The United States renewed a warning Monday that it would defend the Philippines in case of an armed attack under a 1951 treaty, after Chinese ships blocked and collided with two Filipino vessels off a contested shoal in the South China Sea.
Philippine diplomats summoned a Chinese Embassy official in Manila on Monday for a strongly worded protest following Sunday’s collisions off Second Thomas Shoal. No injuries were reported but the encounters damaged a Philippine coast guard ship and a wooden-hulled supply boat operated by navy personnel, officials said.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. called an emergency meeting with the defense secretary and other top military and security officials to discuss the latest hostilities in the disputed waters. The Philippines and other neighbors of China have resisted Beijing’s sweeping territorial claims over virtually the entire South China Sea, and some, like Manila, have sought U.S. military support as incidents multiply.
Their three island chain policy is mostly secured, in theory, by their A2/AD (anti-access area denial) strategy of land based anti-ship cruise missles and sea, air, and satellite ISR.
But yes, I agree that the ethos that underpines their perceived need of A2/AD is also what partially motivates these kind of moves.
Well, that and their inability to recognize that one the main factors of American power is our alliances, and ability to apply softpower pressure and true alliance benefits to other nations. We don’t just ram our ships into there’s to literally beat them into submission.
This doesn’t mean that the dark parts of American neo-imperialism don’t exist and aren’t real, they do and they are, just that you can’t be all bad bully all the time and still maintain those kinds of alliance based power structures which are necessary to be a true global superpower, or to at least a large enough regional power capable of dislodging America’s role in the Pacific. The former being their long-term goal, and the latter their short to medium term objective.
At this point, all of their neighbors hate them. Not like how South American governments dislike the American government, but really really hate them. Many are building up their militaries and reaching out to America to strengthen their alliances, in anticipation of further Chinese aggression and expansion.
China’s actions here are imperialism, of a kind. They’re claiming “land” they have no right to, and controlling it at the expense of the smaller nations. They’ve rammed into fishermen boats even.
This is a land grab of international waters and subjugating the nations that use it.
Yes, but there is a rational to their concern around the three island chain. China is heavily import dependent, and a naval blockade would cripple them relatively quickly. They’re a net importer of energy, and raw materials, both of which are vital inputs for a peacetime economy, much less a wartime economy. I believe they are also a net food importer as well.
But to your point, yes, instead of trying to bring their neighbors into a regional economic and military alliance, they’ve opted for the bullying and claiming others territory and territorial waters as their own, which has only pushed their neighbors to seek better ties with America and military armament from the West.
Although, I should add that Japan, South Korea, and Australia are also significant regional military powers and are also strengthening their own bi-laterial ties. Each are also being sought out for greater relations by the smaller Pacific counties as well. Which, again, is all a direct result of Chinese policy.
The irony in all of this, is that China has been the signal greatest benefactor of the post-WW2 globalization, which has been entirely underpinned by US Naval power projection.
Arguably they would be in a safer position if they didn’t try to control those waters. A blockade would’ve stopped Chinese imports, yes, but it also would’ve stopped Chinese exports. And their exports play a significant role in the global economy and international trade. They really didn’t need to secure the area militarily because they had economically guaranteed a blockade would be broken.
This is pure speculation, but I think their belligerence may be what prevents them from rising to a superpower.
This is what I try to explain to some of my tankie friends who myopically utilize Lenin’s definition of imperialism, where imperialism can only be conducted by capitalist nations.
If the definition of imperialism you utilize completely precludes yourself from being labeled as an imperialist, despite having the same material motivation, and despite requiring the same actions and reactions…then you’re just doing imperialism and calling it another name.
“Soft Allies” is annoyingly relevant here. My girlfriend is an officer in the Philippine Air Force. She was denied a U.S. tourism visa twice to come visit me. In the meantime, half of her unit was just sent to Hawaii for a multi month joint training exercise. So she can’t come here to travel and try American food with me or go to Disney World or whatever, but at any point she could be sent to a military base here for defense purposes.
That’s very frustrating, but a military training appointment is much different than a holiday trip
They are different, yes. One could make the case that if you’re willing to give your life fighting to defend a foreign ally’s country they should celebrate you and welcome you to visit their country as well
I think it’s totally sensible to give military members of allied nations permanent visas for the US, for exactly why you say.
No… that’s not realistic.
There are visa requirements and exclusions for reasons. Being an enlisted soldier in a foreign army can’t, and shouldn’t, make you automatically exempt from them, simply because that country is an ally.
You’re assuming that something about being a soldier makes you above the law, or precludes them from having any quality that a foreign county would feel makes them ineligible for visa entry.
I’m not saying that America’s immigration system isn’t flawed, or that this one guys GF isn’t getting a raw deal. Just that you don’t know the details of this case, and you definitely shouldn’t assume that every soldier in a foreign military is someone who should automatically be granted visa entry simply because their country may have some sort of military alliance with your country.
Yeah I don’t think in any way she should automatically be granted a permanent visa. It’s just frustrating because she checks all the boxes they are looking for.
She’s never committed a crime, has plenty of money to fund her trip here, owns property in the Phillipines, has elderly parents, siblings, pets, she cares for back home that rely on her. She’s demonstrated strong ties to her home nation with those things and her decade long service in the military. So she clearly has intention to come visit here and then go back home before her tourism visa expires.
When they deny you, you just get a sheet of paper with like 50 possible reasons you could have been denied without saying which one(s) it is, and there’s no appeal process, you just have to schedule another appointment, pay the US gov hundreds of dollars to apply again, and then wait another 9 months for an appointment to open up.
Dude that’s so frustrating, that sucks. Is the wait for an interview for a visitor visa to the US still like 9 months?
I was in a similar situation for a while. It sucks.
I’m not sure at this point. I’ve been to the Phillipines to visit her a few times, and we’re not planning on going the tourist visa route again. We are planning a trip to Japan early next year, and I’ll propose to her there. From that point we’ll begin the K1 visa process