A Coming Sino-Philippine War? - Dr. Steve Elwart - http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2015/2428/print/
When people in the West think about China, they think about China - United States relations. The possibility of China being one of the Kings of the East mentioned in Revelation 16 also comes to mind in terms of eschatology. There is an additional concern, a real fear, coming from another quarter.
One needs to look to the southeast - to the Philippines.
A recent conversation on the KI Manila Issachar Facebook group brought this fear into sharp focus. One thread centered on disaster planning. As several scenarios were discussed, it became clear an eventual conflict with China was on their minds.
They have good reason to worry.
China's recent moves to expand its territorial ambitions have encroached into the Philippine backyard.
According to a 2013 Reuters report, China's state media warned a "counterstrike" against the Philippines was inevitable if it continues to provoke Beijing in the South China Sea, potentially Asia's biggest military trouble spot.
China claims 90 percent of the South China Sea, believed to be rich in oil and gas reserves. The countries of Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan all lay claim to parts of the sea where about $5 trillion of ship-borne trade passes every year.
Territorial Disputes
During one meeting of regional countries held in March 2015 in Manila, Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario accused China of accelerating its expansionist agenda by changing the size, structure and physical attributes of land features in the South China Sea. (China had been expanding the size of some of the disputed islands by dredging soil from the sea bottom and building up the islands with the soil. (In early August Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi announced China has stopped construction work in disputed waters in the South China Sea at a meeting of foreign ministers of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations).
China and the Philippines have been in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea for decades, but tensions have reached a new level with China's recent international ambitions. China is reaching out beyond its boundaries, seeking to find its place in the world. Besides the South China Sea, China has developed a significant presence in Africa, South America and the Middle East. They are also building a blue water navy and are sailing to places they have not visited in 500 years.
One milestone in the conflict between the two nations came in January 2013 when the Philippines sued China saying that country violated Philippine sovereign rights. The Philippines claimed those rights were violated through China's claims of a "9-dashed line." The Philippines took its case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, which was established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982.
The Philippines provided the Court with 3,500 satellite images and aerial photos along with a 1,700-page document charging China with violations of the international law.
Manila requested a Court ruling on five issues:
*That China does not have the right to do what they call "historical rights" over the waters, seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of their rights under the Convention.
*That the so-called "9-dashed line" China is using to decide its territorial limit as an "historic right" has no basis under international law.
*That the large-scale reclamation of some of the islands by China cannot change the legal character and original nature of these entities.
*That China has violated the UN Convention by preventing the Philippines the free-exercise of its right of sovereignty and jurisdiction.
*That China has caused irreparable damage to the marine environment around the disputed islands, through the destruction of the coral reefs in the South China Sea including areas within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Philippines, by the fishing in a reckless and destructive way, as well as the hunting various endangered species.
Del Rosario has also claimed Chinese vessels have rammed Philippine vessels in the West Philippine Sea, endangering the lives of fishermen. Earlier this year, Chinese Coast Guard forces allegedly rammed three Philippine boats navigating close to the Scarborough Shoal. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei tried to deflect criticism by accusing the Philippine fishermen of aggressive maneuvers while indirectly placing the blame on the Philippine government by urging it to "enhance supervision and allocation of its own fishermen to prevent such an incident from happening again."
Along a parallel track, China has demanded the Philippines withdraw their complaint as a precondition to resuming bilateral talks regarding the sovereignty issue. Del Rosario has called these terms presented by China as unjustified and illegal, terms Manila will never accept.
Paul S. Reichler, a partner at Foley Hoag LLP and co-chair of their International Litigation and Arbitration Department in Washington, DC is representing the Philippines. Reichler said he expects the court will issue a decision on whether they have jurisdiction in the case within 90 days, but a final ruling could take several years.
Senior Chinese officials have identified protecting China's sovereignty and territorial integrity as a "core interest," and PRC (People's Republic of China) officials have repeatedly stated China's opposition to actions they perceive as a challenge to this core interest.
With this dispute comes the risk it could spiral out of control and result in conflict as these countries stake their claims.
Should a Conflict Arise
Should a conflict in the South China Sea erupt, China would quickly win such a conflict, at least on the sea.
China has been building a navy that would quickly vanquish any neighbor that would choose to confront them.
In early August, China caused an uproar when it released a recruitment video for its navy on YouTube, which is said to be "flaunting" its naval capabilities and modernization. In the four minute twenty-three second video, the Chinese had featured an aircraft carrier, a new generation of submarine, as well as hospital ships and fighter jets.
The video seems to be meant to signal how serious they are about their military ambitions.
In May, Beijing unveiled plans to expand its navy's ability to project power from coastal waters into open seas. The video looks as though it is to reinforce those plans, presenting a potent picture of a 21st century fighting force.
The video ends with images of Chinese armed forces saluting the Chinese flag and dozens of jets flying over more than 30 warships, including China's only aircraft carrier the Liaoning. (This is the former Soviet carrier Varyag).
The video also prominently features the disputed islands in the South China Sea at the end of the video.
The tagline at the end of the video is translated "In whichever corner of the globe, where there is azure [blue water], we will stand guard," the video declares, vowing a staunch defense for the three million square kilometers of ocean Beijing claims.
But what of the United States? Would the United States choose to confront a modern, technologically sophisticated navy?
A Permanent Aircraft Carrier
China's moves have touched a nerve in Washington. Former ABC News Beijing bureau chief and China expert Chito Sta. Romana best summed up the U.S. attitude toward China's activities:
The Americans saw it as the building of an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the middle of the South China Sea ...
It has affected their strategic interest...intensifying the geopolitical rivalry between the two on whom will control the South China Sea... which the U.S. has almost controlled since the Second World War.
The United States have given a diplomatic response to China's forays beyond that country's shores, but it has yet to present an overt response.
Some in the Philippines wonder if they will.
One member of the KI Manila Issachar Group, Phillip Pastoral, stated it best:
The problem with Filipino policy-makers/politicians is that many still have a fixated view that Washington is always right (vis-� -vis China or Russia) and the U.S. is invincible and ready to take on another war. It's a perception embraced by most of media and the public. ...
[The question is] can the U.S. enforce its mutual defense treaty with the PH (the Philippines) and other countries? Pragmatically, the health of these alliances rest on that question. U.S. projects its naval power to assure its members and preserve the U.S. dollar as reserve currency. China seems bent on demonstrating U.S. weakness by picking on the weakest link of the alliance (The PH). The U.N. influence stands to gain most as countries look to it for resolving the regional conflict.
Since the Korean War, the U.S. has conducted a confusing foreign policy at best. Some would argue the U.S. has had little or no foreign policy. On many, the U.S. has promised support for an ally, then turned and left that country to fend for itself. Vietnam, Iran. Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Ukraine are just a few of the countries to experience this.
Many countries are now wondering if the U.S. will stand by commitments. Saudi Arabia is one of them, the Philippines is another.
For its part, the United States has to think long and hard before committing substantial resources to a conflict with China.
Will We Return?
One can look to the past for advice in this matter. In the last years of his life, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur would be asked by many U.S. officials what he thought about a United States involvement in the South China Sea, specifically Indochina. Addressing the newly inaugurated President John Kennedy, the man who was called, "Protector of Australia, Liberator of the Philippines, Conqueror of Japan and Defender of Korea" said anyone who committed American forces to a land war in Asia "ought to have his head examined."
By sea, the United States could contain China, at least for a while. While China has an aircraft carrier to project power, it is not yet very effective. China has an aircraft carrier, but they don't have a full complement of trained pilots nor sailors to operate it. They also do not have enough ships to service a carrier. It really is no more than a training ship for the new aircraft carriers and crews China is developing now.
However, the Pentagon's Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) released an unclassified assessment of the Chinese navy's new capabilities and missions in the years ahead. China's Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) can boast 300 ships and has rolled out a new class of guided missile destroyers, the LUYANG III, with China's most advanced supersonic anti-ship missile, the YJ-18 ASCM, the so called "Carrier Killer." These vertically launched missiles could take out a carrier group with a single shot. The U.S. has extremely good defensive measures, but the hard reality is the U.S. would have to successfully defend itself against attack 100 percent of the time. China would have to be successful only once.
PLAN plans to commission 10 more such vessels by 2017 and also plans to deploy the missile on Type-093G and Type-095 submarines.
According to the report, "In 2013 and 2014, China launched more naval ships than any other country and is expected to continue this trend through 2015-16," according to the study. In 2013, the PLAN laid down, launched and commissioned more than 60 ships, although the emphasis overall is on quality rather than size. Looking at just numbers, Beijing already fields a formidable naval force:
As of this publishing, the PLA(N) consists of approximately 26 destroyers (21 of which are considered modern), 52 frigates (35 modern), 20 new corvettes, 85 modern missile armed patrol craft, 56 amphibious ships, 42 mine warfare ships (30 modern), more than 50 major auxiliary ships, and more than 400 minor auxiliary ships and service/support craft.
The PLAN's submarine fleet now deploys 66 boats - five nuclear attack submarines, four nuclear ballistic missile submarines, and 57 diesel attack submarines, although the report does not suggest how many of the vessels are operational. Additionally, "by 2020 the submarine force will likely grow to over 70 submarines," ONI assesses.
Furthermore the paper notes "[m]ajor qualitative improvements are occurring within the naval aviation and submarine forces, which are increasingly capable of striking targets hundreds of miles from the Chinese mainland."
A sea war against China today is seen as problematic at best. What about a land war? Putting aside the logistical problems of trying to execute a land war and supplying troops from bases thousands of miles away, the key is the local population.
More Advice from the General
It might seem odd the man who was ready to expand the Korean War into China would counsel against fighting a land war in Asia, but his advice came with a caveat. It should be remembered he well understood the problems an invading army in Asia experiences when the local population is against it.
Harkening back to World War II, one reason the United States successfully executed the war in the Pacific Theater was because Filipino guerrilla forces were a major reason in the fight against Japan in the 1940s. In Vietnam in the 1960s, the United States would be in the same position as Japan and it would be termed "Ugly Americans."
The Philippine alliance is a key to America's view of Geopolitics.
A Strong Ally
Today the Philippines has been the United States' strongest ally in the region. However, many officials in the Philippines view their country as a pawn in a larger game between the United States and China, and are wondering how to secure their own interests in the contested Scarborough Shoal and across the South China Sea.
While the mutual defense accord says the United States or the Philippines would support the other if one came under attack, it doesn't necessarily apply to the Philippines' ongoing troubles with the Chinese in the South China Sea. As a result, government officials in Manila have been patiently waiting for the United States to bring diplomatic and military pressure on Beijing to solve the problem. But time may be running out.
The increasing belligerence between Beijing and Washington suggests what was once a conflict between China and a host of smaller countries is now transforming into a standoff between two superpowers and Manila may find itself caught in the crossfire.
Roilo Golez is a former naval officer and chair of the committee on national defense in the Philippines' House of Representatives. The U.S. Naval Academy graduate has said he expects Washington to do more than it has. He also said the United States has contributed a mere "scrap" to the Philippines' military that is "almost incongruous to what we need," a reference to the two Vietnam War-era Coast Guard cutter ships the United States sold to Manila for about $10 million each, under the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's Excess Defense Articles program. This allows the United States to transfer arms and equipment to partner nations for a reduced price. Though these ships have been converted by the Philippines to perform as frigates, they have no missile-firing capacity.
They'd be sitting ducks in an actual shooting encounter in the South China Sea. In spite of our supposed "closeness" to the U.S., we have the weakest navy and air force in the region. There are secondhand mothballed fast frigates and multirole fighters the U.S., if it wants to, can turn over to the Philippines and give us a modest defense upgrade overnight.
These comments aside, the United States has begun to re-engage militarily with the Philippines, most notably through 2014's Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the Philippines, a 10-year accord allows U.S. ships to rotate through Philippine naval bases. Washington also allocated $50 million in military aid to Manila for fiscal year 2014, and $40 million for 2015, up from $25.5 million in 2013.
Ups and Downs in Relations
It is in the strategic interest of the United States to support the Philippines. The country has some very valuable military bases, namely the naval base at Subic Bay, and Clark air base. These bases, when they were still owned by the United States, proved to be of enormous use in the Cold War, supporting operations in the Korean War, then in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. They could prove again to be valuable in any conflict involving China.
These bases grew enormously in size, with millions of Americans passing through or flying missions from there. In fact, the bases became small American towns, with schools, movie theaters and ballparks. But anticolonial feelings remained strong in the Philippines. Protests broke out from time to time, and a lot of negative publicity surrounded the red-light districts that flourished outside the U.S. bases.
In 1991, the U.S. bases were devastated by the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano, just as a typhoon hit. At the same time, the Philippine Senate voted to block the renewal of a lease agreement for the bases. Within a year, the wrecked bases were abandoned. U.S. forces relocated to Guam and elsewhere. These events were a source of national pride for the Filipino people, but were considered damaging to America's ability to project power in the western Pacific.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, US-Philippines relations entered a new phase, with U.S. forces being sent to help the Philippine military combat a Muslim insurgency in the South with ties to al-Qaida.
In the most recent phase, Manila became increasingly alarmed by the newly resurgent China and its territorial claims. This coincided with President Barack Obama's "pivot to Asia" policy, and in April 2014, the United States and the Philippines signed a 10-year defense agreement. It was one of the clearest signs of renewed American engagement in the region.
So the U.S. is back in the Philippines, but this time as an ally and guest rather than as a colonial power.
The Right Thing to Do
While smaller than the United States, the Philippines has won the respect of the United States.
While the Philippines were once looked on by the United States as a weak nation that could not survive on its own; that attitude has changed. The real turning point in the relationship between the two countries was World War II, when Americans and Filipinos fought side-by-side against the Japanese, who attacked the Philippines immediately after Pearl Harbor. Japan conquered the island, but General MacArthur vowed to return. He came ashore with four U.S. Army divisions on the island of Leyte in late 1944, not far from where Typhoon Haiyan came ashore on 2013.
The common effort against the Japanese greatly increased the American level of respect for the Philippine people, and led to independence for the Philippines in 1946.
The U.S. admiration at the time was reciprocated by the Philippine people and it can be summarized by one incident.
Present in Spirit
World War II ended with the Allied Powers accepting the surrender of Japan aboard the USS Missouri on Sept. 2 1945. General MacArthur represented the allied forces and countersigned Japan's surrender document.
Letters of congratulations and honors were bestowed on the General after the war, but two letters from the Philippine Congress were especially prized. The first letter granted him honorary citizenship to the Philippines, and the second informed him that:
... his name [will] be carried in perpetuity on the company roll calls of the Philippine Army, and at parade roll calls, when his name is called, the senior noncommissioned officer shall answer 'Present in spirit,' and during the lifetime of the General he shall be accredited with a guard of honor composed of 12 men of the Philippine Army...
MacArthur noted in his memoir "[i]t made me weep, something I had not done since my earliest childhood."
The ties that bind the Philippines and United States together have cycled between attachment and distance. In today's world, when a close ally and friend of the United States is threatened, these ties need to be strengthened.
The prayer of many on both sides of the Pacific that:
I [pray] that a merciful God will preserve and protect each and every one of you and will bring this land peace and tranquility always.
- Douglas MacArthur
A Matter of Loyalty
The Bible has a lot to say about loyalty. In personal relationship, we are called to steadfast loyalty. Paul speaks of his "my true partner" in Philippians 4:3. This unknown person is possibly Titus or Silas, but whoever it was, he was one who labored faithfully with Paul. Ruth is another example. She showed absolute loyalty to her mother-in-law as is written in Ruth 1:16:
Stop urging me to abandon you and to turn back from following you. Because wherever you go, I'll go. Wherever you live, I'll live. Your people will be my people, and your God, my God.
- Ruth 1:16 ISV
For all the military, diplomatic and political implications, relations between countries are reduced to relationships between friends and foes.
Loyalty between nations should echo the loyalty we, as Christians, are to have with others. As Peter has said:
Whoever speaks must speak God's words.[a] Whoever serves must serve with the strength[b] that God supplies, so that in every way God may be glorified through Jesus, the Messiah.[c] Glory and power belong to him forever and ever! Amen.
- 1 Peter 4:11
It makes good geopolitical sense to support the Philippines and the other countries in the South China Sea. It not only makes good sense, it's the right thing to do.
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY ALL NEW PROPHECY AND CREATION DESIGN WEBSITES. THERE IS A LOT TO SEE AND DO..........
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.