China is feeling increasingly cornered–both politically and militarily in the South China Sea. The presence of US allies’ navies and in particular the joining of US FONOPs there will exacerbate that sense of desperation and perhaps prompt a kinetic response from China. They need to weigh carefully the consequences of tempting fate in the South China Sea.
America and China are flirting with disaster in the South China Sea. Although there have been dangerous incidents, so far the two have avoided a head-on broad clash. Neither really wants war—at least now—and there is still some (but fading) hope on both sides that it can be avoided. But there is an incipient development that could convince China that war is inevitable and tempt it to respond accordingly. That is the joining of US allies—the U.K., France, Germany, Japan and Australia—in material support of US policy in the South China Sea. They are preparing to send their navies to the region and may even participate in US-led Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) challenging China’s claims.
They and the U.S. know that China perceives the South China Sea as being well within its ‘sphere of influence’. For China, it is a historically vulnerable underbelly that must be turned into a “natural shield for its national security.” Aside from this nationalistic conceptual angst, there are specific strategic reasons for China’s deep concern. The South China Sea provides relative ‘sanctuary’ for its second-strike nuclear submarines. They are its insurance against a first strike—something the U.S.—unlike China–has not disavowed.
But US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) probes in, over and under the South China Sea focus on detecting, tracking and if necessary targeting these submarines. China opposes these probes saying that they are a threat to its national security and that they violate international law.
But the U.S. counters that China’s position violates “freedom of navigation”. The problem is that the U.S. cleverly conflates freedom of commercial navigation with its military priority there— freedom of navigation for its ISR vessels and aircraft that search for China’s vulnerabilities. It maintains that its FONOPs in the South China Sea – nine this year targeting China – are intended to preserve and protect freedom of commercial navigation that is somehow threatened by China’s claims and actions. But China has not threatened commercial freedom of navigation. China does however object by word and deed to what it perceives as US abuse of ‘freedom of navigation’ and its “intimidation and coercion” in enforcing its interpretation.
In these circumstances, a multilateral FONOP would be a challenge reaching far beyond enforcing a controversial legal position. Indeed, China would perceive the increased presence of navies of US allies as endangering its use of the Sea as a submarine sanctuary and rendering its underbelly vulnerable. In this construct, the participation of allies’ navies in US-led FONOPs could be the tipping point that leads China to kinetically confront them.
For many years the U.S. has been pressuring –without success–others in and outside the region to join its FONOPs there. But US allies Australia, Japan and the Philippines have so far declined such US requests. They all have their own reasons for doing so but a common one is that they do not see China’s claims as a threat to commercial traffic or their security despite US dire warnings to the contrary. The U.K. is the only country that has answered the call –and that was a unilateral one time only and drew a sharp rebuke from China.
More recently, US allies have voiced full-throated support for the US position there. The U.K., France and Germany jointly submitted a note verbale to the UN emphasizing “the importance of the unhampered exercise of the freedom of the high seas” in the South China Sea.
Moreover, they are putting their money where their mouth is by stepping up their naval deployments in the region. The Quad – an incipient US-led anti-China coalition with core members India, Japan and Australia– is gathering momentum and taking on a military tinge. France has called for a “new Paris – Delhi – Canberra axis that would be respected by China as an equal partner.” The Chief of Staff of the French Navy, Pierre Vandier, said “We want to demonstrate our presence to the region and send a message about Japan-France cooperation. This is a message aimed at China about multilateral partnerships and the freedom of passage.”
Meanwhile, the U.K. announced that it would soon send an aircraft carrier strike group to conduct joint exercises near Japan with the U.S. Navy and Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)
Moreover, then Japanese Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi “expressed hope that a German vessel” would join exercises with the JMSDF in 2021. More pertinent, he suggested it would assist the international community’s efforts to ensure the right of passage of vessels through the South China Sea if the German warship would traverse waters” over which Beijing claims jurisdiction.
Japan itself is becoming more aggressive vis a vis China in the South China Sea. Last June in its largest show of force in the region since WWII it sent the helicopter carrier Izumo into the South China Sea for joint exercises with the US aircraft carrier strike group Ronald Reagan.
Adding Japan to the FONOP mix would be particularly dangerous. The psychological wounds of Japan’s depredations in China before and during World War II have not fully faded.
Indeed, China has stated that Japan’s more assertive behaviour “is a blatant denial of the fruits of victory of the world’s anti-fascist war and a severe challenge of post-war international order”. China sees Japan as continuing its history of arrogance and aggression by being part of a US-led “China containment” strategy. A military role in the region for what China perceives as its unrepentant former conqueror could strengthen the hand of militarists in China and undercut those who favour a ‘softer’ approach.
According to pundit Richard Javad Heydarian, “What was once a largely regional dispute has now become a full-fledged global geopolitical showdown.” While that statement is overly dramatic and premature—events do seem to be drifting in this direction.
As a result, China is feeling increasingly cornered–both politically and militarily. The presence of US allies’ navies and in particular their joining of US FONOPs will exacerbate that sense of desperation. They need to weigh carefully the consequences of tempting fate in the South China Sea.
Mark J. Valencia is an internationally known maritime policy analyst focused on Asia and currently Adjunct Senior Scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China. He is also a Non-Resident Fellow at the Huayang Institute for Maritime Cooperation and Ocean Governance, Sanya , China.
Comments
64 responses to “US allies may tempt fate in South China Sea”
SCS in a nutshell…
Chinese survival vs gringo hegemony.
pssst,
There’s a dirty little secret,
FUKUS is very safe ! 😉
https://apjjf.org/2014/12/36/Vince-Scappatura/4178/article.html
Heydarian should be treated with extreme caution in regard to his commentary concerning the SCS. He has completely misrepresented the current Philippines position regarding the Scarborough Shoal or Sikabaluo jiao. The Philippines historical claim to the Sh0al is based almost entirely on the US annexation of the Philippines and the subsequent US mapping of the area. PRC’s historical claims are dated from the Ming dynasty. Heydarian is not an “academic”. He is a journalist and a vehemently anti-Duterte one at that. Heydarian’s article ignores the 2012 stand-off over the Shoal when the US declined to remove the PRC navy from the area despite the pleas of the puppet Aquino government. Put simply the US backed out of militarily supporting the Philippines Navy in the dispute. His article is an attempt to portray a position that the Philippines current stance of negotiation with PRC over the disputed West Philippines Sea is being overtaken by a military confrontation. The fact is that the Philippines will not be part of a military confrontation with PRC over the SCS.
5 Eyes learned a great lesson in “The Great War”. Never initiate hostilities. Always get someone else to declare war, first. Then join in on the winning side.
The NWO seems all but assured, so these diversions in the area of Japan are due to one thing: the refusal of Japan to render the Plutonium to Europe.
Having the two great powers pretend to face off against one another enables the usual clamp down on internal dissent and also explains the large gatherings of hardware with sales of same increasing also.
Problem is that the tsunami weappon has been perfected by Japan and USA. ‘Mining clathrates’ now has two meanings: extracting them and putting explosives in place to detonate when required.
Well, if the Quad does get going, China will have to take the attitude that the China apologists here advocate for Australia – they’ll just have to suck it up.
The alternative is to go to war. But the China apologists on this site say that China would never do such a thing, so why are we worrying? I’ll tell you: because China’s statement that it won’t strike first is worth about as much as its trade commitments to Australia. It will end the second China sees a definitive advantage. That’s not to say it WILL strike first, but it would utter foolhardiness to believe that it won’t.
Perhaps Mark should open his second eye and warn that China is risking a lot by making much of the world suspicious and angry with its wolf diplomacy and trade bullying. You won’t read that here, especially from someone employed in China by a think-tank on the South China Sea. I suggest his reasoning follows his employment, something posters here should be open to as they are so convinced of the same thing with ASPI.
Back to your “china apologists” ad hominem. Lowest trick in the book in terms of anything resembling a genuine argument.
Odd you should think that George. Look at your reply to Malcolm – no ad hominem there? Or against anyone who has concerns about China? Ad hominem a plenty. Perhaps you should remove the log from your own eye before criticising the mote in mine – and perhaps I should do likewise.
That said, I cannot believe you deny this site is filled with China apologists who insist that the fault is entirely Australia’s, the responsibility to fix it is entirely Australia’s, that China has acted proportionately unlike Australia. What, if not that, would you actually consider defending China to consist in? Do you want to go to the fanatically absurd lengths of Godfree and claim China is the finest democracy, its justice system with a 99% conviction rate is the finest justice system, and its Uighurs are the best-off Muslims in the world? If so, I simply can’t take you seriously. Mark Valencia’s post is typical of the China defence genre. It’s not to blame for anything. So indeed are yours. Do you really think Malcolm has no grounds for his opening statement that China is not blameless? Truly?
If you and dozens of other posters here are entitled to criticise ASPI, dismissing reports for no other reason sometimes than the source, I am equally entitled to be suspicious of somebody living in China and working for a Chinese think tank. How long would he last if he started acknowledging other legitimate claims to the South China Sea?
PS: It occurs to me that we mean different things by apologist. An apologist is merely one who defends; it is not by definition illegitimate. Sometimes I think the arguments made are illegitimate – and so do you – and that is why we have discussions, but the fact that arguments are made is not illegitimate. To call someone an apologist is not to insult them; it is to state their position.
Perhaps you could list the ad hominems “a plenty” you accuse me of.
Maybe you mean “remnant of Western imperialism” in my reply to Teow Loon Ti which I think is a valid description given the absurd claims made that bear no evidence. I can find nothing else, and everything that Malcolm Crout says is validating the view of Western imperialists. And I explain in the entire post why I say that, not just categorise him with no argument as to why. I oppose most of the statements he made with WHY I think what I think.
Meanwhile you accuse me and others repeatedly that we are Chinese apologists, or even being on the CCP’s payroll, just like Clive Hamilton does or the head of the ASPI Peter Jennings. It doesn’t matter what we say we are all pro-CCP apparently, but I don’t think anyone claims that. In fact my concerns are more about what is happening to my country, dominant US influence, and I have made that clear in my comments in the last few days.
The point is if I chose to, I could call you a US apologist, or a Morrison government apologist, or a Nine Entertainment/News Corp apologist etc. But I don’t. And no one is using that sort of terminology on these pages.
You use it frequently to dismiss other peoples’ considered opinions, I do not. It is not original, a term used by a number of people to invalidate other peoples arguments without demonstrating why.
Hi George. Barney and I and John Menadue hail from the same newspaper industry. It is not ad hominem to observe that Pearls and Irritations has quite a strong anti-American and pro-China bias. John makes no bones about this in his own writing. I have never discussed it with him but it appears to me that John has chosen this policy deliberately to provide a platform for the pro-China viewpoint, perhaps to address what he perceives as an imbalance in Australian media. We can get the pro-American view elsewhere. John has posted stuff from me that is critical of China and, as far as I’m aware, he has not censored Barney. The argument between you two is a reflection of divisions in Australian opinion. I think the numbers are with Barney and this is understood by Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese.
Jerry, the question becomes; why is it that ‘…the numbers are with Barney….’ (if indeed they are)?
For instance, is it that people who are unable to use logical reasoning and critical thinking are falling for the anti-Chinese rhetoric?
I am only guessing John. Professional politicians like Morrison and Albanese are among the best judges of public sentiment. I dare say the pollsters are asking questions. China is shutting the gate and there is nothing we can do about it. I agree with Paul Frijters. Australia and China will be uncoupled for the next decade. Again, that is guessing. The most interesting matter for speculation is the Chinese motivation. It seems likely the aim is to break or weaken our American alliance.
Perhaps their motivation is that they are no longer prepared to provide a whopping trade surplus to a country that has hostile military bases against it, a third of its navy sailing through the Taiwan Strait, US marines training against it and Pine Gap which would be used to help obliterate its people off the face of the earth? We have no “alliance”. We are a constituent component of a hostile aggressive war machine ranged against it.
G’day Skilts. That does appear to be the story, although we can safely assume the High Command and Politburo will not tell us what they are thinking. With equal safety we can assume they are delighted with their progress to date. We are doing exactly what they want us to do. We are arguing among ourselves without even mentioning national development, defence and manufacturing which, like the Americans, we have so foolishly neglected. I doubt if they are worried about trade and balances. They can pick up commodities wherever. It is a strategic battle. The ABCTV drama on Pine Gap was prescient.
Mr Roberts, I believed that public sentiment is also informed by a biased media and a pro-American government stand. I do not believe that their motivation is to weaken the US/Australia alliance. Their real concern is the US which is not only their important trading partner but also their strategic opponent. I think that they are more likely to be motivated by the need to put and end to fruitless and pointless quarrels with Australia -mostly initiated by Australia to please the US.
Thanks, Jerry. I think you are right.
John is committed to free speech, and has never censored me – unlike the Spectator, which has indeed removed posts of mine contrary to its editorial view. What’s more, though I disagree with many columnists and posters here on China, I find P&I essential reading, and am grateful for it. It has certainly influenced my views. And on most issues other than China I agree with the general line.
All your comments do is attack, undermine, finesse, or deceive others into fatally throwing themselves against the tedious, self-affirmative sophistry and sclerotic nitpicking you call your “views.” What your comments never do is offer a way forward, nor any positive alternative narrative that seeks a genuine compromise between the artificial opposites of truth and lies about China that you seem to constantly breathe life into in order to keep your own narrative of relevant-self alive. What exactly is your relevance? You could at least let everyone know how long you have spent in China, who you met and what you did there, if that is not too much to ask; otherwise please do tell how you have managed to apprehend the political and social reality of a country of 1.4 billion people of which you have no personal experience.
I have been to China, though I claim no expertise. I do know a bit about Australia.
I think you overestimate my importance – fatal? Sclerotic nitpicking? You are simply ridiculous. As well as boorish.
As I said, nothing substantive to offer, just aloof counter abuse.
Well I’m glad you acknowledge you began the abuse.
Ouch – fair point.
Sir,
Often, being fair obliges one to be on the side of the wronged. I don’t think Pearls and Irritations is anti-American and pro-China at all. It is doing its best to address the divisiveness in the country that derives from a bias media and pro-US government. I am sure P&I would be equally critical of China should a situation calls for it. I understand the concern of John Menadue because I am similarly concerned. We are currently being led by a government and MSM that are doing enormous damage to our economy and our security. They don’t seem to want or be able to live with the reality of a rising China. How much more proof do we need to realise that no good has ever come out of US use of its military might. It is the same mindset that the use of force solves problems that feeds domestic violence and street crime. I have confidence that Australia is a much more intellectually sophisticated country than the “might is right” lot.
Hi Teow. I think John has deliberately made Pearls and Irritations the go-to site for people like you who know what they are talking about. I enjoy reading your comments and appreciate your impeccable manners. Australia is looking for a place in the world.
Mr Roberts, thinking more about it, I like and admire the writers and commentators in P&I who understand and are concerned about human weakness. The last major war, WWII, lays out for us very clearly how a people as sophisticated and educated as the Germans can be swept away by the tide of populist ideas and come to grieve. There must be something in us that can engender mass hysteria. I believe that what most readers are doing here is to try and moderate views with empirical evidence and logical argument before real madness takes over.
Australia does have a place in the world and it seems more obvious to others than Australians. It used to be the envy of the world, both economically and politically. Believe me. I was at one time on the outside looking in. There is a certain distinctiveness about Australians that is recognisable throughout the world. We don’t need to be looking for something that is already there.
Hi Teow. You will find my specific articles on America, China and Australia posted on Pearls and Irritations on 10 February and 5 April 2018. If you click on the by-line you open up the archive and you can read my views on politics, economics, religion and Australia’s place in the world but you will need to set aside a couple of hours.
John, Barney, and yourself may have a common link through having worked in the same industry, but that is as far as it goes.
My understanding from listening to John in a recent interview with Friendlyjordies, apart from P&I, his experience in the industry was many years ago when he worked for the Australian. What he says about Murdoch in essence, is that he was once a good employer who started out well, but has become increasingly caught up with the bad crowd. In my view it has made Murdoch the kind of utterly right wing purveyor of fake news and tabloid journalism, a promoter of clearly biased right wing news, anti-climate change action, pro-US wars, and a strong supporter of Trump (until recently).
John’s experience I would say, has made him critical of the same industry, and over the years a long time after his time at the Australian, he developed this site (with his much of his wife’s assistance) as an alternative to the main stream media and its increasingly propagandist political tendencies in support of Liberal governments and US pressure. Hats off to John because we need it. It offers a different view on a whole range of subjects often from an international perspective,with articles from quality independent journalists who do not omit details, and are not part of the appalling mainstream media with its utter bias. There are also many voices from academics and experts in many areas including people who understand China with a great deal of expertise. John’s site covers a range of topics, not just China.
Many Australians agree that much of the MS media has become partisan and largely in support of pushing Liberal governments, pro-American anti-Chinese agendas, and very supportive of the Morrison government and all Liberal state governments. For those who only have time to watch or read it, it has become a tool of propaganda that carries biased views to influence minds that don’t look any further, or don’t have time to look further. It works.
John’s site is small by comparison, but growing fast mainly because many people in Australia today don’t trust the MS media anymore, and know that the ABC nightly news is also cowered by an oppressive government always at the ready to make a biased comment or cut another budget.
The cat is out of the bag with the 500,000 + signatures on Kevin Rudd’s petition, but Nine Entertainment’ s takeover of Fairfax has also seen a shift to the right and much more support for Liberal/IPA/Spectator magazine views as well. After all they hold Liberal Party fund raisers in their head office and Peter Costello is chairman of the board. Nine’s takeover was facilitated by changes to media laws by the Liberals, has seen an influx of journalists from News Corp, a permanent array of opinions from ex-Liberals and members of the IPA, the loss of many good Fairfax journalists who now work independently, and virtually no coverage of Labor unless it is negative.
It seems to me that people like Barney cannot even cope with this small site and those who make comments beyond anti-China rhetoric. And what he gets wrong frequently is that it is not that we are China-apologists, but moreover quieter patriots of this country who are alarmed at where we are headed under the Morrison government at many levels. Particularly its sycophancy to America’s geopolitical agendas, and its anti-climate change action. Morrison’s allegiance to the views of the ASPI, the body that is in part financed by US arms and weapons manufacturers, is also very worrying – a body that also condemns its critics by using even worse examples of ad hominem.
Hi George. There are many sites popping up around the world in reaction to the limitations of the mainstream media, for which I worked in my youth. Thanks goodness. I find a new source on the Internet every couple of weeks and I’m a Luddite on a laptop so I am merely scratching the surface. Journalists like me and Barney know just how important Pearls and Irritations is. It was Hamish McDonald, ex SMH, who introduced me to this site. I think you are under-estimating Barney ….and Scott Morrison. We are facing a number of difficult issues at the moment and there are no simple answers. I have never met Barney but just from what I have read recently I respect his intelligence, knowledge and integrity. If you are trying to knock him out of the ring you are wasting your time.
I’m not trying to knock him out of the ring, that is your invention. In fact I have been discussing these issues with Barney for some time. What I’m trying to do is get him to stop trivialising everyone else’s comments that don’t suit his own views by using ad hominem. He uses it over and over again and I will keep telling him it is not fair method of argument. Even the newspapers he used to write in, display above their readers comments: “Criticise ideas, not people”. Not that Nine Entertainment moderators ever respect that with the often racist and and abusive anti-Chinese comments they allow.
I think the other thing I try to point out to him is also what he claims himself, and that he has written below:
“I have been to China, though I claim no expertise. I do know a bit about Australia.”
That’s the problem, he does not demonstrate any understanding of China, and makes little effort to do so, nor does he know much about its history,political evolution and culture. He still interprets most of what it says and does through the lens of a purely Western point of view. Meanwhile he accepts the general line that the US pushes about China, and the views promulgated by Morrison and his Wolverines. Especially xenophobia. I could not believe what he wrote in one of his comments a few days ago when he said: “China is a fat boy coming to steal our food”. That could have come out of a ‘yellow peril’ book.
No one here calls him a US apologist, a Morrison apologist, or anything of the sort.
”
Are you the bellicose Jim Molan’s best mate?” I think that was ad hominem, for a start. It was designed to demean.
You can call me an apologist; as I said above, I think you misunderstand the word as an insult. It is not ad hominem, it does not dismiss other people’s opinions, even those you say are considered. Here is the dictionary definition of an apologist: “a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial.” The idea that it is an insult is a peculiar quirk of your imagination.
I am an apologist for Christianity in the public square – I defend the position that religion should not be confined to the home or church, but that Christians have the same democratic rights to argue for what they regard to be a flourishing society as secularists, atheists, Muslims and others. I am not insulting myself when I call myself an apologist.
When I call you a China apologist, which you absolutely are, I am not concerned that you are an apologist. I am concerned that I don’t agree with your position, your arguments, which I find biased and wrong, as you do mine. You state China has not been belligerent in trade and investment. What would China have to do be belligerent in your view? Does belligerence begin with missiles? Cyber attacks? How much trade does it have to cancel in its bid to punish Australia for you to criticise it? You condemn Morrison’s language; the CCP calling Australia chewing gum on its shoe, as bad an insult as you can devise in China, seems perfectly legitimate in your view. To me, you have a remarkably limited definition of belligerence – at least, when it comes to China.
You seem to imagine that China has not gone to war since 1949, ignoring Korea and India, to name two examples (Wiki lists 15 armed conflicts involving China since 1950). And its language about Taiwan is certainly bellicose. Very sad that you seem to have no concern for 25 million ethnic Chinese off the coast of China who don’t want to be part of the PRC, though I may be mixing you up with the many posters here who say China is entirely justified in invading but can’t forgive the US any misdemeanour, real or imagined.
So I dispute these attitudes, not the fact that you hold attitudes.
Barney with respect you pulled off a semantic slide when you conflated apologetics (which is what you engage in with your admirable writing on Christianity) and is a respected branch of moral logic in regard to Christianity with the pejorative “apologist”. Apologist is a pejorative and has a long dishonorable history of justifying atrocities and human rights abuses and moral failure. I dont believe anyone here was defending Christianity from the Roman oppressors circa second century which is the meaning of the word “apologist” you are attempting to present here.
Take it as a pejorative, if you like, though I disagree. The cap (in that pejorative sense) fits many people who post here in defence of China, though certainly far from all. Not, for example, you Skilts.
Bellicose Jim Molan’s mate?
That is not ad hominem either Barney
If you are aware of the fact that Molan was on Channel 7’s Sunrise last week spreading all sorts of bellicose rumours then you might understand why I said that.
Concerning China, this is what he said:
“[China] has been “priming for war for a long, long time”.
“They are threatening Taiwan every day of the week and interfering in Japanese airspace,” he told the programme.
“They have stolen the South China Sea, contrary to any international rules and laws, they are picking fights with their neighbours around the world and they have extraordinary military capability, not just in rockets and aircraft but in overall capability to do things.”
“They are primed for war and the other problem of course is that America as well is primed for war.”
“This is a situation which is changing rapidly, and we have got to prepare for the worst case. It is not inevitable, but we have got to prepare.”
https://7news.com.au/sunrise/on-the-show/liberal-senator-jim-molan-fears-australia-is-on-brink-of-military-conflict-with-china-c-1851733
Of course the pressure from the US war gamers and bases within the region is never mentioned by Molan.
Associating Molan with Malcom Crout is fair given that he pushes the same anti-China alarmist pro-USA agenda.
1) If I said instead that Moylan and Crout were two peas in the same pod, which is similar to saying he must be “Jim Molan’s mate”, it makes it obvious that it is a statement about the two holding like ideas. There is no ad hominem in that at all. Sorry Barney there is not.
2) There is only one possible ad hominem and that could exist and that is if you use your interpretation to cast Molan as a bad influence, which is literally what you decide to do. I have not said that, I merely point to the fact that Crout and Molan spread the same xenophobic anti-Chinese propaganda – just as you do. You can’t have it both ways, in that you also hold similar anti-China views to Molan, while casting the same man in a negative way to support you own argument. It’s your interpretation of what I said, not mine. I wrote it and know what I meant. You are just playing with semantics to suit yourself.
I also notice that when I responded to your first accusation of me using a ad hominem, you did not answer to that, but shifted the goal posts to another accusation of another one you made up. I’m still waiting for the ad hominems “a plenty” as well.
While I do think Molan is a very dangerous man, there is nothing I say that is directed against him personally rather than objecting to the belligerent pro-US position he is maintaining.
And I will still ask this question: Why haven’t you countered anything I said in return to Crout’s xenophobic post? That is the argument I present.
Then again you say:
“When I call you a China apologist, which you absolutely are”.
Thanks Barney, so you are a repeat offender and enforce your right to use ad hominem. So what. I’ve known you long enough on here to know that you mostly come on this site to accuse everyone of the same thing. It’s your way of dismissing that any of their views are valid, so yours must be correct.
While you claim China is belligerent, you also appear to be totally unaware of the US’s last 120 years where they have been almost continuously at war, mainly to rearrange the world for their own interests. Who knows how many innocent deaths they have caused in so many wars they have entered under false pretences. What about Diego Garcia? Illegal wars in Iraq? The annexation of Hawaii? Banana republics in Central America?
Lucky the Taiwanese have an Island to live on, If Mao had not unified the country then it would have continued to be land divided by warring states and warlords because the attempt to establish democracy failed and that is exactly what happened. Lucky he helped them win back Taiwan from Japanese annexation as well, because otherwise they would have had nowhere else to go. Taiwan and the US are playing very dangerous games as well, especially since Trump has been in power.
India? You should read about how the British in India lined up Tibet for the Chinese to control, because they wanted a buffer between India and Russia. It’s all in the “Younghusband expedition”. Tibet was also a protectorate of the Chinese during the Qing dynasty, and it features as part of China on most maps of China at the time.
As a Christian you have no understanding of the concept of just war? Or a war in defense of national sovereignty? How on earth can an intelligent person reviewing the facts equate the defense of a sovereign state with the use of the navies of the Quad in the SCS? Are you seriously suggesting there is a moral equivalence with the defensive measures taken by the PRC in the SCS and the dispatching of US, German, French, Canadian, Australian and British gunboats into the area? What exactly is the sovereign defense principle at stake with the US, German, French, British, Canadian and Australian navies 100 kilometres off the coast of PRC? The reason that the PRC is militarizing the SCS is to push the US carriers off to the east of Guam. They intend in a war of defense of China to basically destroy the US carrier fleets with their LAND based ballistic super sonic missiles. They believe that in a military conflict that the US will move its carrier strike forces to the east of Guam out of the range of the LAND based anti-carrier missiles. If the US carrier based planes are then forced to refuel in the air to achieve a striking range to the Chinese mainland PLA planes will destroy them in the air. The military strategy of the PLA is entirely defensive. By the way it is entirely the opposite of the Japanese in the Pacific in WWII with Pearl Harbor. Forget about believing them. Their whole strategy is defensive. And you apparently make no distinction between the aggressive 400 military bases ringing PRC and a defensive military strategy of the PLA in the SCS. Apparently you would find equal offense with the French Magenot Line and the German blitzkrieg strategy of 1939. By the way what is exactly the national strategic interest of Australia in having our warships in the SCS?
Actually, I am familiar with the strategic policy you outline. The argument for Australian warships in the SCS is that it is such a key trade route for us, but in fact I agree with you – here we are being American lapdogs.
But China’s offensive capabilities – as Godfree gleefully points out – are strong. And if it came to war with Australia, I very much doubt it would be missiles and navies, but destruction of Australian infrastructure by cyber warfare. I am sure China could take out our power systems at will, which would leave everything in tatters.
Love the use of “gunboats”. Redolent of 19th century diplomacy, which may well have been your intention, conscious or otherwise. But it’s missile cruisers, submarines and aircraft carriers today, which your post above demonstrates you well understand.
One thing that we all agree is that we must avoid a war.
Thank providence for rational thinking like yours. We need your comments. What the US is currently doing is to further polarise the world. This attempt to intimidate will pull Russia and China closer together and jeopardise further the peace and stability of the world. The need to leave well enough alone does not seem to have a place in the minds of people who think that might is right.
The South China Sea “interactions” can seen as a chess game for the “survival of the fittest” or “the annual simmian game of checkers” with an unintended consequence of a nuclear war breaking out in the SCS. The games played by homosapiens are far more deadly than monkeys as the former is more able to annihilate each other effectively. The simian impulse is for food and territory and if their turf is not invaded/encroached, all is peaceful and well. With humans, the interest go beyond surivival but tempted by lust, greed, power & influence.
With the microcosm of interests of the SCS nations, who is going to say for sure that one nation is aligned with another, with the possible exception of Australia. For this reason, a public declaration of an “alignment” of a nation does not reveal the true intention of the declarant. They reserve the right to change course when it suits their interests. For eg. Japan & South Korea – a declared ally of the US; do you seriously think they will still be on the US side when war is declared or economic decoupling occurs bw US and China? They will think of their nation’s interest befoe comitting troops or participate in economic decoupling. Hence, my theory predicts that when war breaks out, Asian nations will align with those who could protect their national interests. Using Sunzi Art of War to analayse these scenarios in the SCS can produced unexpected outcomes (good & bad). The real winner is the one who who wins without firing a shot!
A very disturbing article, note these key paragraphs :
“They (US allies) and the U.S. know that China perceives the South China Sea as being well within its ‘sphere of influence’. For China, it is a historically vulnerable underbelly that must be turned into a “natural shield for its national security.” Aside from this nationalistic conceptual angst, *** there are specific strategic reasons for China’s deep concern. The South China Sea provides relative ‘sanctuary’ for its second-strike nuclear submarines. They are its insurance against a first strike—something the U.S.—unlike China–has not disavowed. ***
*** But US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) probes in, over and under the South China Sea focus on detecting, tracking and if necessary targeting these submarines. China opposes these probes saying that they are a threat to its national security and that they violate international law. ***
*** But the U.S. counters that China’s position violates “freedom of navigation”. The problem is that the U.S. cleverly conflates freedom of commercial navigation with its military priority there— freedom of navigation for its ISR vessels and aircraft that search for China’s vulnerabilities. It maintains that its FONOPs in the South China Sea – nine this year targeting China – are intended to preserve and protect freedom of commercial navigation that is somehow threatened by China’s claims and actions. But China has not threatened commercial freedom of navigation. China does however object by word and deed to what it perceives as US abuse of ‘freedom of navigation’ and its “intimidation and coercion” in enforcing its interpretation. ***
In my view: in so obviously trying to weaken or compromise China’s second strike nuclear deterrent, which is helping to keep the peace, the US is threatening international peace and security. Its allies including Australia should give no support to this dangerous provocation.
It seems to me China has grounds to complain formally to the UN Security Council about the US violation of FON international law. And Australia and other Western allies of the US , and Russia too, need to support China in this. The US needs to be told that it is out of order.
Tony Kevin
Unless it is a play designed to fool some … and allow Japan some time to cohere and send the Plutonium to Europe.
China is not blameless in all of this. Their aggressive hard line and constant harking back to events that occurred 100 years ago is nothing but a smoke screen to cover their belligerent attitude in trade and investment. They rigged their currency, stole Western technology and the deal to being part of the world order was that they democratize their system of Government. Now they are thumbing their noses at the West and expect what exactly? Try to imagine a world without US global influence where China would fill the gap. Is this something the West wants? I think not. No one wins a Mexican standoff and the Chinese are not stupid, but the West simply cannot stand by while the CCP seeks to expand their influence across the Globe. Kinetics is a poor descriptor of the potential for conflict. Call it for what it is.
While I respond to your distorted view of the world, I must also thank George Wendell for his most logical and reasonable argument. You came to the table with a biased mind reflected in this absurd statement:
“Try to imagine a world without US global influence where China would fill the gap.”
I have tried to imagine a world without US global influence. It is one in which there was no Korean War in which an estimated 5 million people died; there would be no Vietnam War in which 1.353 million people died; there would be no wars in the Middle East in Afghanistan, Iraq etc involving large civilian casualties, misplaced people and atrocities committed.
The other absurdity is the idea that China would fill the gap left by the US. China has stated often enough that they have no such ambition and that they are more interested in trade. They have kept to their immediate zone of influence now and historically. Even in that respect, they have not caused their neighbours any harm other than taken the disputed islands in the SCS to defend their most vital trading route.
As for the statement: “…constant harking back to events that occurred 100 years ago…” All I can say is that it comes from a people who is unable or unwilling to empathise. Unable because the person is basically unread, unwilling to read or genetically “unable”. The idea that what does not affect me is not important is common enough in people who live a sheltered life of affluence. “Pride comes before a fall” mate!
On the matter of ‘reading’, and related avenues to learning, TLT, a couple of days ago I took up the opportunity offered by an algorithm, at the tube facility, to view a talk given in 2012 by Martin Jacques, at Melbourne University.
Jacques was one of a number of learned speakers engaged by “Asialink”, to discuss Australia’s ‘role in the world’ going, as they say, ‘forward’.
You can find it under the “The University of Melbourne” at Youtube, from Sept 19th, 2012, titled;
“When China Rules The World”, and is introduced with;
“As part of a public lecture series questioning Australia’s Role in the World, Asialink is proud to present best-selling author and leading China expert Martin Jacques, for the launch of an updated version of his critically-acclaimed book “When China Rules the World: the End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order”.
It is well worth the 90 odd minutes it takes to ‘consume’ what Jacques presented. Very enlightening, with Jacques supporting his contentions with deep knowledge, and oodles of factual evidence.
As I noted to my cohort, when recommending they take the time;
“You watch Marty, and see if one f***ing thing he ‘forecast’ in 2012 is demonstrably wide of the 2020 mark. Good f***ing luck!!!
A few other notes to the cohort, about Jacques’ presentation;
“8 years ago there was still some relatively open discussion about the nation’s ‘Role in the World’, particularly in relation to where we happen to be, you know, ‘geographically located’.
7 years ago, the joint elected Abbott, and that f***ed any open discussion about the nation’s ‘Role in the World’, ‘going forward’.
Back then, we had some genuinely knowledgeable people offering insights, perspectives and options.
Now we have Pete’s Yank and Limey funded ASPI sucking ALL the oxygen out of ALL ‘discussion’.
Interestingly, on Marty’s ‘forecast accuracy’ – he says on stage ‘The TPP will fail’. But, he also assumes it would get through, and be signed. That, he suggested, would have made it more complex for the Chinamen – which was O’Bomber’s only aim with the TPP, but still would have failed.
Watch him describe what was imperative for Oz in 2012, and understand we have done the F***ING POLAR OPPOSITE!! (Hint: ‘Amerikan coat tails’…..Chinamen respect?……..INDEPENDENCE!…..Don’t do ‘allies’, not their go…).
He spends some time discussing the relative merits of governing systems i.e. Western democracy vs the Chinamen’s ‘civilisational unity primacy’ (my term, messy, I know) model. Beyond the ‘ideological’ debate, Marty has a simple way of summing it up – the Chinamen’s model develops and delivers ‘brilliantly competent’ leaders……………………….’now, look around the Western world’. Nuff said, Marty, point taken (and, taken for some time, by ME!)”
More of those notes to the cohort;
“Marty provides significant stats and fun facts, in support of his general contentions. ‘Trends’ then? 8 years on? Man right, or man right?
One fun fact noted by moi – even before ’12, the Chinamen were already shifting more funds into the developing world, than the World Bank, and without the IMF ‘austerity’ justified asset pillaging, and debt entrapment.
Check the table on trade with the Chinamen (simple definition of trade used by Marty – exports plus imports). LOOK AT EUROPE!! (European countries shown separately). While the relative trade has increased since ’12, you see there why they had to do that investment deal with the Xi-Man.
England fun fact from Marty – they had more trade with F***ING IRELAND, than they had with China (and Russia, and a coupla others). IRELAND!
The ‘journalist’ employed to do an intro, and then return to ‘challenge’ Marty, was from the ABC (before that SBS).
Methinks he was ’employed’ cos he ticked the ‘Diversity’ box.
The sit down with Marty late on is f***king embarrassing. As whateverthef***hisnamewas was rolling through his ‘notes on contentious issues’, the look on Marty’s dial says – in ‘plain sight’ – ‘you haven’t listened to one f***ing word I said, you dolt!’ He then ‘vocalises’ similar in a ‘kind’ manner. BUT!! He does take one ‘exception’, and it involved ABC Boy’s pig ignorance over China – Japan relations, particularly 1930’ish on. Truly f***ing embarrassing.
So, ABC Boy tossed in the towel, as he should have, and went to the audience.
Anyway, all up, ya wanna have the nation’s ‘progress’ down the s*** chute outlined, for ya?
Watch Marty – 8 F***ING YEARS AGO!!”
I think the second sentence after the one you quote also exposes what this remnant of Western imperialism says even further.
“Try to imagine a world without US global influence where China would fill the gap. Is this something the West wants?”
1) For a start China has never suggested anything else than multipolarity, not world dominance by China or anyone else. Emphasis has always been on win-win peaceful trade.
2) When he says: “Is this something the West wants?” – he makes it very clear that there is only one part of the world called the West which must always get its way by suppressing the other called the East. Some people have no idea how much they reveal when they say something.
Once upon a time the West wanted China to trade. And to ‘trade’ opium for all manner of extraordinary things made by the Chinese at the time, including a lot of tea. China would have looked like a gold mine of trade opportunity to the British since it was such an advanced society in what it could manufacture, craft with a high level of mastery, and grow and process like excellent tea.(1) Yet when the Chinese Daoguang emperor pleaded with England by writing directly to Queen Victoria asking to cease the opium, the result was that the British Navy was dispatched to smash Canton, better known as Guandong to most Chinese. Now it is not certain that the queen ever saw the letter but many in British Parliament and those who attended closely to her, would have known what the letter was about. So the emperor’s letter fell on deaf ears or was carefully intercepted.
Let’s also acknowledge that the opium was smuggled into China as contraband by British buccaneer smugglers, yet they were defended ultimately by the British navy. What does that say about the ethics of the situation? China however, ended up paying a massive reparation bill for this, about 17 billion in today’s currency, and had to cede Hong Kong to the British as a prize of war. That made it far more easy to smuggle more opium into Guangdong.
I’m sure you know all of this but it needs to be said to people like Malcolm Crout with their Western bias.
The irony is that now when China wants to trade and has adopted capitalism, the same Western countries turn a bit Marxist and want to stop its capitalist rise. That is what this is about, along with people like Malcolm Crout’s massive fear that if we aren’t suppressing the Chinese and the East, they will obviously do like Westerners do, and want to dominate the entire world through military power. Yet there is absolutely nothing in Chinese history even comparable to the Japanese, that makes China a warmongering country, or one that ever wanted to dominate the world like an imperialist nation.
(1) What is rarely discussed is that the English took tea plants from their origin in China to India, and also helped themselves to Chinese expertise on how tea is grown and processed. A great art in all of its diverse forms in China. Today we would call that property rights theft.
Where do you get this neo-McCarthyist propaganda from? You’ve not provided even the remotest bit of evidence to any of your claims, its just the well worn diatribe that we get from the Americans under Trump and our sycophant government with its compliant main stream media.
“Their aggressive hard line”.
I’m sure you mean the US’ s provocative behaviour thousands of kilometres from their own country as usual. Many of us are not so stupid in Australia on this site as to not know about the US’s aggressive military bases in the region and perpetual wargames. If China tried that so close to US shores there would be all hell to pay.
“harking back to events that occurred 100 years ago”
What like we do with Gallipoli?
“belligerent attitude in trade and investment”
China has never talked in a belligerent way on either of those two things. Do you ever listen to what they say? Obviously not. Do you know what belligerence is? Have they ever threatened us with war? The only thing they have said, and only after a long period of cold war against China from the Australian government and its media, is that if Australia wants to treat China as an enemy then they will be one, and that is after many attempts to ask us why we were taking purely the US position on this and not willing to use diplomatic channels. And while you castigate China, perhaps you should explain why our government is so happy to sell so much iron ore to the country, to the benefit of propping up our GDP and Gina and Twiggy’s incomes when our economy is heading down the gurgler. Secondly China has been withdrawing its investment in Australia for a number of years now. It never was Australia’s greatest foreign investment country, the US is, with nearly a trillion in foreign investment (more than 15 times that of China), and that is followed by the UK and tiny Belgium. At least get your facts correct.
Are you aware that India steals possibly more intellectual property but nothing is said because the US wants it as an ally? Na.
“and the deal to being part of the world order was that they democratize their system of Government.”
What? How did you invent that codswallop? So you are at one time saying China is planning to take over the world with its system of governance, yet you want China to be a democracy overnight. Ever heard of hypocrisy? Na.
I can’t be bothered answering to your other claims because they come straight out of Trump’s fake news playbook. I don’t think I’ve seen such a post of fake news xenophobia on this site for a long time.
Are you the bellicose Jim Molan’s best mate?
You assert that the “CCP seeks to expand their influence across the globe.” Can you please reference any instance where the Communist Party of China has in the last forty years sought to extend its influence as a communist party? Apart from myself who was recently accused of being in the pay of Beijing on this site by another sinophobic desperado (dear comrades i am still waiting for the shekels) can you document where the thoughts of Xi have been promoted by the Communist Party of China outside of the PRC? Or were you using the current pejorative of the Trumpists by referring to the sovereign government of the Peoples Republic of China as the CCP ? You really just support regime change in Beijing. Which is what the US position is all about. Just cut to the chase mate and cut the Trumpist propaganda. Its an insult to our intelligence.
It is entirely unclear why Australia should be involved in a blatant attempt by the USA to try to engage China into a real war. Another Gulf of Tonkin incident coming up?
For those excited by the author’s current employment in China, I commend further research, beginning here.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26396774
‘Funny’ how looking for bodies of work so frequently upends summary contentions of allegiance.
It is a good job the commentators on this post are not nuclear-armed. The discussion is heated! I won’t try to act as peace-maker but I agree with Godfree in that I can’t see the Chinese feeling threatened while the Americans are falling apart. The greater danger is that China may be over-confident looking across the Strait to Taiwan.
In a world accelerating toward +2, +3 and +4 degrees Celsius of global warming (https://wp.nyu.edu/gw/accelerated-global-warming-dr-hansen-and-makiko-sato/; https://www.ecoshock.org/2020/12/global-warming-acceleration-hansen-sato.html) any talk about and preparations for major war – likely a nuclear war – need to be called for what it is, the ultimate INSANITY.
“The splitting of the atom has changed everything, except for man’s way of thinking, and thus we drift into unparalleled catastrophes” (Albert Einstein).
Sir,
Australians and others who are concerned about world peace and their very own safety have you to thank for giving us fair warning on the dangerous game that the US and its allies are playing in the South China Sea. I cannot see any real reason for such a provocation other than the ugly fact of showing how might is ultimately right. It would not have missed the Chinese that these are the very same nations that had humiliated them for a hundred years in recent history. Apart from the constant pillorying, the insults such as calling their President a “thug”, the disgraceful propaganda that distorts the view of people living in the West and instil in them a hate-China and Chinese attitude, this last act is an attempt to intimidate with a show of strength. Like everything else, peace has no meaning until one has lost it.
This gratuitous escalation of conflict be it derived from fear of the unknown, simian impulse to dominate and establish hierarchies, or pure envy is not one that any party can fully control. What may be seen as hubristic demonstration of military might could easily be interpreted as a real and urgent threat. Countries that could have gone along to show their support for the US by being present underestimates the implications of their actions on the antagonist. Imagine if a large group of ones neighbours fronts up to ones front yard with guns and behave in a provocative manner what reaction could one expect? In such a tense situation, can anyone expect that no mistakes or misunderstanding would occur?
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Hello Teow Loon Ti
Excellent post and fair.
Can I also say that I replied to you on the Bruce Haig article in case you did not get see it. I wanted to do it last night but had my extended family around for dinner, so no time to do it.
Thank you George. I read them.
So the US and its allies are simian? This is not the sort of language you generally employ.
“simian IMPULSE”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230554849_8
“(R.L.) Stevenson’s enduring scientific concerns — about the nature and direction of evolutionary change, and the relations of savagery and civilization, progress and degeneration, heredity and environment, and individual and race — converged in a contemplative and wide-ranging letter to his cousin Bob, written shortly before he died.
…As the letter continues, he develops this sense of life as a mystifying spectacle. Humankind, he suggests, has not progressed steadily from savagery to civilization; rather than evolving in a unified manner, it still harbours traces of earlier developmental stages. Behind a façade of civilization, he implies, humans betray their bestial origins: he contrasts the ‘conventional surface’ and ‘social stage-directions’ of life with a ‘wild’ and ‘simian’ human nature (362–3). Stevenson claims that ‘[c]ivilisation has become reflex with us; you might think that hunger was the name of the best sauce’, yet that the ‘crowding dumb multitudes’ remain ‘monkeys’, driven to ‘do things, write able articles, stitch shoes, dig, from the purely simian impulse’ (363). The equivocal representation of the ‘simian impulse’ (understood as both a revitalizing energy and a dumb inarticulacy) is characteristic of Stevenson’s writings, in which the affirmation of primitive life is often tempered by uneasiness…..”
Thank you for an interesting comment.
Barney,
I think you misunderstand me. When I said simian, I include myself and imply the human impulse to dominate. It does not just include the US and its allies. I often see humans as monkeys whenever I am frustrated by human cruelty to animals and each other; and when I see unreasoning behaviour. The reason why I have been signing off using “sincerely” is that I say things without pretence. Anyway, please don’t take offence. If you are indeed offended, I like to apologise.
Thank you. Of course I was not offended, merely surprised. But your explanation has clarified matters that I had misunderstood.
Japan is the target, but China may be needed to do the heavy lifting and suffer the losses?
Perhaps the leaders of China will sell out a few tens of millions of their populations? How much would that take? Defending the homeland is always a tearjerker? The lecture tour for the survivors would be lucrative…
Perhaps the USA will arrange an attack that clearly comes from Japan and not the USA? How would that happen?
Or attack Japan, allowing China to be implicated, perhaps by finding 23 Chinese passports next the debris?
Perhaps this is true in some parallel universe, but not in ours. China has 90% support from the SCS littoral states for a Code of Conduct and, in any case, completely dominates the Sea militarily to such a degree that no US naval forces can safely come within 1000 miles of it.
The PLAN fleet is much bigger, more modern, and far better armed than the USN, and has home field advantage. As to its power, a single PLAN frigate can destroy the entire Taiwanese fleet without ever coming within range of the (US manufactured) Taiwanese weapons.
Guardian, Dec 23, subheading;
“Joint Russia and China patrol over the Pacific signals stronger military ties between Moscow and Beijing”
Grabs;
“…The Russian military said a pair of its Tu-95 strategic bombers and four Chinese H-6K bombers flew over the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea on Tuesday….
Russia’s defence ministry said the joint mission was intended to “develop and deepen the comprehensive Russia-China partnership, further increase the level of cooperation between the two militaries, expand their ability for joint action and strengthen strategic stability”…..
Putin also noted in October that Russia had been sharing highly sensitive military technologies with China that helped significantly bolster its defence capability….”
See, in particular, ‘Missile Defence’ and ‘Hypersonic’.
The West either heeds the message, or it loses, big.
Unfortunately, the greatest immediate threat to the species is that the ‘leadership’ in the West is too stupid (and, some, obsessed with the “Rapture” and related delusions) to heed the message.