South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[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.

[Bill Moore]

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.

[Bill Moore]

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.

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

[Firn]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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

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

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

[AdamG]

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

[AdamG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JMA]

"... 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.