Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
They committed to defend the Philippines against attack. The Spratly Islands are not part of the Philippines, they're disputed territory. The US position, as it typically is in such cases, is that it does not support or oppose any of the competing claims to disputed territory, but strongly supports a negotiated solution.
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


Presumably to defend Chinese interests. It would be silly of us to view that purely in light of China/US relations. China has numerous interests that do not involve us at all.

Forewarned is forearmed, but seeing a ghastly threat in anything anyone does is a rather timorous stance, and is likely to get one into trouble. Neither is chest-thumping bluster a terribly viable response anymore, it's likely to get us more of what we don't want.
Of course, as you say it is silly of the US to view the Chinese aircraft carrier it purely in the light of China - US relations. There is no doubt about that. But the US strategist do not seen things in isolation and I daresay they are blind as is being suggested.

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.



They do it every year. It's not a big deal, never has been. The Chinese always protest. It'a a bit of a ritual dance and it's been ongoing for ages; mostly nobody notices. it is of course possible that the Chinese timed their incursions to coincide with the exercise; to make it look like they can jerk the chain and elicit a response. Hard to know for sure, but I wouldn't want to assign too much importance to it.
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.

The exercises being now conducted, hot on the heels of the crisis, would be observed closely, even if it was passed off, let us say, manoeuvres aimed to hone anti Terrorist or anti Pirate naval cooperation!

North Korea serves their interests; why would they drop them? It is of course true that the Chinese perception of self-interest is more consistent and longer running than the American; consequence of different political systems. That doesn't mean that Chinese "friendships" are based on anything but perceived self-interest.
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!!

And your comments on Myanmar?

Seems to me that the Pakistanis are ever so quick to get friendly with the Chinese or Russians when hey want something out of the US or are irritated with the US. Don't you think Pakistan sees advantage in being courted by both the US and China, and plays that rivalry to their advantage? It would be strange if they didn't, no?
It appears that you are not updating yourself.

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

They are merely keeping all options open in their self interest.

Pakistan, in no way, is playing US against China or China against the US. Where have they played in this fashion. Name one.

Pakistan's equation with the US is WoT. It helps to keep Pakistan afloat financially and militarily. It has nothing to do with Pakistan China relationship.

Pakistan's equation with China is assistance from China to build Pakistan's infrastructure, equip its forces with cheaper military hardware which are effective being US or Russian copies, and act as an ally against India. These interest have no clash with the US interests in Pakistan.


They don't care if it's correct or incorrect, they're only asking if it's in their interests. The morality of it doesn't matter at all. The US has poured billions into Pakistan, despite their role in proliferation, and has supported many "immoral" states over the years. Morality matters not at all in these equations.
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?

A threat to the Philippines, or a threat to the Spratly Islands? Two different things.

The pact does not dictate what the response to any given threat or perceived threat must be. That has to be determined at the time of the perceived threat, based on assessment of the perceived threat.
If a threat to Philippines is not a threat to Philippine interest, territorial integrity (as perceived by Philippines) and its security, then what is? Attack on Mindanao?

Earthquakes cause tsunamis.
Earthquake without an ocean cause a tremor!

Little to lose from what? Are you proposing to detach China from the world?

I wouldn't lock China into the "cheap shoddy products" niche. Lots of countries have held that spot and moved out of it, and the Chinese are moving through it rather quickly.
No one is proposing to detach China from the world.

It is for China to make its mark on the world and there is no requirement for others to topple over each other to help China on her way.

In fact, one should topple over each other to save impoverished nations like Burkina Faso and such like nations.

Many countries may have gone the way of 'cheap, shoddy goods' and become what they are today e.g. Japan.

We can await China to grow out of 'cheap, shoddy goods' and then acclaim that she has arrived!


Imposing economic sanctions on Myanmar is like banning a corpse from the dance floor. They have no economy worthy of the name, so the impact is minimal. An economy completely dependent on industrial exports and energy imports, requiring continuous growth to prevent popular unrest, is another animal completely.
Corpse to many, but still surviving!

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

What one forget is that one compares nations by western standards of requirement for creature comforts and sustenance. Or the PPP. While it is true that it looks abysmal, the resilience and the survival instinct with the basic minimum is immense. Therefore, sanctions only affects the elite and not the real poor and the majority are the real poor.

For instance, 'living under $2 a day' if compared to the purchasing power of $2 in US is not the same as in, say Burkina Faso. $2 possibly can sustain a family since what may appear 'necessities' in the US is considered a 'luxury' in Burkina Faso. And it is not that there is only one breadwinner. The whole family works alarming westerners of 'child labour' etc. Child labour in such country becomes a necessity and more the children more is the family kitty!! A vicious circle, but that is how it works.

Survival. The socialist ship was sinking and everyone could see it.
The socialist ship had sunk long ago. Mao did not feel so.

Many companies from many countries. Potential profit draws companies.
And why are they re-locating?

The US is not in a position to allow, disallow, or assure anyone's prosperity, and "containment" has to be scaled to the level of the threat, not the maximum extension of where a perceived threat might possibly lead under the worst possible circumstances.
Containment is not only military.

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