South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Ray]

Filipino Senator: China bully Southeast Asian countries

VietNamNet Bridge – China will always try to bully the Philippines and other countries in the Southeast Asian region in a bid to control massive oil resources in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago said on the Philstar recently.

While the Philippines obviously does not have enough defense capability against a power such as China, Santiago advised the government to be circumspect and be extra wise in dealing with its big neighbor.

Santiago also warned the Philippines might end up as a “satellite country” of China.

Despite this, Santiago said the US as well as the rich countries in western Europe would not allow China to have leverage in terms of oil and natural gas development in the Spratlys.

“America and the countries in western Europe will not allow it because there will be imbalance in the distribution of power in the world once China is able to take over oil and mineral resources underneath the South China Sea,” she said.

On May 24 2011, the Philstar cited News5 as saying that China has set up military garrisons and outposts on six reefs that are part of the Kalayaan Island Group, part of the Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands.

According to the Philstar, apart from the military garrisons and outposts, China is aggressively pursuing large-scale maritime projects aimed at cementing its claim on the Spratlys. These projects include construction of port facilities, airports, navigation buoys, lighthouses, ocean observatories and maritime meteorology networks.

At the recent meeting with Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guanglie (during Liang’s visit to the Philippines), Filipino President Benigno Aquino III warned Liang that alleged intrusions and encounters in disputed islands in the South China Sea area could lead to a dangerous arms race in the region.

More at:
http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/politics/8986/filipino-senator--china-bully-southeast-asian-countries.html



Asia’s quiet anger with ‘big, bad’ China

By David Pilling

Published: June 1 2011 22:36 | Last updated: June 1 2011 22:36

Last month, a man rode up to China’s well-protected embassy in Hanoi, unfurled a bed-sheet-sized banner reading “China has no right to ban fishing or take Vietnam’s Paracel islands” and promptly set fire to his motorbike....

But this month, in the rhetorical equivalent of motorbike immolation, the Vietnamese government was itself protesting against China. At a hastily convened weekend press conference, the foreign ministry accused Beijing of committing a “serious violation” in the South China Sea, which Hanoi predictably calls something else – the East Sea. Beijing was said to have used “legally groundless” claims to assert its ownership of the whole sea and turn it into its “home pond”.....

China claims almost the entire South China Sea, which also borders on the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam. These countries, sticking to the principle of “where there is land, there are sea rights”, have overlapping claims to waters off their coast. Hanoi ridicules the dotted line that China draws on maps to indicate its ownership of the entire sea as like a lolling “bull tongue”. There are also competing claims to the Paracel and Spratly islands.....

In the short term, China’s assertiveness appear to have backfired. Smaller nations are huddling together under the auspices of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. They are also moving closer to the US, which has restated its commitment to having a strong presence in the Pacific and annoyed China by calling the South China Sea an area of strategic interest.

Thanks to Vietnam’s protest, the South China Sea will dominate this weekend’s Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual regional defence forum held in Singapore. This year, both Liang Guanglie and Robert Gates, the defence chiefs of China and the US, will be attending. There could be some fireworks. But there will also be plenty of talk about the need for greater transparency between the two powers to ensure that maritime frictions don’t get out of hand.

Everyone knows, though, that China’s naval might is waxing. As it does, US regional influence will surely wane. When I asked Mr Aquino about turning to the US for protection, he didn’t miss a beat. “If they are around,” he replied. Countries like Vietnam and the Philippines are happy for American support. But sooner or later, they know they are going to have to reach accommodation with China.

More at
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da3396b6-8c81-11e0-883f-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1O7ktWchp




China steps up drilling, intimidation

By MICHAEL RICHARDSON

SINGAPORE — China recently launched an oil and natural gas drilling platform that may be as significant as military modernization in buttressing Beijing's claims to control most of the islands, water and seabed in the maritime heart of Southeast Asia.

Designed to withstand typhoons, the giant rig.......It has not said where, but China's Global Times said that the deepwater rig, which is taken to its destination by powerful tugs, would "help China establish a more important presence in the largely untapped southern part of the South China Sea."

It is in this zone, which includes the widely-scattered Spratly Islands, that China's sweeping South China Sea claim overlaps with those of Taiwan and four Southeast Asian states — the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.

According to Hanoi, the clash occurred just 215 km from Vietnam's shore, deep inside its Exclusive Economic Zone. China responded by saying that the measures taken by Chinese authorities are "normal marine law enforcement and surveillance activities undertaken in territorial waters under China's jurisdiction."

China claims control over approximately 80 percent of the South China Sea, as far south as waters off Indonesia's Natuna Island and the Malaysian state of Sarawak. But so far, China has limited its unilateral oil and gas search to the northern sector, which is contested only by Taiwan.......

More at:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110601mr.html


As one of the reports states, "It is a marine version of a Battleship Galactica. Although unarmed, any attempt by Southeast Asian military forces to restrict the rig's movement in the South China Sea would risk retaliation from Beijing", this region, of late, has become very volatile because of China's proactive 'aggressive' actions that till now was under relative 'peace'.

One wonders how the scenario will pan out.

[JMA]

As one of the reports states, "It is a marine version of a Battleship Galactica. Although unarmed, any attempt by Southeast Asian military forces to restrict the rig's movement in the South China Sea would risk retaliation from Beijing", this region, of late, has become very volatile because of China's proactive 'aggressive' actions that till now was under relative 'peace'.

One wonders how the scenario will pan out.

The last opportunity to jerk China's chain came and went in the early 1950s. It will continue to be all downhill from here on. In the meantime the responsible grandparent/parent will ensure their children/grandchildren learn to speak Chinese.

[slapout9]

Asean Council On Petroleum

http://ascope.org/

[Dayuhan]

It's fascinating that the idea of "massive oil resources" in the Spratly Islands has been elevated to the level of accepted truth. On the basis of actual evidence it's extremely hypothetical. No test wells have been driulled, and though the Chinese claim there is oil, other authorities (notably USGS, which is generally fairly optimistic in its estimates) point out that there's no real evidence of substantial deposits.

[LawVol]

I'm not sure this is really about oil in the Spratley Islands anyway. Sure, the pretext is there, but this may be more about China extending its maritime defensive perimeter -- the so-called string of pearls. China's maritime claims go hand-in-hand with their activity in 2001 (EP-3 take down) and in 2009 (USNS Impeccable incident). In both cases, just like with their maritime claims, the design seems to be to have more stand-off against the US Navy.

With some exceptions, China has settled its land disputes and now turns to the sea. By effectively claiming the south China sea, China can also move a step closer to securing maritime energy transport (their real goal I think). They are building a naval base in Gwadar, Pakistan that will provide security near the Persian Gulf for their shipments. Securing the South China Sea bookends the transport route. Next comes the straight of Malacca which becomes easier to secure if you have naval might on both sides of it.

I'm not saying China can challenge US naval supremacy now, but they are taking action that could be bothersome. In a time of financial incertitude in the US, this may be the perfect time for China to act.

[JMA]

I'm not saying China can challenge US naval supremacy now, but they are taking action that could be bothersome. In a time of financial incertitude in the US, this may be the perfect time for China to act.

Its the old Chinese torture method called "death by a thousand cuts".

...in reality we see the boiling frog story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog) unfolding where the US is the frog:


The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually.

...and the amazing thing is that the American people don't realise whats happening!

[Ray]

Philippines preparing issues for UN about China ‘intrusions’'

THE PHILIPPINES is preparing to file another complaint with the United Nations on new Chinese "intrusions" into Philippine territory, President Benigno S. C. Aquino III said yesterday, as he committed to raising the issue with Beijing in a state visit by the third quarter.

"We are completing the data on about six to seven instances since February. We will present it to [China] and then bring these to the appropriate body, which normally is the United Nations," Mr. Aquino told reporters during his two-day official state visit to Brunei Darrusalam that ended yesterday.

While Mr. Aquino reiterated the call for "peaceful resolution" rather than provocation in the disputed territories in the South China Sea, he noted that some actions of China were not justified.

The latest of the series of Chinese intrusions, Mr. Aquino noted, occurred on the same day that he had a bilateral meeting with Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie in Manila on May 23.

In this instance, Chinese vessels were reportedly unloading building materials and also placed a buoy in waters inside the West Philippine Sea.

http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Nation&title=Philippines-preparing-issues-for-UN-about-China-%E2%80%98intrusions%E2%80%99&id=32475

[davidbfpo]

Ray and others,

The competition over the islands, reefs and the like in the South China Sea IIRC is well documented in journals, although you need a good map to follow the claims.

The situation between PR China and others is not straight forward IMHO, partly as economic growth has distracted states from such competition and potential for conflict.

Nor is the situation between the PRC and the USA clear-cut. How many know non-military PRC agencies are aboard US Coast Guard vessels in the North Pacific? For 'fishery protection' IIRC.

Have a peek at 'Survival', the journal of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS); in The February-March 2011 edition, in an article 'Policing the Waves:Maritime Paramilitaries in the Asia-Pacific' by Christian Le Miere (who is the IISS's resident export on matters naval), pgs. 133-145. Fascinating, especially the use of non-naval agencies by most nations.

[LawVol]

It may be a "boiling frog" issue and it is certainly complex, as indicated by David. However, this does provide an opening for the US. Our pursuit of the "war on terror" has led us to take our eye of certain aspects of the Pacific.

The main US interest here is maintaining freedom of navigation in the commons. This interest conflicts with China's traditional view on sovereignty, which takes on a nationalistic tone given their history, specifically what they call "the century of shame and humiliation," which refers to their exploitation by western powers. If I was in their shoes, I'd probably take the same position. The problem here is that their position is contrary to international law.

I'm no expert on law of the sea, but since they are signatories to the law of the sea convention they are bound by its provisions and it repudiates their claims. Believe it or not, international law can be just as much of an achilles heel to them as it can sometimes be to us. This is where we can press them and use the issue to bring other countries in the region closer to us. This should be framed as an economic, trade issue rather than a security issue though. The last time a rising Asian power headed south for economic reasons, Pearl Harbor was attacked. It is a security issue for us, but I think we get more play using law and economics as weapons of choice.

By the way, this whole maritime issue also plays into China's actions in space. The goal is access denial by continually pushing the boundaries of sovereignty. Whereas Europeans and some others are chipping away at sovereignty, China embraces it and seeks to expand it in novel ways. The lawyer in me likes the strategy even if I do not agree with the tactics.

[LawVol]

Just came across this news article (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/04/china.gates.visit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2). Check the last paragraph for the benefits of China's aggressive stance in the South China Sea.

[carl]

Ultimately, the law of the sea is whatever the strongest navy says it is. I think the PRC may be influenced a little by various legal provisions if they are strongly pestered, but once their navy gets big enough, they'll do as they please as you would expect of a pugnacious police state.

[JMA]

Just came across this news article (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/04/china.gates.visit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2). Check the last paragraph for the benefits of China's aggressive stance in the South China Sea.

Lets look at the last paragraph then:


"One of the most striking -- and surprising -- changes I've observed during my travels to Asia is the widespread desire across the region for stronger military-to-military relationships with the United States -- much more so than during my last time in government 20 years ago," Gates said.

If that is a surprise to him then he has not been kept up to date with developments by the Intel crowd and not able to see the obvious. Will his replacement be any better?

[slapout9]

By the way, this whole maritime issue also plays into China's actions in space. The goal is access denial by continually pushing the boundaries of sovereignty. Whereas Europeans and some others are chipping away at sovereignty, China embraces it and seeks to expand it in novel ways. The lawyer in me likes the strategy even if I do not agree with the tactics.

Yes, they have a plan and we don't.

[LawVol]

Yes, they have a plan and we don't.

You are correct, but any plan, at this point, would require a greater embrace of international institutions and international law than most Americans are willing to have. While I certainly embrace traditional notions of territorial sovereignty, I am against expanding it to areas typically viewed as global commons. Freedom of navigation within the commons is crucial to American security interests and the crux of the international economy. Thorough a closer embrace of international institutions and law we can "prep the battlefield" and perhaps increase those connections Gates spoke of.

Have we focused too much on the "war of terror" and thus dropped the ball in the Pacific? Is this issue evidence of our need to pursue a different strategy with respect to terrorism, so we can remember the big picture?

[Tukhachevskii]

Thougfht I'd share this map asa reference. Map originates from an old web article here
Conflict in the South China Sea: China’s Relations with Vietnam and the Philippines (http://www.japanfocus.org/-Ian-Storey/2734)


p.s. Not as big as I would have liekd. Sort of makes a mockery of posting it as a reference aid.:o

[slapout9]

Have we focused too much on the "war of terror" and thus dropped the ball in the Pacific? Is this issue evidence of our need to pursue a different strategy with respect to terrorism, so we can remember the big picture?

I would say yes. I think China jumps up and down whenever we spend massive resources on wars of choice instead of building a country for the 21st Century.

[slapout9]

All, if you get a chance watch this tonight. Check your local listings.


http://thechinaquestion.com/

[AdamG]

General Liang Guanglie, China’s defence minister, has rejected criticism that his country was acting belligerently in the South China Sea, saying China was pursuing a “peaceful rise”.

“You say our actions do not match our words. I certainly do not agree,” Gen Liang replied to critics at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a high-profile Asia defence forum in Singapore.

Speaking days after Vietnam and the Philippines accused China of aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea, Gen Liang denied that China was threatening security in the strategically important and energy-rich disputed waters, saying “freedom of navigation has never been impeded”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/21c9e72a-8f9b-11e0-954d-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1OSKXqKLX



China is the dominant producer of rare earth metals, which are increasingly fuelling the global high-tech and green economy. From 2009 to 2010, Chinese mines accounted for 259,000 tonnes out of a total global production of 263,000 tonnes of rare earth oxide. But with this massive production has come ever more restrictive measures to control the export of these commodities.

China claims it’s doing so to protect the environment and argues that tighter measures are necessary to ensure rare earth mining industry remains sustainable. However, major consumers of rare earths including Japan, the United States, and EU states counter that recent Chinese actions to reduce exports contravene World Trade Organisation rules on free trade.

http://the-diplomat.com/new-leaders-forum/2011/06/05/chinas-rare-earth-motives/

[carl]

Ok, but do they have a good plan?

It doesn't matter whether their plan is good or bad. What matters is they almost certainly will act, and act aggressively, and we might act, or we might not, depending on what a focus group says. The one thing they can be certain of is that we can't make up our minds and that will feed their determination to act. They will be so far inside our OODA loop that any plan at all will do. It doesn't matter a whit what they will be and what we are if we won't do anything.

It appears the Chinese objective is to establish effective control, or sovereignty or whatever over the whole of the South China Sea. Law of the Sea arguments and expressions of concern won't stop them. When they do that they will have demonstrated to the world that they can do as they like and nobody will stop them. That will increase their confidence in their ability to pull this kind of thing off which will make it more likely they will continue. And all those other countries in the area will see what they can do and will incorporate that knowledge into their accounting. Things are likely to get very complicated.

The belligerent actions mentioned in Adam G's post are shots fired near Filipino and Vietnamese fishing boats to drive them out of disputed areas. Information Dissemination blog covers this today. The Filipinos can't do anything much about it and the Vietnamese don't have much power but the Viets are very truculent so who knows what they may eventually do.

[AdamG]

Just for fun - scratch out 2010 and insert 2012.



Eastern Sea (AKA South China Sea) December 2010: World War III starts over a desolate and worthless looking area in the western Pacific Ocean known as the Spratly Islands.

Strategically located between and claimed by Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei, the Spratly Islands are also claimed by distant neighbors China and Taiwan. Located in the middle of major shipping lanes with over-abundant commercial fishing possibilities, the Spratly Islands cause turmoil for an even greater reason: untapped oil and gas reserves.

http://thelastcolumnist.com/world/the-spratly-islands/

[davidbfpo]

In a BBC report on the PRC's aircraft carrier is a small map of the South China Sea and the disputed islands (my IT skills preclude placing it here):http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13692558

The dotted line showing China's claims do make one pause for thought.

[slapout9]

Don't worry about the south china sea look what they want to do in Boise,Idaho.



http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/china-wants-to-construct-a-50-square-mile-self-sustaining-city-south-of-boise-idaho

[carl]

Slap:

That story is a little breathless, the implication being the thousands of Chinamen are going to be establishing an enclave in Idaho, sort of the Shanghai legations reversed. I'll believe it when I see it. If the Chinese want to build businesses and facilities in Idaho, essentially giving us money, let 'em at it. The Idahos won't care who signs the paycheck as long as it doesn't bounce.

The story also contains this quote:

"The borrower is always the servant of the lender, and now China is buying up America."

That is true unless you get into really big money, then the situation is reversed. Or so says Donald Trump.

[slapout9]

Slap:

That story is a little breathless, the implication being the thousands of Chinamen are going to be establishing an enclave in Idaho, sort of the Shanghai legations reversed. I'll believe it when I see it. If the Chinese want to build businesses and facilities in Idaho, essentially giving us money, let 'em at it. The Idahos won't care who signs the paycheck as long as it doesn't bounce.

The story also contains this quote:

"The borrower is always the servant of the lender, and now China is buying up America."

That is true unless you get into really big money, then the situation is reversed. Or so says Donald Trump.

Carl, maybe you are right but what I thought was most interesting was the concept of a self sustaining city.....what exactly does that mean? Invasion by we(China) have a better idea on how to run things.

[AdamG]

China warned Asian neighbors Thursday to stop searching for oil near the disputed Spratly Islands and vowed to assert its sovereignty over the potentially petroleum-rich territory in the South China Sea despite rival claims.
China and the Philippines have swapped diplomatic protests over the islands, with Filipino officials accusing Chinese forces of intruding into Manila-claimed areas...

http://www.newsday.com/business/china-to-neighbors-stop-oil-search-in-spratlys-1.2942569?qr=1

[Backwards Observer]

The newly youthful (26!) Lee Kuan Yew comments (article seems partly Engrish (http://www.engrish.com/) translation):


Former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, 26, said that the U.S. is able to counterbalance the growth of China as the sole full strength, so keeping the U.S. interest in the region is very important.

Lee Kuan Yew is on the “Future of Asia” at the annual meeting to clarify this point. Asia-Pacific Annual Conference brings together the country’s political leaders and business leaders.

He said, the key is to keep American interest in the Western Pacific region.

His hundreds of entrepreneurs, academics and students, said: “You can beat Japan, South Korea, ASEAN, even with Taiwan and India, but you can not compete in China. It is too big. Only the United States and its advanced technology to counterbalance China. “

Lee - Only the United States and its advanced technology to counter China (http://www.cnkeyword.info/lee-only-the-united-states-and-its-advanced-technology-to-counter-china/) - China News - June 5, 2011.

[Ray]

US not coming to PH aid vs China

The United States yesterday said it will not side with any party in the Spratlys conflict, which is to say that the Philippines’ most powerful ally will not be coming to its aid should its spat with China escalate into a shooting war.

The US Embassy made this clear yesterday in reaction to a Malacañang statement earlier yesterday expressing confidence that Washington would honor its commitment under the two countries’ Mutual Defense Treaty to come to the aid of a beleaguered ally.

“The US does not take sides in regional territorial disputes,” the US press attaché Rebecca Thompson said in an e-mailed statement when contacted for comment to deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte’s invoking of the 60-year-old MDT.

Thompson said the US was “troubled by incidents in the South China Sea in recent days that have raised tensions in the region” and that Washington opposes “the use or threat of force” by any of the countries with rival claims to the Spratly islands.



http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/14118/us-not-coming-to-ph-aid-vs-china

This would upset those who have any strategic relationship or Defence Pact with the US and none would like to enter such agreements in future.

[Backwards Observer]

This would upset those who have any strategic relationship or Defence Pact with the US and none would like to enter such agreements in future.

You would probably know better than me, but my guess is that this is most likely to upset those who may see their relationship with the US as a 'let's you and him fight' arrangement viz Johnny Chinaman. US sleight of hand is probably best employed offstage in the opening acts of these affaires de coeur. I don't think the US willingness to go Deus Ex Machina on people's asses is really in doubt if it should come down to projectile flinging. Things may be different from what I imagine, however.

[Ray]

US Eyes Singapore Base

June 6, 2011

The US Navy will establish a new presence in Singapore as a staging location for its latest class of warship.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates announced plans for the presence during his visit to Singapore last week.......

According to the Singaporean Defence Ministry, those steps include deploying to Singapore ‘one or two’ of the new Littoral Combat Ships current under construction in the United States. The 400-foot-long, high-speed warships, optimized for shallow-water operations, would be the first US military vessels permanently stationed in the tiny Southeast Asian country, although the Navy for many years has maintained a support facility there.


http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/06/06/us-eyes-singapore-base/

[Dayuhan]

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/14118/us-not-coming-to-ph-aid-vs-china

This would upset those who have any strategic relationship or Defence Pact with the US and none would like to enter such agreements in future.

This is nothing at all new... the dispute is old and the US position is as well. The US considers the Spratlys to be disputed territory, not an integral part of the Philippines... which makes sense, because deciding these disputes is not in any way up to the US. Given this, Chinese military action in the Spratlys is not regarded as an attack on the Philippines and would not trigger the mutual defense pact. Again, this has been the US position for ages, and comes out every time the issue comes up, as it has done periodically for decades.

There's a big difference between being willing to protect allies from actual attack on their territory and taking a blanket position of support that actually encourages allies to take an unnecessarily bellicose stance that could provoke a conflict that would benefit nobody. I don't see that kind of common sense as a disincentive to anyone who wants a mutual defense relationship with the US.

[Ray]

US, Philippines to hold war games amid tension in South China Sea

The United States and the Philippines are set to hold naval exercise amid heightened tension in Western Philippine Sea following allegations of intrusion by Chinese Naval personnel in the Philippine-occupied area of the disputed Spratly Islands.
Philippine military authorities said though the the joint naval exercise has nothing to do with the reported Chinese incursions in Philippine territories, according to Armed Forces spokesman Commodore Jose Miguel Rodriguez.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307849#ixzz1P4zY6msy

Thar she Blows!

[AdamG]

Vietnam has raised the stakes a little more in its current row with China, calling on the United States and others to step in and help find some kind of resolution.

http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/06/12/vietnam-eyes-foreign-help/

[Backwards Observer]

I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do,

Carl, I don't know about high sounding or eye rolling, but at least you're willing to come on the council and engage with people who may not agree with you. There's plenty of them that spout off on the Taiwan issue that don't.

[slapout9]

So what's Vietnam, the Philippines,Taiwan,and Malaysia done for the United States lately? I just saw on the news that some Congressman went to Iraq and told their president that since things are going so well over there now they can start paying us back for the war like President Bush said they would. He was asked to leave Iraq! Point being we don't get any respect in the world because we are willing to fight and pay for others people's problems. If China wants to drill of the coast of VIETNAM:eek: for oil....hey good for them!

[carl]

Slap:

It is not what those countries have done for us lately, it is what they can do for us in the future. Take a look at the map, if we told those countries to go pound sand, they would be forced to make an accommodation with China, most certainly including basing rights for them and none for us. That would make it impossible, impossible to prevail in any kind of conflict with China. That being the case, Japan and South Korea would be forced to go over and the Aussies would mandate Mandarin studies from the second grade onward. And that would just be the beginning.

[AdamG]

MANILA -- Philippine lawmakers on Monday called for the immediate abrogation of the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between Manila and Washington, which they claim to be unbeneficial to the country.

Anakpawis party-list Rep. Rafael Mariano said the pronouncement of the United States Government that it will not help the Philippines should its conflict with China over the disputed Spratly Islands escalate into a shooting war "only proves that the MDT is a mere piece of paper that doesn’t bind the two countries at all."

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/06/14/lawmakers-call-repeal-us-philippines-treaty-160990

[AdamG]

The Vietnamese Prime Minister, Nguyen Tan Dung, has issued a decree about a potential military call-up -- amid rising tensions with Beijing, over disputed territory in the South China Sea.

The decree outlines who would be exempt from the draft, if war breaks-out. Vietnam said Chinese vessels recently cut or damaged cables towed by Vietnamese ships. Beijing said the lives of Chinese fishermen were endangered after their vessels became trapped by the cables.

Hanoi conducted live fire naval drills yesterday which mainland media denounced as a show of force in defiance of Beijing.

http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20110614/news_20110614_56_762325.htm

[Ray]

US senators submit resolution rapping China over sea disputes

PTI | 02:06 PM,Jun 14,2011

Washington, Jun 14 (Kyodo) Two US senators have submitted a resolution condemning "the repeated use of force by China" over territorial disputes in the South China Sea.The resolution was jointly introduced yesterday to the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee by Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, and James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.As examples of China''s use of force in the waters, the resolution says three Chinese vessels, including two security ships, ran into and disabled the cables of an exploration ship from Vietnam last Thursday.In March, the Philippines reported that China''s patrol boats attempted to ram one of its surveillance ships in the area.The resolution calls for "a peaceful, multilateral resolution to maritime territorial disputes in Southeast Asia" and supports the continued operations by US forces to "assert and defend freedom of navigation rights in international waters and air space in the South China Sea." Several countries, including China, the Philippines and Vietnam, have disputed territorial claims over the Spratly Islands and others in the South China Sea.(Kyodo)


http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/us-senators-submit-resolution-rapping-china-over-sea-disputes/725489.html


China warns outside nations to stay out of sea dispute

BEIJING, June 14 (Reuters) - China vehemently opposes external powers meddling in territorial disputes over the South China Sea, the main military newspaper said on Tuesday, after Vietnam asked for international help to defuse tensions over the potentially resource-rich region.

The warning in the Liberation Army Daily coincided with exercises conducted by Vietnam's military along its central coast, and follows a weekend statement by Hanoi welcoming efforts by the international community, including the United States, to help resolve the disputes.

China and Vietnam have hurled accusations at each other for weeks over what each sees as intrusions into its territorial waters by the other in a swath of ocean crossed by key shipping lanes and thought to hold large deposits of oil and gas.

Such accusations are not uncommon between China, Vietnam and the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, which are also involved in long-standing maritime disputes in the South China Sea, but this bout of tension has run longer than usual.

The commentary in the Liberation Army Daily repeated Beijing's warning that other "unrelated" countries should back off, adding the Chinese military's weight to that message.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/14/china-vietnam-idUSL3E7HE0GR20110614

[carl]

The Americans recently signed a document, at an Org. of Amer. States meeting I believe, calling for negotiations between Great Britain and Argentina about the status of the Malvinas. They used Malvinas instead of Falklands in the document. That may be a small thing but it may be indicative of attitudes.

This has not pleased some of the British. Adm. Woodard commented in an article that if he were PM he would have been on the next plane to DC to ask "Hang on a minute; we’re your closest ally – what the hell’s going on?"

The link to his article is here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2003263/Falkland-Islands-Britain-defend-English-Channel.html#ixzz1PG3LEynB

This happening may be germane to this discussion. Its import is that this is the British we are talking about. It is not about geo positions, oil, international amity, legal arguments about ownership history and sovereignty, it is about who these guys are. These are the British. We've been battling opponents side by side with them since 1917. You'd think we would be willing to say Falklands instead of Malvinas or at least "the islands in question located at lat x long.

Now I believe this is the kind of things all those countries in China's path may notice. It is one of those little things that you do in order show determination. But we didn't do it.

[davidbfpo]

Carl,

The USA's diplomatic stance on the Falkland Islands or Malvinas was made public a year ago, so this latest episode is "huff & puff". What was more interesting was how Admiral Woodward's letter turned to current UK ability to defend the islands:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8571442/Britain-can-do-nothing-to-prevent-Argentina-retaking-Falkland-Islands.html

Few watch Anglo-Argentine relations closely as currently Argentina has ruled out the use of force and relations are reportedly good. Not so long ago Argentine troops were serving under the UN in Cyprus, their support base was - yes - the British bases.

[AdamG]

Beijing (CNN) -- A rash of violent protests in China continued over the weekend as migrant workers and security forces clashed in a rural city about 60 miles northwest of Hong Kong, local government officials and witnesses said.
The protest erupted in Zengcheng over what witnesses described as rough handling of a pregnant street vendor by security guards Friday. Local government officials said the protests involved hundreds, while other unofficial reports estimated tens of thousands of protesters.
The demonstrators hurled bottles and bricks at government officials and marched to the local police station, where they damaged several cars, according to the local government officials. Protests continued Saturday and Sunday, according to local officials.
The situation in Zengcheng remains tense, according to a businessman who asked to be identified only by his surname, Hu, because he was concerned about reprisals from government officials.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/13/china.protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[davidbfpo]

A BBC report on the dispute between PRC and Vietnam:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13759253

Ends with the best bit, all speculation of course and the ship maybe going elsewhere:
On Sunday, the Japan-based carrier USS George Washington left port for deployment in the region, which is almost certain to include the South China Sea.

[davidbfpo]

Carl,

Taken from your long post:
That is why you base your actions upon what they are capable of doing, will be capable of doing and what they are actually doing at the moment.

I prefer to use capability + intention to make an assessment.

In the case of the PRC, let alone the South China disputes, for a long time the PRC has had the capability to exert itself - as shown in the clashes with Vietnam long ago (1979 & 1988).

From faraway it looks like intention has been lacking and for reasons unclear to me this dispute has re-appeared.

A very partial, probably Vietnamese YouTube clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2ZrFphSmc

[carl]

I prefer to use capability + intention to make an assessment.

In the case of the PRC, let alone the South China disputes, for a long time the PRC has had the capability to exert itself - as shown in the clashes with Vietnam long ago (1979 & 1988).

From faraway it looks like intention has been lacking and for reasons unclear to me this dispute has re-appeared.

A difference now is they have a naval capability that is, I'm pretty sure, very much greater than they had before.

[AdamG]

Read this to the theme from "Gilligan's Island"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfR7qxtgCgY


China has sent one of it largest patrol ships through the South China Sea amid heightened tension over the disputed waters. The Haixun-31 sailed on Wednesday and will monitor shipping and "protect maritime security" on its way to Singapore, state media said. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman described the trip as routine.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13796958

[Backwards Observer]

The PLAt thickens:


Safeguarding sovereignty over the South China Sea is a shared obligation for both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, an official said in Beijing, a statement which may herald an inclination to cooperate with Taiwan on the issue.

"It is a shared obligation for people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits to safeguard sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and its adjacent waters," Yang Yi, a spokesperson with the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, told a press conference Tuesday.

Taiwan's army said Tuesday that it would send a fleet of ships to the South China Sea and would station tanks on Taiping, the biggest of the Nansha Islands, at the end of June, the Taipei-based United Evening News reported.


Beijing OKs role of Taiwan in spat (http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/661995/Beijing-OKs-role-of-Taiwan-in-spat.aspx) - Global Times - June 17, 2011.

***

We don't need no stinkin' cynicism:


US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, told a special hearing on Taiwan that she would soon introduce new legislation “to enhance the Taiwan Relations Act [TRA].”

While she gave no details, her intent is to boost US-Taiwanese relations and dramatically improve communications between Washington and Taipei.

She said Taiwan inspired all victims of Beijing’s oppression and struck fear into the hearts of “the cynical old men who still rule Beijing.”

[...]

Rupert Hammond-Chambers, president of the US-Taiwan Business Council, stressed that the US finds its interests and equities on Taiwan significantly reduced — mostly because US policymakers are attempting to calibrate interests with Taiwan on the basis of the US’ China policy.

He said that in the event of a conflict with China, a modernized and capable Republic of China Air Force could play a critical and constructive role in supporting the US.

“Concern over China’s reaction to the sale of F-16C/Ds has spooked the US government into not moving forward on this issue,” Hammond-Chambers said.

“The US has exercised excessive restraint and has given Beijing ample opportunities to reduce its military posture opposite Taiwan,” he added. “The continued US freeze on arms sales risks legitimizing China’s reliance on military coercion to settle disputes.”

US Lawmakers plan TRA enhancement (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/18/2003506056) - Taipei Times - June 18, 2011.

***

Honesty is the best policy:


With the last F-16s scheduled to roll off the production line in 2013, Mr. Hammond-Chambers warned that new orders might need to come in as early as the end of 2011. Otherwise, he said, the production line might be shut down completely – an outcome, others have pointed out, that would cost the U.S. much needed jobs and lead to even trickier negotiations over the sale of more advanced fighters.

Although he said the potential shutdown of the F-16 line should not dictate whether or not to sell the weapons, Mr. Hammond-Chambers argued it forced a tight timeline on the decision. “It is a consideration for when you make the decision to sell,” he said. “If you leave it too long, the decision is made for you.”

Never Fear, Taiwan - Congress is Here (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/06/17/never-fear-taiwan-congress-is-here/) - Wall Street Journal (China Real Time Report) - June 17, 2011.

[Dayuhan]

A Treaty does not mean that it is activated when any of the signatories are attacked. I would reiterate that if one come to a partner’s assistance when only attacked, it would turn out to be a very costly exercise, in men, matériels and finance when compared to armed warning without a war to blow away a crisis.

I again reiterate that the US strongly supports negotiations, but not from a position of weakness. That is why the naval exercises and the position of warship in the strategic chokepoint

The treaty between the US and the Philippines requires the US to assist the Philippines in the event of an attack on the Philippines. It does not require the US to support Philippine claims in disputed areas. I don't know how much clearer that could possibly be. Of course the US may take steps to support the Philippines in the absence of an attack, but that's an option, it's not a treaty obligation.

A treaty that required a stronger power to come to the aid of a weaker power in any trouble the weaker party got into would be an incentive to the weaker party to get into trouble, knowing they would be supported. For example, the US has made it clear that the defense treaty would not be triggered if the Philippines got into it with Malaysia over the Philippine claim to Sabah. Any other position would encourage adventurism.

Naval exercises and a couple of Littoral Combat Ships in Singapore don't create a position of strength. The relative balance of strength will be as it was before. The idea is to create a perception of commitment, which again really doesn't change much. Both sides will continue to poke and prod as they can, where they will, and see how others react. Nothing new.


Threat Analysis is an ongoing process and it takes into account every acquisition into account and what could be its effect. For instance, one aircraft carrier, is not that material but slot it in the jigsaw of the various acquisitions of their Navy to include submarines etc and you will find that they are well on their way to transform from a Brown water to a Blue Water Navy. And what can their Blue Water navy do for China's power projection? If that is something to be complacent about, then that would be an interesting viewpoint.

I would consider it naive if one believes that China is rapidly modernising her armed forces to include Stealth aircraft and ships for 'peaceful' purposes. Indeed, a Blue Water Navy is not for defending the shores and instead is for offensive action and power projection. It is also worth noting that China does not posses far flung overseas territories that makes it essential to have a Blue Water Navy for defensive purposes.

The US Navy is larger than all the other navies in the world together. Does the US "possess far flung overseas territories"?

The Chinese have extensive commercial interests in Africa, which could at any time be threatened by insurgency, with or without a bit of stirring up by rival powers. The US maintains the capacity to "do FID" or intervene on behalf of governments it supports, why wouldn't China seek the same capacity? The vast majority of China's energy imports and large amounts of commercial exports pass through the Indian Ocean, where they could be subject to all kinds of interference in time of conflict. Isn't it quite natural for the Chinese to want the capacity to protect its commerce? Isn't that a capacity that virtually every commercial power in history has sought?

Of course the Chinese want the capacity to project power if needed. Isn't that a capacity the US already has? Is it right in one case and wrong in the other?


No exercise by any country, scheduled or unscheduled, is taken as a 'ritual', more so, by those who consider such nations as potential adversaries.

Let me give one example. USSR used to follow NATO naval manoeuvres, even though it was a 'ritual', with spy trawlers and used to 'buzz' the NATO ships for reaction. It is obvious that USSR was interested in NATO tactics and state of operational efficiency.

Observing is part of the ritual. Doesn't change the way things stand between or among the countries involved.


By your contention that a country can change its defence treaty obligations as and when desired, North Korea is becoming a nuclear state that is delivery capable. China is a 'peace loving' Nation. Should China not drop them like a 'hot potato' because North Korea is not 'peace loving' as China?

If China's friendship is based on perceived self interest, may I suggest that US Defence Treaties in the Pacific is also based on self interest - a contention you seem to wish away in the case of the US, but readily espouse for China!!

All treaties, everywhere, all the time, are based on perceived self interest. What other possible basis could there be?

I didn't say anything about changing defence treaty obligations, I merely pointed out that the current situation does not produce any such obligation for the US... though treaty obligations and how (and if) they are fulfilled will always be assessed according to perceived interests at that time. That is by no means only true of the US, it applies to everyone.


Pakistan is not getting friendly with Chinese or Russia just to get 'something out of the US' or 'getting irritated with the US'.

Here's a suggestion of playing:

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=96627


the recent visits to Russia and China by President Zardari and prime minister Gilani have been like silver linings, raising hope that the administrative paralysis, witnessed in the last three years, may take a turn for the good. And beyond any shadow of doubt these visits enabled the Pakistan leaders to adopt a different posture before Hillary Clinton and her aides paying a surprise visit to Islamabad

I suppose there was no intention whatsoever to use a visit to Russia and China as a way of showing the Americans that they weren't the only potential ally in the picture... and of course the Russians and the Chinese were quite willing to play along.


So, morality is never a question?

It is perfect for China to circumvent NPT or NNPT and construct two nuclear plants for Pakistan?

If there is no modicum of morality to be followed or be necessary, then why have these treaties?

The treaties exist because of perceived interests. Why would morality have anything to do with it? China supports N. Korea because they fear the consequences of that regime collapsing. No morality involved.


Corpse to many, but still surviving!

If it were a corpse, the dirge would have sung.

I didn't say Myanmar is a corpse, I said imposing economic sanctions on Myanmar is analogous to banning a corpse from a dance floor. It's pointless to ban a corpse from a dance floor because the corpse can't dance anyway. It's pointless to impose economic sanctions on Myanmar because the Myanmar economy can't dance: they've no exports worthy of the name and little capacirty to import. Economic sanctions will only mean something if a country's economy depends on global linkages. Myanmar's doesn't.


The socialist ship had sunk long ago. Mao did not feel so.

It was a slow sink. The rats finally jumped ship, as anyone would... I mean, we talk of rats leaving a sinking ship, but who in his right mind doesn't leave a sinking ship? The Chinese didn't adopt capitalism because the US wanted them to, they did it because they wanted to, for fairly obvious reasons.


And why are they re-locating?

They see an opportunity to make money.


A serious contender has to be made to know its station!!

Stations change, and evolve... it is not the right or responsibility of the US to determine anyone else's station or impose any given station on anyone.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to the Australian "think tank" the Lowry Institute that Aileen Baviera, at a Singapore "think tank" is the expert to follow on developments in the South China Sea.

Link to her latest short report:http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/RSIS0912011.pdf

[Ray]

US ready to arm Philippines amid China tension - Yahoo! News


The United States said Thursday it was ready to provide hardware to modernize the military of the Philippines, which vowed to "stand up to aggressive action" amid rising tension at sea with China.


http://beta.news.yahoo.com/philippines-seeks-us-arms-amid-china-tension-182220614.html


Speaks volumes!

A clear indication that the US is not abandoning allies 'for US national interests".

[Dayuhan]

It's all just words until something actually changes hands. Given the state of the Philippine Navy and Air Force, a whole lot would have to change hands to make much difference in the balance.

Who ever said the US was "abandoning allies"?

[Ray]

One also does not know the state of the Chinese Navy to take on a joint threat.

Not directly stated that the US was abandoning it allies, but implied that unless attacked, the Mutual Defence Treaty with Philippines was merely an exercise on paper.

Apparently, it is not so.

This could also be read in context;

US lawmakers plan TRA enhancement
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/18/2003506056


US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, told a special hearing on Taiwan that she would soon introduce new legislation “to enhance the Taiwan Relations Act [TRA].”.....\

She said Taiwan inspired all victims of Beijing’s oppression and struck fear into the hearts of “the cynical old men who still rule Beijing.”

Ros-Lehtinen said the hearing, “Why Taiwan Matters,” was especially timely and necessary because “it has come to my attention that there is a new spirit of appeasement in the air.”

“Some in Washington policy circles are suggesting that the time has come to recognize the reality of a rising China and to cut our ties to Taiwan,” she added. “This would be a terrible mistake which would have far-reaching ramifications about how the US treats its democratic allies — its friends.”

Ros-Lehtinen said Taiwan needs the means to defend itself from threats and intimidation.


This is a news report dated 28 June 2011.

The US apparently means business.

This is just what I have been repeating to all the appeasement theories that were being stated:
“This would be a terrible mistake which would have far-reaching ramifications about how the US treats its democratic allies — its friends.
and now the US Congressmen have openly subscribed to it!

[Ray]

As I was saying all along, the US aim at containment of China is evident and not merely a will o' the wisp.

Even erstwhile enemies, who should have never approached the US, are approaching the US. It would not have been possible if there were no favourable diplomatic exchanges.

Vietnam seeks US support in China dispute
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05e83b34-94db-11e0-a648-00144feab49a.html#axzz1QB4IplIk




The Vietnamese government has ratcheted up its rhetoric in recent weeks amid growing public disquiet over perceived maritime bullying by China, which dominated Vietnam for 1000 years and fought a brief but bloody border war against it in 1979. At the weekend Vietnam’s foreign ministry said that it would “welcome” efforts by the US and other nations to help resolve the South China Sea dispute and maintain peace and stability.

Such sentiments are unlikely to go down well in Beijing, which insists that the long-running row over the South China Sea must be resolved on a purely bilateral basis.

China reacted angrily last July when Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, insisted that the South China Sea was of strategic importance to the US and offered to act as a mediator.....

[Dayuhan]

One also does not know the state of the Chinese Navy to take on a joint threat.

Not directly stated that the US was abandoning it allies, but implied that unless attacked, the Mutual Defence Treaty with Philippines was merely an exercise on paper.

What does the discussion of providing armament have to do with the Mutual Defense Treaty?

Arms deals are not required by the treaty. They are not a treaty obligation. The US may of course elect to make such an arrangement if it feels that that the arrangement serves its interests, but it's not a treaty obligation.

We'll see what, if anything, comes of it.

I don't think the Chinese have any intention of taking on a joint or individual threat, so the capacity may not be all that important.

US legislators love to look tough on China, particularly given the desire of so many US voters to blame American economic problems on the Chinese. There's a clear political payoff for a US legislator in backing this kind of bill... how it will play out in practice is another story altogether. Most likely it will just fire off yet another round of words and a bit of transitory saber rattling.


This is just what I have been repeating to all the appeasement theories that were being stated

Where has anyone stated an "appeasement theory"?

[Backwards Observer]

Even erstwhile enemies, who should have never approached the US, are approaching the US. It would not have been possible if there were no favourable diplomatic exchanges.

Ray, what do you make of this? The more the merrier?


Vietnam and China to conduct a joint patrol in Tonkin Gulf

PANO - Two Vietnamese naval boats, the HQ375 and HQ376 (under Corps M62, Naval Region D), representing Vietnam People’s Navy and Army, on June 18th, departed to take part in a joint patrol with China People’s Liberation Navy’s boats in the Gulf of Tonkin.

This is the 11th joint patrol that has been conducted since the two navies signed an agreement on Joint Patrol Status in October 2005.

As scheduled, the joint patrol started at 8am on June 19th and will finish at 10.15am on June 20th (Hanoi time) with a journey of 306 nautical miles.

The joint patrol aims to promote the traditional friendly neighbourhood cooperation relationship between Vietnam and China, as well as enhance the mutual understanding and trust between the two armies and navies.

Vietnam and China to conduct a joint patrol in Tonkin Gulf (http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/06/vietnam-and-china-to-conduct-joint.html) - China Defense Blog - June 19, 2011.

[Ray]

What does the discussion of providing armament have to do with the Mutual Defense Treaty?

Arms deals are not required by the treaty. They are not a treaty obligation. The US may of course elect to make such an arrangement if it feels that that the arrangement serves its interests, but it's not a treaty obligation.

We'll see what, if anything, comes of it.

I don't think the Chinese have any intention of taking on a joint or individual threat, so the capacity may not be all that important.

US legislators love to look tough on China, particularly given the desire of so many US voters to blame American economic problems on the Chinese. There's a clear political payoff for a US legislator in backing this kind of bill... how it will play out in practice is another story altogether. Most likely it will just fire off yet another round of words and a bit of transitory saber rattling.



Where has anyone stated an "appeasement theory"?

The timing of providing arms is important and not the arms itself.

The timing and the political message is what is loaded.

One does not see geo strategy and geopolitics in isolation or as a case by case issue. It is observe in the overall context. Ms Hillary Clinton pronouncement about the South Sea being of strategic importance to the US sums up the issue beyond any quibbling.

And add to it what you call political rhetoric of US Congresspeople.

Sabre rattling?

I wonder if one is to take the pronouncements in the US Congress lightly as if it was not material.

What may have slipped the observer who has not opened the link is that the statement was not made by any political lightweight.

It was stated by the chairman of the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee.

Am I to understand that a Chairman of a House Committee is taken to be a person prone to garrulity and is a flighty light headed person?

I am not too conversant as to how a Chairman of a Committee is selected in the US Congress, but I would be surprised if any old Tom, Di.ck and Harry can be the Chairman and that too who has the propensity to shoot his/ her mouth at the drop of a hat.



Ray, what do you make of this? The more the merrier?

More the merrier was the aim of President Obama's visit to Asia and the earlier visits to Asia by Ms Hillary Clinton to Asia.



Vietnam and China to conduct a joint patrol in Tonkin Gulf (http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/06/vietnam-and-china-to-conduct-joint.html) - China Defense Blog - June 19, 2011.

It shows that the US strong defence of its allies and others in the South China Seas has sent the message to China, so much so, that instead of bulldozing, it is trying to slow down and show 'maturity'.

China is a very careful country. It will not back down, but will use the prevailing parameters to calm the situation without 'losing face', and then will seek opportunities when it is in a position to seize the initiative.



Why shouldn't "erstwhile enemies" approach each other? The US has quite congenial relations with a number of erstwhile enemies, and has been getting on reasonably well with the Vietnamese for some time. Nothing very odd or unusual about it.

The answer is simple.

This enemy - Vietnam - continues to be Communist - the raison d’être for the US intervention in Vietnam. Therefore, any rapprochement is not taken to be within the ambit of a day's work done.

I would be surprised if the US would not be the last country to forget Vietnam in a jiffy. Without going into details, suffice it so say that Vietnam does not evoke pleasant memories in the US.

Other enemies of the US have been soundly defeated.

That I presume could be the difference.

[Backwards Observer]

It shows that the US strong defence of its allies and others in the South China Seas has sent the message to China, so much so, that instead of bulldozing, it is trying to slow down and show 'maturity'.

Ray, it is trying to slow down and show 'maturity', I like how you seem to combine both optimism and cynicism there.

[Dayuhan]

One does not see geo strategy and geopolitics in isolation or as a case by case issue. It is observe in the overall context. Ms Hillary Clinton pronouncement about the South Sea being of strategic importance to the US sums up the issue beyond any quibbling.

Just repeating what's been said for years. None of this is new.


I wonder if one is to take the pronouncements in the US Congress lightly as if it was not material.

Not to be taken lightly, exactly.... but understand that they are playing primarily to a domestic audience, not plotting grand strategy. Again, nothing very new there.


It shows that the US strong defence of its allies and others in the South China Seas has sent the message to China, so much so, that instead of bulldozing, it is trying to slow down and show 'maturity'.

Again, this cycle has run before, many times.


China is a very careful country. It will not back down, but will use the prevailing parameters to calm the situation without 'losing face', and then will seek opportunities when it is in a position to seize the initiative.

As will everybody else in the picture. Yes, the Chinese asre careful. Is this a bad thing?


This enemy - Vietnam - continues to be Communist - the raison d’être for the US intervention in Vietnam. Therefore, any rapprochement is not taken to be within the ambit of a day's work done.

I would be surprised if the US would not be the last country to forget Vietnam in a jiffy. Without going into details, suffice it so say that Vietnam does not evoke pleasant memories in the US.

Other enemies of the US have been soundly defeated.

That I presume could be the difference.

Nominally Communist, yes. So is China. So what? The Cold War is over. "Communism" per se is not "the enemy", nor is the US reasonably required to avoid relations with nominally communist countries, or vice versa. Relations are based on the perceived interests of today, and both the US and Vietnam have found it expedient to get along. Again, this is not new, it's been going on a while.

Neither is it necessary to see China as an enemy that needs to be contained and deterred... in fact that approach is the fastest way to turn that situation into a reality.


Carl, you have been a lone voice insisting that the US should not cut Taiwan loose.

Has anyone here proposed that the US should "cut Taiwan loose"?

[Ray]

June 26, 2011

India eyes South China Sea pearl

Vietnam has allowed Indian naval warships to drop anchor at its Nha Trang port in southern Vietnam during naval goodwill visits, well-placed government sources have confirmed.

Sources said the Indian Navy was perhaps the only foreign Navy in recent times to have been given this privilege by the Vietnamese at a port other than Halong Bay, near Hanoi....

The Commander-in-Chief of the Vietnam People’s Navy, Vice-Admiral and deputy minister Nguyen Van Hien, is scheduled to visit New Delhi, Mumbai and Visakhapatnam during his visit starting Monday to witness Indian naval capabilities. “India could also offer its experience in ship-building to Vietnam, which currently has a small Navy,” said a government source......

Indian government sources caution that the Indo-Vietnamese defence relationship should not be seen to be aimed at China.



http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/north/india-eyes-south-china-sea-pearl-772

[Ken White]

...Americans... In a group though they can get a little... tribal ;)At a minimum...:D
A great nation with (possibly) the worst political system in the world. This through the calamitous effect its foreign policy has had on the world post the 1940's.I'd go with large and fairly good, not "great." I disagree on the political system, though I fully acknowledge it is terribly cumbersome and produces effects that resonate outside the US, often adversely for others. I agree that our post 1945 foreign policy has been quite poor (that's my weekly understatement)...:mad:
Many Americans accept that their system is fatally flawed but few will take responsibility for the damage they have caused in the past 60 odd years.Most are aware and would change it if they could but that political system intrudes. They are willing to internally take full responsibility and will and do work to change it albeit very slowly due to the nature of the beast; externally that tribal thing takes over...
How things have changed from the days of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln where the low point has now been reached where the defining moment in a presidency is making a 50:50 call to send in a small team after a HVTFunction of the times and our pethetic media who are too many with too little to do and thus will grasp any straw to fill the vacuum. Not indicative of the nation at large, really.
It was not America who handed the country to Mugabe it was Carter. And you need to know that it was all about the possible recognition of Bishop Muzorewa's Zimbabwe Rhodesian government. The Brits would recognise it if Carter would. But Carter owed the Congressional Black Caucus for their support in getting him elected so he refused to recognise Muzorewa and demanded new elections (as what was wanted by the CBC)All true but in total it was a bit more complicated.

Of course neither Carter... Happened many times in the last 60 years under different US Presidents.All true, but I try to eschew US dometic politics on this board. A side benefit from that is that I have to replace fewer keyboard damaged by spluttering.
The only thing worse than incompetent civilian politicians are soldiers taking over and trying to run a country.

As I have said here before small countries with the usual incompetent politicians have less scope for creating international mayhem than the US does. Here lies the problem. With the US, Russia and China starring in a Charlie Chaplin/Laurel & Hardy/Keystone Cops show the prognosis is not good.We can agree on all that. The inmates are indeed in charge of the institution(s)...:wry:

[Ray]

Vietnam's navy chief and deputy minister Vice Admiral Nguyen Van Hien Monday met his Indian counterpart Admiral Nirmal Verma here when the two sides discussed security challenges in the Indian Ocean region, apart from the scope for expanding defence cooperation between the two countries.

Nguyen, who arrived in India June 24, also discussed possibilities of India's help to build capacities of the Vietnamese naval force, which is small and growing, when compared with the Indian Navy.

The Vietnamese navy chief had already completed his visit to Mumbai, where he visited the Indian Navy's Western Command and defence public sector shipbuilder Mazagon Dock Limited before reaching New Delhi.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20110627/1780924.html

[Ray]

Notwithstanding the interpretations given about the US Defence Treaty with the Philippines that an attack was necessary, I stand vindicated that the Treaty is valid even as a 'threat in being'.

The US has already into the US Philippines naval exercises in the conflict area of the South China Sea.

Next month, the US is doing a similar exercise with the Vietnam Navy.

The US is reasserting that it is not a 'has been' as many in China and many Chinese sympathiser may feel.

[Dayuhan]

The US has already into the US Philippines naval exercises in the conflict area of the South China Sea.

Next month, the US is doing a similar exercise with the Vietnam Navy.

The US is reasserting that it is not a 'has been' as many in China and many Chinese sympathiser may feel.

If naval exercises assert that you're not a has-been, the US has never been one, because naval exercises in the SCS are an annual ritual, have been for decades.

There may be some in China who see the US as a has-been, but there are many more who see the US as a dangerous, aggressive power bent on hemming them in and curbing their growth, one that they must be prepared to resist. The PLA, naturally, encourages this view.

How do you figure Americans would feel about the Chinese navy conducting exercises in the Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast?

[carl]

How do you figure Americans would feel about the Chinese navy conducting exercises in the Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast?

If it was me and the Chinese had been exercising with the Mexican Navy for the last several decades and it never interfered with my free use of the sea for trade, I wouldn't really care. There they go on this year's exercise.

[Dayuhan]

If it was me and the Chinese had been exercising with the Mexican Navy for the last several decades and it never interfered with my free use of the sea for trade, I wouldn't really care. There they go on this year's exercise.

I wouldn't care either, but you can bet there'd be a fair bit of hysteria in the background. The point is that before we assume that people think we're impotent and we need to show them otherwise, we might want to consider that a lot of people may already see us as an altogether too potent threat, one that they have to gear up to counter or confront. If we're looking at managing perceptions, we need to look realistically at what they are.

[Ken White]

...you can bet there'd be a fair bit of hysteria in the background...we might want to consider that a lot of people may already see us as an altogether too potent threat...True. We spent forty years bugging the daylights out of the USSR only to find out they were far more afraid of us than we thought we were of them. Their response was to posture and bluster and while we foolishly paid that noise undue attention in rather hysterical over reaction, they did some rather subtle things that slipped under our radar and did and will do some lasting damage...

[Ray]

If naval exercises assert that you're not a has-been, the US has never been one, because naval exercises in the SCS are an annual ritual, have been for decades.

There may be some in China who see the US as a has-been, but there are many more who see the US as a dangerous, aggressive power bent on hemming them in and curbing their growth, one that they must be prepared to resist. The PLA, naturally, encourages this view.

How do you figure Americans would feel about the Chinese navy conducting exercises in the Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast?

It is not that I am a ‘has been’. It is just that your repeated assertions that the US’ involvement and engagement in the Asia Pacific Rim is mere ritualistic and has no strategic intent or a desire to exert its influence.

And that the US Philippines naval exercise is a mere ritual and has nothing to do with the Chinese aggressive intent in the South China Sea.

Therefore, I find your remark in the post to Carl -
The point is that before we assume that people think we're impotent and we need to show them otherwise interesting.

IIRC, your view was that the Obama Asia tour was merely a visit to Asia. The ‘encirclement’ fears expressed by the Chinese media was mere rituals and so were the visits and pronouncement of Ms Clinton was a ritual. The unveiling of the Chinese Stealth and Gate’s visit and his pronouncement were mere ritualistic and the unveiling was a coincidence. The sum total was that these are mere ‘another day’s work’.

You have asserted that the US Philippines Mutual Defence Treaty was only applicable if one was physically attacked.

In short, the US is merely a bystander to what is happening in the Asia Pacific and is not concerned with the events occurring in the South China Sea.

Now, once again, you dismiss the US - Philippines naval exercise as an 'annual ritual'. In other words, routine!

If indeed it were an annual ritual of no consequence but a ‘ritual’, it is surprising that China would react so strongly as


“It’s not a proper time for the United States to conduct military drills in the region with the Philippines and Vietnam,” said Gen. Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the People’s Liberation Army during a news briefing with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff…….

“The timing of these joint exercises is inappropriate as we see it,” Gen. Chen said. “If the United States truly wants peace and stability in the region, it should adjust the schedule of its military drills.”

From:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/11/chinas-top-general-calls-us-naval-exercises-inappr/

What did Ms Clinton mean by:


Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton riled China last year when she said freedom of navigation in the area was a U.S. national interest

From:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/11/chinas-top-general-calls-us-naval-exercises-inappr/

Obviously, national interest, if was a mere ritual, would not require reminder!

And what Adm Mullen stated at Renmin University indicates just what I was saying – that the US is a Pacific power and will exert its will and not be a mere ritual obsessed bystander.


In a speech to a Renmin University on Sunday, Adm. Mullen said the United States is a Pacific power and would remain so

From:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/11/chinas-top-general-calls-us-naval-exercises-inappr/

Lastly, if indeed as you have continuously reiterated throughout that the US Philippines naval exercise was a mere ‘annual ritual’ and has nothing to do with the Chinese aggressive actions in the South China Sea, could you explain why immediately after the US Phlippines naval exercise, the US is carrying out a similar exercise with Vietnam?

Indeed, why should the US undertake a naval exercise with Vietnam? It is not an ‘annual ritual’? In fact, the US has no military ties with Vietnam. So, why?

US may have cut their Defence Budget, but under no circumstances has she diluted her strategic intent nor is she a ‘has been’. She is a superpower and will continue to be so even if appears to have toned down its rhetoric!

[Ray]

There is no hysteria as far as the US is concerned.

It (the US) is quite calm and only reassuring those who think the US has downslided that the US remains as steadfast in its aim as it was before.

It is merely exerting sending a signal that attempts by any country, no matter who, to dictate unacceptable terms on others, would be to their disadvantage.

If that is, to some, hysteria, then so be it!

And as Carl has replied as to China carrying out exercises with Mexico, I will give it a pass.

[Backwards Observer]

Hush now, the grown-ups are talking:



Clinton Welcomes South China Sea Guidelines

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday welcomed a draft agreement between China and ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, aimed at defusing tensions over disputed waters of the South China Sea. Clinton met her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, on the sidelines of the ASEAN regional forum in Bali.

[...]

"I want to commend China and ASEAN for working so closely together to include implementation guidelines for the declaration of conduct in the South China Sea, and of course we will discuss our mutual desire for peace and stability on the Korean peninsula,” said Clinton.

[...]

“I do believe that the conclusion of the guidelines is of great significance, and it will go a long way to maintaining the peace and stability and good-neighborliness in this region. And this will also provide favorable conditions for the proper handling and the settlement of the disputes among the claimants,” Yang said.


Clinton Welcomes South China Sea Guidelines (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Clinton-Welcomes-South-China-Sea-Guidelines-126002064.html) - Voice of America - July 22, 2011

...


Asian Nations move to calm tensions, US commends

Asian nations moved Friday to defuse two critical points of tension in the Pacific, in preliminary steps welcomed by the Obama administration, which is moving to reassert US influence in the region.

On the sidelines of a Southeast Asian regional security conference in Bali, Indonesia, China and its neighbors reached a draft agreement to peacefully resolve competing territorial claims in the strategic South China Sea while North and South Korea agreed to resume talks. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton commended Beijing and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations for the deal and expressed cautious hope that discussion between Seoul and Pyongyang could help relaunch stalled nuclear disarmament negotiations with the North.

"I want to commend China and ASEAN for working so closely together to include implementation guidelines for the declaration of conduct in the South China Sea," Clinton told Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi at the meeting.


Asian nations move to calm tensions, US commends (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/07/22/asian-nations-move-calm-tensions-us-commends.html) - Jakarta Post - July 22, 2011

...

Pirate Code (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0&feature=related) - youtube

...

the code is the law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6OvsJqimfg&feature=related) - youtube

[davidbfpo]

A viewpoint from IISS:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-17-2011/august/behind-recent-gunboat-diplomacy-in-the-south-china-sea/

Which ends with:
The future is therefore likely to see escalating naval competition and confrontation involving paramilitary forces, even amid diplomatic moves to manage the dispute.

There is IMHO a countervailing stance available, given by the Chinese Defence Minister in June 2011, summarised in an IISS Newsletter:http://www.iiss.org/publications/iiss-newsletters/newsletters-2011/summer-2011/

Fuller details are on:http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the-shangri-la-dialogue/shangri-la-dialogue-2011/

[Ray]

China warns India on South China Sea exploration projects

China on Thursday indicated it was opposed to India engaging in oil and gas exploration projects in the disputed South China Sea, and warned Indian companies against entering into any agreements with Vietnam ahead of External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna's visit to Hanoi this week.

"Our consistent position is that we are opposed to any country engaging in oil and gas exploration and development activities in waters under China's jurisdiction," Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said, in reply to a question on reports that the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) Videsh Limited was considering exploration projects in two blocks that Vietnam claims.




In recent weeks, India, too, has raised concerns over Chinese projects in disputed territory — in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). China has rejected Indian concerns over this issue, stating that it viewed the dispute as one for India and Pakistan to solve.

Ms. Jiang said the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea "did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf to other countries' territories". The convention, she said, did not negate "a country's right formed in history that has been consistently claimed".
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2455647.ece

An interesting situation.

China can operate in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as it so desire even though knowing fully well that India claims it as a part of India and Pakistan considers it as a dispute and yet, if India legitimately explore for oil in Vietnamese water, it upsets China since they claim it is 'disputed'

Does indicate double speak that is legend with China. There is one rule for China and one rule for others!!

[Backwards Observer]

India picks a quarrel with China
By M K Bhadrakumar

India, which has been wetting its toes sporadically in the South China Sea in the recent years, is apparently taking the plunge to wade waist-deep into the troubled waters. It is a historic move - be it there is no clarity whether merely tactical or strategic. But it is historic; India's "Look East" policy acquires swagger. The Sino-Indian geostrategic rivalry is not going to be the same again.

India picks a quarrel with China (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MI17Ad01.html) - Asia Times - Sept 17, 2011.

Regardless of how one may perceive the current state of US 'world leadership', no further example is needed that at least two of the would-be contenders are a good many generations away from all but the most fanciful consideration. So let it be written... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY)

[AdamG]

The Philippines is engaged in a muscle-flexing row with China over oil drilling in the South China Sea, writes Andy Higgins at the Washington Post. So are India and Vietnam, reports Ishaan Thardoor at Time, who wonders whether war is possible between China and India.


http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/20/to_assert_its_oil_claims_china_doesnt_need_a_big_n avy




So let it be written... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY)

I'll see your observation and raise you.
This is how these things get started... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n29c-q3_8Q)

[Backwards Observer]

I'll see your observation and raise you.

I'm just here for the gasoline. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOLypkY8LMc)

[AdamG]

LONDON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- An ugly momentum is building in the South China Sea, where an official Chinese newspaper called last week for war against Vietnam and the Philippines to uphold China's assertion of sovereignty over the mineral-rich seabed, estimated to hold 7 billion barrels of oil and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The lead article in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times Tuesday carried the headline "The time to use force has arrived in the South China Sea; Let's wage wars on the Philippines and Vietnam to prevent more wars."



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Walker/2011/10/03/Walkers-World-War-in-South-China-Sea/UPI-23491317637140/#ixzz1Zlccspy9

[Ray]

Manila: The Philippine government has refused to return the 25 Chinese vessels that were taken in the South China Sea (also known as the West Philippine Sea) and the case is to be resolved with the help of a third party, a local paper said.

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/philippines/philippines-refuses-to-return-chinese-boats-1.912206

[Dayuhan]

Just spent a few days in Subic. One of the gossip items on the base is the construction of a substantial fueling facility on a US Navy contract. Apparently the deal is that the contractor will build and operate the facility, with the Navy guaranteeing a minimum purchase level over a seven year period.

Second hand news and potentially with inaccuracies, but the sources are reasonably reliable and if true it would suggest an intention to maintain a US Naval presence in the area.

I do not think it's likely that the Navy will be moving back into Subic in a major way. There's not a lot of space available. Since FedEx left the airport and most of the buildings around it are pretty much vacant, but the old NavMag area and most of the pier facilities are leased to private investors. With the fueling facility and the new shipyard (Korean owned but presumably available for repairs etc) there's certainly potential for a support role.

[Ray]

Navy readies for Chinese power grab on shipping - Washington Times

The Navy’s top officer detailed Tuesday the strategy for making sure the South China Sea and Western Pacific remain open to international shipping, saying an emerging China might try to “limit access in the region.”

The remarks by Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, represented a frank assessment of China’s potential power grabs as it continues a military buildup that includes more ships and anti-ship weapons.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/10/navy-readies-for-chinese-power-grab-on-shipping/

[AdamG]

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii — The U.S. Navy’s top commander in the Pacific says he’s concerned local arguments in disputed oil rich waters near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea could escalate into larger, more serious confrontations.

Adm. Patrick Walsh said Tuesday there’s potential for an incident in the South China Sea to intensify much the way tensions between China and Japan spiked after ships belonging to the Asian powers collided near the Senkaku or Diaoyu islands claimed by both nations in 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ap-interview-us-navy-commander-concerned-south-china-sea-incident-could-easily-escalate/2012/01/17/gIQAJfPn6P_story.html

[AdamG]

China, citing historical discoveries, says that the entire South China Sea should be its own exclusive economic zone. The Philippines, however, shares a long border with the sea and sees some of it as its own. So does Vietnam, and other regional countries. That's got some a little nervous.

http://www.pri.org/stories/world/asia/philippines-turns-toward-u-s-as-concerns-grow-over-china-s-intentions-8260.html

[Ray]

An Outraged Chinese General Tells The Philippines It's Their 'Last Chance'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/china-the-philippines-is-facing-its-last-chance-over-territory-dispute-2012-4#ixzz1rfKGrvrb


The territorial dispute in the South China Sea between Vietnam, the Philippines, and China is far from over.

The three countries have been going back-and-forth over rights to supposed oil and gas reserves throughout the region, with Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei also attempting to lay claim on the deposits.

There were hopes the issue would be brought closer to resolution during the recent Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Cambodia, but that get-together seems to have had exactly the opposite effect.

Brian Spegele at the WSJ's China Real Time Reports that Chinese Major General Luo Yuan left the summit, got back to China and penned a warning to the island nation that he published in the Global Times newspaper.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-the-philippines-is-facing-its-last-chance-over-territory-dispute-2012-4

[Ray]

After warning India, China asks Russia to stay away from South China Sea


BEIJING: India has now got company of another country, Russia, in being the target of Chinese ire over the South China Sea controversy. China on Tuesday hit out against the Russian decision to explore for oil in sea areas that Beijing claims to be its own.

China has been vehemently opposed to ONGC Videsh Limited exploring for oil in the sea area along with a Vietnamese company. A Russian company has now joined the exploration work in the area.

Talking to reporters on Tuesday, foreign ministry Liu Weimin expressed the hope that foreign companies should respect and support the efforts of countries in South China Sea region to settle their disputes instead of meddling in the affair.


http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/articleshow/12611993.cms

China already has a dispute with Vietnam and have clashed in the South China Sea.

[Dayuhan]

Worth noting that the Vietnamese are involved with both Indian and Russian companies in offshore exploration joint ventures. That's not an accident. It underscores that the Vietnamese are not moving into the US camp or taking the US side... they are on their own side, and are building a whole range of relationships they see as useful in advancing their own perceived interests.

[Ray]

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Philippine government says its largest warship is engaged in a standoff with Chinese surveillance vessels that blocked it when it attempted to arrest Chinese fishermen anchored at a South China Sea shoal where both sides claim sovereignty.

Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario on Wednesday summoned Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing to resolve the dangerous impasse diplomatically. His office said in a statement that the Scarborough Shoal "is an integral part of Philippine territory" and Filipino authorities would assert sovereignty over the offshore area.

The shoal lies off the northwestern Philippine province of Zambales. China and the Philippines have been disputing ownership of the shoal, in addition to the Spratly Islands and other areas in the South China Sea.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6Ms4n4rqMf0g9HjWZVOjE2c9gig?docId=e3c4e8611 9df45d3a44ebb96d5d96322

[Ray]

Worth noting that the Vietnamese are involved with both Indian and Russian companies in offshore exploration joint ventures. That's not an accident. It underscores that the Vietnamese are not moving into the US camp or taking the US side... they are on their own side, and are building a whole range of relationships they see as useful in advancing their own perceived interests.

Commercial ventures and strategic issues are two different issue, though can be used to one's advantage.

[Ray]

An Outraged Chinese General Tells The Philippines It's Their 'Last Chance'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/china...#ixzz1rfKGrvrb

And how do we read this with Post #83

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6Ms4n4rqMf0g9HjWZVOjE2c9gig?docId=e3c4e8611 9df45d3a44ebb96d5d96322

Philippines has the armed might to faceoff China?

Or is Philippines getting the courage from some other assurances?

And what could they be?

[Dayuhan]

The Philippines has no capacity to "face off" with China, or for that matter with anyone else. Neither have they any assurance that the US will provide any military backing, in fact the US has often said that it does not consider events in disputed territory to be attacks on the Philippines (which would trigger a mutual defense treaty). They'll push as far as they can without initiating combat, not because somebody's given them courage but because they see it as a situation they can exploit (and of course as a situation in which they are inherently right).

Despite their lack of capacity, the Philippines has regularly arrested Chinese fisherman and impounded their boats, for years. This is the first time I can remember when the Chinese actively protected fishing boats. They're presumably making a point of shoving around the least capable co-claimant in the SCS disputes, and also probing to see what responses from the other claimants, and from the US, will be. I wouldn't expect either side to start shooting, though of course things don't always go as planned.

The Philippines will try to extract maximum leverage out of the incident. They're already stressing that inspections found the Chinese ships with coral, giant clams, and sharks, trying to position themselves not only as defenders of their own territory but also as defenders of the marine environment. That claim is a bit specious, as Philippine fishermen routinely harvest all of the above and sell them to the Chinese, but they will milk it for all it's worth.

The US may try to work some leverage of its own by pushing for a more regular presence at Subic (very close to the contested area), thought it's not likely they'd work for anything with the word "permanent" in it. They might send a ship or aircraft to "observe", if they've anything close enough, though that's less likely. They might also announce re-opening discussion of the sale (on affordable terms, which would have to be cheap) of fighters, more credible warships, or shore-based surface-surface and/or surface-air missiles, which of course is what the Philippines will be working toward.

We'll see.

PS: On a possibly ironic note, the Philippine Navy ship involved, the Gregorio Del Pilar (a retired US Coast Guard cutter), is named after a hero of the Philippine-American War, who died in a noble but completely futile action against a hugely superior American force. Hopefully history will not go about repeating itself.

[Ray]

Silly Filipinos, right?

[Dayuhan]

Not so silly... they'll do what little they can with what little they have, and try to work the situation to help them get a bit more. What else can they do?

[Bill Moore]

Interesting developments, all of them foreseeable. The issues concerning disputed territories not only concern access to energy, but also food security. Chinese fishing ships have been challenged in Oceania, the territorial waters of Indonesia, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines at a minimum. Recently Chinese fishermen were shot and killed by the Palau Coast Guard. The Chinese Navy challenged the Indonesia when the Indonesian's attempted to detain one of their fishing boats.

We'll see where China's gun boat fishing activity leads, it is a dangerous game of brinksmanship.

[Dayuhan]

From the CS Monitor...

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2012/0411/China-Philippines-dispute-raises-tensions-in-South-China-Sea


The Chinese Embassy statement says the fishing boats were simply taking shelter near the island due to inclement weather.

Then the following photo:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/dayuhan/0411-phillipines-china-sea_full_380.jpg


This photo shows two Chinese surveillance ships which sailed between a Philippines warship and eight Chinese fishing boats to prevent the arrest of any fishermen in the Scarborough Shoal, a small group of rocky formations whose sovereignty is contested by the Philippines and China, in the South China Sea, about 124 nautical miles off the main island of Luzon on April 10.

Courtesy of Philippine Army/Reuters

That seems an odd sort of "inclement weather"... was the sea too flat for good sailing? Or maybe they were becalmed?

[Ray]

Russia has also been warned to keep off by China!

They are serious about the issue, but one wonders how far will they press on!

[carl]

They are serious about the issue, but one wonders how far will they press on!

They do appear to have definitely made their minds up about this don't they?

[Ray]

They do appear to have definitely made their minds up about this don't they?

China appears is at its tethers end and her patience is running out.

Though they have claimed the whole South China Sea, I read somewhere that they control 13% physically.

There is no doubt that China requires the natural resources that is there in the South China Sea to engine her growth. The South China Sea is also required by China to establish her strategic presence in the area as also to have unfettered access into the Pacific.

But then so do others require it.

Philippines has a Treaty with the US.

There is no doubt that the situation is ripe for confrontation, but will the Chinese precipitate any crisis?

Maybe and maybe not.

Would China like to lose goodwill of its neighbours? Even if it is not concerned about the goodwill aspect given that China might find the South China Sea more important for China than goodwill, there is the danger that it will spook her other friends beyond the Pacific rim. That may not go down well.

One wonders what China will do.

US will surely be watching the issue closely.

[carl]

US will surely be watching the issue closely.

Maybe it is more along the lines of others watching what the US will do.

[Ray]

Maybe it is more along the lines of others watching what the US will do.


Who knows maybe you are right.

When US sneezes, the world catches a cold!

[Dayuhan]

Again, it's worth noting that this is not the first time this has happened or a new step up in how far the Chinese are willing to push.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/why-china-picking-fights-indonesia


The August 3 edition of the Mainichi Daily News, a Japanese newspaper, reported on a June 23 confrontation over a fleet of 10 Chinese fishing vessels operating without permission in Indonesia's EEZ. A stand-off over the Indonesian navy's seizure of a Chinese fishing boat almost got out of control when a Chinese "fishery management vessel" – which was actually a repurposed heavy gunboat – threatened to fire on the Indonesian navy patrol boat. According to the article, the fishery management vessel pointed its large-caliber machine gun at the carbon-hulled Indonesian craft, at which point the outgunned patrol boat released the errant Chinese trawler. The article says that a similar episode occurred in May, with the same large Chinese warship having likewise successfully threatened an Indonesian naval patrol that was detaining an illegal Chinese fishing boat.

[carl]

Again, it's worth noting that this is not the first time this has happened or a new step up in how far the Chinese are willing to push.

That is not at all reassuring.

[Ray]

I wonder if a stand off with Indonesia would be same as a stand off with Philippines.

For the life of me, I cannot understand as to why with an old warship, the Philippines is cocking the snook.

Is there more than what meets the eye?

What is China trying to do?

For a powerful nation, this is childish an action of sending ships when diplomacy would have worked or even aggressive bombastic for which they are famed!

[Bill Moore]

The Philippines summoned Chinese ambassador Ma Keqing on Wednesday to lodge a protest over the incident. However, China maintained it had sovereign rights over the area and asked that the Philippine ship leave the waters.

China's state-run newspaper China Daily claimed in an editorial that the Chinese fishermen were "harassed" by the Philippine naval boat.

"China should take more measures to safeguard its maritime territory," the newspaper stated.

"The latest moves by China's two neighbours are beyond tolerance," it added, referring to Vietnam. "They are blatant challenges to China's territorial integrity."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17686107

[Dayuhan]

I wonder if a stand off with Indonesia would be same as a stand off with Philippines.

That would depend on the specific circumstances involved. Indonesia has a larger and more capable Navy, but if the only ship on the scene is an outmatched patrol boat, that may not matter. In the cases cited, the Indonesian ship backed down. In other cases, both Indonesia and the Philippines have impounded boats and arrested fishermen. Each case is different.


For the life of me, I cannot understand as to why with an old warship, the Philippines is cocking the snook.

Why should they not? It's a game of bluff and bluster, not a shooting war. The Chinese ships on the scene are designated as civilian vessels and are believed to be unarmed. Why didn't the Chinese put Navy ships on the scene? Maybe wanting to up the ante and observe reactions without upping it too much? Of course the reasoning is unknown, but there's little sign that anybody wants or intends to initiate actual combat.


Is there more than what meets the eye?

Probably not.


What is China trying to do?

Establish a presence and test reactions.


For a powerful nation, this is childish an action of sending ships when diplomacy would have worked or even aggressive bombastic for which they are famed!

Big nations intruding on the fishing grounds of smaller ones isn't exactly unheard of in other places... I believe the Somalis have complained about the same thong, and I suppose you've heard of the cod wars.

[carl]

Big nations intruding on the fishing grounds of smaller ones isn't exactly unheard of in other places... I believe the Somalis have complained about the same thong, and I suppose you've heard of the cod wars.

A qualitative difference I think. Iceland won the Cod Wars and the Brits didn't claim sovereignty over the waters involved. I don't believe the Chinese are merely after enhanced fishing rights.

Many people want to minimize this but continuous provocative actions on the the high seas by a murderous police state are a cause for worry.

[Backwards Observer]

A qualitative difference I think. Iceland won the Cod Wars and the Brits didn't claim sovereignty over the waters involved. I don't believe the Chinese are merely after enhanced fishing rights.

Many people want to minimize this but continuous provocative actions on the the high seas by a murderous police state are a cause for worry.

Carl, you describe China as a murderous police state whose provocative behaviour should not be minimized. Fair enough. Yet you also repeatedly characterize the Phillipine-American War, in which roughly 200,000 Filipino civilians were killed, as a succesful model of counter-insurgency and nation building applicable even today. Fascinating.:)

CASUALTIES, February 4, 1899 - July 4, 1902:

Filipinos : 20,000 soldiers killed in action; 200,000 civilians died

Americans : 4,390 dead (1,053 killed in action; 3,337 other deaths)

http://philippineamericanwar.webs.com/

Also, there seems to be a new film out about that splendid little war:


AMIGO, the 17th feature film from Academy Award-nominated writer-director John Sayles, stars legendary Filipino actor Joel Torre as Rafael, a village mayor caught in the murderous crossfire of the Philippine-American War.

When U.S. troops occupy his village, Rafael comes under pressure from a tough-as-nails officer (Chris Cooper) to help the Americans in their hunt for Filipino guerilla fighters. But Rafael’s brother (Ronnie Lazaro) is the head of the local guerillas, and considers anyone who cooperates with the Americans to be a traitor. Rafael quickly finds himself forced to make the impossible, potentially deadly decisions faced by ordinary civilians in an occupied country.

A powerful drama of friendship, betrayal, romance and heartbreaking violence, AMIGO is a page torn from the untold history of the Philippines, and a mirror of today’s unresolvable conflicts.

http://www3.amigomovie.com/

[carl]

Carl, you describe China as a murderous police state whose provocative behaviour should not be minimized. Fair enough. Yet you also repeatedly characterize the Phillipine-American War, in which roughly 200,000 Filipino civilians were killed, as a succesful model of counter-insurgency and nation building applicable even today. Fascinating.:)

And to think I got that little bit of psychoanalysis gratis, no charge at all! Who says SWJ isn't worth it?

[Backwards Observer]

And to think I got that little bit of psychoanalysis gratis, no charge at all! Who says SWJ isn't worth it?

Spoken like a true gentleman.


Hidden depths in South China Sea tensions
By Roberto Tofani

Disputes over the South China Sea must be conducted and solved peacefully. This sentence summarizes most statements released by government officials after bilateral or multilateral meetings on the issue, but also highlights the absence of a real political will and the continuing unpredictability and instability in the region.

Disputes related to sovereignty about land and jurisdiction over maritime areas show that tensions can only increase in the months ahead; or at least until a new and more binding Code of Conduct (COC) on the South China Sea is agreed upon by China and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN). Lastly, the claim to be looking for a "peaceful solution", as expressed by the parties, has not prevented a new arms race in the region.

Hidden depths in South China Sea tensions (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ND13Ae03.html) - Asia Times Online - April 13, 2012.

[Dayuhan]

I don't believe the Chinese are merely after enhanced fishing rights.

Possibly not, hard to know what those inscrutable orientals are really after. Considering, though, that to my knowledge Chinese fishermen have been arrested for illegal intrusion and fishing in Palau, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia (possibly others, I don't really keep a careful tally) it's hard to discount the possibility that in any given instance they may simply be after fish. For all the (mostly speculative) talk of oil and gas, fish may well be the most important resource the S China Sea has may well prove to be fish. Doesn't take huge investment or exploration, either, you just go in and take it. Once the Chinese have stripped the coral from Scarborough Shoal and left it as barren as their own offshore waters, I doubt they'll have much interest in it.


Many people want to minimize this but continuous provocative actions on the the high seas by a murderous police state are a cause for worry.

Worry isn't inherently irrational, but when people take it to extremes it can provoke inappropriate actions that can have unintended consequences.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

Perhaps. But when you look at the Chinese sea activity in total, there is cause for concern. If it were just aggressive fishing, that would be one thing. If it were just bullying at sea on a regular basis against a number of countries, that is one more slightly more worrisome thing. If it were only a great large buildup of subs and aircraft carriers and other ships...so they like to spend money on toys. If the DF-21 missiles were being developed to prevent us from blockading China like we have so many times since the end of WWII...no we haven't blockaded them at all. If the Chinese weren't behind the most massive intelligence operation in the history of the world directed at both military and civilian targets...

The trouble is all of these things exist at once and are being done at the direction of a regime that is directly descended from that of one of the greatest mass killers in world history. This worries me.

[Bill Moore]

Dayuhan,

You're right, when I just want to go fishing on someone else's property I just call the U.S. Navy to escort me and challenge the rightful landlord if they harass me for fishing in their waters. I told the world that the whole sea is mine, why would anyone make a big deal out of that. Sovreignty is so over rated, why should they care if I'm taking their resources?

Natural resources include food, water and energy, all needed for survival, so I'm not sure what the "just fishing" comment is meant to imply? Read between the lines on this, the Chinese are sending a message that the U.S. can't protect them. Send fishing ships to provoke, have the Navy in close proximity to challenge any nation that dares enforce claims to thier territorial waters. Do this in multiple countries with little public comment and just let the people form their own perceptions.

Not suggesting it will work, but their behavior is nothing short of provocative, and repeated incidents point to an intentional strategy.

[Dayuhan]

Perhaps. But when you look at the Chinese sea activity in total, there is cause for concern. If it were just aggressive fishing, that would be one thing. If it were just bullying at sea on a regular basis against a number of countries, that is one more slightly more worrisome thing. If it were only a great large buildup of subs and aircraft carriers and other ships...so they like to spend money on toys. If the DF-21 missiles were being developed to prevent us from blockading China like we have so many times since the end of WWII...no we haven't blockaded them at all.

Surely you appreciate the irony implicit in an American fretting over anyone else's accumulation of subs, aircraft carriers, ships, missiles, etc. Of course it's quite ok if we accumulate those things because we never ever throw our weight around and attack people... oh, wait.

What is it, exactly that you fear they will do?


The trouble is all of these things exist at once and are being done at the direction of a regime that is directly descended from that of one of the greatest mass killers in world history. This worries me.

Our ancestors didn't do so badly either. If the propensity for large scale violence is an inherited trait, the human race is in deep $#!t.


Natural resources include food, water and energy, all needed for survival, so I'm not sure what the "just fishing" comment is meant to imply?

Meant to imply that pushing their way into disputed fishing grounds (or fishing grounds where no claim exists, as in Palau) isn't necessarily a prelude to invading anyone, closing the SCS to non-Chinese shipping, or anything else. It's not necessarily part of a grand strategy. People pushing into fishing grounds claimed by others is nothing terribly new, in the SCS or in a lot of other places. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem, it just suggests that we might not want to overreact.


Read between the lines on this, the Chinese are sending a message that the U.S. can't protect them. Send fishing ships to provoke, have the Navy in close proximity to challenge any nation that dares enforce claims to thier territorial waters. Do this in multiple countries with little public comment and just let the people form their own perceptions.

Not suggesting it will work, but their behavior is nothing short of provocative, and repeated incidents point to an intentional strategy.

The ships in proximity weren't actually Navy, but that's a minor distinction. Yes, they're throwing their weight around, but it's not some sort of cataclysmic shift or new development requiring a new strategy or some hasty or dramatic action. I'm not sure the message directly involves the US either. If the Chinese want to encourage the Philippines to cut some new military equipment deals with the US or set up more frequent shipping rotations through Subic, they're doing the right thing.

[Ray]

Talking of innocent fishing, I am reminded of the Russian trawlers during the Cold War era.

Trawlers basically are for fishing!

The Russian, I take it, were 'just fishing'!

The issue indeed was fishing that the Russians were interested in, but fishing for what is the question!

[Ray]

Dayuhan,

You're right, when I just want to go fishing on someone else's property I just call the U.S. Navy to escort me and challenge the rightful landlord if they harass me for fishing in their waters. I told the world that the whole sea is mine, why would anyone make a big deal out of that. Sovreignty is so over rated, why should they care if I'm taking their resources?

Natural resources include food, water and energy, all needed for survival, so I'm not sure what the "just fishing" comment is meant to imply? Read between the lines on this, the Chinese are sending a message that the U.S. can't protect them. Send fishing ships to provoke, have the Navy in close proximity to challenge any nation that dares enforce claims to thier territorial waters. Do this in multiple countries with little public comment and just let the people form their own perceptions.

Not suggesting it will work, but their behavior is nothing short of provocative, and repeated incidents point to an intentional strategy.


This appears more plausible than 'just fishing'!

[Backwards Observer]

Not suggesting it will work, but their behavior is nothing short of provocative, and repeated incidents point to an intentional strategy.

An "intentional strategy", you say. Well, that's something you don't see every day.

Bill Moore, how would you interpret this intentional strategy? A precursor to "Operation Choverlord"? And remember, (being in) love means never having to say you're sorry.:)

[carl]

Surely you appreciate the irony implicit in an American fretting over anyone else's accumulation of subs, aircraft carriers, ships, missiles, etc. Of course it's quite ok if we accumulate those things because we never ever throw our weight around and attack people... oh, wait.

What is it, exactly that you fear they will do?

That is the predictable PC answer. "Oh yeah! Well what about us?" But our navel levels generally go up and down in relation to some threat or other. It went up a lot after Dec 1941 and went down hugely after 1945 and then has been up and down since. We have used it to throw our weight around as you say, most spectacularly in waters right close to where you are. The thing we use those naval forces for more than any other is keeping the seas open for free trade and we tend to build up when states whose free trade has not been threatened, say Red China, start to build up navies for purposes that aren't defensive, since there is no extant threat. Makes us a bit suspicious. We don't always do that. Sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking nothing serious is happening, like now.

And as I already mentioned above, it isn't just the accumulation of more fighting ships; it is the accumulation of more fighting ships combined with all the other things I mentioned above.

I fear they will take over the South China Sea, effectively turning it into Chinese territorial waters, thence cowing Vietnam, the PI, Malaysia, Thailand etc into becoming tropical Finlands. After that I fear the consequences, since the killer elites that run China don't impress me as being primarily motivated by the golden rule.


Our ancestors didn't do so badly either. If the propensity for large scale violence is an inherited trait, the human race is in deep $#!t.

Oh no Sir. You are very wrong. When it comes to mass murder and infliction of human suffering on a massive scale, the only people and political culture that come close to Mao and Chicoms are Stalin and the Russian communists.

Your quote is another variation of the "Oh yeah!" argument.

[Backwards Observer]

But our navel levels generally go up and down in relation to some threat or other.

Q. What do you call a hula hoop with a nail in it?

A. A navel destroyer.

Carl, so you are now once again facing one of the greatest evils mankind has ever known. Some may claim that a nation suffering from intellectual and economic impoverishment, riven by a deep and abiding cultural and ideological divide, and eschewing all but the slightest hint of self-knowledge is unwittingly putting itself at an unfortunate disadvantage. Does the overwhelming military advantage you possess leave war as the only recourse?

[Ray]

And as I already mentioned above, it isn't just the accumulation of more fighting ships; it is the accumulation of more fighting ships combined with all the other things I mentioned above.

I fear they will take over the South China Sea, effectively turning it into Chinese territorial waters, thence cowing Vietnam, the PI, Malaysia, Thailand etc into becoming tropical Finlands. After that I fear the consequences, since the killer elites that run China don't impress me as being primarily motivated by the golden rule.



It is quite surprising that the Communists, be it the Russians or the Chinese, who have always professed the Theory of Peaceful Coexistence, is now on a different path altogether.

China has always spoken of all to apply the Bandung Spirit (1955) that can be summarised as a call for a peaceful coexistence among the nations, for the liberation from the hegemony of any superpower and for building solidarities towards the weak and those being weakened by the world order of the day.


One is astonished how the cat has jumped!

Could it be that China used it as a smokescreen to disarm the neighbours and parts of the world into complacency at that time. And then during the phase where they aimed to be a challenge to the US, disarmed the US and West with platitudes and piety of Peaceful Rise, and now that it can challenge the US to some extent, the US being preoccupied with its economy and other 'wars', China is showing its true colours?

Well, you have to give it to them that they are real clever even if slim customers!

[Ray]

Does the overwhelming military advantage you possess leave war as the only recourse?

I don't think the US would want a war.

It may do the same as China is doing - 'battleship diplomacy'/ gunboat diplomacy.

[Backwards Observer]

Could it be that the continued provocations in the South China Sea, an arena in which China can barely hope to hold its own against the USN and USAF juggernaut, are in themselves a smokescreen veiling the continuing and long-term economic penetration of Africa and South America?

Why would China intentionally provoke an arms race fuelled regional realignment against themselves? To mollify PLA hardliners who feel it is their sacred (or whatever communists worship) duty to ensure the present and future security of the motherland?

What will the military response be should China start to make overtures for infrastructure development in Mexico? Don't ask me, I only work here.

[Backwards Observer]

I don't think the US would want a war.

It may do the same as China is doing - 'battleship diplomacy'/ gunboat diplomacy.


Yes, nobody "wants" a war. They just sorta happen when everyone starts pointing heat at each other.:)

One real danger in the region is the frequency of natural disasters. Ironically, the USN probably has the best capabilities to respond to these, limited as they may be in relation to the size of the calamities. Unfortunately, humans seem to prefer the little games they play with each other. We'll see where it gets them in the long run.:rolleyes:

[Ray]

Could it be that the continued provocations in the South China Sea, an arena in which China can barely hope to hold its own against the USN and USAF juggernaut, are in themselves a smokescreen veiling the continuing and long-term economic penetration of Africa and South America?

How would the continued provocations in the South China Sea constitute a continuing and long-term economic penetration of Africa and South America?


Why would China intentionally provoke an arms race fuelled regional realignment against themselves? To mollify PLA hardliners who feel it is their sacred (or whatever communists worship) duty to ensure the present and future security of the motherland?

That is the million dollar one!


What will the military response be should China start to make overtures for infrastructure development in Mexico? Don't ask me, I only work here.

Nothing!

Unless they bring in military and strategic considerations.

But, are you suggesting that the South China Sea is the sole preserve of China?

[Ray]

Yes, nobody "wants" a war. They just sorta happen when everyone starts pointing heat at each other.:)

That is true.

It cannot happen in a vacuum, can it?

One could say that China ‘peacefully’ in total consonance of the Bandung spirit of ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ claimed the whole South China Sea as theirs!

It is the others who are not ready to peacefully coexist.

One does have a point!


One real danger in the region is the frequency of natural disasters. Ironically, the USN probably has the best capabilities to respond to these, limited as they may be in relation to the size of the calamities. Unfortunately, humans seem to prefer the little games they play with each other. We'll see where it gets them in the long run.:rolleyes:

Well if one feels that the US is positioning itself in the Pacific Region because it can save all from natural disasters, then possibly that is why it is doing so!

[Backwards Observer]

How would the continued provocations in the South China Sea constitute a continuing and long-term economic penetration of Africa and South America?



That is the million dollar one!



Nothing!

Unless they bring in military and strategic considerations.

It almost occurs to me to wonder why you left out some of the words in the quote directly beneath the quote you quoted, but I'm sure that any proffered explanation would only further serve to reinforce your point.

As far as the rest of it, clearly there's nothing to worry about then in that respect, I stand corrected.

Ray, although it is difficult to respond to your posts, I do enjoy reading them. They remind me of the Indian movies they use to show on Malaysian TV. Very melodramatic and full of extended and exuberant song and dance numbers. Movies that loved life!:)

[Backwards Observer]

One could say that China ‘peacefully’ in total consonance of the Bandung spirit of ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ claimed the whole South China Sea as theirs!

It is the others who are not ready to peacefully coexist.

One does have a point!

Since the one making this point appears to be you, I suppose that one could. That is quite insightful, however, and further underscores the utmost admiration I have for your deep insights into Chinese thought and culture, a subject normally clouded by stereotypes and generalisations.

If your style of argument is any indication, I imagine that in any war between China and India, the PLA will collapse from exhaustion within the first 48 hours.

[Ray]

It almost occurs to me to wonder why you left out some of the words in the quote directly beneath the quote you quoted, but I'm sure that any proffered explanation would only further serve to reinforce your point.

Like what?


As far as the rest of it, clearly there's nothing to worry about then in that respect, I stand corrected.

Excellent!


Ray, although it is difficult to respond to your posts, I do enjoy reading them. They remind me of the Indian movies they use to show on Malaysian TV. Very melodramatic and full of extended and exuberant song and dance numbers. Movies that loved life!:)

Believe it not, I don't see them.

But then, what is the connection unless you wish to deflect from the reality of the issue for which you have no answers.

I also enjoy your posts.

[Ray]

Since the one making this point appears to be you, I suppose that one could. That is quite insightful, however, and further underscores the utmost admiration I have for your deep insights into Chinese thought and culture, a subject normally clouded by stereotypes and generalisations.

If your style of argument is any indication, I imagine that in any war between China and India, the PLA will collapse from exhaustion within the first 48 hours.

I do not claim any insight to Chinese thought and culture. I am always in the mood to learn. It is not easy to understand the Chinese. Better people than I have failed!

If there is a war between India and China, then both will suffer and others will win.

You want a war? I don't.

I admire the Chinese (honest!). I would rather 'Peacefully Rise' like China and then flex the new found muscles!

[Dayuhan]

That is the predictable PC answer. "Oh yeah! Well what about us?" But our navel levels generally go up and down in relation to some threat or other. It went up a lot after Dec 1941 and went down hugely after 1945 and then has been up and down since. We have used it to throw our weight around as you say, most spectacularly in waters right close to where you are. The thing we use those naval forces for more than any other is keeping the seas open for free trade and we tend to build up when states whose free trade has not been threatened, say Red China, start to build up navies for purposes that aren't defensive, since there is no extant threat. Makes us a bit suspicious. We don't always do that. Sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking nothing serious is happening, like now.

The extant threat is us. Whether or not we perceive ourselves as a threat to anyone, others perceive us as a threat and respond accordingly. Think about it: we aspire to control the sea lanes of the world, for our own benefit... of course we say "protect", but nobody's fooled by the semantics. China depends more than any nation on earth on maritime commerce. If you were in their shoes, you wouldn't feel threatened? Do you think it irrational that the nation most dependent on maritime commerce aspires to have a navy?

Not that I trust the Chinese (or anyone), but their naval aspirations are reasonably consistent with their economic needs and interests.

I fear they will take over the South China Sea, effectively turning it into Chinese territorial waters, thence cowing Vietnam, the PI, Malaysia, Thailand etc into becoming tropical Finlands. After that I fear the consequences, since the killer elites that run China don't impress me as being primarily motivated by the golden rule.

What consequences do you fear?

Certainly if one looks at history the Chinese have shown a periodic habit of killing each other in large numbers, but they haven't much tradition of spilling over and attacking others, and despite their grim human rights record I'm not sure the current Chinese administration really qualifies for membership in a global "killer elite".


It is quite surprising that the Communists, be it the Russians or the Chinese, who have always professed the Theory of Peaceful Coexistence, is now on a different path altogether.

China has always spoken of all to apply the Bandung Spirit (1955) that can be summarised as a call for a peaceful coexistence among the nations, for the liberation from the hegemony of any superpower and for building solidarities towards the weak and those being weakened by the world order of the day.

Chinese actions don't always measure up to Chinese rhetoric. I've heard the same criticism made of the US from time to time. Which would one fear more... or should the fear be that they will mix it up with each other? After all, when elephants fight the grass gets trampled.


Could it be that China used it as a smokescreen to disarm the neighbours and parts of the world into complacency at that time. And then during the phase where they aimed to be a challenge to the US, disarmed the US and West with platitudes and piety of Peaceful Rise, and now that it can challenge the US to some extent, the US being preoccupied with its economy and other 'wars', China is showing its true colours?

Who has been "disarmed". The only thing disarming the US, to the minimal extent to which anything is, is American economic profligacy.

The Chinese are also preoccupied with their economy, as they've good reason to be. It's not as rosy as it's sometimes painted to be, and if they don't maintain an astonishing level of growth they will come up against the threat they most worry about: their own people.


Well, you have to give it to them that they are real clever even if slim customers!

They're getting fatter by the day... consequence of turning capitalist.

[Backwards Observer]

I do not claim any insight to Chinese thought and culture. I am always in the mood to learn.

Y'know, that's the first thing that comes to mind whenever I read your posts about how the Chinese are legendary for this and famous for that and well, everyone just knows these things for a fact and anyone who disagrees is deflecting from the reality for which they have no answers. I think to myself, this Ray guy, he's always in the mood to learn!

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Backwards Observer


Bill Moore, how would you interpret this intentional strategy? A precursor to "Operation Choverlord"?

Absolutely not, this is simply strategic messaging to the countries that border the SCS. I don't think China anticipates a fight, nor wants one, but of course that is conjecture. What isn't conjecture, and you touched on it in a subsequent post, is that this behavior creates the risk of a tactical miscalculation which could lead to events getting out control. Instead of the strategic corporal, we're looking at strategic Capt's playing chess with their warships. Its a dangerous game.

As far as the intentional strategy, you can find China's strategic aims with a little research, it is unclassified and available for the world to read, and claiming the SCS is a key part of their overall strategy. One way to enforce those claims are to send fishing boats out to challenge territorial claims of other nations in the region. There is a better than 50% chance these confrontations are intentional, and there have been several of them. Yes this is a change, and it isn't just about fishing. You may recall there have been several incidents where Chinese "fishing boats" have harassed U.S. Navy ships, so to assume this is just about fishing, or these fishing boats are operating independently from the government is simply naive. What is more interesting is the growing nationalism among some Chinese and their public demand calling upon their government to give the Philippines, Vietnam, etc. a lesson.

Like others have commented, this approach seems contrary to their interests, because one point Dayuhan made that I agree with (on this topic, he makes many good points throughout the forum) is that China's freedom to sail through the SCS isn't threatened, so why potentially risk a conflict by making such aggressive claims? My speculation based on reading their documents is this is part of a larger strategy to undermine the U.S. as a global power (especially regionally, but it has global implications), to gain greater economic and political influence regionally (supported by a strong military). If our national security and our economy are related, as many senior leaders state, then this is clearly in our interests.

If you buy the assumption that there are three levels of relations between states: competition (normal), conflict and war, we are still clearly in the competition relationship with China, but China and some of the SE Asian nations are pushing closer to the conflict realm. I actually think in all likelihood these disputes will be ultimately be settled peacefully, but I don't know who will win the competition. None the less the possibility remains that when they pursue these tactics the risk of miscalculation is always present. If there is a miscalculation will it be isolated, or will it spin out of control? The answer is no one knows.

[Backwards Observer]

The answer is no one knows.

Bill Moore, thanks for your comprehensive response. Assuming that there are only three levels of relations between states: competition, conflict and war; does this mean displays of co-operation are nothing but a foil in order to angle for further advantage? This kinda makes humans sound like a bunch of dirtbags.:) You've mentioned co-evolution in the past, do you believe it is ultimately a zero-sum game?

[Bill Moore]

Competition isn't always cut throat, especially if you play by the established rules. Kids compete for their parents' affection, co-workers compete for promotion, nations pursue self-interests (but not at all costs, that pursuit is often balanced with morality). We all have the ability to be dirt bags, but most of us have a certain degree of civility that moderates our behavior, and I think most humans have some degree of altruistic behavior also. In other words there is room for hope.

Some aspects of relations will ultimately be a zero-sum game, there is only so much oil, only so many fish in the sea, etc., and nations will simultaneously compete for those finite resources, while hopefully pursuing collective action/cooperation on pursuing better means to manage these resources that is fair to all.

One thing I learned about Crystal Balls is that they look nice, but seldom do a good job at predicting the future, so I don't pretend to know what China's behavior portends for the future. I think there is a possibility that they could have a changing of the guard in their government and we could ultimately be partners in the future, and there is also a chance that our relationship could go downhill and we experience the worst case scenario. Co-evolution isn't something that is restricted to war, it can also apply economically, politically, socially, etc. and in those fields co-evolution could equate to more co-operation. No secret, I'm a military guy, so I tend to focus on the worst case, because the nation expects us to be ready for the worst case scenario.

[Backwards Observer]

Competition isn't always cut throat, especially if you play by the established rules. Kids compete for their parents' affection, co-workers compete for promotion, nations pursue self-interests (but not at all costs, that pursuit is often balanced with morality). We all have the ability to be dirt bags, but most of us have a certain degree of civility that moderates our behavior, and I think most humans have some degree of altruistic behavior also. In other words there is room for hope.

Some aspects of relations will ultimately be a zero-sum game, there is only so much oil, only so many fish in the sea, etc., and nations will simultaneously compete for those finite resources, while hopefully pursuing collective action/cooperation on pursuing better means to manage these resources that is fair to all.

One thing I learned about Crystal Balls is that they look nice, but seldom do a good job at predicting the future, so I don't pretend to know what China's behavior portends for the future. I think there is a possibility that they could have a changing of the guard in their government and we could ultimately be partners in the future, and there is also a chance that our relationship could go downhill and we experience the worst case scenario. Co-evolution isn't something that is restricted to war, it can also apply economically, politically, socially, etc. and in those fields co-evolution could equate to more co-operation. No secret, I'm a military guy, so I tend to focus on the worst case, because the nation expects us to be ready for the worst case scenario.

Bill Moore, ave, te salutant.:)

[carl]

The extant threat is us. Whether or not we perceive ourselves as a threat to anyone, others perceive us as a threat and respond accordingly. Think about it: we aspire to control the sea lanes of the world, for our own benefit... of course we say "protect", but nobody's fooled by the semantics. China depends more than any nation on earth on maritime commerce. If you were in their shoes, you wouldn't feel threatened? Do you think it irrational that the nation most dependent on maritime commerce aspires to have a navy?

Extant forces does not mean an extant threat. We are not an extant peacetime threat to Chinese maritime commerce. We weren't even at times where there were Chinese shooting at us and we at then. We didn't blockade NVN until the very end of the war and even that was only to expedite our exit. So we are very careful about when we interfere with sea traffic. We basically keep the lanes open. As a maritime nation that benefits us because FREE trade benefits nations, especially maritime ones. So whether you say we "protect" or "control" the upshot is the same, the ships move without interference. We don't "control" the seas to our benefit beyond that. We don't say this nations ships can go here or but not there for our exclusive commercial benefit.

So in my view, if the Chinese are building a fleet to preserve peacetime sea communications, they are seeing and countering a threat that is not there. If that is why they are doing it, they are wrong in their judgment and wasting a lot of resources. That is the benign interpretation. The problem with the buildup is that it is combined with continuing aggressive, provocative actions at sea. This can cause things to get out of hand as Bill M. notes.

If that is how the Red Chinese regime sees it, they don't see it the way the British, Indians, Brazilians, Japanese see it, all nations dependent upon sea trade. They aren't building navies to challenge the USN.

Like I said, the benign view is the Chinese are just mistaken. The malign view is that they aren't mistaken at all and eventually want to chase off the USN and run things as they see fit, something I believe Bill M. has alluded to. Now that leads to me conclude that they would not go to all that trouble to chase off the USN unless they wanted things to be run differently than they are now. That worries me, as I am guessing it does the Vietnamese for example.


Certainly if one looks at history the Chinese have shown a periodic habit of killing each other in large numbers, but they haven't much tradition of spilling over and attacking others, and despite their grim human rights record I'm not sure the current Chinese administration really qualifies for membership in a global "killer elite".

The Vietnamese remember when the Chinese came. As do the Japanese, or when the Chinese tried to come, twice. I'm pretty sure the Koreans do. The Tibetans don't have to remember, all they have to do is look down the street.
So they do come. In the event though I doubt that is what the neighboring countries actually fear. Like I said above, I am guessing they don't want to be the far eastern analogs of Finland in the bad old days.

The phrase I used was "killer elites", with an s at the end of elite. That meant they are to be viewed within the context of mainland China itself. They are the elite, they are killers, they are they, hence "killer elites." (I hate it when I write unclear and have to untangle things.)

[carl]

Certainly if one looks at history the Chinese have shown a periodic habit of killing each other in large numbers, but they haven't much tradition of spilling over and attacking others...

Something else occurred to me about this comment. With exceptions I think it is mostly true, which doesn't mean it will always be true. Nations can change. But if it is mostly true that would indicate to me a culture that is not all that determined to expand. Determined meaning willing to try in the face of opposition. Opposition is the key. If there is not opposition, it doesn't take much will to keep going. But if there really isn't that much will, it may not take too much opposition to stop the expansion. But my opinion is, you've got to be clear that there will be opposition and that has to be made clear early rather than late.

[Ray]

Since the one making this point appears to be you, I suppose that one could. That is quite insightful, however, and further underscores the utmost admiration I have for your deep insights into Chinese thought and culture, a subject normally clouded by stereotypes and generalisations.

If your style of argument is any indication, I imagine that in any war between China and India, the PLA will collapse from exhaustion within the first 48 hours.

http://china.usc.edu/App_images/southchinasea_lg1.jpg
China claims the highlighted portion of the South China Sea.


Bordered by ten nations and including some of the world’s most important shipping lanes and fisheries, the South China Sea is a vital region. Critically important mineral resources, including oil, are thought to be there in large quantities as well. The Chinese have long laid claim to nearly the entire South China Sea. That claim is contested by many nations and in some instances the conflict has turned violent.
http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=2145&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1


That makes me and some more who are making the point!

Now compare the countries around the SCS and the image above giving the Chinese claim.

http://china.usc.edu/App_Images//south_china_sea_2.jpg

Read about the Bandung Conference of 1955, the Bandung Spirit?

Both the territorial claim, the Bandung Spirit and actions that are incongruous to what the Chinese say does indicate a wee bit on the Chinese mindset and actions.

Glad to be of help!

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
Certainly if one looks at history the Chinese have shown a periodic habit of killing each other in large numbers, but they haven't much tradition of spilling over and attacking others...

What are others?

What are the Chinese?

Was Southern China always 'Chinese'?

Who are the 100 Yues?

Capture of Tibet? War against India, War against Vietnam?

But then that is for another thread!

[Bob's World]

US - Chinese competition is healthy. Our national attitude toward that competition is not particularly healthy though. We're just not used to thinking in terms of many states all having varying degrees of regional power and influence as was common in the pre-Cold War era.

I think the main point for the US to come to realize is that US influence appears to always rise on the tide of some other state's power (and the perceived fears and concerns of those smaller states within the sphere of influence of that rising power).

During the Cold War US influence floated highest where states were most concerned with some nearby threat. Following the demise of the Soviet threat the "tide went out" and US influence found itself stuck in the mud, so to speak, where we did not make the proper adjustments to account for that change of tide.

Today we see US influence rising across the Asia-Pacific region. Huge breakthroughs with Vietnam allowing US Navy into Cam Ranh Bay; most recently with talks with Burma, and even the Philippines looking for much increased conventional military interaction. This does not mean that any of these states do not want to maximize the nature of their relationships with China, but that they also don't want to be too vulnerable to having those relationships turn coercive either.

I call this simply "the lesser of two evils syndrome." The US makes a good partner to balance the impact of closer threats with; but even a relationship with a "good partner" can become wearisome when it stays too long, or fails to adapt to the times.

We will continue to see the rise of US influence in the Pacific. The tide is rising there, and we are, for many, the lesser of two evils.

[Backwards Observer]

http://china.usc.edu/App_images/southchinasea_lg1.jpg
China claims the highlighted portion of the South China Sea.



That makes me and some more who are making the point!

Now compare the countries around the SCS and the image above giving the Chinese claim.

http://china.usc.edu/App_Images//south_china_sea_2.jpg

Read about the Bandung Conference of 1955, the Bandung Spirit?

Both the territorial claim, the Bandung Spirit and actions that are incongruous to what the Chinese say does indicate a wee bit on the Chinese mindset and actions.

Glad to be of help!

Whoa, hold the phone there, Magellan! That's the South China Sea?! I'm gonna have to get back to ya. I was thinking of a totally different South China Sea...y'know, the one off the coast of India.:)

[Ray]

Whoa, hold the phone there, Magellan! That's the South China Sea?! I'm gonna have to get back to ya. I was thinking of a totally different South China Sea...y'know, the one off the coast of India.

Forgive me honourable Han Bannerman!

I did not know that is the Arabian Sea!

Foolish Indian to talk to honourable Chinese knowledgeable high ranking Han Bannerman!

Forgive.

But won't kowtow!

Wahe Guru da Khalsa. Wahe Guru de Fateh!

[Ray]

Have we ever wondered why if the US is so 'hated', even their past adversaries find US 'comfortable'?

Have we ever wondered how China has been so good to the US in converting it from a 'hate' icon to a loveable cuddly teddy bear?

Not only in the Pacific rim, but all around the world?

[Ray]

Now some news for Dayuhan and Backwards Observer


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.

US Ambassador to Australia #Jeffrey Bleich told The Australian Financial Review yesterday that whichever option Canberra pursued as a replacement for its Collins class submarines, Washington viewed #Australia’s subs program as crucial to security in the Asia-Pacific region.
http://afr.com/p/national/us_floats_nuclear_subs_option_uPMgRrev3KjNwBLfFxpd eO


Nasty chaps, these Americans.

Always obstructing the peaceful rise of China to grab all!

Imagine that!

Peaceful China and silly US creating tensions.

They should allow China to peacefully rise!

[slapout9]

Perhaps someone here knows how accurate this is. I heard on the radio(conservative viewpoint radio station) yesterday that China was struggling with it's long range missile technology, so the Clinton administration eased some technology transfer restrictions in exchange for a very healthy campaign contribution. Now the Chinese have true ICBM capability for their missiles. Anyone know how accurate that statement is?

[carl]

Slap:

Look for articles by Bill Gertz. I think he has done a lot of work on China. I vaguely remember something like that but most of my books are in storage.

They get a lot from us now, whether we want to give it or not. Their cyberespionage effort is so titanic that it probably is prudent to assume anything, and I mean anything, we have, they have full info on.

Israel has given an awful lot to them also, voluntarily.

[Bob's World]

Have we ever wondered why if the US is so 'hated', even their past adversaries find US 'comfortable'?

Have we ever wondered how China has been so good to the US in converting it from a 'hate' icon to a lovable cuddly teddy bear?

Not only in the Pacific rim, but all around the world?

Ray,

The US is not "hated", in general, at least not according to most studies I have been aware of. When pressed, most who express discontent with America are quick to point out that it is not America, Americans, or American culture that angers them, but rather American foreign policies and how they are implemented. They are angry at our government To which most Americans would say, "get in line, I'm angry too and this is my fight, not yours."

But then, most Americans and certainly our politicians seem to be blissfully unaware of how are policies are perceived abroad. It used to be that large states did not have to worry a lick about what people thought, and as to states, only had to worry about what stronger states thought. That may still be true about states, which is why we place so much emphasis on nuclear proliferation. Gaining a nuke gives any small state a much louder voice than they had before, and those states who are already members of that club don't like how that forces them to change their security/influence calculus. More importantly, what I believe is still overly ignored, is that in the modern era large powerful states must take into account how POPULACES feel about the impact of their policies. Populaces are hard to deter. Populaces are hard to target. Populaces create a massive problem for large powerful states. Observe the past 10 years of "War on Terror" by the US as exhibit "A."

This is not an impossible situation to deal with, but it is a very new situation requiring very new priorities and approaches than those employed for the past several centuries, or perhaps forever. It's a bold new world. We have departed an American Century and entered a Millennium that belongs to the average person everywhere. States are in denial and lashing out currently, but states are evolving slowly as well.

So, yes, the US has suffered a decline in the Middle East as populaces there have grown increasingly resistant to a family of US foreign policies designed for a Cold War threat that no longer exists, and policies that have been far too slow to adjust to the changing times. Equally, the US is enjoying a growth of influence in the Asia-Pacific region as populaces and governments there grow increasingly wary of (while at the same time enjoying the benefits of) the growing economic power of Regional powers such as India and China.

The US is right to shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region, but not to rekindle old programs built around designs to contain the Sino-Soviet conglomerate of old, but rather to re-balance to the world we live in today. A world where Taiwan and Korea are no longer critical terrain necessary to keep China on the mainland, but rather are economic giants in their own right and quite capable of funding their own security requirements. A world where the US shares as many security interests with China as it has in opposition, and should seek partnerships to maximize the economies of working those interests together. Trust but verify. it won't be the first time that navies worked together to secure their shared interests while at the same time trained to fight each other on the day conflicting interests came to the fore.

The US may well someday be viewed as am odd historic anomaly of powerful nations an "Empire who paid retail" for what it took and that subsidized the costs of security for other nations on the backs of the American taxpayers. This is all going to balance out over the next few decades, but hopefully without the need for some major cataclysmic event to force that change.

We live in a era of transition. How well the US fares in that transition will be based upon how well we envision and adjust to the world that is emerging, not how loyally and doggedly we cling to and attempt to sustain the one that has faded into history. Meanwhile small states have options. They need not join one team or an other, but wisely spread their bets across many partners. This is not a bad thing, nor is it a new thing. It is just something that has been on hold during the odd, ideologically divided era of Cold War that has so defined that American Century.

[slapout9]

Slap:

Look for articles by Bill Gertz. I think he has done a lot of work on China. I vaguely remember something like that but most of my books are in storage.

They get a lot from us now, whether we want to give it or not. Their cyberespionage effort is so titanic that it probably is prudent to assume anything, and I mean anything, we have, they have full info on.

Israel has given an awful lot to them also, voluntarily.


Thanks carl, here is a link for those interested, has some information that is relavant to this thread and a lot of other stuff.
http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/

[carl]

Slap:

I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.

[Backwards Observer]

Slap:

I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.

You state with certainty that full scale war with China is inevitable within the decade,and the decisive factors contributing to a probable US defeat are the lack of advanced fighters and an intel community packed with fools and communist sympathisers. Shouldn't the bulk of the defense budget be redirected to the USAF and the intelligence community be ruthlessly purged of traitors?

Does this mean that any nation engaged in trade with China is in effect aiding the enemy? Shouldn't these countries be called out on their perfidy, whoever they might be?

What do you recommend countries in the region do to prepare for this? Should they all immediately set about developing nuclear deterrence?

List of Countries by Military Expenditures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

[Dayuhan]

In case anyone's actually interested, the Chinese fishing vessels have withdrawn. There's still a Philippine Coast Guard ship around, which probably won't be there for long. What some people may not realize is that these incursions by fishing vessels happen regularly. In most cases there's no response, as the ships are often not detected (patrols are irregular) or there's no ship close enough to respond. In any event it's winding down without anything remotely close to, say, the 1988 Johnson Reef incident, which might be looked at by anyone thinking China's current behaviour is a new thing.


Absolutely not, this is simply strategic messaging to the countries that border the SCS... Instead of the strategic corporal, we're looking at strategic Capt's playing chess with their warships. Its a dangerous game.

Dangerous, yes, but both sides seem aware of that and are actually being quite conservative. The ships sent by the Chinese to support the fishermen were civilian vessels without overt armament; they didn't send Navy vessels or produce any direct threat, which they certainly could have done. Based on publicly available evidence it's really not possible to say whether the incident was purposely generated to produce a message or whether a routine pillage at Scarborough Shoal turned into an incident due to detection and response.


As far as the intentional strategy, you can find China's strategic aims with a little research, it is unclassified and available for the world to read, and claiming the SCS is a key part of their overall strategy. One way to enforce those claims are to send fishing boats out to challenge territorial claims of other nations in the region. There is a better than 50% chance these confrontations are intentional, and there have been several of them. Yes this is a change, and it isn't just about fishing.

How is it a change? It's been happening for a long, long time. As I said above, the intrusions of fishing boats have been a constant for years (not just Chinese; the Philippines has had issues with Taiwanese and Japanese fishermen as well). Poaching fish is old practice in the SCS.


My speculation based on reading their documents is this is part of a larger strategy to undermine the U.S. as a global power (especially regionally, but it has global implications), to gain greater economic and political influence regionally (supported by a strong military). If our national security and our economy are related, as many senior leaders state, then this is clearly in our interests.

I'm not sure I agree that this is a strategy to undermine US influence. If anything it seems calculated to increase US influence, as neighboring States look to the US, and become more willing to make concessions to the US, to balance Chinese influence. Certainly Chinese economic and political influence in the region is not enhanced, as ASEAN countries come under popular pressure to do less business with China and to seek other balancing alliances. I'd say that they're less concerned with undermining the US than with stamping their own pressure, even if that means increased US influence.


Extant forces does not mean an extant threat. We are not an extant peacetime threat to Chinese maritime commerce.

Threat is a question of perception. Many Americans perceive China as a threat to America... hell, many Americans perceive Iran as a threat. These perceptions may not have much rational basis, but they are still held. We might say that China's military force is out of proportion to our perception of any threat to China, but they build their forces according to their perception of threat, not ours. Much of the world believes that American military force is far out of proportion to any realistically assessed threat to America... are they entirely wrong?


So we are very careful about when we interfere with sea traffic. We basically keep the lanes open. As a maritime nation that benefits us because FREE trade benefits nations, especially maritime ones. So whether you say we "protect" or "control" the upshot is the same, the ships move without interference. We don't "control" the seas to our benefit beyond that. We don't say this nations ships can go here or but not there for our exclusive commercial benefit.

We don't keep the lanes open. Nobody's threatening to close them, and we could pull our entire Navy back to our shores without putting commerce at risk, except perhaps near Somalia. What we maintain is the capacity to interfere if we choose to do so. That's kind of like a nuclear bomb: you don't have to use it to maintain the threat, because everybody knows it's there.


So in my view, if the Chinese are building a fleet to preserve peacetime sea communications, they are seeing and countering a threat that is not there. If that is why they are doing it, they are wrong in their judgment and wasting a lot of resources.

Much of the world, many Americans among them, believes that the US wastes a lot of resources seeing and countering threats that are not there. We don't make decisions based on other people's assessment of threats, we make them on our assessment of threats. The Chinese do the same. Throughout history nations that depend on maritime commerce for survival have built navies. Should that be different now?

Aside from the perception of threat, we have to consider the generalized Chinese desire to force their way into the top table, to be taken seriously, to be a player with military weight equal to their economic weight. If you've followed Chinese commentary over the years, you'd have noted a phase of public exasperation over what was considered an absurd situation: that has-been nations like Britain and France had more potent navies, greater expeditionary capacity, and more perceived influence on global affairs than China. China's in a "coming out" phase, blending great arrogance with great insecurity... the US went through a phase like that in its own history. It may not be entirely rational and it's not the only influence out there, but it's not a factor that can fully be discounted either.


If that is how the Red Chinese regime sees it, they don't see it the way the British, Indians, Brazilians, Japanese see it, all nations dependent upon sea trade. They aren't building navies to challenge the USN.

India has in fact built a quite substantial Navy, and the British still maintain a Navy that might be considered out of proportion to their economic needs. The difference is that you don't perceive these nations as a challenge. Again, remember that China's dependence on maritime commerce is greater than that of any other nation on earth. A hostile power that could cut off Chinese access to Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, which could be done far from China's shores, could bring their economy grinding to a halt in no time. Powers exist that can do this, and those powers are not entirely friendly. In their position, would we not perceive a threat? If China could, at any time of their choosing, cut us off from our primary commodity imports and merchandise exports (to the extent that we have any), would we not see that as an issue?


Now that leads to me conclude that they would not go to all that trouble to chase off the USN unless they wanted things to be run differently than they are now.

Did they chase off the USN? When did that happen, I must have missed it. The 7th fleet flagship was parked in Manila a few weeks ago, so it must have been recent...


Have we ever wondered why if the US is so 'hated', even their past adversaries find US 'comfortable'?

Is the US "hated"? Maybe in some parts of the world, but not in SE Asia, despite a rather mixed historical legacy. People are suspicous of American motives and don't want to be in a subordinate position to the US, but given the history that's not irrational. They also see the US as potentially useful and they're not averse to having a relationship with the US... they just want it to be a peer-to-peer relationship, not one where the US is in charge. Again, this is not unreasonable. I'd say SE and E Asia aspire to have a relationship with the US similar to the relationship between the US and Europe, not one that brings them back to the colonial/neocolonial rut of bygone days.

[Dayuhan]

Have we ever wondered how China has been so good to the US in converting it from a 'hate' icon to a loveable cuddly teddy bear?

Not only in the Pacific rim, but all around the world?

When did the Chinese convert the US from anything to anything else?


Now some news for Dayuhan and Backwards Observer...

Nasty chaps, these Americans.

Always obstructing the peaceful rise of China to grab all!

Imagine that!

Peaceful China and silly US creating tensions.

They should allow China to peacefully rise!

The sub story is a bit overstated; I can't see it inflaming any tensions with China. There will be a ritual denunciation and business will go on as usual.

The idea that China intends to "grab all" seems a bit over the top, as is the belief, widespread in much of the world, that the US intends to "grab all".


I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.

Gertz is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything he writes or publishes. I know he refers to a Congressional report, but we all know those reports can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.

Certainly one wouldn't go all Pollyanna and decide that the Chinese are entirely benign and couldn't possibly be any threat to anyone... but the hysterical Sinophobia that pops up now and again is every bit as irrational and potentially every bit as dangerous. Useful, though, if you're one of those who feels bereft without someone to fear.

A side note for those who love to look for linkages... the annual US/Philippines military exercises start Monday, which may or may not have anything to do with the Scarborough incident. Not the only exercise, but the largest scheduled bilateral one.

[Ray]

Ray,

The US is not "hated", in general, at least not according to most studies I have been aware of. When pressed, most who express discontent with America are quick to point out that it is not America, Americans, or American culture that angers them, but rather American foreign policies and how they are implemented. They are angry at our government To which most Americans would say, "get in line, I'm angry too and this is my fight, not yours."

Given the refrain in some posts making out that US is the 'villain of the piece' and China pure as driven snow, I was merely being obtuse, if that is the right word to express what I was meaning.


But then, most Americans and certainly our politicians seem to be blissfully unaware of how are policies are perceived abroad. It used to be that large states did not have to worry a lick about what people thought, and as to states, only had to worry about what stronger states thought. That may still be true about states, which is why we place so much emphasis on nuclear proliferation. Gaining a nuke gives any small state a much louder voice than they had before, and those states who are already members of that club don't like how that forces them to change their security/influence calculus. More importantly, what I believe is still overly ignored, is that in the modern era large powerful states must take into account how POPULACES feel about the impact of their policies. Populaces are hard to deter. Populaces are hard to target. Populaces create a massive problem for large powerful states. Observe the past 10 years of "War on Terror" by the US as exhibit "A."

This is not an impossible situation to deal with, but it is a very new situation requiring very new priorities and approaches than those employed for the past several centuries, or perhaps forever. It's a bold new world. We have departed an American Century and entered a Millennium that belongs to the average person everywhere. States are in denial and lashing out currently, but states are evolving slowly as well.


While much of what you say is true, I would like to believe that the US of the Cold War era is no longer the same and instead are much more sensitive to other nations' aspirations and that is why more and more nations of the world, which were antagonists earlier, are more amenable to the US policies and US aims.


So, yes, the US has suffered a decline in the Middle East as populaces there have grown increasingly resistant to a family of US foreign policies designed for a Cold War threat that no longer exists, and policies that have been far too slow to adjust to the changing times. Equally, the US is enjoying a growth of influence in the Asia-Pacific region as populaces and governments there grow increasingly wary of (while at the same time enjoying the benefits of) the growing economic power of Regional powers such as India and China.

The US is right to shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region, but not to rekindle old programs built around designs to contain the Sino-Soviet conglomerate of old, but rather to re-balance to the world we live in today. A world where Taiwan and Korea are no longer critical terrain necessary to keep China on the mainland, but rather are economic giants in their own right and quite capable of funding their own security requirements. A world where the US shares as many security interests with China as it has in opposition, and should seek partnerships to maximize the economies of working those interests together. Trust but verify. it won't be the first time that navies worked together to secure their shared interests while at the same time trained to fight each other on the day conflicting interests came to the fore.

I would like to believe that the fact that the US has influenced the various 'awakenings' and have found popular resonance in the Middle East is indicative that the US is more acceptable than before.

It is true that Korea and Taiwan are economic giants yet because of being small in size that offers them no strategic space, require the benign presence of the US to ensure that they are not swamped by the sheer might of their giant neighbour.

The growing influence of the US in the Pacific region is because of shared security goals. The smaller nations too have to survive and be economically viable and so they too have the right to the resources of the sea. And the same is permitted to them by international conventions. Likewise, it is in the interest of the US that the world order is not too badly stacked against her.

It is to the interest of all that the economies are mutually supporting, be it that of the US or China or any other nation. Each country works towards this end, but it, in no way wants security of its national and strategic interests sold at the altar of commerce alone!


The US may well someday be viewed as am odd historic anomaly of powerful nations an "Empire who paid retail" for what it took and that subsidized the costs of security for other nations on the backs of the American taxpayers. This is all going to balance out over the next few decades, but hopefully without the need for some major cataclysmic event to force that change.

It is true that the world order as desired by the US is at the expense of the US taxpayer, but then no American can deny the pride that they have because the US still 'rules the waves'. The Chinese too take pride in the fact that they are a economic giant and on the way to be a military giant, not because of some malicious intent, but because they too feel that given their new found might, they too want to 'rule the waves' and, as it appears, extract their pound of flesh.


We live in a era of transition. How well the US fares in that transition will be based upon how well we envision and adjust to the world that is emerging, not how loyally and doggedly we cling to and attempt to sustain the one that has faded into history. Meanwhile small states have options. They need not join one team or an other, but wisely spread their bets across many partners. This is not a bad thing, nor is it a new thing. It is just something that has been on hold during the odd, ideologically divided era of Cold War that has so defined that American Century.

As it looks so far, the nations find it more comforting to be with the US rather than with others. It is just that they know where the US stands in the world order, while the others are unknown and appear to be brash and crude like the noveau riche.

[Ray]

On the issue of the US going to war with China, one cannot predict its certainty. One can only hope that it never has to happen.

Trade with likely adversaries can always assist them and of that their is no doubt. Therefore, the trade has to be monitored and balanced. Assets like high technology and defence innovations should not be shared by the nation that is better off in these fields than the adversary.

However, trade with economic payoffs should always be engaged in.

Nuclear deterrence has its spinoff. However, nuclear deterrence alone is no failsafe answer. One has to have strategic depth and without that, nuclear deterrence is meaningless if the adversary has strategic depth.

[Backwards Observer]

On the issue of the US going to war with China, one cannot predict its certainty. One can only hope that it never has to happen.

Trade with likely adversaries can always assist them and of that their is no doubt. Therefore, the trade has to be monitored and balanced. Assets like high technology and defence innovations should not be shared by the nation that is better off in these fields than the adversary.

However, trade with economic payoffs should always be engaged in.

Nuclear deterrence has its spinoff. However, nuclear deterrence alone is no failsafe answer. One has to have strategic depth and without that, nuclear deterrence is meaningless if the adversary has strategic depth.

Well said, Ray. But you're wrong, war is inevitable within the next ten years and any nation conducting trade with an unspeakably evil force like China is a a direct party to that evil.

[tequila]

Nuclear deterrence has its spinoff. However, nuclear deterrence alone is no failsafe answer. One has to have strategic depth and without that, nuclear deterrence is meaningless if the adversary has strategic depth.

Can you clarify what you mean by "strategic depth"?

[Dayuhan]

Given the refrain in some posts making out that US is the 'villain of the piece' and China pure as driven snow, I was merely being obtuse, if that is the right word to express what I was meaning.

Obtuse is I think an excellent word for it... but I'm curious, where exactly has anyone said that "that US is the 'villain of the piece' and China pure as driven snow"?

[Ray]

All have withdrawn from the disputed area.

That there has been no confrontation before is because there was no clamorous demand by any party that the seas are there. It is only when China used military might as against Vietnam that the littoral nations realised that unless one took action, by default the Seas would be usurped by China in the similar fashion as they did to the 100 Yues territory.

The ships sent by the Chinese are said to be reconnaissance vessels. Are they civilian? Are they like the Russian trawlers which too were said to be civilian? Isn’t it a typical Communist way to cloak military activities under a civilian garb? You can fool people once, but you cannot fool them all the time!

Many countries do fish illegally in other’s waters. Call it poaching if you will. There is nothing new about that. However, when a nation, as did China against Vietnam, use military might, it does ring alarm bells. It is no longer poaching. It is asserting rights, even if those rights are most dubiously claimed.

There is no doubt that China wants to ‘show up’ the US as a nation that it is what they call ‘paper tiger’, or in other words, all gas and no go!

It is true that the US taxpayers’ money goes to ensure that other nations are not swamped, but then the US also gains from the spinoff. It proves to the smaller nations that are about to be swamped that the real McCoy still remains the US. True, it appears that these nations do not swoon over the US, but in many forums, they go the US way and indirectly indicate that the US is Mohammed Ali, the greatest that moves like a butterfly!

What makes it that the US perception that China and Iran are not a threat?

If the US is unduly getting hypersensitive, what is the threat to China, if one is to ask that question, with the manner in which she is militarising in such a hell fired hurry and aggressively planting their flag all over their neighbourhood? China is a large country and its neighbours are in no position to threaten China’s existence. So, where is the threat?

While countries may not agree with the US foreign policy, there is no nation that believes that the US military is out of proportion. The world, grudgingly if you will, accept the concept that the US is the ‘global policeman’ and none are in a position to challenge it and, if indeed if that be the case, they are nowhere close to have a military ‘out of proportion’ and in fact is woefully short.

It is true that the US is not keeping the sea lanes open. She is keeping the sea lanes open as per her strategic perspective. It could be, as per some, immoral, but then who is there to challenge her strategic aims, more so, when the same converges with most of the littoral nations. China has shot her bolt by her meaningless aggressiveness and the littoral nations are not impressed!

Indeed if many nations see that the US is being merely Don Quixote tilting against windmills, how come they are siding with the US? Indeed the US goes by her own strategic objectives, but is it US’ fault that their objectives converge with those of the littoral states?

The Chinese are entitled to pursue her strategic objective, but if that does not converge with theirs and instead with the US, are the littoral states wrong to side with the US?

If China is faced with ‘insecurity’ and wants to ‘come out’ and it does not converge with the security of the littoral state, then it is China’s problem and if the littoral states find some other country with which they find convergence, then so be it. No reason for China to cry foul since she, as it is , is fouling the waters!

It is a canard that India has a substantial navy and the British has a Navy beyond her requirement. India is developing her Navy and is still years behind. The British Navy has been withered so badly that one wonders if they have a Navy at all. They do not even have an operational aircraft carrier to safeguard her overseas territories. So, what exactly brought you to your inference unless it was to alarm and display that you are knowledgeable?

It is another bogus claim that China can be cut off from her maritime interest in Africa and the Middle East. What is Gwadar port in Pakistan and the port in Myanmar all about that China has built and the railways and road connecting them (or planned to be connected) to China? Cosmetic or that act is of an enduring and loveable soul like Mother Teresa? Let us not fool ourselves to prove a point that is bogus and contrived!

7th Fleet was parked in Manila? I thought it was being said by those who claim to be in Philippines that the Philippines was dead against any US presence in their country? How come Philippines has a change of heart? Very off and very convenient to sometimes say that the Philippines are dead against US presence and when convenient say that the US is swarming all over!!!!!!!

The US policy has changed. It is now peer to peer and not subordinate.

That is why we all love the US.

[Ray]

Obtuse is I think an excellent word for it... but I'm curious, where exactly has anyone said that "that US is the 'villain of the piece' and China pure as driven snow"?

Check your posts.

Let me not explain the obvious!

[Ray]

Well said, Ray. But you're wrong, war is inevitable within the next ten years and any nation conducting trade with an unspeakably evil force like China is a a direct party to that evil.

As a Chinese, if that is your reading, then we must gear up. You would know better what the CCP thinks.

It will be a sad thing if you, as Chinese, force it on the world.

Coexistence is not a four letter word as yet!

I have said trade is a must.

I have said no selling of high technology and that is all!

[Ray]

Can you clarify what you mean by "strategic depth"?

Maybe this may help

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/14-defining-strategic-depth-910\

That apart, bareboned maybe this is it:

Strategic depth is a term in military literature that broadly refers to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants’ industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production.

[Ray]

When did the Chinese convert the US from anything to anything else?

The day they started flexing their muscles.




The sub story is a bit overstated; I can't see it inflaming any tensions with China. There will be a ritual denunciation and business will go on as usual.



The idea that China intends to "grab all" seems a bit over the top, as is the belief, widespread in much of the world, that the US intends to "grab all".

What would you say about the claims to the South China Sea?

Chinese birthright?

[Dayuhan]

The day they started flexing their muscles.

And that converted the US from one thing into another?


What would you say about the claims to the South China Sea?

Chinese birthright?

Complete nonsense of course; if old maps and artifacts were a reasonable basis for a territorial claim, Italy would be claiming sovereignty over England and Spain over Mexico, among many others. Of course the nature of nations is to not back down, so there will likely be a lot of talk and pushing and shoving for many years to come.

Classic bit of diplomat-talk, from the statement of the Philippine foreign minister...

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/254937/news/nation/statement-of-foreign-secretary-albert-f-del-rosario-on-the-scarborough-shoal-issue


Somewhat later, the second white Chinese civilian ship had decided to leave the area so that only one white Chinese ship remained.

The meeting with Ambassador Ma last night resulted in a stalemate as we had demanded of one another that the other nation’s ship be first to leave the area.

Conjures up the vision of the sailors growing old out there while the diplomats argue over who's going to leave first...

[Backwards Observer]

As a Chinese, if that is your reading, then we must gear up. You would know better what the CCP thinks.

It will be a sad thing if you, as Chinese, force it on the world.

Coexistence is not a four letter word as yet!

I have said trade is a must.

I have said no selling of high technology and that is all!

Try and focus for a second, Ray, there's a good chap. This is from the post by Carl. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him:


I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.

Does this mean Carl is a Chinese?

The idea that I, as some internet nobody, even a half-Chinese one, am going to force war upon the world is intriguing.

At long last, Ray, have you no shame?

[Bill Moore]

Dayuhan,

I heard a similiar comment on MSNBC from one of their many comical spokespersons when they tried, as you, to dismis this event as mere poaching. They, like you, simply embrace the anti-government, everyone is right, but our competitors and foes. If you want to simply be provocative, feel free to do so, but there is an ocean of difference between a rogue fishing ship poaching, and state sponsored intrusions that are supported by their Navy. Fortunately, people who have to consider what this means to their security interests can't afford the luxury of burying their head in the sand.

[JMA]

Gertz is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything he writes or publishes. I know he refers to a Congressional report, but we all know those reports can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.

LOL... I take it you don't agree with Gertz then.

May I use this response to blow off whenever you post something in future?

[Bob's World]

I guess the question comes down to how much control the US actually needs to exercise over the South China Sea. After all, it is not our territorial water either.

Several interesting (to me, anyway) issues all touch this topic:

1. Spheres of influence: All major nations have spheres of influence. This is reasonable and smart. The questions and conflicts arise around issues of how large should any particular nation's sphere be, how they define their unique role within that sphere, where spheres overlap, how those who live within these spheres feel about that foreign intrusion of policy and presence, etc. We live in an age where the US has grown used to exercising a global sphere of influence, at least for certain issues. Other states that are rising in power are seeking to expand their own spheres of influence. Is ours too large, or are our expectations too extensive?? How do we deal with the overlaps that will naturally occur? This is an important, dynamic issue, and one we need to deal with logically. The most illogical position would be to assume that the status quo of the Cold War would endure as a new normal.

2. National interests. Closely related, but nations have interests, which is why they worry about spheres of influence. Sometimes these are shared with other nations, sometimes they are neutral, and sometimes they are in conflict. Knowing clearly what ones own true and vital interests are is important to keep one's own appetites in check. Appreciating the interests of others is equally important. I don't think the US does a very good job on either count in recent years. The largest contributor to US problems in this regard is the post-Cold War adoption of the belief that we make ourselves safer when we make others more like us, thereby making such conversions a vital interest. This is such a "born again Christian" approach to foreign policy. We are so excited about what we find to be so wonderful for ourselves, that we make a royal ass of ourselves by hard selling the same to everyone we deal with. As a counter I offer that "we make ourselves safer when we are perceived as the nation most dedicated to helping others to be more like themselves." This is the essence of the principles of liberty and self-governance our nation was founded upon.

3. Control vs. Influence. Control is in the eye of the person on the receiving end. I suspect we are perceived as a little to a lot too controlling just about everywhere.

4. Vulnerability. The US is so used to being big, rich, strong and powerful. But rising states adopting relatively low-cost counters to out big, rich, storng, powerful platforms make us feel vulnerable. We don't like that feeling. That is natural, the real question is what we do about it. Currently our approach is to simply spend more to make us even bigger, stronger and more powerful, even though it is no longer a reasonable cost validated by a true threat to do so. Like a gambler doubling down on losing hands in an effort to catch back up. Time to perhaps play a new game. Our national security is based on far more than just our military might, and to over spend building big, expensive, vulnerable platforms not only weakens other aspects of the equation; but if placed to the test and defeated, even in part, by smaller asymmetric means, we will lose so much credibility and influence that it could be a sea-change event. It has happened many times before, even in recent times. When Spain lost her Armada; when the French fleet was defeated at Trafalgar; when the Russian fleet was crushed by Japan; when Japan's fleet was crushed by the US; etc. Why would we push such a large, vulnerable target so deep into an opponents face so as to dare him to prove how vulnerable it truly is?

National leaders have recognized that the US is at a strategic turning point. They have directed a "pivot" of focus from Europe toward the Pacific. But I believe it is still only a half-step in the right direction. We have refocused our military, but we have not yet rebalanced and refocused our Ends-Ways-Means as a whole for engaging the world. The logical time to have launched such a major review was during the Clinton administration. It might have saved us a great deal of trouble if we had; but better late than never. This is not a Democrat issue or a Republican issue, as both sides of the aisle are equally culpable. Similarly, this is not a Defense vs State issue, as again, each are equally culpable. This is a national issue and an issue of national importance. It may well play out some day in the South China Sea, but it will affect us all.

How the US Navy deals with naval issues as we execute this pivot is far too important to leave to the Navy to decide. Same with our Air, Land, Space, Cyber and SOF forces. Each will see the problems through the lens of their own equities, and will overly push for solutions that make sense in that context. Time for a new, larger context to balance this all against.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan,

I heard a similiar comment on MSNBC from one of their many comical spokespersons when they tried, as you, to dismis this event as mere poaching. They, like you, simply embrace the anti-government, everyone is right, but our competitors and foes. If you want to simply be provocative, feel free to do so, but there is an ocean of difference between a rogue fishing ship poaching, and state sponsored intrusions that are supported by their Navy.

Chinese fishing boats do this all the time. They've been doing it for decades. There have been many, many incidents... boats get impounded, fishermen get arrested, the Chinese government presses for their release. If they have Navy (or in this case non-Navy) assets close enough, sometimes they push in. The basic message is - and has been - that they intend to fish anywhere they want. Does there have to be anything more?

The problem is that when people outside the region suddenly notice this long-running drama, they react as if it's something new, some upping of the ante, some new move that requires a response. In some quarters we hear opinions that suggest that anything but a chest-thumping showdown would be cowering defeat and anything less than hysteria is burying your head in the sand, as if there is no room between.

So we have it... this has been going on a long time. Sometimes it gets noticed by the world, sometimes not. Does it need a specific response, and if so from who? That's the question, no? I'm personally more worried about exaggerated responses than insufficient ones, because I think they'd do little or no good and potentially a lot of harm.

There's room for concern, but the moment our response shows fear - and no mistake, chest-thumping bluster is a sign of fear - we create more troubles than we solve.


Fortunately, people who have to consider what this means to their security interests can't afford the luxury of burying their head in the sand.

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

[JMA]

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

No... it is rather like this: (I quote)


(You) is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything (you) writes or publishes. I know (you) refers to a (supposed local knowledge), but we all know those (experiences) can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.

I think I'm bang on here.

[Backwards Observer]

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

No... it is rather like this: (I quote)

(You) is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything (you) writes or publishes. I know (you) refers to a (supposed local knowledge), but we all know those (experiences) can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.

I think I'm bang on here.

And the other one is, well...you know...a Chinese. Draw your own conclusions.

[davidbfpo]

There has been quite a lot of comment here and analysis elsewhere, albeit some months ago, regarding the use of non-naval ships in incidents in this maritime area. IIRC IISS published an Adelphi Paper on the growth in para-military / non-naval / law enforcement vessels in the Pacific; sometimes with very odd aspects, like US Coast Guard ships carrying Chinese law enforcement staff in the Bering Street area.

So this latest incident with Chinese maritime surveillance ships comes as no surprise.

One of the big issue in the South China Sea is the lack of information on whose ships are where and what are they doing.

Vietnam's maritime safety bureau or whatever it is called has several very modern, state of the art, Swedish built maritime surveillance aircraft and is one of the few countries that has the capability to gather and process the information. Incidentally the USCG has a few of them too.

I am 95% certain the aircraft sold isthe Saab 2000 MPA:http://www.saabgroup.com/Air/Airborne-Solutions/Airborne-Surveillance/Maritime_Surveillance/Saab_2000_MPA/

[JMA]

And the other one is, well...you know...a Chinese. Draw your own conclusions.

That makes you right or makes you wrong?

Or half right and half wrong? ;)

[Backwards Observer]

That makes you right or makes you wrong?

Or half right and half wrong? ;)

As a crusty Brit-Aussie transplant Vietnam vet used to take pleasure in saying, "He's a wong, but he's all white." Har ####ing har...nice guy though.:)

[Ray]

Try and focus for a second, Ray, there's a good chap. This is from the post by Carl. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him:



Does this mean Carl is a Chinese?

The idea that I, as some internet nobody, even a half-Chinese one, am going to force war upon the world is intriguing.

At long last, Ray, have you no shame?

No not really.

You did raise some issue about war, or was I mistaken?

You will forgive me, but you to talk in riddles and forced cynical humour. For a simple soul like me, it is difficult to cut through the fog that you generate.

I think you did say you were Chinese or did I read you wrong. If so, a thousand pardons.

[Backwards Observer]

No not really.

I think you did say you were Chinese or did I read you wrong. If so, a thousand pardons.

That's great...sir. But I reckon I've had about all the "freedom of speech", and "We hold these Truths to be self-evident", I can stomach for the time being...

[Ray]

war is inevitable within the next ten years

Backwards,

Your quote.

I can only read simple English and draw simple conclusions!

[Ray]

While China has, over the past two decades, made impressive overall progress towards improving relations with its Southeast Asian neighbours, mounting tensions over these competing claims threaten to undermine its charm offensive. Following the aggressive manoeuvres by five Chinese vessels against the US ocean surveillance ship USNS Impeccable in March 2009 in the South China Sea, developments in those waters have attracted greater diplomatic and press attention. Many observers see China’s behaviour in the South China Sea as symptomatic of an increasingly ‘assertive’ diplomacy.


The sovereignty disputes are about more than simply who owns particular features. They involve major themes of grand strategy and territorial defence, including the protection of sea lines of communication, energy, food and environmental security. They may also be linked to rising populist nationalism. The stakes are too high for imminent resolution; the rulers of states with maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea are convinced that compromise is not in their national interest. Rather, they (along with states without claims and non-state actors, such as energy companies) focus not so much on dispute resolution as on dispute management, with the aim of preventing conflict and preserving freedom of navigation and over-flight.

http://www.iiss.org/publications/survival/survival-2011/year-2011-issue-5/beijings-south-china-sea-debate/


Throughout history, control of the seas has been a prerequisite for any country that wants to be considered a world power. China's military buildup has included a significant naval expansion. China now has 29 submarines armed with antiship cruise missiles, compared with just eight in 2002, according to Rand Corp


http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BE197_NAVY_m_D_20120103211602.jpg


The Chinese military embarked on a military modernization effort designed to blunt U.S. power in the Pacific by developing what U.S. military strategists dubbed "anti-access, area denial" technologies.


In 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao unveiled a new military doctrine calling for the armed forces to undertake "new historic missions" to safeguard China's "national interests."


China's technological advances have been accompanied by a shift in rhetoric by parts of its military. Hawkish Chinese military officers and analysts have long accused the U.S. of trying to contain China within the "first island chain" that includes Japan and the Philippines, both of which have mutual defense treaties with the U.S., and Taiwan, which the U.S. is bound by law to help defend. They now talk about pushing the U.S. back as far as Hawaii and enabling China's navy to operate freely in the western Pacific, the Indian Ocean and beyond.

"The U.S. has four major allies within the first island chain, and is trying to starve the Chinese dragon into a Chinese worm," Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, one of China's most outspoken military commentators, told a conference in September.


The U.S. also is considering new land bases to disperse its forces throughout the region. President Barack Obama recently announced the U.S. would use new bases in Australia, including a major port in Darwin. Many of the bases aren't expected to have a permanent American presence, but in the event of a conflict, the U.S. would be able to base aircraft there.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204397704577074631582060996.html

[JMA]

As a crusty Brit-Aussie transplant Vietnam vet used to take pleasure in saying, "He's a wong, but he's all white." Har ####ing har...nice guy though.:)

Good to see the sense of humour is intact.

Now what the Chinese going to do in the next ten years that we need to be afraid about?

[Ray]

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

An interesting point.

Could it be that they have a sanctuary elsewhere where they can safely hotfoot to in case the situation gets too hot to handle?

I know this for sure that people with backup in life are very bold.

As per psychology, those who have no problems to fight for their existence, tend to be the ones with esoteric ideas and claims and great ones to display bravado! They, after all, have nothing to lose!

Pathetic!

[Backwards Observer]

Backwards,

Your quote.

I can only read simple English and draw simple conclusions!

That's a negative, sir. Quoting Carl once again (sorry, Carl):


I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.

Carl posits a war scenario in the above passage. Did you conclude that he has a special insight into CCP behaviour owing to any inherent Chineseness. The passage was indirectly referred to once and directly quoted in a response to you a second time.

My impression is that more than a few Americans view war with China as inevitable as they see it as an evil, expansionist state uninterested in co-existence. Do you infer anything Chinese about their views? Perhaps that is better left unanswered.



Your further statement:


It will be a sad thing if you, as Chinese, force it on the world.

Well, not sure what to make of that, really. But, yes, I suppose it would be sad for me, whether as a Chinese, a White guy, or a ####ing half-breed to force war upon the world. I'll make sure to put it on my "things not to do list".

Don't worry about it, Ray, it's done.

[JMA]

http://www.iiss.org/publications/survival/survival-2011/year-2011-issue-5/beijings-south-china-sea-debate/

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BE197_NAVY_m_D_20120103211602.jpg

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204397704577074631582060996.html

The yanks are not allies that can be relied upon.

Maybe not in my lifetime but certainly Hawaii will become contentious (like the Falklands is to the Brits now) and will be granted independence.

If the Russians want Alaska back they will probably get it.

The 'frontline states' had better get together and form a bulwark or they will get gobbled up piecemeal.

Oh yes, remembering MAD, they better get their own nukes and line them up and aimed and ready... and have the balls to use them.

[Ray]

Might as well give the US back to the Red Indians (I do not know what is the PC word for it, but I am told there is one!) Forgive me if I have erred!

Then none can grouse!

And there will be no Yell of 'Dollar Imperialism' as we use to hear in the earlier days!

And hearing them here with greater finesse than the old days!

[carl]

That's a negative, sir. Quoting Carl once again (sorry, Carl):

Carl posits a war scenario in the above passage. Did you conclude that he has a special insight into CCP behaviour owing to any inherent Chineseness. The passage was indirectly referred to once and directly quoted in a response to you a second time.

My impression is that more than a few Americans view war with China as inevitable as they see it as an evil, expansionist state uninterested in co-existence. Do you infer anything Chinese about their views? Perhaps that is better left unanswered.

Wow! I'm being quoted as an authority. This is great. My mother won't be surprised but will my brother ever be impressed! Are my views really being used as representative of "more a few Americans"? On the off chance that they are, maybe I should explain something.

The passage you quoted, twice, could be viewed as a prediction of war I guess, if you are not a careful reader. That is my fault since I should write with the expectation that uncareful readers abound. What I should have written was "could" instead of "will", as in "J-20s could be flying around picking off American jets" rather than "J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets". That would be more clear and would more accurately reflect my opinion. After all us opinion leaders and makers bear a weighty responsibility. But in my defense, you could have J-20s picking off F-18Fs in situations well short of wars. American aircraft, mainly recce planes, used to get picked off regularly in the Cold War by many countries we weren't at war with, Russia and North Korea being two. Red China got three in 1967 or 1968 I believe.

But since my opinion carries such weight nowadays, I'll state what it is concerning chances of war with Red China in 10 years. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Things could run the gamut from an all out destroy both countries exchange of nukes to something like the navel (I used that word just for you BA) war we fought with France around the turn of the 18th to 19th centuries to Operation Praying Mantis to amity on the order of that we have with the Aussies.

One of the big reasons for the uncertainty is we don't have a clue what is going on in the upper reaches of the Chinese regime. So we have to try to divine things from actions. The actions of late have been a big naval buildup in the face of no threat, continuing aggressive and provocative actions at sea and a lot of very belligerent talk. Those things worry me.

There, the sage has spoken.

[Ray]

That's a negative, sir. Quoting Carl once again (sorry, Carl):



Carl posits a war scenario in the above passage. Did you conclude that he has a special insight into CCP behaviour owing to any inherent Chineseness. The passage was indirectly referred to once and directly quoted in a response to you a second time.

My impression is that more than a few Americans view war with China as inevitable as they see it as an evil, expansionist state uninterested in co-existence. Do you infer anything Chinese about their views? Perhaps that is better left unanswered.

So you are piggybacking?

Passing the blame on others?

Why did you not explain it so in your post?

Was it convenient not to do so?






Your further statement:



Well, not sure what to make of that, really. But, yes, I suppose it would be sad for me, whether as a Chinese, a White guy, or a ####ing half-breed to force war upon the world. I'll make sure to put it on my "things not to do list".

Don't worry about it, Ray, it's done.


There you go again.

Nothing upfront.

Neither here nor there.

Even the CCP believes in this type of approach!

So, you are a........?

It is not a life or death issue, but it is always good to know the truth!

[carl]

Might as well give the US back to the Red Indians (I do not know what is the PC word for it, but I am told there is one!) Forgive me if I have erred!

The Indians I used to work with called themselves and other Indians, Indians, or they would use the name of the tribe they belonged to or tribal members. Who cares about PC? Besides, "The Native Americans are coming! The Native Americans are coming!" doesn't have nearly the dramatic impact of "The Indians are coming! The Indians are coming!"

[Backwards Observer]

So you are piggybacking?

Passing the blame on others?

Why did you not explain it so in your post?

Was it convenient not to do so?








There you go again.

Nothing upfront.

Neither here nor there.

Even the CCP believes in this type of approach!

So, you are a........?

It is not a life or death issue, but it is always good to know the truth!

Geez, lighten up, Ray, you act like anything I say is actually important.:) Maybe you need to get out more. Come to think of it maybe I do too.:rolleyes:

[carl]

Is it not odd, then, that the two people posting here that actually live near the South China Sea are the ones who seem least fearful?

If you mean to say you live closer to the South China Sea than others and because of that your opinions are more credible, say it straight out. In any event, it is a poor argument.

[carl]

The yanks are not allies that can be relied upon.

Maybe not in my lifetime but certainly Hawaii will become contentious (like the Falklands is to the Brits now) and will be granted independence.

If the Russians want Alaska back they will probably get it.

The 'frontline states' had better get together and form a bulwark or they will get gobbled up piecemeal.

Oh yes, remembering MAD, they better get their own nukes and line them up and aimed and ready... and have the balls to use them.

To my great shame, I can't argue strongly against no. 1.

Number 2, I don't think so. However if the USN gets chased out of the western Pacific...

Number 3, never happen.

No. 4 is good advice to those states as is no. 5.

[Ray]

Geez, lighten up, Ray, you act like anything I say is actually important.:) Maybe you need to get out more. Come to think of it maybe I do too.:rolleyes:


So you are a troll?!

Maybe.

Notwithstanding, some stuff you write still interests me. You are still not that worthless as you claim!

Could I say trolls also contribute?

Guess what? I did go out on a tour of Malaysia and Singapore. Great fun and great education, to say the least!

Met a lot of Chinese including a relation who is a full blooded Chinese and not something here or there! Believe it or not, very rational and intelligent!

Don't mind my post. I am merely replicating your style; sadly my style is no patch on your sophisticated neither here nor there and saying things that means a lot and yet cannot be pinned down. ;)

You are the expert!

:Bow to the Guru:

[Backwards Observer]

So you are a troll?!

Maybe.

Notwithstanding, some stuff you write still interests me. You are still not that worthless as you claim!

Could I say trolls also contribute?

That's funny, I wondered exactly the same thing about you after you pm'd me about that Indian forum where you posted a question about Christianity. I thought maybe you were some kind of Chinese provocateur or something. What a modern marvel is this social media. I actually run the whole CCP circus from a trench behind my garage, while stuffing my fat face with microwave pot roast.

Seriously though, just like the Tamil movies I used to watch as a kid, sometimes when I read your posts I have no idea where you're coming from, but you seem to be enjoying yourself. I guess the same could be said about my bull####. Still, I can only speak one language, so you're smarter than I'll ever be.

[Ken White]

There has been quite a lot of comment here and analysis elsewhere.Though I doubt the analysis is much more accurate than the comment...:wry:

[jmm99]

with Indians (the "woo-woo kind", not the "Sanskrit kind"), but never with a "Native American". I suppose American Indian or Amer-Indian would be a bit more elegant than the "woo-woo" vs. "Sanskrit" distinction, which was taught me by my Japanese lawyer apartment sharer in the late 60s.

The term "Red Indians" had some initial validity as used by 16th and 17th century English speakers as defining the Beothuck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk_people) ("human beings") of Newfoundland, who painted everything (including themselves) with red ochre (it's a good bug repellent, as well as having religious significance). The Beothuck are now extinct as a separate group, although their blood lines still run among the Innu ("human beings"; Montagnais to the French) of Labrador, and among the adjacent Anishinaabeg ("human beings") west and south of Newfoundland.

Of course, all the "woo-woo" Indians believed that all peoples were "human beings" - right ? You gotta be kidding.

Regards

Mike

[Ray]

That's funny, I wondered exactly the same thing about you after you pm'd me about that Indian forum where you posted a question about Christianity. I thought maybe you were some kind of Chinese provocateur or something. What a modern marvel is this social media. I actually run the whole CCP circus from a trench behind my garage, while stuffing my fat face with microwave pot roast.

Seriously though, just like the Tamil movies I used to watch as a kid, sometimes when I read your posts I have no idea where you're coming from, but you seem to be enjoying yourself. I guess the same could be said about my bull####. Still, I can only speak one language, so you're smarter than I'll ever be.

If I did, it was to prove a point to your meanderings. And you did not have the courage to come there and be exposed, right? Surely, if you are so gung ho here, you could go there and prove your worth.

CCP is a circus! Have you some doubt? Hasn't it been proved by posters who are better equipped than me?

I don't see Tamil movies since I don't know the language.

Are you trying to show off that you are a linguist? Or just 'dropping names' just to indicate or pretend you are some know all?

I do know some Tamil cuss words, if that will help!

[Ray]

with Indians (the "woo-woo kind", not the "Sanskrit kind"), but never with a "Native American". I suppose American Indian or Amer-Indian would be a bit more elegant than the "woo-woo" vs. "Sanskrit" distinction, which was taught me by my Japanese lawyer apartment sharer in the late 60s.

The term "Red Indians" had some initial validity as used by 16th and 17th century English speakers as defining the Beothuck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk_people) ("human beings") of Newfoundland, who painted everything (including themselves) with red ochre (it's a good bug repellent, as well as having religious significance). The Beothuck are now extinct as a separate group, although their blood lines still run among the Innu ("human beings"; Montagnais to the French) of Labrador, and among the adjacent Anishinaabeg ("human beings") west and south of Newfoundland.

Of course, all the "woo-woo" Indians believed that all peoples were "human beings" - right ? You gotta be kidding.

Regards

Mike

You sure can be funny.

I will use Native Indians /Ameri Indians till some American tell me that is outdated and gives another one.

You people love reinventing the wheel!

[carl]

You people love reinventing the wheel!

That one made me laugh out loud. And ain't it the truth.

[jmm99]

Amer-Indians did manage independently to invent the wheel, but used them on toys. Unfortunately, for their military capabilitries, they never received the Irish saying that "guns are dangerous toys". Otherwise, Cortes would have been met by cannon - and the rest would have been His Story (that is, Montezuma's). :)

Anything having Indian in it is fine. :D

But consider Canada, where all "status Indian groups" are First Nations. So, a "status Indian" must then be a "First National".

The First Nationals are coming !; the First Nationals are coming ! :eek:

------------------------------------
The Chinese are coming !; the Chinese are coming !

And, to illustrate that, we have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China, "The Issue of South China Sea" (June 2000), in five parts - and still the official statement of the claims:

(1) Its Origin, The Issue of South China Sea (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t19233.htm)

(2) Historical Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t19231.htm)

(3) Jurisprudential Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t19234.htm)

(4) International Recognition Of China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t19232.htm)

(5) Basic Stance and Policy of the Chinese Government in Solving the South China Sea Issue (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/topics/3754/t19230.htm)

As a counter-point, here are two articles - viewing the Chinese claims less favorably ;) - written by the guy (Jerome Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_A._Cohen)) who provided us with our Chinese Communist Law textbook in the late 60s.

2010 Cohen, China's Claims to the South China Sea (http://www.usasialaw.org/?p=4618)

2010 Cohen, China and its Ocean Disputes (http://www.usasialaw.org/?p=4469)

Regards

Mike

[Backwards Observer]

[QUOTE]If I did, it was to prove a point to your meanderings. And you did not have the courage to come there and be exposed, right? Surely, if you are so gung ho here, you could go there and prove your worth.

Some guy I don't know directs me to a forum I've never heard of to talk about a topic he didn't want to talk about on the forum where the question was originally asked and has essentially rephrased into a different topic? I'm not that gung ho. Why didn't you discuss the question here if you were so interested? Or ask your chums to join SWC?


CCP is a circus! Have you some doubt? Hasn't it been proved by posters who are better equipped than me?

Fair enough.


I don't see Tamil movies since I don't know the language.

Are you trying to show off that you are a linguist? Or just 'dropping names' just to indicate or pretend you are some know all?

I do know some Tamil cuss words, if that will help!

The movies were listed in the Straits Times as, "Tamil Movie". There wasn't much on TV back then, so you'd end up watching whatever was on. Stating that I'm monolingual and still managing to show off that I'm a linguist. You can't beat that, really.

I hope this opportunity to prove your courage and your worth, uh, on the internet, has been as enjoyable for you as it has for me.:)

[carl]

The First Nationals are coming !; the First Nationals are coming ! :eek:

THE BANKERS ARE REVOLTING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

(Ah-this if fun.)

[Dayuhan]

If you mean to say you live closer to the South China Sea than others and because of that your opinions are more credible, say it straight out. In any event, it is a poor argument.

I don't think any opinion stated here has any inherent credibility. I pointed out that one might expect those with the most to lose from a given threat or potential threat to be the ones most concerned about it. In this discussion, for whatever reason, that appears not to be the case.

I do suspect that those closest to the events in this case may have been following the situation more closely for a longer time than some others in the discussion, and that this may have something to do with the attitudes displayed, but that's only conjecture.


The passage you quoted, twice, could be viewed as a prediction of war I guess, if you are not a careful reader. That is my fault since I should write with the expectation that uncareful readers abound. What I should have written was "could" instead of "will", as in "J-20s could be flying around picking off American jets" rather than "J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets".

That would be more clear and would more accurately reflect my opinion. After all us opinion leaders and makers bear a weighty responsibility. But in my defense, you could have J-20s picking off F-18Fs in situations well short of wars.

People on all sides of these questions point out what could happen. I'm sure that those in China who want to see greater spending on naval forces routinely point out that somewhere down the line the US Navy could be interdicting Chinese merchandise exports and commodity imports in waters far outside the range of current Chinese military capability. Probably some have real concerns about that possibility - when someone has a knife near your neck it's small consolation to note that he hasn't used it yet - and probably some have material vested interests in greater military spending. The same is true in the US: some who talk up the China threat are probably really really scared, and there are probably also some who have a material vested interest in seeing greater spending aimed at combating threats. In each case those who actually make decisions and have influence over the opinions of others (that would not include us, we're just a few folks yakking on the internet) need to maintain equal wariness of the potential threat and of those who would exaggerate that potential threat to serve their own interests.


But since my opinion carries such weight nowadays, I'll state what it is concerning chances of war with Red China in 10 years. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Things could run the gamut from an all out destroy both countries exchange of nukes to something like the navel (I used that word just for you BA) war we fought with France around the turn of the 18th to 19th centuries to Operation Praying Mantis to amity on the order of that we have with the Aussies.

Obviously many things could happen in the next ten years. My insignificant guess, though, is that the next ten will look a lot like the last ten. There will continue to be low-level incidents: fishing boat intrusions, arrests of fishermen. pressure to release arrested fishermen, harassment of exploration ships, occasional games of chicken. An actual shooting incident involving ships or aircraft is quite possible. I would not expect any such incident to escalate: none of the parties involved have anything to gain from combat.

I'd expect the US Navy to continue sailing task forces through the SCS, and to continue holding both bilateral and multilateral exercises with SCS border states. The Chinese will continue to denounce each event.

The Philippines will buy a few more retired coast guard cutters from the US and will try to upgrade them with missile systems. They may try to buy a few ships, though not necessarily from the US (the Italians have offered frigates that would suit and probably be cheaper than anything the US could offer). The Philippine F16 purchase will continue to be tossed around but may not go anywhere; the cost of both acquisition and operation is high, supporting systems would have to be in the package, and they wouldn't really change the picture much.

The Vietnamese will beef up coast-based radar and missile systems (I personally think the Philippines would be wise to take that course too, instead of prioritizing high profile ships and aircraft, but I don't make decisions), and take delivery of some submarines. Other SCS states will continue upgrading their navies as economic conditions permit, as they have been doing for the last few decades.

The Chinese will issue the mimeographed ritual complaint with every acquisition, while stocking up as much gear as they can. They'll be a presence in the SCS, and will probably volunteer more assets for anti-piracy work, partly to protect their shipping but largely to gain experience with operations in distant waters.

I don't expect the Chinese to gobble anyone up or to invade anyone. Not much to be gained by it for them, and high potential costs.

Of course there are many jokers in that deck, the most prominent and most likely being significant internal upheaval in China, which could go any number of ways with a wide range of outcomes, all completely beyond the control or meaningful influence of any outside party.


The actions of late have been a big naval buildup in the face of no threat

You may persist in saying there is no threat, but their perception of threat is more important than our ever so impartial assessment of threat, and they perceive a threat, justifiable or not. We do maintain significant military forces in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, and along their key commercial arteries in the Middle East... would we feel threatened if they had forces in similar proximity to our mainland and our vital commercial routes?

The US maintains an enormous Navy in the face of no threat. The Russians, British, French, Italians maintain significant navies in the face of no threat. Actual or aspiring major powers with extensive maritime trade maintain navies, threat or no threat. Been that way for centuries, why would it change now?

[JMA]

To my great shame, I can't argue strongly against no. 1.

Number 2, I don't think so. However if the USN gets chased out of the western Pacific...

Number 3, never happen.

No. 4 is good advice to those states as is no. 5.

Carl, I come from an area where the word never was often used in defiance but not in an educated sense. I learnt to never say never.

Yes indeed the countries surrounding China must create local alliances and develop/acquire the weapons to keep Chinese hegemonistic tendencies in check. I would also suggest that they as a group start to agitate for the liberation of Tibet.

The US won't do anything significant... so these nations must accept that in their time of need the US cavalry will not come riding to their rescue. Like the anti-communists in Hungry they will be sitting on their roof tops waiting for the US aircraft that will never come.

Taiwan is becoming like a irritating piece of cellotape stuck on the US finger. Can't shake it off. Well it won't be long now before the 'smart' guys in DC figure out a way to dump the Taiwan problem.

[Dayuhan]

As an added note to all this, the annual Philippine/US military exercise kicks off tomorrow off Palawan, about 500 km south of Scarborough Shoal.


Some 6,800 troops — 4,500 American and 2,300 Filipinos — are expected to participate in this annual exercise, which includes computer-simulated command post exercises, multiple field training exercises and humanitarian civic assistance projects in pre-selected areas in Palawan...

... The venue of the actual training exercises includes the West Philippine Sea (also South China Sea) off Palawan where both forces will be pursuing amphibious exercises; and gas and oil platform defense and retake.

The Philippines refers to the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea.

Of course the exercise has been planned and publicly scheduled for months, which raises the possibility (not certainty) that the Scarborough Shoal confrontation was deliberately provoked in time to coincide with the exercise. That raises the question of why the Chinese would want to do that.

While we tend to focus on the messages China may be sending to its neighbors, the US, etc, one possibility (again not certainty) is that the primary target of the messaging is domestic. Could the Chinese government be trying to hold up what they call an effort to push Chinese fishermen out of their traditional fishing grounds while at the same time masses of imperialist running dogs are staging war games in the vicinity as a way to cultivate a perception of threat and persecution, and to promote nationalism and patriotism?

Obviously there are numerous unknowns in that picture, and that may have nothing to do with what's going on... or it might.

[Bob's World]

JMA,

How is it in the interest of the smaller states in the region to confront China in regards to Tibet? What do they gain from that?

As to Taiwan, it is part of China. Certainly due to the geo-strategy of where Taiwan sits, it is a vital component of any effort to contain China proper to the mainland; so if that were still our strategy then Taiwan remains vital. Certainly due to our relationship with Nationalist China we owed them our protection from being brutally crushed in some final apocalyptic battle between Mao and Chiang. But there is little risk of that happening now. To update US policy regarding the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan is not well discussed with emotionally loaded terms such as "abandon." Personally, I believe our old mission there is complete and it is time to move on to more effective policies that enable the US and China to better explore our shared interests, rather than butt heads over our odd policy regarding Taiwan. Reasonable minds differ on this topic. Playground taunts and misplaced concepts of loyalty should not shape foreign policy.

Besides, it is a sucker's bet: The best the US could ever do in a conflict over Taiwan is reset the conditions of failure. The worst that China could do is go toe to toe with the big guy, suffer a tactical loss, but gain most likely at the gain of a significant strategic advantage. Particularly if they happen to point out the modern vulnerabilities of Aircraft carriers or long-range flight operations against a sophisticated foe prepared specifically to deal with the same.

I have long seen Taiwan as the flashing red cape that the Chinese Matador waves at the young, strong, American bull. For now China profits from this game, and besides, the Matador needs the bull. For now. Ultimately we all know what happens to the bull. Strong and instinctive he does not realize he is losing until he has already lost. Then the Matador kills the bull. But we are not a bull. We should be able to recognize the cape for what it is, and focus on what is important for us, not what China wants us to focus upon. We play their game for now, but think they are playing ours. We remain the bull.

[Dayuhan]

As to Taiwan, it is part of China.

Isn't that for the Taiwanese to decide? Self-determination and all that?


I have long seen Taiwan as the flashing red cape that the Chinese Matador waves at the young, strong, American bull.

In a sense yes, and they also flash it at their own people: using an external issue to promote nationalism and patriotism and distract from domestic shortcomings is by no means a new tactic. For that reason among many others, I very much doubt that the current Chinese political dispensation has any desire to try and forcibly reclaim Taiwan.

[Bob's World]

Isn't that for the Taiwanese to decide? Self-determination and all that?



In a sense yes, and they also flash it at their own people: using an external issue to promote nationalism and patriotism and distract from domestic shortcomings is by no means a new tactic. For that reason among many others, I very much doubt that the current Chinese political dispensation has any desire to try and forcibly reclaim Taiwan.

Self determination much like it applied to the American Confederacy. Mom still gets a vote when baby decides to leave the nest. That is an internal issue they need to sort out on their own; and its good for everyone if they do that peacefully. But if Taiwan decides to play hardball, they may find they too have bitten off more than they can chew. We should not do anything to embolden Taiwan to make bad decisions, and currently I believe we do just that.

But yes, China the matador plays to a global audiance, and that certainly includes their own populace as well. We enable that game as well.

[JMA]

JMA,

How is it in the interest of the smaller states in the region to confront China in regards to Tibet? What do they gain from that?

Diplomatic confrontation of a bully is about all they are able to do. The other reason is that the fate of Tibet awaits the weaker states as they are gobbled up in the not too distant future. It is probably wise for these states to decide right now wether they are going to capitulate or not go down without a fight.


As to Taiwan, it is part of China. Certainly due to the geo-strategy of where Taiwan sits, it is a vital component of any effort to contain China proper to the mainland; so if that were still our strategy then Taiwan remains vital. Certainly due to our relationship with Nationalist China we owed them our protection from being brutally crushed in some final apocalyptic battle between Mao and Chiang. But there is little risk of that happening now. To update US policy regarding the peaceful reintegration of Taiwan is not well discussed with emotionally loaded terms such as "abandon." Personally, I believe our old mission there is complete and it is time to move on to more effective policies that enable the US and China to better explore our shared interests, rather than butt heads over our odd policy regarding Taiwan. Reasonable minds differ on this topic. Playground taunts and misplaced concepts of loyalty should not shape foreign policy.

Besides, it is a sucker's bet: The best the US could ever do in a conflict over Taiwan is reset the conditions of failure. The worst that China could do is go toe to toe with the big guy, suffer a tactical loss, but gain most likely at the gain of a significant strategic advantage. Particularly if they happen to point out the modern vulnerabilities of Aircraft carriers or long-range flight operations against a sophisticated foe prepared specifically to deal with the same.

I have long seen Taiwan as the flashing red cape that the Chinese Matador waves at the young, strong, American bull. For now China profits from this game, and besides, the Matador needs the bull. For now. Ultimately we all know what happens to the bull. Strong and instinctive he does not realize he is losing until he has already lost. Then the Matador kills the bull. But we are not a bull. We should be able to recognize the cape for what it is, and focus on what is important for us, not what China wants us to focus upon. We play their game for now, but think they are playing ours. We remain the bull.

Good explanation Bob. This exactly why all nations (plus the remote states of Hawaii and Alaska) must realise that they can place no trust in a relationship the USA. For the US everything is negotiable... and they will sell one time allies down the river without conscience.

I suggest the Chinese like to play the game. They know that the US is already a spent force (intellectually and psychologically) and when they have built up their navy they will just shoulder the US out of the way with barely a shot being fired.

The US 'bull' is an exhausted and an all but impotent shadow of its former self.

I would suggest you take a little time to study how the British empire collapsed when they being virtually bankrupt and stabbed in the back by their supposed ally the USA 'lost the will to maintain their empire'. It was as much a case of psychological exhaustion than anything else.

Then I would suggest you look at how the Brits at the height of their power maintained the balance of power in Europe by supporting those at risk from the larger more aggressive states.

Then fast forward to the post Soviet era and learn what the smaller vulnerable states to Russian hegemonic intentions are attempting to do to prevent being once again being gobbled up by an expansionist Russia.

The bottom line is that all the smart guys in DC quite frankly don't have a clue. Its pretty sad really.

[Bob's World]

JMA,

Do not judge the U.S. by our recent actions. They do not define us.

As to the British Empire, their decline was their own. Like the US they had a foreign poiicy model designed for an era that no longer existed, and the costs of empire came to exceed the benefits, and they wisely converted to the Commonwealth and tucked in behind to let the US take on the onus of leadership. Unlike the US, Great Britain lacks the tremendous security and natural wealth of the US, nor the depth and diversity of populace. The US is still very much a young bull, we're just sorting out how to deal with the next phase. Don't make the mistake of reading too much into our lack of grace in that transition.

As to our reliability, we need to actually move on from the emotionally charged, ideologically defined thinking of the Cold War era to an approach that is much more practical, pragmatic, and tied to clear assessments of our interests and the interests of others. Mature powerful nations in history have played this balancing game well, and certainly Britain plays it better than most still.

In regards to Alaska and Hawaii? Don't hold your breath on anyone even seriously considering they could make such a play in any foreseeable future.

[carl]

JMA:

Point taken on never saying never.

Bob's World:

Here is a hypothetical for you. You probably know what is coming. Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, no threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to comply with treaty obligations and help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

What are you going to tell them?

[Dayuhan]

There are a couple of fascinating assumptions recurring here.

First, even assuming (though it's very questionable) that China is bent on storming out of its borders and acquiring new territories, either through conquest (less likely) or by absorbing them into a sphere of influence (more likely), why do we assume that this ambition would be directed into the Pacific and in the direction of the US? I'd think it far more likely that such an ambition would be directed toward prying Central Asia out of the Russian sphere of influence and into a Chinese sphere. I'd think over the next few decades China/Russia conflict, with Central Asia as a flashpoint, would be more likely than conflict with the US. If you were China and intent on gobbling somebody up, why would you gobble SE Asia when you could go for Kazakhstan (30 billion barrels of oil, 85 trillion cubic feet of gas) and Turkmenistan (265 trillion cubic feet of gas)? Not that I think China is likely to invade these countries (or SE Asia), but they could definitely try to move in offering resource deals, trying to build political influence, and generally trying to supplant Russia as the dominant power and the dominant resource outlet. Russia is likely to object. Where that goes is anyone's guess, but there's certainly potential for conflict, especially since there's something tangibly worth fighting over.

China's next external military venture may not be a neighborhood conquest. There's a real possibility that China could end up in a FID/COIN situation if a compliant government protecting major Chinese investments is threatened by insurgency, especially if that insurgency takes an anti-Chinese position. Most likely scene would be Africa. Hard to say how China would respond to such a situation, but it could emerge.

Again, all of these are speculative (as is the assumption that Chinese aggression in the Pacific is inevitable), but the assumption that west into the Pacific is the sole or most likely target of Chinese military development is certainly questionable.

The second questionable assumption is that conquest or expansion are primary agendas for the current Chinese leadership. This site by its nature focuses on the military side of things, and it's easy to forget that the primary business of China is still business and that China's economy is heavily dependent on trade. While China's leaders will undoubtedly push and shove as far as they can without provoking actual conflict, I think it most unlikely that they have any desire to push to any point that might rock their economic boat. It's also worth noting that the economic boat is not nearly as stable or secure as it's sometimes claimed to be. The Chinese government's management of its primary security threat - its own populace - has been heavily dependent on the ability to generate continuous economic expansion, and that's getting harder and harder to do.

The current dispensation is not ideal, but it is manageable. The single biggest thing to fear, for me, is that a serious internal upheaval (a very real possibility if economic problems emerge) could result in the emergence of a hardline communist/militarist government that aims to purge all those effete capitalist businessmen and get back to ideological purity.

Again, all very speculative, but the assumption that the current Chinese regime is necessarily bent on conquest and expansion definitely needs to be questioned.

[carl]

I don't think any opinion stated here has any inherent credibility. I pointed out that one might expect those with the most to lose from a given threat or potential threat to be the ones most concerned about it. In this discussion, for whatever reason, that appears not to be the case.

I do suspect that those closest to the events in this case may have been following the situation more closely for a longer time than some others in the discussion, and that this may have something to do with the attitudes displayed, but that's only conjecture.

Slice it up as you like, it still is a suggestion that propinquity makes for better judgment, a poor argument in this case.


You may persist in saying there is no threat, but their perception of threat is more important than our ever so impartial assessment of threat, and they perceive a threat, justifiable or not. We do maintain significant military forces in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa, and along their key commercial arteries in the Middle East... would we feel threatened if they had forces in similar proximity to our mainland and our vital commercial routes?

The US maintains an enormous Navy in the face of no threat. The Russians, British, French, Italians maintain significant navies in the face of no threat. Actual or aspiring major powers with extensive maritime trade maintain navies, threat or no threat. Been that way for centuries, why would it change now?

I persist in saying there is no threat to peacetime Chinese maritime trade posed by the USN because there is not a threat. None. The Chinese economy has not been hampered in the slightest by their having had a small navy in the past. Not a bit. But now you say they see threat. If that is so, they are wrong and their buildup of a big navy in the face of no threat is dangerous to all. It has been mentioned before that it is similar to the Germans building up a big navy before WW I in the face of no threat. That did not work out well for the world.

The various countries you name do indeed have small navies. And they are small in relation to the world. And except perhaps for the Russian navy which I know little about, none of those navies are built to challenge the USN. Not one, nor the Indian navy nor the Japanese. But the Red Chinese navy is. Why?

As I said many posts before, the buildup of forces wouldn't be all that worrying except it is combined with provocative actions and belligerent talk. That worries me.

And as I also said many post before, the USN grows and contracts depending upon the threat. Wars, cold & hot, it grows. Peace, greater and less, it shrinks. Plus we have relationships and responsibilities that go back generations. Plus we took over from the RN in keeping open the worlds sea lanes, including those to mainland China. All that means we need a few more ships than the other guys.

The Red Chinese are building big fleet in peace. That fleet is structured to fight the USN. They talk fight a lot and they keep bumping into other people's boats. It may not worry you but it does me.

[carl]

JMA,

Do not judge the U.S. by our recent actions. They do not define us.

If a bet on life and national fate is being made, you darn well had better judge us upon our recent actions. They do define us. Lincoln isn't going to come back from the dead and lead the risen divisions of the Army of the Potomac to anybody's rescue.

[carl]

Gertz is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything he writes or publishes.

Is the factual accuracy of his reporting in dispute?

[carl]

We don't keep the lanes open. Nobody's threatening to close them, and we could pull our entire Navy back to our shores without putting commerce at risk, except perhaps near Somalia. What we maintain is the capacity to interfere if we choose to do so. That's kind of like a nuclear bomb: you don't have to use it to maintain the threat, because everybody knows it's there.

Actually, we do, with a bit of help from others, but nobody but us can do it with reasonably strong force in every ocean. And nobody is threatening to close them because of those various naval vessels out there that may kill them if they try. We could disband our Navy completely and there would be no threat to commerce, for a little while. But you are right, we maintain the capacity to interfere with those who would interfere with freedom of navigation.

That is what concerns me. Given the totality of Red Chinese actions, if they manage to run off the USN, I think they may try to interfere with freedom of navigation. I just can't bring myself to trust totalitarian police states. As you yourself note below, they seem to want to do some shoving around. When murderous police states want to some shoving, I get worried.


Aside from the perception of threat, we have to consider the generalized Chinese desire to force their way into the top table, to be taken seriously, to be a player with military weight equal to their economic weight. If you've followed Chinese commentary over the years, you'd have noted a phase of public exasperation over what was considered an absurd situation: that has-been nations like Britain and France had more potent navies, greater expeditionary capacity, and more perceived influence on global affairs than China. China's in a "coming out" phase, blending great arrogance with great insecurity... the US went through a phase like that in its own history. It may not be entirely rational and it's not the only influence out there, but it's not a factor that can fully be discounted either.

We may have had a coming out phase, maybe not. But if we did I don't remember us challenging the RN for control of the Atlantic. We let them handle that kind of thing while we made money. The Red Chinese would be wise to do the same.


India has in fact built a quite substantial Navy, and the British still maintain a Navy that might be considered out of proportion to their economic needs. The difference is that you don't perceive these nations as a challenge. Again, remember that China's dependence on maritime commerce is greater than that of any other nation on earth. A hostile power that could cut off Chinese access to Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, which could be done far from China's shores, could bring their economy grinding to a halt in no time. Powers exist that can do this, and those powers are not entirely friendly. In their position, would we not perceive a threat? If China could, at any time of their choosing, cut us off from our primary commodity imports and merchandise exports (to the extent that we have any), would we not see that as an issue?

None of those navies are built to challenge the USN. And no, Red China's dependence upon sea trade is not greater than anybody else on earth. If all sea trade were to stop tomorrow, I am sure the Japanese would perish first.

Powers exist that could cut off Japanese access to Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Those powers could cut off trade to Brazil, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and on and on and on. But they don't seem too worried. If the Red Chinese are worried about that, the only way to assuage that worry is to control ALL of the worlds oceans, ALL the time. That will lead to a great big war if they try it.

So if that is what they are worried about, world domination can solve that. I don't think I will cut them slack on that and say I understand.


Did they chase off the USN? When did that happen, I must have missed it. The 7th fleet flagship was parked in Manila a few weeks ago, so it must have been recent...

Now Dayuhan, don't be cute. Read the whole paragraph.

[Ray]

US, Filipino troops start drills near disputed sea

MANILA, Philippines—U.S. and Philippine military officials say nearly 7,000 American and Filipino troops have begun two weeks of major military exercises but they stress that China is not an imaginary target.

Philippine army Maj. Emmanuel Garcia said Monday that the annual drills, called Balikatan or shoulder-to-shoulder, will include combat maneuvers involving the mock retaking by U.S.-backed Filipino troops of an oil rig supposedly seized by terrorists near the South China Sea....

Beijing has protested military drills involving Americans near the South China Sea, where it is locked with the Philippines and four other nations in territorial rifts.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2012/04/16/us_filipino_troops_start_drills_near_disputed_sea/

It does indicate that those who are affected and those who live as expatriates, think differently.

This vindicates what I have been stating, ad infinitum, that one has to be a citizen and native born to realise what is a threat and what is not, to their country.

Those who are citizens seem to feel that China is a threat.

I reckon they should know better!

[Dayuhan]

It does indicate that those who are affected and those who live as expatriates, think differently.

This vindicates what I have been stating, ad infinitum, that one has to be a citizen and native born to realise what is a threat and what is not, to their country.

Those who are citizens seem to feel that China is a threat.

I reckon they should know better!

Balikatan is an annual event that goes back decades; they typically focus primarily on CT, COIN, and disaster response. This exercise is certainly not some sort of response to the recent confrontation; it was planned and the dates publicly announced months ago.

As far as the citizens go, there's a wide range of opinion on both China and the US, as there is on most issues. Some feel threatened by China, some by the US, some by both. Some want to get rid of the US military presence and end the exercises, some want to expand them. Many (I'd guessed most, but that's not based on any scientific survey) are not much concerned with either and are more focused on domestic affairs.

Certainly many Filipinos are concerned to varying degrees over China, but these annual exercises are in no way evidence that "the Filipinos" collectively are responding to "the China threat".

The Philippine left is rabidly opposed to the exercises (has been for many years) because they see it as an attempt to build the Philippine military's capacity to fight the NPA.

After a general downgrade following the removal of the bases (exercises still happened, but less frequently and on a much smaller scale), the US was able to build more of a presence, not because Filipinos feared China, but because they wanted US help in suppressing the Muslim rebellions in the south. That was the lever that opened the door to US troops moving in and to larger exercises; there was very little talk of China in those days.

Hard to put these events in context if you don't know the context.

The US presence and the exercises do not appear to be deterring the Chinese from making probes... in fact, as I said in a previous post, it's possible (though not certain) that the Chinese deliberately timed the incursion to coincide with the exercise.

[Bob's World]

If a bet on life and national fate is being made, you darn well had better judge us upon our recent actions. They do define us. Lincoln isn't going to come back from the dead and lead the risen divisions of the Army of the Potomac to anybody's rescue.

Our recent actions only define what our leadership has bought into over a period of significant change in the global environment, while having their thinking deeply rooted in the lessons learned from 60 years of Cold War. Now leaders are looking at lessons learned from 10 years of chasing "terrorism" to set the next course, still resting upon that Cold War foundation.

No, the Cold War era does not define us, nor does the 20 years of post-Cold War. One has to look at the whole, and of the whole, these two recent eras are far more anomalous than definitive of the American character and nation.

You can't measure a 10' pond with a 6" stick. Same is true for history. We do seem to be forgetting who we are though and that is sad. A lot of short sticks in DC. Read that anyway you want.

[Bob's World]

JMA:

Point taken on never saying never.

Bob's World:

Here is a hypothetical for you. You probably know what is coming. Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, no threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to comply with treaty obligations and help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

What are you going to tell them?

Carl,

First, and most importantly, there are no "treaty obligations" for the US to defend Taiwan. Period. I think you are referring to the old treaty that ended in 1980. (This is a biased, but I believe fairly factually accurate laydown: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/02_taiwan_defense_huang.aspx)

Second, this is an internal Chinese matter. That is our official position.

Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute. How would you have felt if Great Britain had sent in a massive force to prevent the US from reconsolidating the nation during the civil war? Do think there would not have been a century of conflict following, as half a dozen weak nations came to be where the US exists today? Not our fight, and we have no legal obligation to make it our fight.

[JMA]

First, and most importantly, there are no "treaty obligations" for the US to defend Taiwan. Period. I think you are referring to the old treaty that ended in 1980.

Well Bob if the following is in any way accurate here is the reason why the US (government that is) can not be taken seriously and certainly not trusted:


The Taiwan Relations Act does not require the U.S. to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, and the U.S. has adopted a policy of "strategic ambiguity" in which the U.S. neither confirms nor denies that it would intervene in such a scenario. - wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act)

The one Carl is no doubt thinking about is this one:


One agreement that was unilaterally terminated by President Jimmy Carter upon the establishment of relations was the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty; that termination was the subject of the Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter.

Thanks to 'people' like your Jimmy Carter the world (outside the US) can be forgiven for believing: With friends like the US who needs enemies!

Bob, it is impossible for honest Americans (which I assume you to be) to sell the virtues of the US as you see them when quite frankly your political administrations have the honour and ethics of a crack whore.

[JMA]

Carl,

Second, this is an internal Chinese matter. That is our official position.

Yes and after that little 'face to face' with the Chinese army in Korea back then there lies the reason for dumping Taiwan to its fate.

One bitten, twice shy. The world is not blind.

[carl]

Carl,

First, and most importantly, there are no "treaty obligations" for the US to defend Taiwan. Period. I think you are referring to the old treaty that ended in 1980. (This is a biased, but I believe fairly factually accurate laydown: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/02_taiwan_defense_huang.aspx)

Second, this is an internal Chinese matter. That is our official position.

Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute. How would you have felt if Great Britain had sent in a massive force to prevent the US from reconsolidating the nation during the civil war? Do think there would not have been a century of conflict following, as half a dozen weak nations came to be where the US exists today? Not our fight, and we have no legal obligation to make it our fight.

Ok fair enough. My ignorance on the treaty part is fairly and properly exposed. Let me rephrase the question. I want to see exactly what you position is without the frills.

Here is a hypothetical for you. You probably know what is coming. Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, not threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

What are you going to tell them?

[carl]

No, the Cold War era does not define us, nor does the 20 years of post-Cold War. One has to look at the whole, and of the whole, these two recent eras are far more anomalous than definitive of the American character and nation.

You can't measure a 10' pond with a 6" stick. Same is true for history. We do seem to be forgetting who we are though and that is sad. A lot of short sticks in DC. Read that anyway you want.

So the cold war, which lasted a lot of years, does not define us. And the post cold war, which lasted 20 years does not define us. So the upshot is that our actions since WWII do not define us. That sounds like a sales pitch to me. "Trust us. After all, look at Lincoln."

If I was overseas, I would view much of American history with great admiration, but make my decisions based upon American actions since WWII and place more emphasis on the more recent events. It would then be prudent to reach the same conclusion as JMA.

[JMA]

The Taiwanese then ask us to help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. ...

What are you going to tell them?

That's an easy one Carl, let me help Bob here, those brave souls in the White House and at State are not going to answer the call.

The Taiwanese will "just hear that phone keep on ringin' off the wall" (apologies to Glenn Campbell)

[Ken White]

If I was overseas, I would view much of American history with great admiration, but make my decisions based upon American actions since WWII and place more emphasis on the more recent events. It would then be prudent to reach the same conclusion as JMA.Prudent for sure, wrong quite probably. Misjudgement of the US and what it can or will do has led to most of our wars...

I doubt that will change in the near future.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

If the couple across the street from your family, who have been brawling for years, got into a gunfight one night, how many of your kids would you send over to break it up?

As to your Taiwan scenario? There are many powerful lobbies that have dangerously shaped US foreign policy throughout the post WWII era. Saudi, Cuban, Jewish and Taiwanese are four. All 100% dedicated to their own interests with no regard to US interests. The US does not have a lobby pushing for our interests, though plenty that sell either liberal or conservative spins as they play to those respective parties/positions.

As an American? If we let this just sit and fester as is until someday your scenario actually pops up, we will most likely react rather than respond. As I stated earlier this is a no win situation for the US and a no lose situation for China. It is also played on China's doorstep. I cannot imagine a reason to play such a game. Remember the Joe Pesci character in "Goodfellas"? Give a litte guy a big gun and back him up with a powerful organization and he is apt to cause all kinds of trouble he would never have caused on his own. We need to be careful not to create a "Joe Pesci" leader in Taiwan (or elsewhere). Support has limits. We have defined our limits with Taiwan. We would be wise to ensure they appreciate we are serious about those limits. Our actions, however, could reasonably lead them to believe we are not serious. That is dangerous.

It's not in China's interest to destroy Taiwan, even if this went violent it would likely be over before we could do anything anyway, and life would be back to normal within months. Certainly life in the US and US interests would be little affected. Not true if we lost a couple carriers and a couple dozen top end fighters destroyed in the process. Not every fight is our fight. I stand by that.

[carl]

Councilor, answer the question as posed please.

[Ray]

Dayuvan

Notwithstanding your justifications, I go by what is written.

It is written


MANILA, Philippines—U.S. and Philippine military officials say nearly 7,000 American and Filipino troops have begun two weeks of major military exercises but they stress that China is not an imaginary target.


Now, if you claim that the Philippines Armed Forces are hopelessly daft, even though they are native born and understand their fears and worries, and you are the one who is right because you feel that all is well and hyped, then so be it!

[Ray]

here are many powerful lobbies that have dangerously shaped US foreign policy throughout the post WWII era. Saudi, Cuban, Jewish and Taiwanese are four. All 100% dedicated to their own interests with no regard to US interests.

I am a bit surprised. Do you mean that US has no policy of its own and it is driven by immigrants? Apart from the lobbies mentioned, is the Anglo Saxon and German lobbies defunct?


Second, this is an internal Chinese matter. That is our official position.

if so, why is the US wasting money, when it is no position to waste money?

US to build £8bn super base on Pacific island of Guam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/guam/8085749/US-to-build-8bn-super-base-on-Pacific-island-of-Guam.html


Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute. How would you have felt if Great Britain had sent in a massive force to prevent the US from reconsolidating the nation during the civil war? Do think there would not have been a century of conflict following, as half a dozen weak nations came to be where the US exists today? Not our fight, and we have no legal obligation to make it our fight.

Valid point.

Why did UK intervene in WWII?

It was only an issue with Germany and a few European countries.

It was not in the interest of Germany to capture them. All the wanted is a wee bit of Lebensraum.


Support has limits.

Not as per the US and George Bush.

You are either with us or against us!

[JMA]

Prudent for sure, wrong quite probably. Misjudgement of the US and what it can or will do has led to most of our wars...

I doubt that will change in the near future.

Well Ken when it comes to the US it is not possible make an intelligent judgement as what they are likely to do... as it is like trying to figure out what a schizophrenic will do. Better to throw the dice and decide that way.

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

[jmm99]

This thread seems to me (not a criticism, just saying) a good example showing the two international relations "schools" in action: Realism in international relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relations) and Idealism in international relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_in_international_relations).

Perhaps, the instincts for the two schools are basic to the human male: one sleeps with $luts; one marries madonnas. Of course, in the first case, neither party should expect a long-term relationship (generally, "Pretty Woman" is a fairy tale). And similarly, the "Realistic School" does not include long-term cooperation or alliance as a general rule in its playbook. Since the "Idealistic School" looks to long-term cooperation or alliance as a desired end, the end of an alliance will be looked at quite differently by the two parties if one is focused on "realism" and the other on "idealism".

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

JMA posted:
One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

I accept international politics is far from predictable, but if anything the USA since 1945 has been quite an unpredictable 'policeman'. As a certain Mr Saddam Hussain discovered after invading Kuwait.

Long time since I studied pre-1939 (for non-US) or pre-1941 (for the USA) international affairs, but I'd wager Hitler decided the US would never take Germany on. Less sure whether Tokyo thought the USA would do much beyond shouting and having the Burma Road (to Nationalist China) considering by 1941 Japan had been at war in China since 1937.

Having listened to a discussion on BBC radio this week on China, it appears they have enough internal issues to face / avoid and whilst maritime skirmishing in the South China Sea causes concern does it really "ring alarm bells"? Not to overlook Taiwan, a potentially far bigger prize for China if peacefully reunited (larger than Hong Kong by a significant factor IIRC).

[Bob's World]

Councilor, answer the question as posed please.

Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, not threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

Answer: "You are on your own."

Though trust me, If China makes that decision, there will be no time for Taiwan to vote or for the US to assess. They won't send a note announcing their intent to invade. The entire operation could likely be over within 72 hours; and within 24 hours it would require a counter-invasion of US forces sufficient to push China out. How, exactly, do you propose we do that? Even if you make the arguement it is in our intrest (and I have not heard that argument from you or JMA in this thread)?

At some point one has to rely more upon cold assessments of what their interests are and what their actual (or affordable) capabilities are. For the US this is, IMO, neither in our interests or affordable.

Reasonable minds can differ, but this is my opinion. I am comfortable with others believing otherwise, but I admit, I put little stock on playground taunt rationale such as offered by JMA.

[Ken White]

...Better to throw the dice and decide that way.That can be quite true, barring an existential threat. :wry:
One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.Wrong. You can do that and others will join you. Probably cost all of you in the long run...

Many others will be smarter. For my part, having actually and successfully fought the latter in a full scale conflict for a couple of years and having been prepared with no qualms at all to fight the other for 20 or so more had it become necessary, I wouldn't even consider taking that to the bank. Advise against it, in fact... :D

[carl]

Answer: "You are on your own."

Thank you Councilor. Now we know where you stand. A free state, that has been a staunch ally in the past would be swallowed up by a totalitarian police state with no real objection from you.

I would hope the USians would not follow the path you advocate in the unlikely event the situation I postulated came to be. As JMA says, "The world is not blind." and would notice. Suddenly the Wikipedia entry on "Sudetenland" would have a lot of hits and everybody would be wondering who was next. Things would not go well for us in the years following.

Now I have a comment and a question about this


Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute.

The USN presently controls the seas, though we do better with assistance, through which both Taiwan and Red China conduct their ocean trade. But Red China is building up, at quite a remarkable rate, naval power that seems designed to at least chase the USN away from the South China Sea. If that happened wouldn't the leverage of which you speak disappear? I think if we wanted to be able to maintain that leverage we have to make sure that the PLAN can't push us around.

[Ken White]

Even if you make the arguement it is in our intrest (and I have not heard that argument from you or JMA in this thread)?You also noticed that... :D
...For the US this is, IMO, neither in our interests or affordable.I agree. My sensing is that an adequate majority of Americans probably do the same.

It is probably noteworthy that the whole Taiwan support issue as seen in the US has little or nothing to do with a Pacific strategy or international relations. It revolves around US domestic politics and has done so since 1949, relying on how much the party out of 'power' wants to hassle the party in 'power.' Fortunately, when castration time arrives, that foolishness tends to fall by the wayside to at least an extent.
... I am comfortable with others believing otherwise...I guess one could say I relished that as opposed to merely being comfortable with it. :D

Of course, my Wife points out that my penchant for later saying "I told you so..." is not endearing, mature or beneficial. She can be unduly grumpy at times...:wry:

[carl]

It is probably noteworthy that the whole Taiwan support issue as seen in the US has little or nothing to do with a Pacific strategy or international relations.

I think you are wrong. It has everything to do with Pacific strategy and international relations. On the international relations front, the world would notice that we allowed a free state to be conquered by a totalitarian police state. They would have to make allowances, great big ones, since they could only prudently figure they would be next and try to cut the best deal they could.

As far as Pacific strategy goes, as far as that strategy means keeping the Red Chinese from messing with the world other than by commercial means, loss of Taiwan would put a gaping hole in the barrier of islands off mainland China. Very good for the PLAN, very bad for the USN.

[Ken White]

I think you are wrong.Could be. It happens. Rarely... :D
It has everything to do with Pacific strategy and international relations. On the international relations front...All true. Also true is that it would not be the first time or probably the last if it did occur. We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people... :wry:
As far as Pacific strategy goes...Very good for the PLAN, very bad for the USN.The 'Pacific Strategy' is a chameleon (or, more correctly, chimeric) but it, too, revolves mostly around US domestic politics. As for the good and bad, it could superficially appear to be as you write. In actuality and in the long term, just the opposite is more likely to be true. ;)

I suspect the Chinese know that and thus, while they'll bluster and some there will press for confrontation, as a nation, fortunately, they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys.

[carl]

Ken:

Geography is a tough thing and the configuration of the world can't be changed. We very well may get over the embarrassment, it is hard to embarrass somebody with no shame, but that hole in the barrier of islands won't be so easy to overcome. Politics, internal, external, our or theirs, the map won't look so good for the USN hence the Japanese and everybody else.

As an additional surprise for you, I think you are wrong also when you say this about Red China "they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys.", at least the sensible part. Westerners have been saying things like that for as long as I can remember, mostly in frustration that free nations can be so kooky sometimes. Totalitarian police states have proven to be mostly quite poor at figuring the best long term course of action. Maybe the ChiComs will be different, I would guess not.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuvan

Notwithstanding your justifications, I go by what is written.


MANILA, Philippines—U.S. and Philippine military officials say nearly 7,000 American and Filipino troops have begun two weeks of major military exercises but they stress that China is not an imaginary target.

Now, if you claim that the Philippines Armed Forces are hopelessly daft, even though they are native born and understand their fears and worries, and you are the one who is right because you feel that all is well and hyped, then so be it!

If you actually read the article, and the other coverage on the exercise, you'll see that the line quoted above is just not a very good piece of writing. They're trying to say that China is not the hypothetical target of the exercise. All the public statements on the exercise stress that it has nothing to do with the recent incidents and is not directed at any country.

Of course any military exercise anywhere is intended to send a message to any potential antagonist, but in this case the primary potential antagonists being messaged are the rebel groups and their actual or potential foreign supporters, with China in second place. The Philippine political and military leaders consider the domestic insurgencies to be a greater threat; you can consider that "daft" if you like, but they have reasons. If you keep track of the Philippine media and talk to people you see there's a lot of irritation at the fishing incursions and some concern with conflict over offshore energy reserves, but only a tiny fringe worries about invasion and there's very limited support for major upgrades to military spending. Vietnam spends 2.5% of GDP on defense; the Philippines spends 0.9%. If you want an indication of relative fear and relative priorities, there it is. Money speaks louder than words.

This paragraph from the article is also not correct:


In the past, the exercises were held in Philippine regions grappling with decades-long Muslim and communist insurgencies and threats from al-Qaida-linked militants. This year's main venue, the southwestern island province of Palawan, lies near South China Sea areas disputed by China, the Philippines and four other countries.

For the past few years the exercise has been in the Muslim areas, but they've had them off Palawan before, quite a few times. The scenario of a terrorist takeover of an offshore gas rig (the Malampaya platform is a potentially attractive terrorist target) has been used before.

Sloppy journalism overall.

I suspect that you're putting these events into the context of your perception of the China threat without paying enough attention to what else is going on locally.

I've also seen news clips saying that there are new discussions going on over a US sale of another cutter and 12 F-16s to the Philippines. That would be related to the recent incursion, but it's mostly show. The cutter sale is already agreed on, no big news there. I have doubts about the F16s: the Philippine Air Force, which has long been embarrassed over having no planes, really really wants them, but scuttlebutt has it that the US side thinks its a poor idea on "sustainability and affordability" grounds, and that the money would be better spent elsewhere. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment, not that my opinion means anything.


One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

I think the US probably won't "take on" Russia or China... though being risk-averse I doubt I'd take that to the bank, and I doubt the Chinese or Russians would take it to the bank either. Easy to be brave and bold when you're on the internet and actions have no consequences.

I also don't think the Russians or Chinese would "take on" the Americans. They'll use proxies, undermine allies, posture, rattle sabers, pull the cold war playbook out, but they'll stop short of direct conflict, because even if they're 99% sure they'll get away with it, the potential consequences of that 1% are too large to risk. For some strange and incomprehensible reason major powers bristling with nukes are disinclined to "take on" other major powers bristling with nukes. Can't imagine why.


Though trust me, If China makes that decision, there will be no time for Taiwan to vote or for the US to assess. They won't send a note announcing their intent to invade. The entire operation could likely be over within 72 hours

Are you sure of that? I have some doubts. For sure the Chinese could unleash a barrage of missiles with no notice at all, but an actual invasion? Wouldn't that require a very large concentration of land assets moving into ports in a heavily populated and highly visible environment? China's naval sealift assets are limited; my understanding (purely from reading) is that they'd have to bring in a large portion of their merchant fleet. If a whole bunch of merchant vessels pulled off their normal routes and started congregating at Navy bases, that wouldn't be noticed? You're looking at an amphibious operation on the scale of the Normandy landings, in the age of satellite surveillance, could you really keep that a secret until it jumped off? I can imagine the CIA sleeping at the wheel, but you'd think the Taiwanese would be looking.

Plus the Chinese coast and key ports are well within range of Taiwanese SSMs, so unless the Chinese were absolutely sure the Taiwanese wouldn't preempt, they'd have to suppress those before they started concentrating forces, no?

I'm willing to be corrected by those with greater knowledge of these things, but the contention that the Chinese could simply launch an invasion on that scale without the preparations being visible seems on the surface questionable.

I also question this:


As I stated earlier this is a no win situation for the US and a no lose situation for China.

I don't think that's the case. If the Chinese moved on Taiwan and things didn't go as planned the domestic political repercussions would be huge.

I doubt very much that an invasion of Taiwan is in the cards. If China was going to move on Taiwan they could simply use that massive ballistic missile force to inflict and sustain intolerable damage, shut down trade, and try to force capitulation that way.

Under the current Chinese political order I wouldn't expect a move on Taiwan at all. They like to rattle sabers over the issue and they like using it as a red cape to wave at the US and at their own people, but the move itself would entail much risk and a lot of rocking of a boat that's been quite stable and comfortable for the leadership.


I suspect the Chinese know that and thus, while they'll bluster and some there will press for confrontation, as a nation, fortunately, they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys.

Agreed.

Overall, there seems to be a great deal of angst and panic over the possibility that China may achieve military parity with the US in their own coastal waters. That's not compatible with the idea that the US must be absolutely superior to everyone, everywhere, all the time, but is it really cause for panic? Even in the rather unlikely event of direct conflict between the US and China, why would the US fight the Chinese where the Chinese are strongest? The US is China's leading export destination; an embargo on Chinese goods would take close to $300 billion a year out of Chinese industries. The USN can set up in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, where the US is strong and China is weak, and cut the Chinese commercial lifeline to Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Why would you fight them where they are strongest when you don't have to?

Carl, I'll try to respond later; I have things to do and these threads get too busy to keep up with...

[Ken White]

Geography is a tough thing and the configuration of the world can't be changed.True. It's noteworthy that no one else has been able come anywhere close to our ability to use that to an advantage. No one, though the Chinese are working on that. I doubt they will succeed in your lifetime. No other nation will be able to afford to try, barring a European Union -- also unlikely in your lifetime. ;)
We very well may get over the embarrassment, it is hard to embarrass somebody with no shame...Again, let me remind you that nations are not people; they don't get embarrassed or get shamed -- only some of the people within the nation may be embarrassed. That, as is said, is their problem... :wry:
.. but that hole in the barrier of islands won't be so easy to overcome. Politics, internal, external, our or theirs, the map won't look so good for the USN hence the Japanese and everybody else.I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era.

Be careful with the pundits and think tanks, most of them are 30-40 years behind the times strategically and operationally. All of them must have and / or see crises to survive. :rolleyes:
As an additional surprise for you, I think you are wrong also when you say this about Red China "they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys."...Totalitarian police states have proven to be mostly quite poor at figuring the best long term course of action. Maybe the ChiComs will be different, I would guess not.I suggest that most nations, even the very democratic ones and certainly including the US and most of the rest of the so-called western world have problems determining the best long term courses of action. As Niels Bohr said "Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future." Actually, that's probably an old Confucian adage -- from China. Errors by the Chinese because they are communist and a totalitarian state aren't really the potential problem; that they are Chinese and have some very significant problems of their own which are not attributable to their governance and which they try to conceal from outsiders are the factors that will force them to a pragmatic solution and because they are totalitarian at this time, everyone in the country will at least on the surface support what is done. If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian fairly rapidly, that won't change my prediction about the possible future -- but it hamstrings yours. ;)

OTOH and regrettably, our politicians have shown a complete willingness to disregard obvious consequences for short term political gain and our electorate is too fragmented to force the issue. That's true today. A couple of years may make a difference but I'm skeptical. As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

[carl]

Carl, I'll try to respond later; I have things to do and these threads get too busy to keep up with...

Don't mind me. I'm just slumping down in my seat in the back of the class hoping not to be noticed.

[carl]

Again, let me remind you that nations are not people; they don't get embarrassed or get shamed -- only some of the people within the nation may be embarrassed. That, as is said, is their problem... :wry:

You said "We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people... ". From the context it seems you meant the US overcoming embarrassment but now you say the nation does not but some in the nation do. I get it now...no, I don't.


I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era.

Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land. They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too. And also, boats can't go through land. They get stuck. So yes, despite the revolution in military affairs, effects based operations, network centric warfare, drones that can do anything at any time, despite all that, I still think land bases and islands are as useful to navies and naval power as they ever were.


Be careful with the pundits and think tanks, most of them are 30-40 years behind the times strategically and operationally. All of them must have and / or see crises to survive. :rolleyes:

I don't need pundits to tell me that island bases are vital. The various history books I read superficially make that clear.


Errors by the Chinese because they are communist and a totalitarian state aren't really the potential problem; that they are Chinese and have some very significant problems of their own which are not attributable to their governance and which they try to conceal from outsiders are the factors that will force them to a pragmatic solution and because they are totalitarian at this time, everyone in the country will at least on the surface support what is done.

Everybody had better support them, or they will hear that midnight knock. We will have to disagree again. I think that they are ruled by ChiComs has as much or more to do with problems faced by the Chinese as does their Chineseness. After all, the ChiComs primary goal is they keep running the joint. They have never been coy about that. That would tend to skew things, since for example, there isn't much voting going on.


If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian fairly rapidly, that won't change my prediction about the possible future -- but it hamstrings yours. ;)

Now that is some rhetorical technique. Just argue that the world is going to go the way you say, fairly rapidly, and when it does boy will the ground be cut out from under me.


As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

A totalitarian police state that is faced with immense internal problems has a system that prizes international stability, this is Red China. I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree. And given that they are building a big navy, talking tough and bumping into other people's boats, I'd say they are not really that high on stability.

[Ray]

All the public statements on the exercise stress that it has nothing to do with the recent incidents and is not directed at any country.

Actions indicate issues that words tend to avoid.


Sloppy journalism overall.

Indeed. Journalism is sloppy the world over.

International journalism never speaks with one voice.

If it were one voice, the world would have been a better place.

[JMA]

JMA posted:

I accept international politics is far from predictable, but if anything the USA since 1945 has been quite an unpredictable 'policeman'. As a certain Mr Saddam Hussain discovered after invading Kuwait.

With the US especially so. Caused by their radical policy shifts every 4/8 years where the incoming 'smart guys' clear the table and start again clean ignoring what passed before them. Only USians think their system is good (for sentimental reasons that is), while the world stares incredulously on.


Long time since I studied pre-1939 (for non-US) or pre-1941 (for the USA) international affairs, but I'd wager Hitler decided the US would never take Germany on. Less sure whether Tokyo thought the USA would do much beyond shouting and having the Burma Road (to Nationalist China) considering by 1941 Japan had been at war in China since 1937.

The US left Japan with no option but a military one when their oil supplies were severely curtailed. The US wanted that war with Japan as much as they needed Britain to be so damaged that her empire would collapse. So with Britain, Germany and Japan out of the way was open for the US.


Having listened to a discussion on BBC radio this week on China, it appears they have enough internal issues to face / avoid and whilst maritime skirmishing in the South China Sea causes concern does it really "ring alarm bells"? Not to overlook Taiwan, a potentially far bigger prize for China if peacefully reunited (larger than Hong Kong by a significant factor IIRC).

I must try to remember the number of times a nation's leadership tries to take the eyes of their people off internal problems by creating an external crisis which will distract the people and hopefully rally them around a national cause.

I am old enough to remember that the US approaches to China were less about ensuring world peace and more about access to the massive potential consumer market there.

When I say the US will not go to war with China it is because of two reasons. One, that the US does not have the conventional forces to beat China without extensive use of nuclear weapons and secondly that there would be an outcry from the 1,000s of US companies so deeply involved in China (mainly through imports) that stand to lose a great deal.

The situation is that of the boiling frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog). The Chinese are the ones doing the incrementalism while the US being unable to deal with the gradual changes to their detriment.

[JMA]

OTOH and regrettably, our politicians have shown a complete willingness to disregard obvious consequences for short term political gain and our electorate is too fragmented to force the issue. That's true today. A couple of years may make a difference but I'm skeptical. As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

Yes Ken and the Chinese will have realised that they must not provoke the US until they have reached the military level to back it up.

I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to while I believe the Chinese version is 'death by a thousand cuts'. The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.

I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).

[Dayuhan]

A totalitarian police state that is faced with immense internal problems has a system that prizes international stability, this is Red China. I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree. And given that they are building a big navy, talking tough and bumping into other people's boats, I'd say they are not really that high on stability.

That state also has certain characteristics...

It is completely dependent on external trade, both commodity imports and merchandise exports, for its economic survival.

It needs continuous economic growth to keep its populace in order, a populace with rising expectations and a great deal of discontent.

It's doing quite well out of the status quo, and has a great deal to lose from disruption of the status quo.

Say what you will about the Chinese government; they are not irrational. They know how far they can push before the boat rocks, and there's little indication of any intent to push beyond that point.



Actions indicate issues that words tend to avoid.

Taking actions out of context may indicate issues that the context doesn't support. It would be easy to conclude that a Philippine-American military exercise at a time when there's tension with China might be seen as a specific response to that tension... until you recall that the exercise is an annual ritual that's gone on for decades. The exercise would still be going on if there was no tension, and would likely be seen as a message to those who are considering support to Islamic militants.


Indeed. Journalism is sloppy the world over.

International journalism never speaks with one voice.

If it were one voice, the world would have been a better place.

Sloppy journalism is obnoxious, but unanimous journalism would be very scary indeed. The world speaks with many voices, and most of them deserve a listen, if only to know what they're saying. World journalism needs to reflect that.

[Dayuhan]

The US left Japan with no option but a military one when their oil supplies were severely curtailed. The US wanted that war with Japan as much as they needed Britain to be so damaged that her empire would collapse. So with Britain, Germany and Japan out of the way was open for the US.

Ain't revisionism grand...


I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to while I believe the Chinese version is 'death by a thousand cuts'. The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.

I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).

Anyone following China's domestic political and economic situation might suspect that it's China that may self-destruct first. Whether that makes China less dangerous or more remains to be seen.

The US prevailed over the Soviet Union largely by maintaining the status quo despite a rising temperature and the occasional cut until the rival's internal economic contradictions caught up with them. Some Americans got frantic and howled of doom when the communists prevailed in Indochina, Nicaragua, etc, but in the end the fundamental inutility of Communist economics brought the whole pile down from the inside (ok, oversimplified, but it's a paragraph).

Might that not work with China?

If not, what would you have the US do?

[JMA]

For my part, having actually and successfully fought the latter in a full scale conflict for a couple of years and having been prepared with no qualms at all to fight the other for 20 or so more had it become necessary, I wouldn't even consider taking that to the bank. Advise against it, in fact... :D

Korea ended in a stalemate. But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.

The Soviets were going to be faced in Europe with the war destruction taking place there and not in and to the US (with no immediate existential threat to itself). .

The world has come a long way since then and found the weaknesses in the US's armour.

For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.

Only a fool will entice the US into a conventional conflict and so we see a variation on the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.

Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.

[Dayuhan]

Korea ended in a stalemate. But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.

Wouldn't that depend on where the Chinese army was being faced?


The world has come a long way since then and found the weaknesses in the US's armour.

For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.

So we know the US has limited will to engage in conflicts that represent no significant threat to the US and involve no significant US interests. Why would the Russians, Chinese, or anyone else assume that the reaction would be the same if core interests were involved?

9/11 brought a fairly vigorous response (chaotic, incoherent, and largely unproductive, but vigorous) and would suggest to most that while you can easily mess with Americans in peripheral areas where they have little reason to be concerned, an attack on the core is likely to generate an aggressive response. Ken has commented in the past that the US rarely gets serious about foreign affairs until there's a broad perception of immediate threat, and I suspect he's right.


Only a fool will entice the US into a conventional conflict and so we see a variation on the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.

Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it.

We won't know that until there's an existential threat on the table. As of now there isn't one. Death by a thousand cuts sounds rather miserable, but so far the US isn't being cut.

[Ken White]

You said "We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people... ". From the context it seems you meant the US overcoming embarrassment but now you say the nation does not but some in the nation do. I get it now...no, I don't.Let me put it this way. I haven't been embarrassed by anything the US has done in my lifetime. I could and have wished that some things had been done better but that's mostly from an effectiveness standpoint. You may or may not have been embarrassed, don't know -- but I do know some who've been embarrassed by US actions. Pity...

Regardless, the nation has not been embarrassed. As an expander, the word 'we' refers to persons, not things. A nation is not a person.
Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land.Or you could become carrier qualified -- and don't bother with carrier killer ICBMS and / or cruise missiles. Unproven technology -- and unannounced technology (ours or theirs) are unknowns. ;)
They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too.For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere. I doubt that will change in the next twenty to thirty years.
I don't need pundits to tell me that island bases are vital. The various history books I read superficially make that clear.Um, you did note that I mentioned those guys were 30-40 years out of date? So are some of those inept Generals and Admirals you despise...

Et Tu? :D

Umm, question. Just out of curiosity, did you mean you read superficially or that the books treatment of things you read is superficial?
Everybody had better support them, or they will hear that midnight knock. We will have to disagree again.Works for me...
Now that is some rhetorical technique. Just argue that the world is going to go the way you say, fairly rapidly, and when it does boy will the ground be cut out from under me.Not a rhetorical technique, just a statement of opinion -- note the first word here; "If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian..." A statement of opinion and potential followed by a logical premise that isl predicated on that IF. :wry:
... I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree.... Noted. We often disagree. Time will tell.

[Ray]

Taking actions out of context may indicate issues that the context doesn't support. It would be easy to conclude that a Philippine-American military exercise at a time when there's tension with China might be seen as a specific response to that tension... until you recall that the exercise is an annual ritual that's gone on for decades. The exercise would still be going on if there was no tension, and would likely be seen as a message to those who are considering support to Islamic militants.

One must also not ignore actions that occur and not put it in context of the issues happening around the world in general and of the area in particular.

The ideal example was Nehru's complacency and ignoring of actions happening in the Aksai Chin and not taking cognisance of the same or modernising the World War II Army. When 1962 happened, the good man sat stunned and impotent.

Indeed the US Philippines exercise could be a routine one. A little too routine, given that it occurred just a few months back. That apart, both the times (that and the current one), it gives the impression that they were occurring as reaction to the Chinese moves. Twice 'out of context'?

And why give any statement that may appear hostile to China? Unless there is a method in that madness.

The US does annual naval and other exercises with India and others. There is no aggressive statements and instead merely on 'interoperability' etc.






Sloppy journalism is obnoxious, but unanimous journalism would be very scary indeed. The world speaks with many voices, and most of them deserve a listen, if only to know what they're saying. World journalism needs to reflect that.

Journalism reports events that occur. If there is sloppy statesmanship, the journalistic effort will be equally sloppy.

[Ken White]

Yes Ken and the Chinese will have realised that they must not provoke the US until they have reached the military level to back it up.Quite astute of you and the esteemed Asian gentlemen...:D
I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to...I'm sure your advice for them is as well received as it by us here...
The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.Mmmm. Loser? Quite doubtful. Self destruct -- almost certainly.
I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).Heh. Not likely. They do need to learn Spanish, though. You need a map refresher...:D

[slapout9]

I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to while I believe the Chinese version is 'death by a thousand cuts'. The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.




You got my vote. All this talk about China becoming Capitalist is nothing but propaganda put out by the American RPI(Rich People s's Insurgency)just because the Communist Chinese are (they are Commie to the corps)going to let the running dog Americans make some money does not mean they don't intend to try and dominate the world. Everything they are doing says just the opposite. Just wait till they land on the moon in a few years.

[Dayuhan]

Indeed the US Philippines exercise could be a routine one. A little too routine, given that it occurred just a few months back. That apart, both the times (that and the current one), it gives the impression that they were occurring as reaction to the Chinese moves. Twice 'out of context'?

There are a bunch of annual exercises involving Philippine and US forces. Cobra Gold and CARAT are multilateral, involving forces from around SE Asia. Balikatan was traditionally bilateral, but this year included a multi-nation disaster response drill. Cobra Gold is usually held in and around Thailand, Balikatan in and around the Philippines. CARAT moves around SE Asia. PHIBLEX, typically involving Philippine Marines and amphibious operations), is biliateral, involving US and Philippine forces. There's also Balance Piston, annual event I think bilateral working with ground forces. That's from memory; there may be other scheduled ones. With that many going on, almost any brush with the Chinese is going to be close to one of them.

The current exercise is clearly not a response to the Scarborough Shoal incident. If you look here:

http://vfacom.ph/

You'll see that a full schedule for the exercise was publicly uploaded to the website on December 15, 2011. The description:


Balikatan 2012 is the 28th iteration of PH-US bilateral Exercise but it will be the first ever multilateral event wherein other countries will be involved in the Humanitarian Assistance Disaster Response (HA/DR) Exercise from April 16-27, 2012. Other participating countries are Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and South Korea. The scenario includes a response to a large scale natural disaster centered on the Metro Manila Area.

Aside from Disaster Response, Field Training Exercise (FTX) for Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) will be held in Crow Valley, Tarlac; Luzon Sea; Basa AB and Clark AFB, Pampanga; Fort Magsaysay Nueva Ecija; Metro Manila; West Philippine Sea; and Tagkawayan, Ulugan Bay, Rio Tuba, Inagawan, and El Nido, all of Palawan. The 12-day event will comprise simultaneous events involving air, land and sea operations. Big footprints will be in Fort Magsaysay (Army), Palawan (Navy and Marines), Clark (Air Force) and Crow Valley (mixed). Special Operations Forces (SOF) Exercises will be held in Zamboanga, Jolo, and Basilan.

Again, this was announced before the recent brushes involving the Chinese, so it is clearly not a response to those encounters. Note the 28th iteration: annually for 28 years. Pretty predictable.

Since these exercises are publicly announced months in advance, it is of course possible that the Chinese, for reasons of their own, are initiating encounters timed to coincide with the exercises.


And why give any statement that may appear hostile to China? Unless there is a method in that madness.

No statement was given that sounded hostile. If you read the releases and watched the TV coverage they bend over backwards to avoid sounding hostile. That clip was simply poor reporting, not the intent of the people giving the statement.


Journalism reports events that occur.

Of course, and the reporting is always accurate and unbiased. I've a lovely bridge in Brooklyn for sale at a most excellent price...

[Ray]

So Dayuhan, the Philippine and the US officer who gave the impression were daft!

They wanted to cause some serious confusion, right?l

any clarification or denials thereafter?

[Dayuhan]

So Dayuhan, the Philippine and the US officer who gave the impression were daft!

They wanted to cause some serious confusion, right?l

any clarification or denials thereafter?

The statement in question was not attributed to any US or Philippine officer, neither was it a quote, just an inept journalist's poorly worded summary.

You can look around and find plenty of official releases on the subject by the US and Philippine governments, don't think you'll find that verbiage in any of them.

[davidbfpo]

Dayuhan cited in part and with my emphasis:
Other participating countries are Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and South Korea.

From:http://vfacom.ph/

Given my recollection that Sino-Vietnamese relations are poor and regional history the participation of Vietnam is significant IMHO.

[Dayuhan]

I persist in saying there is no threat to peacetime Chinese maritime trade posed by the USN because there is not a threat. None.

Now you've gone and put that little word "peacetime" into the picture. Of course there's no peacetime threat. Nobody's a threat to anyone in peacetime. Nations prepare for times when there is no peace - otherwise there would be no armies or navies - and they prepare for what they perceive to be potential threats.


The Chinese economy has not been hampered in the slightest by their having had a small navy in the past. Not a bit.

The US perceives Iran as a threat, because they believe Iran has the capacity to hamper the flow of vital resources through a critical waterway. We have not been hampered by that capacity in the past, but we see it as a potential threat in the future. The Chinese see that we have the capacity to cut them off from resources and markets that sustain them at any time of our choosing. If you were in their shoes, would you be comfortable with that?


none of those navies are built to challenge the USN. Not one, nor the Indian navy nor the Japanese. But the Red Chinese navy is. Why?

Possibly because they see us as a threat?


And as I also said many post before, the USN grows and contracts depending upon the threat. Wars, cold & hot, it grows. Peace, greater and less, it shrinks.

Even when shrunk it is very, very large.


Plus we have relationships and responsibilities that go back generations. Plus we took over from the RN in keeping open the worlds sea lanes, including those to mainland China. All that means we need a few more ships than the other guys.

From who, exactly have we been protecting the world's sea lanes?

We took on those responsibilities on our own, of our own volition. If some people prefer to take over the responsibility of protecting their own shipping, are we to tell them that they may not do that? If some see what we call "protecting" sea lanes as "controlling" sea lanes, would that not create a perception of vulnerability that others might not be comfortable with?


The Red Chinese are building big fleet in peace. That fleet is structured to fight the USN. They talk fight a lot and they keep bumping into other people's boats. It may not worry you but it does me.

What do you propose to do about it?


Is the factual accuracy of his reporting in dispute?

Hard to say, as the source document isn't public. It looks to me like what could be called the Michael Moore technique: pull a bunch of factoids that support your position out of context, discard all facts that don't support your position, slam them together in a hyped-up breathless style, tell the audience they must be very very afraid, and declare solemnly that everything you've said is verifiable and true. Works well when you're preaching to the choir.

Personally, I've never been much for joining choirs, left or right. I'm also inclined to be suspicious when someone tells me to be afraid. Personal thing I guess...


But you are right, we maintain the capacity to interfere with those who would interfere with freedom of navigation.

We also maintain the capacity to interfere with the other peoples navigation, any time we choose to do so. Just because we haven't used it doesn't mean we haven't got it.


When murderous police states want to some shoving, I get worried.

How many non-Chinese have been killed by China's government in the last decade? How many non-Americans have been killed by America's government in the last decade? Lots of people out there think we are murderers, and lots of people fear us. Most of them don't have the capacity to challenge those they fear. Some do.

It will be easier to get a grasp of the situation if we drop "Red Chinese", "Chicoms", "murderers", and deal with people who happen to be Chinese. Ok, we don't like their government. Lots of people don't like our government. That doesn't make it impossible to manage relations.


We may have had a coming out phase, maybe not. But if we did I don't remember us challenging the RN for control of the Atlantic.

Didn't the Monroe Doctrine involve staking out a sphere of influence and warning others to stay out of it?


Red China's dependence upon sea trade is not greater than anybody else on earth. If all sea trade were to stop tomorrow, I am sure the Japanese would perish first.

If you look at external trade as a percentage of GDP, China's will be close to the top of the list, due to a very underdeveloped domestic market. Possibly Saudi Arabia or other oil producing states would be higher. I'd guess not many.


If the Red Chinese are worried about that, the only way to assuage that worry is to control ALL of the worlds oceans, ALL the time. That will lead to a great big war if they try it.

You mean that would lead them to try to do what we already do. We wouldn't like to see them in that role, why would they like to see us in that role?

In any event, things are as they are. The Chinese have apparently decided that their security requires them to build a navy that can compete with ours on a peer basis in their coastal waters. If they want to do that, we can't stop them: they have the money and the technology, if they want to build the ships and aircraft, they will.

So what would you have us do about it? Preemptive war is tough with nukes in the picture. You want us to go out an build still more ships? Build until our carriers outnumber theirs 11 to 1, our cruisers outnumber theirs 22 to 0, our destroyers outnumber theirs 60 to 25... oh, wait, we're already there.

So do we build more and more, spend trillions on a race we don't need to be in? Is that something our economy can sustain? If we start from the premise that we must have absolute superiority to everyone, everywhere, all the time, we have to ask if that premise is consistent with our economic condition. Maybe we need to recognize that the premise is neither necessary nor economically sustainable, accept that we will have a peer competitor in one part of the world, and deal with it. It's not as if we have to sail into the China Sea and fight China there; in the unlikely event of conflict we have a whole range of options that don't require that.

So after all the angst and anguish, what exactly would you have us do?