South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

in case you didn't know 'Pivot to the Pacific' is over, senior U.S. diplomat says
The Obama administration’s Pacific rebalance effort — also known as the Pivot to the Pacific — effort is officially dead, according to a top State Department official.

Asked by reporters about the future of the rebalance, Acting Assistant Secretary of State Susan Thornton said Monday that the new administration has its own plan for the region, even if that plan has yet to take shape.

“Pivot, rebalance, etcetera — that was a word that was used to describe the Asia policy in the last administration. I think you can probably expect that this administration will have its own formulation. We haven’t really seen in detail, kind of, what that formulation will be or if there even will be a formulation,” she said

However, Thornton — speaking on the eve of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s first visit to the Asia-Pacific region — stressed that the new administration remains committed to the region, even if the flavor of that commitment may change.

“We’re going to remain engaged and active in Asia. The Asian economy is very important for US prosperity and growth, so we will be there working on fair trade and free trade issues, working on regional security challenges such as North Korea, and continue to press for a rules-based and constructive, peaceful and stable order in Asia,” Thornton said. “Whether there will be a bumper sticker to put on that, it’s still early days, so it’s early to say.”

Euan Graham, director of the International Security Program at Australia's Lowy Institute for International Policy, says it is too early to judge the new administration’s relationship to the Pacific countries. But he warned there is uncertainty thanks to the “policy vacuum” that emanates from the lightly-staffed Trump team.

“Thornton’s wider comments included the kind of references to sustained US engagement, preservation of the rules-based order and free trade that allies should welcome,” Graham wrote in an email comment. “Yet until the US does more to fill the policy void, including the physical absence of under-secretaries across the board at DoD and State, skepticism is inevitable about how far the inner core around President Trump are willing to buy into those as US interests.”

As of publication, the Trump administration has yet to nominate anyone to fill the Asia-Pacific policy jobs at either State or the Pentagon, although it has nominated Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad as its ambassador to China. Branstad has yet to have a hearing on his nomination.

Skepticism about the Trump plan in the Pacific is fueled, in part, by moves away from Obama-era regional decisions.

The most obvious is the decision to back away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement that was heavily backed by President Obama and then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

America’s participation in the TPP was also backed by Asian allies, such as Singaporean defense minister Ng Eng Hen, who in December lamented Trump’s decision to abandon the deal, saying that the agreement “would have been a concrete, tangible commitment, and to continue to be a dominant force the US needs a multifaceted relationship with countries in Asia. And China is pursuing that multifaceted relationship with many countries.”

More subtly, a change in the strategy for Asia can be seen in budget priorities.

Just last September, Carter spoke of launching a new phase of the "rebalance," one that would involve increasing spending in two key areas — funding for the U.S. Coast Guard and increasing Foreign Military Financing for the 10 nations that form the ASEAN security collective.

A senior defense official told Defense News at the time that the Pentagon would be encouraging “increases in real terms” for the fiscal year 2018 budget.

Said the official then, “We’re certainly encouraging increased funding not just for the Coast Guard, but for the State Department’s foreign military funding. I don’t have the figures at my fingertips.”

However, both the Coast Guard and FMF are reportedly being targeted for cuts under the first Trump administration budget, although Congress seems poised to push back against the administration.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 58 House members wrote a letter in support of the Coast Guard, reportedly in line for a cut of $1.3 billion out of its $9.1 billion budget. Meanwhile, senators have expressed concerns about the future of the FMF program, with sources telling Defense News that the White House plans to propose replacing the current program with some form of loan plan.

Notes Graham, “The problem with Thornton’s comments (not her fault) is that they occur in a policy vacuum. Attempting to fill that before a positive alternative to Obama’s policies has been articulated while rejecting TPP or ditching the rebalance/pivot Asian ‘bumper sticker’ comes across as negative, oppositionally-defined approach, and risks playing into China’s hands.”
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
More laughable neocon tripe from the dysfunctional Congress. These people can't even pass a budget on time, but they want to run the planet. What a fracking joke.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) today introduced
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which would sanction Chinese individuals and entities that participate in Beijing’s illegitimate activities in the South China Sea and East China Sea.

“China’s illegitimate actions in the South China Sea threaten the region’s security and American commerce,” said Rubio, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its East Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee. “These ongoing, flagrant violations of international norms cannot be allowed to go unchecked, and the sanctions called for in this legislation would put Beijing on notice that the United States means business and intends to hold violators accountable.”

“In recent years we have seen an increasingly provocative China in the maritime domains, coercing and intimidating neighbors in both the East China Sea and South China Sea, attempting to use the threat of military force to address territorial and regional disputes, and undertaking an aggressive island-building and militarization campaign which threatens regional stability,” said Cardin, the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “In the face of these actions the United States must be crystal-clear with regards to our long-standing national interests in the free-flow of commerce, freedom of navigation, and in the peaceful diplomatic resolution of disputes consistent with international law, and that we will safeguard our interests and those of our allies and partners and uphold a rules-based order for the Asia-Pacific region. This legislation provides significant new tools and options for our policy in the region and I’m pleased to join Senator Rubio in this effort.”

Today,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that “China has started fresh construction work in the disputed South China Sea, new satellite images show, a sign that Beijing is continuing to strengthen its military reach across the vital trade waterway.”

The South China Sea and East China Sea Sanctions Act would:

  • Require the president to impose sanctions and prohibit visas for Chinese individuals and entities who contribute to construction or development projects, and those who threaten the peace, security or stability of the South China Sea (SCS) or East China Sea (ECS);
  • Impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions that knowingly conduct or facilitate a significant financial transaction for sanctioned individuals and entities if China takes certain actions in the SCS or ECS, including declaring an air defense identification zone or increasing activities at Scarborough Shoal;
  • Mandate a report on individuals and entities involved in sanctionable activities, including some employees of certain Chinese companies;
  • Prohibit the publication of documents portraying the SCS or the ECS as part of China, investments in the SCS or the ECS, and the recognition of the annexation of the SCS or the ECS; and
  • Restrict foreign assistance to countries that recognize China’s sovereignty in the SCS or the ECS.
Rubio, currently the chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), introduced a version of the bill
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Looks like Australia want no part of angering China in SCS sovereignty disputes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Australia’s position on the South China Sea remains pragmatic, unchanged over the last few years.

There is no evidence that hawkish calls for Australia to run American-style freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) directed at China have influenced the policy of the Turnbull Government.

Those calls had been made by three US admirals on at least three separate occasions between the dates February 22 2016 and December 14 2016.

Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin on February 22 2016 was asked whether ‘it would be valuable if Australia carried out [freedom of navigation] patrols within the 12 nautical mile limits around the created islands’. He replied, ‘Yes.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
On October 3 2016 retired Admiral Dennis Blair told the ABC’s Four Corners, ‘I think Australian and American ships should exercise together in the South China Sea, showing that, when they need to, they will send their armed forces international airspace and water.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
On December 14 2016 Admiral Harry B. Harris said in a speech in Sydney, ‘Should others signal in this way in freedom of navigation operations? I think so’.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


They were also made by Australian Strategic Policy Institute Director Peter Jennings, who said on November 16 2016: ‘I think the only sensible answer is we too, like the Americans, should be undertaking freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
On February 22 this year Mr Jennings reiterated his call for Australia to conduct US-style FONOPs stating, ‘[If] it’s my call I’d be saying we should do this from the point of view of promoting our own national interest.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Australia’s position adheres to the same oft-repeated formulation: Australia urges claimants to act in accordance with international law, to avoid coercive behaviour and unilateral actions, to engage in dialogue and to reach a resolution through peaceful means. Australia has also been consistent in asserting support for states’ rights under international law to freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight. Australia itself remains committed to regularly conducting maritime surveillance patrols of the South China Sea, as it has done for over 30 years as part of Operation Gateway, despite being routinely challenged by the Chinese Navy.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here we review the most recent statements by the Australian Government on the subject. They confirm Australia is not taking advice from either American admirals or local hardliners.

On December 14 2016 a US think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released satellite images appearing to show installation of weapons systems on seven Chinese-constructed artificial islands in the Spratlys. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop issued the following statement in response: ‘The building of artificial islands and the possible militarisation is creating an environment of tension and mistrust between claimants and other regional states. This is not in the interest of any state and will lead to reputation and other costs for claimants engaging in such behaviour.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Continued...
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Continued from post 2053
The statement stopped short of directly naming China.

On February 23 2017 Reuters reported that China had ‘nearly finished building almost two dozen structures on artificial islands…that appear designed to house long-range surface-to-air missiles’.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The report seemed to be corroborated by the release of more CSIS satellite images showing at least eight nearly completed structures on Fiery Cross, Mischief Reef and Subi Reef.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
There has been no public statement on the matter from Australia.

Following Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s first phone call with US President Donald Trump on January 28 2017 there was some speculation that the new US administration might seek quid pro quo from Australia for the honouring of the refugee deal. There was some conjecture that this could take the form of stepped-up involvement in the South China Sea.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
On February 5 Mr Turnbull ruled this out on Channel Nine’s 60 Minutes: ‘We assess all requests for military assistance on their merits and there is no linkage, no linkage at all, between an arrangement relating to refugee resettlement and any other matters.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This would appear to make it less likely an Australian government would be comfortable, in the wake of the deal on refugees, to change policy and commit to American-style patrols directed at China.

In fact, in a joint statement with New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English on February 17 2017, Prime Minister Turnbull reaffirmed that there was no change in Australian policy on the South China Sea. While the Prime Ministers ‘expressed their ongoing concern about the situation in the South China Sea’, they did not make explicit reference to China.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Ms Bishop met her Chinese counterpart on February 7 2017 for the fourth Australia-China Foreign and Strategic Dialogue. In a press conference with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi Ms Bishop welcomed progress in talks between claimant states and appeared to place Australia on the record endorsing the diplomatic course that China has argued for. She said, ‘We have in the past, and we continue to encourage all claims to build trust, to refrain from any provocative actions. In particular we have been welcoming of dialogue of recent times between the claimants, that does certainly reduce tensions and avoids any risk of miscalculation.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


On February 23 2017 Ms Bishop met with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The Australian Financial Review reported that during the meeting Ms Bishop firmly ruled out Australian FONOPs within the 12 nautical mile zone of Chinese-claimed features.

While the US has conducted FONOPs within the 12 nautical mile zone of contested features, Australia has never done so. Ms Bishop ‘told Mr Tillerson Australia will not change its past behaviour in the South China Sea and not escalate tensions with Beijing -- such as by deploying the navy to confront China near the islands.’ She reiterated, however, that ‘Australia will continue occasional routine freedom of navigation and overflight exercises around the broader South China Sea and insist on unimpeded trade.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Former Australian Defence Force Chief Angus Houston, in an address to the National Press Club on February 21 2017, also supported the view that Australia should concentrate on diplomacy and avoid conducting FONOPs within 12 nautical miles of China’s artificial islands. ‘I think that could provoke a response, a military response, and I don’t think that that would be a good idea...I think it’s all about diplomacy in the first instance,’ he said. Australian Defence Minister Marise Payne described Mr Houston’s comments as a ‘constructive contribution’.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In the same speech Mr Houston touched on comments made by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during his confirmation hearing declaring China should be prevented from accessing its artificial islands. While Mr Tillerson has already walked this pronouncement back, Mr Houston observed, ‘I wouldn’t support [a blockade]. I think that that will invite a sharp response from the Chinese.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Ahead of his first state visit to Australia Indonesian President Joko Widodo told The Australian on February 23 that he would raise the possibility of joint Indonesia-Australia patrols in the South China Sea with Mr Turnbull. But while Mr Widodo said he saw joint patrols as ‘very important’, he stated that they should be conducted only when there is ‘no tension’ in the region.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There was no reference to conducting joint patrols in either the joint statement issued by Australia and Indonesia or the Joint Declaration on Maritime Cooperation signed by the two leaders on February 26.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


On March 6, the prospect of Australia and Indonesia conducting joint patrols was ruled out by Ms Bishop. Speaking to press in Jakarta at the sidelines of the Indian Ocean Rim Association summit Ms Bishop said Mr Widodo was ‘talking about cooperating in maintaining freedom of overflight and freedom of navigation throughout the South China Sea’. Ms Bishop went on to say, ‘I don’t believe that [joint patrols] is what he was suggesting.’
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


On the same day, following Ms Bishop’s comments, Indonesian Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Luhut Pandjaitan told journalists, ‘I don’t know it is necessary for us to do joint patrols over there’.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Continued from post 2053

None of this should surprise anyone??? Australia sent a real gentleman packing in their recent elections, so the softies and chicks seem to be running the show??

Anyone with any knowledge or sense of history is very concerned by China's recent provocative "island building, and arming up of same", but even though they are concerned and some with-in Australia believe they should join the US in FON exercises, there is some risk.

I find it sad that China would install anti-aircraft weapons on those islands, it will be a sad day if someone makes a mistake and shoots down a commercial aircraft as the Ukrainian rebels did?? That's why the US does not typically arm up our coasts and territories, and limits those systems to places where there is a demonstrated need or desire???
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
None of this should surprise anyone??? Australia sent a real gentleman packing in their recent elections, so the softies and chicks seem to be running the show??

Anyone with any knowledge or sense of history is very concerned by China's recent provocative "island building, and arming up of same", but even though they are concerned and some with-in Australia believe they should join the US in FON exercises, there is some risk.

I find it sad that China would install anti-aircraft weapons on those islands, it will be a sad day if someone makes a mistake and shoots down a commercial aircraft as the Ukrainian rebels did?? That's why the US does not typically arm up our coasts and territories, and limits those systems to places where there is a demonstrated need or desire???

Like you said the key here is demonstrated need for it. I believe China put up those 3As mainly for island defense against cruise missile attacks and low flying crafts or small boats etc. mainly CIWS and auto cannons.
I don't think they have actual live SAM batteries there do they?
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Like you said the key here is demonstrated need for it. I believe China put up those 3As mainly for island defense against cruise missile attacks and low flying crafts or small boats etc. mainly CIWS and auto cannons.
I don't think they have actual live SAM batteries there do they?

YEP! I sure do, Sam Batteries are designed to be very portable, they will be "armed to the teeth", unless somebody physically prevents that from happening? Sure, they're gonna song and dance around now that somebody has said "wait", but think of these islets as "stationary aircraft carriers", or "picket ships".
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
None of this should surprise anyone??? Australia sent a real gentleman packing in their recent elections, so the softies and chicks seem to be running the show??
Like every other country in the world, Australia cares about its interests first and foremost. That’s why Tony Abbott, was only willing to support US military primacy in Asia, if it didn’t seriously offend China. In that regard, Abbott is no different than Malcolm Turnbull. As proof, I point to the fact Abbott’s administration took care to not conduct SCS FONs with the US, and when a B-1 basing rumor came to the fore, Abbott raced to the cameras and denounced it. Bottom line is available evidence show there’s little daylight between the Turnbull and Abbott administrations.

Anyone with any knowledge or sense of history is very concerned by China's recent provocative "island building, and arming up of same", but even though they are concerned and some with-in Australia believe they should join the US in FON exercises, there is some risk.
As you plainly understand, regional countries want US for security, but need China for development. The the reason Australia and even Japan will not join the US FONOPs in the SCS is because when it comes to "risk," it isn't the potential of Chinese retaliation that slay their hand, but the certainty of it.

I find it sad that China would install anti-aircraft weapons on those islands, it will be a sad day if someone makes a mistake and shoots down a commercial aircraft as the Ukrainian rebels did?? That's why the US does not typically arm up our coasts and territories, and limits those systems to places where there is a demonstrated need or desire???
This is an odd statement, because you know very well no one can challenge US west of Guam, so there's no need for coastal defenses. America rules the waves! On the other hand, places were US installations can be threatened, such as locations closer to Asia's mainland, US facilities do indeed have defensive weapons. Offensive weapons too.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
YEP! I sure do, Sam Batteries are designed to be very portable, they will be "armed to the teeth", unless somebody physically prevents that from happening? Sure, they're gonna song and dance around now that somebody has said "wait", but think of these islets as "stationary aircraft carriers", or "picket ships".
Okay, I'm closing my eyes and imaging China's stationary aircraft carriers, a.k.a. artificial islands... And I just can't picture any blundering fool physically preventing China from taking actions on their own territory. Want to show me a different image that's rooted in reality?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member

Now with Japanese :eek:
U.S. & Japanese Navy Vessels Sail Together In Show Of Force In The East China Sea
The US is showing off one of its major strategies to ensure that what it considers FON and appropriate messages are sent in the Western Pacific with these two modern, and well armed allies whose systems tie hand in glove to the US systems and they exercise often to ensure that they cam operate together fairly seamlessly.

The US and Japan have also exercises like this in the SCS as well to send the same message.

...and as I have said before, these exercises will continue to send the US message and China will not be able to stop them shrt of open warfare...which neither side wants.

At the same time, the US and Japan and all of these exercises will not be able to stop the PRC from developing its shoals and reefs into full island bases in the SCS either.

Both leaderships will make the most of what they are doing with their own constituencies...but will have little impact on the other side.
 
Top