Friday, January 13, 2017

Another charge I’ve seen levelled against Tillerson re his nomination hearing: when asked about China’s illegal building and militarizing of islands in the South China Sea, he suggested this must end or, possibly more accurately, be stopped. China obviously didn't like the language and insisted it can do whatever it wants in ‘Chinese territory’, a statement which only China itself views as being based on fact. But fine - everyone knows what China’s agenda is here and no one should expect them to willingly renounce, deny or walk away from it - they view the South China Sea [and more] as theirs, they’re gonna take it, they see it as key to their security needs and related ambitions and probably more importantly, Xi Jinping and his standing committee boys see it as key to their survival and ambitions and anyone who doesn’t like it can go fuck themselves. This is their version of Manifest Destiny and they no doubt view controlling the China Sea as being no different from the US taking the American southwest from Mexico - but there is a huge difference: Mexico was a weak and corrupt country with weak, uninterested allies and only a nominal, non-vital, increasingly diminishing presence in the lands they lost. Huge difference.

Okay, we get that - but then various ‘western’ security and foreign policy experts started chiming in with criticism too, which amounted to saying: one, there’s nothing the US can do about it and - two, talking as if there is something you can do about it may lead to ‘war’. I find that criticism to be nonsense. What message was Tillerson to give other than the one he did? Go ahead China, have at it, there’s nothing we can do to stop ya? That would be far more destabilizing a message to send. You can quibble about the language he used, you can argue that maybe Tillerson should have fudged the message a bit more with diplospeak - but at the end of the day there’s only one answer to the question asked: we don't agree with what China is doing and we have to find a way to effectively counteract it. ‘Counteract’ may be a better word than ‘stop’ but regardless the message is the same and it’s the only message you can give - to suggest otherwise is nonsense.

Now, whether there actually is something the US can do about it - I dunno. Trump announcing he’s going to dramatically increase the size of the US Navy is a good start. I think there should be a frequent and regular display of US navy and air force assets in the ‘disputed’ areas. Taiwan is obviously a pressure point. A strong relationship with allies in the region is vital of course - but I’m guessing there must be things Japan would like to see done that Obama would not have been sympathetic to but Trump likely will be. Point is, China is a problem and will continue to evolve as such no matter what happens to its economy - indeed, you could argue that stagnation or a decline in its economic fortunes would precipitate worse scenarios than those one can imagine stemming from continued growth. Regardless, the problem of China will continue to play out and the US needs to able to confront it from a position of strength - anything else will lead to bad outcomes.

[Talking about what the US can do to counteract China’s moves in the South China Sea - why not join with Vietnam in reclaiming Spratly islands of their own? Vietnam is already doing so on one island I think - but would it be nuts for the US to help Vietnam expand on these efforts - and maybe the Philippines too [although Duterte is to say the least not entirely reliable]? Since I haven’t read anything suggesting a tactic like this it probably is nuts - I mean, as a possible move, it seems a bit obvious to me as something you might consider - that I haven’t heard anything about it could simply be a reflection of Obama’s weakness - or it could be a reflection of fact it is indeed a nutty idea. I dunno]