07-06-2016, 09:06 PM
*** 7-Jul-16 World View -- South China Sea tension set to escalate after July 12 arbitration ruling
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
****
**** South China Sea tension set to escalate after July 12 arbitration ruling
****
![[Image: g160706b.jpg]](http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g160706b.jpg)
3,000 boat Chinese fishing fleet on Sept 16, 2013 (Xinhua)
The United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague has
announced that on July 12 it will issue its long-awaited ruling on a
case brought by the Philippines against China on the merits of China's
claims to the entire South China Sea. The case is brought under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which China
claims does not apply to them.
China has said it will ignore any ruling of the tribunal. It's saying
that because it knows it will lose. Indeed, a BBC investigation of
some of China's evidence has been shown to be delusional, and possibly
a complete fabrication. ( "22-Jun-16 World View -- China's 'ironclad proof' of South China Sea claims revealed as hoax"
)
According to an editorial in the China state media Global Times:
[indent]<QUOTE>"As the result of the international arbitration over
the South China Sea dispute approaches, China is undertaking a
military drill from July 5 to 11 in the waters around the Xisha
Islands. ...
The South China Sea dispute has been greatly complicated after
heavy US intervention. Now an international tribunal has also been
included, posing more threat to the integrity of China's maritime
and territorial sovereignty.
Regardless of the principle that the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) shall not arbitrate on territorial disputes, the
arbitration becomes nothing but a farce. But the US could use it
to impose more pressure on China, causing more tensions in the
South China Sea.
Washington has deployed two carrier battle groups around the South
China Sea, and it wants to send a signal by flexing its muscles:
As the biggest powerhouse in the region, it awaits China's
obedience.
China should speed up building its military capabilities of
strategic deterrence. Even though China cannot keep up with the US
militarily in the short-term, it should be able to let the US pay
a cost it cannot stand if it intervenes in the South China Sea
dispute by force.
China is a peace-loving country and deals with foreign relations
with discretion, but it won't flinch if the US and its small
clique keep encroaching on its interests on its doorstep.
China hopes disputes can be resolved by talks, but it must be
prepared for any military confrontation. This is common sense in
international relations."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
The "heavy US intervention" refers to America's "freedom of
navigation" patrols in the South China Sea. Some $5 trillion in trade
passes through the South China Sea on ships each year, including $1.2
trillion of US trade. China has flip-flopped among various positions
and threats in the past few years, and some statements in the past
have threatened to block international traffic, or at least to require
permission of Chinese authorities to traverse the South China Sea. So
the US has responded with the freedom of navigation patrols.
China is claiming the entire South China Sea, and is using its massive
military force to confiscate regions that have historically belonged
to other nations, especially Vietnam and the Philippines. China is
building artificial islands and converting them to military bases with
advanced missile and radar systems. ( "23-Feb-16 World View -- China's military buildup neutralizes America's aircraft carriers"
)
China's military is in a highly emotional, irrational and
nationalistic state, which makes them very dangerous. They believe
that the US has been weakened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
too anxious to risk another war. This is a major historic mistake
that they will regret. They claim to be "peace loving," but the way
the world works is that every leader goes to war by claiming to be
"peace loving," and blaming the other side. The July 12 ruling will
only increase their anxieties.
Some analysts are pointing out that occupying the South China Sea is
an existential need for China and for its neighbors. China, Vietnam
and the Philippines have high population densities and comparatively
low amounts of arable land, further magnifying the importance of food
sources outside traditional crops. Food security is an existential
threat to all of these countries. For China, taking control of all
the fish stocks in the South China Sea is seen as a necessity, and so
China sees the need to control access to the South China Sea by other
nations.
So all the talk about being "peace-loving" is really irrelevant.
China will go to war if that's the only way to prevent Vietnam and the
Philippines from fishing in the South China Sea. Out of desperation,
Vietnam and the Philippines will see China's military actions as an
existential threat, and an attempt to starve their own people. The
July 12 ruling will raise anxieties on all sides, and move the region
closer to war. Global Times (Beijing) and Jamestown and The Diplomat
****
**** Obama flip-flops again on Afghanistan
****
President Barack Obama flip-flopped again on Wednesday. There are
currently 9,800 American troops in Afghanistan, and Obama announced
that 8,400 troops would be left in Afghanistan when he leaves office,
rather than 5,500. The Taliban are gaining control of large areas of
the country, defeating the indigenous Afghan army repeatedly, and
Obama is under pressure to reverse himself again on his withdrawal
plans. The 8,400 figure is apparently a completely meaningless
political number, less than 9,800 so he can claim he's still
withdrawing, but large enough to provide cover until he can leave
office. It's all pretty cynical.
In October of last year, President Obama reversed himself on the Afghanistan troop withdrawal.
Instead of a total withdrawal, he announced that a residual force of
5,500 troops would be left on a continuing basis. This was only one
of several similar reversals. He was forced into this because many
people believe that the Obama's total withdrawal from Iraq squandered
the victory won by President Bush via the 2007 "surge," and because
Obama's own "surge" strategy in Afghanistan has been a failure, as I predicted in 2009 that it would be,
based on a Generational Dynamics comparison of Iraq and Afghanistan.
By coincidence, Obama's announcement comes on the same day that
Britain is releasing the "Chilcot report," a massive condemnation of
the roles of the US and Britain for the Iraq war. Thus, it's
interesting to compare the media attitude towards Bush's apparent lies
in Iraq, and Obama's apparent lies about Afghanistan. The press
reaction was predictable. The Sacramento Bee was typical, in one
editorial on the one hand expressing sympathy for President Obama's
"failed exit strategies," and on the other hand accusing "the
Bush-Cheney administration for ... lies about Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein having weapons." Obama's lies deserve sympathy from the
Sacramento Bee, while Bush's deserve the greatest condemnation. Like
the analysts and anchors on CNBC who constantly lie about stock valuations
and don't care that they're
lying, the reporters and editors at the Sacramento Bee and New York
Times don't care that they've become the public relations arms of the
Obama administration. I remember the days when the New York Times
could be called "the newspaper of record," but those days are gone.
Washington Post and BBC and Sacramento Bee
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, South China Sea,
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Philippines, Vietnam,
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Chilcot Report
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- South China Sea tension set to escalate after July 12 arbitration ruling
- Obama flip-flops again on Afghanistan
****
**** South China Sea tension set to escalate after July 12 arbitration ruling
****
3,000 boat Chinese fishing fleet on Sept 16, 2013 (Xinhua)
The United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague has
announced that on July 12 it will issue its long-awaited ruling on a
case brought by the Philippines against China on the merits of China's
claims to the entire South China Sea. The case is brought under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which China
claims does not apply to them.
China has said it will ignore any ruling of the tribunal. It's saying
that because it knows it will lose. Indeed, a BBC investigation of
some of China's evidence has been shown to be delusional, and possibly
a complete fabrication. ( "22-Jun-16 World View -- China's 'ironclad proof' of South China Sea claims revealed as hoax"
)
According to an editorial in the China state media Global Times:
[indent]<QUOTE>"As the result of the international arbitration over
the South China Sea dispute approaches, China is undertaking a
military drill from July 5 to 11 in the waters around the Xisha
Islands. ...
The South China Sea dispute has been greatly complicated after
heavy US intervention. Now an international tribunal has also been
included, posing more threat to the integrity of China's maritime
and territorial sovereignty.
Regardless of the principle that the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) shall not arbitrate on territorial disputes, the
arbitration becomes nothing but a farce. But the US could use it
to impose more pressure on China, causing more tensions in the
South China Sea.
Washington has deployed two carrier battle groups around the South
China Sea, and it wants to send a signal by flexing its muscles:
As the biggest powerhouse in the region, it awaits China's
obedience.
China should speed up building its military capabilities of
strategic deterrence. Even though China cannot keep up with the US
militarily in the short-term, it should be able to let the US pay
a cost it cannot stand if it intervenes in the South China Sea
dispute by force.
China is a peace-loving country and deals with foreign relations
with discretion, but it won't flinch if the US and its small
clique keep encroaching on its interests on its doorstep.
China hopes disputes can be resolved by talks, but it must be
prepared for any military confrontation. This is common sense in
international relations."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
The "heavy US intervention" refers to America's "freedom of
navigation" patrols in the South China Sea. Some $5 trillion in trade
passes through the South China Sea on ships each year, including $1.2
trillion of US trade. China has flip-flopped among various positions
and threats in the past few years, and some statements in the past
have threatened to block international traffic, or at least to require
permission of Chinese authorities to traverse the South China Sea. So
the US has responded with the freedom of navigation patrols.
China is claiming the entire South China Sea, and is using its massive
military force to confiscate regions that have historically belonged
to other nations, especially Vietnam and the Philippines. China is
building artificial islands and converting them to military bases with
advanced missile and radar systems. ( "23-Feb-16 World View -- China's military buildup neutralizes America's aircraft carriers"
)
China's military is in a highly emotional, irrational and
nationalistic state, which makes them very dangerous. They believe
that the US has been weakened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
too anxious to risk another war. This is a major historic mistake
that they will regret. They claim to be "peace loving," but the way
the world works is that every leader goes to war by claiming to be
"peace loving," and blaming the other side. The July 12 ruling will
only increase their anxieties.
Some analysts are pointing out that occupying the South China Sea is
an existential need for China and for its neighbors. China, Vietnam
and the Philippines have high population densities and comparatively
low amounts of arable land, further magnifying the importance of food
sources outside traditional crops. Food security is an existential
threat to all of these countries. For China, taking control of all
the fish stocks in the South China Sea is seen as a necessity, and so
China sees the need to control access to the South China Sea by other
nations.
So all the talk about being "peace-loving" is really irrelevant.
China will go to war if that's the only way to prevent Vietnam and the
Philippines from fishing in the South China Sea. Out of desperation,
Vietnam and the Philippines will see China's military actions as an
existential threat, and an attempt to starve their own people. The
July 12 ruling will raise anxieties on all sides, and move the region
closer to war. Global Times (Beijing) and Jamestown and The Diplomat
****
**** Obama flip-flops again on Afghanistan
****
President Barack Obama flip-flopped again on Wednesday. There are
currently 9,800 American troops in Afghanistan, and Obama announced
that 8,400 troops would be left in Afghanistan when he leaves office,
rather than 5,500. The Taliban are gaining control of large areas of
the country, defeating the indigenous Afghan army repeatedly, and
Obama is under pressure to reverse himself again on his withdrawal
plans. The 8,400 figure is apparently a completely meaningless
political number, less than 9,800 so he can claim he's still
withdrawing, but large enough to provide cover until he can leave
office. It's all pretty cynical.
In October of last year, President Obama reversed himself on the Afghanistan troop withdrawal.
Instead of a total withdrawal, he announced that a residual force of
5,500 troops would be left on a continuing basis. This was only one
of several similar reversals. He was forced into this because many
people believe that the Obama's total withdrawal from Iraq squandered
the victory won by President Bush via the 2007 "surge," and because
Obama's own "surge" strategy in Afghanistan has been a failure, as I predicted in 2009 that it would be,
based on a Generational Dynamics comparison of Iraq and Afghanistan.
By coincidence, Obama's announcement comes on the same day that
Britain is releasing the "Chilcot report," a massive condemnation of
the roles of the US and Britain for the Iraq war. Thus, it's
interesting to compare the media attitude towards Bush's apparent lies
in Iraq, and Obama's apparent lies about Afghanistan. The press
reaction was predictable. The Sacramento Bee was typical, in one
editorial on the one hand expressing sympathy for President Obama's
"failed exit strategies," and on the other hand accusing "the
Bush-Cheney administration for ... lies about Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein having weapons." Obama's lies deserve sympathy from the
Sacramento Bee, while Bush's deserve the greatest condemnation. Like
the analysts and anchors on CNBC who constantly lie about stock valuations
and don't care that they're
lying, the reporters and editors at the Sacramento Bee and New York
Times don't care that they've become the public relations arms of the
Obama administration. I remember the days when the New York Times
could be called "the newspaper of record," but those days are gone.
Washington Post and BBC and Sacramento Bee
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, South China Sea,
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Philippines, Vietnam,
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Chilcot Report
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
