GEOPOLITICA DEL MONDO MODERNO

Tag archive

Usa @en - page 12

South China Sea: what scenarios after The Hague ruling

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en di

The forecasts have been met: The Permanent Court of Arbitration based at The Hague, called by the Philippines in defense of their fishing areas, has expressed yesterday in a ruling that meets Manila requests and disregards the Beijing claims on the islands of the South China Sea. The Court ruled that the Chinese expansion violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international agreement that regulates the right of the states on the oceans, signed by 166 nations, including China.

How was equally predictable, given the statements of Chinese leaders before the verdict, the Asian giant does not intend to respect the ruling of the Court, to which it never wanted to recognize any jurisdiction over the maritime dispute involving the major countries of Southeast Asia, as well in Japan, the US and, to a lesser extent, Australia.

The so-called “Nine-dash line” claimed by Beijing covers 90% of the South China Sea and finds its shaky historical justification in the control of the archipelago of Paracelsus Islands, militarily withdrawn from Vietnam in 1974. China, over the past three years, has strengthened unilaterally its position by building artificial island along the coral reefs, where then installed civilian and military outposts and asphalt airstrips for the landing of its aircrafts.

In fact, the judgment further stirs the waters in a geopolitical theater already subject to frequent storms. China is convinced that no act of the court will ever questioning its national interests in the area. Moreover, the Hague International Court has no binding instrument to force Beijing to respect its judgment. The Chinese government, however, is concerned that the judgment favorable to the Philippines may trigger a domino of appeals from other countries whose coasts are on the disputed stretch of sea, among the most strategic globally by fishing and commercial point of view. The US, meanwhile, could use the ruling to reaffirm the  freedom of navigation principle, the banner that Washington carries out to safeguard their own economic and military interests in the area.

Beijing’s response is likely to be more important than the ruling itself and could point the way for future relations between the hegemonic power of the area and the bloc of nations that attempts to contain its expansion. The question is: what will China do? It will try to direct the development of events in his favor, or try other unilateral actions, even at the cost of exacerbating tensions?

Beijing could decide to be accommodating and, without publicly accept the principles of the judgment, could mitigate its positions, stopping the construction of artificial islands and recognizing the right of fishing in the disputed waters for its neighbors. In the long run, a conciliatory attitude could benefit the growth of the country, ensuring peace and contributing to the emergence of an international legal system more sensitive to its interests.

The events may, however, take the opposite direction. China may reject the ruling and, with it, reject UNCLOS principles, accelerate the construction of artificial islands and strengthen the military outposts, showing muscles to the Philippines and other ASEAN countries.

Beijing could also opt for a third way: do nothing and ignore the ruling. But to cement his leadership China needs to produce rules, not to ignore them, offering an image of reliability in terms of international law. A proactive approach is the only one that would convince other Asian countries to recognize to China a leading role in the medium and long term.

All actors involved should, therefore, openly or tacitly accept the principles underlying the judgment without pushing for a rapid implementation. China would take time to gradually adapt its initiatives to the new standards, in the name of political stability and for the affirmation of an international law which build its supremacy within.

At the moment, it is not easy to imagine such reasonableness, because the Asian giant also feeds itself with nationalism and revanchism against the western and pro-Western powers, which in the past have used the gauntlet to impose their interests to China. An official statement released just before the verdict came by the Minister of Defense, and wasn’t too conciliatory: “Chinese armed forces will firmly safeguard national sovereignty, security and maritime interests and rights, firmly uphold regional peace and stability, and deal with all kinds of threats and challenges.”

Today Beijing feels as strong as ever and could decide to challenge the common rules to force opponents to accept its own. In this case even peace itself would be at risk, because an increase in the construction of civil and military infrastructure in the South China Sea would strengthen deterrence but would multiply the chances of accidents with the US and its allies. The escalation, at that point, may be rapid and uncontrollable.

The US warn Beijing in the South China Sea

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en di

The United States have decided to flex its muscles in the South China Sea to reassure regional allies and send a clear message to China, whose claims on the area appear more and more explicit.

[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]

Two Americans Carrier Strike Group (CSG), each composed of a aircraft carriers and other warships of large size, started last Saturday a series of military exercises in the territorial waters of the Philippines, a key ally in the dispute for the control of the South Asian seas.

The drill involved the nuclear-powered aircraft carriers Ronald Reagan and John C. Stennis, 12,000 sailors, 140 aircraft and six battleships, a few days from the judgment that an international court is preparing to issue about the Chinese claims on the disputed sea stretches. The message is clear: the US does not intend to leave field to the Chinese opponent and regional allies, from the Philippines, will not be left alone in the face of Beijing’s pressures.

The American ships began to carry out air defense, maritime surveillance and long-range attack maneuvers, showcasing their firepower not far from the disputed waters, in which China continues its constructive activities of artificial atolls for civilian and military purposes.

The intent of the drills, in the formal language of the navy information bulletins, would be to promote the freedom of navigation and overflight in the waters and on the skies of the area. The statements that come from commands better clarify the purpose of the drill: ” (This) has been a great opportunity for us to train on how we would operate multiple Carrier Strike Sroups in a contested environment” explained Admiral John Alexander .

By Philippine, military mobilization is the clear demonstration that the US is determined to give credence to their ” ironclad commitment”, reiterated on several occasions, in favor Asian ally. ” e welcome the strong cooperation and partnership we have with our friends and allies … in light of (the dispute) where our legitimate rights have been overstepped” said Peter Galvez, spokesman of the Philippine Department of Defense.

The reference is to the decision, expected in a few weeks, in which the Court of Permanent Arbitration of The Hague will speak about the legitimacy of the Beijing claims on the the South China Sea waters, one of the most important navigable areas of the world, from economic and strategic points of view, on which also overlook Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan and on which the interests of China, US and Japan gather.

The ruling will likely be favorable to the Philippines, which addressed to the international court to counter Chinese expansion. China, for its part, has decided to ignore the court, to which does not recognize any jurisdiction over the matter, and did not take part in the proceedings.

 

Luca Marchesini

[/level-european-affairs]

North Korea tests a new ballistic missile

Asia @en di

North Korea has taken another step towards one of its priority objectives: to create an inter-continental missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and hit accurately the enemy, even thousands of kilometers away.

[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]

In the last hours in fact, the state media have spread the news that North Korea has successfully tested a new solid-fuel engine that can significantly increase the power of its missile arsenal. The test is part of a larger project, aimed at developing a long-range ballistic missile (ICBM, InterContinental Ballistic Missile), which appears to progress rapidly despite UN sanctions and the numerous warnings issued by South Korea.

After the recent nuclear tests in January, North Korea, therefore, continues to move recklessly on the ridge that divides the bellicose rhetoric against the enemies of the South and the United States and the actual developments in terms of military technology.

The national news agency, KCNA, has proudly hailed the success of the new test, which “has  helped boost the power of ballistic rockets,” adding that North Korean engineers will soon be able to test new weapons “capable of striking mercilessly hostile forces “.

Even President Kim Yong-Un attended the demonstration launch, celebrating immediately its success. “This is a historic and memorable day,” he said in front of the microphones and notebooks of regime’s information.

The test actually strengthens the position of Pyongyang after that last week, according to reports by local media, launch and re-entry into the atmosphere of a ballistic missile, that could sooner or later be equipped to carry a miniaturized nuclear warhead, have been tested successfully.

The military tests, once again, was alternated by the rhetoric of provocation. On Wednesday the North has threatened to strike the presidential office of the South with a battery of large caliber rockets, adding that special army units are ready to go into action. South Korean President Park Geun-hye has decided to answer to the attempt at intimidation, ordering to increase the alert level and asking the army to be ready to respond to the “reckless provocations” by Pyongyang.

The tension on the Korean Peninsula therefore backs to rise dangerously, in a time when the Northern regime feels caught between the new sanctions imposed by the UN after the last nuclear tests, and joint military drills that the South and the US are conducting, as every year, at a short distance.

Drills that obviously alarmed Pyongyang, which considers them as “nuclear war moves” to which it must respond decisively.

Despite progress in terms of solid fuel engines, experts believe that North Korea will not be able, for many years, to threaten the United States with ICBMs. Probably part of the verbal and propagandistic escalation of Pyongyang can be connected to internal reasons. Soon it should be held the first congress of the Workers Party of North Korea after 35 years and the current leadership, represented by President Kim Yong-Un, the last of the Kim’s dynasty, needs to bring to the table some important success on the military field to reassert its legitimacy as supreme leader.

 

Luca Marchesini

[/level-european-affairs]

The strategic interests of China and the US collide

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en/South Asia di

Over the past decade China has grown enormously, redefining its role in economic and geopolitical level and assuming the characteristics of a true global power. Despite the great changes and the fast pace that has marked them, the Beijing strategic imperatives continue to be the same, at least in part.

On top of the list is still the maintenance of internal unity in regions where prevails the Han ethnic group, located mainly along the two major rivers, the Yellow and the Yangtze. These territories are home to the bulk of China’s population and the main sectors of industry and national agriculture. Keeping the unity in this macro-areas is vital to ensure the cohesion of the Asian giant and to consolidate the role of the Communist Party of China as the hegemonic force. The goal is not easy, though. Uniformity is only theoretical, since the majority ethnic group in the country differs internally through cultural, social and economic articulations that complicate the search for a balance. The economic slowdown also contributes to make the picture even more complex.

Another key challenge concerns the control of the buffer regions, those more remote, inhabited in the past by nomadic populations, and characterized, for a long time, from poorly defined borders. Over the centuries the China of the Han fought with its neighbors, finally being able to integrate many peripheral regions, from Manchuria to Mongolia, passing through Xinjiang, Tibet and Yunnan. Today these areas are of strategic importance to Beijing and help make the country the power that is, but pose multiple challenges for the central government in terms of cohesion and ethnic policies.

The third link in the chain of priorities refers to the protection of the coasts, which cover about 18,000 kilometers from Vietnam to North Korea. For much of its history China has relied heavily on the inner dimensions and land trade routes to grab the necessary resources, paying little attention to the seas. For a long time, then, China did not want to have a powerful naval force, focusing on the defense of the coast from the ground and developing alternative navigation systems, through a complex network of internal channels. Today the situation has changed considerably, and China is strengthening its military fleet. In these waters, however, the distance with the American adversary is still considerable and defense policies still focus on strengthening coastal defenses.

Alongside these three historical imperatives, the economic growth of the past decade has revealed a fourth strategic objective: the defense of trade routes, resources and markets from foreign interference. Today China imports much as exports, is no longer independent as before. The foreign trade has become vital, as well as external investment to acquire technology and know-how. The affirmation of this new paradigm sought greater military, financial and policy presence internationally and has led inevitably to a more direct confrontation with the US and its strategic interests.

The US, on the external level, consider as vital the control of the oceans and the containment of emerging powers, China in the first place. Beijing, for its part, believes that its economic stability may be jeopardized by the American dominance on the seas and trade routes and is strengthening the fleet to increase the weight of his presence.

The strategic interests of the two powers collide and from the outcome of the battle will depend the future geopolitical order. The main game now is in the South China Sea where China claims ownership of some archipelagos to extend its control over the area and limit US hegemony on the southern Asia seas. The US sees this expansionist policy as a threat to freedom of navigation and as a signal of excessive aggression on the part of a rising power, more and more difficult to contain. Both countries have their own reasons and both are pushed by the imperative defense of their strategic interests.

The opposition has now extended also to the field of international finance. Thanks to the dollar power and to the influence that this guarantees in international markets, the US has always been able to dictate the rules of the international economy, relegating China to a secondary role. To break the system, China is pushing for the creation of an alternative trading and international finances system and shall seek to increase its role in the World Bank and other international financial institutions.

Ultimately, the crucial interests of China and the United States are entering in conflict at different levels, both militarily and economically, and none of the contenders can simply wait for the other making his moves. The risk of waiting would be likely to exceed the cost of action. The outcome of the battle is not yet predictable and we do not know how the current strategies will evolve. What is certain is that one of the contenders, if not both, will have to give up part of its strategic objectives.

 

Luca Marchesini

Beijing: more billionaires than New York

Asia @en di

 

It was only a matter of time, in fact. In 2014 we witnessed the overtaking of China on the United States in the challenge of GDP, two years later a new record confirms the change of paradigm in the global economy and the consolidation of the Asian giant as the new leader.

[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]

According to data compiled by Hurun Report, a Chinese publisher specialized in the field of luxury, which annually draws up the list of the super rich of the country, the capital Beijing now has a number of billionaires higher than that claimed by New York. 100 to 95, is the final result, but the measure of change is not given by the five billionaires of difference, rather by the Chinese “rate of growth”. In the last year the exclusive club of billionaires in Beijing has opened its doors to 32 new members, compared with an increase of just 4 elements for  the economic and financial Big Apple élite. In third place, the Moscow of old and new riches, with 66 billionaires registered at the luxury registry.

The crisis in Asian markets, in recent weeks, has burned thousands of billions, but it does not seem, therefore, capable to stop the process of concentration of wealth in a few hands, as happens in every authentic capitalist country. “Despite its own slowdown and falling stock markets — says Rupert Hoogewerf, chief researcher and Chairman of Hurun Report –  China minted more new billionaires than any other country in the world last year, mainly on the back of new listings”.

Although the match between Beijing and New York appear to be particularly symbolic, China had already achieved similar record nationally, last October, as attested by the Hurun Report. According to the new data, just published, the Asian Dragon now offers accommodation and shelter to 568 billionaires, 90 more than last year. To get an idea, just know that the combined wealth of these 568 McDucks amount  to 1400 billion dollars, equal to the Gross Domestic Product of the entire Australia. Of these, 40% have less than forty years, a demographic advantage that may impact on the charts in the coming years. The United States, once again, arrive in second position, with 535 stars and stripes billionaires, two fewer than the previous year. And this is also a fact to think about.

At the level of individual wealth, however, the Chinese captains still don’t occupy the first rows. The richest, in China, is the tycoon Wiang Jianlin, basically unknown outside of national boundaries. Wang is chairman of Dalian Wanda Group, the largest Chinese real estate enterprise, and owns AMC Entertainment Holdings, the largest theater operator in the world. His personal fortune amount to 26 billion, according to Hurun Report, and in the ranking of the wealthiest men on the planet occupies the twenty-first position. Not enough to outclass people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and the financier Warren Buffet.

Again, we imagine, it is only a matter of time before Jianglin and handful of his countrymen overtake US celebrities of wealth. The leading group include Jack Ma, founder of the mega-portal of e-commerce Alibaba and the heads of tech giants such as Tencent, Baidu and Xiaomi, which is preparing to invade Western markets with its economic and technologically advanced smartphones. Good Morning China.

 

Luca Marchesini

[/level-european-affairs]

 

 

Chinese missiles on a disputed island

Asia @en/BreakingNews @en di

 

On 14 February, the images captured by a satellite, showed the presence of new military installations on a small island in the Paracels archipelago in the South China Sea, occupied by China and claimed by its neighbors, particularly Taiwan and Vietnam. The island, once known as Woody on nautical charts, was annexed by Beijing in 1956 under the name of Yongxing.

It is probably two HQ-9 batteries, able to arm eight surface-to-air missiles each, with a range which experts estimate at about 200 kilometers, capable of hitting aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic. Their deployment further exacerbates the tension along the already troubled waters of the South China Sea, the theater for several years of a territorial dispute on a large scale, with major political, strategic and economic implications, in which all the powers of the region are involved, including Japan, and the United States, determined to defend its freedom of military and commercial shipping in the area and to limit the expansionist ambitions of Beijing.

The revelation, released yesterday by the Taiwanese authorities, has angered the Chinese who, at first, have thundered against the lies of the pro-Western propaganda, and subsequently reaffirmed their right to install weapons of “self-defense” on islands inhabited by Chinese civil and military personnel, “according to international law”.

The major concern for the Americans and their allies in the area, is that Beijing brings forward a unilateral project of militarization in the region, strengthening, officially for defensive purposes, a growing number of islands and neo-artificial islands, made ex- novo by Chinese engineers through massive drainage of the sandy ocean floor, there where once there were only semi-submerged sections of the reef.

The Yongxing island in fact already have an airstrip and, in November 2015, the satellites captured the image of a Chinese military jet landed on the outpost. The missiles deployment, according to experts interviewed by the BBC, may be a warning addressed to Vietnam, which continues to advance their claims on the archipelago, and to United States, after that, in January, an American missile destroyer sailed close to the island’s shores.

For now, Beijing has avoided to deploy military installations on the disputed islands of the Spratly archipelago, far away from the Chinese territorial waters and nestled between Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines, who are claiming themselves its possess. If the escalation would go so far south, Chinese action would be perceived not as a simple provocation but as an explicit act of hostility, with consequences difficult to predict.

The dispute on the South China Sea was also addressed during the summit just concluded in California, between the United States and the ASEAN countries, the organization of the Southeast Asia states. Just yesterday, President Obama, concluding  the meeting, reiterated the US call to stop any further “claim, new construction and militarization”, indirectly referring to Chinese activities in the area. Obama also said the US will continue ” will continue to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows” adding that the United States will provide their support to allies in the region so that they can do the same. A support that has been explicitly called for by the Vietnamese Prime Minister during the summit. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has appealed directly to Obama to ask that the US has ” has a stronger voice and more practical and more efficient” to achieve the interruption of all initiatives aimed at changing the status quo, clearly referring to China and its constructive activities on the Spratly archipelago.

The purpose of the summit was to find new common solutions to counter Beijing’s expansionism in the South China Sea and preserve the right to free navigation, a primary geopolitical interest for the United States in that part of the world. China’s choice to deploy a missile battery on the island of Yongxing in conjunction with the US-ASEAN summit is obviously not random and tends to reiterate Beijing’s intention to dispose as they please of the territories under its control.

For Americans and its allies a military escalation, although on a minor scale, has the flavor of provocation. A US official said to the microphones of CNN that the deployment of the missiles, which occurred during the summit, was a ” further demonstration of China’s attempt to unilaterally change the status quo” in the South China Sea. On the same line  is Japan, that by the mouth of Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga Yoshihide  has branded as unacceptable the initiative of Beijing.

The dispute looks set to exacerbate, especially if China decides to proceed with the creation of military infrastructure on the islands under its control, going further south. Another variable in play concerns the energy and mineral resources that could hide under coral beds. Geological surveys and drilling have not started yet, at least officially, but the discovery of oil or natural gas could further jeopardize the relations between the powers bordering on that slice of ocean.

 

Luca Marchesini

North Korea, and now?

Asia @en di

The day after the triumphant announcement of Pyongyang, which said it had successfully tested the first hydrogen bomb made in the nuclear facilities of North Korea, a demand bounces between the United Nations and the chancelleries of the major global powers: what to do now?

[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]

For now, it must be said, skepticism prevails about the actual extent of the nuclear detonation obtained by the technicians of Pyongyang. The explosion occurred in the north of the country, near the Chinese border, was recorded by seismographs with a power between 4.8 and 5.1 on the Richter scale. According to South Korean experts, such a seismic response could correspond with a power of six kilotons, about a third of that given off by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and substantially incompatible with what would have been produced by a thermonuclear device, whose power is calculated generally in hundreds of kilotons. For comparison, the thermonuclear test conducted by the United States, in 1971, on the island of Amchitka in Alaska, produced an earthquake of magnitude 6.8, exponentially higher than that recorded yesterday.

It was an atomic bomb, therefore, and not an hydrogen one, that would require a technology that the regime of President Kim Yong-A probably still does not have. However, yesterday’s is the fourth test of North Korea, after those of 2006, 2009 and 2013; an explicit provocation against the American enemy, South Korea, Japan, Chinese ally, increasingly frustrated by the actions of the regime and, in general, of the international community. One answer seems inevitable, while studying new strategies to contain the North Korean threat in the medium term.

The Security Council of the United Nations immediately expressed its strong condemnation, saying that ” a clear threat to international peace and security continues to exist “, and announced new measures against Pyongyang for which is expected, in short, a resolution.

Among the most determined, the Japanese ambassador to the UN, Motohide Yoshikawa, who has called for a quick and vigorous resolution. ” The authority and credibility of the Security Council – he said – will be put in question if it does not take these measures.” It is not clear yet what kind of sanctions should be adopted and in what timeframe, while Russia pulls the brake, through his ambassador, not guaranteeing Moscow’s support for the adoption of additional sanctions. Indeed Pyongyang seems determined to go forward on the path of nuclear power, despite international condemnation and sanctions triggered by previous nuclear tests. Why should it be different this time?

A question that is not so relevant for the historical opponents of the regime. US, South Korea and Japan said they are prepared for a unified response against Pyongyang. President Obama has spoken with South Korean Prime Minister Park Geun-Hye and with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and then he has declared that three leaders agreed to ” agreed to work together to forge a united and strong international response to North Korea’s latest reckless behaviour”. He was echoed by President Abe: ” We agreed that the provocative act by North Korea is unacceptable… We will deal with this situation in a firm manner through the cooperation with the United Nations Security Council “, but added that Japan intends, if it will consider it necessary, to take unilateral measures. Seoul has finally released an official statement, asking the international community to ensure that “North Korea pays the corresponding price ” for its nuclear tests. In parallel, it has restricted access to the industrial park in Kaesong, managed jointly by the North and South and announced the restoration of propaganda broadcasts across the North Korean borders, interrupted in 2015 to ease tensions with the neighbor.

After this phase of hot reactions and new sanctions organization, it will be necessary to understand how to deal with a country that has a nuclear arsenal consisting of twenty devices (atomic or hydrogen they may be) and that might be able today, or in the short term, to mount a nuclear warhead on a medium-range missile, capable of threatening the South, Japan, the US troops stationed in the area and, perhaps, even the western coasts of the United States.

UN sanctions never had appreciable effects and the strategy of “strategic patience”, adopted by the US, could be tinged with excessive optimism. The idea that the sanctions could oblige the North Korean regime to yield and accept nuclear disarmament looks less and less convincing. To date, the US has refused to negotiate, if not on their terms, with North Korea, then choosing a different strategy from the one adopted for Iran, which has led to the recent negotiations and the subsequent agreement with Tehran.

As argued recently by Stephen W. Bosworth, the first Obama’s special envoy for North Korea, ” Whatever risks might be associated with new talks, they are less than those that come with doing nothing.” Since no power seems really willing to challenge militarily a dangerous enemy as North Korea, the game will have to be played on the field of diplomacy, before Pyongyang’s arsenal will be strengthened further and its missiles pointing technology taken to an higher level.

The strategy of Kim Yong-A is clear: the nuclear arsenal is a life insurance for the country and its enemies have only to lose, in front of the prospect of a dramatic conflict. Whether they like it or not, they will have to accept to sit at the negotiating table and recognize to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea the status of nuclear power. It is too early to say whether the facts will give him reason but the wind caused by the explosion, for now, seems to blow in his favor.

 

Luca Marchesini

[/level-european-affairs]

 

Libya: waiting for UN approval

Miscellaneous di

As announced following the International Conference in Rome, the Libyan factions, all of Tripoli and Tobruk, signed deal for unitt government in Skhirat (Morocco).The Presidential Council, composed of president Sarraj Fayez, three vicepresidents on behalf of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan and other five representatives, have to form new government within 40 days. Moreover, the UN Security Council will vote terms of military operation in the next days, to make safe Tripoli and train local forces. This international coalition will be led by Italy, while Great Britain will send 1000 troops.

[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]
December 17 the 90 representatives of the Assembly of Tobruk and 27 of the GNC Tripoli signed the agreement. The new Presidential Council, in addition to choose new government, will have to convince the presidents of two parliaments to accept the deal. Among the problems which should be solved, there is also the military intervention because several factions prefer the training of Libyan army, rather than a foreign operation.

The most important perspective is about the presence of a unique executive to allow, after Syria, to open another front to fight the Islamic State in Libya, where Sirte became the Caliphate stronghold.

Some US troops are already present, as reported by many international media. As well as France and Great Britain, which reached Libya through southern borders.

And Italy? As leaked out by Italian Defence, the non-intervention in Syria, the contribution to the NATO mission in Iraq (450 soldiers will defende the strategic Mosul Dam), clearly show Italian line: optimize the best efforts, humanly and logistically, to the nearest, and therefore more crucial, Libya.
Giacomo Pratali

[/level-european-affairs]

Dispute between the US and China for control of the South China Sea goes on

Asia @en di

During the Asia-Pacific Cooperation Summit in Manila, which ended last week, President Barack Obama reiterated the US position, calling on China to stop the construction of artificial islands and new infrastructure in the area of ​​sea dispute. The answer wasn’t long in coming. At the summit of the ASEAN countries, held in Kuala Lumpur, Beijing, through the Deputy Chinese Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin, accused Washington of wanting an escalation and defended the construction activities at sea, launched in 2013 and still in progress today.

First Obama, at the opening of the APEC summit in Manila, last Wednesday, pushed the issue of the South China Sea on the political agenda of the 21 leaders. After meeting with the President of the Philippines, Benigno S. Aquino III, Obama spoke to the press urging Beijing to cease all military activity in that part of the sea and to accept international arbitration to reconcile differences with its neighbors in South-East Asia.

“We agree on the need for bold steps to lower tensions – Mr. Obama said – including pledging to halt further reclamation, new construction and militarization of disputed areas in the South China Sea,”

Without taking a position on the front of the territorial claims made by the involved countries, the United States consider free navigation on the waters of the contended area as a vital point. For this reason, they confirmed their commitment to the side of the South Asian governments who oppose Chinese expansionism, and ensured the Allies a contribution of $ 250 million for military spending.

Beijing’s response came on November 22, during the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur. Deputy Chinese Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin asserted the legitimacy and legality of Chinese government initiatives, reiterating that China has no intention to terminate the building of new facilities off its southern coast. Zhenmin then replied to the American accusations, denying that Beijing is proceeding to a progressive militarization of the area. From Chinese prospective, Washington should instead halt its provocations after that, last month, an American navy ship crossed a maritime area that Beijing regards as part of its territorial waters.

“Building and maintaining necessary military facilities, this is what is required for China’s national defence and for the protection of those islands and reefs,” Deputy Foreign Minister said, adding that Beijing intends to “expand and upgrade” civil infrastructure ” to better serve commercial ships, fishermen, to help distressed vessels and provide more public services.”

The two main contenders positions are, therefore, very far and nothing portends, at this time, a change of course by the Chinese battleship.

South China Sea: big dispute for its control

Asia @en di

The main players in this story are four: China, the Philippines, the US and Japan. The stakes are enormous: the control of the waters of the South China Sea, at the crossroads of the interests of the powers involved.

[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]

For months now, the US is engaged in a verbal escalation with China. Beijing, in fact, does not hide his expansionist aims on the portion of ocean that flow through its southern coasts and it is building artificial islands to move forward to a few tens of kilometers the limits of its territorial waters. A forced widening of the borders that is putting in turmoil Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia as well, since they advance their own claims on that same sea segment.

China has repeatedly asked the US not to exacerbate the mood flying over the artificial islands with its aircrafts and bringing the ships of its fleet to sail near their coasts. The United States has responded sharply, appealing to international maritime law, and securing to its regional allies the cooperation of the US Navy for the control of Chinese positions.

It should be borne in mind that, in this area of ​​the world, water control and the ability to put a national flag on even very small portions of landmass is not just a symbolic goal. In fact, the patrolling of certain maritime communications, through the construction of military bases, gives the direct control of shipping trade and access roads to economic and strategic fundamental resources. The control of an isolated rock or a stretch of reef may have serious repercussions in terms of economic growth and political stability.

For China is, first and foremost, a matter of regional sovereignty, with inevitable global repercussions. For the United States, the main concern is represented by the freedom of navigation in the Pacific rim, where the US has built its own supremacy, after the end of the Cold War, with the help of regional allies, primarily Japan and South Korea. However, China is now questioning this assumption, emerging as a new power in the South China Sea and making explicit its hegemonic ambitions over the area. A redefinition of the balances that Washington sees as a serious problem.

Supremacy on the water has always been a fundamental element of American global strategy. Control over the seas, assured by the military supremacy of the US Navy, guarantees fast and secure trade routes for goods going to or coming from US ports and allows to quickly move large amounts of troops in case of need, even at a great distance. But these same necessities have now become vital for China, a global power whose economy is increasingly focused on export and therefore require more control over maritime trade routes, especially in the South China Sea, rich in fishery resources and natural gas. China is therefore trying to reshape the status quo, taking advantage of the weakness of regional adversaries, unable to cope with the Asian giant on the military level, and the uncertainties of American rival, who seems unwilling to use the force of weapons to contain its expansionist ambitions.

However, the Chinese construction activities in the middle of Southern Sea provoked the strong irritation of the Southeast Asia neighbors, primary the Philippines who claim sovereignty over many of the small islands cemented by the Chinese construction activities. China, however, think that is possible to control the countries of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, acting directly on the organization at the political level and operating its economic and military levers against the single states involved. Beijing also trust to be able to manage the reactions of Washington, in the belief that the US will avoid any escalation, fearing a direct conflict in the waters of the South China Sea. The facts, so far, proved China is right.

It remains to understand what is the position of Japan within this puzzle. The power of the Rising Sun is perhaps the only opponent that China really fears, right now. For the first time in decades, Japan seems determined to take a more active role in the Pacific and the South China Sea. Tokyo recently has signed new agreements with Manila and other ASEAN countries to conduct joint operations and to facilitate the supply of its fleet and its aircrafts. In return, he offered to the Philippines and Vietnam ships and aircrafts for the Navy and the Coast Guard. Japan has also reached an agreement with the US to carry out joint patrol operations in the South China Sea, starting next year.

Why this new activism? Japan is an island, with few natural resources. Tokyo must therefore necessarily safeguard its own interests on the seas, to ensure the subsistence of the Japanese economy, and it has realized that the new Chinese expansionism is a threat that can not remain unanswered.

From the point of view of Beijing, the new policy of Tokyo is a serious problem, especially if Japan acts in synergy with the United States for the creation of a joint force in the South China Sea. The answer for now is diplomatic. Through various channels, Beijing is trying to persuade Washington not to engage in the side of Japan, suggesting that Tokyo would be pursuing only its own interests in the area. Looking ahead, China also suggest that the conflict could lead to a possible military escalation with the Philippines, supported by Japan, for of the disputed islands control. A scenario that would oblige the US to make a difficult choice: whether or not to intervene on the side of its ally, with all the military and political consequences that the decision would generate.

 

Luca Marchesini

[/level-european-affairs]

1 … 10 11 12 13
Luca Marchesini
0 £0.00
Vai a Inizio
×