Chinese Geopolitics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blackstone

Brigadier
Japan, Vietnam, and Philippines need to change tactics on Diaoyu and SCS disputes. I say that because the ASEAN ministers meeting just concluded with a joint statement that is basically diplomatic fluff, and does absolutely nothing to ease tension in the region. The three nations thought bad PR would compel China to give in and accept binding arbitration over Diaoyu, Spratley, and Parcel islands, but the opposite happened and China is showing even more resolve. It's not clear what strategy will work, but the current one isn't getting it done.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


BANGKOK—

The United States is portraying the outcome of a meeting in Myanmar among Southeast Asian nations as a setback for Beijing's attempts to minimize territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

There is no specific mention of China in the final statement by the meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), although the group, in its meetings over the last several days in Myanmar's capital, did consider a freeze on “provocative acts” in the South China Sea.

That pact was proposed by Washington and Manila. Despite China's rebuff of the proposal, U.S. officials are characterizing the outcome of the overall meeting as a positive one.

Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in Naypyidaw that during all of the relevant talks, he underscored the need for a binding code of conduct in the South China Sea, involving overlapping maritime claims among a number of sovereign states in the region.

“And I'm very pleased that there is positive language that came out in the communiqué issued by ASEAN foreign ministers yesterday as a result of that discussion that embraces this idea of resolving these issues in a thoughtful and peaceful way,” said Kerry.

Kerry declared that the communiqué’s language “goes far enough” despite China's rebuff of the freeze proposal.

The final language in the communiqué states: "We urged all parties concerned to exercise self-restraint and avoid actions which would complicate the situation and undermine peace, stability, and security in the South China Sea."

Although talks have been held on a code of conduct for the sea, there has been little significant progress.

A senior U.S. official has been quoted saying that based on private conversations among diplomats, ASEAN concern over the territorial disputes is at “an all-time high."

The ASEAN Regional Forum security talks involved 27 countries, including Australia, China, India, Japan, Russia and the United States.

China has criticized involvement by the United States in the South China Sea issue, contending Washington is encouraging such countries as the Philippines and Vietnam to be more assertive as part of America's military pivot back to Asia.

China's foreign minister, Wang Yi, who met with Kerry for a half an hour on Saturday, told reporters at the ASEAN gathering that it is premature to move towards settling the territorial dispute based on international law. He accused others of exaggerating the level of tension while also characterizing his country as maintaining restraint in the disputed waters, saying China is being provoked by other countries.
 

advill

Junior Member
I personally believe that major flare-ups in the South China Sea will be avoided judging from what was said recently by the Chinese Foreign Minister during the recent ASEAN Conference in Myanmar. ASEAN countries are looking forward to the finalization of the "Code of Conduct" (COC) among the claimant nations and China. There's considerable disadvantages IF major flare ups do take place, especially to international trade with China inc. safe passages for global shipping - TOO much would be at stake. As for the East China Sea, it would be different, as "accidental" skirmishes between China and Japan has happened and could develop into major/serious ones. However, from recent informal approaches made by the Japanese PM Abe to discuss with China's President Xi during the upcoming APEC Conference in China, hopefully some agreements could be reached in a sensible manner. As the saying goes "Damn it! we are Asians and if we cannot solve our own problems - WHO can?". The unwieldy and disastrous examples of hostilities happening among the Arabs in the M.E. should be good lessons to be learnt by all of us in the region.


Getting the US out of their involvement is the first step. Second would be treating Diaoyu and SCs separately.
 

delft

Brigadier
Reading some of the articles concerning the SE china sea I am a bit concerned if we are not closing into flash point.
Mine warfare in the most important maritime crossroads of the World is a huge danger to the freedom of navigation. As the most important source and destination of cargoes China cannot start this. So it can only begin from one of the smaller countries? Anyone engaging in it cannot keep it secret in the medium term, even if successful in the short term. And that country would be in deep trouble. US could veto an effective Security Council resolution against that country without making themselves ridiculous.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Getting the US out of their involvement is the first step. Second would be treating Diaoyu and SCs separately.

We need to be realistic and admit there's no solution in ECS and SCS disputes without both China and the US. China can have wet dreams about pushing the US out of Asia, but that's just not going to happen, since America is a Pacific nation and she isn't going anywhere. The US, on the other hand, need to work with China to jointly run Asia as firsts among equals.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
That mean if China needs to punish some country for being aggressive then US needs to silence.
This is not an uber US or uber China forum. Talk like this, or about "getting the US involvement out," is simply unrealistic, and borders on the kind of uber nationalistic rhetoric we avoid on SD.

READ THE RULES!

The US and China are the major powers in the Pacific...but other strong nations like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc., etc. cannot, and must not be treated as weaklings that have no say. In truth, no nation should be who is willing to engage in any dialog at all.

Besides, who gets to decide what "aggressive" means??

Does that simply mean not kowtowing to a stronger nation's demand?

It cannot...from either side.

So, here on SD we attempt to treat all nations, and particularly nations represented by reasoned members of our forum with respect and consideration...even if you do not agree with them.

When we do this, we maintain the professional and reasoned decorum we intend to uphold here. When that does not happen, you can bet myself, popeye (aka Darth Vador) or some other mod will attempt to reign it in.

In case any reader is wondering...

This post is a "gentle" attempt to do that.
 
Last edited:

weig2000

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The New Normal in Asia
Beijing will continue asserting itself in disputed territories. Its neighbors will continue to do little to challenge it.

By
Michael Auslin

Compared to the chaos in Iraq and Ukraine, East Asia looks relatively peaceful. Yet lurking under Asia's apparent stability is a worrisome trend of power politics that eventually will reshape the face of the region. Events over the past week showed that China will continue pushing its claims in disputed territory in ways that are increasingly difficult to oppose. At the same time, America's influence in the region may be growing weaker.

Stoking the fires of a long-running dispute, Beijing announced last week that it will build lighthouses on five disputed islands in the South China Sea. The islets lie in both the Spratly and Paracel Islands groups, meaning that this escalation is meant to undercut rival claims by Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan to the territories.

Despite increasing unease on the part of Southeast Asian nations, Chinese influence is growing. Last week at the Asean Regional Forum, China and other member nations generally dismissed a U.S.-backed proposal that no nation take provocative actions in the sea. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry found little support, other than from Manila, for his proposal. Instead, China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, argued that only the ineffective Asean "declaration of conduct" should guide maritime disputes.

At nearly the same time, China sent coast guard ships back into waters off the Senkaku Islands, which are administered by Japan but claimed by both nations. This happened just days after Tokyo released its latest defense white paper, which specifically criticized China for "dangerous acts" near the islands. If Japan hoped its strong words would deter further Chinese intimidation, it was mistaken. Beijing instead appears committed to testing Japanese resolve.
Enlarge Image

The Guia lighthouse in Macau. LightRocket via Getty Images

Gone are the days when Japan hesitated to publicly name China as a disruptive actor. Instead, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has offered Japan as a security partner to Asian nations worried about China's military buildup. This month, Tokyo announced plans to sell Vietnam six used maritime patrol vessels to help Hanoi better monitor its waters. Japan also sold 10 new patrol boats to the Philippines in a deal underwritten by an official loan from Tokyo. In July, Japan and Australia announced plans to jointly develop advanced submarine technology. Increased cooperation between Tokyo and New Delhi is also a priority for the leaders of both countries.

Yet these new strategic relationships have not caused Beijing to rethink its attitude on contested territory or its unsettling military buildup. In fact, it is likely that the reaction from its neighbors is causing Beijing to justify the military modernization plan that caused such concern in the first place.

East Asia is thus in a very unstable period marked by all sides' hardening their positions. China's size and strength make it the dominant actor against any one nation. The new political alignments are far from becoming any type of mutual security organization that could respond to Chinese provocations. Nor, it seems clear, do even China's antagonists want to take such adversarial roles.

Caught between a rock and a hard place, Asian nations are simply reacting to Beijing's initiatives. More troubling, China is seeking to diplomatically isolate the United States. Mr. Wang sought to portray America as an outlier, urging "Asian nations" to come together to solve the problem without any outside interference.

Such tactics will not work as long as Washington is seen as a credible actor in Asia. Yet the less Washington is able to influence the course of events in disputed waters, the more likely it is that Asia's capitals will decide they must deal with Beijing directly. Even Japan's newfound activism does not translate into a direct challenge to Beijing's claims throughout the region.

Instead, both Washington and Tokyo are hoping for a slow reordering of Asia's political balance. The U.S. and Japan appear to be betting that Beijing will moderate its behavior if it feels increasingly isolated. Their first attempts to isolate Beijing have not yielded the hoped-for outcome. It is questionable if further pressure will do so. Instead, China may feel pushed into a corner, thus making its position that much more intractable.

It is likely that this represents the future power politics in Asia. A small group of countries will increase their cooperation, yet do little to directly challenge China's steady gains. As long as Beijing continues to push the initiative, the Asian security balance will slowly be reshaped in its favor.

Only a risky and concerted push by the region's militarily capable powers, such as by forcibly preventing Beijing from building the announced lighthouses, could send a signal that its behavior must change. Given that the odds of that happening are infinitesimally small, the new normal in Asia will see China's presence increase in once-disputed waters.

Mr. Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. and a columnist for wsj.com. He tweets @michaelauslin.
 

mr.bean

Junior Member
Getting the US out of their involvement is the first step. Second would be treating Diaoyu and SCs separately.

i think by now china will continue it's strategy of developing islands and won't let anyone hinder or affect them. islands will continue to be reclaimed and built, oil will be explored, coast guard ships will continue to be constructed at it's numerous shipyards. they basically politely told john Kerry "nope we are not going to change our game plan just because you say so''. it doesn't matter what the US does (sell weapons to Vietnam, McCain is in Hanoi) like having US navy ships sailing around in that area or increasing P-8 over that area the Chinese would not stop nor slow down. you can take as many pictures you want with your P-8's it won't affect their building programs.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
That mean if China needs to punish some country for being aggressive then US needs to silence.

Nope, not even close. Just like the American Navy sails where she pleases in international waters, US foreign policy will do likewise. If China impedes on US interests, then it will hear it from the US. The reverse is also true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top