American Aggression Against China: A World Crisis Looms

by Christopher Black, via NEO

The American aggression against China continued Tuesday May 10th with the invasion of Chinese waters just off the Spratly Islands by an American destroyer as China’s limited stock of patience continues to run out.

By sending their ships into Chinese territorial waters on the bizarre claim that they are exercising “their right of innocent passage” and that, the “United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows,” they are in fact claiming the right to go anywhere they want, anytime they want. They might as well claim the right to once again send gunboats up the Yangtze River bristling with guns and marines, for their passage through Chinese waters was not only illegal, because without permission; it was also certainly not “innocent” since the passage was meant to be a display of power and control, which is prohibited by the Law of the Sea Convention.

The American claim of following international law is absurd because international law requires that a naval vessel of one county wishing to enter the 12 nautical mile limit of another country must have the permission of the country whose waters they wish to cross. They have to ask permission and they have to fly that country’s flag when they make the passage. All foreign ships entering another nation’s waters fly their own flag and that of the host nation. The Americans refuse to ask permission and they certainly do not honour the custom of flying the Chinese flag. They might as well send their ambassador to a meeting with President Xi and, in front of everyone, spit in his face. For that is what they intend, to insult China, and to dare it.

“Try to stop us,” they are saying, as they watch the tempers rise, the angry words, the flurry of ships around theirs. But no shots were fired. Their passage was unimpeded. They are the power. They are the right. They are the overlords of us all. That is the message.

The Chinese government has once again reacted angrily, calling this new violation of Chinese sovereignty, a “provocation” which indeed it is. But nothing more was done except to scramble some jets and ships to put on a show of the flag. But to what end? The Americans could not care less about dramatics. They only understand force. Logic requires that, unless these provocations stop there will be a shooting incident in the near future because there will be nothing else China can do. The thought of what could happen next can only make you shudder. But unless the world thinks hard about that and reacts with the necessary response, this renegade nation, the one nation that roams around the world with a big club, threatening, bullying and destroying, without regard for law, morality, or humanity, will push us all to the eve of destruction..

But what is the necessary response? The Chinese have made it clear that continued aggression against China will be very costly to the United States. They’ve also said that China will not permit these provocations to continue and have the capacity to oppose these actions if necessary. But do they have the will? It would appear that they do since they have increased and modernised their armed forces to prepare for such an eventuality and, as we know, a month ago China put its nuclear missile forces on constant high alert. But the Chinese are very patient as they seek a peaceful future, so it is difficult to say when they will directly confront an American vessel and stop it, but that time has to come. So what are the Chines doing? Perhaps some clues lie in their military doctrine.

The Chinese basic principles of war are famously set down by Sun Tzu in the Art of War;

“Warfare is the art of deceit. Therefore, when able, seem to be unable; when ready, seem unready; when nearby, seem far away; and when far away, near. If the enemy seeks some advantage, entice him with it, if he is in disorder, attack him and take him. If he is formidable, prepare against him. If he is strong, evade him. If he is incensed, provoke him…attack where he is not prepared; go by way of places where it would never occur to him you would go. These are the …calculations for victory-they cannot be settled in advance.”

So, we can expect the unexpected. But it will not be what the Chinese prefer, a win-win solution, it will be a lose-lose result, for war harms everyone. The American bullying attitude rests in an innate chauvinism and arrogance and a complete confidence in their superiority of arms. But it is this very confidence that will be their downfall.

In their important 1999 paper on military theory, “Unrestricted Warfare,” two Chinese Army Colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiansiu, now both generals I believe, advanced the idea that the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden. They then examined the use of full spectrum warfare and why it is the only strategy to adopt in order to resist a powerful aggressor who does not obey international rules but makes up its own, such as the United States, which, as they point out, cannot even be trusted to obey its own rules. How can anyone trust a nation that seems to have the same motto as the Mediterranean pirate chief in the Middle Ages who said, “Law? I make up my own laws and I take what I want.”

In a section of the paper asking what the Americans want, and answering “world domination,” they say something interesting:

In discussing the talented American inventor, Thomas Edison, poet Jeffers writes, “We… … are skilled in machinery and are infatuated with luxuries.” Americans have a strong inborn penchant for these two things as well as a tendency to turn their pursuit of the highest technology and its perfection into a luxury, even including weapons and machinery. General Patton, who liked to carry ivory handled pistols, is typical of this. This inclination makes them rigidly infatuated with and therefore have blind faith in technology and weapons, always thinking that the road to getting the upper hand with war can be found with technology and weapons. This inclination also makes them anxious at any given time that their own leading position in the realm of weaponry is wavering, and they continually alleviate these concerns by manufacturing more, newer, and more complex weapons. As a result of this attitude, when the weapons systems which are daily becoming heavier and more complicated come into conflict with the terse principles required of actual combat, they always stand on the side of the weapons. They would rather treat war as the opponent in the marathon race of military technology and are not willing to look at it more as a test of morale and courage, wisdom and strategy. They believe that as long as the Edisons of today do not sink into sleep, the gate to victory will always be open to Americans. Self-confidence such as this has made them forget one simple fact – it is not so much that war follows the fixed racecourse of rivalry of technology and weaponry, as it is a game field with continually changing direction and many irregular factors. Whether you wear Adidas or Nike cannot guarantee you will become the winner.”

In other words, the United States, that is, the military- industrial complex that has the real power in the country, is pushing both China and its own people to the brink of something whose consequences will be unexpected and which can only lead to a common disaster. They are pushing everywhere, from North Korea, to Syria, from Ukraine to the Baltic, from Afghanistan to South America, but especially Russia and China. President Putin has called for the creation of a new “non-aligned” international security structure. What form that would take is unclear but unless some attempt is made to restore the rule of international law to the world and to contain this renegade nation, the clock to Armageddon will keep counting down as a world crisis looms.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eurasia News Online
Eurasia News Online
May 21, 2016 8:13 AM

Whatever is the case regarding disputed territories is besides the point. What USA has to do with all this – they are not claiming any part of disputed territory which is some 10,000 Km away from their country. Anyone can point to any international document authorizing USA (Caliphate of Chaos) to be world policeman, judge and jury?

May 20, 2016 5:21 PM

Reblogged this on Worldtruth.

May 19, 2016 11:55 PM

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

May 19, 2016 7:28 PM

Are the Spratly Islands within Chinese territorial waters as the article above claims?
According to a Wikipedia entry, ‘The Spratly Islands Tagalog: Kapuluan ng Kalayaan, Malay: Kepulauan Spratly, (Chinese: 南沙群岛; pinyin: Nánshā Qúndǎo,[9] Vietnamese: Quần đảo Trường Sa) are a disputed group of 14 islands, islets and cays[10] and more than 100 reefs, sometimes grouped in submerged old atolls, in the South China Sea.[11] The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines, Malaysia, and southern Vietnam…..The Spratlys are one of the major archipelagos in the South China Sea which complicate governance and economics in this part of Southeast Asia due to their location in strategic shipping lanes. The islands have no indigenous inhabitants, but offer rich fishing grounds and may contain significant oil and natural gas reserves.[12][13] and as such are important to the claimants in their attempts to establish international boundaries. A major territorial conflict append there between China and its neighbors. Some of the islands have civilian settlements, but of the approximately 45 islands, cays, reefs and shoals that are occupied, all contain structures that are occupied by military forces from Malaysia, Taiwan (ROC), China (PRC), the Philippines and Vietnam. Additionally, Brunei has claimed an exclusive economic zone in the southeastern part of the Spratlys, which includes the Louisa Reef’. [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands%5D.
This does not sound like a clear case of the islands being within Chinese territorial waters to me.
OffGuardian must be careful not to publish wholly one-sided accounts such as this one.
Otherwise, you will undermine your credibility and reputation for impartiality.

May 19, 2016 8:09 PM
Reply to  John

China’s disputing the application of the Law of the Sea to the Spratly Islands, and while it may be wrong, the US has deliberately chosen a provocative course of action not allowed by international law. That is the subject of this article, which also points out:
“their passage through Chinese waters … was also certainly not “innocent” since the passage was meant to be a display of power and control, which is prohibited by the Law of the Sea Convention.”

May 19, 2016 8:15 PM
Reply to  Vaska

You use the term ‘Chinese waters’ though they are clearly contested and not just by the US but also by a number of other nations geographically closer to the islands than China – Vietnam, for instance.
Off Guardian must remain impartial between these competing claims if you want people to take it seriously as an impartial source of reliable information.

May 19, 2016 8:42 PM
Reply to  John

One thing is certain: these are not US territorial waters. It would appear that the US supports the claims of other neighbouring states, so it recognises that these are the territorial waters of some country or other.
As the Chinese say this is a provocation. And, unless one has concluded that China has neither the capability nor the will to respond, a dangerous one.
A pattern is emerging. Not only in the South China sea but in the Baltic and Black seas the US is engaged in provocative displays. Together with the ever escalating rhetoric of military mouthpieces in NATO and elsewhere, it would seem that the current US administration is anxious to start another war or two before it retreats into infamy.
The current President was brought up in a family of sinophobes in an atmosphere in which an exceedingly bloody military dictatorship was celebrated by his mother and stepfather, both of whom served it. The apple has not fallen far from the tree.

May 19, 2016 10:02 PM
Reply to  John

No, I don’t. As I’ve said, China is disputing the interpretation of the Law of the Sea as pertaining to those waters. And the US Navy is certainly behaving in a most provocative way.