It will be interesting to see how this plays out because it appears that the Chinese are all in, in regards to their South China Sea claims, is the US and its regional allies all in as well to deter them?
As a rising power, China is roughly charting the same course the Americans and Soviets did 50 years ago. China has land-based missiles, bombers, and missile submarines. And China is establishing its own bastion — in the South China Sea. This sea grab is a logical response to China’s strategic dilemma.
China’s coming submarine deployment is allegedly in response to the deployment of the American THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea. While it is true that the U.S. is deploying THAAD on the Korean peninsula, the system can only be used against missiles targeting South Korea — coming from China’s ally, North Korea. China’s explanation is designed to make Beijing look like the victim. But China, which has its main submarine missile base adjacent to the South China Sea, has been preparing to sail its missile submarines there for years.
China’s aggression in the South China Sea is not likely merely for aggression’s sake, or the result of a rising power feeling its oats. China is acting out of strategic necessity, something even more dangerous because it feels it is doing something because it must, not simply because it can. The ruling Chinese Communist Party has made the calculation that the strategic benefits — having a safe location for its nuclear missile submarines — outweighs the negative attention the country is receiving worldwide.
What does that mean? It means that Beijing is not going to back down. Chinese nuclear weapons, which are the ultimate guarantor of Communist Party rule, are involved, and anything crucial to the survival of the regime is non-negotiable. Barring a new nuclear strategy — perhaps one that rules out submarines and relies on land-based missiles hidden in tunnels — controlling the sea is a must. Beijing has access to other stretches of the Pacific, but they can be easily accessed by traditional rivals including Taiwan and Japan. The South China Sea, for example, is adjacent to a number of relatively poor, weak states. [The Week]
The Chinese television commercial shows a black man apparently doing painting work inside a home covered in paint. He begins to whistle at the Chinese woman in the house who is flirting wth him. The Chinese woman puts a laundry detergent pack in his mouth before grabbing the black man and throwing him into the washing machine. Afterwards she opens the washing machine and instead of a black man coming out a clean handsome Chinese man comes out. You can watch the video below:
This doesn’t surprise me, but the laundry detergent company said they intentionally made this advertisement to be provocative:
Xu Chunyan, an agent for Qiaobi based in the Suzhou, China, told the Times that the ad was meant to be provocative.
“We did this for some sensational effect,” she told the newspaper. “If we just show laundry like all the other advertisements, ours will not stand out.” [Miami Herald]
For those not familiar with China racism is not a big issue with them and this commercial is definitely racist. However, in the age of the Internet commercials like this can no longer just remain with a domestic audience. With that said what affect will the blowback on the Internet really have any affect on the company if they are strictly targeting the Chinese audience? Since their goal was to stand out to their domestic audience, the controversy on the Internet is probably only going to help their sales if anything because of the increased attention. Plus I just don’t expect a big movement with China to develop as a backlash against this company that would impact their sales any way.
Ri Su-yong, a vice chairman of the central committee under North Korea’s ruling Workers Party of Korea, is seen inside a car after arriving at Beijing’s international airport on May 31, 2016, in this photo released by Kyodo News. (Yonhap)
It is going to be really interesting to see what the Chinese reaction is going to be if in fact the UNCLOS ruling in regards to territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea favors the Philippines:
A satellite image released Feb. 23 shows construction of possible radar tower facilities in the Spratly Islands in the disputed South China Sea. | CSIS / DIGITALGLOBE
The simmering dispute in the contested South China Sea is about to turn to a boil.
With an international arbitration court ruling on the legality of China’s “nine-dash line” claim to much of the South China Sea set to be handed down in the coming days or weeks, experts say the situation is likely to get a lot more complicated in the months and possibly years ahead.
The case, brought before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague by the Philippines, is widely expected to end in a ruling favoring Manila, which says that Beijing’s claims violate United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreements about territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZ).
While both China and the Philippines are signatories to the treaty, Beijing has refused to participate in the process and vowed to ignore its ruling.
“The PCA is likely to determine that none of the land features at issue are entitled to an EEZ or continental shelf, and that some are not entitled even to a territorial sea,” James Kraska, research director at the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at the U.S. Naval War College, wrote in late April in a paper posted to the Maritime Awareness Project website.
“The decision will not make China walk back its claims or undo its island building, but it will challenge the country’s notion that the law is the instrument of the strong to control the weak,” Kraska wrote. “Ineffective as they are, international law and the moral authority of a liberal world order pose a central obstacle to Chinese ambitions.”
Another key result of the ruling could see China’s hand forced on the nine-dash line.
Analysts say a large part of China’s strategy in the disputed waters rests on the ambiguity surrounding its claims. Beijing has never clarified exactly what the nine-dash line claim entails, apparently in hopes of maximizing its gains. It has also used its man-made islands in the South China Sea to bolster claims to EEZs of 200 nautical miles (370 km) and territorial seas of 12 nautical miles (22 km).
“The nine-dash line is really what’s at the heart of this case,” said Harry Krejsa, a Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security.
“The court wants to bring as much clarity as possible to the South China Sea disputes while also being strategic about its ability to strengthen international norms over the long run,” Krejsa said.
But a decision in favor of Manila, one nixing the nine-dash line, will undoubtably prompt a furious reaction from Beijing.
“The whole situation is probably going to get worse before it gets better, but strategically, the case for international law and norms are going to get stronger,” Krejsa said. [Japan Times]
You can read more at the link, but if for example the ruling declares that the Scarborough Shoal is Philippine territory and the Chinese refuse to vacate it what should be the US and United Nations reaction to this? Economic sanctions? Is the US government willing to absorb the retaliatory economic impact that would come from China in response to such sanctions?
That is what some experts in China believe when compared to his competitor Hillary Clinton:
China features prominently in the rhetoric of presumed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who accuses the country of stealing American jobs and cheating at global trade. In China though, he’s only just emerging as a public figure, despite notoriety elsewhere for his voluble utterances, high-profile businesses and reality TV shows.
Although the government has denounced Trump’s threats of economic retaliation, many Chinese observers see a silver lining in his focus on economic issues instead of human rights and political freedoms. That could make him an attractive alternative to his likely rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Trump “could in fact be the best president for China,” Hong Kong Phoenix Television political commentator Wu Jun said during a recent on-air discussion.
“That’s because the Republican Party is more practical and Trump is a businessman who puts his commercial interests above everything else,” Wu said. Clinton, on the other hand, “might be the least friendly president toward China.” [Associated Press]
You can read more at the link, but considering all of Clinton links to Chinese money it seems like she would be the preferred Chinese government candidate despite her human rights rhetoric.
I am all for North Korea regime collapse planning, but does that mean that US forces need to be the ones entering North Korea?:
Instability within North Korea will lead to its collapse “sooner than many of us think,” a former U.S. Forces Korea commander says.
Retired four-star Gen. Walter Sharp was among five panelists Tuesday who opened a three-day symposium, sponsored by the Association of the U.S. Army’s Institute of Land Warfare, on strengthening land forces across the Pacific.
North Korea garnered most of the panel’s attention, driven by the volatile nation’s uptick in missiles launches and its fourth nuclear test earlier this year.
Sharp, who headed USFK in 2008-11, said he recently guaranteed Gen. Vincent Brooks, the newly minted USFK commander, there would be major changes on the peninsula before his tenure ends. [Stars & Stripes]
You can read more at the link, but I have longed believed that US soldiers should not step foot into North Korea despite recommendations previously made that 150,000 US troops would be needed to secure North Korea. Considering the advantages in culture and language the ROK military has why can’t they be the ones to occupy North Korea? North Koreans are programmed to believe that South Koreans are puppets of the Americans and if US forces are seen with ROK forces in North Korea this will just validate this belief. Does the US military really want to occupy a country with a bitter population awash in weapons and explosives? Plus the threat of 150,000 US troops entering North Korea is the reason why China keeps the Kim regime in power in the first place. What would the US government think if 150,000 Chinese soldiers showed up on our border with Mexico?
I just do not see how 150,000 US soldiers showing up in a collapsed North Korean state benefits the ROK, North Korea and most importantly the United States? Maybe I am missing something, but can anyone else make an argument why there needs to be a US military occupation of North Korea?
It would seem to me that of all the provocations that the North Koreans do, the nuclear tests are probably the ones that most concern the Chinese considering how close they are occurring to their border. It seems for now they may have been able to convince the Kim regime to delay their fifth nuclear test:
China reportedly speculates that an internal political assessment led to North Korea’s decision not to conduct a nuclear test around the time of its ruling party congress held early this month.
According to a senior South Korean government official stationed in China who spoke to reporters in Beijing on Thursday, China urged North Korea to refrain from carrying out its fifth nuclear test. The source quoted a senior Chinese official but added that it can’t be concluded that Pyongyang stopped short of a test just because of China’s request.
The official said that Beijing believes the North must have politically evaluated that a nuclear test will be a minus to the party congress. [KBS World Radio]
