While Beijing and Manila Talk, Washington Spoiling for a Fight


As much as Washington may hate it, the fact is Beijing and Manila are diplomatically discussing the situation in the South China Sea.

Champagne bottles are not popping yet, but Special Philippine envoy, former President Fidel Ramos, did go to Hong Kong, and on behalf of President Rodrigo Duterte, got together with Fu Ying, the chairwoman of the foreign affairs committee of the National People’s Congress. On the record, Ramos made sure that Manila is all in for formal negotiations.

The starting block concerns some fishy business – literally. Beijing and Manila may be on their way already to open the highly disputed Scarborough shoal, which falls right into what Manila describes as the West Philippine Sea, to both Chinese and Filipino fishermen, as in the joint development of fish farms.

Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, let it be known that Ramos’s visit to Hong Kong was just an opener. Of course his next step will have to be a trip to Beijing to talk to the high-stakes power players. Then the way will be paved for a formal Duterte state visit.

So, for the moment, everyone is behaving in a very Asian “win-win” way, with no loss of face involved. And yet, in parallel, there’s been speculation that Beijing has identified a unique widow of opportunity between the G-20 in Huangzhou, next month, and the US presidential election in early November, to come up with extra “facts on the sea” in the form of added reclamation and building of naval installations.

What Beijing wants in the long term is clear. Scarborough shoal in particular is a key piece in the larger puzzle. A Chinese airstrip is all but inevitable because it extends the reach of the PLA’s air force by over 1,000km, and positions it to be active off Luzon, no less than the gateway to the Western Pacific.

With the airstrip in Scarborough shoal and an early warning system on Macclesfield Bank – just east of the Paracel Islands – Beijing will be finally able to “see” all the action, friendly but mostly unfriendly, emanating from the sprawling US naval base at Guam.

We came, we saw, we sunk?

As I have analyzed before, at the heart of the matter in the South China Sea is not sovereignty over a bunch of islands (or “rocks”, as qualified by the recent ruling at The Hague); it’s “access” for the Pentagon and the US Navy, rather “anti-access”, or A2, plus area denial, which in Pentagonese turns out as A2/AD.

The Pentagon is absolutely terrified as it contemplates China’s relentless A2/AD prowess. That includes the DF-16 missile, with a range of 1,000 km; the nuclear bomber H-6K; the HQ-12 land-to-air missile; and the DF-21D, the “aircraft carrier killer” nuclear-carrying missile with a range of 3,000 km. Think of all those gleaming billion-dollar carriers with 6,000 sailors and Marines on board as giant sitting ducks.

The – predictable – reaction of the industrial-military-surveillance-endless war complex has been, what else, to predict war. It’s all here, in this RAND Corporation report, a mix of policy recommendation, wishful thinking and barely repressed warmongering.

Well, it does not look good. The report at least admits that China’s A2AD efforts are real game-changers. Forget about “victory” in case neocon/neoliberalcon warmongering prevails; “China’s A2AD will make it increasingly difficult for the United States to gain military-operational dominance and victory, even in a long war.”

One cannot sideline the fact that should Hillary “Queen of War”Clinton be elected in November, and reign as part of The Three Harpies, their own window of opportunity to launch a war on China will extend only till the end of the decade; RAND rules the “gap in losses will shrink as Chinese A2AD improves. By 2025, US losses could range from significant to heavy”. And that’s the Mother of All Understatements.

RAND recommends Washington should “reduce the effect of Chinese A2AD by investing in more-survivable force platforms (e.g., submarines) and in counter-A2AD (e.g., theater missiles).” A bit too late in the game; the Chinese have been doing exactly that for years now.

Predictably, a naval blockade of China is in the cards: “US leaders should develop options to deny China access to war-critical commodities and technologies in the event of war.” That’s the whole rationale behind Beijing’s complex energy policy, which boils down to invest in every possible source of energy supply bypassing the Strait of Malacca.

Also predictably, one should expect, even before a war situation, all sorts of dodgy US maneuvers involving Japan: “the US Army should…encourage and enable East Asian partners to mount strong defense, improve interoperability with partners (especially Japan).”

The RAND report is just one more piece of evidence adding to what the Beijing leadership already takes for granted – even before the Clinton-announced pivoting to Asia; the Empire of Chaos, in despair, will revert to war no matter what.

The lame duck Obama administration has ruled that a Chinese naval base in the Scarborough shoal is a red line. Make no mistake this red line will be crossed. Before or after November 8. Your move, Queen of War. We came, We saw, We sunk?

This piece first appeared at RT.

More articles by:

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).  His latest book is Empire of ChaosHe may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

December 05, 2019
Colin Todhunter
Don’t Look, Don’t See: Time for Honest Media Reporting on Impacts of Pesticides
Nick Pemberton
Gen Z and Free Speech
Bob Lord
The U-Turn That Made America Staggeringly Unequal
Josh White
The Most Important Election in British History
Daniel Warner
The Hillsborough Soccer Tragedy: Who is Responsible?
Dean Baker
The Big Deal in Warren’s Prescription Drug Plan
George Ochenski
Another Utility Disaster Headed Our Way
Binoy Kampmark
Spying on Assange: the Spanish Case Takes a Turn
Victor Grossman
Big Rallies and Big Differences in Germany
L. Ali Khan
A Playboy Misrules Pakistan
William J. Astore
How American Exceptionalism is Killing the Planet
Susie Day
The Mad Activist Impeaches Western Culture
Andrés Castro
Look Out for the Drift
December 04, 2019
Jefferson Morley
RIP Fred Hampton: a Black Visionary Assassinated by the FBI
Vijay Prashad
Wealthy Countries’ Approach to Climate Change Condemns Hundreds of Millions of People to Suffer
Kenneth Surin
The Tory Election “Campaign” to Date
Maria Paez Victor
Indians Shall Not Govern
Peter Lackowski
Bolivia’s Five Hundred-Year Rebellion
Dave Lindorff
Billionaire Entitlement Run Amok: the Case of Michael Bloomberg
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Is Corbyn for Christmas Just Another Stove Pipe-Dream?
Howard Lisnoff
Elizabeth Warren: Savior of a Fallen System?
Robert Fisk
The Remembrance Poppy is Becoming a Weapon Against Immigrants to Canada
Dean Baker
NAFTA was About Redistributing Wealth Upwards
Richard Greeman
French Unions and Yellow Vests Converge, Launch General Strike
Binoy Kampmark
Legitimised Surveillance: Kim Dotcom’s Case Against GCSB
Walter Clemens
Goodbye Law and Morality, Welcome Pretend Tough!
Sam Pizzigati
Football Without Billionaires? Why Not?
Anthony Giattino
Royal Forests of America
December 03, 2019
Richard Lachmann
Can the US Get Out of Its Endless Wars?
Ramzy Baroud
Israel’s Unfinished ‘Coup’
David Rosen
The Dialectics of Postmodern Sexual Identity
Robert Fisk
Reporting Syria: I Talked to Everyone, Except Assad
Patrick Cockburn
Why the Resignation of Iraq’s Prime Minister May Not Stop the Mass Uprising on the Horizon
Norman Solomon
For Corporate Media, It’s ‘Anybody But Sanders or Warren’
Bob Scofield
Uruguay Turns to the Right
Joe Emersberger
Talking About Ecuador’s Political Prisoners: an Interview With Marcela Aguiñaga
Medea Benjamin
Trump Was Right: NATO Should Be Obsolete
Nyla Ali Khan
Lesson in Diplomacy for India’s Consul General Sandeep Chakravorty
William Gudal
The Bubble Machine
Gaither Stewart
Dirty Hands
Peter Certo
End the Wars, Win the Antiwar Vote
Binoy Kampmark
The Liveris Formula: Dow’s Inclusive Capitalism
Dan Bacher
California Freezes New Fracking Permits – But All Oil Drilling Permits Still Outpace 2018
Kay Sather
Can’t Get No Satisfaction?
December 02, 2019
Rob Urie
Ukraine, the New Cold War and the Politics of Impeachment