We recently noted that the Chinese have secured the Solomon Islands as part of their expansion into the Pacific (see, “Chinese Seizure of Solomons Islands”). Newsmax website reports that a US Coast Guard vessel was denied access to a scheduled port call at Guadalcanal in the Solomons for refueling and reprovisioning.
A U.S. coast guard cutter conducting patrols as part of an international mission to prevent illegal fishing was recently unable to get clearance for a scheduled port call in the Solomon Islands … [1]
Who do you think made that decision: Solomons or China? This was China’s way of demonstrating to the US who controls that area of the Pacific … and it’s not the US.
The Coast Guard vessel was forced to divert to Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
Apparently, the Chinese are also excluding the Royal Navy.
… reports that the HMS Spey, also taking part in Operation Island Chief, was also denied a port call in the Solomon Islands.[1]
Solomons appears well on its way to becoming a Chinese vassal state and a forward base for Chinese military operations.
China seized the entire South and East China Seas without firing a shot and appears well on its way to seizing the Pacific. In addition to having seized the Solomons, in 2019 China re-established an embassy in Kiribati (Tarawa) which severed long-standing ties with Taiwan in favor of China. Kiribati is the site of a Chinese satellite tracking station which, presumably, has been re-activated. China is pushing hard to make inroads in Papua New Guinea, offering security, trade arrangements, and military training and aid. Chinese medical teams have been dispersed throughout the Pacific and China is pursuing trade arrangements with almost every Pacific island nation. Guam is being slowly isolated and surrounded as we speak.
_________________________________
[1]Newsmax website, “Report: US Coast Guard Ship Denied Port Call in Solomons”, 26-Aug-2022,
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/u-s-coast-guard-solomon/2022/08/26/id/1084721/
If theres any questions about things and where theyre headed, this seems like an answer... This should be noted as a very serious, major event....!!!
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese diplomats really are doing a great job. They know exactly how to win influence in a country and how to get it done.
ReplyDeleteIn India we have saying which says there are four ways of getting someone to what you want. Sweet talk, Money, Seed mistrust with friends and coercion. The Chinese are seeding mistrust of the west and other traditional allies, pumping money and doing some humanitarian or infra work to eat Goodwill. Winning the wat without coercion.
-BM
The Coercion always comes later. "The first taste is free!" says your local neighborhood drug dealer.
Delete"The Chinese are seeding mistrust of the west and other traditional allies..."
DeleteThat would never have worked if US government leaders "kept their eyes on the ball." Sadly, they "dropped the ball" long ago. Hell, even the average Filipino is PISSED at the US for treating their nation like a colony, as seen at https://therhk111philippinedefenseupdates.blogspot.com/2022/08/china-might-not-have-fulfilled-initial-promise-duterte-still-ended-up-giving-more-than-us.html
"even the average Filipino is PISSED at the US"
DeleteYou've read this blog long enough to understand that no one source (other than this blog!) is authoritative and speaks for an entire country. Use the skills demonstrated in this blog and analyze what you linked. I did.
The author is clearly virulently anti-American so what he's writing can't help but be extremely biased. That doesn't mean he's wrong but it means you need other sources to verify what he's writing. Even the author acknowledges that his view is not necessarily the prevalent one when he says,
"there are still many in his Government and own Political Camp who are against them and still very much Pro-American."
So, take these kinds of clearly biased writings with an enormous grain of salt and skepticism. That said, there is no question that the US has fallen down in its relations with the Philippines and must do better. However, I doubt that the average Philippine citizen is violently anti-American.
I would also offer the thought that it is not the responsibility of the US to give the Philippines everything the need or want. One of the cornerstones of US culture (until recently, anyway) is that you help yourself rather than looking for handouts. We need to balance that against the desire for closer relations. The best arrangement is not one of welfare and handouts, which inevitably leads to resentment, but one of mutually benefits where both sides feel like they've helped each other and gained in the doing.
There is little doubt that Marcos is somewhat pro-China. Duterte was also quite pro-China so this is nothing new.
DeleteI think most Americans are completely unaware how badly US inaction in support of the Philippines at Scarborough Shoal in 2012 scarred public perception of the US as a reliable ally.
George
"how badly US inaction in support of the Philippines at Scarborough Shoal in 2012 scarred public perception of the US as a reliable ally."
DeleteI don't know the reactions of the Philippine populace to that specific incident but the ongoing inaction toward, and appeasement of, China as the have flouted UNCLOS rulings and annexed the entire South China Sea cannot be generating any good will towards us. Our inaction is, literally, throwing away our credibility and any positive feelings local populations might have had about us.
As a political nation, we have been unable to formulate a consistent, coherent geopolitical strategy towards China. Unfortunately, our lack of a strategic decision IS A DECISION (no decision is a decision) ... one that is putting us in an ever worsening position.
Shocker! It was only a matter of time. I think this is a great example of how I believe we have become more reactive than proactive in how we go about handling things globally.
ReplyDelete"become more reactive than proactive"
DeleteAbsolutely correct. Instead of reacting, we should be out in front, helping the Pacific Island nations to build hospitals, schools, roads, airports (future military use, maybe), water purification, etc. We should be providing grants and zero-interest loans. We should be establishing trade agreements. Our Presidents should be visiting frequently. And so on.
In other words, we should be fighting the soft war with every tool we have.
Yup. Sadly, the American political system makes it hard to do these things. It relies on vast sums of money from political contributors, which tends to align US politicians with the interests of the most wealthy Americans. They have moved much of US manufacturing to China in the pursuit of short-term profit. In addition, the xenophobia they've built up to keep votes coming to their politicians makes it hard to spend money overseas, which keeps taxes low, benefiting the wealthy. Un-enlightened self-interest is likely to cost the US its dominant position. It's already cost the UK much of its influence in the world.
DeleteHere is a link to an article I believe is related to this topic:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aspistrategist.org.au/seeing-the-ccps-external-influence-work-through-beijings-eyes/
I don't mind links at all but I encourage you to also offer your thoughts and analysis of whatever you link to. What's in the link that would be of interest to readers? Give them/us a reason to go to the link. Something must have caught your eye; share your thoughts with us.
DeleteI like links but they're better as value-added links and the value is your analysis !
Sadly, the PRC is smart, disciplined, and patient wrt their national strategy - the USG needs to take note. Worse, we are the exact opposite in the handling of our national strategy. The future prosperity and security of the USA runs north-south and then east (not west to Europe). The longer we allow distractions in Europe (Russia) and the Middle East to dominate our thinking the farther behind the Chinese we will fall. We have expended more political capitol, planning, and sent more resources to the Ukraine than we spend with India, the most populous democracy on the planet, and the key to controlling access to trade flowing from Europe and the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteGAB
"We have expended more political capitol, planning, and sent more resources to the Ukraine than we spend with India"
DeleteI hope everyone reads and comprehends the truth and wisdom in this. India is a ready-made counter to China, with physical proximity, and yet we're paying only cursory attention to India. We should be striving to build a military and economic alliance with India and Japan and we should be working to nudge Korea into a more active anti-China posture.
India itself is very circumspect of the US. This is based on two factors. One, US historical role as a benefactor and alliance with Pakistan. Second US blow hot blow cold actions for relationship with India.
DeleteThere is a proverb in India which loosely translated goes " One who burnt his tongue while drinking hot milk, will blow and cool down even a colddrink".
In the recent past things have moved towards a better state, one can see the current US administration giving waiver to India on its purchases from Russia, but then the woke administrators continue to view the current nationalist Indian govt in poor light. The relationship needs more working.
The us state department has not helped matters too. Since Jan 2021 there has not been an ambassador in India. There have been 4 interim appointments till date.
@Anonymous: "India itself is very circumspect of the US."
DeleteThat is a polite way of saying it and an excellent summary.
The point about Pakistan is particularly germane as India faces a serious nuclear threat from them and simultaneously view the USA as the creators of the current strength of the PRC. Indeed, much of post cold war U.S. 'investment' in the PRC arguably should have been directed to India. Our short-sightedness is not just a malady of our political leaders, but also our business class and 'intelligencia'.
GAB
In response to the CNO, we have been waiting 70 years for India to turn toward the west. It never seems to. Sort of like waiting for a Castro to die. I think 8 or 9 presidents came and went before old Fidel bit the dust.
Delete"we have been waiting 70 years for India to turn toward the west."
DeleteI doubt you meant to but you almost perfectly summed up the problem. We've been waiting for India to come to us. That's arrogant on our part. Why would they want to 'turn toward the West'? Why do they have to turn towards us. Why can't we turn towards them? We haven't really bothered to try to figure out what they want and what's important to them.
I can tell you all kinds of things that are important to Russia, China, Iran, and NKorea, our enemies, and yet I can't tell you a single thing that's important to India. That reflects the lack of attention and priority we've given India over the years.
We need to find out what they want and see where we can make common cause. A good start would be for us to stop cozying up to Pakistan and, instead, treat them like the terrorist center they are and eliminate them.
Instead of waiting for them to turn towards us, let's turn towards them.
This Solomons situation is concerning.
ReplyDeleteBut If the navy could get its crap together, those outposts become unsupported hostages instead of assets.
Lutefisk
A couple of thoughts to bear in mind:
Delete1. It's less the Navy's job to 'get its crap together' and more the State Department's job which starts from having a coherent national geopolitical strategy which recognizes that China is a threat and that the Pacific nations are important in dealing with that threat. The specific purpose of the State Department is to establish strategically beneficial relations with other countries in support of our national strategy. Not that the Navy is doing any good, whatsoever, in the Pacific but it is mainly the responsibility of the State Department. The Navy should be supporting the State Department's diplomatic efforts, not leading the nation's diplomatic efforts. What's the point of having a State Department if they aren't out front in this, the non-kinetic portion of the war with China? We could save a butt-ton of money by shutting them down. That would leave us with no diplomatic efforts in the Pacific but how is that different than what we have now?
2. How are China's 'outposts' any different from, say, Guam? Yes, Guam is more developed as a base (though not much more defended !) but give the Chinese a few years and they'll develop their bases far beyond the level of Guam. If China succeeds in establishing a few more bases around the Pacific, it will be Guam that is isolated and an 'unsupported hostage instead of an asset'. Guam is already kind of hanging out there by itself, closer to China than the US and, when war comes, the Navy has already stated publicly that they do not have the assets to shepherd convoys to Guam for resupply. That sounds like an 'unsupported hostage' more than an asset. The lessons of Rabaul and Truk, as related to Guam, today, should be relevant, here. Keep those lessons firmly in mind.
Good points.
ReplyDeleteWhoever commands the sea controls those bases.
Lutefisk
If you refuse to put valuable things on table but keep yelling on "values" which you believe yourself, this is expected.
ReplyDeleteForeign aid is not 4 letter words but self dignification is.
The Federal legislation titled The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, while entirely congruent with our western values, is deeply antithetical to the values (such as they are), the lived experiences, and the expectations of the politicians, the business and community leaders with whom we need to engage if we wish to complete with China in the South Pacific.
ReplyDeleteMuch as they may admire us, and much as they may dislike the Chinese, a world in which our diplomats and business people face a potential jail sentence for offering decision makers an internship for their children, or a sponsored place at a U.S. university, is not a world in which we can successfully compete. Sad, but nevertheless true, as anyone who’s spent any time in these places would readily confirm.
from the main article "..to prevent illegal fishing.."
ReplyDeleteSince when does the USCG have any legal jurisdiction at all outside the US? Their charter seems to indicate that they don't.
Some simple research - which I expect readers to conduct for themselves - shows that the governing authority was the Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency which is a 17-member group of islands in the Pacific dedicated to protection and preservation of Pacific fisheries. The US was invited to join in an exercise.
DeleteThere is a difference between "have no legal jurisdiction" and "participates in exercises". Apparently the USCG only has "“shiprider” agreements that require local law enforcement officers to embark on USCG vessels to board and search vessels suspected of violating laws or regulations. Only the "local law enforcement officers" have any legal jurisdication.
DeleteWhat's your point as it pertains to the post?
DeleteThe Solomon Islanders are denying entry to their ports of USCG ship(s) having no legal jurisdiction in their territory at all and so whose presence could be viewed as "colonialist" or even "provocative" (ie- their view of the situation could be very different than the US's).
DeleteNo one but you has suggested that the Solomons do not have the legal right to refuse entry of US ships. In fact, they most certainly do have the right. That's not the issue being raised in the post. If you can't grasp the point of the post, you should seek another blog that is at a lower level that would suit you better.
DeleteThe Chinese will follow a rational plan if a major war with the USA breaks out.
ReplyDelete1. Forget about Taiwan, which is likely to remain neutral, along with all of our other "allies" in Asia except Japan. South Korea will close its airspace to American aircraft and seize control of our two major airfields there.
2. China will destroy the three airfields on nearby Okinawa and all aircraft on the island, leaving 30,000 American civilians stranded.
3. Sink any American and Japanese ship within range of mainland Japan, to include any foolishly docked at Sasebo. If the carrier Reagan is in port near Tokyo, China will launch 40 missiles at her and some will hit. Otherwise it will flee to Hawaii to await the arrival of other carriers in a few months.
4. Hit Guam with missiles to disable the airfield and any sub foolishly parked at our sub base there. Launch most of the Chinese fleet to invade Guam that will be protected by just one Marine battalion. It will be too dangerous to fly in more troops from the USA. This will occur within weeks of a war. Guam will become a key Chinese base.
5. If Australia enters the war, the Chinese fleet will turn south to wipe out all of its aircraft and ships.
6. Chinese subs will begin sinking ships en route to Japan or the South Pacific until our Navy remembers to organize convoys. Japan will quickly run out of oil since no supertankers will sail due to the sub threat.
All this can occur before the US Navy has assembled four or more carriers near Hawaii.
Your thoughts are, generally, excellent. I would differ on one point, however:
Delete"Forget about Taiwan, which is likely to remain neutral"
I suspect the opposite would be more likely. China cannot allow Taiwan to exist during a war with the US. Taiwan, in China's mind, would be a constant threat even if Taiwan were to declare neutrality (which I find unlikely). In China's paranoid mind, Taiwan would, at the very least, be conducting surveillance and discretely relaying intel to the US ... and they'd likely be right. China could never be sure that Taiwan wouldn't abruptly change their mind and side with the US and if that happened, Taiwan would instantly become a major US threat just a hundred miles off China's coast! Talk about a forward base in China's back yard! My suspicion (absolute certainty!) is that a Taiwan invasion would be the number one task for China in a war with the US.
Consider ... why is China so adamant that Taiwan must fall under China's control and must do so sooner rather than later? It's not because of some notion of 'one China' or racial unity or breakaway province or reunification or whatever rationale China wants to publicly offer. Instead, it's because Taiwan is a gigantic strategic and operational threat, lying just miles offshore, as it does. Until China can regain control of Taiwan, it will always be a gaping hole in China's security wall; a vulnerability that, militarily, cannot be allowed to exist. Every other rationale is just a pretext for the real reason. Taiwan is the foot in China's door and China cannot allow it.
Any US-China war will run through Taiwan and it will happen on day one.
We appear to disagree on this point and that's fine. Between us, we offer two different views for readers to contemplate. Feel free to rebut. You won't hurt my feelings and further discussion of this point just makes for a more informative blog!
I completely agree about Korea, by the way, which makes one wonder about the wisdom and return on investment of our forces there. If Korea won't stand with us in a war with China, why are we standing with them, now?
China will want to grab Guam before the US Navy can arrive to defend it. After that, clear out any threat from northern Australian bases to its shipping lanes. After those easy victories, the fleet returns and demands Taiwan surrender, which might accept given that China is its largest trading partner who can easily slap on a naval blockade and wipe out its airpower. If no, it may choose to invade, but it might want to wait to repel an expected US Navy offensive before getting tied up in a bloody fight in Taiwan. The USA is not prepared to defend Guam from invasion because everyone assumes China will be busy for months invading Taiwan.
DeleteChina is South Korea's major trading partner and it doesn't want war with North Korea backed by China with no real support from the USA busy elsewhere in Asia. And it wants no part in an alliance with its traditional enemy -- Japan.
While I agree that China wants domination of the western Pacific, and to take Taiwan, I dont think they would invade Guam (or other US territories). Sure, they'd pound the facilities to rubble, but not invade. Being a US territory, we would/could never allow them to keep land populated by US citizens, and there would be war until it was retaken. I believe they'd neutralize it, and pursue their Taiwan goals, but then want things to cease and normalize as quickly as possible, with them secure in their regional control...
DeleteNow, if that comes to pass, things might change in another decade or three as they move on towards their next expansion.
"I don't think they would invade Guam"
DeleteHere's something to consider:
One of the scenarios that I've postulated is that China initially and quickly grabs a couple territories they want and a couple extra that they don't really want and then immediately calls for peace and negotiations. If the US continues to fight, we look like the warmongering aggressors on the world stage and China looks like the reasonable, peaceful, aggrieved people despite having started the war. In the subsequent negotiations, they magnanimously offer to return one or two of the territories they seized that, of course, they never wanted in the first place. Guam would make an excellent 'give back' territory in this scenario, wouldn't it? They offer to return Guam in exchange for keeping Taiwan. Just something to think about.
"China will want to grab Guam before the US Navy can arrive to defend it. After that, clear out any threat from northern Australian bases to its shipping lanes."
DeleteThat's an appealing thought but that would take time and the US submarine fleet, surging from Pearl Harbor, would make that course of action an extremely hazardous one and quite likely to fail. While the US ASW capability has atrophied badly, China is even worse off with no prior ASW experience to call on. They have Y-8 ASW patrol aircraft but in limited numbers and with no open ocean operating experience. A Chinese fleet would be bordering on defenseless against subs.
"Guam would make an excellent 'give back' territory in this scenario, wouldn't it? They offer to return Guam in exchange for keeping Taiwan."
DeleteThat is a possibility, but as I commented below, it will be difficult for the Chinese Navy to logistically sustain the forces necessary to invade and then maintain an occupation of Guam. I think it's more likely China will use the threat of an invasion, to make the US pay the opportunity costs of reinforcing Guam's defense with forces that can't be used to challenge China elsewhere.
"Launch most of the Chinese fleet to invade Guam that will be protected by just one Marine battalion."
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt China will THREATEN to invade Guam in a hypothetical Sino-American War, but I strongly doubt China will actually invade, when there are other worthy targets closer to China, whose invasion and occupation will be easier to sustain. A threat to invade will force the US to devote forces to face this threat, consuming resources that can otherwise be used to threaten China elsewhere, e.g., within the Nine Dash Line.
"If Australia enters the war, the Chinese fleet will turn south to wipe out all of its aircraft and ships."
ReplyDeleteI doubt China will do so- such a strike will be as counterproductive as the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, due to the distances making the sustained attack necessary to keep the Australian military out of the war, logistically unsustainable. Chinese forces are more likely to maintain a perimeter around the South China Sea, to keep Australian forces out of contested waters.
Meanwhile, a propaganda campaign will be waged to keep Australia out of a hypothetical Sino-American War- not a MILITARY campaign, as Chinese government leaders ought to know that will galvanize the average Australian to do as the average American did after the Attack on Pearl Harbor.
After watching Okinawa destroyed, dozens of American ships sunk, and a Chinese fleet heading for Guam, Australia might declare neutrality. China is its largest trading partner too. It mostly depends on what ignites the conflict.
Delete@G2mil: "Australia might declare neutrality."
DeleteI expect this to occur, but eventually they will either become a vassal state or be eaten by the dragon.
GAB
"@G2mil: "Australia might declare neutrality."
ReplyDeleteI expect this to occur, but eventually they will either become a vassal state or be eaten by the dragon."
I would think that the Australians would know this would be the eventual outcome too.
Lutefisk
Is it crazy for me to think that we will soon be in a position where we are left with few options other than nuclear weapons if we keep letting things develop as they have over the past decade? I don't think that's a good position to be in.
ReplyDelete