Secretary of State-to-be Rex Tillerson testified to Congress on Wednesday that America needs to take a harder line against China in the South China Sea. “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops,” Tillerson said. “And second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” This tougher stance is necessary, he says, to deter China from further “pushing the envelope.”
James Kraska, Professor in the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at the U. S. Naval War College, agrees  with Tillerson, even while admitting that this could be a dangerous policy: “Wouldn’t this raise tension in the region? It surely would, but anything other than acquiescence to China’s unlawful claims will have to take on additional risk in the short term.”
There are several strategic justifications for why America must stand up to China’s expansive territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea. One involves defending our allies in the region and making sure China’s activities don’t threaten their security. Another is about upholding international order and freedom of the seas.
China’s neighbors, although certainly eager to let the United States take the lead in defending their regional interests, seem to have a more sober and realistic view of China than Tillerson. They cooperate diplomatically and trade with China when it suits them, and make a fuss when China seems to push the envelope. The Philippines has recently pivoted towards better relations with China , despite the fallout over the ruling , in the Philippines’ favor, of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague. And Japan still spends only 1 percent of its GDP on defense, less than half the global average , hardly an indication that Tokyo expects a military clash with China over the Senkaku/Diayu islands.
The second justification, that America needs to uphold international law and order, is even more dubious. First of all, as a great power, China is in good company in ignoring the precepts of international law. As the Harvard political scientist Graham Allison recently made clear : “no permanent member of the UN Security Council has ever complied with a ruling by the PCA on an issue involving the Law of the Sea. In fact, none of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court’s ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests.” No state has sued the United States under the UN Law of the Sea because Washington refuses to ratify it in the first place. When the PCA ruled in 2015 that the United Kingdom violated the Law of the Sea over the Chagos Islands, Britain disregarded it. And in 2013, when the PCA ruled against Russia on the Law of the Sea over its seizure of a Dutch vessel off the coast of Russia, Moscow ignored it. So when U. S. officials say military action in the South China Sea is necessary to uphold international law, they’re applying the traditional “for thee but not for me” rule.
There is a longer term question about whether the South China Sea will serve as a precedent for China’s rise to superpower status, overtaking the United States and revising the international order. China’s surpassing of the United States in relative international power is a very long way off , but even if it were more imminent, it’s not clear that China intends to upend the order that it has spent the past three decades conforming to. After all, China has gotten rich and powerful under this system. Ryan D. Griffiths, in an article in the journal Security Studies (gated) has gone so far as to argue that a Chinese-led world order wouldn’t differ fundamentally from a U. S.-led world order, though in the realm of territorial integrity it may actually be more stable.
The current debate about America’s posture in the South China Sea reflects a very narrow conception of the strategic options at hand. It shouldn’t be relegated to either (1) drawing a red line against China over remote islands of negligible strategic importance to the United States, or (2) ceding regional hegemony to Beijing. It is clearly in the interest of the nations in the region to come to a mutually beneficial agreement that establishes norms of behavior with regard to military presence, resource extraction, access to shipping lanes, and other activities in the South China Sea. And such a diplomatic achievement is perhaps possible. But by focusing solely on a crude deterrence model in which powerful adversaries meekly back down in the face of U. S. threats, we not only forgo those other peaceful diplomatic options, we make them less plausible.

© Source: http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/rex-tillersons-south-china-sea-proposal-wont-work/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

BEIJING — Chinese state media say Beijing and Moscow have agreed to take “further countermeasures” in response to plans for an advanced U. S. missile defense system in South Korea.
The Xinhua News Agency says the agreement was reached during security talks between the two countries in Moscow on Thursday.
Protesters attend a rally to denounce the planned U. S. Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) deployment in South Korea, near the U. S. embassy, July 13, 2016 in Seoul, South Korea.
The report gave no details and a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman on Friday said only that China has a legitimate right to defend its security interests. The proposed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, radar system aims to guard against North Korean missiles.
China has campaigned relentlessly against the deployment, warning of unspecified retaliation and prompting a sharp downturn in relations with Seoul. China says the powerful radar system can peer deep into its territory.
Lockheed Martin conducts a successful flight test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Weapon System at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii, June 29, 2010.
“Relevant countries shouldn’t use Pyongyang’s acts as a pretext to increase their military presence on the Korean Peninsula,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in April 2016.
Both Russia and China, North Korea’s now largely estranged ally, see the deployment as exceeding what is necessary to defend against any North Korean threat , and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said it would “directly affect strategic security of Russia and China.”
That could “add fuel to the fire of an already tense situation and even possibly wreck the regional strategic balance,” Wang said in April.
Their remarks came days after  President Obama told CBS News’ Charlie Rose  that the U. S. was working fast to position missile defenses in the region.
Mr. Obama said the U. S. military was “spending a lot more time positioning our missile defense systems, so that even as we try to resolve the underlying problem of nuclear development inside of North Korea, we’re also setting up a shield that can at least block the relatively low-level threats that they’re posing right now.”
The president also told Rose that while the U. S. military could “destroy North Korea,” such dramatic military intervention was not in the cards due to the huge “humanitarian cost,” and the fact that “they are right next door to our vital ally, the Republic of Korea.”

© Source: http://feeds.cbsnews.com/~r/CBSNewsMain/~3/ZVGckWnY40U/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

But they’re in it together, and the two appear to be taking steps together against US global hegemony.
The countries released a joint statement this week voicing their opposition to US and South Korean plans to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system, according to both Russian and Chinese state media.
They also plan to take countermeasures, but what exactly they consist of was not specified, according to state-run Xinhua news.
«We think the US-South Korean decision to deploy the THAAD missile defense system has seriously threatened China’s security interest. For the region, it will also break the strategic balance. So it’s completely understandable to see countries in the region firmly oppose this decision,» Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Friday. «China and other countries have to address our own legitimate security concerns and take necessary measures to safeguard our security interest. »
The announcement comes as the country’s National Security Office Chief, Kim Kwan-jin, met with incoming US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. According to Korean government representatives, the two reaffirmed that THAAD’s deployment will be moving ahead as planned.
The missile system is designed to take out incoming projectiles — and has been cited as a way to potentially stop a North Korean nuclear attack.
But Russia and China worry that the system is capable of much more than that and is a threat too close to their borders.
They believe THAAD will be used to track missiles from either China or Russia, and its placement in South Korea is an attempt to geopolitically contain the two countries.
«It’s natural and logical for China and Russia to take a joint position,» says Victor Gao, director of the China National Association of International Studies, citing that THAAD’s range.
Many in the Chinese foreign policy establishment believe that THAAD is a problem on the level of North Korea’s nuclear missile program, according to professor John Delury of Yonsei University.
«They see the United States trying to build this architecture of containment,» he said.
Trump’s ear
President-elect Donald Trump and the US are likely audiences for the statement, analysts say.
Russia and China’s joint statement drives a wedge in some of the foreign policy views Trump has explicated — specifically, that Russia could be a stabilizing partner and that China needs to be contained, according to Delury.
The statement also comes as his incoming Cabinet nominees are testifying on Capitol Hill, and airing some personal opinions that are at odds with the President-elect’s
«It’s a good time for them (China and Russia) to make this statement — the US is in transition and everyone is really unsure on what the stance of the Trump administration,» says Yvonne Chiu of Hong Kong University.
Boxed in together?
The joint opposition to the system has drawn Russia and China closer militarily, as both countries worry that it’ll box them in.
The difference stems from the way the system is viewed, according to Delury.
«Americans only talk about it in a tactical sense, it’s a useful tool alongside a bunch of others to deter North Korea or stop a missile mid-flight», he says. «The Chinese look at THAAD in strategic terms, and what they see is THAAD as part of a bigger picture of a missile defense network along its perimeter. »
Russia’s concern are similar.
With the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System launching in Romania last year, Russia now is looking at the prospect of facing US missile systems near both its eastern and western borders.
It’s no wonder why it vociferously complained when THAAD’s deployment was announced in July .
«Deployment of US missile defense systems in South Korea clearly goes beyond the tasks of deterring ‘the North Korean threat,'» Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said in October, according to Russian state-run Tass news agency. «We do not have any doubts that US, with support of their allies, will continue to build up the potential of the Asia Pacific segment of their global missile system, which will inevitably lead to disruption of established strategic balances both in the Asia Pacific and beyond. »
The Americans have a tendency to accuse both countries of exaggerating these claims, but both countries worry that the US is trying to surround the two countries with allies.
«China has a pretty good relationship with South Korea, and China doesn’t want South Korea falling like a domino into a US-led bloc, and let’s be honest, there are Americans who argue that’s what needed. »
Missile policy
Late last year, the US changed its missile defense policy for the first time in 17 years, according to Daniel Wasserbly of Jane’s Defense Weekly.
Buried in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act was an amendment to the 1999 National Missile Defense Act. It now calls for «robust» defenses against complex threats rather defenses against a «limited» threat.
It’s a change that’s likely welcome among American policy hawks, to help defend the US and its allies from an unstable North Korea, an increasingly aggressive China when it comes to territorial disputes and Russia meddling in its neighbors affairs and internal politics (not to mention the US presidential race.)
But from Russia and China’s perspective, the change — combined with the proliferation of missile defense systems on their borders — could be seen as proof that the US has the two countries in its cross hairs.

© Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_world/~3/UMFQiy1xwxg/index.html
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
President-elect Donald Trump’s Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson made waves internationally on Thursday by suggesting that the US should » send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”
Suggesting that China stop its building of artificial islands and militarizing them doesn’t sharply break with the Obama administration’s policy, but suggesting a blockade, or forcefully stopping China from sailing to its land features in the South China Sea, does. 
China’s response, muted at first, has come back strong, with state-run media saying «unless Washington plans to wage a large scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish. »
“Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories,” continued the Chinese media attack on Tillerson.
Bonnie Glaser , senior adviser for Asia and the director of the China Power Project at the  Center for Strategic and International Studies , also questioned Tillerson’s depth of knowledge on the South China Sea. «Some of the things Tillerson said were contradictory,» Glaser told Business Insider.
Reuters
«He was not speaking with notes in front of him and this is not an issue I think he is very well versed in. He may know oil in the South China Sea, but I’m hearing from some people on the transition team that he misspoke,» said Glaser, referring to Tillerson’s time as CEO of energy giant Exxon Mobil.
Glaser pointed to the more measured statements on the South China Sea before the Senate Armed Services Committee from retired General James Mattis, Trump’s defense secretary nominee, as evidence that Tillerson went too far.
“The bottom line is the international waters are international waters, and we’ve got to figure out how do we deal with holding on to the rules we’ve made over many years,” Mattis said on Thursday. 
Tillerson seems to want to stop China from operating in international waters. 
Additionally, Tillerson’s testimony contained a major contradiction. «Tillerson did say that there would not be any change to the US position on recognizing China’s sovereignty on land features in the South China Sea,» Glaser told Business Insider. «If we don’t object to China’s land claims, do we have a legal right to deny China access to its sovereign territory? »
Furthermore, if the US tried to blockade China from the islands in the South China sea, «that position would result in conflict,» said Glaser. 
If the US were to place «a cordon of ships around one or all of the islands, and the Chinese flew in aircraft to one of their new islands, what are we going to do? Shoot it down? We’d certainly end up in a shooting war with China. »
What, short of shooting the planes and killing the pilots, would stop Chinese aircraft from landing on their islands in the South China Sea? Xinhuanet
However, some legal experts do side with Tillerson. In a piece published Thursday in Lawfare , James Kraska of the Naval War College wrote the following: 
So while some legal basis may justify a huge US naval presence in the South China Sea blocking Beijing from its claimed islands, experts on the US and Chinese sides agree — such a measure could well mean war between advanced world powers with nuclear capabilities. 
Business Insider reached out to the Trump transition team about Tillerson’s comments on the South China Sea, and will update this story with any comments.

© Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/businessinsider/politics/~3/uxEElgF7r84/tillerson-south-china-sea-war-2017-1
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

BEIJING — Hundreds of thousands of Chinese travelers were packing airports, train and bus stations Friday as they headed home for Lunar New Year celebrations.
Officials expect that Chinese travelers will make almost 3 billion trips during the holiday travel rush that starts Friday and runs through Feb. 21. These trips include intercity flights, trains and local bus rides to villages for China’s 1.4 billion people.
Each year, it represents the world’s largest seasonal migration of people as families reunite for China’s most important traditional holiday. Also known as Spring Festival, it falls on Jan. 28 this year.
Travelers lugging large bags were rushing into the Beijing Railway Station on Friday morning to catch trains home.
Su Wenqi, a college student in Beijing, was lining up to catch a train headed to the northeastern city of Harbin. She said she was looking forward to reuniting with family.
“My parents and relatives are back at home and you feel safe at home, so I must go back,” Su said. “After a busy year, I really miss them.”

© Source: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/862063/chinese-head-home-in-world-biggest-annual-human-migration
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.