South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[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 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/loc...-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..._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/generalnewsfee...es/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/...7HE0GR20110614

[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/ar...#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/worl...d-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/as...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 - 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 - 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 - 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/...SIS0912011.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/philippin...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"?

[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/chann...-sea-pearl-772