South China/West Philippine Sea

[maddromeo]

They're selling us again the idea of reviving the Southeast-Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) or a larger Pan-Asian equivalent.

 

http://asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Geopolitico/Anders-Corr-China-threat-requires-an-Asian-NATO

 

Anders Corr: China threat requires an Asian NATO

 

"...The increasing belligerence of China in the East and South China seas, and towards India, has fundamentally destabilized the security dynamics of Asia. Japan is seeking a closer alliance with India, and is likely seeking advanced offensive weapons from the U.S. Vietnam is considering a U.S. alliance. China increasingly makes common cause with Russia, using unethical and illegal practices in trade and geopolitics.

 

While existing bilateral alliances go partway towards defending against the resurgent autocratic threat, only a formalized multilateral treaty organization would provide the coordination necessary to defend democracy and international law in Asia against emerging threats. To survive, Asian democracies must create what might be called an Asian Treaty Organization, patterned after the successful North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe and North America..."

 

 

I have a different idea.

 

"The only way to eliminate an enemy is to make him your friend."

 

Mukhang ok yan Sir! ASEAN NATO! Or just sign along with the BRICS or SCO! We must realize that we are an Asian/ East nation and not American/ West! We must fend off US/Western Imperialism as it is really the major threat out there! Not Ebola, nor China/ Russia or even ISIS! NAM nations is Latin America and in Asia should be united with the BRICS and show the US/West what it feels like to be isolated! All nations must be equal and this is what the Emerging countries asks for, stop the Western hegemony on economics and especially in politics!

[sonnyt111]

Mukhang ok yan Sir! ASEAN NATO! Or just sign along with the BRICS or SCO! We must realize that we are an Asian/ East nation and not American/ West! We must fend off US/Western Imperialism as it is really the major threat out there! Not Ebola, nor China/ Russia or even ISIS! NAM nations is Latin America and in Asia should be united with the BRICS and show the US/West what it feels like to be isolated! All nations must be equal and this is what the Emerging countries asks for, stop the Western hegemony on economics and especially in politics!

 

Much easier said than done.

[maddromeo]

I agree Sir! If our politicians would only think out our country and citizen instead of their own beneficial gain matagal na sana nangyari ehto! we know how the US/West have bribed and influenced our politics and culture for the past 100 years mukha mahirap talaga ehto! Let us not be fooled with America's false promise of "spreading democracy" in the world! We all know how that happened in our own country not to mention, Iraq, Libya etc... third world countries with insurgents! I can just admire Vietnam for always defending itself! They didn't use military force in fending off the Chinese Oil Rig so why invite back the US (EDCA) back in our country? Political drama lang lahat yan at sinasakyan ng gobyerno natin para ma approve ang pagbalik ng US bases! tsktsk

[camiar]

Mukhang ok yan Sir! ASEAN NATO! Or just sign along with the BRICS or SCO! We must realize that we are an Asian/ East nation and not American/ West! We must fend off US/Western Imperialism as it is really the major threat out there! Not Ebola, nor China/ Russia or even ISIS! NAM nations is Latin America and in Asia should be united with the BRICS and show the US/West what it feels like to be isolated! All nations must be equal and this is what the Emerging countries asks for, stop the Western hegemony on economics and especially in politics!

 

If we go by the NATO model in establishing SEATO, it will be aligned with the US. The idea behind the Asian version of NATO is to contain China, just as NATO was formed to contain Russia.

[maddromeo]

If we go by the NATO model in establishing SEATO, it will be aligned with the US. The idea behind the Asian version of NATO is to contain China, just as NATO was formed to contain Russia.

 

Putcha kung ganyan lang eh wag na! "Kali wali" then better remain a NAM country!!! And have better bilateral ties with our Asian neighbors!

 

I really don't get it! Why the US/Europe so insecure with China/Russia eversince!?

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

This is quite alarming....

 

http://theweek.com/article/index/274016/chinas-leader-is-telling-the-peoples-liberation-army-to-prepare-for-war

 

China's leader is telling the People's Liberation Army to prepare for war

Chinese President Xi Jinping's recent statements have been alarming China's neighbors. What's behind them?

By Kyle Mizokami | 7:01am ET

432

Preparing for what? (REUTERS/Stringer)

Over the last several months, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party have repeatedly exhorted the People's Liberation Army to "be ready to win a war." Xi has repeatedly called for greater military modernization, increased training, and enhanced overall readiness of the Chinese army, navy, and air force.

These repeated calls have alarmed China's neighbors from New Delhi to Washington. The question on everyone's mind: what is all this preparation for?

Is the Chinese leadership preparing for something? Are they gearing up for a military operation, or merely the option to carry one out? Or is there a more innocent explanation for all of this?

One credible explanation is that the Chinese leadership is pushing military readiness as part of the ongoing, national anti-corruption drive. Military anti-corruption efforts have been highlighted by the arrest and imminent court martial of Xu Caihou, a former high level military officer. Xu faces charges of embezzlement, bribery, misuse of state funds, and abuse of power, and is thought to have made at least $5.9 million by selling officer promotions.

Corruption in the Chinese military is thought to be widespread. Although the true effects are not known, it has resulted in ineligible officers being promoted, diversion of state funds, and sweetheart deals between military contractors and officials. Perhaps most importantly, time spent by corrupt officials making money is time not spent training the troops for conflict.

Although the Communist Party's message to "prepare to win a war" may seem bellicose, the government may simply be telling the military to stop making money on the side and just do their jobs.

Another possibility is that Xi and the Party are pushing for the Chinese military to adopt readiness levels on par with the Pentagon. The U.S. military, which is frequently deployed around the world, often on short notice, trains to a relatively high standard. Much of a typical deployment, such as operating planes from an aircraft carrier flight deck, is dangerous work that can only be safely accomplished by training to high level of proficiency.

It's quite possible that China wants the military to achieve this skill level too, for no other reason than to have it. This on the face of it does not imply aggressive intent, only a desire for a prepared military.

Of course, it's possible that the Chinese government has something more sinister in mind.

The Party may desire the ability to conduct military action overseas as a diversion from domestic issues. In recent years, China has used territorial claims in the East and South China Seas and the Taiwan issue to divert public attention from problems at home, even going so far as to organize protests. Political grievances, environmental pollution, food scandals, government land grabs, lack of affordable healthcare, and, most importantly, government corruption are all issues that have sparked civil unrest.

As the Chinese economy slows down, the Communist Party may be worried that decreased economic activity could lead to more domestic unhappiness. A military expedition that united the country behind the government could be an option they'd consider.

In 1982, the generals that ruled Argentina invaded the nearby Falkland Islands, a United Kingdom territory, in a bid to co-opt anti-government dissent. The junta ruling the country believed that invading the Falklands, regarded by Argentines across the political spectrum as belonging to their country, would rally the country around the government.

Unfortunately for the generals, military adventurism is a two-edged sword. The U.K. sent a naval task force to retake the Falklands and Argentina's ensuing defeat proved the downfall of the regime.

Thanks to its recent territorial spats, China has a wealth of option for adventurism, such as sending naval vessels to the Diaoyu Islands (known as Senkaku Islands to Japan) in the East China Sea, making a demonstration of force near Taiwan, or even picking a fight with smaller countries such as the Philippines. Well-trained armed forces are necessary even in operations short of war; a show of force can quickly become a demonstration of incompetence.

We don't really know what is pushing Xi and company's seemingly bellicose exhortations. Much of the decision-making taking place in the Chinese military is a black box opaque to the outside world. Maybe China is preparing for something. Maybe it isn't. Maybe they're preparing for something and even they don't know what it is.

Or maybe they're just telling their people to do their jobs.

[Bugatti Veyron]

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/01/the-united-states-and-chinas-nine-dash-claim/

 

Lawfare Hard National Security Choices

The United States and China’s Nine-Dash Claim

By Sean Mirski
Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 12:35 PM

Early last month, the U.S. State Department released the latest in its Limits in the Seas series. These surveys examine the maritime claims of nations around the world and analyze whether they are consistent with international law.

Normally, these reports constitute fascinating reading for a small community of maritime law enthusiasts, but they tend to be fairly bloodless otherwise. Not so with the latest, though: No. 143 brings China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea under sustained legal scrutiny and finds them wanting.

This report is valuable on its own terms as the most developed and detailed U.S. government position on China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea. After all, up until recently, the American government has been somewhat reticent to publicly announce its position on China’s maritime claims. But besides adding another round of criticism to the barrage that started last February with Assistant Secretary Russel and U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Greenert, the report may also have significant implications for the ongoing arbitration between the Philippines and China over the latter’s maritime claims in the South China Sea. In particular, the report demonstrates a possible method by which the tribunal can skirt one of the most challenging issues in the litigation—figuring out what, exactly, China’s claims actually are.

Accordingly, Lawfare summarizes the contents of the report below the fold.

I. China’s Nine-Dash Line

The report begins by describing China’s claims to parts of the South China Sea from both a historical and a geographic perspective. In recent years, China’s claims have largely been understood by reference to the infamous “nine-dash” line, which appeared on a map presented by China to the international community in 2009.

According to the 2009 map, the nine-dash line runs along Vietnam’s coast, crosses the South China Sea to the coast of Malaysia, and then snakes its way up along the Malaysian, Bruneian, and Philippine coasts before finishing east of Taiwan. As the report notes, the nine-dash line darts extremely close to the coasts of neighboring states—in fact, the dashes are generally closer to those coasts than they are to any islands within the South China Sea.

 

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Nine-Dash.png

When it submitted the map, Beijing said simply that “China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof (see attached map).”

II. Basis of Analysis

Next, the report turns to the relevant maritime law as reflected in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In most cases, the rules are relatively simple once a state knows the land feature from which it is measuring a maritime zone. Coastal states are entitled to a territorial sea stretching 12 nautical miles from their coastal baselines. They also get more limited sovereign rights for certain purposes within their exclusive economic zones (EEZs)—which extend up to 200 nautical miles from the coastal baselines—and over their continental shelf, which is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond the territorial sea to the outer edge of the continental margin or up to 200 nautical miles.

But the rules get a little more complicated with respect to islands. Technically speaking, an island is “a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.” Accordingly, if a maritime feature is not above water at high-tide—in other words, if it is a “low-tide elevation” or a submerged feature—then it is generally not entitled to any maritime zone. Instead, these features are considered part of the seabed and subsoil, so they are “subject to the regime of the maritime zone in which they are found.”

But if the maritime feature does poke its head above water at high tide, then it counts as an island. For the most part, islands get the same maritime zones as other types of land territory. However, there is an exception: if an island “cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of [its] own,” then it is characterized as a “rock.” Rocks do not generate entitlements to either EEZs or continental shelves; in other words, they are limited to a 12 nautical mile territorial sea.

In short, it matters tremendously for the purpose of drawing maritime zones whether a feature is a habitable island, a rock, or a low-tide elevation/submerged feature. (Parenthetically, these distinctions are at the heart of Manila’s pending arbitration case against China—the Philippines claims that regardless of who has sovereignty over the maritime features, many of these features are not habitable islands, and thus they do not generate entitlements to the wide-ranging sort of maritime zones that China seems to assume they do.)

Finally, this section of the report touches on the international law relating to “historic” bays and titles. The United States takes the position that in order to establish the existence of this type of maritime entitlement, a claimant must demonstrate “(1) open, notorious, and effective exercise of authority over the body of water in question; (2) continuous exercise of that authority; and (3) acquiescence by foreign States in the exercise of that authority.” Perhaps most importantly, historic bays and titles are “strictly limited geographically and substantively” – they “apply only with respect to bays and similar near-shore coastal configurations, not in areas of EEZ, continental shelf, or high seas.”

III. Analysis

The report opens its analysis by distinguishing between China’s claims to territory in the South China Sea—in other words, claims of sovereignty over habitable islands and rocks—and its claims to the Sea’s waters. The report disclaims any interest in analyzing China’s territorial claims, and instead, it focuses solely on China’s maritime claims.

At this point, the U.S. government runs into a problem. Beijing has never clarified the nature of its maritime claims within the nine-dash line; indeed, it has sent a variety of contradictory messages, and its 2009 statement on the matter is maddeningly unhelpful and seemingly designed to obscure rather than clarify. To evade this legal fog, though, the study cleverly analyzes three possible interpretations of China’s nine-dash line claim, and whether any of those interpretations are consistent with the international law of the sea. We’ll address each interpretation in turn.

First, the nine-dash line may simply “indicate[] only the islands over which China claims sovereignty.” If so, then the line does not raise any interesting questions under maritime law. Instead, China would presumably be limited in its maritime claims to any zones to which it is entitled under UNCLOS rather than all the waters enclosed within the nine-dash line.

Second, the nine-dash line could alternatively be interpreted as indicating a “national boundary between China and neighboring States.” If so, then the line is inconsistent with international law. China cannot unilaterally decide where its borders end because neighboring states must delimit boundaries “by agreement.” In addition, the line “lack other important hallmarks of a maritime boundary, such as a published list of geographic coordinates and a continuous, unbroken line that separates the maritime space of two countries.” And even if the line is taken as a unilateral position on what the boundary should be, Beijing has failed to explain why the boundary should be drawn so close to other States’ coasts and so far from even the South China Sea islands claimed by China. Plus, Beijing has not explained “the related question of what kind of rights or jurisdiction China is asserting for itself within the line,” which becomes a serious issue because in several cases, the line’s dashes are located beyond even the 200 nautical mile limit of EEZs from Chinese-claimed land features.

Third and finally, the nine-dash line could be read as marking out the limits of a “historic” claim. As the report notes, a “historic claim might be one of sovereignty over the maritime space (‘historic waters’ or ‘historic title’) or, alternatively, some lesser set of rights (‘historic rights’) to the maritime space.”

As a threshold matter, the report argues that China has not even made a “cognizable claim to either ‘historic waters’ or ‘historic rights’ to the waters of the South China Sea within the dashed line.” International law requires “international notoriety” in asserting a historic claim to put other countries on notice of the possible existence of such a claim. Problematically for Beijing, “there appears to be no Chinese law, declaration, proclamation, or other official statement describing and putting the international community on notice of a historic claim to the waters within the dashed line.” Worse, China’s claims “lack the precision, clarity, and consistency that could convey the nature and scope of a maritime claim.” Indeed, Beijing has never released the geographic coordinates of any of the nine dashes, and the location (and size) of the dashes seems to vary from map to map. These inconsistencies can be substantial: for example, one dash appears 45 nautical miles closer to Vietnam’s coast on the 2009 map than it does on a 1947 map.

But even if Beijing had made a cognizable claim, it would violate international law. In the first instance, “the LOS Convention limits the relevance of historic claims to bays and territorial sea delimitation.” In contrast, the nine-dash line encompasses open waters far from any nearby islands. The claim also fails every element of the three-part legal test for historic waters described earlier: the claim was not made openly or notoriously (indeed, it is still unclear!); China has not exercised effective and continuous authority in those waters (for instance, other states have used the waters of the South China Sea); and no state has recognized or acquiesced to any exercise of Chinese authority in those waters (and “[a]ny alleged tacit acquiescence by States can be refuted by the lack of meaningful notoriety of any historic claim by China”).

In sum, the report concludes that “unless China clarifies that the dashed-line claim reflects only a claim to islands within that line and any maritime zones that are generated from those land features in accordance with the international law of the sea, as reflected in the LOS Convention, its dashed-line claim does not accord with the international law of the sea.”

[sonnyt111]

^{http://news.yahoo.com/u-rebalance-asia-begins-major-military-drill-philippines-054740363.html}

 

^{U.S. rebalance to Asia begins with major military drill in Philippines}

^{http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/d/0c/d0c3eb8ca18907492a4b337b5cec5193.jpeg}

^{By Manuel Mogato 1 hour ago}

 

 

By Manuel Mogato

MANILA (Reuters) - Philippine and U.S. soldiers began their biggest combined military exercise in 15 years on Monday, in a demonstration of Washington's commitment to its long-time ally as it rebalances to Asia in the face of China's expansion in the South China Sea. The annual "Balikatan" (shoulder-to-shoulder) war games are part of a new U.S. military initiative known as Pacific Pathways, involving a series of drills across the Asia-Pacific as America deploys more troops, ships and aircraft in the region. "The exercises this week are part of a U.S. rebalance to Asia starting with Balikatan in the Philippines," Major-General Raul del Rosario told Reuters as more than 1,000 US Army troops joined the drills at a jungle army base. Pacific Pathways, which Washington says is part of a plan to establish a "semi-permanent" U.S. presence in Asia, will comprise 29 exercises across 12 countries in the region over the next five years. The exercise comes a few days after the Philippines said it was seeking more "substantive" support from the United States on how to counter China's rapid expansion in the South China Sea. China's rapid reclamation around seven reefs in the Spratly archipelago of the South China Sea has alarmed claimants, including the Philippines and Vietnam, and drawn growing criticism from U.S. government officials and the military. U.S. President Barack Obama has said Washington is concerned China is using its "sheer size and muscle" to push around smaller nations in the disputed sea, drawing a swift rebuke from Beijing. "We make no pretense that we are helping the Philippines as it fields a minimum credible defense," U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg said at the drills' opening ceremony. "The U.S. is committed to its alliance ... and the U.S. will defend the important principles of freedom of navigation in the air and the sea." In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China hoped the U.S. and Philippines "do more that is beneficial to increasing mutual security trust between countries in the region and that is beneficial to regional peace and stability". More than 11,000 American and Filipino troops are taking part in the 10-day drill on the islands of Luzon, Palawan and Panay. The war games will see U.S. fighters rehearse bombing runs and troops involved in live fire drills. Dozens of leftwing activists protested outside the U.S. embassy in Manila, saying the Americans were using China as a bogeyman to gain a forward base in the Philippines.

[maxiev]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/taiwan-asias-next-mighty-military-power-12838

[sandy51]

Vietnam

Vietnam was considered primitive but it defeated the French, the Americans and (the Chinese say no) but the fact is that the Chinese withdrew from Vietnam and this was at a time when Vietnam also had another front - Cambodia.

This just comes to my mind because the AFP keeps talking modernization

[tk421]

Might as well learn Mandarin since they're not going away any time soon and we won't (or can't) protect our territories anyways.

 

Like it or not, they're our 'next-door' neighbors now.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Might as well learn Mandarin since they're not going away any time soon and we won't (or can't) protect our territories anyways.

 

Like it or not, they're our 'next-door' neighbors now.

Our only ace is the Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States. China is cognizant of this fact and this is probably the reason why it hasn't acted more aggressively than it already has. The most controversial thing China has done so far is put up infrastructure in some of the disputed islands. And of course, it continues to shoo away Filipino fishing vessels from the disputed area like they were pests.

[sonnyt111]

Might as well learn Mandarin since they're not going away any time soon and we won't (or can't) protect our territories anyways.

 

Like it or not, they're our 'next-door' neighbors now.

Fear thy neighbor.

[tk421]

Fear thy neighbor.

 

Oh, no worries: pretty soon they'll slowly creep inland too, and then they'll not be our neighbors anymore.

[sandy51]

There may be a lot of problems if ever China goes further and annexes the whole Philippines.

 

The economy would be controlled by the Chinese. The rich people would be Chinese and the Philippines would be flooded with made in China goods.

 

The Philippines might become something like Macau with so many casinos

 

The AFP Modernization Program may become academic. What happens now to that New York condo of some child whose parent benefits from this program?

 

Joma Sison and his NPA may lose their raison d’etre.

 

If ever a disaster hits the Philippines, the U.S. might not come in. That would be one less reason for a demonstration at the U.S embassy. What happens now to the jeepneys hired to ferry the demonstrators? And they might end up seeking political asylum in the U.S and this time demonstrate at the Chinese embassy in Washington D.C. A lot of Filipinos may also see this as a cue to seek political asylum in the U.S giving their own excuse.

 

The BBL might become academic and instead of Sabah annexing Mindanao it might become the other way around.

 

The cases of the Ampatuans, Gloria, Enrile, etc might be resolved and they might be executed.

 

The convicted drug lords would probably not be able to manufacture their drugs in prison anymore.

 

Divorce and family planning might become legal,

 

These are just some of the issues that come to my mind. Others are free to add.

[tk421]

There may be a lot of problems if ever China goes further and annexes the whole Philippines.

 

The economy would be controlled by the Chinese. The rich people would be Chinese and the Philippines would be flooded with made in China goods.

 

The Philippines might become something like Macau with so many casinos

 

The AFP Modernization Program may become academic. What happens now to that New York condo of some child whose parent benefits from this program?

 

Joma Sison and his NPA may lose their raison d’etre.

 

If ever a disaster hits the Philippines, the U.S. might not come in. That would be one less reason for a demonstration at the U.S embassy. What happens now to the jeepneys hired to ferry the demonstrators? And they might end up seeking political asylum in the U.S and this time demonstrate at the Chinese embassy in Washington D.C. A lot of Filipinos may also see this as a cue to seek political asylum in the U.S giving their own excuse.

 

The BBL might become academic and instead of Sabah annexing Mindanao it might become the other way around.

 

The cases of the Ampatuans, Gloria, Enrile, etc might be resolved and they might be executed.

 

The convicted drug lords would probably not be able to manufacture their drugs in prison anymore.

 

Divorce and family planning might become legal,

 

These are just some of the issues that come to my mind. Others are free to add.

If there's anything I'd give China credit for, it's their patience and ability to plan in the long term (coupled with their ability to distort reality).

 

That being said, the scenarios above may not play out that way since China annexation may take a while to take root and said scenarios above would have resolved by themselves or would have become obsolete by then.

 

The executions of corrupt politicians would please me to no end, but in reality China is just as corrupt as the Philippines but may not be as widely reported since they do control the media.

 

The NPA would still have their cause (as the Chinese government is perceived by them as an oppressor of the common people), but with China's harsh justice system, they might have a harder time organizing.

[Julianda]

 

The convicted drug lords would probably not be able to manufacture their drugs in prison anymore.

 

Divorce and family planning might become legal,

 

These are just some of the issues that come to my mind. Others are free to add.

 

So are abortion, prostitution, stealing, killing, etc.

[lomex32]

Chinese Foreign Ambassador stood firm on their claim on the disputed islands with their meeting with US State Sec John Kerry

[Bugatti Veyron]

Chinese Foreign Ambassador stood firm on their claim on the disputed islands with their meeting with US State Sec John Kerry

Which isn't surprising in the least. Given it's new-found wealth and prestige, China can now afford to defy the United States.

[tk421]

So given that China is a world superpower now, do we give in or do we fight?

[lomex32]

Kerry's answer is that their looking at China does not block passage on International waters e.g. trade routes etc. So in short, it is like US has allowed China to claim these islands ...

 

Which isn't surprising in the least. Given it's new-found wealth and prestige, China can now afford to defy the United States.

 

Looking at the U.S. stand, it seemed that they are not up for a fight for now.

Until we have something to stand against their big boats patrolling the disputed seas, we just might stand clear. During Catapang's visit in Pag-asa island it seemed the Chinese Navy stood still (baka may pinag-usapan na excuse me makikiraan po)

 

So given that China is a world superpower now, do we give in or do we fight?

Edited May 19, 2015 by lomex32

[Larry]

There may be a lot of problems if ever China goes further and annexes the whole Philippines.

 

The economy would be controlled by the Chinese. The rich people would be Chinese and the Philippines would be flooded with made in China goods.

 

The Philippines might become something like Macau with so many casinos

 

 

 

 

uhm

 

these things are already happening now.

[Bugatti Veyron]

These Chinese are really getting arrogant, even trying to bully the number one super power on earth. Before they even think of doing that, they should consider that they have no war-time experience while the US is a nation that has known nothing but war ever since it gained independence from England in the 18th century.

 

China navy warns U.S. spy plane in disputed South China Sea: CNN

New Zealand glacier bod identified after 42 ye

The Chinese navy warned a U.S. surveillance plane flying over artificial islands that Beijing is creating in the disputed South China Sea to leave the area eight times, according to CNN, which was on board the flight on Wednesday.

At one stage, after the American pilots responded by saying the plane was flying through international airspace, a Chinese radio operator said with exasperation: "This is the Chinese navy ... You go!"

The P8-A Poseidon, the U.S. military's most advanced surveillance aircraft, flew at 15,000 feet (4,500 meters) at its lowest point, CNN said.

The incident, along with recent Chinese warnings to Philippine military aircraft to leave areas around the Spratly archipelago in the South China Sea, suggests Beijing is trying to enforce a military exclusion zone above its new islands.

Some security experts worry about the risk of confrontation, especially after a U.S. official said last week the Pentagon was considering sending military aircraft and ships to assert freedom of navigation around the Chinese-made islands.

Footage taken by the P8-A Poseidon and aired by CNN showed a hive of construction and dredging activity on the new islands the plane flew over, as well as Chinese navy ships nearby.

CNN said it was the first time the Pentagon had declassified video of China's building activity and audio of challenges to a U.S. aircraft.

"We were just challenged 30 minutes ago and the challenge came from the Chinese navy," Captain Mike Parker, commander of U.S. surveillance aircraft deployed to Asia, told CNN aboard the flight.

"I'm highly confident it came from ashore, this facility here," Parker said, pointing to an early warning radar station on Fiery Cross Reef.

Military facilities on Fiery Cross Reef, including a 3,000-metre (10,000-foot) runway, could be operational by year's end, one U.S. commander recently told Reuters.

Asia's rising power China claims sovereignty over most of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei also have overlapping claims.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi last week asserted Beijing's sovereignty to reclaim the reefs, saying China's determination to protect its interests was "as hard as a rock".

China has also said it had every right to set up an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea but that current conditions did not warrant one.

ADIZs are used by some nations to extend control beyond national borders, requiring civilian and military aircraft to identify themselves or face possible military interception.

During the P8-A mission, the pilot of a Delta Air Line flight in the area spoke on the same frequency after hearing the Chinese challenges, and identified himself as commercial. The Chinese voice reassured the pilot and the Delta flight went on its way, CNN said.

(Writing by Dean Yates; Editing by Paul Tait)

[FleurDeLune]

Growing rift between US and China

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkKVu0WU0zo

[camiar]

So given that China is a world superpower now, do we give in or do we fight?

 

We don't have to give in. We don't have to fight.

 

We need to strengthen ourselves to earn our neighbors' respect so we can have a dignified co-existence with them.