South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

Brumby said:

There is a big difference between being harassed and preventing rescue

Click to expand...

Okay, I can always add being robbed and beaten for Chinese fishermen too if we're being specific on the issue. How about that Taiwanese fishermen dying from a hail of gunfire? The offender weren't little green men but a state's official CG vessel. Didn't render assistance, left for dead.

Brumby said:

I am making judgement based on what had been reported. You are entitled to question the veracity of the incident. Please feel free to validate the story and update us.

Click to expand...

I am not supporting the purported action. But I am questioning the lone report on the concepts of innocent till proven guilty and burden of proof, especially when the smoking gun (evidence) wasn't even provided on the report. You're more than welcome to trash those concepts.

joshuatree said:

Okay, I can always add being robbed and beaten for Chinese fishermen too if we're being specific on the issue. How about that Taiwanese fishermen dying from a hail of gunfire? The offender weren't little green men but a state's official CG vessel. Didn't render assistance, left for dead.

Click to expand...

I am just commenting on news as reported. You are free to disparage and criticize the actions of the other incidents if such actions are not acceptable. I don't have any problem even if you wish to use every imaginable wording to express your outrage over those incidents. I am not even sure why you are bringing up old news though.

joshuatree said:

I am not supporting the purported action. But I am questioning the lone report on the concepts of innocent till proven guilty and burden of proof, especially when the smoking gun (evidence) wasn't even provided on the report. You're more than welcome to trash those concepts.

Click to expand...

As I had already said you are free to question the truthfulness of what was reported and debunked them if necessary.

I got to admit, it's entertaining to see apopletic responses of neocons/neolibs' to Beijing's dismissal of the not-UN arbitration ruling. Here's one from Professor James Holmes of the Naval War College.

Weeping, gnashing of teeth and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Those were sounds emanating from Beijing following the July 12 ruling from the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

International law has a way of accommodating realities of power—of deferring to the strong. Kudos go to the jurists, consequently, for speaking truth to power—for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(UNCLOS) rather than softening their findings or declining to rule on the most contentious matters in hopes of fostering amity with China. John F. Kennedy would award them a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Beijing, for instance, has proclaimed repeatedly, loudly and stridently that it commands “

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

” within a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

enclosing some 80–90 percent of the South China Sea. That includes exclusive economic zones (EEZs) apportioned to coastal states such as the Philippines, the claimant that brought its case before the UNCLOS tribunal. Indisputable sovereignty is a sea grab.

.
.
.

Greater than 10k characters
.
.
.


To uphold freedom of the sea, U.S. Navy and friendly ships and planes should exercise every prerogative to which they’re entitled by the law of the sea, in every square inch of airspace and waterspace where they’re entitled to exercise it. Airmen should conduct surveillance flights in immediate proximity to Scarborough Shoal and other contested features. Ships can lawfully conduct flight operations, underwater surveys and the like—check UNCLOS. They can loiter or even anchor there.

They should. Be indecent—and confound the lawless.

Click to expand...

So, what to make of Professor Homes' article? I think we could probably draw the following conclusion-

• Holmes is a shameless hypocrite. He evidently believes it's A-OK for US to violate international laws at whim, but not someone else. In his universe, 'our' crucifixions are acts of faith while 'theirs' are, of course, evil
• He's mistaken if he thinks regional countries will band with the US to impose PCA rulings on Beijing. Statements from ASEAN say the opposite. Japan isn't saying much, and will do even less. Australia is MIA
• He's delusional if he thinks the American public would support more foreign interventions, this time against another great power. Recent polls show just the opposite
• Finally, he's divorced from reality to believe so-called freedom of navigation, however "indecent," would change PRC behavior and its continuing efforts to consolidate holdings in the SCS and develop its own Monroe Doctrine

I honestly believe US and China can peacefully come to terms and accommodate each other where China gets co-leadership and US maintains strong presence in Asia. It would take diplomacy and painful compromises by both sides. I'm not sure if there are leaders that can get it done, but I'm certain neocon-types on both sides can't.

joshuatree said:

Okay, I can always add being robbed and beaten for Chinese fishermen too if we're being specific on the issue. How about that Taiwanese fishermen dying from a hail of gunfire? The offender weren't little green men but a state's official CG vessel. Didn't render assistance, left for dead.

I am not supporting the purported action. But I am questioning the lone report on the concepts of innocent till proven guilty and burden of proof, especially when the smoking gun (evidence) wasn't even provided on the report. You're more than welcome to trash those concepts.

Click to expand...

The Chinese side is denying allegations and are saying they have video evidence.

Blackstone said:

I got to admit, it's entertaining to see apopletic responses of neocons/neolibs' to Beijing's dismissal of the not-UN arbitration ruling. Here's one from Professor James Holmes of the Naval War College.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So, what to make of Professor Homes' article? I think we could probably draw the following conclusion-

• Holmes is a shameless hypocrite. He evidently believes it's A-OK for US to violate international laws at whim, but not someone else. In his universe, 'our' crucifixions are acts of faith while 'theirs' are, of course, evil
• He's mistaken if he thinks regional countries will band with the US to impose PCA rulings on Beijing. Statements from ASEAN say the opposite. Japan isn't saying much, and will do even less. Australia is MIA
• He's delusional if he thinks the American public would support more foreign interventions, this time against another great power. Recent polls show just the opposite
• Finally, he's divorced from reality to believe so-called freedom of navigation, however "indecent," would change PRC behavior and its continuing efforts to consolidate holdings in the SCS and develop its own Monroe Doctrine

I honestly believe US and China can peacefully come to terms and accommodate each other where China gets co-leadership and US maintains strong presence in Asia. It would take diplomacy and painful compromises by both sides. I'm not sure if there are leaders that can get it done, but I'm certain neocon-types on both sides can't.

Click to expand...

It's the US side that could NEVER compromise their status quo. Other wise they would seem weak and meek by their allies and that's not good for public image or the military industrial complexes elitists.

Equation said:

It's the US side that could NEVER compromise their status quo. Other wise they would seem weak and meek by their allies and that's not good for public image or the military industrial complexes elitists.

Click to expand...

Washington has already signaled its willingness to compromise with Beijing through Ambassador Jose Cuisia's statement to President Duterte that US would only defend Philippines if China attacks. It's clear the two great powers are still learning to deal with each other, and there will be more tense moments before things finally settle down to a new equilibrium. China probably wouldn't accept any less than co-leadership, and it's imperative for US to maintain strong presence in Asia because it too is a Pacific nation.

Blackstone said:

it's imperative for US to maintain strong presence in Asia because it too is a Pacific nation.

Click to expand...

It's a Pacific nation but I disagreed it needs to be a strong presence in Asia otherwise to maintain that status quo and cold war mentality.

Equation said:

It's a Pacific nation but I disagreed it needs to be a strong presence in Asia otherwise to maintain that status quo and cold war mentality.

Click to expand...

It's actually in China's interests to have strong US security and economic presence in Asia. I say that because, like it or not, some countries in the Asia-Pacific region are nervous and even fearful of China returning to its traditional position atop Asia. Since nervous and fearful people make bad decisions, the region's better off if the US stands tallest and in co-dominion with China. In any case, just as US can't do much about reemerging China asserting "great power privileges," the opposite is also true. It's a brave new world, and both great powers will just have to deal with it.

Blackstone said:

It's actually in China's interests to have strong US security and economic presence in Asia. I say that because, like it or not, some countries in the Asia-Pacific region are nervous and even fearful of China returning to its traditional position atop Asia. Since nervous and fearful people make bad decisions, the region's better off if the US stands tallest and in co-dominion with China. In any case, just as US can't do much about reemerging China asserting "great power privileges," the opposite is also true. It's a brave new world, and both great powers will just have to deal with it.

Click to expand...

Yeah but that fear of China is more about it's size, wealth, and power that would erode the other Asian countries elite rulers with them always yammering about a "Chinese will overwhelmed us" mentality upon their gullible believers. It is an overrated kind of fear or rather concern that their tribes will become smaller. The only reason I can see the US play an equal role in Asia is to keep the DPRK in check.

Question- why has the American public turned on its "betters" in foreign and domestic policies? Answer- because the Internet has made it too simple and easy to catch them lying at every turn.

Here's another desperate neocon/neolib siren song for "new" China containment strategy in SCS. Jennifer Harris framed PCA's opinion paper as a legal UN ruling throughout her incredibly shallow and thoughtless propaganda piece, without even the smallest amount of due diligence to her readers about the arbitration tribunal being neither a legal court of law nor any part of the United Nations. The fact the IJC swiftly and unequivocally announced it put to rest any doubt on that point.

Seems to me the biggest problem with people like Harris genning up China threat with false evidence is it weakens their arguments to maintain US primacy in Asia and damages whatever remaining credibility they have left with the American public. That's unfortunate, because US is a Pacific nation and it's critical we maintain strong(est) presence in Asia. That's why the arguments American officials and intelligentsia use to advance their case must be based on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, supported by cold hard facts, absent of fabrications.

The bottom line is, the case for very strong US presence in Asia is overwhelmingly clear, and widely supported by regional countries, so we don't need lies to make the argument. Neocons/neolibs do the nation harm when they fabricate events and evidence to advance their case, but they're too blinded by the light to see it.

On Tuesday, the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration issued its

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in a landmark case between the Philippines and China over disputed maritime claims in the South China Sea. The object of intense global interest, the three-year-old case has come to serve as a bellwether for the kind of rising power China intends to be.

The ruling itself offered few surprises. As expected, the panel sided with the Philippines, finding no legal basis for China’s claims that it holds historic rights to most of the South China Sea. For its part, Beijing greeted the ruling with the same mix of rebuke and dismissal it has voiced throughout the case.

The real question is what happens next. If, indeed, this week’s U.N. ruling matters primarily for how Chinese leaders will respond, then—like any bellwether—much depends on knowing what to look for.

Favorable as the panel’s ruling was to a close U.S. ally,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

should not misconstrue it as affirmation of the U.S.’ broader strategy in handling the string of maritime disputes that stretch across the South and East China seas (the Philippines is only one of eight countries ensnared in territorial disputes with China in the South and East China Seas). Thus far, the U.S. has devoted nearly all of its attention to military variables: How many bases to install in the Philippines? Whether and how soon to authorize arms sales to Vietnam? How best to the position U.S. Seventh Fleet so as to reassure allies and deter Chinese provocations?

For all of its military bluster, Beijing’s real game in the South & East China Seas is an economic one. And until Washington

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

that recognizes this and responds accordingly, it should not expect that either U.N. rulings or U.S. military exercises will much constrain China from changing facts on the water.

Forced to accept the reality of U.S. military dominance in the Pacific, China has instead turned to economic might to work its will in the South and East China Seas. When the Philippines sought to defend its claims in the Scarborough Shoal, Beijing vented its displeasure by allowing Filipino agricultural exports to rot on Chinese docks; by denying Filipino fisherman access to waters they rely on for their livelihood; and by restricting Chinese tourism to the Philippines. Tokyo saw many of the same plot lines in 2010, when China banned exports of rare earth minerals to Japan amid rising tensions over competing claims in East China Sea—causing commodities outages across Japanese industry.

Anyone following the economic plot lines of these disputes would hardly be surprised to learn what might come next. Sure enough, on news of Tuesday’s ruling, economic retaliation once again appears Beijing’s likeliest response. Already, Chinese commentators have hinted that “[the] most likely measure China may adopt will be economic sanctions against the Philippines.” Beijing’s hope is that issuing “counter-measures to punish the Philippines… will make other claimants such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia adopt a prudent attitude on the South China Sea issue.”

China’s mix of economic sticks and carrots also says much about Beijing’s revealed (as opposed to merely stated) preferences. Even as China has sought to publicly downplay the arbitration case, Beijing’s pattern of economic threats and inducements suggests otherwise. When Vietnam threatened to file a U.N. arbitration claim against China in mid-2014 as maritime tensions flared, China responded by freezing credit lines for ongoing Vietnamese energy and infrastructure projects, forcing some projects into restructuring and leaving others stranded. Beijing also choked off tourism, depriving Vietnam of its largest single tourist market.

Beijing’s message was clear: the costs of challenging China’s maritime claims may be quite literally too high for Vietnam to afford. It worked. Vietnam opted not to file an arbitration claim. What is also clear, however, is that Chinese leaders care more—possibly much more—about China’s standing under international law than they have acknowledged.

In that sense, the U.N. ruling is good news. But Washington should not take it as vindication of its current approach. Washington’s strategy so far—clarifying China’s obligations under international law, while expanding the U.S. naval footprint in Asia—is necessary, but wholly insufficient. If the U.S. wants to check Beijing’s expansionism, it will need to make China bear the costs of its growing bellicosity. It will also need to retrofit its alliances in Asia, helping these countries wean themselves from economic overdependence on China, and developing new defenses to steel them from economic bullying.

Over the past 60 years, America has built an alliance system in Asia equipped with arguably the most sophisticated war-fighting capability the modern world has ever known. The question is whether this alliance system can now learn new skills—suited to the kind of economic contest China is waging—and more fundamentally, whether Washington even realizes that new skills are needed.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, and co-author of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(Harvard University Press, 2016).

Click to expand...