South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Blackstone

Brigadier
Those author's are prejudice against the CPC even if they are saying something positive about China they throw in a curve ball to discredit the government in one way or another. My argument here is take everything you read (no matter where or whom) with a grain of salt. What is their intention and how do they suppose to get there? Are they answering the right critical questions?
I recommend that you read them and watch their videos before passing judgement. Who knows, even you might consider their views balanced and mostly positive on China.

Yes, but my point is for some Americans to stop whining and bitching about China leading their way into the #1 position of the world. Go out and do something against your rulers and government that are failing you and the people! Regime change if you have to! Look into the mirror, stop praying to "god" and start becoming more practical and see the world in a different view and take history seriously! Is that too much to ask? I'm just saying.o_O
Mmm, okay. Didn't sound like that's what you meant in the above post, but I'll accept your explanation without commenting on its substance.
 
now found in Twitter:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Photomessaging:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
carrier/destroyer
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
SAZANAMI & US destroyer
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
sailing thru the South
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Sea last week"
DBNtmwJXoAAuQam.jpg

DBNtpB1WAAAu2x3.jpg

DBNtqGrWsAARLUn.jpg

DBNtqmcXUAAFk2i.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
according to Military.com Pentagon Chief Turns Up Heat on North Korea and China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis turned up the heat on North Korea and its main benefactor, China, on Saturday, calling the North Koreans a "clear and present danger" and chastising the Chinese for coercive behavior in the South China Sea.

His sharp words for both countries suggest he believes China will, out of self-interest, exert leverage on North Korea to halt its nuclear and missile programs even as Washington pushes Beijing to change course in the South China Sea.

Speaking at an international security conference in Singapore, Mattis said the Trump administration is encouraged by China's renewed commitment to working with the U.S. and others to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons. He also said he thinks China ultimately will see it as a liability rather than an asset.

China blocked tough new sanctions against North Korea that the United States pushed in the U.N. Security Council on Friday. However, the Security Council did vote unanimously to add 15 individuals and four entities linked to the North's nuclear and missile programs to a U.N. sanctions blacklist.

In his speech to the Shangri-La Dialogue, sponsored by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Mattis sought to balance his hopeful comments on China with sharp criticism of what he called Beijing's disregard for international law by its "indisputable militarization" of artificial islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea.

"We oppose countries militarizing artificial islands and enforcing excessive maritime claims unsupported by international law," he said. "We cannot and will not accept unilateral, coercive changes to the status quo."

Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told a news conference later that he believed Mattis had effectively stressed the U.S. commitment to allies in the Asia-Pacific region.

"He was very clear, very strong," said Thornberry, who led a bipartisan congressional delegation on an Asia tour and attended Saturday's Singapore conference.

Overall, Mattis' speech struck a positive, hopeful tone for cooperation and peace in the Asia-Pacific region, where he and his predecessors have made it a priority to nurture and strengthen alliances and partnerships.

"While competition between the U.S. and China, the world's two largest economies, is bound to occur, conflict is not inevitable," he said. "Our two countries can and do cooperate for mutual benefit. We will pledge to work closely with China where we share common cause."

He was, however, unrelentingly critical of North Korea, a politically and economically isolated nation whose leaders have long viewed the United States as a military threat, in part because of periodic U.S. military exercises with South Korea, which the North sees as preparations for attacks aimed at destroying its ruling elite.

He called North Korea an "urgent military threat." In a question-and-answer session with his audience of national security experts from across the globe, Mattis was asked whether the U.S. might attack the North preemptively and without warning South Korea in advance.

"We're working diplomatically, economically, we're trying to exhaust all possible alternatives to avert this race for a nuclear weapon in violation of ... the United Nations' restrictions on North Korea's activities," he said.

"We want to stop this. We consider it urgent," he added.

The U.S. has about 28,500 troops permanently based in South Korea, a defense treaty ally.

"North Korea's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them is not new," Mattis said in his prepared remarks.

"But the regime has increased the pace and scope of its efforts," he added, alluding to the North's series of nuclear device tests in recent years and an accelerated pace of missile tests seemingly aimed at building a rocket with enough range to hit the U.S.

"While the North Korean regime has a long record of murder of diplomats, of kidnapping, killing of sailors and criminal activity, its nuclear weapons program is maturing as a threat to all," Mattis said. "As a matter of national security, the United States regards the threat from North Korea as a clear and present danger."

Mattis made no mention of President Donald Trump's decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate change agreement.

The issue arose briefly during questions from his audience, but Mattis did not address it directly. An Australian questioner asked, in light of Trump's abandonment of an international trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and his withdrawal from the Paris climate deal, "why should we not fret that we are present at the destruction of" a global rules-based order?

"There's going to be fresh approaches taken" to various issues by Trump, Mattis said, while making it clear that he personally believes the U.S. needs to avoid isolationist tendencies.

"Like it or not, we're part of the world," he said.
 
when the SDF was down this evening today, I read
Global allies call for continued US patrols in South China Sea
Speakers at an Asian security summit have called for a continuation of U.S. Navy freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea, with the dispute still on participants’ minds even as other regional security challenges have made the news in recent weeks.

In their respective speeches, the defense ministers of Australia and Japan have supported U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ assertion that the U.S. military will continue to operate in spaces allowed by international law in their respective speeches at the annual Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore.

Organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies or IISS (Asia), the event brings together government and non-governmental defense and security professionals from Asia and around the world to discuss regional events, and is the biggest such summit in the region.

In his speech at the first plenary session on Saturday, Mattis said the U.S. military “ will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows and demonstrate resolve through operational presence in the South China Sea and beyond,” adding that “our operations throughout the region are an expression of our willingness to defend both our interests and the freedoms enshrined in international law."

Echoing that sentiment, Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada reiterated her support for freedom of navigation operations by the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea, saying that they “represent the U.S. resolve to maintain the open, free and peaceful international maritime order.”

Inada also used her speech to highlight continuing tensions over territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas although she did not mention any country by name, noting that in the former “government ships of a certain country continue to make periodic incursions into Japanese territorial waters” while “the construction of outposts in the South China Sea and their use for military purposes continues.”

Speaking immediately after Inada, Australian Defense Minister Marise Payne said Australia “will also continue to strongly support the right of others to exercise these rights.” She added that Australian military ships and aircraft will continue to “operate in the South China Sea, as they have for decades, consistent with the rights of freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight."

Under Operation Gateway, the Royal Australian Air Force deploys a single Lockheed-Martin AP-3C Orion aircraft to Butterworth, Malaysia between four and eight times a year, conducting regular flights over fortnightly periods.

According to the Australian defense department, these flights are Australia’s contribution to the preservation of regional security and stability in South East Asia, and include maritime surveillance patrols in the North Indian Ocean and South China Sea.

Both Mattis and Inada also stressed that last year’s permanent court of arbitration ruling on the case brought on by the Philippines against Chinese actions in the South China Sea was legally binding, with all three ministers urging the claimant countries to abide by it and to use it as a starting point to manage the dispute, although China had refused to participate in the arbitration process and said it will ignore the ruling.

The ministers were not the only ones to weigh in on the need to continue the patrols, with IISS-Asia’s Shangri-La Dialogue Senior Fellow for Asia-Pacific Security William Choong telling assembled media that the U.S. “needs to enforce the freedom of the seas,” noting there was a seven-month hiatus in freedom of navigation patrols until the destroyer USS Dewey sailed within twelve nautical miles of Mischief Reef in the South China Sea on May 24, the first such patrol under the Trump administration.
source is DefenseNews
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
when the SDF was down this evening today, I read
Global allies call for continued US patrols in South China Sea

source is DefenseNews
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


.................................

In his speech at the first plenary session on Saturday, Mattis said the U.S. military “ will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows and demonstrate resolve through operational presence in the South China Sea and beyond,” adding that “our operations throughout the region are an expression of our willingness to defend both our interests and the freedoms enshrined in international law."

Well, how about this then?

China will continue to fly, sail, operate and build, or otherwise would do anything as she sees fit, as in wherever her indisputable sovereignty and her rights in international law allow and demonstrate resolve through operational physical presence in the South China Sea and beyond.
Thus, PRC operations and actions - with a resolute view to promoting peace through strength against far away foreign powers and their lackeys and running dogs - throughout the region are an expression of Chinese willingness to defend Chinese sovereignty, national interests and her sovereign freedoms enshrined in international law.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Is China a threat to maritime trade flow in the SCS? This author says 'no,' and I think he's right.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The risk of other countries’ trade being halted or subject to a costly diversion is exaggerated.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[2]

Western media commonly claims that more than US$5 trillion in trade passes through the South China Sea annually. This figure appears to originate from a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[3] by US Navy admiral Robert F. Willard, who cited the value of trade flows as a reason why the sea lanes were ‘incredibly vital’ to the United States and the region as a whole.

Similarly, the Australian government’s 2016 Defence White Paper
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[4] that Australia’s interests in the region stem in part from nearly two-thirds of its exports traversing the South China Sea, including iron ore, coal and liquefied natural gas destined for major customers in Northeast Asia.

Many commentators argue that China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea potentially puts this trade at risk.

Given that nearly every country in the region is more dependent upon trade than the United States, it might be expected that more frequent US freedom of navigation patrols (FONOPs) to challenge China’s ‘
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[5]’ in the South China Sea would receive broad backing.

But to date the regional response to China’s actions has been limited. There were
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[6] between October 2015 and November 2016. Meanwhile, security allies such as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[7] of US navy admirals hinting that they too should run their own FONOPs. Yet no US friend, partner or ally in the region has taken up the suggestion so far, at least on penetrating the 12 nautical mile zone around Chinese claimed territory.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[8] for the muted response is that the incentives countries have to take more dramatic action are weaker than often put.

First, the US$5 trillion trade figure looks inflated. Comparing it with WTO numbers for the total value of world trade and the proportion of trade value that is transported by ship would necessitate that around 43 per cent of world seaborne trade value passes through the South China Sea. Yet
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[9] listed the world’s top 25 bilateral trade relationships and many go nowhere near the waterway, instead crossing the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Second, of the trade that does go through the South China Sea, the bulk is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[10]. China has no interest in blocking this because every dollar stems from a good that China wants to buy or sell.

In particular, China has become highly dependent upon seaborne imports to meet its demand for energy, as well as basic industrial inputs such as iron ore. A
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[11] worry that in the event of a crisis the United States could sever these supplies at will. This suggests that to the extent that freedom of navigation has figured in China’s island building calculations in the South China Sea, the more rational explanation is that it is motivated by a desire to protect it, rather than undermine it.

Third, the risk of other countries’ trade being halted or subject to a costly diversion is exaggerated.

There is a history of countries finding ways to divert their trade when necessary. When the Suez Canal was closed during 1967–1975, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[12] distances suffered by most Asian countries was modest, despite the route’s importance connecting the region with Europe.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[13] finds that the relationship between shipping distances, trade flows and national income is statistically significant but diffuse, implying that even if China were able to block the South China Sea, the impact on economic growth in other countries is likely to be small.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[14] show that Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan and the Philippines are largely served by merchant vessels that take coast hugging routes outside China’s nine dash line.

And
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[15], the only Australian exports that go through the South China Sea are with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[16]. This equates to just
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[17], compared with 30.9 per cent to China.

The busy trade route between eastern Australia and Japan and South Korea travels east of the Philippines. Even
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[18] destined for Northeast Asia passes through the Lombok Strait, avoiding the South China Sea.

It was
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[19] that the country most at risk from China controlling the South China Sea was Japan, which was ‘utterly dependent’ on the waters for vital
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[20]. But a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[21] found that exclusively taking the Lombok route would have increased Japan’s oil import costs by $US300 million annually. This equates to just 0.2 per cent of Japan’s oil import bill
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[22]. The ease with which oil supplies could be rerouted away from the Strait of Malacca to the Sunda, Lombok or other passages has also
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[23] by scholars at the US Naval War College.

Rather than preserving commercial freedom of navigation, Australia’s first ambassador to China, Stephen Fitzgerald
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[24] that "what the US is really about is freedom of navigation for its military ships and aircraft to push hard up against Chinese waters — which it would not countenance near its own waters".

The United States is of the view that the freedom of navigation specified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) applies to both commercial and military vessels. The majority of the 167 UNLCOS signatory states share this view. But there is a significant minority of more than 60 coastal states that in practice take a contrary stance by asserting
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[25] within their exclusive economic zones. They include Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and South Korea. And of course, the United States is not an UNCLOS signatory at all.

James Laurenceson is Deputy Director of the Australia–China Relations Institute (ACRI) at the University of Technology, Sydney.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
As I have said many times.

Short of War...which neither side wants, and which both sides are anxious to avoid...

1) The US is not going to be able to stop China from improving its shoals and reefs in the SCS and making islands and bases out of them.

2) The Chinese are not going to be able to stop the US FON transits and exercises in the SCS.

Both sides will continue doing what they are doing, keeping an eye on each other, and short of some absolutely lame brained, crazy mistake, that condition will simply continue forward.

Japan, Australia, and India...and to some extent Vietnam,, the Philippines and others are all happy to let that continue and mostly support the US FON. From their perspective, both sides are keeping a lid on the other.

We have reached a point now where Japan and Australia are supplying military support to the FON...something China does not like. But again, China will not make war over that.

China continues to strengthen those islands and put military grades sensors and aircraft on them...something the US does not like. But in turn, the US is not willing or wanting to go to war over that.

It would be crazy and self-defeating t both sides.
 
Last edited:
As I have said many times.

Short of War...which neither side wants, and which both sides are anxious to avoid...

1) The US is not going to be able to stop China from improving its shoals and reefs in the SCS and making islands and bases out of them.

2) The Chinese are not going to be able to stop the US FON transits and exercises in the SCS.

Both sides will continue doing what they are doing, keeping an eye on each other, and short of some absolutely lame brained, crazy mistake, that condition will simply continue forward.

Japan, Australia, and India...and to some extent Vietnam,, the Philippines and others are all happy to let that continue and mostly support the US FON. From their perspective, both sides are keeping a lid on the other.

We have reached a point now where Japan and Australia are supplying military support to the FON...something China does not like. But again, China will not make war over that.

China continues to strengthen those islands and put military grades sensors and aircraft on them...something the US does not like. But in turn, the US is not willing or wanting to go to war over that.

It would be crazy and self-defeating t both sides.

Japan and Australia might be supportive of US military FON as they interpret international law the same way as the US but India, Vietnam, and the Philippines are at most quietly hypocritically gleeful when the target is China as they interpret international law the same way as China.

The rest I can't agree more.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Japan and Australia might be supportive of US military FON as they interpret international law the same way as the US but India, Vietnam, and the Philippines are at most quietly hypocritically gleeful when the target is China as they interpret international law the same way as China.

The rest I can't agree more.
Yes...Vietnam and the Phillipines will be sure to play both sides against the middle oif they can.
 
Top