Yes.
And also to Subic Bay in the Philippines.
This is all a part of the "Pacific Pivot," US strategy.
And it is all happening at the same time as the PLAN is developing and proceeding with their own SCS strategy.
Interesting times.
Last edited:
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
And also to Subic Bay in the Philippines.
This is all a part of the "Pacific Pivot," US strategy.
And it is all happening at the same time as the PLAN is developing and proceeding with their own SCS strategy.
Interesting times.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
The Diplomat is a poor source for objective articles. It's a pro-US magazine based in Tokyo, just those two points alone is enough to tell you everything you need to know about their objectivity, or rather, lack thereof.
The Diplomat is a poor source for objective articles. It's a pro-US magazine based in Tokyo, just those two points alone is enough to tell you everything you need to know about their objectivity, or rather, lack thereof.
Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
I dont see what the diplomat is inventing here. The US seems to have taken an harder line regarding the SCS. However, how far the US would really would go IF china would impose a ADIZ on the SCS remains to be seen. Specially when its east china sea ADIZ didnt have any impact at all. I dont understand why would the US increase its forces because of that. That would be far worse than the setting of the ADIZ itself.
China has denied the intention of declaring a ADIZ in SCS, where there are no significant foreign air forces and things are much more muddled than the ECS. Also the spratly islands are much less symbolicly important to china than the diayou/senkaku islands. Regardless, china didnt appear to be intimidated by the US officials declarations.
Most importantly, this only shows that the US still doesnt know how to handle china. And that is the real problem in this story. Both sides need to come to the table and seek a agreement for the security of east asia.
the problem is that in an agreement, to receive something, you need to give something. And i dont think that the US is willing to give anything to china (ex: They have shown no will to press both china and japan to negociate the disputed islands). Therefore the US only has one option, to harden its line towards china. For how long will they be able to do that before serious problems occur, remains to be seen.
I dont see what the diplomat is inventing here. The US seems to have taken an harder line regarding the SCS. However, how far the US would really would go IF china would impose a ADIZ on the SCS remains to be seen. Specially when its east china sea ADIZ didnt have any impact at all. I dont understand why would the US increase its forces because of that. That would be far worse than the setting of the ADIZ itself.
China has denied the intention of declaring a ADIZ in SCS, where there are no significant foreign air forces and things are much more muddled than the ECS. Also the spratly islands are much less symbolicly important to china than the diayou/senkaku islands. Regardless, china didnt appear to be intimidated by the US officials declarations.
Most importantly, this only shows that the US still doesnt know how to handle china. And that is the real problem in this story. Both sides need to come to the table and seek a agreement for the security of east asia.
the problem is that in an agreement, to receive something, you need to give something. And i dont think that the US is willing to give anything to china (ex: They have shown no will to press both china and japan to negociate the disputed islands). Therefore the US only has one option, to harden its line towards china. For how long will they be able to do that before serious problems occur, remains to be seen.
Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
The diplomat is a bad source because they take various events and they construe them in a way to serve a particular framing of geopolitical issues.
They like to take issues, statements, or events, and hype them up, usually in a way which either portrays China as the aggressor, or on the back foot, or malevolent in someway, all while trying to maintain the guise of a neutral, professional observer to the casual reader.
They are certainly professional and they do observe, but neutral they are not.
Anyway this statement is related to the SCS and not the ECS. Hell, China has even dispelled rumours that they plan to install an ADIZ in the short term in the SCS anyway, so this is technically off topic to this thread.
The diplomat is a bad source because they take various events and they construe them in a way to serve a particular framing of geopolitical issues.
They like to take issues, statements, or events, and hype them up, usually in a way which either portrays China as the aggressor, or on the back foot, or malevolent in someway, all while trying to maintain the guise of a neutral, professional observer to the casual reader.
They are certainly professional and they do observe, but neutral they are not.
Anyway this statement is related to the SCS and not the ECS. Hell, China has even dispelled rumours that they plan to install an ADIZ in the short term in the SCS anyway, so this is technically off topic to this thread.
Engineer
Major
Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
The notion of China's claiming most of South China Sea is an invention by US in the first place. Now, the US is challenging this notion that they themselves created, which is essentially beating on a strawman.
The notion of China's claiming most of South China Sea is an invention by US in the first place. Now, the US is challenging this notion that they themselves created, which is essentially beating on a strawman.
by78
General
Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
I think the diplomat is challenging the 'nine-dash line', which constitutes a good chunk of South China sea.
The basis of his challenge is 'international law', or specifically UNCLOS, which the U.S. has never ratified. Facepalm.
Then again, the Foggy Bottom is the original cesspool of Beltway crackpots, propagandists, and useful idiots.
I think the diplomat is challenging the 'nine-dash line', which constitutes a good chunk of South China sea.
The basis of his challenge is 'international law', or specifically UNCLOS, which the U.S. has never ratified. Facepalm.
Then again, the Foggy Bottom is the original cesspool of Beltway crackpots, propagandists, and useful idiots.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
Excuse me? US lies??? The US has gone out of its way to cool tempers on all sides, and is only forced to make stronger statements to keep our hotblooded allies in check. If you want to showcase liars, point to Japan and keep the US out of it.
Excuse me? US lies??? The US has gone out of its way to cool tempers on all sides, and is only forced to make stronger statements to keep our hotblooded allies in check. If you want to showcase liars, point to Japan and keep the US out of it.
Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
What?
I was under the impression that China's territorial claim included all the waters under the nine dash line. Most people would argue that constitutes "most" of the SCS.
Unless you're saying China doesn't claim the waters under the nine dash line, in which case I'm confused.
Of course, the nine dash line itself, while the largest out of the territorial claim areas, is also challenged by the sizes of other nations, such as Vietnam's own claimed waters in the SCS.
What?
I was under the impression that China's territorial claim included all the waters under the nine dash line. Most people would argue that constitutes "most" of the SCS.
Unless you're saying China doesn't claim the waters under the nine dash line, in which case I'm confused.
Of course, the nine dash line itself, while the largest out of the territorial claim areas, is also challenged by the sizes of other nations, such as Vietnam's own claimed waters in the SCS.
Re: East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone
No no no
the 9 dash denotes all the little island and shoals with in it. all the land features. China claims all that. It does not claim the actual ocean itself as territorial sea.
this is what's actually obtrusive about the US official's claim, because the actual position of 9-dash line (denotes the claim of all land features with in those 9 dashes, not the ocean itself) is public knowledge for 6 decades now. and yet there is still buzz about "clearify the position" , as if china is actually claiming a huge swath of ocean as territorial sea. If he is in his position and did not read his briefing papers carefully then I call in question his capacity as a diplomat. On the other hand if he understands the chinese claim yet still choose to Obfuscate china's actual claim. then he is simply doing a hit job in the media.
On the position of over lapping EEZ its a whole different story. actually more technical and has a better chance of solving them because it does not involve territorial dispute.
BTW Vietnam and Philippines actual claim are about the same size of china's claim, AND they actually hold more islands in Spratly than china...
No no no
the 9 dash denotes all the little island and shoals with in it. all the land features. China claims all that. It does not claim the actual ocean itself as territorial sea.
this is what's actually obtrusive about the US official's claim, because the actual position of 9-dash line (denotes the claim of all land features with in those 9 dashes, not the ocean itself) is public knowledge for 6 decades now. and yet there is still buzz about "clearify the position" , as if china is actually claiming a huge swath of ocean as territorial sea. If he is in his position and did not read his briefing papers carefully then I call in question his capacity as a diplomat. On the other hand if he understands the chinese claim yet still choose to Obfuscate china's actual claim. then he is simply doing a hit job in the media.
On the position of over lapping EEZ its a whole different story. actually more technical and has a better chance of solving them because it does not involve territorial dispute.
BTW Vietnam and Philippines actual claim are about the same size of china's claim, AND they actually hold more islands in Spratly than china...
Last edited: