July 14, 2018
The Trump baby blimp is making the US president 'feel unwelcome' in the UK
Posted 2 days ago by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
Donald Trump has been in the UK less than 24 hours and he's already admitted that he "feels unwelcome."
Why on earth would he feel like this?
Surely he's aware that thousands of people will be gathering in central London later to mark his arrival? There will be balloons and everything.
Sadly, for Donald. That's what he has taken an exception to. A balloon.
By now you are probably aware that 20ft 'Trump Baby' blimp will be flown over Parliament Square this morning and the famously-thick-skinned President isn't best pleased.
Speaking to The Sun he said:
I guess when they put out blimps to make me feel unwelcome, no reason for me to go to London.
I used to love London as a city. I haven’t been there in a long time.
But when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?
It's true that Trump's arrival in the UK is mostly being viewed as an unpopular event with protests expected around the capital throughout Friday.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn has authorised the blimp and Trump continued to criticise the Labour representative and the job that he is doing.
You have a mayor who has done a terrible job in London. He has done a terrible job.
Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London.
He might not like the current president, but I represent the United States.
Once again, despite a predicted 200,000 people expected to be at the protests, Trump believes that he is still popular amongst the British public.
And when I say that [being unwelcome] I am talking about government because the people of the UK agree with me.
Many people are delighted. I get thousands of notifications from people in the UK that they love the President of the United States.
They want the same thing I want.
Considering that he won't be returning to London for the rest of his trip he would have been hoping to not see the blimp in person but The Hill reports that it will be transported to Scotland where there are plans to fly in at his Turnberry golf course.
However, that is unlikely to happen as local police have already confirmed that they won't allow the blimp to fly.
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams said:
Clearly, there is a significant protection operation in place for the president and this includes restrictions to the airspace in the Turnberry area.
We need to ensure there is a balance between protection and public safety and the public's right to peacefully protest.
With that in mind and on this occasion we are unable to grant permission for the balloon to fly in that area, however, we are in discussion with the applicants about possible alternatives
HT The Sun
Saturday, July 14, 2018
Don’t be fooled – Liu Xia’s release is not a sign of China’s softening stance on critics - Hong Kong Free Press
Don’t be fooled – Liu Xia’s release is not a sign of China’s softening stance on critics
14 July 2018 14:30 Kent Ewing5 min read
The photograph of a euphoric Liu Xia, the poet and widow of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, landing in Helsinki on Tuesday for a short layover on her way to freedom in Berlin earlier this week spoke for itself: grinning broadly, her arms spread like a bird in flight, she had finally, after the imprisonment and death of her husband and years of psychological torture under house arrest in Beijing, escaped the clutches of her tormentors.
Her frail body told of her prolonged detention by security forces in China, but her newfound joy and energy showed the strength of her spirit—indeed, of the human spirit, and was an inspiration for all to see.
One cannot help but share in Liu’s happiness and exhilaration and hope that she soon recovers from the clinical depression and physical debilitation that her ordeal has cost her.
But this is no time for celebration. While Liu, 57, is beginning a new life of freedom in Berlin, many other lesser-known dissidents continue to languish in prisons and detention centres in China, and President Xi Jinping’s three-year-long crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists continues unabated.
Indeed, Xi’s purge of hundreds, if not thousands, of putative subversives is the worst such witch hunt since the aftermath of Deng Xiaoping’s military assault on the pro-democracy protesters who occupied Tiananmen Square for nearly two months in the spring of 1989.
And, just in case anyone was inclined to misinterpret the release of Liu as a sign that the Chinese leadership was softening its stance on critics of its authoritarian one-party rule, less than 24 hours after Liu’s arrival in Berlin human-rights activist Qin Yongmin was found guilty of “subversion of state power” by a court in Wuhan and sentenced to 13 years behind bars.
That’s the harshest sentence meted out for subversion by a Chinese court in 15 years and comes on top of the 22 years the 64-year-old Qin has already spent in prison for “counter-revolutionary” activities.
So much for human rights in China.
Looking at the broader picture, it becomes clear that Liu, who spent eight agonising years under house arrest although she was never charged with any crime, is just another pawn in China’s ongoing geopolitical chess match with Western powers, now divided by the aggressively nationalistic policies of United States President Donald Trump.
Caught in a growing trade dispute with the US that is threatening to blow up into a full-on trade war, Xi hopes to curry favour with Germany and, by extension, the European Union with the release of Liu for medical treatment.
But this apparent “humanitarian” gesture, as Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam has so maladroitly characterised it, is in reality a cold diplomatic calculation, offering no promise of better treatment for others bold enough to speak out against the Chinese government on their home turf.
It should be remembered that Liu herself is actually no dissident; she is an accomplished poet and painter who just happened to be married to the man who won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his long campaign to bring about a freer, more democratic China.
Liu Xiaobo’s efforts included lending support to the student-led Tiananmen protests 29 years ago and, more recently, coauthoring Charter 08, a manifesto signed by more than 300 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists calling for the end of one-party rule and an independent legal system in China.
Liu was arrested in December of 2008, two days before the scheduled official release of the charter, indicted a year later for “inciting subversion of state power” and sentenced to 11 years in prison by a Beijing court on Christmas Day, 2009.
Memorably, a year later, Liu’s Noble Prize was awarded to an empty chair in the Norwegian capital of Oslo—an iconic moment that drew an angry response from the Chinese government, whose foreign ministry had denounced the choice of Liu as a “desecration of the Peace Prize,” and prompted further repression of dissent across China.
Aged 61, Liu died of liver cancer in a hospital in Shenyang one year ago this Friday after being refused treatment abroad, the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to die in custody since German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky in 1938. Liu is rightly regarded as a hero in many places, including Hong Kong, where the anniversary of his death was marked in a solemn ceremony organised by pro-democracy activists, as it was in Berlin and in other cities around the globe.
Liu Xiaobo’s empty chair during the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony in 2010. Photo: VOA via Wikimedia Commons.
Liu’s legacy lives on in these memorials and in the revived spirit of his widow as she starts her new life in Berlin.
It would be unfair, however, to expect Liu Xia to pick up the human-rights mantle that her husband left behind. No doubt, once she has recovered her health, she would be willing, but her two brothers, Liu Tong and Liu Hui, remain in China as additional pawns in the Chinese government’s great geopolitical game.
If Liu speaks out from Berlin, they could very well suffer the consequences back home. Liu Hui, her younger brother, has already spent time in prison on trumped-up fraud charges and would likely be a target for retribution again if his sister lobs anti-China criticisms from her perch in the German capital.
That’s why this feel-good story of the long-suffering Liu Xia’s release winds up, in the end, feeling pretty bad.
14 July 2018 14:30 Kent Ewing5 min read
The photograph of a euphoric Liu Xia, the poet and widow of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, landing in Helsinki on Tuesday for a short layover on her way to freedom in Berlin earlier this week spoke for itself: grinning broadly, her arms spread like a bird in flight, she had finally, after the imprisonment and death of her husband and years of psychological torture under house arrest in Beijing, escaped the clutches of her tormentors.
Her frail body told of her prolonged detention by security forces in China, but her newfound joy and energy showed the strength of her spirit—indeed, of the human spirit, and was an inspiration for all to see.
One cannot help but share in Liu’s happiness and exhilaration and hope that she soon recovers from the clinical depression and physical debilitation that her ordeal has cost her.
But this is no time for celebration. While Liu, 57, is beginning a new life of freedom in Berlin, many other lesser-known dissidents continue to languish in prisons and detention centres in China, and President Xi Jinping’s three-year-long crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists continues unabated.
Indeed, Xi’s purge of hundreds, if not thousands, of putative subversives is the worst such witch hunt since the aftermath of Deng Xiaoping’s military assault on the pro-democracy protesters who occupied Tiananmen Square for nearly two months in the spring of 1989.
And, just in case anyone was inclined to misinterpret the release of Liu as a sign that the Chinese leadership was softening its stance on critics of its authoritarian one-party rule, less than 24 hours after Liu’s arrival in Berlin human-rights activist Qin Yongmin was found guilty of “subversion of state power” by a court in Wuhan and sentenced to 13 years behind bars.
That’s the harshest sentence meted out for subversion by a Chinese court in 15 years and comes on top of the 22 years the 64-year-old Qin has already spent in prison for “counter-revolutionary” activities.
So much for human rights in China.
Looking at the broader picture, it becomes clear that Liu, who spent eight agonising years under house arrest although she was never charged with any crime, is just another pawn in China’s ongoing geopolitical chess match with Western powers, now divided by the aggressively nationalistic policies of United States President Donald Trump.
Caught in a growing trade dispute with the US that is threatening to blow up into a full-on trade war, Xi hopes to curry favour with Germany and, by extension, the European Union with the release of Liu for medical treatment.
But this apparent “humanitarian” gesture, as Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam has so maladroitly characterised it, is in reality a cold diplomatic calculation, offering no promise of better treatment for others bold enough to speak out against the Chinese government on their home turf.
It should be remembered that Liu herself is actually no dissident; she is an accomplished poet and painter who just happened to be married to the man who won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his long campaign to bring about a freer, more democratic China.
Liu Xiaobo’s efforts included lending support to the student-led Tiananmen protests 29 years ago and, more recently, coauthoring Charter 08, a manifesto signed by more than 300 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists calling for the end of one-party rule and an independent legal system in China.
Liu was arrested in December of 2008, two days before the scheduled official release of the charter, indicted a year later for “inciting subversion of state power” and sentenced to 11 years in prison by a Beijing court on Christmas Day, 2009.
Memorably, a year later, Liu’s Noble Prize was awarded to an empty chair in the Norwegian capital of Oslo—an iconic moment that drew an angry response from the Chinese government, whose foreign ministry had denounced the choice of Liu as a “desecration of the Peace Prize,” and prompted further repression of dissent across China.
Aged 61, Liu died of liver cancer in a hospital in Shenyang one year ago this Friday after being refused treatment abroad, the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to die in custody since German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky in 1938. Liu is rightly regarded as a hero in many places, including Hong Kong, where the anniversary of his death was marked in a solemn ceremony organised by pro-democracy activists, as it was in Berlin and in other cities around the globe.
Liu Xiaobo’s empty chair during the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony in 2010. Photo: VOA via Wikimedia Commons.
Liu’s legacy lives on in these memorials and in the revived spirit of his widow as she starts her new life in Berlin.
It would be unfair, however, to expect Liu Xia to pick up the human-rights mantle that her husband left behind. No doubt, once she has recovered her health, she would be willing, but her two brothers, Liu Tong and Liu Hui, remain in China as additional pawns in the Chinese government’s great geopolitical game.
If Liu speaks out from Berlin, they could very well suffer the consequences back home. Liu Hui, her younger brother, has already spent time in prison on trumped-up fraud charges and would likely be a target for retribution again if his sister lobs anti-China criticisms from her perch in the German capital.
That’s why this feel-good story of the long-suffering Liu Xia’s release winds up, in the end, feeling pretty bad.
How Beijing is winning control of the South China Sea - Nikkei Asian Review
How Beijing is winning control of the South China Sea
Erratic US policy and fraying alliances give China a free hand
SIMON ROUGHNEEN, Asia regional correspondent
June 13, 2018 14:04 JST
SINGAPORE -- Even by his outspoken standards, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s account of a conversation he had with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, was startling.
During a meeting between the two leaders in Beijing in May 2017, the subject turned to whether the Philippines would seek to drill for oil in a part of the South China Sea claimed by both countries. Duterte said he was given a blunt warning by China’s president.
“[Xi’s] response to me [was], ‘We’re friends, we don’t want to quarrel with you, we want to maintain the presence of warm relationship, but if you force the issue, we’ll go to war,” Duterte recounted.
A year later, Duterte was asked for a response to news that China had landed long-range bombers on one of the South China Sea's Paracel Islands -- a milestone that suggests the People's Liberation Army Air Force can easily make the short hop to most of Southeast Asia from its new airstrips. “What’s the point of questioning whether the planes there land or not?” Duterte responded.
His refusal to condemn China’s military buildup underlines China's success in subduing its rivals in the South China Sea. Since 2013 China has expanded artificial islands and reefs in the sea and subsequently installed a network of runways, missile launchers, barracks and communications facilities.
These military advances have led many to wonder if Beijing has already established unassailable control over the disputed waters. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have overlapping claims to parts of the South China Sea and its islands – claims that are looking increasingly forlorn in the wake of China’s military buildup.
“What China is winning is de facto control of nearly the entire South China Sea, including all activities and resources in it, despite the other surrounding Southeast Asian states' respective legal rights and entitlements under international law,” said Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea.
At stake is the huge commercial and military leverage that comes with controlling one of the world’s most important shipping lanes, through which up to $5 trillion worth of trade passes each year.
U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis insists that China faces “consequences” for the “militarization” of South China Sea, which he says is being done for “the purposes of intimidation and coercion.”
“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,” Mattis said on June 2 at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, a security conference organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Mac Thornberry, chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, added that the U.S. naval presence means China does not have a free hand in the South China Sea.
“I think you will see more and more nations working together to affirm freedom of navigation through the South China Sea and other international waters,” Thornberry told the Nikkei Asian Review.
But what those consequences might be was left unsaid by Mattis, who suggested that there was little prospect of forcing China to give up its growing network of military facilities dotting the sea.
“We all know nobody is ready to invade," he said.
U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis talked up the "Indo-Pacific" strategy in his June 2 speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)
Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “There is no reasonable basis for the U.S. to use military force to push China off its outposts, nor would any country in the region support such an effort.”
The U.S. pushback so far has included disinviting China from a major Pacific naval exercise. It also continues to carry out so-called freedom of navigation operations, or FONOPs, the most recent of which took place on May 27. This was followed by U.S. military aircraft flying over the Paracel Islands in early June, a move that prompted a countercharge of “militarization'” against the U.S. by China's Foreign Ministry.
China regards the FONOPs as sabre-rattling and “a challenge to [our] sovereignty,” according to Lt. Gen. He Lei, Beijing's lead representative at the Singapore conference.
He restated the government position on troops and weapons on islands in the South China Sea, describing the deployments as an assertion of sovereignty and said that allegations of militarization were “hyped up” by the U.S.
Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana stopped short of endorsing the FONOPs but told the Nikkei Asian Review that “it is our belief that those sea lanes should be left open and free.”
In contrast to Duterte's reluctance to confront China, his predecessor as president, Benigno Aquino, was frequently outspoken about China's increasing control of the sea. He pressed a case against Beijing to an arbitration tribunal in 2013 after a protracted naval stand-off the year before around Scarborough Shoal, a rock claimed by both countries and lying about 120 nautical miles off the Luzon coast.
In mid-2016 the tribunal dismissed China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim to much of the South China Sea and its artificial island-building and expansion, all of which the tribunal said contravened the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.
Duterte said he would not “flaunt” the tribunal outcome, in contrast with his campaign pledge to assert the country's sovereignty -- he even vowed to ride a jet ski to one of China's artificial islands and plant the Philippine flag there. Manila hopes for significant Chinese investment in roads, rail and ports, as part of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative, a multicontinent plan outlining China-backed infrastructure upgrades.
Filipino activists rally outside the Chinese Consulate in Manila in February to protest Beijing's continued reclamation activities in the South China Sea. © Reuters
Defense Secretary Lorenzana emphasized in remarks to the media in Singapore that good relations with China remain a priority, regardless of bilateral disputes. “It is just natural for us to befriend our neighbor. We cannot avoid dealing with China, they are near, [and] many Filipinos, including me, have Chinese blood.”
For the Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, there are growing doubts about whether the American navy would protect them in a conflict with China, something Duterte, a brusque critic of the U.S., has questioned publicly.
Mattis, like former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sidestepped a question on that issue in Singapore, saying, “The reason why public figures do not want to give specific answers is that these are complex issues.”
Shifting US policy leaves Asian allies at sea
US and China trade barbs over South China Sea island-building
American evasiveness is a reminder to the Philippines that the U.S. might not risk war with China over its old ally. “It is debatable whether Filipinos believe that the U.S. will have its back in a conflict with China,” Batongbacal of the University of the Philippines said. “Duterte's repeated statements against the reliability of the U.S. as an ally tends to undermine this further.”
Duterte's reticence has left Vietnam as the sole claimant willing to speak up. Discussing recent developments in the South China Sea, Vietnamese Defense Minister Gen. Ngo Xuan Lich told the Singapore conference, "Under no circumstances could we excuse militarization by deploying weapons and military hardware over disputed areas against regional commitments.”
Lich did not name-check China in his speech, but described “a serious breach to the sovereignty” of another country that “violates international laws, complicates the situation and negatively affects regional peace, stability and security.”
As well as hindering oil and gas projects in waters close to Vietnam, China's navy has for several years harassed Vietnamese fishing boats -- as it does around the Philippines -- and continues to occupy islands seized from Vietnam nearly five decades ago.
In 2014, anti-China riots kicked off across Vietnam after China placed an oil rig in South China Sea waters claimed by Hanoi. In early June there were demonstrations against proposals that protesters claimed will give Chinese businesses favored access in so-called Special Economic Zones in Vietnam.
The Lan Tay gas platform, operated by Rosneft Vietnam, sits in the South China Sea off the Vietnamese coast. China has been hindering Vietnam's oil exploration activities in the sea. © Reuters
Vietnam's response to potential isolation has been a cautious dalliance with the U.S. In late 2016, shortly before the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, American warships docked in Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay naval base, the first such visit since the former antagonists normalized ties in 1995. That landmark was followed in March this year by the arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier to the central Vietnam city of Danang.
Hanoi recently called for greater Japanese involvement in the region's maritime disputes, perhaps signalling an interest in a wider effort to counter China. But unlike the Philippines, Vietnam, which like China is a single party communist-run state, is not a U.S. treaty ally. Historical and ideological differences mean that there are limits to how closely Vietnam will align with the U.S.
“I think there is a good momentum with defense cooperation with the U.S. But I don't think that it would immediately mean jumping into the ‘American camp,’ whatever it means,” said Huong Le Thu, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The U.S. has sought to widen the array of countries it hopes will join it in countering China’s rising influence. During his 12-day swing through Asia in late 2017, Trump peppered his speeches with references to the “Indo-Pacific,” dispensing with the long established “Asia-Pacific” label in favor of a more expansive term first used by Japan.
The "Indo-Pacific" was then mentioned throughout the U.S. National Security Strategy published soon after Trump’s Asia trip -- a document that alleged China aims to “challenge American power” and “is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda.”
Three days before his Singapore speech, Mattis announced in Hawaii that the U.S. Pacific Command would be renamed the Indo-Pacific Command, describing the expanded theater as stretching “from Bollywood to Hollywood."
Mattis later added some gravitas to the cinematic catchphrase, saying in Singapore that “standing shoulder to shoulder with India, ASEAN and our treaty allies and other partners, America seeks to build an Indo-Pacific where sovereignty and territorial integrity are safeguarded -- the promise of freedom fulfilled and prosperity prevails for all.”
The Trump administration clearly hopes for greater Indian involvement in its efforts to counter China's growing influence. Kori Schake, deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that while “Indo-Pacific isn't yet an established part of the lexicon,” the implications of the term are clear.
“India is an Asian power. The countries adopting the term are encouraging India into greater cooperation in maintaining the maritime commons in the Indian and Pacific oceans,” said Schake, a former U.S. State Department official.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security conference, in Singapore on June 1. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)
Modi enthusiastically echoed American rhetoric about a “shared vision of an open, stable, secure and prosperous” Indo-Pacific, which he described as “a natural region” -- countering those who wonder if an area stretching from Bollywood to Hollywood might too vast and disparate to be cast into a geopolitical fact on the ground.
But Modi also heaped praise on China, despite its border dispute with India and increasingly close economic ties with Pakistan, India's neighbor and nuclear rival.
“Our cooperation is expanding. Trade is growing. And, we have displayed maturity and wisdom in managing issues and ensuring a peaceful border,” Modi said.
China's foreign ministry described Modi's speech as "positive," while one of its military delegation at the Singapore conference gloated that India and the U.S. "have different understandings, different interpretations, of this Indo-Pacific."
China's first domestically designed and built aircraft carrier © Kyodo
It is perhaps no surprise then that China's rivals in the South China Sea do not yet regard the nascent Indo-Pacific alliance-building as something to pin their hopes on when it comes to control of the sea.
“We are witnessing the great power shift toward Asia-Pacific with the 'Indo-Pacific strategy,' Belt and Road Initiative and a series of country grouping[s] in the region,” Lich said, cautioning that “the outcomes for the region and the world are somewhat yet to be unveiled.”
Lich's Philippine counterpart was even more circumspect, particularly regarding the Indo-Pacific concept. “I have to study it some more,” Lorenzana said. “This is a new construct in this area.”
Nikkei staff writers Mikhail Flores in Manila and Atsushi Tomiyama in Hanoi contributed to this article.
Erratic US policy and fraying alliances give China a free hand
SIMON ROUGHNEEN, Asia regional correspondent
June 13, 2018 14:04 JST
SINGAPORE -- Even by his outspoken standards, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s account of a conversation he had with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, was startling.
During a meeting between the two leaders in Beijing in May 2017, the subject turned to whether the Philippines would seek to drill for oil in a part of the South China Sea claimed by both countries. Duterte said he was given a blunt warning by China’s president.
“[Xi’s] response to me [was], ‘We’re friends, we don’t want to quarrel with you, we want to maintain the presence of warm relationship, but if you force the issue, we’ll go to war,” Duterte recounted.
A year later, Duterte was asked for a response to news that China had landed long-range bombers on one of the South China Sea's Paracel Islands -- a milestone that suggests the People's Liberation Army Air Force can easily make the short hop to most of Southeast Asia from its new airstrips. “What’s the point of questioning whether the planes there land or not?” Duterte responded.
His refusal to condemn China’s military buildup underlines China's success in subduing its rivals in the South China Sea. Since 2013 China has expanded artificial islands and reefs in the sea and subsequently installed a network of runways, missile launchers, barracks and communications facilities.
These military advances have led many to wonder if Beijing has already established unassailable control over the disputed waters. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have overlapping claims to parts of the South China Sea and its islands – claims that are looking increasingly forlorn in the wake of China’s military buildup.
“What China is winning is de facto control of nearly the entire South China Sea, including all activities and resources in it, despite the other surrounding Southeast Asian states' respective legal rights and entitlements under international law,” said Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea.
At stake is the huge commercial and military leverage that comes with controlling one of the world’s most important shipping lanes, through which up to $5 trillion worth of trade passes each year.
U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis insists that China faces “consequences” for the “militarization” of South China Sea, which he says is being done for “the purposes of intimidation and coercion.”
“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,” Mattis said on June 2 at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, a security conference organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Mac Thornberry, chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, added that the U.S. naval presence means China does not have a free hand in the South China Sea.
“I think you will see more and more nations working together to affirm freedom of navigation through the South China Sea and other international waters,” Thornberry told the Nikkei Asian Review.
But what those consequences might be was left unsaid by Mattis, who suggested that there was little prospect of forcing China to give up its growing network of military facilities dotting the sea.
“We all know nobody is ready to invade," he said.
U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis talked up the "Indo-Pacific" strategy in his June 2 speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)
Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “There is no reasonable basis for the U.S. to use military force to push China off its outposts, nor would any country in the region support such an effort.”
The U.S. pushback so far has included disinviting China from a major Pacific naval exercise. It also continues to carry out so-called freedom of navigation operations, or FONOPs, the most recent of which took place on May 27. This was followed by U.S. military aircraft flying over the Paracel Islands in early June, a move that prompted a countercharge of “militarization'” against the U.S. by China's Foreign Ministry.
China regards the FONOPs as sabre-rattling and “a challenge to [our] sovereignty,” according to Lt. Gen. He Lei, Beijing's lead representative at the Singapore conference.
He restated the government position on troops and weapons on islands in the South China Sea, describing the deployments as an assertion of sovereignty and said that allegations of militarization were “hyped up” by the U.S.
Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana stopped short of endorsing the FONOPs but told the Nikkei Asian Review that “it is our belief that those sea lanes should be left open and free.”
In contrast to Duterte's reluctance to confront China, his predecessor as president, Benigno Aquino, was frequently outspoken about China's increasing control of the sea. He pressed a case against Beijing to an arbitration tribunal in 2013 after a protracted naval stand-off the year before around Scarborough Shoal, a rock claimed by both countries and lying about 120 nautical miles off the Luzon coast.
In mid-2016 the tribunal dismissed China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim to much of the South China Sea and its artificial island-building and expansion, all of which the tribunal said contravened the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.
Duterte said he would not “flaunt” the tribunal outcome, in contrast with his campaign pledge to assert the country's sovereignty -- he even vowed to ride a jet ski to one of China's artificial islands and plant the Philippine flag there. Manila hopes for significant Chinese investment in roads, rail and ports, as part of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative, a multicontinent plan outlining China-backed infrastructure upgrades.
Filipino activists rally outside the Chinese Consulate in Manila in February to protest Beijing's continued reclamation activities in the South China Sea. © Reuters
Defense Secretary Lorenzana emphasized in remarks to the media in Singapore that good relations with China remain a priority, regardless of bilateral disputes. “It is just natural for us to befriend our neighbor. We cannot avoid dealing with China, they are near, [and] many Filipinos, including me, have Chinese blood.”
For the Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, there are growing doubts about whether the American navy would protect them in a conflict with China, something Duterte, a brusque critic of the U.S., has questioned publicly.
Mattis, like former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sidestepped a question on that issue in Singapore, saying, “The reason why public figures do not want to give specific answers is that these are complex issues.”
Shifting US policy leaves Asian allies at sea
US and China trade barbs over South China Sea island-building
American evasiveness is a reminder to the Philippines that the U.S. might not risk war with China over its old ally. “It is debatable whether Filipinos believe that the U.S. will have its back in a conflict with China,” Batongbacal of the University of the Philippines said. “Duterte's repeated statements against the reliability of the U.S. as an ally tends to undermine this further.”
Duterte's reticence has left Vietnam as the sole claimant willing to speak up. Discussing recent developments in the South China Sea, Vietnamese Defense Minister Gen. Ngo Xuan Lich told the Singapore conference, "Under no circumstances could we excuse militarization by deploying weapons and military hardware over disputed areas against regional commitments.”
Lich did not name-check China in his speech, but described “a serious breach to the sovereignty” of another country that “violates international laws, complicates the situation and negatively affects regional peace, stability and security.”
As well as hindering oil and gas projects in waters close to Vietnam, China's navy has for several years harassed Vietnamese fishing boats -- as it does around the Philippines -- and continues to occupy islands seized from Vietnam nearly five decades ago.
In 2014, anti-China riots kicked off across Vietnam after China placed an oil rig in South China Sea waters claimed by Hanoi. In early June there were demonstrations against proposals that protesters claimed will give Chinese businesses favored access in so-called Special Economic Zones in Vietnam.
The Lan Tay gas platform, operated by Rosneft Vietnam, sits in the South China Sea off the Vietnamese coast. China has been hindering Vietnam's oil exploration activities in the sea. © Reuters
Vietnam's response to potential isolation has been a cautious dalliance with the U.S. In late 2016, shortly before the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, American warships docked in Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay naval base, the first such visit since the former antagonists normalized ties in 1995. That landmark was followed in March this year by the arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier to the central Vietnam city of Danang.
Hanoi recently called for greater Japanese involvement in the region's maritime disputes, perhaps signalling an interest in a wider effort to counter China. But unlike the Philippines, Vietnam, which like China is a single party communist-run state, is not a U.S. treaty ally. Historical and ideological differences mean that there are limits to how closely Vietnam will align with the U.S.
“I think there is a good momentum with defense cooperation with the U.S. But I don't think that it would immediately mean jumping into the ‘American camp,’ whatever it means,” said Huong Le Thu, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The U.S. has sought to widen the array of countries it hopes will join it in countering China’s rising influence. During his 12-day swing through Asia in late 2017, Trump peppered his speeches with references to the “Indo-Pacific,” dispensing with the long established “Asia-Pacific” label in favor of a more expansive term first used by Japan.
The "Indo-Pacific" was then mentioned throughout the U.S. National Security Strategy published soon after Trump’s Asia trip -- a document that alleged China aims to “challenge American power” and “is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda.”
Three days before his Singapore speech, Mattis announced in Hawaii that the U.S. Pacific Command would be renamed the Indo-Pacific Command, describing the expanded theater as stretching “from Bollywood to Hollywood."
Mattis later added some gravitas to the cinematic catchphrase, saying in Singapore that “standing shoulder to shoulder with India, ASEAN and our treaty allies and other partners, America seeks to build an Indo-Pacific where sovereignty and territorial integrity are safeguarded -- the promise of freedom fulfilled and prosperity prevails for all.”
The Trump administration clearly hopes for greater Indian involvement in its efforts to counter China's growing influence. Kori Schake, deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that while “Indo-Pacific isn't yet an established part of the lexicon,” the implications of the term are clear.
“India is an Asian power. The countries adopting the term are encouraging India into greater cooperation in maintaining the maritime commons in the Indian and Pacific oceans,” said Schake, a former U.S. State Department official.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security conference, in Singapore on June 1. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)
Modi enthusiastically echoed American rhetoric about a “shared vision of an open, stable, secure and prosperous” Indo-Pacific, which he described as “a natural region” -- countering those who wonder if an area stretching from Bollywood to Hollywood might too vast and disparate to be cast into a geopolitical fact on the ground.
But Modi also heaped praise on China, despite its border dispute with India and increasingly close economic ties with Pakistan, India's neighbor and nuclear rival.
“Our cooperation is expanding. Trade is growing. And, we have displayed maturity and wisdom in managing issues and ensuring a peaceful border,” Modi said.
China's foreign ministry described Modi's speech as "positive," while one of its military delegation at the Singapore conference gloated that India and the U.S. "have different understandings, different interpretations, of this Indo-Pacific."
China's first domestically designed and built aircraft carrier © Kyodo
It is perhaps no surprise then that China's rivals in the South China Sea do not yet regard the nascent Indo-Pacific alliance-building as something to pin their hopes on when it comes to control of the sea.
“We are witnessing the great power shift toward Asia-Pacific with the 'Indo-Pacific strategy,' Belt and Road Initiative and a series of country grouping[s] in the region,” Lich said, cautioning that “the outcomes for the region and the world are somewhat yet to be unveiled.”
Lich's Philippine counterpart was even more circumspect, particularly regarding the Indo-Pacific concept. “I have to study it some more,” Lorenzana said. “This is a new construct in this area.”
Nikkei staff writers Mikhail Flores in Manila and Atsushi Tomiyama in Hanoi contributed to this article.
Trump blasts Theresa May in interview a day before meeting - NBC News
Trump blasts Theresa May in interview a day before meeting
The American president did, however, have some nice things to say about Queen Elizabeth II.
by Phil McCausland / Jul.13.2018 / 9:22 AM ET / Updated Jul.13.2018 / 5:15 PM ET
President Trump arrives in UK to meet with Prime Minister May and Queen
JUL.13.201801:23
President Donald Trump continued to attack America's European allies on Thursday — this time aiming at the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Theresa May a day before they are due to meet in London.
British tabloid newspaper The Sun published an interview with Trump on Thursday, where the president blasted May's Brexit negotiations, as well as European immigration policy, NATO and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
Trump said that May’s plan for a "soft Brexit" could scuttle an American trade deal with the U.K. because the island nation would remain too close with the European Union.
"We are cracking down right now on the European Union because they have not treated the United States fairly on trading," Trump said. "No, if they do that, I would say that would probably end a major trade relationship with the United States."
In the interview, Trump insisted that he would have negotiated the deal differently than May, and he said that he had provided the prime minister his "views on what she should do and how she should negotiate."
"I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route," he said.
Trump trashes UK PM's Brexit plan & then meets her for dinner
JUL.13.201804:59
"I would actually say she probably went the opposite way," Trump said. "If you really look, she probably went the opposite way. And that’s fine. She should negotiate the best way she knows how. But it is too bad what’s going on."
Trump backtracks after criticism of British Prime Minister May
Trump: ‘I didn’t criticize’ Theresa May, says she’s doing ‘a terrific job’
But Trump declined to provide any details about the advice he provided May.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later issued a statement, saying Trump “likes and respects Prime Minister May very much."
She wrote: “As he said in his interview with the Sun she ‘is a very good person’ and he ‘never said anything bad about her.’ He thought she was great on NATO today and is a really terrific person."
The president also praised Boris Johnson, who just resigned as Britain's foreign secretary earlier this week because he did not approve of May’s negotiations over Brexit.
Theresa May addresses Boris Johnson resignation over Brexit plan
JUL.10.201802:06
Trump even asserted that Johnson, a New York-born former mayor of London, "would be a great prime minister."
He said: "I think he’s a great representative for your country."
Trump also spoke on immigration policy in the interview, saying that Europe was losing its identity and culture because of an influx of migrants.
"Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame," Trump said. "I think it changed the fabric of Europe. And unless you act very quickly it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way. So I think allowing millions and millions of people to come in to Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture."
Trump conflated immigration and terrorism in the interview, and he said that Khan, London’s mayor, had done a "terrible job."
Trump also blasted Londoners in general, for protesting his arrival in England, and said that he "used to love London as a city," but added "when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?"
He did, however, praise the Queen Elizabeth II, whom he is scheduled to meet on Friday.
"If you think of it, for so many years she’s represented her country, she’s never really made a mistake," he said. "You don’t see, like, anything embarrassing. She’s just an incredible woman. My wife is a tremendous fan of hers. She’s got a great and beautiful grace about her."
The American president did, however, have some nice things to say about Queen Elizabeth II.
by Phil McCausland / Jul.13.2018 / 9:22 AM ET / Updated Jul.13.2018 / 5:15 PM ET
President Trump arrives in UK to meet with Prime Minister May and Queen
JUL.13.201801:23
President Donald Trump continued to attack America's European allies on Thursday — this time aiming at the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Theresa May a day before they are due to meet in London.
British tabloid newspaper The Sun published an interview with Trump on Thursday, where the president blasted May's Brexit negotiations, as well as European immigration policy, NATO and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
Trump said that May’s plan for a "soft Brexit" could scuttle an American trade deal with the U.K. because the island nation would remain too close with the European Union.
"We are cracking down right now on the European Union because they have not treated the United States fairly on trading," Trump said. "No, if they do that, I would say that would probably end a major trade relationship with the United States."
In the interview, Trump insisted that he would have negotiated the deal differently than May, and he said that he had provided the prime minister his "views on what she should do and how she should negotiate."
"I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route," he said.
Trump trashes UK PM's Brexit plan & then meets her for dinner
JUL.13.201804:59
"I would actually say she probably went the opposite way," Trump said. "If you really look, she probably went the opposite way. And that’s fine. She should negotiate the best way she knows how. But it is too bad what’s going on."
Trump backtracks after criticism of British Prime Minister May
Trump: ‘I didn’t criticize’ Theresa May, says she’s doing ‘a terrific job’
But Trump declined to provide any details about the advice he provided May.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later issued a statement, saying Trump “likes and respects Prime Minister May very much."
She wrote: “As he said in his interview with the Sun she ‘is a very good person’ and he ‘never said anything bad about her.’ He thought she was great on NATO today and is a really terrific person."
The president also praised Boris Johnson, who just resigned as Britain's foreign secretary earlier this week because he did not approve of May’s negotiations over Brexit.
Theresa May addresses Boris Johnson resignation over Brexit plan
JUL.10.201802:06
Trump even asserted that Johnson, a New York-born former mayor of London, "would be a great prime minister."
He said: "I think he’s a great representative for your country."
Trump also spoke on immigration policy in the interview, saying that Europe was losing its identity and culture because of an influx of migrants.
"Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame," Trump said. "I think it changed the fabric of Europe. And unless you act very quickly it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way. So I think allowing millions and millions of people to come in to Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture."
Trump conflated immigration and terrorism in the interview, and he said that Khan, London’s mayor, had done a "terrible job."
Trump also blasted Londoners in general, for protesting his arrival in England, and said that he "used to love London as a city," but added "when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?"
He did, however, praise the Queen Elizabeth II, whom he is scheduled to meet on Friday.
"If you think of it, for so many years she’s represented her country, she’s never really made a mistake," he said. "You don’t see, like, anything embarrassing. She’s just an incredible woman. My wife is a tremendous fan of hers. She’s got a great and beautiful grace about her."
Trump criticises Obama over US 2016 election hack - BBC News
Trump criticises Obama over US 2016 election hack
14 July 2018
The leaders will reportedly discuss US-Russia relations and national security issues on Monday
US President Donald Trump has criticised the administration of his predecessor Barack Obama over alleged Russian hacking to help him win the 2016 presidential election.
"Why didn't they do something about it?" he tweeted, adding that Mr Obama had been told about it before the vote.
It follows pressure on Mr Trump to cancel Monday's talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin following the indictment of 12 Russians on Friday.
Russia denies allegations of hacking.
Mr Trump is due to meet Mr Putin in the Finnish capital Helsinki.
Russia said it was looking forward to the meeting.
"We consider Trump a negotiating partner," said Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov. "The state of bilateral relations is very bad. We have to start to set them right."
Four intriguing lines in Mueller charges
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
However the hacking allegations have sparked a heated war of words between Washington and Moscow.
US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein insisted that "the goal of the conspirators was to have an impact on the election".
But Russia's foreign ministry said the claims were a "heap of conspiracy schemes" intended to "damage the atmosphere" before Monday's summit.
It said there was no evidence linking any of the dozen officials to hacking or military intelligence.
What are the allegations?
The 11-count indictment names the Russians defendants, alleging they began cyber-attacks in March 2016 on the email accounts of staff for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
They are accused of using keystroke reading software to spy on the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hack into the party's computers.
Mr Rosenstein said the conspirators used fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0", to release thousands of stolen emails.
They are also accused of stealing the data of half a million voters from a state election board website.
What pressure is there to cancel the talks?
During a joint news conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday, Mr Trump said he would "absolutely" ask the Russian president about alleged election meddling.
But top Democrats have urged him to cancel the planned summit altogether following the indictment.
"President Trump should absolutely cancel this meeting with Putin on Monday," said DNC chairman Tom Perez. "He is not a friend of the United States."
"President Trump should cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin until Russia takes demonstrable and transparent steps to prove that they won't interfere in future elections," said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.
All you need to know about Mueller inquiry
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain said the summit "should not move forward" unless the president "is prepared to hold Putin accountable".
Putin laughs at political chaos in US
What's the big picture?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating US intelligence findings that Russians conspired to sway the 2016 election in Mr Trump's favour.
As of Friday, the inquiry has indicted 32 people - mostly Russian nationals in absentia - as well as three companies and four former Trump advisers.
None of the charges allege Trump advisers colluded with Russia to interfere with the presidential campaign.
18 revelations from Wikileaks emails
Why US fears Russia is hacking election
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser, have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians.
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates were charged with money laundering relating to their political consultancy work in Ukraine.
14 July 2018
The leaders will reportedly discuss US-Russia relations and national security issues on Monday
US President Donald Trump has criticised the administration of his predecessor Barack Obama over alleged Russian hacking to help him win the 2016 presidential election.
"Why didn't they do something about it?" he tweeted, adding that Mr Obama had been told about it before the vote.
It follows pressure on Mr Trump to cancel Monday's talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin following the indictment of 12 Russians on Friday.
Russia denies allegations of hacking.
Mr Trump is due to meet Mr Putin in the Finnish capital Helsinki.
Russia said it was looking forward to the meeting.
"We consider Trump a negotiating partner," said Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov. "The state of bilateral relations is very bad. We have to start to set them right."
Four intriguing lines in Mueller charges
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
However the hacking allegations have sparked a heated war of words between Washington and Moscow.
US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein insisted that "the goal of the conspirators was to have an impact on the election".
But Russia's foreign ministry said the claims were a "heap of conspiracy schemes" intended to "damage the atmosphere" before Monday's summit.
It said there was no evidence linking any of the dozen officials to hacking or military intelligence.
What are the allegations?
The 11-count indictment names the Russians defendants, alleging they began cyber-attacks in March 2016 on the email accounts of staff for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
They are accused of using keystroke reading software to spy on the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hack into the party's computers.
Mr Rosenstein said the conspirators used fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0", to release thousands of stolen emails.
They are also accused of stealing the data of half a million voters from a state election board website.
What pressure is there to cancel the talks?
During a joint news conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday, Mr Trump said he would "absolutely" ask the Russian president about alleged election meddling.
But top Democrats have urged him to cancel the planned summit altogether following the indictment.
"President Trump should absolutely cancel this meeting with Putin on Monday," said DNC chairman Tom Perez. "He is not a friend of the United States."
"President Trump should cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin until Russia takes demonstrable and transparent steps to prove that they won't interfere in future elections," said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.
All you need to know about Mueller inquiry
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain said the summit "should not move forward" unless the president "is prepared to hold Putin accountable".
Putin laughs at political chaos in US
What's the big picture?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating US intelligence findings that Russians conspired to sway the 2016 election in Mr Trump's favour.
As of Friday, the inquiry has indicted 32 people - mostly Russian nationals in absentia - as well as three companies and four former Trump advisers.
None of the charges allege Trump advisers colluded with Russia to interfere with the presidential campaign.
18 revelations from Wikileaks emails
Why US fears Russia is hacking election
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser, have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians.
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates were charged with money laundering relating to their political consultancy work in Ukraine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
