Read on Twitter
Thanks to @MartelleMichael for pointing out the latest in bad O-4s parachuting in on an issue they obviously don't understand. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/may/fonops-not-only-option
Some new followers since the last time, but I have a strict policy when it comes to serious issues. If you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, don't write about it unless you're going to do the reading.
First, the authors blather on about FONOPs and how the US has a FONOP/military-only strategy in the Indo-Pacific, and how FONOPs contest "improper territorial claims" and don't deter Chinese harassment of ASEAN fishermen.
In the words of Betty White's pool boy, No shit, Sherlock[s]. First, the "America has no strategy other than FONOPs" is the quickest way to get my eyes to bulge out of my head. Second, TERRITORIAL CLAIMS? How about "excessive maritime claims" instead? It's in the reading.
And FONOPs aren't SUPPOSED to deter China from harassing fishermen, they're challenges to excessive maritime claims (as stated in the reading, see previous tweet). This is like saying my coffee machine doesn't make cheeseburgers and being mad about it.
They get into consensus in ASEAN and how that's made it tough - sure. Then the claim that economic coercion has made it impossible to sign a Code of Conduct? I mean...how about "Nobody wants to sign China's bullshit CoC because it's worthless"?
Then we get into the really bad shit, where only "US leadership" will save the region. (To all our friends and allies, almost none of us think this. We want to be good partners. Please don't judge us all by this.)
Ah - the proposal. It's a multinational fisheries patrol. With ASEAN at the center (including the landlocked states, guys?) and third parties like the US Coast Guard and...China!
That's right folks, we'll just tell the Chinese they need to join a multinational fisheries patrol that invites the United States to patrol waters they've clearly stated belong to them and are under their jurisdiction.
The authors then dive into food security as one of several reasons it would obviously make sense for China to jump onboard. First, lets be clear, China is the world's largest fishing state and it's also the world's leading *exporter* of seafood.
They're also a world leader in aquaculture. When the SCS fisheries collapse, China will be inconvenienced. It's Southeast Asia that will have thousands starving. China doesn't give a shit if Indonesia doesn't get enough fish.
Now we pivot back to "ASEAN should negotiate SCS issues on a multilateral basis with China because it will legitimize ASEAN as a credible organization and promote interoperability in navies/MLE orgs"
I mean, even the authors of this article acknowledged that ASEAN isn't able to reach consensus on the SCS because China has too much influence with some states. So yeah, we'd all love it if ASEAN magically marshaled all 10 states into a united front (not that kind), but...
Also - if you don't think ASEAN is a legitimate organization with credibility, maybe you shouldn't be writing about it.
Then it gets into how this multinational fisheries thing would build China's soft power and help stop IUUF. CHINA IS THE ONE DOING THE IUUF! WHY WOULD THEY SIGN ON TO AN AGREEMENT BRINGING IN THE US TO HELP STOP THEM?!
Now we get to the part nearest and dearest to me. Capacity building. Not one of these people has done the reading - which is disappointing given one of them is the Office of Defense Cooperation Chief in Timor-Leste.
"The US should offer training and resources like they do in the Africa Maritime Law Enforcement Partnership (AMLEP)"
Yeah, noted, idiots. I'm not even going to waste my anger here because here it comes.
Yeah, noted, idiots. I'm not even going to waste my anger here because here it comes.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? DO. THE. FUCKING. READING. The Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative (yes, the name changed, that's a simple google) has brought tens of millions of dollars into the Indo-Pacific, mostly Southeast Asia, every year for the last five years.
This is literally the vehicle we use to accomplish the goals of helping partners to achieve better maritime domain awareness and police their exclusive economic zones. The Coast Guard is part of it! https://www.thejakartapost.com/seasia/2019/06/30/southeast-asian-countries-complete-maritime-law-enforcement-exercise.html
Now let me blow your minds.
The US has a substantial presence in the SCS? We have two Littoral Combat Ships, which makes like .75 real ships on a good day. That's it. We have nothing else. And the TCA? Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines did that on their fucking own.
Yeah, we have done VBSS training and yes, all three have received info-sharing support (though I dare any of the authors to tell me what any of the three have received and which ONE they have in common, bonus points if they can tell me if it's being used at any of the TCA sites).
It's hard to stay on this upward trajectory of absolute shit, but we're still going. "If China doesn't say yes to the US coming to the Indo-Pacific to participate in a fisheries patrol, it signals they endorse the PAFMM's activities."
The PAFMM is not some rogue actor that China is trying to rein in. They're an arm of the state, for god's sake. And this entire proposal would be violating a Chinese "red line," and they've told us that, many times. This is a core interest.
Now we go to "showing China that participation in this plan is in their best interests" when it is clearly fucking not.
China's interests are controlling the South China Sea and cowing their neighbors. They are happy to do that. They do not want a US-led fisheries coalition fucking with their program.
They mention trading readmission to RIMPAC for joining up with this stupid idea. China doesn't give a shit about RIMPAC anymore, and we shouldn't want them in it. Yeah, it hurt their feelings to get kicked out, and we were right to do it, but this is silly.
Then we go to "if they don't join, we need to make sure they observe CUES with the multinational coalition." They don't even observe CUES now! They don't think CUES applies in waters they claim jurisdiction over!
We run through Korea and THAAD, the BUILD Act, BRI, and a bunch of other stuff that is sort of related to this, but honestly I do not have the energy to engage with that.
"Today’s FONOPs fail to yield strategic gains and could even lead to an armed escalation scenario"
Honestly...do the reading.
Honestly...do the reading.
It ends with a whimper, respect for Chinese economic primacy, avoidance of conflict, somehow magically enabling a Code of Conduct.
This reads like someone made a bot read 10,000 C- war college papers and an equal number of Diplomat articles (not a dig at @Diplomat_APAC, you're great), then write an article.
The rule is, if you don't know what in the hell you're talking about, don't write about it unless you're going to put in the time and do the reading.
Professional publications are for professionals, not tourists and not half-assed resume building. You don't have to be the best, or most experienced, but you do have to do the fucking reading first. To do otherwise is a disservice to our profession and, frankly, embarrassing.
