politics

Tensions grow as U.S., allies deepen Indo-Pacific involvement

58 Comments
By David Rising

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments
Login to comment

Xi telling the forum that "China has never, and will never invade or bully others or seek hegemony."

Sure. Like he told Pres Obama that China would never militarize the South China Sea. And six months later they were militarizing their artificial islands. China has lied to the world about it's "Peaceful Rise" for years and today their goal of becoming the dominant power in the region (and beyond) is common knowledge.

29 ( +36 / -7 )

Sure. Like he told Pres Obama that China would never militarize the South China Sea. And six months later they were militarizing their artificial islands.

Lets also not forget Hong Kong and the 1 country 2 systems that China promised only to break that promise too.

China has lied to the world about it's "Peaceful Rise" for years and today their goal of becoming the dominant power in the region (and beyond) is common knowledge

exactly

28 ( +34 / -6 )

China will never invade or bully others, just ask Tibet.

Next!

26 ( +33 / -7 )

Anglo-American offer ?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

With Communist China increasingly warlike, stealing territory and oppressing millions of people, who can blame the U.S. and Allies from expanding their activity and defenses in the region?

If China keeps pushing and making constant war threats, they are going to regret it, make no mistake about that.

7 ( +18 / -11 )

China has never, and will never invade or bully others

China has repeatedly vowed to take back Taiwan, by force if necessary

20 ( +27 / -7 )

The Indo-Pacific looks set to become the new Middle East. The arms trade will be 'pivoting to Asia' as fast as it can. The choice of next LDP leader may define just how toasty things get in the region over the next few years.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

"Individual powers... have repeatedly dispatched military aircraft and warships to the South China Sea for some time in the name of exercising freedom of navigation to flex muscle, stir up trouble and deliberately provoke conflicts on maritime issues," spokesman Zhao Lijian said.

and in OTHER NEWS...

China sends 19 fighter jets towards Taiwan in show of force - Japan Today

Xi telling the forum that "China has never, and will never invade or bully others or seek hegemony."

Comedy Gold

11 ( +18 / -7 )

Fighto,American love their cheap Chinese good, better than Taiwan ,will choose this over Taiwan or most American will end up barefoot

-23 ( +4 / -27 )

I don’t trust China one bit, as do many Australians now I’d say. A bit rich to say one thing at the UN and be doing the opposite in the region.

Good we ditched the French sub deal, there was definitely no bang for our buck there. As good as the Collins class has proven time to get with the times and upgrade to the Virginia class.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

china has been LYING about its intensions for the Far East & SE Asia for 3decades & counting, especially the last two!

They have been saying one thing & DO the exact opposite at the same time, the WEST has LET this happen unchallenged & it IS & WILL continue to cost us.

Its about time we started calling china out for its lies & hypocracy!

13 ( +19 / -6 )

Indo Pacific game of thrones?

There's a whole new economic zone in the making whilst everyone is being distracted.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China has the military might but lacks the experience of any type of conflict. China is in for a rude awakening if the..... you know what hits the fan.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

The bully is about to get bit

10 ( +12 / -2 )

One of the scariest aspects of china’s long-term ambitions is how cleverly they conceal them. Just one example can illustrate this clearly. China keeps insisting for all countries to only mind their own internal affairs, and likewise China will only mind its internal affairs. They will never seek to bully or invade others etc etc as Xi and other CCP mouthpieces constantly parrot.

But…. China is on a relentless path of expanding its business, economic, and debt trap ambitions via the Belt & Road initiative and more. Slowly, bit by bit, whether building ports and rail in Africa, or buying off prime farming land in Australia, China is inevitably increasing the size of the sphere of what constitutes its “internal affairs”.

One day, they can and WILL claim “internal affairs” to justify more overt grabs of land, power, and influence in countries far away from China and even on the other side of the world. And with increasing ability to project their armed forces (their navy command has openly voiced their long-term wish to push the US military presence back to at least Hawaii… obviously implying total neutralization of the US forces presence in Japan, Korea, Guam, etc), China is increasingly becoming able to be in a position where they can exert more direct grabs of land and influence across the globe.

China’s wish to become the new hegemon (the “Ba”) is reflected in all the things the US does today. Until they catch up and surpass everything the US enjoys today, they will not succeed in their minds to be the new “Ba”. And yes, this means having total global Chinese military dominance, with red army soldiers stationed in dozens or hundreds of bases across the world.

Everything they do now is clearly in pursuit of that long-term goal, and based on how things are progressing now (largest economy in the world, largest navy in the world, soon “largest” in everything), it’s clear that they are likely to achieve this nightmare goal of theirs. I fear for future generations, truly.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

What is the history of the EU and the UK. Throught out the 1800,s citizen immigrated from the EU and the UK to the new world. Those who decide to stay had a choice of staying or immigrating because they were of the privilege class. all this class decide to stay. So today status of the EU is a descendants of this privilege class.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

China has never, and will never invade or bully others

China has repeatedly vowed to take back Taiwan, by force if necessary

First of all, China has invaded and exerted its powers over smaller states. Unless you do not considered Yuan or Qing dynasties to be China but even at that, there has been territorial expansion through invasions.

Regarding Xi's remarks at the UN, Xi implies that Taiwan, to China, is not "others." The people in Taiwan speak Chinese and officially call themselves China. Many of them came from China. It is as if Taiwan is a confederate state that refused to surrender and one that has not been dealt with. Taiwan is in a civil war with China until Taiwan stops calling itself officially, China. I wouldn't say General Sherman invaded Georgia. It is a fight over secession.

Taiwan should seek independence. Then if it succeeds to secede with western aid, it will be a country, like Ireland, despite the fact Taiwan is already a de factor country. If it fails, then it will be like the confederate states, Catalonia, Chechnya, Quebec or Tibet. Tibet has been under the rule of China since 1720 and it attempted to become independent after WWII but failed. Border skirmishes with its neighbors are not invasions and neither are territorial disputes. While China has expanded its territories and exerted its influence - invade and bully - I believe Xi is referring to the current PRC including ROC Taiwan.

One of the scariest aspects of china’s long-term ambitions is how cleverly they conceal them....But…. China is on a relentless path of expanding its business, economic, and debt trap ambitions via the Belt & Road initiative and more. 

China's ambition is indeed subtle or but not necessarily concealed. It's clear what they are doing: the passive aggressive economic approach. Banks will repossess property if payments are not made. The Chinese banks' loans, although at lower interest rates and longer terms than the IMF or the World Bank and have offered refinancing and even debt forgiveness, aim to obtain leverage over a country. Pakistan is an example. If you can't pay back the loans, they will then lease the property from you. The port in Sri Lanka is an example.

These are subtle and different from the traditional sense of expansionism through war. They are out to make money by exporting their infrastructure and technology, not the Walmart toys. They will loan you money and try to get a cut somewhere. In the long run, you'll fall under its sphere of influence.

The end result is similar. In past centuries, you become a colony or a feudal state and you have to take a trip to Edo every year. In this century, you become a modern vassal state or a part of a group of allies.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

OssanAmericaToday  07:45 am JST

Sure. Like he told Pres Obama that China would never militarize the South China Sea. And six months later they were militarizing ---their artificial islands.--- China has lied to the world about it's "Peaceful Rise" for years and today their goal of becoming the dominant power in the region (and beyond) is common knowledge.

No, yar very wrong! It's not even 'their artificial islands'.

Don't help validate their claim.

JT hates fake news.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If Chairman XI jin Ping and his advisers are wise then they could just give full diplomatic recognition to the ROC in TW.

No name change and need for a new declaration of Taiwan Independence!

Xi will surely win the Nobel Peace prize and be Japan Today's Man of the Century!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I know this will be extremely unpopular to say (especially here!) but: this Global Awakening to China's aggressive dealings with the outside world was first publicized AND RESPONDED TO BY: former President Trump.

Before Trump, the Chinese frequently escaped condemnation, to say nothing of a direct and forceful counter response), and often humiliated leaders like Trudeau and Obama (remember when they belittled O by forcing a sitting president of the US to exit out of the rear end of Air Force One?) China's treatment of Trump during his first visit was almost Royal by comparison. (It did China no good, though, since Trump went on to be the first President to not just talk, but to actually levy regularized tariffs against unfairly priced Chinese imports.)

And how much of this AUKUS alliance and nuke deal do you want to bet actually got started prior to this year? One might argue that Trump's America First policies (which did seek and maintain firm and robust international cooperation, but only when mutually beneficial to the US) are actually being accelerated by Biden, not deconstructed!

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

China has never, and will never invade or bully others or seek hegemony."

China invaded and occupies Tibet. China invaded the South China sea and constructed islands on sunken features in other nations EEZ and them militarized them with missile's and fighter aircraft.

China has often spoken of invading Taiwan to take control of territory that has never been under CCP control.

"Individual powers... have repeatedly dispatched military aircraft and warships to the South China Sea for some time in the name of exercising freedom of navigation to flex muscle, stir up trouble and deliberately provoke conflicts on maritime issues," spokesman Zhao Lijian said.

Maritime nations around the world are fully entitles to sail in international waters anywhere in the world. The only nation causing trouble and deliberately provoking conflicts in the South China sea is China.

Beijing was less reserved in its reaction to the submarine deal with Australia, under which the U.S. and Britain will help Canberra construct nuclear-powered submarines, calling it "highly irresponsible" and saying it would "seriously damage regional peace and stability."

China has been seriously damaging regional peace and stability for years and is in no position to complain about Australian defense plans and purchases.

China tells lies and can not be trusted. China's ambitions of world domination must be opposed by all.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

it seems that "someone" is going to make enemy from China...?

highly likely...and this "someone" have long history of unprovoked agressions in countries around the world...blood of millions of deaths at its hands...

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Hito BitoToday  01:54 pm JST

I know this will be extremely unpopular to say (especially here!) but: this Global Awakening to China's aggressive dealings with the outside world was first publicized AND RESPONDED TO BY: former President Trump.

Moreso than being unpopular, it's outright incorrect.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/fact-sheet-advancing-rebalance-asia-and-pacific

0 ( +4 / -4 )

China's lying, posturing and aggressiveness have escalated since Pooh Bear decided to appoint himself to a lifetime post. History is clearly repeating itself.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

US, UK and Australia messed up everything preventing free nations having a common response to the Chinese growing threat.

Creating division is helping dictatorships.

Well done !

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The suspect loyalties of the large diaspora increasingly present a challenge every bit as formidable as that of a revanchist Motherland, whose demands on their allegiance they ignore at their peril. Penalties for treasonably aiding and abetting militarily the West’s new bete noire may need ramping up to reflect this new reality.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

it seems that "someone" is going to make enemy from China...?

China is turning many peaceful nations into it's enemy. China's unbridled ambitions of world dominance are clear to all and opposed by a vast majority. China is leading the world into a conflict of biblical proportions.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan is not allowed to possess an aircraft carrier, which could be part of a strike task force, under the peace constitution and so when they built the JS Izumo, they called it a DDH or helicopter carrier). But look at the UK Ministry of Defense file photo above in which the Izumo and the Ise are seen to be accompanying the Queen Elizabeth.

The JS Izumo compares favorably with the HMS Queen Elizabeth (standard displacement: 45,000 tons; length: 284 meters) in displacement and length. The Izumo's actual specifications are--standard displacement: 9,500 tons; length: 248 meters

The Izumo can be easily converted to a full-fledged aircraft carrier, which blatantly violates the constitution.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No one wants a war, if that is true!? then stop beating the drums of war, sit down and talk it out like most adults do. The world does NOT need another tragic event that could put us back tens of years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nah…

Open conventional warfare against China would require reinstatement of the draft.

Even if a false flag or other “clever” jingoistic propaganda techniques could be employed to get Whites to join the military and throw their bodies into that meat grinder, the attrition rate would be awful.

And I just don’t see the social media softies that make up today’s “multi-cultural” youth filling the void and volunteering to be slaughtered on the beaches of the islands claimed by China that have no substantive strategic importance to the US.

China is not Afghanistan or Iraq. China will fight back. The moral high ground, sheer numbers, geography and time are all on China’s side.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ego Sum

China lost before. Geography, size, population was not enough to prevent the century of humiliation. Many loses against everyone.

Voice of Okinawa

JS Izumo is a helicopter carrier. Big difference from a real aircraft carrier. If they convert the Izumo only a few F35B can fly off using hover.

Japan's constitution belongs in the past. It was written before the rise of China, North Korea, Putin Russia. Times have change, the world has changed.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The democratic allies would much rather be spending their money on something else, but Chinese belligerence leaves them no choice - defend themselves, or surrender to Chinese aggression.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The moral high ground, sheer numbers, geography and time are all on China’s side.

China has few morals and certainly no moral high ground. Geography is also not on China's side as missiles can hit anywhere with equal accuracy and damage.

One on one China has the numbers but when India is in the mix with allied nations, they no longer have even that.

As for time, with all the enemies China is making almost daily the time is not on their side as opposition will only grow.

Time is running out for China if it maintains current levels of belligerence. The more nations that show an interest in the Indo-Pacific region and the South China Sea's international waters, the worse for China's ambitions.

Had China not militarized the south China sea and had it remained friendly and within the law it would not have drawn all the negative attention to itself. China wants dominance and believes it has the right to take it. Like Hitler and other wannabe empires before it. None last and China may not ever achieve empire if the world has anything to say about it. Stick to your own lands, release your occupied territories and be a good global citizen. You will make many more friends that way.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

there was clear disappointment that the U.S. seemed to be ignoring France

The US is so Back now that Trump is gone

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And I just don’t see the social media softies that make up today’s “multi-cultural” youth filling the void and volunteering to be slaughtered on the beaches of the islands claimed by China that have no substantive strategic importance to the US.

I cannot see the current generation Z willing to give up Tik Tok to sign up to die for the Taiwanese.

No one wants a war, if that is true!? then stop beating the drums of war, sit down and talk it out like most adults do. 

No one wants war but countries want to export weapons. It's a deterrent and it is lucrative as in billions of USD.

it seems that "someone" is going to make enemy from China...?

How else are you going to make Australia think they need nuclear subs to defend against the nation they are trading with without creating a bogeyman?

China's lying, posturing and aggressiveness have escalated since Pooh Bear decided to appoint himself to a lifetime post. 

Xi does not have a lifetime post. It's that the General Secretary of the party now has no term limits.

US apparently will drop charges against Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou, allowing her to return to China. The agreement reportedly does not include any deal that would release Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. The US has shown that it cannot win a trade war with China. Biden extended an invitation to Xi to visit which was declined by Xi. Yellen contemplated visiting China to discuss the dollar and inflation ahead of the the call to raise the debt ceiling in October. The current administration and future administrations will follow the protocol to be tough on China to show the world while continuing to engage with China because the US needs China and China needs the U.S. It's economics.

The same goes with Australia. China aims at win win relationships for countries to be codependent of each other. Now that China seeks to join the CPTPP, China will have to be nice to Australia as it requires a unanimous vote. So they'll keep buying iron ore from Australia, and Australia has plenty. Comparative advantage is key.

China needs to protect its trade and supply routes through the sea and the belt road. The US is making sure if sanctions are necessary one day and are applied, access to supplies for China can be cut off. A blockade in the South China Seas will make things difficult for China. China is well aware of this and that's why they have their Navy there and built their Navy to be the largest in the world. The US has done this in the past and China is watching. Case in point is Iran and the largest U.S. seizure of Iranian fuel from four tankers.

This is about enforcing sanctions and cutting off trade and supply routes. Sanctions drew Japan into war with the U.S. The US maintained embargoes against China for over two decades. It wasn't anything personal against the people of China. It's just that they're Communists and we can't have that. China having experienced this is covering her bases. It is beefing up security to protect her own interests. With US carriers in the South China Seas - planes above and subs below - China has a right to be concerned.

The other choke hold would be through the new silk road that goes through Xinjiang. If the US wishes to contain China, it could do so by cutting off supplies via shipping lanes and the belt road. If there is unrest in Xinjiang requiring the presence of the US or UN there, sanctions would effectively work and access can be cut off. You can't just show up in Xinjiang uninvited though. You have to have an in. You have to create a crisis; for example, something like Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction, collaboration with terrorist organizations, unprovoked attacks like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and so on. Per US Naval Institute's webpage:  once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

You need an excuse to control vital trade routes and shipping lanes. That right now is the Uighur internment camps where thousands are raped, killed, tortured, and forced to use contraception every day and the aggression and bullying of smaller nations in the South China Seas.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The JS Izumo compares favorably with the HMS Queen Elizabeth (standard displacement: 45,000 tons; length: 284 meters) in displacement and length. The Izumo's actual specifications are--standard displacement: 9,500 tons; length: 248 meters

Izumo is rated at 27,000 tons full load. That 19K tons is an empty steel hull with no fuel, supplies, ammunition, aircraft or anything else. Just the bare ship. HMS Queen Elizabeth is rated at 65,000 toms. it is a much deeper and wider hulled ship than the Izumo with much greater internal volume. The Queen Elizabeth flight deck is slightly more than twice as wide as that of the Izumo and the ship draws 4 meters more water (how deep the hull sits below the surface). She is closer in size to an old Forrestal Class CV while Izumo is about the same size as a WWII fleet carrier in the IJN or USN, a little smaller than the Zuikaku and a little bit bigger than the Soryu.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US apparently will drop charges against Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou, allowing her to return to China

The story, not confirmed yet, is she will plead guilty in a New York court. In exchange she would be freed to go home. Charges will not be dropped. No word if she has actually agreed to this. In fact the whole thing is a rumor at this point. Supposedly a similar offer was made a year ago that went nowhere. Again all of that is unconfirmed.

. The US is making sure if sanctions are necessary one day and are applied, access to supplies for China can be cut off. A blockade in the South China Seas will make things difficult for China.

A "blockade" is an act of war and would only be used in the context of a hot war. The US has never blockaded Iran. Iran conducts a significant global trade using one of the larger merchant fleets in the world. The US and other nations enforce specific UN and US sanctions on Iranian oil and arms shipments. The US prohibits the use of the US Dollar and US banking system to conduct trade with Iran. It is the US right to do so as they are the US sovereign currency and banking system. The US is not somehow obligated to allow its enemies to use its resources against it.

 It wasn't anything personal against the people of China. It's just that they're Communists and we can't have that

A statement which omits China's intervention in the Korean War on the side of North Korea, and the daily warfare on and over the Taiwan Straits at a time when the US had forces stationed in Taiwan. It seems so distant now but 60 years ago there were almost daily artillery duels and dogfights going on across the Taiwan Straits between PCR and ROC forces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The same goes with Australia. China aims at win win relationships for countries to be codependent of each other. Now that China seeks to join the CPTPP, China will have to be nice to Australia as it requires a unanimous vote. So they'll keep buying iron ore from Australia, and Australia has plenty. Comparative advantage is key.

China is not buying iron ore from Australia.

https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/china-s-ban-on-australian-coal-reshapes-key-dry-bulk-market

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China is building an iron ore hub in Africa, specifically in Guinea to diversify its sources of ore. Meanwhile Australia has been able to replace much of the volume lost to China and with rising prices Australian producers are making record profits while Chinese steel makers are suffering with higher prices and lower or no profits.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

 It wasn't anything personal against the people of China. It's just that they're Communists and we can't have that

A statement which omits China's intervention in the Korean War on the side of North Korea, 

China has a right to self-defense and they were right as the US would have tried to flip China. Why was MacArthur relieved of his duties? Per interview with the General:

“Of all the campaigns in my life—20 major ones to be exact—the one I felt the most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging properly. I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days, once the campaign was under way, and with considerably fewer casualties than were suffered during the so-called truce period. It would have altered the course of history." 

“The enemy’s air would first have been taken out. I would have dropped between 30 to 50 tactical atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria from just across the Yalu at Antung (northwest tip of Korea) to the neighborhood of Hunchun (northeast tip of Korea near the border of the USSR).“

“That many bombs would have more than done the job! Dropped under the cover of darkness, when his planes were in for the night, they would have destroyed his air force on the ground, wiped out his maintenance and his airmen.”

“With the destruction of the enemy’s air power, I would then have called upon a half million of Chiang Kai-shek’s troops, sweetened by two U.S. Marine divisions. These would have been formed into two amphibious forces. One, totaling four-fifths of my strength and led by one of the Marine divisions, would have landed at Antung and proceeded eastward along the road that parallels the Yalu.”

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

ReasonandWisdomNippon,

Japan's constitution belongs in the past. It was written before the rise of China, North Korea, Putin Russia. Times have change, the world has changed.

You are as if saying the U.S. criminal law belongs in the past whereby it must be scrapped or revised to conform to the reality and become more lenient. The constitution represents idealism and should not be lowered to conform to secularism. It's the other way round.

Every country should emulate Japan’s peace constitution. It's a gem the humanity has ever created.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The US prohibits the use of the US Dollar and US banking system to conduct trade with Iran. It is the US right to do so as they are the US sovereign currency and banking system. The US is not somehow obligated to allow its enemies to use its resources against it.

That argument doesn’t fly. Many countries use the USD to trade with Iran. Japan trades with Iran in USD.

In war, the country you are fighting is the enemy. The US was in a 20 year war with Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the US’s enemy.

Afghanistan, the enemy of the US, conducted trade using USD and with trade with the US in USD.

Friend or Foe, trade is in USD. The US can’t dictate who uses dollars for trade. All the more reasons for China to protect trade routes and isn’t the basis for Meng’s arrest.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Australian producers are making record profits while Chinese steel makers are suffering with higher prices and lower or no profits.

I am glad for Australia. Whatever doesn't kill her will make her stronger. Similarly the ban on semi-conductor chips to China by the previous president has made China work harder to be self-sufficient. It has increased investment in its domestic industries and accelerated its pace of innovation in order to reduce the dependence of its semiconductor industry.

If Australia were to produce steel using its own iron ore, it would even be better but there is no advantage. China practices predatory pricing and anti-competitive measures. They have dumped steel in Canada, the U.S. and lost a WTO dispute with EU over steel dumping last July. Lower or no profits is not new to the Chinese but is illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every country should emulate Japan’s peace constitution. It's a gem the humanity has ever created.

I agree but it seems too ideal. You may be a dreamer, but you're not the only one.

Not allowing Japan to have its own military is like shooting an un-armed man which is considered murder and also cowardly. If Japan is armed, then maybe she had it coming.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

China has a right to self-defense and they were right as the US would have tried to flip China. Why was MacArthur relieved of his duties? Per interview with the General:

Prior to the Chinese attack Gen MacArthur and his intel chief were telling UN command the Chinese would not attack and only had some 30,000 troops on the border with North Korea. The US and UN were communicating that UN forces had no intention of crossing into China or engaging Chinese forces. You are quoting Gen MacArthur after UN forces were swept back behind the 38th Parallel by the Chinese making him look like a complete fool. Please be accurate with your history.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That argument doesn’t fly. Many countries use the USD to trade with Iran. Japan trades with Iran in USD

Again, not true. Since 2017 Iran has been unable to conduct any trade using US Dollars of the US banking system. Any company that does use US dollars to conduct trade with Iran is sanctioned by the US. If Japan is buying oil from Iran they are doing so in another currency than the US dollar, which is very possible to do.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/2166349/how-does-iran-plan-get-around-us-sanctions-use-other

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US apparently will drop charges against Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou, allowing her to return to China

The story, not confirmed yet, is she will plead guilty in a New York court. In exchange she would be freed to go home. Charges will not be dropped. No word if she has actually agreed to this.

Huawei and the US DOJ has reached a deal. This is progress for the US, Canada, and China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are quoting Gen MacArthur after UN forces were swept back behind the 38th Parallel by the Chinese making him look like a complete fool. Please be accurate with your history.

They have a right to support NK because it is in essence self-defense. This is the 1950's and the US backed ROC their enemies. The debate in the country was "how we lost China." No military would just sit and dismiss this, "they have 300,000 men but they said that they're not going to cross the river." The point of dropping 20-30 atomic bombs was to show the extent the US or rather MacArthur was willing to take no prisoners. That was the reality that got him relieved of his duties. There is no argument, the US was fighting Communism and red states were not expected to just sit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

 It is the US right to do so as they are the US sovereign currency and banking system. 

Need to zoom out a bit. The US put forth sanctions - and there was easing and termination - that dictate what can be traded with Iran and in what currency whether or not countries agree with it or not. All the more reasons for China to "protect its own interests" a right the US is well familiar with. China does not want its tankers seized the day US decides to dictate who can trade with China and will see to it that its shipping lanes are secured. To equate this as an invasion of the South China Seas is pure propaganda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afghanistan was the US’s enemy.

false !

The taliban were the US’s enemy.

You are correct.

The US conducts trade with North Korea, a sanctioned state. It is not in North Korean Won. So the argument that the seizures of Iranian tankers and one million barrels of oil had to happen because trade with sanctioned states cannot be in USD, does not fly.

The US sanctions states that have regimes perceived to pose a threat to the US. Ramping up the China threat, it stands to reason, sanctions can potentially be applied against China. That they are not is only because US is heavily invested in China. Trade and investment is a form of security and national defense.

Regardless, China is not going to wait until their tankers are captured and supply lines disrupted before securing the vital sea lanes. The supply lines go through the South China Seas and the Belt Road through Xinjiang. It also goes through Myanmar, and that is another area China is criticized, of supporting the military that oppresses Rohingya Muslims.

It's not about Uighur or Rohingya Muslims and human rights. How many Muslims have been killed in conflicts with the US? It is about the control of supply lines.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

quercetum (Sep. 25 08:55 am JST),

There's a campaign by some concerned Japanese people to make Article 9 of the nation's constitution a world cultural heritage. 

For your convenience, Article 9 goes like this: (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Beautiful, indeed.  Why shouldn't every nation, the U.S., China, Russia, North Korea and all, emulate it in order to realize lasting world peace? Is aspiring after world peace nonsense and an act of daydreaming? The U.N. was established to realize that supreme goal, wasn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.N. charter (Preamble) is permeated with strong pacifism and stands firm to accomplish a lasing world peace.   

Do you think it’s an outdated document and so must be shredded into pieces and cast away?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US conducts trade with North Korea

No it doesn't. All trade with DPRK is prohibited.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US sanctions states that have regimes perceived to pose a threat to the US. Ramping up the China threat, it stands to reason, sanctions can potentially be applied against China. 

Sanctions against specific Chinese companies already exist because they trade with DPRK or Iran in violation of UN, not US but UN sanctions. Here is an example.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/us-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-china-in-response-to-trade-with-dprk-state-dept/ar-BB1bwY3h

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The debate in the country was "how we lost China." No military would just sit and dismiss this, "they have 300,000 men but they said that they're not going to cross the river." 

You continually distort history. US intelligence was estimating the Chinese had 30,000 troops on the border with Korea. Gen MacArthur, based on this incorrect intel, dismissed worries that the Chinese might invade to aid the North Korean side. Even after the Chinese were invading in force and pushing UN forces back the US intel estimate was guessing 100,000 Chinese troops, which UN forces should have been able to deal with. It was only later that UN forces intel realized there were over 300,000 Chinese troops invading. General MacArthur didn't start making the hoary pronouncements about nuking China until UN forces he commanded were in dire straits being pushed back to the original border between North and South Korea, a great personal humiliation to him that he grossly over reacted to and thus was fired. You are mixing facts around out of the order in which they occurred and completely out of the context of the war as it occurred.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Need to zoom out a bit. The US put forth sanctions - and there was easing and termination - that dictate what can be traded with Iran and in what currency whether or not countries agree with it or not. All the more reasons for China to "protect its own interests" a right the US is well familiar with. China does not want its tankers seized the day US decides to dictate who can trade with China and will see to it that its shipping lanes are secured. To equate this as an invasion of the South China Seas is pure propaganda.

China asserts national sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea inside that Nine Dash Line. They are asserting territorial sovereignty over international waters and airspace in violation of a host of international laws that predate the CCP in some cases by centuries.

Second, under international law, anything that is underwater at low tide remains international waters forever, even if something is built on top of it like a man made island built on a shallows.

Third, man made structures built in international waters have no territorial sea or airspace associated with them.

China builds man made islands on shallows in the SCS, then asserts territorial airspace over them and territorial seas and an EEZ around them both in violation of UNCLOS. There is also the little matter of China's fishermen attacking South Korean fishing boats in international waters in the Yellow Sea, sometimes even inside South Korea's EEZ and the activities of their maritime militias blocking access to islands and fishing grounds used by the Philippines such as the incident last summer with over 200 fishing boats tied together on a nice sunny clear day with flat seas, claiming to be sheltering from bad weather. Please don't try to make excuses for these violations of long established international laws governing the conduct of ships and nations at sea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sanctions against specific Chinese companies already exist because they trade with DPRK or Iran in violation of UN, not US but UN sanctions. Here is an example.

Which supports the argument that there could be further sanctions against China, especially with potential conflicts in the region. In the case of supply lines being cut off, China's Navy will have to meet their challenge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You continually distort history. US intelligence was estimating the Chinese had 30,000 troops on the border with Korea.

The conclusion is that the Chinese and the US fought indirectly in the Korean War. Next, you are saying therefore this warrants a 20 yea embargo? An embargo on China during the war is one thing but placing an embargo on a Communist state because they are Communist, no because they fought with us in the Korean War, that has ended, is okay?

Back to current topic, the supply lines and how to cut of supply line have already been discussed by US generals and so there is nothing to argue here. These are CNN interviews. China's military is guarding against supply lines in Xinjiang, in the South China Seas, and through Myanmar. This is not an invasion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites