South China Sea and China

[Ray]

US is not going to get involved in a fight over Scarborough shoal, or for that matter over Pag-asa island. It wouldn't surprise me if China decided at some point to expel the Philippine garrison on Pag-asa, and I think they could probably get away with it.

China believes so and so do those who are China fans.

I wonder if you feel that Ms Clinton is being a mere hot air balloon.

What were those naval exercises with Philippines and Vietnam all about? And what was the effect?

It is called 'Threat in being'.

It works without going to war!

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Ray

Depends on what you mean meaningful.

If not meaningful, do elaborate what you mean by that?

Actual physical control. A claim is not sovereignty. The Philippines claims Malaysia's Sabah Province, but does not have and never has had meaningful (as in "existing outside the imagination) sovereignty over it.

Originally Posted by Ray

China claims Taiwan. Does she have a meaningful sovereignty over Taiwan.

No.

Originally Posted by Ray

What about the meaningful sovereignty China exhibits over islands that she claims?

They have sovereignty over the ones they physically control.

Originally Posted by Ray

Does China have any meaningful sovereignty over the Japanese islands China claims?

No.

Originally Posted by Ray

China believes so and so do those who are China fans.

Has China got fans? I wouldn't know, but I don't think any realsitic assessment would suggest US will to fight over Scarborough Shoal or the Spratly Islands. The US has already said, repeatedly, that it takes no position on the conflicting claims over disputed territory.

Originally Posted by Ray

I wonder if you feel that Ms Clinton is being a mere hot air balloon.

She's being a diplomat, which is different: diplomats are incapable of unassisted flight. Has Ms. Clinton ever said anything to suggest that the US was willing to fight over the disputed territories?

Originally Posted by Ray

What were those naval exercises with Philippines and Vietnam all about? And what was the effect?

They seemed to be about going through the motions and showing the flag. There has been no noticeable effect on Chinese policy or practice.

Originally Posted by Ray

It is called 'Threat in being'.

It works without going to war!

Has it worked? What has it accomplished?

China has already effectively seized Scarborough Shoal, to the extent possible. Of course you can't put people or permanent structures there, there isn't enough "there" to put people or permanent structures on, but they keep ships in the area almost continuously, weather permitting. There has been no response, and won't be any: the Philippines can't respond and the Americans won't. US ships visit Subic (nearby) and hold exercises in the area, the Chinese keep doing as they please.

My own personal assessment is that the Chinese probably could escalate to the point of seizing Pag-asa Island (the island in the Spratlys that the Philippines now holds) without eliciting an intolerable response from the US. Of course there would be strong words, some ships would sail around, etc as usual, but would the US fire shots or impose significant trade sanctions? I doubt it.

That of course is just an opinion. Not saying that's right or wrong or good or bad, just that I think they could probably get away with it.

[carl]

Here is a link to a Naval Institute blog that comments on the words of Captain James Fanell, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and Information Operations for US Pacific Fleet at a panel last week.

http://blog.usni.org/2013/02/06/hone...-uncomfortable

And here are some select quotes from Capt. Fanell.

(China’s) expansion into the blue waters are largely about countering the US Pacific fleet.’
* The PLA Navy is going to sea to learn how to do naval warfare…Make no mistake: the PRC navy is focused on war at sea, and sinking an opposing fleet.’
* On China Marine Surveillance, which supervises and patrols China’s claimed maritime territory: ‘If you map out their harassments you will see that they form a curved front that has over time expanded out against the coast of China’s neighbours, becoming the infamous nine-dashed line, plus the entire East China Sea…China is negotiating for control of other nations’ resources off their coasts; what’s mine is mine, and we’ll negotiate what’s yours.’
* China Marine Surveillance cutters have no other mission but to harass other nations into submitting to China’s expansive claims…China Marine Surveillance is a full-time maritime sovereignty harassment organisation’.
* In my opinion, China is knowingly, operationally and incrementally seizing maritime rights of its neighbours under the rubric of a maritime history that is not only contested in the international community but has largely been fabricated by Chinese government propaganda bureaus in order to “educate” the populous about China’s rich maritime history, clearly as a tool to sustain the Party’s control.

There is a link on the blog entry to video of the panel discussion during which Capt Fanell made his remarks.

[Dayuhan]

To the cynical ear that could easily sound like a budget appeal.

I personally suspect that China's naval expansion is aimed as much, maybe more, at the Indian Ocean than at the Pacific. Certainly they feel a need to be able to dominate within the first island chain, but beyond that the Indian Ocean probably has more strategic significance to them, as a conduit for a very large percentage of their merchandise exports and commodity imports. Right now a rival with superior naval force could effectively shut down their economy by controlling that area, and there's really not much they could do about it. I don't suppose that thought leaves them feeling entirely secure. I can't imagine what Americans would think if that circumstance were reversed.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

I knew that would smoke you out.

And you respond just like you always respond, 'well how would we feel?' and 'it's exaggerated'. You didn't include this time 'they are misunderstood' or 'we don't see it correctly' or 'can you blame them' (or maybe you did) or 'you have to understand their history'. The new one this time is 'it isn't really directed at us.'

All this stuff used to be said about the Soviets during the cold war.

The one thing it never is is that Red China wants to put a lot of ocean under their control and Finlandize a lot of countries.

[Dayuhan]

Why would you assume that a Chinese reaction to a perceived existential threat would be any different from an American reaction?

Speaking of the Cold War, has it ever occurred to you that China could do to us exactly what we did to the Soviet Union... as in provoke the antagonist into an unaffordable and completely unnecessary arms race and watch them collapse under the economic burden?

Of course in this case the Chinese are likely to collapse economically before we do, but that's still no reason to play the arms race game.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

See my post above.

[Dayuhan]

So a large, wealthy and powerful country is behaving as large, wealthy and powerful countries, including us, have always behaved. Shall we panic?

Seems to me that panic and hysteria rarely achieve anything productive and often provoke bad decisions. Why bother? Certainly I can see how those who see a potential increase in their budget would want to provoke a bit of hysteria, but that's not something I'd want to see a nation falling for.

If you asked the source of the comments cited for a solution to the problem, how much do you want to bet that the solution offered would center around "give us more money"?

[carl]

Dayuhan:

I forgot about the 'it's a play for money' response. Thanks for reminding me. And also the return of 'panic' and 'hysteria'. Haven't seen those in a while.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

I forgot about the 'it's a play for money' response.

You forgot that agencies of the US Government have been known to exaggerate the need for their services when the prospect of budget cuts is in the air? That's like forgetting to zip your pants after taking a leak.

Originally Posted by carl

...also the return of 'panic' and 'hysteria'. Haven't seen those in a while.

I guess you're not watching Americans talk about China.

[Bill Moore]

Good read to understand the context of our attempted rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. We're not talking about chasing terrorists, but attempting to preserve our status as a global leader and our economic system. In my view it is worth debating what are most significant strategic interests we must protect, and other than a catastrophic attack which terrorists can't launch, even if they get one nuke, I suspect it our economic system. Where else is it threatened (other than by our politicians) geographically? It seems the major threats to our economic system are in the Persian Gulf and the Asia-Pacific region.

http://www.fpri.org/articles/2013/02...southeast-asia

The Geopolitical Transformation of Southeast Asia

Capabilities are one thing; intentions are another. Here the crystal ball becomes cloudy. As noted, Chinese officials have been very insistent that China’s intentions toward Southeast Asia are entirely benign—nothing other than to join with the region in a common endeavor of economic development and regional peace and security. Nevertheless, doubts arise—on several grounds. In 1992 a PLA civilian analyst with close ties to China’s most senior leaders held an extended discussion with a handful of US security analysts. After some time in a moment of refreshing candor he made the following comment. “You keep asking about China’s strategic intent. I will tell you how the PLA views Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific Rim. The PLA is determined to build sufficient capability to accomplish two things: first, solve the Taiwan problem by force if necessary and second, expel the U.S. military from this region. You Americans have playgrounds all over the world where you can play—in the Atlantic, in the Caribbean, and in the central and eastern Pacific. But this playground (Southeast Asia and its environs) is ours. You have no business being here and we are determined to move you out.” Nothing that has happened in the subsequent two decades invalidates that formulation; quite the contrary. Chinese scholars writing with official sanction a few years later characterized U.S. strategic intentions toward China as “encirclement” and “strangulation.” They identified Southeast Asia as the weak link in this chain and the point where China could break through and defeat America’s attempted “containment.” In private Chinese diplomats have been known to use the Churchillian phrase “soft underbelly” to refer to Southeast Asia in relation to the rest of the region.

Still, by the spring of 2010 the relationship between the ASEAN countries and China remained overtly and determinedly cordial. But in July Foreign Ministers from the 26 nations that make up the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) convened their annual meeting. The ARF is distinctive because it is a forum to discuss regional security issues. There were two aspects of this particular meeting that were additionally distinctive. It was the first ARF meeting held in Hanoi which meant Vietnam controlled the agenda and the American Secretary of State was attending for the first time. For several years Vietnam had been trying to get the South China Sea on the ARF agenda but previous ASEAN hosts had refused knowing that to do so would anger China. But now Secretary of State Clinton (clearly in consultation with Hanoi) agreed to raise the issue in her statement to the Forum. In that statement the Secretary made two quite ordinary assertions: (1) the South China Sea was an arena with multiple claimants and such disputes should be addressed through a multilateral negotiation; (2) the sea lanes through the South China Sea, like major international sea lanes elsewhere, were a “global commons” and not within the territory of any state—they belonged to the world. This was pretty much standard diplomatic boilerplate and might have generated only minimal attention. But eight of the ten ASEAN Ministers in their statements endorsed Secretary Clinton’s remarks. Then things got really interesting. It was Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi’s turn to speak. Instead of a perfunctory response, his reaction was incendiary. He grew red in the face, he shouted, he sweated—and he had to leave the room to compose himself. When he returned he glared at the Singapore Foreign Minister (an ethnic Chinese) and observed that there are “big countries” and “small countries.” The message was unmistakable.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

It seems the major threats to our economic system are in the Persian Gulf and the Asia-Pacific region.

What would the Chinese do to our economic system that wouldn't do as much damage to theirs?

A lot of the "China threat" articles seem disturbingly generic. It would be easier to discuss the threat in specific terms: what specifically are we afraid the Chinese will do, and how specifically would those actions affect us?

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

What would the Chinese do to our economic system that wouldn't do as much damage to theirs?

A lot of the "China threat" articles seem disturbingly generic. It would be easier to discuss the threat in specific terms: what specifically are we afraid the Chinese will do, and how specifically would those actions affect us?

Dayuhan,

I'll address your specific question, admitted with limited expertise in economics and expand upon it a bit. First off the U.S. doesn't consider China an adversary, at least yet, but China's behavior is more than a little concerning and is in fact driving the rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific militarily (the rebalance is about much more than the military, but it is China's aggressive behavior that driving the demand for more U.S. forces in the Pacific).

The U.S. National Security Strategy list four enduring national interests, which I listed below. I believe the way China is currently behaving challenges all those interests.

1. The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;
2. A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that
promotes opportunity and prosperity;
3. Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and
4. An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity
through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

1. China doesn't necessarily threaten the U.S., but it could with its nuclear weapons "if" we ever went to war. However, China has been threatening our allies (both Japan and the Philippines), and a number of partners in the region as they use their military power to assert their territorial claims. It is bigger than firing shots at Filipino fishing boats, harassing U.S. Navy vessels, locking it radar on a Japanese Coast Guard vessel, and cutting the cables of Vietnamese oil vessels (none of which you expect from a civilized nation who desires to live peacefully with its neighbors).

It is bigger in the respect that this behavior also challenges interests 2-4 above also. It is driving a resurgence in nationalism in the region, and in my view Asian nationalism can be on the same level of extremism as Al-Qaeda's warped view of the world. This threatens peace in the region that could definitely undermine our economic interests, and worse potentially drag us into a war defending our allies or potentially not getting in the conflict and losing our leadership role in the region. If that happened I suspect the consequences would be quie severe over time. If China was ever successful in denying us access to the region and over time marginalized our interaction with the world's largest economies in that part of the world (the economic power center) the results to our nation would be devastating.

China's military might isn't and won't be as powerful as the U.s.'s on a global scale, but regionally they'll develop some asymmetric advantages with the ASBMs which can keep U.S. ships out of the region, and in theory making hard for us to respond to regional contingency without substantial risk. This is a normal development historically between nations, technology advances and any country that desires to be regional or global power will seek military advantages over others. While not out of the norm, combined with their recent behavior it is reason for concern. No one would think twice if Singapore developed and fielded the same weapon systems. China can't make an argument they're for self-defense when they're challenging other nations in the region militarily.

The biggest threat to U.S. economic interests in the near term is the ongoing Cyberwar China is waging. They are stealing billions of dollars worth of intellectual property from the U.S.. This is a state sponsored transnational criminal activity that undermines the economies of other nations. It invalidates the argument that China is somehow superior in the education field, since it appears most of their advances are based on reverse engineering the great ideas from other nations where people have the freedom to pursue intellectual pursuits.

That gets to U.S. national interest number 3, respect for universal values. At the end of the day China is still communist, and while not currently practicing the extremes that Mao did, there is little doubt that Tibetans, Uyghers, and other minority groups in China enjoy anywhere close to the freedoms we do.

China can modify its behavior and pursue its ends peacefully, the fact that it doesn't appears to imply something to me that we aren't comfortable talking about.

[Ray]

Rather well summed up.

China should approach international issues with maturity and statesmanship.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

At the end of the day China is still communist, and while not currently practicing the extremes that Mao did, there is little doubt that Tibetans, Uyghers, and other minority groups in China enjoy anywhere close to the freedoms we do.

A Cherokee or a Najajo might have something to say about that. China expanded and treated its fringe minorities in pretty much the same way the US did, we just did it before adopting the "universal values" we recognized after our expansion was reasonably well settled.

Again, what's missing are specifics. What exactly are we afraid that the Chinese will do? More of what they're doing now, the pushing, shoving and harassment that stops short of actual violence? Restrict maritime traffic in the South China Sea? Invade or blockade Taiwan? Force Philippine or Vietnamese armed forces off islands they now occupy?

In each case, what would the likely impact be on us? That's important to determine a proportional response. What would we be willing to do to preempt or respond to each scenario?

These things need to be looked at in a specific sense - as in specifically, what do we fear - because only by looking at them specifically can we determine what might realistically be done to prevent what we fear and what we would realistically be willing to do to respond in a given scenario. Generic fear makes a very poor basis for planning, unless of course the goal is to get a budget increase.

[davidbfpo]

A strange twist to Chinese diplomacy, initially for the Paracel Islands, as the BBC reports:

China is to begin running tourism cruises to a chain of disputed islands in the South China Sea by next month, state media reports.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22056661

An astute move, even more worrying if such a ship cruises into a hotly disputed area.

Incidentally this week IISS have a book launch on the disputes:http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/...-sea-disputes/