The South China Sea's Gathering Storm
Keeping the peace in that region is going to be very hard .
Bullies don’t respect ‘friendly gestures’, they only back down when stood up to, which the West has failed to do.
And what would be a ‘friendly gesture’ to China? Recognise China as the sole sovereign of the South China Sea? Turn a blind eye to their behaviour towards Hong Kong and Taiwan? Be unconcerned about their ‘Belt and Road’ activities in poor but resource-rich countries?
Bullies don’t respect ‘friendly gestures’, they only back down when stood up to, which the West has failed to do.
Bullies don’t respect ‘friendly gestures’, they only back down when stood up to, which the West has failed to do.
For an economy with massive excess capacity (10x the annual steel production of the US), Belt and Road is an analog to the Eisenhower 'Food for Peace' initative, which dumped surplus US food overseas, thereby destroying the local agricultural economy.
[QUOTE=JustinHeywood;10896581]And what would be a ‘friendly gesture’ to China? Recognise China as the sole sovereign of the South China Sea? Turn a blind eye to their behaviour towards Hong Kong and Taiwan? Be unconcerned about their ‘Belt and Road’ activities in poor but resource-rich countries?
Bullies don’t respect ‘friendly gestures’, they only back down when stood up to, which the West has failed to do.[/QUOTE
They have bought so many politicians , they think they own us as well
Bullies don’t respect ‘friendly gestures’, they only back down when stood up to, which the West has failed to do.[/QUOTE
They have bought so many politicians , they think they own us as well
An alternative perspective might be that China is more than fully occupied keeping the peace domestically, given the huge disparities in wealth and the massive social pressures generated by their reliance on migrant labor from impoverished rural areas. China cuts hard nosed deals and is very comfortable with silver bullets to eliminate obstacles, just as various western companies do. So they are also determined to be respected, a real change from previous norms.
For an economy with massive excess capacity (10x the annual steel production of the US), Belt and Road is an analog to the Eisenhower 'Food for Peace' initative, which dumped surplus US food overseas, thereby destroying the local agricultural economy.
For an economy with massive excess capacity (10x the annual steel production of the US), Belt and Road is an analog to the Eisenhower 'Food for Peace' initative, which dumped surplus US food overseas, thereby destroying the local agricultural economy.
It was sixty-five years ago when President Dwight Eisenhower signed into law a program that would save millions of lives. The Food for Peace program has been our main tool for feeding the world's hungry ever since.
One of Food for Peace’s first tests was helping victims of the Korean War. Through food assistance and help with rebuilding agriculture, Food for Peace saved South Korea. Millions of South Korean children received nutritious milk at school to combat malnutrition. South Korea is today a donor of food aid to other countries.
Italy, Germany, Austria and other nations received Food for Peace donations to help complete their long recovery from World War II.
Today, with so much war and arms spending around the globe, we need more Food for Peace. It is ending hunger, which is the road to global stability. Our aid programs, including Food for Peace, can lead the way if Congress and President Trump provide them enough support.That's why for the 65th anniversary of Food for Peace on July 10, a group of charities is assembling on Capitol Hill at the Dirksen Senate Office Building. They want to show members of Congress what Food for Peace is doing and what more it can do if given enough funding. Bread for the World, Catholic Relief Services, World Food Program USA, Save the Children, CARE, Action against Hunger and others will be leading the event.
Congress must pay attention because we are facing massive levels of hunger around the globe. Civil wars in Yemen, Syria and South Sudan have dramatically escalated hunger and displacement. The conflict in the Sahel and drought in East Africa are some of the other crisis points now unfolding. Peace can never be won in Afghanistan as long as hunger and malnutrition continue there.
Food must be at the top of our foreign policy agenda, or it will most certainly fail.
Tragically, very little attention is given to food and hunger issues compared to military might. As Eisenhower once said, "The world cups its ear to hear the rattling of rockets. It listens less closely to the sounds of peace and well-being which emanate from the slow but steady improvement in world health and nutrition."
This lack of attention hurts because little funding is given to the program. In fact, the Trump administration has proposed reducing food aid and even eliminating some programs.
We need to remember how important food is for nations today. You cannot have peace if people are hungry and malnourished. No economy can develop if the people are weak from lack of food. In hunger emergencies you risk losing millions of children to the stunting caused by malnutrition. These children may perish unless that lifeline arrives.
Congress should increase funding for Food for Peace and also the McGovern-Dole global school lunch program. As part of these initiatives, we must encourage agricultural development in these countries so they can build self-sufficiency in supplying food.
We need to approach our foreign policy with a Food for Peace frame of mind, realizing that hunger is a global crisis we cannot ignore.
As Eisenhower wrote of Food for Peace, “My earnest hope is our people will put their hearts and minds into this effort. It is an effort that I consider in full keeping with American tradition — helping people in dire need who with us are devoted to upholding and advancing the cause of freedom."
William Lambers partnered with the UN World Food Program and Catholic Relief Services on the book, "Ending World Hunger." His writings have been published by the NY Times, History News Network, Newsweek, The Hill and many other media outlets.
More Stories
Amy Coney Barrett: Fellow Notre Dame profs push back on her portrayalsNEWS
Restaurant inspections: Popular Indian River County favorites are big violatorsENTERTAINMENT
Man, 62, found dead in tent off Oslo Road; IRCSO investigation ongoingNEWS
"Bullies don’t respect ‘friendly gestures’, they only back down when stood up to,"
Trouble is flitlicker that simplistic statement has been used as the justification for 95% of military actions in the last 70 years - and its often turned out to be simplistic & wrong and has turned into a disaster - Suez, Vietnam 3 times), Yemen (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Libya
you can see why people aren't very convinced
Trouble is flitlicker that simplistic statement has been used as the justification for 95% of military actions in the last 70 years - and its often turned out to be simplistic & wrong and has turned into a disaster - Suez, Vietnam 3 times), Yemen (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Libya
you can see why people aren't very convinced
"Bullies don’t respect ‘friendly gestures’, they only back down when stood up to,"
...that simplistic statement has been used as the justification for 95% of military actions in the last 70 years - and its often turned out to be simplistic & wrong and has turned into a disaster - Suez, Vietnam 3 times), Yemen (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Libya
...that simplistic statement has been used as the justification for 95% of military actions in the last 70 years - and its often turned out to be simplistic & wrong and has turned into a disaster - Suez, Vietnam 3 times), Yemen (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Libya
But if you’re looking for a more accurate analogy, look no further than Germany in the late 30’s. An oppressive totalitarian state expanding its boundaries on flimsy pretexts, constantly testing the resolve of surrounding democracies.
Appeasing that bully certainly didn’t end well.
I'd say most wars have complex roots and I'm not saying you should never fight a war.
But Germany in the 1930's has been used as an excuse (certainly in the West) ever since - and it's led to a lot of awful outcomes.
Two where "bullying" was successfully dealt with were the Falklands and Kuwait 1990 - but there you had clear casus belli, a clearly defined aim and a limited, conventional opponent.
I can't see China in the same light. No voter will support a major war against China over a few islands, nor will anyone sane risk an all out war against them. Are we intending to invade China? I can see we could evict them from a few islands but what if they then take over Taiwan? Are we ahead or behind?
It's very easy to call for military action - and on this site there is more than average support for using the military - but I always think of Isaac Asimov "violence is the last resort of the incompeternt"
But Germany in the 1930's has been used as an excuse (certainly in the West) ever since - and it's led to a lot of awful outcomes.
Two where "bullying" was successfully dealt with were the Falklands and Kuwait 1990 - but there you had clear casus belli, a clearly defined aim and a limited, conventional opponent.
I can't see China in the same light. No voter will support a major war against China over a few islands, nor will anyone sane risk an all out war against them. Are we intending to invade China? I can see we could evict them from a few islands but what if they then take over Taiwan? Are we ahead or behind?
It's very easy to call for military action - and on this site there is more than average support for using the military - but I always think of Isaac Asimov "violence is the last resort of the incompeternt"
I’d like to say that our leaders have it under control, but I think the Western democracies are weaker than they’ve ever been. And China knows it.
"Bullies don’t respect ‘friendly gestures’, they only back down when stood up to,"
Trouble is flitlicker that simplistic statement has been used as the justification for 95% of military actions in the last 70 years - and its often turned out to be simplistic & wrong and has turned into a disaster - Suez, Vietnam 3 times), Yemen (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Libya
you can see why people aren't very convinced
Trouble is flitlicker that simplistic statement has been used as the justification for 95% of military actions in the last 70 years - and its often turned out to be simplistic & wrong and has turned into a disaster - Suez, Vietnam 3 times), Yemen (twice), Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Libya
you can see why people aren't very convinced
I was also told bullies tend to back off like cowards when they come up against a nation that is similar to them in strength. I'm just wondering that if the nation that was the bigger side in most of those aforementioned conflicts has finally met someone who isn't going to be like Afghanistan or Iraq?
That article about increased British presence in East Asia? Well that's an example of an elderly frail former boxer who has suffered a bout of dementia and has deluded themselves into thinking they can take on a current heavyweight champ contender over 12 rounds.
This needs to be countered on the trade front not with military means. However it must be demonstrated that high seas and reefs are still high seas and not anybody's territorial waters. This is UN law accepted and signed by China.
China can have no interest to force the west to trade embargoes.
China can have no interest to force the west to trade embargoes.
Interesting article in thsi weeks Economist on defending Taiwan
The main take-away is :-"Defending Taiwan is growing ever harder. A decade ago China had four times as many warships as Taiwan. Today it has six times as many. It has six times the number of warplanes and eight times as many tanks. China’s defence budget, merely double Taiwan’s at the end of the 1990s, is now 25 times greater .
American intelligence officials do not think that China is about to unleash this firepower. The PLA’s amphibious fleet has grown slowly in recent years. China has never held even a single exercise on the scale that would be required for a D-Day-type campaign. Indeed, no country has assaulted a well-defended shore since America did so in Korea—with good reason."
They quote studies showing he island is very defensible given the will to do it.
However they reckon the Taiwanese military are tank & plane heavy (most war games show neither would last long in a real invasion) and short on anti-ship missiles that would make mincemeat out of a landing force. Worse they have a poor record of training, that only half of Taiwanese seem willing to fight inf there is an invasion and that only 20% think there will be a war. them of course is the question of what casualties the US and others are willing to take
The main take-away is :-"Defending Taiwan is growing ever harder. A decade ago China had four times as many warships as Taiwan. Today it has six times as many. It has six times the number of warplanes and eight times as many tanks. China’s defence budget, merely double Taiwan’s at the end of the 1990s, is now 25 times greater .
American intelligence officials do not think that China is about to unleash this firepower. The PLA’s amphibious fleet has grown slowly in recent years. China has never held even a single exercise on the scale that would be required for a D-Day-type campaign. Indeed, no country has assaulted a well-defended shore since America did so in Korea—with good reason."
They quote studies showing he island is very defensible given the will to do it.
However they reckon the Taiwanese military are tank & plane heavy (most war games show neither would last long in a real invasion) and short on anti-ship missiles that would make mincemeat out of a landing force. Worse they have a poor record of training, that only half of Taiwanese seem willing to fight inf there is an invasion and that only 20% think there will be a war. them of course is the question of what casualties the US and others are willing to take
The F 15 has a 110 to 0 record in air to air engagements. Many of these battle were with aircraft that were close to or equal in technical capabilities. The reason for this was not technology or numbers, it was the aircraft were operated by Western or Westernized Air Forces. This meant they had the overwhelming advantages in supply chain, maintenance support, training, exercising, and command and control.
China may have lots of ships and planes but they still have a culture that subordinates military competence to political fealty at all levels but crucially among the senior leadership. They can dabble at delusions of regional hegemony, but they will never be a threat to Western Militaries.
The question of Taiwan is an interesting one. I believe the chance of invasion is effectively nil. I think Xi has got to know that it would be a bloody, ugly campaign that would highlight the inadequacies of the PLA. Conversely an invasion of Taiwan would be a very bad indicator for the rest of the world. It would indicate that control by the Communist party was so shaky that a risky military adventure was preferable than dealing with domestic issues. This would be a very bad development and portend a potential very messy and uncontrolled reordering of China's internal power structure. That would not end well......
China may have lots of ships and planes but they still have a culture that subordinates military competence to political fealty at all levels but crucially among the senior leadership. They can dabble at delusions of regional hegemony, but they will never be a threat to Western Militaries.
The question of Taiwan is an interesting one. I believe the chance of invasion is effectively nil. I think Xi has got to know that it would be a bloody, ugly campaign that would highlight the inadequacies of the PLA. Conversely an invasion of Taiwan would be a very bad indicator for the rest of the world. It would indicate that control by the Communist party was so shaky that a risky military adventure was preferable than dealing with domestic issues. This would be a very bad development and portend a potential very messy and uncontrolled reordering of China's internal power structure. That would not end well......
Too late
It is the Chinese container ship which is the warship which has already subdued the world, in a trade war.
Look around you, at the clothes you wear the furniture you sit on and most of the items you touch. The majority of them were made in China. By small degrees they have turned the art of manufacturing into a world dominating force. Industrial villages are built around manufacturing plants, where whole tower blocks of workers move as one at shift change time. The workers are getting better paid and want more, their domestic market is vast, but is still geared to export.
Could the world just decide not to buy Chinese? We could probably live without the inflatable Santa dolls but many of the shelves would be empty. Millions of stupid Brits don’t know or don’t care where their cheap toaster comes from, only that it’s cheap.
This industrial strength has given China a sense of rebirth. They talk now of an end to the years of humiliation and plan for the 100th anniversary of the birth of the Chinese Communist Party. Absolute loyalty to the party is demanded with any dissent quickly stifled. World dominance by 2049 is a possibility.
Those that belittle the growth of their modern armed forces clearly do not understand what they are for. As an example, the rapid growth of significant numbers of high-quality ships of all types, now exercising in complex all-arms evolutions are there to be seen. The training is realistic with risks accepted. China wants the world to know what it has, what it can do and how often.
Add to this a strong Chinese leadership aware of the dwindling effectiveness of many western politicians and you see China simply ignoring the UN when it pleases them, changing their boundaries, when it pleases them, always pushing.
There is no need for China to fight anyone, just for China to be in a position where no-one else will actually fight back. Taiwan is a lost cause, but they are not in a hurry. Eventually one flag will replace another and the sun will still rise and fall.
The self-proclaimed unrecognised 9 dashed line (or 11) in the South China Sea is still there and is not going away, there is a lot of posturing and probing but it is all too little – too late. The island reefs that matter are already occupied and fortified. A refuelling base will be built there to support operations in the Indian Ocean and beyond. What is the world to do?
Get used to it.
Look around you, at the clothes you wear the furniture you sit on and most of the items you touch. The majority of them were made in China. By small degrees they have turned the art of manufacturing into a world dominating force. Industrial villages are built around manufacturing plants, where whole tower blocks of workers move as one at shift change time. The workers are getting better paid and want more, their domestic market is vast, but is still geared to export.
Could the world just decide not to buy Chinese? We could probably live without the inflatable Santa dolls but many of the shelves would be empty. Millions of stupid Brits don’t know or don’t care where their cheap toaster comes from, only that it’s cheap.
This industrial strength has given China a sense of rebirth. They talk now of an end to the years of humiliation and plan for the 100th anniversary of the birth of the Chinese Communist Party. Absolute loyalty to the party is demanded with any dissent quickly stifled. World dominance by 2049 is a possibility.
Those that belittle the growth of their modern armed forces clearly do not understand what they are for. As an example, the rapid growth of significant numbers of high-quality ships of all types, now exercising in complex all-arms evolutions are there to be seen. The training is realistic with risks accepted. China wants the world to know what it has, what it can do and how often.
Add to this a strong Chinese leadership aware of the dwindling effectiveness of many western politicians and you see China simply ignoring the UN when it pleases them, changing their boundaries, when it pleases them, always pushing.
There is no need for China to fight anyone, just for China to be in a position where no-one else will actually fight back. Taiwan is a lost cause, but they are not in a hurry. Eventually one flag will replace another and the sun will still rise and fall.
The self-proclaimed unrecognised 9 dashed line (or 11) in the South China Sea is still there and is not going away, there is a lot of posturing and probing but it is all too little – too late. The island reefs that matter are already occupied and fortified. A refuelling base will be built there to support operations in the Indian Ocean and beyond. What is the world to do?
Get used to it.
[QUOTE=HAS59;10902606]It is the Chinese container ship which is the warship which has already subdued the world, in a trade war.
Look around you, at the clothes you wear the furniture you sit on and most of the items you touch. The majority of them were made in China. By small degrees they have turned the art of manufacturing into a world dominating force. Industrial villages are built around manufacturing plants, where whole tower blocks of workers move as one at shift change time. The workers are getting better paid and want more, their domestic market is vast, but is still geared to export.
So true.Apart from the mad dictator/politician/capitalistic entrepreneur’s (war makes money) it is obvious that a conventional war is expensive. Easier, cheaper, and more profitable to buy the country by whatever means is available. Hence the rhetoric from American and other countries is we need to start making our own products and buy from home.
Look around you, at the clothes you wear the furniture you sit on and most of the items you touch. The majority of them were made in China. By small degrees they have turned the art of manufacturing into a world dominating force. Industrial villages are built around manufacturing plants, where whole tower blocks of workers move as one at shift change time. The workers are getting better paid and want more, their domestic market is vast, but is still geared to export.
So true.Apart from the mad dictator/politician/capitalistic entrepreneur’s (war makes money) it is obvious that a conventional war is expensive. Easier, cheaper, and more profitable to buy the country by whatever means is available. Hence the rhetoric from American and other countries is we need to start making our own products and buy from home.
The question is whether the well-off and established who make the procurement and force structure decisions are willing to prepare and pay the taxes. That said, look how well their government has done coping with the virus. Who's willing, again?
HAS59, about the only thing that seems reasonable is levelling the islands to push any aggression back to the mainland. Problem is, they'd just cause trouble in the Himalayas.
I think I've seen the same poll. The cross-breaks are really interesting - the number for the 18-24 age group is 90 odd per cent YES, a bit less for the next up. In other words, the people who would have to go and fight and the field grade officers who would lead them are up for it.
The question is whether the well-off and established who make the procurement and force structure decisions are willing to prepare and pay the taxes. That said, look how well their government has done coping with the virus. Who's willing, again?
The question is whether the well-off and established who make the procurement and force structure decisions are willing to prepare and pay the taxes. That said, look how well their government has done coping with the virus. Who's willing, again?