Present Conflicts Between China & US Signal’s Unpredictable Sign of the Times

The Guardian Express Newspaper (Las Vegas, Nevada, USA)

Contributor D. Chandler:

We’re at a strange time in history; where sanctions on Iran seems to make their leaders more resolute, while China is simultaneously flexing its might with confidence. Here in the U.S., it appears that we’re engaged as we increase sanctions on Iran and tell China we’re watching their slight of hand maneuvers. Along the backdrop, America has experienced the toughest economic decline since the Great Depression and even the weather has held us down with record temperatures hurling fire and brimstone in places never before seen. In the mist of our times of trouble we’re reminded that this time in history is foreshadowed by the native predictions on a Mayan stone calendar.

Specifically, Beijing is presently embroiled in a dangerous dispute with their Asian Pacific neighbors over the South China Sea. In recent hours China’s rhetoric directed at a recent State Department Press Release has tensions dangerously high. The Asia-Pacific website, ft.com, reporting just hours ago that “China and the US stepped up their war of words over territorial deputes in the South China Sea… with the Chinese foreign ministry calling in senior US diplomat to protest [recent] remarks by the US state department.

Reuter’s reported that Beijing determined that statements made by the U.S. in the press were disappointing. The news agency specifically said that the State Department finds “that China’s establishing of a military garrison for the area runs ‘counter to collaborative diplomatic efforts to resolve differences and risk further escalating tensions in the region.’”

Reuter’s reports that China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Zhang Kunshung “summoned the U.S. Embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission, Robert Wang” to inform him that the State Department’s Press Release “Disregarded the facts, confused right with wrong, sent a seriously wrong signal and did not help with efforts by relevant parties to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea or the Asia Pacific…. China expresses its strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition, urges the U.S. side to immediately mend the error of its ways, earnestly respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and do more to genuinely benefit stability and prosperity in the Asia Pacific.

Clearly, China’s rhetoric is quite aggressive and perhaps only an incident or two away from being able to retract. What makes their acrimonious behavior more alarming is can be seen as you peruse through a history of two decades in which Beijing has pursued a consistent policy in the South China Sea composed of two main elements: gradually strengthening the country’s territorial and jurisdictional claims while at the same time endeavoring to assure Southeast Asian countries of its peaceful intentions. Recent moves by China to bolster its maritime claims have brought the first element into sharp relief, while reassurances of benign intent have, however, been in short supply. Indeed, far from assuaging Southeast Asian concerns regarding its assertive behavior, China has fuelled them by brazenly exploiting divisions within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to further its own national interests. This was evident when

Commentaries in China’s state-run media analyzing the South China Sea issue have become markedly less conciliatory. Opinion pieces highlight several new themes in China’s official line. One theme is that China’s territory, sovereignty as well as its maritime rights and interests increasingly are being challenged by Southeast Asian nations and Japan in the South and East China Seas. China’s response, it is argued, should be to uphold its claims more vigorously, increase its military presence in contested waters, and, if necessary, be prepared to implement coercive measures against other countries. As one commentary notes “Cooperation must be in good faith, competition must be strong, and confrontation must be resolute” (Caixin, July 13).

Another theme is that, while China has shown restraint, countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam have been pursuing provocative and illegal actions in a bid to “plunder” maritime resources such as hydrocarbons and fisheries which China regards as its own (China Daily, July 30).

A third theme is that Manila and Hanoi continue to encourage U.S. “meddling” in the South China Sea and that the United States uses the dispute as a pretext to “pivot” its military forces toward Asia (Global Times, July 11). To reverse these negative trends, Chinese commentators have urged the government to adopt more resolute measures toward disputed territories and maritime boundaries. Nationalist sentiment, they argue, demands no less.

Recent measures undertaken by the Chinese authorities do indeed suggest a more hard-line position. Ominously, some of the initiatives have included a strong military element, presumably as a warning to the other claimants that China is ready to play hardball.

Perhaps the most noteworthy attempt by China to bolster its jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea was the raising of the administrative status of Sansha from county to prefecture level in June. Sansha originally was established in 2007 as an administrative mechanism to “govern” the Paracel Islands, Macclesfield Bank and the Spratly Islands. Sansha’s elevation was an immediate response to a law passed on June 21 by Vietnam’s national assembly, which reiterated Hanoi’s sovereignty claims to the Paracels and Spratlys. Both Vietnam and China protested the other’s move as a violation of their sovereignty (Bloomberg, June 21). Less than a month later, Sansha’s municipal authorities elected a mayor and three deputy mayors and China’s Central Military Commission authorized the establishment of a garrison for “managing the city’s national defense mobilization, military reserves and carrying out military operations (Xinhua, July 20).

Earlier, in late June, China’s Defense Ministry announced it had begun “combat ready” patrols in the Spratly Islands to “protect national sovereignty and [China’s] security development interests” (Reuters, June 28). Embarrassingly for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy, however, on July 13, one of its frigates ran aground on Half Moon Shoal, 70 miles west of the Philippine island of Palawan and within the Philippines 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The frigate was refloated within 24 hours, suggesting that other PLA Navy vessels were nearby when the incident occurred. These developments provide further evidence of the growing militarization of the dispute.

China also has moved to undercut the claims and commercial activities of the Philippines and Vietnam in the South China Sea in other ways.

In June, the state-run China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) invited foreign energy companies to bid for exploration rights in nine blocks in the South China Sea. The blocks lie completely within Vietnam’s EEZ and overlap with those offered for development to foreign energy corporations by state-owned Petro Vietnam. Accordingly, Hanoi vigorously protested CNOOC’s tender (Bloomberg, June 27). More importantly the blocks are located at the edge of China’s nine-dash line map and seem to support the argument that Beijing interprets the dashes as representing the outermost limits of its “historic rights” in the South China Sea. Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), however, coastal states are not entitled to “historic rights” on the high seas. It is therefore unlikely that any of the major energy giants will bid for CNOOC’s blocks—although smaller companies may do so if only to curry favor with Beijing with a view to landing more lucrative contracts down the road. If, however, exploration does move forward in any of the nine blocks, a clash between Vietnamese and Chinese coast guard vessels will become a very real possibility.

On the issue of ownership of Scarborough Shoal, scene of a tense standoff between Chinese and Philippines fishery protection vessels in May-June, China position remains uncompromising. At the annual ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in July, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi restated China’s sovereignty claims to the shoal, rejected the notion that it was disputed and accused Manila of “making trouble” (Xinhua, July 13). According to the Philippine foreign ministry, Chinese trawlers―protected by Chinese paramilitary vessels—continue to fish in waters close to Scarborough Shoal in contravention of a bilateral accord whereby both sides agreed to withdraw their vessels [1].

Following the ARF, China kept up the pressure on the Philippines. In mid-July, it dispatched a flotilla of 30 fishing trawlers to the Spratlys escorted by the 3,000-ton fisheries administration vessel Yuzheng 310 (Xinhua, July 15). The trawlers collected coral and fished near Philippine-controlled Pag-asa Island and Chinese-controlled Mischief and Subi Reefs (Philippine Daily Inquirer, July 27). The Philippine authorities monitored the situation but took no action.

In the past, after China has undertaken assertive actions in the South China Sea it has tried to calm Southeast Asia’s jangled nerves. At the series of ASEAN-led meetings in Phnom Penh in mid-July, however, Chinese officials offered virtually no reassurances to their Southeast Asian counterparts. Worse still, China seems to have utilized its influence with Cambodia to scupper attempts by ASEAN to address the problem, causing a breakdown in ASEAN unity.

In the final stages of the annual meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers (known as the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting or AMM), the Philippines and Vietnam wanted the final communiqué to reflect their serious concerns regarding the Scarborough Shoal incident and the CNOOC tender. They were supported by Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand who felt that ASEAN should speak with one voice. Cambodia—which holds the rotating chairmanship of ASEAN and has close political and economic ties with China— objected because, in the words of Foreign Minister Hor Namhong, “ASEAN cannot be used as a tribunal for bilateral disputes” (Straits Times, July 22). Attempts by Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to reach a compromise on the wording were unsuccessful and for the first time in its 45-year history the AMM did not issue a final communiqué.

The fallout from the AMM was immediate and ugly. Natalegawa labelled ASEAN’s failure to reach agreement “irresponsible” and that the organization’s centrality in the building of the regional security architecture had been put at risk (Straits Times, July 16). Singapore’s Foreign Minister, K. Shanmugam described the fiasco as a “sever dent” in ASEAN’s credibility (Straits Times, July 14). Cambodia and the Philippines blamed the failure on each other. Cambodia was pilloried by the regional press for its lack of leadership and for putting its bilateral relationship with China before the overall interests of ASEAN. One analyst alleged Cambodian officials had consulted with their Chinese counterparts during the final stages of talks to reach an agreement on the communiqué [2]. China’s Global Times characterized the outcome of the AMM as a victory for China, which does not think ASEAN is an appropriate venue to discuss the dispute, and a defeat for the Philippines and Vietnam (Global Times, July 16).

A few days after the AMM, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dispatched his foreign minister to five Southeast Asian capitals in an effort to restore ASEAN unity. Natalegawa’s shuttle diplomacy resulted in an ASEAN foreign minister’s statement of July 20 on “ASEAN’s Six-Point Principles on the South China Sea” [3]. The six points, however, broke no new ground and merely reaffirmed ASEAN’s bottom line consensus on the South China Sea. In response to the joint statement, China’s Foreign Ministry said it would work with ASEAN to implement the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DoC) (Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 21).

One of the six points calls for the early conclusion of a code of conduct (CoC) for the South China Sea, but the Phnom Penh debacle has made that target highly doubtful.

Although China agreed to discuss a CoC with ASEAN in November 2011, Beijing always has been lukewarm about such an agreement, preferring instead to focus on implementing the DoC. Undeterred, earlier this year ASEAN began drawing up guiding principles for a code and in June agreed on a set of “proposed elements.” While much of the document is standard boiler plate, there are two aspects worthy of attention.

The first is that ASEAN calls for a “comprehensive and durable” settlement of the dispute, a phrase that seems to repudiate Deng Xiaoping’s proposal that the parties should shelve their sovereignty claims and jointly develop maritime resources. Clearly, the four ASEAN claimants have rejected Deng’s formula as it would be tantamount to recognizing China’s “indisputable sovereignty” over the South China Sea atolls.

The second interesting aspect concerns mechanisms for resolving disputes arising from violations or interpretations of the proposed code. The document suggests that disputing parties turn to the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) or dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS. Neither, however, would be of much utility. While the TAC does provide for a dispute resolution mechanism in the form of an ASEAN High Council, this clause has never been invoked due to the highly politicized nature of the High Council and the fact that it cannot issue binding rulings. Moreover, although China acceded to the TAC in 2003, Beijing almost certainly would oppose discussion of the South China Sea at the High Council because it would be outnumbered 10 to 1.

UNCLOS does provide for binding dispute resolution mechanisms, including the submission of disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). China always has rejected a role for the ICJ in resolving the territorial disputes in the South China Sea and, in 2006, China exercised its right to opt out of ITLOS procedures concerning maritime boundary delimitation and military activities.

On July 9, Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying had indicated to ASEAN foreign ministers that China was willing to start talks on a CoC in September. Two days later, however, as ASEAN wrangled over their final communiqué, Foreign Minister Yang seemed to rule this out when he stated discussions could only take place “when the time was ripe” (Straits Times, July 11). At present ASEAN and China are not scheduled to hold any meetings on the CoC, though officials currently are discussing joint cooperative projects under the DoC.

If and when the two sides do sit down to discuss the CoC, it is probable that Beijing will demand all reference to dispute resolution be removed on the grounds that the proposed code is designed to manage tensions only and that the dispute can only be resolved between China and each of the other claimants on a one-on-one basis. Taken together, these developments have dimmed seriously the prospect of China and ASEAN reaching agreement on a viable code of conduct for the South China Sea any time soon. As such, the status quo will continue for the foreseeable future.

China is fiercely serious in demanding that they be allowed to have talks with individual countries, and unless the U.S. is willing to add the use of its military to the available solutions on the table, this situation in the South China Sea appears to be quite unwinnable, especially since Beijing has gone with a divide and conquer model of diplomacy.

All of this sudden friction between our foreign adversaries has led me to reexamine that ancient Mayan calendar, which ends on December 21, 2012. Non believers, who don’t dispute a literal end to the calendar, argue that this cessation simply signals a transition from one World Age to another.

The most prominent doomsday scenario suggests that on December 21, 2012, at the dawn of the Winter Solstice, the sun will be perfectly aligned between the Earth and the gigantic, rapidly rotating black hole located at the center of our galaxy. Reportedly, our solar system will pass through this black hole, resulting in a reversal of the Earth’s gravitational pull. As the story goes, this dreadful occurrence will trigger a series of cataclysmic earthly events, including earthquakes, tidal waves, floods, devastating earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and more.

Throughout history, man has looked to the skies for information. Astronomers, Astrologists and Seafarers have processed that information and given it practical application on Earth. The stars have guided our ships, our activities and our lives. A series of current stellar events have fueled the doomsday discussion.

One such event was the annular eclipse which took place on Sunday, May 20, 2012. It began at 5:24 PM, and hit its maximum at 6:38 PM. The eclipse ended at 7:42 PM. The moon covered up the sun with the exception of the outer fringe. The ring of fire that remained visible is called the “annulus,” the Latin word for ring.

Solar eclipses are rare and unsual. Most people find them to be fascinating and even mysterious. Among the other stellar items adding to doomsday speculation is the active sunspot region 1476, which is being closely monitored by NASA Scientists. Easily visible on the solar surface, 93 million miles (149 million km) away, this 100,000 kilometer, Earth-sized sunspot region is the most active since 2003.

Sunspots are points where powerful magnetic fields arise through the sun’s surface and emit solar flares. Although scientists are still struggling to determine why these magnetic fields become unstable and explode, it is clear that the energy released in the form of solar flares is equivalent to 10 billion hydrogen bombs.

Although the energetic particles from solar flares threaten astronauts and damage sensitive electronic equipment in space, those of us on Earth are protected by our atmosphere and magnetic fields. Still, solar flares have interfered with electronic signals, radio waves, GPS and other advanced technology tools.

More troubling are the geomagnetic storms due to coronal mass ejections (CMEs), huge bursts of charged particles and magnetic fields that explode off the surface of the sun. NASA recently reported that CMEs have increased in strength and are now rated a G3 on a scale from G1 to G5T. This enhanced solar activity has caused rapid changes to the shape of Earth’s magnetosphere – the bubble of protective magnetic fields surrounding the Earth – resulting in a geomagnetic storm. These mammoth sunspots are becoming troublesome, sending CMEs which, unlike regular solar flares, may be dangerous to earthly inhabitants in coming days. Some speculate enlarged holes in our protective magnetic fields coupled with a change in the direction of these solar storms might cause the Earth-ending disasters people fear.

The Earth is a highly unpredictable living, breathing organism. Arguably, this sphere has existed, in one form or another, for approximately 4 billion years. While no one may know what these changes in our weather, politics, foreign relations, and economic downturn may mean, it might be of some use to ask yourself if just a moment, what the heck is going down before our very eyes. If you’re honest with yourself, there is something just not right, and we might not be able to fix it.