Direckshun
03-25-2009, 06:51 PM
Thank god for ForeignPolicy.com, that's all I have to say. There was barely 15 minutes' worth of coverage on the spat between the unarmed American vessel and five Chinese ships.
US is doing its usual thing of sailing wherever they want, whenever they want, and about 200 miles off China's coast they surround us with five boats. There was no firing of course, but they sailed so close to our ship that we opened our firehoses on them. We scurry home, China condemns our act as illegal trespassing (it wasn't), then as Clinton gets China to relax, both sides told the press they "talked the issue out," and China even praised the Obama administration for taking the lead in resolving the issue.
Who do you think got the best of this exchange? What was China trying to accomplish?
There's a part of me that thinks this is a small skirmish that's worth the minimal reporting it's received. In the end everybody seemed pleased with each other, the Chinese obviously like Clinton and the Obama administration (at least as much as China can like us), and both countries would never dream of striking a blow on each other -- to paraphrase our current economic crisis, both countries are Too Big To Fail. Of course China's ambitious, and of course they're going to be touchy about their EEZ. Since we like to do whatever we want, stuff like this is icky but it's inevitable.
Then there's another part of me that thinks this is a serious matter masked as a small dispute. China's military prowess, especially its navy, is expanding considerably. While it's obviously no threat to us, China's coast is so massive that expanding their navy's jurisdiction would have drastic effects on such important locations as Taiwan, Japan, and the Koreas.
There's some debate for a decade as to whether the US should sign off on the UN's Law of the Sea. I think that this particular issue makes that strategy necessary. I know hardliners on the right have nothing but disdain for the United States being subject to the International Seaboard Authority, but opting out of it gives China a significant legal and organizational advantage if disputing Who Gets To Sail Where in the West Pacific becomes a serious debate.
I may just be thinking out loud here, but thoughts welcome.
US is doing its usual thing of sailing wherever they want, whenever they want, and about 200 miles off China's coast they surround us with five boats. There was no firing of course, but they sailed so close to our ship that we opened our firehoses on them. We scurry home, China condemns our act as illegal trespassing (it wasn't), then as Clinton gets China to relax, both sides told the press they "talked the issue out," and China even praised the Obama administration for taking the lead in resolving the issue.
Who do you think got the best of this exchange? What was China trying to accomplish?
There's a part of me that thinks this is a small skirmish that's worth the minimal reporting it's received. In the end everybody seemed pleased with each other, the Chinese obviously like Clinton and the Obama administration (at least as much as China can like us), and both countries would never dream of striking a blow on each other -- to paraphrase our current economic crisis, both countries are Too Big To Fail. Of course China's ambitious, and of course they're going to be touchy about their EEZ. Since we like to do whatever we want, stuff like this is icky but it's inevitable.
Then there's another part of me that thinks this is a serious matter masked as a small dispute. China's military prowess, especially its navy, is expanding considerably. While it's obviously no threat to us, China's coast is so massive that expanding their navy's jurisdiction would have drastic effects on such important locations as Taiwan, Japan, and the Koreas.
There's some debate for a decade as to whether the US should sign off on the UN's Law of the Sea. I think that this particular issue makes that strategy necessary. I know hardliners on the right have nothing but disdain for the United States being subject to the International Seaboard Authority, but opting out of it gives China a significant legal and organizational advantage if disputing Who Gets To Sail Where in the West Pacific becomes a serious debate.
I may just be thinking out loud here, but thoughts welcome.