China's south china sea adventure

[XT]

[QUOTE=Lemmytheseal2]
The trade commitments should continue, but entangling alliances are bad news, to say the least. I’ve already invoked WWI, which should suffice, but I’ve already mentioned the close calls of recent years. To the extent that the US has reduced these commitments, there’s a lot more work to do! The larger strategic picture remains the same, unfortunately. As for North Korea, they’re vastly weaker than anyone around, and if war does break out, I certainly don’t want US forces there, getting entangled.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree that ‘entangling alliances are bad news’, and I don’t see how we can maintain trade commitments when a nation attempts to unilaterally claim international waters and air space as their own sovereign territory and militarize same.

North Korea IS a threat, not just to South Korea but to other regional allies, and one of the primary things that have prevented them from an all out attack on the South is the presence of the US tripwire forces. I’m sorry that you don’t want to see the US entangled in alliances in the region, and that you’d prefer we left our allies out to dry and to fend for themselves, but surly you understand that YOUR opinion on this is not universally agreed upon.

I didn’t think it made a difference, because even if the Sea of Japan doesn’t border China, it seems obvious that such exercises have China (if not solely China) in mind, because it seems far-fetched to go to all that maritime effort regarding only North Korea. Since you raised the issue, I posted a link pointing to similar exercises happening much closer to China, along with other military moves. It happens in the air too, despite the 2001 incident. From the article: “China is unhappy with U.S. reconnaissance patrols near its coast and is suspicious of U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan.”

But it still doesn’t show what you claimed…in fact, this link, which is a pretty obviously biased spin on the subject and talks mostly about the US nefarious arms sales to try and bolster our sinking economy (:p) talks about a single exercise that I see…which was off the coast of Okinawa. Not exactly on China’s porch there. Instead of drive by links, why don’t you link to something and then quote the relevant part you THINK speaks to your assertions?

I didn’t decide that by fiat. The facts decided it. The JSDF can defend Japan, and if they can’t, they can gain the strength. It’s their responsibility. American interests in the region do not include getting involved in border/maritime disputes.

Yet, those same ‘facts’ don’t seem to have caused the Japanese or South Koreans to decide to toss us out and go it alone, nor have they convinced the US leadership that it’s time to tell our allies in the region to suck it up and fend for themselves. It only seems to be you asserting these facts as if they ARE in fact ‘facts’, and not just your own spin and worldview.

Yes, absolutely. All the money (and opportunity costs!) spent on this sort of thing (I know the Japanese cover some of it) would be immeasurably better spent on innumerable other things. This isn’t just a question of squandered resources, as it has potentially grievous consequences. Either you get rid of your empire (UK, France, Portugal) or it gets rid of you (USSR).

I wish they had a sand trombone whah whah noise smiley. You’ve been pressing this US empire thingy (as well as all empires are bad and cost more than they are worth, etc etc) for several threads now, but it’s really the same tired old horseshit. Which rather conveniently shifts the discussion away from what China is doing and places it squarely on how bad the US is for attempting to stop them from their land grab. Well, why don’t you consider this our way of helping the Chinese out from the folly of grabbing more land. The US is nobly sacrificing ourselves to prevent the Chinese from going down this dark and dangerous path.

How would Americans feel about foreign surveillance flights coming close to the US, or some sort of large scale nearby foreign military deployment? Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa said that the US could keep its base in his country if his forces could have a base in the US. There is no longer a US base in Ecuador.

The Soviets DID used to have surveillance flights that came close to the US, and in fact did deploy quite substantial military equipment and technology in places like Cuba. We didn’t draw the line until they tried to deploy nukes there that were directly aimed at the US.

But really, this is again your attempt to handwave and muddy the waters by diverting the discussion. This thread is about China and what they are doing in the South China Sea. If China wants to operate their subs or their great re-tread Soviet carrier in international waters off our coast then there won’t be much we can do about it. If they try and do a land grab in those same international waters in the South China Sea then we are within our rights to do what we’ve done, which is to send our military there to demonstrate that we don’t agree that this is becoming Chinese territorial waters and we will continue to use them as they are meant to be, not as China wished them to be.

There’s no reason for US forces to be involved in the standoff with said mad fuckers. The people of Korea can reunite their peninsula, if only the US government would let them. Besides, it’s their responsibility.

Good grief, what a silly argument and a sillier link. Whah whah.

Getting out of entangling alliances would benefit the US greatly. If the Chinese wish to expand, it’s their loss, and they are welcome to it. If other countries in the region have objections, they can take it up with the Chinese, and with one another. It’s no business of the US. As even sven noted, the Chinese government is not a Bond villain.

It is our business, and the Bond villain thing is a strawman argument that doesn’t address what’s going on in the South China Sea.

A high-altitude system is far more relevant regarding China’s capabilities than North Korea’s. In addition, missile defense just results in the opposition building more missiles to overwhelm said defense, which was widely understood when the ABM Treaty was crafted and signed.

So you assert.

It’s not a matter of bending, it’s a matter of recognizing that not every problem has a military solution, if there’s even a problem in the first place

This is highly ironic to me. So, China decides to overturn the status quo via military means (i.e. an obvious build up and militarization of a zone that is in international waters, a zone further that is disputed by several different nations), and the US responds by demonstrating that this is still an international air and sea zone and one China does NOT own or have sovereignty over, and you claim that there was really never a problem and that WE have to recognize that ‘not every problem has a military solution’? Gods, now THAT is hilarious…especially since I can picture the puzzled look on your face as you don’t get the irony of your statement.

It’s a matter of recognizing what is the business of the US and what isn’t.

Free passage of trade and commerce in international water and air zones ARE our business, as I’ve pointed out several times now. You ASSERT it’s not our business, but then you assert a lot of stuff in these threads that comes directly from your own rather odd world view and spin.

Disputes like this are no business of the United States.

Wrong. Sorry, this is pretty demonstrably not based on the real world the rest of us live in, where the US has gone out of it’s way to state, time and time again, that the free passage of trade and commerce in international waters and air space is something we take seriously at a fundamental level. Obviously the Obama administration agrees with ME and not you on whether this latest incident is or is not the US’s business. You do have the Noamster on your side, though.

Any conflict would cause even more disruption of trade, especially if the US was involved. Worse than that, such conflicts have a way of spreading, especially in an environment of entangling alliances, and the consequences could be literally apocalyptic.

And yet, it’s China who is, through military means (i.e. every problem has a military solution, right?), seeks to overturn the status quo and risk those disruptions, and it’s the US who wishes to keep the status quo and peace in the region.

Deborah Brautigam has amply demonstrated that China’s largely non-interventionist agenda abroad demonstrates that they’ve learned from the empires of the recent past. If anything’s threatening, it’s all the paranoia regarding China. I don’t know if it’s a Cold War hangover or what, but there’s no reason for a bellicose reaction. Even if the Chinese do something untoward (and their actions in this dispute may well constitute that) it’s no business of the US, and no reason to risk war involving the US. That holds true all around China’s periphery, and indeed all around the world.

Whah whah.

[Donald_Rump]

@XT

As noted, there is a middle ground between caving in and total war.

What do you believe the US should be doing to stop China, and how far should we be willing to go should those measures prove unsuccessful?

[XT]

@Donald_Rump

What do you believe the US should be doing to stop China, and how far should we be willing to go should those measures prove unsuccessful?

I think what we are doing is a good start. We don’t accept China’s attempt to assert sovereignty, we intend to continue to transit the area as an international water and air way, etc etc. What will China do, exactly, to stop us? If they decide to take it to the next level it will be THEIR decision to do so and to start shooting. At that point then we won’t really have much of a choice. If China decides to do what they did with Vietnam and ‘accidentally’ shoot up some of our ships or planes then they will probably not enjoy the encounter nearly as much, and certainly won’t enjoy the repercussions, but I don’t see any reason why it has to go that far if we merely continue what we’ve been doing and make it clear that they can’t just do this by fiat.

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

I think what we are doing is a good start. We don’t accept China’s attempt to assert sovereignty, we intend to continue to transit the area as an international water and air way, etc etc. What will China do, exactly, to stop us? If they decide to take it to the next level it will be THEIR decision to do so and to start shooting. At that point then we won’t really have much of a choice. If China decides to do what they did with Vietnam and ‘accidentally’ shoot up some of our ships or planes then they will probably not enjoy the encounter nearly as much, and certainly won’t enjoy the repercussions, but I don’t see any reason why it has to go that far if we merely continue what we’ve been doing and make it clear that they can’t just do this by fiat.

What happens if China is following the program I described? Suppose they just keep building up the islands and settling Chinese citizens on them. And then at some point when the islands have a significant Chinese population, they apply for official recognition of Chinese ownership of the islands. They’d probably be granted it on the basis of the existing Chinese population.

The only way to head off such a plan would be to prevent the Chinese settlement. And that would require active intervention - somebody would have to blockade the islands and turn boats back to China.

Alternatively, there could be a settlement race where the other countries with claims try to keep up with the Chinese pace by putting their own citizens on the islands. This again would require a more active intervention. And at the moment, no country in the region appears interested in participating in such a program.

The Chinese have come up with a good plan. All it requires to succeed is for other countries to passively stand by and not intervene.

And once it’s been settled and Chinese sovereignty is recognized, China will have the legal advantage. If the United States tries to ignore Chinese sovereignty, China will be able to claim that we’re violating their territorial waters as recognized by international law.

[Donald_Rump]

@XT

What will China do, exactly, to stop us? If they decide to take it to the next level it will be THEIR decision to do so and to start shooting. At that point then we won’t really have much of a choice.

…which is exactly the argument being made by those who say we should avoid an unnecessary confrontation with China. We might challenge China’s activities and they’ll back down: success. Or we might challenge them and they respond by shooting down our planes, at which point it’s too late to de-escalate. So it’s not that there’s no middle ground between doing nothing and all-out war. It’s that taking a confrontational stance commits us to a certain range of potential outcomes, one of which is to get drawn into war that isn’t justified ex ante by the interests at stake. A calculation that takes the whole range of potential outcomes into account does, in fact, argue for doing nothing.

[Lemur866]

The notion that all Obama has to do is grow a pair and send the Chinese a strongly worded letter, and they’ll just back down, is laughable.

The Chinese aren’t going to back down over squawking and threats of sanctions. Their plan is simple: colonize these uninhabited islands and sandbars and submerged reefs with military bases and such, and then 20 years later they’ll own the islands. And that will mean that whatever oil or gas or minerals are under the seafloor will belong to them.

Distance from China doesn’t mean much, except in how hard it makes it to resupply and defend these bases. Lots of countries claim ownership of islands on the other side of the planet. See the war over the Falklands a few decades ago.

The advantage the Chinese have over the Argentines is that there are no existing settlers on the islands and sandbars. They’re claiming uninhabited rocks.

To actually stop the Chinese it’s going to take actual military force. Someone is going to have to send warships to turn back the supply ships. Someone is going to have to land troops on the sandbars, take the Chinese military guys prisoner at gunpoint, and ship them back to China. And of course, the only possible country that could actually do this is America. And this is an act of war.

Comparing this to Nazi Germany is just pathetic. To some people it’s always Munich, and there’s always a cost-free way to stop Hitler in his tracks–just threaten war, and Hitler always backs down like a bitch. You threaten war but you never actually have to fight, because the other guy is always a coward who will always blink first.

Yes, China has a lot to lose from war. America does as well. We we think we can threaten war, and China backs down? Except China is asserting ownership over these worthless rocks because they think they might be worth something someday. And we’re asserting that China doesn’t own these rocks because…it threatens something something something? I guess we’d rather have those rocks controlled by the Phillipines. But that’s not going to happen, because for it to happen the Phillipines, or Vietnam, or whoever, would have to be out there colonizing those rocks and shooting at Chinese ships and troops who are trying to do the same.

China isn’t interested in these rocks so they can close down shipping through the South China Sea. They’re interested in the rocks for oil and minerals. Our interest in the area is to avoid conflict. We’re not going to start a war over these goddam rocks. And so squawking about how we might fight a war over these rocks is stupid, because we’re not going to fight a war over those rocks. It makes us look like idiots if we threaten to fight over stuff we’re clearly not going to fight over. How do the neo-conservatives put it? It harms our credibility if we threaten to fight over peripheral issues.

Russian troops attacking NATO allies? Yeah, we’re gonna fight then. North Korea attacking South Korea? Yeah, we’re gonna fight then. But we’re not fighting over these rocks, and diplomacy won’t work because China is committed to getting these rocks, which means nothing can be done. The best thing do to is tell China they can have the rocks in exchange for X, Y, and Z, and see if China will pay up to settle the issue.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
What happens if China is following the program I described? Suppose they just keep building up the islands and settling Chinese citizens on them. And then at some point when the islands have a significant Chinese population, they apply for official recognition of Chinese ownership of the islands. They’d probably be granted it on the basis of the existing Chinese population.
[/QUOTE]

As far as I know we would be in uncharted territory at that point. It would set a precedence, however, for nations to do this same thing in the future…and it would be a very bad precedence, since nations could use this same tactic to grab underwater resources or choke off key trading routes.

I honestly don’t know how this would proceed. My WAG (and this is based on nothing more than my gut feelings, so I welcome some facts on this) is that the UN would have to make a ruling…and if it was the UNSC that makes it then China would never get official recognition, since even if no one else stands up against it the US would, and that would be enough.

The only way to head off such a plan would be to prevent the Chinese settlement. And that would require active intervention - somebody would have to blockade the islands and turn boats back to China.

No, I don’t think so. I think that China putting military institutions and bases in the area is a forgone conclusion at this point. It’s already happened. What the US is doing is to challenge China’s attempt to assert sovereignty in the form of sea or air exclusion zones. That’s where we are challenging them on this. Basically, we are saying that China can build what they like, but that doesn’t give them the right to control the area around what they build.

I’d say that, assuming we get past this part and China figures out that the US isn’t going to back down on that part (we can’t, really…despite what our phocidae friend seems to think the US DOES have a stake in this and it is our business to ensure the free passage of goods and services in international waters), I’d guess the next big hurdle is going to be…who gets to exploit the resources purportedly in the area? If China decides that it’s next step is to start drilling then I don’t see any way to stop them from doing so…though I don’t see any way (short of war) for China to stop, say, Vietnam from doing the same thing either, so it will definitely be a huge mess.

The Chinese have come up with a good plan. All it requires to succeed is for other countries to passively stand by and not intervene.

Right. But I don’t think that’s where this is going. I’d say that if the US backed off and allowed it with out any push back that it MIGHT succeed with the other claimants to the area, but even that isn’t a sure thing. With the US doing what we are doing, however, I don’t see China being able to get away with the land grab through passivity of other nations. Unless China is literally willing to go to war over this…a war they would have started and one where they will rightfully be perceived as in the wrong…they aren’t going to be able to claim sovereignty over this region, dictate who can and can’t transit the area and on what terms or, perhaps, who gets exclusive access to the resources.

And once it’s been settled and Chinese sovereignty is recognized, China will have the legal advantage. If the United States tries to ignore Chinese sovereignty, China will be able to claim that we’re violating their territorial waters as recognized by international law.

They can claim that all they want (if you watched the CNN video I linked to earlier they ARE claiming that already), but I don’t see how China will get their fiat claims recognized internationally without the US signing off on it…and I don’t think that the US will, or that this would be all they would need in any case. I think that this is where we are though, right now…China is attempting to claim sovereignty of the area, and the US is directly challenging that claim by transiting the disputed area with air and naval assets. So, the ball is kind of in China’s court. They can proceed with their building, knowing that the US isn’t going to back down and allow their claims, they can ramp things up by directly confronting the US military in the area (this doesn’t necessarily mean war btw…think cold war confrontations), or they can decide that war is their only alternative. It will be up to them for the next stage…and also up to the other regional powers (as well as global, since trade through this area affects a wide range of nations) as to whether they will allow this or will side with the US in confronting China over this.

[XT]

@Donald_Rump

…which is exactly the argument being made by those who say we should avoid an unnecessary confrontation with China. We might challenge China’s activities and they’ll back down: success. Or we might challenge them and they respond by shooting down our planes, at which point it’s too late to de-escalate. So it’s not that there’s no middle ground between doing nothing and all-out war. It’s that taking a confrontational stance commits us to a certain range of potential outcomes, one of which is to get drawn into war that isn’t justified ex ante by the interests at stake. A calculation that takes the whole range of potential outcomes into account does, in fact, argue for doing nothing.

I disagree, as I’ve already said. There IS a vast middle ground between doing nothing and all out war…and it’s one we are freaking taking right now. I also disagree that this is an ‘unnecessary confrontation’, at least from OUR perspective. What’s completely unnecessary is for China to be pushing this so hard recently and escalating a situation that has been on the back burner for over a decade now. They are the ones who are pushing this…we are merely responding, and doing so in a controlled and sane way, IMHO. I mean, I really don’t get what you guys expect the US to do…a nation state has decided, by fiat to grab a vast area of international water/air ways and claim it for their own. It’s a vast area that several nation states dispute, often hotly who has the ultimate claim to, important both to the international community because it IS a major trade route and locally because of the resources purportedly under it. The nation with the least viable claim but who has the biggest stick decides to ramp things up and force their claim. And the US is supposed to just sit on our hands and do nothing? Really? Do none of you see the precedence this would set if China gets away with it? What would stop another nation from doing the same thing in another vital trade route or exclusive access to some untapped resource? There are several such disputed areas in the world today…so, what, the guy with the biggest stick should get them if they decide they want them? I seriously wonder how you all would feel if the US decided in a similar way to make a claim to, oh, say the North West Passage (we have the weakest claim…but the biggest stick after all). That be ok with everyone? I mean, fuck whoever has an issue, we have nukes and a strong navy, so just roll over and let us do what we like…don’t want to risk war, right?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
The notion that all Obama has to do is grow a pair and send the Chinese a strongly worded letter, and they’ll just back down, is laughable.
[/QUOTE]

Can you quote someone who said or is saying this? I think Obama is doing exactly the right thing at this juncture.

[Lemur866]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18393436&postcount=80

[XT]

@Lemur866

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18393436&postcount=80

He says “They’ll press the issue until Obama says enough is enough (which I believe he has), then they’ll relent”. (My emphasis) That doesn’t seem to me to be saying anything about Obama growing a pair or whatever. I disagree with the analysis (this is a complex situation and isn’t going to be a quick fix or easy solution), but I’m not seeing him saying what you claimed.

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

As far as I know we would be in uncharted territory at that point. It would set a precedence, however, for nations to do this same thing in the future…and it would be a very bad precedence, since nations could use this same tactic to grab underwater resources or choke off key trading routes.

The problem from a legal and political standpoint is that we were the ones who pushed for this law. Back in the mid-19th century, the United States claimed that we had to right to claim ownership of any uninhabited island that was in international waters. (And by extension, we were “granting” the same right to every other country.) This is pretty much the way we got ownership of Midway, Wake, and several other Pacific islands.

So by international precedent that we pushed for, China would have the right to claim these islands. Except that its claim is not undisputed. Other countries in the region have also claimed them.

So from a standpoint of international law, China doesn’t have to prove that it has a right to claim these islands. It just has to show that it has a better right to claim them than the other countries that want to claim them.

Theoretically, the matter will be presented before some impartial party to arbitrate the claims. As I said, international law says that the islands can be claimed by some country so the issue will be which country gets them. If this issue was just being resolved by location, each island would probably be given to whichever country it was closes to. China and Vietnam would split the Paracel Islands. Brunei, Indonesia, and the Philippines would split the Spratly Islands.

China would not be happy getting only a handful of islands when it wants them all. So it’s seeking an argument that trumps location, which is occupation. China wants to be able to argue that even though the Spratly Islands are closer to the Philippines, the local inhabitants are Chinese and want to be administered by China.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
The problem from a legal and political standpoint is that we were the ones who pushed for this law. Back in the mid-19th century, the United States claimed that we had to right to claim ownership of any uninhabited island that was in international waters. (And by extension, we were “granting” the same right to every other country.) This is pretty much the way we got ownership of Midway, Wake, and several other Pacific islands.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not a lawyer nor knowledgeable in international law or sea law (even though I’ve been called a sea lawyer on multiple occasions :p), but I haven’t seen anyone make this argument. Do you have a cite or something showing that this is a consideration? From what I can see, based on articles like this the crux lies in how vague international law is on this subject, and the fact that China has been equally vague in it’s claims. However, the key aspect seems to be that, yes, you can build artificial structures (like islands) in your own economic exclusion zone (200 NM from your coast) and assert authority, but China is attempting to do this over a thousand NM from THEIR coast, and in an area disputed by multiple other nations who actually have better claims based on the vague international law.

I found this somewhat dated article that talks about all of this in 2008 (at least that was the last update), and it seems to say something similar, though it’s in more legal detail.

So by international precedent that we pushed for, China would have the right to claim these islands. Except that its claim is not undisputed. Other countries in the region have also claimed them.

I don’t see it. Again, do you have a link explaining this in more detail?

So from a standpoint of international law, China doesn’t have to prove that it has a right to claim these islands. It just has to show that it has a better right to claim them than the other countries that want to claim them.

Again, that’s not what I’m reading (I concede freely I could be missing something). Also, it seems, based on that first link I gave above that China has refused UN or international arbitration in any of this, which indicates to me that they know they have a very weak case.

China would not be happy getting only a handful of islands when it wants them all. So it’s seeking an argument that trumps location, which is occupation. China wants to be able to argue that even though the Spratly Islands are closer to the Philippines, the local inhabitants are Chinese and want to be administered by China.

They have also attempted to exclude several nations from their claims. I’m sure that China would want to claim that the ‘local inhabitants are Chinese and want to be administered by China’, especially since the ‘local inhabitants’ in their artificial islands would be Chinese soldiers or Chinese workers there to extract the resources under the area, but based on the fact that China seems to have refused international or UN arbitration I think they know that won’t fly unless everyone just caves in on this…which seems unlikely.

[Lemmytheseal2]

@Little_Nemo

Seriously?

I was pointing out how this is absolutely nothing like the Axis countries invading, or even annexing, populated areas.

@CarnalK

Ok, it’s their problem but: Are you saying with this part that South Korea could unilaterally unify Korea through military means?.

If it came to a fight, yes, because South Korea is vastly stronger. However, I wasn’t saying that I predict that will happen. I was referring to the ongoing diplomatic efforts, as well as the fait accompli of North Korean deterioration.

@Monty

The JSDF are constitutionally for self-defense and not for power projection. Or did you miss that little bit of fact along with all the other facts you’re [del]pissing on[/del] ignoring? The current government in Japan is facing some rather severe criticism in Japan for reinterpreting the constitution to allow what the government’s calling “collective self-defense.”

Exactly. The nature of the JSDF is admirable, and I have looked with concern at hawkish Japanese attempts to change that status. The JSDF can defend Japan quite well.

The US government, specifically its military, would continue to do what it currently does now and has done for many years in such a situation: observe. The US recognizes international waters as such.

If this happened all the time, like it did in the Cold War, it would be quite antagonizing, right?

And we no longer have a base in the Philippines. It’s up to the country to decide if it will benefit from having a foreign military base. What benefit would there be to the US to have an Ecuadorean base in the US? As it is now, there are foreign military units stationed in the US, benefitting both the US and the foreign country concerned.

The US may not have a base in the Philippines at the moment, but that may be changing. Countries’ ruling classes decide if they want a foreign military base, and that does not necessarily reflect the will of those directly affected by said base. There would be no benefit to having an Ecuadorean base here, and that’s the point. Correa wanted people to consider the other half of the equation. Foreign personnel are indeed in the US, but not in any capacity that constitutes a base. If you’re referring to the goons who train at SOA/WHINSEC to learn how to more efficiently brutalize labor organizers, peasants, etc., I don’t see any benefits there.

Have you never heard of treaty obligations? The government of the Republic of Korea requested that the US maintain bases in their country and, whether you like it or not, that very same government has requested that the US command the combined forces of the US and ROK in the event of active hostilities (“hot war”); the ROK government has even delayed transfer of “command and control” to the ROK Armed Forces.

Yes, treaty obligations are serious business. That’s why entering into them should be done with great care, and it’s why the treaties that give rise to entangling alliances are so ominous. The ROK government’s stance does not speak for all its citizens, and, more importantly, there’s no reason that the US has to get into, or remain in, such treaties.

Oh, you mean if the US would only let the DPRK sink more ROK ships, kill more civilians on small islands, and the like? Why didn’t you say so?

No, if only the US wouldn’t disrupt diplomatic initiatives, and needlessly antagonize the DPRK and PRC with its military presence. See the above link. I’m not saying that DPRK/PRC concerns are necessarily realistic (though they might be), but why make it worse?

And one way the ROK government has exercised its responsibility of defending its citizens and territory from attack from the DPRK is to request via treaty help with such protection from the UN and specifically the US.

That help is no longer necessary.

That’s quite debatable as evidence by this thread and many others. I see having alliances as a good thing and isolationism as a bad thing. YMMV.

There’s the matter of WWI, in which entangling alliances not only led to that conflict, but a whole lot of other calamities later on, some of which we are still dealing with today. Also, the slur/canard of isolationism is unnecessary. We’re talking about non-interventionism.

They are not welcome to unilaterally turning international shipping lanes into their territory.

Other countries do have a problem with that. Other countries have taken up the issue with China. And it is the business of the US, a seafaring nation, that one country is attempting to unilaterally turn an international waterway into their territory.

They are welcome to try, and to discover their folly. The other countries involved are welcome to press their claims to the area, if they want to. The US has no such claims, and raising the risk of a war involving the US is far more dangerous than this Chinese venture could ever be.

@XT

I disagree that ‘entangling alliances are bad news’, and I don’t see how we can maintain trade commitments when a nation attempts to unilaterally claim international waters and air space as their own sovereign territory and militarize same.

If entangling alliances end up dragging multiple countries into conflict over a local dispute, even one with larger repercussions, that’s bad news indeed. It would be much worse than whatever the Chinese hope to accomplish with this scheme.

North Korea IS a threat, not just to South Korea but to other regional allies, and one of the primary things that have prevented them from an all out attack on the South is the presence of the US tripwire forces. I’m sorry that you don’t want to see the US entangled in alliances in the region, and that you’d prefer we left our allies out to dry and to fend for themselves, but surly you understand that YOUR opinion on this is not universally agreed upon.

These countries can fend for themselves, as the DPRK is very weak. Besides, much of the DPRK’s behavior is predicated upon the presence of nearby US forces, as well as the lack of a non-aggression pledge. Serious fault lines have appeared in DPRK political circles and society in general, and one way to encourage the reformers is to remove the Kim regime’s biggest bogeyman and all-purpose excuse. That’s the best way to encourage a soft landing.

But it still doesn’t show what you claimed…in fact, this link, which is a pretty obviously biased spin on the subject and talks mostly about the US nefarious arms sales to try and bolster our sinking economy (:p) talks about a single exercise that I see…which was off the coast of Okinawa. Not exactly on China’s porch there. Instead of drive by links, why don’t you link to something and then quote the relevant part you THINK speaks to your assertions?

Okinawa is closer to China than the Sea of Japan is (that incident in which a Chinese submarine surprised the USS Kitty Hawk happened close to Okinawa), and in these cases and many others, what else can the focus of all these bases (and, to a lesser extent, exercises) be if not China? Also, speaking of arms sales, do you think the US economy is just fine, and could easily weather the damage from a large war?

Yet, those same ‘facts’ don’t seem to have caused the Japanese or South Koreans to decide to toss us out and go it alone, nor have they convinced the US leadership that it’s time to tell our allies in the region to suck it up and fend for themselves.

There are movements in that direction in all three countries, and powerful interests dedicated to preserving the status quo. These things take time.

It only seems to be you asserting these facts as if they ARE in fact ‘facts’, and not just your own spin and worldview.

It’s not only me.

I wish they had a sand trombone whah whah noise smiley. You’ve been pressing this US empire thingy (as well as all empires are bad and cost more than they are worth, etc etc) for several threads now, but it’s really the same tired old horseshit. Which rather conveniently shifts the discussion away from what China is doing and places it squarely on how bad the US is for attempting to stop them from their land grab. Well, why don’t you consider this our way of helping the Chinese out from the folly of grabbing more land. The US is nobly sacrificing ourselves to prevent the Chinese from going down this dark and dangerous path.

That’s silly. The US is playing the same fool’s game as China, ironically called the “Great Game.”

The Soviets DID used to have surveillance flights that came close to the US, and in fact did deploy quite substantial military equipment and technology in places like Cuba. We didn’t draw the line until they tried to deploy nukes there that were directly aimed at the US.

True, and the US intercepted said flights. The Soviets took the very risky, foolish and dangerous action of placing the missiles in Cuba due to US nukes pointed at the USSR that the Soviets could not counter, as well as the history of US intervention in Cuba and elsewhere. The whole thing nearly turned into nuclear war thanks to Castro’s hysteria and the bellicose wishes of US generals like LeMay. There’s a lesson there!

But really, this is again your attempt to handwave and muddy the waters by diverting the discussion. This thread is about China and what they are doing in the South China Sea. If China wants to operate their subs or their great re-tread Soviet carrier in international waters off our coast then there won’t be much we can do about it. If they try and do a land grab in those same international waters in the South China Sea then we are within our rights to do what we’ve done, which is to send our military there to demonstrate that we don’t agree that this is becoming Chinese territorial waters and we will continue to use them as they are meant to be, not as China wished them to be.

I don’t agree with China’s actions either, but pursuing a military option is much worse.

Good grief, what a silly argument and a sillier link. Whah whah.

How so?

It is our business, and the Bond villain thing is a strawman argument that doesn’t address what’s going on in the South China Sea.

So suppose the Chinese are completely unimpeded. What are they going to do that’s so nefarious?

So you assert.

It’s not only me.

This is highly ironic to me. So, China decides to overturn the status quo via military means (i.e. an obvious build up and militarization of a zone that is in international waters, a zone further that is disputed by several different nations), and the US responds by demonstrating that this is still an international air and sea zone and one China does NOT own or have sovereignty over, and you claim that there was really never a problem and that WE have to recognize that ‘not every problem has a military solution’? Gods, now THAT is hilarious…especially since I can picture the puzzled look on your face as you don’t get the irony of your statement.

Don’t make the same mistake that the Chinese are making. That could easily lead to more mistakes on all sides. The other nations can try to settle their disputes with the Chinese and with one another. They are not American disputes.

Free passage of trade and commerce in international water and air zones ARE our business, as I’ve pointed out several times now. You ASSERT it’s not our business, but then you assert a lot of stuff in these threads that comes directly from your own rather odd world view and spin.

Wrong. Sorry, this is pretty demonstrably not based on the real world the rest of us live in, where the US has gone out of it’s way to state, time and time again, that the free passage of trade and commerce in international waters and air space is something we take seriously at a fundamental level. Obviously the Obama administration agrees with ME and not you on whether this latest incident is or is not the US’s business. You do have the Noamster on your side, though.

I prefer Chomsky’s company to Obama’s. If the Chinese do (for some bizarre reason) disrupt trade via these actions, the consequences will be negative for them as well, and any sort of conflict will only make it worse.

And yet, it’s China who is, through military means (i.e. every problem has a military solution, right?), seeks to overturn the status quo and risk those disruptions, and it’s the US who wishes to keep the status quo and peace in the region.

Don’t make the mistakes the Chinese may be making here.

Whah whah.

These insults are not rebuttals. I posted a link to a book by a professor who knows a lot about China, and who presents a crucial, overlooked point, and you just dismissed it.

[Donald_Rump]

@XT

They are the ones who are pushing this…we are merely responding, and doing so in a controlled and sane way, IMHO. I mean, I really don’t get what you guys expect the US to do…a nation state has decided, by fiat to grab a vast area of international water/air ways and claim it for their own. It’s a vast area that several nation states dispute, often hotly who has the ultimate claim to, important both to the international community because it IS a major trade route and locally because of the resources purportedly under it. The nation with the least viable claim but who has the biggest stick decides to ramp things up and force their claim. And the US is supposed to just sit on our hands and do nothing? Really?

I wouldn’t dispute that what China is doing is wrong. [Non-interventionism does not have to devolve into apologetics for despicable behavior by other nations, though it unfortunately so often does.] But the morality of what they’re doing seems irrelevant to whether we can stop them from doing it at a reasonable cost to ourselves.

Do none of you see the precedence this would set if China gets away with it? What would stop another nation from doing the same thing in another vital trade route or exclusive access to some untapped resource?

Use of force or other coercive measures, if they were warranted. Why not? Avoiding confrontation in this situation does not preclude us being more confrontational in another situation if the interests at stake and the balance of power favored it.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Lemur866

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18393436&postcount=80

Lol.

Come on, now. I dislike Obama as President, but in this case, I think he’s doing the right thing by not backing down and acquiescing to the Chinese. When push comes to shove, I just don’t see the Chinese being willing to fight a multi front war against multiple countries right now, especially when they’d be at a serious military disadvantage.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Yeah, it’s bizarre that anyone could read your post as a slam on Obama. Though in fairness, that’s not nearly as dumb as suggesting that the US should ally with China because its people don’t poop in the streets.

Honestly, I don’t see what the fuss is about. If China thinks it will turn a profit by reclaiming 2,000 acres of land just for some seafloor rights, more power to it. Vietnam, et al., could have done the same thing. Maybe this will allow China to extend its military influence a bit, too, but so what? It’s already the 800 lb. gorilla in the region.

[Declan]

@Lemmytheseal2

I know. I’m tired of people making inappropriate comparisons to Nazi Germany.

So you used a tired and lame retort that no one else has seriously used in five years, and declared it an invocation, of all things. Nice waste of pixels.

If you dont see it the same way, thats fine. They are encroaching and have to be met. The US takes the lead and things work out, even if it means taking the agrieved parties by the ear and reach a settlement regarding exploitation of the resources, instead of one of the smaller parties getting into a situation that escalates.

Diplomacy has not done that , so now we have to get their attention.

So the best solution for that , is to retool Able Archer and surge 3 carrier battlegroups into the area, the remaining missile boats and appropriate surface combatants. Stage the B2’s, B1’s and B52’s into the theatre and scramble them towards the Chinese mainland on deep strike missions. They get to a mathmatical point on the map, turn em around, then repeat and rinse as needed.

Declan

[XT]

[QUOTE=Donald Rump]
I wouldn’t dispute that what China is doing is wrong. [Non-interventionism does not have to devolve into apologetics for despicable behavior by other nations, though it unfortunately so often does.] But the morality of what they’re doing seems irrelevant to whether we can stop them from doing it at a reasonable cost to ourselves.
[/QUOTE]

Well, as I’ve repeatedly said in this thread, there is a middle ground. We CAN stop them, and we don’t have to go to war to do it. We don’t have to do anything more than we are already doing, IMHO. I think the Obama administration is taking the exact right course at this point. Yeah, it’s pissing off the Chinese. Bummer for them. If this thing escalates at this point it will be squarely on their shoulders…and, for my part I don’t think they WILL escalate things. They aren’t nuts, IMHO, but they definitely made a calculation that this was the time to push and see what happens. So, we push back in such a way that makes it clear that we view what they are doing as not leading to their gaining possession of the region. I’m frankly puzzled why so many people seem to oppose what, to me seems a perfectly reasonable reaction on the US’s part, while seemingly handwaving away what China is attempting to do.

Use of force or other coercive measures, if they were warranted. Why not? Avoiding confrontation in this situation does not preclude us being more confrontational in another situation if the interests at stake and the balance of power favored it.

But the balance of power DOES favor us at this time…so, why shouldn’t we do what we are doing? We COULD use military force to push them out of the region, but instead we are taking a much more reasonable tact, again, IMHO…we are simply saying, by our actions, that it’s international waters and air space and that regardless of what China is obviously trying to do we don’t accept that it grants them any level of sovereignty over the region and we will continue to treat is as what it is…international air and water ways. If it comes down to a direct confrontation it will be on China’s head. Unless you think they are crazy it never will come down to that.

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

I’m not a lawyer nor knowledgeable in international law or sea law (even though I’ve been called a sea lawyer on multiple occasions :p), but I haven’t seen anyone make this argument. Do you have a cite or something showing that this is a consideration

As you note, international law is murky. The precedents I discussed can be found in general under terrae nullius which mentions how occupation can be a means of establishing legitimate ownership. The American history is covered under Guano Islands Act. I’ll admit I can’t find anything specifically connecting these precedents to the South China Sea situation but the parallels appear strong to me.

@XT

Again, that’s not what I’m reading (I concede freely I could be missing something). Also, it seems, based on that first link I gave above that China has refused UN or international arbitration in any of this, which indicates to me that they know they have a very weak case.

I absolutely agree that China has been refusing international arbitration - and that’s in accord with what I’ve been writing. China doesn’t want international arbitration now - because it hasn’t built up its case yet. Right now the issue would be settled based on geography. So China wants to postpone the decision until it can get its people on the ground. At that point, having established a new basis - demographics - for making the decision, it will reverse its position and demand the international arbitration that it’s now refusing.