|
U.S. Military To Defend Feng Shui Of Southeast Asia
President Obama today issued a new Executive Order (E.O.) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the violation of the harmony, the feng shui, of Southeast Asia.
China said it was “deeply concerned” on Wednesday about a reported U.S. proposal to consider sending naval ships and aircraft toward man-made islands in the South China Sea as tensions escalate between the two nations over the vital waters.
…
“Reclamation isn’t necessarily a violation of international law, but it’s certainly violating the harmony, the feng shui, of Southeast Asia, and it’s certainly violating China’s claim to be a good neighbor and a benign and non-threatening power,” Daniel Russel, assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said in a telephone interview.
…
As it does for a range of regional developments, the U.S. Pacific Command has drawn up contingency plans related to China’s buildup of artificial islands in the South China Sea, U.S. defense officials said.
The plans have not yet been examined at the most senior levels of the Obama administration, and officials said there had been no decision to immediately deploy assets near the artificial islands. Because the islands are in international waters, U.S. planes or ships could transit near them as a matter of course, the officials said.
To further defend the feng shui of Southeast Asia the U.S. is stationing B-1 strategic nuclear bombers and long range surveillance drones in Australia.
/not-satire
FYI, Vietnam also is “enhancing” islands to enable more facilities, landing strips, etc, and Phillipinnes does the same, low budget style, intentionally grounding a US-donated derelict vessel on pristine reefs they claim, to station a few troops for sole purpose of symbolically projecting power. Japan also has a “Feng Shui” problem, with it’s ridiculous Okinotorishima engineering project imposing concrete structures on another reef in order to claim EEZ around it… Coincidentally closing a ring around “open” ocean, which then allows their claim to “donut hole”*. (approved by UNCLOS, though US apparatchiks complain when Russia does the same in Okhotsk internal waters… because Putin) Likewise, the US itself is trying to build new military bases in Japanese Okinawa, involving building “new land” over more pristine waters to enable a large military landing strip. …So yeah, give me some of what your Feng Shui consultant is smoking, K?
* Which clearly is China’s intent re: SCS, they hold/claim a string of islands whose EEZ amounts to a “ring” around the SCS, which would entitle them to “the donut whole” as EEZ, thus, islands superfluous to establishing that “ring” are likely “negotiable” for them… In fact meaning China’s ultimate negotiating position isn’t much different in terms of % of the disputed area (the potential SCS “donut hole” is not disputed territory per se, either China gets it “for free” if they control “ring”, or nobody gets it and it is “Open Sea”), compared to OTHER claimants (Vietnam, Malaysia, Phillipinnes) whose claims of course also conflict which each others’ yet they are not demonized like China is. In other words, China may not (per US) make equivalent claims to territory on island-by-island basis, because the implications of those claims would happen to disproportionately benefit it (due to other Chinese territory bordering SCS, enabling “ring”) …Of course, there is no reason China should accept lesser rights, just because it is powerful/would become more powerful… I mean, where exactly is the US foreswearing it’s international rights, just because it already is powerful enough?
China’s claims in fact are vaguely plausible, with historic basis, and certainly are reasonable basis for negotiations, not just some crazy modern claim. AFAIK, Phillipinnes’ claim is based on nothing else but proximity/major island EEZ, i.e. assuming there is no legal owners of the islands and thus the whole area’s waters can be treated as EEZ of Phillipinne major islands… Except, you know, there ARE islands which may have own EEZ, and they are claimed by other countries. Western MSM treatment takes basically the same tack, ignoring details in favor of pointing at large scale map and saying “See, this is the standard EEZ of the large islands/coasts” which just ignores the fact that islands exist and have EEZ rights. UNCLOS courts really have no basis to rule on anything if the land sovereignty is not settled first (and they can only rule on EEZ if all parties agree ahead of time, ala Chile/Peru, Colombia/Nicaragua). But hey, when you are Western MSM, you can cite “international law” left and right, without relying on actual academic experts in international law, or needing to rigourously address ALL issues of IntLaw.
More broadly, Western MSM and US like harping on “free transit”, i.e. favorite canard of British Empire now inherited by US, and conflict with China in interpretations of IntLaw, as seen by downing of US Navy surveillance plane in Chinese EEZ but not “Nat Waters”. US of course can’t seem to distinguish between “transit” and “military surveillance operations”, but in the larger scope of things, I would say it is clear that there is a tendency for EEZ (itself an expansion of territorial rights) to “morph” into more extensive territorial rights. I would substantiate that by looking at UNCLOS rulings in Colombia/Nicaragua, which while recognizing Nicaragua’s broad rights, persists in granting Colombia an EEZ “corridor” to islands it claims… A corridor that is wholely un-necessary if EEZ allow totally “free” transit, i.e. total Nicaragua EEZ control would not “isolate” the islands from Colombia… But the court seems to believe otherwise, thus implying a potential for growth in scope of EEZ powers. Of course, the US’ pretense to be all about “IntLaw” is silly when the entire concept of EEZ is an innovation ground in Law of Sea treaty that the US refuses to accede to, while acting like (some parts of it) are IntLaw (when and where convenient to US). Either take a legalistic POV or don’t.
Russia largely tries to stay neutral, although interestingly is invested in Vietnam petro industry with off-shore claims in the disputed areas, but I’m really surprised they haven’t just tried to push a resolution format baed on their perspective… Their demarcation of disputed border with Norway (that was touted as ominous threat by NATO MSM, until they resolved it by treaty, prompting Nato MSM to forget about it rather than admit Russia likes to peacefully consensually resolve issues) provides a very interesting basis for SCS dispute, namely, assign national boundaries on equitable basis (which would leave China with SCS “ring”, giving it advantage in other areas, but not upsetting balance in sharing of Spratley area itself) but establishing a zone straddling the border where the states agree to share resources and cooperate… Incidentally reducing “risk” by making it irrelevant where exactly deposits lie on either side of that line. Likewise, with all parties more sure they will benefit from offshore deposits, whether or not their side of the line has the strongest concentrations, there is more tendency for them to agree to unified set of rules protecting environment in the region.
Posted by: mutantsushi | May 14 2015 19:16 utc | 7
|
