Mattis says U.S. to continue operations in South China Sea

[webfact]

Mattis says U.S. to continue operations in South China Sea

By Idrees Ali

 

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis testifies before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on funding for the Department of Defense, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 9, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

 

ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Tuesday that the United States would continue to confront what Washington sees as China's militarization of islands in the South China Sea, despite drawing condemnation from Beijing for an operation in the region over the weekend.

 

Reuters first reported that two U.S. Navy warships sailed near South China Sea islands claimed by China on Sunday, even as President Donald Trump seeks Chinese cooperation on North Korea.

 

The operation, known as "freedom of navigation," was the latest attempt to counter what Washington sees as Beijing's efforts to limit freedom of navigation in the strategic waters, where Chinese, Japanese and some Southeast Asian navies operate.

 

China expressed its anger, saying it had sent ships and aircraft to warn the U.S. warships to leave.

 

"You'll notice there is only one country that seems to take active steps to rebuff them or state their resentment (to) them, but it's international waters and a lot of nations want to see freedom of navigation," Mattis told reporters while enroute to Hawaii, where he will oversee a change of command for U.S. Pacific Command.

 

While the Sunday operation had been planned months in advance, and similar operations have become routine, it comes at a particularly sensitive time and just days after the Pentagon disinvited China from a major U.S.-hosted naval drill.

 

Critics have said these operations have little impact on Chinese behaviour and are largely symbolic.

 

Pentagon officials have long complained that China has not been candid enough about its rapid military build-up and using South China Sea islands to gather intelligence.

 

Recent satellite photographs showed China appeared to have deployed truck-mounted surface-to-air missiles or anti-ship cruise missiles at Woody Island.

 

Earlier this month, China's air force landed bombers on disputed islands and reefs in the South China Sea as part of a training exercise in the region.

 

"When they (Chinese) do things that are opaque to the rest of us, then we cannot cooperate in areas that we would otherwise cooperate in," Mattis said.

 

Mattis said U.S. diplomats were engaged on the issue and he had heard concerns about Chinese actions not just from within the United States government, but also from regional allies.

 

He will have strong words for China when he travels to Singapore for the Shangri-la dialogue, a security forum, later this week.

 

China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion (£3.77 trillion) in shipborne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

 

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-30

[wwest5829]

While I oppose US military actions, the unilateral seizing of the South China Sea ans claim of sovreignty is to be condemned and ignored. I support the US and other countries sailing in recognized international waters to simly ignore the Chinese claims. I am hopeful that this will be the same treatment of ignoring the unilateral Chinese claim of airspace over the East China Sea. Yes, China will say this just invites a confrontation but let China cause the incident with a claim of sovreignty. We have already heard the International Court ruling on this matter. I actually favor an international flotilla passing through these international waters to demonstrate to China that there isa united front in rejecting her unilateral claims.

[Pib]

I would favor an "international flotilla" also....but I doubt you'll find any other countries willing to step forward to join the U.S. simply because many other countries do not have the naval capability nor willingness. 

[tonbridgebrit]

Okay, above is a map of the South China Sea. So, these countries are disputing ownership of the South China Sea.

And from the article "China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion (£3.77 trillion) in shipborne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam."


Okay, let's look at the countries who are contesting China's claims. The Philippines ?  Well, it's silly for the media to claim this. Duterte is the democratically elected leader of the Philippines, and he's actually very friendly with Beijing. Duterte is not interested in fighting a war against China.  Malaysia and Brunei ?  Please look at the map, how much of the South China Sea is closest to these two countries ?  ?

And we have little Vietnam. How about allow China and Vietnam to fight a war, and winner takes the South China Sea ?  Washington is not interested in fighting a war on behalf of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's club took over Vietnam after that Vietnam War, and that club still controls Vietnam. There's guys in Washington who still remember the Vietnam War.

As for Taiwan, their claim is absurd. They're further way from the South China Sea than China is.


Okay, let's have ships carrying cargo being allowed to sail freely in the South China Sea. And right now as we speak, all ships carrying cargo are allowed to sail freely. So, the man-made islands being built by China are no big deal. If cargo ships do get stopped, yes, take action to make sure they can sail freely.

Edited May 30, 2018 by tonbridgebrit

[jcsmith]

And they should continue to do so. China has no rightful stake here, and has built man made islands in international waters and then militarized these islands. Someone has to stand up to that. 

[Morch]

 

@tonbridgebrit

 

So, while on other topics you claim to be against bullying, somehow different when it comes to China.

 

From your post above, the logic seems to be, no one wants to mess with the neighborhood bully, and if they do, bring it on.:

 

"Duterte is not interested in fighting a War against China".

 

"How about we allow China and Vietnam to fight a war, and winner takes the South China Sea ?"

 

"Washington is not interested in fighting a war on behalf of Vietnam."

 

I recall you claiming these fortified military bases are not such, and the Chinese denying they would be weaponized etc. All sorts of disingenuous nonsense. Now it's "who wants to fight".

 

 

The US does not carry actions "on behalf" of other involved countries. The US doesn't even directly, or strongly support other involved countries' claims in this regard.

 

Spin it as much as you like - whether or not "ships carrying cargo" (omission of military vessels dully noted) are "allowed" (which shouldn't even be an issue) passage doesn't make China's claim legit. The claim of territorial waters itself (and what it further implies) is rejected as well.

 

That you say it's no "big deal" doesn't carry much weight or credibility.
 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

Here's a pretty good (and not overly complicated) summary of legalities involved, prevailing circumstances and actions taken:

 

Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Practical Guide

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/freedom-navigation-south-china-sea-practical-guide

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, above is a map of the South China Sea. So, these countries are disputing ownership of the South China Sea.

And from the article "China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion (£3.77 trillion) in shipborne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam."


Okay, let's look at the countries who are contesting China's claims. The Philippines ?  Well, it's silly for the media to claim this. Duterte is the democratically elected leader of the Philippines, and he's actually very friendly with Beijing. Duterte is not interested in fighting a war against China.  Malaysia and Brunei ?  Please look at the map, how much of the South China Sea is closest to these two countries ?  ?

And we have little Vietnam. How about allow China and Vietnam to fight a war, and winner takes the South China Sea ?  Washington is not interested in fighting a war on behalf of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's club took over Vietnam after that Vietnam War, and that club still controls Vietnam. There's guys in Washington who still remember the Vietnam War.

As for Taiwan, their claim is absurd. They're further way from the South China Sea than China is.


Okay, let's have ships carrying cargo being allowed to sail freely in the South China Sea. And right now as we speak, all ships carrying cargo are allowed to sail freely. So, the man-made islands being built by China are no big deal. If cargo ships do get stopped, yes, take action to make sure they can sail freely.

Here's why Duterte isn't interested in fighting a war with China

"Duterte defended himself from critics who say he is not doing enough to protect the country’s interests in the South China Sea.

He said he “will not commit the lives of the Filipinos only to die unnecessarily, I will not go into a battle which I can never win.”

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2133869/rodrigo-duterte-says-chinese-military-bases-are-oppose-us-not-philippines

Very sensible but hardly an endorsement of the Chinese. In fact, as in other things, Duterte is all over the place about Chinese occupation of the islands. But predominantly his point is that he won't fight a battle he can't win.

[55Jay]

Oz has sharpened its tune "a bit",  but still not willing to commit Naval assets to the freedom of navigation efforts, preferring the rule of International law to keep China in check.  Seems to be working well so far.  ?

 

Chinese gave the Aussies some "straight talk" at the trade meeting recently.  Something about Oz and their coloured glasses, I presume they meant rose-tinted ones.   Sounded like a superior addressing a subordinate. 

 

Quote

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will on Tuesday hail the role of international law in settling regional conflicts, comments apparently aimed at bolstering Australian efforts to build a coalition against Chinese assertiveness.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asean-australia/australia-to-stress-international-law-in-south-china-sea-dispute-idUSKCN1GP0NM

[tonbridgebrit]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@tonbridgebrit

 

So, while on other topics you claim to be against bullying, somehow different when it comes to China.

 

 

7 hours ago, Morch said:

Here's a pretty good (and not overly complicated) summary of legalities involved, prevailing circumstances and actions taken:

 

Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Practical Guide

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/freedom-navigation-south-china-sea-practical-guide

 

 

 

 

Stop claiming that I am being hypocritical, or inconsistent.
 

Beijing is not bullying the Philipinnes. Duterte of the Philipinnes would much rather accept China's tourists and investments rather than fight a war against China. Do you accept that Taiwan's claims are absurd ? Surely, you do ?
And Taiwan calls itself "Peoples' Republic of China, Taiwan", when you bear that in mind, off-course, Taiwan's claims are mad and mental.

Yes, you've raised the issue of freedom of navigation. Washington has, and will carry on, having a situation where all cargo ships have freedom to sail in the South China Sea. You do accept, right, that the Chinese man-made islands are not restricting cargo ships sailing in the South China Sea ? If Beijing was stopping cargo ships, Washington would have taken serious action already. Washington has taken no action against Chinese patrol boats, that's because Beijing has done nothing to resrict ships carrying cargo, in the South China Sea.

[tonbridgebrit]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Here's why Duterte isn't interested in fighting a war with China

"Duterte defended himself from critics who say he is not doing enough to protect the country’s interests in the South China Sea.

He said he “will not commit the lives of the Filipinos only to die unnecessarily, I will not go into a battle which I can never win.”

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2133869/rodrigo-duterte-says-chinese-military-bases-are-oppose-us-not-philippines

Very sensible but hardly an endorsement of the Chinese. In fact, as in other things, Duterte is all over the place about Chinese occupation of the islands. But predominantly his point is that he won't fight a battle he can't win.

Here's a photo of Duterte in Beijing.

Duterte is a man who is doing what's best for the Philipinnes. There's no way that Duterte is going to invite Washington to put it's soldiers back into the Philipinnes. Duterte wants the Chinese tourists and Chinese investments.

Consider Thailand. If Thailand had part of the South China Sea, do you reckon that Thailand would be against China claiming the South China Sea ? Off-course not. Thailand has no claims to the South China Sea, and Thailand is still allied to Beijing. Thailand wants the Chinese tourists, Chinese investment, and Chinese companies to build infra-structure in Thailand. Having a claim, or not having a claim on the South China Sea, every nation still regards Chinese tourists and investments to be very valuable. That's what matters, that's what counts. A few man-made islands in whatever sea is not as important.

[Morch]

 

@tonbridgebrit

 

That would be you going on yet another propaganda rant, while ignoring the post replied to. Regardless of what you assert Duterte's motives are, the interview linked leaves no doubt as to his assessment of the prospects, in case a confrontation arose. That would be pretty much anyone's conclusion. That you try to gloss over it, or imply it doesn't play a factor is dishonest.

 

Deflect all you like, but China is the neighborhood bully, Thailand (and your musings on "what if") aren't the topic, and you don't get to dictate what "matters". Obviously, other countries see China push as "important". That you say it is not means less than little.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

17 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Stop claiming that I am being hypocritical, or inconsistent.
 

Beijing is not bullying the Philipinnes. Duterte of the Philipinnes would much rather accept China's tourists and investments rather than fight a war against China. Do you accept that Taiwan's claims are absurd ? Surely, you do ?
And Taiwan calls itself "Peoples' Republic of China, Taiwan", when you bear that in mind, off-course, Taiwan's claims are mad and mental.

Yes, you've raised the issue of freedom of navigation. Washington has, and will carry on, having a situation where all cargo ships have freedom to sail in the South China Sea. You do accept, right, that the Chinese man-made islands are not restricting cargo ships sailing in the South China Sea ? If Beijing was stopping cargo ships, Washington would have taken serious action already. Washington has taken no action against Chinese patrol boats, that's because Beijing has done nothing to resrict ships carrying cargo, in the South China Sea.

 

Stop posting hypocritical, inconsistent propaganda posts, and I'll be happy to oblige.

As a starter, you could stop chopping off posts and taking words out of context, as you just did.

 

That you insist China is not a bully means less than little. Same goes for you one-sided presentation of Duterte's motives, or other countries' positions. Considering there were enough links provided with alternative views, some including direct quotes from leaders, your nonsense is all to obvious.

 

Your own posts reflect the same bullying ways. Pretend everyone's cool with China's advances, then state they are welcome to try and fight if they want. Again, rather obvious.

 

I do not have to accept your labels of other countries' claims as "absurd", "mad" or "mental" - whether you toss in "surely" or not. There is no universal support for your labels, and objecting to China's moves does not necessarily imply support for other countries' claims.

 

I haven't "raised the issue of freedom of navigation", it is what  the OP is about. Freedom of navigation does not apply only to "cargo ships", whether you like to acknowledge it or not. And disregarding your obvious lies, China did mess with ships of other nations - this was discussed and linked on several topics. Freedom of navigation relates to the definition of territorial waters etc., which bear economic implications - again, something routinely glossed over in your propaganda posts.

 

I do not accept any of your faux talking points about the Chinese military bases in the South China Sea. The ones which you (and China) claimed were not and will not be weaponized. The same goes for your inane renditions of what the US did, would do, or motives applying to such. The link provided in the post your replied to addresses all of these issues rather clearly. You either gave it a miss, or just spewing the run-of-the-mill propaganda narrative regardless.

[simple1]

On 5/30/2018 at 6:17 PM, 55Jay said:

Oz has sharpened its tune "a bit",  but still not willing to commit Naval assets to the freedom of navigation efforts, preferring the rule of International law to keep China in check.  Seems to be working well so far.  ?

 

Chinese gave the Aussies some "straight talk" at the trade meeting recently.  Something about Oz and their coloured glasses, I presume they meant rose-tinted ones.   Sounded like a superior addressing a subordinate. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asean-australia/australia-to-stress-international-law-in-south-china-sea-dispute-idUSKCN1GP0NM

Some ex senior Australian military figures have claimed PRC already dominates the South China Sea and short of war cannot be removed. Went on to claim should be a lesson for future security challenges for the allies to act early and decisively. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by simple1

[55Jay]

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Some ex senior Australian military figures have claimed PRC already dominates the South China Sea and short of war cannot be removed. Went on to claim should be a lesson for future security challenges for the allies to act early and decisively. 

I'm no expert but that sounds like a reasonable statement.  No rose tinted specs on them.  

 

Russia, China, Iran and even N. Korea for its part, have made some bold, decisive moves in recent years as others dithered.  At times, it occurred to me we are watching the paradigm shift, like a train wreck in slow motion.

[bristolboy]

23 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Here's a photo of Duterte in Beijing.

Duterte is a man who is doing what's best for the Philipinnes. There's no way that Duterte is going to invite Washington to put it's soldiers back into the Philipinnes. Duterte wants the Chinese tourists and Chinese investments.

Consider Thailand. If Thailand had part of the South China Sea, do you reckon that Thailand would be against China claiming the South China Sea ? Off-course not. Thailand has no claims to the South China Sea, and Thailand is still allied to Beijing. Thailand wants the Chinese tourists, Chinese investment, and Chinese companies to build infra-structure in Thailand. Having a claim, or not having a claim on the South China Sea, every nation still regards Chinese tourists and investments to be very valuable. That's what matters, that's what counts. A few man-made islands in whatever sea is not as important.

Good point invoking a fantasy scenario involving Thailand.. 

How about invoking some more fantasy scenarios? Consider what Vietnam would do if it had conflicting claims with China? Oh wait, that's not a fantasy.

How about this one? Consider what would happen if an international court, like if the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that there was no basis to Chinese claims on various islands in the South China Sea? Oh, sorry...that's not a fantasy either.

 

"Acting on a challenge filed by the Philippines, the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled unanimously Tuesday that China used an “ill-defined history” as the basis for its claims of control in the Spratly Islands, the Scarborough Shoal, the Fiery Cross Reef and other strategic points in the South China Sea. Control of those obscure outposts would back claims to the resource-rich sea as well as control over traffic in one of the world’s most heavily used commercial sea routes.

But Beijing’s interpretation failed to recognize legitimate territorial claims to those areas by other regional powers in the Pacific, tribunal members said. Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan have advanced claims in the South China Sea that clash with China‘s."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/international-court-rules-against-china-territoria/

 

With so much reality in the way, this fantasy scenario game is a lot harder than you might think.