What's new

U.S. declines support for Asian allies in sea disputes with China

Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Messages
3,523
Reaction score
0
Pacific Commander: U.S. declines support for Asian allies in sea disputes with increasingly aggressive China | Washington Free Beacon

The United States is not supporting key regional allies and friends currently engaged in maritime and other disputes with China amid growing aggressiveness by Beijing, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific said on Thursday.

Adm. Samuel Locklear III, U.S. Pacific Command commander, told reporters at the Pentagon that China’s pressure on Southeast and Northeast Asian states is “complicated” by historical differences and the search for energy and other resources.

“The U.S. position … is that we don’t take sides on territorial disputes,” Locklear said. “There’s many of those around the globe, not just in the South China Sea. But we do want them resolved peacefully, without coercion, and that we call on all the parties there, including the Chinese, to ensure that as they approach these problems, that they do so in a way that avoids conflict, that avoids miscalculation.”

China has stepped up pressure on several allies of the United States in Asia in recent months, including Japan and the Philippines.

A dispute over Japan’s Senkaku islands, which China is claiming as its territory, triggered riots in China against Japanese interests and soured relations between Tokyo and Beijing. Chinese Gen. Xu Caihou, a vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, said Sept. 14 that Chinese troops should prepare for possible military combat as anti-Japanese riots broke out in China after Tokyo purchased three Senkaku islets from private owners in a bid to calm the dispute.

The comments by Locklear reflect the Obama administration’s policy of “leading from behind” rather than assertively. That posture has troubled states in Asia that rely on the United States and its naval power to maintain stability, free and open commerce, and transit.

The comments regarding Japan also are unusual because the United States has a mutual defense treaty with Tokyo. However, the administration was slow to invoke the treaty as part of the Japan-China spat.

Concerned by the weak U.S. response, the Senate passed a resolution affirming that an attack on Japan or the Senkakus would be covered by the U.S.-Japan mutual defense treaty.

The Philippines also is locked in a dispute with China over the Spratly islands, which are believed to hold large underwater reserves of oil and gas.

Vietnam, while not a U.S. ally, also is battling Chinese hegemony over fishing waters in the South China Sea that China is claiming.

China triggered alarm throughout the region last week by announcing its maritime patrol ships would begin boarding and searching foreign ships in the South China Sea, including in international waters that China is now claiming as its sovereign territory.

The Obama administration has so far issued no response to the threatening Chinese action to board ships in the sea and analysts say the lack of resolve could undermine the U.S. role as a force for peace and security in the region.

By contrast, the threat to board foreign ships in the South China Sea prompted protests or expressions of concern from India, Philippines, Vietnam, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

A new dispute emerged Thursday between China, India, and Vietnam over oil and gas exploration efforts in the South China Sea. China called on India and Vietnam to halt the efforts. India’s naval chief said Monday that Delhi is prepared to send warships to the sea to protect its exploration efforts.

Locklear, in his comments, voiced worries that the Asia disputes would not be settled peacefully through diplomacy and legal forums and “without resorting to coercion or conflict.”

“And so it’s important, I think, as we go forward to ensure that all parties remain calm about these things and that we don’t unnecessarily introduce warfighting apparatus into these decisions or these discussions,” he said, in an apparent reference to a decision by the command not to send additional Navy forces to the region.

Later at a speech to the Asia Society, Locklear said the situation in the South China Sea was not at a crisis point because China’s lightly armed patrol ships are involved and not warships.

He also played down tensions between Japan and China over the Senkakus saying both countries have kept the dispute at “the coast guard level,” the Nelson Report stated.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

So the USA agrees that when we paint our old warships white and blue coast guard stripes from navy gray now they are peaceful civilian vessels and we can harass Japan, Vietnam and Philippines' ships with them without consequence :whistle:
 
So you missed the news that Panetta told the Chinese defense minister in person in Beijing that the US was going to militarily intervene in case of a Chinese invasion of the Diaoyudai, and the US Senate just added a clause in its 2013 Defense authorization bill that forces the US to intervene at the Diaoyudai. http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...panese-administration-diaoyudai-into-law.html

The US has a similar legal obligation to defend the Scarborough Shoals from the Chinese invasion under the mutual defense treaty.
 
The only major Southeast Asian country that Chinese are confronting where the US intervention is not guaranteed is Vietnam. For that Vietnam seeks an alliance with India.
 
The only major Southeast Asian country that Chinese are confronting where the US intervention is not guaranteed is Vietnam. For that Vietnam seeks an alliance with India.

Mate these disputes are there to serve US purpose how can US stay away.:cheers:
 
US :lol:

FEAR-Image.jpg
 
So you missed the news that Panetta told the Chinese defense minister in person in Beijing that the US was going to militarily intervene in case of a Chinese invasion of the Diaoyudai, and the US Senate just added a clause in its 2013 Defense authorization bill that forces the US to intervene at the Diaoyudai. http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...panese-administration-diaoyudai-into-law.html

The US has a similar legal obligation to defend the Scarborough Shoals from the Chinese invasion under the mutual defense treaty.
So where is the US navy while Chinese coast guard patrols Diaoyu Island? :rolleyes: Oh wait, according to the USN commander, China's coast guard is "peaceful" and "civilian."

:usflag::china: :enjoy:

Four Chinese ships in disputed waters: Japan
 
The only major Southeast Asian country that Chinese are confronting where the US intervention is not guaranteed is Vietnam. For that Vietnam seeks an alliance with India.

China is busy with so many countries, even their plans of keeping India busy with Pakistan ultimately failed.
 
Fools errand: America's pivot to Asia


As the U.S. stares down a "fiscal cliff", some are arguing for an increase in defense spending to support America's pivot to Asia. It could however create more problems than it solves.

Turning around a modern naval warship at sea is a slow and difficult process. Turning around whole fleets of warships, aircraft carriers and other air and naval forces, and reorienting defense spending for weapons systems that are typically planned decades in advance, is a lot harder – especially when it’s being done in the context of a widely expected downturn in U.S. military outlays. But that’s what the administration of President Barack Obama is trying to do with the much-touted “pivot” from the Middle East to Asia.

It’s a fool’s errand: far too costly, and politically counterproductive. As an example, already questions are being raised about the $396 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, developed to be the U.S. military’s fighter jet of the future. But the F-35 was designed for a time when the Pentagon was focused on NATO and the Middle East, and according to the New York Times, the F-35 is now “facing concerns about its relatively short flight range as possible threats grow from Asia.”

Even if, somehow, Obama and his new national security team – with a new secretary of state, a new secretary of defense, and a new CIA director in 2013 – can cobble together the cash for a military buildup in Asia, the result of the effort may be to create the very adversary it’s intended to balance. As noted in a March report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service: “The perception among many that the ‘rebalancing’ is targeted against China could strengthen the hand of Chinese hard-liners. Such an impression could also potentially make it more difficult for the United States to gain China’s cooperation on a range of issues.” And, of course, more expensive.

So far, the administration has taken only baby steps, mostly symbolic, toward an Asian buildup, by rotating contingents of up to 2,500 Marines in Australia, renewing aid to Indonesian paramilitary forces, deploying the U.S. Navy to Singapore, and strengthening military cooperation with the Philippines. But its redoubled interest in finding partners in East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia, the third tour of the region since June for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and President Obama’s visit to Myanmar – plus a series of strategic reviews by U.S. national security agencies – signal a vast escalation to come.

If the money is there. As yet, the administration hasn’t put its money where its mouth is: For example, last year Congress zeroed out funding for military construction to expand facilities in Guam. And in an era of trillion-dollar deficits, few in Washington believe that American voters will support greater defense spending if it means cuts to entitlement spending programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Project On Government Oversight, is a veteran military budget analyst. Asked whether the United States can put together enough money to fund a buildup in Asia, Wheeler says no. “It’s not going to happen,” he says. “It’s that simple. The military budget is going down.” The Pentagon, Wheeler says, cannot afford either more ships and planes or what some people believe is a quick-fix solution, namely, greater use of high-tech, remote-warfare drones, other unmanned vehicles, and long-range options. “It’s all too expensive,” he says.

Sometimes, it appears, administration officials make a little too much of the pivot. In August, Ashton Carter, the U.S. deputy secretary of defense, said in a speech in New York that “we will have a net increase of one aircraft carrier, four destroyers, three Zumwalt destroyers, ten Littoral Combat Ships, and two submarines in the Pacific in the coming years.” In October, Carter said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington that the United States is prepared to spend what it takes, and that other assets will be redirected from the Middle East. “With our allies and partners, I think you’ll see, we are, in fact, across the Asia-Pacific region able to invest to sustain peace and prosperity. In other words, we are not just talking the talk, we are walking the walk. And I’d ask if you don’t believe us, to just watch our steps over coming months and years, and you’ll see us implement the rebalance,” he said. “By 2020, we will have shifted 60 percent of our naval assets to the Pacific. … Naval assets that will be released from Afghanistan and the Middle East include surface combatants, amphibious ships, and, eventually, aircraft carriers.” But an independent study concluded that the United States already has nearly 54 percent of its fleet home-ported in Asia and the Pacific, and that Carter’s touted increase would only raise that number to 57 percent, not 60 percent.

Diplomacy, of course, is cheap. And a big part of the U.S. pivot will rely on military aid and support for partner countries in the region and strengthened alliances with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. But plenty of big-ticket items are involved. According to the CRS study, the United States eliminated a planned cut in the number of aircraft carrier task forces, plans to expand the Navy’s purchases of Aegis-class destroyers and Littoral Combat Ships, build a 33-vessel flotilla for the Marines, and continue production of attack submarines, equipped with a new, high-tech cruise missile.

full story: Fool's Errand: America's Pivot to Asia - The Diplomat


In today's world, everything come down to $$$$$$$.
 
Fools errand: America's pivot to Asia
LOL, a mainlander in Singapore complaining while his host country Singapore is helping the US pivot. Singapore is firmly pro-US and anti-China in terms of security policies.

Singapore Willing to Host More U.S. Warships - DOTMIL (usnews.com)

Singapore Willing to Host More U.S. Warships

By JOHN T. BENNETT
April 6, 2012 RSS Feed Print
Singapore would consider doubling the number of U.S. Navy shallow-water ships Washington plans to permanently base there, a move that would rile Asian giant China, a senior Singaporean official said.

The Navy last year announced plans to base two littoral combat ships in the tiny south Asian nation. But Singaporean leaders have told the Pentagon they would consider hosting as many as four of the ships—which are small enough to fight in shallow waters near a coastline—a senior official said.

The Singaporean official spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The decision to base the littoral ships in Singapore is part of the Obama administration's shift of U.S. foreign and security policy from the Middle East to Asia after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The basing decision was a big win for Singapore, which will benefit economically, and a sign of its ever-closer ties to Washington.
 
LOL, a mainlander in Singapore complaining while his host country Singapore is helping the US pivot. Singapore is firmly pro-US and anti-China in terms of security policies.


LOL a mainlander in Singapore? Where you get that from? As I said many times, your spinning skills are deteriorating, do better next time.
 
China is busy with so many countries, even their plans of keeping India busy with Pakistan ultimately failed.

India wants attention and respect, badly. It wants to be considered in the big league; it particularly likes to be named in the same breath as China whether it indicates equal success (how many times have you heard "India and China?) or equal competitor. Sometimes it doesn't even matter if it antagonizes China, like when India successfully tested its Agni V its media put out headlines like "target: Beijing." India wants China to treat it as equal and take it more seriously. It often tries to make loud noises to achieve that.

India does not have the capability or power to do what it often boasts of. China knows it; India knows it. There is no need to make this bigger than it actually is. People who jump on the claim in celebration are ... you know who they are.
 

Back
Top Bottom