South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

P

PanAsian

Major
tidalwave said:
Russia friendly Tillerson wants to block China from man-made island and Bejing responds that means War.

All this focus on Russia has in some respects clouded the comments that Tillerson made earlier in the week about the South China Sea. He told senators at his nomination hearing that Washington is “going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands is also not going to be allowed.”

His answer amounted to more than just staking out a tough line on China. “It was a stunning break with years of American foreign policy,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
FP’s Emily Tamkin. “Tillerson’s warning that the United States would block China’s access to the contested islands shocked and bewildered lawmakers and their aides, and diplomats across Asia. If carried out, it could violate international law as Washington has interpreted it and could put the United States on a collision course with China, raising the danger of a military clash.”


Beijing has sure noticed. On Friday, the government-run the Global Times newspaper said Washington
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
“wage a large-scale war” in the South China Sea to prevent Chinese access to the islands.
Click to expand...

That's a highly euphemistic report of Tillerson's SCS comments. He is suggesting the US start a territorial dispute with China, blockade Chinese holdings, and start a war.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
vesicles said:
Hmmmm... Not sure about that. Exxon/Mobill shelled out huge bucks to buy out Tillerson's stock options and all. And Tillerson gave up a very important position in Exxon/Mobill. I'm not sure they did all that just so that he could act as a distraction/decoy...

What they are proposing is so crazy that I don't even think the Pentagon would back them. These man-made islands are now all occupied by civilians. As Solarz mentioned above, to block access, that means the US forces will need to invade the islands and evade the occupants. that is by any definition an invasion.

At this point, I still think this is Trump's attempt to haggle with China.
Click to expand...

For now Tillerson's comments are just comments and China has responded proportionately with just op-eds in the media. As for being an attempt to haggle it is certainly the antithesis of negotiating in good faith.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
Air Force Brat said:
Come Blitzo, War talk is out around here, and Trump is not gonna start a war with China, in fact a strong America may be all that prevents that, and Trump is gonna make America strong again, 8 years of Obama has taken a toll on us.
Click to expand...

Trump's nominee for secretary of state, Tillerson, is suggesting the US start a territorial dispute with China in the SCS so indirectly yes Trump is looking to start a war with China. A stalemate between the US and China is the only thing that will prevent that, a stronger side one way or the other makes war much more likely. MAD has its benefits.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
PanAsian said:
That's a highly euphemistic report of Tillerson's SCS comments. He is suggesting the US start a territorial dispute with China, blockade Chinese holdings, and start a war.
Click to expand...
Correct. There are two primary possibilities, 1) Tillerson presented Trump's policy on China in SCS, or 2) Tillerson misspoke. Since no "clarifications" have been offered by Team Trump on an item that could lead to Sino-American confrontations, and maybe even conflicts (Oh! Neocons don't truly believe if US defeats China in a SCS conflict, it'd be the end of it, do they...?), we could conclude it's item 1 and not 2. If so, then Trump's policy would be akin to Xi saying China wouldn't allow US to build on or access the island of Guam.

Any guesses of how US would react to China or any other great power saying it wouldn't be allowed to access its own territory?
 
P

PanAsian

Major
Can't agree more, assuming Tillerson isn't serious in which case the situation is dramatically worse, and interesting and insightful comments on the original page.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Another Pointless Provocation of China
By DANIEL LARISON • January 12, 2017, 9:59 AM

Tillerson’s remarks yesterday about denying China access to its artificial islands in the South China Sea have stirred up a strong reaction in China:

Mr. Tillerson’s comments, with the possible implication that the United States might use its armed forces to deny the Chinese access to the islands, garnered reactions including confusion, disbelief and warlike threats from analysts in China.

These comments were the most dangerous position Tillerson has taken so far. We have to hope that this won’t become Trump’s policy, because it would put us on a very risky collision course with China over something that is frankly not worth fighting over. Meanwhile, making these statements isn’t helpful, and serves only to increase tensions with Beijing:

“This is the sort of off-the-cuff remark akin to a tweet that pours fuel on the fire and maybe makes things worse,” said Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra. “Short of going to war with China, there is nothing the Americans can do.”

Suffice it to say, the U.S. shouldn’t be going to war over this, and I doubt China’s government believes that the U.S. would go to war over it. If that’s right, it is difficult to see what the U.S. would gain by making threats that it isn’t going to carry out. Possibly Tillerson was just engaging in more hawkish posturing to make his confirmation process easier, but that’s no excuse. Whatever Tillerson’s reason for making these comments might be, it risks worsening relations with China without gaining the U.S. anything.
Click to expand...
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
Yep, Trump says "KEEP THE DANG THANG!", it just makes my point anyway!" really this does illustrate that people with concerns about China's behavior have a legitimate concern, and FON will likely be stepped up considerably under the new Trump administration.
Click to expand...
FONs definitely should go on and maybe even stepped up. Depends on circumstances and how best to serve our national interests. Thing is, I could see a point in the not too distant future where China would want to conduct FONs in all of the world's international waterways, so why are they making so much fuzz over something that doesn't serve their own long-term interests?

It matters not Beijing like it or not, FONs go on! It's the international norm.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
PanAsian said:
Can't agree more, assuming Tillerson isn't serious in which case the situation is dramatically worse, and interesting and insightful comments on the original page.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Pointless indeed, and not likely to benefit US long-term interests to boot. Neocons and liberal imperilists need to ask themselves two question 1) what would US do should China or Russia say it can't build on Guam, expand its size, or even have access to it? 2) Do they honestly believe in their hearts of hearts even if US defeats China in a SCS conflict to prevent it from accessing its own territory, it would be the end of it? No fuck!ing chance!

There will be a second round, followed by a third, and a fourth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top