Time for US and China to Establish Maritime Rules of the Road
Image Credit: Official U.S. Navy Imagery via Flickr

Time for US and China to Establish Maritime Rules of the Road

0 Likes
67 comments

The already tense atmosphere in the East China Sea ratcheted up a notch this past week when China declared a new air defense identification zone. The United States’ flight of a pair of B-52 bombers through that zone on Monday further highlighted the potential for conflict in the contested area. The legal issues involved in the use of the sea, and the air space above it, are intellectually intriguing for an academic who studies international law. The political realities of this increasingly tough neighborhood, however, are frightening.

From a legal perspective, the situation in the East China Sea is complicated first by conflicting territorial claims with deep historic roots. Both China and Japan claim ownership to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, with the choice of name depending on your position regarding ownership. Even if ownership was clear, there is the further question 
of what rights a country has in the space surrounding its territory. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which China and Japan are both parties, waters off a state’s coastline are divided into several zones – territorial sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – over which the coastal state is authorized to exercise diminishing control. The legal norms governing these zones are fundamental to determining states’ rights to operate aircraft above them. Not surprisingly, countries have differing interpretations of the legal norms, depending in part on their abilities to project military capabilities into other states’ EEZs.

From a political perspective, current tensions serve as a glaring reminder of how little progress has been made since the 2001 incident involving a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance plane and a Chinese F-8 jet in the waters south of China. Following the collision in China’s EEZ, the American crew successfully crash-landed on Chinese territory, where they remained for eleven days (China returned the disassembled EP-3 several months later). Tensions subsided after the U.S. provided a carefully crafted quasi-apology that avoided acknowledging any wrongdoing. The U.S. government’s vehement denial that it violated international law by flying the EP-3 over China’s EEZ has its roots in a long-standing fear of “creeping jurisdiction”: the threat that states gradually will expand their territorial claims and, if not objected to, these expanded claims may gain credence under international law. The 2001 collision has thankfully passed into history but the circumstances that gave rise to the incident have not.

Today, the U.S. and China remain without a clear military-to-military channel of communication to address unforeseen confrontations efficiently. What is more, China’s military capabilities have increased dramatically in the dozen years since the 2001 collision. Put simply, there is considerably more action below, on and above the seas. China still does not have a blue-water navy that can project force far beyond its shores, but it is rapidly building a modern, expansive fleet that is concerning to nearby states and to the U.S., which has close ties with several of China’s neighbors and a strong pro-freedom-of-the-seas stance.

Nor are current concerns that something could go bump in the night limited to the area between China and Japan. The South China Sea is beset by a jumble of claims by no fewer than six countries with substantial interests in fishing and natural resources that add to military tensions. Whereas the disputed formations in the East China Sea appear significant enough to qualify as “islands” under the law of the sea – with the resulting rights to the surrounding sea and air that flow from that determination – the South China Sea is pockmarked with less significant formations that many argue are mere “rocks.” The threshold determination of the nature of these formations has yet to be determined, let alone who owns them. Some of the disputed turf in Northeast Asia may also be merely “rocks,” especially Okinotorishima and the Dokdo/Takeshima.

International law can help bring long-term clarity to the various claims and should be made a priority. The Philippines, for example, has launched an arbitration process under the provisions of UNCLOS in hopes of resolving competing claims with China in the South China Seas. China has thus far refused to participate. The U.S. for its part has failed to even ratify UNCLOS, despite repeated bipartisan calls from both the executive and legislative branches. Although the U.S. adheres to much of UNCLOS as a matter of customary international law, becoming a formal party would at a minimum signal respect for the role of law in addressing claims.

At the same time, legal channels no doubt will be slow – it took decades for UNCLOS even to be drafted and enter into force. More immediately, concrete measures are needed both to forestall conflicts and to create channels to promptly address confrontations before they balloon into crises. Given persisting legal ambiguities about military activities at sea, as well as the increasing frequency of encounters due to assertive U.S. maneuvers and growing Chinese military might, the two countries should take the lead in establishing specific, practical “rules of the road” for use when their military forces encounter each other to lessen the chance of future incidents.

The Obama administration’s “pivot” to Asia has strained U.S.-China relations in the Pacific, with the leadership in Beijing skeptical of America’s assertions that the pivot is not aimed at containing China. Absent an unexpected turn in events, the U.S. will be dealing with Xi Jinping and his senior cohorts for the coming decade. Washington cannot afford to wait until 2022 to see if the next leaders are easier counterparts. Nor should it take another collision to spur these two major powers into action.

The 2001 collision has remained a lone occurrence. Let’s hope it stays that way.

Margaret K. Lewis is an Associate Professor at Seton Hall Law School and author of An Analysis of State Responsibility for the Chinese-American Airplane Collision Incident, 77 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1404 (2002).

Comments
67
Keys
December 5, 2013 at 02:45

Time for the US to start respecting and observing international law. Despite all its hubris in the Pacific, US navy is really a paper tiger. Russia and China can wipe out all US major surface combatants with missiles if necessary. The US needs to focus on fixing its insolvent federal government and its collapsing economy instead of bullying other countries and flaunting its tin can navy everywhere

Tom F
December 4, 2013 at 17:58

This piece is just typical of the way the US diplomatically sidestep important issues and perpetuate ambiguous concepts to the Chinese people, BUT failing dismally in getting the message through to the CCP.

The US alliance must appreciate that the CCP controls the media in China. The alliance must also appreciate that the CCP is used to getting its own ways (whether for self interests) or national interests, and its spoilt brat habit is difficult to break personally, and politically. The CCP can’t wield a hammer to the Chinese people only to lightly feather foreign powers that they have been painting as the axis of evil can they? That would be political suicide.

What is unambiguous, predictable with absolute clarity, and unchallenged by the CCP is that the region is heading for conflict. At a time when so many of China’s regional neighbours should be trying to dislodge the poverty monkey off their back, they are instead increasing their military spending, and upgrading weapons. More importantly, when the region should be taking care of itself and uniting under a new strong leader, it is splintering and nervously getting suspicious of one another. And, this is only from a ‘rising’ China, I hate to think what a risen China is going to look like, perhaps the Coral sea will follow. IMHO, if the US continue with its ambiguous message to the CCP, Russia will fill the regional leadership balance.

title
December 27, 2013 at 16:02

us want to sent warplane to bomb chinese so chinese they want to defence themself

Bob
December 4, 2013 at 06:02

The 50 Cent Party (五毛党) are Internet commentators (网络评论员) hired by the government of the People’s Republic of China (both local and central) or the Communist Party to post comments favorable towards party policies in an attempt to shape and sway public opinion on various Internet message boards.[1][2] The commentators are said to be paid fifty cent of Renminbi for every post that either steers a discussion away from anti-party or sensitive content on domestic websites, bulletin board systems, and chatrooms,[3] or that advances the Communist party line.[4][5]

Keys
December 5, 2013 at 02:39

@ Bob, please stop spamming the site with your lies and propaganda. Just because YOU are hired to write anti-Chinese and anti-Russian rubbish doesn’t mean other posters are hired hands like you. The US has more enemies than any other country in the world because of its rogue / terrorist government and illegal military operations abroad (including shameless spying on other leaders).

title
December 27, 2013 at 16:08

us are planing for sent warplane to bomb chinese as they do with iraq and libya so chinese they plane to defence themself.

mike
December 4, 2013 at 00:14

The US is in a difficult position now. It has been playing Japan against China smoothly and profitably in the past without paying any price. Now Japan wants the US to get ready for a war with China over a few deserted islands. It is definitely not in the US interest to defend Japan over those islands and such a war will never get any domestic support. However, if the US wants to continue to play the “divide and conquer” game, it will be burned badly. Now it is time for the US to review its past practice and get out of the dangerous game of pitting Japan against China before it is too late to get out.

American Patriot
December 4, 2013 at 03:02

Mike you make some good points about going to war over some uninhabited rocks. The only thing is that these rocks are not the only thing at stake here. If we Americans give up the issue and let Japan lose the claim to the islands then our credibility will be lost throughout the world.

So of course we will defend the Japanese claim right up to the brink of all out warfare. We just need to make sure we have the moral high ground when all out war eventually starts.

Only Truth prevail
December 4, 2013 at 05:49

Don’t be silly, all combatants go into war claiming moral high ground; but only the side with genuine moral high ground will prevail even with inferior equipment. American and its gangs went into Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc. claiming moral high ground too, but in the end they all were proven false and shameless.

American Patriot
December 5, 2013 at 08:37

You don’t seem to understand what I meant by moral high ground. It’s one thing to claim it, but simply claiming it is not enough these days; especially in an era where information is rapidly spread and disseminated across the globe. All the US needs to do is keep poking at China with a stick. Keep pushing further and further to humiliate them as much as possible. The B-52 bombers were just the beginning of this.

Once China has reached a boiling point, I have no doubt they will be the first to spark an incident like shooting down a Japanese of American aircraft. Once they are the first to make a hostile action, the moral high ground will be won by the USA and thats when its all over for China.

Keys
December 5, 2013 at 08:40

LOL@ American Patidiot. America has “credibility”? Who are you kidding?! America and its NATO lapdogs invaded Libya under false pretenses and in violation of International Law; they attempt to do the same against Syria but got exposed by Russia, and opposed by India and China; they invaded Iraq under false pretenses and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, women and civilians; they did the same to Afghanistan; recently declassified documents proved that America started the Vietnam War with a false flag operation (and in the process killed millions of Vietnamese while handing hundreds of billions of US dollars over to US death merchants).

KL
December 6, 2013 at 16:11

@American Patriot. What if your desired scenario turns out otherwise ? What if it’s a US or Japs military aircraft that is in distress and was forced to land in China, like it happened with the P3 surveillance aircraft incident some years back ?

Or a US aircraft fooled by electronics to stray into China’s air space instead of the ADIZ. China has a track record of patience and just when the US and Japan felt over confident, an incident embarrassing to US & Japan could just happened. What kind of incident….my guess is good as yours ?

However, I would prefer to give you the benefit of foresight, that the US or Japs shoot down a Chinese commercial plane by accident. This indeed is the best way to prove that US and Japs meant what they say.

title
December 27, 2013 at 15:56

because us want to bomb chinese so they prepare to defence themself.

russian guy
December 3, 2013 at 22:33

China slowly dumping the dollar globally, that’s why US military put bases all around it. Hope while US is busy with China, Russia will do the rest of the job in removing the dollar as reserve currency.We are tired of US illegal wars for natural resources.

Tom F
December 5, 2013 at 07:10

Huh? Please explain, the US is not afraid of a weaker dollar, it’s good for export and global competitiveness, AND it has been asking China to stop pegging its currency with the US.

Keys
December 5, 2013 at 08:59

It’s not that simple, Tom. The US government is screwing global investors by printing worthless USD day and night – the most egregious form of currency manipulation. In fact, it’s a form of default. The biggest creditors, China and japan, are both being cheated one to two hundred billions EVERY YEAR through depreciation / dilution by the Federal Reserve. The US is acting like a deadbeat. China, Russia, and other creditors have a duty to protect their investment using the best possible means. You might want to read up on the subject. It will take a couple of years, if not more.

Keys
December 5, 2013 at 09:05

You are right, Russian guy. It’s almost Doom’s Day for America, and it’s putting up the last fight. The US murdered Saddam Hussein over the latter’s refusal to accept US dollar for oil. The US / NATO murdered Kaddhafi and messed up Libya for refusing to use the US dollar. The US also tried to assassinate Huge Chavez of Venezuela for phasing out the US dollar. Now the US is on to Iran, China and Russia. Except that this time the targets have the capability to bury the US and its lapdogs militarily.

Tom F
December 6, 2013 at 17:58

@Keys – agree it’s not simple, but you have to distil the various parts in order to understand the real situation. Put simply:

- The debt is in $USD, the FR prints $USD, China and Japan doesn’t have to buy US T-Bonds, but they do for their own self interest.

- The $USD is the default trade currency, and the US also happen to be the default world police in everything from economic, trade, conflict, etc. everything that happens around the world affects the $USD, the US FR and government have no choice but to try and contain fall out, contagion etc. It’s essential for global security.

- (stay with me on this one), the FR is a kind of a global bank, if global economic activities grow (increasing assets, and stay with me, forget about who owns that asset for now), then under our fractional reserve banking system, surely there has to be more currency circulating. If you’re still with me, do you not find it interesting that whether the FR tapers or not affects exchanges all over the world?

Only selfish nation bent on national (rather than global) stability play the US cheating card, after all, they can just stop buying US bonds, or dump it.

Aragon
December 11, 2013 at 10:40

Chinas has now 12% more US debt than in 2012.
And the 45% of the debt is domestically owned.

China holds about 7%

end of discussion?

Ivan Turgenev
December 12, 2013 at 00:11

He’s not a Russian. His POV is Wu Mao.

Shining Path
December 3, 2013 at 22:25

The Americans are just settlers remember- the red Indians can testify. Built on blood of natives and sweats of slaves.
Invades only the weak ..Iraq, Taliban and the likes. China only needs to build up its forces steadly as it’s doing. Once the US recedes from the region due to economic problems, it soon will, and collapses just like the Soviet Union, the military bases will be left empty and China will be the only superpower left in Asia. Bind your time China.

Jean-Paul
December 4, 2013 at 02:56

The USA only invades the weak? Were the Japanese considered weak in WW2? If so China must have been a little baby because it got stomped on during that war.

Anyways keep dreaming of the USA collapsing because it wont happen anytime soon. People have been predicting the imminent collapse of the US since the 1970s when it dropped the Bretton Woods system so your prediction is a bit late to the game.

Keys
December 5, 2013 at 08:51

Yes, the US only invades the weak, and sometimes still messes up and gets beat. Vietnam proved it. N.Korea proved it.

ma gouyu
December 3, 2013 at 15:24

I believe that the Chinese authorities on the ADIZ should provide ample international notice and warning that should any foreign aircraft fails or refuses to identify themselves and submit any flight path then China cannot take any chances and reserves the right to shoot down the aircraft in breach. I think by making this point clear then no misunderstanding will occur after a plane is shot down.

Guest
December 3, 2013 at 17:14

Because shooting down KAL 007 did wonders for the Soviets.

The moment a Chinese missile comes within even 1 km of a southbound JAL or ANA flight, Japan will (rightly) go on a self-defense war footing.

Think Positive
December 4, 2013 at 00:54

Since all civilian aeroplanes will comply with China’s ADIZ requirements (their insurance premium will skyrocket if they don’t), those aeroplanes do not comply China’s ADIZ requirements by virtue are not friendly, hence they are voluntarily identifying themselves as hostile and require special attention by the China’s ADIZ authority, their noncooperation makes China’s job to defend the ECS covered by the ADIZ a lot easier.

China’s ADIZ is to defend its space in the ECS, not to win bragging right like the aggressive imperialist USA and fascist Japan are seeking for; the ADIZ has already helped China achieved its objectives, and it is not necessary to respond irresponsibly like the childish USA and Japan.

Jean-Paul
December 4, 2013 at 02:53

The only one behaving irresponsibly here is the Chinese. Nobody in the history of ADIZ establishment have created an ADIZ around disputed territory. It sets a very dangerous precedent for the whole world. European nations all established their ADIZ peacefully and agreed between eachother where the ADIZs were to be located. Why couldn’t China follow the peaceful European example? It proves China is still living in the 1800s and thinks it can take things by force.

Think Positive
December 4, 2013 at 05:24

Jean-Paul, European nations established their ADIZs through negotiations, so should the nations in Asia; China has called Japan, SK, etc. to negotiate the establishment of ADIZs in the North East Asia, but the Empire of the USA won’t allow the negotiation to start, because it is the beginning of Asian managing Asian business as well as the beginning of the end of the empire’s involvement in Asia, so Japan and SK as vassal states can do nothing but to follow the order and behave badly.

The unreasonable interference of the Empire to the peaceful development in Asia proves that the Empire is still living in the 1800s and thinks it can rule the world like those barbaric imperialists in the 1800s.

Ryokai
December 4, 2013 at 13:00

Any plane that does not identify itself would be considered military and belonging to the US, Japan and Korea. The surveillance planes and bombers are about the same size as a civilian airliner. To date China hasn’t bothered to intercept military planes so who knows what it’ll do? Likely nothing. In any event it should have all commercial flight schedules from the internet.

Keys
December 5, 2013 at 01:58

@Jean-Paul, Japan’s ADIZ and S.Korea’s ADIZ both cover disputed territories. Your blatant lies and propaganda are getting really old and pathetic.

Jean-Paul
December 5, 2013 at 08:42

@ Think Positive

How can you say that the US is creating the problems? Do you even have any proof that it is the US creating the problems here. or are you just another paranoid ccp commentator that constantly needs to bad mouth the US?

Usually when someone is in the wrong they point fingers and blame others for their problems, your case is no different. Japan and SK are merely responding to the threat that China poses to their security, do not blame the US for China’s aggressive behaviour. SK and Japan only wish for peace in the region!

Tom F
December 5, 2013 at 07:39

China is not making any point ‘clear’. The island(s) dispute was initiated by China, after many decades of inaction, so the only thing clear is China’s intention to create regional conflict. Or shall I say the CCP’s intention, because I’m certain ordinary Chinese don’t want to send their sons and daughters into a war so that a CCP crony can get rich selling the resources.

China then uses the dispute to unilaterally initiate an ADIZ, together with threat to ‘shoot down’ planes, even civilian ones. Remember, if China is at risk and requiring an ADIZ for self defense, it would have been in more danger back when it was less powerful, not now when it’s more capable of defending itself.

China is projecting force and conflict into the region. That is the nature of China’s rise, there is no leadership here, only tension and suspicion. This is clear.

If you need any more proof, just look at defense capability upgrades and spending in the region, especially at a time when many of these countries should be trying to invest in peaceful infrastructure to alleviate poverty in their own countries. Need, more proof? Just look at the assistance offered to the Philippines in the face of disaster and mayhem, it was a message of spite.

In the past the CCP was writing cheques that Chinese people have had to pay off, now it’s writing cheques that the entire region will have to pay off and the sooner the Chinese people wake up to these schemes the safer the region will be. I think you know it, and most Chinese people know it, Chinese will be the first lamb to the slaughter, followed by others in the region, the price paid for some CCP crony to maintain his (or his kids’) spending habit.

sense
December 3, 2013 at 12:09

Actually China and US could resolve many issues well, but not this one. One profound reason is that Chinese and Japanese have history problem. So either would not compromise. US is smart not taking position for the disputed island, but not smart enough for indicating they would defend Japan for the island, which could drag US in the position that both China and Japan would not trust US.

vic
December 3, 2013 at 13:51

If Japan gives up the Senkaku, there is no skin off Japan’s nose. It solves all the historical problems and simply acknowledges Japanese repentance for war spoils and war crimes in China. So little for Japan to give up to turn on a new page.

Jean-Paul
December 4, 2013 at 02:50

The senkakus are not included in Japan’s war spoils however. The senkakus were taken in 1895, way before either world wars and they are not even included in the potsdam declaration. If Japan gives them the senkakus, what to stop them from claiming okinawa, or any other Japanese territory.

Voice against misinformation
December 4, 2013 at 01:08

China said there was a dispute over Daioyu/Senkaku Islands, and wanted to negotiate a peaceful solution with Japan, it is Japan refuses to negotiate due to its master of Asia historical chip on the shoulder.

USA is the perpetrator of this crisis by leading Japan from behind for its hegemony design in Asia-Pacific.

Jean-Paul
December 4, 2013 at 02:38

The international community is siding with Japan in this dispute, not China. The EU has aleady voiced its complaints against china’s ADIZ, as well as the USA, South Korea, the philippines, Canada as well as all democratic peace loving nations.

When will the Chinese stop being so aggressive towards the peaceful Japanese people? Shinzo Abe only wants peace in the region, thats why he’s not recognizing the Chinese claim. The japanese had already suffered enough during WW2, why does china want more suffering in asia?

Voice of International Community
December 4, 2013 at 09:14

The international community sided with China in the Cairo and Potsdam declarations against the evil fascist Japan too, but Japan has never followed the international community’s decision, returned Ryukyu and Daioyu to China, and compensated all the victims for the harm they had done? Such irresponsible behaviour is equivalent to a spoiled kid not from a proper family.

Japan cannot ask others to follow international community’s opinion while itself does not; it must establish itself with good standing in the international community before it can citing international community for support. Japan can start to establish its good standing by implementing the Cairo and Potsdam declarations right away though it is nearly 70 years late.

Jean-Paul
December 5, 2013 at 08:54

Your post would be a solid one if it weren’t for the fact that the potsdam declartion and cairo declaration do not state that Japan has to return the Senkakus to China. The Senkakus were administered by Japan since 1895, way before WW2 started so why would they need to be returned?

Also Japan has compensated China for WW2, that’s why they have so many investments in China; many Chinese workers are employed by Japanese businesses. On the other hand, how many Japanese workers are employed by Chinese firms? Almost none.

Japan has done more for the international community than China ever has. For example when the philippines was struck by a hurricane last month, China barely sent any aid at all while Japan sent in troops, aid and equipment. Maybe one day China can learn from Japan and its good deeds.

Kanes
December 3, 2013 at 10:42

Yes; they need some protocol which must be based on the admission that today’s a multi-polar world.

Bob
December 3, 2013 at 10:20

Former CCP leader Deng Xiaoping advised Chinese leadership to “hide your capabilities, and bide your time.” Most modern Chinese foreign propaganda seeks to pursue China’s strategic goals while adhering to this advice. The following are common themes found in China’s foreign propaganda:

* China seeks a peaceful rise. In other words, “China is not a threat.” As it industrializes, China does not seek to rival other nations for resources. It also seeks to industrialize without high amounts of pollution, energy consumption, and investment.

* China does not seek hegemony. “Instead, China will transcend ideological differences to strive for peace, development, and cooperation with all countries of the world.” China “advocates a new international political and economic order, one that can be achieved through incremental reforms and the democratization of international relations.” China believes in non-interventionism.

* The CCP is evolving and is no longer an authoritarian regime. China’s government has evolved from the days of Mao. It is no longer a strict, authoritarian style Communist/Maoist system, but is democratizing. The CCP seeks to “transcend outdated modes of social control and to construct a harmonious socialist society.”

* China does not view the United States as a strategic adversary. Instead, “Beijing wants Washington to play a positive role in the region’s security as well as economic affairs.”

nirvana
December 3, 2013 at 16:52

@Bob,
Thanks for summarizing the Chinese narrative in 4 bullets. Let’s analyse the promise:

* Not a threat: No, provided you understand the “big stick” and “negotiate” with China. From time to time, “teach a lesson” to “stubborn” neighbours.

* Not an hegemony. Ask Cambodia.

* Democratizing. Just keep Tiananmen in your memory then you can have freedom of the Internet.

* No confrontation with the US: But, don’t play with the feelings of the Chinese people. The people and the PLA is a single component of China society.

In fact, what Deng taught was “hide our intention, nibble our way through while smiling”, the contrary of responsible growing power, the contrary of a “superior man” as defined by Confucius.

Voice against Misinformation
December 4, 2013 at 01:52

*Only Vietnam claims teaching China a lesson nonstop, China does not step a step outside of its boundary and only was forced to repel invaders; and Japan is the aggressor in the latest case.

*“China Threat” is a Japanese invention and picked up the ex-imperial powers to demonize China for their justification of starting a new cold war against China in order to fill their greed and hegemony desires.

*Only USA and Vietnam invaded and bombarded Cambodia senselessly, the Filipino was one of the gang that committed war crimes against Cambodia.

*Tiananmen Massacre is a fabrication by the NYT, CIA and MI6 to demonize China for their neocon ideological conquest; it is well documented by the independent minded journalists.

*If USA is not misguided by the neocons, fascist Japan and ex-imperial powers, USA is a stabilizing force in the world; China does want a fair minded USA to play a positive role in the region’s security as well as economic affairs. Your racially tinted lambasting cannot change that fact.

Ryokai
December 4, 2013 at 13:29

The PRC is not going to make any friends or alliances or engender trust with the democratic major powers as as long as the PRC remains hard-line communist.

Bob
December 3, 2013 at 10:19

Through its external propaganda operations, China seeks to shape international perception of the Chinese government and its policies. The CCP’s main goals are:

1. Reduce fears that China is a threat to neighboring countries. China seeks to change its image within the region from that of a growing threat and aggressor to that of a benefactor and potential partner.[45] Beijing is working to “diminish fears of China’s future military power, or concerns that China’s massive economic growth would divert trade and foreign investment from other nations.”[46]
2. Secure access to resources and energy. As China’s economy continues to grow at a rapid pace, the need for resources and energy has become more pressing. To protect its access to these resources, China is working to gain the trust of foreign states that that possess oil, gas, and other materials.[47]
3. Build alliances and weaken Taiwan’s relationship with the international community. In 1994, China announced that it would “use all economic and diplomatic resources to reward countries that are willing to isolate Taiwan.”[48] Through propaganda as well as economic incentives, China seeks to convince any nation that still recognizes Taiwan to switch their loyalty to Beijing and formally declare that Taiwan is part of China.[49]
4. Promote a multipolar world and constrain U.S. global power.[50] China seeks to slowly diminish the United State’s influence in Asia, and create its own sphere of influence in Southeast Asia.[51]

Justice for the World
December 4, 2013 at 02:31

*Chinese all over the world is fighting American’s manufacturing consent operation to demonize China and deny China’s right to liberty, equality and justice in the world. American and its gang’s effort to drag China and the world back into 19th century of western barbaric imperialist colonial Dark Age is wrong.

*The points are the American and its gang’s imperialist representation of China based on their own no-peaceful rising experience in order to gloss over their aggressive, violent and hypocritical culture.

*The points reflect American and its gang’s caste system world order mentality that only the American and its gang can be at top of the caste to rule the world, and rest of world must live in the under caste order they assigned.

*The points further reflect that the American and its gang believe their societies are the final form of civilization, and no other civilization is allowed to surpass them.

Bob
December 4, 2013 at 06:02

The 50 Cent Party (五毛党) are Internet commentators (网络评论员) hired by the government of the People’s Republic of China (both local and central) or the Communist Party to post comments favorable towards party policies in an attempt to shape and sway public opinion on various Internet message boards.[1][2] The commentators are said to be paid fifty cent of Renminbi for every post that either steers a discussion away from anti-party or sensitive content on domestic websites, bulletin board systems, and chatrooms,[3] or that advances the Communist party line.[4][5]

Jean-Paul
December 5, 2013 at 09:01

@ Justice for the world

This “gang” that you speak of is no gang at all, a better word would be “family”. This family, comprised of the G7 nations has been guiding the world towards development and prosperity for centuries now. More than 90% of all modern scientific discoveries have been at the hands of this great family. Imagine what would have happened if this family never joined together, China would never even be able to develop into what it is today.

Sure this family has had its share of problems like during WW1 and WW2, but that is long ago, the world needs to let go of the past and forgive eachother for the mistakes made back then.

Unfortunately for China they are not welcome to join this family of great nations because China has done nothing to earn its keep. All China can do is steal and copy the developments of this family and export toxic junk products to our economies. Who would want someone like that in their family?

Keys
December 5, 2013 at 01:54

@ Bob, I don’t believe a word from your mouth. Those around me don’t believe you. In fact, we have no doubt in our mind that YOU are a propagandist hired to spread hatred and incite conflict against China and other countries. That’s blatantly obvious from your posts.

applesauce
December 3, 2013 at 05:47

actually, over the last couple years, even as relations with japan begin to break down, mil to mil relations between china and the US have been surprisingly stable and growing. China has made it crystal clear that its problems at this time is not with the US. and the US has also seem to recognize that as well. its flight of b-52 was the minimum it can do, the US, if it really wanted to challenge the zone, could have easily sent a pair of B-2 covered by a flight of 4 f-22 and flew them straight over the disputed islands. the fact that it didn’t means it wants no hand in the dispute but needs to publicly stand and reassure allies. Japan OTOH is causing all kinds of problems for the US. all of this mess started when japan arrested and tried to charge the Chinese fishermen under Japanese law, followed by nationalizing the islands, followed by, threats of a shoot-down over the disputed islands, followed by visits to the war criminal shrine, followed by their reaffirmation that the islands are not disputed at all thereby making negotiation impossible. every Chinese move is a reaction, a counter move against the Japanese, yet with each action, japan digs itself further into a hole.

John
December 3, 2013 at 08:09

We here in America are getting tired of playing a victim by red commie china. Just look at what chinese posters here in this site alone, it looks like china wants war. If you ask for one, then you should have one soon/ War with china is a good thing for americans after all as we can cancel debts we owe the chinese. The most important things are we could bring back our jobs from china and restructure american economy in a way that there will be no part for china. Let them sell their stuffs for russians and north koreans and those of cambodians.

peter walsh
December 3, 2013 at 10:13

War is a good thing?
Use warfare with your banker to cancel your debt?
Your darkest, most wicked heart is showing all over the blogg!
Can’t pay your bankers, kill them right mate?
I am not surprised at the kid comment on ABC where he said the same thing. Obviously, rotten adults with their heads filled with hatred is to blame for filling their kids with hatred garbage.

title
December 27, 2013 at 16:12

chinese is not a problem ,problem is noone want to buy us goods. korea good is better.

Roven
December 3, 2013 at 00:33

>”But with tensions rising, some understanding is needed.”

Define “needed”. Because economically, politically, demographically, technologically and politically the case can easily be made that what is “needed” (and “wanted” by a great many players) is a major non-nuclear confrontation in the vein of ASB.

When one begins strategic reasoning with a false premise (ie: The goal is peace. Or that peace is the scenario which most guarantees prosperity) one reaches an equally false conclusion (ie: What is needed is dialogue).

The US military machine has been on the strategic equivalent of a low-carb diet for the past two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. That era has closed and we stand at the threshold of a new one which has much in common with the last: A real adversary capable of approaching our spending and technological capabilities.

This is an era that is highly anticipated by a large number of powerful proponents within the United States MIC. Dialogue is not at the top of the agenda.

ACT
December 2, 2013 at 23:21

The problem is that the PRC is already intent on establishing rules–its own, that is. And its intentions for the region are rather neatly summed up by Matthew Hipple, in his article which can be found here:

http://warontherocks.com/2013/12/the-language-intention-and-impact-of-chinas-adiz-theft-in-broad-daylight/

and i quote:

“The Chinese ECS ADIZ is a grander scale , but far subtler, version of the 1993 “Act on the Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea” (Its excesses are well described in the State Department’s “Limits in the Seas” No.114). By the nature of its claims, it forces both parties to come into more dangerous and escalatory engagements….In both cases, a regionally powerful nation attempts to wrest illegal control over a large swath of territory.”

if there were ever a time for the U.S to respond in force, to label the PRC’s pathetic attempt at outright invasion and hegemony for what it is, it would be now; make it clear, to all and sundry, that a foreign policy of sheer arrogance and outright hypocrisy that ended nearly 70 years will never again be tolerated by the modern world.

Jean-Paul
December 3, 2013 at 08:01

ACT I fully agree that now is the time to finally do something about this outright display of imperialism. What we need is a firm resolve with the international community, a resolve to say NO to Chinese expansionism. Japan is one of most pacifist nations in the past 70 years. They have not engaged in any conflict whatsoever, whereas the Chinese have attacked multiple innocent nations.

Shinzo Abe should be awarded the nobel peace prize for his efforts to counter chinese aggression. The US needs to stand up for Japan and keep sending in more and more military aircraft to the area to show Beijing they mean business!

Greg Wayne
December 3, 2013 at 09:45

The USA attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and threaten to attack Syria and Iran.
Everyday, countless innocents died due to its drone attacks that the UN deems illegal.
And which nations has the China attacked??
Please do not lie through your teeth.

R.G.
December 3, 2013 at 12:32

Get real. US doesn’t even have to balls to strike Iran or even Syria & you think they dare to attack China? And stop dragging the world into your rhetoric, have any African, Latin American, Middle-Eastern or Central Asian countries protest China’s ADIZ? Show Beijing they mean biz? Of course they do, the moneys in China’s manufacturing sector!

ACT
December 3, 2013 at 13:53

Where did i say that i thought it was ok to initiate war with china? implied, perhaps, but certainly not outright stated. what i meant by show of force is a demand that the PRC withdraw its claim to the islands and, failing this, the open support of Japan’s claim to the islands on an international level, coupled with, say, a semi-permanent naval presence within 250 miles of the islands; if the PRC flies jets into the area, a squadron will escort them out of the area, and so on. In other words, beat the PRC at its own game, and make it impossible for it to establish dominance over the area short of actual warning shots or conflict.

Tommy Page
December 3, 2013 at 21:44

Aussies will never fight on behalf of or on the side of Japan. The war crimes committed by their seniors, many of whom are still alive and sit on board of directors of their top companies are just too painful to forget. During WWII, Japanese soldiers resort to cannibalism and some of our unfortunate diggers ended up on their dinner plate.
Not true, just read this…..http://www.dailylife.com.au/national/commandos-horrific-end-kept-secret-20131004-2uzkt.html?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=outbrain_amplify

Nobel peace prize for an unrepentant, war criminals worshipping pm? War criminals that committed unspeakable war crimes and act of savagery that include cannibalism? This is a joke of the millennium!
I will not risk my butt on their behalf. Better to let them take care of the rock issue themselves.

Jean-Paul
December 4, 2013 at 02:46

@ Greg Wayne

The USA invaded those nations so that it could establish democracy and peace in the middle east, just like France is trying to do in north africa. China on the other hand has attacked vietnam, india and the former ussr in cold blood. It also commits cultural genocide in tibet and xinjiang.

@ ACT

I know you did not call for war but the thing is, China only listens to force. If the US sets up a semi-permanent naval presence, it is setting itself up for a chinese first strike. The only way to ensure that China listens is to launch a pre emptive strike that immediately cripples China’s ability to launch a counter offense. It doesn’t need to be a nuclear strike or any strike against civilian or mainland targets. What im advocating for is a pre emptive attack on Chinese naval assets coupled with cyber attacks designed to cripple its missile silos.

KDL
December 4, 2013 at 07:01

Totally agree.

Ryokai
December 4, 2013 at 16:22

I agree. Japan and the US have signed the San Francisco Treaty of 1952 where Japan agrees to provide bases in Japan to the US in exchange for Mutual Protection. This power alliance alone ensures there will be no war because no external nation would challenge it. If China wants to learn ‘the art of fighting without fighting’ they should learn from US doctrine.

title
December 27, 2013 at 16:17

us are planing for bomb chinese so chinese they try to defence themself

KL
December 2, 2013 at 23:12

See….!?? Most of the commentators in The Diplomat have forgotten about Philippines and Typhoon Haiyan.

Remember anti-China bloggers were gunning against and ridiculing China relentlessly for her meagre donation.

ADIZ has overwhelmingly overshadowed Typhoon Haiyan.

Come January/February 2014 the world will fixate on another BIG BIG news item…….The US shutdown !?

9 dashes, 4 dishes, 1 soup
December 2, 2013 at 22:13

“Today, the U.S. and China remain without a clear military-to-military channel of communication to address unforeseen confrontations efficiently….International law can help bring long-term clarity to the various claims and should be made a priority.”
——-
Does the author have any evidence that the PRC obeys international laws it has ratified when a dispute arises?

What evidence does she have that military-to-military communications between the US and the PLA will alter the PLA’s behavior? I submit it’s more likely the PLA takes action on its own and leaves it up to Beijing to sort it out post hoc.

After all – either Wrong Way Wang Wei had Hu Jintao’s OK or he did not. Either way – it’s bad news. The same question applies to the ADIZ.

G
December 3, 2013 at 07:08

Military to military ties could alter Beijing’s behavior in that they contribute to greater understanding and clarity between the PRC and the U.S. The purpose of military to military ties, as i understand them, is more to ensure proper interpretation of motive and thereby lessen the chance of a crisis in the region, and if a crisis does occur in mitigating the effects of said crisis.

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief