East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blackstone

Brigadier
While the US intends to be fair and even handed with all the parties involved,
There's overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. In general, America (rightly) follows her national interests, and fairness/even handedness often take backseats to necessity and expediency.

I don't see how you can interpret our defense agreements with many of the ASEAN nations, to declare our neutrality.
Maybe it's because multiple US administrations claim neutrality on territorial disputes; US's only concern is peaceful settlement of arguments, or so the propaganda says.

Is US policy inept, you bet, to much talking and to little conviction to do the right thing, while we all realize that these little statements, "imploring" others to "do the right thing", not expecting them to really do what is requested, but opening the door for further action when we might wish???
What exactly is the "right thing" with respect to Diaoyu? Is it right for China to push for return of territory take by force? Is it right for Japan to claim sovereignty over unoccupied islands? Or is it right for the US to stick the 7th Fleet wherever she feels like in the name of "defense of allies?" Reality is a merciless mistress.

This is simply the escalation which many, including myself predicted would ensue as the Chinese implemented their ADIZ, and make NO MISTAKE, China had every intention of turning up the heat, at least thats the interpretation that seem to be at the root of the US statements. All involved know the US is NOT threatening China but, "imploring" them to turn down the heat.
What outcome would most reasonable people predict vis-a-vis US warning China to cool its jets, but don't use the same tone to her antagonists?
 

Franklin

Captain
I think in this situation words like "fairness" or "evenhandedness" are out of place. Great powers don't do fairness and evenhandedness, they use what ever power and influence they have to get what they want. And what they think serves their interests. And this is not just some or a few great powers. ALL great powers do that throughout history.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
There's overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. In general, America (rightly) follows her national interests, and fairness/even handedness often take backseats to necessity and expedience,


What outcome would most reasonable people predict vis-a-vis US warning China to cool its jets, but don't use the same tone to her antagonists?



Well theres a great deal of empirical evidence to the contrary as well, ie going about attempting to rebuild both Germany and Japan post WWII, even though we were "responding" to others "aggression".

I can with-out any doubt assure you that our mutual defense partners are likely sick of hearing us tell them to "kool it", it requires enormous resorces to play the "probe and parry" game, but hey whatever...I'd say I'm off topic, so I'm gonna sit back and chill, you feel free to frame the East China Sea debate, to your own frame of justice?????
 

joshuatree

Captain
Why Japan should remove ADIZ?

Because it's unilateral, provocative, and destabilizing to peace in the region. See how the same criticisms validly apply? If your counterargument is to merely say because they did if first, then all the more reason to ignore these double standard accusations.

2) The only country that expanded it's ADIZ wasn't the evil Japan but South Korea which did it last year.

Incorrect, Japan unilaterally expanded their ADIZ in 2010 to overlap with Taiwan's ICAO assigned air sector. Taiwan's air sector is approved by an international body. Which international body gave the green light to Japan's ADIZ expansion?

This only changed a single thing that Japanese outsmarted Chinese and bought it from private hands. Just imagine if any of Chinese smart guys had ever such a plan for as Chinese company or industrialists had bought it! What a brillant move that would be - a single blow to obtain it without a single bullet. One can only imagine some angry faces who just realized upon hearing the news and thinking - 'Why we haven't thought about that earlier! That would be dacissive blow!'. Japanese nationalization haven't changed the status quo a single bit unlike you try to portrait it.

You just said a single thing was changed. That my friend is not status quo. So if China did sell the islands to a private Chinese investor, Japan's not gonna say anything right? There will be no protest and no outrage, yes?

Few days ago South Korea decided to disband their Coast Guard. You know what was behind that decission? Hundreds of Chinese fishing boats which literally moored on Korean coasts every night and in the broad daylight as the CG was unable to repell them being busy with the sinking of Sewol...I think that aiming FC radars at Japanese DD and heli last year had much more impact.

Source?
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
I think in this situation words like "fairness" or "evenhandedness" are out of place. Great powers don't do fairness and evenhandedness, they use what ever power and influence they have to get what they want. And what they think serves their interests. And this is not just some or a few great powers. ALL great powers do that throughout history.

Exactly so!
 

solarz

Brigadier
I can with-out any doubt assure you that our mutual defense partners are likely sick of hearing us tell them to "kool it", it requires enormous resorces to play the "probe and parry" game, but hey whatever...I'd say I'm off topic, so I'm gonna sit back and chill, you feel free to frame the East China Sea debate, to your own frame of justice?????

And if the US didn't tell their "allies" to "kool it", do you think they'd be willing to take on China by themselves?

The fact is, those countries would not even be pursuing their claims if the US was not encouraging them, tacitly (by assuring them of US support in case of armed conflict over those disputes) or overtly (by criticizing the Chinese ADIZ).
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
And if the US didn't tell their "allies" to "kool it", do you think they'd be willing to take on China by themselves?

The fact is, those countries would not even be pursuing their claims if the US was not encouraging them, tacitly (by assuring them of US support in case of armed conflict over those disputes) or overtly (by criticizing the Chinese ADIZ).

UNCLOS is the primary cause of current maritime spats with China's neighbors, except Japan. Under it, nations had incentives to claim EEZ and continental shelf rights, which generated frictions and conflicts. Japan is a special case, and will continue to receive special attention from China.
 

A.Man

Major
U.S. Sway in Asia Is Imperiled as China Challenges Alliances

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




This article and others like it are part of our new subscription.
Learn More »

SINGAPORE — The Obama administration’s three-year-old plan to shift its foreign policy focus to Asia was supposed to shore up interests in a critical region, push new free trade pacts and re-establish United States influence as a balance to a growing China, after a decade of inattention.

But as Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel visited this city-state for a security conference with all of the interested parties on Friday, that much-vaunted Asia policy appeared to be turning into more of a neighborhood street fight, with the United States having to simultaneously choose sides and try to play the role of referee.

All around Asia, China is pushing and probing at America’s alliances, trying to loosen the bonds that have kept the countries close to Washington and allowed the United States to be the pre-eminent power in the region since World War II.

In just the past week, China traded punches with Vietnam and Japan. A Chinese fishing vessel rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat on Monday near a Chinese deepwater oil rig that was placed in disputed waters off the coast of Vietnam. That confrontation followed a close encounter last Saturday in which two pairs of Chinese fighter jets flew close to Japanese surveillance and electronic intelligence planes, in disputed airspace claimed by both countries.
Photo


Mr. Hagel, left, with the Australian and Japanese defense chiefs, David Johnston and Itsunori Onodera. Credit Pool photo by
By itself, neither encounter rises to the level of the trans-Pacific standoff that occurred in the East China Sea last year after China asserted military authority over airspace that included uninhabited islands claimed by Japan.

But taken together, those episodes form a pattern of escalating maritime and air tensions in the Pacific that have frustrated and worried American officials.

In his strongest words yet on the territorial disputes, Mr. Hagel on Saturday morning implicitly accused China of “intimidation and coercion” as he delivered his keynote address to the conference. China has called the South China Sea “a sea of peace, friendship and cooperation,” Mr. Hagel said. “But in recent months, China has undertaken destabilizing, unilateral actions asserting its claims in the South China Sea.”



China’s goal is to show Washington that if it maintains alliances in Asia, it risks a fight with Beijing, said Hugh White, a former senior Australian defense official who worked closely with Washington and is now professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University.

“China is deliberately doing these things to demonstrate the unsustainability of the American position of having a good relationship with China and maintaining its alliances in Asia, which constitute the leadership of the United States in Asia,” Mr. White said.

China is betting that America, tired and looking inward, will back off, he said, eroding its traditional place of influence in Asia and enhancing China’s power.

But even as Mr. Hagel and the United States have adopted a public posture that backs Japan — and, to a lesser extent, the Philippines, Vietnam and any other country that finds itself at odds with China — some administration officials have privately expressed frustration that the countries are all engaged in a game of chicken that could lead to war.


“None of those countries are helping matters,” a senior administration official said. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly about American policy, said that the United States would publicly back Japan and that treaty obligations mean that if Japan and China go to war, the United States will almost certainly be dragged into it. But, he added, administration officials have privately prodded their Japanese counterparts to think carefully before acting, and to refrain from backing China into a corner.

“If these are kids in the schoolyard, they are running around with scissors,” said Vikram J. Singh, who until February was the United States deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia and is now the vice president for national security at the Center for American Progress. “Wars start from small things, often by accident and miscalculation — like dangerous maneuvers by aircraft that result in a collision or aggressive moves that lead to an unexpected military response.”

Speaking at the opening session of the conference on Friday, Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who has had a role in stirring tensions in the region by embracing a more assertive military stance, bypassed a question about whether he was willing to go to war with China over the disputed islands in the East China Sea, which Japan calls the Senkaku and China calls the Diaoyu. Instead, he said cryptically that it was “important that we all make efforts” so that certain “contingencies can be prevented.”

Mr. Hagel and the large American military contingent on hand, including Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, the commander of the United States Pacific Command, spent their time shuttling from delegation to delegation to make sure those contingencies did not come up.

“Any good teacher knows that you want to get the kids to behave in the first place, rather than try to referee a dispute that breaks out,” said Andrew L. Oros, an associate professor of political science at Washington College in Chestertown, Md., and a specialist on East Asia.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments



But showing how deep some of the enmity runs, a Chinese officer in the audience took Mr. Abe to task for his visit last year to the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japan’s war dead, including several war criminals who were executed after Japan’s defeat in World War II. The visit angered China and South Korea, which suffered under Japan’s empire-building efforts in the 20th century, and it annoyed the United States, which issued a statement calling the visit “an action that will exacerbate tensions with Japan’s neighbors.”

“Millions of people in China, Korea and many countries in this region have been killed by the Japanese Army,” the Chinese officer said, asking whether Mr. Abe planned to honor them. Mr. Abe spoke of the remorse that Japan felt after World War II. But he added that it was common for world leaders to honor those who fought for their country.

While much of the maritime and air disputes go back to ancient territorial claims, the Obama administration may have fanned the tensions with its shift toward Asia, some foreign policy experts said. Many Chinese believe that shift is intended to check China’s rise.

“For that reason, you cannot expect China to welcome the alliance system because it doesn’t serve China’s interest,” said Wu Xinbo, the director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.

China’s president, Xi Jinping, gave a strong hint of his objectives in a speech in Shanghai on May 19, when he outlined a new Asian security strategy that would deliberately exclude the United States, analysts said.
Continue reading the main story 14Comments
“We need to innovate our security concepts, establish a new regional security cooperation architecture and jointly build a shared win-win road for Asian security,” Mr. Xi said at the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, a group that includes China, Russia and Asian countries but not the United States, according to the state-run news agency Xinhua.

At another conference, in Beijing, Adm. Sun Jianguo, the deputy chief of the general staff of the People’s Liberation Army, expanded on Mr. Xi’s ideas, describing the American alliance system as an antiquated relic of the Cold War that should be replaced by an Asia-centric security architecture, participants said.

As word filtered through the region about Mr. Xi’s new concept — so far, only sketched in a bare-bones outline — it was referred to as “ ‘Asia for Asians,’ which means China decides as the biggest guy on the block,” said a senior Asian diplomat from a country allied with the United States, who declined to be named for fear of alienating China.



Helene Cooper reported from Singapore, and Jane Perlez from Beijing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top