China's isolation at the Shangri-La Dialogue

Britain, France Join U.S. in Responding to Chinese Intimidation and Coercion in South China Sea

By Patrick Goodenough

Ships and submarines participating in the biennial RIMPAC exercise in 2012. The Obama administration invited China to take part in 2014 and 2016, but the Pentagon has rescinded the invitation for the 2018 exercises. 

Britain and France are backing U.S.-led efforts to challenge what Defense Secretary James Mattis at the weekend called Chinese “intimidation and coercion” in the disputed South China Sea.
The two European defense ministers indicated in Singapore – where they and Mattis were taking part in the annual Shangri La security dialogue – that their navy ships will conduct “freedom of navigation” operations in the region in the coming days.
French armed forces minister Florence Parly said French and British ships would visit Singapore in the days ahead before “sailing together to certain areas.”
“I mean those areas where, at some point, a stern voice intrudes into the transponder, and tells us, sail away from supposedly territorial waters,” she continued. 

“But our commander then calmly replies that he will sail forth, because these – under international law – are indeed international waters.”
British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, who spoke at the security event and addressed sailors onboard a Royal Navy frigate docked in Singapore, said Britain has sent three warships to the region, where their presence aims “to send the strongest of signals.”
“We believe that countries should play by the rules,” he said, stressing the importance of the “rules-based order.”
Like the U.S., France and Britain do not themselves have territorial claims in the resource-rich South China Sea, a vital thoroughfare for international trade.
As China has moved military assets to and around the islands, reefs and artificial islands it claims as Chinese, the U.S. has led the pushback.

China is engaged in disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei over resource-rich areas of the South China Sea, an area that includes some of the world’s most important shipping trade corridors. 

A recent U.S. “freedom of navigation” operation in the area saw two U.S. Navy warships sail within 12 nautical miles of islands claimed by China, Vietnam and Taiwan in the Paracel group. 

Their presence drew sharp criticism from Beijing although Vietnam, which accuses China of illegally occupying the islands, welcomed the U.S. move.
In response to steps taken by China to back up its territorial claims by deploying military assets, the Pentagon has rescinded an invitation to China to participate in a major international military exercise in the Pacific this summer.
While China is excluded from the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises – after participating in the last two at the invitation of the Obama administration – Vietnam has been invited to take part for the first time since they began in 1971.
Other participants among the 26 nations include several further countries locked in territorial disputes with China in the South and East China Seas, including Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei.

‘Much larger consequences’
Speaking at the security dialogue, which is hosted by the International Institute For Strategic Studies, Mattis had strong words for China.
He noted that Beijing has deployed anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers in the South China Sea and recently landed long-range bombers on an island in the Paracel group.
“Despite China’s claims to the contrary, the placement of these weapons systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion,” Mattis said, adding that it also contravened assurances Xi Jinping gave to the U.S. during a visit to the White House in 2015.
During a question-and-answer session Mattis described the decision to disinvite China from “the world’s largest naval exercise” as a “relatively small consequence” of its behavior, but warned there could be “much larger consequences in the future” if it continues down its path. 

He did not elaborate.
Militarizing features in the contested region, he said, is “not going to be endorsed in the world” and is not going to enhance China’s standing.
“There are consequences that will continue to come home to roost, so to speak, with China if they do not find the way to work more collaboratively with all of the nations who have interest” in the region.
Beijing’s defense ministry early this year invited Mattis to visit during the first half of the year, in what would be the first visit by a U.S. defense secretary in four years. 

Speaking to reporters as he flew home from Singapore, Mattis said he still planned to go to China, despite the tensions over the South China Sea.

Chinese Aggressions

Julie Bishop backs Japanese right to sail through troubled South China Sea
By David Wroe and Kirsty Needham

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has backed "the right of all nations" to sail through international waters after Japan decided to send its biggest naval warship through the South China Sea.
The move by Japan to send its Izumo helicopter carrier through the waters where Beijing has been expanding strategic control signals clear fears even among close US allies about Donald Trump's commitment to Asia, leading Australian experts said.
Ms Bishop, when asked for her views on the reports of Japan's planned naval transit, said: "The Australian government supports the right of all nations and their vessels to traverse international waters according to international law."

Overnight, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China had seen the media reports about Japan's actions, but hadn't heard Japan's official explanation.

Strategic scholars meanwhile said the Trump administration needed to do more than make vague, reassuring statements if it is to calm nervous Asian nations -- including Australia -- who worry the US might withdraw from the region.

The Japanese warship Izumo will tour the South China Sea for three months.

US acting Assistant Secretary of State Susan Thornton said on Monday night that the Trump administration would ditch the Obama-era US language of a "pivot" or "rebalance", which described a long-term plan to focus more military, diplomatic and economic attention on the Asia-Pacific region.
Ben Schreer, the head of Macquarie University's Department of Security Studies and Criminology, said Japan's decision to send the 248-metre long Izumo through the South China Sea reflected Tokyo's wish to signal to Washington that it would do more militarily in Asia.
This in turn was aimed at encouraging the US to stay involved, underscoring the nervousness among Washington's allies in Asia, including Australia, that the superpower would pull back.
"[The Izumo] is their most powerful warship so it sends a message and it sits within Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's policy of signalling to the Americans that Japan is within limits willing to do more … and getting American reassurance in return," Professor Schreer said.
Ms Bishop in a speech in Singapore on Monday said that many countries in Asia were in a "strategic holding pattern" as they waited to see whether the US would remain committed to the region. 

She called on the Trump administration to "play an even greater role as the indispensable strategic power in the Indo-Pacific".
Euan Graham of the Lowy Institute said the Japanese move was "a bold move" but how bold would depend on whether it sailed with US naval ships nearby or within disputed waters.
That would be "a significant up-tempo shift – one that would inevitably raise expectations of Australia", he said.
Andrew Shearer, a former adviser on national security to Tony Abbott and John Howard, now with the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said Japan was taking another step in a stronger security posture under Mr Abe, which came on top of a decision to conduct exercises with the US in the South China Sea.
"To me, this underlines Japan's commitment to upholding freedom of navigation, its growing concern about tensions in the South China Sea -- an international waterway that is vital to its economy as well as Australia's - and the extent to which other countries in the region are anxious about China's growing assertiveness".

Dr Graham and Professor Schreer said it was striking that Ms Bishop had so pointedly highlighted the wait-and-see attitude in Asia about Mr Trump's commitment to Asia.
Ms Thornton's remarks about the pivot or rebalance being "a bumper sticker" that was used to describe "the Asia policy in the last administration" might be damaging because there was nothing so far to replace it, they said.
"Until the US does more to fill the policy void … scepticism is inevitable about how far the inner core around President Trump are willing to buy into those as US interests," Dr Graham said.
Professor Schreer said: "If it's not the rebalance or the pivot, what is it? What remains of the engagement?"
Ms Bishop said of Ms Thornton's remarks that she was "encouraged during my recent meetings with the United States Administration, including with Vice-President Pence, Secretary of State Tillerson and National Security Adviser General McMaster that the US intends to remain engaged in the Asia Pacific region".

The Empire Strikes Back

Trump’s decision to repeatedly tweak Beijing’s nose was part of a calculated strategy.
By Benny Avni

You think you’re confused about President Trump? 

Imagine how they feel in Beijing.
They might’ve rejoiced this week when the new president fulfilled a campaign promise to undo the Trans Pacific Partnership. 

Obama designed the 12-country trade deal, in part, to reduce China’s economic clout.
So is Trump a China pushover? 

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice thinks so. 

On Tuesday she tweeted, “Trashing Trans Pacific Partnership is a big fat gift to China, a blow to key allies, and a huge loss for American global leadership. So Sad!”
But wait. As Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday, the new administration will “make sure” China can no longer do as it pleases in international waters. 

Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson went further in his confirmation hearing, saying America will prevent China from accessing artificial islands it’s built in the South China Sea.
Add in Trump’s post-election phone call with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wei, and his announcement later that he intends to fully reexamine the Nixon-era “One China” policy, and you get a new tone that suggests the days of coddling and being cowed by China are numbered.
“Trump has already put the Chinese off their game,” says the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano. 

“It really seems they don’t know what to make of him and how to best respond. They face a president who is willing to challenge them both on the military and economic [fronts], and they seem unprepared for that.”
Carafano, who has advised Trump’s transition team on foreign relations and national security, told me that once Cabinet secretaries and key members are confirmed and sworn in, China will be high on the agenda of the State and Defense departments.
It should. 

With growing economic clout and an increasingly aggressive military, China has emerged as a superpower-in-waiting.
Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis and White House strategist Steve Bannon (a former US Navy officer in the Pacific who reportedly has keen interest in China policy) will be busy. 

All are China hawks.
Mattis will be in Japan and South Korea next week to start coordinating military strategy with our Pacific allies.

Good. 

The time has come to add some hard power to Obama’s “pivot to Asia” — a great slogan that never really turned into anything tangible.
While Obama endlessly negotiated TPP with too many countries, America’s naval dominance of the Pacific faded. 

Yes, there was the occasional joint naval exercise with allies. 

But they weren’t enough to convince our partners we mean business when we insist on freedom of navigation on the high seas.
China has become more brazen, building artificial islands, fortifying them into military bases, setting up no-go naval passages and demanding planes identify themselves in skies China doesn’t own.
Without much resistance.
So, yes, the new administration will be wise to fill in the trade gap the TPP demise left behind. 

And fast, before China picks up the leftovers. (The Philippines, Malaysia and others are already looking to cut trade and other deals with Beijing.)
Trump must quickly start negotiating a bilateral trade deal with Shinzo Abe, Japan’s nationalist prime minister who isn’t afraid to challenge China.
A deal with Tokyo will help Trump set up agreements with other Pacific partners. 

Such deals can be tailored to each country’s needs (with “America first,” of course), which can be more beneficial to all than the overly complex, multilateral TPP.
At any rate, trade in the Pacific will only be possible if Beijing’s muscle-flexing is kept in check. 

Unless America resumes its role as the guarantor of free navigation, China will make the rules in the region. 

And China’s rules will make the protectionist Trump look like Thomas Paine.
If Team Trump’s initial tough talk gels into a detailed, coherent strategy, and if Trump keeps his campaign promise to increase military budgets, Pacific partners will once again trust America. 

Good trade agreements will follow.
All that, of course, depends. 

Will Trump concentrate on resisting China, or on his campaign-trail demand that allies pay us more for “their” defense? 

Will the Pacific disappear from our agenda before the next presidential campaign begins in earnest? Will coherent strategy replace tough talk?
That’s likely what they’re trying to figure out in Beijing as well.

China Tests U.S. Resolve

A new challenge to freedom of the seas as the Trump era nears.
The Wall Street Journal

Crew members aboard the VOS Raasay recover U.S. and British Royal Navy ocean gliders taking part in the Unmanned Warrior exercise off the northwest coast of Scotland on Oct. 8. A similar unmanned underwater vehicle was seized by the Chinese navy in international waters off the coast of the Philippines on Dec. 15. 

China’s theft of a U.S. Navy underwater drone in full view of the USNS Bowditch on Thursday is a telling episode. 

While Beijing agreed to return the drone over the weekend, along with bluster that the U.S. had “hyped” the heist, the Chinese navy’s actions were a deliberate provocation. 

China is testing U.S. resolve to maintain freedom of navigation in international waters that Beijing illegally claims as its own.
Some think the theft is a response to Donald Trump’s decision to take a congratulatory call from Taiwan’s President. 

But the People’s Liberation Army has pulled these stunts before. 

In April 2001, a PLA pilot tried a dangerous intercept with a U.S. spy plane in international airspace. He misjudged the distance, losing his own life and causing the U.S. plane to make an emergency landing in China. 

Beijing released the crew and plane after a 10-day standoff.
In March 2009, the PLA began a harassment campaign against the USNS Impeccable in international waters. 

After several days of dangerous maneuvers by five Chinese ships and one plane, the Chinese maritime militia tried to steal a towed sonar array from the ship. 

Whether China today is responding to Mr. Trump or offering a final insult to Obama is beside the point because the drone theft is part of a larger Chinese pattern.
China’s behavior shows its intention to intimidate its neighbors and establish hegemony in East Asia. 

In recent weeks the PLA air force has flown practice bombing missions, with fighter escorts, near the Japanese island of Okinawa and around Taiwan. 

The Japanese air force scrambled to intercept Chinese planes 571 times last year, up from 96 in 2010. Recently China has deployed military forces on disputed shoals in the South China Sea, contradicting Xi Jinping’s promise to Mr. Obama.
China objects to U.S. Navy and Air Force transits through and near these bases. 

The Obama Administration promised to carry out such missions regularly but then restricted the Pentagon to a handful. 

That sent a message that the U.S. can be intimidated from exercising its rights.
The drone theft may be a Chinese warning that the U.S. Navy will face harassment if a Trump Administration steps up such patrols. 

China is also rapidly expanding its submarine fleet, as an asymmetric response to U.S. surface dominance, and undersea drones map the ocean floor and test currents and sonar for submarine passage and detection.
The Chinese interception occurred about 50 nautical miles from the U.S. base at Subic Bay in the Philippines. 

The recent anti-American rants by Rodrigo Duterte may also have encouraged China to hope that an episode at sea could drive a larger rift between Manila and Washington. 

The Navy will have to expect more such interference.
All of this is occurring as Mr. Trump is signalling his intention to take a tougher line with China, at least initially, as he renegotiates the bilateral economic and strategic relationship. 

Mr. Trump’s precise goals aren’t clear, but one promise he’s likely to fulfill is rebuilding the U.S. Navy to reinforce America’s Pacific presence.
Chinese leaders may think these shows of force will intimidate the Trump Administration the way they did Obama. 

But they are likely to have the opposite effect. 

Mr. Trump doesn’t separate economic from security issues, and the Chinese are playing with fire.

Casus Belli

China drone seizure throws down North Korean-style gauntlet to Trump
By Michael Auslin

In seizing an unmanned, underwater US Navy drone in international waters off the Philippines on Thursday, China has thrown down a North Korean-style gauntlet to the incoming Trump team.
While media reports are still sketchy, it appears that a Chinese naval vessel was close enough to a US oceanographic survey ship to launch a small boat to grab the scientific drone as the American vessel was preparing to retrieve it.

That would mean a ship-to-ship level of intimidation, and not a snatch-and-grab action in isolated waters.
Like in 2009, when the Chinese harassed the USNS Impeccable in the South China Sea, the latest action comes against a similarly unarmed US research vessel. 

This time, however, the Chinese flagrantly flouted international law, and unlawfully seized US property while endangering the safety of US military personnel on the high seas.
Such a dramatic upping of the ante is out of character for China, and American officials should understand that Beijing now appears willing to take increasingly risky actions. 

This latest provocation may well be in response to President Trump's recent comments on China, Taiwan and the One-China Policy.
At the same time, the latest challenge comes on the heels of steadily degrading relations between the Obama Administration and China, including news that Beijing is rapidly militarizing its newly built islands located near the Philippines. 

On these reclaimed shoals, China has emplaced anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems in what can also be a precursor to fielding offensive weapons capabilities. 

In response, senior US military leaders have made forthright statements about America's national interest in maintaining open and uncontested sea lanes. 

These comments have put Beijing on notice that Washington will not sit idly by if China appears be upending decades of peaceful development in Asia's waters.
Until January 20, it is the current president's job to respond. 

The Chinese move offers Obama two choices: be seen as capitulating to a dramatic increase in Chinese aggressiveness, or leave office having taken a hard line against China's destabilizing path. Whatever course he takes, however, will almost certainly be carried over into the new administration, given how close we are to Inauguration Day.
The United States has formally demanded the return of the drone, but diplomatic protests will not be enough. 

While it is likely that the Chinese will surrender the drone after a few days, a toothless US response will only embolden further belligerence on Beijing's part. 

The Obama Administration should make clear that if the drone is not returned, then an escalating series of reprisals will be triggered; these could include reducing military contacts and disinviting the Chinese navy from RIMPAC naval exercises, considering targeted sanctions against Chinese companies connected to the military and refusing visas for high-ranking Chinese.
Should similar offenses occur again, 

Washington should make clear that it will take further action, including more direct support for nations facing Chinese pressure over their own territorial claims, such as enhanced defense cooperation and expedited supply of defensive equipment. 

Through it all, Washington must maintain a constant presence in contested waters, including freedom of navigation operations near Chinese-claimed territory.
Both sides should fear a situation where cooler heads are pushed aside by surging emotion. 

The risk of an accident between the Chinese and US militaries, or where China lashes out against a smaller Asian nation, could lead to true crisis and even an armed clash. 

While it may seem risky to take a hard line now against China, Washington may have no choice later on, or it will be forced to accept a major diminution of its credibility in Asia. 

Simply put, this is about stopping bullying in its tracks and maintaining stability in the world's most heavily-trafficked waterways.
Regardless of what the Obama Administration decides to do, the Trump team should be prepared for more, and more unpredictable, Chinese actions designed to get the new president to back down from his apparent intention to challenge the status quo in Sino-US relations. 

They should be thinking now about how they will respond to similar Chinese challenges, or risk being thrown on the defensive to an emboldened aggressor.
The goal is not to back the Chinese into a corner or goad them into further aggression, but rather just the opposite. 

Beijing must understand that such unprovoked and belligerent acts will merit a rejoinder. 

Otherwise, China will get the wrong message and will continue testing the US government. 

At some point, it will miscalculate or its actions will become intolerable, resulting in a more forceful US reaction. 

A firm US response now is the best option for preventing a worsening cycle of tit-for-tat challenges.