South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

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

---

This sounds good:

"I do think it makes sense to keep flying through and ignoring the ADIZ, keep sailing ships through the contested waters, maintain a high tempo of exercises and military to military exchanges with affected allies, keep developing relations with Vietnam, and all the other things that are already being done. In other words, to make sure the capacity to act is clear without committing to any specific response at any given point.

Over the last few years there has been an almost continuous USN presence in Subic. In particular there's been a continuing stream of sub visits, which used to be quite rare. I don't think that's at all coincidental."

I would add a general statement of principal to the effect that the South China Sea stays international waters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Concur in all with Dayuhan.

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

Is our plan to hold until China implodes or explodes? Seems a risky gambit that hardly serves our interests in the region.

---

Who in the U.S. said this was a military problem beyond those in media? The military has a responsibility to protect our freedom of navigation for our economic interests, and yes we have obligations to our allies whether you like it or not. We don't threaten China by doing that, and we sure as hell are not are containing China. They're a global presence and enjoy freedom of navigation without threatening their neighbors. Most, if not all, countries welcome China's economic rise because it is mutually beneficial. They are a leading trading partner for many nations, and it isn't in the U.S. interests to get into a military spat with China, nor China with us, yet they keep pushing their neighbors using hard power? What policy should our civilian leaders enact that would alleviate this tension? Be realistic please.

Carl is pretty much correct in his assessment, China is in the one acting as the belligerent in the region, and that is far from a rational way to pursue their economic interests. You can call it rational if you like, but there is a high degree of pride/emotionalism behind their behavior that is irrational. Is it intended as a distraction for their people who are increasingly disgruntled? China's leaders have expressed on more than one occasion that internal security/stability is their greatest concern. As long as they don't trigger a response from any of the regional nations that then escalates out of control I suspect their behavior will moderate over time. It is the risk of miscalculation as we wait for their foreign and defense policy to mature that the greatest risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

China is in the one acting as the belligerent in the region, and that is far from a rational way to pursue their economic interests. You can call it rational if you like, but there is a high degree of pride/emotionalism behind their behavior that is irrational.

---

Not entirely irrational, I think. They are balancing objectives. They do want to play the nationalist card, inspire some jingoism, distract from an increasing range of domestic issues. They do not want to get involved in a war. So there's lots of talk, and lots of provocation, but the provocation is calibrated to a threshold below what they think would provoke an actual outbreak. In the SCS, for example, their Navy generally stays out of the confrontations: Civilian coast guard and Fisheries vessels are often the ones involved in incidents. They push, but only so far.

There are times when they push the limits, such as the incident that involved locking a targeting radar onto a Japanese ship. How far they will actually go remains to be seen, but I expect more of the same... possibly with a more aggressive tempo, but always with those balance objectives in play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Is it intended as a distraction for their people who are increasingly disgruntled? China's leaders have expressed on more than one occasion that internal security/stability is their greatest concern.

---

Internal security/stability is certainly the greatest concern, and I agree that the efforts to rally nationalist sentiment is very much an effort to distract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

As long as they don't trigger a response from any of the regional nations that then escalates out of control I suspect their behavior will moderate over time. It is the risk of miscalculation as we wait for their foreign and defense policy to mature that the greatest risk.

---

Agreed.

Internal stability is indeed very likely the biggest concern for the guys at the top. This is strongly supported by the their monetary voting patters and family movements.

Recently the whole offshore wiki saga has once against shown just how much dubious money the wider communist leadership has transfered by dubious means away from home into the tax havens of the West. I hope that a least some of those NSA billions get spent to keep tabs on those movements because it might be one of the best ways to monitor short-term Chinese military policies. ;)

Perhaps the only better indicator are the many Chinese students who enjoy the great American institutions of learning. It is an open secret that a high percentage of the key players is sending it's kids to study in the US. It does not take a genius to figure out some important implications.

Overall the key maritime trade flow is certainly not the only thing which can be rather easily cut. All in all the Chinese rise and integration is a great success story for it's citiziens and had and has big trade-offs for other countries. It would be foolish to disregard either.

There is a tremendous chasm between the perception of if one party to a dispute is "threatening" or if the other party feels "threatened." It is within this chasm that miscalculation and unintended conflict occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

This sounds good:

"I do think it makes sense to keep flying through and ignoring the ADIZ, keep sailing ships through the contested waters, maintain a high tempo of exercises and military to military exchanges with affected allies, keep developing relations with Vietnam, and all the other things that are already being done. In other words, to make sure the capacity to act is clear without committing to any specific response at any given point.

Over the last few years there has been an almost continuous USN presence in Subic. In particular there's been a continuing stream of sub visits, which used to be quite rare. I don't think that's at all coincidental.

---

At least we seem to agree that the current US response is adequate and appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

I would add a general statement of principal to the effect that the South China Sea stays international waters.

---

The usual US statement calls for continued free navigation and peaceful resolution of disputes. This I think makes sense, as a direct challenge to the claim would probably just provoke a more aggressive escalation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firn

Internal stability is indeed very likely the biggest concern for the guys at the top. This is strongly supported by the their monetary voting patters and family movements.

Recently the whole offshore wiki saga has once against shown just how much dubious money the wider communist leadership has transfered by dubious means away from home into the tax havens of the West. I hope that a least some of those NSA billions get spent to keep tabs on those movements because it might be one of the best ways to monitor short-term Chinese military policies. ;)

Perhaps the only better indicator are the many Chinese students who enjoy the great American institutions of learning. It is an open secret that a high percentage of the key players is sending it's kids to study in the US. It does not take a genius to figure out some important implications.

Overall the key maritime trade flow is certainly not the only thing which can be rather easily cut. All in all the Chinese rise and integration is a great success story for it's citiziens and had and has big trade-offs for other countries. It would be foolish to disregard either.

---

http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell...s-125873219530

Report reveals Chinese elite use off shore tax havens

A new report shows that 22,000 clients from mainland Hong Kong have off-shore accounts to shelter their money.

An excellent article/thought piece from Down Under, on what the Aussies are still calling the pivot.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/how...pivot-to-asia/

How much is enough? Why we need a more sober debate on the US pivot to Asia

The last paragraph is money in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Finally, in all of this, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that while there are growing signs of Sino-US strategic competition, containment (or ‘roll back’) of any Chinese influence in Asia is not America’s plan. And China appears not (yet) willing to seriously test US resolve in Asia-Pacific hotspots. Until then, arguments about the lack of US resolve and declining military capability are premature and unhelpful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell...s-125873219530

Report reveals Chinese elite use off shore tax havens

A new report shows that 22,000 clients from mainland Hong Kong have off-shore accounts to shelter their money.

---

There is indeed an huge amount of money earned in China flowing through financial trickery into Western countries. Such activities are to a good degree a classic hedge against internal Chinese risks, mostly I guess due to the insecurity of the political system and the law. Most of the net wealth of the rich will be tied down in physical capital and so they try to move the liquid portion out of country to invest it there.

No surprise there of course if we consider history and all that money coming in from rich persons, be it oligarchs, dictators, honest businessmen living in more insecure and unstable countries. In those countries shifts of powers tend to be pretty painful for those who are on the losing side, so a large amount of money in a safe country can mean the difference between a good life and possibly death. So highest-ranking Chinese party members are among the most likely offshorer and indeed they were.

I think many Western countries like the USA should play this smart and be relatively open also to those 'investors':

1) The flow of capital is generally a (very) good thing for economy.

2) It tends to reduce the dangers of no-so limited war against them. If many, partly highly influential people on the other side have considerable stakes in capital and family members in your country they don't want to lose them.


While China is incredibly important market the quality of living is much higher in the West for those who can afford it. People are voting with their feet, just compare the migration ´patterns between China and the West.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/op...ash-line-bader

The U.S. and China’s Nine-Dash Line: Ending the Ambiguity

Quote:

---

For the first time, the United States government has come out publicly with an explicit statement that the so-called “nine-dash line,” which the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan assert delineates their claims in the South China Sea, is contrary to international law. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Danny Russel, in testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on February 5, said, “Under international law, maritime claims in the South China Sea must be derived from land features. Any use of the 'nine-dash line' by China to claim maritime rights not based on claimed land features would be inconsistent with international law. The international community would welcome China to clarify or adjust its nine-dash line claim to bring it in accordance with the international law of the sea."

---

Quote:

---

Five tiny uninhabited islands slumber in the Pacific Ocean a short distance from Taiwan, China, and Japan. The Japanese call them the Senkaku Islands. The Chinese call them the Diaoyu Islands. Japan controls the islands, but China wants them. While international law favors Japan, it would be a mistake to think the law will stop China from grabbing them. That means that even though no one uses the islands currently for anything, if World War III takes place anytime soon, this is where it will start—implausible as that may sound.

---

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ecause_of.html

Dual posting this, since multiple observers in the peanut gallery seem to be coming to the same conclusion whether they're only reading OSINT tea leaves or not.

If you're out there, Captain; acknowledge, over.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A1K04B20140221

Quote:

---

(Reuters) - The Pentagon on Thursday played down remarks by a senior Navy intelligence officer who told a public forum that he believed China was training its forces to be capable of carrying out a "short, sharp" war with Japan in the East China Sea.

The comments by Captain James Fanell, director of intelligence and information operations at the U.S. Pacific Fleet, were little noticed when he made them last week at a conference on maritime strategy called "West 2014" in San Diego. They can be seen here: link.reuters.com/qyq96v

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhwm4SJxTw

Quote:

---

The Pentagon dismissed the statements made by a senior Navy intelligence officer in a forum regarding China’s alleged preparations for a “short, sharp war” with Japan. Director of Intelligence and Information Operations at the U.S. PACFLEET Captain James Fannell was speaking at a conference on maritime strategy titled “West 2014” when he made those comments based on reports they’ve been compiling about the situation in East Asia.

Rear Admiral John Kirby, spokesperson for the Pentagon, reiterated the U.S. desire to cultivate stronger ties with China’s military while declining to comment on Fannell’s assessment of the situation in the East China Sea. Kirby added that it was Fannell’s “views to express.” When asked whether he agrees with the intelligence officer’s analysis, Kirby responded, “It’s for China to speak to China’s intentions and motivations and their relations with their neighbors. And nothing’s changed about our view here.” He noted that despite Fannell’s views, the Pentagon shares the belief that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has on the matter, “that we all continue to believe that the peaceful, prosperous rise of China is a good thing for the region, for the world.”

---

http://japandailypress.com/pentagon-...sment-2144698/

Quote:

---

"... the Pentagon shares the belief that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has on the matter, “that we all continue to believe that the peaceful, prosperous rise of China is a good thing for the region, for the world.”

---

A careful choice of words indicating a belief that borders on the delusional.

Quote:

---

Quote:
"... the Pentagon shares the belief that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has on the matter, “that we all continue to believe that the peaceful, prosperous rise of China is a good thing for the region, for the world.”

---

Reminds me of Chamberlain!

This time it's Second Thomas Shoal, known in the Philippines as Ayungin Shoal and to the Chinese as Ren'ai Reef. It's one of the few spots in the Spratlys occupied by the Philippines, though there's no land to actually occupy: there's a small contingent of Philippine Marines living on am old ship that was run aground on the reef. The Philippine position is that the reef is an integral part of Philippine territory; the Chinese say the troops are trespassing, the ship was illegally grounded, and both should be removed.

On March 9 two civilian ships contracted by the Philippine Navy were forced away from the shoal by Chinese Coast Guard vessels. The Philippines says the ships were conducting routine resupply and troop rotation; the Chinese say they were delivering construction supplies aimed at building permanent structures.

On March 13 the Philippines announced that it had air-dropped supplies to the garrison, but that's hardly a long term solution.

The US has criticized the Chinese action, the Chinese told the US to STFU:

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100...ea-row-with-ph

The question, as usual, is where it goes from here. The next move is with the Philippines. The least provocative move would be to attempt another resupply with civilian vessels, and see if they are allowed through. An escalated version would be to resupply using a Coast Guard or naval vessel, which would give the Chinese a choice of letting it through, opposing with Coast Guard vessels, or bringing in a naval vessel of its own. I don't know if the Philippine Coast Guard has a suitable vessel; I suspect not.

The Philippines does have 2 refurbished Hamilton-Class cutters, which do not carry missiles and wouldn't have a chance in an actual naval battle, but which do carry helicopters and could resupply by helicopter even if obstructed. That would force the Chinese to decide whether to take action against the helicopters.

As a last resort the Philippines could ask the US to help with resupply. Hard to know how the US would respond to that. Some advantage to dong it, as it could be cast as a humanitarian mission with no aggressive intent and would force the burden of response onto the other side.

We will see.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...bf253499&hl=en

Quote:

---

The Philippines said Friday a deal to allow a greater US military presence on its territory could be signed next month, in a timely defence boost amid a worsening territorial row with China.

There was optimism the pact could be secured ahead of US President Barack Obama's April visit to Manila after the two sides agreed on a contentious issue that would see US forces build "structures" on their hosts military bases, Filipino officials said.

---

The chess game goes on... have to wonder if the Chinese are deliberately ratcheting up the pressure on Ayungin Shoal ahead of the Obama visit.

Philippines plans to resupply garrison on Second Thomas Shoal, China plans to stop them...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/0...A2G0I320140317

Quote:

---

"The Chinese government's attitude on maintaining the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity is unwavering. We will never tolerate the Philippines illegal occupation of Ren'ai reef," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a daily news briefing.

"China is on high alert for the Philippines possibly taking more provocative acts in the South China Sea. The Philippines must accept responsibility for the consequences of what will happen," he added.

Second Thomas Shoal, a strategic gateway to an area believed to be rich in oil and natural gas, is one of several possible maritime flashpoints that could prompt the United States to intervene in defence of Asian allies troubled by increasingly assertive Chinese maritime claims.

---

I don't really buy the "strategic gateway" thing, it's just one more shoal... but it's the least occupied of the areas the Philippines occupies, and thus the most vulnerable, a natural pressure point.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

No guns, no money, plenty of lawyers... the Philippines makes another move on the international legal side.

http://www.euronews.com/newswires/24...uth-china-sea/

Quote:

---

The Philippines will file a case against China over the disputed South China Sea at an arbitration tribunal in The Hague next week, subjecting Beijing to international legal scrutiny over the increasingly tense waters for the first time.

Manila is seeking a ruling to confirm its right to exploit the waters in its 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as allowed under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), its team of U.S. and British lawyers said.

---

The actual impact of these cases is negligible, as there is no mechanism for enforcing tbem, but they do have an impact on perceptions of legitimacy, and the Chinese hate them. What impact that will have on the current faceoff over Second Thomas Shoal remains to be seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

No guns, no money, plenty of lawyers... the Philippines makes another move on the international legal side.

---

I suggest that concurrently with these Phillippines legal efforts the US has mobilised a legal effort to see how to get out of the Mutual Defense Treaty (U.S.–Philippines)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMA

I suggest that concurrently with these Phillippines legal efforts the US has mobilised a legal effort to see how to get out of the Mutual Defense Treaty (U.S.–Philippines)

---

They don't need to, the way out is written into the treaty, which requires each party to "act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes". "In accordance with its constitutional processes" basically means that whatever response the US decides is appropriate meets the requirement.

The current standoff at Second Thomas Shoal is one of those marginal events that provides a fairly limited opportunity for response. The Chinese plan is clearly not to use force to expel the miniscule garrison there: they are trying to make the position of the garrison so untenable that the Philippines will withdraw it. What the US can or should do about that is an open question. Of course the US could demand that China allow the Philippines to resupply the garrison and repair the collapsing shipwreck they inhabit. The Chinese response would be that this is a bilateral matter between the Philippines and China, that the US has no standing to be making demands, and that China will not accept foreign dictation of conduct in areas under its "indisputable sovereignty" (those words appear in every statement). Where the US would take it from there is another question. Nobody wants to be the first to deploy naval vessels and certainly nobody wants to be the first to fire a shot.

I expect there's some discussion going on between the US and the Philippines; we'll see what happens. I don't think anyone intends to start an exchange of fire over it, but what's intended and what happens aren't always the same thing.