Am I wrong to think that most governments, regardless of political creed, tend to take advantage of the weakness of rival governments? If the USA cedes power in the western Pacific, what exactly would motivate the Chinese govt. not to give us a taste of our own medicine and push their sphere of military influence as far as possible back to our shores? The author of this article discusses the deceptiveness and ''cunning'' with which the Spratly Islands were claimed and developed by China. What kool-aid has he drunk that brings him to say, in the same article, that we have no reason to think that the Chinese desire anything more than a pittance of honor restored in terms of naval strength close to their coast, simply because they never have indicated otherwise. Try telling that to Tibet, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, or any other nation that is more directly affected by Chinese territorial ambitions. In reality, I believe the amount of honor and power the party leaders wish to restore to China is far greater than just a few small islands and trade routes in the South China Sea, and I suspect even the author knows this when he is sober. As human, Chinese leaders naturally love power and hegemonic influence as much as people in our government. If we do nothing, as this author advises, we play directly into their hands and sacrifice our allies in in Far East to corrupt, autocratic, oppressive Chinese hegemonic domination.
14
Exercising our internationally recognized and legitimate rights of maritime sea passage is not a belligerent response. Rather it is the Chinese who are being provocative by their aggressive saber rattling and assertion of dubious territorial claims. Oh and piling up sand and mud into an island and laughably calling that sovereign territory.
10
Mr. Winchester asserts that China and the U.S. are engaging in a game of chicken. Hardly the case. The United States has guaranteed freedom of passage to all ships in all oceans for almost a century. The U.S. does not build artificial islands to expand its sovereignty. China's not so sneaky ploy is to do just that. China isn't playing chicken so much as engaging in strategic military moves to assert its power and dominance. American warships sailing in international waters is not a provocation. It is the right of innocent passage. China has no right to be upset, annoyed or enraged. China began this mis-adventure by challenging the world community. Much like Germany sought pieces of nations before the full onslaught of WWII, China is doing the same by establishing, through island building, it's 8 Dash Line extending the sovereignty of China over those islands. It is a phony ploy advanced not by American hawks in Washington by Chinese hawks in Beijing.
The time to stop China is now. The means is through the strength of the United States Navy that must maintain the Right of Innocent Passage. If Mr. Obama fails to understand how American power must be projected to maintain peace then the Chinese will not stop in the South China Sea. The Korean Peninsula, Japan, the Phillipines, Australia and Indonesia are next. China has already sent 5 warships off the coast of Alaska. The last foreign fleet off American territory launched WWII. China must be stopped. Now.
The time to stop China is now. The means is through the strength of the United States Navy that must maintain the Right of Innocent Passage. If Mr. Obama fails to understand how American power must be projected to maintain peace then the Chinese will not stop in the South China Sea. The Korean Peninsula, Japan, the Phillipines, Australia and Indonesia are next. China has already sent 5 warships off the coast of Alaska. The last foreign fleet off American territory launched WWII. China must be stopped. Now.
11
"However, the genial (and half-Japanese) new American Pacific commander, Adm. Harry Harris, has hoisted battle pennants."
Why do you need to describe the "American" Pacific commander as being half-Japanese? Does that affect the story in any way? It's the CiC that gives permission to "hoists battle pennants" not an admiral, not if he wants to keep his job.
Why do you need to describe the "American" Pacific commander as being half-Japanese? Does that affect the story in any way? It's the CiC that gives permission to "hoists battle pennants" not an admiral, not if he wants to keep his job.
9
This is a terrible recommendation. The Chinese ambitions of today need not be the reality of tomorrow.
7
Power follows trade flows, and more importantly, trade surpluses. America has not had a trade surplus since the late 1970s. Unless America gets real about running a consistent -- and large -- trade surplus -- the United States needs to adjust to being a second rate nation. We cannot live on printed dollars forever, and the Chinese understand that. When China prices in juan, America's foolish policies will be obvious to everyone.
5
Winchester's argument is rather confused. On the one hand, the Chinese have a nefarious plan to sail their ships within sight of Hawaii, which is threatening even if they just wnat to "make their presence known" (an odd reason for expending trillions of dollars for a navy), while on the other hand the US should backoff and allow this to happen. There's no mention of China signing treaties to assure free passage etc -- just let them have their way. Odd.
9
Someone should post a nautical chart of the 9 - Dash Line to give some context to what China is claiming, and constructing, in the South China Sea. Might change the perspective of some of the readers and commenters regarding the spectacularly flawed analysis in this article...
18
Let them come! In the late 1950's, I worked on a survey crew for the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads on a grade 2 highway (dirt) for hauling timber out of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Actually, it was a military defense road planned for the entire length of the mountain chain at elevation 8,000 feet. Remember, we thought the Japanese Army was going to invade California after bombing Pearl Harbor. So, thinking ahead, why not plan for the worse.
I don't know if that road was ever completed. I worked on the section between Porterville and Bakersfield. Dangerous work, too, with blasted boulders falling around you and rattlesnakes challenging your thick leather boots.
Now, back to the future. Let's surround China with our Allies (including our former enemies Japan and Vietnam) and a huge floating navy. That should keep the CCP government of China bottled up along their own coastline and ensure their good behavior. Heck, they may even try to invade California if we give them too much slack. Maybe it's time to restart the Sierra Nevada defense line.
I don't know if that road was ever completed. I worked on the section between Porterville and Bakersfield. Dangerous work, too, with blasted boulders falling around you and rattlesnakes challenging your thick leather boots.
Now, back to the future. Let's surround China with our Allies (including our former enemies Japan and Vietnam) and a huge floating navy. That should keep the CCP government of China bottled up along their own coastline and ensure their good behavior. Heck, they may even try to invade California if we give them too much slack. Maybe it's time to restart the Sierra Nevada defense line.
1
The USA has little choice at this point, since doing anything less signals to its allies in the area that the USA is choosing to withdraw from its traditional role of ensuring existing international boundaries and shipping lanes. China has every reason to seek to return to being the main power over the China seas, a position it exercised prior to European exploration and colonization in the 16th century. It's unlikely that the ultimate result will be either China or the US in control, but instead it will look more like the situation around Europe where many powers share control.
6
I didn't know The Pacific Ocean is an immense American-dominated lake. Well that's over. China is building an illegal island to house a military base. It appears our president was once again caught off guard. Did they cross a red line?
2
Don't feed the Dragon.
Oh wait ... too late for that.
All those cheap imports? All those manufacturing jobs?
This is just the start.
Oh wait ... too late for that.
All those cheap imports? All those manufacturing jobs?
This is just the start.
9
This article expresses a fear that China will attempt to control the three island chains across the Pacific. "Central to the new strategy is the construction of three imagined bastions, chains of disconnected Pacific islands that would, in Beijing’s view, comprehensively protect its homeland"
Nonsense.
The claimed islands China is now building on reefs are not even the first of those chains. Those three chains are already taken, and China is doing nothing to take them. The third chain centers on Hawaii. They cannot remotely try to have that.
Furthermore, the whole island chain strategy is defective. It does not work, for physical, practical reasons. The Japanese tried the same thing in WW2, and built up forces including land based naval air power meant to make that work. It was a failure for reasons that still apply today -- the islands are too small, too far apart, have no hinterland of natural resources to support their use in defense, and can be bypassed. A powerful navy controls them, rather than the other way around.
The idea of three island chains to keep the US from the Western Pacific is a nonsense. And anyway, these islets in the China Sea have nothing to do with that.
Nonsense.
The claimed islands China is now building on reefs are not even the first of those chains. Those three chains are already taken, and China is doing nothing to take them. The third chain centers on Hawaii. They cannot remotely try to have that.
Furthermore, the whole island chain strategy is defective. It does not work, for physical, practical reasons. The Japanese tried the same thing in WW2, and built up forces including land based naval air power meant to make that work. It was a failure for reasons that still apply today -- the islands are too small, too far apart, have no hinterland of natural resources to support their use in defense, and can be bypassed. A powerful navy controls them, rather than the other way around.
The idea of three island chains to keep the US from the Western Pacific is a nonsense. And anyway, these islets in the China Sea have nothing to do with that.
9
To the West China remains inscrutable. To them the Boxer rebellion and the attempt by the West to impose itself on them for the purposes of creating a drug epidemic among their population is as yesterday. Their history is one of a constant battle for power among themselves. Now that they have gained unity this quest for power can be turned outward. They have a strong centralized government that views capitalist production as only a means to increase and confirm their power. And all of this can be done slowly and quietly behind a polite face.
What to do or not do. We must support our fearful allies in the region and constantly remind the Chinese that freedom of the seas can not be impinged. Perhaps this is our new cold war.. Please I hope not. History never ends despite what some authors have claimed unless we blow each other up or turn our earth into a deadly sweat box.
What to do or not do. We must support our fearful allies in the region and constantly remind the Chinese that freedom of the seas can not be impinged. Perhaps this is our new cold war.. Please I hope not. History never ends despite what some authors have claimed unless we blow each other up or turn our earth into a deadly sweat box.
2
"Now that they have gained unity this quest for power can be turned outward."
They don't take that unity for granted. They have and ought to have deep fears that they cannot consistently keep near a quarter of humanity under one unchallenged effective government.
They don't take that unity for granted. They have and ought to have deep fears that they cannot consistently keep near a quarter of humanity under one unchallenged effective government.
6
I wonder how much these new islands will end up costing China as they get overwhelmed with sea-level rise and powerful storms. They may end up realizing that the costs are too much for the benefits.
4
That China is rearming is an absolute given for the present and future. China will be a dominant land and naval power for the 21st century. The question is how this affects an American foreign policy which for years assumed its own military and economic dominance of the Pacific basin. The post WWII period is ending and we must now adjust to new global realities.
Chinese ships will soon be cruising practically within eyesight of spectators standing on American beaches in North America. How will we react? Similarly to the way Chinese have reacted to our presence in the waters off of her own shoreline since 1945? If that is the case, the powder keg that has now been created by historic American and Chinese fears (and prejudices) of each other will only grow more unstable and another Serajevo is all it would take to light the fuse.
Chinese ships will soon be cruising practically within eyesight of spectators standing on American beaches in North America. How will we react? Similarly to the way Chinese have reacted to our presence in the waters off of her own shoreline since 1945? If that is the case, the powder keg that has now been created by historic American and Chinese fears (and prejudices) of each other will only grow more unstable and another Serajevo is all it would take to light the fuse.
3
As with the Japanese Navy before WW2, they can be powerful, but they cannot win in a challenge to the US.
That is because their geographic position is so severely disadvantaged. They are hemmed in, and far from the resources they need, while the US controls those resources or at least is on the right side of the natural features controlling access.
That is because their geographic position is so severely disadvantaged. They are hemmed in, and far from the resources they need, while the US controls those resources or at least is on the right side of the natural features controlling access.
5
Winchester writes "The wiser policy would surely be for the United States simply to make clear that what is of greatest importance — the freedom of innocent passage through these waters, and the guarantee of trade routes — remains inviolate. The Chinese have never suggested otherwise."
Really? China warns off and protests U.S. ships sailing in waters that the Law of the Sea and essentially every nation other than China considers international, past disputed specks naturally submerged at high tide.
When the Chinese navy sails close to Alaska, the U.S. says "...We do respect the freedom of all nations to operate military vessels in international waters in accordance with international law. So, no reason why they shouldn’t be there.” (quoted in http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/02/5-chinese-navy-ships-spotted-off-...
This is not simply and naturally China challenging Pax Americana to assert its major power maritime interests. It is China bullying its neighbors to unilaterally assert control and sovereignty over disputed islets and vast swaths of international waters in contravention of the Law of the Sea and international norms.
As a side note, it is unhelpful to international stability and U.S. interests that the U.S. Senate has failed to ratify the UN Convention on Law of the Sea.
Really? China warns off and protests U.S. ships sailing in waters that the Law of the Sea and essentially every nation other than China considers international, past disputed specks naturally submerged at high tide.
When the Chinese navy sails close to Alaska, the U.S. says "...We do respect the freedom of all nations to operate military vessels in international waters in accordance with international law. So, no reason why they shouldn’t be there.” (quoted in http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/09/02/5-chinese-navy-ships-spotted-off-...
This is not simply and naturally China challenging Pax Americana to assert its major power maritime interests. It is China bullying its neighbors to unilaterally assert control and sovereignty over disputed islets and vast swaths of international waters in contravention of the Law of the Sea and international norms.
As a side note, it is unhelpful to international stability and U.S. interests that the U.S. Senate has failed to ratify the UN Convention on Law of the Sea.
12
"Beijing sees such patrols as bellicose and provocative."
Beijing used force in occupying islands claimed by much smaller neighboring countries. It's great that the US had a show of force in the area, as China just watched. The US should do more of it.
Beijing used force in occupying islands claimed by much smaller neighboring countries. It's great that the US had a show of force in the area, as China just watched. The US should do more of it.
6
It's not American war planes that buzz dangerously close to the Chinese. It's not the US that is building artificial islands in international waters and claiming the airspace above it. It is not the US that claims the right to take back Taiwan by force or threatens Vietnam or Japan. It is not Our government that hacks American companies to steal intellectual property. It is is not from our territory that government employee information is stolen. No, that would be China.
6
"It's not American war planes that buzz dangerously close to the Chinese."
It is not the American coast on which that happens, nor the approaches to major American naval bases in home waters.
We and all of NATO get our fighters right up there, when Russian bombers get too near. Our Navy fighters have been very aggressive over our carriers. At least once in the Med, our fighters flew upside down, cockpit to cockpit, staring just feet away into the eyes of the pilot over our carrier. When we felt pushed, we pushed back, and hard.
It is not the American coast on which that happens, nor the approaches to major American naval bases in home waters.
We and all of NATO get our fighters right up there, when Russian bombers get too near. Our Navy fighters have been very aggressive over our carriers. At least once in the Med, our fighters flew upside down, cockpit to cockpit, staring just feet away into the eyes of the pilot over our carrier. When we felt pushed, we pushed back, and hard.
6
A few times when a Soviet ship interfered with flight operations by cutting off a carrier, our fighters flew low over the bridge of the Soviet ship and hit the afterburner so as to blast and scorch their bridge and deliver a serious message. They had enclosed bridge structures, so that did not kill anyone, but they noticed in a big way. If the Chinese did that to one of our ships, we would call that wild and reckless and be beside ourselves with fury.
6
Bullies only understand strength. In this case China is the bully. It is throwing its weight around the weaker Southeast Asian nations that have a claim to the same islands in the South China Sea. The US does not back down from bullies. It is NOT in our DNA. The US Navy is a global force for good. So it is up to US to keep the peace by sailing peacefully in international waters.
7
There are others who think we are the bully.
It is actually power politics on both sides.
It is actually power politics on both sides.
8
There is no reason to think the Chinese are trying to exclude others from navigation in those wasters. Their claims by their own terms would not exclude others, not even warships.
In fact, China's big naval problem with navigation is its own freedom to navigate. Its routes pass through many long bottlenecks. Their sea routes might be considered one long bottleneck in every direction. They must pass island chains and Straits and hurdle after hurdle, many far beyond any ability of their navy to defend, even with aircraft carriers. Their problem is probably impossible. They could not go anywhere by sea if we mean to stop them, with or without these islands claims.
They are doing two things.
First, they might extend their ability to protect their own shipping in waters approaching their own coast. It is a start. We know from past experience that they do everything with a long view, step by step, and they are extremely concerned about their own risks of being blockaded or attacked on their own coast. In fact, their history is of being blockaded and attacked on their coast, and losing every such encounter for a couple of centuries.
Then, they might claim control of resources on the ocean floor.
To them, this is likely first defensive, and second about money (resources). They are not likely to see it as our safe passage via those waters to other places. It is that too to us, but that is not likely to be why they are doing this. Their priorities there are long established.
In fact, China's big naval problem with navigation is its own freedom to navigate. Its routes pass through many long bottlenecks. Their sea routes might be considered one long bottleneck in every direction. They must pass island chains and Straits and hurdle after hurdle, many far beyond any ability of their navy to defend, even with aircraft carriers. Their problem is probably impossible. They could not go anywhere by sea if we mean to stop them, with or without these islands claims.
They are doing two things.
First, they might extend their ability to protect their own shipping in waters approaching their own coast. It is a start. We know from past experience that they do everything with a long view, step by step, and they are extremely concerned about their own risks of being blockaded or attacked on their own coast. In fact, their history is of being blockaded and attacked on their coast, and losing every such encounter for a couple of centuries.
Then, they might claim control of resources on the ocean floor.
To them, this is likely first defensive, and second about money (resources). They are not likely to see it as our safe passage via those waters to other places. It is that too to us, but that is not likely to be why they are doing this. Their priorities there are long established.
7
The US press has been calling what the US Navy did a Freedom of Navigation demonstration. It wasn't. What the US Navy did, very carefully and specifically, was an Innocent Passage demonstration.
The difference under the UN Treaty is that Innocent Passage gives advance notice to the coastal state, and limits the activity of the warship making passage. The US Navy gave that notice, and was careful to observe those limits.
Why? Our Navy is not stupid in such professional matters, it is near the best in the world. So what were its reasons?
First, the UN Treaty gives a different status to reefs that are always submerged, compared to reefs that are awash with the tide. They have separate definitions and sections in the text.
Second, the coastal state's official maritime charts are explicitly defined as the authority on what is awash in the tide.
Third, some parts of some of those reefs are in fact awash in the tide. It has been subject of discussion among professionals for a very long time, since the East Indiamen and Tea Clippers sailed these waters, and France set up a weather station there in the 19th Century after taking Indochina as a colony. No doubt the exact rocks and shoals that are awash change with storms and such.
So under the UN Treaty, at least some of those new island waters may have some claim to territorial waters. That does not mean they are Chinese, but it does mean they are "land."
Our Navy's ships have been far more careful than our public statements.
The difference under the UN Treaty is that Innocent Passage gives advance notice to the coastal state, and limits the activity of the warship making passage. The US Navy gave that notice, and was careful to observe those limits.
Why? Our Navy is not stupid in such professional matters, it is near the best in the world. So what were its reasons?
First, the UN Treaty gives a different status to reefs that are always submerged, compared to reefs that are awash with the tide. They have separate definitions and sections in the text.
Second, the coastal state's official maritime charts are explicitly defined as the authority on what is awash in the tide.
Third, some parts of some of those reefs are in fact awash in the tide. It has been subject of discussion among professionals for a very long time, since the East Indiamen and Tea Clippers sailed these waters, and France set up a weather station there in the 19th Century after taking Indochina as a colony. No doubt the exact rocks and shoals that are awash change with storms and such.
So under the UN Treaty, at least some of those new island waters may have some claim to territorial waters. That does not mean they are Chinese, but it does mean they are "land."
Our Navy's ships have been far more careful than our public statements.
8
Yes, what is our purpose in needling the Chinese? To continue the myth that we're the world's sheriff! Unfortunately, our weak economy, the rise of formerly third-world nations, and new asymmetric weapons makes that a childish fool's game that creates ridiculous risks for the U.S. and at best will ultimately reveal us to be the obvious fools we've become.
5
Mr. Winchester expresses an incredible point of view about the motives of both the US and China that many people would quickly reject out of hand. While it may be true that, until the advent of our recent reluctant and indecisive foreign policy, the US has attempted to project its power and influence throughout the world, the US has always had very limited territorial ambitions, and its efforts have mainly been to maintain peace, support human rights, and support the establishment of rule of law democracies. That cannot be said about China.
If we adopt Mr. Winchester's docile stance, before long, China will have a level of military control over extremely important international waterways that are of vital interest to far more than just those of the US that it will not be possible to reestablish an appropriate balance of power without a military confrontation.
If we adopt Mr. Winchester's docile stance, before long, China will have a level of military control over extremely important international waterways that are of vital interest to far more than just those of the US that it will not be possible to reestablish an appropriate balance of power without a military confrontation.
8
I don't see any mention of the Philippines' appeal to the UN Law of the Seas Tribunal nor of China's refusal to accept the jurisdiction of UNCLOS when it comes to disputes over territorial sovereignty. The Chinese are a signatory to UNCLOS yet has chosen to ignore the Treaty when its own interests are contrary to the Treaty's provisions. Let's suppose, as seems plausible, that the Tribunal rules in favor of the Philippines and against China. Does Mr. Winchester believe such a ruling should be enforced even though the Chinese refuse to accept the Tribunal's jurisdiction? Since UNCLOS has no enforcement mechanism built into the Treaty, who should enforce such a decision? Surely the Security Council will not be able to do so given the Chinese veto. Nor obviously can the Philippines itself be expected to enforce its rights against its much more powerful neighbor. Who else would be capable of such enforcement other than the US Navy?
Nor does Mr. Winchester discuss the interests of the various other nations whose territorial sovereignty is being challenged by Chinese actions in the Western Pacific including Japan, Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Could it be possible that the US is acting, at least implicitly, on behalf of these other countries with vital interests in the region?
Nor does Mr. Winchester discuss the interests of the various other nations whose territorial sovereignty is being challenged by Chinese actions in the Western Pacific including Japan, Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Could it be possible that the US is acting, at least implicitly, on behalf of these other countries with vital interests in the region?
12
China is attempting adverse possession of the South China Sea, or at least of regions of it, by building artificial islands. Stopping adverse possession requires exercise of the rights it's trying sieze, otherwise it will succesully become legitimate. This why the Lassen was sent to within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese artificial island, to exercise the right of free passage through international waters, and thereby nullify the China's attempted adverse possession.
3
Other than coming to the rescue of North Korea following the threat of invasion by Gen. Douglas Macarthur (a threat that got him fired) what has modern China ever done to the United States and its allies. Recovering from decades of exploitation by the West, a brutal Japanese occupation, a Civil War and years of exclusion from the United Nations, it seems quite understandable for China to seek a role on the world stage that protects its national security.
The Spratly Islands and its reefs are in the China Sea, not the Gulf of Mexico. They are claimed by several East Asian countries. Why is it unusual or threatening that China seeks to establish a presence there? There has been no restrictions to commercial sea lanes. Military show boating by the Unites States serves no purpose, other than to raise tensions and increase military spending.
The Spratly Islands and its reefs are in the China Sea, not the Gulf of Mexico. They are claimed by several East Asian countries. Why is it unusual or threatening that China seeks to establish a presence there? There has been no restrictions to commercial sea lanes. Military show boating by the Unites States serves no purpose, other than to raise tensions and increase military spending.
6
Hmm. That explains why Europe is the model of comity among nations. They don't look at real or imagined grievances among themselves in the past to shape current foreign policies and objectives. Each country makes thoughtful and measured policies based on an accurate analysis of events and acts accordingly. Examine recent events involving Germany, Greece, Bosnia, N. Ireland, etc. for additional information....
1
China has claimed the South China Sea as its own by building artificial islands on reefs that are much closer to other nations than to China, reefs that have long been claimed by those nations. It is as though Italy had claimed the Mediterranean Sea as its own. Would France and Spain and Greece and the North African nations object? Are you kidding?
America has used its navy to project power. China will no doubt do the same. We didn't claim that we owned the Pacific Ocean out to Hawaii or maybe American Samoa. We should not only actively reject Chinese ownership of the Nine Dashes that encircle the South China Sea, we should support other nations building facilities on their claimed "islands" to ensure that Chinese claims are disputed.
America has used its navy to project power. China will no doubt do the same. We didn't claim that we owned the Pacific Ocean out to Hawaii or maybe American Samoa. We should not only actively reject Chinese ownership of the Nine Dashes that encircle the South China Sea, we should support other nations building facilities on their claimed "islands" to ensure that Chinese claims are disputed.
2
Do the Chinese try to influence what goes on in the Gulf of Mexico??? Has China invaded populated islands near them (as this country as done in the last 30 years)? Has this nation not learned from the British that you can't keep an empire that the sun never sets on?
3
The Chinese have already conquered the Lower 48 without the presence of a single warship with "freedom of innocent passage" delivering us most of our consumer goods. Why don't we double our import quota? That should quiet them down.
Shades of the Japanese occupying Pacific islands pre-WW2 under the guise of development of the coconut trade with an eye on Pearl Harbor? Or maybe the Chinese are just caught up in the new coconut panacea too. Shall we ask the MIC what they think about this unfolding of events?
Shades of the Japanese occupying Pacific islands pre-WW2 under the guise of development of the coconut trade with an eye on Pearl Harbor? Or maybe the Chinese are just caught up in the new coconut panacea too. Shall we ask the MIC what they think about this unfolding of events?
2
I get so annoyed when people blame the US for the bad behavior of other governments because we "ignored them". Whether it is the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, Russia into Crimea, Russia into Syria, China building islands, North Korea building nukes - to some people its not them its US.
Wrong! It's them.
Wrong! It's them.
3
I'm torn on this issue. While I certainly do not wish to cede control of the western Pacific, with all of its critical potential in the 21st Century, to the Chinese. On the other hand getting into a spectacularly expensive naval and air arms race with a nation three times our size in population and at least twice our size in raw industrial potential is simply not on. If one believes Ferguson is the canary in the coal mine, and I do, this nation must fully turn its attention domestically to address the long neglected critical social issues before they explode into serious and destabilizing civil unrest. An arms race may be a forgone conclusion if China is bent on empire. But crushing costs will effect us far more than China. The answer must be realistic diplomacy (that doesn't wave around "international law" as an excuse for not compromising) backed by an alliance of nations willing to share the costs and burdens if diplomacy fails.
Dear moderator. Thank you for posting my comments with alacrity. Since I take other moderators to task when they do not it would be hypocritical not to praise as well...
2
I recently heard a retired Navy captain complain that the Obama administration would "roll over" in the South China Sea in response to the new Chinese presence. Mr. Winchester suggests here that the opposite is true, that the Obama administration is being provocative. I don't think either opinion is correct. As usual, Obama falls somewhere in the middle, and no one plays the "long game" better. I think the objective is to notify the Chinese that the open seas will remain open, not to prevent the legitimate and inevitable expansion of Chinese self interest. Neither country can seriously imagine a shooting war would be anything but disastrous in its economic consequences, let alone its military costs. The great navies of the world will have to learn to share the sea and I believe, purely as a matter of self interest, they will.
1
For most of the past 2200 years China has been a world socioeconomic political educational technological scientific superpower. The real historical anomaly is the last 500 years. A century before the European Age of Imperial Colonization China gave up it's naval economic technological advantage and ceased being a an Indo- Pacific -East African naval power. See "When China Ruled The Seas" Louise Levathes . China turned inward in xenophobic rejection of European,Japanese and African barbarians.
And China was economically,politically and militarily humiliated and exploited by the British and the Japanese. Culminating in between 15-30 million dead Chinese during "The Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression" aka World War II. Only the Soviet Union suffered a comparable number of deaths. China has turned from the era of Mao Zedong into a term limited collective one party rule nation that is exploring free market capitalist reforms along with some political changes.
China has no military allies. China has no foreign bases. America has both and is boisterous and bellicose far from it's shores. As America pivots towards Asia, the memory of the era of Admiral Zheng He calls to China. As Japan becomes more xenophobic and militaristic the dragon is stirring and awakening. There is still time for peace and reason and dialogue as long as both sides know their mutual fears, hopes, values and interests.
And China was economically,politically and militarily humiliated and exploited by the British and the Japanese. Culminating in between 15-30 million dead Chinese during "The Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression" aka World War II. Only the Soviet Union suffered a comparable number of deaths. China has turned from the era of Mao Zedong into a term limited collective one party rule nation that is exploring free market capitalist reforms along with some political changes.
China has no military allies. China has no foreign bases. America has both and is boisterous and bellicose far from it's shores. As America pivots towards Asia, the memory of the era of Admiral Zheng He calls to China. As Japan becomes more xenophobic and militaristic the dragon is stirring and awakening. There is still time for peace and reason and dialogue as long as both sides know their mutual fears, hopes, values and interests.
8
You are correct - but most people in this nation know nothing about real history. You can also see that in the comments that everything this nation has done in Asia has been benevolent.
5
Admiral Harris is a distinguished officer in the United States Navy and functions within the Constitution and the Navy's command structure. His ethnicity is as irrelevant to his duties as his (in your estimation) geniality. Mr. Winchester seems to be suggesting that in addition to his proposal to physically retreat from China's "admirable cunning" we should also take care so as not to offend the Chinese by the ethnic background of our officers. The United States is not going to retreat from the Pacific in the foreseeable future and it is certainly not going to select officers for command based on any characteristics other than those necessary to a naval officer.
9
This is a familiar saga. Rampantly corrupt and totalitarian regime (the Chinese government) fails at home (the economy begins to unwind, as they always do with corrupt, totalitarian regimes), so undertakes aggressive, confrontational action internationally (creating islands/bases in international waters) to stoke domestic patriotism/fervor in order to distract from the regime's domestic failings, corruption and totalitarianism.
Not unlike Putin at present. And, also not unlike Putin, the Chinese government clearly has its own army of paid trolls at work here, glibly ignoring facts and reality.
Not unlike Putin at present. And, also not unlike Putin, the Chinese government clearly has its own army of paid trolls at work here, glibly ignoring facts and reality.
8
China has never offered any evidence that it can be trusted to do "the right thing". It's not unreasonable then to assume that China has been creating these phony islands so that it can ultimately control important sea lanes and underwater natural resources for its own advantage. It is China and not the United States, therefore, that has been taking provocative action in the South China Sea.
13
In just a few words, Mr. Winchester has ceded these islands to China and come to the conclusion that their actions are unstoppable. To what point? His reaction to this issue can't help but remind one of Germany's aggression that became WWII. Just let them have their way on a few islands and nothing more will happen. Yeah, that'll work.
11
While the US has had no qualms about claiming Islands all over the Pacific from Hawaii to Guam to American Samoa, and our Navy goes pretty well anywhere it pleases, what gives us the right to criticize the Chinese? And as one letter writer pointed out, it was American businesses that chose to move their manufacturing to China, enriching that country and its population while putting our middle class on a downward spiral. So do we pull our businesses and American expats out of China while spending more money on being "in their face?" Same with Russia. All of a sudden, after we join our space programs, we want to pick fights with Russia. What is the dollar value of American investment in Russia? What is the dollar value of American investment in China? Should we get our Astronauts off of that Russian Space ship? Lots of questions to be answered before we put on the boxing gloves.
7
Someone earlier used the word "Illegal" activity. Seriously ? As an American I wish the US to succeed. And it has, for many Decades. And now we are on the downward slope of our Empire. Unable to admit we are. I know, it would be a ridiculous thing to say, "Can't we learn from History"? But must we always follow the Knee Jerk path ?
We have always followed a "Do as I say, not as I do" program. To say someone is doing Illegal Activity (which is exactly as what we have always done) is laughable. Too bad, because the outcome won't be funny.
We have always followed a "Do as I say, not as I do" program. To say someone is doing Illegal Activity (which is exactly as what we have always done) is laughable. Too bad, because the outcome won't be funny.
3
Dear Simon Winchester, whose books I've enjoyed reading since the Year Dot - since the sun never sets on the British Empire (though it's pretty well set today), and the thrilling "Krakatoa", which could be the California West Coast eruption one of these days. Not "if", but "when"! Interesting that our brilliant and esteemed President Barack Obama has "pivoted west" in the past year. Maybe the accretion of PRC lands on small reefs in the Spratly Sea (claimed by the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan) will turn into "an epic tussle" as you aver. China needs more room for its megapopulation and new territories claimed from the reefs of the South China Sea may fill the bill. Your image of the Chinese depredations in the South China Sea as "a quilt of Chinese-claimed real estate" is nifty! It is a given, however, that passage through the South China Sea must be inviolate for all the countries surrounding this profoundly rich piece of the Pacific Ocean. China has always been able to project its influence with sages like Lao Tzu and Confucius, both active in the Sixth Century BC. Attention must be paid to China and will be paid.
3
Wow, for a(n) historian, Mr. Winchester sure is selective. The US Navy isn't doing anything "provocatively" in the South China Sea. The whole point, as Mr. Winchester fails to mention, is that the Lassen sail by was indeed a freedom of navigation exercise. Those shored-up reefs, only breaching the surface of the sea at low tide, do not merit the designation "territory" for ANY nation, thus those are fully international waters. China is a signatory to the agreement that makes this a FACT that not even China disputes.
The US is described as "needling" whilst Chinese actions are "admirable."
Sigh. Like PM Cameron and his sidekick Osborne it seems Mr. Winchester, despite the highfalutin' veneer, is just another America-hating Brit who can't wait to throw in his lot with an authoritarian regime. Beware the siren song, Mr. Winchester! Who's going to pull your bacon out of the fire next time?China?
BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed "The Map That Changed the World" and look forward to borrowing, not buying, "The Pacific."
The US is described as "needling" whilst Chinese actions are "admirable."
Sigh. Like PM Cameron and his sidekick Osborne it seems Mr. Winchester, despite the highfalutin' veneer, is just another America-hating Brit who can't wait to throw in his lot with an authoritarian regime. Beware the siren song, Mr. Winchester! Who's going to pull your bacon out of the fire next time?China?
BTW, I thoroughly enjoyed "The Map That Changed the World" and look forward to borrowing, not buying, "The Pacific."
9
Roger Lowenstein's review of Mr. Winchester's new book Pacific sums up Mr. Winchester's view of the role of the United States in the Pacific over the past century
"Virtually every American in the book is a villain."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/where-nations-collide-1446233769?alg=y
"Virtually every American in the book is a villain."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/where-nations-collide-1446233769?alg=y
8
I'm sure it will translate smoothly into Mandarin...
6
This is either a hopelessly naive or ridiculously disingenuous editorial. If China were just building naval ships that would be one issue. Arms races are nothing new. However, that is not what's happening at all. By building islands where none existed the Chinese are illegally laying claim to vast swaths of the pacific ocean with the explicit intention of denying access to them by other countries. This artificial protected zone is obviously illegal and dangerous. First, if it went uncontested the Chinese could claim all of the resources as an exclusive economic zone within 200 nautical miles of the fake islands in ever direction including lucrative fishing and oil grounds that are considered international waters or sovereign waters of other countries.
That course of action is wholly unacceptable. If maintaining freedom of navigation is also in China's interest than allowing the United States to pass within 12 nautical miles of these "fake" islands that no other country recognize as legitimate Chinese sovereign territory, than what the US is doing isn't a dangerous provocation.. it is how you guarantee freedom of movement of the seas. We should continue flying our planes overhead and sending our ships within the 12 nautical mile limit.
That course of action is wholly unacceptable. If maintaining freedom of navigation is also in China's interest than allowing the United States to pass within 12 nautical miles of these "fake" islands that no other country recognize as legitimate Chinese sovereign territory, than what the US is doing isn't a dangerous provocation.. it is how you guarantee freedom of movement of the seas. We should continue flying our planes overhead and sending our ships within the 12 nautical mile limit.
14
There is another way to react to China's increasing belligerence. That is to say "We give our business to our friends. Your actions show that you are not a friend to the US, therefore we are moving our business to those countries that are not hostile to our country." When billions of dollars of business goes away, and politburo members can no longer afford their Maserati's they will re-think their aggressive actions.
We should do this anyway, China is NOT our friend and we are paying for the expansion of their navy, which as the author points out, we could be facing in the near future. We are already being stupid in the middle east, lets not add Asia to the list.
We should do this anyway, China is NOT our friend and we are paying for the expansion of their navy, which as the author points out, we could be facing in the near future. We are already being stupid in the middle east, lets not add Asia to the list.
6
Nice comment but an apostrophe does not denote the plural. Maseratis if you please.
Nice thought, but not gonna happen is it ? ("When billions of dollars of business goes away")
Even if we could muster the Political will, do you really think a few 100 million Americans are going to give up their Cheap products & Gluttonous way of life?
Just think of how the Sweat Pants brigades would react if Wal-mart suddenly decided to Support America once again.
Never going to happen.
Even if we could muster the Political will, do you really think a few 100 million Americans are going to give up their Cheap products & Gluttonous way of life?
Just think of how the Sweat Pants brigades would react if Wal-mart suddenly decided to Support America once again.
Never going to happen.
2
You are probably right, but to quote Margaret Mead "Never doubt that a small group of dedicated people can change the world, indeed it is the only way it can happen."
2
So what are you saying Simon Winchester? You described China's long term goals in the South China sea as well as the lack of action on the part of the US when China first started their quest.
You concluded your article by saying, '...China is in the unstoppable ascendant. It is time for prudence on what could swiftly become a very non-pacific Pacific Ocean..." It seems like your only solution to the problem is for the US to refrain from intimidating China since it is in the "unstoppable ascendant."
Your comment would have more credence if China is legally right taking over the islands. They are in clear violation of international law since other nations are claiming the same properties.
Until their is a legitimate international court that rule on this dispute the US has every right to exercise their freedom of navigation in international waters. If China is not afraid of war against the US over this situation then China should asked themselves is the juice worth the squeeze financially and militarily.
At the end of the day China love money more than they love military confrontation. All hail to Wal-mart. All hail to Wal-mart.
You concluded your article by saying, '...China is in the unstoppable ascendant. It is time for prudence on what could swiftly become a very non-pacific Pacific Ocean..." It seems like your only solution to the problem is for the US to refrain from intimidating China since it is in the "unstoppable ascendant."
Your comment would have more credence if China is legally right taking over the islands. They are in clear violation of international law since other nations are claiming the same properties.
Until their is a legitimate international court that rule on this dispute the US has every right to exercise their freedom of navigation in international waters. If China is not afraid of war against the US over this situation then China should asked themselves is the juice worth the squeeze financially and militarily.
At the end of the day China love money more than they love military confrontation. All hail to Wal-mart. All hail to Wal-mart.
8
At first Mr. Winchester's Op-Ed brought to mind a word I haven't heard in a very long time - and that I thought might be overreaction. But then I saw his reference to an American Admiral as being "half-Japanese" with its insinuation that ....what? The admiral is a war monger seeking Japanese revenge for China's atrocities? The admiral's patriotism is suspect for his ancestry? What? The same word for Mr. Winchester immediately leaped to mind - quisling.
9
The opportunity cost for China to engage in any aggressive behavior in the Pacific is prohibitive.The essence of Chinese society is commerce and trade.Its three top trading partners for both exports and imports are Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. Any aggression by the Chinese in the Pacific would have a catastrophic effect on China's economy. As a newly emerging economic superpower, it is natural for the Chinese to project their naval power into the Pacific,especially when you consider that 5 trillion dollars worth of trade flows through the South China Sea each year. The paranoia about China is a seeming reversion to a Cold War mentality, which fails to consider the new imperatives for a nation whose national wealth is dependent on ocean born trade. In addition,the South China Sea is thought to have large petroleum reserves,which to a country that imports 6 million barrels of oil per day is another key reason for expanding its "Pacific Overtures".
3
Unless China joins the world and becomes a willing participant in an order which has facilitated its rise, it will forever be seen as an outsider who wants to upset the apple cart. Even Mao finally "gave up" in his attempts to "change" China, to see itself as part of the bigger world, not simply "terminally unique". China had benefited greatly from the order the U.S. imposed after WW 2. If you think things look bad now, imagine what it will be like once the U.S. dispenses with Bretton Woods and stays "home". America does not actually need the rest of the world, China does. Their way of "my way, or the highway" does not enhance peace in the Pacific. Why replace one hegemonic power with another? Do you really want to live in a China dominated world! I certainly do not...and neither does Taiwan, Southeast Asia, or the rest of the world. Power politics is a reality! Be careful of what you wish for you may get it. If something is working for all major powers, why change it? I love China. I love Chinese culture. I love the Chinese people, and their civilization. I DO NOT trust the Chinese Communist power, nor their hidden agendas, nor their elitist politics. I do not trust their attempts at social engineering and totalitarian mind. America may not be the best, but I will still choose it over China!
6
Don't see anything resembling strategy in this Op Ed - as others have noted, it amounts to suggestions the US back off for fear of precipitating a confrontation.
This also doesn't mention the issue of China's extra-legal territorial claims in the South China Sea -- they are effectively seizing and creating reefs and islands in disputed areas hundreds of miles from their shores and declaring them sovereign territory.
Anyone who is reading the news is aware of the tensions - what do you propose to do other than back away for fear of confrontation?
This also doesn't mention the issue of China's extra-legal territorial claims in the South China Sea -- they are effectively seizing and creating reefs and islands in disputed areas hundreds of miles from their shores and declaring them sovereign territory.
Anyone who is reading the news is aware of the tensions - what do you propose to do other than back away for fear of confrontation?
3
The US has been slow to react to China's strategic advance of military expansion into the Pacific. It will be too late if China completes the man-made island project. If China doesn't stop this project, only way to stop China's aggression is 'to sink the islands under the water again'.
I see a much bigger problem here.
It is very tempting to use Japan as the whipping boy for all the evil that happened in the east. Yet if Japan, with 1/10 the population of China, caused so much trouble, how much trouble could China do now that its own economy and ambitions are starting to fit in a similar sized shoe.
We have to learn that when we point our finger at someone, we should always be mindful that we may have three additional figures pointing back. What needs to be taught is how to prevent another "Japan" from happening, and take the history lesson as a hard message on how things should _not_ be done. There is nothing more insidious than that seemingly innocent goal of going out "to spread peace".
It is very tempting to use Japan as the whipping boy for all the evil that happened in the east. Yet if Japan, with 1/10 the population of China, caused so much trouble, how much trouble could China do now that its own economy and ambitions are starting to fit in a similar sized shoe.
We have to learn that when we point our finger at someone, we should always be mindful that we may have three additional figures pointing back. What needs to be taught is how to prevent another "Japan" from happening, and take the history lesson as a hard message on how things should _not_ be done. There is nothing more insidious than that seemingly innocent goal of going out "to spread peace".
And what about this is a problem for me? For us? For America? How are we affected by the Great Game of who "controls" which patch of ocean 8000 miles away? We are NOT affected, except for the "we" who are the handful of politicians and military who are so absorbed in the geopolitical game that it defines their very existence. They shrill that we must not "lose" the game. They prey on our fears that if we "let" the Chinese navy sail the seas around China (just like we do now), why before you know it they'll be taking over Seattle. So that's why we've got to keep the furnaces of war fully stoked with dollars that might otherwise be spent on building America.
1
Why would China want to shut off trade in the Pacific? The idea an absurd excuse for power politics by the US. China's economy depends on open trade lanes. As for the US protecting peace in the Pacific, as I remember a lot of bombs were launched into Vietnam from those "peace keeping" ships.
1
The US is a Naval power, the power that the US can project with it's Navy is awe inspiring, air, sea, missles and landing troops Marines with support helicopters and aircraft. As a resident of Asia for 40 years and one who has worked in China and speaks Mandarin. Dealing with the Chinese as this author believes is to stand down, a foolish academic essay when he knows little of the culture. Go down to your local Chinatown and ask the Chinese there about what they think should be done, and enjoy the food
5
You are still living in your old memory. Just because you worked in China and speak Mandarin does not make you a Chinese expert. The world is changing and the 200 year old Western imperialism is coming to an end. It is going to be an multipolar world. Russian, Muslim, Iranian and Chinese are all challenging the old Western world order and it will be lots conflicts and regional wars. As for you, Chinese civilization is not just food, it has 5000 years history in addition to its culinary art.
2
It seems that Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc., have no problem with the US conducting Freedom of Navigation cruises in these waters. The US Navy is doing EXACTLY what it was created for over two centuries ago -- keeping open sea lines of communication.
17
Oh you mean like when it went to Japan and threatened them what would happen if they didn't join in world trade? Go see how that later led to what happened in WW2.
This analysis is exactly backwards. China building these man-made islands is not asserting that the Pacific Ocean is no longer an American-dominated lake; it's asserting that it is a Chinese lake. That's because each fake island comes with a territorial limit, in China's eyes. It is not trying to behave like America has for decades, but to supplant America in the process, because the territorial waters around each island restricts the movement of any other country's forces, in addition to commerce.
The big difference, that Mr Winchester does not see, is that America dominated the Lake because it had bases provided to it by friendly countries, by agreement. When the Philippines told us to leave Subic Bay, we packed up and left. How is this equivalent?
The big difference, that Mr Winchester does not see, is that America dominated the Lake because it had bases provided to it by friendly countries, by agreement. When the Philippines told us to leave Subic Bay, we packed up and left. How is this equivalent?
97
Is Mr. Winchester's book out in CCP-approved Mandarin? That would explain a lot!
8
Yes, the U.S. complied with the Philippine Senate's rejection of the treaty which would have extended the life of the U.S. bases there. Filipinos were not all in agreement with that decision. But nonetheless, the U.S. complied and withdrew. And this, if anything, has helped to bolster Filipino public support for the U.S. and its policies in the Pacific. The countries allied with the U.S--or supportive of maintaining its influence in this part of the Pacific--include Japan, a former enemy; Vietnam, another former enemy; the Philippines, a former colony where many resented the fact that the U.S. had taken it over by force a century ago; but which remains a U.S. treaty ally.
It's a mistake to assume that the U.S. presence here is viewed in the same way as, say, in the Middle East. It is irritating when facile analysts like Mr Winchester see the South China Sea as an empty arena with just two gladiators--China and the U.S.--circling each other. It's not just about a display of warships. A Hague-based tribunal has just rejected Beijing's claim that it has territorial sovereignty over areas adjacent to the Philippines. (China boycotted the proceedings in the Hague and rejects the court's authority.) Additional hearings are being scheduled to decide the merits of the Philippines' arguments under UNCLOS, and this is being observed by neighboring countries just as closely as the maritime maneuvers of the two giants.
It's a mistake to assume that the U.S. presence here is viewed in the same way as, say, in the Middle East. It is irritating when facile analysts like Mr Winchester see the South China Sea as an empty arena with just two gladiators--China and the U.S.--circling each other. It's not just about a display of warships. A Hague-based tribunal has just rejected Beijing's claim that it has territorial sovereignty over areas adjacent to the Philippines. (China boycotted the proceedings in the Hague and rejects the court's authority.) Additional hearings are being scheduled to decide the merits of the Philippines' arguments under UNCLOS, and this is being observed by neighboring countries just as closely as the maritime maneuvers of the two giants.
3
When the USA decided to conquer the Philipines in the last years of the 19th century no one could foresee that one day Japan or China would challenge this unmistakable colonial drive. Nowadays, the world would be blessed if the USA could itself( not forced by other powers) reformat its global hegemonial strategy. And decide to stick closer to its own geographical boundaries, to stop telling the world that its hegemony serves other 'freedom of navigation' than its own. USA expansion in Eastern Europe via Nato, increasing the number of USA military bases in other parts of the world, all point to the opposite of what is needed for the very different geopolitical situation of today compared to 1900 AD.
3
The Chinese Secretary of State - or equivalent - must have ghost written this piece. Its comparison of US actions in the regions compared to China's is farcical. Don't believe it? - then just ask the surrounding countries exposed to the Chinese takeover of waters and land they once claimed.
And it's not just about "shipping." It's about Chinese nationalism and the claiming of vast natural resources as its own. That China was able to accomplish hegemony over this region is a major failure of the Obama administration. Chinese threats began during the first Obama years. There were military warnings and countries in the area were already voicing concerns. But Obama did nothing in response.
Chinese plans could have been thwarted early on had Obama taken a leadership role in securing the trans-national protection of these seas. He didn't - and now by ignorantly or deliberately permitting a power vacuum opened the opportunity for Chinese expansion. The Chinese are never going to leave; and the more destroyers Obama sends simply furthers the display of his incompetence and US impotence.
And it's not just about "shipping." It's about Chinese nationalism and the claiming of vast natural resources as its own. That China was able to accomplish hegemony over this region is a major failure of the Obama administration. Chinese threats began during the first Obama years. There were military warnings and countries in the area were already voicing concerns. But Obama did nothing in response.
Chinese plans could have been thwarted early on had Obama taken a leadership role in securing the trans-national protection of these seas. He didn't - and now by ignorantly or deliberately permitting a power vacuum opened the opportunity for Chinese expansion. The Chinese are never going to leave; and the more destroyers Obama sends simply furthers the display of his incompetence and US impotence.
14
Sounds like an argument that since we were blind to the gathering military will of the Chinese for decades and especially for the past seven years, it’s now proceeded too far to counter; and in the interests of prudence at whatever cost to freedom of the seas we must back off. Sounds like a bad argument.
Perhaps the world should consider the experience of more than eighty years of U.S. dominance of the Pacific. Have we used that dominance to take land or to compel acquiescence to our will? Does anyone in the Pacific really fear the appearance of a U.S. warship, other than pirates? Or has that dominance merely enforced the ability by everyone to trade freely – including the Chinese?
In other words, we have a track record of performance and manifestly evident intent that spans many decades. What is the CHINESE intent here? Is it to make use of the ocean by everyone safer and freer, or is it to enforce over that use a value system that closes off its markets and could be an attempt to protect them at the point of a gun? Is it to impose over a vast area a value system that controls what its people see, hear, discuss, and how they live? What track record has China of protecting freedom and stability?
Most Americans likely would welcome the emergence of a worthy partner to share the costs of walking the walls to protect humanity from its worst angels. What evidence is there that China can be that partner? Can the world really AFFORD for us merely to take China at its word?
Perhaps the world should consider the experience of more than eighty years of U.S. dominance of the Pacific. Have we used that dominance to take land or to compel acquiescence to our will? Does anyone in the Pacific really fear the appearance of a U.S. warship, other than pirates? Or has that dominance merely enforced the ability by everyone to trade freely – including the Chinese?
In other words, we have a track record of performance and manifestly evident intent that spans many decades. What is the CHINESE intent here? Is it to make use of the ocean by everyone safer and freer, or is it to enforce over that use a value system that closes off its markets and could be an attempt to protect them at the point of a gun? Is it to impose over a vast area a value system that controls what its people see, hear, discuss, and how they live? What track record has China of protecting freedom and stability?
Most Americans likely would welcome the emergence of a worthy partner to share the costs of walking the walls to protect humanity from its worst angels. What evidence is there that China can be that partner? Can the world really AFFORD for us merely to take China at its word?
104
How did the US annex Hawaii and Guam? How did the US get involved in Korean and Vietnam? Why did we invade Grenada, Panama and Iraq? How did we get involved in Korean and Vietnam war? Under the name of freedom and stability, we try to hold on the status quo of Western imperialism established in the last 200 years, and guess what, the Chinese are catching up. Let's not pretend we are morally superior than others. The world is changing, and the Western civilization is being challenged by the Muslim world as well as Chinese civilization. There is more than one game in town now and it is going to be a multipolar world and regional war galore.
2
Hello out there,
Yes I am a retired American living in Tianjin, China with my Chinese wife of 10 yrs. We have our own small school here that we teach young chikdren basic English speaking skills. I find the every day average Chinese person to be so friendly, hospitable and very willing to talk to an American. But when it comes to the Chinese govt, a communist, totally atheistic and ever more repressive govt., I believe that they are concerned with one thing, to keep their system of one party rule in place to maintain total control of their people. They don't know the truth about anything really, all forms of info is controlled by the communist party.
To answer Richard's question above, there is no evidence of any kind that China can be that true world power to help out the USA in keeping the bad wolves in the world at bay. The Chinese govt. thinks of one thing only above all else, do what they have to do in order to maintain their stranglehold on their 1.5 billion population. They put their own self interests above all else, and their own domestic track record of brutal repression and unbridled dishonesty and corruption prove they are not to be trusted when dealing with them. China has absolutely no track record of protecting freedom and stability. The communist govt hates the western ideals of freedom, openness and transparency, coupled with open discussion of even simple social problems. We can't afford to take them at their word..beware.
Yes I am a retired American living in Tianjin, China with my Chinese wife of 10 yrs. We have our own small school here that we teach young chikdren basic English speaking skills. I find the every day average Chinese person to be so friendly, hospitable and very willing to talk to an American. But when it comes to the Chinese govt, a communist, totally atheistic and ever more repressive govt., I believe that they are concerned with one thing, to keep their system of one party rule in place to maintain total control of their people. They don't know the truth about anything really, all forms of info is controlled by the communist party.
To answer Richard's question above, there is no evidence of any kind that China can be that true world power to help out the USA in keeping the bad wolves in the world at bay. The Chinese govt. thinks of one thing only above all else, do what they have to do in order to maintain their stranglehold on their 1.5 billion population. They put their own self interests above all else, and their own domestic track record of brutal repression and unbridled dishonesty and corruption prove they are not to be trusted when dealing with them. China has absolutely no track record of protecting freedom and stability. The communist govt hates the western ideals of freedom, openness and transparency, coupled with open discussion of even simple social problems. We can't afford to take them at their word..beware.
6
Gary:
I DO hope you're using an alias.
I DO hope you're using an alias.
4
These islands really ought to be made the site of an international marine biology laboratory, open to all countries, and demilitarized altogether.
5
Hundreds of millions of inhabitants of that area would like that too.
There are only a handful of people who want a fetid, stinking political and military situation ready to explode at any second.
There are only a handful of people who want a fetid, stinking political and military situation ready to explode at any second.
2
Their economy is tanking, rapid growth petering out, despots clinging to power by printing money for their cronies who smuggle it out of china and into real estate, the chinese people will revolt, sooner or later. If its later the CCP will start a war, just as Germany did when in a similar situation, to keep the folks minds off the economy. Asian dominoes will fall right down to Australia and New Zealand. The US wont be able to do diddlysquat. Cyberwar is easy. So is tradewar, they have us by the throats there. And so the only missing link for global war is the military which they are spending a fortune on.
2
This piece smacks of willful naiveté.
Simon would need to beef up considerably on the realities in the region before deigning to subject us to his simplistic and errant views.
Simon would need to beef up considerably on the realities in the region before deigning to subject us to his simplistic and errant views.
22
It seems clear that the author of this article has no clue as to the value of the Westpahian world order. China has deliberately broken the agreement. No one on this planet wants a confrontation with China or for that matter with Russia. This system has been in place and operating successfully for over 350 years. Putin and Xi Jinping are violating that order by Waring against, and threatening war against sovereign nation states. The US has spent it's capitol with hard dollars and blood to keep that order for almost 100 years. China is at fault here period.
1
Nobody out there needs to spend billions more on naval hardware- not us or the Chinese. We have way more than we need already, more than everybody else put together. And we spend way more than the Chinese, as a % of our national GDP. It is way past time to get some international agreements perfected and invest the money somewhere else- like China has been doing- in high-speed rail and other productive infrastructure. What ever happened to the U.N.? Why can't they police international resources like the shipping lanes of the world's oceans? All this junk thinking and these outlandish projections only falsely justify the injection of more costly testosterone into the military-industrial monster. But that is exactly what this is all about anyway. Keep us dancing, with our eyes closed, to the same old music.
3
"It is way past time to get some international agreements perfected." There is already an international agreement in place on this issue -- you cannot build an artificial land mass and claim a 12 mile exclusion zone around it -- simple as that. The Chinese are in violation of the agreement. Changing the agreement now would only appease China and give them carte blanche to build artificial islands throughout the region. And why can't the UN police these waters -- well for one thing, China has veto power over anything the UN does, so that issue would not even come up for a vote.
3
I imagine the Philipines is sorry they threw us out of Subic Bay.
10
I would think that the Philippine might even have some regret over independence in 1946. Being the 51st (or rather 48th) State probably would have had a significant change in quality of life for our Pilipino cousins and even a greater impact on the entire Southeast Asian sector.
6
The Author seems to neglect the mention of the fact that China is presently losing the United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea tort brought by one of another of the Authors neglected details , an injured party , the Philippine nation .
Now the indications that steer ones preliminary conclusions concerned with the groundless Chinese claims are being based , perhaps upon a vestigial organ of official Party pride , which may need to percolate for a generation to really recognize the hefty burden they have "wisely" assumed . This is a turn of events the five year plans , in what an unassuming observer might casually , or invariably , be drawn to what seems to be a fatally overlooked flaw , overweening hubris , an unusually dangerous position for a lonely unilateralist .
The events involved in taking continental shelves and two hundred mile borders of economic influence "en passant" , while escalating costs of ignoring clear and established law become both economically , and more importantly at its very best mere face saving exits from whimsical , albeit painful , claims of sovereignty , will be discovered as disposable as "indispensable" dreadnoughts were once assumed .
Now the indications that steer ones preliminary conclusions concerned with the groundless Chinese claims are being based , perhaps upon a vestigial organ of official Party pride , which may need to percolate for a generation to really recognize the hefty burden they have "wisely" assumed . This is a turn of events the five year plans , in what an unassuming observer might casually , or invariably , be drawn to what seems to be a fatally overlooked flaw , overweening hubris , an unusually dangerous position for a lonely unilateralist .
The events involved in taking continental shelves and two hundred mile borders of economic influence "en passant" , while escalating costs of ignoring clear and established law become both economically , and more importantly at its very best mere face saving exits from whimsical , albeit painful , claims of sovereignty , will be discovered as disposable as "indispensable" dreadnoughts were once assumed .
6
There are no equivalencies here. What is at threat is not the domination of the seas but the domination of the world by the cronies of the Chinese "Communist" Party. And that is terrifying totalitarianism. Nothing short of a Chinese revolution will stop them. Its not just about the sea, its about cyberwarfare and tradewar as well. Australia is a sitting duck. Buyable politicians, Chinese free trade agreement just signed by their recently deposed extreme right wing prime minister. China can, and will I believe, soon control their food supply chains and hold the country hostage to test US alliances. But the US is spread too thin. Picking and then fighting Israels wars means that we have nothing left to stop the dominoes falling throughout Asia and then Australasia. It sounds extreme, but it not to minds shut off for 50 years and fed nationalist propaganda. Read your Barbara Tuchman. Those distant mirrors. Germany 1930.
4
In these kinds of affairs saving face is crucial - and not only for people from the Far East.
China perfectly managed to do this. Their base building and increased military presence and aggression in the South Chinese Sea never got more than a few ones on page 10 of the international newspapers.
The failure is on the side of the US. Surely US intelligence must have known what happened. But for a long time they prefered to close their eyes. Only the construction of a huge runway suddenly awakened them. But then they made their next mistake: they made it a huge media circus - making it impossible for the Chinese to back down.
The correct response would have been to keep the noise level low and to limit oneself to secret diplomacy and facts on the ground. The passage of the Lassen would have been more successful if it hadn't been announced by a huge media spectacle.
The article is wrong when it claims that this is just a matter of free passage. The main direct problems are nowadays with fishing rights and fishing boats being attacked for violating "territorial waters".
Unfortunately the US is in denial. Inside the American political discourse it is assumed as a given that the US should always remain the world's top dog. Discussing of how best to accommodate other rising superpowers is taboo. Instead any threat to US hegemony is demonized.
China perfectly managed to do this. Their base building and increased military presence and aggression in the South Chinese Sea never got more than a few ones on page 10 of the international newspapers.
The failure is on the side of the US. Surely US intelligence must have known what happened. But for a long time they prefered to close their eyes. Only the construction of a huge runway suddenly awakened them. But then they made their next mistake: they made it a huge media circus - making it impossible for the Chinese to back down.
The correct response would have been to keep the noise level low and to limit oneself to secret diplomacy and facts on the ground. The passage of the Lassen would have been more successful if it hadn't been announced by a huge media spectacle.
The article is wrong when it claims that this is just a matter of free passage. The main direct problems are nowadays with fishing rights and fishing boats being attacked for violating "territorial waters".
Unfortunately the US is in denial. Inside the American political discourse it is assumed as a given that the US should always remain the world's top dog. Discussing of how best to accommodate other rising superpowers is taboo. Instead any threat to US hegemony is demonized.
1
What does Admiral Harris's Japanese-born mother, who taught him only one word of Japanese ("giri," duty), have to do with the Obama administration's policy? Oh wait, Simon Winchester is the author of "Pacific Nightmare: How Japan Starts World War III."
16
The U.S. Navy has every right to operate under international law. Sovereignty over many of these reefs or outcroppings in the South China Sea, particularly in the Spratly archipelago, are claimed by 6 countries, including China. Since they are in dispute and have no official territorial designation no country can claim a 12 mile territorial zone or a 200 mile exclusive economic zone.The Chinese are claiming a 12 mile territorial zone around their man-made islands.That is a violation of the U.N. law of the sea agreement.They are permitted a 500 meter safety zone. So when U.S.ships pass within 12 miles of these islands they are operating under international law.A few days ago Xi Jinping said he wanted these issues settled by negotiation,as does Obama.
The other U.S. China dispute involves airspace and the Exclusive Economic Zone.The Chinese claim that no U.S. military surveillance plane can operate within that EEZ. The U.S.and international law recognize only a 12 mile limit. The U.S points out that 40% of the worlds oceans are inside the 200 mile limit making the Chinese claim unworkable.
The other U.S. China dispute involves airspace and the Exclusive Economic Zone.The Chinese claim that no U.S. military surveillance plane can operate within that EEZ. The U.S.and international law recognize only a 12 mile limit. The U.S points out that 40% of the worlds oceans are inside the 200 mile limit making the Chinese claim unworkable.
17
“… dangerously risky…”? The Lassen has the right of passage without challenge according to international maritime law. The PRC's militarization of the South China Sea is unwarranted. They want control to assert total dominance of SE Asia. The are basically revanchists. “…United States runs its foreign policy on a four-year cycle….” We have elections. You have an affinity for the adroitness of a dictatorship. China’s government as currently constituted will fail long before 2049.
“The restoration of wounded pride...”? Even a cursory examination of recent naval incidents reveals a psychology of bullying, threats, and bluster to achieve goals inconsistent with international law.
“… genial (and half-Japanese) new American Pacific commander, Adm. Harry Harris….” So having a Japanese parent precludes a clinical and dispassionate analysis of events by Adm. Harris due to his genetic make-up. Cheap.
“… freedom of innocent passage….” So who designates the innocent? Will it be the power that follows international law, or the power that flouts it?
“… the fear now is that an accidental confrontation….” You are unaware of China’s exclusive responsibility for close calls, ramming (and sinking) of fishing boats, and forcing evasive action.
I have visited Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. I sought out the viewpoints of working people. The vast majority view the PRC’s behavior as a threat to peace and their national sovereignty.
“The restoration of wounded pride...”? Even a cursory examination of recent naval incidents reveals a psychology of bullying, threats, and bluster to achieve goals inconsistent with international law.
“… genial (and half-Japanese) new American Pacific commander, Adm. Harry Harris….” So having a Japanese parent precludes a clinical and dispassionate analysis of events by Adm. Harris due to his genetic make-up. Cheap.
“… freedom of innocent passage….” So who designates the innocent? Will it be the power that follows international law, or the power that flouts it?
“… the fear now is that an accidental confrontation….” You are unaware of China’s exclusive responsibility for close calls, ramming (and sinking) of fishing boats, and forcing evasive action.
I have visited Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. I sought out the viewpoints of working people. The vast majority view the PRC’s behavior as a threat to peace and their national sovereignty.
18
What we seem to forget is that unipolar global hegemony over the world's oceans is the actual anomaly here. From the time of the Greeks, some balance of power has prevailed over the majority of the seven seas. Even Nelson had to contend with substantial Spanish, French, Dutch and even Swedish rivals.
We also seem to forget that it is us who keep hectoring China to start assuming the responsibilities of a world power. Given this context, one of these must surely be guaranteeing the security of some of the world's oceans. How do great powers do such things? If they are to follow our example, they would practice what we colloquially refered to as imperialism. This means they kick open the door of some strategically situated little statelet and militarize it. As an example, refer to a little atoll in the middle of the Indian Ocean named Diego Garcia. In the early 1960s, all the natives suddenly left, lots of uniformed Americans moved in, and military harbors and airstrips appeared. Probably just a coincidence. But we Americans are still there.
China is now the #2 power in the world, on its way to #1. By our own advice, they should start protecting half the world's seas, which would presumably mean the majority of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The problem is, the old powers still control all of the bases from which such duties could be performed. And since there are no more Diego Garcias to be stolen, the Chinese are doing what they do best: building from scratch.
We also seem to forget that it is us who keep hectoring China to start assuming the responsibilities of a world power. Given this context, one of these must surely be guaranteeing the security of some of the world's oceans. How do great powers do such things? If they are to follow our example, they would practice what we colloquially refered to as imperialism. This means they kick open the door of some strategically situated little statelet and militarize it. As an example, refer to a little atoll in the middle of the Indian Ocean named Diego Garcia. In the early 1960s, all the natives suddenly left, lots of uniformed Americans moved in, and military harbors and airstrips appeared. Probably just a coincidence. But we Americans are still there.
China is now the #2 power in the world, on its way to #1. By our own advice, they should start protecting half the world's seas, which would presumably mean the majority of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The problem is, the old powers still control all of the bases from which such duties could be performed. And since there are no more Diego Garcias to be stolen, the Chinese are doing what they do best: building from scratch.
32
I don't recall or see a whole lotta hectoring. Who is hectoring China to ensure passage in the world's seas? It must be a short list of client states...
3
Chinese have been around from 500 years before Christ. They think of themselves as a civilization. The United States has been around for only 240 years. The citizens of both countries are proud of their heritage.
For thousands of years China called themselves the “Middle Kingdom”, meaning they were the center of civilization and all other countries and cultures were inferior to theirs. For much of China’s history they did not pay close attention to the rest of the world. They believed that non-Chinese were barbarians and they had nothing to learn from them.
Up until the mid 18th century China had no interest in conquering other lands. When they visited other parts of the world China was not out to conquer. They accepted gifts from the barbarians and had no interest in ruling them. Often they would invite the barbarians to visit China and provide gifts, called tribute, to the Emperor of China. The Chinese explorers would leave in peace believing they had nothing to learn from others. This attitude was costly for China. http://lstrn.us/1HpPRPl
For thousands of years China called themselves the “Middle Kingdom”, meaning they were the center of civilization and all other countries and cultures were inferior to theirs. For much of China’s history they did not pay close attention to the rest of the world. They believed that non-Chinese were barbarians and they had nothing to learn from them.
Up until the mid 18th century China had no interest in conquering other lands. When they visited other parts of the world China was not out to conquer. They accepted gifts from the barbarians and had no interest in ruling them. Often they would invite the barbarians to visit China and provide gifts, called tribute, to the Emperor of China. The Chinese explorers would leave in peace believing they had nothing to learn from others. This attitude was costly for China. http://lstrn.us/1HpPRPl
About 14 million barrels of oil per day pass thru South China sea (almost all from Middle East), out of these imports more than 7 millions are destined for the ascending China alone. That explain why China is betting all it has, including going to war, to secure the energy supply.
For decades American Navy dominate all the global strategic waterways similar to the Royal Navy in her heyday. With the growing energy-demanding manufacturer industries, China become ever more insecure about its global trade dependent economy.
For U.S., this is a win-win opportunity to up the ante with China. Because China has no friendly neighbors among its border. And not a single drop of U.S. oil import come from the South China sea. For a starter our ally Japan, with her rearmed blue water navy, will be glad to step into South China sea to contain China and check its expansion into the Pacific.
U.S. can play a big brother role but let China's neighboring powers fight their own war to check China.
For decades American Navy dominate all the global strategic waterways similar to the Royal Navy in her heyday. With the growing energy-demanding manufacturer industries, China become ever more insecure about its global trade dependent economy.
For U.S., this is a win-win opportunity to up the ante with China. Because China has no friendly neighbors among its border. And not a single drop of U.S. oil import come from the South China sea. For a starter our ally Japan, with her rearmed blue water navy, will be glad to step into South China sea to contain China and check its expansion into the Pacific.
U.S. can play a big brother role but let China's neighboring powers fight their own war to check China.
22
A confrontation between China and Japan is a very risky proposition for both countries. Japan will defend itself but only the US Navy can be a stabilizing counter balance to a growing Chinese naval presence, and I find it hard to imagine either has any interest in a hostile confrontation. In fact, it would be brilliant for the US to invite a Chinese navy ship to visit San Francisco Bay and New York harbor as a good will gesture. The Chinese would be delighted.
13
Would the Chinese then allow US Navy ships visit Shanghai and Tianjin?
3
The writer misses the important point that China has not just claimed the islands, it has claimed the surrounding oceans. So implicitly it doesn't want any non-Chinese ships sailing near its new islands.
34
Winchester writes as if the only nations involved in this dispute were China and the U.S. In fact, however, the other countries of SE Asia have not tried to conceal their alarm over Beijing's gambit. The attempt to expand China's national waters through the appropriation of these little islets hardly sounds like a policy whose only purpose is to defend Beijing's right to sail throughout the south Pacific. Power rather than freedom of movement appears to be the real goal.
That said, the last thing the U.S. needs now is another military confrontation. Diplomatic contacts designed to enable the U.S., China and the other countries of the region to explain clearly their goals and concerns would seem to be an obvious first step. China is now a great Power, one with whom the U.S. will probably at best achieve an uneasy partnership. But a ham-handed American policy of saber rattling has little chance of promoting that objective.
Still, there are no easy answers as to what the best policy would be. Much depends on what Beijing's real intentions are. Here's hoping the next president will approach China with the same iron fist in a velvet glove that Obama has extended to Iran.
That said, the last thing the U.S. needs now is another military confrontation. Diplomatic contacts designed to enable the U.S., China and the other countries of the region to explain clearly their goals and concerns would seem to be an obvious first step. China is now a great Power, one with whom the U.S. will probably at best achieve an uneasy partnership. But a ham-handed American policy of saber rattling has little chance of promoting that objective.
Still, there are no easy answers as to what the best policy would be. Much depends on what Beijing's real intentions are. Here's hoping the next president will approach China with the same iron fist in a velvet glove that Obama has extended to Iran.
1
"China is in the unstoppable ascendant." Sure, so was Japan in the 1930s.
The United States has the right to sail in the South China Sea, and we should. We should take an assertive posture now, and not wait for China to think that it also owns the Hawaiian islands and Alaska.
The United States has the right to sail in the South China Sea, and we should. We should take an assertive posture now, and not wait for China to think that it also owns the Hawaiian islands and Alaska.
14
When I learned that China had decided in the 1950s that Tibet belonged to them and seized it and no one in the rest of the world seemed to notice or care, I wondered what the rest of the world would say or do when they decided that India belonged to them as well. I was looking in the wrong direction. It's happening in the Pacific instead and it is a very frightening situation.
3
Given that much of the "innocent" shipping in the region is container ships hauling massive amounts of Chinese manufactured goods to North America and Europe, why would China do anything to threaten it?
5
Mr. Winchester seems to regard China illegally declaring international waters territorial a fait accompli and the world must acquiesce.
Also that China, since it hasn’t so stated, has no intention of eventually regulating commercial vessel traffic in the South China Sea. Is Mr. Winchester suggesting that China is OK with commercial vessels sailing unfettered through waters it arbitrarily declares territorial, or only US naval vessels? And glaringly absent is any mention that China may also be taking this steps to secure monopoly control over the natural resources beneath the South China Sea.
Also curious is Mr. Winchester’s declaration that China will react by sending naval vessels into international waters surrounding Midway, Hawaii, Australia, etc. They’re already free to do this without restriction and will only put themselves at risk if they attempt to sail into internationally recognized territorial waters.
Meanwhile the US and the countries bordering the South China Sea want to negotiate a settlement of these issues with China but China refuses, demanding instead to negotiate with each country separately, exclusive of US involvement. But I doubt they will achieve this objective either.
As for Beijing’s “startling pronouncement that China does not fear a shooting war over the issue” let us indeed hope, for China’s sake, it is only more of the usual “diplomatic bombast” for which the Chinese government is so famous.
Also that China, since it hasn’t so stated, has no intention of eventually regulating commercial vessel traffic in the South China Sea. Is Mr. Winchester suggesting that China is OK with commercial vessels sailing unfettered through waters it arbitrarily declares territorial, or only US naval vessels? And glaringly absent is any mention that China may also be taking this steps to secure monopoly control over the natural resources beneath the South China Sea.
Also curious is Mr. Winchester’s declaration that China will react by sending naval vessels into international waters surrounding Midway, Hawaii, Australia, etc. They’re already free to do this without restriction and will only put themselves at risk if they attempt to sail into internationally recognized territorial waters.
Meanwhile the US and the countries bordering the South China Sea want to negotiate a settlement of these issues with China but China refuses, demanding instead to negotiate with each country separately, exclusive of US involvement. But I doubt they will achieve this objective either.
As for Beijing’s “startling pronouncement that China does not fear a shooting war over the issue” let us indeed hope, for China’s sake, it is only more of the usual “diplomatic bombast” for which the Chinese government is so famous.
35
Good comments.
One comment: China's announcement that they don't fear a shooting war is entirely expected.
One comment: China's announcement that they don't fear a shooting war is entirely expected.
3
China should be the one to worry about a shooting war. China's military can proudly point to an unbroken string of brilliant victories against its own, unarmed populace and against the passive monks of the country of Tibet. That trend may well reverse itself when they finally face an armed opponent wielding modern weapons.
4
The Pacific Ocean is a pretty big pond to be calling an American lake. The US has no ships based in the huge Pacific Ocean south of Hawaii, which is located far north of the Equator that divides the Pacific Ocean in half north and south. West of Hawaii there are about a dozen US Navy ships based in Japan and three submarines and a tender based at Guam. Guam is 1600 miles away from the South China Sea and so is Japan. The Japanese Navy alone outnumbers the US Navy by a factor of 10 to one in East Asia, so does Republic of China's. Russia has a formidable submarine force based in Vladivostok that outnumbers the US at Guam 7 to 1. The US granted the Philippines its independence in 1946 and in 1991 closed an left its last military bases there. In 1999, the US turned over control of the Panama Canal to the country of Panama. The canal has recently been widened so that even more iron ore can be carried through it from Brazil to China. The most aggressive action the US has taken in the Pacific in decades is recently establishing a no fishing zone in seldom traveled area of the Pacific where hardly anyone goes to fish.
11
China is the country that's to blame for rattling sabers and stirring up trouble in East Asia. What could be more belligerent than building islands in territory belonging to a weak country like the Philippines and chasing Filipino fishermen off their traditional fishing grounds. China is just trying to steal oil and gas instead of paying for it like a good neighbor. Perhaps Mr. Winchester is too blinded by the fees he is receiving from the China Speakers Bureau to admit that.
1
Keep the peace. Make it a "win win" for all sides, so that there is more advantage for both sides in peace then in dominance. We live in a smaller world about to get smaller. I read that Jeremy Rifkin's "Third Industrial Revolution" policies has just been embraced by the Chinese. These concepts, already embraced in the EU, with more democracy than we have here in the U.S., means more lateral power for world citizens, with smaller connecting networks of energy, communication and transportation, culminating in access for billions in the world. The old world of top down dominance could be crumbling. A new world of interconnectedness, sharing and empathy could set the world for a golden age. Hope so. I just hope it is not another ploy for the old story of centralized control.
3
Impossible to distinguish Winchester's prescription for dealing with the Chinese on the South China Sea issue from overt appeasement. And when has appeasement ever succeeded with a police-state dictatorship? Most who have observed the actions of this Chinese government have noticed that the more one concedes to them the more they demand . . . the psychology of the school-yard bully. Yes, harsh bellicosity on the part of the United States is uncalled for but so is passive acquiescence to Chinese assertions of ownership of the South China Sea. What is called for is a determined and steady balance. Let's hope the will of the American government is not collapsing in the wake of a rising and brutish China.
15
Having worked in China, I can tell you that the entire premise of this article is wrong. Winchester's premise rests on the tired, worn cliche about the Chinese as the victim. Nobody owes China anything, especially the South China sea.
15
>
If the U.S. and China go to war over this, what are all the Walmart shoppers going to do?
If the U.S. and China go to war over this, what are all the Walmart shoppers going to do?
11
Good point, but the real danger is that greedy US corporations have outsourced so much of US industry to China, including steel making, that we would probably lose.
5
...and what are all of the Chinese factory workers going to do?
3
More importantly, what will all of the unemployed Chinese do? Think of 1939 Japan.
1
“An event of great agony is bearable only in the belief that it will bring about a better world. When it does not, as in the aftermath of another vast calamity in 1914-18, disillusion is deep and moves on to self-doubt and self-disgust.”
― Barbara W. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century
― Barbara W. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century
1
And how would the US react to a few Chinese warships in the Caribbean?
1
Umm...I think as long as they observed the codified and generally accepted standards for behavior and freedom of navigation in the international law of the sea (which is what the USS LASSEN did in its transit...), we'd monitor their movements closely and wish them a nice day....kind of like our reaction when a group of PRC military vessels recently transited close to the Alaska coast...
2
China is the Frankenstein US industry created and now we must decide whether we can live with it.
9
M I Estner:
I thnk you mean China is the Frankenstein Walmart Created.
I thnk you mean China is the Frankenstein Walmart Created.
1
No, I think he got it right.
1
As someone who remembers WWII I feel nervous at the similarities to a certain other "ascendant" Asian nation's progressive encroachments leading to the proximity of Hawaii.
3
The USS Lassen passed through that chain precisely because there is free navigation of the seas. If the Chinese have a legitimate claim to the islands, uncontested to the world, then it would be "needling the Chinese." But they don't and China being bellicose about it only threatens to drive those around it to the US for protection.
China fears being contained; ironically stretching out to build a few airstrips on pieces of sand hundreds of miles away from its coast line to the fury of all its neighbors may well result in that.
China fears being contained; ironically stretching out to build a few airstrips on pieces of sand hundreds of miles away from its coast line to the fury of all its neighbors may well result in that.
7
As an expat living in Hong Kong for four years, one of the things I've learned is that the PRC propaganda machine is far more effective than people realize, and the US is its favorite scapegoat. This piece is further evidence of that. People seem to assume that the US is acting in its own selfish interests, while at the same time ignoring the blatant violations of international law committed by the Chinese.
13
I'd be more on board with it if Mr. Winchester, a historian I greatly respect, had not couched things in such yellow peril terms. About the time we hit the plan being "hatched", I knew where he was going.
Western analysts seem to have only two perspectives when it views closed regimes like China or Russia: contemptuous underestimation or viewing them as monolithic machines.
I think we have evidence the truth is somewhere in between. Looking back at Cold War conflicts like the Korean War, Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., we can see that often the other side were as much improvising as we were, and their leaders were as often driven by their own biases and neurosis as ours.
Conflict over resource-rich sea zones is definitely a likely possibility. And aggressive provocation may be foolish. But making clear boundaries and intentions can also serve to prevent conflict. If the Soviet Union had not misread American reluctance to arm and equip South Korean military prior to 1950, they might not have given their blessing (and weapons, and advisers) to Kim Il Sung to cross the 38th parallel. Sometimes, it is just about making it clear where everyone stands.
I think we have evidence the truth is somewhere in between. Looking back at Cold War conflicts like the Korean War, Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., we can see that often the other side were as much improvising as we were, and their leaders were as often driven by their own biases and neurosis as ours.
Conflict over resource-rich sea zones is definitely a likely possibility. And aggressive provocation may be foolish. But making clear boundaries and intentions can also serve to prevent conflict. If the Soviet Union had not misread American reluctance to arm and equip South Korean military prior to 1950, they might not have given their blessing (and weapons, and advisers) to Kim Il Sung to cross the 38th parallel. Sometimes, it is just about making it clear where everyone stands.
46
Missing from this essay is the point that many of the islands and etc. are claimed by other countries with which we have alliances. Chinese claims are not necessarily in accord with international law, as described in numerous articles in this paper.
7
Has the author of this article been living under a rock? The fact that China claims almost 80% of the South China Sea based on the laughable nine-dash map drawn up in the 1940s, seizure of islands and inlets, and building artificial islands claiming 12 nm of territorial sea in violation of international laws belies the author's assertion that China's aim is to make the Pacific Ocean "an ocean belongs to the world, with no navy or nation wielding a monopoly of power across its water." China's actions and behaviors raise legitimate and justifiable questions regarding its intentions in the South China Sea.
The author also conveniently fails to mention China's insistence that International Court has no jurisdiction over the territorial dispute. This omission, despite the fact that the Court has ruled recently that it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute, raises the question whether the author is a paid agent of the Chinese government. This is a fair question since the author goes on to brazenly state that for China "the restoration of wounded pride is more important to Beijing than any seizure of territory." Well, tell that to the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei.
The author also conveniently fails to mention China's insistence that International Court has no jurisdiction over the territorial dispute. This omission, despite the fact that the Court has ruled recently that it has jurisdiction to hear the dispute, raises the question whether the author is a paid agent of the Chinese government. This is a fair question since the author goes on to brazenly state that for China "the restoration of wounded pride is more important to Beijing than any seizure of territory." Well, tell that to the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei.
34
I believe the old maxim "give an inch, take a mile" applies here. China's claims are egreious and illegal and, if not countered somewhere, sometime, they will become a new standard of international behaviour that invites strife and possibly war.
If this whole issues were merely about mineral rights, something could be worked out since there are already entities in place for undersea exploration and eassying, however China's leadership does not want to share and seeks to take everything they can grab, with no oversight in regards to their eventual impact upon the environment as well. Considering their current environmental problems with pollution, I don't believe this issue bodes well for the undersea environment, anywhere in the Pacific.
If this whole issues were merely about mineral rights, something could be worked out since there are already entities in place for undersea exploration and eassying, however China's leadership does not want to share and seeks to take everything they can grab, with no oversight in regards to their eventual impact upon the environment as well. Considering their current environmental problems with pollution, I don't believe this issue bodes well for the undersea environment, anywhere in the Pacific.
79
Get over it, we lost any respect from the Chinese
However it is nice we had a state dinner for them after they hacked our systems, ...
However it is nice we had a state dinner for them after they hacked our systems, ...
Do you really think we don't hack theirs?
1
Do we steal trade secrets from China? Do we commit corporate espionage against china? China has been stealing our intellectual property for decades, so yeah we hack them too. However I suspect it is find out what they are up to not steal back our own ideas. There is no comparison, at all.
What a superb example of talking out of both sides of the same mouth.
If all agree to free navigation, there is no conflict. At all.
China won't mind the cruise bys. And if China wants uts grand fleet off Hawaii in international waters, who cares?
Yet Winchester's real message is, cower lest the commies hiding behind Chinese nationalism get upset. Though the guys are clever: they planned all this decades before the US helped China become a booming market economy. Yeah yeah, sure.
The rest is propaganda. Why I haven't a clue.
If all agree to free navigation, there is no conflict. At all.
China won't mind the cruise bys. And if China wants uts grand fleet off Hawaii in international waters, who cares?
Yet Winchester's real message is, cower lest the commies hiding behind Chinese nationalism get upset. Though the guys are clever: they planned all this decades before the US helped China become a booming market economy. Yeah yeah, sure.
The rest is propaganda. Why I haven't a clue.
53
I agree. The Chinese have definitely 'suggested otherwise.'
Better make the lines and rights clear now, before the problem grows further.
Better make the lines and rights clear now, before the problem grows further.
3
A navy will help China dominate the Western Pacific. I doubt it's a good tool of world domination. Air and space power is going to be what counts over the long term.
1
Agree. Every Tom, Dick and Harry talks about hoe clever the Chinese are and how dumb the US is. This about a nation that went through the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in the last 60 years. Of course 60 years is nothing to these Long Game playing Chinese, right. Chairman Mao was undoubtedly preoccupied with the planning the Chinese Navy taking over the world by 2049 while orchestrating the two great calamities.
3
Lassen's trip passing within 12 nautical miles around the fake Chinese islands which are constructed on top of submerged reef, though a little late, is exactly what the US needs to do to ensure the freedom of navigation through the South China Sea. Unchallenged, China will certainly claim these as its sovereign territories with its 12 mile territorial water and 200 miles of economic zone because these are their "historical" territories. Once China have more of these fake islands, the whole South China Sea will become a choke point of 50% of the commerce of the world that pass through it every single day. It is unthinkable that the US, and other countries in the region, will be subjected to China's control in these seas. Just throwing words at the Chinese won't stop their ambition to dominate the Western Pacific and the passage to the Indian Ocean and the Gulf areas in the Middle East.
64
Yeah, but the argument could be made it's needlessly provocative between two nuclear powers.
The author expresses great admiration for how the Chinese have used gun boat diplomacy to bully the other claimants, who he doesn't mention, by the way. Not challenging China's absurd claims now will only lead to more forceful Chinese behavior in the SCS and elsewhere. Ridiculous and naive advice.
80
And if China drove one of its cruisers close to one of the bases the Philippines or other nations are setting up on the reefs they've jumped on, you'd say it was needlessly provocative.
China seems to be attempting to win the international equivalent of Trampers' Rights--secure it or lose it. But, are they merely trying to exert their rights of passage? I believe not.
When you look at the various island (dare I say islandette) groups, they have two things in common: nearby natural resources, such as potential oil reserves; and key locations on major shipping lanes. to include the Straight of Malacca. If China were to attempt to control that passageway--between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, with bases eventually on nearby land bodies, it would basically control the seas--at least in the Asia-Pacific.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
When you look at the various island (dare I say islandette) groups, they have two things in common: nearby natural resources, such as potential oil reserves; and key locations on major shipping lanes. to include the Straight of Malacca. If China were to attempt to control that passageway--between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, with bases eventually on nearby land bodies, it would basically control the seas--at least in the Asia-Pacific.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
27
Most of the oil and gas found in South China Sea (80 percent, if I remember correctly) falls within uncontested territorial waters—not within the nine-dash line claimed by China.
1
If by building these new islands the Chinese wish to exert their naval prowess, the next step leaves small doubt as to the reasons why.