Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan
Trailed by two Chinese warships, the guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen sailed inside the 12-nautical-mile limit of Subi Reef, a man-made island China claims as her national territory.
Beijing protested. Says China: Subi Reef and the Spratly Island chain, in a South China Sea that carries half of the world’s seaborne trade, are as much ours as the Aleutians are yours.
Beijing’s claim to the Spratlys is being contested by Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan. While Hanoi and Manila have occupied islets and built structures to back their claims, the Chinese have been more aggressive.
They have occupied rocks and reefs with troops, dredged and expanded them into artificial islands, fortified them, put up radars and are building air strips and harbors.
What the Chinese are about is easy to understand.
Having feasted and grown fat on trade surpluses with the United States, the Chinese are translating their economic strength into military power and a new strategic assertiveness.
They want to dominate East Asia and all the seas around it.
We have been told our warships are unwelcome in the Yellow Sea and the Taiwan Strait. Beijing also claims the Senkakus that Japan occupies, which are covered by our mutual security treaty.
And not only is the South China Sea one of the world’s crucial waterways, the fish within can feed nations and the floor below contains vast deposits of oil and gas.
Who owns the islands in the South China Sea owns the sea.
Moreover, our world has changed since Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend Taiwan and the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu — and since Bill Clinton sent two U.S. carrier battle groups through the Taiwan Strait.
Now we send a lone destroyer inside the 12-mile limit of a reef that, until recently, was under water at high tide.
What China is doing is easily understandable. She is emulating the United States as we emerged to become an imperial power.
After we drove Spain out of Cuba in 1898, we annexed Puerto Rico and the Hawaiian Islands, where America settlers had deposed the queen, took Wake and Guam, and annexed the Philippines. The subjugation of Filipino resistance required a three-year war and thousands of dead Marines.
And the reaction of President McKinley when he heard our Asian squadron had seized the islands:
“When we received the cable from Admiral Dewey telling of the taking of the Philippines I looked up their location on the globe.
I could not have told where those darned islands were within 2,000 miles.”
In 1944, General MacArthur, whose father had crushed the Filipino resistance, retook the islands from the Japanese who had occupied them after Pearl Harbor.
At the end of the Cold War, however, Manila ordered the United States to get out of Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay naval base. We did as told. Now our Filipino friends want us back to confront China for them, as do the Vietnamese Communists in Hanoi.
Before we get ourselves into the middle of their dispute, before we find ourselves in an air war or naval clash with China, we ought to ask ourselves a few questions.
First, why is this our quarrel? We have no claim to any of the Spratly or Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. Yet, each of the claimants — Beijing, Taipei, Manila, Hanoi — seems to have maps going back decades and even centuries to support those claims.
Besides freedom of the seas, what is our vital interest here?
If these islands are Chinese territory, Beijing has the same right to build air and naval bases on them as we do in the Aleutians, Hawaii, Wake and Guam. What do we hope to accomplish by sailing U.S. warships into what China claims to be her territorial waters?
While the ships of the U.S. Seventh Fleet are superior to those of the Chinese navy, China has more submarines, destroyers, frigates and missile boats, plus a vast inventory of ground-based missiles that can target warships at great distances.
In an increasingly nationalist China, Xi Jinping could not survive a climbdown of China’s claims, or dismantlement of what Beijing has built in the South China Sea. President Xi no more appears to be a man to back down than does President Putin.
Continued U.S. overflights or naval intrusion into the territorial waters of Chinese-claimed islands are certain to result in a violent clash, as happened near Hainan Island in 2001.
Where would we go from there?
China today is in trouble. She is feared and distrusted by her neighbors; her economy has lost its dynamism; and the Communist Party is riven by purges and rampant corruption.
If we believe this will be the Second American Century, that time is on our side, that Chinese communism is a dead faith, we ought to avoid a clash and show our opposition to Beijing’s excesses, if need be, by imposing tariffs on all goods made in China.
China’s oligarchs will understand that message.
China naval chief says minor incident could spark war in South China Sea
BEIJING/WASHINGTON | By Ben Blanchard and Andrea Shalal
China’s naval commander told his U.S. counterpart that a minor incident could spark war in the South China Sea if the United States did not stop its “provocative acts” in the disputed waterway, the Chinese navy said on Friday.
Admiral Wu Shengli made the comments to U.S. chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson during a video teleconference on Thursday, according to a Chinese naval statement.
The two officers held talks after a U.S. warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of one of Beijing’s man-made islands in the contested Spratly archipelago on Tuesday.
ADVERTISING
China has rebuked Washington over the patrol, the most significant U.S. challenge yet to territorial limits China effectively claims around its seven artificial islands in one of the world’s busiest sea lanes.
“If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war,” the statement paraphrased Wu as saying.
“(I) hope the U.S. side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and U.S. navies that has not come easily and avoids these kinds of incidents from happening again,” Wu said.
Speaking earlier, a U.S. official said the naval chiefs agreed to maintain dialogue and follow protocols to avoid clashes.
Scheduled port visits by U.S. and Chinese ships and planned visits to China by senior U.S. Navy officers remained on track, the official said.
“None of that is in jeopardy. Nothing has been canceled,” said the official.
UNPLANNED ENCOUNTERS
Both officers agreed on the need to stick to protocols established under the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES).
“They agreed that it’s very important that both sides continue to use the protocols under the CUES agreement when they’re operating close to keep the chances for misunderstanding and any kind of provocation from occurring,” the U.S. official said.
Indeed, Wu said he believed the Chinese and U.S. navies had plenty of scope for cooperation and should both “play a positive role in maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea”.
A U.S. Navy spokesman stressed Washington’s position that U.S. freedom of navigation operations were meant to “protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations under international law”.
Chinese warships followed the USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer, as it moved through the Spratlys on Tuesday. The U.S. Navy is operating in a maritime domain bristling with Chinese ships.
While the U.S. Navy is expected to keep its technological edge in Asia for decades, China’s potential trump card is sheer weight of numbers, with dozens of naval and coastguard vessels routinely deployed in the South China Sea, security experts say.
China has overlapping claims with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei in the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year.
Next week, Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit Vietnam and Singapore, while Chinese Defence Minister Chang Wanquan will attend a meeting of Southeast Asian defense ministers in Malaysia that U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter is also due to attend.
COURT SETBACK
Separately, China suffered a legal setback on Thursday when an arbitration court in the Netherlands ruled it had jurisdiction to hear some territorial claims the Philippines has filed against Beijing over the South China Sea.
The court said additional hearings would be held to decide the merits of the Philippines’ arguments. China has not participated in the proceedings and does not recognize the court’s authority in the case.
Manila filed the case in 2013 to seek a ruling on its right to exploit the South China Sea waters in its 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as allowed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
China, facing international legal scrutiny for the first time over its assertiveness in the South China Sea, would neither participate in nor accept the case at the arbitration court, Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin said on Friday.
Liu told reporters the case would not affect China’s sovereign claims in the seas.
The Philippine government welcomed the court decision.
Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, Manila chief’s lawyer in the case, said the ruling represented a “significant step forward in the Philippines’ quest for a peaceful, impartial resolution of the disputes between the parties and the clarification of their rights under UNCLOS”.
Several nations claim the Spratly’s.
Which side would we be fighting on?
Or would we end up as just another nation claiming them?
In order to save the islands we must destroy them………….
China Warns U.S. It Risks Sparking A War If It Doesn’t Stop “Provocative Acts”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/30/2015 08:12 -0400
Imagine two children on a beach. One has built a sandcastle. The other kicks it over. They get into a fight.
That’s exactly what’s going on in The South China Sea right now between Beijing and Washington.
Earlier this week, the US sent a guided missile destroyer on a “let’s see if we can get shot” mission in the South Pacific. The idea, as regular readers are no doubt aware, was to use “freedom of navigation” as an excuse to sail within 12 nautical miles of China’s man-made islands in the Spratlys.
Those islands represent the construction of some 3,000 acres of new sovereign territory on which Beijing has built everything from airstrips to cement factories to lighthouses. Washington’s regional allies all but swear that the PLA is planning an imminent invasion and Beijing swears the islands are a largely innocent construction project. These competing accounts underscore the extent to which no one is telling the whole truth.
Caught in the middle, Big Brother decided it was time to show the world that despite being kicked out of the Mid-East and being bullied by Beijing, no one really wants to go to war with Washington and so, America’s Nobel Peace Prize winning President sent a warship to Subi Reef.
And then, nothing happened.
The USS Lassen wasn’t fired upon or surrounded which was good news for anyone who doesn’t wish to live through World War III.
(USS Lassen)
But while cooler heads prevailed in Beijing, the suggestion that the US (and possibly Australia) are set to make these “patrols” a regular occurrence has riled China and on a teleconference between naval commanders, Admiral Wu Shengli told US chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson that this needs to stop now unless the US wants to go to war. Here’s Reuters with the story:
China’s naval commander told his U.S. counterpart that a minor incident could spark war in the South China Sea if the United States did not stop its “provocative acts” in the disputed waterway, the Chinese navy said on Friday.
Admiral Wu Shengli made the comments to U.S. chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson during a video teleconference on Thursday, according to a Chinese naval statement.
The two officers held talks after a U.S. warship sailed within 12 nautical miles of one of Beijing’s man-made islands in the contested Spratly archipelago on Tuesday.
China has rebuked Washington over the patrol, the most significant U.S. challenge yet to territorial limits China effectively claims around its seven artificial islands in one of the world’s busiest sea lanes.
“If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war,” the statement paraphrased Wu as saying.
“(I) hope the U.S. side cherishes the good situation between the Chinese and U.S. navies that has not come easily and avoids these kinds of incidents from happening again,” Wu said.
The problem is that the US has no choice but to “continue with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts,” because if it doesn’t, The Philippines and other regional allies will lose all faith in Washington’s supposed omnipotence and invincibility and while we imagine The White House secretly thinks this “is not the time for courage” (to borrow an epic Gartman-ism), courageous the US must now be lest Beijing and Moscow should swiftly banish US hegemony to the annals of history.
What a shame that Pet Buchanan isn’t a viable presidential candidate! If Mr.T were to choose him for VP and allow him to be the equivalent of Cheney for Bush, I’d be inclined to support his candidacy.
I live in South America and follow closely what is happening in Argentina, where a Clitleresque prez has been running the show after receiving a large mandate four years ago and whose policies are now on the verge of being repudiated by what looks to be a compelling majority in the upcoming ballotage between the candidate of her party and the more market-friendly Mauricio Macri. Argentina has been governed by Peronistas (the left) for all of its post-military-dictatorship years (32 years), but the growing failure of leftist leadership seems to have reached a tipping point.
Argentina had a mini-collapse in 2001 but began a recovery that has now not merely petered out but begun to show signs of further deterioration in a country with vast natural resources and great unrealized economic potential. Granted, Argentina is not the USA, but my own observations have led me to conclude that in many ways it’s a bellwether for events elsewhere. I don’t believe the USA will experience a total collapse or anything approaching it, but complacency in the USA could prove me wrong. For the sake of family and friends up your way, I hope I’m NOT wrong!
Mr. B is right about the Spratly issue. The USA needs to begin concentrating on rebuilding its once-great industrial base, withdraw from the ridiculous “global policeman” idea promoted by a small but very influential group of globalists and from what I know, Mr B is the only effective promoter of this idea. I’m convinced that eventually he’ll be proven correct, but my fear is that by the time that realization comes to pass, it’ll be too late if it isn’t already.
I can just about guarantee this was just a signals intel fishing expedition. I’d bet the Lassen was fully loaded with the best and latest electronics warfare sensors and along with multiple aircraft (U2 plus drones), a submarine or two and maybe even satellites all working in conjunction just to see what would “light up” when the chinks went on “full alert”. All the bluster is just to keep the sheeps scared.
American War Policy = MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!
After decades of one futile debacle after another in the ME, maybe we are just waving our dicks at the most populous nation on earf — one with nukes — to show that we ain’t scurred of nobody.
Of course, wars have been started over far less. Anyone remember the name of that very minor Archduke which sparked WWI?
Maybe this is nothing — a fishing expedition as suggested by IS. Then again, maybe not. NO ONE knows which “MINOR” act will lead to all out confrontation!! So, why do we do it? Because we’re the World’s Biggest Dick.
In case you missed it … does this guy look and sound like he’s a pussy just fucking around?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r6ZvT76NeJ0
How hilarious is it that the writer says the Chinese government is rife with corruption?
HELLO – the US isn’t?
@Wip, well Mr. P. Buchanan helped/benefited from the good ole USA corruption, so it doesn’t count, or “what difference does it make.”
Let’s pick a war and piss off our main supply chain component. Same one that has been running around buying up the rights/mines to the bulk of the rare earth minerals that are required for all the new climate change technology. The law outlawing incandescent bulbs means that we eliminated all our light bulb manufacturers left. We have NO lightbulb factories that I know of in the good ole USA.
Yeah, they make nearly all our tech, nearly all our processed food, growing percentages of all our meds, ammo, bandaids, nuts, bolts, steel, plastics…I’m sure we won’t even NOTICE that Mott’s apple juice or Kraft mac ‘n cheese, not to mention the chickens we grow here, ship to Mexico for slaughter, then ship to China for final processing, before they come back here as “American produced” chicken nuggets.
It would serve our leaders, and the silent clueless, right to find out just how reliant we are on a Communist country.
ps Mr. B., China’s “downturn” has more to do with the death of our middle class than anything.
Funny things facts are. Yeah! ‘Murka!
“Anyone remember the name of that very minor Archduke which sparked WWI?” – Stucky
Everyone remembers his name…now…it is even the name of a band. And that is the point…no one knew his name, or much cared about him if they did, BEFORE WWI.
TE,Thats why i wanted food labeling,I have enough problems with American crap let alone Chinese crap.Who knows what is spayed on the food or what kind of frankenfood stuff ,GMO? is going on.
The spratly islands look real close to the RP to me. Far away from China anyways.
Not our fight. Not our fight. Not our fight.
As the Spratly Islands are so vitally important to US interests, we need to send Obama, Congress and their staff members, every lobbyist, and every defense corporation executive and board member, every banker, the Supreme Court justices, the SPLC and the ACLU – and their respective families – to fight this war. We can send those two ‘women’ that ‘passed’ Ranger school, too.
It’s too important to trust this mission to those hated white, heterosexual, males in the military. We’ll sit this one out, OK.
Notice how the potential belligerents are split down the TPP trade deal lines, just sayin…