China's south china sea adventure

[Monty]

@Lemmytheseal2

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.

North Korea is already a failed state. The only thing keeping it up and running is China’s addiction to its own policy of “stability on the Korean Peninsula”. Of course, that policy owes no small debt to the fact that China is unwilling–and unable–to absorb the massive refugee influx that would occur otherwise.

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.

Not on their own, they can’t. The JSDF are good, but they’re not that good, mainly because they simply do not have the arms and materiel the US forces provide.

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

The Real World does not operate by going to the most extreme response possible in a game of “You’re not touching me!” The US, just like every other sanely-run country on the planet, is fully aware that other countries conduct military missions in international waters. Your refusal to see the waters in question in this thread as an inernationl waterway does not negate the facts on the ground (water, in this case).

The US may not have a base in the Philippines at the moment, but that may be changing.

That article does not even come close to saying what you seem to believe it is saying. The Philippine government has entered into a treaty (yeah, I know, I know; you’re allergic to treaties) that determines certain legal matters regarding US military personnel stationed outside of the Philippines when those personnel are visiting the Philippines.

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.

Oh, I get it now. You simply do not know what a democracy is. The Philippine senate voted against a treaty providing for continued presence of US military bases in that country.

There would be no benefit to having an Ecuadorean base here, and that’s the point.

No, that’s not the point. The point is that two countries determine if permitting one of the countries to have one or more military bases in the other country is beneficial for both countries concerned.

Correa wanted people to consider the other half of the equation.

I know of no such countyr as “Correa”.

Foreign personnel are indeed in the US, but not in any capacity that constitutes a base.

A foreign military unit permanently based in the US seems to fit your loose terminology.

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.

Goons? Peasants? No. Perhaps you should expand your reading somewhat. Here’s a hint: military aviation.

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.

They are entered into with great care, your refusal to recognize how they happened notwithstanding.

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.

Ah, the Cato Institute.

No, if only the US wouldn’t disrupt diplomatic initiatives, and needlessly antagonize the DPRK and PRC with its military presence.

The DPRK certainly does not believe the presence of US forces in Korea is a threat to them. Unlike you, NK’s government is fully aware that neither the US nor the ROK will attack North Korea. Actual proof of this is the complete lack of armed response to the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel and no armed invasion in response to NK’s bombardment of civilians on a South Korean island. The presence of USFK and the joint military exercises are not threatening to NK, NK does not actually see them as a threat (and, of course, NK’s military conducts military exercises); complaining about them when it suits their purpose to complain.

See the above link. I’m not saying that DPRK/PRC concerns are necessarily realistic (though they might be), but why make it worse?

Every military on the planet conducts exercises. It’s prudent for a country that has actually been invaded by a nieghboring country in living memory and has had its citizens murdered by that country (I’m referring to the intentional shelling of the island mentioned above) and a ship-of-the-line sunk by that country to practice defense against that same country. Conducting those exercises does not make the situation worse.

That help is no longer necessary.

So you say. The government of South Korea (both conservative and liberal administrations recently) believe otherwise, and the military of South Korea believes otherwise.

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.

No, you are not. You are talking about abandoning allied countries just for the fun of not being involved in any treaties. Getting out of treaties is pretty much what isolationism is.

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.

Why do you refuse to understand that the US is not making a claim on this particular waterway? The US is, as the vast majority of the international community is doing, recognized that this waterway is international waters, not the territory of any country. Also, there’s not that much chance of an actual war between China and the USA. If either country were that bent on such a war, the actual crashing of a US military airplane would have been the trigger for that, not a PLAN air controller ordering a US military flight out of the region but with no armed planes to “escort” such flights away.

If entangling alliances end up dragging multiple countries into conflict over a local dispute, even one with larger repercussions, that’s bad news indeed.

Are you aware that the treaties entered into after WW2 are far different than those entered into prior?

It would be much worse than whatever the Chinese hope to accomplish with this scheme.
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.

The DPRK is incredibly weak. The problem is that they have a rather powerful ally right next to them. Another problem is that the DPRK can inflict incredible damage rather rapidly on more than half the population of the ROK.

I’ll leave the rest of your BS to XT to dissect and for you to continue to ignore.

[Lemmytheseal2]

@Monty

North Korea is already a failed state. The only thing keeping it up and running is China’s addiction to its own policy of “stability on the Korean Peninsula”. Of course, that policy owes no small debt to the fact that China is unwilling–and unable–to absorb the massive refugee influx that would occur otherwise.

True, which is one reason why getting off the peninsula, thus empowering reformist elements in the North, and not interfering with diplomatic efforts from the South, is a great idea.

Not on their own, they can’t. The JSDF are good, but they’re not that good, mainly because they simply do not have the arms and materiel the US forces provide.

The JSDF sure looks powerful. They seem much stronger than Russia’s Eastern assets, if the two countries ever shot it out over those little islands. They appear powerful enough to at minimum deter Chinese aggression, and more than powerful enough to destroy whatever conventional forces the DPRK could send their way. If they fall short in any of these categories, Japan is a wealthy, modern country that can fill those gaps, if they had to.

The Real World does not operate by going to the most extreme response possible in a game of “You’re not touching me!” The US, just like every other sanely-run country on the planet, is fully aware that other countries conduct military missions in international waters. Your refusal to see the waters in question in this thread as an inernationl waterway does not negate the facts on the ground (water, in this case).

I realize that the contested areas are in international waters. Getting involved in a section of international waters with all these contesting claims from the locals, and prominently featuring China’s latest initiatives, is a terrible idea. If they want to bicker over what lies beneath, let them. If the Chinese want to play very dishonorably and essentially annex part of it, that’s no good, but it’s not worth risking a war. If the locals want to do that, they can do that on their own.

That article does not even come close to saying what you seem to believe it is saying. The Philippine government has entered into a treaty (yeah, I know, I know; you’re allergic to treaties) that determines certain legal matters regarding US military personnel stationed outside of the Philippines when those personnel are visiting the Philippines.

Yes, and considering recent events, some observers are worried that this might be the first step towards a continued permanent US presence there.

Oh, I get it now. You simply do not know what a democracy is. The Philippine senate voted against a treaty providing for continued presence of US military bases in that country.

Lots of nominally democratic societies have plenty of democratic deficits. That might apply to most of them, actually. Speaking of which…

No, that’s not the point. The point is that two countries determine if permitting one of the countries to have one or more military bases in the other country is beneficial for both countries concerned.

The ruling classes decide such things, not necessarily the people who have to live with the consequences. What makes you think this process is not corrupt, also?

I know of no such countyr as “Correa”.

Indeed, because I was referring to Rafael Correa, economist and democratically-elected President of Ecuador, who said that the US could continue to have a base at Manta, Ecuador if the Ecuadorans could have a base in Miami.

A foreign military unit permanently based in the US seems to fit your loose terminology.

Do they have their own private base, from which they might launch operations directed at a third country?

Goons? Peasants? No. Perhaps you should expand your reading somewhat. Here’s a hint: military aviation.

Pilots undergoing training are much different than USFK.

Ah, the Cato Institute.

So? They’re good on some issues, and this is one of them. Doug Bandow has credentials.

The DPRK certainly does not believe the presence of US forces in Korea is a threat to them. Unlike you, NK’s government is fully aware that neither the US nor the ROK will attack North Korea. Actual proof of this is the complete lack of armed response to the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel and no armed invasion in response to NK’s bombardment of civilians on a South Korean island. The presence of USFK and the joint military exercises are not threatening to NK, NK does not actually see them as a threat (and, of course, NK’s military conducts military exercises); complaining about them when it suits their purpose to complain.

In the news reports I saw, the people of Seoul barely seemed concerned about the island shelling. Everybody knows that the kind of armed response you’re talking about would probably lead to The Big One happening on the peninsula, so the ROK (and USFK) aren’t going to do it in response to relatively small incidents like the shelling, and the sinking of the Cheonan. No, I don’t think that the ROK and USFK are going to attack the DPRK, and please don’t put words in my mouth. I know that the perceived/hyped threat of the US (especially considering the apocalyptic air strikes the US carried out at the end of the Korean War) is one of the most important bases of support for the Kim regime. That’s why they mention it all the time. If it was removed, however, they would lose even more credibility.

Every military on the planet conducts exercises. It’s prudent for a country that has actually been invaded by a nieghboring country in living memory and has had its citizens murdered by that country (I’m referring to the intentional shelling of the island mentioned above) and a ship-of-the-line sunk by that country to practice defense against that same country. Conducting those exercises does not make the situation worse.

That’s true. But large-scale naval (etc.) exercises that seem obviously targeted at someone in particular do make things worse. There’s a reason why, around the world, some war games make headlines, but others are largely unnoticed.

So you say. The government of South Korea (both conservative and liberal administrations recently) believe otherwise, and the military of South Korea believes otherwise.

True. Those elements are getting enormous assistance, and their moral hazard is removed, so naturally they will want to “ride it out.” If you crunch the numbers, however, the ROK can protect itself, and many of its citizens know this.

No, you are not. You are talking about abandoning allied countries just for the fun of not being involved in any treaties. Getting out of treaties is pretty much what isolationism is.

No, I’m talking about treating people as adults who are capable of solving their own problems. I’m talking about getting out of entangling alliances that drag countries into wars that are none of their business. “Fun” has nothing to do with it, unless you consider all the lack-of-fun that resulted from the First World War and all its unintended consequences. I’m talking about the principles of Washington, Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams, who thought the US ought not to get involved in the disputes that plagued the Old World.

Why do you refuse to understand that the US is not making a claim on this particular waterway? The US is, as the vast majority of the international community is doing, recognized that this waterway is international waters, not the territory of any country. Also, there’s not that much chance of an actual war between China and the USA. If either country were that bent on such a war, the actual crashing of a US military airplane would have been the trigger for that, not a PLAN air controller ordering a US military flight out of the region but with no armed planes to “escort” such flights away.

I do know that the US has no claim. I wrote as much. That’s why the US has no business there! I don’t think that anyone wants war, but why risk it?

Are you aware that the treaties entered into after WW2 are far different than those entered into prior?

They still constitute entangling alliances.

The DPRK is incredibly weak. The problem is that they have a rather powerful ally right next to them. Another problem is that the DPRK can inflict incredible damage rather rapidly on more than half the population of the ROK.

It’s not the Mao era any more. I find it hard to believe that China, tired of the DPRK’s problems, would go to war on their behalf, though, let us not forget, they strongly object to US troops on their land border. I know (and have researched and written) about the DPRK’s capabilities to inflict that damage. Reassuringly, that all depends on how quickly the very strong ROK forces can knock out those threats. In any case, isn’t that a great reason for the US forces not to be in the line of fire, and instead let the Koreans themselves deal with this issue?

[Little_Nemo]

@Lemmytheseal2

It’s not the Mao era any more.

No, it’s the Chinese Dream era.

[Monty]

@Lemmytheseal2

True, which is one reason why getting off the peninsula, thus empowering reformist elements in the North, and not interfering with diplomatic efforts from the South, is a great idea.

The only thing that would result from the US departing the Korean Peninsula would be an immediate attack by North Korea. The US is not interfering with diplomatic efforts between North and South Korea.

“Reformist elements in the North”? You’re kidding, right?

The JSDF sure looks powerful. They seem much stronger than Russia’s Eastern assets, if the two countries ever shot it out over those little islands. They appear powerful enough to at minimum deter Chinese aggression, and more than powerful enough to destroy whatever conventional forces the DPRK could send their way. If they fall short in any of these categories, Japan is a wealthy, modern country that can fill those gaps, if they had to.

Japan and Russia have conflicting claims on some occupied islands and have had those conflicting claims since the end of World War II. Have you seen Japan even hinting they would “shoot it out”? Why, then, would that even be an issue over unoccupied land?

I realize that the contested areas are in international waters. Getting involved in a section of international waters with all these contesting claims from the locals, and prominently featuring China’s latest initiatives, is a terrible idea.

Or it’s a very good idea, as a superpower, to let other countries know that said superpower is going to ensure international waterways remain such.

If they want to bicker over what lies beneath, let them.

The bickering isn’t just about what lies beneath; it’s also about navigation.

If the Chinese want to play very dishonorably and essentially annex part of it, that’s no good, but it’s not worth risking a war.

Apparently you’re the only one here who believes that anyone’s planning on going to war over this. There are other venues to discuss the issue–diplomatically.

If the locals want to do that, they can do that on their own.

“The locals” for an international waterway conists of all seafaring nations, especially seafaring nations which have vessels traversing that inernational waterway.

Yes, and considering recent events, some observers are worried that this might be the first step towards a continued permanent US presence there.

That’s not quite likely. And the VFA-1 and VFA-2 seem very much to indicate that there will not be a permanent US base in the Philippines.

Lots of nominally democratic societies have plenty of democratic deficits. That might apply to most of them, actually. Speaking of which…

The ruling classes decide such things, not necessarily the people who have to live with the consequences. What makes you think this process is not corrupt, also?

This is just rhetorical blather.

Indeed, because I was referring to Rafael Correa, economist and democratically-elected President of Ecuador, who said that the US could continue to have a base at Manta, Ecuador if the Ecuadorans could have a base in Miami.

Got it. So President Correa decided that, if it were in his country’s interest to have a US base there he still would not negotiate renewal of the lease unless the US created an Ecuadorean base in the US even if such a base were not in the interests of either country. Basically he played politics.

Do they have their own private base, from which they might launch operations directed at a third country?

The US bases in South Korea and Japan are not the US’s “own private bases”. They are shared. The training I mentioned upthread is not for active defense but for training.

Pilots undergoing training are much different than USFK.

No kidding. And the USFK are part of the UNC. That still is not for the purpose of “launching operations directed at a third country”. It is defending against a very real danger.

So? They’re good on some issues, and this is one of them. Doug Bandow has credentials.

IYO. Others disagree.

In the news reports I saw, the people of Seoul barely seemed concerned about the island shelling.

I was living in South Korea when that happened. Not only the Korean news but also international press and the Korean population were quite interested in that shelling. Ditto when the ROKS Cheonan was sunk.

Everybody knows that the kind of armed response you’re talking about would probably lead to The Big One happening on the peninsula,

No. “Everybody” does not know that. Quite a number of people are convinced that none of the current nuclear powers will launch a first-strike nuclear attack.

so the ROK (and USFK) aren’t going to do it in response to relatively small incidents like the shelling, and the sinking of the Cheonan.

Both incidents were rather big things in Korea when it happened.

No, I don’t think that the ROK and USFK are going to attack the DPRK, and please don’t put words in my mouth. I know that the perceived/hyped threat of the US (especially considering the apocalyptic air strikes the US carried out at the end of the Korean War) is one of the most important bases of support for the Kim regime. That’s why they mention it all the time. If it was removed, however, they would lose even more credibility.

I did not put words in your mouth.

That’s true. But large-scale naval (etc.) exercises that seem obviously targeted at someone in particular do make things worse. There’s a reason why, around the world, some war games make headlines, but others are largely unnoticed.

Yeah. These make headlines solely because of NK’s rhetoric.

True. Those elements are getting enormous assistance, and their moral hazard is removed, so naturally they will want to “ride it out.” If you crunch the numbers, however, the ROK can protect itself, and many of its citizens know this.

No, many of its citizens think that. The military of the country–you know, the people who would have to do the defending–are convinced that they cannot presently do so alone currently.

What moral hazard? It’s not immoral to assist a friendly country when that country requests it.

No, I’m talking about treating people as adults who are capable of solving their own problems. I’m talking about getting out of entangling alliances that drag countries into wars that are none of their business. “Fun” has nothing to do with it, unless you consider all the lack-of-fun that resulted from the First World War and all its unintended consequences. I’m talking about the principles of Washington, Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams, who thought the US ought not to get involved in the disputes that plagued the Old World.

Now you are putting words in someone’s mouth.

I do know that the US has no claim. I wrote as much. That’s why the US has no business there! I don’t think that anyone wants war, but why risk it?

What risk is there of war? Once again, apparently you are the only one who thinks that’s the go-to response.

As a seafaring nation, the US does have an interest in ensuring an international waterway remains such.

They still constitute entangling alliances.

Yet more rhetoric.

It’s not the Mao era any more. I find it hard to believe that China, tired of the DPRK’s problems, would go to war on their behalf, though, let us not forget, they strongly object to US troops on their land border.

There are not US troops on China’s land border. China is not objecting to the presence of the US forces in South Korea. Yet again: China is interested in what they call maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula. That means no attacks from North Korea. China is fully aware that ROK and US will not attack NK.

I know (and have researched and written) about the DPRK’s capabilities to inflict that damage. Reassuringly, that all depends on how quickly the very strong ROK forces can knock out those threats. In any case, isn’t that a great reason for the US forces not to be in the line of fire, and instead let the Koreans themselves deal with this issue?

You’ve done a pretty poor job of said research then if you are completely unaware (as this paragraph seems to show) that it would require a preventive attack to knock out the North Korean artillery that would wreak very much havoc on the Seoul Capital Area (which contains approximately one half the country’s population).

You’re rapidly approaching a particular stunt on this board that I’m not permitted to state outside of The BBQ Pit. I’m done with you as it’s beyond obvious that you are not interested in facts or reason on the issue.

[Donald_Rump]

@XT

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.

This is where I’m struggling. I don’t really see how what we’re currently doing (tough talk, sending our planes into the airspace over the islands they’re building - am I missing something?) is going to stop the Chinese. Of course, if it does then I’ll stand corrected.

[XT]

@Donald_Rump

This is where I’m struggling. I don’t really see how what we’re currently doing (tough talk, sending our planes into the airspace over the islands they’re building - am I missing something?) is going to stop the Chinese. Of course, if it does then I’ll stand corrected.

And I don’t see how what we are doing won’t stop them. The Chinese are relying on a perception shift and an international acceptance of their fait accompli. If the US backs off and acts like the Chinese can in fact impose restrictions on flying and sea access (starting with military access from other countries) then this will go a long way to them establishing sovereignty over the area. As Little Nemo said earlier, once they have a ‘permanent’ population on the islands, and if the world acts like they CAN in fact impose restrictions for access to the area then they can reverse directions and ask for international arbitration, having a much stronger claim since they will have demonstrated that they already have control of the area. The US, by ‘tough talk’ (which means we are calmly telling them no, we don’t accept this) and sending our planes and warships into the area reinforces OUR position, which is that these are international air and sea ways, that China building some artificial islands in the area in no way changes that, and that we will continue to treat them as before.

Whether all of this works (for either side) or not, that’s pretty much what’s going on.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Lemmytheseal2]
True, which is one reason why getting off the peninsula, thus empowering reformist elements in the North, and not interfering with diplomatic efforts from the South, is a great idea.
[/QUOTE]

Reformist elements in the North? You are dreaming there. The regime in North Korea is exactly why this would be a terrible idea. The US presence in South Korea is what’s kept the peace there since the Korean War sort of quasi ended. The fact that the North Koreans have continually built up their military and pushed the situation, constantly harassing the South (for decades), and that fact that, weak as they are in most things they could and would hurt the South a hell of a lot if the situation goes over to war (and the fact that a war on the Korean peninsula would have global economic repercussions) means that a US presence there is pretty much key to preventing the feces from hitting the rotary impeller.

The JSDF sure looks powerful. They seem much stronger than Russia’s Eastern assets, if the two countries ever shot it out over those little islands. They appear powerful enough to at minimum deter Chinese aggression, and more than powerful enough to destroy whatever conventional forces the DPRK could send their way. If they fall short in any of these categories, Japan is a wealthy, modern country that can fill those gaps, if they had to.

I’m not sure if you really believe this or, again, if you are relying on the ignorance of your supposed audience. If you REALLY believe this I urge you to do even cursory investigation to see the current state of the Japanese economy, their current views and recent past views on military spending, and just a basic OOB of their navy and air force compared to Russia as a whole (instead of a cherry picked part of it), China and even North Korea (key word to search for would be ‘missiles’).

Even if what you were saying was true (it’s not), that’s no reason for the US to just abandon Japan and our alliances with them. I know YOU don’t like ‘entangling alliances’ but it’s akin to my dislike of Brussels sprouts…I think they are a crime against humanity and should be eliminated with extreme prejudice, but since others disagree they just continue to be available.

I realize that the contested areas are in international waters. Getting involved in a section of international waters with all these contesting claims from the locals, and prominently featuring China’s latest initiatives, is a terrible idea. If they want to bicker over what lies beneath, let them. If the Chinese want to play very dishonorably and essentially annex part of it, that’s no good, but it’s not worth risking a war. If the locals want to do that, they can do that on their own.

This is really the crux of the debate…most of the rest of your post is just the same old horseshit and detracts from the main discussion. Obviously I disagree that getting involved is a terrible idea (as I disagreed with your earlier assertion that we have no business being there simply because the US isn’t in Asia). We aren’t getting involved in the contesting claims, as you put it…we are involving ourselves at a more fundamental level, saying that international sea and air ways are open to all and that China has no right to attempt to change the status quo by fiat. This isn’t JUST about ‘what lies beneath’, since the US basically isn’t planning to exploit those resources in any event, it’s about the more fundamental issue of safe and free passage of goods and services and open access for countries in international waters and in the air above.

Why you think this isn’t our business is a mystery. Why you think it would be a good idea to allow the locals to hash this out when that will almost certainly lead to either China bullying them into submission and giving up their claim or shots fired (or, even worse, a limited shooting war in one of the largest trade transit areas in the world) is a mystery to me too. And why you think that the US, doing what it’s doing (which is pretty low key and rational thus far) is a bad idea is beyond me. Well, ok, that’s not entirely true…I THINK I know why you have your objections, but since you keep going off on all of these tangents to try and either muddy the waters or throw enough mud at the US that it somehow excuses what China is doing that I’m not actually sure.

[Donald_Rump]

@XT

This isn’t JUST about ‘what lies beneath’, since the US basically isn’t planning to exploit those resources in any event, it’s about the more fundamental issue of safe and free passage of goods and services and open access for countries in international waters and in the air above.

Since this has come up several times in the thread, I would be interested in a refutation of some of the points made in this commentary, “Why Beijing poses no threat to South China Sea commerce,” key points excerpted below:

First, China does not need the Spratly Islands to threaten north-bound shipping in the South China Sea. It could do so easily, if it wanted to, without controlling this disputed island group.

…

Second, China almost certainly imports as much oil through the South China Sea as, say, Japan, and possibly more.

…

Third, the historical precedents for a campaign against commercial shipping in open ocean areas are extremely small in number since 1900.

…

Fourth, the South China Sea (via the Malacca Strait) is a route of convenience (and lower cost) for shipping bound for Japan from the Indian Ocean. If there was a threat in the South China Sea, all shipping could simply avoid the Malacca Strait, divert south of Java, pass through the Sunda or Lombok Straits, enter the Java Sea and then the Philippines Sea to the east of the Philippines, never having entered the South China Sea.

…

China’s actions in the Spratly Islands are influenced most by the belief that the specks of sand, rock, or reef are Chinese territory. The leaders have no expectation or belief that control of the islands will enhance the country’s military power projection capabilities in a way that might enable a confrontation over the safety of shipping with the world’s greatest naval power and its many allies.

China is beginning to learn the hard way, and it is still learning, that its obduracy and military gambits in the Spratly Islands do not remotely serve its interests - even if its claim to the entire Spratly group were defensible.

Diplomacy by the United States is working. It is not served by exaggerating or inventing military threats, such as that related to commercial shipping.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Donald Rump]
Since this has come up several times in the thread, I would be interested in a refutation of some of the points made in this commentary, “Why Beijing poses no threat to South China Sea commerce,” key points excerpted below:
[/QUOTE]

The counter point is that they are attempting to assert sovereign authority over the region by fiat and have started this by attempting to impose restrictions starting with other nations military units in the area. Once this territory is no longer deemed to be international waters, but instead deemed Chinese territorial waters then it would be in China’s court to impose or assert whatever restrictions they choose (or don’t choose) to impose when and if they choose to do it. It would be just like going into any other countries territorial waters at that point, subject to their laws, rules and regulations. What China would choose to do with that is an unknown at this point…and it’s even more unknown what they might decide to do in the future. Could be that all they will do is disallow the free passage of military ships or aircraft from other nations, forcing them to go around their claimed waters. But no one really knows for sure. And, of course, there is the fact that there are other claimants to the region who won’t be best pleased by China grabbing the area.

I found this part of your article amusing, since it’s what I’ve been saying all along:

Diplomacy by the United States is working.

I think that their assumptions of no threat and that China will certainly have the best intentions of international trade (without prejudice or bias to all wanting to transit the area) is a bit of wishful thinking in light of what China is doing, and I think their attempt to handwave away any threats is a bit naive, but it’s certainly a valid debate stance in this and one that’s shared by quite a few people from what I’ve read on the subject.

[Lemmytheseal2]

@Monty

The only thing that would result from the US departing the Korean Peninsula would be an immediate attack by North Korea. The US is not interfering with diplomatic efforts between North and South Korea.

It was there in the links I provided. The Bush administration disrupted the Sunshine Policy, and there have been other, similar complications.

“Reformist elements in the North”? You’re kidding, right?

No, it’s in one of the links I provided, and elsewhere. Serious fissures have emerged in North Korean society, particularly in powerful sectors. Removing one of the regime’s key planks of credibility would help these elements.

Japan and Russia have conflicting claims on some occupied islands and have had those conflicting claims since the end of World War II. Have you seen Japan even hinting they would “shoot it out”? Why, then, would that even be an issue over unoccupied land?

I was thinking of the few contingencies that might concern the JSDF. One must be prepared for those, and in this (very unlikely) case, they can handle it. Even if they couldn’t, that’s their problem and responsibility.

Or it’s a very good idea, as a superpower, to let other countries know that said superpower is going to ensure international waterways remain such.

Not if it’s on the other side of the world and appreciably raises the possibility of a conflict involving the US. I’m reminded of what LBJ said, and should have stuck with, regarding a job for “the boys of Asia.”

The bickering isn’t just about what lies beneath; it’s also about navigation.

That too.

Apparently you’re the only one here who believes that anyone’s planning on going to war over this. There are other venues to discuss the issue–diplomatically.

I don’t think anyone’s planning on war. I’m concerned at the way those things can happen, especially with the chain reactions enabled by entangling alliances.

“The locals” for an international waterway conists of all seafaring nations, especially seafaring nations which have vessels traversing that inernational waterway.

And yet, it looks like nearby nations are cooperating, banding together in possible entangling alliances, in order to counter China’s moves. Do you really want to step in that mess? What’s the worst that can happen if the Chinese aren’t countered? Why do they want to stop trade?

That’s not quite likely. And the VFA-1 and VFA-2 seem very much to indicate that there will not be a permanent US base in the Philippines.

Forgive me for not trusting the government.

This is just rhetorical blather.

How so? That’s not a rebuttal.

Got it. So President Correa decided that, if it were in his country’s interest to have a US base there he still would not negotiate renewal of the lease unless the US created an Ecuadorean base in the US even if such a base were not in the interests of either country. Basically he played politics.

That’s what statesmen do.

The US bases in South Korea and Japan are not the US’s “own private bases”. They are shared. The training I mentioned upthread is not for active defense but for training.

Close enough. Air crews training abroad are quite different from personnel actively based somewhere full-time.

No kidding. And the USFK are part of the UNC. That still is not for the purpose of “launching operations directed at a third country”. It is defending against a very real danger.

That danger need not remain, and in any case, it’s exaggerated.

IYO. Others disagree.

Evidently.

I was living in South Korea when that happened. Not only the Korean news but also international press and the Korean population were quite interested in that shelling. Ditto when the ROKS Cheonan was sunk.

It definitely made headlines, and one of those news reports indicated that Seoul residents didn’t seem very worried that the shelling meant the start of something larger coming from the North.

No. “Everybody” does not know that. Quite a number of people are convinced that none of the current nuclear powers will launch a first-strike nuclear attack.

I was referring to the war that will unite the peninsula once and for all.

Both incidents were rather big things in Korea when it happened.

Indeed, but the ROK decided that neither warranted a counterattack.

I did not put words in your mouth.

You said that I thought the US and ROK might attack the DPRK.

Yeah. These make headlines solely because of NK’s rhetoric.

So when Reuters or someplace like that reports on military exercises being likely focused on one country or another, that’s solely because of rhetoric?

No, many of its citizens think that. The military of the country–you know, the people who would have to do the defending–are convinced that they cannot presently do so alone currently.

If they feel that way, then they certainly can afford to rectify that problem.

What moral hazard? It’s not immoral to assist a friendly country when that country requests it.

It enables them to undertake more reckless actions, with the confidence that they will get bailed out. See the 2008 Georgia-Russia war, in which Saakashvili apparently seriously thought that his American (and, to a lesser extent, Israeli) patrons would back him up no matter what. Terrifyingly, apparently some in the Bush administration were considering it! See what I mean about entangling alliances?

Now you are putting words in someone’s mouth.

How so?

What risk is there of war? Once again, apparently you are the only one who thinks that’s the go-to response.

It’s not the go-to response, but when military units are facing off, these things can happen.

As a seafaring nation, the US does have an interest in ensuring an international waterway remains such.

What do the Chinese have to gain by preventing trade there? It will end badly for them. Besides, any US interest is not worth the risk.

Yet more rhetoric.

Accurate rhetoric.

There are not US troops on China’s land border. China is not objecting to the presence of the US forces in South Korea. Yet again: China is interested in what they call maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula. That means no attacks from North Korea. China is fully aware that ROK and US will not attack NK.

Indeed, but the Chinese are concerned that, in a United Korea, if the US troops remained, they would thus be on China’s land border.

You’ve done a pretty poor job of said research then if you are completely unaware (as this paragraph seems to show) that it would require a preventive attack to knock out the North Korean artillery that would wreak very much havoc on the Seoul Capital Area (which contains approximately one half the country’s population).

I’m wondering exactly how many shots those batteries would get off before the counter-battery fire and, more importantly, air strikes arrive. A few minutes, right? Surely the South Koreans are prepared for that. How many planes do they have in the air at all times? How quickly can they scramble more? How soon can their ships cut loose with cruise missiles?

You’re rapidly approaching a particular stunt on this board that I’m not permitted to state outside of The BBQ Pit. I’m done with you as it’s beyond obvious that you are not interested in facts or reason on the issue.

If you’re implying that I’m not acting in good faith, I reject that implication. Are you, so to speak, taking your ball and going home?

@XT

Reformist elements in the North? You are dreaming there. The regime in North Korea is exactly why this would be a terrible idea. The US presence in South Korea is what’s kept the peace there since the Korean War sort of quasi ended. The fact that the North Koreans have continually built up their military and pushed the situation, constantly harassing the South (for decades), and that fact that, weak as they are in most things they could and would hurt the South a hell of a lot if the situation goes over to war (and the fact that a war on the Korean peninsula would have global economic repercussions) means that a US presence there is pretty much key to preventing the feces from hitting the rotary impeller.

I’ve already mentioned that there are indeed such fissures in North Korea. The vast DPRK military is very weak, though it’s true that they could unleash (and suffer) much carnage in the short term. After studying my sources, it seems evident that a major reason for the North’s behavior is a (probably delusional) fear of the USFK. Why not remove that fear and let the Koreans solve a Korean problem?

I’m not sure if you really believe this or, again, if you are relying on the ignorance of your supposed audience. If you REALLY believe this I urge you to do even cursory investigation to see the current state of the Japanese economy, their current views and recent past views on military spending, and just a basic OOB of their navy and air force compared to Russia as a whole (instead of a cherry picked part of it), China and even North Korea (key word to search for would be ‘missiles’).

I’ve done just such an investigation, and I think it was more than cursory. Despite all their economic troubles, Japan is still one of the wealthiest and most scientifically advanced countries in the world. Their navy now has ships with AEGIS and similar systems to defend against missiles. Their air force has added ground-attack capabilities over the years. They could quickly gain air superiority over the DPRK, and then ravage the missile sites and everything else. The South Koreans can do the same thing. As for Russia and China, even if, on paper, it looks like those militaries could overwhelm the JSDF (or the ROK military, for that matter), and I’m not sure that they could, there’s still the matter of deterrence. It would simply be too costly to do so, so they won’t try. That’s always been Taiwan’s strategy, and it’s always been valid.

Even if what you were saying was true (it’s not), that’s no reason for the US to just abandon Japan and our alliances with them. I know YOU don’t like ‘entangling alliances’ but it’s akin to my dislike of Brussels sprouts…I think they are a crime against humanity and should be eliminated with extreme prejudice, but since others disagree they just continue to be available.

Not getting dragged into wars around the world that have nothing to do with the security of the United States is much more than a personal preference of mine.

This is really the crux of the debate…most of the rest of your post is just the same old horseshit and detracts from the main discussion. Obviously I disagree that getting involved is a terrible idea (as I disagreed with your earlier assertion that we have no business being there simply because the US isn’t in Asia). We aren’t getting involved in the contesting claims, as you put it…we are involving ourselves at a more fundamental level, saying that international sea and air ways are open to all and that China has no right to attempt to change the status quo by fiat. This isn’t JUST about ‘what lies beneath’, since the US basically isn’t planning to exploit those resources in any event, it’s about the more fundamental issue of safe and free passage of goods and services and open access for countries in international waters and in the air above.

So what are the Chinese going to do, declare sovereignty over these waters and then hold the world for ransom?

Why you think this isn’t our business is a mystery. Why you think it would be a good idea to allow the locals to hash this out when that will almost certainly lead to either China bullying them into submission and giving up their claim or shots fired (or, even worse, a limited shooting war in one of the largest trade transit areas in the world) is a mystery to me too. And why you think that the US, doing what it’s doing (which is pretty low key and rational thus far) is a bad idea is beyond me. Well, ok, that’s not entirely true…I THINK I know why you have your objections, but since you keep going off on all of these tangents to try and either muddy the waters or throw enough mud at the US that it somehow excuses what China is doing that I’m not actually sure.

I’m not excusing China’s actions. I oppose them in principle, but I have much stronger objections to the kind of “mission creep” that can have catastrophic consequences.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Lemmytheseal2]
I’m not excusing China’s actions. I oppose them in principle, but I have much stronger objections to the kind of “mission creep” that can have catastrophic consequences.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah…you kind of are, actually. You are saying that we shouldn’t do anything about it and simply allow China to run roughshod over the issue because of some theoretical ‘mission creep’ that the US MIGHT have (what…are WE going to try and seize the area for our own nefarious plans?? Carpe psudo-islands, US style?) that could cause us to viciously be in the way of peaceful Chinese missiles…or something. All the while handwaving away potential problems:

So what are the Chinese going to do, declare sovereignty over these waters and then hold the world for ransom?

Like this. They will BE Chinese waters at that point, if this is allowed to just continue on without the US doing anything. So, yeah…they could do whatever they wanted, allow or disallow whatever they want wrt the free and open passage of trade, commerce or whatever on the seas or in the air above whatever they finally claim. That could, potentially, mean commercial air traffic as well as sea traffic has to go around the disputed area, or perhaps has to pay some sort of toll…or is open to being boarded and inspected at the Chinese whims. And they could impose that at any time they chose, since, again, it will be their territorial waters at that point, the same as the waters within their current limits. If, say, China gets pissed off at some future date with, say, France, they could then start boarding French ships or diverting French planes for inspection to search for contraband, forcing French flagged assets to either put up with the inspections or have to transit around the area, costing them time and energy to do so. At a minimum it would mean that other nations warships and planes won’t be able to go near the area, forcing them to go around.

Not getting dragged into wars around the world that have nothing to do with the security of the United States is much more than a personal preference of mine.

Except you are making a pretty large assumption that any of this would lead to war. Again, there is a huge excluded middle in your thinking. Unless you think China is nuts and would push things to war there won’t be a war. There wouldn’t be a war even if China decided to try to play fast and loose like they have with Vietnam and ‘accidentally’ shoot up one of our ships or planes, which even that I doubt. You say you aren’t excusing Chinese actions yet you want to allow this without the US doing even the rather minimal stuff we are doing now, all because of the strawman that you don’t want to see the US dragged into a war…a war that CHINA would be the ones starting at this point, with the US merely doing what we legally can, which is to transit the sea and air space in an international transit zone.

I’ve done just such an investigation, and I think it was more than cursory. Despite all their economic troubles, Japan is still one of the wealthiest and most scientifically advanced countries in the world. Their navy now has ships with AEGIS and similar systems to defend against missiles. Their air force has added ground-attack capabilities over the years. They could quickly gain air superiority over the DPRK, and then ravage the missile sites and everything else. The South Koreans can do the same thing. As for Russia and China, even if, on paper, it looks like those militaries could overwhelm the JSDF (or the ROK military, for that matter), and I’m not sure that they could, there’s still the matter of deterrence. It would simply be too costly to do so, so they won’t try. That’s always been Taiwan’s strategy, and it’s always been valid.

How many carriers do they have? How many nuclear weapons do they have? How much missile defenses do they have? It’s crazy to say that Japan can defend itself against the likes of China or Russia (or even North Korea) all by itself right now by your fiat (and your assertion). Their defense strategy is predicated on having the US at their back (just like our European allies…and pretty much ALL our allies).

Even if your assertion was true, which it isn’t, it wouldn’t mean we should simply cut them loose to sink or swim on their own. Regardless, this has zero to do with the OP so I’m going to drop it at this point as just another attempt by you to muddy the discussion.

I’ve already mentioned that there are indeed such fissures in North Korea. The vast DPRK military is very weak, though it’s true that they could unleash (and suffer) much carnage in the short term. After studying my sources, it seems evident that a major reason for the North’s behavior is a (probably delusional) fear of the USFK. Why not remove that fear and let the Koreans solve a Korean problem?

Horseshit. Sorry, but that is a total load. I don’t know what your sources are, but North Korea is pretty obviously not shaking in fear of either the (extremely small) USFK forces (which, IIRC, are less than 30k troops and maybe half again that number of support weenies) or South Korea since they have repeatedly been the belligerents, attacking and infiltrating the South every chance they get, as well as pushing things with ballistic missile tests and threatening language for freaking decades. THEY are the aggressors, and it’s their own crazy agenda that pushes them, not fear. The US forces there are a tripwire…North Korea, regardless of how fucking nuts it’s leadership is, KNOWS that if they attack the South and kill Americans in the process that they will get hammered. They will, of course, hammer the South first (especially the capital), despite your claims of how poor and weak they are, but in the end they will go down. If the US wasn’t there, however, they might try it, regardless of how slim their chances would be for victory.

Again, going to just move on as this is just more distraction from the main topic. Summary is that the US has commitments in the region, we are also committed to the open and free passage of commerce as well as military access in international waterways/airways, and so it IS our business to do what we have been doing in the region, which is opposing this naked land grab by the Chinese. We are doing so in a measured and sane manner, and any escalation would be on the Chinese part at this point. I’m thinking that they will find that less easy than their ‘accidental’ attacks on Vietnam’s ships and troops, however.

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

And I don’t see how what we are doing won’t stop them. The Chinese are relying on a perception shift and an international acceptance of their fait accompli. If the US backs off and acts like the Chinese can in fact impose restrictions on flying and sea access (starting with military access from other countries) then this will go a long way to them establishing sovereignty over the area. As Little Nemo said earlier, once they have a ‘permanent’ population on the islands, and if the world acts like they CAN in fact impose restrictions for access to the area then they can reverse directions and ask for international arbitration, having a much stronger claim since they will have demonstrated that they already have control of the area. The US, by ‘tough talk’ (which means we are calmly telling them no, we don’t accept this) and sending our planes and warships into the area reinforces OUR position, which is that these are international air and sea ways, that China building some artificial islands in the area in no way changes that, and that we will continue to treat them as before.

Whether all of this works (for either side) or not, that’s pretty much what’s going on.

I hope you’re right. I won’t claim that I know for a fact what the inner circles of the Chinese government are thinking. (Sure, they send me the minutes of all State Council meetings but it turns out they’re in Chinese.) It’s possible China will back down in the face of non-military pressure. But my belief is they won’t.

[XT]

@Little_Nemo

I hope you’re right. I won’t claim that I know for a fact what the inner circles of the Chinese government are thinking. (Sure, they send me the minutes of all State Council meetings but it turns out they’re in Chinese.) It’s possible China will back down in the face of non-military pressure. But my belief is they won’t.

Yeah, I can’t read those damned minutes either. :smack:

We might be talking past each other, or at least not on the same page here. By backing down, do you mean that China gives up all claim on the region and/or is forced off their artificial islands? If so then I agree…they won’t do that, nor should we expect them too IMHO. It’s simply not going to happen. If by backing down we are talking about China giving up THIS round of attempting to assert sovereignty by fiat military force then I think they will have to in the face of (presumably) steady US resolve (as well as growing resolve both regional and global on this). Their choices would be to either acquiesce to this or to go to war, and I don’t see them doing that. They MIGHT try and push us using the old Soviet tactics of playing chicken with our air craft or Navy (say, popping up a sub in the middle of a carrier battle group just to make the point that they could) or such, but I don’t see it going further than that, at most (of course, if they DO play that game then as with such encounters during the cold war people could be hurt). But I don’t see any other options for them than to give in to a continuous or at least periodic US incursion in the area as we demonstrate that WE think that’s an international sea and air zone and China has zero right to force us away.

[PhillyGuy]

@Lemmytheseal2

I’m talking about the principles of Washington, Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams, who thought the US ought not to get involved in the disputes that plagued the Old World.

In Barbary wars, did U.S. declare 'war on Islam'?

On July 11, 1786, Jefferson wrote to John Adams, “I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro’ the medium of war.” The following month, he wrote to James Monroe that the Barbary powers “must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them.”

After Jefferson became president in 1801, he rejected Tripoli’s demand for payment. The pasha of Tripoli countered by declaring war on the United States. Jefferson sent forces to the Mediterranean, and after sporadic combat, hostilities ended four years later with a negotiated settlement in which the United States paid a smaller tribute than had initially been demanded. . . .

“We didn’t attack them out of matters of faith,” said Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University. “The wars were all about freedom of the sea and protecting the U.S. flag.”

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

Yeah, I can’t read those damned minutes either. :smack:

We might be talking past each other, or at least not on the same page here. By backing down, do you mean that China gives up all claim on the region and/or is forced off their artificial islands? If so then I agree…they won’t do that, nor should we expect them too IMHO. It’s simply not going to happen. If by backing down we are talking about China giving up THIS round of attempting to assert sovereignty by fiat military force then I think they will have to in the face of (presumably) steady US resolve (as well as growing resolve both regional and global on this). Their choices would be to either acquiesce to this or to go to war, and I don’t see them doing that. They MIGHT try and push us using the old Soviet tactics of playing chicken with our air craft or Navy (say, popping up a sub in the middle of a carrier battle group just to make the point that they could) or such, but I don’t see it going further than that, at most (of course, if they DO play that game then as with such encounters during the cold war people could be hurt). But I don’t see any other options for them than to give in to a continuous or at least periodic US incursion in the area as we demonstrate that WE think that’s an international sea and air zone and China has zero right to force us away.

I’d say that right now that “backing down” would be China halting its program of settling people on the disputed islands.

As I’ve said, it’s a tough program for the United States to confront. The Chinese government sends out a boatload of people. How do we stop that? Do we impose a blockade around the Spratly Islands? I’d see that as a major step upwards towards a military confrontation.

But if we don’t stop China’s settlement program, I feel it’s going to render any future plans moot. If five years from now, the situation is there are a few thousand people living on the islands and ninety percent of them are Chinese, then China will simply step back and propose a “fair” solution to the dispute: let the “local population” choose what country the region belongs to.

[even_sven]

Don’t all the players involved have military installations on the islands? Isn’t everyone in town claiming ownership? As far as I can tell, China is doing the exact same thing that everyone else is trying to do, just doing a better job of it.

I mean, the Philippines outright annexed a huge chunk of the area. How is that totally cool? Aren’t we worried about the Philippines’s land grab and assault on freedom?

This is Asia’s dispute. I think it is up to Asia to figure out how they want to manage it. If they didn’t want China joining the fray, maybe the should have tried a little harder to find a solution earlier.

[PhillyGuy]

@Little_Nemo

. . . then China will simply step back and propose a “fair” solution to the dispute: let the “local population” choose what country the region belongs to.

Good precedent for Taiwan.

(Which is one reason why China wouldn’t do quite what you say here.)

However, I agree with most of what you are writing in this thread.

[PhillyGuy]

@even_sven

As far as I can tell, China is doing the exact same thing that everyone else is trying to do, just doing a better job of it.

Vietnamese who remember China’s 1979 invasion, and that the PRC still has a bit of Vietnamese territory then taken, might disagree. (For me, not being Vietnamese, it is so easy to call it “a bit.”)

@even_sven

I mean, the Philippines outright annexed a huge chunk of the area. How is that totally cool? Aren’t we worried about the Philippines’s land grab and assault on freedom?

Freedom? No. I’m also unworried about the Philippines turning into an expansionist thermonuclear power. Also, there’s nothing the Philippines can do that would turn Japan in a militarist direction.

@even_sven

If they didn’t want China joining the fray, maybe the should have tried a little harder to find a solution earlier.

I think they have tried a lot.

Now, what they should do, and what the West should do – that I don’t know. I know we want to delay things until China turns inward, and I’m glad it’s not my job to figure out how to do that.

[XT]

[QUOTE=even sven]
Don’t all the players involved have military installations on the islands? Isn’t everyone in town claiming ownership? As far as I can tell, China is doing the exact same thing that everyone else is trying to do, just doing a better job of it.
[/QUOTE]

No, they don’t all have military installations…and none of them have anything (yet) on par with what China is currently doing. Here is a breakdown from Wiki if you are interested. China isn’t just ‘doing a better job of it’…they are completely destabilizing the situation.

I mean, the Philippines outright annexed a huge chunk of the area. How is that totally cool? Aren’t we worried about the Philippines’s land grab and assault on freedom?

Do you have a cite? According to that wiki I linked to above they have 8 islands totaling something like 60 acres. China has recently built installations totaling over 2000 acres…several orders of magnitude. Now, the Philippine’s CLAIMS a large amount of the disputed territory (as do many of the other claimants) but they haven’t annexed anything but a few islands as far as I can tell…and they aren’t attempting to assert their sovereignty or block the free and open travel of commercial OR military vessels in the disputed territory…which China is definitely doing. At least I can’t find anything on them doing that…if you have a cite though feel free to link to it.

I’d say that, no, we aren’t particularly worried about the Philippine’s attempting a land grab, since, again afaik they aren’t trying to assert sovereignty or tell other powers they can’t transit the area. In addition, they aren’t a nuclear power, nor a global superpower economically or militarily, so any claims they make aren’t going to have the same weight as China’s. Finally, THEY aren’t currently building obviously powerful military facilities in the disputed area…again, afaik. Feel free to link to evidence of them doing the same sorts of things that should have us worried, however.

This is Asia’s dispute. I think it is up to Asia to figure out how they want to manage it. If they didn’t want China joining the fray, maybe the should have tried a little harder to find a solution earlier.

No…it’s not ‘Asia’s dispute’. It impacts more than just the disputants and impacts more than Asia. In point of fact the US has a direct stake in this…as I’ve said repeatedly. To beat the dead horse some more (while switching riders mid-stream and attempting to check it’s mouth to see if it’s a good gift or not), the US is concerned with the open and free passage of trade and commerce, as well as our own and other military through international waters. This is a direct threat to that, and it’s a direct threat to it in an area where we and most other nations that do that trade stuff have said stake.

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I’d say that right now that “backing down” would be China halting its program of settling people on the disputed islands.
[/QUOTE]

Ok…so we aren’t on the same page and are talking past each other. There is simply no way we could or would stop China from settling people on the disputed islands, and you are right…no chance that China would allow us to do so short of war. But we don’t need to do that to prevent China from being able to assert sovereignty over the entire region. At most what we’d be talking about here is the 12 NM limit around their artificial island things, and even that would be a stretch even with a large scale Chinese immigration effort. What the US is doing is to assert that, regardless of what China does or who they move there, these are international waters and air spaces and we can and will continue to sail and fly in them.

As I’ve said, it’s a tough program for the United States to confront. The Chinese government sends out a boatload of people. How do we stop that? Do we impose a blockade around the Spratly Islands? I’d see that as a major step upwards towards a military confrontation.

True, if we took that tact. But, at least as far as I know we haven’t done anything of the sort, nor are we planning too. If you have evidence that we have or are planning to feel free to link to it, as it would be a pretty big surprise to me that we’d take such a stance.

But if we don’t stop China’s settlement program, I feel it’s going to render any future plans moot. If five years from now, the situation is there are a few thousand people living on the islands and ninety percent of them are Chinese, then China will simply step back and propose a “fair” solution to the dispute: let the “local population” choose what country the region belongs to.

I don’t believe they will be able to do that, but I think that’s a risk we’d have to take if it comes to that. My WAG is that when/if China actually goes for arbitration that the UN would have to be involved for it to be binding…and the US will probably push for it to be a UNSC resolution, and we will most likely have a lot of political support for such a move, which means China won’t get that claim except MAYBE the 12 NM limit at most. I’m no lawyer or expert (or even that knowledgeable as I’ve said) with international law, however, so that’s just my WAG. In the mean time the US is staking out our position which is these are international waters and China has no right to attempt to assert authority and tell us we can’t transit the area.

[Little_Nemo]

@even_sven

Don’t all the players involved have military installations on the islands? Isn’t everyone in town claiming ownership? As far as I can tell, China is doing the exact same thing that everyone else is trying to do, just doing a better job of it.

That’s pretty much it as far as realpolitik goes. Several countries are trying to impose their will in the region and China’s bigger than everyone else.

China has a few objective facts on their side. They were the first country to claim the islands in modern times - their official claim goes back at least to the forties. But nobody really cared enough to make an issue out of it until the seventies when it was discovered there was probably underseas oil fields in the region. That’s when other countries began making claims and everyone started trying to turn their claims from a theoretical matter into something real. But China was able to legitimately say they had called “dibs” before anyone else did.

China also has a legal advantage in that there’s a treaty going back to when France still ruled Indochina in which France and China negotiated a naval boundary and France ceded Indochina’s claim to the islands to China. Vietnam can say that it’s not bound by this colonial treaty but China can say that it means that when Vietnam was founded as a country, the South China Sea islands were not part of Vietnam.

Another complicating factor is that there are two Chinese governments in the world. And legally each of them claims to be the sole government of all of China. Most countries recognize the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate government of China but there are still holdouts who recognize the Republic of China as the government of China. Both governments have asserted their claims to the islands. So in theory China could be recognized as the owner of the islands - and then Beijing could find out it’s the China in Taipei.