Big Trouble in Little South China Sea

Greetings, dear reader, and apologies for the long hiatus. Your faithful marsupial correspondent has been occupied with the tedious business of earning a (marginal) living.

It's been a year since I last wrote about the situation in the South China Sea. That gap was due not to a lack of events, but rather to my perception of utter disinterest in the subject on the part of my fellow Americans. We do have a serious blind spot when it comes to events outside our own borders. None the less, with events continuing apace, the issue of territorial disputes in the South China Sea has even started to appear in the mainstream corporate media. And what a report that is. Do you like the header? "BATTLELAND - Where military intelligence is not a contradiction in terms". News Flash, sweethearts; military intelligence is always a contradiction in terms.

But my objection is not to the silly trappings of the thing, but rather to the slipshod manner in which the facts are presented. It's disturbing to note that this video, which is essentially a Taiwanese propaganda cartoon, actually contains more useful information, (after the first 35 seconds of silliness), than the print report in Time linked above.

  I'm going to include here a graphic that I used in my first post on the South China Sea, about two years ago. The map is a beast, but it's needed to show the relationships.


Map courtesy of Wikimedia

Look in the center, near the top. See that blob of land with the pipeline running north-east up to Hong Kong and Macao? That's Hainan Island, and part of the People's Republic of China, (henceforth the PRC, to distinguish it from Taiwan, which is also has claims in the Spratly Islands).

Now look down and to the right from Hainan. See the Paracel Islands? Those are (mostly) within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone of the PRC, as measured from Hainan Island. Note, however, that the Paracel Islands are also (mostly) within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone of Vietnam. The PRC seized the Paracel Islands from Vietnam in a brief campaign during the mid-1970's, and has held them since then. It was here, in the Paracel Islands, that the new Chinese garrison was recently emplaced, as described in the MSM story linked above.

Now look further to the right and down a bit, see Scarborough Reef, just west of the Philippines? That was the location of the confrontation between the PRC and the Philippines in May of this year (2012). See this article in the Asia Times Online for a discussion of that altercation, (and notice how this is treated as a very serious issue by Asians, in sharp contrast to the casually dismissive attitude of US media). Here, however, the situation regarding boundaries is very different, and really quite unambiguous. Scarborough Reef is within, (again just barely), the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone of the Phillipines, but roughly 600 miles from Hainan Island, the nearest point of land claimed by the PRC. So what is the PRC claim based upon? History. The People's Republic of China asserts that Scarborough was historically Chinese, and therefore modern China is entitled to claim it.

OK, for the last hotspot, look down and to the left from Scarborough Reef to the legend "South China Sea". Directly below that is a mass of colored dots, and legends stating "occupied by" followed by the names of the five main disputants, and a legend marking Mischief Reef. That whole area is the Spratly Islands, although it bears repeating that the word "islands" is a highly optimistic label. The Spratlys consist mostly of partly-submerged islets, rocks, and reefs. What few actual islands exist are low coral mounds, never more than 5 or 6 meters, (call it 15-20 feet), above sea level. Most are partly submerged at high tide. Although the Spratly Islands are spread over 170,000 square kilometers of sea, they total less than 10 square kilometers of land.

So, you ask, if they're just a collection of wet rocks and bottom-ripping reefs in the middle of god-forsaken nowhere, why all the fuss? There are three reasons.

First, right of passage. The South China Sea is the second busiest shipping lane on the surface of planet Earth. More than half of the oil which transits the oceans of the world in the hulls of the so-called supertankers, passes through the South China Sea at some point during its journey.

Second, fish. The world's fisheries are being depleted at a frightening rate, with multiple staple food species, such as the blue fin tuna, staggering on the edge of utter collapse. Some of the Asian nations which are party to the disputes in the South China Sea depend heavily upon fishing to feed their growing populations. Any government which cannot feed its people cannot maintain itself in power for long.

Third, oil and gas, the single biggest cause of war and misery in the world today.  In July of 2011, retired US diplomat David Brown penned an interesting article in the Asia Times Online, in which he asserted -

Chinese petroleum geologists are thinking big, however. Luo Donghong, a senior manager of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), predicts that China will confirm reserves of 22 billion barrels of oil in South China Sea deepwater fields by 2020, according to Bloomberg. That's half again the size of Daqing, China's largest onshore oilfield - which is now nearly depleted. CNOOC's Zhang Gongcheng says upwards of 200 trillion cubic meters of natural gas are in the South China Sea seabed as well, the Economist reports.

So, 22 billion barrels of oil, and 200 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. But there's more. There are also enormous deposits of Methane Hydrates, what some have called, "the ice that burns". What the US Department of Energy calls "the gas resource of the future". (And also, potentially, the environmental disaster of the future, but I suppose we can burn that bridge when we come to it. After all, we've never planned ahead for such problems before, why start now?)

While technologies for the extraction of usable energy from methane hydrate deposits have yet to be developed, a PRC report in 2007 estimated that the methane hydrate deposits found in the South China Sea so far could hold as much energy as 10 billion tons of oil. At roughly 6 barrels per ton, (a conservative estimate), that's the equivalent of 60 billion barrels of oil.

Persian Gulf Follies

Yesterday, it was reported that Iran has threatened to close the vital Strait of Hormuz if the USA follows through on plans to impose a total embargo upon the Iranian oil industry.

Today, we are informed that our nation's government has responded with counter-threats, and that a representative of the US 5th Fleet, (which is permanently assigned to the Persian Gulf, and based in Bahrain), chimed in with further hawkish saber-rattling.

This raises a number of questions in the tiny marsupial mind of your faithful correspondent. Not least of these would be, why do we have an independent statement by the 5th Fleet? Is the US Navy now a power unto itself? Does the State department no longer handle diplomatic chores for the United States of (corporate) Amerika? A minor point, you may opine, but still one more indicator that we live in a post-democratic nation-state.

On to the substance of the issue.

The painful part about being a student of history, is that one can often see the parallels, and guess what happens next. The hazardous part about being a student of history, is that one can often guess wrong. None the less, let's play the game of historical parallels for a bit, shall we?

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which occurred on December 7th of 1942, roughly seventy years and three weeks ago, should not have been a surprise. The Anglo-Dutch-US consortium which controlled all oil resources in the Pacific at that time had imposed a complete oil embargo on Japan, using the colorful excuse of Japanese expansion in China.

Yes, I use the term "colorful excuse" deliberately. The Rape of Nanking occurred in 1937, and its details were known in western capitals within weeks, at most. So it took the powers-that-be four long years to decide that those naughty Japanese must be punished? Horseshit. In 1937, nobody in the West gave a damn about the Chinese. By 1941, Roosevelt was desperately seeking an excuse to drag the USA into another European war.

And so the device of an oil embargo was decided upon. Japan, then as now, was totally dependent upon oil imports. US economists predicted that the Japanese economy would collapse within six months without oil. And yet, when Japan responded with a military assault upon the colonial possessions of the embargoing powers, we were caught by surprise? Again I say, horseshit. Anyone who knew anything about Japanese culture and history could have predicted that Japan would fight rather than fold. And even a cursory study of Japanese military history would have revealed that the surprise attack was an old favorite tactic.

Now fast-forward 70 years. Granted Iran and Japan are very different nations, with very different cultures and historical traditions. Imperial Japan was territorially expansionist; Iran hasn't invaded a neighbouring country for over 200 years. The Achilles' Heel of Imperial Japan was oil imports, and that of Iran is its oil exports.

And yet, there are parallels. In both cases, the nation being embargoed was perceived to be a threat to the power of the US Navy. In both cases, the nation being embargoed was perceived to be a threat to the colonial practices of the Western Powers. And in both cases, the subtle hand of the Zionists was at work behind the scenes.

Whoa, Possum, you say! That came out of left field; how the fuck do you figure that?

In 1941, the Zionists wanted the USA committed to the European disaster that we now call World War II, both in order to defeat Germany and also to follow through on plans for the creation of Israel.

Here in late 2011, the Zionists want the USA committed to war with Iran, in order to further the interests of Israel, or at least the perceived interests of the ultra-conservative cabal which currently controls Israel's government.

(And this is as good a place as any to gently remind ourselves that there are good people in Israel, and blaming all Israelis for the horrid crimes of the Israeli government would be every bit as unjust as blaming all Americans for the horrid crimes of the US government.)

So, once again, we have an oil embargo being used to provoke an armed conflict. And yet, the world of 2011 is vastly different from that of 1941. Today, we have stern warnings against precipitate action from the Russians and Chinese, both of whom have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, with the veto power granted by that permanent seat.

As horrid as the thought may be, as painfully as my heart cries out in grief for the potential suffering of the common people both in Iran and here in the USA, I am very much afraid that the reactionaries will succeed in provoking a shooting war involving Iran, sometime in 2012.

What the consequences of that war will be, dear reader, that I cannot begin to say. And neither can the criminal psychopaths who control Washington DC and Tel Aviv.



(Open Salon readers can watch the video here)

South China Sea, Part V

It's been a month since I last mentioned the subject of the South China Sea, and there have been a few new developments, so I suppose it's that time again. Though I must say the degree of apparent interest in this topic here in the US has been underwhelming to non-existent.

China at the moment is playing it very soft on the subject of the South China Sea, because they have other more pressing subjects to pursue. Specifically, they are busy making friends in Europe by establishing stronger economic ties and offering financial support. Europe's bankers, who essentially run the EU, will not forget this support at a time of crisis. And China is also busy applying heavy pressure behind the scenes to get Washington to hammer out a budget deal and raise the debt ceiling. China has invested very heavily in US government debt, and would take a huge loss if Uncle Sam should default.

Behind the scenes, however, the Chinese have been as busy as the proverbial beaver.

This month, July 2011, will see China deploy to the Spratly Islands region the biggest oil exploration, drilling and support rig in existence, a rig constructed at an investment of 8 Billion US dollars.

July 2011 will also see the official launch by the Chinese Navy of its first aircraft carrier, and there is a long tale of deception behind that. Back in 1998, the Chinese bought an unfinished aircraft carrier from the Ukraine, saying that they intended to make a floating casino out of it. The carrier, named Varyag, was a leftover from the USSR, and Ukraine had no use for it. In a truly epic voyage, which deserves a post of its own, the Chinese then towed the Varyag to China, where it has been in drydock ever since. This month, the completed aircraft carrier will be launched, with no casino facilities. Now, let it be understood that this is not a fleet carrier like those used by the US Navy. It is in fact a smaller "ski jump" design of the type once employed by European navies.

And speaking of European navies and aircraft carriers, there are three different Chinese consortia bidding on the former HMS Ark Royal. The story this time is that it will be converted into "the world's largest floating exhibition platform for high-end appliances". I can't even keep a straight face while typing that. Come on, guys, can't you at least cook up a halfway-credible cover story? Not all of us are complete and total idiots...

Olivia Chung's story on the Ark Royal sale in Asia Times Online

Retired US diplomat David Brown has raised another interesting point about the South China Sea area, (we have got to make up a handy acronym for that), namely the existence of Methane Hydrates in vast quantities under the sea. When heated, these Methane Hydrates release methane, or natural gas. Biting my tongue here.

According to David Brown's article-

A 2007 Chinese report estimated that the methane hydrate deposits found so far in the South China Sea may hold as much exploitable energy as 10 billion tons of oil.

I confess that one made me scratch my head a little. Oil is usually measured in barrels, no? Well, it turns out that's mostly an American thing. There can be 6 to 8 barrels of oil in a ton of oil, depending on density. And whose ton we're talking about. But let's use the lower figure.

The equivalent of Ten Billion tons of oil. Six barrels per ton. Sixty Billion barrels of oil, equivalent.

And I think we now understand why the Chinese want the South China Sea so badly.


David Brown's Folly And The South China Sea, also in Asia Times Online

New Golden Gate Bridge, Made In China

The New Golden Gate Bridge, Made In China

Yes, sadly enough, I'm serious. The replacement for the old Golden Gate Bridge, to stretch across the San Francisco Bay to Oakland, is being made in China.

The claim is that the state of California has saved "millions" in labor costs by building the bridge in Shanghai. But let's think about that. If those millions had been paid to California workers, what would have been different?

They'd have paid income tax, to both Federal and California governments.
They'd have paid Social Security taxes on that money.
They'd have spent that money here in California.
The follow-on effects would have generated more millions in economic activity.
And we'd have an American-made bridge.

So, given that all of this is painfully obvious, my questions are as follows.

Why hasn't the mainstream media reported on this?
Who was bribed to make this happen?
Who profits from this boondoggle, other than the Chinese?

Trouble In The South China Sea, Part IV

As I reported in August and September of last year, (see Part I, and Part II, and Part III), long-term trouble is brewing in the South China Sea.

Once again (or still), the center of the current dispute is the unfounded Chinese claims of sovereignty over the entire South China Sea in general, and over the Spratly Islands in particular. Lest the casual reader be fooled by the name, allow me to point out that despite the name China is really nowhere near the South China Sea. Indeed, the nearest point of Chinese land is over 500 miles from even the northernmost of the Spratly Islands.

Now, the standard international treaties clearly state that a nation is entitled to a 200-mile zone of economic exploitation of the sea. Vietnam, Malaysia, The Philippines, and the tiny Sultanate of Brunei are all within 200 miles of at least part of the Spratly Islands. China is over 500 miles away. In spite of this, China is claiming not just economic rights, but actual sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.

Yes, sovereignty, as though it were their own coastal waters. Sovereignty, meaning that the ships and aircraft of all other nations would require Chinese permission to transit any part of the South China Sea. And the South China Sea, my friends, is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Yes, now you see why this matters.

Nor is the issue of transit rights and sovereignty the actual crux of the issue. No, the true issue here is, (what else?), oil and gas. According to China's estimates, there are over 2 billion barrels of oil under the sea near the Spratly Islands. This would be enough to give China the second largest oil deposits in the world, very close behind Saudi Arabia. If you factor in the widespread belief that the Saudis are seriously exaggerating their deposits, this could leave China sitting on top of most of the oil remaining on the planet.

But there's more. The Spratly Islands area is also estimated to hold seabed deposits of over 2 Quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yes, Quadrillion. That's a Billion with six more zeroes tacked on the end. In the blunt vernacular, "un chingo".

So, how hot are things getting this time? Well, the Vietnamese are accusing the Chinese of harassing their ships and cutting cables to exploration vessels. The Chinese, without bothering to deny the specifics, have simply stated that they acting within their rights. The pattern seems to be the same as that which China has used against the Japanese in the disputed Senkaku islands far to the north. First the Chinese send "fishing vessels" manned by military personnel. Then the fishing vessels act aggressively to provoke a confrontation, with ramming being a favorite tactic, and then the Chinese openly send in their navy to "protect the fishermen".

Vietnam, refusing to back away from the confrontation, has announced a "live-fire exercise" in the South China Sea next week. Last weekend, outgoing US Defense Secretary Robert Gates openly warned of the risk of armed conflict in the Spratlys. Last year, the US Navy joined the Vietnamese in maneuvers in the South China Sea. This year, there is no mention of such joint activities.

The first 10 minutes of Counting The Cost at AJE has a very good review of the overall situation and the latest developments, including Chinese plans to deploy a huge new exploration rig to the Spratlys in July. More information is to be found in the AJE print article here.

There is an article in the Asia Times Online, Fight or Flight in the South China Sea, which is surprisingly critical of China for a publication based in Hong Kong.

NHK World English (Japan) has an interesting video report here.

In conclusion, dear reader, I will repeat what I said last summer. Keep an eye on this one. The question is not whether it will blow up, but simply when.

US Corporations Threaten Ireland

In a move of breathtaking corporate hubris, the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, chaired by senior Hewlett-Packard executive Lionel Alexander, has threatened to move its operations to India or China if Ireland raises its incredibly low corporate tax rate of 12.5%, which is currently the lowest in the EU.

For those who haven't been following the international news, the Irish economy is in desperate straits, (sound familiar?), and has just agreed to accept a multi-billion-euro bailout from the EU and the IMF.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy said, "It's obvious that when confronted with a situation like this, there are two levers to use: spending and revenues. I cannot imagine that our Irish friends, in full sovereignty, [would not use] this because they have a greater margin for manoeuvre than others, their taxes being lower than others."

Consider, if you will, the incredible arrogance of these US corporations. They outsourced our jobs to Ireland in order to avoid paying taxes in the USA, where they sell their products. Now they are threatening to flee to China or India if the Irish do not continue to allow them to rob the public treasury by paying a pathetic pittance of an excuse for their fair share.

My friends, the only solution to corporate behavior like this is a tariff on all imports. The corporations, and the evil rich bastards who control them, have sent millions of our jobs overseas, in order to exploit cheap labor. Then, having produced their goods in some third-world country, under sweat-shop conditions, they import those cheap and shoddy goods into the USA, and sell them to us at an obscene profit.

Only by making those corporations pay a steep tariff, of 50% or more, when importing their foreign-made goods into the USA, only by this measure can we bring those career-worthy jobs back home to the USA once again.

All the empty propaganda about "Free Trade" is so much bullshit. This issue is about exploitation of the working people of this world, by the rich, for the profit of the rich. And it has to stop.

Original story in the UK Telegraph here

Oh, That Pesky Nobel Prize!

As most of you will have noticed by now, the Chinese power establishment is furiously angry over the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiao Bo.

Alice Poon, a respected author and commentator in Hong Kong, has posted in her blog a translation of a letter from a Hong Kong professor to his mainland students. "Mainland", in this context, refers to mainland China, which is very different from Hong Kong in some very important ways. The HK Chinese, after 100 years of British rule, are left with some very stubborn western-style ideas about things like democracy and freedom of expression, ideas which the Chinese Communist Party does not view with any significant degree of favor.

Alice Poon's blog entry is here. This is a rare inside look at what is still, for the most part, a closed society.

And I think, dear friends, that I am simply going to let you read it for yourselves, without any further commentary from your favorite gwai loh.

China, Japan, and Precedent

For the first time since last month's fishing boat incident in the Japanese Senkaku islands, the Prime Ministers of China and Japan have held a face-to-face meeting. Apparently there was agreement of restoring relations, but little else.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was quoted in Chinese state media as stressing that the islands, which the Chinese call Diaoyu, "have been Chinese since ancient times", a claim which neatly ignores reality for the past 100+ years.

Japan's Naoto Kan commented that "It is important to mutually respect shared rules of the international community, including those of transactions of raw materials and trade in order to deepen the mutually interdependent relations between Asia and Europe and to achieve mutual growth. It is imperative for related countries and regions to take responsible actions to strengthen trust and to establish a foundation for peace and stability."

While I could always be mistaken, I think that's a very polite Japanese way of saying, "Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on."

China's aggressive belligerence in the Senkaku Islands of the East China Sea is part of the same strategy demonstrated in the Spratly and Paracel Islands of the South China Sea. Chinese claims in both areas rest entirely upon largely-imaginary "have been Chinese since ancient times" arguments. Chinese claims in both areas are really about extensive gas and oil deposits on the nearby sea floor, not a few marginally-habitable islands. Fishing rights are a consideration, but a secondary one.

Now, on to the business of precedent. In law, international law or any other kind, precedent is worshiped like a tiny god.

It is worth noting that the Chinese claims of "Chinese since ancient times" which are heard in the China Sea disputes, are very similar to the "God gave it to us 3000 years ago" claims which are Israel's only real claim to Occupied Palestine. If one of those claims is agreed to by the international community, this will greatly strengthen the other claim, because it will establish precedent.

Japan-China Controversy Continues

As a follow-on to previous stories, (see here and here), Japan last week released the skipper of the Chinese fishing boat which had been detained in the Senkaku Islands. This release of the boat's captain was seen as partly in response to the Chinese arrest of several Japanese citizens.

The Chinese are not satisfied. They have demanded that Japan apologize, and pay compensation. Japan has responded by refusing to apologize, saying that there was nothing to apologize for in having detained the boat, which was in Japanese waters illegally.

Now Japan has demanded that China pay reparations for the damage inflicted upon the Japanese Coast Guard vessels when the Chinese fishing boat rammed them.

Full story at Al Jazeera here
Story at the UK Telegraph here

Japan-China Dispute Continues to Escalate

The dispute between Japan and China over the ownership of the Senkaku islands continues to escalate.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao earlier today threatened Japan with "further action" if the captain of a Chinese fishing boat that rammed Japanese coast guard vessels last week is not released. Given that China has already canceled all high-level contacts with Japan, and broken off all on-going talks, the phrase "further action" could take on ominous overtones.

The real dispute over the islands has little to do with fishing rights, and a great deal to do with the vast gas and oil deposits which are believed to lie beneath the seabed in the area around the islands. It is becoming clear that China, repeating a pattern of behavior seen in the Spratly Islands of the South China Sea, sent the fishing boat into Japanese waters specifically to provoke a confrontation, which it is now seeking to exploit. This theory of deliberate provocation is bolstered by the convenient proximity to the anniversary of the 1931 Mukden Incident, which China still makes much of, even 80 years later. There too, much of the "public outrage" in China over this recent incident has a definite flavor of being orchestrated.

The Japanese, however, have their own agenda. In the first place, Japan desperately needs an oil source of its own. Japan requires a half-dozen supertankers full of crude oil per day in order to keep its economy running, oil that it has historically obtained through the Persian Gulf. But with Persian Gulf oil sources, and indeed all Middle East oil sources, fast becoming of ever more uncertain reliability, Japan very much needs a long-term solution.

In the second place, a confrontation with the Chinese now could serve as a casus belli for Japan to amend its post-war constitution and openly re-arm, especially given that any such re-armament would inevitably infuriate the Chinese in any case.

See earlier entry on this incident here
Al Jazeera story on the latest developments here
UK Telegraph story here, but with an odd perspective.

Diplomatic Escalation In Japan-China Row Over East China Sea

China today upped the diplomatic pressure on Japan over recent incidents between the ships of the two nations in the disputed region of the East China Sea.

China and Japan have long-running disputes over a number of territorial issues, including ownership of the islands in the East China Sea known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. Japan has physical possession of the islands, and China claims them.

In recent years, as China finally begins to exercise the power represented by its newly-constructed blue water navy, China's posture in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea has become more openly aggressive and belligerent. As one example of this, China has been sending fishing boats into disputed waters, in order to provoke incidents which would give its navy an excuse to act.

The most recent example of this took place last week, near the Senkaku islands mentioned above. When two Japanese Coast Guard vessels approached the Chinese fishing vessel, the captain rammed the Japanese vessels and refused to stop. The ship was finally boarded and the captain and crew were arrested. They remain in custody, and the diplomatic catfight has been ratcheting up since Friday.

On Friday, the Chinese cancelled planned negotiations over another dispute in the same region, this one involving ownership of undersea gas deposits.

On Saturday, a Chinese vessel and a Japanese Coast Guard vessel were involved in another incident northwest of Okinawa.

Today, (Sunday 9/12/10), Japan's ambassador to China was summoned in the hours before dawn to listen to a list of angry demands presented by State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who is a high official in the Communist Party, thus out-ranking the Foreign Minister.

Chinese politics are always difficult to interpret. Is this just another round of diplomatic rubber chicken antics? I will confess to being without a clue. But it does seem clear that China is determined to expand its territorial claims in an aggressive manner, and feels it now has the preponderance of military force in the region.

As Chairman Mao said long ago, "Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."


More on the current incident at Arab News

Related issues in Asia Times Online

Spratly Islands, Part III

South Korea and the USA are scheduled to begin joint naval exercises today in the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea. To quote from a story in the BBC -

The latest drill, which will run until 9 September, "will focus on anti-submarine warfare tactics, including detecting and destroying North Korean submarines", an unidentified military official told South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

Meanwhile, the Chinese navy began its own series of live-fire "naval exercises" in the South China Sea on September 1st, exercises which official sources describe as -

"annual routine training, mainly involving the shooting of shipboard artillery"

In late August, China conducted a series of air exercises in the area, which were seen by many observers as a response to recent US interest in the region.

See also previous entries on the Spratly Islands dispute here and here

Spratly Islands, part II

An article published earlier today in the Philippine Daily Inquirer has a few interesting quotes on the potential for conflict in the Spratly Islands, although the parties speaking are careful to say "South China Sea". Perhaps most significant of all is the mere fact that the US Navy and the Philippines Navy are now actually talking about the potential.

The occasion was a visit by the admiral in charge of the US Pacific Command to meet with the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Ricardo David Jr.

In front of the visiting commander of the United States Pacific Command, David said the Philippines would not be part of a shooting war.

“Unang-una wala naman tayong ipuputok (In the first place, we have nothing to shoot with),” David said, drawing grins from some reporters while Admiral Robert Willard simply looked on since he could not understand Filipino.

David expressed hopes that no shooting war would occur in the South China Sea. “We want to avoid that, even our US counterpart would not like any violent activities in the South China Sea,” he said.

Yes, that was an elbow in the ribs.

And from another article in the same excellent publication -

On Sunday, the US Navy hosted a delegation of Vietnamese military and government officials on the USS George Washington, a hulking nuclear-powered aircraft supercarrier cruising in waters off Vietnam’s central coast. Chinese ships were seen shadowing the carrier in the distance.

“These waters belong to nobody, yet belong to everybody,” Capt. David Lausman, commanding officer of the George Washington, said aboard the mammoth carrier that can carry up to 70 aircraft, more than 5,000 sailors and aviators and about 1.8 million kilograms of bombs. “China has a right to operate here, as do we and as do every other country of the world.”

The problem is that the Chinese claim complete sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.

Keep an eye on this one, my friends.

Flashpoint Spratly Islands

As the competition for remaining deposits of crude oil and natural gas accelerates, an obscure group of reefs and shoals in the South China Sea may well become an important and much-contested center of attention.

The so-called Spratly Islands group consists of over 750 reefs, shoals, atolls, islets and islands at the far south end of the South China Sea. Amusingly enough, the total land area of all of these is less than 4 square kilometers. There is no indigenous population, but approximately 50 "islands" are garrisoned by one of the contending nations.

China, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Vietnam have conflicting claims to all or part of the Spratlys, and the Sultanate of Brunei has claimed a fishing zone which includes the southern part of the archipelago.


Map courtesy of Wikimedia

The white symbols are existing gas wells, the black ones are existing oil wells, and the thin blank lines connecting them to the shore are pipelines. As you can see, the area all around the Spratlys has been developed.

Official sources in the West have the oil and gas deposits in the Spratlys listed as "unknown", but this is a thin lie at best. In truth it has been known at least since the 1970's, (and possibly 40 years earlier than that), that enormous deposits of oil and gas lay under the Spratlys; it has simply never been economically advantageous to exploit those resources.

According to the Chinese, however, the oil and gas deposits under the Spratlys total nearly 18 billion tons, as compared to a total of roughly 13 billion tons for Kuwait, which is considered an oil and gas giant.

In 1988, Vietnam and China fought a brisk little series of skirmishes near Johnson South Reef, in which the Vietnamese were defeated, with the loss of three small patrol vessels.

In 1995, the Chinese seized Mischief Reef from the Philippines.

So why am I bringing this up now? Because there is again a very real potential for conflict over the Spratlys in the near future. Specifically, the USA is in the process of grooming Vietnam to act as its proxy in the region.

First came the announcement that the USA would sell civilian nuclear technology to Vietnam.

Then about 3 weeks ago, on July 23, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced that that the U.S. had a "national interest in... respect for international law in the South China Sea" and supported a regional solution to the dispute. China responded by saying that the US offer to mediate the dispute was "an attack on China".

An article in the Telegraph on Sunday noted that the US and Vietnam are to hold joint naval exercises in the area, and this at a time when relations between the US and China are already rather strained over US sales of military hardware to Taiwan.

Interesting times, dear readers, we live in interesting times.