Read on Twitter
U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea - This is significant in more ways than one. Let me offer a couple of initial observations:
1. The statement uses a sharp language and possibly is the strongest indicator of an ‘ideological’ divide; https://www.state.gov/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/
1. The statement uses a sharp language and possibly is the strongest indicator of an ‘ideological’ divide; https://www.state.gov/u-s-position-on-maritime-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/
2. To anyone who suggested that in the SCS, the Trump admin was going Obama on steroids - that ends now. The framework is one that precludes any recognition of Chinese claims;
3. The language is strong but also carefully mobilised to reinforce the 2016 award;
3. The language is strong but also carefully mobilised to reinforce the 2016 award;
4. It’s detailed in a legally informed push back to the use of coercion to impose claims on fisheries and resource access - again, this is big;
5. The statement feels like just the beginning.
Which leads me to a couple of questions naturally unfolding:
5. The statement feels like just the beginning.
Which leads me to a couple of questions naturally unfolding:
A. Is this about challenging Chxina; reaffirming US role as custodian of existing order; reassurance of allies and partners; or attempt at breaking a stasis?
B. This is so big that will require quite a few clarifications on operational implications;
B. This is so big that will require quite a few clarifications on operational implications;
C. To what extent the US will start intervening in Chinese acts of coercion, in lieu of, or in addition to coastal claimants?
D. The reference to challenging China’s southern most point is a clear challenge to an inherent part of the CCP narrative of rejuvenation. So what’s next?
D. The reference to challenging China’s southern most point is a clear challenge to an inherent part of the CCP narrative of rejuvenation. So what’s next?
