posted in the USAF thread this morning - and from a more reputable source
It seems to me in relation to the SCS that we are seeing being played out an example of game theory.
Everyone but China wants at the very least to preserve the status quo (even if some of the SCS countries might want to go further and be able to exploit fully their perceived EEZ). China is determined to demolish it and the ILOS to boot.
The practical problem is that, while China is playing it well, there is only one other player who can play it with an equal hand; and thus meaningfully contribute to the game’s result. And they aren’t playing meaningfully notwithstanding their recent overflights.
Smaller countries around the SCS have an inherently weak hand; able to produce only very limited worrying uncertainties for China and incredibly vulnerable economically, militarily and in cyber space.
My own view is that the Philippines played to its strength by referring the matter to international adjudication. Maybe they have to duck for cover now, but they’ve considerably weakened China’s international position; especially since so many left leaning western commentators are too inclined to describe any defence of the ILOS in the SCS in ignorant US imperialistic terms.
Australia too has a somewhat weak hand. It would be nice to think China is dependent on us for raw materials (as some commentators have suggested) but very much doubt it. They can go elsewhere. We on the other hand are exposed to any trade sanction by them and I don’t doubt could be hurt by a “plausibly deniable” or at least unprovable cyber attack. Militarily we could achieve little in the SCS; and indeed could not even respond in a satisfactory manner to an attack on a FON exercise there.
We’ve just had the silly position where, a week after an organ of the Chinese Government specifically threatened to shoot down our planes and do injury to us, the Government is severely criticised for knocking back handing over to complete Chinese control vital infrastructure on security grounds. The Government is forced to “pretend” it had nothing to do with the bidder being Chinese and the commentariet is all too willing to cry “racist”, encouraging the Chinese themselves to make the same claim. And yet, no-one is willing to come out and say “you ignorant fools, you must be kidding”.
At the very least we need a Barnaby Joyce type minister who’s willing to make the specific link, even if (like the Chinese use all the time) it’s someone who can be “plausibly disclaimed”.
Really, only the US can play the game on equal terms; able to inflict the unstated and ill-defined threat (economic, military or otherwise) of as much harm to them as they can do to the US and thus keep the situation in stasis.
All this time the US seems to be in its own state of Executive blindness. Indeed, with Russia, China and North Korea all dialling up their rogueness quotient, I was appalled to read yesterday the President is thinking of disclaiming a US first strike ability; exactly the opposite to what game theory requires at exactly the wrong time (horrible though the possibility of nuclear exchange is, such a step probably increases its eventual likelihood).
I’ve asked before whether there is some recognised answer to how often FON’s should be conducted to be effective. My own answer has formed into “frequently”, starting now. If somebody pulls a trigger for an alleged breech of sovereignty, it should be such a clear breech of long established protocols that no defence of misunderstanding can be raised.
And if (perish the thought) I was US president, I think by now I would have had a long talk with the captains of industry warning them that they needed to think through what happens if the US needs to impose technology transfer bans as some sort of soft power application and of the danger of them losing access to their Chinese supply chains altogeather.
All of which is probably the reason I should stay out of politics