by Pepe Escobar for Sputnik News
Joint Sea-2016 started this Monday; that’s the fifth annual China-Russia naval drill, featuring stalwarts from both navies in action at the eastern waters of Zhanjiang, in Guangdong province, the HQ of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy Nanhai Fleet.
Considering this is the first time that Joint Sea is happening in the South China Sea, apocalyptic alarms from the usual suspects could not be more predictable – and thoroughly http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1006052.shtml
dismissed by the Beijing leadership.
Joint Sea-2016 intervenes just after a quite significant holding hand moment last week in Laos. Hand holders were no less than China’s premier Li Keqiang and Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte, a.k.a. The Punisher, clad for a change in full suit and tie regalia.
There were good reasons for such camaraderie. After all China and ASEAN had just agreed that the framework for a legally binding code of conduct in the South China Sea will be in effect before the end of the year.
Singapore lobbied “vigorously” for this key development. Beijing regards Singapore as “a key partner for cooperation in the region”, as Li told Xinhua. The Punisher’s own press secretary, Martin Andanar, squared the circle; “Our president also expressed his approval of having a framework for a code of conduct.”
The setting – Laos – could not be more strategically appropriate for China. For three years now China is Laos’s biggest investor – mostly in energy and mining, including the construction of the $868 million Nam Ngiep 1 hydropower project. Key planned projects include the $1.6 billion Luang Marsh Special Economic Zone (SEZ) near Vientiane, and – what else – a 472 km railway between Kunming in Yunnan province and Vientiane, with an extension to Thailand, to be completed by 2021. That will be part of the Southeast Asian branch of the New Silk Roads.
Bombing Laos with rhetoric
Laos was the setting for the first face to face meeting between a top Chinese leader – Prime Minister Li Keqiang – and the 10 heads of state from ASEAN, right before the East Asia summit – the annual gathering of the ASEAN 10 plus China, South Korea, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, US and Russia.
At the East Asia summit, US President Barack Obama, in his last – quite melancholic – visit to Asia, to where his administration allegedly pivoted, declared that The Hague’s ruling invalidating China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea is binding.
That was not only false – but piled up on a Nobel Prize with a license to kill (list) visiting Laos decades after the nation was bombed to smithereens by the “indispensable nation” now saying with a straight face that everything’s gonna be alright. Asians, to say the least, were not impressed.
The reason for Obama’s visit was to actually sell the pivot once again to Asia in tandem with its “NATO on trade” arm – the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Obama insisted that, “TPP is a core pillar of America’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. And the trade and the growth it supports will reinforce America’s security alliances and regional partnerships.”
He added, “failure to move ahead with TPP will not just have economic consequences, but call into question America’s leadership in this vital region.”
Beijing for its part privileged diplomacy over empty rhetoric when dealing with an in-flux ASEAN, crisscrossed by a stark diversity among its 10 member nations. Indonesia and Thailand, for instance, used to be bridge-builders, but now Jakarta is concentrated inward and Bangkok’s policies are in transition.
The White House was counting on Manila to press its – confrontation – case, as Manila is supposed to be a key cog in the pivot machine. Yet even when talking to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Duterte emphasized South China Sea problems should be resolved through peaceful means, and Manila would maintain dialogue with Beijing.
And then, to “celebrate” this pan-Asia meeting – and simultaneously the 68th anniversary of the founding of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) – Pyongyang inflicted a dose of realism on all and sundry by conducting a fifth nuclear test.
Exit TPP, enter high-speed rail
China, meanwhile, keeps accumulating “facts on the sea” – with a lot of action, in the form of sea patrolling, originating from Sansha, a prefecture-level city set up in 2012 to administer the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands and Macclesfield Bank (which the Chinese call Zongsha Islands).
These “facts on the sea” are irreversible, as Sansha has made sure islands, atolls, reefs, rocks, shoals – whatever the terminology – all across the South China Sea are regarded as a matter of national security, politically and strategically, for Beijing.
As far as in-flux ASEAN is concerned, Thailand may retain the status of strategic pivot for US interests. But now Washington must factor the delicate political equation before the looming – and extremely complex – royal succession, with the power of the Thai army solidified by a new constitution as it expands trade and political relations with both Russia and China.
Still, the only discourse emanating from Washington boils down to Pentagon obsession with confrontation in the South China Sea and White House obsession with TPP, the trade arm of the pivot.
Kishore Mahbubani, dean of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, has been clever enough to propose a way out. What if Washington accepted a Chinese contribution in terms of high-speed rail technology – as a means to jump-start the US economy from the Pacific to the Atlantic. This China-US partnership in infrastructure would be, according to Mahbubani, a “match made in heaven”.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has projected a $1.44 trillion investment funding gap in the US between 2016 and 2025 – generating a huge drag on business, exports and incomes. China would have the financial and institutional capacity to build that much-needed infrastructure. TPP is a dead end. Perhaps Mahbubani should send his proposal to Donald Trump.
American economic decline is likely helping to fuel US violence across the globe. So China’s help with nearly USD1.5 trillion may be a small price to buy peace by jump-starting their economy. But it will likely be a temporary peace.
Correct, if the american exceptionalist mindset does not change, its best not to help to make it stronger than it already is. Just let it rot
“just let it rot” – i agree – giving these DC scum capital is an invitation to steal it – the Iranians gave deposits almost forty years ago – and other US investments and they kept it as leverage until it was so big that it was real bargaining chip
let DC flail round from pillar to post winding down its energy Ukraine / Syria / Yemen / SE Asia and elsewhere
it is clear from the Rail Lines and relationships the Chinese have the ball – ignore them
“just let it rot” – i agree – giving these DC scum capital is an invitation to steal it – the Iranians gave deposits almost forty years ago – and other US investments and they kept it as leverage until it was so big that it was real bargaining chip
let DC flail round from pillar to post winding down its energy Ukraine / Syria / Yemen / SE Asia and elsewhere
it is clear from the Rail Lines and relationships the Chinese have the ball – ignore them
American economic decline has been planned by, amongst others, some Americans. You can read the method in the comment here:
/moveable-feast-cafe-2016-09-09/comment-page-1/#comment-273886
The problem is that some Chinese (their elites) and others are in lock step with that plan.
None of this global elite care where a particular economy is jump-started so long as it results in less bargaining power accruing to the vast majority of working folk in developed countries e.g:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/14/up-to-70-per-cent-people-developed-countries-seen-income-stagnate
“Half a billion people in 25 of the west’s richest countries suffered from flat or falling pay packets in the decade covering the financial and economic crisis of 2008-09, according to a report highlighting the impact of the Great Recession on household incomes.
…[]…
The research organisation said the deep slump and the weak recovery after the 2008 financial crisis were the main causes of the phenomenon, but that a decline in the number of people available for work, more part-time and temporary working, and a decline in the influence of trade unions had also played a part.
It warned that should the “slow growth” conditions of the past decade persist, up to 80% of income segments could face flat or falling incomes over the next decade. There was a possibility that increased automation would result in 30-40% of households seeing no advance in their incomes even if growth accelerated.”
So, the global elites play the developing countries against the developed. As a result the majority of the developed world will become impoverished as the developing world – there will eventually be no differentiation and a good German / Russian programmer will be provided the same meagre reward as one from Delhi. The global elite have created a global positive feedback machine for their own power & bank balances.
Peace is not good for the order books of the factories that make the bombs (anywhere) so they contrive perpetual conflict but only those who do not know of their method will ever be harmed by it (profit is profit after all).
For them, this is not a war based in culture, nationalism or religion – those are just some of their tools of division.
This is a class war & there is more scum to confront than just those in DC.
US aggression, violence and genocide would be just the same, probably worse, if it was not collapsing. It’s the nature of the Beast.
Wasn’t it just last month China was warning its people to prepare for a “sudden, short and cruel” direct confrontation? And whom might they fight? American forces?
https://www.rt.com/news/354226-china-sea-navy-drills/
Then after presenting the Americans with a stick, offer a carrot? The Americans are far more likely to choose the stick and make China eat it as a matter of pride.
Its important to have the military option honed, but its strategic shortsightedness to plan for a “short cruel war” against the U.S..
The Germans of times past expected a short war with peace negotiations to follow. They ended up strung out and bled dry by a vicious war of attrition, eventually defeated by their inability to trade globally, sustain their economy and military infrastructure, and cope with attrition. The Pentagon has declared the Long War.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pentagons-long-war-pits-nato-against-china-russia-and-iran/5446753
The U.S.A. has always fought the long war when it wants to win. The Pentagon’s Long War declaration is only a reiteration of longstanding policy.
The Civil War taught the Americans the value of the anaconda strategy over the battle of annihilation. If a battle of annihilation happens, its only the coup de grace of a successful anaconda strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_annihilation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Plan
The U.S. could easily use its technological edge to plink at China’s Pacific frontiers at leisure for years. The Chinese could be bled like baited bulls, expecting a quick victory that never seems to come in a war they can’t end or long afford.
Clumsy as the neocon geopolitical campaigns have been, its unwise to count on stupid being in charge forever promoting crazy battle-of-annihilation plans like AirSea battle. Let alone believing that’s how the Americans would really fight.
The Chinese seem to be preparing for the wrong kind of war, the kind that pretends the greatest victories require battles.
The Chinese are rather preparing for the long war (they already wage it).
Just because some Chinese leaders understand long war doesn’t mean there aren’t hotheads who think they can win by short war and so be willing useful idiots to U.S. aggression.
The Chinese are a patient people for the most part. I think they have the means and the stamina to endure the long war. Once the Chinese realize they are being bled, the war would escalate and America would find herself on the wrong end again. I do not know what you mean about technological edge. It seems that like anything else, the Americans pay 3x as much for the technology as the Chinese (or Russians) do and get less results. The F35 program comes to mind. I do not see how vastly superior the American technology is when it depends on parts coming from China.
The theory that the USA enjoys a technological edge, and apparently always will, is pure Exceptionalist racism and supremacism. When you think that the Chinese have been by far the most technologically innovative civilization throughout history and are producing more scientific graduates and post-graduates than the USA by many times, the future is pretty clear, particularly as all research but that for the military is under threat in the USA as their economy implodes.
My argument is hardly racist, although it does account for U.S./NATO sinophobia. Nor did I say the U.S. will always have technological superiority, only that it does now. Excuse me if I’m a little touchy about you misstating my argument into something its not; I’ve had enough of that strawman trick from Washingtons Blog.
There’s little doubt China is the future. However the U.S. is today. Today shapes tomorrow.
Links in the previous responses strongly suggest the U.S. has the technological edge in depth right now in conventional war. They likely will not by 2050, but for now, China cannot for example, supply its own fighter engines. There should be little question that Chinese military tech draws heavily from reversed-engineered Soviet tech, and reverse-engineering is a sore point with Russia-China arms sales.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-military-engines-idUSKCN0V7083
From the standpoint of extremist U.S. hegemony, the conventional strike window closes for good when the trajectory of China’s military rise crosses the downwards trend of U.S. legacy war machine obsolescence. This seems to be likely in 2025-30 when China’s carriers and new submarines comes into service.
Bungled nextgen military projects like the F-35, littoral combat ships, and possibly the Ford carriers are often in the news. However, the U.S. submarine fleet – the service arm critical to winning wars – is not handicapped by bungled projects.
Nor is victory in the South China Sea really as important as taking shots at China’s great shipbuilding ports and other industrial, technological, and financial centres only possible in a state of hot war.
Huangdicun naval base, for example, is where China is building its new carrier. China has only one coast, its Pacific coast. The U.S. has two. Atlantic coast is among other things, home of the legendary Newport News naval yards and nuclear carrier facilities. The Atlantic U.S. coast can easily continue to function safe from Chinese conventional strikes. U.S. Pacific facilities are not nearly as strongly threatened by China’s limited conventional projection powers as China’s Pacific coast is, in any case.
https://warisboring.com/china-thinks-it-can-defeat-america-in-battle-874bffe1b1b9
To Western sinophobes, burning all bridges with China once and for all is a price they are more than willing to have Americans and the West pay for even a chance of ending early, the Eurasian century. In terms of WWII refought, China may be considered the ‘soft underbelly’ of Eurasia.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175903/
Russia, on the other hand, has precluded almost all chance of direct conventional war with the U.S. by placing the U.S. squarely between linked rock-and-hard-places of A2AD at home and near-equivalent nuke projection abroad.
Implying there is any kind of middle ground for direct conflict is a dangerous mistake. China used to say it would go nuclear without hesitation should the U.S. start a conventional war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/washington/world/chinese-general-threatens-use-of-abombs-if-us-intrudes.html?_r=0
China is the one asking its people to prepare for a short cruel war strongly implied to be conventional only close to their shores. The question is why would the U.S. play to Chinese strengths? All they need is a hot war to disrupt Chinese economic growth.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/21/why-china-is-far-from-ready-to-meet-the-u-s-on-a-global-battlefront/
Once direct conventional war is on the table then China has a problem. I’m not sure why you’d think otherwise. Eurasian integration is at least a decade from being able to supplant Chinese maritime trade. It will be at least three decades before China’s military is uniformly upgraded into a postmodern force.
https://warisboring.com/the-chinese-military-is-a-paper-dragon-8a12e8ef7edc
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/10/china.topstories3
Ocean trade would be over if the U.S. and China go to war. Even Russia would be hard presses to support China and prevent China from becoming isolated. Nor would the war be quickly over if the U.S. refrains from a battle of annihilation and snipes with its submarines instead, using aircraft carriers and other surface assets to protect the U.S. and contain China from a greater distance.
China has no serious conventional military projection capabilities. Its a defensive military, that over time can only grow stronger. From a military point of view, if China can be baited into a conventional ‘duel’ the Americans have the chance to pop that bubble early. America’s legacy war machine may be nearing the end of its shelf life, but that only adds to the temptation of cashing it in.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aging-array-of-american-aircraft-attracting-attention-0901/
http://www.andrewerickson.com/2016/05/key-quotes-data-themes-from-2016-u-s-department-of-defense-report-on-chinas-military-security-developments/
Recalling Clark’s revelation of the Pentagons ‘seven in five’ plan, the wars cleaning up old Soviet client regimes (and isolating Russia) were supposed to end by around 2006 ‘before the next superpower’ challenger. If that superpower was intended to be China, then the war option is a decade closer to obsolescence before China conclusively closes the gap.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/08/31/classic-why-real-reason-for-syria-war-plans-from-gen-wesley-clark/
The U.S. government treats its own citizens callously enough (Operation Northwoods) that martyring a few on the West coast cities in a war with China probably isn’t a problem to the most hawkish military planners.
Some Chinese are patient, some are not.
Sun-Tzu wrote “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
Carl von Clausewitz wrote “War is the continuation of politics by other means’.
Germany lost two world wars thinking war had political solutions other than being bludgeoned into unconditional surrender. Politics and war cannot be conflated and traditional Chinese thinking understands this better than westernized/Christianized China.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2433733/How-Nazis-offered-peace-treaty-World-War-II-meant-selling-Russians.html
Should China realize its being bled and escalates, then they can only go nuclear. Threatening use of nukes plays into the A-Z sense of righteousness in faking defensive war and the Pentagon extremists have long wanted to break the ice on ‘limited’ nuclear war.
Although U.S. military tech uses parts made in China, the U.S./NATO developed and own the patents. Its not difficult to switch to other Asian suppliers or return to domestic production, and U.S. sinophobes detest trading with China anyway.
What’s more, the American military knows what parts go where in their machines and why. No amount of spying and reverse engineering can substitute for hands-on indigenous creation. The high ratio of profiteering to warfighting in the U.S. war machine is a political decision that can be reversed.
The USA has been at war with the rest of humanity for over 90% of its wretched, genocidal, existence. They will NEVER allow China to rise to global power, simply for racist and supremacist reasons, because they are ‘God’s (Newer and Better) Chosen People’, and Exceptional. And they are boundlessly treacherous, so China would be mad to try to co-operate with them. Better hope that the whole ghastly sewer falls to civil war, then collapses, after which the country splits into fragments, which would be a delicious irony, given the USA’s nation-destroying efforts over the years.
…. The world’s most powerful and far-flung military and largest nuclear power collapsing into civil war is not a good thing…
Nor is it very likely outside the Deep State pulling an Erdogan on the genuine patriot movement; the NWO needs the U.S. military.
The controlled demolition of the middle class is not the same thing as collapsing the country entirely.
Which is why of course China means a military friendship with Russia. The US has no military technological “edge” over the two. As of today it would be difficult if the sea lanes were closed to Chinese trade. But there is almost nothing in resources that China would need that the land border countries could not provide them. While US naval ships would be under constant attack by Chinese forces.If the Russians “really wanted to” their ships could enter Chines ports. With a warning issued to the US if they were attacked Russia would destroy the US attackers. Even if nuclear weapons were needed to do the job.A US attack on China would almost certainly “put paid” to the US in Eurasia.And they would be forced back into the America’s.Hopefully there are enough smart people in Washington to see the folly of testing that theory.But with the bunch I see there now,I can’t be sure.
Except, would Russia be as willing to take on the U.S. if China recklessly entered into war? If the U.S. unilaterally attacks, Russian support is very likely. In all other scenarios, there can be doubt.
Recall also that Russia still exceeds China technologically and China still buys Russian military equipment, but the Russians themselves are careful not to enter into direct conflict with the U.S./NATO despite the extreme provocations of the West.
Neither the U.S., Russia, or China is likely to be able to adequately defend against each-others submarines, but that’s only a problem if nukes are on the table. The U.S. has the numbers and the quality to punch out China’s coastal lights in short order conventionally.
Russia is protected by having a smaller and somewhat difficult to access coast. The U.S. is protected by China’s and Russia’s defensive stance limiting their powers of projection; they can’t adequately strike both U.S. coasts.
China’s entire Pacific seaboard is one big platter of military, industrial, and financial targets. Who really has more to lose in war? A declining superpower or rivals with an otherwise brighter future?
“The U.S. is protected by China’s and Russia’s defensive stance limiting their powers of projection; they can’t adequately strike both U.S. coasts.”
What about NEMP or super tsunami?
Brilliant, very clear! Should be on all social media.
Hopefully the last two para’s are the future
To H with the US – Why not try this Kishore Mahbubani idea on Canada? A much more stable nation than the United States of Chaos.
Interesting comment, Keith. I drove a 58 Ford with a straight 6, stick shift to my senior year in college in New England, summer of 1971 on the Trans-Canadian Highway.
As any sailor or aviator knows, the shortest route between 2 points in the northern hemisphere curves north for the first half of the trip, then bends south for the remainder. This is called the “Great Circle Route. So, the shortest route between the Pacific Northwest and New England is through Canada, not the US itself.