it just a (powerful) tendency. In war the ability to protect the own trade and to disrupt/block the opponents trade can be one of the keys to victory. The precise value depends of course on the type of war, relative naval strenght, geography and many other circumstances.

2. Currently Chinas economy depends to a large degree on seatrade both to import goods like basic ressources and to export manufactured products. It's geography makes it very difficult to protect its sea trade, which might be mostly a moot point anyway in a conflict with 'the West' as most trade partners would just stop it on their own. In a big war with the USA China would arguably need a stronger navy relative to its opponent and near allies to be able to keep its own naval trade flowing and to disrupt the trade flow to the US in an decisive manner.

3. Chinas recent actions sea and land disputes are difficult to grasp. Possibly they are mostly about putting on a show for the often unhappy crowd at home. Does a good part of the leadership truly believe that the potential ressources of the disputed areas are really important for China*? Does it think that China is just entitled to those areas and any concession/compromise is unworthy or does weaken the position in the next dispute? Before I tended more towards the first argument but now I'm no longer sure. Some of Chinas arguments have some merits, others much less so.

4. From a Western/US perspective China seems to be eager to score own goals against many neighbours. Arguably it could be foolish to stop China from doing that, it makes yourself just a so much more attractive option. Perhaps the US should also be not too keen to play up the containment to avoid unnecessary tensions but it does of course always depend on the situation.

Overall it seems to me that China is in many ways in a surprisingly weak position from an economic and naval point of view. Things may change in the future when the Chinese navy is vastly stronger and the economy more developed but nobody can know.

*In relative terms even rich sea deposits seem to me to be just a needle in the economic haystack of China.

carl

02-04-2014, 06:37 PM

The important thing is maintaining the system of free navigation as it exists now. It doesn't matter at all how that is done, be it formal alliances, arrangements for cooperation or winks and nods, as long as it is done. If that system collapses things will get very bad. All you have to do is look back at how things were in the Atlantic between the time the Spanish went west and the Royal Navy finally prevailed in the very early 1800s. Or you can look at the Med before the Roman navy took care of everybody who wasn't peaceable and after the Roman navy collapsed.

The system is the important thing, far more important than any one individual country maintaining a specific supply line to here or there. If the system of free navigation goes, that one supply route will matter, but not nearly so much as if all the supply lines for all the countries are maintained. That is because if all the supply lines are maintained that will have a synergistic effect on world prosperity. One good supply line to a place that is X prosperous is worth much less than a supply line to a place that is 2.5 X prosperous because the whole world is richer for the maintenance of our system of free navigation.

That is the menace of the Red Chinese claims on a large section of the ocean, the South China Sea. It doesn't matter if the kindly Red Chinese had every intention maintaining free navigation in that part of the ocean (care to bet on that?), if they got away with claiming a part of the ocean as theirs, the system would collapse. The crucial country at this point in time in maintaining the system that has helped make the world the richest and most peaceful it has ever been is the US. And the organization that is most crucial is the USN. There are no substitutes. There are a lot of countries that will back our play if it ever comes to that, but they will only back the play if we actually make it, and it must always be clear that we will if needed.

(Comparing oceanic freedom of navigation to the Panama Canal is expansively silly. I thought I'd just throw that in there.)

carl

02-04-2014, 06:52 PM

Let me add one thing about maintaining the system. Let us say the system as we know it collapses after the Red Chinese annex the South China Sea. Nothing much happens for awhile. Then the most unexpected thing happens, Boko Haram takes over Nigeria. The slaughter of millions aside, what might happen? If that international system of free navigation has collapsed something like Boko Haram would be that much more likely to lay claim to the Gulf of Guinea. They can always cook up something to justify that. Then what? Since the system that benefits everyone has collapsed, the only people interested in that would be the countries directly affected by shipping going through that area. Maybe they have the sea power to do something about that, maybe not. Multiply that by every country that has a coastline and some money for a skiff or an anti-ship missile and you get an idea of what the effect on sea trade would be.

Dayuhan

02-05-2014, 12:01 AM

if they got away with claiming a part of the ocean as theirs, the system would collapse.

In actual fact, the Chinese claim on that part of the ocean was made by the Kuomintang in 1947, and reaffirmed by the succeeding government in 1949, the first appearance of what is now called "the nine-dash line". Skirmishes over islands have been going on for decades.

The system has yet to collapse.

Dayuhan

02-05-2014, 12:19 AM

2. Currently Chinas economy depends to a large degree on seatrade both to import goods like basic ressources and to export manufactured products. It's geography makes it very difficult to protect its sea trade, which might be mostly a moot point anyway in a conflict with 'the West' as most trade partners would just stop it on their own. In a big war with the USA China would arguably need a stronger navy relative to its opponent and near allies to be able to keep its own naval trade flowing and to disrupt the trade flow to the US in an decisive manner.

China is actually far more dependent on maritime trade than the US. In particular, China is massively dependent on the Indian Ocean, through which huge amounts of commodity imports and merchandise exports pass. At present China has close to zero capacity for sustained naval operations in that area, which is of course a matter of concern for them.

3. Chinas recent actions sea and land disputes are difficult to grasp. Possibly they are mostly about putting on a show for the often unhappy crowd at home. Does a good part of the leadership truly believe that the potential ressources of the disputed areas are really important for China*? Does it think that China is just entitled to those areas and any concession/compromise is unworthy or does weaken the position in the next dispute? Before I tended more towards the first argument but now I'm no longer sure.

An excellent point.

I've never been convinced that the SCS issues are really about resources. For one thing, estimates of oil and gas reserves outside littoral zones vary widely, with USGS estimates dramatically lower than Chinese estimates and the many unsourced estimates we see flying around the web.

Impact on the unhappy crowd at home is critical. One of the only things the Chinese actually like about their government is that it is perceived as having made China strong again. As economic growth slows and as rampant corruption, inequality, environmental catastrophe etc gain more attention, they'll have to play that card more aggressively. What the Chinese Government wants - in their eyes, what they need - is public submission from regional rivals. They need to be seen as dominant. And, of course, they need to do it without an actual war, which could have catastrophic economic consequences for them. Hence the escalating game of bluff and bully. It's a dangerous game, because it can spin out of hand and produce the outcome nobody really wants, but nationalism is one of the few cards they have to play domestically.

Unfortunately for the Philippines, they are the logical target if ever the Chinese feel the need to show some actual military action. They could get away with some: if (for example) they seized Second Thomas Shoal and sank a boat or two they would get away with it, and could portray it as a "victory" of sorts.

Getting into a skirmish with Vietnam or (even more) Japan would be a lot more problematic.

I personally suspect that within the next decade we may be more concerned over China's internal stability than its external aggression, and that, ironically and counterintuitively, we'll be hoping to see the current dispensation stay in power... but that of course is speculative.

carl

02-05-2014, 03:49 AM

In actual fact, the Chinese claim on that part of the ocean was made by the Kuomintang in 1947, and reaffirmed by the succeeding government in 1949, the first appearance of what is now called "the nine-dash line". Skirmishes over islands have been going on for decades.

The system has yet to collapse.

Sigh.

For the literal minded among us, read 'if they were to make their claim stick.'

Sigh redux

jmm99

02-05-2014, 07:24 AM

OK, the Chinese actually use muscle to make their claim stick - where some of the ASEAN states would be the primary aggrieved parties.

1804

The secondary aggrieved parties would be those states whose major supply routes cross the South China Sea and would be affected by an actual Chinese takeover.

Here is the ASEAN Worldview:

1803

Note the non-ASEAN "orange line states" (in my prior maps) - India as the Western Anchor; Japan-South Korea as the Northeast Anchor. Then, we have Australia-NZ ("dark blue" states") and the US (blue normative force projection line) to fill the gaps. NB: Singapore's Navy has choke power over the major strait into the SCS.

IF the ASEAN states and the non-ASEAN states (those in the foregoing paragraph) are willing to co-operate, and IF they have the Will to do it, the Containment Zone (blockade of China) is already in place without drastic re-shuffling of naval assets.

Now, if the two IFs are not met, then you (Carl) say to the US: "You go it alone and kick out those aggressive Chinese; the MSRs must be protected."

To endorse or refute what seems to be your logic, we need facts. I'd suggest the following as a general framework:

1. Identify the MSRs, the states using them, the statistics on use, etc.; in short, the proportionate value to each state of its share. Subset, what alternate routes can be used once the blockade and/or other action begins.

2. Determine the capabilities of the US vs China in a one-on-one in the South China Sea (with optional scenarios for each side).

3. Do #2 with respect to the capabilities of the ASEANs and non-ASEANs vs China in a multiple-on-one in the South China Sea (with optional scenarios for each side).

In Mahanian terms, determine the proportionate "means and opportunities" for each interested party - and who shells out the treasure and gives up the blood.

One does not want to be non-realistically altruistic in this kind of situation, which is rife for the free-rider problem if everyone knows that the US will step in unilaterally regardless.

Regards

Mike

carl

02-05-2014, 08:08 AM

No Mike. Individual trade routes don't matter. It is the world system as a whole that matters. If the Red Chinese were to successfully annex the South China Sea, that system is gone. Your containment thing is really pointless unless the object was to get them to rescind that annexation. It wouldn't do any good anyway because I figure if the Red Chinese were able to pull that off they would have had to do one of two things, beat the USN and allied navies in battle, in which case there wouldn't be anything left to do the containing. Or they would have stared down the USN and allied navies, beat them psychologically, in which case there would be no will to fight with is the same as getting beat in battle.

I figure the rest of the world would see no will or no weapons and start figuring how they could take advantage of the situation. Poof! The system that has been so good for so many is gone.

The problem with the system from a 'I resent free riders!' standpoint is preservation of the system for you, can't help but result in free riders. Pick any number of countries as examples of 'free riders', Panama, Liberia, Norway, Bangladesh and on and on. It is something the great navies, the RN and USN, have accepted as part of the deal.

jmm99

02-05-2014, 08:19 AM

OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree - the ideological gulf is simply too wide to ever bridge.

Regards

Mike

Bob's World

02-05-2014, 11:31 AM

Firn

02-05-2014, 12:18 PM

I became a bit more interested about the importance of sea trade for the Chinese economy and looked first at the visuals of some basics. Even if I consider myself rather wellinformed about the Chinese economy I was a bit surprised just how important naval trade is for China.

The location of the population determines to a large degree where the infrastructure, industry etc is concentrated. It is needless to say that high density clusters are also high density clusters of economic activities and trade. The vast amount of goods gets moved to, within, between and from those areas.

First a view on the world-wide population density:

http://na.unep.net/geas/newsletter/images/Jun_11/Figure4.png

An excellent visualization of Chinas population concentration:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wSmBBPzSeeI/T9XxSOeEqEI/AAAAAAAABhM/wOkudqZegsk/s1600/china_popdens_labels_crop.png

One of the two famous Chinese population-lines:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Op6vzfjuel0/T9X6DBCEehI/AAAAAAAABhc/OAqbS8L32cM/s1600/hu_huanyong_line.png

Another visual take on the location of Chinas population

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jNn1K_3rSZA/TodZTSDHgwI/AAAAAAAAA68/5K_OIKGAPL4/s1600/ChinaPopulationMap_PearlRiverDelta.jpg

It is important to keep in mind that the concentration has become denser and denser due the vast flow from the poor rural areas into the coastal population centers. Obviously a good part of that huge shift happened within the Eastern regions but the other came from the interior.

Now imagine that Chinas sea trade with the world collapsed due to the US&allied interdiction well away from the Chinese sea denial area. Even if coastal 'internal' shipping continued the results would be absolutely and crushingly devastating for the economy.

First I thought that land trade might be able to absorb a good deal of the blow but that is just impossible under the current circumstances. The transport capacity on land is just minuscle compared to the shipping and it has to be streched over vast distances. Most of it is concentrated within the population clusters with the shipping getting almost all to the stuff to and from the clusters.

The rolling and trucking stock to keep the economic basics going does just not remotely exist , the road&rail capacity is just not there, nor in China or across the land borders, in short even the import of the most vital ressources would create massive problems to say the least. It is not far-fechted to say that many of the problems of the German war economy in WWII look small compared to what China might face, and I do not say that lightly.

I will just add a short pdf (www.grain.org/article/entries/4546-who-will-feed-china-agribusiness-or-its-own-farmers-decisions-in-beijing-echo-around-the-world.pdf) about the increasing dependence of China on importing of animal feed for its protein. Ironically this was one of the biggest problems for the German-occupied Europe in WWII, without all that animal feed from the rest of the world the cows and pigs could just not be sustained and a great part had to be slaughtered.

I don't know how aware the Chinese leadership is of those dire facts but I hope for all involved, especially the Chinese citiziens, that they are aware how much is at stake if a clever move over an economically insignificant piece of land or sea spirals out of control.

Dayuhan

02-05-2014, 01:22 PM

For the literal minded among us, read 'if they were to make their claim stick.'

Exactly. What matters is not the claim, but the ability to make it stick. That ability is restricted to nations with significant navies, a fairly small club. That's why your concern about nations all over the world following suit is, IMO, misplaced. Anyone can make a claim, very few can make it stick.

Are you assuming that the intent of China's claim is to interfere with trade? If so, why? After all, if they chose to interfere with trade they could, claim or no claim. It's hard to see what they would gain, as a huge majority of the trade in the area is moving in and out of their own ports, and they are extremely vulnerable to repercussions elsewhere. China is more dependent on maritime trade than any nation in the world and is poorly situated to engage in a contest of reciprocal trade restraints.

As above, I'm not convinced that resources are a major part of the equation either. There's considerable doubt over the extent of the oil and gas deposits in the area, and the Chinese already fish wherever they please. I suspect that the objective is largely to impose submission: to force the smaller players (Philippines and Vietnam) to perform the kau tau, and to force the larger players to acknowledge Chinese dominance of the area. That sounds like it would not have enough importance to be worth pursuing, but in Chinese terms it's hugely important, almost necessary.

carl

02-05-2014, 02:54 PM

The largest "free rider" of US naval power is China; just as the US was once the largest free rider of British naval power. The Monroe Doctrine served us well during those key developmental years of 1823-1900ish

Then we became more global in our pursuits and built our own navy...becoming a threat Britain thought they may well have to fight someday.

But China is not the US, nor is China Russia. Sometimes we act like we can't appreciate that fact. We need to do a better job of thinking of and understanding China through a Chinese lens. Certainly the old adadge of "Fear, Honor, Interest" drives Chinese thinking. Fear of internal revolt, Honor of a hundred years of external humiliation, and interest in avoiding the first while correcting the second.

Absolutely. The greatest beneficiary of the system of free navigation has been Red China, in gross terms anyway. That is why any argument saying the rapid buildup of the PLAN is due to a need to protect their overseas trade is weak in my mind. There isn't any demonstrable threat, or at least nothing that inhibited the ships coming and going.

You are wrong about the USN and its global outlook. The USN has mostly had a global outlook. A maritime trading nation can't help but have a global outlook. We let the RN handle the big stuff but we still handled the little things. For example, the major units of the USN were mostly deployed across the oceans when the Civil War started.

The British never thought they would have to fight the USN after 1900 or so when the USN began its serious buildup. Perhaps in 'the staff has plans for everything sense' but never in the realistic sense. By the time the buildup came the countries were just too close for that to be realistic.

Obviously Red China isn't anything but Red China. But one thing it is, is China ruled by the CCP for the benefit of the CCP. We should view their actions through that lens, for it is the most accurate; the lens of 'What will benefit the CCP? The Chinese be hanged.' To use any other lens is to give the actions of perhaps the largest group of organized killers in the world more respect than they deserve.

With that in mind, I understand perfectly the utility to the CCP of the 'let's get them back for the Siege of Peking' argument. I also understand that getting some back means taking it out of somebody else's hide. That I object to.

carl

02-05-2014, 02:56 PM

OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree - the ideological gulf is simply too wide to ever bridge.

Regards

Mike

There isn't an ideological gap. We're talking about different things. I am talking about what would happen if the Red Chinese were able to pull it off, however they managed to do it. You are talking about the mechanics of a war to prevent that from happening.

carl

02-05-2014, 03:08 PM

Firn:

You are right. The people they will hurt most if they wreck the system are the Chinese, but the Chinese are not the main concern of the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP is. If they figure chancing wrecking the Chinese economy will help the CCP, they'll do it. They've done it before. The Cultural Revolution is a good example of that.

They aren't the only country so dependent upon free sea trade. You can add the US, Japan, Australia, NZ, Chile, India and probably every single developed economy to the list. That is why the collapse of this system would be such a disaster for the world. And this free navigation system is not the norm in the history of the humans. I think it has only existed twice, one time being now. The only other time was when the Roman navy controlled the Med. That's it. This is a very rare situation. People shouldn't take it for granted but they do.

carl

02-05-2014, 03:26 PM

Dayuhan:

Making it stick is the key of course. If they can do it, like I keep saying, there goes the system because in order to do it, they have to beat the USN. The system as it has existed, only twice in the history of the humans, depends upon a big navy being committed to preserving it. There have only been three, the Roman navy, the RN and the USN.

I ain't gonna play the Dayuhan game of "Why do you...", "Why should they...". It is very tiresome. If you trust the CCP to maintain the system of free navigation in their territorial waters be my guest. And that is what they want, to make the South China Sea territorial waters. Personally I don't trust those guys not to be anything but the corrupt killers they are.

You are right about the CCP's motivations I think. There appears to be a large emotional component there. The problem with that is they have to step on a lot of people to fulfill that desire of theirs to feel warm and toasty. People tend to object to getting stepped on. You don't think it's so bad. Fine. We get that (oh boy, do we get that). But most countries don't, especially if the cost of fulfillment of CCP dreams of Imperial restoration is the destruction of the system of free navigation that has benefited so many for so long.

jmm99

02-05-2014, 05:42 PM

jmm99

02-05-2014, 05:51 PM

Excellent analysis. Do you have "stuff" on the SCS major routes by country ?

The population densities of the US, Russia, China and India (to name the four major nuclear powers) also illustrate the propellant power of nukes (how easy to destroy another country) and the deterrent power of nukes (how easy it is to be destroyed by another country). So, Andre Beaufre's concepts become material.

Regards

Mike

Firn

02-05-2014, 06:39 PM

@jmm99: Thanks, I think it is of great importance to try to grasp the basics. Something which I completely missed myself before is just how insignificant the land trade is for China. It is pretty hard to overstate the difficulties the Chinese economy would face if it's international trade collapsed.

World-wide shipping routes:

http://www.seaweb.org/otherfiles/GlobalShippingImpactsHalpernetal..jpeg

Growing importance. Shipping volume worldwide:

http://www.ics-shipping.org/images/default-source/Shipping-Facts/world-seaborne-trade.png?sfvrsn=3

Chinas trade partners. Australia, Brazil and to some degree Malaysia are special cases for specific reasons:

http://topforeignstocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/China-Top-Trade-partners-2010-1.png

There are many great angles to underline the importance of maritime trade for China, including some possible reaction to this reliance. Such 'strategic' planning might be behind the pipeline projects:

http://www.arcticgas.gov/sites/default/files/images/china-map-natural-gas-lng.png

I will leave it there and focus on the agriculture and perhaps the SCS shipping routes.

P.S: The increasingly greater concentration of the world population does indeed make nuclear warfare more devastating in relative terms to, let us say fifty years ago.

Firn

02-05-2014, 07:04 PM

Importing protein, Chinese style:

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/china-rice-1024x710.jpg

Only one tenth gets consumed directly, it is mostly animal feed coming from the Americas.

Malaysia is also a key part of the protein import due the palm oil production.

http://chinaag.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/china-soybean-imports-2011.png?w=512&h=307

Pushing (mostly) rice and wheat production has been a long-standing Chinese policy.

http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/highlights34_Production_web.PNG

A slightly more detailed view on the shipping routes in Asia, but as usual I did not verify it.

http://www.gscintell.com/assets/images/uploads/A%20Evergreen%20Asia.jpg%3F0.3836220803033424

Firn

02-05-2014, 07:15 PM

@carl: Indeed, I have little doubt that if things go down terribly the wrong way the citiziens of China and partly those of other nearby nations will pay the highest price. In a really desperate situation nuclear strikes might at least get used as a threat.

I understand very little about naval matters but I can see the vital importance of maritime trade, among it increasingly imports of basic ressources for the Chinese population. I really hope that the cooler heads will prevail in the SCS.

jmm99

02-05-2014, 08:36 PM

From your linked pdf in #630 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=152386&postcount=630), WHO WILL FEED CHINA: AGRIBUSINESS OR ITS OWN FARMERS? - Decisions in Beijing echo around the world (http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4546-who-will-feed-china-agribusiness-or-its-own-farmers-decisions-in-beijing-echo-around-the-world.pdf) (August 2012), I found this comment interesting (at p.3):

China has 800 million farmers, of which 300-400 million are moving to cities. That will increase the demand for agricultural products and decrease the supply. This is positive for agricultural companies, like us.” says New Hope Group President Liu Yonghao, China’s fourth richest person and Vice-Chairman of the Committee for Economic Affairs of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

because it points up a major problem for the Chinese (what to do with those 300-400 million ex-farmers who have moved or will move to the cities - e.g., send some of them to Africa to find African consorts !); and a major contradiction (as a good Maoist might say) between the "place" of those 300-400 ex-farmers and the "place" of China's 4th richest man and member of the CEA-CPPCC.

The ex-farmer problem (exacerbated by other internal Chinese problems) illustrates the "Fear of Internal Revolt" part of Bob's statement in #639 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=152383&postcount=629):

Certainly the old adage of "Fear, Honor, Interest" drives Chinese thinking. Fear of internal revolt, Honor of a hundred years of external humiliation, and interest in avoiding the first while correcting the second.

The ca. 1900 +- 50 yrs "semi-feudal, semi-colonial" state of China (Mao's analysis), was indeed humiliating to a proud people with a long history of dominance and expansion. The "semi-feudal" problem was Chinese-caused; the "semi-colonial" problem was "Western"-caused. The "semi-colonial" problem has been solved, except for China's long memory of it. Judging from the 300-400 million ex-farmers and the elite such as Mr Liu Yonghao, the "semi-feudal" problem still exists. Thus, the Chinese fear of internal revolt and how to avoid it are very real factors today.

Regards

Mike

carl

02-05-2014, 10:52 PM

It is an ideological gap. It is between idealism and realism. In other areas of discussion here, you see the carnage and I see the carnage. Yet, our messages in response to those carnages often have been quite different.

Regards

Mike

Maybe, but I wouldn't put it like that. The difference as I see it is that I figure the system is a unified whole that can't degrade gracefully. If it is compromised in a major way, as it would be if Red China were to annex the South China Sea, it would collapse. My interpretation of your view is that the system can persist outside the immediate area of contention, the South China Sea. It can be damage tolerant so to speak. That isn't a difference in ideological views, that is a difference in judgment of possible consequences.

jmm99

02-06-2014, 01:33 AM

My perception of your messages is that they often tend to be idealistic. Whether you, the messenger, is an idealist is a matter for you and those who know you well.

My wife long ago (in an opinion she still has) said to me: "You're all gray on the outside; and all black and white on the inside." I guess that says that I'm a realist on the outside (hence adaptable), but a flaming idealist on the inside. I think my messages tend to be realistic, until one hits the core; but that is my perception of my expressed perceptions.

"Judgment of possible consequences" starts off as being distinct from ideology, but it may be very much related to ideology or the lack thereof. For example, the person who is the same black and white on the outside, and on the inside, is scarcely likely to yield a micron on anything. The other person, who is the same gray on the outside and the inside lacks the capacity to decide anything - going through life saying, "well on one hand this; but on the other hand that; but ...," etc.

One's "Judgment of Possible Consequences" can be expressed in terms of "Integral Rigidity" (an engineering term IIRC), where it can be absolute, absent (the all gray person, who has no spine at all) or locational.

Absolute Integral Rigidity is illustrated by the Onion Person, who says "Don't let one onion layer be peeled, lest the core be lost" - perhaps in looking too hard at the outer layers, sight is lost of the crucial attack which cuts to the core:

1806

Our AQ-takfirist brethren are examples of absolute integral rigidity - which happens to be a weakness in their case when they attempt to take over an area which has different or less dogmatic beliefs.

Moving away from absolute integral rigidity is my wife's picture of me - "Let 'em eat the outer apple, but protect the core":

1807

But, even one who is gray on the outside, black & white on the inside (as in the hydrogen atom above), has to recognize (absent delusion) that Integral Rigidity cannot apply to the core if there is no core - as in these helix conveyor pipes :

1808

(which happen to be Chinese imports, advertised as stated).

Now, back to your statement of the "Judgments of Possible Consequences":

I figure the system is a unified whole that can't degrade gracefully. If it is compromised in a major way, as it would be if Red China were to annex the South China Sea, it would collapse. My interpretation of your view is that the system can persist outside the immediate area of contention, the South China Sea. It can be damage tolerant so to speak.

If forced to choose right now, my choice would have to be intuitive; and it would be that the maritime trade system is more like a hydrogen atom. Frankly, I don't have enough facts to "try" the issue of Chinese "annexation" of the SCS in my mind, much less to pontificate on the policy to be followed. Two of Firn's charts are spinning around in my head as I write.

The bottom line: To endorse or refute what seems to be your logic, and my "hydrogen atom" hypothesis (some outer orbital damage is survivable), we need facts. I repeat myself:

1. Identify the MSRs, the states using them, the statistics on use, etc.; in short, the proportionate value to each state of its share. Subset, what alternate routes can be used once the blockade and/or other action begins.

2. Determine the capabilities of the US vs China in a one-on-one in the South China Sea (with optional scenarios for each side).

3. Do #2 with respect to the capabilities of the ASEANs and non-ASEANs vs China in a multiple-on-one in the South China Sea (with optional scenarios for each side).

In Mahanian terms, determine the proportionate "means and opportunities" for each interested party - and who shells out the treasure and gives up the blood.

Perhaps, you've done all of that - or are you making your decision on the basis of general principles ?

Regards

Mike

carl

02-06-2014, 03:18 AM

Mike:

Your three points are about action in the South China Sea and capabilities of prospective combatants and what might ensue given those capabilities. What you seem to be looking for is an intelligence assessment of the maritime battle field. My point has nothing at all to do with that. My point is the damage that will be done to the system of free navigation if Red China could successfully annex the South China Sea, an area of the world that is now open ocean. A nation would have successfully taken part of the open ocean for itself. The other nations of the world and navies of the world, led by the big dominant navy, the USN, would not have been able to stop that. That would set an example that could be followed. A psychological barrier as much as a physical one would have been crossed. Nations would think that if Red China could pull it off, others could pull it off too. Then there would be problems. It is sort of like the line that was crossed in the L.A. riots. Some ill inclined people realized that the cops can't be everywhere at once if they all go out at once. Same thing happened in London. Once that psychological barrier is breached, things can go south fast.

jmm99

02-06-2014, 05:22 AM

And my point is whether Red China could successfully annex the South China Sea IF countered by one or IF countered by many.

And, yes, I do want intelligence assessments (pl.) of the maritime battle fields (pl.); and realistic and intelligent appreciations of the chances of winning.

Obviously, if China decided to "annex a chunk of sea" (in itself an interesting concept), it could do so if no one countered it.

A fair set of questions is what will happen if:

1. China annexes a chunk of sea and no one opposes - what effect on trade?

2. US opposes China; US loses - what effect on trade?

3. US opposes China; US wins - what effect on trade?

4. Many oppose China; Many lose - what effect on trade?

5. Many oppose China; Many win - what effect on trade?

Next fair question: Does it matter which "chunk of sea is annexed" ?

I'd argue that it does, as illustrated by one of Firn's charts (World trade routes), which I marked up:

1811

My little blue lines drawn in the seas seem to do a pretty good job of covering the trade routes that are of primary importance to the US - trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic.

Nine global choke points are outside of US notional limits. Pts. 8, 7 & 6 (Channel-North Sea; the Med; and Suez-Arabian) are not reasonably controlled unless the controlling powers "own" the surrounding land; and 9 (the Cape) is an isolate.

So, 5 Asian choke points are material to China:

1. Japan-S Korea (which includes the major Asian routes to the US - in total, $900 billion of China's trade in 2010 including the US).

2. Taiwan (itself $150 billion in China's trade), but more importantly a bottleneck that would affect Japan-S. Korea if China blockaded the narrow Taiwan routes (e.g., in response to a full blockade of China as discussed in prior posts). US or Many defense of Taiwan would be hellish because it's too close to China (winning is no cinch). Thus, the question of whether alternate routes for Japan-S Korea are feasible.

3. The Chunk of SCS (not insular in any real sense, but an undefined linear zone drawn across the trade routes between Vietnam and the P.I.) interdicting Hongkong ($230 billion in China trade) and the Taiwan bottleneck.

4. Singapore, the Straits Spigot (with some naval power).

5. India, with lots of naval and nuclear power.

Here's a blowup of the SCS trade routes:

1812

How much Japan-S. Korea and American trade runs through the SCS and how much can be diverted via other ASEAN routes ? I'd expect that, if there were a war in the SCS, Taiwan would become a part of the theatre of operations; as also Hongkong and the Chinese ports from there to include Shanghai. One way or another, alternative routes would probably be needed for Japan-S. Korea and American trade.

Regards

Mike

carl

02-06-2014, 05:46 AM

Mike:

Like I said, we are talking about two different things.

My opinion is that if they were able to pull it off, it would impact trade everywhere for the worse, especially over a period of years. Yours may be different.

That is a separate question from could they pull it off.

My point has more to do with why we should fight if it comes to that. I think yours is partially that but more along the lines of how we would fight.

And trade routes to and from the US are only one of the things of importance to US trade. The trade routes to and from our main trading partners and their suppliers are of as great an importance. If they ain't got the stuff to make it, they won't have it to sell to us. And they need trading partners other than the US in order to have money to conduct trade with us. Those routes are important too. It goes on and on. Whether we like it or not, I think freedom of navigation somewhere is not too useful unless there is freedom of navigation everywhere.

jmm99

02-06-2014, 07:53 AM

Dayuhan

02-06-2014, 09:40 AM

Do you see no contradiction between this:

any argument saying the rapid buildup of the PLAN is due to a need to protect their overseas trade is weak in my mind. There isn't any demonstrable threat, or at least nothing that inhibited the ships coming and going.

and this:

A maritime trading nation can't help but have a global outlook.

China is, of course, a maritime nation, and must by your own calculus have a global outlook. What you see as the US securing trade routes would appear to a Chinese perspective as a US capacity to cut off their economic lifeblood at any time, with them being unable to do anything about it. If you were in their shoes, would you be comfortable with a potential rival holding that power over you, even if they haven't chosen to use it yet?

You are right. The people they will hurt most if they wreck the system are the Chinese, but the Chinese are not the main concern of the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP is. If they figure chancing wrecking the Chinese economy will help the CCP, they'll do it. They've done it before. The Cultural Revolution is a good example of that.

Just out of curiosity, do you actually follow economic and political developments inside China at all?

They have to keep the economy moving; in fact they have to keep it growing, something that's not getting any easier. Internal stability is a serious concern and is likely to remain so.

They aren't the only country so dependent upon free sea trade. You can add the US, Japan, Australia, NZ, Chile, India and probably every single developed economy to the list. That is why the collapse of this system would be such a disaster for the world.

The assumption that Chinese actions in the SCS are likely to degrade that system seems to me rather speculative.

Making it stick is the key of course. If they can do it, like I keep saying, there goes the system because in order to do it, they have to beat the USN.

Whether or not they have to "beat the USN" remains to be seen.

The questions is what would, in your mind, constitute "making it stick". If the Chinese, say, seized Second Thomas Shoal, would that be "making it stick"? If they took Second Thomas and Thitu Island? What if they took those and (Taiwanese-occupied) Taiping? What would you consider "making it stick", and at what point do you think the USN should or would get involved?

As is often the case, I'm not at all clear on what exactly you think the US should do.

I ain't gonna play the Dayuhan game of "Why do you...", "Why should they...". It is very tiresome. If you trust the CCP to maintain the system of free navigation in their territorial waters be my guest. And that is what they want, to make the South China Sea territorial waters. Personally I don't trust those guys not to be anything but the corrupt killers they are.

Whatever they may be, they are not irrational, they have interests and vulnerabilities and will act according to them. It's very difficult to develop any sort of plan for managing the situation without some effort to assess the objectives and motivations on the other side. The maps cited above reinforce a point I made before: the vast majority of the maritime traffic in the area is moving in and out of Chinese ports. So what are you afraid they will do? Cut off their own trade?

What is the specific outcome we are trying to avoid?

You are right about the CCP's motivations I think. There appears to be a large emotional component there. The problem with that is they have to step on a lot of people to fulfill that desire of theirs to feel warm and toasty. People tend to object to getting stepped on. You don't think it's so bad. Fine. We get that (oh boy, do we get that). But most countries don't, especially if the cost of fulfillment of CCP dreams of Imperial restoration is the destruction of the system of free navigation that has benefited so many for so long.

Rising powers often step on people on their way up. The question is if, when, and to what extent the US should get involved in the process. Again, I'm not at all clear on what you want the US to do, and I think your fear of the "destruction of the system of free navigation" is... well, beyond speculative.

Bob's World

02-06-2014, 12:22 PM

Firn

02-06-2014, 02:49 PM

Just some thoughts from the Chinese perspective:

1) The lifeblood of the Chinese economy, maritime trade, can indeed be veasily cut off by an US-led alliance with little risk (bar unlikely nuclear escalation) to the enemy naval assets. It can generally not be replaced by land-based trade.

2) In such an confrontation the own navy is not capable to do likewise, even remotely so, with the possible exception of Taiwan. In an isolated conflict against lesser powers like Vietnam the tables can be turned.

3) The big investment in 'sea-denial' weapons does mostly work in a possibly limited war against an opponent like Taiwan. Only sea-going assets like submarines are so far able to inflict a toll against more powerful naval forces playing the far-away blockade game or enemy maritime trade.*

4) A longterm and massive investment in a far more capable ocean-going navy is necessary to be able to protect the own trade agains the threat of a coalition of nearby minor naval powers. As a trade-off it might increase coalition-building on the other side and the risk of military confrontations.

5) A benevolent Chinese dictator might want to work hard for a far bigger stick and to speak a lot softer. However the current regime feels the need to speak harshly for internal politics and the want of status.

*That 'denial' strategy predates the great integration of the Chinese economy into the world economy.

Firn

02-06-2014, 02:58 PM

@jmm99: The big shift from the the rural areas to the city has cause of course massive problems but has also been a mighty push for the Chinese economy as a whole. Basically cheap labor was streaming to the new factories with vast overall productivity increases for the China. The biggest problem for the newcomers has been the great difficulty to secure a secure new 'urban' legal status with all the benefits.

Interestingly in the past revolutions led by farmers were sometimes able to topple the leadership. In those days they were of course the vast majority of the population. In a couple of decades they might be almost as important as a guerilla pool as the current crop of hardy American farmers. :D

carl

02-06-2014, 10:15 PM

jmm99

02-07-2014, 01:47 AM

This article's conclusions are not what I was seeking (nor do I expect Carl will like it any better), but it does explain what the “Century of Humiliation” was and its present impact, China Research Center » 2013: Vol. 12, No. 2 » The Clash of Historical Memory: The “Century of Humiliation” vs. the “Post-WWII Liberal World Order” (http://www.chinacenter.net/the-clash-of-historical-memory-the-century-of-humiliation-vs-the-post-wwii-liberal-world-order/). It concludes:

(a) American strategy, doctrine, and tactics should explicitly be planned with options that avoid humiliating the Chinese. Historical memory implies that any strike on Chinese territory is much more likely to lead to some type of escalation than to an end to conflict. U.S. military forces should develop doctrine and forces that give the president options that protect U.S. and allied interests without escalating to strikes on Chinese territory. If the U.S. military plans, trains, and exercises using Air-Sea battle strategy, we could be giving ourselves the stark choice between going to large-scale war with China or withdrawing from Asia.

(b) China needs to recognize that military forces that threaten U.S. Navy carriers can be interpreted by the U.S. not as a regional threat but as a challenge to freedom of the seas. Similarly, putting the U.S. in positions where its only choices are to U.S. military force or to ignore treaty commitments turns minor situations into threats to the U.S. global post-World War II strategy. This makes little strategic sense unless China has taken the huge decision to try to overturn the U.S.-led liberal world order. There is no evidence that such a strategic choice has been made at the high levels of the Chinese government. Furthermore, China has gained so much economically from the current world order that it could well be the biggest loser in such a change.

(c) Finally, there is little indication that either government is changing its behavior because it has made a deliberate grand strategic decision. If this is indeed the case, then each side should negotiate accordingly. If each side interprets each dispute as involving its core historical beliefs and strategy, compromise is impossible. It would be a great advancement if we could find a way to put a dollar (or RMB, or Yen) sign on the disputes.
...
If we are not careful, a situation will arise in which each side comes to view the other as an adversary.

I'm shocked, just totally shocked, that anyone could consider China an adversary. Now, where are my winnings ?

Today's Googling did lead to three illustrative charts, material to the topics discussed here. First, a clean mapping of China's "Fishhook Claim" in the SCS:

1814

Ref: Hammes, T.X., “Offshore Control: A Proposed Strategy for an Unlikely Conflict,” National Defense University, Institute for National Strategic Studies, Strategic Forum, No. 278. June 2012.

Next, China's Strike Capabilities (various delivery systems) against the ASEAN states - and elsewhere, not including its ICBM nuclear capabilities:

1815

NB: the "Second Island Chain", which includes Guam.

And, finally, China's petroleum imports - NB: Singapore, traditionally something of a non-aligned nation viv-a-vis China and the US, is the major maritime choke point:

1816

The last two charts are from DoD, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013 (http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_china_report_final.pdf) (ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS - see also, prior for 2009-2012 at pubs (http://www.defense.gov/pubs/)).

I've saved the best for last: Xia Liping, Impacts of China’s Nuclear Doctrine on International Nuclear Disarmament (http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/Xia_Liping.pdf) (2012 Beijing Seminar)

Xia Liping is Dean and Professor of School of Political Science & International Relations at Tongji University and Vice President of Shanghai Institute for International Strategic Studies (SIISS).
...
Because the possibility of the U.S. being militarily involved an armed conflict between the two sides of Taiwan Strait exists--which could lead to further armed conflict, even Sino-U.S. nuclear conflict, China has to develop the capability to deter the U.S. from interfering militarily in an armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait. China is not a superpower and has a small number of nuclear weapons, so the model of MAD is not suitable for Sino-U.S. nuclear relations. China has some capability for nuclear retaliation. So long as China has the capability for one nuclear warhead to penetrate U.S. missile defense systems and hit American territory after a U.S. launched nuclear attacks against China, or so long as the U.S. cannot assure it could destroy all China’s strategic nuclear force after an American first strike against China, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to make the decision to launch nuclear attacks against China.

So, is one of the leading figures in Chinese academia correct in his (implicit) premise that Americans have an absolute zero tolerance for sustaining casualties from a retaliatory nuclear attack ?

Or, as some used to say: "Better to be Red, than to be Dead. Disarm Our Nukes." Should we be listening more closely to the Chinese received wisdom, who last I heard from the USG are still our "pards" ?

Regards

Mike

carl

02-07-2014, 06:23 AM

Dayuhan:

Sorry, can't answer any of that string of "Dayuhan" questions. To do so would be to engaging in speculation which might incur "Dayuhan" disapprobation.

I will note one thing (I always do), Sweden has a global outlook and they haven't lately threatened to annex the Baltic Sea. Same thing for Britain and the North Sea. The Norwegians are great international sailors, and damned tough guys too, nor are they squaring off against the Danish over the North Sea. Let's see who else, India exports all over the world and they haven't proclaimed to the world that they aim to have the Indian Ocean, even though it is named after them. Japan and South Korea are both nations with a global outlook and they aren't squaring off over the Yellow Sea. So do I see no contradiction there? Nope. (no fair saying it is beyond speculative when I answer my own questions.)

carl

02-07-2014, 06:50 AM

I agree that we are talking about two different things, but I can't fathom what you are proposing in anything resembling concrete terms.

I look at this: "... we should fight if it comes to that ...", and try to understand it as a strategic plan:

1. "we" - based on your posts here: "we" = the US unilaterally, even if no other state supports us. That is correct, isn't it ?

2. "fight" - how hard ? - a shot over the bow of the first Chinese ship or more; how far would you be willing to go to protect world trade from devastating injury (as you allege; and I do not concede) "if they were able to pull it off" (see #3).

3. "if it comes to that" and "if they were able to pull it off" suggests to me a Chinese fleet and landing force sufficient to seize some rocks (that seems to be the game as previously played in the SCS). Am I roughly correct as to your meaning? In any case, when do we hit them and with what ? (back to #2).

To be frank, your message seems much like President Obama talking about red lines re: Syria and the gas attacks, without him having thought through what he could do if the red line were crossed.

For example, have you considered the fact that two nuclear powers would be squaring off - in an extremely asymmetric nuclear weapons balance, where one party (probably the stronger nuclear power) would be tempted to climb the "escalation ladder" - a Herman Kahn redux (in 29 pages (http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/KahnPublicNuclearStrategyWohlstetter.pdf)):

Kahn, On Thermonuclear War (http://www.amazon.com/On-Thermonuclear-War-Herman-Kahn/dp/0691069115) (1960), pp. 144.

More probable than an immediate nuclear "escalation ladder" would be inclusion of Taiwan in the theater of operations. That would open up all sorts of possible choices in "fights" - as to which, the wargaming is no slam dunk for the US; and where the effects on world trade could be quite disruptive. There are lots of studies on Taiwan.

FAS 2013 World Nuclear Forces.pdf is attached. For more detail on Chinese nukes, see Chinese nuclear forces, 2011 (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/6/81.full.pdf+html).

Regards

Mike

Ok we start with 1. Yep. We as in we alone, if practicable. Now if we were to get to that point, all alone, the contest is probably already lost. That is because something or other or a string of something or others would have happened that would have knocked Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, India and Vietnam out of the potential fight. It would have to be a really big something to get the Viets out. Those guys ain't 'feared of nothin. If all that happened the USN would have been beat perhaps without a shot being fired. And since you can't fight at sea without bases and Guam is too little and far and Hawaii is to far to support an offensive. Poof! We lost and the system is ruined.

2. How hard? That would depend upon the circumstances. But ultimately you have to be prepared to sink ships and to lose ships, maybe a lot of ships if you mean to be taken seriously. The Red Chinese always have to be thinking that we are ready to do that. if a group of organized killers like that ever get the idea that you area bluffing, you lose. Then Poof! again.

3. Rocks don't matter. That would just be a precipitator (sic) for airplanes and ships. And 'pulling it off' means the USN backs down from a major provocation either because it won't fight or can't fight. The Poof! again.

Mr. Obama doesn't think things thru. i do, or try to. I know exactly what I am looking at and what the stakes are. The South China Sea stays international waters.

This is dealing with Red China, the CCP. Those boys have killed more innocent people than any other extant organization on the face of the planet. So big boy's rules apply. You can talk to those guys all you want but if they don't know that you'll kill them quick if you have to, then Poof! you lose. And losing to those boys ain't good.

I actually do realize that Red China has nukes. I also realize that if you absolutely refuse to accept the possibility that the nukes might fly and will not let it happen under any circumstances, you will lose in the end to a guy who just doesn't care that much about his population. The CCP has repeatedly shown it doesn't care too much about its population. This also is the problem the Israelis are staring in the face right now.

I also realize that if there was a sea fight, it would go wherever the ships could sail. It would probably be a one navy left standing kind of fight. Most fights between big navies in the past have left only one standing.

All this stuff is complicated and interconnected and all potentially very lethal. The CCP is playing a very dangerous game.

Dayuhan

02-07-2014, 07:03 AM

I'm shocked, just totally shocked, that anyone could consider China an adversary.

"Potential adversary" might be more useful. Assuming that a jump from potential to actual is necessary, ar pushing into that territory before we need to go there, is not necessarily a productive way to proceed.

And, finally, China's petroleum imports - NB: Singapore, traditionally something of a non-aligned nation viv-a-vis China and the US, is the major maritime choke point:

The Strait of Malacca is not just Singapore, but also Malaysia and Indonesia. None of theem, of course, have much reason or desire to seek conflict with China or with the US. Equally important, of course, China's hydrocarbon imports and a very large amount of their merchandise exports have to pass through the Bay of Bangal and the Indian Ocean, an area where China is currently unable to project significant naval power. The US has the ability to completely choke Chinese trade. China has no such reciprocal ability; not even close.

So, is one of the leading figures in Chinese academia correct in his (implicit) premise that Americans have an absolute zero tolerance for sustaining casualties from a retaliatory nuclear attack ?

"Absolute zero tolerance" might be an exaggeration, but this:

it will be very difficult for the U.S. to make the decision to launch nuclear attacks against China.

is certainly very true.

I assume it would also be very difficult for China to make the decision to launch nuclear attacks against the US. That is as it should be: it's the entire point of MAD. Given that a full scale nuclear exchange is potentially an extinction event for the human race (nobody knows for sure, and ain't nobody itchin' to find out), that kind of decision should be and should remain very difficult.

There is a great deal that both parties can do to mess each other up without going to that extent, of course, though the US can certainly do a great deal more to China than China can to the US.

The full scale war scenarios are interesting, and of course have to be considered, but they remain a pretty unlikely eventuality. What is likely is a gradual escalation of pressure and brinksmanship, and I suspect that the policy conversation on the level where it matters should be (and hopefully is) focused on designing responses to the more probable evolutions.

Or, as some used to say: "Better to be Red, than to be Dead. Disarm Our Nukes." Should we be listening more closely to the Chinese received wisdom, who last I heard from the USG are still our "pards" ?

I don't see how reluctance to use nukes translates to a preference to being red. One prefers to be neither dead nor red, and the choice between them is in no way inevitable.

Dayuhan

02-07-2014, 07:05 AM

Sorry, can't answer any of that string of "Dayuhan" questions. To do so would be to engaging in speculation which might incur "Dayuhan" disapprobation.

What would you want to see the US do, in response to the situation as it currently stands?

Dayuhan

02-07-2014, 07:22 AM

This is only a military problem because our Civilian leaders are not proactively dealing with the looming policy problem. The status quo formed with a powerful US and weak China is increasingly inappropriate and unsustainable. Thus the growing military challenge.

It is at least a potential military problem, and the problem is not fully or even primarily responsive to US policy. We can certainly use the best policy we can come up with, but even that will not assure that there will be no escalation.

While the "full scale war" scenarios have to be considered, they are in no way inevitable and a more pressing question is how to prevent them from emerging. We have to recognize that while a full scale war could emerge, nobody in the picture wants one, and what we're more likely to see is a continuation of the so-called "salami strategy" or "cabbage strategy". How exactly we want to respond to that, and what is an appropriate US response to any particular level of pressure, is what needs to be determined.

I do not think that bluster or aggressive demands (for example, insisting that China drop the ADIZ or drop its "nine-dash line" claim) would be at all productive. They would refuse (they have to), and then we would do... what? I do think it makes sense to keep flying through and ignoring the ADIZ, keep sailing ships through the contested waters, maintain a high tempo of exercises and military to military exchanges with affected allies, keep developing relations with Vietnam, and all the other things that are already being done. In other words, to make sure the capacity to act is clear without committing to any specific response at any given point.

Over the last few years there has been an almost continuous USN presence in Subic. In particular there's been a continuing stream of sub visits, which used to be quite rare. I don't think that's at all coincidental.

How the US can or should respond to the likely eventualities (imposition of an ADIZ over the SCS, increased harassment of fishing boats by Chinese Coast Guard and Fisheries vessels, offering oil/gas exploration contracts in contested areas up to taking over Philippine-occupied rocks in the Spratys) is a more interesting question to me than how to respond to a very hypothetical large scale war. Not easy questions, though, with few good answers.

carl

02-07-2014, 08:17 AM

What would you want to see the US do, in response to the situation as it currently stands?

This sounds good:

"I do think it makes sense to keep flying through and ignoring the ADIZ, keep sailing ships through the contested waters, maintain a high tempo of exercises and military to military exchanges with affected allies, keep developing relations with Vietnam, and all the other things that are already being done. In other words, to make sure the capacity to act is clear without committing to any specific response at any given point.

Over the last few years there has been an almost continuous USN presence in Subic. In particular there's been a continuing stream of sub visits, which used to be quite rare. I don't think that's at all coincidental."

I would add a general statement of principal to the effect that the South China Sea stays international waters.

Bill Moore

02-07-2014, 08:49 AM

Concur in all with Dayuhan.

This is only a military problem because our Civilian leaders are not proactively dealing with the looming policy problem. The status quo formed with a powerful US and weak China is increasingly inappropriate and unsustainable. Thus the growing military challenge.

Is our plan to hold until China implodes or explodes? Seems a risky gambit that hardly serves our interests in the region.

Who in the U.S. said this was a military problem beyond those in media? The military has a responsibility to protect our freedom of navigation for our economic interests, and yes we have obligations to our allies whether you like it or not. We don't threaten China by doing that, and we sure as hell are not are containing China. They're a global presence and enjoy freedom of navigation without threatening their neighbors. Most, if not all, countries welcome China's economic rise because it is mutually beneficial. They are a leading trading partner for many nations, and it isn't in the U.S. interests to get into a military spat with China, nor China with us, yet they keep pushing their neighbors using hard power? What policy should our civilian leaders enact that would alleviate this tension? Be realistic please.

Carl is pretty much correct in his assessment, China is in the one acting as the belligerent in the region, and that is far from a rational way to pursue their economic interests. You can call it rational if you like, but there is a high degree of pride/emotionalism behind their behavior that is irrational. Is it intended as a distraction for their people who are increasingly disgruntled? China's leaders have expressed on more than one occasion that internal security/stability is their greatest concern. As long as they don't trigger a response from any of the regional nations that then escalates out of control I suspect their behavior will moderate over time. It is the risk of miscalculation as we wait for their foreign and defense policy to mature that the greatest risk.

Dayuhan

02-07-2014, 09:27 AM

China is in the one acting as the belligerent in the region, and that is far from a rational way to pursue their economic interests. You can call it rational if you like, but there is a high degree of pride/emotionalism behind their behavior that is irrational.

Not entirely irrational, I think. They are balancing objectives. They do want to play the nationalist card, inspire some jingoism, distract from an increasing range of domestic issues. They do not want to get involved in a war. So there's lots of talk, and lots of provocation, but the provocation is calibrated to a threshold below what they think would provoke an actual outbreak. In the SCS, for example, their Navy generally stays out of the confrontations: Civilian coast guard and Fisheries vessels are often the ones involved in incidents. They push, but only so far.

There are times when they push the limits, such as the incident that involved locking a targeting radar onto a Japanese ship. How far they will actually go remains to be seen, but I expect more of the same... possibly with a more aggressive tempo, but always with those balance objectives in play.

Is it intended as a distraction for their people who are increasingly disgruntled? China's leaders have expressed on more than one occasion that internal security/stability is their greatest concern.

Internal security/stability is certainly the greatest concern, and I agree that the efforts to rally nationalist sentiment is very much an effort to distract.

As long as they don't trigger a response from any of the regional nations that then escalates out of control I suspect their behavior will moderate over time. It is the risk of miscalculation as we wait for their foreign and defense policy to mature that the greatest risk.

Agreed.

Firn

02-07-2014, 01:03 PM

Internal stability is indeed very likely the biggest concern for the guys at the top. This is strongly supported by the their monetary voting patters and family movements.

Recently the whole offshore wiki saga has once against shown just how much dubious money the wider communist leadership has transfered by dubious means away from home into the tax havens of the West. I hope that a least some of those NSA billions get spent to keep tabs on those movements because it might be one of the best ways to monitor short-term Chinese military policies. ;)

Perhaps the only better indicator are the many Chinese students who enjoy the great American institutions of learning. It is an open secret that a high percentage of the key players is sending it's kids to study in the US. It does not take a genius to figure out some important implications.

Overall the key maritime trade flow is certainly not the only thing which can be rather easily cut. All in all the Chinese rise and integration is a great success story for it's citiziens and had and has big trade-offs for other countries. It would be foolish to disregard either.

Bob's World

02-07-2014, 04:29 PM

There is a tremendous chasm between the perception of if one party to a dispute is "threatening" or if the other party feels "threatened." It is within this chasm that miscalculation and unintended conflict occur.

Dayuhan

02-07-2014, 11:58 PM

This sounds good:

"I do think it makes sense to keep flying through and ignoring the ADIZ, keep sailing ships through the contested waters, maintain a high tempo of exercises and military to military exchanges with affected allies, keep developing relations with Vietnam, and all the other things that are already being done. In other words, to make sure the capacity to act is clear without committing to any specific response at any given point.

Over the last few years there has been an almost continuous USN presence in Subic. In particular there's been a continuing stream of sub visits, which used to be quite rare. I don't think that's at all coincidental.

At least we seem to agree that the current US response is adequate and appropriate.

I would add a general statement of principal to the effect that the South China Sea stays international waters.

The usual US statement calls for continued free navigation and peaceful resolution of disputes. This I think makes sense, as a direct challenge to the claim would probably just provoke a more aggressive escalation.

Bill Moore

02-09-2014, 02:53 AM

Bill Moore

02-09-2014, 06:18 PM

An excellent article/thought piece from Down Under, on what the Aussies are still calling the pivot.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/how-much-is-enough-why-we-need-a-more-sober-debate-on-the-us-pivot-to-asia/

How much is enough? Why we need a more sober debate on the US pivot to Asia

The last paragraph is money in my opinion.

Finally, in all of this, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that while there are growing signs of Sino-US strategic competition, containment (or ‘roll back’) of any Chinese influence in Asia is not America’s plan. And China appears not (yet) willing to seriously test US resolve in Asia-Pacific hotspots. Until then, arguments about the lack of US resolve and declining military capability are premature and unhelpful.

Firn

02-10-2014, 01:25 PM

http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/report-chinese-elite-use-offshore-tax-havens-125873219530

Report reveals Chinese elite use off shore tax havens

A new report shows that 22,000 clients from mainland Hong Kong have off-shore accounts to shelter their money.

There is indeed an huge amount of money earned in China flowing through financial trickery into Western countries. Such activities are to a good degree a classic hedge against internal Chinese risks, mostly I guess due to the insecurity of the political system and the law. Most of the net wealth of the rich will be tied down in physical capital and so they try to move the liquid portion out of country to invest it there.

No surprise there of course if we consider history and all that money coming in from rich persons, be it oligarchs, dictators, honest businessmen living in more insecure and unstable countries. In those countries shifts of powers tend to be pretty painful for those who are on the losing side, so a large amount of money in a safe country can mean the difference between a good life and possibly death. So highest-ranking Chinese party members are among the most likely offshorer and indeed they were.

I think many Western countries like the USA should play this smart and be relatively open also to those 'investors':

1) The flow of capital is generally a (very) good thing for economy.

2) It tends to reduce the dangers of no-so limited war against them. If many, partly highly influential people on the other side have considerable stakes in capital and family members in your country they don't want to lose them.

While China is incredibly important market the quality of living is much higher in the West for those who can afford it. People are voting with their feet (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/8519878.html), just compare the migration ´patterns between China and the West.

Dayuhan

02-12-2014, 12:43 PM

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/02/06-us-china-nine-dash-line-bader

The U.S. and China’s Nine-Dash Line: Ending the Ambiguity

For the first time, the United States government has come out publicly with an explicit statement that the so-called “nine-dash line,” which the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan assert delineates their claims in the South China Sea, is contrary to international law. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Danny Russel, in testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on February 5, said, “Under international law, maritime claims in the South China Sea must be derived from land features. Any use of the 'nine-dash line' by China to claim maritime rights not based on claimed land features would be inconsistent with international law. The international community would welcome China to clarify or adjust its nine-dash line claim to bring it in accordance with the international law of the sea."

AdamG

02-26-2014, 04:24 PM

Five tiny uninhabited islands slumber in the Pacific Ocean a short distance from Taiwan, China, and Japan. The Japanese call them the Senkaku Islands. The Chinese call them the Diaoyu Islands. Japan controls the islands, but China wants them. While international law favors Japan, it would be a mistake to think the law will stop China from grabbing them. That means that even though no one uses the islands currently for anything, if World War III takes place anytime soon, this is where it will start—implausible as that may sound.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/02/the_senkaku_or_diaoyu_islands_where_world_war_iii_ could_start_because_of.html

AdamG

03-09-2014, 07:53 PM

Dual posting this, since multiple observers in the peanut gallery seem to be coming to the same conclusion whether they're only reading OSINT tea leaves or not.

If you're out there, Captain; acknowledge, over.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-usa-china-pentagon-idUSBREA1K04B20140221

(Reuters) - The Pentagon on Thursday played down remarks by a senior Navy intelligence officer who told a public forum that he believed China was training its forces to be capable of carrying out a "short, sharp" war with Japan in the East China Sea.

The comments by Captain James Fanell, director of intelligence and information operations at the U.S. Pacific Fleet, were little noticed when he made them last week at a conference on maritime strategy called "West 2014" in San Diego. They can be seen here: link.reuters.com/qyq96v

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhwm4SJxTw

The Pentagon dismissed the statements made by a senior Navy intelligence officer in a forum regarding China’s alleged preparations for a “short, sharp war” with Japan. Director of Intelligence and Information Operations at the U.S. PACFLEET Captain James Fannell was speaking at a conference on maritime strategy titled “West 2014” when he made those comments based on reports they’ve been compiling about the situation in East Asia.

Rear Admiral John Kirby, spokesperson for the Pentagon, reiterated the U.S. desire to cultivate stronger ties with China’s military while declining to comment on Fannell’s assessment of the situation in the East China Sea. Kirby added that it was Fannell’s “views to express.” When asked whether he agrees with the intelligence officer’s analysis, Kirby responded, “It’s for China to speak to China’s intentions and motivations and their relations with their neighbors. And nothing’s changed about our view here.” He noted that despite Fannell’s views, the Pentagon shares the belief that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has on the matter, “that we all continue to believe that the peaceful, prosperous rise of China is a good thing for the region, for the world.”

http://japandailypress.com/pentagon-shrugs-off-navy-intel-officers-controversial-china-assessment-2144698/

JMA

03-10-2014, 10:19 AM

"... the Pentagon shares the belief that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has on the matter, “that we all continue to believe that the peaceful, prosperous rise of China is a good thing for the region, for the world.”

A careful choice of words indicating a belief that borders on the delusional.

Ray

03-13-2014, 08:09 PM

Quote:
"... the Pentagon shares the belief that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has on the matter, “that we all continue to believe that the peaceful, prosperous rise of China is a good thing for the region, for the world.”

Reminds me of Chamberlain!

Dayuhan

03-14-2014, 06:01 AM

This time it's Second Thomas Shoal, known in the Philippines as Ayungin Shoal and to the Chinese as Ren'ai Reef. It's one of the few spots in the Spratlys occupied by the Philippines, though there's no land to actually occupy: there's a small contingent of Philippine Marines living on am old ship that was run aground on the reef. The Philippine position is that the reef is an integral part of Philippine territory; the Chinese say the troops are trespassing, the ship was illegally grounded, and both should be removed.

On March 9 two civilian ships contracted by the Philippine Navy were forced away from the shoal by Chinese Coast Guard vessels. The Philippines says the ships were conducting routine resupply and troop rotation; the Chinese say they were delivering construction supplies aimed at building permanent structures.

On March 13 the Philippines announced that it had air-dropped supplies to the garrison, but that's hardly a long term solution.

The US has criticized the Chinese action, the Chinese told the US to STFU:

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100354/china-to-us-back-off-on-sea-row-with-ph

The question, as usual, is where it goes from here. The next move is with the Philippines. The least provocative move would be to attempt another resupply with civilian vessels, and see if they are allowed through. An escalated version would be to resupply using a Coast Guard or naval vessel, which would give the Chinese a choice of letting it through, opposing with Coast Guard vessels, or bringing in a naval vessel of its own. I don't know if the Philippine Coast Guard has a suitable vessel; I suspect not.

The Philippines does have 2 refurbished Hamilton-Class cutters, which do not carry missiles and wouldn't have a chance in an actual naval battle, but which do carry helicopters and could resupply by helicopter even if obstructed. That would force the Chinese to decide whether to take action against the helicopters.

As a last resort the Philippines could ask the US to help with resupply. Hard to know how the US would respond to that. Some advantage to dong it, as it could be cast as a humanitarian mission with no aggressive intent and would force the burden of response onto the other side.

We will see.

Dayuhan

03-15-2014, 01:08 PM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5giyXCaG82hcuib-u2Zo0P5O6cVdw?docId=620e5040-534e-468c-a9e6-010ebf253499&hl=en

The Philippines said Friday a deal to allow a greater US military presence on its territory could be signed next month, in a timely defence boost amid a worsening territorial row with China.

There was optimism the pact could be secured ahead of US President Barack Obama's April visit to Manila after the two sides agreed on a contentious issue that would see US forces build "structures" on their hosts military bases, Filipino officials said.

The chess game goes on... have to wonder if the Chinese are deliberately ratcheting up the pressure on Ayungin Shoal ahead of the Obama visit.

Dayuhan

03-17-2014, 01:07 PM

Philippines plans to resupply garrison on Second Thomas Shoal, China plans to stop them...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/uk-china-philippines-idUKBREA2G0I320140317

"The Chinese government's attitude on maintaining the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity is unwavering. We will never tolerate the Philippines illegal occupation of Ren'ai reef," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a daily news briefing.

"China is on high alert for the Philippines possibly taking more provocative acts in the South China Sea. The Philippines must accept responsibility for the consequences of what will happen," he added.

Second Thomas Shoal, a strategic gateway to an area believed to be rich in oil and natural gas, is one of several possible maritime flashpoints that could prompt the United States to intervene in defence of Asian allies troubled by increasingly assertive Chinese maritime claims.

I don't really buy the "strategic gateway" thing, it's just one more shoal... but it's the least occupied of the areas the Philippines occupies, and thus the most vulnerable, a natural pressure point.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

Dayuhan

03-28-2014, 01:11 AM

No guns, no money, plenty of lawyers... the Philippines makes another move on the international legal side.

http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2423602-manila-raises-stakes-with-beijing-seeks-arbitration-over-south-china-sea/

The Philippines will file a case against China over the disputed South China Sea at an arbitration tribunal in The Hague next week, subjecting Beijing to international legal scrutiny over the increasingly tense waters for the first time.

Manila is seeking a ruling to confirm its right to exploit the waters in its 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as allowed under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), its team of U.S. and British lawyers said.

The actual impact of these cases is negligible, as there is no mechanism for enforcing tbem, but they do have an impact on perceptions of legitimacy, and the Chinese hate them. What impact that will have on the current faceoff over Second Thomas Shoal remains to be seen.

JMA

03-28-2014, 08:40 AM

No guns, no money, plenty of lawyers... the Philippines makes another move on the international legal side.

I suggest that concurrently with these Phillippines legal efforts the US has mobilised a legal effort to see how to get out of the Mutual Defense Treaty (U.S.–Philippines) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(U.S.–Philippines))

Dayuhan

03-29-2014, 09:13 AM

I suggest that concurrently with these Phillippines legal efforts the US has mobilised a legal effort to see how to get out of the Mutual Defense Treaty (U.S.–Philippines) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(U.S.–Philippines))

They don't need to, the way out is written into the treaty, which requires each party to "act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes". "In accordance with its constitutional processes" basically means that whatever response the US decides is appropriate meets the requirement.

The current standoff at Second Thomas Shoal is one of those marginal events that provides a fairly limited opportunity for response. The Chinese plan is clearly not to use force to expel the miniscule garrison there: they are trying to make the position of the garrison so untenable that the Philippines will withdraw it. What the US can or should do about that is an open question. Of course the US could demand that China allow the Philippines to resupply the garrison and repair the collapsing shipwreck they inhabit. The Chinese response would be that this is a bilateral matter between the Philippines and China, that the US has no standing to be making demands, and that China will not accept foreign dictation of conduct in areas under its "indisputable sovereignty" (those words appear in every statement). Where the US would take it from there is another question. Nobody wants to be the first to deploy naval vessels and certainly nobody wants to be the first to fire a shot.

I expect there's some discussion going on between the US and the Philippines; we'll see what happens. I don't think anyone intends to start an exchange of fire over it, but what's intended and what happens aren't always the same thing.

Dayuhan

03-29-2014, 11:08 AM

Current breaking news, posted to Facebook by reporters on a civilian Philippine vessel commissioned to resupply the Marine contingent at Second Thomas Shoal:

Philippine vessel attempted resupply, was obstructed and ordered out of the area by Chinese Coast Guard. Philippine vessel was able to evade by crossing over a section of the shoal that was too shallow for the larger Chinese vessel to pass, and successfully reached destination.

That remains unconfirmed. If true, Filipinos will be amused and Chinese annoyed. Of course the Philippine vessel has to return, and the Chinese may attempt to stop or seize it on the way. More will be known as events progress.

Dayuhan

03-29-2014, 02:55 PM

Subsequent report:

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/101205/chinese-coast-guard-harassing-ph-ship-at-ayungin-shoal

Nothing really new, except this:

Journalists said a plane with U.S. Navy markings also flew above the marooned ship.

No word on whether the Philippine ship has left the area yet.

Bringing media (including AP) along was not a bad idea; will be interesting to see how he coverage comes out. There will be a fair ration of froth from the Chinese side, I imagine.

Dayuhan

03-30-2014, 06:20 AM

Dayuhan

03-31-2014, 12:43 AM

Aerial image of a Chinese Coast Guard ship trying to keep a Philippine resupply vessel from reaching the garrison at Secont Thomas Shoal... if nothing else, gives an idea of the comparative scale.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/dayuhan/philippines-china-ayungin-20140330-1.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/dayuhan/media/philippines-china-ayungin-20140330-1.jpg.html)

Bill Moore

03-31-2014, 03:48 AM

More coverage on yesterday's encounter:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/30/us-philippines-china-reef-idUSBREA2T02K20140330

http://www.rappler.com/nation/54236-china-slams-ph-hype-west-ph-sea

The combination of packing a supply ship with reporters and then maneuvering it past the attempts of the Chinese Coast Guard to blockade it is definitely a propaganda win for the Philippines... a transient one for sure, as the garrison at Second Thomas Shoal is as vulnerable as ever and the shipwreck they occupy is still falling apart, but still a win. The officers commanding the Chinese ships are probably getting a fair ration of scheisse over it, and it won't exactly be a career coup for them. It's a small thing in the grand scheme, but a government bent on rousing nationalist fervor to cover its assorted domestic messes will not take embarrassment lightly.

The question now is whether the Chinese will wait for the next resupply run and try again, or whether they'll feel compelled to up the ante to save face.

From the Reuter's article

"Regardless of how the Philippines packages its lawsuit, the direct cause of the dispute between China and the Philippines is the Philippines' illegal occupation of part of the islands in the South China Sea," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement.

China isn't quite saying they'll ignore the court's ruling, but they sure as heck are hinting that they will.

"The question of, what if the Philippines gets a favorable ruling? The Philippines has always taken the position that a favorable ruling is a ruling that China, as a member of the community of nations, is bound legally to accept and to implement," government lawyer Francis Jardaleza said.

If he is right, this will be major win for all concerned to include China in a way because it will demonstrate they still desire to be a valued member of the community of nations; however, if China is overruled and China doesn't respect the ruling it will be interesting to see where this goes. China will lose a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of many nations, especially in East Asia.

Bill Moore

03-31-2014, 04:29 AM

Can't recall if this was posted earlier, but it provides a graphic overview of how the Filipino Marines are living on this ship. This definitely counts as hardship duty in my book.

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/

A Game of Shark and Minnow

To understand how Ayungin (known to the Western world as Second Thomas Shoal) could become contested ground is to confront, in miniature, both the rise of China and the potential future of U.S. foreign policy. It is also to enter into a morass of competing historical, territorial and even moral claims in an area where defining what is true or fair may be no easier than it has proved to be in the Middle East.

The Spratly Islands sprawl over roughly 160,000 square miles in the waters of the coasts of the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and China — all of whom claim part of the islands.

Ensure you scroll down to capture all the videos and pictures.

Dayuhan

03-31-2014, 04:47 AM

China isn't quite saying they'll ignore the court's ruling, but they sure as heck are hinting that they will...

... if China is overruled and China doesn't respect the ruling it will be interesting to see where this goes. China will lose a lot of legitimacy in the eyes of many nations, especially in East Asia.

China will certainly ignore any adverse ruling; that's about as close to a given as anything in international relations can be.

I don't know that China has any legitimacy to lose in the eyes of East Asian neighbors, or that they care. The nations that are neutral or supportive of China do not take that position because they think Chinese claims or methods are legitimate, but because they fear China or are dependent on economic links with China.

I don't expect that the will be a ruling on the court case for some time. The immediate concern is how the Chinese will react to the small loss of face in last Saturday's incident, and whether they will choose to raise the pressure on Second Thomas Shoal. The strategy of keeping pressure on but keeping it below any level that might give outside parties a reason to do more than denounce seems has been observed so far, but escalation is always possible.

Dayuhan

04-28-2014, 12:03 PM

"Rock solid" non-commitment on disputed territories:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/04/27/14/us-commitment-ph-rock-solid-non-committal-disputed-waters

The US/Philippine spin:

http://www.dw.de/obama-touts-new-philippines-defense-accord-as-peace-mechanism/a-17595497

The China spin:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-04/28/c_133294852.htm

Al Jazeera gives some space to the Philippine left spin:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/04/us-philippines-sign-ten-year-defence-pact-201442861348477236.html

My own spin: the talk shows nothing new, and we won't know the impact of the defense deal until we actually see what deployments take place. There's been a lot of talk about possibilities, but little clear indication of what's contemplated. Meanwhile, we can expect the Chinese harassment of Philippine ships to continue as before, using all means short of shooting and deploying primarily Coast Guard rather than PLAN vessels. The strategy to date has been to keep the provocation continuous but always below a threshold that might trigger actual shooting or might provide a reasonable response opening for the US. The US will show presence and observe, the Chinese will carry on as if the US vessels and aircraft weren't there.

Dayuhan

04-30-2014, 11:00 AM

More discussion of the US/Philippine agreement...

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/04/27/14/us-ph-reach-new-defense-deal

Main quote:

The agreement allows the US to rotate ships, aircraft and troops for a period longer than the current maximum of two weeks during joint military exercises by the two nations, a senior military source told Reuters.

The United States is expected to gradually deploy combat ships, a squadron of F18s or F16s and maritime surveillance aircraft, the same source said.

Last year, there were 149 US navy ship visits to the Philippines, up from 68 in the previous year, and that number is likely to rise further under the new pact.

The "senior military source" is apparently from the Philippines side, and I've seen nothing on the US side to corroborate it, especially on the aircraft deployment. That wouldn't be well received in Beijing, and would probably be greeted with stepped up pressure from China in the Spratlys... if it happens.

Worth noting that despite the much increased tempo of US ship visits (149 in a year equates to a virtually continuous presence) the Chinese were more aggressive in 2013 than in any year past, suggesting that mere presence isn't much of a deterrent.

Dayuhan

05-10-2014, 03:13 AM

China sets up a drilling rig off the Paracel islands, sparking a significant confrontation that is likely to go on a while. There's been a round or ramming and water cannon incidents, with reports claiming 80 Chinese and 29 (or 35, claims vary) Vietnamese vessels in the area:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/world/asia/china-and-vietnam.html?_r=0

On the other side Philippine police arrest 11 Chinese fishermen near a shoal off Pakawan island, in possession of endangered sea turtles.

Philippine version:

http://www.rappler.com/nation/57456-missing-chinese-fishermen-half-moon-shoal

Chinese version:

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140509000102&cid=1103

The Philippines also offered a tender for exploration rights in an area also claimed by China, setting off the usual round of Chinese denunciations. Remains to be seen whether anyone's interested in bidding.:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/09/philippines-energy-southchinasea-idUKL3N0NV2BQ20140509

China blames everything on the US, on the grounds that US support is making Vietnam and the Philippines less acquiescent:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/09/us-china-usa-idUSBREA4804Z20140509

And on we go, with no clear idea where it ends...

One thing that is merging is that China's much-hyped "three warfares" strategy, which aims to use media, legal, and psychological warfare to disrupt antagonists, put them at odds with each other, and weaken their resolve, has been an epic failure. Chinese efforts at media and psychological manipulation have been crude and counterproductive: if anything, they have stoked resolve, united their antagonists, and strengthened relationships among Vietnam, the Philippines, and the US. Of course China still has a large force advantage over Vietnam and the Philippines, and is still being very careful to avoid shooting... but purely on the media/lawfare/psychological warfare side they have done themselves more harm than good.

AdamG

05-15-2014, 11:56 PM

How soon before we hear "intervening to protect ethnic minorities" from Beijing?

WASHINGTON -- China's top military leader is warning that the U.S. must be objective about the tensions between China and Vietnam, or risk harming relations between Washington and Beijing.

People's Liberation Army's Chief of the General Staff Gen. Fang Fenghui says the U.S. effort to increase focus on the Asia Pacific has stirred up disputes in the East and South China Seas.

Fang was at the Pentagon for meetings with U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. Dempsey says they talked about the risk of provocation in using military assets in the region.

Fang's visit comes amid rising tensions between Hanoi and Beijing as they square off against each other in the disputed South China Sea.

On Thursday, a 1,000-strong mob stormed a Taiwanese steel mill in Vietnam and hunted down Chinese workers, killing one, attacking scores more and then setting the complex alight, Taiwanese and Vietnamese authorities said.

It was the first deadly incident in a wave of anti-China protests triggered by Beijing's deployment of an oil rig in the long-disputed seas on May 1. Vietnam is angrily demanding that China remove the rig and has sent ships to confront it and a flotilla of Chinese escort ships, triggering fears of possible conflict.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-warns-u-s-be-objective-about-asia-tensions/

Dayuhan

05-20-2014, 06:05 AM

Chinese leaving Vietnam due to rioting:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/19/chinese-flee-vietnam-hanoi-riots

Putin arrives in China as naval exercises begin:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/most-recent/410718/putin-in-china-vietnam-worries

Unconfirmed reports on a number of websites, generally of questionable reliability, claim China is moving troops to the border with Vietnam:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/682973-chinese-military-said-to-be-massing-near-the-vietnam-border/

An effort to apply the "Putin doctrine" and threaten - or use - military force to "protect Chinese in Vietnam" and (more to the point) to force Vietnam to back off on the oil rig issue? We shall see. The Vietnamese are no pushovers and of course the Chinese know that.

AdamG

05-21-2014, 07:04 PM

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - Chinese President Xi Jinping appeared to warn some Asian nations on Wednesday about strengthening military alliances to counter China, saying this would not benefit regional security.

But he also pledged to peacefully resolve China's disputes over territory, which have intensified in recent years, especially in the South and East China Seas.

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-xi-says-committed-peacefully-resolving-territorial-disputes-024633860.html

China and Russia started a week-long naval exercise in the politically sensitive East China Sea yesterday.

Chinese and Russian units taking part in the Joint Sea-2014 drill will be combined rather than operating separately during the exercise, the first time the Chinese navy has worked so closely with a foreign maritime force, according to Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie. "The mixed confrontation and drill means the exercises will operate more like a real battle," said Li. "It shows the two countries' strategic partnership has entered a high level of cooperation and coordination, even though both Beijing and Moscow insist they are not military allies."

Macau-based military observer Antony Wong Dong said China and Russia had learned from the example of Western countries' joint naval drills, including Nato, where forces were mixed together. It indicated that trust between Beijing and Moscow was increasing.

The drill, in the northern part of the East China Sea, ends on Monday. Forces including 14 ships, two submarines, nine fixed-wing aircraft and six shipboard helicopters will take part, according to a report on the PLA Navy's website.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1516768/china-russia-start-joint-naval-exercise

davidbfpo

05-22-2014, 03:07 PM

The title comes from the Chief of the People's Liberation Army General Staff, General Fang Fenghui, in a press conference after a US-PRC military exchange:
We do not make trouble. We do not create trouble. But we are not afraid of trouble.

Link to source, Lowy Institute, within is a link to the full DoD transcript:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/05/22/Indo-Pacific-Security-links-Modi-US-China-military-exchange-On-the-Margins-and-more.aspx?COLLCC=1840075162&

There's confidence building and subverting confidence which this Lowy Institute short comments says is the PRC's strategy:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/05/22/Explaining-Chinas-behaviour-in-the-East-and-South-China-Seas.aspx

A taster:
So the easiest way for Beijing to weaken Washington's power in Asia is to undermine this confidence. And the easiest way to do that is for Beijing to press those friends and allies hard on issues in which America's own interests are not immediately engaged – like a string of maritime disputes in which the US has no direct stake.

By using direct armed pressure in these disputes, China makes its neighbours more eager for US military support, and at the same time makes America less willing to give it, because of the clear risk of a direct US-China clash. In other words, by confronting America's friends with force, China confronts America with the choice between deserting its friends and fighting China. Beijing is betting that, faced with this choice, America will back off and leave its allies and friends unsupported. This will weaken America's alliances and partnerships, undermine US power in Asia, and enhance China's power.

Dayuhan

05-22-2014, 11:35 PM

This line from the Lowry comments:

By using direct armed pressure in these disputes, China makes its neighbours more eager for US military support

is inaccurate: the Chinese are actually being quite careful not to apply "armed pressure". What they are doing is applying a very high degree of unarmed pressure. The PLAN ships generally hold back, the bully work is done by Coast Guard ships using water cannon and ramming to literally push others around. Shots are not fired and they have been quite careful to keep force used at a level that doesn't provide an opportunity or excuse for anyone else to push in.

The US has responded by nearly doubling the number of port calls by Navy vessels and signing an agreement with the Philippines that would allow continuous deployments, but the Chinese have not been bluffed and if anything have ratcheted up the level of provocation.

It's an interesting question for the US... how exactly do you respond to aggressive but unarmed confrontation by nominally civilian vessels?

I read today that a Philippine company is planning to drill on the disputed Reed Bank, but that of course will mean leasing a rig, which may be difficult to do under the circumstances. We shall see.

AdamG

06-09-2014, 09:26 PM

China has accused Vietnam of ramming its ships more than 1,400 times in a disputed part of the South China Sea and said while it wanted good relations with its neighbour, it would not abandon principles to achieve that.

China claims most of the South China Sea and has over the past two years been taking various steps to assert its claim, angering Vietnam and the Philippines in particular.

Shortly after China brought its oil platform into the area, Vietnam sent a large number of vessels into the area, China's Foreign Ministry said on Sunday.

"There were as many as 63 Vietnamese vessels in the area at the peak, attempting to break through China's cordon and ramming the Chinese government ships a total of 1,416 times," the ministry said.

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201469132238719725

BEIJING (Reuters) - China denounced Vietnam and the Philippines on Monday for getting together on a disputed island in the South China Sea to play soccer and volleyball, calling it "a clumsy farce" and demanded both countries stop causing trouble.

The comments by a foreign ministry spokeswoman were China's first response to the gathering on the Vietnamese-held island of Southwest Cay on Sunday.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-says-vietnamese-vessels-rammed-ships-more-1-025254315.html

Ray

06-19-2014, 07:06 AM

China plans artificial island in disputed Spratlys chain in South China Sea
The move indicates a shift from defence to offence in the East and South China Sea

China is looking to expand its biggest installation in the Spratly Islands into a fully formed artificial island, complete with airstrip and sea port, to better project its military strength in the South China Sea, a Chinese scholar and a Chinese navy expert have said.

The proposal to build an artificial island there had been submitted to the central government, said Jin Canrong , a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing. The artificial island would be at least double the size of the US military base of Diego Garcia, a remote coral atoll occupying an area of 44 square kilometres in the middle of the Indian Ocean, Jin added.

Li Jie, a naval expert from the Chinese Naval Research Institute, said the expanded island would include the airstrip and port. After the expansion the island would continue to house the observation post and to provide military supplies and assistance, he said.

A retired People's Liberation Army senior colonel, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the construction of a landing strip on Fiery Cross Reef would allow China to better prepare for the establishment of an air defence identification zone over the South China Sea.

https://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/486w/public/2014/06/06/c35d0e651183c6ba2dba1be45e914e10.jpg?itok=XXnw9URI

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1527059/china-plans-artificial-island-disputed-spratlys-chain-south-china-sea?page=all

AdamG

07-01-2014, 02:00 PM

Anyone think New Zealand is having second thoughts?

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Philippine president said Tuesday his country's ill-equipped military will receive its first new fighter jets in nearly a decade next year to help defend the country's territory.

President Benigno Aquino III said two of 12 FA-50 multi-purpose fighters will be delivered by their South Korean manufacturer next year and the rest are expected to follow in the next three years. The Philippines has scrambled to modernize its military, one of Asia's weakest, amid increasingly tense territorial disputes with China in the South China Sea.

Aquino said the Philippines has had no fighter jets for territorial defense since a fleet of F-5 jets was decommissioned in 2005. The anemic air force is being strengthened with the purchase of new assault helicopters, long-range patrol aircraft and C130 cargo planes, he said.

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=157592

Japan's cabinet has approved a landmark change in security policy, paving the way for its military to fight overseas.

Under its constitution, Japan is barred from using force to resolve conflicts except in cases of self-defence.

But a reinterpretation of the law will now allow "collective self-defence" - using force to defend allies under attack.

PM Shinzo Abe has been pushing hard for the move, arguing Japan needs to adapt to a changing security environment.

"No matter what the circumstances, I will protect Japanese people's lives and peaceful existence," he told journalists after the change was approved.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28086002

AdamG

07-15-2014, 01:37 AM

China's neighbors are increasingly anxious that Beijing's maritime disputes with countries like Vietnam and the Philippines will lead to military conflict, a US research group said in findings released Monday.

Even in China itself, polling showed that 62 percent of the public worried that territorial disputes between China and its neighbors could lead to an armed conflict, according to a broad study conducted in 44 countries by the Pew Research Center.

"This year in all 11 Asian nations polled, roughly half or more say they are concerned that territorial disputes between China and its neighbors will lead to a military conflict," the study found.

At 93 percent, Filipinos were most concerned, followed by the Japanese at 85 percent, Vietnamese at 84 percent and South Koreans at 83 percent, according to Pew.

http://news.yahoo.com/asia-fears-china-military-conflict-over-sea-claims-222710340.html

AdamG

08-04-2014, 04:57 PM

BEIJING (Reuters) - China can build whatever it wants on its islands in the South China Sea, a senior Chinese official said on Monday, rejecting proposals ahead of a key regional meeting to freeze any activity that may raise tensions in disputed waters there.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-says-can-build-what-it-wants-on-south-china-sea-isles-2014-04#ixzz39REbdudR

Ray

08-06-2014, 06:35 AM

Indian-Vietnam naval exercise launched in S China Sea

A joint naval exercise was launched by India and Vietnam together in the disputed South China Sea on June 8 as a challenge to the growing influence of China in the region, according to the state-run Global Times.

After premier Li Keqiang's visit to India, four warships from the Eastern Fleet of the Indian Navy, including two frigates, one destroyer and one supply ship, began their voyage on May 30 for Vietnam, reports the Calcutta-based Telegraph. The Indian warships arrived at Tien Sa Port in the city of Da Nang on June 4.

The Indian fleet commander said that the government respects the administration and control of all nations over the islands within the disputed region. Rear admiral Ajit Kumar, however, pointed out that peace and stability of the South China Sea is crucial as well to the national interests of India.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130610000067&cid=1101

davidbfpo

08-06-2014, 10:03 AM

I overlooked posting this National Interest article 'Did China Blink in the South China Sea' published on the 27th July 2014:http://nationalinterest.org/feature/did-china-blink-the-south-china-sea-10956

It starts with:
For seventy-five days starting from May 2, China unilaterally deployed its US$1 billion oil rig HYSY-981 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-02-110614.html)to drill in waters lying within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The platform was originally scheduled to stay until August 15, but on July 15, China announced that the rig had completed its work and would be relocated to Hainan Island. The removal of the drilling rig is as unilateral and unexpected as its deployment. When the platform was parked in the contested area, it sparked the worst crisis since 1988 in Sino-Vietnamese relations.

The author offers three plausible explanations why China blinked. He ends with:
The outcome of this crisis suggests that China is not much different from other actors—it also has its own fear of escalation.

AdamG

10-15-2014, 06:50 PM

VOA News

September 29, 2014 1:40 AM

The Philippines and the United States have launched an annual military exercise in the South China Sea, near waters where China is engaged in bitter territorial disputes with its neighbors.

Around 5,000 sailors and Marines from both countries began 11-days of maritime maneuvers on Monday. The Philippine Bilateral Exercises, or "Phiblex" is designed to test the readiness of the two allies to respond to emergencies of any kind.

The two countries will practice boat raids, beach landings, live fire exercises and armored maneuvers near the Spratly islands and Scarborough Shoal, where China has been involved in a string of tense confrontations with rival claimants.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-philippines-launch-military-exercise-near-spratly-islands/2465762.html

Vietnam has yet again condemned China after the latter completed a runway for military aircraft on an island in the East Sea (the Vietnamese term for the South China Sea) over which Hanoi claims sovereignty.
“Vietnam has incontestable sovereignty over the Hoang Sa Islands,” Le Hai Binh, the Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesman, said at a press briefing Thursday, using the Vietnamese name for the Paracel chain.
The building of the new facility stretching across Woody Island, part of the Paracels, violates the resolution on China-Vietnam maritime issues signed in October 2011 and the Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002, Binh said.
He dismissed the building of the military airstrip as "invalid".

http://www.thanhniennews.com/politics/vietnam-blasts-china-for-building-military-airstrip-in-flashpoint-island-32306.html

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/002/763/invalid.jpg

Bob's World

10-16-2014, 05:06 PM

No sovereignty is "incontestable."

The contest is only just beginning. The relative power between sovereigns is shifting, and those who perceive their sovereignty to be illegitimate (imposed upon them by others), outgrown (relative power shifts make them reasonably perceive they deserve a larger slice of the pie), or simply see opportunities to expand in some way, are already working to do so.

This is how it has always been, and how it will always be. We have a false sense of what "right" looks like due to the artificialities of the post-WWII stand off between East and West. The reality is that what "right" looks like is an ever-changing thing and that nothing in nature is more unnatural than stasis.

AdamG

10-17-2014, 01:20 AM

Chinas appears to have made headway in the so-called ‘reclamation’ of disputed areas in the South China Sea, a project to create new land masses using reefs in areas claimed by both Beijing and its neighbors. According to Taiwan and Hong Kong news sources, China’s naval chief has been surveying islands located in disputed maritime territories, angering nations locked in territorial disputes with China such as the Philppines.

http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-navy-chief-conducts-unprecedented-survey-spratly-islands-1706473

AdamG

10-24-2014, 04:14 PM

In a dramatic display of strategic naivet, the Philippines decided (early-October) to suspend the repair and upgrade of its age-old airstrip on the Spratly island of Thitu (Pagasa to the Filipinos), among the biggest and most prized land features in the South China Sea, which can generate its own 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The airstrip is critical to the Armed Forces of Philippines (AFP) ability to project power and defend its maritime claims beyond its immediate territorial waters.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/david-vs-goliath-the-south-china-sea-the-philippines-vs-11534

AdamG

10-25-2014, 12:25 AM

OKINAWA, Japan—Swooping down to 500 feet over the western Pacific, Cmdr. Bill Pennington pilots his U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft toward an unidentified vessel off southern Japan.

In the back of the plane, a heavily modified Boeing 737, the crew homes in on the vessel using a barrage of surveillance equipment, including radar, GPS and infrared cameras.

Further down the fuselage stand rows of tube-shaped sonar buoys that the crew can catapult into the sea and that float for up to eight hours as they track objects underwater.

This is a dummy run: Today’s target is a Singaporean container ship, and the P-8 roars by without dropping the buoys. But the aircraft is designed to hunt a far more elusive, and potentially dangerous, quarry: Chinese submarines.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/as-china-deploys-nuclear-submarines-u-s-p-8-poseidon-jets-snoop-on-them-1414166686?mod=yahoo_hs

davidbfpo

12-10-2014, 08:49 PM

Hat tip to Australia's Lowy Institute for the pointer to this publication, described as:
...it is a must-read for anyone interested in maritime security, the law of the sea, or China's foreign policy.....There are also some great maps in the report. And at only 26 pages it is worth the read.
Link to report:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf

Link to Lowy Institute's short commentary:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/12/08/US-State-Department-assesses-Chinas-nine-dashed-line.aspx?utm_source=Lowy+Interpreter&utm_campaign=8576d39632-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_WEEKLY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_eed7d14b56-8576d39632-59375461

AdamG

01-06-2015, 12:39 PM

Australians would overwhelmingly reject siding with close ally Japan against top trade partner China over a dispute in the East China Sea and prefer to remain neutral, according to a survey published Tuesday.

Beijing and Tokyo have been engaged in a long and bitter battle over ownership of a contested island chain, known as Diaoyu in China and Senkaku in Japan.

http://news.yahoo.com/australians-reject-siding-japan-over-china-survey-035235251.html

AdamG

03-19-2015, 02:01 AM

Look How Quickly China is Building Its Island Bases Out Of Nothing
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/look-how-quickly-china-is-building-its-island-bases-out-1691571576/+damon

Plenty of photos.

AdamG

05-08-2015, 02:50 PM

BEIJING (Reuters) - China is building a stronger military as insurance against the country suffering the kind of disaster that befell it during World War Two, the army's paper said on Friday as President Xi Jinping headed to Russia for war commemorations.

China's military buildup, which includes developing stealth fighters and anti-satellite missiles, has unnerved the region and Washington, especially since Xi took office in 2013 and started taking a tougher line on maritime territorial disputes.

Sino-Japan relations have long been poisoned by what China sees as Japan's failure to atone for its occupation of parts of the country before and during the war, and it rarely misses an opportunity to remind its people and the world of this.

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-military-build-aims-prevent-repeat-ww2-disaster-030942364.html

AdamG

05-11-2015, 10:48 PM

pre-War Zone Tourism
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-turn-disputed-sea-outcrops-tourist-draws-154812791.html

AdamG

05-28-2015, 05:02 PM

Cam Ranh Bay: Vietnam's ace in the hole against China

ATSUSHI TOMIYAMA, Nikkei staff writer

HANOI -- Vietnam is David to China's Goliath when it comes to strategic competition. China's economy is 54 times larger and its navy is 10 times bigger.

But as far as territorial disputes in the South China Sea are concerned, Vietnam has an ace up its sleeve: Cam Ranh Bay. To make the most of its leverage, Hanoi is apparently letting Russia use the natural harbor on its central coast.

http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20150521-GENERAL-MALAISE/Politics-Economy/Cam-Ranh-Bay-Vietnam-s-ace-in-the-hole-against-China

davidbfpo

05-28-2015, 06:37 PM

Cam Ranh Bay: Vietnam's ace in the hole against China:http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20150521-GENERAL-MALAISE/Politics-Economy/Cam-Ranh-Bay-Vietnam-s-ace-in-the-hole-against-China

AdamG,

Given the reported closeness between China and Russia of late, often with a stress on commerce and trade, does Vietnam really have a claim upon Russian support? Yes, Russia is in the process of selling Kilo class SSK to Vietnam and offers harbour facilities @ cam Ranh Bay. Then's there a strong element of solidarity between China and Russia politically over so many international issues, often in conflict with the USA.

AdamG

06-01-2015, 02:05 PM

HAIPHONG, Vietnam (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Sunday he will urge Vietnamese officials to give up their reclamation projects in the South China Sea, making a direct plea after earlier calling for all countries in the Asia-Pacific region to halt the construction of artificial islands.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-defense-secretary-ask-vietnam-end-land-reclamation-135457775--politics.html

HAI PHONG, VIETNAM — The US will provide $18 million to Vietnam to help procure coast guard patrol vessels, a first step in what Secretary of Defense Ash Carter hopes is a growing military relationship between those two countries.

Carter's comments came shortly after he became the first US Secretary of Defense to board a Vietnamese military vessel, a Coast Guard ship in the port of Hai Phong.

The ships in question are from Louisiana-based Metal Shark, which provides a number of patrol boats to the US Coast Guard.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2015/06/01/us-providing-vietnam-18m-in-coast-guard-vessels/28290871/

http://www.metalsharkboats.com/

AdamG

06-01-2015, 02:15 PM

AdamG,

Given the reported closeness between China and Russia of late, often with a stress on commerce and trade, does Vietnam really have a claim upon Russian support? Yes, Russia is in the process of selling Kilo class SSK to Vietnam and offers harbour facilities @ cam Ranh Bay. Then's there a strong element of solidarity between China and Russia politically over so many international issues, often in conflict with the USA.

Remember the last scene in the Spaghetti Western "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly"?

The Vietnamese are trying to play off the Cam Ranh Bay plum between Moscow and Washington for the most benefits. The only problem playing aginst Putin is that you might wind up with a Naval Infantry Brigade in your front yard one morning, and a Spetsnaz Battalion in your back yard.

On March 11, veteran Reuters correspondent David Brunnstrom published an exclusive report that Russian Tu-95MS Bear nuclear-capable strategic bombers, conducting assertive reconnaissance patrols in the airspace near U.S. military bases in Guam, had been refueled by Russian Il-78 tanker aircraft staging out of the military airfield at Cam Ranh Bay on Vietnam’s central coast.

U.S. officials noted that Russian bomber flights near Guam were part of a global pattern of renewed assertiveness approved by President Vladimir Putin against the U.S. and NATO allies in response to raising tensions over Russian annexation of Crimea, destabilizing activities in Ukraine, and Western punitive sanctions.

It was also reported that the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi had raised official concerns with Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to an anonymous State Department official, “We have urged Vietnamese officials to ensure that Russia is not able to use its access to Cam Ranh Bay to conduct activities that could raise tensions in the region.”

http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/vietnams-cam-ranh-bay-caught-in-us-russia-crossfire/

The United States embassy in Hanoi has asked the Vietnamese government to stop permitting Russia to use a military base to refuel its airplanes. The U.S. says Russia has performed what it calls “provocative flights” around the U.S. territory in the Pacific. Officials have not received an answer from the Vietnamese government.

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/us-asks-vietnam-to-stop-russian-use-of-cam-ranh-bay/2677999.html

AdamG

06-02-2015, 05:30 PM

While we're on the subject of Vietnam playing Washington against Moscow in the Christmas Gift department.

HANOI (Reuters) - Vietnam took delivery of two new missile boats on Tuesday made locally and modeled on Russian vessels, the latest move by its military to strengthen maritime defenses as tensions simmer over sovereignty in the South China Sea.

The two Tarantul-class corvettes, known as Molniyas, are equipped with 16 missiles and automatic weapons and are among six ordered by the navy, two of which were delivered last year. The missiles have a range of 130 kilometers.

http://news.yahoo.com/vietnam-receives-russian-design-missile-boats-amid-maritime-165704909.html

davidbfpo

06-23-2015, 01:26 PM

Via Reuters:
A Japanese military patrol plane circled over disputed parts of the South China Sea on Tuesday at the start of an exercise with the Philippine military that has irked China.According to Japanese and Philippine officials, the Japanese P3-C Orion surveillance plane, with three Filipino guest crew members, flew at 5,000 feet (1,524 m) above the edge of Reed Bank, an energy-rich area that is claimed by both China and the Philippines. It was accompanied by a smaller Philippine patrol aircraft.

More on this maritime SAR exercise:http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/23/us-southchinasea-philippines-idUSKBN0P30H120150623?

davidbfpo

06-29-2015, 03:12 PM

Missing from discussions at last week's US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) was Taiwan's significance in China's land reclamation efforts in the South China Sea, said defense analysts.Held annually since 2009, the S&ED is a high-level government meeting set alternatively in each other's capital.

With the recent reporting on PRC building up some islands in The Spratley's we missed what Taiwan (RoC) was doing:
current expansion projects on Taiwan-controlled Taiping Island (Itu Abu), which include lengthening the runway to accommodate larger aircraft (currently only C-130s can resupply the island), and the construction of a dock capable of handling 3,000-ton vessels, ostensibly for Taiwan's new coast guard cutters.
Link:http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/06/28/taiwan-china-reclamation-island-invasion-spratly-south-china-sea-pla/29260999/

Firn

08-24-2015, 06:25 PM

I'm sure that today more Chinese eyes will be one the stock exchanges then on some small islands. There was much talk about the possibly superior ability (compared to decadent western democracies) of the pseudo-commy dictatorship to manage it's economy. So will the Chinese leadership show economic sense and, hm , leadership?

https://img.rt.com/files/2015.08/original/55dadafac36188d20a8b458c.jpg

The markest around the world have not exactly become calmer after the confusing Chinese devaluation which Krugman compared almost two weeks ago (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?module=BlogMain&action=Click&region=Header&pgtype=Blogs&version=Blog%20Post&contentCollection=Opinion) with a first bite into a cherry.

Are you staring to have the feeling that when it comes to economic policy Xi-who-must-be-obeyed has no idea what he’s doing? [Quite a bit more seem to share that feeling now]

....

This is what Charlie Kindleberger used to call “taking the first bite of the cherry”. (Nobody takes just one bite out of a cherry.) China has now demonstrated that its currency peg is no longer solid; but it has come nowhere near to devaluing enough to create expectations of future appreciation. This is a recipe for convincing investors that the future direction of the currency is down — which means that capital flight will accelerate (and apparently already has.)

AdamG

09-16-2015, 07:42 PM

“The South China Sea, as the name indicated, is a sea area. It belongs to China,” said Vice Adm. Yuan Yubai, who commands the North Sea Fleet for the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/defiant-chinese-admirals-message-south-china-sea-belongs-china/120989/

AdamG

10-10-2015, 02:40 AM

China said on Friday it would not stand for violations of its territorial waters in the name of freedom of navigation, as the United States considers sailing warships close to China's artificial islands in the South China Sea.

A U.S. defense official told Reuters on Thursday the United States was considering sending ships to waters inside the 12-nautical-mile zones that China claims as territory around islands it has built in the Spratly chain.

Western media reports quoted U.S. officials as saying the action could take place within a matter of days, but awaited a decision by U.S. President Barack Obama.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/09/us-china-usa-southchinasea-idUSKCN0S30ND20151009

AdamG

10-14-2015, 10:32 PM

China’s military is getting its ducks in a row for what many experts see as a realistic competence at destroying US aircraft carriers during a confrontation scenario over Taiwan.

In a recent issue of the Chinese-language state-run China Youth Daily newspaper, a report claims that the Gaofen-4 geostationary earth observation satellite will be launched by the end of this year with the express purpose of hunting US aircraft carriers. The satellite is equipped with a visible light imager at 50 meters and infrared staring optical imager at 400 meters.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2015/10/08/chinese-newspaper-spy-satellites-target-us-carriers/73568146/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report

AdamG

01-05-2016, 03:08 PM

China's first landing of a plane on one of its new island runways in the South China Sea shows Beijing's facilities in the disputed region are being completed on schedule and military flights will inevitably follow, foreign officials and analysts said.

China's increasing military presence in the disputed sea could effectively lead to a Beijing-controlled air defence zone, they said, ratcheting up tensions with other claimants and with the United States in one of the world's most volatile areas.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/schina-sea-tensions-surge-as-china-lands-plane-on-artificial-island/ar-AAgm0qF?ocid=spartandhp

AdamG

02-01-2016, 06:10 AM

(CNN)—The U.S. Navy sent a ship near a contested island in the South China Sea on Saturday to challenge "excessive maritime claims that restrict the rights and freedoms of the United States and others," a U.S. Defense Department spokesman told CNN.

"This operation challenged attempts by the three claimants, China, Taiwan and Vietnam, to restrict navigation rights and freedoms around the features they claim by policies that require prior permission or notification of transit within territorial seas," Cmdr. Bill Urban said.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/30/asia/us-navy-south-china-sea/

AdamG

02-21-2016, 10:18 AM

Chinese media calls for government to 'fire shots and ram U.S. warships to teach them a lesson' over disputed South China Sea islands
Chinese media have urged their military to fire warning shots at the U.S.
Satellite images show missile systems on Chinese-controlled islands
But China maintains U.S. presence in the region is threatening peace

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3455911/China-fire-shots-ram-U-S-warships-teach-lesson-disputed-South-China-Sea-islands.html

davidbfpo

02-24-2016, 10:29 PM

Hat tip to WoTR:http://warontherocks.com/2016/02/is-the-taiwan-puzzle-in-the-south-china-sea-solvable/

AdamG

03-05-2016, 12:52 AM

This article first appeared March 3 at 4:15 p.m. and has been updated

The U.S. Navy has dispatched a small armada to the South China Sea.

The carrier John C. Stennis, two destroyers, two cruisers and the 7th Fleet flagship have sailed into the disputed waters in recent days, according to military officials. The carrier strike group is the latest show of force in the tense region, with the U.S. asserting that China is militarizing the region to guard its excessive territorial claims.

Stennis is joined in the region by the cruisers Antietam and Mobile Bay, and the destroyers Chung-Hoon and Stockdale. The command ship Blue Ridge, the floating headquarters of the Japan-based 7th Fleet, is also in the area, en route to a port visit in the Philippines. Stennis deployed from Washington state on Jan. 15.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/03/03/stennis-strike-group-deployed-to-south-china-sea/81270736/

AdamG

03-30-2016, 02:08 PM

And so for the moment, the Obama administration is sending Navy patrols through the Spratlys and other disputed island chains in the region, to drive home the message that the sea is free to all. Some 700 American patrols have gone through in the past year, Navy officials say. Three weeks ago the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and four other American warships sailed into the South China Sea for routine exercises, meant to convey the message, Pentagon officials said, that the United States is the dominant military power in the region.

Aboard the Chancellorsville last week, the minutes — and the tension — stretched out as the Chinese helicopter pilot refused to answer. The helicopter kept circling and eventually flew back to the Chinese frigate, which then continued toward the American warship. At the helm, Capt. Curt A. Renshaw, who had skipped his morning shower to race up to the bridge when the Chinese helicopter approached, huddled with his officers.

The day before, Captain Renshaw had warned the entire ship over the intercom that the Chancellorsville would be transiting through the Spratlys, and he told the crew members to be on their toes and alert to trouble. He had been expecting the Chinese to show up — Beijing, in recent months, has taken to shadowing American warships that have dared to enter the South China Sea.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/patrolling-disputed-waters-us-and-china-jockey-for-dominance/ar-BBr6HBB?ocid=spartandhp

AdamG

04-05-2016, 02:53 PM

Introducing China's Type 055 battle cruiser
As reported in The National Interest magazine in late March, China is hard at work developing a new "Type 055 cruiser" for its navy. This new weapons system, which TNI dubs a "dreadnought," is believed to displace 11,500 tons, putting it somewhere between the size of an American Arleigh Burke destroyer and a Zumwalt. And the Type 055's size may be only its least impressive attribute.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/02/chinas-new-battle-cruiser-can-shoot-down-satellite.aspx

AdamG

04-07-2016, 06:44 PM

The U.S. military’s top commander in the Pacific is arguing behind closed doors for a more confrontational approach to counter and reverse China’s strategic gains in the South China Sea, appeals that have met resistance from the White House at nearly every turn.

Adm. Harry Harris is proposing a muscular U.S. response to China's island-building that may include launching aircraft and conducting military operations within 12 miles of these man-made islands, as part of an effort to stop what he has called the "Great Wall of Sand" before it extends within 140 miles from the Philippines' capital, sources say.

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/06/4-star-admiral-wants-confront-china-white-house-says-not-so-fast/82472290/

AdamG

04-08-2016, 12:20 AM

The Obama administration and a four-star admiral have denied that the White House issued a “gag order” on senior U.S. military officials discussing the disputed South China Sea, a politically charged region that is dogging the administration in its last months in office.

The denials came after the independent Navy Times reported Wednesday that National Security Adviser Susan Rice decided to “muzzle” Adm. Harry Harris, the chief of U.S. Pacific Command, and other senior military officials as the Obama administration prepared to host a nuclear summit in Washington last week that included China’s president, Xi Jinping. Rice’s request was designed to give President Obama room to maneuver politically as he met with the Chinese president, the newspaper reported, citing anonymous officials

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/04/07/gag-order-issued-on-south-china-sea-pentagon-and-top-admiral-say-no-way/

Azor

04-08-2016, 03:18 AM

From the Asia Times (http://atimes.com/2016/04/pentagon-trying-to-stop-chinese-air-defense-zone-in-disputed-sea-gertz/):
Another troubling sign appeared in an official Chinese publication last month. A military researcher, Wang Hongliang, identified as an official at the National Strategic Research Center in Shanghai, published an article outlining how the United States would respond to the shootdown of a US aircraft over the South China Sea.

Wang stated Washington would respond in one of three ways: rapid military retaliation followed with diplomatic and military deterrence; an increase in diplomatic pressure through military deterrence without the use of armed force; and the launching of lighting attacks against Chinese military and strategic targets in the South China Sea and then quickly deescalating to prevent a full-blown war.

The Chinese researcher concluded that since China has not imposed an ADIZ, “the PLA lacks any safe flight regulations in so-called “contested airspace which it can declare to foreign parties.”

“If US planes enter this airspace, Beijing will naturally have the right to shoot them down, according to its own understanding of the ownership of the islands,” he wrote. “This does not violate international law, though the United States and some [South China Sea] countries will not see things this way. This is actually the greatest risk of an accident happening in the airspace of the SCS.

Harris, the PACOM commander, has made clear that militarily the disputed Chinese military facilities in the South China Sea, currently airfields, HQ-9 air defense missiles and YJ-62 anti-ship cruise missiles, could be easily destroyed by superior US military forces with precision strike capabilities in a conflict. But he said the problem is the incremental way China is moving to take control.

Thus China is seeking to avoid an head-on military confrontation with the United States and instead is using legal, psychological and media warfare to achieve its objective of turning the sea into a Chinese lake.

The provocative article discussing the shoot down of a US military aircraft is clearly is part of China’s war of nerves with the United States and its efforts to solidify control over the South China Sea.

Things could come to a head soon. “The Chinese could declare an ADIZ at any time,” said one Pentagon official in the know."

SWJ Blog

04-08-2016, 11:13 PM

Defense Chief Ash Carter Postpones Visit to China (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/defense-chief-ash-carter-postpones-visit-to-china)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/defense-chief-ash-carter-postpones-visit-to-china) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

04-14-2016, 05:11 PM

U.S. Announces Joint Patrols With Philippines in South China Sea (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-announces-joint-patrols-with-philippines-in-south-china-sea)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-announces-joint-patrols-with-philippines-in-south-china-sea) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

AdamG

04-27-2016, 09:27 PM

China successfully flight tested its new high-speed maneuvering warhead last week, days after Russia carried out its own hypersonic glider test, according to Pentagon officials.

The test of the developmental DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle was monitored after launch Friday atop a ballistic missile fired from the Wuzhai missile launch center in central China, said officials familiar with reports of the test.

The maneuvering glider, traveling at several thousand miles per hour, was tracked by satellites as it flew west along the edge of the atmosphere to an impact area in the western part of the country.

It was the seventh successful flight test of the revolutionary glider, which travels at speeds between 4,000 and 7,000 miles per hour.

U.S. intelligence officials have assessed that China plans to use the glider to deliver nuclear weapons through increasingly sophisticated missile defenses. The DF-ZF also could be used as part of a conventional strategic strike weapon capable of hitting targets around the world within an hour.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-successfully-tests-hypersonic-missile/

AdamG

04-30-2016, 04:43 PM

China has denied the US aircraft carrier USS Stennis and accompanying naval vessels permission to make a port call in Hong Kong, a Pentagon spokesman said Friday.

It was not immediately known what prompted the Chinese action, but it comes amid growing tension between the two countries over Beijing's moves to assert its claims to much of the South China Sea.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-rejects-hong-kong-port-call-by-us-carrier-pentagon/ar-BBsqXXT?ocid=spartandhp

SWJ Blog

05-07-2016, 09:42 AM

A US Admiral’s Bluntness Rattles China, and Washington (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-us-admiral%E2%80%99s-bluntness-rattles-china-and-washington)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-us-admiral%E2%80%99s-bluntness-rattles-china-and-washington) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Bill Moore

05-08-2016, 02:28 AM

Tensions in the South China Sea continue at a slow boil, but most likely will ratchet up quickly after the international tribunal rules.

http://www.voanews.com/content/beijing-warns-critics-over-south-china-sea-dispute/3318147.html

Beijing Warns Critics Over South China Sea Dispute

As China awaits an international arbitration ruling over its claims to almost all of the South China Sea, Beijing issued a warning Friday to its critics, stating that the more they challenge its position regarding disputed territories in one of the world’s busiest waterways, the more it will push back.

This remains to be seen,

"I think the U.K., Australia, and other Western countries are willing to stand firm on their principles on this matter. I am doubtful they will back China or even remain silent," Glaser said, adding that "China needs the U.K., Australia and other nations just as much as they need China."

The increasing military tension is well documented in the media and on this thread, less well know are the social movements pushing back against China's coercion, to include one in the South China Sea.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JAHkNtOTUhKzDNO2fi5sbOEBhBX0uNx7uPsH-K7AMpI/mobilebasic?pli=1

Peace Fleet: A Social Movement Approach to the South China Sea Dispute

KAI is part of the registered nonprofit group called Pilipino, and recently started a new international group called Sea Access by International Law (SAIL). KAI activists hope that SAIL will encourage students from Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and Japan, as well as other international supporters, to join.

Given China’s disputes with South Korea, India, and the United States, these countries could provide activist recruits as well. China has occupied part of India in the Himalayas called Arunachal Pradesh, and provides political, diplomatic, and military support to North Korea, which regularly threatens South Korea, Japan, and the United States. China also threatens Japan’s Senkaku Islands.

A number of China-focused nonprofits are likely to enter into mutual support with KAI/SAIL, including Scholarism in Hong Kong, the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan, Human Rights in China, Liberty in North Korea, Students for a Free Tibet, Uyghur Human Rights Project, Arunachal Civil Society in India, and Crossing Borders.

As for China pushing back as they have promised to "continue" doing, we're now seeing more reporting, perhaps boosting, in the media on their fishing fleet militia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-fishingboats-idUSKCN0XS0RS

The training and support includes exercises at sea and requests to fishermen to gather information on foreign vessels, provincial government officials, regional diplomats and fishing company executives said in recent interviews.

"The maritime militia is expanding because of the country's need for it, and because of the desire of the fishermen to engage in national service, protecting our country's interests," said an advisor to the Hainan government who did not want to be named.

China continues to demonstrate that it is a bully that is unwilling to operate within international law and norms. It is clear that China's economic rise is not accompanied by political maturity or a willingness to contribute to regional stability. China doesn't provide credible support to nations in the region when there is a natural disaster, although they have the means to do. China is destroying the environment, and it is probably impossible to estimate the impact of destroying the reef in the South China Sea, and the associated loss of viable fishing areas in the most populous area in the world on food security. This doesn't even address their use of economic, paramilitary, and military coercion in the region, and no doubt they will behave this way beyond the region if the global community doesn't push back.

We can make hard choices now, or harder choices later.

AdamG

05-13-2016, 05:44 PM

Beijing is in a somewhat bipolar position; they want to 'be' America but they're not strong enough to fill the vacuum if Pax Americana fumbles on the five yard line (or gets clotheslined by her enemies) and the global economy gets knocked into a tailspin.

If they let this game in the Spratlys go too far, they either get hammered by the US (not good for their investments) or they prevail (also not good for their investments, since that'd be killing the golden goose).

So between this thread and the China-as-a-superpower thread, Beijing is balancing their international image projection versus a mad scramble to harden their internal economy (in case the US self-implodes), all while doing damage control on the growing social stress fractures.

Let's see how that works out for them, Cotton.

Meanwhile,

China scrambled fighter jets on Tuesday as a U.S. navy ship sailed close to a disputed reef in the South China Sea, a patrol China denounced as an illegal threat to peace which only went to show its defense installations in the area were necessary.

Guided missile destroyer the USS William P. Lawrence traveled within 12 nautical miles (22 km) of Chinese-occupied Fiery Cross Reef, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Bill Urban said.

The so-called freedom of navigation operation was undertaken to "challenge excessive maritime claims" by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam which were seeking to restrict navigation rights in the South China Sea, Urban said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-china-idUSKCN0Y10DM

Also, oops.

A navy spokesperson, Liang Yang, said in a statement that the jet, belonging to the East Sea Fleet, crashed into a sewing machine factory while conducting a night training session at about 7.30pm.

The pilot ejected from the aircraft safely and nobody was injured in the incident, according to Liang.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/1943958/navy-fighter-jet-crashes-eastern-china

We can make hard choices now, or harder choices later.

I think that die is already cast.