There was a concern in the border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) because of the large number of illegal immigrants arriving each year in the 1980’s and 1990’s and their decedents. The flow has reversed the last 6 years due to the recession.
Chinese 'air defence identification zone' in East China Sea
- Thread starter cdxbow
- Start date
- Status
In recent years (2, 3 years ago?) the sentiment has changed. Even though many SEA nations have significant Mandarin-speaking populations the differences in culture are too vast, becoming a source of tension.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
You see that in that story? Talk about the glass not being entirely empty!
Spin and wishful thinking seems to be the mainstay for this whole saga to date and this story is definitely no exception.
I think that Tokyo will be very disappointed that the most ASEAN would agree to, is a vague commitment to the principle of over-flight. Even the BBC could only describe it as a “possible mild rebuke” to the PRC.
It is not the first disappointment suffered by Tokyo in this affair. Despite the heralding, America’s intrusion on Nov 26th came far short of Japanese hopes. No doubt Mr Abe was looking for something like a mass flight of US Strike Aircraft in to the CADIZ or fully armed B2’s flying all the way through and loitering along the border of Chinese National Airspace. What they got of course was just two unarmed B52’s that briefly entered the far end of the zone, circled the Diayou Islands and left again. The whole episode was over in a matter of minutes. For the record, I think the US actually played a cleverly nuanced blinder, that did all that was necessary to show Japan it cared, but without doing over much to comprise its strategic ambiguity. As an act it was Symbolic but ultimately meaningless.
The ASEAN meeting was largely of the same mould, only lacking the symbolism. Mr Abe was undoubtedly looking for a communicate that would enable headlines such as “ASEAN condemns China for reckless Air Zone Provocation….” Etc, but it got nothing of the sort.
The commitment to the principle of over flight was the next step up from nothing and given that afaik, no plane in the CADIZ has yet been told to leave the zone, land at a Chinese Airport, otherwise change course or be otherwise intercepted, might just as well have been nothing, given that over flight through the zone is not being denied.
I can think of three non exclusive reasons why ASEAN members were so unexcited.
1) They simply do not care as it not their problem
2) They value their other ties and relations with the PRC to much to risk over a minor matter.
3) None of them wanted to tie their own hands with a precedent that could limit their own options in this regard in the not too distant future.
I can easily imagine several ASEAN members that might wish to establish their own ADIZ along sensitive borders. Indonesia being top of the list.
pot meet kettle?
Most of tne views in here will exercise an attempt at balance - yours are invariably and subcutaneously laced.
You are entitled to put whatever spin you like on things like this - but some of us actually have been engaged with regional partners in some form or fashion for our day jobs.
Unfort what you attribute to indifference by some of the smaller players is actually cloaked in fear of chinese trade retributions
welcome to the middle kingdom in the 21st Cent.
btw the US action was not meaningless, it sent an immediate message about attitude - and quite a few RIMPAC neighbours were quietly cheering them on - it wasn't about triggering something bigger.
less fanboi commentary would be appreciated from you - if we want the veiled needling there are other forums we can visit.
Last edited:
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #105
I'm beginning to think the best we can have in SEA is a cold war, at worst something hotter. So I'm going to use the C word...... CONTAINMENT!
It felt good to say it.
As GF pointed out in an early post, PRC actions have driven just about all the SEA nations to the Americans, so in some ways the hard work has been done. Getting everyone on the same page .
ASEAN will never form the framework for a primarily defence organisation, it would have to be something else, perhaps a SEA version of NATO. In Europe there was the primarily economic EU and in parallel there was NATO, some countries were members of one or not the other. Same sort of arragements could be made in SEA.
It felt good to say it.
As GF pointed out in an early post, PRC actions have driven just about all the SEA nations to the Americans, so in some ways the hard work has been done. Getting everyone on the same page .
ASEAN will never form the framework for a primarily defence organisation, it would have to be something else, perhaps a SEA version of NATO. In Europe there was the primarily economic EU and in parallel there was NATO, some countries were members of one or not the other. Same sort of arragements could be made in SEA.
Been there done that, didnt work
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seato"]Southeast Asia Treaty Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Oh well. Goodbye then. I don't understand why you want to argue with a professional who is in the area and industry he is explaining. This forum is to have civilised discussion and debate, not start a flame-war...
Malaysia's statement is in line with current Malaysian policy towards China; that of cultivating good ties and hoping that diplomacy will avert any pleasantness happening with regards to the Spratlys; and the fact that Malaysia occupies 5 reefs that China maintains are an ''indisputable'' part of China.
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-malaysia-isnt-afraid-of-china-for-now/
https://www.aspi.org.au/media-centr...ging-strategy-bilateral-and-regional-activism
In the past, way before Malaysian/China relations had reached the current level; and when there was much ambiguity over how China would handle the Spratlys issue and had refused to announce that it had ceased supporting the Communist Party of Malaya, Mahathir did describe China as a ''threat'' [will see if I can find a link]. Now off course everything has changed, Malaysia has - over the past decade or so - never openly critisised China over its actions in the Spratlys or described China as a cause of concern or a threat. China in turn has rarely critisised Malaysia the way it has Vietnam or the Philippines eventhough there have been numerous cases of RMN ships intercepting PLAN and Chinese maritime ships in the disputed area.
In the late 1990's, Malaysia conducted Ops Petaling, a tri-service operation which saw large modules being towed all the way to the Spratlys from Penang; the modules were later anchored on 2 reefs and quite a few RMN ships were deployed as escorts but the Chinese response was quite restrained and Malaysia was not vilified by the Chinese press. During the recent visit by the Chinese President to Malaysia, he went out of his way to drum in the fact that both countries had good bilateral and economic ties; and that China valued the relationship. Malaysia does not ''sing in tune'' with the Philippines because she has a closer relationship with China and has nothing to gain by ''singing in tune''.
Malaysia may not say so publicly but she has always welcomed the presence of the U.S. military in the region and sees its as a stabilising factor. She welcomes the ''pivot'' by the U.S. to the region and has always maintained a strong military relationship with Uncle Sam; even when relations were strained, military ties were maintained. We can say that despite opposing the offer made bySingapore to relocate some U.S. military assets to Singapore [the offer was made after the U.S. announced that it was vacating Subic and Clark; and opposing - along with Indonesia- a U.S proposal to help patrol the Melaka Sraits], Malaysian security interests has not been detrimentally affected by Singapore's close ties with Uncle Sam.
Some would disagree and say that it is China that sometimes acts ''unreasonably''. I know several people in the Malaysian Armed Forces [MAF] who have served in the Spratlys: lets just say that not everything that happens over there makes the news.
Last edited:
I do not know the reason of claiming Malaysia strategic interest not detrimented while Singapore is all along facilitating the monitoring of communications out of this region. It is also too lightly to claim that Malaysia's current posture to China is "cultivating good ties".
I am more favor that Malaysia does not see China compromising her claims in Spratly, and realize that China is willing to make concessions, as she has been doing for all border talks. Also they may see China more as a friend.
While Malaysia is still an ally of USA, she has more strategic insights than us, taking a more balanced approach. Singapore is way too much into the camp of USA, to the point of hosting USA bases.
You mentioned Malaysia personnel serving in Spratly, and your tone suggest that they could have different opinions. Malaysia Spratly overlapped with both Philippines, Vietnam, and Brunei.
There are not just PLAN, but Brunei, Vietnamese and Philippines Navy. Everyone of them are moving into each other's maritime territory, and I do not see why PLAN should be single out and make a example for this.
I think insisting that the way ahead for China-US-ASEAN relationships is a head-on, brutal military slug-fest that sees the total annihilation of one side and a complete victory of the other is perhaps the most cringe worthy of them all.
Here's a socio-cultural factor that, on top of the many other factors mentioned earlier prevent this sort of scenario from happening. Ever wonder exactly how intertwined the economies are? The amount of trade that flows back and forth between the various East Asian nations is immense.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China"]List of the largest trading partners of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Also, think about the quantity of PRC citizens living in these trade markets. Where there is robust trade, there is also good evidence of migration. (http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_15_09.pdf) I get the gut feeling that you have not visited the East Asian nations much, otherwise you would know how numerous and deeply embedded the PRC citizens are in the populations of the various nations. Many of them have set up home in these various nations as permanent residents, tending to their various businesses. This would complicate matters - is the economic losses worth it? What would happen to the Chinese citizens staying in the targeted nation? What are the challenges of trying to evacuate these citizens?
Things won't simply boil down to armed conflict. That is how the game is set-up over here.
Vertias stop spamming the thread
1st warning
Thread closed for Mod discussions
1st warning
Thread closed for Mod discussions
- Status