Well you'll have to broaden your horizons then, which is one advantage of being here. We learn from you and you learn from us.
Indo Pacific strategy
- Thread starter gonefishing
- Start date
Trump being destructive — Part 2
8. The Trump admin’s deliberate destruction of the TPP, made China’s Belt & Road the only game in town until Japan stepped up through Abe’s leadership (at an international level). Thanks to Japan, the trade pack survived and entered into force on 30 Dec 2018 between 11 countries, namely, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. For details see: What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
9. In its original form, the TPP would have put around 40% of the world economy on the side of the U.S. — compared with China's share of 18% or 20% of global GDP, said Graham Allison, Harvard University's Douglas Dillon professor of government.
10. The 2017 US withdrawal decision from TPP, by Trump, made it impossible to be pro-American within the 11 TPP member states and ASEAN (some of which have ratified the TPP) during his 4 years of mis-rule.
8. The Trump admin’s deliberate destruction of the TPP, made China’s Belt & Road the only game in town until Japan stepped up through Abe’s leadership (at an international level). Thanks to Japan, the trade pack survived and entered into force on 30 Dec 2018 between 11 countries, namely, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. For details see: What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
9. In its original form, the TPP would have put around 40% of the world economy on the side of the U.S. — compared with China's share of 18% or 20% of global GDP, said Graham Allison, Harvard University's Douglas Dillon professor of government.
10. The 2017 US withdrawal decision from TPP, by Trump, made it impossible to be pro-American within the 11 TPP member states and ASEAN (some of which have ratified the TPP) during his 4 years of mis-rule.
(a) "Trump has been a source of frustration to the Vietnamese in that his policies have been so bipolar," said Zachary Abuza, a professor at the National War College in Washington D.C. who specializes in Southeast Asia. "He's so transactional, and they understand transactional, but he pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership [trade deal], and no country did more to get into the TPP than Vietnam, so they were angry."
(b) Under Trump, ASEAN trade ministers have no hope for liberal trade agreements with the US. If anything, the momentum seems to be in the opposite direction: Washington has suspended trade preferences for Thailand and Indonesia under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP); Bangkok and Jakarta are now focused on attempting to negotiate their partial or full restoration.
(c) I see Trump trying to force ASEAN to choose a side (without any benefits), when Obama, through the the TPP, was trying to integrate 11 local economies with that of America and ween away ASEAN’s dependence on China for growth. Keeping in mind that in 2010, the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area became the largest free trade area in terms of population and third largest in terms of nominal GDP.
(d) Singapore repeatedly stresses that, for the region, economics is security. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a proposed free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region between the ten member states of ASEAN, namely Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, and five of their FTA partners—Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. The three biggest economies in RCEP are China, Japan and Korea — with the US is excluded due to a destructive Trump.
(e) The U.S. was never invited to join RCEP as it was created in part as an answer to TPP. Given that the US withdrew from TPP, it has no part in either of the region's two major free trade agreements — RCEP and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (that excludes the US due to Trump). China has in the end outmaneuvered the Trump administration on trade. In the end of 4 years under Trump, the Americans are reduced to an uni-dimensional power (with deep regional security ties) and are just another arms dealer (like France or Russia), with an UN Security Council veto and little more.
Last edited:
Trump being destructive — Part 3
11. As noted in the South China Sea thread, China has flexed its muscles to a maritime dominance. Initially, Indonesia and China crossed watery-swords arising from the tensions in Natuna Island. Another standoff flared up involving Vietnamese vessels and the Chinese government survey ship, near Malaysia.
12. If you ask CCP members, the Chinese will tell you that Trump has accelerated America’s decline in influence and felt that he does more harm to American interests than any other US President in history.
11. As noted in the South China Sea thread, China has flexed its muscles to a maritime dominance. Initially, Indonesia and China crossed watery-swords arising from the tensions in Natuna Island. Another standoff flared up involving Vietnamese vessels and the Chinese government survey ship, near Malaysia.
(a) Uneasy times continued with the Haiyang Dizhi 8 surveying in resource-rich waters 352 km off the coast of Brunei and Malaysia. Last year, a Chinese Coast Guard vessel spent weeks in waters close to oil rig in a Vietnamese oil block while the Haiyang Dizhi 8 conducted suspected oil exploration surveys in Vietnam’s EEZ. Early January, Chinese encroachment in waters near Natuna Islands, prompted Indonesia to send warships and fighter jets forcing the boats to retreat.
(b) Loss of American influence goes deeper than the cancellation of the TPP, rather, it’s the failure to show up for ASEAN meetings that matters more. Trump’s failure to send a cabinet-level figure to the ASEAN and East Asian Summit (EAS) in Nov 2019 and Nov 2020 was an avoidable blow to US-ASEAN relations. Avoiding a repeat is needed if the Biden administration is to restore the US credibility as a multilateral player, both in Asia and globally.
(c) Concurrently, the Biden administration should consider avoiding a head-on ideological confrontation with China as its main approach, as this is not likely to be the most productive way forward, or in the US and region’s interests. Further, the incoming the Biden administration, should take note that in Indonesia, opposition figures are under siege, as the elected Indonesian government embraces digital harassment and censorship to combat dissent.
(d) “The Non-Aligned Movement must unite and serve as a positive force amidst the global geopolitical dynamics," stated the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs Retno L.P Marsudi in the Oct 2020 NAM Summit. Marsudi also stated that the intensified rivalries between powerful nations have caused tensions and distrusts, impeding cooperation amongst countries in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. It has brought upon increasing unilateralism and planted the seed of distrust of the multilateralism system.
(e) Indonesians feel that the Americans, under Trump or Biden uses sanctions and it’s muscles too much against other countries. Indonesia, valuing its ties with China, and as a non-aligned nation and leader of ASEAN, rejected a proposal by the Trump administration to allow its P-8As to land and refuel there. US officials made multiple "high-level" approaches in Jul and Aug 2020 to Indonesia's defence and foreign ministers before Indonesia's president, Joko Widodo, rebuffed the request, the officials said.
12. If you ask CCP members, the Chinese will tell you that Trump has accelerated America’s decline in influence and felt that he does more harm to American interests than any other US President in history.
(a) Beijing's conviction is that the U.S. is now rapidly declining and lashing out — which gives Xi strategic patience. As a result this has emboldened China to accelerate pursuit of longtime goals, with regard to her ambitions in the Sea of Japan, the South China Sea and her land borders, including disputes with India and her expectation of subservience from Korea. On the 2020 election:
"Many leading Chinese voices are convinced that whatever the result of the U.S. presidential election, the trajectory of U.S.-Chinese relations is now set by the inexorable forces of American decline and hostility to China."
(b) More importantly, Donald Trump’s and Mike Pompeo’s lack of respect for the ‘rule of law’, are a propaganda gold mine for CCP and helps make the case against America’s vision (of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy) for China’s spokesmen.
Last edited:
Trump being destructive — Part 4
13. President-elect Biden looks to project confidence about the work his transition team can do without Trump conceding the race or taking the required steps to begin the process of transitioning power from one administration to another. The first, and most important step, is a formal determination from the General Services Administration, which would unfreeze more than US$6 million in funding to Biden's transition team. President-elect Biden also said that he was not worried about how long it was taking the Trump-led General Services Administration to ascertain the results of the election but said Trump's denial was an "embarrassment."
14. Pentagon has confirmed mass firings of civilian leadership in the last 24 hrs, starting w/Defense Sec. Esper on Monday. Pentagon has confirmed the exits of Anderson (policy head), Kernan (intel head) and Stewart (Chief of Staff to SecDef). Jack Detsch of Foreign Policy further reports that Stewart (Chief of Staff to the Defense Secretary) had been tapped to lead the Department of Defense transition from the Trump administration to the Biden Administration prior to her sudden departure — Jen Stewart was the former Staff Director of the Republican House Armed Services Committee, which makes her well respected in Congress.
15. Extra-ordinary to force the Chairman of the JCS to say this in defiance of Trump’s arbitrary orders — that the military respects the constitution (and not a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator).
13. President-elect Biden looks to project confidence about the work his transition team can do without Trump conceding the race or taking the required steps to begin the process of transitioning power from one administration to another. The first, and most important step, is a formal determination from the General Services Administration, which would unfreeze more than US$6 million in funding to Biden's transition team. President-elect Biden also said that he was not worried about how long it was taking the Trump-led General Services Administration to ascertain the results of the election but said Trump's denial was an "embarrassment."
14. Pentagon has confirmed mass firings of civilian leadership in the last 24 hrs, starting w/Defense Sec. Esper on Monday. Pentagon has confirmed the exits of Anderson (policy head), Kernan (intel head) and Stewart (Chief of Staff to SecDef). Jack Detsch of Foreign Policy further reports that Stewart (Chief of Staff to the Defense Secretary) had been tapped to lead the Department of Defense transition from the Trump administration to the Biden Administration prior to her sudden departure — Jen Stewart was the former Staff Director of the Republican House Armed Services Committee, which makes her well respected in Congress.
15. Extra-ordinary to force the Chairman of the JCS to say this in defiance of Trump’s arbitrary orders — that the military respects the constitution (and not a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator).
(a) In the wake of Trump's dramatic purge of some of the senior-most civilian officials at the Pentagon who have been replaced with political loyalists and conspiracy theorists, all eyes are now focused on whether Trump will take any action against the uniformed military leadership, including Milley.
(b) Speaking immediately following Milley's speech, Miller, who was named acting secretary Monday in a tweet by President Donald Trump that also fired his predecessor Mark Esper, joked, "thanks for setting the bar very high for the new guy to come in and make a few words, I think all I would say to your statements is amen, well done."
16. On 17 Nov 2020, 63 days before the end of Trump’s term, the US Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite says he plans to establish a new numbered fleet as a “formidable deterrence” to China, basing it closer to allies and partner nations “at the crossroads between the Indian and Pacific oceans.” “If we’re really going to have an Indo-Pacom (U.S. Indo-Pacific Command) footprint, we can’t just rely on the 7th Fleet in Japan,” Braithwaite announced to webinar participants at the annual symposium of the Naval Submarine League. Braithwaite not only hasn't spoken to Miller about it, but he announced it without asking Singapore. “We have to look to our other allies and partners like Singapore, like India and actually put a numbered fleet where it would be extremely relevant if, God forbid, we were to get in any kind of a dust-up,” Braithwaite said. Braithwaite also said he wants to stand up A First Fleet, "in the crossroads between the Indian and the Pacific oceans."
Last edited:
Trump being destructive — Part 5
17. Trump fires yet another. Christopher Krebs, the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Krebs was one of the lone voices inside the government countering President Trump's stream of election misinformation. Krebs has drawn widespread bipartisan praise for his handling of the 3 Nov 2020 election, which generally ran smoothly despite persistent fears that foreign hackers might try to undermine the vote.
18. Trump recklessly abandoned the Iran deal, which allowed Iran to stockpile 12 times the amount of uranium they would have been allowed under the deal, and then in the last days of his presidency, asked for a harebrained plan to attack them. Trump’s top advisers, including Pence, Pompeo and General Milley, warned that could start a wider war — during the lane duck period of his presidency.
19. Loose talk of war or bombing Iran, resulted in the US Embassy in Bagdad coming under attack during presidential transition — by a Iranian supported PMFs in Iraq.
20. The rockets attack in Baghdad resulted in the death of a young Iraqi girl and injuries to five civilians is an example of American strategic narcissism. Where Trump defines foreign policy only in relation to his world view and assumes that whatever he does will lead to his desired outcome. Strategic narcissism is flawed because both Obama and Trump do not take into consideration the agency of others, like China, Iran, Indonesia or South Korea.
17. Trump fires yet another. Christopher Krebs, the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Krebs was one of the lone voices inside the government countering President Trump's stream of election misinformation. Krebs has drawn widespread bipartisan praise for his handling of the 3 Nov 2020 election, which generally ran smoothly despite persistent fears that foreign hackers might try to undermine the vote.
18. Trump recklessly abandoned the Iran deal, which allowed Iran to stockpile 12 times the amount of uranium they would have been allowed under the deal, and then in the last days of his presidency, asked for a harebrained plan to attack them. Trump’s top advisers, including Pence, Pompeo and General Milley, warned that could start a wider war — during the lane duck period of his presidency.
19. Loose talk of war or bombing Iran, resulted in the US Embassy in Bagdad coming under attack during presidential transition — by a Iranian supported PMFs in Iraq.
20. The rockets attack in Baghdad resulted in the death of a young Iraqi girl and injuries to five civilians is an example of American strategic narcissism. Where Trump defines foreign policy only in relation to his world view and assumes that whatever he does will lead to his desired outcome. Strategic narcissism is flawed because both Obama and Trump do not take into consideration the agency of others, like China, Iran, Indonesia or South Korea.
(a) Because strategic narcissism doesn't consider that agency, Obama engaged in wishful thinking and self-delusion — his Iran policy was mainly one of reconciliation, assuming that the Iranian regime would change stop its proxy wars against the US, Israel and the West. That has not happened and it is not going to happen as long as the ideology of the Revolution continues to drive Iran’s Supreme leader and the IRGC.
(b) Likewise, Obama’s policies towards China is based on his preferences rather than what the situation demands — his China policy was based on the assumption that once it was welcomed in the community of nations, China would play by the rules, would liberalize its economy and, as it prospered, it would liberalize its form of government. In China, Xi Jinping was elected president in March 2013. The era of “peaceful rise” gave way to a plan for increased influence and dominance.
(c) Meanwhile, China’s military forces made huge advances. China had launched its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in 2012. Soon thereafter, China began island building in the South China Sea, converting small reefs and terrain features into a string of seven military bases. China also began to buzz the airspace around Japan on a daily basis.
Last edited:
Biden’s pick Antony J. Blinken was a former Deputy Secretary of State under John Kerry; before that he was the Deputy National Security Advisor.
“The first thing is we have to dig out from a strategic deficit that President Trump has put us in,” Antony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state and top foreign policy adviser to Biden, said in a prior Bloomberg TV interview. “President Trump has helped China advance its own key strategic goals” by weakening alliances, abandoning U.S. values on human rights, and debasing America’s democracy, he added.
In Apr 2016, as then Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken told a House of Representatives hearing China "can't have it both ways," by being a party to the convention but rejecting its provisions, including "the binding nature of any arbitration decision."
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague had ruled in favour of the Philippines has brought against China's claim under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1996. The main significance of the July 2016 tribunal ruling was to clarify resource rights. An international tribunal in The Hague ruled that China cannot claim historic rights to resources in the waters within a “nine-dash line” encompassing much of the South China Sea if these waters are within the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, of other coastal states. Such rights, the tribunal determined, were extinguished when China ratified UNCLOS in 1996.
“The first thing is we have to dig out from a strategic deficit that President Trump has put us in,” Antony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state and top foreign policy adviser to Biden, said in a prior Bloomberg TV interview. “President Trump has helped China advance its own key strategic goals” by weakening alliances, abandoning U.S. values on human rights, and debasing America’s democracy, he added.
In Apr 2016, as then Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken told a House of Representatives hearing China "can't have it both ways," by being a party to the convention but rejecting its provisions, including "the binding nature of any arbitration decision."
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague had ruled in favour of the Philippines has brought against China's claim under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1996. The main significance of the July 2016 tribunal ruling was to clarify resource rights. An international tribunal in The Hague ruled that China cannot claim historic rights to resources in the waters within a “nine-dash line” encompassing much of the South China Sea if these waters are within the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, of other coastal states. Such rights, the tribunal determined, were extinguished when China ratified UNCLOS in 1996.
Last edited:
Trump being destructive — Part 6
21. As more and more Republicans start congratulating Biden or deserting Trump, the road to transition has been opened. On 24 Nov 2020, Trump concedes to Biden and below is what he announced on Twitter:
22. Strangely, as the Biden transition team begins work with the DoD, I am overwhelmed by a sense of sadness for America — with the prospect of a forthcoming Obama 2.0 redux (along with its failed policies for Asia).
23. Trump’s foreign policy has damaged the United States’ ability to address problems before they reach U.S. territory, compounding the danger emergent threats pose, argue former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. That a serving President of America can be a man that is so vindictive to Esper (for doing the right thing); and be of little grace, in his interactions with allies in Canada, Germany, Korea and Japan, that his departure is to be cheered. Let’s take stock of Trump’s achievements.
24. Trump’s ability to do what he wants, whether or not it is good for America is unparallelled — Mark Esper’s classified memo warning that conditions weren't met for withdrawal from Afghanistan, is ignored and the person being objective was fired. While Esper wants the US to get out of Afghanistan to focus on China and Russia and he doesn’t think Afghanistan is a vital national interest, it cannot be allowed to become a haven for terrorists who want to attack the US.
25. The Esper memo reflected the unanimous opinion of the chain of command -- Esper, US Central Command leader Marine Gen. Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie, and commander of NATO's mission in Afghanistan Gen. Austin Miller. The risks he was concerned about if conditions weren’t met include:
21. As more and more Republicans start congratulating Biden or deserting Trump, the road to transition has been opened. On 24 Nov 2020, Trump concedes to Biden and below is what he announced on Twitter:
“I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for her steadfast dedication and loyalty to our Country. She has been harassed, threatened, and abused – and I do not want to see this happen to her, her family, or employees of GSA. Our case STRONGLY continues, we will keep up the good fight, and I believe we will prevail! Nevertheless, in the best interest of our Country, I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols, and have told my team to do the same.”
22. Strangely, as the Biden transition team begins work with the DoD, I am overwhelmed by a sense of sadness for America — with the prospect of a forthcoming Obama 2.0 redux (along with its failed policies for Asia).
23. Trump’s foreign policy has damaged the United States’ ability to address problems before they reach U.S. territory, compounding the danger emergent threats pose, argue former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. That a serving President of America can be a man that is so vindictive to Esper (for doing the right thing); and be of little grace, in his interactions with allies in Canada, Germany, Korea and Japan, that his departure is to be cheered. Let’s take stock of Trump’s achievements.
- Iran: When Trump took office, it was 1 year away from a nuclear capability and had verifiably stopped there. Now? 3 months and closing.
- NK: When Trump took office, no thermonuclear ICBM. Now? Lots of them.
24. Trump’s ability to do what he wants, whether or not it is good for America is unparallelled — Mark Esper’s classified memo warning that conditions weren't met for withdrawal from Afghanistan, is ignored and the person being objective was fired. While Esper wants the US to get out of Afghanistan to focus on China and Russia and he doesn’t think Afghanistan is a vital national interest, it cannot be allowed to become a haven for terrorists who want to attack the US.
25. The Esper memo reflected the unanimous opinion of the chain of command -- Esper, US Central Command leader Marine Gen. Kenneth "Frank" McKenzie, and commander of NATO's mission in Afghanistan Gen. Austin Miller. The risks he was concerned about if conditions weren’t met include:
- alienating American allies who contribute troops to Operation Resolute Support Mission, whose members currently provide more service members in Afghanistan than the US;
- "Green-on-Blue" attacks on American service members by anxious Afghan soldiers;
- eroding the credibility and standing of the US around the world;
- impacting Afghan military, which relies on US "enablers" such as logistics and air support; and
- most importantly, undermine efforts to get the Taliban to live up to their end of the peace agreement.
Last edited:
1. On 24 Nov 2020, the Biden transition began. Within days, we see China’s coast guard back in action against Malaysia. Due to Malaysia’s actions and unwillingness to rock the boat, Chinese harassment is the new norm, while the CoC negotiations remain in limbo. ASEAN has been unable to take an effective and unified common stance on these South China Sea (SCS) issues with China. Trouble has been brewing in the SCS for some time.
2. ASEAN can make statements to the effect that UNLCOS should apply, freedom of navigation and overflight, no use of force, and peaceful settlement, but beyond that there is no political will.
3. Indonesia has little or no support from other members of ASEAN, because it too gives little or no support to the other ASEAN-9. The people from countries that are most critical of ASEAN are unable to spot BS sprouted by their own governments — for instance the Americans with their ‘free and open’ rhetoric, is anything but. Trump’s rejection of the TPP and the US Congress’ refusal to ratify UNCLOS, makes them hypocrites. But of course, China is a bigger hypocrite in SCS matters.
4. The forum links and cited sources because our members not only recognize others with expertise, we that there know that there are different domains of expertise. Drawing from others’ expertise is how we advance this discussion.
2. ASEAN can make statements to the effect that UNLCOS should apply, freedom of navigation and overflight, no use of force, and peaceful settlement, but beyond that there is no political will.
3. Indonesia has little or no support from other members of ASEAN, because it too gives little or no support to the other ASEAN-9. The people from countries that are most critical of ASEAN are unable to spot BS sprouted by their own governments — for instance the Americans with their ‘free and open’ rhetoric, is anything but. Trump’s rejection of the TPP and the US Congress’ refusal to ratify UNCLOS, makes them hypocrites. But of course, China is a bigger hypocrite in SCS matters.
4. The forum links and cited sources because our members not only recognize others with expertise, we that there know that there are different domains of expertise. Drawing from others’ expertise is how we advance this discussion.
Last edited:
Given that there are others in ASEAN who are also making territorial claims in the SCS, I'm not surprised. A move like this would also be asking nations which have few ties to China (Laos and Cambodia come to mind) as well as nations which generally try to stay neutral (Singapore) to take a definite stand against Chinese policies. I don't believe many countries which aren't currently on China's black list want to jump onto that list without some very definite assurances.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Some interesting articles about china's increasing presence in the Indian Ocean and the plan to establish a new numbered fleet closer to the border of the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
news.usni.org
SECNAV Braithwaite Calls for New U.S. 1st Fleet Near Indian, Pacific Oceans - USNI News
This post has been updated to include additional comments from Secretary Braithwaite and a subsequent statement from a Navy spokesman. Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite called for the Navy to establish a new numbered fleet closer to the border of the Indian and Pacific Oceans – perhaps out of...
news.usni.org
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
I didn't post this in the South-China Sea / Spratly Sea thread because it is found in the middle of Indonesia.
Indonesian fishermen found an underwater drone on December 20th. The find was reported in local media (in Indonesian). It was discovered near Selayar Island in the South Sulawes, far away from China’s adjacent waters.
Its for sure that this has nothing to do with protecting chinese waters or scientific research, so in my opinion china could only have bad intentions, looking to the location.
www.navalnews.com
Indonesian fishermen found an underwater drone on December 20th. The find was reported in local media (in Indonesian). It was discovered near Selayar Island in the South Sulawes, far away from China’s adjacent waters.
Its for sure that this has nothing to do with protecting chinese waters or scientific research, so in my opinion china could only have bad intentions, looking to the location.
Chinese Submarine Drone Discovered Near Gateway To Indian Ocean - Naval News
Indonesian fishermen found an underwater drone on December 20th. Based on photographs we can say with some confidence that the drone is closely related to the Chinese Sea Wing family. The find was reported in local media (in Indonesian). It was discovered near Selayar Island in the South...
www.navalnews.com
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
A more detailed article about these chinese autonomous underwater vehicles.I didn't post this in the South-China Sea / Spratly Sea thread because it is found in the middle of Indonesia.
Indonesian fishermen found an underwater drone on December 20th. The find was reported in local media (in Indonesian). It was discovered near Selayar Island in the South Sulawes, far away from China’s adjacent waters.
Its for sure that this has nothing to do with protecting chinese waters or scientific research, so in my opinion china could only have bad intentions, looking to the location.
Chinese Submarine Drone Discovered Near Gateway To Indian Ocean - Naval News
Indonesian fishermen found an underwater drone on December 20th. Based on photographs we can say with some confidence that the drone is closely related to the Chinese Sea Wing family. The find was reported in local media (in Indonesian). It was discovered near Selayar Island in the South...
Underwater gliders found in Indonesian Waters | Janes analysis
An unidentified autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), believed to be of Chinese origin, was discovered off Selayar Island in Indonesia’s South Sulawesi province in late December 2020.
www.janes.com
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed but it is an Indonesian problem to solve on a bilateral basis with China. No one in ASEAN dares to say a word, as Indonesia has a non-aligned policy. Why say something when it will not be appreciated by even the Indonesians?
3. More importantly, the 2014 Indonesian Navy’s decision to name the second ship of the Nakhoda Ragam class as KDB Usman Harun tells Singapore THAT the country’s efforts to work with the Indonesian Navy is not appreciated. Until that ship is decommissioned, Singapore cannot be sure of TNI AL’s intent to commit acts of terror against civilians.
4. As the smallest country in land size (within ASEAN), Singapore does not want to be on Beijing’s blacklist but will show indirect support for Australia (who is in Beijing’s blacklist) and solidarity through its ever improving defence relations with the Australians.Some interesting articles about china's increasing presence in the Indian Ocean and the plan to establish a new numbered fleet closer to the border of the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
SECNAV Braithwaite Calls for New U.S. 1st Fleet Near Indian, Pacific Oceans - USNI News
This post has been updated to include additional comments from Secretary Braithwaite and a subsequent statement from a Navy spokesman. Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite called for the Navy to establish a new numbered fleet closer to the border of the Indian and Pacific Oceans – perhaps out of...
5. With regard to Sino-American relations, it is important to note that Singapore wants to remain neutral. I think US Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite is a fool to suggest such a move without consultation or gathering the needed support from either India or Singapore.
6. Even analysts think that the 1st Fleet trial balloon will be deflated quickly.
Last edited:
I would go farther than that. Until Indonesia acknowledges those men as terrorists and stops its hero-worship of them, Singapore cannot be sure of Indonesia's commitment to a peaceful region. Why celebrate military men who killed civilians? I think we would be hard-pressed to find another nation who declared soldiers to be heroes when their only achievement was killing unaware, unarmed civilians. That warship is a symptom of an underlying problem - that Indonesian officers consider these men and their actions as a positive symbol of their nation and history.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Attacking civillian targets is always wrong, regardless the time, the victims and the perpetrators. But these soldiers carried out their orders, get caught and were later executed as prisoners of war. So its maybe a warcrime, but they are certainly not terrorists.
Bombardment of Libanon in 2006, the massacre of more than 8000 civillians in Sebrenica in 1995, the bombardment of civillian tagets in Sarajevo in 1999, and the last years all those bombardments on civillian targets in Syria, Gaza and Yemen. These are actually warcrimes, but do we have to regard all those perpetrating soldiers as terrorists and their countries as evil?
Bombardment of Libanon in 2006, the massacre of more than 8000 civillians in Sebrenica in 1995, the bombardment of civillian tagets in Sarajevo in 1999, and the last years all those bombardments on civillian targets in Syria, Gaza and Yemen. These are actually warcrimes, but do we have to regard all those perpetrating soldiers as terrorists and their countries as evil?
If they were ordered with the intent to instill fear into the civilians, as the two Indonesians were ordered to do, then yes, they are terrorists. They use violence to instill fear into a civilian population. These men deliberately targeted civilians to instill fear into a wider population. I'm not a lawyer, military or otherwise, but this is my layman's understanding. The question, for me, hinges on this: what was the intent or purpose of those actions? If the purpose was to kill civilians to instill fear into other civilians - that's terrorism to me.
They're not robots. They are supposedly professional, trained soldiers who should be capable of analysis and critical thought. They still have agency as human beings and the right to refuse an order they believe to be illegal. The "following orders" legal defence didn't work at Nuremberg and it doesn't work today. Please don't try to use that poor strategy to defend the actions of terrorists.
If those countries venerate men who committed morally reprehensible acts, then yes, I judge it so. What is considered morally reprehensible may be subjective, but the fact remains - those military men targeted civilians. I can accept that they viewed it as their duty to obey orders and may even have been celebrated in '65. But if those acts are celebrated and held in high regard fifty years later when hostilities are supposed to have ended, then all prior statements of apology seem hollow. At the end of the day, you cannot get around the fact that Indonesian military personnel believe that those men and their actions are worthy of honoring. Unless that sentiment changes, defence relations between Singapore and Indonesia will never be fully cooperative because Indonesia is deliberately provoking Singapore by reopening old wounds. And as @OPSSG has said, the desire to ensure as little cooperation as possible seems to be on the Indonesian side.
If you want a different historical example - look at the contrition (or lack thereof) displayed by a large section of the Japanese public and politicians towards the country's actions in WW2. Consider the veneration of war criminals at the Yasukuni shrine and the rewriting of history books to omit mention of Japan's wartime atrocities. I don't see China or S. Korea forgiving them anytime soon.
Singapore had largely put the MacDonald House bombing in the past until Indonesia decided to bring the issue back. I do mean to say that I believe it was intentionally meant to be a jab. The alternative is to say that no one in the TNI AL was intelligent enough to see that Singaporeans might take exception to the name of that ship.
@CheeZe and @Sandhi Yudha,
I try not to be emotional as Singapore greatly values the relationship with Indonesia. The best I can do, is to share the facts. I make no moral judgment but note that the case has been:
Osman Bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun Bin Said were found guilty by the courts of 3 countries.
Facts: On 20 October 1965, Osman Bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun Bin Said, members of the Indonesian army, were found guilty for the murder of Susie Choo Kay Hoi, Juliet Goh Hwee Kuang and Yasin Bin Kesit. The deaths resulted from an explosion of the MacDonald House in Orchard Street, one of the main streets of Singapore. The accused were sentenced to death.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed the appeal.
Firstly, the Judicial Committee stated that the Emergency Essential Powers Act was not ‘unconstitutional’ because it did not lead to denial of equal protection of the law (p. 3).
Secondly, in respect of the question of whether the appellants should have been treated as prisoners of war, the Judicial Committee held ‘that it does not suffice in every case to establish membership of an armed force to become entitled on capture to treatment as a prisoner of war’ (p. 6). In addition, the Judicial Committee held that even though neither the Hague Regulations nor Geneva Convention III requires a member of an armed force to wear a uniform in order to qualify for protection, it emphasised that international law recognises the necessity of distinguishing between belligerents and peaceful inhabitants (p. 6). The Judicial Committee, therefore, held that the appellants were not entitled to the status of prisoners of war because they purportedly committed sabotage and were dressed in civilian clothes at the moment they placed the explosives and lit them, and at the time of their arrest (p. 8).
I try not to be emotional as Singapore greatly values the relationship with Indonesia. The best I can do, is to share the facts. I make no moral judgment but note that the case has been:
(i) Heard on 20 October 1965, at the High Court of Singapore, which convicted Osman Bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun Bin Said alias Tahir for the murder of Susie Choo Kay Hoi, Juliet Goh Hwee Kuang and Yasin Bin Kesit. The High Court sentenced each of the accused to death.
(ii) Appealed on 5 October 1966, to the Federal Court of Malaysia and the court dismissed the appeal; and
(iii) Appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Great Britain (UK) and dismissed at the final instance there.
Osman Bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun Bin Said were found guilty by the courts of 3 countries.
| Bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Another v PP | |
| Case number | Appeal No. 20 of 1967 |
Facts: On 20 October 1965, Osman Bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun Bin Said, members of the Indonesian army, were found guilty for the murder of Susie Choo Kay Hoi, Juliet Goh Hwee Kuang and Yasin Bin Kesit. The deaths resulted from an explosion of the MacDonald House in Orchard Street, one of the main streets of Singapore. The accused were sentenced to death.
- On 10 March 1965, around 3 p.m., an explosion took place in Singapore in a building called MacDonald House. The explosion killed two secretaries and injured a driver who died two days later.
- On 13 March 1965, the accused were rescued from the sea some distance from Singapore by a bumboat man. They were brought to the marine police station where they were interviewed.
- On 18 March 1965, the accused were picked out at an identification parade by a bus conductor who had seen them just before the explosion.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissed the appeal.
Firstly, the Judicial Committee stated that the Emergency Essential Powers Act was not ‘unconstitutional’ because it did not lead to denial of equal protection of the law (p. 3).
Secondly, in respect of the question of whether the appellants should have been treated as prisoners of war, the Judicial Committee held ‘that it does not suffice in every case to establish membership of an armed force to become entitled on capture to treatment as a prisoner of war’ (p. 6). In addition, the Judicial Committee held that even though neither the Hague Regulations nor Geneva Convention III requires a member of an armed force to wear a uniform in order to qualify for protection, it emphasised that international law recognises the necessity of distinguishing between belligerents and peaceful inhabitants (p. 6). The Judicial Committee, therefore, held that the appellants were not entitled to the status of prisoners of war because they purportedly committed sabotage and were dressed in civilian clothes at the moment they placed the explosives and lit them, and at the time of their arrest (p. 8).
Last edited:
Lone Ranger
Member
Much to my understanding, there is no declaration of war between Indonesia and Malaysia (which Singapore is part of during that time) hence technically they were not prisoners of war. Moreover, both Harun and Usman arrived Singapore that morning illegally in civilian clothes. It was known that they had been instructed to bomb an electric power house but instead headed to MacDonald House which houses civilians. This was a reckless act leading to the kill of innocents.
When captured, both Harun and Usman were in civilian clothes, not army uniforms, and had targeted a civilian building, hence they were tried in Singapore for the murder of the three people who died in the blast, never as PsOW.
It is important to note that, the act of Lee Kuan Yew scattering flowers, should be read as "forgive"but "not forget nor approve" of the bombing.
Last edited:
In 2009, 3 full-time national service men with the Singapore Armed Forces were charged with accepting bribes in return for helping Indonesian Navy personnel smuggle contraband cigarettes from a Naval Base in Singapore. As a sign of how much the relationship is valued, no Indonesian Naval officer was punished for committing crimes in Singapore in 2008 and only the 3 Singaporeans involved in the crime were jailed. Ee Jin Liang, 22, Adrian Tan, 23, and Ang Zi Heng, 22, received varying quantities of contraband cigarettes, and in Ee's case, a chest of tea too, Ee, faces the most number of charges, including five for corruption.
Full-time national serviceman Ang Zi Heng, was jailed for 16 months for accepting 16 to 18 cartons of illegal cigarettes in return for helping some members of the Indonesian Navy smuggle the contraband from Changi Naval Base in Aug 2008.
Full-time national serviceman Ang Zi Heng, was jailed for 16 months for accepting 16 to 18 cartons of illegal cigarettes in return for helping some members of the Indonesian Navy smuggle the contraband from Changi Naval Base in Aug 2008.
There were another two Indonesians on death row in Singapore for crimes committed during Konfrontasi. Stanislaus Krofan and Andres Andea were charged with unlawfully carrying 43 pounds of explosives at Tanjong Rhu and Katong Park on 14 April 1965. Two demolition experts and two police officers were injured during the defusing of the bombs. Following a court trial, Krofan and Andea were sentenced to death. However, their death sentences were remitted following pleas by the Indonesian government and both were sent back to Indonesia in April 1967. Their case was handled differently from Osman and Harun’s case, as the bomb they planted did not kill anyone unlike the MacDonald House bombing which killed three people.
Last edited:
Lone Ranger
Member
Thank you for your sharing. Not many know about this including myself. I can understand why there is a different in handling this compared to the earlier case. For the earlier case, there is a need for accountability on the lost of innocent lives, which is a much serious case compared to illegal own/ usage of pyrotechnics (I assumed).