East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

[AssassinsMace]

The US has to be ambiguous. Remember Japan holds islands that South Korea claims to which were handed to Japan by the US in much the same situation as with China. If the US were to declare to side with Japan on these island disputes under some legal claim, South Korea will be up at arms. Of course the US sides with Japan but they can't say it out loud. So the US is for the status quo because Japan is in control of those islands. Japan has only the US as their strong ally and they're not like South Korea who can play the China card. Japan is loyal by default. The US declares it sides with Japan and China will take those uninhabited islands. Like Americans will want to go to war with China over uninhabited islands? The official line is the US is neutral because all other scenarios is going to anger someone the US cannot afford to have a conflict with.

 

[joshuatree]

Japan is an ally of the US therefore we have to take their side unless they do something outright idiotic.

Personally, I think that moment was when Japan pressed ahead to "nationalize" the islands. That set off a chain of events that led to where things are currently at. The US did not pressure hard enough behind closed doors at that moment to keep status quo. No matter what the Japanese rationale or spin, "nationalizing" pretty much gave no wiggle room for China not unless it essentially capitulates and gives those islands to Japan which ain't happening.

 

[A.Man]

New threats will not distract U.S. from Asia, Hagel says

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By David Brunnstrom


ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT (Reuters) - The United States will not be deterred from plans to strengthen its military position in Asia by emerging threats elsewhere, the U.S. defense secretary said on Thursday as he prepared to meet allies in the region worried by an increasingly assertive China.

President Barack Obama, in a keynote foreign policy speech on Wednesday, surprised and disappointed some in Asia when he made no specific reference to what has been a signature policy theme of his administration, the rebalancing of U.S. military, political and economic focus toward Asia.

He talked at length instead about emerging threats, including by militants operating from the North African region.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters en route for Singapore, where he will speak at a regional security forum before heading on to Afghanistan and Europe, that the U.S. commitment to Asia was as strong as ever.

“What the president said yesterday and his explanation in addressing the emerging threats in all corners of the word will not inhibit, or shorten, or lessen our asset position here in the rebalancing to the Asia Pacific,” he said when asked if resources earmarked for Asia after the winding down of the Iraq and Afghan wars might be rediverted to deal with the new threats Obama referred to.

“That doesn't diminish at all the commitment, nor will it, that we have made to this rebalance in Asia and the Pacific.”

Hagel said he would have no fewer than 10 bilateral meetings and three tri-lateral meetings aimed at reinforcing relationships and calming tensions during his two days starting Friday at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a forum that brings together defense and security experts and officials from Asia, the United States and Australia.

It will be Hagel’s fifth visit to Asia since he became secretary of defense last year. He was last in the region two months ago ahead of a visit by Obama. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has also visited Asia this year.

“The visits are part of showing our commitments to this Asia Pacific rebalance,” Hagel said.

Hagel’s meetings will include a brief one with a Chinese army general heading China’s delegation to the forum. Hagel said he would be “direct” about areas of difference, while seeking to develop military-to-military contacts aimed at improving communication and defusing tensions.

Hagel said he would stress the need to maintain open seas and freedom of navigation, which some fear is threatened by China’s increasingly assertive maritime claims.

“The nations of this region, Asia-Pacific, rely on those freedoms, individual rights,” Hagel said, adding that he would raise issues where we think China is overplaying its hand and is presenting new challenges and tensions.”

“But at the same time we still have to develop relationships of cooperation,” he said.

In a trilateral meeting with his Japanese and South Korean counterpart on Saturday, Hagel will seek progress in missile defense cooperation, given the threat posed by nuclear-armed North Korea.

A senior U.S. defense official said that the United States was also keen to see both South Korea and Japan further expand their engagement in Southeast Asia.

In a keynote address to the Shangri-La Dialogue on Friday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is expected to highlight the need for Japan to take a bigger role in global security, something the United States would like to see.

(Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

 

[Equation]

it's worth going into WWIII over a couple of rocks... I don't care how much gas or oil is underneath it. It's still not worth destabilizing the entire world over it not to mention the potential loss of countless lives on all sides if mud is flung on the rotor blades.

I agreed there, but unfortunately the Japanese elite rulers sees it differently. They will use any means necessary to maintain that status quo at all cost. For some reason they just can't face the fact that the world is changing and the balance of power is changing as well.

 

[Blackstone]

Exactly, Japan is a US ally, and even though the US and china aren't enemies, the US won't exactly be complaining at opportunities to limit potential chinese territory.

That is why I think any suggestions that the US won't seek to back Japan against china in this dispute is unrealistic.

One the one hand, the US wants to back a treaty ally, on the other hand, the American public has no interest in a war with China over barren rocks in the ECS, so tough talk and saber rattling will be all Japan can expect from the US for Diaoyu. But if China acts on "Japanese-occupied" Okinawa, then the US public might feel differently.

 

[Jeff Head]

Looks like the Obama administration is taking sides against China in their Diaoyu island sovereignty dispute with Japan.

"We do not accept China's declaration of an ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) over the East China Sea and urge China not to implement it," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is so typical of the Obama Administration and the ridiculous (almost laughable IMHO if they were not so serios) statements by the Clinton and now Kerry State Department.

Seriously? Urge them not to implement something that they have already implemented for over six months now?

Seriously? Do not accept an ADIZ which happens to overlap a Japanese ADIZ the US does accept? When the US has multiple ADIZs of its own?

What the US should do, and should have done, is simply indicate that they understand the ADIZ purpose for protecting China against any threatening flight profile and say that in the event US aircraft were involved in such a profile, they would comply and identify themselves for safety purposes, say out to a distance of 125 miles or something like that. But that the US would not comply for routine flights over international waters that were non-threatening.

Then urge all parties to do the same. IOW, if Japanese aircraft are flying towards the mainland at anything approaching 125 (or pick a realistic number) then they should ID themselves. And China should only intercept and check out aircraft that are on such a flight profile. Such measures would serve to de-escalate things as opposed to escalating them.

 

[Blackstone]

This is so typical of the Obama Administration and the ridiculous (almost laughable IMHO if they were not so serios) statements by the Clinton and now Kerry State Department.

Seriously? Urge them not to implement something that they have already implemented for over six months now?

Seriously? Do not accept an ADIZ which happens to overlap a Japanese ADIZ the US does accept? When the US has multiple ADIZs of its own?

What the US should do, and should have done, is simply indicate that they understand the ADIZ purpose for protecting China against any threatening flight profile and say that in the event US aircraft were involved in such a profile, they would comply and identify themselves for safety purposes, say out to a distance of 125 miles or something like that. But that the US would not comply for routine flights over international waters that were non-threatening.

Then urge all parties to do the same. IOW, if Japanese aircraft are flying towards the mainland at anything approaching 125 (or pick a realistic number) then they should ID themselves. And China should only intercept and check out aircraft that are on such a flight profile. Such measures would serve to de-escalate things as opposed to escalating them.

Well said, Jeff!

 

[plawolf]

Well said Jeff!

But unfortunately fairness, reason, and perhaps even basic common sense seems to be rather lacking when it comes to US foreign policy, where the US has not shown anywhere close to the kind of class and maturity a power of its status should display.

But before you go blame it all on Obama and Co, it should be noted that this is hardly a new development. The US has always been shamelessly petty and at times vindictive when it comes to applying foreign policy.

That is not to say US foreign policy is always self serving or ignoble, quite the contrary. There are innumerable examples where they US has acted selflessly and courageously, and have done a lot of good throughout the world. But the goodwill such selfless acts generate is steadily eaten away by the selfish, silly and sometimes downright bizarre antics and tantrums the US is prone to indulge in.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Well said Jeff!

But unfortunately fairness, reason, and perhaps even basic common sense seems to be rather lacking when it comes to US foreign policy, where the US has not shown anywhere close to the kind of class and maturity a power of its status should display.

But before you go blame it all on Obama and Co, it should be noted that this is hardly a new development. The US has always been shamelessly petty and at times vindictive when it comes to applying foreign policy.

That is not to say US foreign policy is always self serving or ignoble, quite the contrary. There are innumerable examples where they US has acted selflessly and courageously, and have done a lot of good throughout the world. But the goodwill such selfless acts generate is steadily eaten away by the selfish, silly and sometimes downright bizarre antics and tantrums the US is prone to indulge in.

So wolfie, ???? the US did not implement the ADIZ. The US has stated that they will NOT honor it, which tells us that there is a very real concern that its implementation IS no doubt escalating tensions in the region. So how is it that this is an example of antics and tantrums???? and why defend BHO and Co, its their DOD and State Department that implemented the "swing to the Pacific", so isn't it only fair to give credit where credit is due??? For what its worth, I have no problems with this policy, as the US has a long standing interest in security in the region. Hence the state depts request that the ADIZ not be "enforced", in an assertive manner, hoping to "de-escalate" tensions in the region.

 

[solarz]

So wolfie, ???? the US did not implement the ADIZ. The US has stated that they will NOT honor it, which tells us that there is a very real concern that its implementation IS no doubt escalating tensions in the region. So how is it that this is an example of antics and tantrums???? and why defend BHO and Co, its their DOD and State Department that implemented the "swing to the Pacific", so isn't it only fair to give credit where credit is due??? For what its worth, I have no problems with this policy, as the US has a long standing interest in security in the region. Hence the state depts request that the ADIZ not be "enforced", in an assertive manner, hoping to "de-escalate" tensions in the region.

If that is the case, why isn't the US requesting Japan to remove their ADIZ? Why request that of only China if de-escalation was truly the goal?