China-US Geopolitics: News & Discussions

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

I support a G4. USA, Russia, China, and EU. That's it. The World will have peace if all 4 cooperate.

How dare you not to include India?

 

[shuttler]

How dare you not to include India?

including india means you'll have long meetings without a conclusion and on important cricket days, 3/4 of their hearts will be at the playing grounds.
While on Olympics and World cup football events, it is only the indians attending the meeting!

 

[AViet]

And then why not G5 to include Japan. It is much bigger than Russia economically and more advanced technologically.

The list can never end.

Personally, I think that China will never satisfy with the term G2. It is only a temporary step toward G1, in which China economy will be roughly half of all the world combined and it is the only dominant country.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

And then why not G5 to include Japan. It is much bigger than Russia economically and more advanced technologically.

The list can never end.

Personally, I think that China will never satisfy with the term G2. It is only a temporary step toward G1, in which China economy will be roughly half of all the world combined and it is the only dominant country.

if the day G1 happens, we will include Vietnam...as we have alway been

 

[jkroo]

That's because we have a mole in the house who works for US interests.

A political and economy integrated EU is really amazing. So does China has some betrayer works for US or EU's interests.

 

[ahojunk]

This announcement came from Chinese Defense Ministry. Something is going on between the two big powers. And this power-play could be at the expense of the pawns, who could be left holding the empty can!

------------
Beijing to participate in US naval drills amid South China Sea tensions
Published time: 3 Jun, 2016 14:46 | Edited time: 3 Jun, 2016 15:28

China is sending a flotilla of five vessels, including two warships and a hospital ship, to the US-hosted naval drills in the Pacific. The decision comes despite persistent tensions between Washington and Beijing over the South China Sea islands.

The Chinese Defense Ministry announced late Thursday that it would send the flotilla to the Rim of the Pacific exercises, also known as RIMPAC. Beijing said the flotilla would participate in live fire, anti-piracy, search and rescue, and other drills, Reuters reported.

The announcement comes despite critics of the Obama administration – including Senator John McCain – urging Washington to ban China from the drills in a show of disapproval of Beijing's military actions.

The US has expressed repeated concern over China's behavior in the South China Sea, where it has laid claim to almost the entire region, despite conflicting partial claims from Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

Beijing has reportedly built military installations, including runways and missile launchers, on reclaimed islands in the South China Sea, prompting international concern.

Last week, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter ruffled Beijing's feathers by stating that “China's actions could erect a Great Wall of self-isolation.” That comment spurred a response from China, with Beijing accusing Carter of having a Cold War mentality.

“China has no interest in any form of Cold War, nor are we interested in playing a role in a Hollywood movie written and directed by certain US military officials. However, China has no fear of and will counter any actions that threaten and undermine China's sovereignty and security," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said on Monday.

Hua went on to state that Carter's remarks were aimed at providing cover for Washington's plans to deploy additional military forces to the region.

Tensions between the two countries were also worsened one week earlier, when the US lifted an arms embargo on Vietnam – a move which the state-run China Daily said was aimed at “curbing the rise of China.”

US President Barack Obama said the lifting of the embargo was not about China, though he did mention the concern shared by Washington and Hanoi regarding Beijing's presence in the South China Sea.

Beijing has repeatedly warned Washington against interfering in the region. However, the US has conducted several warship excursions into the South China Sea and has flown numerous surveillance missions over the area. Washington has also vowed to ignore Beijing's Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) when conducting military missions in the region.

Held every two years in Hawaii in June and July, RIMPAC is the world's largest international maritime exercise. China also took part in the drills in 2014, though US defense officials said its participation at that time was limited to areas such as humanitarian relief and search and rescue operations.

 

[ahojunk]

The two big powers are preparing to talk in Beijing.
Topics? Their own interests, of course.

--------------
China prepares for strategic & economic dialogue with U.S.
2016-06-03 10:51 | CCTV | Editor: Feng Shuang

China and the U.S. will hold their 8th Strategic and Economic Dialogue and the 7th annual High-Level Consultation on People-to-People Exchange in Beijing Monday to Tuesday. Representatives from the two countries are to discuss trade relations and regional issues.

Vice Premier Wang Yang and State Councilor Yang Jiechi will chair the 8th SED, together with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

Earlier today, the 16th Lanting Forum opened and introduced the two major meetings. Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao has said the agenda also includes regional security and the South China Sea issue. Zhu also commented on China-U.S. dialogues.

"China-U.S. economic dialogues have an outstanding feature, which is, both sides will not avoid any problem. Both sides will have frank exchanges on any problem via dialogues. Besides that, the economic teams of the two countries have kept 365-day, 24-hour hotlines. The two sides will communicate on each important points. Of course, it includes different opinions," Zhu said.

 

[AndrewJin]

Dirty interests exchange behind the wall!
China will have more presence in SCS, more land.
US will also have more "nominal presence" to make her little followers happy.
US can sell more weapons, China gets more land.
Both parties win!
That's the real face of politics of big powers.

 

[ahojunk]

Dirty interests exchange behind the wall!
China will have more presence in SCS, more land.
US will also have more "nominal presence" to make her little followers happy.
US can sell more weapons, China gets more land.
Both parties win!
That's the real face of politics of big powers.

.
You are spot on!

China and US are going to talk about their economies. I wonder what else, lol.

-------
China and U.S. meet over economic woes
2016-06-02 13:44 | chinadaily.com.cn | Editor: Feng Shuang

Vice Minister of Finance Zhu Guangyao speaks at the Lanting Forum on June 2, 2016. (Photo/Xinhua)​

China and the United States will facilitate dialogue and enhance communication on key bilateral economic issues, a senior official said at the Lanting Forum on Thursday.

"China and the United States should have a robust exchange of ideas and make progress at the time when the global economy is recovering slowly," said Vice Minister of Finance Zhu Guangyao.

Zhu expects the two countries will seek solutions to key challenges at next week's Eighth Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

Zhu says some of those challenges include moving towards more open markets and to create a better business environment for entrepreneurs from both countries.

While addressing the recent yuan depreciation amid an expected Federal Reserve interest rate hike, Zhu said the yuan would remain stable in the long term, as the nation's economy fundamentals had not changed.

"China is willing to discuss and enhance communications on currency issues with the United States," Zhu said.

 

[Tiqiu]

It seems that on many forums those are very passionate and eager for a Sino-US war are those so called "American" and those you know whom. Remember real Americans are used to using others, not being used.

With UN Decision Looming, China, US Need Real Talks on South China Sea
June 3, 2016 By Sharon Burke Barry C. Lynn Zheng Wang
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/06/china-us-need-real-talks/128798/?oref=d-topstory
Authors

Sharon E. Burke is senior advisor at New America and the former assistant secretary of defense for operational energy in the Obama administration. Full Bio

Barry C. Lynn directs the Open Markets Program at New America, where he is also a senior fellow. Full Bio

Zheng Wang is the Carnegie Fellow at New America and Director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at Seton Hall University. Full Bio


China is expected to raise tensions this month if a Law of the Seas tribunal rules against their claims in the South China Sea. Time to start talking.

Before they threw their caps in the air last week, the graduating midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis heard U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter throw down a challenge to China. The secretary condemned China’s efforts to construct entire islands in the South China Sea to help press its claim to most of the region’s territory. These “expansive and unprecedented actions,” Carter said, are “contrary to international law.” If pursued, he warned, China might soon find itself behind “a Great Wall of self-isolation.”



In response, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman in Beijing said Carter’s comments represented “stereotypical U.S. thinking” and that his “mind” was “stuck in the Cold War era.”

This tit-for-tat served as the warm-up act for the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual gathering of Asia-Pacific defense leaders occurring in Singapore this week, where Chinese and U.S. officials will likely replay their argument side by side. More worrisome, however, is what will take place later in June, following a hotly anticipated decision by an international court based in Hamburg, Germany.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, an independent judicial body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is slated to rule on the Philippines’ 2013 protest against China’s claims to the South China Sea. The Tribunal’s decision is widely expected to be unfavorable to China and may well find that China’s claim to some 85 percent of the maritime space, the area behind the so-called “nine-dash line,” is invalid under international law.

An unfavorable ruling should clearly be an embarrassment to Beijing abroad and at home where the government long has told citizens most of the region belongs to China. Anticipating an unfavorable result, China has launched diplomatic and public relations campaigns to reinforce its claims, including lining up support from some 30 countries and mobilizing scholars and diplomats to publish articles in the international media defending China’s stance. A close reading of recent statements from Beijing show that China is unlikely to compromise or tone down its rhetoric, even at the expense of its image as a law-abiding country. If anything, officials have indicated that China likely will respond to the tribunal’s decision by taking more concrete actions in the South China Sea to defend its claims, with military exercises, a visit by China’s President Xi Jinping to a Chinese controlled islet, or declaring an air defense identification zone, or ADIZ.

The United States is not likely to let such actions go unanswered. The risk of conflict, already high, will only rise.

Complicating the problem, Chinese media are repeating a popular belief that the United States has orchestrated the rise in tensions by urging the Philippines and Vietnam to challenge China, ultimately with the aim of containing the country. They cite the Obama administration’s “Rebalance to Asia” policy as evidence, along with U.S. military exercises with regional countries and critical remarks about China by visiting U.S. officials.

There is little doubt that the perception gap between the United States and China continues to widen and bilateral communications channels on this issue remain limited.

The United States and China need a true dialogue on the South China Sea. The current slew of bilateral engagements, including the Shangri-La stare-down, and the coming U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, do not offer a platform for the deep and prolonged discussion this issue requires, particularly given Washington’s stated reluctance to engage bilaterally on what it considers a regional issue. The South China Sea is an issue ripe for a so-called “Track Two” or unofficial dialogue.

Without a deeper understanding of each other’s intentions – and of the larger risks of conflict – the two countries will continue on a course towards what would be a very dangerous collision.

 

[TaiShang]

Let's say a spatially-limited G2; not in the sense of global governance. The truth is that small countries are expendable. US won't let them be because it knows it needs chips to bargain with China. Currently, China's problem is, it does not have much bargaining chips although it has the capability to buy some chips and great aggregate power. It is just that China does foreign policy differently.

As China continues reactively aggressive, the US will seek compromise, because, ten years from now, China won't be reactively aggressive anymore. But proactive. Then the US will either have to find a graceful back-down or will back down wit its nose dragged against dirt.

 

[ahojunk]

The following is an interesting read....
Very true, you can't let loud mouth Pentagon people running the show. The State Department with real diplomats who understand the big picture is preferred.

-------
How the Pentagon is blowing America's relationship with China
Patrick Smith
June 4, 2016

When China refused to allow the USS John C. Stennis to dock in Hong Kong at the end of April, it got only modest mention in news reports. But keeping the nuclear-powered supercarrier and its strike group out of a port where American ships have docked for decades is a calculated signal of worsening relations between Washington and Beijing — passive aggression in very pure form.

Given that Hong Kong is among the busiest commercial ports in Asia, we're on notice now. Every American with an interest in our dense, multisided trade and investment relationships with China should start paying close attention to the mounting tensions between Beijing and Washington.

The first thing you see is this: America's economic ties with China have been out of whack with national security policy since Deng Xiaoping's reforms began opening China in the early 1980s. Business booms, while military and geopolitical competition intensifies.

This isn't going to do any longer. There is an emerging danger that rivalry for strategic influence in the western Pacific will damage trade and investment relations.

Beijing was characteristically subtle but perfectly clear when asked why it refused the Stennis port privileges. The foreign ministry told the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's leading English-language daily, that port calls were approved "on a case by case basis in accordance with sovereignty principles and specific circumstances." A ministry official in Hong Kong then stated the visit was "not convenient."

The "specific circumstances" were lost on no one. Two weeks earlier Defense Secretary Ashton Carter stood on the same carrier's flight deck as it passed through the South China Sea and declared, "The United States intends to continue to play a role out here that it has for seven decades."

A week later the U.S. Pacific Command sent six heavily armed A-10 Thunderbolts on flights near the Scarborough Shoal, which is among the disputed land formations in the South China Sea over which Beijing claims sovereignty.

Allowing or refusing port calls has long featured in Asia's diplomatic sign language. When ties between Beijing and Tokyo temporarily warmed in 2008, a Japanese destroyer laid over at a Chinese port for the first time since World War II.

Keeping the Stennis out of Hong Kong harbor was a big, worrisome move, laden with symbolism in the Chinese fashion. There are three implications.

One, choosing Hong Kong as the venue to respond to Carter's assertion of U.S. primacy in the Pacific signals that China views its relations with the U.S. as unitary. While trade and investment are mutually beneficial, economic ties are not immune to fallout from sharpening political and diplomatic friction.

Two, China will go to the wall as it asserts its influence in the western Pacific. Regardless of what may be at stake, no challenge from the U.S. has a prayer of forcing Beijing to accept the 70-year status quo Carter indelicately referenced aboard the Stennis.

Finally, Hong Kong's status as a special administrative region in the Sino-British treaty that reestablished Chinese sovereignty in 1997 does not make the territory some kind of protected zone. The fact that U.S. warships are common sights along Victoria Harbor only magnifies the sharp edge of Beijing's gesture.

Good sinologists would understand these things. There's a lot of history and culture and 175 years of wounded pride in China's drive to "stand up," as Mao famously put it. This has to be reckoned with.

But defense secretaries and fleet commanders such as the bluntly spoken Harry B. Harris, trained in operational expertise but rarely diplomacy, do not generally make good sinologists. This is the root reason Washington's China policies are so discombobulated.

Beijing hasn't tagged a single iPhone or fashion accessory as an instrument of retaliation as strategic and geopolitical tensions mount. No one's suggesting this. But there's less room every day for complacency on this score in the American business and investment communities. Sooner or later, both sides of the relationship are bound to intersect.

The State Department once boasted an honorable tradition of diplomats trained in Asian languages, cultures, and histories. Some of these people were scapegoats during the "Who lost China?" arguments after the 1949 revolution, and the Pentagon gradually eclipsed State in the policy-planning space during the Cold War. By the Reagan years the process was more or less complete.

It's time to revive the tradition. We need big-picture diplomats capable of integrating politics, economics, and national security questions — men and women trained to understand China's perspective even if they entertain no sympathy for it.

Whether we like it or not, China has a place in maintaining security in its neighborhood. The sooner Washington accepts that seven decades of unchallenged primacy are over, the easier it will be to continue exercising a very considerable degree of influence, as others in the region clearly welcome.

 

[TaiShang]

But defense secretaries and fleet commanders such as the bluntly spoken Harry B. Harris, trained in operational expertise but rarely diplomacy, do not generally make good sinologists. This is the root reason Washington's China policies are so discombobulated.

Oftentimes, it was the Pentagon that blunted the sharp edges of US governments but it seems to have changed dramatically especially after Kerry's assuming the job.

That's interesting. I suspect Obama has even much power on the Pentagon dissenters. Otherwise, the two would not fall so dramatically apart.

The Pentagon's radicalization is a bad omen.

 

[ahojunk]

The following is an email to the Editor - Leslie Fong.

-------
Freedom of Navigation Ops: US Exercising Right or Might?
2016-06-01 12:18:26 Agencies Web Editor: Guan Chao

Leslie Fong

An e-mail that takes a dig at Uncle Sam for using freedom of navigation as a lame excuse to flex his muscles at China over its maritime claims in the South China Sea has somehow found its way into my mailbox.

Written by a certain Ms Oh Beigong from Taipei, it was addressed to Admiral Harry B. Harris, Commander of the United States Pacific Command, and copied to his bosses, US Secretary of Navy Ray Mabus and US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter, as well as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Now, I would like to make it clear that I have not the faintest idea who Ms Oh is but I do think she has a sharp elbow. From the little that I know, what she has written is accurate but just so readers can judge for themselves, I reproduce here the e-mail in its entirety:

"Dear Admiral Harris,

I write to congratulate you for standing up for mariners the world over to assert the right to freedom of navigation in international waters. You showed much daring when on May 10, you sent the USS William P. Lawrence, an Arleigh Burke class missile destroyer, to within 12 nautical miles of Fiery Cross Reef, over which Beijing has long claimed sovereignty and which it has occupied for years.

Sure, some of my friends said the destroyer made just a single pass, which would qualify the sail-through as innocent passage under Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). In other words, they were telling me, the US had made a big deal out of it as there was no real risk of the Chinese responding and going ballistic, literally or metaphorically. They also said you didn't need guts, or even brains, to dispatch the destroyer as you were just carrying out the orders of your political masters!

That's quibbling. I think you deserve credit for risking the lives of your sailors as you couldn't know for sure the Chinese would steer clear of your destroyer. Remember the mid-air collision between one of your EP-3 spy planes and a Chinese J8 fighter on April 1, 2001? Nobody saw that coming and somebody did die - the Chinese pilot, Lieutenant Commander Wang Wei. The EP-3 was forced to land in Hainan and its 24 crew members detained and interrogated. Beijing, ruled by a more conciliatory Jiang Zemin then, set the 24 free eventually, compensated Wang's family and hailed him as a hero, a "Guardian of Territorial Space and Waters".

This time round, with a tougher Xi Jinping in charge and after so many provocations, no one could guarantee that the Chinese would not send a number of "fishing vessels" or even Coast Guard Cutters to sail right across the path of the USS William P. Lawrence and force a collision. Out of the question? Back in the 1980s, when the Cold War was still on, Soviet freighters did exactly that - they rammed American naval craft in the Mediterranean for encroaching on their waters. Chinese commentators have of late been talking publicly about emulating the Soviets. And hey, with all the nationalistic fervour whipped up on the mainland, the Chinese may need another hero!

Well, you got away again this time just as you did in January when the USS Curtis Wilbur skirted Triton in the Paracel group of islands claimed by Beijing and last October when the USS Larsen charged into contentious waters in the Spratlys. So, yes, you showed you had what it took to risk your men's lives without batting an eyelid. Bully for you!

But displaying testicular fortitude is one thing and pushing your luck too far is another. You have made whatever point you think you were making. But have the Chinese stopped building the airstrips and other structures on the disputed islands and reefs that the other claimants are said to be worried about?

Let me get serious. The US is playing with fire by repeatedly poking China in the eye. We in this region are going to be the collateral damage if this spins out of control. And why should we pay the price when the US does not really have right on its side? As a thinking man, did you not feel discomfort deep inside you when the US kept singling out the Chinese as the bad guys in the maritime disputes?

You must know better than most on this planet that the US has not been able to cite one instance when China actually denied anyone the freedom of navigation or point to any statement by Beijing threatening that right. Of course Washington will sidestep that - why let facts spoil a good excuse - and say instead that it cannot allow China's claim to waters bound by that famous or infamous nine-dash line that it has drawn in the South China Sea to go unchallenged.

Excuse me, but did you not know that it was the Republic of China government, now relocated to Taiwan, that first went to the United Nations in 1948 to lodge a claim using a map of the South China Sea showing 11 dashes? Yes, 11, not nine. Not one squeak about that in all this time, none from the US, Britain, Australia - till now.

You will say, no doubt, that the Chinese are going to militarise the airstrips and other facilities to project force, thus threatening all the countries in the region. Er, coming from a senior naval officer of a country that operates some 800 bases or military facilities in more than 60 countries around the world, several of them virtually at China's doorstep, that, sir, is a bit rich!

I may be just a fisherman's daughter from Kaohsiung but I have read enough to know that capability plus intention equals threat. Guess what? The US has 11 carrier battle groups circling the globe, each with enough firepower to send four-fifths of the world's countries back to the Stone Age, the largest and second-largest air force in the world (US Air Force and US Navy's Air Wing) and the openly declared intention of not allowing any other nation to challenge US power and supremacy. Talk about threats!

By the way, all the other claimants, except Brunei, are also building and expanding their presence in the disputed areas. In fact, Taiwan has troops stationed on Taiping Island, which is also claimed by the Philippines. But the US has looked the other way. I guess, to quote your former vice-president Al Gore, that is an inconvenient truth.

I know, I know, the US is not in the habit of admitting that it is or can be wrong. Thus not a word of apology for invading Iraq under the pretext of rooting out the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Nor did Washington ever concede that it wrongly accused the Soviet Union of using biological weapons on the Hmong people in Indochina in 1981 when the yellowish substance that fell on them from the sky was found by an international panel of scientists to be just the faeces of huge swarms of bees!

Bottom line? Might is right. The US is out to stymie the rise of China and prevent it from challenging American dominance, if not hegemony. We get that. So do us a favour, please stop talking about high principles and international law.

However, if you wish to regain at least a modicum of respect from clear-sighted people in this region, here is something you, in particular, can do. In the name of asserting freedom of navigation and upholding international law, send your destroyer or whatever to an atoll in the Philippine Sea which the Japanese call Okinotorishima (Okinotori Island) and claim as their territory.

The atoll measures no more than 9 sq m at low tide, which is probably smaller than your office in Honolulu, and lies more than 1,700km south of Tokyo. But it is less than 500km from Taiwan itself.

Under Unclos, an atoll is not an island and thus cannot be used as the basis to claim the usual 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone or EEZ. But that has not stopped Tokyo from doing so, and it has proclaimed as its EEZ an area larger than the entire Japan. Taiwan is among the many that have refused to recognise this.

Last month, a Taiwanese fishing boat was seized by the Japanese Coast Guard for operating in the EEZ. It was set free only after the owners paid nearly US$55,000 (S$76,000) as a security bond. Fortunately, our government in Taipei took up the cudgels and said it would send naval vessels from now on to protect Taiwanese fishing boats.

So, please, dear admiral, send the William P. Lawrence there and have some of its crew go fishing near the atoll. All who look askance at your dubious freedom of navigation expeditions in the South China Sea thus far will applaud you.

Don't let the Chinese beat you to it!

The Author:

Leslie Fong is the senior executive vice-president of Singapore Press Holdings' marketing and digital divisions. He imagines an open letter a vexed Taiwanese fisherman's daughter might write to the Commander of the United States Pacific Command over the recent freedom of navigation exercise when the USS William P. Lawrence sailed within 12 nautical miles of Beijing-occupied Fiery Cross Reef.

 

[TaiShang]

"Dear Admiral Harris,

I write to congratulate you for standing up for mariners the world over to assert the right to freedom of navigation in international waters. You showed much daring when on May 10, you sent the USS William P. Lawrence, an Arleigh Burke class missile destroyer, to within 12 nautical miles of Fiery Cross Reef, over which Beijing has long claimed sovereignty and which it has occupied for years.

Sure, some of my friends said the destroyer made just a single pass, which would qualify the sail-through as innocent passage under Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). In other words, they were telling me, the US had made a big deal out of it as there was no real risk of the Chinese responding and going ballistic, literally or metaphorically. They also said you didn't need guts, or even brains, to dispatch the destroyer as you were just carrying out the orders of your political masters!

That's quibbling. I think you deserve credit for risking the lives of your sailors as you couldn't know for sure the Chinese would steer clear of your destroyer. Remember the mid-air collision between one of your EP-3 spy planes and a Chinese J8 fighter on April 1, 2001? Nobody saw that coming and somebody did die - the Chinese pilot, Lieutenant Commander Wang Wei. The EP-3 was forced to land in Hainan and its 24 crew members detained and interrogated. Beijing, ruled by a more conciliatory Jiang Zemin then, set the 24 free eventually, compensated Wang's family and hailed him as a hero, a "Guardian of Territorial Space and Waters".

This time round, with a tougher Xi Jinping in charge and after so many provocations, no one could guarantee that the Chinese would not send a number of "fishing vessels" or even Coast Guard Cutters to sail right across the path of the USS William P. Lawrence and force a collision. Out of the question? Back in the 1980s, when the Cold War was still on, Soviet freighters did exactly that - they rammed American naval craft in the Mediterranean for encroaching on their waters. Chinese commentators have of late been talking publicly about emulating the Soviets. And hey, with all the nationalistic fervour whipped up on the mainland, the Chinese may need another hero!

Well, you got away again this time just as you did in January when the USS Curtis Wilbur skirted Triton in the Paracel group of islands claimed by Beijing and last October when the USS Larsen charged into contentious waters in the Spratlys. So, yes, you showed you had what it took to risk your men's lives without batting an eyelid. Bully for you!

But displaying testicular fortitude is one thing and pushing your luck too far is another. You have made whatever point you think you were making. But have the Chinese stopped building the airstrips and other structures on the disputed islands and reefs that the other claimants are said to be worried about?

Let me get serious. The US is playing with fire by repeatedly poking China in the eye. We in this region are going to be the collateral damage if this spins out of control. And why should we pay the price when the US does not really have right on its side? As a thinking man, did you not feel discomfort deep inside you when the US kept singling out the Chinese as the bad guys in the maritime disputes?

You must know better than most on this planet that the US has not been able to cite one instance when China actually denied anyone the freedom of navigation or point to any statement by Beijing threatening that right. Of course Washington will sidestep that - why let facts spoil a good excuse - and say instead that it cannot allow China's claim to waters bound by that famous or infamous nine-dash line that it has drawn in the South China Sea to go unchallenged.

Excuse me, but did you not know that it was the Republic of China government, now relocated to Taiwan, that first went to the United Nations in 1948 to lodge a claim using a map of the South China Sea showing 11 dashes? Yes, 11, not nine. Not one squeak about that in all this time, none from the US, Britain, Australia - till now.

You will say, no doubt, that the Chinese are going to militarise the airstrips and other facilities to project force, thus threatening all the countries in the region. Er, coming from a senior naval officer of a country that operates some 800 bases or military facilities in more than 60 countries around the world, several of them virtually at China's doorstep, that, sir, is a bit rich!

I may be just a fisherman's daughter from Kaohsiung but I have read enough to know that capability plus intention equals threat. Guess what? The US has 11 carrier battle groups circling the globe, each with enough firepower to send four-fifths of the world's countries back to the Stone Age, the largest and second-largest air force in the world (US Air Force and US Navy's Air Wing) and the openly declared intention of not allowing any other nation to challenge US power and supremacy. Talk about threats!

By the way, all the other claimants, except Brunei, are also building and expanding their presence in the disputed areas. In fact, Taiwan has troops stationed on Taiping Island, which is also claimed by the Philippines. But the US has looked the other way. I guess, to quote your former vice-president Al Gore, that is an inconvenient truth.

I know, I know, the US is not in the habit of admitting that it is or can be wrong. Thus not a word of apology for invading Iraq under the pretext of rooting out the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Nor did Washington ever concede that it wrongly accused the Soviet Union of using biological weapons on the Hmong people in Indochina in 1981 when the yellowish substance that fell on them from the sky was found by an international panel of scientists to be just the faeces of huge swarms of bees!

Bottom line? Might is right. The US is out to stymie the rise of China and prevent it from challenging American dominance, if not hegemony. We get that. So do us a favour, please stop talking about high principles and international law.

However, if you wish to regain at least a modicum of respect from clear-sighted people in this region, here is something you, in particular, can do. In the name of asserting freedom of navigation and upholding international law, send your destroyer or whatever to an atoll in the Philippine Sea which the Japanese call Okinotorishima (Okinotori Island) and claim as their territory.

The atoll measures no more than 9 sq m at low tide, which is probably smaller than your office in Honolulu, and lies more than 1,700km south of Tokyo. But it is less than 500km from Taiwan itself.

Under Unclos, an atoll is not an island and thus cannot be used as the basis to claim the usual 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone or EEZ. But that has not stopped Tokyo from doing so, and it has proclaimed as its EEZ an area larger than the entire Japan. Taiwan is among the many that have refused to recognise this.

Last month, a Taiwanese fishing boat was seized by the Japanese Coast Guard for operating in the EEZ. It was set free only after the owners paid nearly US$55,000 (S$76,000) as a security bond. Fortunately, our government in Taipei took up the cudgels and said it would send naval vessels from now on to protect Taiwanese fishing boats.

So, please, dear admiral, send the William P. Lawrence there and have some of its crew go fishing near the atoll. All who look askance at your dubious freedom of navigation expeditions in the South China Sea thus far will applaud you.

Don't let the Chinese beat you to it!

The reader has indeed a sharp, scientific mindset with ability to make historical assessments. The Okinotori case is as funny as it is tragic; it is a piece of rock submerged in high tide. Yet no word of concern. One almost feels it was China invading the entire South China Sea islands in the 1930s and threatened freedom of navigation.

It is tiring to point out discrepancies and double-standards.

That's why I like China's talk less do more attitude.