So the Chinese are building up weapons to strike Manila — enjoy your new “best friend” President Duterte! Don’t say we didn’t warn you....
28
People should pull out a map and look up the locations of Guantanamo Bay and Puerto Rico. The United States has an extensive history of extending it's military strength beyond what any other country would consider its territorial limit. China is just doing the same - it's their turf, plain and simple.
What surprises me is that the people who seem to want to stand up to China in the middle of the South China Sea are Trump supporters... More deluded than their leader, they don't see that Trump has no interest at all in anything to do with China except as the butt of his economic hate sessions.
China is now just waiting on Trump to create some kind of international crisis which will weaken the United States for decades - a nuclear war with Iran is my bet - and then China will take back Taiwan. The surest way to deal with a bully is to confront him and China knows Trump won't do a thing that might create a problem from which he can't turn a profit.
Once China has Taiwan, the whole argument about territorial claims to the South China Sea alters dramatically. Once they have Taiwan then they can claim the only legitimate reason to enter the South China Sea is to dock in China, so once you enter that area, you are subject to their control.
Americans who support Trump clearly don't have a viable working understanding of the real world. They don't understand the implications of what Trump is doing. He is a dangerous idiot and he doesn't care what happens after he's gone. Do you?
44
“China now controls the South China Sea” - well, it literally includes the nations name in it, would you expect the area not to be held by them?
16
Well , the USA still has the Israel Lobby to keep the annual US taxpayer give away of $3-4 billion/yr flowing (now totalling $133 billion) so I guess the most important things are being taken care of.
19
For the past 18th and 19th centuries , china was humiliated and occupied by 8 Western power. In WW2, China was invaded by Imperial Japan inflicted with Nanjing Massacre with over 300,000.00 casualties in 6 weeks in November 1937 and over 20 millions casualties at the end of the war. The peace treaty was signed by China, US and Japan on US navy warship carrier in 1945. Until recently, Japan is still denied the incident of Nanjing Massacre and in the process of changing its constitution from a Pacify country to raise arm in building up its own military. This is I believe with the blessing of US so as in a way to contain the so call rise of China.
China has not forgotten the recent history. With the return of Hong Kong l997, Macau 1999 from Britain and Portugal respectively, China continues to shore up the defense in South China Sea.
29
Tolerating bullies has a long term cost.
The sooner the reefs return underwater, the better.
15
Maybe it is only me, but somehow, I think sending more spy planes to the South China Sea might be what China wanted. You know that China is building a modern military, they need some playmates to play war games. Who is the best playmate in a war game? The Americans. Send more planes and press China to speed up modern military build-up.
13
U.S. commitment to the TPP would be at least a step in the right direction towards halting China's advance in the SCS.
21
China helps develop countries; we make them failed states.
19
China imports almost half of their daily oil requirements. This appears to be an old fashioned land grab driven by a desire to make sure China gets its share of any future oil production from the South China Sea. Just because the NYT frowns on hydrocarbon use in general doesn’t doesn’t mean it should ignore the realities of world demand for it.
9
For a country with some 800 military bases on foreign soil, including on the doorsteps of Russia and China, ships patrolling all the world's oceans, and a planned "space force" to control all the earth from space, consternation over China's ambitions in the South CHINA sea is ludicrous. How would we feel about having Chinese men of war patrolling the North Atlantic?
43
Can any readers comment, when were the so called boundaries drawn up, China seems to claim as their domain. Sounds to me much like Putin telling W, the Ukraine belongs to Russia, end of sentence. Remember Lady Thatcher remind the world the Falkland Islands belong to the Brits.
10
@Dan Green A lot of it stems from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in demarcating boundary zones. I think early Chinese claims date back to the Ming Dynasty when it was a seafaring power.
I think China under Trump wants the South China Sea to be what The United States under Roosevelt wanted the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico to be; in that, artificial islands to project power seem similar to what a Panama Canal would be.
9
Gee, you think maybe Trump shoulda stayed with TPP, and avoided screaming incoherently at NATO while telling Korea and Japan that they were on their own?
43
If China, and Russia, and their allies, (several Middle Eastern states, including Iran), and if Pakistan aligned itself with one or the other, and this formidable alliance decided it was time to take on the wishy-washy west, methinks we would be in deep deep trouble.
While we currently have close to 1,400 forward based worldwide, and numerous drone bases, the newest in Niger, all are known and targeted, and if some group decides a surprise attack is in order, our well-known hubris is the first thing that will do us harm.
We are facing a rapidly changing climate, one which is causing historic migration and refugee problems, and like it or not, most of us alive now will see water and food wars ripping society apart.
China with its billion plus population is well aware of the value of natural resources, and believe me, they are planning accordingly.
And here in the oh so dumbed-down fascist controlled States of America, we the people are in thrall, fixated on the reality-tv like existence our Masters feed us, willfully and wittingly blind.
32
US doesnt even have a coastline in the region and has no business being there.
13
We as a nation won't get over these affronts and slights until we elect more sensible people mto office and my sense is the more sensible will not be drawn from the ranks of those who have the inclination to beat their chests.
Elect women in November.
5
Have we lost our spine?
There is zero evidence to suggest China has combat experience, or can administer a war of aggression. Else, Vietnam and other neighbors would be flying a Chinese flag.
We (USN, USAF) should have stopped the development of the reefs into full fledged deathstars that they currently are. If we have not, we should blockade them now, and occupy them. Because it is not peace, brotherhood, and harmony China seeks; it is domination based on an impenetrable cultural hubris and very itchy fingers because of massive stockpiles of US greenback.
A very public punch in the nose is what China is asking for, and we should indeed oblige. Flying close by, and getting tossed out, does not appropriate for a super-power democracy. It signals weakness and cowardice.
Let's take them islands up. I am aware of at least one guy in power who would unhesitatingly convert all that real estate into a tourist, gambling, casino empire.
Godspeed.
12
Ho, hum. The usual: blaming Obama for having a shred of realism about the rise of China. As the Admiral is quoted in the article, this is--and has been for some time--unstoppable. The Chinese are back, having "gone away" by "falling asleep" from about 1800 to 1950. Then it took them another generation to sort things out internally (1950-1980). Obama realized that this change could only be managed, not stopped. Napoleon summed it up a long time ago: "China is sleeping. When she awakens, the world will tremble." Get used to it--unless, of course, you think a war with a nuclear armed power is a good idea...
19
Obama bashing - clearly it's alive and well.
George W. Bush jumped into regime change in the Middle East with both feet, leaving Obama with the US in a military and foreign policy quagmire there, and it is Obama's fault that the US didn't do what? - blockade China so it wouldn't build facilities on the islands in the South China Sea?
Based on the comments on this board, either it's okay for China to claim international waters and air space as its own, or it's Obama's fault that China claims international waters and air space as its own.
Both points of view are wrong.
The seeds of China's imperialist motives and strategies were sewn before Obama took office, and US policies ignoring, even enabling, China's growing international influence were already in place; China's growing ambitions to be the next world power apparent.
The right's response seems to be to veer back and forth between isolationism and warmongering, all while characterizing Obama as weak because he generally avoided these foolish passive/aggressive extremes.
Wrong again.
One day, regrettably, military confrontation with China may be necessary. That depends on just how far China is willing to push its claims to international waters and air space.
If it is necesary, the US had better have freed itself from neoconism and "America alone." And that means dumping Trump as well as rejecting the failed economic and foreign policies of the establishment Republicans.
30
Seems to me the word "China" sea says it all. Its in their region of interest and the USA is many many miles away. Sure you can argue about why we need to be there but it really is not our neighborhood. Suppose China was trying to patrol and making a military presence in the Panama Canal, or the Hawaiian islands?How would we respond? Key protection for us is to remain a valuable economic partner with China. No way will they shoot their customers.
14
President Obama considered US - Pacific contracts (TPP for example) one of his priorities, intended to manage China's expansion in the area.
Republicans blocked him, and then Trump, only understanding that anything prefaced with an 'O' had to go - withdrew and did the Chinese a big favor.
34
Under the Monroe Doctrine, the US has controlled the Carribean and Latin America, extending thousands of miles south of mainland US. We have kept European powers out, frequently overthrowing duly elected governments. Most importantly we have access to raw materials and a large and growing market.
China has always had a sphere of influence in the South CHINA sea. Americans need to understand that post WW II hegemony can not be the norm, and that historically great empires like China, Russia and Persia (Iran) can not be contained by US military force.
Also on a historical note, numerous references are always made of China "rising". The proper term should be "reclamation" For the last 1,000 years, China has been the largest economy for about 600 years (England for about 150 years, US for 150 years and India for about 100 years). During the Century of Humiliation, China had to cede large territories, buy opium and lose much of its sovereignty. It is a historical mistake for westerners to assume that China can be kept down.
37
Did the Great Negotiator assume that sinking China's economy would yield a docile contrite nation of Billions? Did he think that China's long view to the economic control of their hegemony is only valid in "The Apprentice" ecosystem?
China will use all their means of influence to win the war, not trifle with the battle Trump can only narrowly perceive. That will include face saving moves in other "real" spheres like the military, global rare earth metals, trade conduits, energy and ultimately, ROW trade relationships and China to China commerce. Long after America is crying in their beer about iPhone prices and the costs of everything, China will have moved on.
13
I was reading this today- "Fingers Point to China After Break-Ins Target New Zealand Professor" and not not much surprised. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/world/asia/new-zealand-break-ins-acad...
But I was really surprised to see so many Chinese TV channels in each and every hotel in all the cities Germany that I traveled few months ago. The Russian Government controlled (and closely linked to its intelligence agencies), TV channel, RT, was also present in every hotel. It seems to be a recent development as none was there when I last visited there about a decade ago.
It also seems that Western democracies are not taking Chinese and Russian threat seriously and think that USA will save them as and when needed basis while they will keep in getting the benefit of cheap Chinese/Russian money. Such European countries need to take more responsibility in maintaining global peace, oppose autocratic regimes as we see in China and Russia, and most importantly, taking charge of its own security.
If China and Russia can do such things in these western countries, I can only imagine what they are doing in so many developing countries in Asia and Africa, that include India as well. Many of these countries are known to have so many political parties and activists who openly sympathize and promote these Chinese/Russian political ideologies.
11
This is simply another manifestation of the eternal "Great Game" played by world powers for centuries. The fact is that the United States was never going to maintain world-wide hegemony forever. Historically the United States occupied a period in history that presented a power vacuum following WWII. After spending the former Soviet Union into oblivion we proceeded, with a great deal of hubris, to engage in nation building without regard to historical precedents or familiarity with the culture of the countries we attempted to "build". We see the result. It seems to have escaped our notice that we have spent ourselves into fiscal "oblivion" as well. China, through its ownership of U.S. debt...$1.18 trillion (19% of treasury bills, notes and bonds held by foreign countries) to be precise, is increasingly capable of dictating terms to the U.S....regardless of who the president is. Consequently. China sees herself as a rising Great Power in all that that implies. Is it any wonder that she should flex her muscles in the military sphere as well? Have we forgotten how the West mistreated China for decades during the 19th and early 20th centuries? China has not forgotten.
34
@Etienne All true, and the history of western imperialism certainly lives on in Chinese memory -- but even without the history, we are looking at a time of leveling, as the rest of the world recovers from the devastations of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is inevitable that the world will catch up with us, if that is the right metaphor. How things will play out in a more equal world is unknowable. We can wish that our power elites showed more creative imagination, instead of clinging to their traditional money-making methods for as long as possible.
7
Seems like these "islands" would easily be destroyed in the event of hostilities. One good sortie would take out electronics, antiaircraft batteries and the landing strip . . . Any facility a few feet above sea level will also inevitably be destroyed by the first good typhoon passing directly over the islands. The recent typhoon passed far to the north of this area, but it's simply a matter of time before they get a full-on strike . . .
Looks like a huge expenditures of resources by the Chinese without long-term payoff in increased military power.
7
@KCox the Spratlys are invaluable as propaganda. China has popular songs that their school kids sing about how the Spratlys are China. You don't know the Chinese too well if you neglect to account for their multiple clever ways of capitalizing on things.
6
As long as westerners continue to alienate brown people by publishing brown country bashing articles, part of America will never feel truly welcome. We have committed to becoming American but feel conflicted when our roots are attacked in an unfair way. We know the difference. This will hinder the success of this so call melting pot experiment.
4
@2NE1 What??? How on earth is an article pointing out Chinese expansion in the South China Sea a brown-bashing article? If that makes you feel less welcome in the US...
7
@2NE1 What is unfair is a country claiming International Waters as their own. Nothing to do with being "brown".
4
This isn't only about freedom of the seas but large oil reserves below the water. This issue should have been addressed over the last 40 years as America encouraged Chinese industrial expansion by allowing massive trade imbalances. Tariffs are really our only weapon against China. Unfortunately, we have many issues such as trade imbalance, currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, human rights, and many more. It is a joke to hear establishment politicians calling Iran, Syria, North Korea and Russia the greatest threats to world peace. I have nothing against China and don't want them as our enemy but lets not fool ourselves and call them our friend. It is time to turn our attention from these small players and focus on creating a balanced relationship with China.
14
Obama is gone. The Democrats are hell bent to Impeach Trump, replaced by whom is a mystery. Reality is, both China and Russia have their models and leaders, securely in place, while we bicker and question our very own Democracy 24/7. Not rocket science what both China and Russia are pursuing. China has Eurasia in mind, and control of all countries in Asia. Russia will put back together their prior Soviet Union. Examples come to light with regularity. China almost undetected put a million Muslims in camps. Russia operates at will in Syria. Russia staked out their position early on in the Ukraine and Georgia. Point being, what is our foreign policy? Both our adversaries have made great strides the past decade, while we run in circles. We got where we are post WW 2, through our firepower, but make no mistake, both China and Russia have no interest in diplomatic American style Democracy. Germany and Japan , as Japan is doing may have to step up.
6
@Dan Green: Excellent analysis Dan, but we both know what our “ foreign policy” is and who dictates it, we have been bogged down in the Middle East for decades for special interests and that seems to be the extent of our “foreign policy,” we’ve burned all our other bridges in the execution of someone else’s agenda, not only that but we’ve managed to spend scarce tax dollars(as well as leaving a six trillion dollar debt for our grandchildren) pursuing this agenda while ignoring our infrastructure needs, a broken healthcare system, pensions set to implode, as well as not attempting to do something for those left behind by technology and globalization, should we not address those issues it’s going to get more and more crowded on “ the Island” as we seek safety from the increasingly agitated electorate that we threw under the bus. This is in stark contrast to the maneuvering of China insuring its pole position in the new world order, they have been building bridges to the Middle East faster than we can blow them up. BTW your point as to whom the Democrats can next propose as the new champion of all that’s great and good remains as great a mystery to the rest of the world as to you and I, with the current fashion of lobing bombs at anyone considering public service I’m not sure where one would find a candidate totally without some flaw in his or her background.
3
None of this is surprising, perhaps anticipated and almost assuredly welcomed by our military industrial complex: simply put with the break up of the Soviet Union( and our inability to push them into a war , although not for lack of trying)and the Middle East almost obliterated we need a new enemy in order to maintain or increase our already bloated military budget( high fives all around at the Pentagon). BTW The Times was reporting on our building of new smaller battleships, to the tune of hundreds of millions just as a starter, to wage war in the shallower South China Seas years ago. More cuts to our infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare and education are on the way to fund this latest folly.
5
The US again loses a huge opportunity to cooperate with China.
The South China Sea is China's southern border.
We should not be upset that they are ensuring their country's security, we should also wonder who they feel the need to protect themselves against.
We insist on a totally provocative presence in the South China Sea, flying spy planes up and down China's coast - not just for the spying part, but mostly just to tweak their nose. This is behavior we certainly would not tolerate on our own coasts by other foreign powers.
We must ask ourselves, what is the point of our obstreperousness?
China has not impeded commercial activity in the South China Sea. Why not allow them to keep that part of the world's oceans safe for maritime passage and we offload some responsibility we should not be shouldering?
8
@Ken
Territorial waters or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state.
So, please explain to me why China should have territorial waters to within 150 miles of the Philippines?
14
@Ken
Actually Russian and Soviet bombers have flown the US coast, both Pacific and Atlantic, for decades.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/us/russian-bombers-alaska.html
And flying a Navy aircraft one thousand miles off the China coast, as described in the story, is not a provocative presence.
5
@Michael
Now I see.
We harass them on their own borders because the law says we can.
Got it.
3
China is not the interloper. We are. Their bases are defensive against the the greatest Empire called the US. We have offensive military bases throughout the region and engineered control of all the previously independent Island countries in the Western Pacific after WW2 and it us not China that has fought offensive wars in that region and seized control of vast territories as spoils of War. (Philippines)And it was us that fought and lost an exceedingly cruel War in VietNam against the will of the people. And go back to the 19th cent, It was us who used gunboat diplomacy to seize parts of China. The Chinese have long memories. That is what those defensive positions on those Islands are all about.
15
@bahcom
"It us not China that has fought offensive wars in that region"
I would suggest the Vietnamese might disagree, especially after the Sino-Vietnamese War.
2
@bahcom
Mass killings under communist regimes, People's Republic of China Body Count: 73,237,000. It sounds like the Chinese people need protection from themselves.
5
This is squarely on Obama. As much as I dislike Trump, a tougher stance with China makes sense.
8
@Chuck
" a tougher stance with China makes sense."
As does a tougher stance with the Russians. I still burn when Romney brought it up and Obama pooh-poohed it as old news during one of the debates.
2
yawn. This is their near beyond and they are doing what america has done in its near beyond. The needlessly aggressive us military actions will eventually lead to a loss of life.
7
It's staggering that this many readers actually compare our freedom of navigation patrols to a theoretical scenario where China conducts patrols along the US Coast. Are there limits to freedom of navigation along our coasts? Do we have countries whose sovereignty is threatened along our coasts? More over, how many of the commenters would like to live under PRC rule? What all this reveals is that ignorance and naivity is the ultimate luxury of the First World. I invite my fellow readers to visit China, perhaps after consulting a map and reading a few history books.
25
Barack Obama made the "pivot" to China the centerpiece of his foreign policy. Yet his administration seems to have failed completely in every aspect of its China policy: on trade policy, on intellectual property theft, on open access for American tech companies, and, as this article indicates, on containing Chinese expansionism in international waters. These man-made islands have been under construction for the better part of a decade; the Chinese clearly intend to use them to muscle America (and our allies) out of the world's busiest international waters, and they're succeeding at it.
Loathsome and brutish as he is, Donald Trump is at least attempting to counterbalance China's bellicosity. He is an imperfect messenger for a message that went unheeded by his predecessors, who were either too timid (Obama), distracted (Bush), or idealistic (Clinton) to recognize the danger an aggressive, nationalistic China would pose to American interests. Sadly I fear it is too little, too lat. While America spent the first decade of the new century splayed out in unwinnable wars, the Chinese were shrewdly making inroads in the developing world: building critical infrastructure (bridges, ports, highways) and pouring cash into resource-rich nations who had previously been benefactors of American foreign aid. But they no longer need us: they've found a patron unbothered by human rights abuses or corruption. Our abdicated leadership will have consequences that last far into this new century.
18
Aside from the chutzpah of claiming the entire South China Sea as Chinese waters, it seems to me that China has some strategic interests at stake here. Maybe the most important of these is to make sure that sea lanes carrying oil from Indian Ocean ports --- especially oil from Iran can transit to Hong Kong and Shanghai. We might argue that this isn't a problem, but China probably sees it differently than we do.
4
It seems to me that a key point here is that it is the South CHINA Sea, not the South United States Sea. I wonder how we would react if China established military bases in Canada and Mexico. It is time for us to recognize that the US does not own the world. We need to learn to live in peace with other countries and to stay out of their affairs.
10
@Blue Moose
Last night, I had some FRENCH fries. This morning I ate an ENGLISH muffin. As far as I can tell, neither of those countries has a legitimate claim on my kitchen based on nomenclature.
14
China is a naval threat in the pacific. It is however right wing racism to blame president obama for that. Btw, from reading the article which is it with the Chinese island building: strategic placement or not worth fighting about a pile of rocks? The article quotes both lines of thought, without suggesting which may be correct. May I suggest at this point it is this: a forward line that other Asians can’t stop alone but not an impediment to a determined United States. This suggests that the American response should be to help the Asians stand up to China. That of course would also mean economically— which is why President Obama pushed for the transpacific trade agreement. That is American strategic thinking. Too bad trump and the right wing racists are unable to formulate a useful policy.
18
@Rhporter Good post. However, the TPP was lopsided in favor of business over everything else at any cost; lower wages, less protections for local workers in safety, profits over environmental concerns etc. TRump in his stupidity was right to cancel that treaty for those reasons. If they could come up with a treaty that fixes all those issues I think the USA should sign it, but to be part of a treaty that takes us back to pre 1900 protocol for workers rights and environmental protections no thank you.
2
It's too bad that Obama let the Chinese get away with this. It is also too this article shields him from an responsibility.
5
Prior comments betray a level of naïveté, ignorance of history and current geo-economic realities that is startling for the NYT. This article nor the issue of the Chinese expansion has nothing to do with US imperialism, comparison with Syria (really?) and simplistic notions about American hegemony.
Unless the commentators here are like the current US President who has a certain ignorance and disdain for norms of our global order and relationships and obligations to allies, then the positions stated are irrational and incorrect.
Freedom of international waterways is a crucial component of the world order impacting both economic and security realities for all nations. Our commentator from the UK should know that his own Royal Navy occupied the same space in a prior century. The US may not be the worlds police man but we sure as heck need to it’s traffic cop if we want to assure the continuation of the stability of global trade flows, national sovereignty for allies and all around order.
To think otherwise about the Chinese activity and presence in the South China Sea is to be foolish and ignorant of the extreme risks being elevated each day. This situation could have been delayed or limited by more forceful action in 2015 and 2016. That Administration was feeble in its conception of the problem, the strategic nature of the threat and the application of appropriate US power on behalf of global order and norms.
24
@Charles Gonzalez The U.S. grabbed all of Northern Syria. How can the U.S. justify an asset grab and China can't? Is it because the U.S. is exceptional? Both countries are illegally controlling territory in order to extract assets. Yet, how can one country have the nerve to say that its appropriation of territory is justified and the other countries appropriation isn't. It is like a thief saying stop thief.
3
Gosh darn,
All this fancy equipment, flying around at taxpayers expense. Let's start a war. Sounds like fun. If we built these things off of California's coast, would the Chinese object? The Chinese are not going to invade Japan, we did that, and China, and VietNam. Who is the bully? I love this country, but we like to start stuff we should not.
6
War is inevitable I believe the human race has proved that time and time again. Here is a case of pure Chinese aggression as they become a power player. The nations involved need to;no they MUST take a strong stand perhaps Park a couple of retired aircraft carriers out there to claim there sovereignty and wait for them to rust away. There is no way to end this that doesn’t end in dispute. So wait for it and maybe a time will come when ppl realize we’re all in this together.
4
The overambitious Chinese drive to control the earth's resources, land and sea routes seems to have reached the point when its dwindling economy might not sustain it any longer, as perhaps it could half a decade earlier when it was growing fast. Again, if the One Belt One Road global infrastructure project of China has started unraveling due to increasing resentment and debt trap cries in the recepient countries, the South China control too might soon be countered by the combined force of international community and the international law,or might lose its current geo-strategic significance either due to the economic constraints or under the changed power balance in Asia and the world.
9
It’s absurd how high and mighty Americans sound here. How gleeful they are “slapping China around”, and you wonder why the skinny kid’s heading to the gym more often now. Reading through the many comments, I fail to see one that says good relationships are built with humility, respect, fairness, and firmness. You can be fair and firm without being a bully.
10
You mean by stealing intellectual property & industrial secrets? Fairness only works when both parties play by the same rules.
16
@Chris ? In this scenario, grabbing territory legitimately claimed by other nations - who is the bully? The US has been the protector, not the bully. That Duerto was duped makes him the Trump of the Phillipines.
12
@Bruce Maier "grabbing territory legitimately claimed by other nations" - The U.S. grabbed all of Northern Syria. How can the U.S. justify an asset grab and China can't? Is it because the U.S. is exceptional? Both countries are illegally controlling territory in order to extract assets. Yet, how can one country have the nerve to say that its appropriation of territory is justified and the other countries appropriation isn't. It is like a thief saying stop thief.
2
How about the Syrian's right to freedom of navigation in their own country that the U.S. occupies in violation (yet again) of international law. The U.S., in an asset grab, now controls all the lucrative oil fields in Northern Syria. The U.S. consistently violates “international law” yet expects everyone else to adhere to it. This is American “exceptionalism” and the Chinese foreign minister stated it perfectly - “it is like a thief saying stop thief.” How about the massive B52 strikes of Linebacker(II) that - by the Pentagon’s own admission - killed over 8,000 civilians a day. How about the field hospital that one of these raids hit killing 9 doctors, 32 nurses and scores of civilians. Where was international law for these people? No American was ever held accountable for these crimes. So, when the U.S. claims freedom of navigation under international law, it is laughable.
The bottom line is that it is going to come down to a fight between thieves but if the U.S. couldn’t do it at the Chosin Reservoir in 1951 – when the Chinese had no air force – they sure as heck aren’t going to be able to do it now in South China Sea. If the U.S. is losing and decides to use nukes, the Chinese and Russians will use them in turn. Some semblance of Russia and China will rise again. What is left of Europe will revert to fascism but it will be the permanent end of the U.S. and democracy.
12
@Charlie And the U.S. is exempt from legal action at The Hague as well.
4
@Charlie Thanks for the optimistic note. The pendulum swings, and it will continue to do so.
3
The planet is running out of resources and countries are racing to grab what’s left. Silly as it sounds, control of the South China Sea is about fish
5
Don't wory. DJT has it all under control. A big beautiful parade will show China and the world who is boss. That is the mentality. Really.
13
As a resident of Southeast Asia, I'd comment that people remember the destruction wrought on the region by the US in the Indochina War and earlier in the Philippines.
Wars of aggression bring blowback - in this case a loss of friends.
32
@John Macgregor
Where were you in 1979 when China invaded Vietnam with 200,000 troops and armor? Most would say the Chinese caused a little destruction there — of course, they also suffered a humiliating thrashing by Vietnamese militia.
10
The day will come when Chinese warships and spy planes will patrol Panama to keep the sea lanes open and free from US harassment. You'll like the Chinese's reply over the air - "This is the PLA exercising Freedom of Navigation".
5
Maybe if we removed our soldiers from Diego Garcia island in the Indian Ocean, or from any of our military bases spread all across the world, we would have a stronger leg to stand on in our criticism of others. I don't agree with China's moves here, but the South China Sea is close to China. The U.S. has spread its tentacles globally in the name of our security in ways that are threatening to others. We are hypocrites.
11
@JS27 Difference is that the US was invited to establish bases across the world. The Philippines did not invite China to occupy their islands, as confirmed by the International Courts.
5
Obama’s pacifist stance of zero deterrence emboldened bullies around the world. China built and armed Island under his watch, threatening their neighbors and seizing claims to territory. The Obama foreign policy was a disaster for Asia, and for Eastern Europe. Certainly disastrous for Ukraine and Crimea, as Putin was eager to expand west with no US interference. Pathetic and sad. History shows deterrence prevents wars.
10
@Joe Yoh
We've been at war in Afghanistan for 17 years, so you have a strange idea of 'pacifism'. Fact is, when our military spending is so corrupt, when we rely on volunteer forces, when we're talking about useless atolls on the opposite side of the world, there are limits to what we can do. He did negotiate the TPP to hedge against China and look what happened.
16
@mjw You clearly have not read the TPP.
1
@Joe Yoh
Under Obama the USA changed its foreign policy to "Pivot To The East". It was recognition that the threat to US hegemony in the world was from emerging China. US military was directed to ease off in Europe as the puny Russian oil-export economy was not a big threat but 1.2 billion people marching/pushing their economy to soon become the largest in the world is of real concern to US hegemony. Short of putting a plow on the front of US submarines to push the sand back into the sea bottom so the Chinese islands would collapse what would you be prepared to do ?
1
Given the article's date, it's surprising that it missed Japan's conduct of anti-submarine drills in the South China Sea the previous week.
4
At the end of the day, does it matter? Global warming will have the ocean swallow these rocks within a few years; even if the Chinese fortify them, they’ll go bankrupt trying to keep them dry, especially so far from the Chinese mainland.
11
It might make sense if China pursued something similar for the South Chinese Sea as the Treaty of Montreux is for the Black Sea: some kind of treaty that keeps outsiders mostly out. That might satisfy Chinese security demands.
However, it looks like Xi is the kind of primitive "nationalist" who will always want more. It is hard getting any agreement with such an egocentric politician.
5
If you believe that democracy and liberty are the common base of human civilization, it's impossible to accept the present Chinese imperialism.
Although the dictatorship by a person has been prohibited after the death of Mao Zedong, Xi Jinping recently established the personal dictatorship in China.
Xi Jinping's barbarian dream is to reconstruct the Empire of the Ming dynasty or Ching dynasty. You know the ethic cleansing in Uighur and Tibet, which have never been the Chinese territory. The invasion into the South China Sea is in this context.
To justify himself, Xi Jinping uses a dogma that China is a victim of the Imperialism of the advanced countries.
He exclaims about the Nanjing slaughter, but this fake story is completely different from what was described at the end of Word War II.
Remember that the Communist Party of China killed a hundred million Chineses in the Great Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. Much more were killed by Chinese themselves before and during World War II.
The present economical prosperity of China was made by unfair trade, state capitalism, and drawing foreign money through the fixed exchange rate of currency.
11
Every time I hear, from my liberal friends about how the last president was "just such a nice guy" and this guy is just so bad............
I point to the previous president doing his best imitation of Neville Chamberlin, with his side kick, the Secretary of State, wanting the world to just love us and to play nice.
And like Chamberlin did for "peace in our times" with a power that they did not want to take the time to understand from a long view of history, the two of them sold out our friends in Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan.
I'm fearful that such behavior set the world up for a war in my grand children's era.
No wonder nobody trusts America any more.
6
@AAA
Your "liberal" friends might have also understood that Chamberlain had no army to assist in any other countries defense as reinforced by the latter collapse less than a year latter of France & Britain in 1940 and the retreat through Dunkirk - even while he had continued British rearmament.
These thoughts are overwhelmingly from a US perspective. Believe me, we in Asia want the US engaged in the Indo-Asia Pacific (Indo-APAC). Beijing - like Washington - follows international law as and when it sees fit. We can deal with that from the US, as US institutions tend to have a moderation effect over the medium and long term with democratic institutions, lobbying and the peculiar state of US logic.
Beijing is autocratic and seems to follow a mandate that, while on the surface is beneficial economically, tends to be an ‘unequal treaty’ that leaves you ground under a Chinese fist, while promoting a model of information control that just encourages autocrats. Moderation is great, and US ambitions can be moderated externally and internally to a point. No such mechanisms exist for China. Make of that what you will.
13
@Wen Great post Mister.
This article tries to convince the reader that China is forcefully claiming land in the South China sea. It is no different than Israel confiscating land in the West Bank from the Palestinians. The world is becoming a lot smaller for the U.S., and it is happening because of our arrogant, untruthful, disrespectful politicians. The world nations clearly understand now that Trump is not someone you work with, but you turn your back to. No respect means you don't communicate, you don't work together, there is no goal, no unity. That is where the GOP and Trump has taken our country. The best advice we can give our children to prepare for the future: learn a foreign language.
7
The Chinese have a giant chip on their collective shoulders since the 19th century when their government was helpless to protect their sovereignty, now they are trying to payback the world for their humiliation by jerking the rest of the world around. Dealing with these silly people will not be easy. They are spoiling for a fight where they sink a bunch of boats and drown a lot people with impunity. They are willing to lose people in the process but they will not choose a fight that they are sure to lose.
So it’s important to be tough without shaming them or making them look too weak to fight.
It is important to get them off of these military bases in international waters. They pose a threat to free passage in international waters which they seem to want to annex. To do this bilaterally will be very tough. It would be a lot less problematic had we kept in the TPP. Then we could apply non-military pressure much more forcefully.
3
@Casual Observer Take a more than casual look at the TPP.
2
Thank you, Hannah Beech, for an excellent and timely article.
For starts; Those are not "Islands". They never were. They were shallow, submerged reefs. The Chinese Communist Party just went ahead and built/dredged "Islands" on them anyway, and then built Military Compounds on those "Islands", claiming that the "land" was their's. And, THEN, the CCP claimed that the entire South China Sea AND that Air-Space was also their's.
Hogwash !!! Tell it to Tiannamen Square. Tell it to Islands off the Coast of Japan that China "claims". Tell it to Viet Nam's fishing rights. Tell it to Hong Kong.
Worse, tell it to Tibet. In 1959 the CCP, under Mao, took the entire Nation of Tibet at gunpoint, murdering many thousands of citizens, and jailing thousands more for practicing their Buddhist Faith. Tibet was a peaceful, non-aggressive neighbor. Mao said he "liberated" the Country. Rubbish. He stole an entire Nation at the point of a gun. China has NO right to Tibet.
Today, Americans are NOT free to travel anywhere at all in Tibet, but Chinese citizens can travel anywhere in America, without impunity. That is BEYOND unfair, and shows clearly Xi Jinping's greed, arrogance and bullying. China's human rights record in Tibet is a true horror story, and the CCP doesn't want it told.
The American Pilots who flew over those "Islands" saw the writing on the wall for all of us. On the chess-board of War, those "Islands" should not be taken lightly.
19
Throughout the world's oceans the U.S. has had it's own number of fortresses, they're called U.S. Navy carrier strike groups and despite the formidable power they project we need to pay careful attention to Rear Admiral McDevitt's analysis regarding a military engagement in the South China Sea. As an aside, the environment damage unleashed by China's massive dredging operations on these reefs is beyond repair.
8
A great article.
Thanks for photos from these planes and an accompanying analysis.
I wish you had told us a little more about this nine dash line that China claims gave it the sovereignty over that region.
Just from the map, it seems preposterous for China to claim so much area - and that too areas that are physically close to other countries like Philippines.
I can't help but echo criticism of Obama - his whole idea of leading from behind - our enemies took a note and seized the vacuum of power Obama left behind.
It would be interesting what this POTUS would do if China repeats a seizure of a plane like they did during the 43rd administration. That administration also blinked and China noticed.
I hope we have our eyes wide open rather than wide shut - China needs to be confronted - or at least it's communist dictators.
8
Before WW2, Japan occupied these islands, and actually had a submarine base in the Spratly Islands (on a small naturally occurring islet).
After WW2, the US handed all of those islands and the Japanese on them -- to China. Chinese ships removed the Japanese troops, and replaced them with Chinese troops.
The US never sent anyone there, nor did their Philippine possession, then still owned by the US.
In the Peace Conference, Chinese control was accepted.
NOW, we don't like that. We didn't say that when we had the chance. We couldn't be bothered.
This article does not mention any of the Chinese points, like this. Nor does it mention that Japan was also building sand islands there in 2016, a place even further from Japan. Nor does it say that the international adjudication was not acknowledged by China and it did not participate. Nor does it say that the US too does not accept that jurisdiction, see John Bolton's blustering.
This is too one sided to be a news report. It is one side's propaganda.
20
Meanwhile back at the ranch, DJT tweets about LeBron James. So presidential.
3
The US should partner with an ally in the area and build their own island
2
who wants a war with China? perhaps military-industry complexes in the United States. and experts and politicians who are sympathizing with them.
it's really sick corruption. a few islands fall short of a war between two world powers. but there are some people who are eager to go war at any costs. pure madness.
6
@Jung Myung-hyun You won't feel that way when your oil and other goods on which you depend are prohibited access thru those shipping lanes.
6
It was by the sea that the West came pounding into the Qing's sovereign territory nearly two centuries ago, forcing the Chinese to submit to bad deals and opium that destroyed that last dynasty, impoverished the people and gave direct rise to the communist party.
We Americans don't own this world. We have military bases all about, but if we want to share the world with the other great nations, then we need people in power who actually know how to negotiate and work with other nations, not just insult, threaten or bully them.
9
China's occupation of the South China Sea has been paid for by its exports to the U.S. and other countries. Trump is obsessed with Mexico paying for a wall while the U.S. has been paying China to create a threat to our national security.
8
We have Barack Obama to thank for China's encroachment as well as Russia's. His weak, really cowardly, foreign policy will harm us for years to come, if it can ever be repaired. In his eight years in the White House, he never seemed to learn. Both China and Russia played a cautious game. They'd reach for a foothold and wait for the U.S. reaction; when there was none, they reached further. They are now stronger and more dangerous players on the international scene.
In my view, Obama, when his presidency is honestly assessed, will go down as one of our worst presidents.
Meanwhile, Trump, who is certainly flawed in many ways, will take the blame for our weakened and dangerous international position, whereas to be fair he inherited it.
10
Obama as president was like Jimmy Carter, a good man and bad leader in his role of standing up to tyranny to protect Liberal values in the world. Who can forget Obama’s famous threat to Putin if Russia continued hacking US computer systems, “Cut it out.” Makes the blood run cold in fear. It is important we remember that the world of nations and their competing interests in it is what it is, not what we think or hope it is.
7
Many people here seem to think that China is growing an imperialistic streak, blissfully unconcerned that China’s military buildup is in reaction to the US’s aggression (who has more international bases and is involved in more wars?) and willingness to abuse her economic clout without restraint. You might love your ego-driven MAGA chants, but the rest of the world will respond to a bully by being a bigger bully. The problem with transactional diplomacy is that it works, until the other party gets the upper hand.
6
@Chris
If China starts WW3 and the UK finds that, though neglect, their armed forces (approx 150,000 total) are not enough to defend your assets, you will to apologize before the US (approx 1.8 million military strength) comes to save your souls.
Militarily, the US is #1 in the world, the 6th Fleet (one one many) can put more aircraft in the air simultaneously than every single plane the RAF has, including single-engine trainers.
Yes the Chinese are building up their navy but they have a long way to go before they could seriously take the US on. If things got nasty, those island bases could disappear off the map quite quickly. A rise in sea levels also might give them a bit of a problem.
4
This is eerily similar to what Japan did with the Pacific islands that fell under their protectorate after WWI. Scene of horrific battles in WWII. Go read the history.
4
What's inexplicably missing from this article is any mention of the Law of the Sea Treaty, the basis for the International tribunal's ruling against China's naked water grab.
That treaty, the fruit of a generation of legal work and international negotiation was in part the work of U.S. negotiators intent on preserving freedom of the seas. If memory serves aright all but one of the signatories to the Law of Sea has ratified the Treaty. That one is the United States.
Why, an innocent reader might ask? Well, from the party that claims to be strong on national defense, most Republicans oppose Law of the Sea. They do so principally because the Heritage Foundation and what might be called the Underwater Cornucopia Lobby oppose provisions for sharing deep sea mining in the open oceans beyond continental shelves of maritime nations. It's a triumph of the avarice of deep pocketed campaign contributors over national security, particularly our sailors, like the pilots and crew who go into arms way in their P-8A Poseidons to exercise our international aerial navigation rights and, not incidentally, gather useful intelligence about China's new, man made islands.
I recommend the Times make up for the lack of coverage by doing an examination of the Law of the Sea as it stands today, including China's efforts to unilaterally redefine freedom of navigation so as to render moot the international court ruling.
13
This is just the Chinese torture. They do that on land, sea and air. The commander got it on the bull’s eye with his observations. Look at what happened at Doklam near Bhutan, India and China tri-junction. They initially started moving with small tools pretending they are just making small improvements on the road. After that, they came with bulldozers to make highway into Bhutan, all along pretending, they are just building highway for commerce. India stopped it and made them to take their hardware back. Same way, in South China Sea, they initially said no military base, all along planning one. Before it is too late, we should tell them pack up everything and go back and no further activity in South China Sea. China will pack up and leave.
6
Our Monroe Doctrine asserts the authority of the US over all of the Western Hemisphere. Why can't China assert its authority over the areas off its seacoast?
4
@Kevin Cahill Well, for numerous reasons. The most important is that it is not their territory and never has been and never will be. Citing the Monroe Doctrine is so disingenuous; Two wrongs do not make a right and that was almost a century and a half ago. We need to quit using coal by the way as well as that is so last century as well.
1
Sea level rises will take care of those islands. Let's burn more coal.
4
Sorry, but I just can't get on board with the moralizing and bogeymaning of China for doing strategic moves that America would definitely have done itself if it were in the same position. I care about America, but I can't do the mental gymnastics required to hand-wring about moves China makes to improve its power when America has been actively destroying countries in the Middle East and Latin America.
14
South China Sea. Yes, it includes "China" in its official name and their logic is it's therefore theirs. So the next target will be the East China Sea, and Japan may be thinking the same thing about the Sea of Japan...
2
If we do not want to approve China's claim on South China Sea eventually, we had better talk about it with China, the sooner the better. If the US cannot find any means to make them sit at a negotiating table, maybe we should just forget about it (as I do not want war). Anyway China is an explosive black box; we could rely only on the US as a counterbalance.
1
So strange that China wants to assert is presence in the South China Sea. It's almost like Mexico wanting to claim rights in the Gulf of Mexico or Alaskans wanting to assert fishing privileges in the Gulf of Alaska.
2
@Bill Jones No. Just no. There are no countries off the coast of Alaska that claim the space as well. Japan, Korea, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam have a right to what sites in front of their doorstep and not the Chinese military.
2
Germany's ownership of Czechoslovakia is a done deal, short of war with England and France.
If our only choices are to accommodate an aggressor and thereby embolden his aggression, then I choose war against China, ideally with allies, or alone, if necessary.
2
I wonder what Americans would do if China had military boats in the US shores?
One needs empathy to understand geopolitics, not bias.
3
Inevitably China will surpass us. They have four times as many people.
Now if we really want to tick them off and maybe get them to back down we need to build and arm some islands in international waters off the coast of China. Then we would have some bargaining chips.
1
You guys are missing the point, this Chinese base in the South China Sea is not self sustainable, it needs fuel and supply sent vessels. It is a big money pit, a big show off. The big concern should be if the Chinese are to make any deal with the Philippines to supply them with water etc., Now THAT would shift the dynamics, because it will shift the protector role from US to China.
5
@papertiger
Let them have the phillipines, what do they do for us? Their leaders have alot more common ground.
This is a perfect example why we can't limit resolution of our trade disputes with China to just commercial issues. Trade makes money. Money is fungible. China has said for some time that we wish to "contain" it. We have taken this to mean China thinks we want to restrain its commercial rise, which is clearly not true.
We probably should have thought more of the plain meaning of the word. Perhaps it's China's physical expansion, by force if necessary, that we do indeed need to contain. China has behaved in bad faith for a very long time on a range of commercial issues; it has refused to use its leverage to prevent North Korea from developing the world's most dangerous weapons; and now it has clearly invaded and claimed as its own part of the global commons and parts of the exclusive commercial maritime and air space of neighboring countries. How much more evidence do we need that waiting and hoping for better behavior on China's part is no longer viable. It has made its intentions clear and they are not benign.
2
@Bob
The issue of North Korea is between the United States and North Korea. Period. Why should another country get involved? This is western propaganda trying to make it seem like it is China’s responsibility.
1
I read somewhere else this week that this area is rich in oil and gas reserves. When China starts mining they will shut out American oil and gas companies from the new market created. When that occurs, our relationships with US allied countries in the region will be weakened as they are intimidated and/or seduced into aligning more closely with China. Slowly and inexorably, they will create a new "World Order" with shifting alliances. The US will no longer be top dog. Maybe this is as it should be - nothing is forever. But they won't have taken our position away. We let them take it. This is more, much more, than a "Monroe Doctrine" move. This is a smart strategic play for global power and influence. It's happening everywhere. The Silk Road Fund to Europe, enormous investments in Africa, all calculated to forge new relationships that bind. And all Trump cares about are tariffs and balance of trade. Our President is Warren Harding fighting the aliens in Independence Day. My money's on the aliens.
2
It worries us that China controls the ocean off its sovereign territory. Really? The US not only controls all the major oceans, it can project its power to any point on the globe. We are godzilla and the Pentagon is aghast at China raising up islands to park their planes and ships?
Because China lacked a credible military, they suffered traumatic invasion and occupation by Western powers, repeated later with Japan during WW2. Its leaders have sworn it will never happen again.
The result is a rapid build-up of a formidable defensive capability that includes the South China sea beyond the territorial waters off China. It's their buffer zone against invasion by ocean.
The United States has well over 250,000 military and civilian personnel under the US Indo-Pacific Command throughout Asia with US military presence concentrated in Japan and S. Korea. In Japan, the US counts over 23 major bases, including the home port of the 7th Navy, and the largest number of US combat troops stationed anywhere.
Imagine for a minute if China had major military bases in Canada, Cuba, Mexico and Puerto Rico, and 250,000 Chinese military personnel surrounding us, including the home port of China's largest naval fleet.
Russia once tried to sneak an ICBM into Cuba and we came within inches of WW3 before they blinked.
China's economy will soon exceed the US. They want to be equals but with Trump we don't play well with others so, yeah, their sovereign security is a done deal.
49
@Yuri Asian
China can control the South China Sea by virtue of its military power. The difference here is China also claims most of the South China Sea as its territory based on the 1940s nine-dash map. A map that China has never bothered to backup with any concrete evidence. China in the last 50 years using its military power took over islands occupied by the Philippines and Vietnam.
Yes, the US can project its naval power anywhere but the US does not claim the whole Gulf of Mexico nor the entire Caribbean Sea.
There is huge difference between control by projecting naval power and outright robbing other nation's territories by coercion.
10
As a Democrat I'll concede that President Obama should have taken a more confrontational approach to Imperial China in this matter. On the other hand, I'll assert that his careful work on the TPP deal would have cemented the economic strength of our alliance with China's neighbors and assured them of our steadfast support for them and of our trade relationships with them.
When Trump summarily abrogated our participation in TPP he told all our Asian allies "You're on your own, pal." Yes, Clinton said she opposed TPP also. But we all know she really supported it, and if elected she would have figured out a way to shepherd it through while appeasing her left flank.
On the other hand Trump WANTED to kill it, as he has lusted after the destruction of every single thing with Obama's name associated with it. And of course in its absence he has failed to create an alternate--just as he has utterly failed to provide any kind of healthcare plan other than to aggressively sabotage the one with Obama's name associated with it.
And our Asian friends have taken Trump's measure--not hard to do. They know he believes in speaking loudly and carrying a little stick. They know he's impetuous, mercurial, vain.
So they know if he visits China and they throw a parade for him he'll make nice--and if they hint at, say, a Trump Tower in Shanghai or some such, well, they can forget about Trump standing with China's much-imposed-on neighbors.
Clinton was far more like Eisenhower than Trump.
2
America better shore up its relations with the Compact of Free Association nations in the Pacific. It is up for renewal this year and realize that China would be all too happy to take over the Pacific Islands. An easy start would be to restore Medicaid benefits for COFA migrants which was mistakenly taken from them in 1996 and never restored. If the US doesn't get serious, it could be looking at an international crisis in our own territories.
1
So we can still fly over China's newly acquired territory (previously open sea) without fear of retribution? That's nice but doesn't exactly make up for the fact that our Navy can't navigate the area without crashing into freighters. Obama failed to contain Chinese imperialism, because all his advisors said we don't want to anger China, by protecting our freedom of navigation, or our freedom of fair trade. At least Trump is taking them on in trade.
4
In the age of space technology and a budding space force being built by the US these islands could be devastated in a heartbeat from space if the need was there. The US needs to make that "Space force" deterrent happen.
3
I predict a further development. How about the PRC declare its defense imperatives not to be restricted to the defense of China, but of the Chinese? Russia did so with its people, quietly, a few years ago. There are sizable Chinese populations in most Southeast Asian countries that would then provide the reasoning for more military posturing.
What we're described in this article, is a classic example of salami tactics. Do something that is strictly speaking illegal and see how the other reacts. No reaction? Wait awhile, then do something slightly different elsewhere. Still no reaction? The first thing that was done is now "acquired", because it didn't elicit any response and even something "worse" was accepted. Repeat. After a couple of decades you have a series of naval strong-points spread out over the whole area.
Not a single one is capable of withstanding even 5 minutes of concentrated attention by the US, for sure. But what China has achieved is that it has limited the US's options to military aggression, betting, probably correctly, that the American public isn't about to condone such acts over "a couple of specks of dredged land, somewhere in the waters between China, Vietnam and the Philippines".
As I have remarked many times, China isn't burdened by election cycles and thinks ahead, not 2 to 5 years, but 20, 30 or more. It mimics what the PRC has been doing in Africa, as well.
23
Those PRC artificial island bases are for show only. The US is the only nation with a fully operational blue water navy to control airspace, surface and undersea waters.The PRC cannot militarily impose their territorial claims. It seems more like an economical gambit to coerce southeast neighbors into joint ventures to extract oil.
13
@Joel Ii
You're right in saying that the US is the only country with a credible blue water navy. The question is rather "What measures is the US willing to take?", and there it would seem the answer is unconvincing.
4
What concerns me more is that the Chinese are greatly expanding their national R&D efforts while the Trump budgets have been proposing the gutting of the US R&D programs - not sure why, as R&D is essential both to defense and to further economic progress. Fortunately, Congress (so far) has ignored his budget proposals and has even expanded R&D funding.
8
I visited Japan recently, and I love the people and their culture. However, I know that what Japanese soldiers did to Chinese civilians -- women and children in particular -- during World War II was sickening and horrifying. The Chinese people and government can never forget that the United States had cultivated Japan as an ally from 1853 until the 1920s or so. Yes, American troops fought extremely bravely to destroy the Japanese war machine from 1941 to 1945, but the Chinese do not forget that the U.S. had helped to build-up Japan in the first place. Add to that (from a Chinese point-of-view) what the United States did during the Korean and Vietnam wars, and one can see why the present-day Chinese government would want to have an "aggressive" defensive posture in the seas to the east of the Chinese mainland.
36
Hi Josh, I really like how you take a historical perspective on China’s military approach today. Your comments are indeed helpful for a holistic understanding of the situation here.
@Josh So I guess it makes it alright. "Whataboutism" is a very weak intellectual form of debate, rather consistent with "I know you are, but what am I?"
3
Two can play China's game. It's time for CFIUs to stop all China's investments in the US.they have their islands, and we have the US. Period.
4
@Quandry
You're right, of course, but you're dreaming.
Our multinational corporations have abandoned any semblance of loyalty or concern for our country, and our politics, courts, financial industry, and culture are far gone down the 'profit is the only thing' road.
Add to that the cloud of impotence hanging over our ungodly expensive military and its obvious there's nothing we can do, and nothing we would do even if we could.
Mao was right.
5
@Quandry and then the next island they build on might be the Bahamas or Cuba. That is the wrong policy to consider
1
It seems very clear from the map that the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei have greater claim than China to most of these reefs and shoals. An international tribunal has rejected China's claims to the waterway. International law should be followed in this situation. The area should be free of construction and, of course, military installations. But, it will be very hard for the Trump's administration to invoke international law when it has shown such disrespect for international tribunals and laws.
It seems that China is behaving like the new kid in the block of great powers asserting territorial control. China seems to be behaving as an advanced student of Mr. Bolton: assert your power and forget about international law, or as Chairman Mao said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Ominous.
P.S. I failed to find a description of the impact of all of these constructions on the environment and on fishing. Excellent paper, though.
30
@J. Parula There is no International law really. Never was. There is only can you defend your rights and territory? The 12 mile limit was set by the range of cannon at the time and the right of free passage in international waters exists only because the British Navy and then the US Navy could enforce that decree. Now that China's modern equivalent of cannon, their numerous long-range anti-ship missiles give them the power to control the South China Sea, together with their local naval and air superiority, those are open international waters only as long as they do not exert their control. China is rapidly building and modernizing its Navy, faster than the US, to match and soon exceed the US Navy in strength. Countries bordering China face ongoing Chinese efforts to dominate them. War with China is a real threat.
9
@Federalist
"There is no International law really. Never was."
I'm guessing this was the position of the defense at the Nuremberg Tribunal. Fat lot of good it did them, though, since some of the defendants were hanged, and many others imprisoned, for violating the very laws they (and you) claimed don't exist.
The United States was instrumental in setting up the Nuremberg Tribunal, and in asserting international law as the basis for it. Subsequent to these trials, the U.S. played a leading role in further developing international law. You can't assert it and develop it one day and then deny it exists the next, just because it suddenly proves to be inconvenient.
International law has the same validity, and serves the same function, as any other body of laws. It is a framework of rules that have their basis in shared customs, mutual agreements, treaties, precedent, and, at bottom, natural law. Its purpose is to prevent conflict where possible, and to serve as a code of conduct when conflict occurs.
It is only in a unipolar world that international law is seen by some as more of an encumbrance than a help. But having played such a key role in recognizing and promoting international law, the United States is now obliged to abide by it. On balance life is much better under the rule of law, rather than the rule of the gun.
1
@Anatomically modern human-Since you mention the Nuremberg Tribunal, worth noting Trump national security adviser, John Bolton, recently declared the Hague Court--famous for bringing Nazi war criminals to justice--“ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous,” and threatened sanctions against the court’s prosecutors and judges who pursued cases against Americans, according to the NY Times. Why? Is this a pre-emptive move intended to limit the chance that Trump and his criminal enablers will be exposed to this international court's justice. Bolton hired Cambridge Analytica, which not only widely (mis)used social media for Trump's benefit but also boasted of its ability to manipulate elections to Russian clients.
2
America has over 700 military bases around the world. China has 8. The US spends several times more than all other countries combined on military. America has essentially been on a permanent war footing now for generations. The South China Sea is China's lifeline to the outside world; without access to it the country is landlocked. Therefore, it is a point of vulnerability for them. Given that America regularly 'defends it's interests' using overt military action (and covert activities), why on earth wouldn't China - particularly as a country that is entering a period of wealth and world influence - want to secure it's borders in this way. I would think if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak - that if China were flying provocative missions off the coast of the USA, for example - America would be similarly concerned.
84
China would not be landlocked - they would still have access to the Bohai Sea and the East China Sea. Also, it’s not as if the international community (not solely the US) are asking China to stay out of the South China Sea, they are simply asking them to respect contested zones by not militarizing them.
15
One thing that the U.S. has done is keep strategic sea routes open to all. This section of ocean was a big reason that Japan went to war with us, to control it for themselves.
9
@MGI hear you and given how Trump has treated Canada (badly), I hate to rain on your parade. Still China has already achieved bases in east Africa and Sri Lanka on terms not unlike western imperialists including, but not limited to the old British empire and the USA i.e the old 99 year old lease (leveraged debt). Think British occupied Hong Kong as a model for what China is doing.
My question is: how formidable can a chain of small militarized islands pose in a theater of war? Wouldn't they be the first things to be obliterated if it came to a shooting war? At which point the war ends since we only care about the shipping lanes and not about invading China? This is more about economics than anything else, isn't it? The desire to control maritime access in order to exercise control of shipping lanes and the economies dependent upon them? What is the goal here? Surely it's not simply to rattle a saber at the largest Navy on earth.
6
@Erik There is potentially a lot of oil around those islands and China wants a piece of it and may all oil/gas eventually found.
2
The 'shipping lanes' solely exist to mail Chinese products out. who cares if their no longer in use we can find a new supplier while China starves.
1
The only person who could stop this was Richard Nixon but there was too much money to be made. So we all took a bite of the apple. We are out numbered six to one.
18
@Mr Ed
"We are out numbered six to one."
We have millions of hardened combat veterans on active duty and in the reserves; none of China's military has ever heard a shot fired in anger. We outnumber them.
2
It will be impossible to reverse short of a nuclear war that nobody wants. Hopefully China will restrain themselves from attacking US air or naval assets. We will have to live with this as will those several weaker countries. No way are we going to war over their claims. I think a lot of this happened in say the last 10 years and wonder how much environmental damage has been done.
11
This is a tough one. We armchair generals in the New York Times readership won't have a solution to China's long-term build-up of these islands. They are doing what every great power has done as they grow. Unless someone is willing to go to war over this, the islands will be theirs. Or unless we want to start building our own set of islands right next door.
20
@Jonathan Good idea. I imagine there must be other semi-submerged reefs in the area (outside of China's illegal 12-dash line) that we could turn into armed islands.
2
I am very tired of the Republican comments. They are not fact based and they show fear. Much fear. In fact, fear seems to be the weapon of choice. I look forward to ending this useless dialogue. I look forward to leaders who understand how to work and negotiate with China.
11
@Michael Kenny Well Trump does know how to do that, he is doing it every day on trade. This is probably not something you could even ask about.
6
@Michael Kenny
Yes, this is no doubt just an example of intolerant Americans engaging in Sinophobia.
The Chinese, according to the article have gained control over an area through which 1/3 of international shipping takes place, effectively annexing an area by building artificial islands in it. But there is no reason why China should be punished for this. It doesn't even hold a candle to Russia's annexation of Crimea, even though Crimea had been part of the Russian empire since the time of Catherine the Great.
2
Trump and you have no clue how to handle China, if you think shouts and threats make up a proper strategy. At least understand history to understand how China has always been cynical about Western countries since the Opium War. Their desire to be a super power isn’t to compete with the US. It is to make sure they will never be in the same position again. All that zero sum talk about deficits and industrial restrictions feeds into their paranoia. One other thing, they’re a lot more used to being poor.
It's absurd to believe that tiny America can "compete" with a China four times as big, with an economy which will be twice and then three times as big as ours in coming decades. Money talks. We won't be able to afford an arms race with China. End of discussion.
5
@Fred White You really believe that? Now I don't want any war with anybody, but unless they steal it we could have technology that they would have difficulty matching.
5
@vulcanalex and that technology would using components manufactured where, exactly?
3
Technology didn’t help the US beat Vietnam. Plus if you’re still thinking of China as sandals-maker, you’re sorely underestimating them.
2
We are not a world power any longer. We need to devote our concerns to the Atlantic and Caribbean fronts
1
@Charleswelles We are a world power, but it has limits. Perhaps we need to develop our own country and its interests. That is say the Trump doctrine, or MAGA!
6
This is called "creating facts on the ground" or in this case, creating ground and then facts. Trump and his son-in-law will recognize this tactic as a favorite of the Israelis. How clever of the Chinese to adopt it. And, just wondering why the Admiral is sitting around questioning why Obama under-reacted to this? Trump is starting a trade war with Beijing and is certainly not sounding any type of loud alarm on this expansion of Chinese territory. It seems pretty clear that the days of the U.S. challenging China's supremacy in its own region are over.
33
Let me speak from this Asian's perspective about this great American fallacy on the South China Sea.
Everyone with half a brain knows that the Americans do not practice what they instruct, especially more so the Chinese. The Americans are not signatories to international law. They threatened to invade and sanction the International Criminal Court. They have illegally invaded, conquered, looted and destroyed two entire countries that were not even bordering them, that were thousand of miles away. That's not to mentioned the various false flag, black ops and drone bombing operations they have carried out against various helpless countries in the past several decades alone.
The Chinese cannot trust the word of an American. Period.
When the Americans sail gunboats right up to Chinese doorsteps, they claim it is justifiable because they are practicing freedom of navigation, but when China builds her self-defense forces, the Americans cry foul and claim Chinese aggression. When the Filipinos and Vietnamese were building their own islands and reefs two decades ago, the Americans kept quiet, but once China showed how island building was really done, they (the Americans) immediately started crying foul.
Thus, what the Chinese are doing is correct.
Defend your territory. Defend your rights. Do not let a country that comes from the other side of the ocean with hostile, malicious intent and guns and missiles tell you what to do.
Lastly, China, increase your nukes to 2,500 please.
24
@T E Low Exactly - You should let a country that comes from your side of the ocean that has demonstrated hostile, malicious intent and guns and missiles tell you what to do because that is where it's heading. Nine-dash line today in ten years why not the Strait of Malacca...
2
@T E Low
The US, in spite of all its shortcomings and tragedies, the Iraq war being the best example, has been a guarantor of peace, prosperity and democracy; the former world powers accepted this new order. The US saved Europe and the Soviet Union from the Nazis, then Europe again from the Soviets, it saved China from Japan, South Korea from North Korea. China, with its roots in Stalinism and ambitious global expansion, is the next big threat to the free world, and most of us accept an American bully as long as it protects our common interests.
4
Does nobody here remember the absurdity of World War I? Countries fought in order to attain/maintain world leadership. For what purpose? At the end, every one of the combatants were losers; many lost millions of lives.
China has many times our population and will gain power regardless of what we do. None of those islands would last 5 minutes in a conflict. Let’s let the world develop in a natural matter. We lose nothing of interest if they build islands 7,000 miles from our coast.
15
@Hobart Harri:
As bad as the Philippine leaders are now, they have in those islands American bases and investments.
Those leaders will not last forever.
Those bases may be our only chance to have any leverage in that part of the world for our own defense at home in the US.
Or we will be isolated with no options for our defense.
Obviously you didn't learn lessons from WWII, or even that stupid VN war.
3
I'm sure that the 700-odd military bases the U.S. has scattered all over the world bear no strategic resemblance to the half-dozen Chinese ones described herein.
22
China’s aggression is the result of 8 years of appeasement under the prior administration. Even now many posting here refuse to accept the seriousness of the situation. It’s time to draw a line in the sand before the situation gets worse.
12
China's version of the American Monroe Doctrine.
44
I grew up on the South China Sea, have crossed and recrossed those waters far more times than I can recall. The explosive situation I see is this: virtually all of the oil for Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan pass through those waters. Sure, there are alternative routes that bypass the South China Sea, but every extra mile is money and we're talking about a LOT of extra miles. If this escalates to denial of innocent passage (freedom of navigation, which the radio transcript hints at) at some point Japan and Taiwan are going to run out of patience. South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are all capable of ramping up their strategic capability in short order. If the U.S. doesn't act to resolve this, someone is going to get hurt out there. Hopefully, there is an economic and/or diplomatic solution, but both economics and diplomacy ultimately depend on the credibility of military force.
26
Taiwan looks likely to be absorbed by China more or less gradually and peacefully.
6
Mr. Trump's administration suddenly believes in the rule of international law?
17
China is a noxious totalitarian state headed by Comrade Xi. He stood in the White Rose garden and lied to us! How surprising. The US has to make it clear that we will protect our democratic friends in the area, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines,etc and the Chinese can have their military islands. Maybe if the Chinese people can overthrow the Communist Party, the islands could become some good dive spots. I wouldn't bet on it though. It took a horrendous war to put similarly powerful tyrants in their place, Tojo and Hitler.
15
@lester ostroy
With all due respect, I ask you: How can we make it clear to China that "we will protect our democratic friends in the area .." when we have already made it abundantly clear that we can't even be counted on to stand by our own allies?
3
China knows they have nothing at all to worry about from us. They have absolutely no fear of the U.S. thanks to Donald Trump.
They realized early on that Trump has a big mouth and no bite!
After issuing a number of silly juvenile threats to North Korea's Kim Jong-Un, who called his bluff each and every time, what did Trump do?
He did exactly what any other idiot would do. He went to North Korea's (secret collaborator) AND big brother CHINA, and cowardly and shamefully asked them to intercede on our behalf.
Need I say more?
13
He tried talking instead of shooting. As for the militarization of these islands, the time to stop them was years ago when they were under construction. Of course, then President Obama didn't do anything. Just add it to the list of his foreign policy blunders.
2
China is, quite simply, preparing for war. Just as Hitler gradually in full view, militarized, China is doing the same.
I always took comfort that China in recent history has never been an expansionist power. But what could be more obvious? Why would they do this? They are doing this for imperial reasons. There is no other rational explanation.
They will strike at us when they are ready to strike
36
Here is the report from New York Times, May 2017, detailing how Trump administration has curtailed movement of US Navy in South China Sea, reversing Obama era policy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/asia/navy-south-china-sea.html
16
On the other hand , global warming or a tsunami will put these puppies underwater. Talk about US containment !
10
@MPM
They were underwater to start with. Any sealevel rise that seriously threatens the Chinese ability to raise them to match it will put Manhattan and Washington DC underwater too. Tsunamis are transitory events; you just rebuild afterwards.
This is serious force projection. You can't torpedo an island, and rendering them unusable as airbases would be a serious problem for a carrier-based force. Short of WWIII, the Chinese have changed the balance of power in SE Asia, and seriously complicated anything taking place in the Indian Ocean. That covers a lot of places -- Persian Gulf, east Africa -- where the US and its allies have interests.
8
How much will Japan tolerate?
10
Perhaps we can assist the Philippines, Vietnam and other nations around the south China seas build up islands of their own - and put dive resorts and golf courses on them. See if China dares threaten islands filled with international tourists - especially American tourists.
4
The parallels to Japan before WW II are chilling.
16
The TPP was opposed by Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton
Opposition was BIPARTISAN
2
@Talesofgenji
And gave China the upper hand by abandoning it.
4
@Talesofgenji -- Of course, She lied. We all knew that.
2
"As for the South China Sea, President Xi Jinping broke the promise he made to Barack Obama in 2015 not to militarise China’s installations there. "
The Economist, Sept 13, 2018
What did President Obama do ?
Trump is not a good president, but he DOES understand that the only language China understands is power.
In the world of of Putin, Assad, Xi it needs to be used.
20
Good think we have commander Bone Spurs in charge.
I'm just trying to visualize his "victory" against China in the South China sea.
America is in for bitter hard lessons in the 21st century, unfortunately.
13
Looks like the new Iron Curtain
2
80 years ago Japan militarily invaded the Pacific Ocean and claimed it. That was the first shot fired in WWII.
This is the first shot fired in WWIII. If the rest of the countries on the planet do not immediately send military ships and planes to criscross the Ocean, we WILL have a nuclear WWIII.
WWII killed 60,000,000 people -- this will be much worse -- unless the Chinese back off their claims that building up an Atoll gets them control of an ocean.
15
U.S., why not publicly declare that, if any weapon is fired at an aircraft or ship cruising in international air space or waters, the source "island" will have 48 hours to abandon all personnel, because the island WILL be destroyed. Assert that as a fact, not a warning: Firing on entities in international space will cause destruction of the source. Hitting the target is not necessary to cause destruction of the “island.”
If China doesn't like that, they can go to the U.N. and contest international law—after defending their decades of theft of other nations’ intellectual property and defend that gulag violations of human rights of citizens.
Let China publically defend its sovereignty as entitlement to treat law with impunity.
47
@gary e. davis Once again, don't you people get that the US violates international law far more often and far more severely than China does? Don't you understand that the US has not signed onto UNCLOS and that the US is presently engaged in doing all it can to illegally undermine the world trade system and its rules and laws? When you have your own house in order then maybe you can make these kind of statements. But, under Trump, that is never going to happen. As for your solution, the Chinese response will be to sink every American ship in the region - and they can do it. Do you really want that kind of war over rocks in the South China Sea?
4
You read how China's early incursions that were not met with force by the US allowed a steady escalation to the point where war is the only option left … eerily similar to Germany and Italy's actions in the 1930's that were not dealt with by France, England when they had overwhelming force and reason. We never really learn the lessons of deterrence do we?
3
Hilarious to see all these armchair quarterbacks after the fact. The reality is Trump has done nothing either other than a few recon missions. Exactly what was going to happen? A war with China over some sand islands? Everyone likes to play tough guy but it has consequences. If we cannot stand up to Russia in Syria (we are backing out with our tails between our legs), how would we have expected to stop the Chinese developments? Always easy to comment from the peanut gallery.
8
@Kendall I seem to recall an airbase destroyed and many Russians killed. We have an objective in Syria, when it is complete we will be leaving by choice, not with our tails anywhere. This is not the Obama administration.
5
Love the use of the term "kowtow". But they are blaming Obama? Who pulled us out of TPP? Did the Phillipines not dismiss the US's effort to counter the Chinese incursion denying the Obama administration from contesting am earlier incursion.
12
@paul How does the TPP have anything to do with this? I don't see it at all, they were building these islands for a while, and Obama did nothing. Now there was nothing he could have done but that is just fact.
4
@vulcanalex
Of course you don't see it. You don't know that TPP was an alliance meant to contain the economic power of China.
1
I don't know this mention is appropriate but this is slowly sounding like the video game franchise Fallout created by Bethesda. China is upping their military, US is upping their military. It's going to be a full blown war and no one's doing anything about it.
4
So is the idea that if China started a war with the U.S., the U.S. would be defeated because of the outpost situation?
Or perhaps the problem is that the nastiness of Chinese radio operators to our recon plane flight crews means that China is now ready to risk war with the U.S.?
Or maybe the concern is that with the point of the Chinese dagger moving ever nearer the heart of the Philippines, that China will feel free to invade our sometime ally, and because their ships and planes are several hours closer given their huge new island military bases, that they will take over the Philippines within--what, a day or two?
I wonder that the U.S. has been able to protect our allies who have entire sometimes-hostile countries right on their borders. Because if we know anything, it's that the US cannot project power if there are even small enemy bases nearby.
2
On May 02, 2017, NyTimes reported how Mr Trump has curtailed Obama era patrols by US Navy into the south China sea. That timidity by Trump emboldened China.
Here is the excerpt from the report in NYTimes.
" More than 100 days into the Trump presidency, no American Navy ship has gone within 12 miles of any of the disputed islands in the South China Sea, Defense Department officials said.
The decision not to challenge China’s territorial claims represents a remarkable deference toward Beijing from an administration that is increasingly turning toward President Xi Jinping for help amid the escalating crisis in the Korean Peninsula."
17
The US has created a dilemma for itself. It has basically to defend everywhere and is involved in hot wars to varying degrees in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan with other forces spread out from Somali to Nigeria. China has only to defend its backyard so to speak. US defense budget spirals toward 800 billion with the once unthinkable figure of 1 Trillion on the horizon. Geography also favors the Chinese as the close proximity of disputed grounds to China enhances their missle and aircraft weapons systems. Operational costs are much lower. Although if I were giving Xi advice, I would say that military adventurism is a fiscal looser, much better to find the sweet spot to settle South China Sea with Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines in a fair manner to create win-win for all. Then orbit SE Asia around Chinese investment and economy for long term gain.
8
China's ambition is to control East Asia and Western Pacific, is willing to play the long game, but it has telegraphed this ambition since the 1940s with nine-dash map and in 1973 with the forcible take over of the Paracel islands from South Vietnam. It happened both times when the US was distracted, in the 1940s with WW II and in 1973 with the winding down of the Vietnam war. The island building occurred under Obama when the US again was distracted by Iraq and Afghanistan.
Short of a shooting war, the US has effectively ceded control of the South China Sea (note that other countries in the region do not call it South China Sea) to China. China is willing to wait another 100 years to completely claim the South China Sea and all its land features and undersea resources as its own. That's why it's important for the US to continue its freedom of operations sailing and flying and for other claimants to press their claims.
8
1. China's rise has been facilitated by both parties from Nixon on. Both parties sought rapprochement and both are directly complicit in regards to NTR and WTO membership. Corporate elites used this to move manufacturing offshore and basically fund the PRC at the cost of US workers. 2. Trump, on China, is the broken clock that might tell time correctly once in awhile. 3. The islands will not change sea or air traffic in the area for the US and commercial vessels. China knows, having seen the reaction to 9/11 and now Trump, that there are many in the US who would support war up to and including the use of nukes. They are also vulnerable in XinJiang and Tibet to outside disruption. No one would be the winner but China would be the worse off.
8
One of the first things Trump did , after he came to office, was stop the US navy patrols into waters that China disputed. That show of timidity by Trump emboldened the chinese.
The patrols have since then being resumed but the damage was done.
9
Well, it's very obvious that China intends to turn the S China Sea into a Chinese saltwater lake. They will defend it by a series of fortresses and are signaling their intent to attack transgressors at some point when they feel confident.
So let's be clear on what American options are:
1. We can continue to project our naval and air power in the area to maintain our rights to navigate by air or sea international waters. Pursuing this option is low risk to the US since China will not attack a US vessel, no matter how loud their propaganda dogs bark. That said, unless the rest of the world also sends its vessels into the area, this becomes more of a stand off than a resolution. The flash point will come if a US ally is attacked by China, or it a neutral is attacked by China. If the former, then war. If the latter, a toothless UN resolution.
2. We can challenge China now. We should prevail in any type of war given our nuclear advantages. Our naval attack capacity may not be sufficient and our air power will be dependent on vulnerable aircraft carriers, Guam based bombers, and whatever we have in land based sites in the area. High risk, low return.
3. We can acknowledge China's hegemony in the area much as we assert our hegemony in the Americas and much of the world. Such acknowledgement would thrill China's rulers, embolden Putin and other despots, and probably lead our conman deal maker in chief to claim trade war victories.
I guess I'd choose option 1.
9
@TDurk There are probably other options but one is my choice and as I see it also the administrations.
Not sure how effective this project might ultimately be when it will be 30 ft below (rising) sea level. The runway may be long enough for a military plane but this plane will have to clear a 50 ft wall coming and going?
1
China's "forward bases" in the South China Sea are nothing compared to the U.S.'s forward bases in Havaii, Guam, Okinawa, the Philippines, Singapore, Australia, and Garcia Diego in the Indian Ocean. Garcia Diego is also an island of disputed sovereignty. When the U.S. started building the military base there in the 1970's, its disputed status wasn't an issue for the U.S.
Both the U.S. and China want peace and stability in the South China Sea. Let them find common interests there and cooperate. No use in pointing figers at each other.
15
Why not avoid war and focus on something that benefits both sides, like trade and education. Why is the U.S. always getting involved in conflicts around the World. I think we have a problem , it's called global domination. Let's fix our bridges and transportation system by investing in infrastructure at home instead of wasting money in conflicts that do not benefit US.
23
@Ramon
"Why not avoid war and focus on something that benefits both sides, like trade and education. "
Republican party has always been anti education, and under Trump they are now anti trade.
They may succeed yet in turning America into a military junta where fake posturing covers up national failure.
6
It's like that board game Risk. If you see an opponent building up its forces and expanding its borders, you need to shore up your own position for the inevitable onslaught.
Those artificial islands won't stand long to climate change. A wasted effort by China to militarize something they cannot protect against.
6
@Nick What are you saying....... Trump is a genius?
How many people read this article down to the 35th paragraph where one learns that the Pentagon conducted the world's largest naval war games in July, a month-long Rim of the Pacific exercises, known as RIMPAC,that brought together 46 ships and submarines, 200 aircraft and 25,000 troops from 25 nations? Last I heard, Beijing does not host any naval exercises up & down the California coast or the Atlantic seaboard. Please take a moment to think about the asymmetry of US naval power & the "threat inflation" of China's aggressiveness. https://www.voanews.com/a/south-china-sea-and-western-naval-exercises/44...
147
@Laura We are there at the request of the nations around that area who live in fear of China's growing military. Do not forget China is still a totalitarian state with world power dreams. And while it's economic and military status has been growing in leaps and bounds. Freedom has not. America is needed by the other nearby countries to counter China's growing belligerence in area.
9
Hi, talking about agreements, does anyone know why the agreements between the USA and Japan after WW2 to return all Chinese owned islands taken by the Imperial Japanese army .
China argues that Japan stole the islands during the First Sino-Japanese War. The government has recently pulled out the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Declaration as evidence, stating that by Japan agreeing to sign these documents, they agreed “to restore to the Republic of China all the territories Japan has stolen from the Qing Dynasty of China such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores.” I gather lots of smaller islands were never returned to China but left under US/Japanese occupation.
4
Did the US pay for RIMPAC from tax revenue or use the money tree?
The Chinese base appears so low in the water that climate change will make it unusable very soon.
13
You’re suffering from tunnel vision – these island bases are merely strategic stepping stones to controlling Japan and Philippines, which are more than tall enough to be around next century.
@George Boccia
"The Chinese base appears so low in the water that climate change will make it unusable very soon."
A typhoon or tsunami will wipe these islands clean one of these days.
Forget a nuclear Iran. That's just Israel politicking. Forget North Korea. That's just posturing to be given respect on a world stage and to deflect domestic poverty issues. The most serious threat to world peace is the South China Sea. This is likely to evolve into a Cuban Missile Crisis within a short period of time. I only hope we have a new Commander-in-Chief in place to deal with it, when not if, it happens.
13
@MartinC
Well, Obama certainly did nothing...as usual.
4
Gosh. All this "winning" is making my head spin.
I guess the Chinese will enjoy a wonderful build up of healthy (green) fish stocks, while we in the US put up with the Methane and obesity fat of "corn fed beef"
1
Perhaps winning that trade war can avoid future military conflicts.
7
The Chinese military build up and extra-legal claims to territorial water has been going on for years. There's been no concrete response from the world's only super power because we didn't know what to do. Muscular abilities are independent of a clear vision. It's difficult to make a play in the South China Sea other than wait for something sufficiently noxious to kick them out with a reflex response.
So China wants to be a small playground bully? The US has lost all moral authority and economic bartering position short of military intervention. We've invested more in blow hard militarization than honing the edge that comes from diplomatic leadership on the world stage.
Imagine what we'll have to give up to have peace in the world. It's almost unimaginable that the US will lead a peace effort. We love to gird for war and lionize our GI trained killers as heroes.
Peace will cost a lot more than the sum of all the trade deficits. It will cost giving up on bad ideas.
4
But then, the proven liar Trump said he has deep love, admiration and respect for XXI with whom he has a special relationship.
1
There's really only one way to deal with bullies like China. You walk right up to them, look them in eyes, and tell them:
"Go ahead. Everyone in the neighborhood is watching us. And none of them are your friends. Pull the trigger and see what happens."
9
Yes and do that with the U.S. too.
1
@AJ Garcia
Isn't that what Clint Eastwood did in "Grand Torino"?
Why is it so frustrating for the US to bemoan the militarization of parts of the world in Chinese strategic national interest, don't we do this all the time?
16
@Number 25
Yeah, but we don't do it with the intent to eventually disrupt free trade.
3
Hands off Latin America bellows the Monroe Doctrine . Our sphere of influence. South China Sea is China’s sphere of influence .
China has a long memory of colonial powers taking over their country . Now, no more
M
15
@Howard Kaplan
Yeah , the communists are really nice people.
Ask the Urgurs or Tibetans and you might get a different answer.
4
Increase the tariffs and ignore Wall Streets protest.
We have been way too complacent with both China and Russia.
With seas generally rising, perhaps a typhoon or two will make these fortresses obsolete.
7
Wow. Not even a mention of ongoing and progressing ASEAN (Association of South East Nations) diplomatic talks between China and South East Asian states invovlved in the islands disputes. ASEAN and China are currently peacefully negoitating a code of conduct addressing the disputes. But no need to inform the NYT readership of that it gets in the way of the military options first propaganda.. The US cannot tolerate a successful outcome of these ASEAN talks as it will be yet another loss of influence in the region so according to most observers they are working hard to sabotage the negotiations and increasing tensions where they can hence the laughably described "freedom of navigation" probes. . This piece is the usual stenography services for the Pentagon offered by the NYT otherwise known in more independent jouranlistic circles by its journalistic nickname "official sources say". But gee the reporter got to fly on a plane enter disputed air space and hear - what a shock - the legally required kabuki theater declaration from the Chinese that they had entered Chinese territory. Nice artifical drama set up by the Pentagon and eagerly put out there by the NYT. Well done. Next time try putting some coverage of the ASEAN talks in these pieces and BTW identify Hainan Island (the big island off Vietnam) on your South China Seas maps. Does anyone take NYT coverage of any issue touching on US geopolitical interests seriously?
26
This ought to be a GEICO commercial: China in the South China Sea? Not unusual. US military aircraft flying over sovereign Chinese territory? Very strange.
3
People must always look at both sides of this issue if they are going to see the real problem with Chinese expansion. What is it the Chinese are doing, that we have not done by being occupiers thousands of miles from our shores? The Chinese Communists, having acquired great wealth, are spreading their wings all over the globe. We need more diplomacy and we need to keep talking. It is only when the talking stops that we have real problems. Unfortunately, we don't have competent people in the White House.
2
@John
It is a critical trade route (approximately one third of global shipping passes through) over which the Chinese are claiming sovereignty. I do not believe the US has set itself up anywhere in the world in this way.
9
@BV Bagnall
Panama
1
All of this happened under the Obama's administration. He treated China with kids gloves and China walked all over him and staked claims that will be almost entirely impossible to revert.
Thank goodness he is gone, and we have someone like Trump who is made of sterner stuff and realizes the threats China has posed, is posing to international security.
Strategically he is starting with trade in order to restrain China’s capacity to finance these lavish selfish expansions.
It seems to me only the Republicans understand these things; the left just wants to focus on identity politics and policies.
40
Trump has done NOTHING about the Chinese military buildup in that area and to pretend he has is just dishonest. Instead he has maniacally focused on building a wall against a country that poses no threat to us at all. Don't try to make it sound as if Trump's warmongering is the answer to a Obama's attempts to collaborate.
@WillF
Well, even Silly Putty would be sterner than Obama's backbone in dealing with China., Iran or Syria. He gave the game away.
1
I don’t agree with you but appreciate your POV, especially since it is the most liked comment this far.
Timid Obama?
Gee what a shocker!!!
The Mikado McConnell and Eddie Munster Ryan routinely stole his lunch money and his kicks.
I'm sure if Benito Trumpolini demanded freedom of the seas for Trump Enterprises goods,
Merkel and May and Trudeau and the rest of the world will unite behind him.
The House of Saud and Nutty Netanyahu will assemble for sure!
3
This article, of course, begs the critically important question what happens when the Chinese finally grow tired of American "arrogance" in violated their newly created "sovereign" rights by continuing our recon flights over these "islands" military bases reported on here. Because that will most certainly happen. So unless we are prepared to go to war with China at some point when it is strong and angry enough and/or believes we are weak enough, the folks who purport to care about America and us Americans, and not simply about retaining the power, wealth and perks that governance bestows upon them, we need to devise a feasible international based strategy for avoiding such a showdown with China.
I realize that any such strategy must include the international community if it is to be successful and long-term, and that any such cooperation has been rendered infinitely more difficult to achieve because of the idiocy of our current clown-in-chief and cowardice of his Congressional Republican enablers. But somehow those who genuinely care about this nation's long-term interests need to elect Democrats and Republicans who can and will subordinate their party's interests to this country's. That may no longer be possible in a Trumpian or post-Trumpian America, in which case the Chinese can and will do as they please.
Who knows, maybe China's exercise in imperialism will be more beneficial and less exploitative to the world than ours has been.
8
So war it is.
2
Just as the US can't do anything about Chinese claims to these manufactured islands short of starting a war, they don't do China any good in any circumstance short of war.
These folks can bluster into a radio all they want, it won't change anything unless the can convince the crews of these planes and ships that they might actually shoot. As things stand, nobody's buying that.
9
So where was the u.s. government the last 10 years while China basically annexed the China sea? If you read most leftie commenters in the times they seem to want any tariffs against China to fail. Maybe it's time for the left to, at least for a bit, put away its hatred of trump and pull together for what is looking increasingly like a common, external enemy. China is not a democracy, is not an allie, not our friend, and is an unfair trading partner. Let's see if our so-called allies in the west will stand up to these bullies with us. We can do it now, or cede control of Asia to China so trump will look bad.
13
@Al
Seriously?
You really think the "left" is trying to make the Trumpster look bad by ceding control of Asia to China?
Is this the GRU's move from FB to the mainstream media?
2
For the sake of democracy in the region yes put asked petty differences. The trump administration is confronting Chinese imperialism and like never before. Give credit where credit is due.
1
@Al The US is far more dangerous to world peace and stability than China. China has not invaded any sovereign countries in the past 17 years, causing global instability. And, as obnoxious as China may be in the SCS, it is nothing compared to how the US behaves in most of the world, including North America - and I say this as a Canadian who is watching Trump and his minions trying to strong-arm my country into a lousy trade deal. The US is the source of most of the world's instaiblity right now; it is also deliberately attacking the structures of international law and trade, Objectively, the US is the far bigger problem for most of the world than China. China, ironically, is looking a lot more like a solution to the grotesque American abuse of its power adn position.
2
I love to read comments, to round out what a reporter may have said already, and to bring perspective not otherwise in the article. However, there are some really ridiculous comments here: construction was funded with trade deficit dollars? That belies the same incorrect thinking behind the tariffs being imposed; its just plain wrong. And if China wanted to build islands, a totalitarian system would do so regardless of the availability or source of funds. "Oh, we have a lot of trade deficit dollars - let's use them to build islands."
Silly. Stating China has a bigger economy? Plainly wrong. The article's statement of the volume of trade passing through the area is grossly misleading absent deducting from it all trade involving China. If China was talking about the dangers of the U.S.'s control of an international waterway immediately adjacent to the U.S., wouldn't most of the traffic be goods going to and from the U.S.? Including those amounts to make the number bigger and scarier is false fear-mongering. The most salient comment was to recognize climate change, which may solve this problem over time. Or a common underwater earthquake could solve it all at once.
5
This is purely the result of the Obama/Clinton/Kerry incompetence in foreign policy
15
@Amy Actually, it's the result of the awakening of China from a backward country to an economic and military power that just keeps growing. Do you think we should try, or could, put a lid on it just because we can't keep up?
2
@Amy
We should all be thankful for Bush tossing a trillion dollars into the sand to keep the world safe from terrorists and secure peace in the ME. He kept us safe from Saddam and his wmd's.
1
@AynRant Sure we could, just stop buying stuff from then and insist on it being made in North America. Now there would be a price, but one that would be very worth it.
1
Once again the anti-Trumpers fail to see the exquisite nuances of his world-wide strategic vision. His secret cunning plan is to accelerate global warming through undermining the Paris Accords, rolling back auto efficiency standards, neutering the EPA, and generally frustrating environmental policy thereby causing the islands in question to sink beneath the waves in a few short years leaving the Chinese up to their necks in the South China Sea. Now, all we need to do is to figure out how to prevent rest of the world from suffering the fallout from this brilliant move. But not to worry, Donald will save us all--just ask him.
115
@Pat C
It’s easy...the rest of the world we put on stilts constructed with American steel.
7
@Pat C Well that explains everything with the added benefit of supplying my morning's first smile.
4
And still we hand over almost $500 billion each year to China. Call it a trade deficit, but it is a massive transfer of wealth. Any suggestion that they play on a level playing field is a farce.
38
@RAD61 what part of trade in "trade deficit" do you not understand? that money isn't a gift.
2
@RAD61: That $500B you condemn represents goods and services paid for by US businesses that they want/need/re-sell. Your logic makes as much sense as saying that you have a trade deficit with your neighborhood grocery store.
7
@RAD61
"And still we hand over almost $500 billion each year to China"
Not exactly true. Yes, we hand it over, but they hand over $500,000,000,000 of goods. We are not giving them anything for free. And we're getting the better deal value-wise or we wouldn't do it.
2
Time to stop "making war" on trade with our allies and focus on the real threats, like China and Russia. The US will continue to diminish if it can't pick the right enemy and get allies on board. Beating your friends into submission will only make your enemies stronger and our friends wary of our intentions. Trump succeeded in persuading NATO allies to increase their spending but he's losing them on trade rhetoric and cheap insults on Twitter. Now is the time to focus on denying the real enemy finances that fuel their militarization efforts.
5
Here's praying for a tsunami in the South China Sea at Mischief Reef.
7
While it is not helpful that under Trump the United States has not been obeying international law or agreements (the tariffs imposed for "national security", pulling out of the Iran deal, threatening to no defend allies we are bound to by treaty), this is one of the few times I can commend Trump for standing up more forcefully to a bully (Xi) and criticize Obama for not doing so.
Now if only Trump would stand up to Putin for annexing Crimea and fostering war in Ukraine...ah, who am I kidding?
2
@Bill He is, potentially basing troops in Poland and selling actual military hardware to Ukraine. You apparently are not keeping up.
2
New York Times,
You might be able to give your readers a better perspective on the 21st century if you could bring yourselves to write "in Okinawa" rather than "on."
It's a Japanese Province, not an American battlefield or airbase now.
4
The nuances of those words are not as clear as you make them out to be.
Red line in the sand Obama did it again with this. Great speaker but a complete and utter zero in every other category of a leader.
17
@Bill Lombard
On the scale in which Obama was zero, Trump is negative 1000. Or negative 1,000,000.
2
Oh boy! This is going to be fun! Now instead of China giving us shoddy products for which we give them increasingly worthless pieces of green paper, we are going to have to have a slap down with them about their aggressions in the Pacific. Good!
2
Last year for the same period, the country attracted 388,896 Chinese tourists. This year, the Philippines attracted 559,289, representing overall growth of 44 percent. February 2018 alone saw growth of 86 percent over February 2017.
My cousin runs the supply route to the fort in South China Sea for Taiwan, this is my two cents:
South China Sea is an interesting point of contention. But I remain convinced that China has a very big shortcoming--it lacks the bicoastal fronts that US has, its reach is entirely depending on one coast front, a front that is crowded with other nations. China's claim to South China sea is contrived one, and without claiming both Taiwan and Hainan as its territory, it really doesn't belong in South China Sea at all.
Although it has seemingly smartly to use artificial islands to lay its claim for now, China is devoting a good amount of resource ( I wonder what is the resource allocated in their Navy to keep, maintained, and fortified--probably 1/3 of their budget?) to it. It is a money sucker, and when a war breaks out there, one can not assume it will be the ONLY conflict. The supply to the South China Sea fortress is entirely depending on the mainland, it is not self sustainable, what if other countries blocks its supply route? What if other countries block China's mainland ports? The big question is, what is China giving to Vietnam, Philippine, etc. to be its allies when the war breaks out? Because if China has no trusted allies there, the fortress in South China Sea is a money pit with no return.
I speculate US's position is to let this fortress to suck up as much $$ as possible from China, then cut the umbilical cord.
29
Let’s connect the dots, the corporate elite like the one way phony free trade where American worker standards and income are crushed and pressured by offshoring production to China, why rock the boat with China and jeopardise mutually beneficial (corporate profits and Chinese prosperity) by challenging Chinese aggression in Asia. True the Obama failure also to judge and counter China based on its actions. Redline must be drawn on Scarborough Shoal at the very least.
4
We forget that China's successive five-year plans are part of a 100-year plan where China achieves global economic, military, technological, and cultural preeminence. It's no secret; their ministers speak of it openly. And they're achieving it, perhaps even faster than they themselves anticipated. See also China's massive investments in Latin American and African nations. The long game indeed.
91
@rgnyc It's no secret, it's happening, and it's inevitable! Learn to live with it.
What less would you expect of a nation that, in only 50 years, has managed to lift a billion people out of centuries of poverty and neglect, and create an unparalleled infrastructure of education, commerce, communications, and transportation?
5
@rgnyc
"We forget that China's successive five-year plans are part of a 100-year plan where China achieves global economic, military, technological, and cultural preeminence"
Yes. I especially remember the "Great Leap Forward," that four-year part of their 100-year plan in which they killed 40 million of their own countrymen. I wonder how many similar four-year segments are in that 100-year plan?
4
@AynRant. And they only had to kill millions of their own people and run over them with tanks to get it done. Not to mention all the military and industrial espionage. China is a totalitarian regime that has to deny its own citizens basic rights with a police state and sell piles of trash to the west to pay for it. That's not a recipe for longterm survival.
3
Perhaps the simplest response would be to say that any ships carrying cargo from China and that pass through the disputed waters may not dock in the US and that any cargo disgorged from those ships may not enter the US. And, instead of directly targeting China in the wording, say that it only involves disputed waters that the United Nations have ruled the offending country does not control. Having to avoid traveling through the South China Sea would add significantly to the cost of their exports to the US.
17
@Rob-Chemist
Rob,
The United State can operate as a member of the World Trade Organization or not. America's call.
You seem to have a strong feeling about your short-term preference. It's not clear that you've thought it through any further than that.
1
The militarization of the South China Sea is a simple, clear message that China is not to be trusted.
Clearly they are planning to dominate and control a vast area that does not belong to them.
What is the difference between this and Russia's annexation of Crimea?
95
@Paul Yates and also how is it different from the US Space Force plan to claim US lethal dominance in space and establish systems to "degrade, deny, disrupt, destroy, and manipulate adversary capabilities" as indicated in last month's report to congress?
2
@Paul Yates: Just as the original 13 colonies did here as they expanded control of the North American continent westward clear to the Pacific shores of California, Oregon and Washington -- then adding Hawaii and Alaska. That was done by direct military conquest, or via the implied threat of it even where "purchase" was included to justify and disguise the intent and result. It was termed Manifest Destiny.
1
@Paul Yates
>What is the difference between this and Russia's annexation of Crimea?
The Crimea had people in it. The reefs that China is turning into islands did not.
2
Well they could call their loans to our treasury. That would ruffle some feathers.
7
@Warren Bobrow They have no power to call the loans since they contain dates of redemption. They could sell the loans, but that would likely their just losing money.
11
@Warren Bobrow: They're bonds, which are not collectible until their due date.
11
@mlbex
Mibex,
The US needs to raise about a trillion dollars a year as long as it runs on Donald Trump/Paul Ryan arithmetic.
China hs three or four trillion in the kitty. That means they can sell enough every week to keep the interest rate the US pays on its new debt in two-digit interest rate territory for as long as it takes for Donald Trump to whine "uncle."
1
What would be our reaction to Chinese naval vessels and Chinese war planes that considered it their right and responsbility to patrol the Gulf of Mexico close to the shores of Florida and Texas, the Pacific close to the shores of California, or the Atlantic not far from New York or Boston harbors?
123
They’re already here. Harvard. Yale. MIT. CalTech. And without a shot fired.
2
@Penseur
The response would be professional and adhere to global maritime standards regarding use of international waters. The Russians, especially during the Cold War, used spy vessels continually in international waters off every coast of the US. The USN and CG did not then (and do not now) communicate in the same manner as the PRC military.
USN and allied naval vessels and aircraft operating in international waters and airspace have been "buzzed" numerous times by PRC and Russian aircraft. This is the type of provocative behavior that can cause fatal incidents to occur. The naval and air forces of the US and EU, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc. do NOT respond in kind to this sort of behavior.
I recommend reading more about the current state of
the PRC military and ruling class. The NYT has an excellent archive. Google works quite well also.
4
Your analogy doesn't fit the geographical reality. These islands are more than 800 miles from China's coast, but only 130 from the Philippines main island.
It's the equivalent of the UK seizing an island off Sweden's coast, building it up, heavily militarizing it (having promised not to), then claiming that flights and ships passing nearby are a violation of its sovereignty.
22
President Xi lied in 2015 when he said “there is no intention to militarize” these seven islands they have created or expanded. The USA in monitoring the situation is operating in international space. If China tries to interfere they must be especially careful while Trump is in power given his proven volatility. Beyond this time, most in the USA while acknowledging China’s rightful place in a new world order feel it should not let it bully others into forgoing their rights. An independent international tribunal has decided that China is in the wrong and them ignoring this decision diminishes their world standing.
11
Given our current situation, it’s hard for me to criticize Obama. In my opinion, however, Obama was clearly timid when it came to dealing with China. If the human race exists in 2050, China will most certainly rule the roost. Ask yourself if you really believe America is on a long-term sustainable course?
65
@Donald Craig Nowhere in all of these comments is there a mention of TPP. TPP was a coalition of all of China's neighbors to stand up to the bully in the region and declare that China was not going to be able to set the rules. First thing Trump does is to kill TPP. After that all that is left is the military and the whole situation is owned by the guy who destroyed the coalition against China. Now its One Belt One Road baby!
4
@Donald Craig And Obama "getting tough" with China would have constituted what, exactly? Parking a carrier strike group off the aptly-named Mischief Atoll. And then what, a mini-Cuban Missle Crisis, except this time for a spit of land literally halfway around the world? Why do we keep falling into the trap, time and again, of believing that the US is the world's police force? We are not. Over the course of history, countries steal things all the time. Including islands. Go to war over it? No thanks, haven't we learned our lesson by now?
4
Apple and the American businesses who have been sending their jobs over to China should be considered now as treason. They paid on 2.00 a day for labor and no health insurance for decades and by turning their heads China is a world wide threat now. The Democrats need to pound that into congress and the voters . We are in trouble if they don't.
36
@D.j.j.k.
Nixon's opening gave way to Sam Walton gave way to Steve Jobs. That's the Cliff's notes anyway.
It's funny to utter it, but Nixon was the only one going there not out of simple greed, but rather with higher ideals in mind.
American CEO's have been the primary funder & builder of the West's greatest totalitarian adversary in history. Russia is a backwater bicycle thief by comparison.
“Leave immediately!”…..the executive officer of the surveillance plane, said such challenges have been routine…..
And we’re currently imposing tariffs on China to the point, as stated in a previous article, that an economic Cold War is about to start. Couple that with two hotheads, Trump and Duterte then start their pompous rhetoric threatening to strike back, then poof, a Tonkin Gulf incident occurs.
Control of the South China Sea has been lost to China, so may as well pick up our marbles and go home, or face a brutal sea and land war with a country whose population and manufacturing capabilities dwarf that of the U.S.
14
It's a shame the Obama administration ceded control of Asia to China. At least President Trump is trying to sort things out.
8
@TL Yeah - the world needed a profound, long-term-thinking statesman like Trump in 2008 to 2016.
5
@TL Nonsense. Obama had built a 12 nation coalition to oppose Chinese dominance in Asia but what did Trump do on his first days in office? Killed TPP. After that he can't claim to be sorting out anything other than his own ignorance. Hopeless!
3
Perhaps rising sea levels from Global Warning will chase China off these reclaimed islands.
19
I don't support Pres. Trump most of the time, but after reading this - I have come to love him slapping China around with tariffs.
15
@Al Sal
Trump's imposed tariffs on China only result in
China's retaliating. They are a lose-lose deal!
May make Trump feel good, but do not help
the U.S.
3
@Al Sal. If only Trump had a strategy that wasn't informed by his gut or Fox news. Unfortunately his strategy is chaos.
2
No way...
Check out the S&P 500 vs. The shanghai stock exhange.
Trump is winning over China.
3
This simply shows that the Chinese recognize Trump as a weak buffoon. It's going to get worse.
11
@SparkyYou clearly don't know what you are talking about. All this took place under Obama.
4
@Sparky. As opposed to say, Obama, who did nothing but look the other way as China bullied it's way into resource rich countries and spied on us?
4
@Sparky
My favorite moment of Chinese respect for Pres Obama was when the Chinese made Obama walk down the rear stairs from Air Force One instead of rolling stairs to the front hatch of the aircraft. They had exactly zero respect for him.
1
If you want to understand the context of one reason why China is active in the South China Sea, this may help.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36952
Just as the US wants to maintain a presence in the Persian Gulf to ensure security, China probably seeks similar goals by having a presence on those islands.
6
@Leptoquark
I wonder.
Is false equivalence a religion?
4
There never was and still is not anything the US could have done to stop this. It's an absolute fantasy to pretend that Obama could have stopped China any more than Trump will. No sane person would fight a war over the South China Sea. China's claims have absolutely no legal or historical validity, but they are of strategic importance: China does not want to be boxed into the Sea is there is conflict. There is absolutely no question that, in a comparable situation, the US would do the same and, indeed, has, as its military domination of Latin American indicates. The problem is that Americans are still acting as though their military and economic domination of the world is some kind of natural law. It is not; the rise of other powers to challenge US power was inevitable and is being greatly accelerated by Trump's behavior. The US has to choose where it wants to protect its interests, but it is only one power now in Asia, the most important place in the world. Second, the US has not signed the Law of the Sea and has routinely and devastatingly violated international law with its various wars (Iraq) and interventions and, now, its attacks on the world trading system. Bolton explicitly said that international law applies to everyone else, not the US. Under these conditions, the US simply has no credibility in evoking international law and norms against any other state. Sign UNCLOS and start obeying international law (including supporting the ICC and WTO) and then we can talk.
258
@Shaun Narine
If no sane person would fight a war on South China
Then China won’t.
The Monroe Doctrine was to keep European problems out of the Americas.
The Xi doctrine is the Chinese Empire is owned by the Chinese Communist Party and so owns all Hsn wherever found and the South China Sea and all the countries around China and most of the countries in Africa and a few American countries.
Why? Just because.
Now go on repeating agitprop propaganda of the 1930s as if it were divine revelation.
4
@Shaun Narine
couldn't agree more! US's double standard is shameful!
3
@Shaun Narine-Yep. Trump national security adviser, John Bolton, recently declared the Hague Court--famous for bringing Nazi war criminals to justice--“ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous,” and threatened sanctions against the court’s prosecutors and judges who pursued cases against Americans, according to the NY Times. I'm worried that this is a pre-emptive move to limit Trump and his criminal enablers pushing U.S. lawlessness to be exposed to international court's justice. Before Trump, Bolton hired Cambridge Analytica, which not only widely (mis)used social media for Trump's benefit but also boasted of its ability to manipulate elections to Russian clients.
4
This shell game is all very interesting, however, these military shoals are probably not defensible in an all out conflict. Missiles can probably take out each island from afar. China has endured centuries of Western naval domination and is assuming the same posture as America in the Western Hemisphere. Since WWII American military intervention has consistently been on the wrong side of history. What is happening in the South China Sea is essentially the transition Great Britain had with the receding of their empire. Also, given the symbiotic nature of Sino-American financial relations, war would not be advised, economically. There is always the chance of extremists on either side staging a Gulf of Tonkin style triggering event. But that’s the risk you take when you park yourself on somebody’s front lawn and tell them they can’t come out of the house. Eventually, someone blinks. At this point, it’s probably better that it is us. America has a way of thinking of war in remote terms; the conflagration is “over there.” China is obviously taking the long view here. America, on the other hand, is reactive. So what’s more important, IPhones, or a few extra trillions in defense contractors’ pockets?
5
Two solutions:
1. Dramatically reduce the U.S. trade deficits with China through differential tariffs - higher tariffs on China, low/no tariffs on lower wage allies like Mexico. Move some manufacturing back to the U.S., move most of it to low wage allies.
Our trade deficits are funding an avowed, aggressive adversary that is opposing the U.S. militarily and diplomatically and flouting international law.
2. All nations must join the U.S. in enforcing international maritime law. The U.K., France, and Japan have already started. We now need Germany, Canada, and the rest of NATO, as well as Australia, New Zealand, and other Pacific allies. This will require them to increase their defense expenditures.
The U.S. cannot and should not be alone on this.
49
@John
You do realize that the US is a non-party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_th...
2
@John Sorry but the solution to the China trade deficit is to convince American consumers to stop shopping at Walmart. Aint' gonna happen.
Obama had a deal with 12 Pacific allies to contain China but what did Trump do in his first days in office? Kill TPP. Trump isn't exactly showing a lot of skill or interest in building coalitions.
4
@John Yes, and how are you treating your allies now? Imposing sanctions against them and trying to ruin their economies? And how exactly is the US supposed to "enforce maritime law" when it has not even signed onto the treaty governing Maritime law? The US (and its citizens) continue to make these kind of pronouncements without seeming to understand the incredible hypocrisy embodied in such statements.
4
I recognize most readers may disagree with this, but the time needs to come when the American public decides what our macro strategy should be (militarily) in the world. Right now it is defense contractors and "think tank experts" who determine things.
Do we really want to be the sole insurer of all trade in the world? Where are other first-world nations on this? Why is it the US Navy who is seen as the only keeper of the peace?
The bottom line is that America needs to be one of several watchdogs in the world. For the next 100 years or so we will be the dominant one, but we should be only one of many. Frankly, we cannot afford to pay everyone else's territorial bills.
I'd like to see other major nations step up.
My two cents.
37
@David W
Yes!
I want a pony. Too!
3
This whole matter got very little coverage in the US media, whereas Democracy Now! covered it routinely and its regular viewers were keenly aware of the military build-up (and lack of a US response). I think this will eventually haunt Obama's legacy, as it well should. Watching this develop in recent years, with such a timid response from the US, has been frightening.
50
Econ 101 : Follow the money
Where did those dollars come from that finances China's military build up ?
Largely from the trade deficit with the US. 375.2 Billion last year
Economists who argued for free trade with China assumed that China would invest any surplus in US Treasury bonds.
They overlooked that China might use those $'s challenge US control in the Pacific .
87
The trade deficit is not money paid to the Chinese government. Hope you are taking your Econ. 101 pass/fail.
10
While the article faults the previous administration on not shoring up the Philippines as an ally, I would also point out that the current administration' s withdrawing from TPP sends exactly the wrong message at the wrong time, to the Philippines and every other ally we think we have in SE Asia, dependent upon free navigation - and trade - throughout the region of the South China Sea.
189
@Dennis S
The TPP was opposed by Hillary as well
2
@Dennis S
Under Obama the USA announced a new foreign policy called Pivot To the East. It was recognition that China was the new , greater threat to US hegemony vs the puny Russians with their oil export based economy. This was the right decision for the USA but one has to ask if US hegemony is right.
4
Building these artificial islands won't defend the Chinese Nation in any term. A greater construction miracle, the Great Well, hardly did its work.
With that said, I wonder why we put our noise downs to the South China Sea. Confrontation with another nuclear and economic superpower?
You see, always the poor and the weak suffer the most.
3
@Oscar. L
The poor and weak are doing better than ever due to the market economy. Western medicine. Western agriculture. Western rights beliefs. Read.
5