re: "Chinese Dragons and Russian Bears"

"Sam Huntington" at Always On Watch ("Semper Vigilans") reviewed strategic issues involving our near-peer competitors.

Money quote(s):

"(A) far more dangerous situation is developing in Asia. No surprise, Americans are not hearing about any of this from the state-run media. Here are a few examples:

· China is claiming island territory within fifty miles of the Philippines.

· Chinese frigates regularly intruded Philippine territorial waters.

· Chinese ships fired upon Philippine fishing boats.

· Chinese naval vessels rammed Vietnamese fishing boats (See Note 1)

· Chinese accost Indian naval vessels operating off the coast of Vietnam, demanding to know why they are operating in Chinese waters.

· Chinese military aircraft intrude into Taiwanese air space.

· China intruded Japanese mainland territorial waters on 14 occasions.

· China intruded Okinawa territorial waters on 10 occasions.

· China created six major incidents with the US Navy at sea.

· Raise your hand if you aren’t aware that North Korea is China’s redheaded stepchild.

Note 1: Vietnam possesses one of the world’s largest armies: (China: 4.5 million, Vietnam: 5.9 million)."

You know the one about amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics?

Well, in terms of international relations, geopolitics, and grand strategy, the professionals are studying China.

"Danger of a regional conflict is real. The consequence to China’s arrogance has been a dramatic increase in military spending among Southeast Asian countries. Australia, Japan, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan have all dedicated billions of dollars on new or upgraded military hardware. The United States is upgrading naval facilities in Guam —so much so that Representative Hank Johnson(D-GA) worries the island may capsize. Nevertheless, all of these countries recognize the wisdom of pooling their resources to keep China in check; Japan has taken the lead in establishing mutual defense cooperatives with Australia, South Korea, India, and the United States. Singapore has offered to provide bases for the US Navy."

CAA no longer worries that Guam will become overburdened, over-balanced, and capsize, having received assurances that Guam possesses a sufficiently sturdy keel and gyroscopic stabilizer.

"Owing to the fact that we don’t know what motivates Chinese behavior, the Australian General Staff worries that a mistake could lead to disastrous consequences —particularly when it is likely that China will attempt to use its military to enforce a Chinese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The problem is that while demanding that other nations treat Chinese EEZs as its sovereign territory, China routinely refuses to acknowledge the EEZs of other nations. From the standpoint of international law, EEZs are not sovereign territory. We can therefore see how China might regard the US Navy’s mission to safeguard open sea-lanes as an intolerable trespass —a situation that could lead to deadly confrontation."

It's the old "what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-negotiable" attitude turned somewhat sideways: China will use existing international norms and fora to its own advantage and ignore those which infringe upon its own interests. That's what one does when one is the center of the Earth, after all.

"Some politicians argue that given China’s dependence on global trade, a deadly confrontation is unlikely. They may have forgotten that economic ties did not hinder German aggression at the beginning of the 20^th Century —a costly mistake for France. ....but here is where we find the real and present danger. Defense cuts may encourage China to challenge allied nations within the region of Southeast Asia —they are that arrogant."

Nor did close economic ties deflect World War I; for that matter, the United States' close economic ties with Saudi Arabia deter the 9/11 attacks.

(Marx notwithstanding, man is not solely, nor even primarily, an economic animal.)

"From Russia’s perspective, there couldn’t be a better time to threaten the United States and NATO with pre-emptive strikes unless we agree to cancel the so-called Missile Defense Shield, designed as a safeguard from Iranian ICBMs."

This seems a little over-the-top; threatening pre-emptive strikes is way more sabre-rattling than is necessary. Russia has far more effective economic and political levers to pull than jacking things up on the defcon meter.

"If one understands international relations, Russia’s timing couldn’t be better. We should anticipate this sort of behavior by an adversary whenever they perceive American leadership as weak, incompetent, ineffective, or confused."

Harsh words, but hardly unwarranted.

The "reset" button must have been like those ones installed near crosswalks: not really wired to anything but they give pedestrians something to do with their hands while waiting for the lights to change.

"This situation should once again remind us that American politicians and diplomats seldom learn important lessons of history. America cannot afford another war right now. Neither can we afford the perception of weakness, incompetence, or abject stupidity. We continue to live in a dangerous world"

Diplomats actually aren't slouches when it comes to learning their history lessons; however if you expand your definition of "diplomat" beyond those actually trained and experienced in it to those who practice it on our behalf at the highest levels....

"Rather than facing a deadly and costly regional conflict in Southeast Asia, it would be far less expensive to deter Chinese aggression vis-à-vis a strong military presence along the Pacific Rim. As for the Russian Bear, they understand but one thing: force or its promise."

5/4

re: "Australia: Sharia-Sanctioned Polygamy and Child Marriage"

Andrew G. Bostom at Big Peace noted some (minor) pushback against creeping Sharia down-under.

Money quote(s):

"(T)wo legal academics, Dr Ann Black and Dr Kerrie Sadiq from The University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law are “suggesting” in their research publication, “Good & Bad Sharia: Australia’s mixed response to Islamic Law” (due to be published in the University of New South Wales Law Journal on Monday July 25, 2011) that,

Australia is right to act with caution in dealing with Sharia law."

7/21

re: "Why is Australia silent on Julian Assange? "

John Birmingham ("Blunt Instrument") at the Brisbane Times (Australia) provides a robust caution from Down Under.

Money quote(s):

"I had dinner once with Salman Rushdie. Meh. Big deal. Everyone in publishing's had dinner at least once with The Rush. Which means that we all had the interesting experience of dining under armed guard because of the fatwa hanging over him.

It's Allah knows how long since that vicious, sex- and death-obsessed old scrote Khomeini dropped a death sentence on Rushdie for having the temerity to commit a thoughtcrime against his barbarous form of religious derangement. And in that time, despite the damnable inconvenience of it all, and a significant lobby both inside and outside government in favor of letting the mad mullah's hitmen have their way, the West as a whole has mobilised the resources of the various states through which Rushdie has passed to safeguard him from mullah-sanctioned murder.

What a long way we've fallen then, to a position where various spokeswhores of the American Right - some of them occupying positions of state power - can call for the assassination or extrajudicial kidnapping of an Australian citizen with nary a word of protest from our own government or dissenting opinion from the opposition."

Some have made a decent start to a discussion of how Assange might qualify as an enemy combatant. I won't go into that here, other than to suggest one begin one's reading at Opinio Juris, but will note that Assange wouldn't be Australia's first such enemy combatant in the current unpleasantness. At least one former Gitmo detainee presently resides in his home country of Australia. So the good offices of the Australian government appear to have at least some pull with our own.

Which is as it should be. We loves us some aussies. They're like us, after all. Cranky and curmudeonly. Prickly about their honor and their rights. Hard not to admire that.

"(I)n the end Assange remains an Australian citizen and he is due the protection we offer to all our citizens when they are threatened by rogue actors, even states, because their actions have upset somebody in power somewhere. It doesn't mean he gets a free pass on the allegations against him in Sweden, but it should mean that at the very least those moronic politicians and media celebretards in the US who've been calling for his murder should be getting a visit from one of our consular officials, preferably an ex-SAS or Commando Regiment old boy, to have a quiet word in their shell-like about how seriously we take incitement to murder our fellow little Vegemiters."

See above. I'm all for consular access, after all, but might prefer that Australian consuls enjoy such with Mr. Assange in an American jail. Such as that operated at our former naval coaling station in Cuba.

S-CM - Need to Know Advice Before and During Your Visit to America

From my archive of press clippings:

Sys-Con Media


Need to Know Advice Before and During Your Visit to America - New Visa Process for Australian and New Zealand Passport Holders


By PR Newswire


June 22, 2009 05:30 PM EDT

LONDON, June 22 /PRNewswire/ -- With the holiday season upon us, Cheapflights.com.au, the Australian site of the international travel online price comparison company, suggests that before visiting the USA it pays to check that you know the new visa rules before flying. Cheapflights also has some useful tips to help smooth your transit through domestic US airports once you are there.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"Under the United States Visa Waiver Program (VWP), Australian and New Zealand citizens entering the US by air or sea have to apply online for the new American Department of Homeland Security's mandatory Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) - this is instead of a paper visa and allows you to stay for up to three months. However, if you want to stay longer, you will still need a Tourist B2 paper visa."

"The ESTA can be obtained by making an online application right up to your flight time but preferably no later than 72 hours before departure. Cheapflights suggest doing it much earlier as an ESTA is valid for two years and it's free! NB: You must have a machine-readable passport that has a digital photograph printed on the data page or integrated chip with information from the data page."

&

"If you are traveling to the US from Australia and do not hold a passport from a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) country, you will need to apply for a paper Tourist Visa B2, which can take a while. Check with your local US Embassy's website for how to apply - you will have to request an appointment for a visa interview because walk-in interviews are not given. The http://www.usembassy.gov/ site provides details of US Embassies around the world."

re: "Beyond the rhetoric. Afghanistan is not the war, it's just a battlefield."

John Birmingham at Blunt Instrument gives us a viewpoint from Down Under.

Money quote(s):

"(A)n extra hundred Australians won't make any difference at all. And the 17 000 additional US troops is probably a fraction of the number actually required to secure the south of the country, where the insurgency remains a live concern, largely because of the jihadis ability to flee into the tribal areas of north west Pakistan."

"Australia should drop the pretense of sending a token number of extra troops and, as part of a wider Allied surge, commit a full battle group, which could deploy its own air, armour and artillery support, to engage and destroy anyone challenging control of its operational area. Depending on its composition the battle group could number up to one thousand strong and would be followed by a commitment of infantry similar to that needed in East Timor in 1999.

That would involve another five to six thousand Australian troops."

"Afghanistan is no longer the main game, but for now it's where our main efforts are in play. Much more important in the longer term is neighbouring Pakistan, a festering septic wound of a country, a nuclear armed state, teetering on the brink of collapse, its military and intelligence services thoroughly compromised by their incestuous relationship with the Taliban and several other Islamist terror groups."

&

"(S)o serious is the disintegration of central authority in Pakistan, so acute and dangerous the chance of collapse and civil war with the attendant risk of transition to a Taliban style successor state, that the contest in Afghanistan, an otherwise marginal wasteland, now looms large as one of the great strategic challenges of the next decade. Pakistan cannot be stabilized if Afghanistan goes under.

And Pakistan controls an estimated fifty to one hundred nuclear weapons, in the 20 kiloton to five hundred kiloton range."