Languish.org

QuoteU.S. Military Proposes Challenge to China Sea Claims

Moves would send Navy planes, ships near artificial islands built by China in contested waters

By
Adam Entous, Gordon Lubold and Julian E. Barnes

Updated May 12, 2015 7:33 p.m. ET

189 COMMENTS   
 
The U.S. military is considering using aircraft and Navy ships to directly contest Chinese territorial claims to a chain of rapidly expanding artificial islands, U.S. officials said, in a move that would raise the stakes in a regional showdown over who controls disputed waters in the South China Sea.

Defense Secretary  Ash Carter has asked his staff to look at options that include flying Navy surveillance aircraft over the islands and sending U.S. naval ships to within 12 nautical miles of reefs that have been built up and claimed by the Chinese in an area known as the Spratly Islands.

Such moves, if approved by the White House, would be designed to send a message to Beijing that the U.S. won't accede to Chinese territorial claims to the man-made islands in what the U.S. considers to be international waters and airspace.

The Pentagon's calculation may be that the military planning, and any possible deployments, would increase pressure on the Chinese to make concessions over the artificial islands. But Beijing also could double down, expanding construction in defiance of the U.S. and potentially taking steps to further Chinese claims in the area.

The U.S. has said it doesn't recognize the man-made islands as sovereign Chinese territory. Nonetheless, military officials said, the Navy has so far not sent military aircraft or ships within 12 nautical miles of the reclaimed reefs to avoid escalating tensions.

If the U.S. challenges China's claims using ships or naval vessels and Beijing stands its ground, the result could escalate tensions in the region, with increasing pressure on both sides to flex military muscle in the disputed waters.

According to U.S. estimates, China has expanded the artificial islands in the Spratly chain to as much as 2,000 acres of land, up from 500 acres last year. Last month, satellite imagery from defense intelligence provider  IHS  Jane's showed China has begun building an airstrip on one of the islands, which appears to be large enough to accommodate fighter jets and surveillance aircraft.

The U.S. has used its military to challenge other Chinese claims Washington considers unfounded. In November 2013, the U.S. flew a pair of B-52 bombers over disputed islands in the East China Sea to contest an air identification zone that Beijing had declared in the area.

Officials said there was now growing momentum within the Pentagon and the White House for taking concrete steps in order to send Beijing a signal that the recent buildup in the Spratlys went too far and needed to stop.

Chinese officials dismiss complaints about the island-building, saying Beijing is entitled to undertake construction projects within its own sovereign territory. They say the facilities will be used for military and civilian purposes.

"China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters," said embassy spokesman Zhu Haiquan, using the Chinese name for the Spratlys. "The relevant construction, which is reasonable, justified and lawful, is well within China's sovereignty. It does not impact or target any country, and is thus beyond reproach."

Mr. Zhu said that Beijing hopes that "relevant parties," a reference to the U.S. military and its regional allies, will "refrain from playing up tensions or doing anything detrimental to security and mutual trust."

China claims almost all of the South China Sea, one of the world's busiest shipping routes, and its efforts to enforce control of the area in recent years have caused growing concern in the U.S. and in Asia, where several nations have competing claims, including the Philippines, a U.S. ally.

"The Philippines believes that the U.S., as well as all responsible members of the international community, do have an interest and say in what is happening in the South China Sea," said Charles Jose, spokesman for the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, early Wednesday, citing freedom of navigation and unimpeded flow of commerce among other factors.

U.S. military aircraft have repeatedly approached the 12-nautical-mile zone declared by China around the built up reefs. But to avoid an escalation, the planes haven't penetrated the zone. A senior military official said the flights "have kept a distance from the islands and remained near the 12-mile mark."

U.S. planes have flown close to the islands where the building has been taking place, prompting Chinese military officers to radio the approaching U.S. aircraft to notify the pilots that they are nearing Chinese sovereign territory. In response, U.S. pilots have told the Chinese that they are flying through international airspace.

The USS Fort Worth, a combat ship, has been operating in recent days in waters near the Spratlys. "We're just not going within the 12 miles—yet," a senior U.S. official said.

The military proposals haven't been formally presented to the White House, which would have to sign off on any change in the U.S. posture. The White House declined to comment on the deliberations.

Officials said the issue is a complicated one because at least some of the areas where the Chinese have been doing construction are, in eyes of the U.S. government, legitimate islands, which would be entitled to a 12-nautical-mile zone.

The proposal under consideration would be to send Navy ships and aircraft to within 12 nautical miles of only those built-up sites that the U.S. doesn't legally consider to be islands, officials say.

Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, reclaimed features aren't entitled to territorial waters if the original features are not islands recognized under the agreement, U.S. officials say. Under that interpretation, the U.S. believes it doesn't need to honor the 12-mile zone around the built-up reefs that weren't considered to be islands before construction there began.

Several U.S. allies in the region have been privately urging the White House to do more to challenge Chinese behavior, warning Washington that U.S. inaction in the South China Sea risked inadvertently reinforcing Beijing's territorial claims, U.S. officials said. Some allies in the region have, in contrast, expressed concern to Washington that a change in the U.S.'s approach could inadvertently draw them into a conflict.

"It's important that everyone in the region have a clear understanding of exactly what China is doing," a U.S. official said. "We've got to get eyes on." The U.S. has been using satellites to monitor building at the islands.

In recent months, the White House has sought to increase pressure on Beijing to halt construction on the islands through diplomatic channels, as well as by calling out the Chinese publicly in recent press briefings and government reports.

The U.S. Navy regularly conducts "freedom of navigation transits" in the region, including across the South China Sea. But the Navy has yet to receive explicit authorization from the administration to do so within 12 nautical miles of the artificial islands.

John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, is due in Beijing this weekend to make preparations for a visit to the U.S. in September by Chinese President  Xi Jinping, who has made improving military ties with the U.S. a top priority.

A new standoff with China would add to mounting security crises facing the U.S. in other regions.

Last year, after Russia seized Ukrainian territory, the White House imposed sanctions on Moscow but so far has rebuffed Ukrainian requests for U.S. weapons. In the Middle East, Islamic State militants took over large swaths of Iraq last summer, prompting the U.S. to launch an air campaign against the group.

The U.S. has long maintained that it doesn't take sides in the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, though it has a national interest in maintaining freedom of navigation in the area. In the last year, though, U.S. officials have stepped up its criticism of China's efforts to enforce and justify its claims in the region.

U.S. officials say they are concerned that a decision not to send naval vessels into the zone would inadvertently help the Chinese build their own case for sovereignty in the area.

Chinese coast guard vessels routinely sail within 12 nautical miles of the Senkaku Islands, which are controlled by Tokyo but claimed by Beijing, which calls them the Diaoyu.

U.S. officials say they believe China sends vessels into the Senkaku area in the East China Sea because it wants to demonstrate to Tokyo and to others that Beijing doesn't recognize the islands as Japanese sovereign territory.

China's claims include territorial seas stretching out 12 nautical miles from all the Spratlys, where it controls seven reefs—all recently expanded into artificial islands. Rival claimants occupy several other islands, reefs and rocks.

Historical images from  Google  Earth and elsewhere reveal that reclamation work at most of the Chinese held reefs began after President Xi took power in 2012.

Much of the construction began in the past year, despite protests from neighboring countries, warming military ties with Washington, and a new Chinese drive to improve relations in its periphery.

U.S. officials say they have repeatedly asked China to stop the work, to no avail.

—Jeremy Page and Trefor Moss contributed to this article.

Quote
Above the South China Sea (CNN)The Chinese navy issued warnings eight times as a U.S. surveillance plane on Wednesday swooped over islands that Beijing is using to extend its zone of influence.

The series of man-made islands and the massive Chinese military build-up on them have alarmed the Pentagon, which is carrying out the surveillance flights in order to make clear the U.S. does not recognize China's territorial claims. The militarized islands have also alarmed America's regional allies.

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell told CNN's Erin Burnett Wednesday night that the confrontation indicates there is "absolutely" a risk of the U.S. and China going to war sometime in the future.

READ: China cautions U.S. Navy on patrols

A CNN team was given exclusive access to join in the surveillance flights over the contested waters, which the Pentagon allowed for the first time in order to raise awareness about the challenge posed by the islands and the growing U.S. response.

CNN was aboard the P8-A Poseidon, America's most advanced surveillance and submarine-hunting aircraft, and quickly learned that the Chinese are themselves displeased by the U.S. pushback.

"This is the Chinese navy ... This is the Chinese navy ... Please go away ... to avoid misunderstanding," a voice in English crackled through the radio of the aircraft in which CNN was present.

This is the first time the Pentagon has declassified video of China's building activity and audio of Chinese challenges of a U.S. aircraft.

The aircraft flew at 15,000 feet in the air at its lowest point, but the U.S. is considering flying such surveillance missions even closer over the islands, as well as sailing U.S. warships within miles of them, as part of the new, more robust U.S. military posture in the area.

Soon after the Chinese communication was heard, its source appeared on the horizon seemingly out of nowhere: an island made by China some 600 miles from its coastline.

The South China Sea is the subject of numerous rival -- often messy -- territorial claims over an area that includes fertile fishing grounds and potentially rich reserves of undersea natural resources. China is increasingly showing that even far from its mainland, it sees itself as having jurisdiction over the body of water.

Wednesday's mission was specifically aimed at monitoring Chinese activities on three islands that months ago were reefs barely peaking above the waves. Now they are massive construction projects that the U.S. fears will soon be fully functioning military installations.

China's alarming creation of entirely new territory in the South China Sea is one part of a broader military push that some fear is intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the region. Beijing is sailing its first aircraft carrier; equipping its nuclear missiles with multiple warheads; developing missiles to destroy us warships; and, now, building military bases far from its shores.

That's exactly what Morell warned may be coming if China continues down its current path. He warned on CNN that "there's a real risk, when you have this kind of confrontation, for something bad happening."

He added that China's aggressive growth hints at a broader trend as the Asian economic superpower continues to expand its influence and strength -- one that Morell said could "absolutely" lead to war between the U.S. and China.

"China is a rising power. We're a status quo power. We're the big dog on the block ... They want more influence," he said. "Are we going to move a little bit? Are they going to push? How is that dance going to work out? This is a significant issue for the next President of the United States."
War is "not in their interests, (and) it's not in our interests," Morell acknowledged.

"But absolutely, it's a risk," he said.

"I'm scratching my head like everyone else as to what's the (Chinese) end game here. We have seen increased activity even recently on what appears to be the building of military infrastructure," Capt. Mike Parker, commander of the fleet of P8 and P3 surveillance aircraft deployed to Asia, told CNN aboard the P8.

"We were just challenged 30 minutes ago and the challenge came from the Chinese navy, and I'm highly confident it came from ashore, this facility here," Parker said of the Chinese message for the U.S. plane to move away, as he pointed to an early warning radar station on an expanded Fiery Cross Reef.

In just two years, China has expanded these islands by 2,000 acres -- the equivalent of 1,500 football fields -- and counting, an engineering marvel in waters as deep as 300 feet. In video filmed by the P8's surveillance cameras, we see that in addition to early warning radar, Fiery Cross Reef is now home to military barracks, a lofty lookout tower and a runway long enough to handle every aircraft in the Chinese military. Some call it China's "unsinkable aircraft carrier."

In a sign of just how valuable China views these islands to be, the new islands are already well protected.

From the cockpit, Lt. Cmdr Matt Newman told CNN, "There's obviously a lot of surface traffic down there: Chinese warships, Chinese coast guard ships. They have air search radars, so there's a pretty good bet they're tracking us."

The proof was loud and clear. The Chinese navy ordered the P8 out of the airspace eight times on this mission alone.

Each time, the American pilots told them calmly and uniformly that the P8 was flying through international airspace.

That answer sometimes frustrated the Chinese radio operator on the other end.

Once he responds with exasperation: "This is the Chinese navy ... You go!"

This is a military-to-military stand-off in the skies, but civilian aircraft can find themselves in the middle.

As was heard on the first of several Chinese warning on the radio, the pilot of a Delta flight in the area spoke on the same frequency, quickly identifying himself as commercial. The voice on the radio then identified himself as "the Chinese Navy" and the Delta flight went on its way.

The more China builds, U.S. commanders told CNN, the more frequently and aggressively the Chinese navy warns away U.S. military aircraft.
Over Fiery Cross Reef and, later, Mischief Reef, fleets of dozens of dredgers could be seen hard at work, sucking sand off the bottom of the sea and blowing it in huge plumes to create new land above the surface, while digging deep harbors below.

"We see this every day," Parker said. "I think they work weekends on this because we see it all the time."

Quote
Japan-China Spat: Beijing Plans To Tap Oil Field Near Disputed Waters, Tokyo Says

by Arata Yamamoto

TOKYO — Japan released aerial photos of Chinese oil and gas exploration platforms Wednesday it said were close to disputed waters and proved that Beijing was planning to tap into an oil field that straddles both countries' territory.

"While the objects may be on the Chinese side of the dividing line, for China to unilaterally develop the natural resources there is extremely regrettable," Japan's main government's main spokesman Yoshihide Suga told reporters during a press conference.

In 2008, Japan and China agreed to jointly develop resources in the area, which is claimed by both countries.


The new aerial photographs showed 16 Chinese platforms in the area, 12 of which have been built since 2013, Suga said.

"We decided to disclose what we can show, as there's been increasing interest home and abroad over China's unilateral efforts to change the status quo," Suga said, referring to a territorial dispute involving Vietnam and the Philippines over the Spratly Islands in South China Sea.

Related: China Has Some News About Disputed-Islands Project

On Tuesday, Japan's defense minister Gen Nakatani called on China to stop building the platforms, adding that Beijing's activities "were also of international concern."

China pushed back after Nakatani's statement.

"This kind of action completely lays bare the two-faced nature of Japan's foreign policy and has a detrimental impact on peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region," China's defense ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2015, 06:50:34 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Fac58d2caeb709bc618b0605f8d66b879%2Ftumblr_inline_mhxn54oxB01qz4rgp.gif&hash=58bb74ab6cf094f0d555d55ae43bf976ada3dddf)

QuoteA Maritime Game of Chicken in Asia
David Ignatius (http://'http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/david_ignatius/')
October 23, 2015

SINGAPORE -- The U.S. appears to be moving toward a military test of China's claims of sovereignty in disputed areas of the South China Sea, and officials here seem pleased that President Obama is prepared to put more muscle into his famous "pivot" to Asia.

The U.S. has been briefing Asian allies about its new readiness to assert "freedom of navigation" by sending ships within the 12-mile limits that China has placed around its newly reclaimed "islands." Adm. John Richardson, the new chief of naval operations, said in Tokyo a week ago that U.S. warships will be "just steaming in international waters," and that this shouldn't be seen by Beijing as a "provocation."

After ducking a confrontation with China over the disputed islands since 2012, the administration has decided to take a tougher stance. "The United States will continue to sail, fly and operate anywhere that international law allows," Obama said at a news conference with President Xi Jinping during the Chinese leader's visit to Washington last month. Xi, for his part, insisted that China won't militarize the islands.

What will the Chinese do as U.S. warships sail past the maritime limits Beijing claims? Its foreign ministry warned that "there is no way for us to condone infringement of China's territorial sea." But officials here expect that China will do no more than shadow U.S. vessels, and perhaps attempt to block their passage, rather than open opening fire.

The maritime game of chicken that's looming could easily escalate out of control. So the U.S. and China would be wise to agree on clearer rules for dealing with incidents at sea, before vessels actually come in contact. Superpowers shouldn't make "invidious premature choices," warns Bilahari Kausikan, a Singapore ambassador at large and former top official of the foreign ministry.

Southeast Asian leaders, who have been worried that Obama was too passive about China's island grab, appear relieved. They want Washington to follow through on the logic of the pivot, which was that America's military focus should shift from the Middle East, where it has been bogged down in seemingly unwinnable wars, to Asia, where many believe the U.S. economic future lies.

"America has been distracted," says a former top Singapore official. "There's been a lack of focus on Asia. If America had been more alert, the Chinese could not have moved in the South China Sea. They're opportunists. They will continue to push until they hit a wall."

  Southeast Asian leaders were pleased when administration officials began talking about the pivot back in November 2011. But they have been disappointed at the lack of follow-through, which some say encouraged the Chinese to press ahead with their reclamation of reefs in the South China Sea, turning them into artificial islands where the Chinese could assert sovereignty and eventually build military bases.

The Chinese concluded several years ago that the Obama administration "would talk but do nothing" about the disputed islands, said a senior Singapore official. He speculates that the Chinese may have been "rushing" to construct the islands because they feared the next U.S. president would have a more "robust" stance than Obama.

The debate here about checking Chinese power in Asia has a different (and more positive) tone than the relentless Washington focus on Russia and the Middle East. Officials here see the Middle East as an unfortunate diversion from the more important challenge of a rising China. Obama would probably say the same thing.

Kausikan says he's not worried about a U.S. retreat from the Middle East. "'Offshore balancer' is fine," he says, using the term foreign policy experts use to describe a less-engaged U.S. military strategy in the Middle East. "When you tried to be an onshore balancer, you cocked it up royally," he says, referring to the Iraq War. "Now you are finding a new equilibrium. And you are part of Asia, inextricably."

Talking with Southeast Asian officials is the foreign policy equivalent of changing the channel. The Middle East is a continuing demonstration of the limits of U.S. military power, and antipathy toward its use. But in the Pacific region, countries invite that same U.S. power to check China's bid for regional dominance. The common theme, perhaps, is that nations want America to fight their wars, until they go bad.

"We speak of the U.S. as a 'benign hegemon," says Chan Heng Chee, Singapore's former ambassador to Washington. Have you ever heard that phrase applied to America's role in the Middle East?

QuoteU.S. warship sails within 12 miles of Chinese-built island in South China Sea

By Simon Denyer, Craig Whitlock and Steven Mufson October 26 at 10:56 PM

BEIJING — A U.S. naval destroyer sailed early Tuesday within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built by China in the South China Sea, a U.S. defense official said, in a direct challenge to China's territorial claims.

The USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer, was accompanied by Navy surveillance planes as it approached the Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands, the official said.

The mission "was completed without incident," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The decision to go ahead with the mission follows months of deliberation in Washington and is certain to China, which said last month it would "never allow any country" to violate what it considers to be its territorial waters and airspace around the islands.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had said earlier that Beijing was trying to verify whether the U.S. vessel had entered the 12-mile zone.

"If true, we advise the U.S. to think again, not to act blindly or make trouble out of nothing," the Foreign Ministry quoted him as saying.

China claims almost all of the South China Sea as its territory, including the main islands and reefs, and has argued that giving up that claim would "shame its ancestors." The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have overlapping claims, and several of them also occupy different islands, reefs and rocks.

A massive Chinese program of land reclamation and construction on several islands has taken place since 2014, upsetting ties with the United States and several of those rival claimants.

This week's U.S. naval mission is also intended to test a pledge made by President Xi Jinping during his visit to Washington last month that Beijing would not militarize the islands, U.S. officials have said.

Subi Reef, which lies close to the Philippines in the South China Sea, used to be submerged at high tide before China began a massive dredging project to turn it into an island. It is now big enough to potentially host an airstrip.

Satellite images also show what looks like a surveillance tower and multiple satellite antennas on Subi reef, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, part of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Under the international law of the sea, turning such features into artificial islands does not imply any rights to territorial waters around them, something the U.S. mission is designed to underline, although countries can claim a "safety zone" of just 500 meters around previously submerged reefs.

A Chinese airstrip is already under construction at Fiery Cross reef and experts say another could potentially soon be built at Mischief reef. China says the construction work is primarily designed for civilian use and will not affect freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

But the Chinese Embassy in Washington said that the concept of freedom of navigation should not be used as an excuse for muscle-flexing and that the United States should "refrain from saying or doing anything provocative and act responsibly in maintaining peace and regional stability," Chinese state media reported.

In Washington, experts backed the U.S. naval action.

"This should have been done a long time ago," said Bonnie Glaser, an expert on the Chinese military at CSIS. The Navy has wanted conduct such an operation for some time, but the Obama administration had prevented that until now, she said.

While the exercise would probably not stop China from further construction or militarization of air strips on the reefs, Glaser said that there were still good reasons to go ahead.

"Our aim in any freedom of navigation operation is not aimed at that kind of objective. It is simply to sail through waters that are subject to the law of the sea," she said.

"Some parts of the administration believed this would make things even more difficult, that China would become even more obstreperous, more difficult to deal with," she said, "and others thought this wasn't something we should do before Xi Jinping came to Washington."

At the summit, President Obama told Xi that the United States would operate, fly or sail anywhere that international law allows. On Monday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest referred questions on specific operations to the Pentagon but reiterated that commitment to freedom of navigation.

"This is a critically important principle, particularly in the South China Sea, because there are billions of dollars of commerce that flow through that region of the world every year, and maybe even more than that, Earnest said. "Ensuring the free flow of this commerce and that freedom of navigation of those vessels is protected is critically important to the global economy."

Additional patrols will follow in coming weeks, and could also be conducted around features that have been built up by Vietnam and the Philippines in the Spratlys, a U.S. defense official told the Reuters news agency.

"This is something that will be a regular occurrence, not a one-off event," the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's not something that's unique to China."

State Department spokesman John Kirby said Monday the United States is not required to consult with other nations if it decides to conduct such operations.

"The whole point of freedom of navigation in international waters is that it's international waters. You don't need to consult with anybody. That's the idea," he said.

At the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I., associate professor Andrew Erickson said the U.S action underscored its "commitment to maintaining an open global system with global commons that all are free to use to the maximum extent permitted by international law."

"As can be seen from the operation's peaceful, unimpeded nature, China and the U.S. share an interest in keeping the vital sea lanes of the South China Sea stable and open," he said.

The USS Lassen, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, operates out of its home port in Yokosuka, Japan — headquarters for the U.S. 7th Fleet.

The Lassen has been deployed to the South China Sea since late May and has had several routine interactions at sea with Chinese naval vessels, according to U.S. Navy officials.



Whitlock and Mufson reported from Washington.

Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2015, 12:12:38 PM
The facade of rationality in the CCP cracks more every time an official argues that the country should do stupid things because the alternative would "shame its ancestors."

Quote from: The Brain on October 27, 2015, 12:14:27 PM
Well Chinese have more ancestors than many Americans. :hillbilly:

Quote
     South China Sea dispute: Chinese missiles in Paracels

Date February 17, 2016 - 4:09PM  176 reading now
Philip Wen and Lindsay Murdoch

Beijing: New satellite images appear to show China has deployed surface-to-air missiles on an island in the flashpoint waters of the South China Sea.

Both a US defence official and a statement by the Taiwanese government confirmed the apparent deployment of eight missile launchers and a radar system on Woody Island in the past week.

The move will further escalate tensions in the disputed waters.

"Interested parties should work together to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea region and refrain from taking any unilateral measures that would increase tensions," Taiwanese defence spokesman Major-General David Lo said on Wednesday, declining to give further details.

A satellite image taken by the private company ImageSat International, dated February 14, showed the presence of the equipment, whereas the same area looked to be empty in an image dated February 3.

The US cable television network Fox News cited a US official as saying the images appeared to show the HQ-9 air defence system, which had a range of about 200 kilometres and could therefore threaten nearby planes.

A US Navy destroyer sailed close to the disputed Paracel Island chain, which includes Woody Island, in a "freedom of navigation" exercise late last month. China branded that action "highly dangerous and irresponsible" and accused the US of being "the biggest cause of militarisation in the South China Sea".

China, Taiwan and Vietnam have competing claims in the area and the US has objected to any "militarising" of the islands.

US President Barack Obama concluded a two-day summit with South-east Asian leaders on Tuesday promising US support to the ASEAN nations to counter China's expanding claims and declaring that freedom of navigation must be upheld and lawful commerce should not be impeded.

"The US will continue to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows," he said. "We will support the right of other countries to do the same."

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was due to address the media in Beijing on Wednesday with his Australian counterpart, Julie Bishop, who is in the capital for annual strategic talks.

Ms Bishop said before the trip that she intended to question China about its activities in the South China Sea.

"What we have maintained publicly and privately to China and other claimants in the South China Sea is that we urge all parties to cease reclamation and construction work," Ms Bishop said during a preceding trip to Tokyo on Monday. "We note that [Chinese] President Xi [Jinping] said in Washington that China did not intend to militarise the constructions in the South China Sea and we hold China to that."

The Diplomat also reported last week that China's South China Sea island-building had expanded into the Paracels, which are also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.

The report has not been confirmed.

Images that were separately obtained appeared to show dredging and filling at two new sites in the Chinese-held island chain and the construction of a helicopter base.

China has already constructed airstrips and naval berths capable of use for military purposes on the islands.

Confirmation of the deployment of missile launchers came as the US and ASEAN issued a joint statement at the California summit that called for "maritime security" but did not specifically mention the South China Sea, indicating division among regional countries on how to counter China's assertiveness.

Countries like the Philippines and Vietnam favour a more aggressive approach while other nations like Cambodia and Laos, which have closer ties with Beijing, are reluctant to directly challenge China's behaviour.

China late last year provoked condemnation when it landed civilian planes on an artificial island where it has built infrastructure that can accommodate military aircraft.

Vietnam has accused China of towing a $1 billion oil rig into disputed waters in a potential rerun of a stand-off that sparked violent anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam in 2014.

The United States has obtained final approval to expand its military presence in the Philippines and has begun making spy flights over the region in Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft based in Singapore.

Carlyle Thayer, an expert on the South China Sea from Australia's Defence Force Academy, said the deployment of the HQ-9 missile system raises the stakes for future US maritime patrols.

The system is capable of threatening carrier-based planes coming to the assistance of any US Navy warship confronted by China during freedom of navigation exercises, he said.

Professor Thayer said the deployment of such a sophisticated and lethal air defence system was no doubt in response to US aerial activities and the patrol near Triton island. The deployment was also a demonstration that at short notice China can deploy similar systems to other disputed islands on the pretext of a threat from the United States.

Professor Thayer said that until now concerns of the US and other countries had focused on artificial island development by China.

But China first constructed an airstrip on Woody Island in 1990 than can accommodate fighter jets.

Existing facilities on the island include naval docks, precision approach radar, a fuel depot and military facilities, including troop accommodation.

Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at the Australian National University, said the reports of China placing surface-to-air missile batteries on Woody Islands were "sadly not surprising".

"This will further militarise the tensions in the South China Sea. It reinforces the view that China intends to exert growing control in these international waters, including potentially by declaring an air defence identification zone.

"It is also against the spirit, if not the letter, of Xi Jinping's assurance last year that China was not putting weapons on the artificial islands it has made."

Professor Medcalf said the move showed China did not take diplomatic efforts on the disputed territories seriously.

"Technically, Woody Island is a real island, not an artificial one, but China's possession of it is disputed by Vietnam and Taiwan.

"China seems to be putting missiles on a disputed South China Sea island while going slow on negotiating a code of conduct with ASEAN that would ban precisely this kind of thing. This is a sign that China does not take such diplomacy seriously."

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2016, 01:23:04 AM
Just more targets.

Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2016, 01:32:50 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 17, 2016, 01:23:04 AM
Just more targets.

They failed in Canada, so instead they're trying for the South China Sea? I dunno, I don't think it'll work out for them.

QuoteJapan protests after Chinese warship sails near disputed East China Sea islands

Japan summoned the Chinese ambassador early on Thursday to express concern after a Chinese navy ship sailed close to what Japan considers its territorial waters in the East China Sea for the first time, increasing tensions over the disputed area.

Japan said a Chinese frigate sailed within 24 miles (38 kms) of the contested territory, the islands known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China, shortly after midnight.

Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Akitaka Saiki summoned the Chinese ambassador in Tokyo at around 2 a.m. (01:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday) to "express a serious concern," the government said in a statement.

Japanese and Chinese coastguard vessels frequently face off around the islands as both sides press their claims. Until now neither has dispatched warships to nearby waters, because doing so would inflame tensions and remove a buffer against potential armed conflict.

"We are worried that this action raises tensions to a higher level," Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said at a regular press briefing in Tokyo.

"Related ministries are working together to deal with this and we will work closely with the U.S.," Suga said.

China's Defence Ministry said on Thursday it was looking into the reports that one of its navy ships sailed close to the disputed islands, adding its navy had every right to operate in Chinese waters.

"Chinese naval ships sailing through waters our country has jurisdiction over is reasonable and legal. No other country has the right to make thoughtless remarks about this," it said in a statement sent to Reuters.

While the U.S. has not endorsed Tokyo's territorial claim to the islands, which lie about 220 kms (135 miles) northeast of Taiwan, it has said the Japanese-controlled territory falls under its security treaty with Tokyo that obligates Washington to defend Japan against attack.

"We are aware of the reports and have been in touch with the Japanese government," U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Colin Willett told reporters by telephone from Washington.

"Until I have a little more detail, I can't really comment on exactly what (Washington's) reaction is," she added.

The Chinese frigate stayed in the waters around the Senkaku/Diaoyu waters for about an hour before sailing toward the Chinese coast.

Countries can police their contiguous zone, adjacent to the disputed territory, for customs and immigration violations, but can't prevent passage by other nations' vessels.

Complicating the situation for Tokyo, three Russian naval vessels also sailed close to the islands at around the same time as the Chinese warship, raising concern in Japan of a coordinated show of force by Beijing and Moscow.

Russia and Japan are locked in a separate territorial dispute over the return of islands seized by Moscow at the end of World War Two.

Suga said the government was investigating to uncover any link between the movements of Chinese and Russian vessels.

The incidents come as Japan, the United States and India prepare to begin a major joint naval exercise, dubbed Malabar,

from Friday in the nearby Western Pacific.

As China pushes its claims in the neighboring South China Sea, which Japanese Minister of Defence Gen Nakatani described last week as "unilateral and coercive," Tokyo and Washington are worried Beijing will look to extend its influence into the East China Sea and beyond.

Japan's island chain there, including Okinawa which hosts the biggest concentration of U.S. military personnel in Asia, stands in the way of unfettered access to those seas. Japan's military is reinforcing the islands with radar stations and anti-ship missile batteries.

(Reporting by Tetsushi Kajimoto and Nobuhiro Kubo in TOKYO, Ben Blanchard in BEIJING and Matt Siegel in SYDNEY; Writing by Tim Kelly; Editing by Paul Tait and Michael Perry)

Quote from: LaCroix on June 09, 2016, 09:50:02 AM
did any of the great powers enter WW1 thinking they had "not good" chances of winning?

Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2016, 09:06:15 PM
Absolutely. AH knew they would lose any war that involved the other Great powers.  That was the whole reason for their brinksmanship over Serbia - AH knew they had to nip the Serbian situation while they had the pretext (not even Russia, they believed, would support the assassins of Royals - Russia had experienced that themselves).

Quote
At Scarborough Shoal, China Is Playing With Fire: Retired Admiral
BY DAN DE LUCEJUNE 16, 2016 - 5:45 PM

China would risk a potential military confrontation with the United States if it started dredging on a disputed shoal off the coast of the Philippines, retired U.S. Navy Adm. Dennis Blair said Thursday. And in a clash with the United States and its allies in the Philippines, Beijing almost certainly would lose, he said.

"If the Chinese push there, I think there's going to be trouble," said Blair, who once oversaw U.S. forces in the region as the former four-star head of Pacific Command. "And it's trouble that the United States and the Philippines are going to win because the military situation is set up that way."

To assert its power in the South China Sea and back up its expansionist territorial claims, Beijing has sent out fishing fleets in contested waters and built up artificial islands atop reefs in the past two year years, constructing airstrips and deep-water harbors that can accommodate naval ships.


In a growing rivalry over the strategic waterway, both China and the United States have stepped up patrols of naval ships, reconnaissance planes, and fighter jets in the disputed waters. The deployments have amounted to "shadow boxing" between the two powers and the risk of conflict has remained relatively low, said Blair, who also served as director of national intelligence during President Barack Obama's first term.

But unlike the disputed Spratly Islands, which are the subject of multiple rival claims from China and several other Southeast Asian countries, the Scarborough Shoal effectively pits Beijing directly against Manila.

With the shoal located less than 150 miles from the Philippines, but 500 miles from China, experts believe Manila has a strong legal case in the disputed claims. The stakes are high as the Philippines has a mutual defense treaty with the United States that could possibly be invoked if Manila sought to defend what it considers sovereign territory.

"I would be surprised if the United States hasn't told China it's a shoal too far for them," Blair told a group of reporters at a briefing at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, where he serves as CEO. "It hasn't been said publicly, but I hope we have done so privately."

Tensions rose this week at the shoal after Chinese Coast Guard vessels prevented a Philippine nationalist group from planting a Filipino flag on one of the rock outcroppings.

The shoal is one of many maritime disputes at the center of a legal case the Philippines has brought against China before an international court in The Hague. The Permanent Court of Arbitration is due to rule this month on the case, but China has already vowed to ignore the tribunal's decision, which is expected to favor Manila.

If China succeeded in taking over Scarborough, it could build airstrips there and enable Beijing to draw a "strategic triangle" linking reefs and islands in the Paracel Islands to the west and the Spratlys to the south, effectively fencing off the South China Sea, experts say. That could pave the way for Beijing to declare a possible air defense identification zone in the area, demanding commercial and military aircraft seek permission before flying through it.

Allowing China to seize complete control of the shoal and launch land reclamation work would represent a "geopolitical loss" for Washington that would be unacceptable, Blair said.

For the United States, the Scarborough Shoal represents "at least a pink line, if not a red line," Blair said.

If a clash erupted, China would find itself in a difficult position, hundreds of miles from its military bases. Any Chinese aircraft would need to be refueled just to arrive at the location.

"From everything I know militarily, that would be a bad place for China to pick a fight," he said.

The feud over Scarborough Shoal flared up in 2012, and the United States tried to mediate a deal to defuse the argument. The Philippines complied with the deal and withdrew its ships, but the Chinese never pulled back their vessels and continue to deploy ships at the mouth of the shoal's bay.

The United States has conveyed its solidarity with the Philippines through a number of symbolic steps in recent months, but has stopped short of publicly announcing any red lines.

Asked if the United States had issued a warning to China not to undertake land reclamation at Scarborough Shoal, State Department spokesperson Anna Richey-Allen said the United States regularly holds discussions with Chinese officials about developments in the South China Sea.

"Beyond that, I cannot comment on the specific content of our diplomatic engagements," Richey-Allen told Foreign Policy.

"Since 2012, Chinese Coast Guard vessels have sought to block fishing access to the area, restricting the long-standing commercial practices of others. We are concerned that such actions exacerbate tensions in the region and are counterproductive," she added.

In April, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter made a point of stepping foot on an American aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, as it patrolled waters west of the Philippines. He then paid a visit to the annual Balikatan exercise, which involved 5,000 troops from the United States, 3,500 troops from the Philippines, and 80 forces from Australia and included an amphibious operation on a hypothetical South China Sea island.

After the exercise, the Pentagon sent out A-10 Thunderbolt warplanes to conduct patrols over Scarborough Shoal.

The United States also has announced plans to rotate troops and aircraft at five bases across the Philippines under a new military cooperation agreement, marking a dramatic about-face in relations as Manila kicked out all American forces more than two decades ago.

Before the ruling from the international court on Manila's complaint, China has been lobbying other countries for support and launched a public relations campaign to make its case. It apparently scored a diplomatic victory this week when Southeast Asian countries backed off a statement critical of Beijing over its policies in the South China Sea.

The original statement issued Tuesday from foreign ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations underlined the importance of freedom of navigation in the waterway and expressed concern over developments that had "eroded trust and confidence." But Malaysia's foreign ministry later retracted the statement without offering an explanation.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 17, 2016, 12:58:52 AM
If war must come, let it come sooner rather than later.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 17, 2016, 12:58:52 AM
If war must come, let it come sooner rather than later.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2016, 12:52:51 PM
If war must come I would prefer to come when we've perfected lasers that can shoot ICBM out of the sky.

Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2016, 12:16:13 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 17, 2016, 12:58:52 AM
If war must come, let it come sooner rather than later.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: mongers on June 17, 2016, 02:47:12 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2016, 12:16:13 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 17, 2016, 12:58:52 AM
If war must come, let it come sooner rather than later.

:rolleyes:

Oh dear, and their I was going to suggest to Tim that in early 2017 he retitles this thread "Hilary's War".   

Quote

Indonesia vows more decisive action after Chinese ship spat

By Associated Press

June 20 at 2:29 AM

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Indonesia said it will continue to take "decisive" action against foreign ships operating illegally in waters under its jurisdiction after Beijing criticized its navy for shooting at Chinese fishing vessels.

Indonesian navy spokesman First Admiral Edi Sucipto on Monday confirmed an Indonesian warship fired warning shots at Chinese fishing vessels in waters off Indonesia's Natuna islands and detained one of the vessels and its seven crew members.

He said the incident occurred on Friday. "We will not hesitate to take decisive action against foreign ships, whatever their flag and nationality, when they commit violations in Indonesian territory," Sucipto said.

China's Foreign Ministry released a statement of protest on Sunday and said the Indonesian navy had "abused its military force."

China's expansive claims to the South China Sea do not include the Natuna islands in waters between Malaysia and Borneo. But China's nine dash line, which it uses to roughly demarcate its ambitions for maritime boundaries, overlaps with Indonesia's internationally-recognized exclusive economic zone.


The incident Friday was the third such clash since March, when Indonesia intercepted a Chinese fishing vessel off the Natuna islands. In May, an Indonesian frigate fired shots at a Chinese trawler when it refused to stop fishing, and then seized the vessel and its eight crew members.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 20, 2016, 02:22:01 AM
Chinese fishing boats being fired upon by various navies is nothing new.  Happens all the time with the South Korean navy.  I seem to recall that the Argentinians actually sank a Chinese fishing boat. 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2016, 02:19:12 PM
Yeah, seen this movie before.

"Chinese fishermen" = "People's Volunteer Army" = "Pro-Russian volunteer separatists"

Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2016, 03:30:50 PM
... though, while I get your point, don't discount the willingness of Chinese fishers to catch fish anywhere they can.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2016, 06:31:37 PM
Oh, most definitely--which makes it an even more plausible cover for sovereignty shenanigans and hybrid warfare tactics.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 17, 2016, 12:58:52 AM
If war must come, let it come sooner rather than later.

QuoteReporter's Notebook
Asia Pacific
17 June 2016
Looking for China's maritime militia
Reporting on groups involved in confrontations with foreign patrol vessels in the South China Sea is proving difficult.

By
Florence Looi
Reporter

Tanmen, China - We had come to this fishing village on Hainan Island, China's southernmost province, because it's home to one of the country's best-known maritime militias - the Tanmen Maritime Militia Company.

Its recruits are mostly men from the fishing community. They are given basic military training, and their activities, according to the Hainan Daily, include "collecting maritime information ... and contributing to sovereignty defence in the South China Sea".

Chinese President Xi Jinping cited the Tanmen Maritime Militia as the model for maritime militia building, and honoured them with a visit in 2013.

But while they may be celebrated in local media, we soon found out filming the Tanmen Maritime Militia was not so straightforward.

It was by chance that we spotted them one sunny morning, as we drove past Tanmen Port - around 40 or 50 men, dressed in military fatigues, going through a drill.

What was to prove even more difficult, though, was getting people to talk about the group.

We asked a local official from the propaganda office whether the men we saw were members of the Tanmen Militia. He told us they were part of a film crew. That would have been a bit more believable had we not driven past the film crew just minutes earlier.

A fisherman we interviewed, Wang Shumao, denied knowing anything about the militia. He said the men we saw were just fishermen who "... chose to wear camouflage to protect themselves from the sun".

But it turned out Wang was not telling the truth about how much he knew about the group.

We found out later that he was not just an ordinary fisherman. He is a deputy commander of the Tanmen Maritime Militia.

He was also on one of the 12 Chinese vessels involved in a standoff with the Philippine Navy at Scarborough Shoal in 2012. He had led an unsuccessful attempt to block Philippine vessels from approaching the shoal.

The Qionghai City Government website published a profile of Wang last year.

Wang did not reveal any of that when we spoke to him, and denied knowing anything about the group.

But why were the Chinese so reluctant to talk to foreign media about the Tanmen Maritime Militia?

Perhaps because of the unflattering reports about China's maritime militias. These groups have been involved in confrontations with foreign patrol vessels in the South China Sea.

In 2014, boats belonging to maritime militias, together with Chinese coastguard and naval ships, helped form a cordon around an oil rig that the Chinese had installed in disputed waters, to prevent Vietnamese maritime authorities from approaching.

A year later, fishing vessels believed to be part of several Chinese maritime militias, were reportedly involved in harassing a US navy ship when it sailed near the Spratly Islands in October 2015.

Experts say the use of quasi-civilian forces is a tactic to avoid direct military confrontations, and allows the Chinese government some degree of deniability.

Andrew Erickson, professor at the US Naval War College, told Defense News: "China is trying to use these government-controlled fishermen below the radar to get the bonus without the onus to support its South China Sea claims."

China, however, denied this. Its foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said: "This kind of situation does not exist."

But China is increasingly assertive, aggressive even in pursuing its territorial claims.

A Pentagon report said that China's reclamation work has added 1,300 hectares of land on features in the Spratly Islands.

The next phase would probably involve building substantial military infrastructure on the man-made islands.

Lin Yongxin, from the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, dismissed questions about China's militarisation of the region: "China's goal is always to provide better public service, including meteorological service and medical help."

Analysts are in no doubt, however, that China's expansionist policies in the South China Sea would continue.

Alan Dupont, a non-resident senior fellow for the Washington-based Atlantic Council, said: "It [China] now has the military capability, the political and financial clout to get its way and I think the Chinese have decided that after 100 years of weakness, they now need to assert themselves and claim their rightful position in Asia."

The fishermen we met in Hainan would have no trouble playing a role in this.

As one of them told us, echoing China's argument for much of the South China Sea: "The sovereignty absolutely belongs to China. We don't know what laws should be applied, but our grandfathers' grandfathers' grandfathers fished there ... We will never allow anyone else to take our ancestors' sea."

Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2016, 07:27:28 PM
The ching chongs don't want a war anymore than we do.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2016, 07:31:59 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2016, 07:27:28 PM
The ching chongs don't want a war anymore than we do.

It's not about wanting a war, it's about tripping backwards into one.

And it's "Ching Chongs."  You always capitalize proper nouns, Dummy.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2016, 07:33:17 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2016, 07:31:59 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2016, 07:27:28 PM
The ching chongs don't want a war anymore than we do.

It's not about wanting a war, it's about tripping backwards into one.

And it's "Ching Chongs."  You always capitalize proper nouns, Dummy.

Won't happen.

Quote from: Jacob on June 20, 2016, 07:34:01 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2016, 07:33:17 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2016, 07:31:59 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2016, 07:27:28 PM
The ching chongs don't want a war anymore than we do.

It's not about wanting a war, it's about tripping backwards into one.

And it's "Ching Chongs."  You always capitalize proper nouns, Dummy.

Won't happen.

Wow, you feel really strongly about capitalization :o

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2016, 07:35:12 PM
No, I think racial slurs are lower case: gooks, chinks, slopes, zipperheads, krauts, frogs, poms, etc.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2016, 07:42:22 PM
As he was referring to a specific political entity in the capacity of a sovereign state, it's a proper noun.  He wasn't just referring to any group of ching chongs, you know.

And I really just wanted a reason to call 11B a Dummy.


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F28%2F28a88c3fe2d53699f0006cd8ff71c399fae1a0909fe232a5cdb286b86fddebf4.jpg&hash=7c198ad3a1e55e582d09935f7904788fcdeaf991)

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2016, 03:13:13 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 20, 2016, 02:22:01 AM
Chinese fishing boats being fired upon by various navies is nothing new.  Happens all the time with the South Korean navy.  I seem to recall that the Argentinians actually sank a Chinese fishing boat. 

Well maybe Chinese Fishing Boats should start obeying international laws.

QuoteTea Leaf Nation
Watch: China Takes Teen-Friendly Tack in South China Sea Propaganda Battle
A new video offers a peppy, commercialized angle on a hot-button issue.

China's gone upbeat and commercial in its latest effort to convince its citizens — and the world — that its claims in the South China Sea deserve respect. On June 21, state-run China Central Television shared an undated video on Weibo, a popular micro-blogging platform, that emphasizes the contested region's importance as a trading hub.

Watch the video here:  https://youtu.be/PH7sOSmyalQ

"The newest fashions. State-of-the-art electronics," the video begins, sounding like a commercial. "Don't you want to get your hands on these as quickly as possible?" Viewers are advised that if they do, "then you better pray for smooth sailing in the South China Sea!"

The future of smooth sailing in the South China Sea is currently murky. An international tribunal in the Hague will soon rule on the validity of some of China's claims in the South China Sea after the Philippines, one of several countries in the region whose territorial claims there overlap with China's, filed the case in 2013. China has repeatedly declared it will not adhere to any decision made by the tribunal. To help reduce the toll to its international image if it flouts a ruling by an internationally recognized legal body, China has launched a major public relations campaign attempting to win foreign nations over to its side. The latest video shows Beijing hasn't forgotten the importance of rallying domestic support.

The clip is the latest of several slickly produced propaganda videos designed to resonate with savvy web users. These videos resemble cartoons far more than they do traditional, staid Communist Party propaganda, which typically featured Soviet-style anthems, prominent nationalist symbols, and  bombastic jargon.

While the video is upbeat in tone, the United States comes in for some criticism. While English translation of the Chinese video softens its rhetorical edges a bit, the original Chinese says that given the U.S. position "very, very far away" from the South China Sea, the United States has been "too actively engaged" in the region, including its backing of the Philippines arbitration case and U.S. deployment of spy planes near China's border. The video calls such actions "bellicose."

Of those thousands of Weibo viewers who commented on the video, many declared themselves favorably impressed. "If you don't share this, you're not Chinese," reads one oft-repeated sentiment. Others called it "excellent" and "reasonable." There were dissenting voices; one popular comment called the video's explanation of China's historical claims "lies."

Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2016, 12:01:07 PM
Now now Guam isn't too far away from the South China Sea.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 23, 2016, 05:44:26 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2016, 12:01:07 PM
Now now Guam isn't too far away from the South China Sea.

3000 km give or take.

Quote

Ahead of key court ruling, Beijing in propaganda overdrive

HONG KONG/LONDON  |  By Greg Torode and Mike Collett-White

As an international tribunal prepares to rule on Beijing's territorial claims in the South China Sea, officials in Washington, Tokyo and Southeast Asia are on tenterhooks.

Yet, in the words of one senior Chinese official, Beijing does not care.

On July 12, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague will rule on a case brought by the Philippines against China over its territorial claims and actions across the disputed waters and vital global trade route.

Beijing claims some 90 percent of the South China Sea, and the Philippines is challenging it under a United Nations maritime convention.

"We do not know, we don't care, in fact, when this arbitration decision will be made, because no matter what kind of decision this tribunal is going to make, we think it is totally wrong," China's ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, told Reuters at a recent lunch in London.

"It has no impact on China, on China's sovereignty over these reefs, over the islands. And it will set a serious, wrong and bad example. We will not fight this case in court, but we will certainly fight for our sovereignty."

Beijing's plans to ignore the ruling would represent both a rejection of the international legal order and a direct challenge to the United States, which believes China is developing islands and reefs for military, as well as civilian purposes in a threat to stability.

It would also significantly raise the stakes over dispute, according to lawyers, diplomats and security experts.

How Washington handles the aftermath of the ruling is widely seen as a test of its credibility in a region where it has been the dominant security presence since World War Two against an increasingly assertive China.

China in turn sees this as a matter of defending its territorial and political sovereignty against the United States.

Other nations laying claim to disputed areas of the South China sea felt emboldened to challenge China because they felt they had the United States on their side, Liu said.

"They probably believe that they have America (behind them) and they can get a better deal with China. So I'm very suspicious of America's motives."

So while Beijing scoffs at the imminent decision, it is also making an international PR effort to get its view heard.

Beijing has organised meetings with diplomats and journalists and has expressed its views in a slew of editorials and academic papers around the world.

"Manila has no leg to stand on," said one report in the China Daily's inaugural New Zealand edition.

Asian and Western diplomats said their Chinese peers were raising the issue constantly, and at all levels.

"It's relentless. We haven't seen anything like this in years," said one Asian-based Western envoy.

China says more than 40 countries back its position that such territorial disputes should be handled through bilateral discussions not international arbitration, although only a handful of countries have publicly voiced their support.

Both Chinese and Western analysts say the ruling is not just about the territorial claims in the South China sea, but speaks to broader Sino-U.S. tensions over China's rise.

"This is about exposing Washington's declining primacy," said Zhang Baohui, a mainland security expert at Hong Kong's Lingnan University. "China gains reputational power by showing the U.S. that it can't dictate Chinese actions."

   

ARGUING THE CASE

The law under which the Philippines has made its claim is the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea, known as UNCLOS, which outlines what can be claimed from different geographic features such as islands and reefs. China is a signatory of the convention, one of the first international agreements it helped negotiate after joining the UN.

But Beijing says the issue is beyond the remit of UNCLOS and The Hague court because China has undisputable, historic rights and sovereignty over much of the South China Sea.

China's claims are expressed on its maps as the so-called nine dash line, an ill-defined U-shaped demarcation drawn up after the defeat of Japan in World War II.

Manila's case is based around 15 points that challenge the legality of China's claims and its recent reclamations on seven disputed reefs in the fishing and energy rich region.

It also seeking support for the Philippines' right to exploit is 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Sources close to Manila's legal team said they are confident of favourable rulings on enough points to create significant pressure on China's future moves in the waterway.

Many of Manila's arguments in court last November were couched in arcane legal terms, but to drive home the point about the scale of China's on-going building works, lawyers used a slide show.

Amsterdam's sprawling Schiphol airport was shown fitting neatly into China's new runways on Subi Reef.

"We knew the judges had all used Schiphol," said one source close to Manila's case. "We think they got the point."

   

UNITED RESPONSE?

Ahead of the vote, the UK, Australia and Japan are among countries that have joined Washington in stressing the importance of freedom of navigation and respect for the rule of law.

U.S. officials have also been pressing Southeast Asian nations to forge a united front on the issue, with limited success so far.

Vietnam, which has made a submission to the panel not ruled out taking its own legal action, on Friday called for a "fair and objective" ruling from the tribunal.

The G7 and EU groupings have stated that ruling must be binding, despite China's objections, while Vietnam gave a submission to the court supporting its jurisdiction.

Legal experts say that while the ruling is technically binding, no body exists to enforce UNCLOS rulings. 

Concerns are growing among regional military and government officials that, regardless of the ruling, Beijing could launch fresh military action and re-building efforts to buttress its claims.

China may deploy fighter jets or missiles to its new facilities on the Spratlys, create an air exclusion zone or starting fresh reclamation work on shoals occupied within the Philippines, U.S. and regional military officials say.

Beijing says the reefs are Chinese territory and it is entitled to station "self-defence" equipment on its holdings as it sees fit to counter U.S. provocation.

In Washington, concern is particularly acute over whether China attempts to make permanent its sea-borne presence near the Scarborough Shoal, near the Philippines, by building on the reef.

Liu outlined various civilian developments completed and underway in the South China Sea. He said there were also military facilities being built, adding:

"I was asked why China is also building military facilities. You should ask the Americans. They made us feel threatened. It's not we (who) are threatening the Americans. They are so close to us."

The United States has been increasing its own military presence in the region where Malaysian, Vietnam, Brunei and Taiwan also have claims. France has also proposed to European countries that they take part in joint South China Sea patrols.

U.S. responses could include accelerated freedom-of-navigation patrols by U.S. warships and overflights by U.S. aircraft as well as increased defence aid to Southeast Asian countries, according to U.S. officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Liu said Beijing wanted to resolve the disputes through bilateral negotiations.

"We are not going to war with these countries, we do not want to have a fight with them," he said. "But we still claim our sovereignty over these islands."


(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick in Washington.; Editing by Lincoln Feast and Alessandra Galloni.)

QuoteLiu said Beijing wanted to resolve the disputes through bilateral negotiations.

Quote"I was asked why China is also building military facilities. You should ask the Americans. They made us feel threatened. It's not we (who) are threatening the Americans. They are so close to us."

QuoteLiu said Beijing wanted to resolve the disputes through bilateral negotiations.

Quote"We do not know, we don't care, in fact, when this arbitration decision will be made, because no matter what kind of decision this tribunal is going to make, we think it is totally wrong," China's ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, told Reuters at a recent lunch in London.

Quote from: Tyr on July 04, 2016, 01:19:57 AM

Quote"We do not know, we don't care, in fact, when this arbitration decision will be made, because no matter what kind of decision this tribunal is going to make, we think it is totally wrong," China's ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, told Reuters at a recent lunch in London.

If I was the one deciding this I would be almost tempted to say it all belongs to china, just to troll their not caring

Quote from: Ancient Demon on July 05, 2016, 07:10:52 PM
Yes, it would be hilarious if the tribunal that China is working so hard to discredit actually rules in their favour.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2016, 07:13:26 PM
Unfortunately, I don't think China gives a shit about the perceived consistency of its public statements.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 05, 2016, 08:01:50 PM
What's bizarre is that the PRC signed UNCLOS but routinely ignores or violates it.  Whereas the US refused to sign UNCLOS and yet has a policy of seeking to enforce it.  For consistencies sake the US should sign and PRC should repudiate.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 06, 2016, 11:38:05 PM
For what it is worth, a PLA flag officer just told me that there was an exclusion clause in the treaty when it signed the UNCLOS that exempted China from any dispute which involved territorial sovereignty.

QuoteUpon ratification (7 June 1996):

In accordance with the decision of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China at its nineteenth session, the President of the People's Republic of China has hereby ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and at the same time made the following statement:

1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People's Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.

2. The People's Republic of China will effect, through consultations, the delimitation of the boundary of the maritime jurisdiction with the States with coasts opposite or adjacent to China respectively on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equitability.

3. The People's Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.

4. The People's Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.

QuoteDeclaration made after ratification (25 August 2006)

Declaration under article 298:

The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.

Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2016, 05:56:00 AM
China does indeed appear to have made reservations to its' ratification of UNCLOS -

QuoteUpon ratification (7 June 1996):

In accordance with the decision of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China at its nineteenth session, the President of the People's Republic of China has hereby ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 and at the same time made the following statement:

1. In accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the People's Republic of China shall enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and the continental shelf.

2. The People's Republic of China will effect, through consultations, the delimitation of the boundary of the maritime jurisdiction with the States with coasts opposite or adjacent to China respectively on the basis of international law and in accordance with the principle of equitability.

3. The People's Republic of China reaffirms its sovereignty over all its archipelagos and islands as listed in article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the territorial sea and the contiguous zone, which was promulgated on 25 February 1992.

4. The People's Republic of China reaffirms that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.

QuoteDeclaration made after ratification (25 August 2006)

Declaration under article 298:

The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.

Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2016, 05:56:00 AM
China does indeed appear to have made reservations to its' ratification of UNCLOS -

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2016, 06:28:30 PM

Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2016, 05:56:00 AM
China does indeed appear to have made reservations to its' ratification of UNCLOS -

Not really.
UNCLOS itself prohibits reservations generally.  It does permit signatories to make "declarations" or "statements".  That is what the things you quoted are.  However, UNCLOS provides that declarations and statements are not valid to the extent they "purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State."

Given that legal background, Mono's admirals statement about reservations to UNCLOS is yet more evidence of the PRC's apparent official policy to disregard their treaty obligations.

QuoteThese are the 6 wars the Chinese think they'll fight in the next 50 years
by Blake Stilwell (http://'http://www.wearethemighty.com/author/blake') by - Jul 5, 2016 2:04:28 pm China (http://'http://www.wearethemighty.com/topic/china'), War (http://'http://www.wearethemighty.com/topic/war')
In 2013, the China News Service (http://'http://www.chinanews.com/'), the second largest state-run media outlet in the People's Republic of China (PRC), published a piece in its Chinese language service with all the promise of a less-than-peaceful rise. China News has a very pro-PRC slant, and this particular piece was no different. Called "Six wars China is sure to fight in the next 50 years (http://'http://info.wenweipo.com/index.php?action-viewnews-itemid-62404')," the article alluded to the PRC's pride, shredded after centuries of defeat and embarrassment.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearethemighty.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2FSoldiers_of_the_Chinese_Peoples_Liberation_Army_-_2011-1024x681.jpg&hash=4fa244ea571379b8d2e6216c320bd676889533e2)
Soldiers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army 1st Amphibious Mechanized Infantry Division prepare to provide Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen with a demonstration of their capabilities during a visit to the unit in China on July 12, 2011. (DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley)

China's growth as a global economy boomed under the leadership of Chinese Communist Party leader and President Hu Jintao. Hu stepped down in 2012 and his successor, Xi Jinping, has ideas of a "Chinese Dream," a desire to revitalize the nation and to return China to national glory, perhaps by any means necessary. The article itself could be either bluster or a shared collective feeling, a Chinese "Manifest Destiny." Either way, the Chinese are already anticipating the needs of – and obstacles to – their rise.

1. The Unification of Mainland China and Taiwan
The mainland Chinese do not seem to believe a peaceful unification with the Republic of China (Taiwan) is possible. Taiwanese politicians use the threat of China or the promise of unification as election year stunts but make no real progress on the issue. The PRC sees the existence of Taiwan as a weakness, given that other countries can use their relations with Taipei as leverage in negotiations. The author of the China News piece proposes giving the Taiwanese a referendum by 2020, to vote on peaceful unification or unification by force. They expect the answer will be war.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearethemighty.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2FChinese_army_PLA_has_doubled_the_size_of_its_Amphibious_Mechanized_Infantry_Division_AMID_640_001.jpg&hash=eb9eda7fad0f6a8c4e7b4daa1a995dbd7063cae3)
The Chinese People's Liberation Army's Amphibious Mechanized Infantry

The Chinese expect to win, of course. It's just a matter of time, and that all depends on how much the U.S. and Japan intervene to save Taiwan. The Chinese expect a mainland invasion from the U.S. and will respond with "total war," and believe they can beat Taiwan and its allies in six months. If the United States doesn't intervene, the PRC predicts a three-month victory.

2. The forced acquisition of the Spratly Islands
The Chinese think the forced unification of Taiwan will show the other countries of the region the PRC's resolve in its territorial demands. After a two-year rest from the Taiwan War, the Chinese believe Vietnam and the Philippines will be waiting at the negotiating table to see what the Chinese do, rather than be aggressive or offensive. China will give these countries with territorial claims the option of preserving shares of investments already made in the Spratlys. If not, the Chinese military will take these holdings by force.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearethemighty.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2FA-Marine-Corps-brigade-under-the-Navy-of-the-Peoples-Liberation-Army-PLA-conducted-an-amphibious-armored-training-2.jpg&hash=1cfd0266de31ffc878384e8c4cf2a5b0ff641013)
A Marine Corps brigade under the Navy of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) conducts amphibious armored training

China also believes its victory in the Taiwan War will have taught the U.S. "a lesson not to confront too openly with China," but knows the U.S. will aid the Philippines and Vietnam under the table, with arms, training, and money. Only the Philippines and Vietnam "dare to challenge China's domination." China will attack Vietnam first (because that worked out so well the first time (http://'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War')), in hopes of intimidating other Pacific nations. The PRC's win there will make sure other countries return their claims on the islands and ally themselves with China. This victory also gives the Chinese Navy unfettered access to the Pacific Ocean.

3. Reunification of South Tibet
In 1914, the British and Chinese negotiated the McMahon Line, a legal border between China and India, as part of the Simla Accord. the Simla Accord also carved up Tibet into "Inner" and "Outer" Tibet. Even though the Chinese dispute this line (because they would have to recognize Tibet as an independent state at the time of this treaty), it is the line used on maps between the two countries from 1914 until the Sino-Indian War of 1962. That war changed nothing, except the area once known as the North-East Frontier Agency became known as the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. On top of the border dispute, this state now has major hydropower potential.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearethemighty.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2F%26%231055%3B%26%231072%3B%26%231088%3B%26%231072%3B%26%231076%3B_%26%231074%3B_%26%231095%3B%26%231077%3B%26%231089%3B%26%231090%3B%26%231100%3B_70-%26%231083%3B%26%231077%3B%26%231090%3B%26%231080%3B%26%231103%3B_%26%231042%3B%26%231077%3B%26%231083%3B%26%231080%3B%26%231082%3B%26%231086%3B%26%231080%3B%26%23774%3B_%26%231055%3B%26%231086%3B%26%231073%3B%26%231077%3B%26%231076%3B%26%231099%3B_-_40-1024x632.jpg&hash=84b13120dd008754bd15ceec389f9d5a2630c9c9)

Despite the 1962 war, the Chinese believe they can beat India and "reconquer" South Tibet by force if they can incite the disintegration of the Indian states, sending arms to Pakistan to retake Kashmir, force a war on two fronts and "blitz" into South Tibet. India will lose this war, and China will join the U.S., Europe, and Russia as global powers.

4. The conquest of the Diaoyu and Ryukyu Islands
By this time, the author predicted three major military wars and some years of rest in between. Now, mid-21st century, China will assert its claim over these two sets of islands. China claims these two chains are ancient vassal states of China's, now occupied by the Japanese (and the Americans, as the base on Okinawa is in the Ryukyus).

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearethemighty.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2FMarines_of_the_Peoples_Liberation_Army_Navy-1024x683.jpg&hash=eb5b7be8b15dcc5ca55c88ce9c8fdeec1be02c58)
Marines of the People's Liberation Army (Navy) (PLA(N)) stand at attention following a demonstration of the brigade's capabilities. (U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Lance Cpl. J.J. Harper)

With its growing worldwide military presences and global prestige, the Chinese will move to occupy the islands. They predict a weakened U.S. will fight alongside Japan, but that Europe and Russia will do nothing, resulting in a Chinese victory within six months.

5. The Invasion of Mongolia
The Chinese refer to Mongolia as "Outer Mongolia," a separate part of China, distinct from the Autonomous Region of "Inner Mongolia," a Chinese province. They assert that the country of Mongolia is a part of China. In the 1600s, it was ruled by the Chinese, but if we're going back in time, the Mongols ruled China for a while.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearethemighty.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fla-fg-china-military-pla-q-and-a-20150902-001.jpg&hash=ec87463b2113035b3bc6e04730925ddeb7b7955f)

No matter what we (or the Mongols) think, the Chinese will place a claim on the country shortly after their invasion of Taiwan. Like their invasion of Taiwan, they will offer the Mongolians a referendum to vote on whether their unification with the People's Republic of China. If they vote for peace, Mongolia will be accepted into China. If the Mongols vote for war, the PRC should be prepared to not only invade militarily but also be prepared to fight off foreign aggression against this action. The Chinese believe by this point, they will be so powerful and the U.S. and Russia will be in decline so much, it would be difficult for them to mount anything other than a diplomatic defense.

6. Taking back lands from Russia
Even though the relations between the two countries have recovered since the Sino-Soviet Split during the Cold War, a lot of mistrust remains. In China's view, Russia occupies 1.6* million square kilometers of land belonging to China since the Qing Dynasty, circa 1644. The Chinese author believes by this time (roughly 2045), the Russian government will be in further decline and will take full advantage, especially given the veteran status their military will have after five wars.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearethemighty.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fmaxresdefault-1024x576.jpg&hash=ed01582ecbfabe61f9a3f12fd35bda45bb53d4d4)

The Chinese author asserts "there must be a war with Russia," and should be prepared to use nuclear weapons if the need arises, especially if a first strike to disarm the Russian nuclear arsenal. Once the Chinese neutralize Russian nuclear assets, they believe the Russians will capitulate and hand over the lost Chinese lands.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2016, 07:47:11 PM
:P

I just like how Tim is so matter of fact about a U.S.- Chopstick war. Like he's going to enlist. It won't happen.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 07, 2016, 09:57:02 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 20, 2016, 07:47:11 PM
:P

I just like how Tim is so matter of fact about a U.S.- Chopstick war. Like he's going to enlist. It won't happen.

He's a cancer survivor, wouldn't pass medical.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 07, 2016, 09:42:24 PM
2020?  What's the holdup?

Quote
U.S. to deploy THAAD missile defense system in South Korea; China says move is 'damaging'
 
AP, Staff Report

SEOUL – The U.S. and South Korea said Friday they are ready to deploy an advanced missile defense system in the South to cope with growing threats from Pyongyang.

Seoul and Washington launched formal talks on deploying the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, after North Korea conducted a nuclear test and a long-range rocket launch earlier this year. Beijing and Moscow say THAAD deployment could help U.S. radars spot missiles in their countries.

The system fires projectiles that smash into enemy missiles high in their arc. Both China and Russia earlier described the proposed deployment as a bid to flex U.S. military muscle in the region.

In a statement, the American and South Korean defense ministries said the deployment will be a "defense measure to ensure the security of the ROK and its people," referring to the Republic of Korea.

China on Friday condemned the plan, saying the deployment will "seriously damage" regional security in Northeast Asia.

The Japanese government welcomed it.

Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Hagiuda said Japan supports the decision, adding that deployment of the system will contribute to regional peace and stability, reported by Kyodo News.

"Further cooperation between the U.S. and South Korea will benefit peace and stability in the region and we support the decision," it quoted Hagiuda as saying.

Later Friday, South Korean Deputy Defense Minister Yoo Jeh-seung told a nationally televised news conference that Seoul and Washington will quickly deploy the system because North Korea's growing weapons capabilities pose a big threat to the region.

He said the two countries are close to determining the best military location for THAAD while also satisfying environmental, health and safety standards.

At the same news conference, Lt. Gen. Thomas Vandal, the commanding general of the U.S. Eighth Army in South Korea, said the North's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction requires that the allies make sure they can defend themselves, and that THAAD is critical to their defensive strategy.

Separately, a senior Japanese Defense Ministry official told Kyodo that radars connected to the THAAD system will enable early detection of North Korean missiles, adding that this will be beneficial to defense cooperation between Tokyo and Washington.

Worries about North Korea grew last month when, after a string of failures, it finally sent a new mid-range ballistic missile more than 1,400 km high. Analysts say the high-altitude flight of the Musudan missile means that North Korea has made progress in its push to be able to strike U.S. forces throughout the region.

The Musudan's potential 3,500-km range puts much of Asia and the Pacific within reach.

North Korea is also trying to develop a long-range nuclear missile that can reach the continental U.S., but South Korean defense officials say Pyongyang does not yet possess such a weapon. Some believe, however, that the North does have the ability to mount nuclear warheads on shorter range missiles.

THAAD is also a sore spot between Washington and Pyongyang, which is a traditional ally of China.

Beijing in February agreed to the toughest U.N. sanctions yet to punish the North for its weapons development, and has vowed to implement them fully. But Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated Beijing's worries over the THAAD deployment when he met with U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of a nuclear security summit in Washington in late March.

On Friday, the Foreign Ministry in Beijing swiftly criticized the move. "China expresses strong dissatisfaction and resolute objection to this," the ministry said in a statement posted on its website.

"Refrain from taking actions that complicate the region's situation and do not do things that harm China's strategic security interests," the statement said.

China said the missile defense system's deployment will not help bring about the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and is not conducive to peace in the region. The ministry said the move will "seriously damage" the security interests and strategic balance of the region.

North Korea has warned of a nuclear war in the region and has threatened to strengthen its armed forces if the missile deployment happens.

The deployment decision also comes after North Korea said Thursday that U.S. sanctions on leader Kim Jong Un and other top officials for human rights abuses is tantamount to declaring war.

North Korea has already been sanctioned heavily because of its nuclear weapons program. However, Wednesday's action by the Obama administration was the first time Kim has been personally targeted, and the first time that any North Korean official has been blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury in connection with reports of rights abuses.

The United States stations about 28,500 troops in South Korea as deterrence against potential aggression from North Korea. China assisted North Korea during the 1950-53 Korean War, while American-led U.N. troops fought alongside South Korea.

Meanwhile, Friday's announcement tried to defuse concern among Seoul's neighbors. In their statement, the two sides said the system would only target potential attacks from North Korea.

"When the THAAD system is deployed to the Korean Peninsula, it will be focused solely on North Korean nuclear and missile threats and would not be directed toward any third party nations," it said. "The THAAD deployment will contribute to a layered missile defense that will enhance the alliance's existing missile defense capabilities against North Korean missile threats."

Many South Koreans worry that China, the South's biggest trading partner, will take economic retaliatory measures.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2016, 06:53:38 PM
This isn't even Kaiserreich "we don't get no respect" type arrogance and diplomatic ineptitude, this is lebensraum level we must wage war on the world stupidity.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 08, 2016, 07:58:26 PM
Taiwan, Diouyu islands, South China sea, yes, I hear that almost every week.  South Tibet too, even though that's not mentioned very often. 

I have never heard that China wants Ryoku or land from Russia.  A few years ago, they made a big announcement that they ended all land disputes with Russia.  There was this island in the middle of a major river that they split into two halves.  I am not aware of any disputes with Mongolia.  If I am not mistaken, actually the Republic of China claims Mongolia, not the People's Republic of China.  When RoC still ruled China, Mongolia was within China's borders.  I am doing this from memory and they may have changed their official position. 

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 08, 2016, 02:15:36 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2016, 06:53:38 PM
This isn't even Kaiserreich "we don't get no respect" type arrogance and diplomatic ineptitude, this is lebensraum level we must wage war on the world stupidity.

they've been playing too much People's General.
I'm amazed how the Chinese hope to not be a nuclear parking spot by the end of it all.

QuoteBeijing South China Sea claims rejected by court

An international tribunal has ruled against Chinese claims to rights in South China Sea, backing a case brought by the Philippines.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration said there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or resources.

China described the ruling as "ill-founded".

China claims almost all of the South China Sea, including reefs and islands also claimed by others.

The tribunal in The Hague said China had violated the Philippines' sovereign rights. It also said China had caused "severe harm to the coral reef environment" by building artificial islands.

The ruling came from an arbitration tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which both countries have signed.

The ruling is binding but the tribunal, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, has no powers of enforcement.

The US sent an aircraft carrier and fighter jets to the region ahead of the ruling, prompting an angry editorial in the Global Times, a strongly nationalist state-run newspaper, calling for the US to prepare for "military confrontation".

Meanwhile, the Chinese Navy has been carrying out exercises near the disputed Paracel islands.

Quote
It also said China had caused "severe harm to the coral reef environment" by building artificial islands

QuoteChina described the ruling as "ill-founded".

Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2016, 08:45:06 AM

QuoteChina described the ruling as "ill-founded".

Awww I wanted to hear what Vietnam and the Philippines thought of the ruling  :(

QuoteTaiwan, which also claims the disputed area, said the ruling had "seriously damaged" its rights.
"We hereby solemnly state that we will definitely not accept this ruling," the foreign ministry said.

Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2016, 09:22:23 AM
I am sure you will reclaim the mainland any day now Taiwan.

Quote from: Caliga on July 12, 2016, 09:54:57 AM
A huge mistake.  China should be allowed control of the South China Sea.

Quote from: Caliga on July 12, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
China's going to take those islands regardless.  Not worth risking a confrontation over.

Quote from: Caliga on July 12, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
China's going to take those islands regardless.  Not worth risking a confrontation over.

Quote from: Berkut on July 12, 2016, 10:12:40 AM

Quote from: Caliga on July 12, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
China's going to take those islands regardless.  Not worth risking a confrontation over.

Are you being serious?

Quote from: Caliga on July 12, 2016, 09:54:57 AM
A huge mistake.  China should be allowed control of the South China Sea.

Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2016, 08:45:06 AM
Awww I wanted to hear what Vietnam and the Philippines thought of the ruling  :(

Quote from: Caliga on July 12, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
China's going to take those islands regardless.  Not worth risking a confrontation over.

Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 12, 2016, 01:03:51 PM
So what consequences will this ruling have in the end? The tribunal can't enforce it. China will ignore it and won't even lose face internally thanks to nationalist pride. Duterte's campaign was partially financed by China, so he will downplay the whole thing and keep it quiet.

Quote from: Caliga on July 12, 2016, 09:58:04 AM
China's going to take those islands regardless.  Not worth risking a confrontation over.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2016, 04:43:08 PM
I don't see why China stops at these little islands.  Why not claim the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia as well?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2016, 05:14:44 PM
I was being sarcastic.  This seems like a classic example of penny wise, pound foolish.  The more China tries to claim some coral reefs hundreds of miles out at sea, the more her neighbors align against her, bringing in the US.

Quote from: dps on July 12, 2016, 05:20:10 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2016, 05:14:44 PM
I was being sarcastic.  This seems like a classic example of penny wise, pound foolish.  The more China tries to claim some coral reefs hundreds of miles out at sea, the more her neighbors align against her, bringing in the US.

Oh, sorry.  My sarcasm detector must be on the fritz.  And I wasn't being sarcastic--if the Chinese get what they want, they'll just want more.

Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 12, 2016, 01:03:51 PM
So what consequences will this ruling have in the end? The tribunal can't enforce it. China will ignore it and won't even lose face internally thanks to nationalist pride. Duterte's campaign was partially financed by China, so he will downplay the whole thing and keep it quiet.

Looks like China will just continue to build islands and militarize the shit out of the region.

Quote from: Berkut on July 12, 2016, 06:19:08 PM

Quote from: dps on July 12, 2016, 05:20:10 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2016, 05:14:44 PM
I was being sarcastic.  This seems like a classic example of penny wise, pound foolish.  The more China tries to claim some coral reefs hundreds of miles out at sea, the more her neighbors align against her, bringing in the US.

Oh, sorry.  My sarcasm detector must be on the fritz.  And I wasn't being sarcastic--if the Chinese get what they want, they'll just want more.

Indeed. This is the classic liberal error - assuming that other actors are motivated by the same things that we are - China doesn't care about how they are perceived in the Western sense of wanting to be seen as a fair or equitable actor that can be trusted.

This is right up there with Clintons "We will just hit the reset button!" idea vis-a-vis Russia.

They want to be feared. This may not be the best way to go about that, but it is foolish to think they are fools - they are not.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2016, 06:37:28 PM
We in the US can fight another cold war.

Quote from: Kleves on July 13, 2016, 07:22:50 AM
Hollywood's too afraid of China to make any movie critical of the PRC.

Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2016, 07:30:29 AM

Quote from: Kleves on July 13, 2016, 07:22:50 AM
Hollywood's too afraid of China to make any movie critical of the PRC.

I was about to say Viper is insane if he thinks Hollywood is going to piss off its largest market like that :lol:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2016, 08:22:23 AM
I wonder what would happen if we actually go to war with them and win. They just ignore it and don't make any movies about it?

Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2016, 08:25:01 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2016, 08:22:23 AM
I wonder what would happen if we actually go to war with them and win. They just ignore it and don't make any movies about it?

There will be a tragic love story highlighting how both sides were really right and it was all just a big misunderstanding.

Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2016, 08:25:01 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2016, 08:22:23 AM
I wonder what would happen if we actually go to war with them and win. They just ignore it and don't make any movies about it?

There will be a tragic love story highlighting how both sides were really right and it was all just a big misunderstanding.

Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2016, 09:41:55 AM
So, basically, Pearl Harbor?

Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2016, 09:51:43 AM

Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2016, 09:41:55 AM
So, basically, Pearl Harbor?

The Chinese would not have bombed that hospital in this movie. Instead they would have dropped traditional Chinese medicine.

Quote from: Malicious Intent on July 12, 2016, 01:03:51 PM
So what consequences will this ruling have in the end? The tribunal can't enforce it. China will ignore it and won't even lose face internally thanks to nationalist pride. Duterte's campaign was partially financed by China, so he will downplay the whole thing and keep it quiet.

Looks like China will just continue to build islands and militarize the shit out of the region.

Quote from: Berkut on July 12, 2016, 11:26:30 AM
This seems pretty simple to me.

1. China does not want a war, first and foremost. They are almost certainly unwilling to actually fight over any of this.
2. China does want to get absolutely as much as they can without getting into a war.
3. This means that China will keep pushing until such point that they think more pushing will result in shooting.

This is very basic aggressor behavior.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 13, 2016, 11:02:51 AM
The consequences are that China and the Philippines will do a deal, and the deal will be more favorable to the Philippines than it would have been without the ruling.

What is really at issue are the economic exploitation rights to the South China Sea.  It is inevitable that the PRC will be dominant because their consumers will generate most of the demand, and their producers and companies are the largest and most capable of development of all the countries in the SE Asia region.  What international law does, in conjunction with diplomacy, is provide some measure of counterweight when the PRC seeks to go beyond that and run absolutely roughshod over the rights of the smaller states.  And here it has succeeded.  The fact that it appears that Duerte intends to leverage the ruling to do a deal is WAD.  And the State Department official statement reflects that.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 13, 2016, 08:53:33 PM
This ruling works to Beijing's favour.  China is actually suffering from massive floods right now, and the economy isn't doing well.  The ruling diverts attention away from the domestic front. 

Another issue is Taiwan.  Taiwan's claims are ruled illegal in the ruling as well.  This puts Taiwan in the same boat as Beijing.  Taiwan's ruling party doesn't want to get involved in South China Sea.  But this ruling forced them to reaffirm their claims nonetheless, thereby putting Taiwan at odds with Japan and the US.  This would be an opportunity for Beijing to get closer to Taiwan as they share the same interests and claims in South China Sea.

Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2016, 08:59:30 PM

Taiwan has no interests other than symbolic ones in the SCS, and their denial of the court ruling was strictly pro forma.  I don't think that this ruling will have the slightest impact on their relations with the PRC.  Of far more interest to them is Beijing finger-fucking Hong Kong, because it shows that the PRC wouldn't keep any bargains about special status made for a Taiwanese reunification with the PRC.

The current rulers of China are remarkably short-sighted, alas.  I'm beginning to think that Beijing actually played the first Trump.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 13, 2016, 06:31:23 PM
Demand for seafood and offshore oil, gas, and minerals is not limited to China.  Nor is capacity to extract them. 

Demand and capacity don't trump property rights.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 13, 2016, 09:10:49 PM
Taiwan has a military garrison and airstrip in the South China Sea.  I think they occupy one of the largest islands, but only one.  It is a legacy of their RoC days.  The island is politically important to them because they want to show that they are still a player in international diplomacy.  It is a high profile issue in their elections, and the two major parties struggle to show to voters that they care.  Already the opposition Nationalist party (which is closer to Beijing) is attacking the ruling DPP (which advocates eventual independence) of not doing enough in South China Sea.  The reason it may affect Taiwanese relations with Beijing is because if played well, the Nationalists may gain politically at the expense of the DPP.  If the Nationalists use this as leverage to regain their popularity, this may be one of the factors that help them win the next election and regain the presidency.   

Quote from: Monoriu on July 13, 2016, 08:53:33 PM
This ruling works to Beijing's favour.  China is actually suffering from massive floods right now, and the economy isn't doing well.  The ruling diverts attention away from the domestic front. 

Another issue is Taiwan.  Taiwan's claims are ruled illegal in the ruling as well.  This puts Taiwan in the same boat as Beijing.  Taiwan's ruling party doesn't want to get involved in South China Sea.  But this ruling forced them to reaffirm their claims nonetheless, thereby putting Taiwan at odds with Japan and the US.  This would be an opportunity for Beijing to get closer to Taiwan as they share the same interests and claims in South China Sea. 

Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2016, 07:27:41 AM


Taiwan occupies the largest natural island in the Spratleys, but its policy has always been that the dispute is essentially economic and not territorial, and that thus there can be a de facto multilateral agreement on resources while ignoring the de jure disagreements.  That's a position far closer to the position of the other claimants in the region, bar Beijing, than to Beijing's position.  As you note, Taiwan's position on sovereignty is a shadow show for internal consumption.  I doubt that there are many Taiwanese who actually care about the sovereignty issue.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 14, 2016, 08:09:42 AM
That island is Taiwan's way of telling the world "hey we still exist".  Taiwanese are very worried that their international diplomatic space will disappear.  There are only like 20-25 states that have official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and they are all tiny Latin American and African states (plus the Vatican).  Beijing's position is that Taiwan may only join international organisations as part of China's delegation, and of course the Taiwanese don't want to hear that.  They care about the island not because the island is of any real use to them, but because it is one of the very few tools they still have to stop themselves from sliding into diplomatic oblivion.   

Quote from: Tyr on July 15, 2016, 02:57:50 PM
Beijings position  is completely against international law.
Not just in the claiming islands that don't belong to them thing.  But in claiming eezs for rocks that can't support human life.
Though it is an interesting consideration that I don't believe is covered in the rules;  what of man made islands? Could a country just make a island somewhere unclaimed  and have an eez?

QuoteChina issued a warning to the incoming Trump administration through its state-run media Friday that the U.S. risks a "large-scale war" if it follows through on Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson's suggestion that the U.S. should block China's access to its growing man-made islands in the South China Sea.

Two Chinese dailies, the saber-rattling Global Times and the English-language China Daily, took aggressive and at times condescending approaches to Tillerson's stance on the issue during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday. China Daily described the would-be secretary of state's comments as a "mish-mash of naiveté, shortsightedness, worn-out prejudices, and unrealistic political fantasies."

Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon Mobil, took a hard line toward China's island-building and expansionist claims in the oft-disputed South China Sea, an international body of water and crucial trade route, and compared the country's recent aggression there to "Russia's taking of Crimea."

China's rapid island-building around the Spratly Islands — an archipelago that has long been a source of tension in the region — was a concern for the Obama administration, which responded by conducting regular "freedom of navigation" operations.

The most recent exercise, involving passing a United States Navy destroyer near the disputed island, elicited an angry response from the Chinese Defense Ministry, which described it as "illegal" and "provocative."

The mission stayed outside the internationally recognized 12-nautical-mile territorial limits of the disputed islands, but within waters China claims as its own. "This operation demonstrated that coastal states may not unlawfully restrict the navigation rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea that the United States and all states are entitled to exercise under international law," Josh Earnest, White House spokesman, said at the time.

James Mattis, Donald Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, reinforced such an approach, as is current U.S. policy, during his confirmation hearing Thursday.

"International waters are international waters, and we've got to figure out how we deal with holding onto the rules we've made over many years." Mattis said, reiterating U.S. responsibilities in preserving freedom of navigation through the contested waters.

Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Brunei all have territorial claims to the Spratly Islands, located along one of the world's busiest trade routes.

"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands is not going to be allowed," Tillerson said during his hearing.

The secretary of state nominee's latter point clearly struck a nerve. "Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories," an unsigned Global Timeseditorial threatened.

Tillerson's remarks would be a notable shift from current policy, one that experts told the Guardian would require a dramatic show of military force that could lead to "a crisis, a military clash."

China's official response was far more tame, but it revealed a key underlying assumption of territorial control over the disputed islands that will likely be a sticking point in future diplomatic discussions. China's foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said China had the right to "conduct any kind of normal activities" in its territory and deflected from specifically addressing Tillerson's comments on the U.S. preventing China from accessing the islands.

Tillerson is the latest official in Trump's incoming administration to stake out a hard line on China. Trump's incoming trade representative Robert Lighthizer and leader of the newly formed national trade council Peter Navarro are longtime critics of China and what they see as its regular abuse of free-trade agreements.

Trump frequently criticized China on the campaign trail and has continued to ramp up tension with the nuclear power since winning the presidential election. Between his incoming administration's flirtation with Taiwan, which China deems a threat to its decades-long "One China Policy," his trade appointees' track records, and his go-to Twitter provocations, Trump looks poised to thrust Sino-U.S. relations into new and hostile territory.

Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2017, 12:06:39 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2017, 12:06:39 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

Quote from: Berkut on January 17, 2017, 12:06:39 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0

Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2017, 08:31:20 PM
I just do not get why Trump is so intent on pissing off the Chinese.

Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2017, 08:31:20 PM
I just do not get why Trump is so intent on pissing off the Chinese.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2017, 08:34:03 PM
Boner, you might be interested to know a band with Asian American memberss called The Slants is appearing before the Supreme Court to argue their ability to trademark their name.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 17, 2017, 08:35:28 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2017, 08:34:03 PM
Boner, you might be interested to know a band with Asian American memberss called The Slants is appearing before the Supreme Court to argue their ability to trademark their name.

:lol:

I hope they win.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2017, 08:42:50 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 17, 2017, 08:35:28 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2017, 08:34:03 PM
Boner, you might be interested to know a band with Asian American memberss called The Slants is appearing before the Supreme Court to argue their ability to trademark their name.

:lol:

I hope they win.

Opening for The Slopes.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 17, 2017, 08:43:37 PM
With special guests, The Zipperheads.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2017, 08:34:03 PM
Boner, you might be interested to know a band with Asian American memberss called The Slants is appearing before the Supreme Court to argue their ability to trademark their name.