South China Seas

[American Patriot]

South China Sea or me?


Posted By Clyde Prestowitz Friday, June 24, 2011 - 8:39 PM Share


Several things came together yesterday that give rise to a fundamental question for the future path of the United States.
First, of course, was President Obama's announcement of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. This was important not just in terms of Afghanistan but also as a signal that a "war weary" (the president's words) America is beginning to move to reduce its far flung security commitments. Not coincidentally, the speech coincided with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's withdrawal from the debt reduction negotiations being chaired by Vice President Biden. Cantor said he refuses to countenance any thought of tax increases. In that context, it's clear that America is reducing commitments not only because of war weariness, but also because it can't afford them anymore.
The second item was the Washington Post report of a statement by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the U.S. economic recovery is slowing and that the Fed doesn't know why.
Third was another Washington Post story saying that "China warned the United States ... not to let Southeast Asian countries drag it into ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea." The story quoted China's Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai as saying "I believe the individual countries are playing with fire. I hope the fire doesn't reach the United States" before his departure for weekend talks with Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell in Honolulu.
Finally, the Financial Times' Richard McGregor wrote that the U.S. strategic posture has reached an inflection point. Withdrawing from Afghanistan and the Middle, according to what McGregor identifies as an important Washington school of thinkers that includes many hawks, will allow the United States to "concentrate its national security firepower on Asia." According to this school of thought, "the road to maintaining U.S. global supremacy runs not through Baghdad, Jerusalem, or Kabul (would have been nice if they had told us sooner), but through the Asian sea lanes around China." The idea is that the only power with the potential to challenge the United States is China and Washington must thus refocus its attention on Asia.
Now let me try to fit this all together for you. Let's start with Bernanke. Maybe he doesn't understand, but it's not rocket science why the economic recovery is struggling. Global companies are sitting on well over $2 trillion of cash, but they are investing hardly any in the United States while expanding their investments and production in China and elsewhere. Recent studies by Booz Allen and Hamilton show that production in America is competitive with imports for about 90 percent of all industries. Yet, imports account for nearly half of U.S. consumption of goods. Investment is not taking place in America in industries that could be competitive from an American production base for a variety of reasons, but key among them is the fact that investment subsidies, currency manipulation and undervaluation, pressures to invest as a condition of market access, and other mercantilist policies by many Asian countries tend to funnel the investment away from America.
This course has worked for a long time for the Asians and for the global corporations because there is no risk. The U.S. security blanket over the Pacific smothers risk and makes Asian mercantilism and investment in Asia safe - indeed safer than in the United States where production can be subject to the targeting of Asian industrial policies.
But now China is beginning to flex its muscles a bit and is sending a chill through its Asian neighbors who heretofore have been among its biggest cheer leaders. As a result, Washington is newly popular in Asia where leaders are urging the United States to maintain and even expand its presence in the Pacific and to guarantee the claims of the likes of Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The U.S. national security establishment, having taken us on a detour along the road to Baghdad for ten years, is now, as we pull back in the Middle East, anxious to heed the call from Asia.
But here are the key questions. What threats are there to the United States in Asia? Should we as a nation be spending more on maintaining complete dominance in the Pacific or more on upgrading our own domestic infrastructure or should we just be spending a lot less?
Clearly there is no direct threat to America from anywhere in the Pacific. China is not going to invade. Nor is there an economic threat. Indeed, the economic threat arises mostly from the impact of Asian mercantilism. But this mercantilism would actually become more risky without an American security umbrella than with it. If the tensions latent between the various Asian nations were not suppressed by the American presence, would investors be as anxious to put their production in Asia?
No, I'm not arguing for a wholesale U.S. abandonment of its Asian commitments. But I am suggesting that we resist the knee jerk temptation to maintain absolute hegemony in the Pacific and engage in an arms race with China. I'm also suggesting that Washington should insist that allies not engage in the various mercantilist practices noted above. For instance, at the moment the Trans Pacific Partnership is being negotiated as a new free trade agreement that might serve as a template for a broader Asia-Pacific free trade area or even economic union. As I write the draft of this deal has no clauses relating to currency manipulation, investment subsidies, or anti-trust policy. It should have required commitments in all these areas.
It's time for Washington to stop making the world safe for mercantilism.

[American Patriot]

South China Sea or me?


Posted By Clyde Prestowitz Friday, June 24, 2011 - 8:39 PM Share


Several things came together yesterday that give rise to a fundamental question for the future path of the United States.
First, of course, was President Obama's announcement of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. This was important not just in terms of Afghanistan but also as a signal that a "war weary" (the president's words) America is beginning to move to reduce its far flung security commitments. Not coincidentally, the speech coincided with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's withdrawal from the debt reduction negotiations being chaired by Vice President Biden. Cantor said he refuses to countenance any thought of tax increases. In that context, it's clear that America is reducing commitments not only because of war weariness, but also because it can't afford them anymore.
The second item was the Washington Post report of a statement by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the U.S. economic recovery is slowing and that the Fed doesn't know why.
Third was another Washington Post story saying that "China warned the United States ... not to let Southeast Asian countries drag it into ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea." The story quoted China's Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai as saying "I believe the individual countries are playing with fire. I hope the fire doesn't reach the United States" before his departure for weekend talks with Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell in Honolulu.
Finally, the Financial Times' Richard McGregor wrote that the U.S. strategic posture has reached an inflection point. Withdrawing from Afghanistan and the Middle, according to what McGregor identifies as an important Washington school of thinkers that includes many hawks, will allow the United States to "concentrate its national security firepower on Asia." According to this school of thought, "the road to maintaining U.S. global supremacy runs not through Baghdad, Jerusalem, or Kabul (would have been nice if they had told us sooner), but through the Asian sea lanes around China." The idea is that the only power with the potential to challenge the United States is China and Washington must thus refocus its attention on Asia.
Now let me try to fit this all together for you. Let's start with Bernanke. Maybe he doesn't understand, but it's not rocket science why the economic recovery is struggling. Global companies are sitting on well over $2 trillion of cash, but they are investing hardly any in the United States while expanding their investments and production in China and elsewhere. Recent studies by Booz Allen and Hamilton show that production in America is competitive with imports for about 90 percent of all industries. Yet, imports account for nearly half of U.S. consumption of goods. Investment is not taking place in America in industries that could be competitive from an American production base for a variety of reasons, but key among them is the fact that investment subsidies, currency manipulation and undervaluation, pressures to invest as a condition of market access, and other mercantilist policies by many Asian countries tend to funnel the investment away from America.
This course has worked for a long time for the Asians and for the global corporations because there is no risk. The U.S. security blanket over the Pacific smothers risk and makes Asian mercantilism and investment in Asia safe - indeed safer than in the United States where production can be subject to the targeting of Asian industrial policies.
But now China is beginning to flex its muscles a bit and is sending a chill through its Asian neighbors who heretofore have been among its biggest cheer leaders. As a result, Washington is newly popular in Asia where leaders are urging the United States to maintain and even expand its presence in the Pacific and to guarantee the claims of the likes of Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The U.S. national security establishment, having taken us on a detour along the road to Baghdad for ten years, is now, as we pull back in the Middle East, anxious to heed the call from Asia.
But here are the key questions. What threats are there to the United States in Asia? Should we as a nation be spending more on maintaining complete dominance in the Pacific or more on upgrading our own domestic infrastructure or should we just be spending a lot less?
Clearly there is no direct threat to America from anywhere in the Pacific. China is not going to invade. Nor is there an economic threat. Indeed, the economic threat arises mostly from the impact of Asian mercantilism. But this mercantilism would actually become more risky without an American security umbrella than with it. If the tensions latent between the various Asian nations were not suppressed by the American presence, would investors be as anxious to put their production in Asia?
No, I'm not arguing for a wholesale U.S. abandonment of its Asian commitments. But I am suggesting that we resist the knee jerk temptation to maintain absolute hegemony in the Pacific and engage in an arms race with China. I'm also suggesting that Washington should insist that allies not engage in the various mercantilist practices noted above. For instance, at the moment the Trans Pacific Partnership is being negotiated as a new free trade agreement that might serve as a template for a broader Asia-Pacific free trade area or even economic union. As I write the draft of this deal has no clauses relating to currency manipulation, investment subsidies, or anti-trust policy. It should have required commitments in all these areas.
It's time for Washington to stop making the world safe for mercantilism.

[American Patriot]

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2011/06/167065.htm

Briefing on His Upcoming Trip to the Pacific Islands


Special BriefingKurt M. Campbell
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Washington, DC

June 24, 2011

---

MS. FULTON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. So glad to see so many of you. It’s been a busy week for Asia Pacific Affairs this week at the State Department, and we’re very pleased to have with us today Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell, who’s going to talk about his upcoming trip to the Pacific Islands. So without further ado, I’ll turn it over. ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Thank you very much, and it’s good to see all of you here today. What I’d like to do, if at all possible, is to lay out five things this week, and then I’d be pleased to take any questions that you have going forward.
First of all, I’d like to spend a moment or two if I can to talk about what we think were some of the uncovered issues – oh, are you all right?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Okay. Sorry. Are you okay? Are you all right?
QUESTION: I’m just skinned.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Oh, okay. Sorry. (Laughter.) Me too here, so – (laughter) – so let me start. So we’re going to just go over some developments this week, and I’d like to start with, I think – on some issues that we didn’t feel were adequately covered earlier this week from the 2+2 meeting between the United States and Japan. And I just want to underscore that this was the first meeting of the 2+2 which, in many ways, is the driving institutional mechanism between the United States and Japan since 2007. And a number of landmark agreements were reached that we would encourage you to take a look at, and I think underscore both the commitment of both countries to work closely together, but also reflect a very substantial forward momentum.
For instance, the agreement on field carrier landing operations were significant. We came up with a runway configurement for the FRF plan, off-shore Okinawa. We were able to articulate new common strategic objectives for the United States and Japan, not just in the defense of Japan but in the wider regional context in the Asian Pacific region and beyond, given Japan’s important role that they’re playing in the defense of piracy and also developments on – in South Asia and Afghanistan. So, an important meeting, and I think it does suggest that U.S.-Japan relations are firmly back on track, and a reflection that the United States was the first on the scene in terms of international friends to support Japan in its time of need in the aftermath of the tragic earthquake and nuclear crisis. And we were very grateful for the deep public appreciation and private expressions of that from our Japanese counterparts while they were visiting.
Secondly, yesterday, I think as you all know, the Philippine foreign minister was here, Foreign Minister del Rosario. He was here as part of a process to commemorate the 60^th anniversary of the strong alliance between the United States and the Philippines. We discussed a range of issues and we are working closely with our Philippine counterparts to increase a number of capacities in relation to governance and assistance, but also maritime domain awareness, which we think is important in terms of the relationship between the United States and the Philippines. And I look forward to closer interactions with them in the coming months.
Today, Foreign Minister Kim will be meeting with Secretary Clinton. Yesterday, he had senior meetings at the White House. In fact, he’s been engaged in close consultations with the United States on the way forward over the course of the last several days. He was very supportive of our efforts in relation to building a very strong American pavilion next year at the Yeosu Expo. And I just want to underscore the very strong alliance relationship that exists between the United States and South Korea. And we are completely in alignment in terms of our goals, strategic objectives with respect to next steps with North Korea.
And then if I may just say as a moment on Saturday, late Saturday, an interagency team from the State Department, from the Department of Defense, from Admiral Pat Walsh, head of our forces in the Pacific, and a senior representative from USAID – we’re making, really, the first trip of its kind. We are going throughout the Pacific. Too often, when we say the Asia Pacific, it is the Pacific that gets short shrift. And so over a week’s time, we will go to Kiribas, Samoa, Tonga, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
In many respects, this is really an unprecedented high-level trip, and it will underscore our whole-of-government commitment by the United States to fulfill our moral, strategic, and political, and indeed, long-standing interests in the Pacific. We’ve had strong relations with the – our partners for decades, and we want to continue that going forward. And we will, in each stop, articulate specific steps on assistance, on dealing with climate change, on dealing with the welfare of the people of the Pacific Islands. And in every place, we will try to coordinate closely with partners such as Australia and New Zealand who have deep strategic interests in the Pacific. We’re extremely excited about this trip. We recognize that the challenges affecting the Pacific, ranging from climate change to endemic poverty, are important to address, and the United States wants to be in the forefront of that effort, bringing together a range of international actors that care about developments there.
And then finally on Saturday, a U.S. team in Honolulu will be meeting with Chinese interlocutors as part of a commitment made at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue to hold an Asia Pacific consultation between our two countries to explore and examine our respective views and positions with respect to the Pacific. We talk about a whole number of issues – economic, Afghanistan, developments in Africa – and we thought it was important to step up our dialogue and increase dialogue associated particularly with the Asian Pacific region. It will be our intention to ask some specific questions – what’s the direction of Chinese military developments?
We’re very interested in their diplomacy with North Korea, with Burma, with other players in the Asian Pacific region. I imagine the Chinese interlocutors will ask us about our plans for force posture, modernization, and some of our engagements with our friends and others in the region. This is part of an effort to increase transparency, predictability, and build trust and confidence between two key nations, and we are deeply involved in consultations with all others in the Asian Pacific region as well.
I think with that – let me just also say that we are very pleased with the release of Ai Weiwei and we welcome that step. However, the United States continues to be deeply concerned by the trend of forced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and convictions of public interest lawyers, writers, artists, intellectuals, and activists in China for exercising their internationally recognized human rights. And I intend to raise these issues in our discussions over the course of the next day in Honolulu. I’d be happy to take questions. Thanks.
MS. FULTON: All right. Andy.
QUESTION: Andy Quinn from Reuters. On the meeting tomorrow with the Chinese, Secretary Clinton yesterday said the South China Sea was going to be pretty much one of the top agenda items. Could you tell us what your message is going to be to the Chinese, specifically on their activities in the South China Sea? Are you going to warn them of getting involved with Vietnamese boats in the area? And secondly, is cyber security going to play any role in the talks you’re going to have tomorrow? And if so, what?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Let me just say that the United States has no intention to fan the flames in the South China Sea and we have a very strong interest in the maintenance of peace and stability, and that Secretary Clinton, both at the ASEAN Regional Forum and then again yesterday in her meeting and press comments after with Foreign Minister del Rosario, very carefully laid out our strategic objectives in the South China Sea. And we would urge all interested parties to review those matters carefully, and I expect that we will discuss these issues with a variety of players in the Asian Pacific region, including with China tomorrow.
And then on cyber security, I will say that we had a very useful exchange at the strategic talks that took place, chaired by Deputy Secretary Steinberg, at the last Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and we look forward to continuing that conversation between the United States and China on cyber security going forward. But I think tomorrow, the primary focus of our interactions will be about the Asia Pacific region.
MS. FULTON: Right here. Is this a follow-up?
QUESTION: Yeah. You said that the United States has no intention to fan the flames in the South China Sea, but you’re also going to tell the Chinese that they have an obligation not to fan the flames. Will you tell them to stop their provocations?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I think I’m going to stand on my statement. I think that’s clear. We will look forward, after our sessions tomorrow in Honolulu, to do a readout from those meetings. But I think we are trying to be very precise in our language, and I’ll just leave it at that if that’s okay.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up.
MS. FULTON: Next question right here.
QUESTION: About the South China Sea: After the Secretary’s comments yesterday, does this – is this sort of showing a shift, the U.S. position backing ASEAN more than China now?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: No. And indeed, we’ve been very clear that the United States does not take a position on sovereignty issues, but we also have strong principles that are longstanding in the maintenance of freedom of navigation and free and unimpeded legal commerce, and the maintenance of peace and stability. Those principles are longstanding and will continue, and we underscore them in all of our interactions in the Asian Pacific region. It is not our desire to see, as I said, these flames fanned. We want recent tensions to subside and cooler heads to prevail.
MS. FULTON: Next question, Dave.
QUESTION: Well, your interlocutor in Honolulu made a comment earlier this week about – in fact, suggesting that the U.S. keep away, it’s not our issue, and then that the U.S. would be drawn into the fire itself. Is that just a rhetorical flourish, or will you raise that with them?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: If I can say, I think I’ve answered the question. I think I’m going to just stand with what I’ve already said. Thank you.
MS. FULTON: Okay. Next question, Goyal.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Just a follow-up. I know you have answered. U.S. allies in the region, they are concerned about the situation as far as South China Sea from the Chinese. What Chinese are saying to the U.S. actually is a warning. They are warning the U.S.: keep hands off. So how seriously are you taking these warnings from China?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Let me simply say that I’ve already stated, very clear, our position. Look carefully at what Secretary Clinton laid out yesterday as opposed to a very consequential diplomatic set of steps that played out last year at the ASEAN Regional Forum, and I think our position is quite clear.
MS. FULTON: Okay. Next question, Lalit.
QUESTION: Yeah. The joint statement issued after two – the 2+2 meeting, the effort to do a trilateral dialogue with India, U.S., and Japan. Can you give us a sense what’s the (inaudible) behind the starting of a trilateral dialogue, and what level it would be?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Well, first of all, let me just say that one of the things that’s been most welcome is to see India’s Look East Policy. And we welcome India’s role as a vibrant, strong player in all aspects of Asian Pacific life – economic, commercial, strategic, and the like. We’ve worked closely with them on coordinating our approaches to the ASEAN Regional Forum and to the East Asia Summit. We’ve seen important dialogues taking place between India and China and also between India and Japan.
There are a number of what we might call mini-lateral steps and initiatives in the Asian Pacific region: Japan, South Korea, and China; Japan, South Korea, and the United States. There has been, recently, a substantial set of initiatives designed to improve relations between Tokyo and Delhi, and I think we’ve agreed that an appropriate next step, given some of our interests and our mutual pursuits, is to seek a trilateral session. We will begin that process at my level, at the assistant secretary level, and to just explore and see what areas of common pursuit going forward.
QUESTION: And when do you plan to have the first meeting?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I don't think it has been, the date has been, decided yet, but hopefully in the very near future. Thank you.
MS. FULTON: I’m afraid we only have time for about two more questions.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yes. Hi.
QUESTION: Thanks. Hi. (Inaudible) Asahi.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Hi.
QUESTION: Can – talking about the 2+2 with Japan, can you give us a better idea of a timeline with the FRF plan or a new deadline. I know that 2014 has been postponed. Can you give us a little bit more detail?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I don't think I can give you too much more beyond what’s already been said. But I just want to underscore that the message delivered very clearly from Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton to their interlocutors is that we need to see progress and we need to see a sustained commitment on the part of the Japanese Government to fulfill its obligations with respect to the FRF.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I’ll take one last question. Hi.
QUESTION: Tomorrow is the first Asia Pacific consultation meeting. Do you have a timeline for the future meetings with the U.S. – between U.S. and China? And secondly, do you consider the South China Sea issue as a flashpoint of this U.S. and China relationship?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: We’ve made it very clear that we’d like to continue a dialogue with China on all issues, and we expect to continue the discussions going forward on the Asia Pacific region, and we want to get off to a good start tomorrow. And I think our goal is to ensure that through close consultation and dialogue that we develop a way forward between the United States and China that allows both of us a greater degree of confidence about developments in the Asian Pacific region. I expect, as I said, that we will discuss and lay out clearly our position with respect to the South China Seas, and I anticipate Chinese colleagues will do the same.
MS. FULTON: Assistant Secretary Campbell, thank you.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Thank you very much.
MS. FULTON: Thank you, everyone.



PRN: 2011/1059

[American Patriot]

Beijing Warns U.S. About South China Sea Disputes

By EDWARD WONG

Published: June 22, 2011

• Recommend
• Twitter
• Sign In to E-Mail
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

BEIJING — The Chinese vice foreign minister warned the United States on Wednesday to stay out of the increasingly tense territorial disputes and maritime conflicts in the South China Sea, which has some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world and is believed to be rich in oil and natural gas reserves.

Related

• China Moves Closer to Libyan Opposition (June 23, 2011)
• High-Speed Rail Poised to Alter China (June 23, 2011)

All or parts of the sea are claimed by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. China and Vietnam are the most vocal in their claims, and have been involved in diplomatic disputes in recent years involving fishing vessels and maritime surveillance boats. But this year has been more tense than usual. Vietnamese officials accused Chinese vessels of cutting cables to oil exploration ships in May and June; Chinese officials have denied some of those accusations and have warned Vietnam and other nations that only joint oil exploration is acceptable.
Standoffs have also taken place this year between Chinese and Philippine vessels. In March, two Chinese maritime surveillance ships ordered a Philippine survey ship away from an area called Reed Bank. The Philippines later sent in military aircraft.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said last year that the United States had a “national interest” in the South China Sea and could facilitate talks, worrying China that it was going to step into the territorial rivalry.
“Regarding the role of the United States in this, the United States is not a claimant state to the dispute,” the vice foreign minister, Cui Tiankai, told reporters on Wednesday. “So it is better for the United States to leave the dispute to be sorted out between the claimant states.”
Mr. Cui added, “I believe the individual countries are actually playing with fire, and I hope the fire will not be drawn to the United States.”
He was speaking at the Foreign Ministry ahead of a weekend meeting in Hawaii between senior Chinese and American officials that has been called to discuss issues in the Asia-Pacific region. The meeting, which the two sides say is a first round of consultations, was set up after President Hu Jintao visited Washington in January. The meeting will be led by Kurt M. Campbell, an American assistant secretary of state, and Mr. Cui.
The South China Sea is not officially on the agenda, but the issue will almost certainly come up. The United States has not taken a side in the territorial disputes, but has urged nations to resolve them peacefully. China insists that it will talk to the countries on a bilateral basis and that it will not negotiate with claimants in a multilateral manner, which those countries would prefer.
“Some American friends may want the United States to help matters,” Mr. Cui said. “We appreciate that gesture, but more often than not, such gestures will only make things more complicated.”
He added that “if the United States does want to play a role, it may counsel restraint to those countries who’ve been frequently taking provocative action, and to ask them to be more responsible in their behavior.”
In giving his warning, Mr. Cui hinted that anti-American fervor could be brewing. “To be honest with you, the Chinese public is following very closely whether the United States will adopt a just and objective position on matters like these,” he said.
Officials in the Philippines said Wednesday that the United States was obligated by a 1951 treaty to help defend Philippine interests if ships came under attack in the South China Sea, The Associated Press reported.
At the briefing, Mr. Cui also talked about North Korea, which is officially called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, an issue of great concern to both Chinese and American officials. The United States has been pressing China to do more to control North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-il, a frequent visitor to China.
“From what we’ve seen and heard, what the D.P.R.K. leaders and delegation members have seen in China has had an impact on their thinking,” Mr. Cui said. “They are now considering whether there need to be some initiatives on the front of economic reform and opening.”
He added: “We should encourage and support such a trend. Of course, it will take some more time for there to be a fundamental improvement in the D.P.R.K. economy. So we also need to have patience. We cannot expect things to change overnight simply because there is an increased interest in economic development.”

[American Patriot]

Vietnamese Hold Fourth Anti-China Protest over South China Sea Dispute

2011-06-27 09:09

• Email
• Twitter
• Facebook

Embed:http://english.ntdtv.com/p55.swf" width="600" height="450" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="config=http://english.ntdtv.com/p55config.xml&file=http://media5.ntdtv.com/ml/english/news/cn/2011-06-27/20110627-CN-05_Vietnamese-Hold-Fourth-Anti-China-Protest-over-South-China-Sea-Dispute-V2.mp4&abouttext=english.ntdtv.com&aboutlink=http://english.ntdtv.com&image=http://english.ntdtv.com/files/Content/20110627-CN-05_Vietnamese-Hold-Fourth-Anti-China-Protest-over-South-China-Sea-Dispute.jpg&autostart=false">" type="text">


Protesters gathered outside the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi for a fourth consecutive Sunday—over an ongoing dispute regarding islands in the South China Sea. The Spratly and Paracel islands are known to be rich in oil and gas.

Public demonstrations in communist Vietnam are rare, however this has the support of authorities.

Police mingled with the crowd and directed the protesters to move along.

The protesters sang wartime patriotic songs and chanted "Protect Vietnamese People" and “Down with Invasive China!" Some of them carried Vietnamese flags and posters with Vietnamese slogans as they marched along peacefully.

One protester says the demonstration reflects the mind and will of the Vietnamese people.

[Quoc Dat, Protester]:
"I can see that Hanoians are very concerned at a time like this, a time when China is continuously and aggressively expanding in East sea (the South China sea), a time when the international community urges China to respect the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was signed in 1982.”

For others, peace was all that was on their mind.

[Nguyen Thi Thu Lanh, Protester]:
"The message we are trying to get out today is just like all the other times: We urge China to keep peace on East Sea (the South China sea) and stay true to the agreements they had signed with Vietnam and other neighboring countries."

On Sunday, Vietnamese and Chinese authorities pledged to resolve the dispute through peaceful negotiations.

Tensions between the two communist neighbors have escalated over the past month because of their long-lasting sea dispute.

Both countries have responded with naval exercises, but analysts are saying neither is keen to provoke a military confrontation.

[American Patriot]

Special Reports

Filipino military to upgrade aviation to counter threats


Published: June 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Comments (0)
Email
Print
Listen
Tweet
Related Stories

• ADB urges Asia to pursue green energy
• New mammal species found in Philippines
• Travel warning issued for Philippines
• Filipino is world's smallest man
• Prostate hormone therapy may up diabetes

MANILA, Philippines, June 27 (UPI) -- The Philippine air force intends to purchase additional aircraft and upgraded radar systems by 2016.
The new equipment is projected to cost more than $320 million, or over a third of $916 million promised by the administration of President Benigno Aquino to enhance the military's capability to protect the country's maritime resources and territorial integrity, the Manila Bulletin reported Monday.
Philippine Air Force commander Lt. Gen. Oscar Rabena told journalists, "It will improve our capability very much because it will give us a greater domain awareness in what is happening in our territorial waters and in our territorial airspace."
Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. added that the Aquino administration was committed to reforming the Filipino Armed Forces, remarking, "We all want the best for our country and want to help our people weather whatever storms that come their way. Today we have a commander in chief who is committed to providing you the support you need to allow you to perform your duties to the best of your abilities."
The new capabilities are directed towards what Manila views as an increasing threat to its offshore maritime resources, China's growing claims in the South China Sea.
China's expansive sovereignty claims in the South China Sea include the Spratly ("Nansha" in Chinese) and Paracel ("Xisha" according to Beijing ) islets, putting China directly into potential conflict with sovereignty claims and security of five Southeast Asian states which claim the contested archipelagos as part of their offshore waters and accordingly part of the Exclusive Economic Zones, which extend 200 miles offshore, according to the terms of the United Nations Law of the Sea conference, more commonly known by the acronym UNCLOS. At stake of billions of offshore revenue in the form not only of potential hydrocarbons but fishing rights as well.
China's emerging disputes include not only the Philippines, but Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia, not to mention China's irredentist claims on Taiwan. All of the aforementioned nations except Taiwan are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN.
Maritime force has outrun diplomacy in this case, as when competing claims overlap amongst UNCLOS signatories, UNLOS defers resolution of disputes to the competing states to negotiate to delineate their final and actual maritime boundary, with the general principle that any point within an overlapping area defaults to the nearest state.
A diplomatic solution to the issue at this stage is apparently viewed by the Philippines as less important than a show of maritime determination.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/...#ixzz1QVPAKiVO

[American Patriot]

Webb warns of ‘Munich moment’ with China


By Philip Ewing Monday, June 27th, 2011 9:30 am
Posted in International
Virginia Sen. Jim Webb said all the national attention paid and money spent on the Middle East over the past decade has distracted Washington from an area of equal or even greater importance: The Western Pacific. Webb told David Gregory on “Meet the Press” Sunday that the U.S. had kept too little watch on China’s expansion at its peril, and things today are moving so rapidly that they could come to a head:

And we, right now, are in a situation where we have to look at this in terms of our broader national security interests in addition to the nation-building questions. We still have 45,000 troops in Iraq. They’re supposed to be out by the end of the year. I’m not holding my breath. We have this new situation in Libya where the president made a unilateral decision, which I, among others, have serious problems with. And most importantly, because this is something that does not get discussed, as we have focused for the last 10 years on this part of the world, our situation in East Asia with respect to China and China’s expansionist military activities has deteriorated. We are at a point in the South China Sea right now where we are approaching a Munich moment with China, and it’s not being discussed.

In other words: Is Washington going to step back and let China continue the show of force it has been making against Vietnam and the Philippines? Or will it say or do something about it? You haven’t heard any politician a anything about it — they have been to eager to hammer President Obama on Libya or his planned troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.


What do you think — is a “Munich moment” approaching between Washington and Beijing?


Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/27/we...#ixzz1QVYRwM64
DoDBuzz.com

[American Patriot]

http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/06/27...sea-steams-up/





The South China Sea Steams Up





Posted on Monday, June 27, 2011
by Elizabeth C. Economy
Protesters march with banners and placards during an anti-China demonstration on a street in Hanoi June 19, 2011. Several dozen Vietnamese protested in front of the Chinese embassy and marched through Hanoi for the third Sunday running after Beijing sent one of its biggest maritime patrol ships into the disputed waters of the South China Sea. (John Ruwitch/Courtesy Reuters)

It is summertime, and everyone is out sailing on the South China Sea. Unfortunately, the waters have gotten a bit choppy. The Philippines and Vietnam, in particular, are riled up over China’s most recent demonstrations of assertiveness: Chinese vessels have reportedly been busy intruding into Philippine waters and cutting the cables of two boats under the flag of PetroVietnam. Both Vietnam and the Philippines have called for assistance from the international community to help rein China in.
At stake, of course, are the potentially vast oil and natural gas resources that many believe the South China Sea possesses. For decades, six claimants—Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, the Philippines, and Brunei—have bickered and skirmished over who is entitled to what. Ancient claims of sovereignty run up against the Law of the Sea and Exclusive Economic Zones. Rhetorical and actual skirmishes have become a way of life. Indeed the situation has been far more dangerous in the past with live fire exchanged and fishermen or sailors killed.
What’s different now, however, is the context in which these conflicts are playing out. And this matters – a lot. As its naval capacity has increased, China has made clear its intent to expand its range of activity throughout the region. Having formally shifted policy from a “near seas” to a” far coastal” defense, China has in effect declared itself a regional and emerging global naval power. In mid-June, it sent a 3,000 ton Haixun-31 ship through the South China Sea to “monitor shipping, carry out surveying, inspect oil wells and protect maritime security.” In response to China’s increasing activism, regional nations have invited the United States to enter directly into the fray. The U.S. is formally obligated to defend or provide for the defense of the Philippines and Taiwan; and military relations with Vietnam have been expanding rapidly. The Chinese have been quick to denounce any interference by the United States; however, the United States shows little inclination to listen, consulting with the parties, and clearly asserting U.S. national interest in freedom of navigation and respect for international law. Even the U.S. Congress has gotten in to the game, recently pushing a resolution that registers Congressional disapproval for China’s actions in the South China Sea.
So what is the answer? Ideally, of course, all the claimants sit down and honor the 2002 “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea” accord. This would mean moving forward with discussions and negotiations on how to work together to develop the resources of the South China Sea. (Of course, this was supposed to happen with China and Japan in the East China Sea, as well.) Less ideally, the United States becomes a more permanent player in the ongoing fracas—as it has in the Mekong River dispute—acting as a counterweight to China in support of the smaller Southeast Asian countries’ interests. The U.S. could also use the ASEAN Regional Forum, its bilateral relations with the other claimants, and perhaps even its new seat at the East Asian Summit to bring pressure to bear on China to sit down with everyone else and discuss the challenge at hand. At this point, however, only one thing seems certain, anyone out there sailing on the South China Sea should get ready for a rough ride.

[American Patriot]

Chinese Energy Policies Harming Neighbors



By Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com
China's omnivorous energy requirements have been attracting increasing attention as of late, as Beijing attempts to secure any and all sources of power for its growing industrial base.

Nowhere is this more noticeable than Beijing's policies in the South China Sea, where Chinese assertions of sovereignty are unsettling the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, all of whom have counter claims on the various shoals and islets.

China's landward neighbors are also feeling the hot breath of Beijing's mandarins, however, most notably its economic rival India, with whom China fought a brief war in 1962 in the Himalayas over a disputed frontier, where the alpine conflict, according to China's official military history, achieved China's policy objectives of securing borders in its western sector in retaining Chinese control of the Aksai Chin with India accepting the de facto borders which codified along the Line of Actual Control.

Now China and India are engaged yet again in a spat, this time over the headwaters of the Brahmaputra River. According to New Delhi China is planning up to 24 hydroelectric facilities with a cumulative power generation capacity of nearly 2,000 megawatts along Brahmaputra's source, the Arun River, before it descends into India.

Further east, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Laos are alarmed by China's intentions to build three massive dams on the upper reaches of the Mekong River, adding to six existing hydroelectric facilities. What is singularly lacking in all these plans is any regional or concerted international effort to counter China's plans.

India's concerns are heightened by the fact that most of its major rivers originate in Tibet, which China invaded and annexed in 1950, declaring it an integral part of "Western China." Both the Brahmaputra and Indus rivers have their origins in a lake in western Tibet near Mount Kailash.

Complicating India's efforts to discuss the issue is China's reluctance to acknowledge the validity of satellite imagery, which Beijing regards as espionage, even though in 2010 China acknowledged as a result of India's space observation that it was in fact building the Zangmu dam on the Brahmaputra, as the imagery received from Indian satellites confirmed the construction.

Indian strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney observed, "China has always been unapologetic about its refusal to enter into water sharing agreements with any states. It has always maintained that it would take into account interests of the lower riparian states but about half of the world's total number of large dams are in China. India, with so many of its major rivers originating in Tibet, is going to be among the worst affected. The issue is usually soft pedaled by the water resources ministry, and there is never any international pressure on this though the list of countries suffering because of China's refusal is quite long including Russia, Kazakhstan, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos."

Chellaney's list of aggrieved states along China's landward frontiers is extensive - what remains to be seen is whether the region's two substantive powers, Russia and India, are willing to confront Beijing, either singly or in concert, over Beijing's efforts to harness Asia's river flow to power its industrial miracle. So far, the signs are not encouraging, as Chinese economic "soft power" seduces Russia and India as covertly as it does America's economy.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...Neighbors.html

By. Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com. For more information on oil prices and other commodity related topics please visit www.oilprice.com

[Ryan Ruck]

US Senate Deplores China's Use Of Force At Sea

June 28, 2011

The US Senate unanimously approved a resolution on Monday that deplored China's use of force against Vietnamese and Philippine ships in the South China Sea.

China has shown increasing assertiveness in its claim to the entire South China Sea, believed to be rich in oil and gas.

In its nonbinding resolution, the US Senate said it deplored the use of force by Chinese vessels and urged all parties to refrain from using force to assert territorial claims.

[American Patriot]

US Senate Deplores China's Use Of Force At Sea

Oh, that will make them stop it...

[American Patriot]

21 July 2011 Last updated at 13:35 ET South China Sea row: Asean seeks islands deal

About 60 Filipinos live on one of the disputed islands in the Spratlys
Continue reading the main story Related Stories

• Q&A: South China Sea dispute
• Philippine MPs land on Spratlys
• US backs Manila

Asian officials have sought to play down an increasingly tense territorial dispute in the South China Sea.


Leaders of regional bloc Asean signed a deal with Chinese officials aimed at establishing guidelines for talks on the dispute.


But the agreement was short on detail, and did not mention the overlapping territorial claims.


The Philippines and Vietnam, both Asean members, have become embroiled in bad tempered exchanges with China recently.


On Wednesday a group of Philippine politicians visited an island in the disputed Spratly chain, sparking an angry statement of condemnation from China.


And crowds of Vietnamese have held rowdy anti-Beijing protests every weekend for the past two months.


But at the weekend, dozens of Vietnamese protesters were arrested and the rallies suppressed.


Analysts say the government had given its tacit approval to the protests, so the crackdown was probably designed to placate China before the Asean meeting.


China hailed the agreement on new guidelines, with Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi telling reporters: "We are looking to the future. We want to be good friends, good partners and good neighbours with Asean countries."


Indonesia's Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa also welcomed the guidelines, telling the BBC they were the result of more than five years of pushing and negotiating.


But Vietnam and the Philippines were less keen, suggesting that much more work was needed before a full deal could be reached with China.


China and Taiwan claim the whole of the South China Sea as their territory, including the Spratly and Paracel island groups.


Vietnam also claims both island groups, while the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia also have overlapping claims in the area.


The region is thought to be rich in oil and gas, and also has vital shipping routes.




More on This Story

Related Stories

• Q&A: South China Sea dispute 19 JULY 2011, ASIA-PACIFIC
• Philippine MPs land on Spratlys 20 JULY 2011, ASIA-PACIFIC
• US backs Manila 24 JUNE 2011, ASIA-PACIFIC
• Vietnam's anger 06 JUNE 2011, ASIA-PACIFIC
• China extending military reach 14 JUNE 2011, ASIA-PACIFIC

[American Patriot]

China puts pressure on Japan, sends navy fleet to North Korea

Saibal Dasgupta, TNN | Aug 4, 2011, 08.38PM IST









BEIJING: China has put Japan under immense pressure by sending a navy fleet to neighboring North Korea, and accusing Tokyo of issuing misleading statement about Beijing's military threat.

The fleet includes a missile frigate " Luoyang", which landed in Wanson in Democratic People's Republic of Korea or North Korea on Thursday. It also includes a training ship. Tokyo has for long been worried about close military relationship between China and North Korea.

The move came immediately after Japan warned that China's naval forces were likely to increase activities around its waters. The two countries have been involved in bickering over ownership of parts of the East China Sea.

Tokyo's issued a white paper discussing military threat posed by an increasingly aggressive China. Tokyo is particularly worried because China is close to launching its first aircraft carrier, which might be put afloat in seas close to Japan.

The white paper said China's defense budget has shot up nearly 70 per cent over the past five years, while Japan has cut its military outlays by 3 per cent over the same period.

The white paper drew a warning from Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu, who said Japan should not to stray from its longstanding defence posture. He also indicated that Beijing continues to be sore about Japan's military occupation of China before and during World War II.

"We hope that Japan will use history as a guide, and earnestly reflect on its defence policies, and do more to enhance mutual trust with its neighbours," the spokesman said.

The ministry's website, criticized Tokyo for "irresponsible comments" in the white paper.

[American Patriot]

From the New York Slimes:

Nations at Impasse Over South China Sea, Group Warns

By JANE PERLEZ

Published: July 24, 2012



BEIJING -- The intensifying disputes between China and four of its Southeast Asian neighbors over claims in the South China Sea have begun to raise warnings over the prospect of open conflict.



Multimedia

Interactive Map

Territorial Claims in South China Sea

Related

• China Sends Troops to Disputed Islands (July 24, 2012)
  
  

The disputes, enmeshed in the competition for energy resources, have reached an impasse, according to a new report by the International Crisis Group, a nongovernmental research organization that has become a leading authority on the frictions.
“All of the trends are in the wrong direction, and prospects of resolution are diminishing,” said the report, titled “Stirring Up the South China Sea: Regional Responses.”


The pessimistic conclusion came a day after China stepped up its political and military control of Nansha and Xisha islands, which both Vietnam and the Philippines claim, and Zhongsha, claimed by the Philippines.


On Monday, the Philippine president, Benigno S. Aquino III, announced plans to buy new aircraft and attack helicopters that could be used in territorial disputes in the South China Sea. China and the Philippines have competing claims there over the Scarborough Shoal and potentially energy-rich underwater ground around Reed Bank, among other areas.


In a speech before a joint session of the Philippine Congress, Mr. Aquino adopted an aggressive stance against an unspecified threat. “If someone enters your yard and told you he owns it, will you allow that?” he said. “It’s not right to give away what is rightfully ours.”


The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded on Tuesday, saying that the Philippine president had no legal standing to rely on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as the basis for its claim on Huangyuan Island, the Chinese name for the Scarborough Shoal.


The analysis by the International Crisis Group apportions blame to both China and its neighbors for the ratcheting up of incidents and tensions in the sea, one of the most traveled waterways in the world, and a vital strategic pathway for the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. The group’s Beijing office, led by Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, has spent two years studying the South China Sea, interviewing decision makers in China and the claimant countries. It released an earlier report in the same overall regional study in April, focused on the internal military and civilian agencies that play a role in China’s actions in the South China Sea, ranging from the People’s Liberation Army to a fisheries bureau.


The vagueness of China’s claims to islands and energy resources in the sea has “rattled” other claimants, the new report said. China bases some of its claims in the sea on discoveries by ancient Chinese navigators. More specifically, China lays claim to everything within a so-called nine-dash map drawn shortly after World War II. By some estimates, the nine dashes incorporate 80 percent of the South China Sea.


But China’s assertive approach has been matched by Vietnam and the Philippines, two countries that are more forcefully defending their claims and enlisting outside allies, the report said.


“South China Sea claimants are all anxious to pursue oil and gas exploration in the portions of the sea that they claim, and are concerned with protecting their claimed fishing grounds as coastal waters become depleted,” it said. The fact that the waters are mostly patrolled by civilian vessels run by national governments was little comfort.


“In spite of being more lightly armed and less threatening than navy ships, civilian law enforcement vessels are easier to deploy, operate under looser chains of command and engage more readily in skirmishes,” it said.


In an example of civilian vessels plying the South China Sea with possibly serious consequences, the Philippine Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that it objected to a fleet of 29 fishing vessels, a cargo vessel and three other ships, protected by a Chinese Navy vessel near Fiery Cross Reef and Subi Reef, two areas of the South China Sea that the Philippines claims.

[American Patriot]

Philippine senators approve pact allowing Australian troops to engage in combat exercises

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...H6W_story.html By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, July 24, 7:09 AM

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippine Senate on Tuesday ratified an accord that would allow Australian troops to train in combat exercises with Filipino forces in the country — a long-delayed pact backed by many lawmakers who were alarmed by Manila’s territorial conflicts with China.


Sen. Loren Legarda, a key proponent, said the agreement that was approved by 17 of 23 senators would bolster national defense. Tensions with China have risen recently over territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

The presence of foreign troops has been a contentious issue in the Philippines, a former American colony. The Philippine constitution forbids foreign troops from permanently basing in the country and the Senate must ratify agreements governing activities by visiting troops.


The Philippines has a similar 1999 pact with the United States and has allowed American forces to stay since 2002 to train and arm Filipino soldiers battling al-Qaida-linked militants.


Legarda said she voted to reject such an agreement with the U.S. in the late 1990s but decided to back the Australian accord, which has been pending in the Senate for four years, due to current security concerns facing the country.


“Today’s security challenges require that we strengthen our defense posture through a regime of cooperation with allies,” Legarda said.


Sen. Eduardo Angara said he backed the agreement because the Philippines needed “a network of protective friends” amid a “threat posed by a very powerful country that already extends its claims close to the doorstep of our territory.”


Another senator, Teofisto Guingona III, however, said the agreement would only allow joint military training and would not bind both sides to defend each other in conflicts. He said he backed the accord because it was mutually beneficial and has better provisions that would ensure Philippine control over visiting Australian soldiers, who may run afoul of local laws, compared to the accord with the U.S.


Philippine security officials have turned to Washington to rapidly modernize its military amid new tension and alarm over renewed territorial conflicts in the South China Sea involving China, the Philippines and four other claimants.


A standoff that erupted between Chinese and Filipino government ships in April at the Scarborough Shoal off the northwestern Philippines and recent skirmishes in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea have highlighted the weakness of Manila’s navy and air force. The Philippines has acquired new ships and aircraft since the long-simmering territorial disputes reignited last year and is setting up a new coast watch system with Washington’s help.


The Philippine government said the new accord would also allow Australian and Filipino forces to train in dealing with terrorism and natural disasters.

[American Patriot]

Warning on Pacific military 'flashpoint'

• by: Brendan Nicholson, Defence editor
• From: The Australian
• July 26, 2012 12:00AM

THERE is a rapidly growing threat of conflict involving China, its neighbours and the US in the South China Sea, and Australia must step in to help defuse the situation, a key think tank has warned.



The warning is contained in a new paper from the Lowy Institute for International Policy which says defusing the complex resource disputes in the area should be the highest priority of the nations involved.


The institute's executive director, Michael Wesley, argues that Australia is well placed to play a significant role in proposing and brokering a solution.


"While Australia has no direct interest in territorial disputes, it should be extremely concerned about the possible disruption of trade flows and the impact on the strategic balance in the Pacific," Dr Wesley says.

Dr Wesley likens the South China Sea to a "geopolitical Bermuda triangle" which reverses expected alignments and suspends the normal rules of the game.










"It pits Asia's two most significant communist countries, China and Vietnam, against each other, unites usually bitter enemies China and Taiwan, and is drawing the United States back to a partnership with Vietnam a generation after the fall of Saigon.


"There is a great deal at stake in the South China Sea," he says. "It is the flashpoint in the Pacific where conflict is most likely to break out through miscalculation."


The issues are escalating at two levels -- basic standoffs between the territorial claimants and an overarching strategic contest between Beijing, which wants to ensure it is not hemmed in by potentially hostile and pro-American neighbours, and Washington which wants to ensure its navy and merchant traffic continue to have free access to the region.


The area in question, enclosed by the west coast of mainland Southeast Asia, Borneo and The Philippines archipelago, is rich in hydrocarbons and fish stocks and is traversed by over one-third of global shipping.

Its waters and seabed are subject to opposing territorial claims by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and The Philippines.


Dr Wesley says these confrontations are generally not regarded as seriously as the standoffs over the Taiwan Straits and the Korean peninsula.


"But the South China Sea is more unpredictable, and certainly warrants much closer and more sustained attention by strategists and policymakers," he says.


"It is in the South China Sea that the components of Asia's changing power dynamics are most concentrated and on display: China's growing strategic heft and paranoid sense of entitlement, its Southeast Asian neighbours' hopes and misgivings about China's regional dominance, and the United States' compulsion to meet China's strategic challenge."


Unaddressed incidents are likely to escalate, creating strategic instability and undoing the value of regional institutions and agreements such as ASEAN, he says.


Australia, because it is not a major power and is not involved in the disputes, is well placed to play a significant role in proposing and brokering a solution, he believes.

[American Patriot]

China Sends Troops to Disputed Islands

By JANE PERLEZ

Published: July 23, 2012

BEIJING — The Central Military Commission, China’s most powerful military body, has approved the deployment of a garrison of soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army to guard disputed islands claimed by China and Vietnam in the South China Sea, the state-run Xinhua news agency said Sunday.



Multimedia

Interactive Map

Territorial Claims in South China Sea







On Monday, there was a first meeting of the 45 legislators elected over the weekend to govern the 1,100 people who live on the island groups of the Spratlys, the Paracels and the Macclesfield Bank, Chinese authorities told state media. The meeting was the latest escalation of the territorial dispute between China and its neighbors over the island groups, known in Chinese as the Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.


The new legislators will not only govern the island groups, many of which consist of rocks and atolls, but also about 772,000 square miles of the South China Sea over which China claims jurisdiction, state media said.


The troop deployment and elections appeared intended to reinforce China’s claims over the South China Sea and its potential energy resources. The moves came a week after a meeting of foreign ministers of the Association of South East Asian Nations in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, at which China, according to diplomats at the meeting, used its influence to stop even a rudimentary communiqué on the South China Sea among the 10 nations.


The establishment of a legislature for islands and the dispatch of soldiers will antagonize Vietnam, which claims the same islands. Vietnam and China have fought since the 1970s over the three island groups; last month, Vietnam passed a law that claimed sovereignty over the Paracels and Spratly Islands. In response, China called the islands its “indisputable” territory.


The Philippines and China have also been involved in a dispute for months over Scarborough Shoal, an area off the coast of the Philippines claimed by both countries.


On Monday, President Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines said that his country would not back down from its dispute with China, saying in an address that the nation’s military would get dozens of new aircraft and ships for defense of the shoal, which Manila identifies as Bajo de Masinloc.


“There are those who say that we should let Bajo de Masinloc go,” Mr. Aquino said, according to The Associated Press. “But if someone entered your yard and told you he owned it, would you agree?”


Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei also have conflicting claims in the South China Sea, making the area a source of a potential military showdown. With the Spratly, the Paracels and the Macclesfield Bank Islands, China’s State Council approved the establishment of a prefectural-level administration known as Sansha City to replace a lower county level administration last month.


The election of the legislators and their meeting at a first session of a people’s congress appeared to be practical steps to show that China was serious in its drive to put much of the South China Sea under its domain.


The speed of China’s actions was not surprising, said Wu Xinbo, deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai. “Now the Philippines and Vietnam are both advancing their claims so China must also respond accordingly with its own plan,” Mr. Wu said.


The People’s Liberation Army garrison that was announced over the weekend would most likely be established on Xisha Island, Mr. Wu said. “Xisha is closest to China and the facilities are relatively good,” he said.


In an April report on the South China Sea, the International Crisis Group said that China had delayed establishing Sansha City’s administration to govern the Paracels and Spratlys and appeared more intent on using tourism to assert sovereignty.
Bree Feng contributed research.

[American Patriot]

China establishes Sansha City
Xinhua - Jul 24, 2012

SANSHA, Hainan, July 24 (Xinhua) -- China on Tuesday officially set up the city of Sansha on Yongxing Island in the southernmost province of Hainan. A ceremony to mark the city's establishment began at 10:40 am on a square in front of the city ...

Mayor elected in China's newly established Sansha city
Xinhua - 20 hours ago

YONGXING ISLAND, Hainan, July 23 (Xinhua) -- The newly established city of Sansha in the South China Sea elected its first mayor Monday afternoon. Xiao Jie, 51, head of the Hainan Provincial Agriculture Department, was elected mayor in the first ...

[American Patriot]

South China Sea: From Bad to Worse?

Author: Joshua Kurlantzick, Fellow for Southeast Asia
July 24, 2012

Share

--
--


Tensions in the South China Sea have risen to their highest level in at least two years in the wake of the disastrous breakup of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers meeting in Phnom Penh. Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan, an eternal optimist, admitted that the summit was an "unprecedented" failure in ASEAN's history, and Indonesia's foreign minister rushed to mediate tensions between ASEAN members lest they explode again. At nearly the same time, a Chinese naval frigate ran aground in a disputed area of the sea, raising regional suspicions that Beijing was trying to bolster its claim to the entire South China Sea.
As it has over the past three years, the Obama administration has taken a cautious but firm position on South China Sea sovereignty and adjudication of disputes. While noting that the United States does not have any claim on the South China Sea, the Obama administration has more vocally backed the ASEAN claimants' rights on territorial claims, even saying that freedom of navigation and a resolution of claims accepted by all nations was a U.S. "national interest."
The sides have turned virtually uninhabited rocks into new provinces and states.

The administration also has upped its assistance to mainland Southeast Asia, such as announcing earlier this month $50 million in new funding for the Lower Mekong Initiative, a project for Mekong River nations like Laos. Regional partners of the United States like the Philippines are rapidly buying up arms, while at the same time, China and most of the Southeast Asian claimants of portions of the sea (Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan) are ramping up rhetoric about their claims and increasingly sending naval and "civilian" fishing boats into the sea to test adversaries' positions.
Yet at the same time, there remains some room for compromise among all sea claimants and the United States. Chinese officials recognize that their increasingly vocal positions on the sea have alienated many Southeast Asian nations and pushed countries like Vietnam and the Philippines closer to the United States. At the same time, though some ASEAN nations like Cambodia are drawing nearer to China, while others such as the Philippines are moving closer to Washington, all ASEAN nations realize that Southeast Asian states must generally provide a united front on issues if they are to be treated as a major power in East Asia.
Hardening Territorial Claims
Tensions over the South China Sea, which is strategically vital and believed to contain rich deposits of petroleum, go back decades, but over the past two years they have escalated dramatically. China, which in theory claims nearly the entire sea, has in recent years publicly advocated its claims more forcefully. This can be attributed to various causes: Perhaps U.S. economic problems distracted it from Asia in the latter half of the 2000s; China's leadership recognizes Beijing's own rising naval strength; China's government is responding to growing nationalism; China's resources companies want to expedite exploration of the sea; or some combination of these and other factors.
Then last summer, ASEAN appeared willing to simply let China move any resolution down the road by publicly celebrating the drafting of an agreement between Southeast Asian states and China to resolve South China Sea disputes peacefully. But the agreement was not a binding code of conduct, and it skirted any real resolution of key issues like overlapping territorial claims to the sea and exploration of its potential undersea resources. ASEAN's weak stand may have encouraged Beijing to take a harder-line position this year.

This spring and summer, the Southeast Asian claimants (except Malaysia, which has taken a more passive role) and China have hardened their positions by putting into place more physical manifestations of their claims. The sides have turned virtually uninhabited rocks into new provinces and states. Earlier this year, China announced that the disputed Paracel and Spratly Islands, as well as another area of the sea, have become a Chinese administrative area called Sansha City, with its own governing officials.
The dispute also has done serious damage to ASEAN claims to be able to handle important regional issues and, in the future, drive regional integration

They have begun staking out oil and gas claims as another physical manifestation of their power: China National Offshore Oil Company recently invited foreign oil companies to offer it bids to explore potential blocks that are just off of the coast of Vietnam. And they have increasingly used non-military boats to make their points. Last month, for instance, Beijing declared that it would expand the fleets of fishing vessels it will be sending to disputed regions of the sea.
Many Southeast Asian diplomats claim that these boats are essentially paramilitary vessels, yet Vietnam and the Philippines increasingly use the same types of boats to stake their claims. Meanwhile, Philippine officials are increasingly pressing Washington for higher-quality military equipment. Vietnam and the Philippines also have been inviting foreign petroleum companies to engage in joint exploration projects in contested areas.
Following the ASEAN foreign ministers' meeting, several critical indicators will show whether all sides are willing to step back from the dispute, which now increasingly threatens to turn into a shooting war. (After considerable arm-twisting from Indonesian leaders on July 20, ASEAN eventually reached what it called a consensus on the sea, but this simply papered over divisions and had little new of substance.) Observers are watching to see how publicly China discusses the new "territory" of Sansha. And many Southeast Asian officials are watching to see whether Beijing disburses large new grants or low-interest loans to Cambodia and Malaysia, the two ASEAN nations that have taken a much lower-profile approach to the sea (Cambodia virtually advocated the Chinese position during the summit).
Ultimately, Beijing's signals that it was willing to once again begin negotiating a code of conduct that would govern how ships act in disputed maritime waters would be the sign that China is stepping back from the brink. On the Southeast Asian side, Vietnam and the Philippines' willingness to call back some of their fishing boats, as well as Hanoi's willingness to stop passing resolutions in its legislature claiming portions of the sea, would be important calming signs.
ASEAN's Divisions
More than at any other time, the dispute this year also has done serious damage to ASEAN claims to be able to handle important regional issues and in the future drive regional integration. Even some of the most ardent backers of the organization now wonder whether ASEAN's traditional consensus style is defunct. This is hardly the first time the consensus approach has proven counterproductive: ASEAN failed, in the past, to take strong positions even on conflict within Southeast Asia, as occurred in East Timor in 1999, because of this adherence to consensus and noninterference, a sharp contrast from some other regional organizations like the African Union.
The desire for consensus is further challenged by the new closeness between China and some of the mainland Southeast Asian states, raising fears in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Brunei, among others, that countries like Cambodia, Laos, and even Thailand will be pawns of China.
Phnom Penh, which holds the chair of ASEAN this year, has become increasingly dependent on Chinese aid and investment. Two-way trade between China and Cambodia is estimated to roughly double between now and 2017 to $5 billion, while China has become by far the largest aid donor in Cambodia.
Laos and Thailand have become increasingly dependent on China as well. Creating a binding code of conduct signed by the Southeast Asian claimants and China seems very unlikely, at least for now.
Preventing a Conflict
The priority on all sides should be to avoid military conflict [editor's note: See CFR Contingency Planning Memorandum by expert Bonnie Glaser]. ASEAN and China both have good reasons to avoid a shooting war in the South China Sea. Even as China spars with Vietnam, the Philippines, and other countries, it is becoming the largest trading partner and one of the biggest direct investors of most Southeast Asian states since an ASEAN-China free trade area came into effect.
For the United States, avoiding conflict in the sea would help prevent the overstretch of the military, which does not want to take on the role of policing the South China Sea, while also giving Washington time to help upgrade forces and to foster greater unity among ASEAN members on the South China Sea issue. The United States should help the Southeast Asians and the Chinese develop a hotline between political and military leaders to help prevent sea incidents from escalating. In addition, the ASEAN nations could go to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and solicit an opinion on the disputed claims, which might help make its position stronger. ASEAN nations and China also could work to cooperate on resource extraction from the sea.
Finally, as many ASEAN officials already have noted, if the organization is to compete with China and other Asian powers and seriously negotiate a code of conduct for the Sea, it needs to strengthen its Secretariat, giving it more powers, a higher-profile secretary-general, and far greater resources.

[American Patriot]

Armed conflict possible in South China Sea: ICG
By Jason Gutierrez (AFP) – 1 day ago
MANILA — Tensions over competing claims in the South China Sea could escalate into conflict, with an arms build-up among rival nations raising the temperature, an international think tank warned Tuesday.
Prospects of solving the disputes "seem to be diminishing" after a recent failure by the 10-nation ASEAN grouping to hammer out a "code of conduct" that would govern actions in the sea, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said.
"Without a consensus on a resolution mechanism, tensions in the South China Sea can easily spill over into armed conflict," warned Paul Quinn-Judge, the ICG's program director for Asia.
"As long as ASEAN fails to produce a cohesive South China Sea policy, a binding set of rules on the handling of disputed claims cannot be enforced."
China claims sovereignty over nearly all of the sea, which is believed to hold vast amounts of oil and gas, is one of the region's most important fishing grounds and is home to shipping lanes that are vital to global trade.
The Philippines and fellow Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam, as well as Taiwan, claim parts of the sea.
The rival claims have for decades made the area one of the region's potential military flashpoints, with Vietnam and China engaging in sea conflicts in 1974 and 1998 that left dozens of military personnel dead.
Tensions began to escalate again last year with Vietnam and the Philippines accusing China of becoming increasingly aggressive in staking its claims to the sea.
In April Philippine and Chinese vessels became engaged in a tense stand-off at the remote Scarborough Shoal.
And China this week triggered further anger from around the region when it announced it was planning to build a military garrison on the Paracel Islands.
On the diplomatic front, an annual meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers ended in disarray early this month when it failed to agree on a joint statement, a first in its 45-year history, because of divisions over the South China Sea.
Meeting host Cambodia was widely seen to have backed China, a close ally. This derailed a campaign by the Philippines for a tough ASEAN position against China.
The Brussels-based ICG said in its report on Tuesday that China had "worked actively to exploit" the divisions in ASEAN by offering preferential treatment to members of the bloc that supported its position in the dispute.
"A lack of unity among China's rival claimants, coupled with the weakness of the regional multilateral framework, has hampered the search for a solution," the report said.
"All of the trends are in the wrong direction, and prospects of resolutions are diminishing."
The report also noted that China and the rival claimants had continued to expand their navies and coast guards amid the dispute, due in part to domestic political pressures and rising nationalism among its citizens.
This could lead to an "escalation" of incidents, including more maritime stand-offs, it said.
The ICG said the best way to ease the tensions would be for the rival claimants to agree on ways to share the natural resources on offer in the South China Sea.
But it noted that the last effort to do so -- a joint seismic survey by China, Vietnam and the Philippines -- broke down in 2008, and the prospects of co-operation in the future were low.