The Kitty Hawk Port Snub

[LazerLordz]

At the risk of diverging here, with regards to Singapore, I would say that it is more prudent to separate the diplomatic announcements made by the Singaporean government regarding the One-China policy, and their private internal opinions.

Singapore plays a game of balancing the powers, she cannot afford to rile China nor can she afford a Taiwan Straits war as well. With regards to American involvement in this region, we're definitely all for it, but do look beyond the diplo-speak.

PM Lee visited Taiwan before he took on the post of PM. Apologies and diplomatic patting of feathers are part of the game. The crux is that Taiwan was high on his list then, so to speak.

As for ASEAN's image, it's regrettable. I'm quite ashamed of it but I must admit that I feel this regional organisation has been fairly effective to serve as a platform to ensure more transparency in multilateral dealings.

China signing the TAC with ASEAN is not as toothless an action as some might choose to view it. It confers legitimacy for any defensive action in the Spratlys should they choose to ditch the treaty.

(Just a sidenote, the Reuben James docked in Singapore for R&R. Tarawa may be on her way)

 

[Gripenator]

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.

"Dirty War" as applicable to those that fight it. I'm referring to aggressive espionage/recon and 'low intensity' warfare being conducted even as the leaders smile at each other over cups of tea. After a few months in my field you learn to treat every 'peace summit' with quite a fair bit of cynicism once you know what goes on behind it and during it by the various forces in play, namely certain intelligence agencies and politicians. Re the Indian border post 'dismantlement' incident it matters not who did what, the Hermes UAVs are still there and will continue to be there for the forseeable future.

Sweden has always had a firm commitment to human rights in the SEA region, however, we are also pragmatic in that we avoid 'toothless' multilateral forums where certain SEA leaders rail at the West for all sorts of problems (imagined or real) and instead focus on bilaterally improving the well being and political freedoms of the people in that region. Sweden as a European power with our EU (UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands-the countries that really matter) allies "would like to see ASEAN improve its HR standards as well as maintain a constructive dialogue with all stakeholders", by definition that includes the PRC and above all the USA. It's always been our view that under Pax Americana the AP has enjoyed the boom it knows today and the EU has no wish to disturb the status quo.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

At the risk of diverging here, with regards to Singapore, I would say that it is more prudent to separate the diplomatic announcements made by the Singaporean government regarding the One-China policy, and their private internal opinions.

Singapore plays a game of balancing the powers, she cannot afford to rile China nor can she afford a Taiwan Straits war as well. With regards to American involvement in this region, we're definitely all for it, but do look beyond the diplo-speak.

Still only an educated guess isn't it? The question is why does Singapore need US as a counter weight to China?

Singapore isn't threatened by China, directly or indirectly, has no over-lapping territorial claims and probably share cultural roots. Whilst Singapore's largest trading partner is the US, its economic growth propelled by investments in China and India.

Any conflict between US and China would seriously impede the country's growth and economic stability. Would Chinese hegemony negatively affect Singapore growth, I hardly think so. In fact, the opposite could be likely.

Same thing with Australian policy. I would stick out my head and say that neither Australia nor Singapore are interested in turning China into another Iron curtain.

Indeed the response of Singapore after the PM's visit to Taiwan was to reiterate the 1-China policy.

I can understand why Singapore would want continued US involvement when its primary trading partner happens to be the US. It would still take some convincing about the entire Asia Pacific's desire for a US counter weight though.

Find it funny how people can ignore the ARF.

 

[Gripenator]

At the risk of diverging here, with regards to Singapore, I would say that it is more prudent to separate the diplomatic announcements made by the Singaporean government regarding the One-China policy, and their private internal opinions.

Singapore plays a game of balancing the powers, she cannot afford to rile China nor can she afford a Taiwan Straits war as well. With regards to American involvement in this region, we're definitely all for it, but do look beyond the diplo-speak.

PM Lee visited Taiwan before he took on the post of PM. Apologies and diplomatic patting of feathers are part of the game. The crux is that Taiwan was high on his list then, so to speak.

As for ASEAN's image, it's regrettable. I'm quite ashamed of it but I must admit that I feel this regional organisation has been fairly effective to serve as a platform to ensure more transparency in multilateral dealings.

China signing the TAC with ASEAN is not as toothless an action as some might choose to view it. It confers legitimacy for any defensive action in the Spratlys should they choose to ditch the treaty.

(Just a sidenote, the Reuben James docked in Singapore for R&R. Tarawa may be on her way)

As a Singaporean defense professional, do members of the Singaporean Armed Forces hold certain views on favoring one side of the Taiwan Strait or not? From experience SAF personnel have quite a high opinion of the US and Singapore as I understand it would act as a mediator before any conflict to try and defuse it.

I have surprisingly few insights into the inner thoughts of the Singaporean leadership despite the value of my country's cooperation with them-but I would wager they have no doubts that Taiwan unaided would fall. More interesting is the status of the SAF forces on Taiwan as well as ROE in the event of an invasion. Would they stand together with the ROC armed forces and resist or would they stand by as PLA forces storm ashore? (assuming that they can).

BTW, what are the finer details of the Sino-ASEAN TAC for the Spratlys?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

China's accession instrument can be found here:

http://www.aseansec.org/4979.htm

Treaty can be found here:

http://www.aseansec.org/90.htm

 

[Gripenator]

China's accession instrument can be found here:

http://www.aseansec.org/4979.htm

Treaty can be found here:

http://www.aseansec.org/90.htm

Thank you for your assistance, however the deocument is merely a declaration, above a diplomatic note but merely a multilateral "statement" to that effect with no legal ramifications and non binding. It will be interesting to theorize about possible outcomes but this thread should go back to the Kitty Hawk snub and ramifications.

We can open a new thread on the Spratlys dispute.

Cheers

 

[Capt. Picard]

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.

Don't you get that they don't want it to be effective in the sense you mean? They want to be left alone. Rudd will do much better than Howard simply because he knows the region better than any other Prime Minister and he will approach things in a way they understand.

 

[Transient]

As a Singaporean defense professional, do members of the Singaporean Armed Forces hold certain views on favoring one side of the Taiwan Strait or not? From experience SAF personnel have quite a high opinion of the US and Singapore as I understand it would act as a mediator before any conflict to try and defuse it.

I have surprisingly few insights into the inner thoughts of the Singaporean leadership despite the value of my country's cooperation with them-but I would wager they have no doubts that Taiwan unaided would fall. More interesting is the status of the SAF forces on Taiwan as well as ROE in the event of an invasion. Would they stand together with the ROC armed forces and resist or would they stand by as PLA forces storm ashore? (assuming that they can).

BTW, what are the finer details of the Sino-ASEAN TAC for the Spratlys?

To get a good understanding of Singapore's thought's on China, read this. "Singapore's reaction to Rising China"

It's a balanced piece. Better than some of the biased views you get here.

http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/goe05/goe05.pdf

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Thank you for your assistance, however the deocument is merely a declaration, above a diplomatic note but merely a multilateral "statement" to that effect with no legal ramifications and non binding. It will be interesting to theorize about possible outcomes but this thread should go back to the Kitty Hawk snub and ramifications.

Are you sure you're reading the right document? The TAC is an international agreement binding on state parties and requires parliament ratification. The treaty is registered with the UN and binding in all aspects. If anything, the high council mechanism is probably the only effective mechanism under the TAC.

If you think that that has no legal ramifications, I think you need to take a closer look...

Capt Picard, sarcasm. What is not sarcastic is that I think Kevin Rudd will make a brilliant PM. I tot Howard's record was pretty decent as well so my view will probably be discounted.

 

[Schumacher]

........Other than the above, the silent desire for active US participation as a counter-weight is deafening.

Indeed, there's big variance in the desire among AP nations for US participation. I still think counter-weight forms part of it. Of course, that also include counter-weight against possible re-militarization of Japan. And actually some are happy to have China as a counter-weight to US as well.
When you're a small shrimp, it's good to have some check & balances among the big fish.

......Sweden has always had a firm commitment to human rights in the SEA region, however, we are also pragmatic in that we avoid 'toothless' multilateral forums where certain SEA leaders rail at the West for all sorts of problems (imagined or real) and instead focus on bilaterally improving the well being and political freedoms of the people in that region. Sweden as a European power with our EU (UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands-the countries that really matter) allies "would like to see ASEAN improve its HR standards as well as maintain a constructive dialogue with all stakeholders", by definition that includes the PRC and above all the USA. ........

No offence but far from a seasoned, cynical member of the intelligence community, you do at best sound like a naive/idealist if you really believe in that HR stance of EU. Something like a second-hand car salesman who actually believe in what he says to potential buyers if you get what I mean.
I suspect many of ASEAN's or indeed China's leaders have similar views which would explain the lack of much success in the HR dialog with EU.
Here's a humble suggestion, if you REALLY want to influence HR around the world for the better, start with some HR policies improvements of EU.
Then come back to AP. When your own house is in order and with some sincerrity, you'll be amazed how much more influence you'll have, results will follow.

 

[Gripenator]

No offence but far from a seasoned, cynical member of the intelligence community, you do at best sound like a naive/idealist if you really believe in that HR stance of EU. Something like a second-hand car salesman who actually believe in what he says to potential buyers if you get what I mean.
I suspect many of ASEAN's or indeed China's leaders have similar views which would explain the lack of much success in the HR dialog with EU.
Here's a humble suggestion, if you REALLY want to influence HR around the world for the better, start with some HR policies improvements of EU.
Then come back to AP. When your own house is in order and with some sincerrity, you'll be amazed how much more influence you'll have, results will follow.

I thank you for your concern about my beliefs, however if you notice the quotation marks you may infer that I am not talking explicitly about my own beliefs which I may elaborate on later, merely the EU's line which Sweden is required to uphold. FYI, I am technically not a member of the intelligence community but several of the projects I have been involved in require extensive access to intelligence. We are quite aware that the SEA (and Asian in general) concept of "human rights" is fundamentally different from what we are used to in the West-as someone raised in a traditional Hong Kong family I am all too aware of that and we have strategies to deal with the difference. I myself am not in charge of HR (thank heavens) but I believe personally HR in SEA is reasonable with the sole exception of Myanmar-whose regime's behavior is abhorrent by any standards and requires international intervention. Unfortunately as you are aware, EU HR policy is fragmented and dictated by national interests so it really should come as no surprise that it is ineffective-even though there are many Europeans that understand the fundamental tenets of Asian philosophy although that may change in the future.

Now let's go back to the Kitty Hawk topic.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Here's a humble suggestion, if you REALLY want to influence HR around the world for the better, start with some HR policies improvements of EU.
Then come back to AP. When your own house is in order and with some sincerrity, you'll be amazed how much more influence you'll have, results will follow.

Here's an even more humble suggestion.

• abandon your sleight of hand commentary about used car salesman. Its a good thing that others aren't drawing parallel analogies with dogs, I suspect that your attention to the illusion of presenting balance would be tested.
• pay attention to the chinese intrusion into tibet where their own human rights are removed
• tell me who I can deal with in the current Govt so that I can extract an apology for the murder of members of my family during the madness of the 60's (a wonderful display of human rights - full blown, government sanctioned internal genocide)
• tell me which country (and the only country) in the last 50 years breached multiple elements of the Hague Convention and pursued people seeking asylum into A Diplomatic Compound. China isn't in a position to argue about the sanctity of International Law when she's so cavalier herself.

I suggest that you get your own definitions and comprehension of the fluidity of national morality in order before pontificating to others about their countries moral obligations.