Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Aviation Sceptic's avatar

CDR Sal, excellent framing of a very complex situation. Since "international law" is not backed up by "international law enforcement" that is credible and sufficient, it is useless as a forced compliance mechanism for actors who care not for the umbrage and outrage of international law "experts". These "experts" may even be correct that by the letter of "international law" the PI is in the right. To my "non-expert" opinion they certainly are. But what are "we" (the U.S. and "international community") willing and / or capable of doing about it? China's attitude of "possession is 90 percent of the law" is probably legally defensible in "international law" (I'll leave that for the "experts"). As a practical matter, once someone has "boots on the ground", you either have to coerce their government via diplomatic or economic pressure (sanctions? tariffs?) to leave voluntarily, or remove them via physical force. Which is by its nature escalatory and opens up all sorts of possibilities for mistakes spiraling out of control. Deterrence requires both parties to understand red lines, capabilities and potential consequences. IMO we have failed, and are continuing to fail in the region. We may not be seeing that at the policy making level, but the other regional actors (Japan, S. Korea, Viet Nam, PI) are well aware of what is happening, and have to be asking if they can really count on the U.S. to honor its treaty obligations.

Expand full comment
Adm leggoff's avatar

When we are forced to buy electric skateboards for transportation by the Harris administration they will be produced in Chinese factories powered by coal.

Our leaders have failed the Philippines as well as everyone else , except the Chinese.

Expand full comment
55 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?