The Kitty Hawk Port Snub

Status
Not open for further replies.

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

As a matter of clarification Hong Kong are a signatory to the salvage convention. (China proper is a seperate entity in this case).
I stand corrected. China and the UK agreed in 1997 that the provisions applied to HK. Also noted that China proper may have acceded to the agreement as well in 1996.

As you have pointed out, article 4 of the Convention does state:

"1. Without prejudice to article 5, this Convention shall not apply to warships or other non-commercial vessels owned or operated by a State..."

And Article 5(3) practically gives full control over to China if it were applicable.
 

Capt. Picard

New Member
How interesting watching people spout their credibility, particularly when "knowing" what Hong Kong people think. I actually live in Hong Kong and really the only thing that can be said about their attitude to this is almost total disinterest. They like the US Navy visiting but only for their money!

As the that bizarre sugestion that the Chinese denied the visit to stop (allegegly) democratic Americans arriving at an allegegly sensitive time is so laughable it's... well....laughable.

I would say that it seems likely that the American tried to get the 2 minesweepers into Hong Kong to test the reaction. The clearly were not in danger since the typhoon in question was to the east of the Phillipines at the time. Also there are literally scores of safe anchorages in the area that were closer according to media reports.

Americans being indignant about the law of the sea is a bit rich when the US will not sign the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, now isn't it?

I really think that the US Govt. has been totally out-manouvered in this incident. It is fair to say that this is the reaction in HK, if anyone cares about it at all. The locals here really do see the US as fading and they are, on the whole, satisifed.
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
How interesting watching people spout their credibility, particularly when "knowing" what Hong Kong people think. I actually live in Hong Kong and really the only thing that can be said about their attitude to this is almost total disinterest. They like the US Navy visiting but only for their money!

As the that bizarre sugestion that the Chinese denied the visit to stop (allegegly) democratic Americans arriving at an allegegly sensitive time is so laughable it's... well....laughable.

I would say that it seems likely that the American tried to get the 2 minesweepers into Hong Kong to test the reaction. The clearly were not in danger since the typhoon in question was to the east of the Phillipines at the time. Also there are literally scores of safe anchorages in the area that were closer according to media reports.

Americans being indignant about the law of the sea is a bit rich when the US will not sign the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, now isn't it?

I really think that the US Govt. has been totally out-manouvered in this incident. It is fair to say that this is the reaction in HK, if anyone cares about it at all. The locals here really do see the US as fading and they are, on the whole, satisifed.
In an occupation involving plenty of intelligence gathering, overwhelmingly open source as well as being based in Hong Kong in addition to being of Hong Kong(er) extraction myself, I beg to differ.

It really depends on the geographical location of your 'information gathering' on the opinions of Hong Kong people as well as the extremely limited sample size of your 'survey' if you even live there at all. Certainly areas in the New Territory and Kowloon tend to be more "pro-Beijing" than other areas, however this incident has attracted the attention of quite a few influential people who might have otherwise been unconcerned because of the arbitary and in my opinion delusional nature of the Politburo's response to the visit that was planned far in advance-costing Hong Kong's economy billions of lost revenue. You said it yourself, it's all about money.

You might also consider reading posts by other informed members of this forum re International Maritime Conventions before jumping to any conclusions.
 

chunga1

New Member
more news

US, Chinese hold military talks amid strains over port calls
1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Senior US and Chinese defense officials opened two days of security talks here Monday amid strained relations over Beijing's denial of US naval visits to Hong Kong.

The Chinese government late last week formally notified the Pentagon that it is refusing a request for a port call in Hong Kong over the New Year's holiday by the guided missile frigate USS Reuben James, a Pentagon spokesman said.

"It is hard to believe that is not a topic of ongoing discussion," spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters, referring to the naval visits.

Top US military officials expressed surprise and anger last week after China abruptly cancelled a long-planned Hong Kong port call over November 21-24 by the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and its battle group.

Officials said Beijing also turned away two minesweepers seeking refuge from a storm and a US military flight to resupply the US consulate in Hong Kong, sparking one of the sharpest diplomatic rows since 2001.

Whitman said the defense consultative talks had long been scheduled, and the fact that they are being held shows that the Defense Department wants good military relations with Beijing.

"The United States Defense Department values this relationship and are only going to try to strengthen it through dialogue with their Chinese counterparts," he said.

Agenda items include US-Chinese military relations, global and regional security issues, the war on terror, and missile defense, he said.

Eric Edelman, the undersecretary of defense for policy, is leading the US delegation. The Chinese delegation is led by Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, the People's Liberation Army's deputy chief of general staff for foreign affairs.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Beijing in early November, and called for greater US-Chinese military contacts and a longer term strategic dialogue to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculation.

Relations between the two powers have been colored by a Chinese military buildup that the Pentagon believes is aimed at thwarting US intervention in a conflict over Taiwan, and ultimately challenging its access to the region.

US suspicions intensified in January after a Chinese anti-satellite test in which a ballistic missile was used to destroy a Chinese weather satellite in low Earth orbit.

Top Pentagon officials have warned that China will be able to disrupt US military satellites in a regional conflict within three years.

In the flare-up over the port calls, the Pentagon took the unusual step of calling in the Chinese embassy's military attache to formally complain about the denial of access.

China has yet to fully explain its actions, but a foreign ministry spokesman implied last week it was in response to US arms sales to Taiwan and to President George W. Bush's recent meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hoP1kzFnmbcmL0l-a7BNckQO_Yfw
 

chunga1

New Member
from india

China upset over US carrier's transit of Taiwan Strait
4 Dec 2007, 1548 hrs IST,AFP





BEIJING: China expressed "grave concern" on Tuesday to Washington over a US aircraft carrier's transit of the tense Taiwan Strait which came after Beijing denied it permission to make a port call in Hong Kong.

"China has expressed grave concern to the US and requested that it take prudent moves in this highly sensitive area," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters.

The US expressed anger after China abruptly cancelled a long-planned Hong Kong port call November 21-24 by the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and its battle group, sparking one of the sharpest diplomatic rows in years.

The ship subsequently made for Japan, passing through the Taiwan Strait in what is believed to be the first such transit by a US aircraft carrier since 2002.

US officials have said the route was chosen to avoid a storm further out to sea.

But some analysts have said the Kitty Hawk's passage through the strait was intended as a signal of US displeasure with China over the port call denial as well as Beijing's ongoing military build up aimed at Taiwan.

China has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan ever since communist forces won the Chinese civil war in 1949, driving nationalist forces to seek refuge on the island.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...nsit_of_Taiwan_Strait/articleshow/2594677.cms
 

chunga1

New Member
more thoughts

What's eating the Chinese military?
Tom Plate attributes China's recent rejection of U.S. military ships in Hong Kong's harbor to the PLA

By Tom Plate
Pacific Perspectives Columnist

Monday, December 3, 2007

Los Angeles --- You have to wonder what's eating the People's Liberation Army.

In the last few weeks, China's top PLA generals have been acting like a bunch of old guys with inactive social lives. They've been grumpy, pouting, defying and downright cranky.

In Hong Kong, the generals have been acting like an over-the-top King Kong -- and no one has been firing bullets at them! Consider: A U.S. aircraft carrier was steaming toward that gorgeous harbor, where thousands of relatives, friends and well-wishers were waiting to greet the sailors for a Thanksgiving Day holiday retreat -- and at the last minute the previously waved-in U.S. ship was denied a berth.

Before that, a pair of U.S. naval ships, trying to avoid a devastating seaward storm, looked to Hong Kong for a safe-harboring -- and were told by Chinese authorities to stay at sea and suck it up. Another U.S. warship, applying for Hong Kong docking during the coming (Western) New Year holiday, had do-not-approach cold water thrown in its face. A cargo plane, wishing to land with supply provisions for the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong, was told to forget about it and go fly a kite.

What is going on? We've been told over and over again that China's economic rise would be a "peaceful one," and that cooperation with the United States was central to that rise. Unlike the Chinese militarists, the Chinese have been doing a pretty good job at co-rising peacefully.

Consider the two big nuclear questions involving North Korea and Iran. The Six-Party Talks initiated by Beijing that brought Washington and Pyongyang together remain on-track, North Korea's nuclear dismantling has begun, and another session is to take place soon. On the Iran issue, Beijing is starting to get just as fed-up as the West over Tehran's diplomatic foot-dragging over coming clean about its nuclear program and ambitions.

By contrast, China's brassy military would sometimes appear to be orbiting in another solar system. Instead of leaving international relations entirely with skilled diplomats, PLA generals sometime throw public tantrums when they're unhappy.

No doubt China's military high command was put off by the recent four-power (Japan-United States-Australia-India) military exercises. They were unmistakably directed against China -- all the insincere four-power official denials notwithstanding. Nor were the Chinese charmed when the U.S. Congress awarded the Dalai Lama a special medal. A Hollywood celebrity like Richard Gere may view the Dalai as nothing more dangerous than a religious leader. But remember: the Chinese government is a Communist government, Communists do not believe in God, and Communists suspect that anyone masquerading as either God or as someone with an alleged special tie to God may be doing the devil's work.

Then there's the explosive matter of new American arms-sales to Taiwan. Many may regard the 23-million-populated island some 100-plus miles off China's mainland as a little innocent poster boy for democracy. But the boys in Beijing look cross-eyed at the Taiwanese when they openly discuss a formal declaration of national independence. Our arming Taiwan only encourages -- to Beijing's mind -- the "separatists" to believe they can safely separate forever.

These are all sensitive matters, best handled by competent diplomats. But by big-footing itself into the picture, the PLA blew it this time. For one thing, in their truculent Hong Kong actions, the Chinese generals chose to pick a fight in the wrong way and with the wrong enemy: the U.S. Navy.

Especially with regard to the two minesweeper denials, not helping sailors (of whatever nation) caught in a fierce storm is maybe the most insensitive blunder any navy of any nationality can make. What's worse, the U.S. Naval Command has been -- of all the U.S. service branches -- the biggest supporter of military-to-military contacts with the Chinese. From forward-thinking Admiral Joseph W. Prueher back in the late nineties on down to the current Pacific commander today, top Navy brass has taken a consistently sensible approach to relations with the People's Republic of China. William H. Overholt, one of America's most respected China experts, a relentlessly steadfast advocate of U.S. engagement with China, and author of the extraordinary new book Asia, America, and the Transformation of Geopolitics puts the matter bluntly: "Ruining the sailors' Thanksgiving was a seriously consequential gaffe."

Let's hope a generals' gaffe was all it was. Let's hope that China's military continues to honor and respect its subordination to the Communist Party. Let's hope that the PLA is not simply fed up with all this "peaceful rising" baloney peddled by the country's flower-power diplomats and is not instead getting ready to explode.

When PLA antics like this get the better of China, you have to wonder whether the PLA in some sense isn't in fact semi-sovereign. It's true that most countries have a military -- and there's nothing unusual about that. But sometimes with China you develop the suspicion that maybe its military has a country.

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/columns.asp?parentid=83390
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
more thoughts

What's eating the Chinese military?
Tom Plate attributes China's recent rejection of U.S. military ships in Hong Kong's harbor to the PLA

By Tom Plate
Pacific Perspectives Columnist

Monday, December 3, 2007

Los Angeles --- You have to wonder what's eating the People's Liberation Army.

In the last few weeks, ........................ - and there's nothing unusual about that. But sometimes with China you develop the suspicion that maybe its military has a country.

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/columns.asp?parentid=83390
Its a bit over the top on some of the 'incidents' but I have admit if the chinese intent was to amke a politacal point (which I believe) then it has been a PR blunder of signficant proportions. The only problem is I don't know if they care. One this that does appear certain is that China are doing a pretty good job of unsettling thier neighbours and others and you wouel ahve to question the wisdom of this approach.
 

Schumacher

New Member
.......... One this that does appear certain is that China are doing a pretty good job of unsettling thier neighbours and others and you wouel ahve to question the wisdom of this approach.
The Kitty Hawk snub ? For sure it's unsettling Sino-US ties as intended but not sure how you're concluding it's unsettling 'neighbours and others' considering none I believe have even commented about it.
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
The Kitty Hawk snub ? For sure it's unsettling Sino-US ties as intended but not sure how you're concluding it's unsettling 'neighbours and others' considering none I believe have even commented about it.
Simply because the media only report the present and never consider the med-long term effects of such actions or the psychological perception that these kinds of arbitary actions have on the decisions of poltical and miltary leaders of nations around them. The vibe I get from diplomats of neighbours is one of one of great concern about the unpredictability of the Politburo vs CMC clash over Taiwan and foreign policy in general and the implications for future PRC actions.

The Question: Are the more level headed 'non confrontational' non-PLA heads in the Politburo going to prevail over the 'aggressive' generals of the CMC who have Hu Jintao's ear?

Don't think for an instant that the PRC's neighbours have not taken notice from this incident and others before that. Russia continues to maintain the world's largest standing ready Strategic Forces at the expense of conventional forces-and I assure you Russian land based ICBM targeting is overwhelmingly focused on the one neighbour with the world's largest conventional forces. Japan and the ROK are engaging in a massive naval modernization and despite all their rhetoric about that rock (Dokdo) they both lay claim to, none of their flag officers and senior politicians believe that their naval programs are a threat to one another. Even North Korea's nuclear program may simply be a ploy to play off the US against the PRC, whom the N.Koreans have an unhealthy reliance on-the old N.Korean game of "I disable my program to get benefits". The US has of course 'realigned' their Pacific Fleet to include 60% of total assets to "increase stability in the AP Rim". Thus, the point is that the unpredictability of the PRC creates concerns which are dealt with by hedging-increasingly chances for an East Asian confrontation. Little actions such as this when taken into account with countless other 'little actions' create a pattern as you may know. Certainly this if anything has worsened the PRC's image in Washington and dealt quite possibly a "death blow" to Adm. Roughead's "contact diplomacy" with the PLAN.
 
Last edited:

crobato

New Member
Damaging yes, death blow, not even a close.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3230807&C=asiapac

"U.S. and Chinese defense officials ended two days of talks with the U.S. side urging greater military contacts in the wake of a row over U.S. naval visits to Hong Kong, a Pentagon spokesman said Dec. 5.
China’s refusal to allow a U.S. aircraft carrier and other Navy vessels to visit Hong Kong “only came up in the context of an overall discussion about the importance of improving our military-to-military relations,” said spokesman Bryan Whitman."
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
Damaging yes, death blow, not even a close.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3230807&C=asiapac

"U.S. and Chinese defense officials ended two days of talks with the U.S. side urging greater military contacts in the wake of a row over U.S. naval visits to Hong Kong, a Pentagon spokesman said Dec. 5.
China’s refusal to allow a U.S. aircraft carrier and other Navy vessels to visit Hong Kong “only came up in the context of an overall discussion about the importance of improving our military-to-military relations,” said spokesman Bryan Whitman."
I don't have a tendency to trust news reports, you can see the parlance used here is deliberately vague, almost diplomatic vague speak:

"improving the context of our military-to-military relations"

means nothing concrete or in real terms-all contacts must be approved by CINCPCFLT and current 'visits' or contacts are under indefinite review. Another one of these 'incidents' and the whole program will be killed.
 

Schumacher

New Member
......
The Question: Are the more level headed 'non confrontational' non-PLA heads in the Politburo going to prevail over the 'aggressive' generals of the CMC who have Hu Jintao's ear?

.......... Certainly this if anything has worsened the PRC's image in Washington and dealt quite possibly a "death blow" to Adm. Roughead's "contact diplomacy" with the PLAN.
No point really of repeating the well known tensions within the region which has always been there. The military is there to make contingencies, not least when you have a powerful neighbour nearby.
The key is the directions near the top, i.e. look at the planned top diplomatic exchanges between China, Japan, SK, India, of course one will need to see if the recent dismantling of Indian posts in the disputed area will affect Singh's planned trip. And like the recent Asean summit etc.

So there're questions abt the future level-headedness of PRC leaders. Same thing really abt the future militaristic tendencies if any of Japan. SK-Japan is under control now but all bets are off if the tendencies above emerge in future.
Similar questions are asked of Russia & US's future directions isn't it ?

Agree with the effect on Sino-US ties of this incident but then what's the point of this ? You're not really thinking PRC or US meant for their actions with respect to the carrier & DL to actually improve the ties are you ?
 

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

The relations bellweather signals that the current storm will last only until the next president comes into office. Then the respective parties will look out the window and reassess the necessity for good relations.

It is interesting to note Jimmy Carter's remarks that Deng Xiao Ping acknowledged that US arms sales to Taiwan and that China would publicly rail against it even if in private accept it.

But then, which self-respecting American has ever listened to Jimmy Carter?
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
No point really of repeating the well known tensions within the region which has always been there. The military is there to make contingencies, not least when you have a powerful neighbour nearby.
The key is the directions near the top, i.e. look at the planned top diplomatic exchanges between China, Japan, SK, India, of course one will need to see if the recent dismantling of Indian posts in the disputed area will affect Singh's planned trip. And like the recent Asean summit etc.

So there're questions abt the future level-headedness of PRC leaders. Same thing really abt the future militaristic tendencies if any of Japan. SK-Japan is under control now but all bets are off if the tendencies above emerge in future.
Similar questions are asked of Russia & US's future directions isn't it ?

Agree with the effect on Sino-US ties of this incident but then what's the point of this ? You're not really thinking PRC or US meant for their actions with respect to the carrier & DL to actually improve the ties are you ?
If there is one thing you rapidly learn in global politics, it is that underneath the diplomatic niceties there is another 'dirty war' being fought and agreements mean absolutely nothing in the long term unless there is a will on both sides to meet the obligations of them. Sure, the Indians dismantled a border/observation post, very "constructive talks" according to the diplomats-"peace". However what you don't know is that the Indians have the same area covered by Israeli Hermes UAVs that fulfill exactly the same role as the OPs and that the OPs can be rebuilt in the event of hostilities. Similarly the joint Sino-Indian exercises are nothing but recon opportunities for the intel personnel embedded in the exchange teams-it is a bit of a joke among the military attache/spook community that the two largest standing armies are each sending 100 men on exchange!

Do you seriously take ASEAN seriously? Other than trade, the body is a toothless tiger with absolutely no political clout or credibility whatsoever- especially with that new HR body whose recommendation was that serial HR offenders such as Myanmar (really Burma) be protected from Intl criticism. The Swedish Foreign Ministry deals exclusively on a bilateral basis with ASEAN countries, they send me to the ASEAN political meetings just to "observe" or "show the flag".

With the other aspects of your post, my point is that the highest level decision making capabilities of the PRC are in question because of factionalism that creates severe misunderstandings among the various 'pwer bases' among the CCP leadership, notably between the Politburo and the PLA dominated CMC (refer to my post about the 2006 ASAT test) evident in this latest incident as it was the CMC wielding disproportionate power over foreign policy. This is why the PRC sometimes seem to be "shooting themselves in the foot" in regards to Foreign Policy and provocative actions such as this because in power struggles to put it simply, you don't care about the country, you care about your own power bases and how to enhance them-and it is common knowledge among China watchers that the PLA stakes it's credibility on the Taiwan issue and derives much of its influence on the top leadership from the promise that it will sustain the CCP's hold on China by rallying the Chinese around the 'new fad' of nationalism. The CMC views Taiwan as even more important than either the Olympics or China's economic boom.

The relevance of this? If the country in question was South Africa then the major foreign ministries/intelligence agencies/defense ministries around the world would be laughing on the floor. But this is not South Africa-this is the PRC, an economic superpower and clearly a major regional power behaving in way reminiscient of Germany in the lead up to 1914. I am not drawing explicit parallels to the situation then but there is a definite "lack of transparency" as the Americans put it best regarding the PRC's motives in the AP, especially when the hardliners in the PLA have the upper hand and consequently up the tension in the Taiwan Strait in turn increasing the risks of a Sino-US confrontation which has the potential to become catastrophic for AP security. This latest incident was not one inducing tension unlike the 2006 ASAT Test but we can expect with great certainty another 'provocative action' soon, which if continues to go on, will have the potential to spark off a major misunderstanding eg. firing a SRBM near a CVBG. In a reminder of how much importance neighbours place on such 'little misunderstandings' and brinksmanship, following the consecutive little incidents, a joint meeting of intel representatives from neighbouring and major NATO/EU countries was convened in Tokyo to discuss exactly what was meant (as in the power struggles and motives) by the PRC's actions.
 
Last edited:

Gripenator

Banned Member
The relations bellweather signals that the current storm will last only until the next president comes into office. Then the respective parties will look out the window and reassess the necessity for good relations.

It is interesting to note Jimmy Carter's remarks that Deng Xiao Ping acknowledged that US arms sales to Taiwan and that China would publicly rail against it even if in private accept it.

But then, which self-respecting American has ever listened to Jimmy Carter?
None, with good reason because Carter was possibly the most naive and idiotic President apart from Clinton who managed to ignore any future repercussions resulting from his actions, eg. Panama Canal and the covert support of Osama Bin Ladin being cases in point. That is besides the point, the fact is that Deng is long gone and if you know your Chinese history then you would know that it turns in dynastic circles. Deng managed to put the PLA at the rear of his "four modernizations" and stake his power base with the economic reformers. Jiang Zemin was the most foolish of all modern PRC chairmen and forced the PLA to sell its commercial enterprises-streamlining it and forcing it to rely largely on state funding which then came back to bite him as Hu Jintao 'bought' the loyalty of the PLA to shore up his rather weak technocrat powerbase by promising it more funding and a far greater voice in foreign policy-the 2006 ASAT test where the Chinese Foreign Ministry was left in the dark for days and these recent incidents where again the Foreign Ministry and Minister were left with "huh?" expressions despite being long planned in advance bear all the hallmarks of an aggressive PLA determined to engage in more brinksmanship.
 

KGB

New Member
With China's economic presence, you will not hear any AP or ASEAN countries openly criticizing China. The Spratleys/Paracels islands dispute is being ignored, for example. Appearances matter there, and the appearance of harmony is important to maintain. But the balance of power is important for countries at the periphery of major powers, so I surmise that the role of the US as a counterweight is silently desired.
 

Schumacher

New Member
If there is one thing you rapidly learn in global politics, it is that underneath the diplomatic niceties there is another 'dirty war' being fought and agreements mean absolutely nothing in the long term unless there is a will on both sides to meet the obligations of them. Sure, the Indians dismantled a border/observation post, very "constructive talks" according to the diplomats-"peace". .......
Actually it's the Indians who accused PRC of dismantling the posts......

And what's this with 'underneath the diplomatic niceties there is another 'dirty war' being fought' ? This is true with most relations except the very few 'special' ones based on strong historical & cultural common grounds.
lol, no one is suggesting just because 2 leaders shake hands the 2 nations will fall in love. If they decide to have a summit whereas in the past they didn't it suggests the direction at least is positive.

So you're from Sweden ? Not surprised to see your views on ASEAN. Anyway, PRC is certainly happy that some powers view so lowly of ASEAN's importance. They're more than happy to fills some gaps.

....so I surmise that the role of the US as a counterweight is silently desired.
Very true, actually even openly desired by a few. But IF the US crosses the line from a peacekeeper to that of a troublemaker. None, except maybe Jpn who will try to take advantage of the situation, will welcome it.
By being a troublemaker, I mean like deliberately creating tension with PRC for its own goals which are not necessarily alligned with that of the nations in AP.
 
Last edited:

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

With China's economic presence, you will not hear any AP or ASEAN countries openly criticizing China. The Spratleys/Paracels islands dispute is being ignored, for example. Appearances matter there, and the appearance of harmony is important to maintain. But the balance of power is important for countries at the periphery of major powers, so I surmise that the role of the US as a counterweight is silently desired.
What's there to criticise China about besides their communist, dictatorial style of governance, lack of human rights, devil worshippers, vampiric suckers etc. They don't even speak the same language so they must eat babies for breakfast. You won't hear AP or ASEAN countries complaining about Japan's revisionist historical works either so everyone's at least consistent.

ASEAN is a toothless tiger which is probably the reason why China signed the treaty of amity to settle the Spratly issue via diplomatic means. Also Kevin Rudd must be crazy to make ASEAN regional forum as one of his pillars of foreign policy when ASEAN is a toothless tiger.

Its quite amusing to read lay-people's political views...

Tphuang said:
guys, please keep this away from just some thread of insults on former US presidents.
Relax, just some light hearted banter rather than any real insults. Only applicable to "Republican" US presidents.

Read Ann Coulter, face of the Republican Right and guy-wannabe, if one really wants to know the definition of insulting US presidents, (applies only to democrats, thats the rule).
 

weasel1962

New Member
Re:

Very true, actually even openly desired by a few. But IF the US crosses the line from a peacekeeper to that of a troublemaker. None, except maybe Jpn who will try to take advantage of the situation, will welcome it.
By being a troublemaker, I mean like deliberately creating tension with PRC for its own goals which are not necessarily alligned with that of the nations in AP.
Restricting the boundaries to South East and Far East Asia.

In ASEAN, only Singapore has stated a desire for continued US involvement but not as a counter-weight to China. Indeed, Singapore's recognition of the 1 china policy riled Taiwan.

None of the other ASEAN nations have desire for any US involvement. Malaysia in particular has voiced opposition and have suggested caucases where US would not be involved. This has received backing from Indonesia. Philippines booted out the US from Clarke and Subic.

Vietnam has only started normalising relations with the US but it would be far fetched to say that active US participation is meant as a counter weight to China's influence.

Only the usual suspects Japan and Taiwan in the Far East welcome continued US participation. Of the 2, Japan has faced some pressure to boot US out of its home bases eg Okinawa.

In respect of S. Korea, you really got to be in Korea to understand just how much the Koreans want or rather don't want the US in Korea but the Govt will continue to toe the line.

Other than the above, the silent desire for active US participation as a counter-weight is deafening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top