PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT  OF A MILITARY BASE IN BARROWS ALASKA

In 2005 specialties of this sort have been ordered by the International Marine Organization so they likely ought to be viewed as flying ships instead of swimming planes.The military thinks bolstering its presence in the Arctic is necessary, but that may not be enough to make it happen

China Wants a piece of Alaska! China is eyeing a piece of Alaska in the Arctic.

Not stopping at Russia’s Vladivostok, China is eyeing a piece of Alaska in the Arctic.

As Chinese President Xi Jinping’s brand of Chinese expansionism takes shape, Beijing seems to be turning belligerent in the entire Indo-Pacific region from the Himalayas bordering Southern China to the Russian Far East territory, including the city of Vladivostok, towards China’s Northeast. But one would be grossly mistaken to think that Chinese expansionism will stop at Vladivostok. China’s expansionism is going to turn polar and go as far as the Arctic.

In fact, China’s preposterous claim over Vladivostok is actually an attempt to flex muscles in the Arctic. And the aftershocks of Chinese expansionism are going to be felt as far away as the United States. The White House need not look very far as China is already eyeing a strategic US territory- Alaska as a part of the Dragon’s attempt to gain a foothold in the Arctic, by the time the climatically fragile region melts down and becomes amenable to international trade and commerce.

Interestingly, Alaska which was purchased by the US from Russia way back in 1867. At that time, many wouldn’t have predicted that Alaska would once become a strategic hotspot and, therefore, 1.519 million square kilometres of Russian territory was sold to the US for a meagre sum of 7.2 million Dollars. In present-day prices, the US is estimated to have paid Russia 3.19 Dollars for every hectare of Alaska, and in 1867, the deal cost every American taxpayer around 5 Cents.

Alaska’s present-day value is, of course, much higher as three formidable giants- Russia, the US and China- battle it out for the melting Arctic that is expected to be ice-free by 2044, hence, literally opening up a sea of opportunities in terms of trade and naval activities. For China, gaining a stronghold in Alaska is indispensable given its proximity to the Arctic and strategic location.

China calls itself a “Near-Arctic State”, though it happens as far away from the Arctic than Poland. So, how does China reach the Arctic? The Chinese plan seems to be to stake claim over the Russian Far East that could take Beijing as far as the Bering Strait- a strategic chokepoint which is only 55 miles wide at its narrowest point and divides the Russian Far East from Alaska. It is the only marine route from the Pacific Ocean to the Arctic, making Alaska of incredible importance for China’s Arctic ambitions.

us vs china,usa vs china,china,china vs usa,china vs us,us vs china military,south china sea,us navy in south china sea,south china sea dispute,us navy,china sea,south china sea news,china military,us china,us military,usa vs china military,us china news,us china trade war,south china sea today,us vs china war,south china,china us war,us china war,us china sea,usa china,south china sea conflict,us china conflict,usa vs china military comparison,usa vs china war

It is, therefore, no surprise that China is gaining a lot of interest in Alaska from hydrocarbons exploration to tourism. Chinese proximity to Alaska is bound to be seen at loggerheads with Trump administration’s trade wars against Beijing. Therefore, when Xi Jinping visited the US in 2017, he stopped at Alaska, and not the Silicon Valley after leaving from the Mar-a-Lago summit with US President Donald Trump. There is a reason why Jinping wanted to discuss business in Alaska and not California, which is otherwise the hotspot of American business circles. China wants to invest heavily in Alaska’s oil and gas exploration sector. During Xi Jinping’s 2017 visit, the then Alaska Governor Bill Walker had pitched his state’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) potential before the Chinese President. When Trump visited China a few months later, the White House announced a Memorandum of Understanding for the 43 billion US Dollars Alaska LNG project. China is also promoting tourism in Alaska. Almost a decade ago, Alaska was barely known as a destination to Chinese tourists, but it is now becoming a favourite amongst many Chinese travellers. And apart from all the soft power that China is bringing to the table, five Chinese ships were spotted by the Pentagon off Alaska coast in 2015 exposing China’s expansionist ambitions in the region. This is how Chinese expansionism works- investments and soft power display are generally followed by maritime face-offs as Chinese Communist hardliners bring in so-called historical maps or even otherwise stake a claim on territories that vest in other countries or powers.

Of course, China’s interests are hardly limited to Alaska. The Dragon wants to gain complete control of the Arctic which will be melting extensively over the next few decades to open new shipping lanes helping Beijing get over the “Malacca dilemma” and also fuel the energy-hungry Dragon’s hydrocarbon needs.

A U.S. Army Alaska soldier with Bravo Company, 3-21 Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade scans the Arctic tundra outside Deadhorse during Operation Arctic Pegasus, Nov. 4, 2015. (Capt. Richard Packer / U.S. Army)

WASHINGTON — An otherwise complete military strategy for the U.S. Arctic is on hold during the transition between presidential administrations, but Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan shared what he knows of its contents — including concerns about growing Russian aggression in the region.
The Alaska North Slope is the region of the U.S. state of Alaska located on the northern slope of the Brooks Range along the coast of two marginal seas of the Arctic Ocean, the Chukchi Sea being on the western side of Point Barrow, and the Beaufort Sea on the eastern. 

Flying Aircraft Carrier Project. Another US base in the Arctic

The Alaska North Slope region includes the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, with the bulk of Alaska's known petroleum until the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field was discovered in 1968, followed by the Kuparuk River oil fieldin 1969. The region also includes the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which itself has been the subject of controversy surrounding the possibility of petroleum drilling within its boundaries. The petroleum extracted from the region is transferred south by means of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System to Valdez on the Pacific Ocean.^[1] Under the North Slope is an ancient seabed – the source of the oil. Within the North Slope, there is a geological feature called the Barrow Arch – a belt of the kind of rock known to be able to serve as a trap for oil. It runs from the city of Barrow to a point just west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.^[1][2] The Arctic Alaska Petroleum Province, encompassing all the lands and adjacent Continental Shelf areas north of the Brooks Range-Herald arch (see map) were estimated by the USGS in 2005 to hold more than 50 billion bbl of oil and natural-gas liquids and 227 trillion cubic feet of gas.^[2]

The source rock for the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field and neighboring reserves is also a potential source for tight oil and shale gas – possibly containing "up to 2 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and up to 80 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a 2012 U.S. Geological Survey report."^[3]

Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude production

Alaska North Slope (ANS) is a more expensive waterborne crude. Since 1987, Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude production has been in decline.

Topography

• Landsat 7 false-color image of the North Slope. Along the coast, fast ice still clings to the shore in a solid, frozen sheet. At the top of the scene is the drifting sea ice. A dark blue strip of open water, known as a flaw lead, separates the fast ice from the drifting sea ice. The Brooks Range is visible at the bottom. (June 2001)

Within the North Slope, only a surface "active layer" of the tundrathaws each season; most of the soil is permanently frozen year-round. On top of this permafrost, water flows to sea via shallow, braided streams or settles into pools and ponds. Along the bottom of the Landsat 7 image on the right the rugged terrain of the Brooks Range mountains is snow-covered in places (blue areas) and exposed (pink areas) in others.

Much of the region is located in North Slope Borough.

A map of northern Alaska; the dotted line shows the southern boundary of the North Slope. The National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska is to the West, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the east, and Prudhoe Bay is between them.

This area should be developed like the military bunkers of Europe, to establish a base protecting our claim like Russia and the rest about the Arctic resources.  With the oil reserves nearby, a protected undergound storage should be another advantage for a fuel depot for flying aircraft carriers using these bunkers for supplies and fuel.

This video discusses who owns the ever-warming Arctic Ocean, which surrounds the North Pole of Earth. Find out how as the Arctic melts, it opens up new possibilities for fishing, drilling and shipping. But who owns the Arctic? And who gets access to these resources? Discover how Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) dictate the delegation of natural resources in the Arctic Ocean, and how the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) can create more disputes than answers when countries have overlapping territorial claims in the Arctic Circle. Continental shelf claims in the Arctic Ocean also bring a new layer of complexity to territorial disputes.

Nearly three miles long and burrowed out of more than 10,000 square feet of rock, this gigantic underground bunker built by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is one of the most impressive structures of World War Two. The Mount Soratte tunnel complex, 27 miles north of Rome, was not only Europe's largest bunker but also one of the most mysterious - surrounded by rumours it still contains 75 tonnes of Nazi gold hidden by its later German occupiers. Evacuation work began in the autumn of 1937, when Mussolini - known as El Duce - demanding the construction of a bunker reaching up to 300 yards underground to house the Italian government and generals. Officials set up a 150-acre exclusion zone surrounded by barbed wire and spread rumours that the site was to house a factory for agricultural and military equipment, shrouding its true purpose in the utmost secrecy. After Italy made peace with the allies on September 8th, 1943, the Germans invaded and took over the bunker as the headquarters of the Werhrmacht under the leadership of Field General Albert Kesserling. During the Cold War period the bunker was turned into an anti-atomic shelter under NATO. It was to be used in case of a nuclear attack as a shelter for Italy's president and his closest assistants.  +25 The Mount Soratte tunnel complex, 27 miles north of Rome, was not only Europe's largest bunker but also one of the most mysterious - surrounded by rumours it contains 75 tonnes of Nazi gold hidden by its later German occupiers. The stash has never been found, but rumours continue to swirl about its possible location deep underground +25 Evacuation work began in the autumn of 1937, when Mussolini - known as El Duce - demanding the construction of a bunker reaching up to 300 yards underground to house the Italian government and generals. Pictured is the entrance to the main tunnel, which was protected by a pair of heavy iron doors +25 Officials set up a 150-acre exclusion zone surrounded by barbed wire and spread rumours that the site was to house a factory for agricultural and military equipment, shrouding its true purpose in the utmost secrecy. Pictured is one of the operations rooms inside the giant complex +25 After Italy made peace with the allies on September 8th, 1943, the Germans invaded and took over the bunker as the headquarters of the Werhrmacht under the leadership of Field General Albert Kesserling. The Germans did not want the homeland of their former ally to become a stronghold for the allies. Pictured: A replica soldier sitting at a desk +25 +25 During the Cold War period the bunker was turned into an anti-atomic shelter under NATO. It was to be used in case of a nuclear attack as a shelter for Italy's president and his closest assistants. Pictured on the left is the entrance of the bunker during construction work, on the right is the structure today, which now welcomes tourists +25 Albert Kesselring, pictured inside the bunker, was the German Luftwaffe Generalfeldmarschall during World War II and became one of the most highly-decorated Nazi commanders. He was tried for war crimes in 1960 and sentenced to death, but that later changed to life imprisonment. A political and media campaign resulted in his release in 1952, ostensibly on health grounds. He died in 1960 of a heart attack +25 A massive American bombardment by B-17 bombers of the bunker occurred on May, 1944, destroying the bunker's perimeter but missing the main structure itself. Pictured is a replica of a gas mask worn by an adult, and one that was used to protect babies +25 +25 Two and a half miles long and burrowed from more than 10,000 square feet of mountain rock, this gigantic underground bunker built by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is one of the most foreboding structures of World War Two. It was protected by weaponry including rockets, left, and tanks, right Inside Mussolini's bunker: Look at the last refuge of dictator   Advertisement 0:30 +25 An urban legend says that somewhere under the bunker lies 75 tons of gold bars that had been transferred there from the central Bank of Italy in Rome (the gold has never been found). This sign tells inhabitants of the bunker to stay silent  +25 This notice painted on the brown concrete walls of the bunker orders passers-by to be quiet because 'the enemy are listening'. Nearly a thousand Nazis slept in the bunker after Italy's surrender and there were facilities including a restaurant and a theatre +25 The bunker was intended to shelter top-secret documents and people. Pictured is a World War Two tank inside the structure, showing that it also housed military equipment +25 Workers took four and a half years to excavate the bunker, working on eight-hour shifts starting at 6am in the morning. Locals were said to be happy about the construction work going on as it provided hundreds of jobs. Pictured: Shelves containing metal document boxes inside the bunker +25 +25 These posters show a list of commands for Italians issued by Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, who took control of the bunker after the Nazis invaded Italy in September 1943. One of the commands listed on these pages says that Italy is now under 'German law' +25 This World War Two camouflaged tank points towards the commune of Sant’Oreste, which is perched on a nearby hill +25 This image shows the bunker's map room, where Italian Army commanders would plot troop movements against the Allies. It was later used by Nazi generals +25 Despite being the infamous founder of Italian fascism who allied with Adolf Hitler, tore up democracy and introduced a string of anti-Semitic laws to Italy, Mussolini is still lauded by some Italians on the far-right. Pictured: A rusting tank outside his bunker +25 Fascism has long left its mark on the country, with groups of so-called Ultras sporting extreme views that hark back to 1920s Italy taking to the nation's football terraces for several decades. But the cult-figure appears to have slipped back into mainstream public consciousness. Pictured: A guard post outside the bunker +25 During the last days of the war in Italy, Il Duce (the leader) - as Mussolini was known - was captured by partisans who executed him by firing squad. His corpse was mutilated and strung up by the feet alongside that of his mistress, Clara Petacci, at an Esso station in Milan. Pictured: A model plane hanging from the ceiling of his bunker +25 The bunker is a popular visitor attraction and includes displays of armaments from World War Two, which include a warning sign saying 'please do not touch' +25 +25 The bunker is now surrounded by a nature reserve, rather than the hostile military no man's land that was used to protect it during the Second World War +25 There is plenty of equipment from the period remaining inside the bunker, including this First Aid box. However, the legendary gold bars are yet to be found In 1940 Churchill built a top secret army: a British resistance movement primed for a Nazi occupation. History tells us it was never needed – but a new movie imagines a very different scenario... Resistance shines a light on the little-known story of the British Resistance Organisation (BRO). This top-secret and highly trained civilian army was designed to wreak havoc on occupying enemy forces  Autumn, 1944: Russia has fallen, the D-Day landings have failed and the German Wehrmacht has invaded Britain. The country is now under enemy occupation. Panzer divisions and columns of Nazi troops sweep westwards, striking fear into a demoralised nation whose forces lie decimated across the shell-pocked landscape of mainland Europe. In a remote valley in the Black Mountains of Wales, farmers’ wives awake to discover that the men of the village have vanished during the night. Like women across Britain, they silently suspect their husbands, brothers and sons have melted away to join the Resistance, whose members are hiding out in the hills and woods, awaiting the inevitable arrival of German troops. George (Iwan Rheon), a young member of the British Resistance Organisation (BRO) in Resistance Although this might sound like just another imagined account of what might have been had Britain failed to hold Hitler at bay, Resistance, a new British film starring Michael Sheen, famous for his portrayals of Tony Blair and Brian Clough, shines a light on the little-known story of the British Resistance Organisation (BRO). This top-secret and highly trained civilian army was designed to wreak havoc on occupying enemy forces. The author of the novel the film is based on insists this fictional past is based on ‘what was, at one point in time, an all too possible future’. Owen Sheers explains his book was inspired by the stories he heard of wartime farmers in his native Wales going on training missions in the dead of night, armed with caches of weapons that were stashed away in elaborate underground bunkers in the woods. Such stories, it transpires, were not the stuff of local folklore, but rooted in the truth. Established in 1940 on the orders of Winston Churchill, the British Resistance Organisation was the government’s highly classified response to the threat of imminent invasion following the evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk. Churchill stated that regular defences required ‘supplementing with guerrilla-type troops’ that would ‘be responsible for hitting the enemy in the comparatively soft spots behind zones of concentrated attack’. The aim was to deny mobility and disrupt vital supply lines. ‘The order for a government-funded and -trained insurgency was extremely controversial,’ says Sheers. ‘It casts a chilling new light on Churchill’s 1940 speech in which he vowed that “we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”. Churchill was effectively advocating continuing acts of sabotage regardless of the reprisals.’ Tommy Atkins (Michael Sheen), a local recruiter for Auxiliary Units, awaits his fate Maggie (Sharon Morgan) and Bethan (Kimberley Nixon) help a dying sheep the Germans have dug out of a snowdrift Sheers goes on to explain that members of these Auxiliary Units recruited throughout Britain were informed that their average life expectancy would be two weeks once the enemy had been engaged. They were also under orders to carry out selective executions of collaborators – even if they happened to be family members, friends or colleagues – if they compromised the security of a patrol. ‘We all assume we’d want to resist,’ says Sheers, ‘but the reality opens up some difficult moral questions.’ Colonel Colin McVean Gubbins was put in charge of recruiting about a dozen regional ‘Intelligence Officers’, who were in turn ordered to enlist this predominantly rural network of civilian saboteurs. More than 100 cells were formed, each operating in areas with a 15-mile radius. Units were divided into Special Duty Sections, who were required to gather intelligence and leave reports in secret locations, and Operational Patrols, or ‘combat units’, which were smaller groups of four to eight men who would carry out attacks using plastic explosives, bombs ingeniously concealed in tobacco tins and tyre-bursting mines disguised as lumps of coal. German soldiers clear a path as Bethan (Nixon) walks by The men recruited for operational duties were selected chiefly for their knowledge of the local terrain – farmers, poachers and gamekeepers among them. Having signed the Official Secrets Act, they received intensive training in guerrilla-warfare techniques, including unarmed combat, sabotage and demolition, on weekend courses at Coleshill House, the Auxiliary Units’ HQ near Swindon. Colonel Gubbins published several training manuals, including ‘The Art of Guerrilla Warfare’. This set out nine principles to which the Auxiliary Units were to adhere, outlining the necessity of going to ground, operating under the cover of darkness and only embarking on missions when there was a secure line of retreat. Some of the weaponry made available to resistance fighters on display at the Museum of the British Resistance Organisation in Suffolk Other, similar booklets were also issued to the units, with innocuous titles such as ‘The Countryman’s Diary’ belying their deadly contents. Some of the men who read them would go on to join the SAS years after the Auxiliary units were shut down in 1944. Among the trainees was Les Bulley, a lathe setter in a  munitions factory in Glascoed, Monmouthshire, just a few miles from the Olchon Valley, where Resistance is set. Bulley and his brother Charles were members of Jonah Patrol, one of eight Auxiliary Units in the county. They were issued with Home Guard uniforms, as a cover for their frequent nocturnal activities, and told to wait for ‘when the balloon went up’. Sallie Mogford, a 50-year-old civil servant who acted as an adviser on the film,  only learned of her grandfather’s involvement in the British Resistance Organisation after his death in 2002. ‘I was shocked,’  she says. ‘Both he and his brother Charles were very gentle people who loved the country and were never aggressive. It’s hard to imagine them as trained killers and saboteurs, but the truth is that with their commando-style training and the weaponry  they had, they were better-equipped than most of the regular soldiers. ‘Some time after my grandfather’s death, I visited Oradour-sur-Glane in France. Hundreds of men, women and children had been murdered there by the Germans during the war because they suspected a resistance cell was operating from the village. 'If the Germans had invaded Britain and my grandfather had been called into action, this could well have been the fate that awaited my mother, grandmother and aunts.’ Mogford is a member of the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team (CART), a group of volunteers that has been uncovering the story of Britain’s secret wartime army since 2009. CART’s investigations have also unearthed the remains of many of the 500-plus underground bunkers from which these patrols would have launched their clandestine raids on the enemy. The remains of Jonah Patrol's Operational Base in Wentwood Forest, near Newport These concealed bunkers, or Operational Bases (OBs), were dug out by Auxiliary Unit members, or in some cases created by the Royal Engineers. Accessed via a camouflaged entrance, they generally consisted of a corrugated-iron main chamber fitted out with bunks, a cooking stove and provisions to sustain a patrol for up to a month, as well as a smaller secondary chamber and an emergency escape tunnel.  Some were more elaborate, with chimneys incorporated into hollow tree trunks or spring-loaded entrance hatches designed to look like woodpiles, while others existed in disused mines or caves. In Kent, the architect of some of the most ingenious bunker designs was none other than Captain Peter Fleming, older brother of James Bond creator Ian Fleming. (Indeed, the author refers to an ‘ingenious secret bunker’ hidden in a woodland setting in a Bond short story, most recently published in a collection under the title Quantum Of Solace. Fleming had obviously been inspired by the work of his younger brother.) A replica Operational Base at the BRO museum Some 20 miles away from the steep escarpments of the Olchon Valley, the remains of the OB for Jonah Patrol can still be seen off a wooded path in Wentwood Forest. The second chamber and tunnel have now collapsed, although much of the brickwork remains intact. In an early scene in Resistance we see a group of civilian fighters being pulled out of just such a bunker by Nazi soldiers before being executed. Thankfully, the Germans never did manage to invade Britain, meaning the brave men of the Auxiliary Units weren’t made to suffer a similar fate. ‘Resistance’ is out on November 25. For more information on the Auxiliary Units, visit coleshillhouse.com The secret tunnel that was home to some of Britain’s toughest troops Members of the British Resistance Organisation's Sandford Levvy Auxiliary Unit at their Operational Base near Winscombe, north Somerset The 1/4-mile-long tunnel was originally excavated in 1830 by a local entrepreneur looking for ores Established in 1940 on the orders of Winston Churchill, the BRO was the government's highly classified response to the threat of imminent invasion following the evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk The derelict military bunker at the centre of a German officer's botched plot to blow up Hitler will be opened to the public as a museum. The Wolf’s Lair, located in the Masurian woods in northeastern Poland, has been open to the public since the end of World War II, but mainly for much criticised paintball games or as an indoor shooting range. It was one of Hitler’s key military headquarters during the war. But is most famous as the place Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg tried to kill the dictator by placing a briefcase bomb underneath the table during a staff meeting on July 20, 1944. New image: Tourists wander around the remains of the Wolf's Lair in Poland, which will now open as a museum to educate visitors about its history The plan was to kill Hitler and replace him with a government which would negotiate a truce with the Allies, ending the war. Having left the conference for a pre-arranged phone call, Colonel von Stauffenberg, whose fate was thrown back into the spotlight due to 2008 movie Valkyrie starring Tom Cruise, left the hut shortly before the bomb detonated. However, a staff officer had moved the briefcase shortly after von Stauffenberg’s departure which saw Hitler protected from the blast and the dictator survived with minor injuries. Von Stauffenberg was captured and executed alongside three conspirators and all their relatives were sent to concentration camps. A total of 200 were executed as a result of the assassination attempt. Overgrown: Part of one of the derelict bunkers on the 600 acre complex which once had its own train station Title: Wolf's Lair, Wolfsschanze in German, was named after Hitler's self-appointed nickname: Herr Wolff Four months after the bomb, Wolf's Lair was destroyed by the Nazi forces as the Soviet Red army advanced in 1945. Soon after it became a tourist attraction. Nearly 70 years later, due to lax legislation, tours of the overgrown bunkers have been less informative than the Polish Government see fit and tourists can even pose for photographs in Nazi uniforms. ‘At this moment, one does not feel the tragic dimension of this place,’ historian Tomasz Chinciski told The New York Times. Wolfsschanze meeting: Adolf Hitler and Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini, far left, in the Wolf's Lair listening to General Alfred Jodl, Chief of Staff of German Army After the bomb: The aftermath of the assassination attempt at Wolf's Lair. Hermann Goering, pictured in a light uniform, inspects the wrecked room Inside the lair: Hitler inside the Wolf's Lair shortly after surviving Colonel von Stauffenberg's attempt on his life He is involved in the development of Wolf's Lair and underlines the importance of not forgetting its past. He said: 'We need to work on new ways of telling history to make young generations want to learn it and understand it.' The current lease of the premises is held by Wolf’s Nest, who have had the contract since the collapse of Poland’s communist regime. Hiding place: One of the 80 buildings at the complex, which was built to protect Hitler from the Soviet Army during Operation Barbarossa in 1941 Critics have called their tours of Wolf’s Lair a 'grotesque Disneyland’ operation and have called for them to stop. In a bid to profit from ‘Nazi tourism’, Wolf’s Nest, a private company, built a restaurant, a hotel and even an indoor shooting range located in the offices of General Alfred Jodl, a Nazi Army Commander sentenced to death at Nuremberg. But due to the remote location, Wolf’s Nest have not had much success in luring tourists to the bunker and the 600-acre complex is in despair with overgrown buildings and pathways. In an effort to re-build the bunker, Wolf’s Nest have agreed to work with historians, according to The Independent. Two visitors at the Wolf's Lair scan a map of the area with explanations of the purposes for each building Tour guide: The site plan reveals there were two casinos, a cinema, a sauna and two tea rooms Poland’s Ministry of Culture and National heritage gave strict instructions to the company that no new lease would be granted unless the company meet educational requirements. The hideout - whose name references Hitler's nickname, 'Herr Wolff' - consisted of 80 buildings at its peak including its own power plant and a railway station. The complex, built in 1940, was heavily camouflaged and surrounded by a minefield, which took ten years to clear after the war. Immortalized: The attempt to assassinate Hitler was brought to life in the Tome Cruise movie 'Valkyrie' Never forget: A commemorative plaque in German and Polish reads ' In memory of the resistance against National Socialism' Reuters photographer Ina Fassbender recently traveled with a group to a former East German bunker near the city of Ilmenau. Built in the 1970s as an emergency shelter for the district's command unit, the bunker has now been transformed into a museum. For 109 euros ($150 USD), visitors can participate in a "reality experience" in which they wear National People's Army (NVA) uniforms and are treated as East German soldiers for a night. Thomas Krueger, dressed as an East German National People's Army (Nationale Volksarmee, or NVA) major waits outside the "Bunker-Museum" in Rennsteighoehe, near the eastern city of Ilmenau, on October 12, 2013. The museum is a former East German bunker, built in the 1970s to shelter the district's command unit in an emergency. The 3,600-square-meter bunker now offers visitors the chance to stay there overnight as part of a historical "reality experience". (Reuters/Ina Fassbender)  2 The former NVA identity card of Hans-Georg Tiede, shown before the reality event overnight stay at the "Bunker-Museum" in Rennsteighoehe, Germany, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  3 Guests dressed as NVA soldiers arrive for their overnight event at the Bunker-Museum near the eastern city of Ilmenau, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  4 A sign on the bunker entrance reads "Entry only NVA", photographed on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  5 Ingolf Bracher, dressed in an NVA soldier's uniform, poses during a reality event in the Bunker-Museum in Rennsteighoehe, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  6 Marco, dressed as an NVA officer, opens the door to the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  7 Protective gear designed to protect the wearer from chemical weapons, inside the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  8 Participants dressed as NVA soldiers look at weapons displayed inside the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  9 Glass tubes to control contamination by the chemical poison Sarin, inside the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  10 The Bunker-Museum's telephone exchange room. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  11 A can with tomato sauce for a school kitchen, displayed in the Bunker-Museum in Rennsteighoehe, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  12 A paper in an old typewriter, with text typed on it that reads "Dear friends of the bunker. We are happy that you are here tonight", during the reality event overnight at the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  13 37 year-old Andrea Friebe, who works as fitness coach, dressed in an NVA soldier's uniform, poses in the Bunker-Museum.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  14 A sign of the former Republic DDR, displayed inside the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  15 Thomas Krueger, dressed as an NVA major, waits outside the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  16 The Hoppmann family poses in the sleeping room of the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  17 The Hoppmann family tries on gas masks during their reality event in the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  18 65 year-old Hans-Georg Tiede wears a gas mask in the Bunker-Museum. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  19 A man dressed as an NVA officer watches over people during their reality event near the eastern city of Ilmenau, Germany, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  20 A man dressed as an NVA major speaks to the participants of the reality event at the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  21 A man dressed as an NVA soldier stands guard outside the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  22 Thomas Krueger speaks to his guests at the Bunker-Museum in Rennsteighoehe, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  23 Participants dressed as NVA soldiers prepare dinner during the overnight event at the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  24 Marco, dressed as a NVA officerr, reads a roster during the overnight event in the Bunker-Museum, on October 12, 2013.(Reuters/Ina Fassbender) #  25 Participants in the overnight reality event sleep in bunks in a room of the Bunker-Museum, near the eastern city of Ilmenau, Germany, on October 12, 2013. (Reuters/Ina Fassbender)

 

 

Revealing the hidden military BUNKERS cleverly blended into Switzerland's landscapes Camouflaged bunkers were a well-kept military secret in Switzerland until recent years - even among residents Photographer Leo Fabrizio discovered remarkable camoflaged bunkers that blended into Switzerland's landscapes The Swiss used artists and theatre set designers to ensure that the bunkers blended in with their surroundings The Swiss are mainly known for clocks, chocolate and skiing - but military guile can also be added to that list, as these amazing images show. Photographer Leo Fabrizio, over a period of years, discovered remarkable camoflaged bunkers that blended into Switzerland's fields, mountainsides and woodland. He said, as reported in polarinertia.com: 'The bunkers are an integral part of a finely developed popular defense military system in Switzerland, a military with historically strong links to the landscapes.' Fabrizio, whose pictures of the constructions appear in 2004 book Bunkers, added: 'After the cold war ended many of the bunkers became obsolete. The tendency is to forget them or even to renounce them, my approach on the contrary, aims to expose them from a new angle.' The Swiss were so determined to make the bunkers' cloaking effective that artists and theatre set designers were even brought in to oversee the assembly process. Here we showcase some of Mr Fabrizio's images, which show that the Swiss truly were masters of disguise. +12 The Swiss are mainly known for clocks, chocolate and skiing - but military guile can also be added to that list, as these amazing images show +12 There is more to these concealed chalets than meets the eye, as they are not quaint lodges but military bunkers in disguise +12 The Swiss used artists and theatre set designers to ensure that the bunkers blended in with their surroundings +12 This bunker has been cleverly blended into a moutain rock face, with the door frame only just visible to the naked eye +12 Fabrizio said 'the bunkers are an integral part of a finely developed popular defense military system in Switzerland, a military with historically strong links to the landscapes' +12 The Swiss are known as expert clock makers, but these images show that their military guile is also noteworthy +12 Troops were able to hide in the bunkers knowing that their enemy would need to be extremely lucky to spot them +12 Many Swiss residents had no idea that there were hidden bunkers situated in the middle of their villages +12 A requirement of the chalets was that they could deceive the human eye at a minimum distance of 20 metres +12 Up close and it's clear that this is a bunker, but from a distance, it would be very difficult to determine its true purpose +12 Fabrizio's pictures appear in 2004 book Bunkers - a publication that took years to put together

 

 

 

Inside Mussolini's wartime bunker: First pictures of fascist leader's secret lair that he had built to protect him from RAF strike on his Rome headquarters

• Experts said the underground chamber was the dictator's 'last bunker'
• It was only discovered after engineers stumbled across an iron hatch
• Bunker contains nine rooms but was never finished before he was arrested
• The chamber, under the former fascist headquarters, will be open to public

Pictures of Benito Mussolini's last wartime bunker that he built to protect him from an RAF bomb attack have been released for the first time.

The reinforced concrete cell, constructed 50ft below the former fascist headquarters in Rome, was so secret it was not discovered until 2011.

Historians believe Mussolini, one of Hitler's closest allies during the Second World War, had the underground bunker built for himself and his mistress Claretta Petacci.

Scroll down for video

Experts believe Mussolini's 'last bunker' was made for him and his mistress Claretta Petacci

The underground chamber was accessed through a flight of stairs, left, which led to the first room, right

The bunker built below the former fascist headquarters in Rome contained nine rooms

The nine room chamber was located so that it could be accessed within seconds of an attempted assassination attempt.

It is due to be opened to the public for the first time, two years after it was discovered under the building, which is now a museum. Engineers stumbled across the chamber when they found an iron hatch while doing structural repairs on the foundations of the headquarters.

The 80 square metre reinforced bunker opened onto a flight of brick stairs, which led down to a number of compartments. 

Architect Carlo Serafini told La Stampa newspaper: 'When we saw the reinforced concrete, it was clear. It’s the twelfth bunker of Rome -- Benito Mussolini’s last bunker.

'It would have probably only been designed for Mussolini himself and one other person; more than likely his mistress, Claretta Petacci.

'The structure is still solid, it probably would have withstood a bombardment, although it would have depended on the force of the explosion. It was certainly well hidden.'

The secret bunker was built underground on the orders of Benito Mussolini, who feared an Allied bomb attack

The bunker was unfinished and there are holes in the wall meant for a sewer system and electric wiring

Mussolini and Hitler were close allies and the Italian dictator was rescued by the Nazis after he was arrested

Mussolini was eventually executed by Italian partisans in 1945

Mussolini ordered its construction in 1942 because he suspected that the RAF was planning a deadly strike on his headquarters.

However, he never stayed there but the dictator would have gone down to inspect the progress, Mr Serafini said.

The shelter overlaps with the original ruins of a Roman tower, which can still be seen.

The condition of the bunker, which has rough concrete walls, show that it was never finished.

There are holes in the wall meant for a sewer system and electric wiring, and flooring had not yet been installed, La Stampa reported.

There would have been two escape routes from the bunker - one directly to the gardens of the adjoining church of San Marco and the other to another nearby bunker under the monument to Victor Emmanuel II.

During the last few months of power the fascist leader correctly believed that his life was under threat.

In July 1943 the Commander of the RAF asked permission from Winston Churchill to eliminate the dictator, known as Il Duce - the leader.

Their plan was to simultaneously bomb his headquarters and his official residence Villa Torlonia.

But Foreign Minister Anthony Eden had doubts about the plot's success and feared the collateral damage on civilians in Rome and the city itself.

Mussolini was arrested on the King's orders in 1943 after the Allied invasion of Italy.

He was rescued from prison by the Nazis but was captured again in 1945 and executed by Italian partisans.

His body was then taken to Milan and hung upside down for a petrol station for public viewing.

Inside Mussolini's bunker. Have a look at the last refuge of...

Anthony Eden cancelled an attempted assassination plot on Mussolini that would have included a bomb attack on his main residence at the Villa Torlonia, pictured

Mussolini also had a series of underground chambers, pictured, built under Villa Torlonia

Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini hid a set of secret diaries in an Italian hillside and ordered them not to be opened until 2025, the son of the man who buried them has revealed.

Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until he was executed by partisans in 1945, has long been rumoured to have kept diaries which could detail the extent of his relationship with wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

There is even a theory among some Italian historians that he was executed as part of an MI6 plot to spare Britain embarrassment from revealing the truth about his closeness to Churchill.

Secrets: Benito Mussolini is thought to have written about Churchill in his diaries

Today, Rocco Della Morte, son of Guglielmo Della Morte, a wartime Italian consul in Berlin - said that in April 1945 his father met in Milan with Mussolini who gave him a locked suitcase.

Mr Della Morte, who comes from Fiumicello, close to England boss Fabio Capello's hometown of Pieris in north east Italy, said the suitcase was filled with diaries and other documents. 

He said: ‘My father told me that he was called to Milan in April 1945 by Mussolini and given a suitcase. He was then told by Il Duce (Mussolini) that it should not be opened until 2025.

‘The case had the initials BM on it and was closed with a padlock. My father assumed that it was diaries and documents and not money because he was told by Mussolini not to open it for 80 years.’

Mr Della Morte said that the suitcase was buried in a valley close to the village of Campodolcino, a short distance from Italy's border with Switzerland, 100 miles from Milan. 

He added: ‘Even after the war an attempt was made on my father's life - it may well have been connected to the suitcase, which he told me about in 1954 when I turned 18.

‘My father asked me to keep it secret and not to open the case until 2025 but I am now 74 years old and there are another 15 years to go. I don't know if I will reach 2025 that's why I am telling this story now.

‘Over the years I have always checked up on the suitcase, which is inside a zinc box for preservation, and it is still there in the Spluga Valley, just a few kilometers from the Swiss border.

‘Although I feel obligated to respect the promise made by my father, I've already made an arrangement for the opening of the suitcase and the publication of its contents.’

Mussolini historian Mariano Vigano, based in Rome, said: ‘They may well be genuine but until they are examined we should be very careful, prudence must prevail until they are verified.

‘There have been claims in the past regrading Mussolini diaries but none have so far proved genuine.

‘In the 1950's Mussolini's son Vittorio said that his father had given his diaries to the Japanese ambassador.

‘They were the smuggled out of Italy to Switzerland and from there we have three possibilities that they were destroyed when Japan surrendered to the Allies.

‘That they were smuggled again onto Japan and are kept in the archives in Tokyo or that they were taken to the Vatican's Secret Archive and given to Pope Pius XII and his papers will not be opened until 2028.’ 

Three years ago Italian senator Marcello Dell Utri claimed to have found Mussolini diaries from 1935 to 1939 but these were later proved to be forgeries.

The most famous case of forged diaries was in 1983 when a German magazine and the Sunday Times published excerpts of what it claimed were Hitler's Diaries but these were also later found to be forged.

Professor Christopher Duggan, a Mussolini expert based at Reading University, said: ‘It's very possible that documents and diaries could have been handed over to someone at the time.

‘In April 1945 there was a lot of material floating around Italy and it was being picked up soldiers as souvenirs.

‘There was chaos and all sorts of paperwork was being gathered up to try and make a deal with the Allies.

‘If true it would be interesting to see if within this suitcase there is perhaps any correspondence with Winston Churchill.

‘In 1940 Churchill was very keen for Mussolini not to enter the war and there may have been all sorts of promises and offers made.

‘This has in turn led to speculation especially among Italian historians and researchers that Mussolini may have been killed by British intelligence to prevent any potential embarrassment.

‘But as with the very famous Hitler Diaries of the early 1980's they would have to be properly examined to make sure they were not forgeries.

‘On the face of it it does seem possible but I would like to know why he is only coming forward know to reveal this. It's a long time to keep something potentially very important so secret.’

Bunker deep beneath Mussolini's home in Rome has opened to the public Il Duce ordered its construction in 1940 over assassination fears The shelter had three different escape routes in case one was blocked Ten feet underground covered by slabs of turf, this barren concrete cell was Mussolini’s secret wartime bunker. Newly emerged photos document the fortified bolthole that could be reached by the fascist dictator in seconds in the event of an assassination attempt by the Allies. The 180ft long converted wine cellar, deep beneath his former home in Rome, is to open to the public for the first time this week. Scroll down for video  +10 Fortified: The barren, utilitarian surroundings of Benito Mussolini's secret air-raid bunker in Rome, Italy +10 Convenient: Located beneath his Rome home, the fascist dictator could reach the fortified bolthole in seconds +10 Safety gear: Gas masks and helmets sit ready in cubby holes at the end of a tubular corridor  +10 Location: The 180ft long converted wine cellar is deep beneath Mussolini's former home in Rome Mussolini ordered its construction in 1940 because he suspected that the RAF was planning a deadly strike on his home at Villa Torlonia. He was right. The shelter had three different escape routes: by the theatre, in a shaft by the tennis court and underneath a pond. It was also equipped with a double set of steel, gas-proof doors, and a sophisticated air filtering system that could provide oxygen for 15 people for 3-6 hours. But Marco Placidi, president of 'Underground Rome', said really it wasn’t as secure as Mussolini's later, more hi-tech bunkers, because it was only a few metres underground.  He added: ‘And it must have been very inconvenient because the bunker was located in the garden some 100-150 metres away from the living quarters.’ Now the historic site is set to be opened to the public. Take a look around Mussolini's secret wartime bunker +10 Precaution: Mussolini ordered its built in 1940 because he suspected the RAF was planning an assassination +10 Watch your step: He could escape by the theatre, in a shaft by the tennis court and one underneath a pond +10 Safeguards: It was equipped with a double set of steel, gas-proof doors, and a sophisticated air filtering system +10 Convenience: The leader of fascist Italy was apparently not overly concerned with a comfortable lavatory +10 Attraction: The air-raid shelter has been opened to the public as part of a +10 When the fascist leader began to believe that his life was under threat he had some 12 bunkers for the private use of him and his family built all over Rome in preparation for an allied bombardment. In fact it was in July 1943 the Commander of the Royal Air Force (RAF) asked permission from Winston Churchill to eliminate Il Duce. Their plan was to simultaneously bomb his official residence, Villa Torlonia and fascist HQ in Piazza Venezia. But Foreign Minister Anthony Eden had doubts about the plot’s success and feared the collateral damage on civilians and the Eternal City. Last year engineers carrying out maintenance work on the foundations of former fascist headquarters came across an iron hatch which led to another unknown bunker. There are no official records of the unfinished bunker which was designed only for Mussolini himself and his mistress, Claretta Petacci. Mussolini was exiled from Rome in 1943 and fled to the Apennine mountains. He was rescued by Nazis but his safety was shortlived - in April 1945 both he and Petacci were captured by partisans and executed.

 

 

 

 

FILIPINOS ABOARD LST IN THE Spratly Islands HANG TOUGH — On board the crumbling carcass of this World War II-era warship, Filipino marine 1st Lt. Mike Pelotera and his eight men make their way to a mid-level deck to raise the Philippine flag up a leaning pole and then salute it. Across the calm, turquoise waters, two Chinese coast guard ships lurk, looking on. Its hull riddled with holes and rust, the BRP Sierra Madre has become a fragile symbol of the Philippines' claim to Second Thomas Shoal, an eight-kilometer (five-mile) -long submerged coral outcrop that has been disputed by China and the Philippines for years. It's a lonely ship, where Pelotera and his team wage a daily battle against isolation. A dilapidated Philippine Navy ship LT 57 (Sierra Madre) with Philippine troops deployed on board is anchored off Second Thomas Shoal, locally known as Ayungin Shoal, Sunday, March 30, 2014 off South China Sea. On Saturday, China Coast Guard attempted to block the Philippine government vessel AM700 carrying fresh troops and supplies, but the latter successfully managed to docked beside the ship to replace troops who were deployed for five months. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez) "There's a point where you tend to feel low," Pelotera said of the challenges of his team's four-month deployment at the reef, where there is no land to stand on and nothing to stare at all day but sea. "But we have to kill the boredom because there is an important mission to fulfill." The Philippine navy inherited the former U.S. tank-landing ship USS Harnett County in 1976, and ran it deliberately aground at Second Thomas Shoal in 1999. A Chinese frigate and maritime surveillance ships arrived last year to press China's claim to the shoal, which is believed to be sitting atop undersea oil and gas reserves. The move was an example of China's increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea, something that is alarming the United States, Manila's longtime ally. Analysts say China's strategy is to slowly take possession of islands and outcrops in the South China Sea, using intimidation where necessary but avoiding any major confrontation. Its military might and economic dominance in the region mean it can push its weight around with little fear. Second Thomas Shoal and the nearby Spratly Islands lie about 120 miles (190 kilometers) from the western Philippine province of Palawan, and about 700 miles (more than 1,000 kilometers) from southern China. China's foreign ministry says Beijing has "indisputable sovereignty" over the shoal. The Sierra Madre is now effectively a shipwreck, but the Philippine military has not decommissioned it. This makes the ship an extension of the government and means any attack on the ship is tantamount to an assault against the Philippines. The Chinese ships are around 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the outpost, clearly visible to those on board. When Associated Press journalists and other members of the media were allowed to board the ship over the weekend, the marines went about their day, washing dishes and giving the visitors a short tour. The slow strain of Kid Rock's late 1990's song "Only God Knows" played from an old stereo set. "We're marines," Pelotera said in an interview. "We can adapt to life anywhere." Another marine, Cpl. Sheffrey Luna, said people should look beyond the ship's disrepair. "They should see the determination of the soldiers in it," he said. "If you're not determined here, where everything you see is water, you won't last long." In the last 15 years, the Sierra Madre has slowly crumbled, beaten by the sun, sea and storms. Its main deck, used as a helipad before, is now home to an upturned lifeboat and toppled iron poles. Doors and wooden scraps cover holes and weak deck sections that could collapse and hurl a marine down into the cavernous cargo hold. Its towering mast is heavily rusted and could be toppled by the next big storm. Three weeks ago, the Chinese succeeded in blocking for the first time a Philippine boat bringing troops and supplies to the Sierra Madre. Manila deployed a civilian boat last week with a fresh batch of marines and 10 tons of food. In a bid to draw global attention to what Philippine officials have called China's bullying tactics, they invited more than a dozen journalists, TV cameramen and photographers to come along on the 30-hour-plus journey from the Philippine mainland. Two Chinese coast guard ships tried to block the slow-moving vessel, with one cutting dangerously through the Philippine boat's path twice. The Chinese coast guard warned the boat by radio to turn back, saying it was illegally venturing into Chinese territory. The Chinese ships blew their horns continuously, but the boat maneuvered toward a shallow approach to the shoal dotted with submerged rocky outcrops, preventing the Chinese from continuing. Carl Thayer, a professor at the University of New South Wales and an expert on the dispute, said China is trying to wear the Philippines down. "China is mainly motivated to squelch the Philippines and its vocal and legal opposition to Chinese assertiveness, less this inspire other regional states to do the same," Thayer said. "Bit by bit, China hopes to condition regional states into accepting its hegemony." Philippine navy Lt. Ferdinand Gato, who led the resupply mission, smiled as the boat approached the Sierra Madre, with the outgoing marines, some of them sporting beards, waving and smiling on the deck. He had served as a gunnery officer of the warship during military campaigns against Muslim insurgents and Abu Sayyaf extremists in the mid-1990s. A regional military commander, Lt. Gen. Roy Deveraturda, awarded Pelotera and his men with bronze cross medals Monday for their work on the Sierra Madre. "You can now shave and have a haircut," he told the marines. He said he was heartened when he asked each of them if they were willing to return to the Philippine ship on the shoal. "They told me, 'anytime, sir.'" +3 Philippine Western Command Chief Lt. Gen. Roy Deveraturda, pins a Bronze Cross medal on Marine 1st Lt. Mike Pelotera, Officer-in-Charge of a contingent which was deployed for five months on board the dilapidated navy ship LT57 BRP Sierra Madre off the disputed Second Thomas Shoal, locally known as Ayungin Shoal, on the South China Sea Monday March 31, 2014 in Palawan western Philippines. On Saturday, China Coast Guard attempted to block the Philippine government vessel AM700 carrying fresh troops to relieved the nine marines as well as supplies, but the latter successfully managed to dock beside the ship housing the troops. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez) +3 First Lt. Mike Pelotera of the Philippine Marines and fellow marines who were deployed five months ago on board the dilapidated navy ship LT57 BRP Sierra Madre off the disputed Second Thomas Shoal, locally known as Ayungin Shoal, on the South China Sea, arrive at a naval base in Palawan for awarding ceremony Monday, March 31, 2014 in southwestern Philippines. On Saturday, China Coast Guard attempted to block the Philippine government vessel AM700 carrying fresh troops to relieved the Nine marines as well as supplies, but the latter successfully managed to dock beside the ship housing the troops. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)     China's Dangerous South China Sea Strategy China has shifted from salami slicing to ramming in the South China Sea.   Having created a new ‘fact’ by shifting an oil rig into Vietnam’s proclaimed EEZ off the disputed Paracel Islands, China is ramming home the reality it’s making. First, last month, it rammed and sank a Vietnamese fishing boat. Now, recent TV footage broadcast by Vietnam shows another incident on 1 June with a Chinese ship ramming a Vietnamese coast guard ship. Reporting the vision, The Wall Street Journal commented: The latest apparent collision … suggests China won’t moderate its activities in contested areas of the South China Sea, despite a broadside of criticism from senior Australian, Japanese and US officials at the Shangri-La gathering of military leaders and defence ministers. It’s time to accept that what China is doing is a full and official expression of Chinese policy. We’re long past the point where the Chinese system should be given some sort of leave pass because of suggestions that China isn’t a unified actor—a perspective that argues China’s ‘crisis management’ machinery consists of the PLA creating the crisis and the Chinese Foreign Ministry handling the outcry. As a description, that view has its attractions, but as an explanation it absolves the China polity of responsibility for its rash, ramming policy. We should take China at its word, in proclaiming itself a big and important power; and such powers are responsible for what their military and their coast guards and their energy agencies do in the name of the state. If the South China Sea is Asia’s cauldron as well as Asia’s Mediterranean, as Robert D. Kaplan writes, then the heat in the cauldron is up again. Kaplan’s Cauldron book has been out for a few months, offering an excellent set up for what has happened in the last few weeks as Vietnam is rammed. In surveying the ASEAN players, Kaplan judged, ‘It’s all up to Vietnam’. He has a quote from “a top US official” on ASEAN’s positioning: “Malaysia is lying low, Brunei has solved its problem with China, Indonesia has no well-defined foreign policy on the subject, the Philippines has few cards to play despite that country’s ingenious boisterousness and incendiary statements, Singapore is capable but lacks size.” Good luck, Vietnam. On such matters turn to the master, Professor Carl Thayer, particularly his analysis of Vietnam’s strategy. ASEAN can’t abandon Vietnam to its fate the same way it stepped back from the Philippines last year. Accepting that ramming is official Chinese policy, endorsed from the top, what could ASEAN do? Southeast Asia needs to shift its response to China away from a futile policy of trying to negotiate an agreement with Beijing. Whether by slicing or ramming, China is out to create more ‘facts’ proclaiming its sovereignty. No Chinese appetite exists for any multilateral deal. Beijing thinks it erred in agreeing to the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea and it’s not going to compound that mistake by agreeing to a Code of Conduct (COC). Step forward Carl Thayer with some thoughts on how ASEAN can change the game. In a paper to the recent Asia-Pacific Roundtable in Kuala Lumpur, the professor noted that the COC effort is a waste of ASEAN’s energy because China will make it unachievable: The COC process has led to divisions within ASEAN and divisions among ASEAN’s claimant states. China’s assertion of ‘indisputable sovereignty’ over the South China Sea and its recent unprecedented aggressive assertion of sovereignty utilising military vessels with unsheathed weapons and military aircraft, is now the major impediment to managing the maritime commons in the South China Sea. The Thayer solution is for ASEAN to turn away from the pointless effort with China and negotiate an agreement within ASEAN—a Code of Conduct for Southeast Asia’s Maritime Commons. The ten countries of Southeast Asia would resolve territorial and maritime disputes with each other, using as a model the recent agreement between Indonesia and the Philippines demarcating maritime boundaries in the Celebes and Mindanao seas. As Thayer notes, the new code would stand beside ASEAN’s Zone of Peace Freedom and Neutrality (1971), the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (1976) and the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty (1995): The proposed COC for Southeast Asia’s Maritime Commons would enhance ASEAN’s unity and cohesion, promote regional autonomy and ASEAN’s centrality in the region’s security architecture. Just launching the process would change the tone of the argument, not least by putting ASEAN back together again. China will almost certainly keep ramming, but it would be running into an ASEAN response based on unity, negotiation and legal agreement. That would be a significant response to Chinese force. Beijing 'setting precedent' in South China Sea China has sent four more oil rigs into the South China Sea amid mounting regional tensions. Analyst Ian Storey tells DW Beijing is likely to deploy more rigs in the future as it intends to assert its "historic rights." China has sent four more oil rigs into the South China Sea in a bid to step up exploration for oil and gas in the in the potentially energy-rich waters. According to media reports, coordinates released by China's Maritime Safety Administration showed the Nanhai number 2 and 5 rigs had been deployed roughly between China's southern Guangdong province and the Pratas Islands, which are occupied by Taiwan. The Nanhai 4 rig was towed to waters close to the Chinese coast. Coordinates for the Nanhai 9, indicated the fourth rig was set to be positioned in the Gulf of Tonkin, an area disputed between China and Vietnam. Beijing's move comes less than two months after it deployed the giant Haiyang Shiyou 981 drilling platform in Vietnam's claimed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which led to violent anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam as well as accusations from both sides. Beijing claims almost the entire South China Sea, rejecting rival claims from Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. In a DW interview, Ian Storey, an analyst at the Singapore-based Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), tells DW the deployment of the rigs highlights Beijing's determination to assert jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea and that the international community only has very limited options to stop it. DW: Is China setting a precedent by sending more oil rigs? Ian Storey: Yes, it is and we can expect to see Beijing deploy more in the future. What message is China sending to neighboring countries? Vietnam and China have traded accusations, with each side claiming the other has engaged in aggressive behavior against its ships China is telling its neighbors that it intends to assert its so-called "historic rights" to maritime resources such as oil, gas and fish within the nine-dash line, a line that the majority of international legal experts regard as being incompatible with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). How does the latest move fit in China's overall territorial strategy in the South China Sea? "Territory" means land - or in this case the disputed atolls - and what we are really talking about here is an attempt by China to assert jurisdictional rights in the maritime domain. What options do Southeast Asian nations have to counter China's moves? The Southeast Asian claimants in the South China Sea have very limited options. They certainly don't want to get into a shooting match with Beijing as the Chinese military, which has undergone a rapid program of modernization over the past two decades, would quickly prevail. Diplomatically they can demand, as Vietnam has, that China withdraws its rigs - but Beijing will simply ignore this request. DW RECOMMENDS China's RIMPAC debut 'unlikely to ease tensions' Seeking closer military ties, China will participate for the first time in the world's largest naval exercise. But the move is unlikely to restore trust between Beijing and its neighbors, analyst James Holmes tells DW. (23.06.2014) China accuses Vietnam of ramming its ships more than 1,400 times in disputed waters Japan-ASEAN ties 'may stabilize balance of power' China's maritime disputes: 'Fear, honor and interest' I think the best option for Hanoi is to mount a legal challenge to the deployment of the oil Haiyang Shiyou 981 rig at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in The Hague. However, even if ITLOS were to rule in Vietnam's favor, I think China would simply ignore it and absorb the costs to its reputation. What can the international community, and especially the United States, do to deescalate tensions? The options are limited. The US isn't going to risk a conflict with China over the presence of oil rigs in the South China Sea. Nevertheless, the international community should continue to raise its concerns with China that unilateral and provocative actions such as this risk undermining regional peace and stability. The international community should also continue to emphasize the importance of freedom of navigation, and that China should bring its claims into line with UNCLOS. At the end of the day though, this crisis will only be resolved when China withdraws the oil rig which it says it will do on August 15. A new crisis will emerge when the rig is deployed again into disputed waters, most likely into the Philippines' EEZ. That will really test the limits of the US-Philippine alliance.       China’s Information Warfare Campaign and the South China Sea: Bring It On! As its dispute with Vietnam continues, China is trying to have it both ways at the United Nations. The maritime confrontation between China and Vietnam over the placement of oil rig HYSY 981 in disputed waters in the South China Sea that began in early May is now entering its seventh week. On June 9 China unexpectedly opened a new front when Wang Min, Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations, presented Secretary General Ban Ki-moon a formal position paper on the dispute with a request that he circulate it to all 193 UN members. China’s action in internationalizing its dispute with Vietnam does not represent a change in its long-standing policy that maritime disputes can only be settled bilaterally through direct consultations and negotiation of the parties directly concerned. A day after China submitted its position paper, Hua Chunying, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that China rejected United Nations arbitration of its dispute with Vietnam. Why then did China take its dispute with Vietnam to the United Nations? In 2003 the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee and Central Military Commission formally adopted the doctrine of “three warfares” (san zhong zhanfa). The three warfares doctrine is an essential element of information warfare. According to “China’s Three Warfares,” a 2012 study written by Timothy A. Walton for Delex Consulting, Studies and Analysis, China’s “three warfares” comprises three components: psychological warfare, media warfare, and legal warfare. It is the latter two components that shaped China’s position paper. Media warfare, according to Walton, is a strategy designed to influence international public opinion to build support for China and to dissuade an adversary from pursuing actions contrary to China’s interests. China’s position paper was sent to the United Nations in order to outflank Vietnam’s own propaganda effort and to isolate Vietnam. The vast majority of UN members have no direct interest in territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Many Southeast Asian states that hold concerns about China’s actions would shirk at being forced to take a public stand on the issue. Legal warfare, according to Walton, is a strategy to use China’s domestic and international law to claim the legal high ground to assert Chinese interests. China’s position paper is replete with selected references to international law to support China’s stance. Initially, China defended its placement of the oil rig by arguing that it was within China’s territorial waters. China noted that the HYSY 981 was located 17 nautical miles from Triton islet, the western most feature of the Paracel Islands. Under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), territorial waters only extend 12 nautical miles from a state’s coastal baselines. China’s June 6 statement amended this error by claiming that the HYSY 981 was within China’s contiguous zone. This new claim, however, lacks legal foundation. According to UNCLOS the sole purpose of the contiguous zone is to enable a coastal state to  “exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.” China has also attempted to obfuscate its dispute with Vietnam by advancing the argument that the location of HYSY 981 is closer to the Paracel Islands than to the Vietnamese coastline. China’s position paper argues, for example, that HYSY 981 was operating 17 nautical miles from both Triton islet and the baselines drawn around the Paracels and 133 to 156 nautical miles from Vietnam’s coastline. At the same time, China claims sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal, which is located closer to the Philippines than to the nearest Chinese land feature. Under international law, mere proximity is not sufficient to demonstrate sovereignty. China’s position paper to the UN actually undermines its use of legal warfare to advance its case. For example, China’s position paper states: The waters between China’s Xisha (Paracel) Islands and the coast of Vietnamese mainland are yet to be delimited. The two sides have not yet conducted delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf in these waters. Both sides are entitled to claim EEZ and continental shelf in accordance with the UNCLOS If this is the case, China should have followed the provisions of UNCLOS to deal with overlapping claims. Both China and Vietnam should have entered into provisional arrangements over the disputed area until agreement was reached on delimitation. During this period each side was enjoined from altering the status quo and from the threat or use of force. Clearly China’s placement of the oil rig in disputed waters violated international legal principles. But China’s position paper undermines its legal case by arguing that international law is irrelevant. The position paper states: However, these waters will never become Vietnam’s EEZ and continental shelf no matter which principle (on international law) is applied in the delimitation. China’s Ambassador to Australia, Ma Zhaozu, contributed to Beijing’s information warfare campaign by repeating the same argument in an op-ed article in The Australian on June 13. Ma argued that the disputed area has never been delimited and “no matter which principle [of international law] is applied these waters concerned will never become Vietnam’s part of EEZ and continental shelf.” China’s formal tabling of a position paper with the UN Secretary General should be taken up by members of the international community that are concerned about escalating tensions between China and Vietnam and their possible impact on regional security.  These states should argue that the matter be taken up by the Security Council. China should not be permitted to pursue information warfare in order to have it both ways – circulating a position paper to the UN in order to demonstrate the serious nature of its dispute with Vietnam and rejecting UN arbitration. The United States and Australia should press for a UN Security Council debate. Japan and other maritime powers with a stake in stability in the South China Sea should join in. China should be forced into the uncomfortable position of opposing any Security Council debate and thus scuttling its attempt to use UN for propaganda purposes, or to veto any resolution arising from a debate in the Security Council critical of China’s action in the South China Sea.         Does India Still Fear China's Growing Military Might? Almost a decade later, China's so-called "string of pearls" strategy has lost much of its shine. Why? At one point in the movie Beaches, Bette Midler's rather egotistical character C. C. Bloom inquires: "But enough about me, let's talk about you. What do you think of me?" In Beaches, it was all about C. C. Bloom. It's all about China in Asia these days. But enough about China and its dominance of the headlines. Let's talk about India. What does India think of China? One thing is clear: Indians do think about China, which has steadily expanded its strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean. And they worry about Asia's would-be Big Brother. Indian strategists see ulterior motives at work even in such nondescript endeavors such as the counterpiracy mission in the Gulf of Aden, where by most accounts, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) has been a valuable partner. Angst-ridden words have issued from New Delhi at times. Yet Indian leaders have modulated their rhetoric in recent years. They appear increasingly comfortable with the strategic outlook in South Asia. Anxieties have receded, though they haven't evanesced entirely and probably never will. And the leisurely pace (and fitful progress) of India's naval and military buildup belies any worried talk from officialdom. That's all good. All in all, New Delhi's more relaxed attitude toward Chinese naval expansion fits the strategic circumstances better than the anxieties of a decade ago. Then, Indians saw a Chinese naval juggernaut barging into their maritime environs, ringing the subcontinent with a network of hostile naval bases, and assuming command of Indian Ocean waters and skies—to the detriment of Indian primacy. Now, they seemingly understand that India commands enduring advantages in nearby seas and skies, never mind that it remains weaker than China by economic and military metrics; that Beijing has challenges aplenty to occupy its military resources in the China seas, and less to spare for South Asian adventures; and thus, that any truly menacing Chinese naval presence remains far off in the distance. Sobriety prevails. To track the evolution of India's posture, consider the Strange Case of China's String of Pearls. Ten years ago, the defense consultancy Booz Allen compiled a classified study for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Titled Energy Futures in Asia, the study garnered instant fame when it went public in 2005. Why? Because the study's framers hit upon a catchy phrase for Beijing's ambitions in the Indian Ocean. China, they opined, was pursuing a "string-of-pearls" strategy along the southern rimland. Its goal: to gain access to port facilities in countries such as Sri Lanka and Pakistan for merchantmen and PLA Navy warships. China courted diplomatic ties with South Asian governments, bankrolled seaport development at sites such as Gwadar in southwestern Pakistan, and proffered economic and infrastructure assistance of various types to sweeten bargains for access—and in turn for energy security. Such overtures appeared ominous to Indian strategists who worried that China would assemble a network of full-blown naval bases to project power into South Asia—much as Western sea powers did during the heyday of imperialism. Now, from a strictly Mahanian standpoint, this was cause for alarm. Naval sage Alfred Thayer Mahan made naval stations one of three pillars of sea power, something any seafaring state must obtain to carry on foreign commerce and command distant waters. Bases provide forward-deployed vessels and aircraft fuel, ammunition, and spare parts, execute repairs and upkeep, offer venues for crew rest and relaxation, you name it. It's hard to project—and sustain—power across thousands of miles without such outposts. The United States has ruled Asian seas and skies for seventy years, in large part because of bases such as Yokosuka and Sasebo in Japan. Indians fretted that a predatory China might replicate this feat in South Asia. China has grown far stronger since the Booz Allen report, yet India has mellowed. Why? Because some elemental facts about strategy, hardware, and tactics have sunk in—and prudence with them: - One, India is the home team in any Sino-Indian contest. India is closer to likely theaters of action, boasts more manpower and bases, and knows the physical and cultural terrain better than remote China does. It can deploy the logic of access denial to curb Chinese inroads in the Indian Ocean—much as China has employed this logic to inhibit America's freedom of action in East Asia. - Two, New Delhi isn't alone in the nautical competition. Strong seagoing states like Japan, Australia, and of course the United States have a stake in deterring Chinese aggression in India's backyard. Beijing's provocative actions in the East and South China seas supply an adhesive for a balancing coalition, portending what could come to be in South Asia. New Delhi can tap the potential for coalition-building, supplementing its strength with that of likeminded sea powers.

General view of the meeting between Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi (5th L) and Vietnamese Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh (5th R) at the Government's Guesthouse, in Hanoi June 18, 2014. (Reuters) - China's top diplomat scolded Vietnamese officials during talks in Hanoi on Wednesday for "hyping up" a row over a Chinese oil rig drilling in disputed waters in the South China Sea, in tough comments that suggest relations will remain rocky. State Councilor Yang Jiechi also told his hosts that the rig's activities in waters also claimed by Vietnam were "completely legal", China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a daily briefing in Beijing. Yang, who outranks the country's foreign minister, made the remarks in a meeting with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh. Before the visit, experts had said many obstacles remained to resolving one of the worst breakdowns in Sino-Vietnamese relations since the neighbours fought a brief war in 1979. Among them is Beijing's demand for compensation in the wake of anti-Chinese riots that erupted in Vietnam after the drilling platform was deployed on May 2.   China’s advance spurs Indonesian military shift Thursday, May 29, 2014 09:07 Indonesian navy commandos guard a beach in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia during an economic summit. China’s intensifying move to assert claims over the South China Sea has given fresh impetus to a military buildup in Indonesia that will see its forces deployed with greater focus on external risks. After years of concentrating on separatist threats across an archipelago long enough to stretch from New York to Alaska, Indonesia plans to deploy attack helicopters to its islands at the southern end of the South China Sea and expand its naval power. The front-runner for July’s presidential election, Joko Widodo, aims to boost defense spending to 1.5 percent as a share of the economy, which is Southeast Asia’s largest. The strategy shift comes as China escalates disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam, fellow members of the Association of Southeast Asean Nations. China’s standoff with Vietnam over an oil rig this month followed its 2012 success in taking control of the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. “The focus in defense spending is moving to dealing with external threats,” said Tim Huxley, executive director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Singapore. “There is a concern from an Indonesian perspective that the South China Sea should not become a Chinese lake and that freedom of shipping should be maintained.” That is influencing Indonesia’s defense spending and procurement, he said. The military is about 40 percent of the way to developing a minimum-essential force, or MEF, by 2029, to guard its territory as it adds tanks, submarines, helicopters and jet fighters to its arsenal, Deputy Defense Minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin said in an interview in Jakarta. Under the MEF, the government is seeking to acquire 274 Navy ships, 10 fighter squadrons and 12 new diesel-electric submarines. “We’re part of maintaining regional stability and peace and to maintain that we must certainly have powers that support that regional strength,” Sjamsoeddin said. China’s map Indonesia has sought to stay out of its neighbors’ spats with China over the South China Sea, and is not an official claimant to areas in dispute. But in recent months it has said that China’s interpretation of its nine dash-line map -- the basis for its territorial claims -- is seeping into Indonesia’s exclusive economic zone. Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said in an interview in April that he wanted an explanation of China’s map and asked the United Nations to help obtain clarity. Commodore Fahru Zaini, assistant deputy to the chief security minister for defense strategic doctrine, said in March that China’s map included an “arbitrary claim” to waters off the Natuna Islands in the Indonesian province of Riau. “This dispute will have a large impact on the security of Natuna waters,” he said, according to Antara News. 17,000 islands Indonesia has some 17,000 islands to police, stretched across 5,300 kilometers (3,293 miles) from east to west. The Malacca Strait that Indonesia shares with Malaysia is a key shipping lane that links the economies of countries such as India, China and Japan. “It’s the largest country in Southeast Asia and they want to play what they think is a corresponding role,” Richard Bitzinger, senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said. “You’re not going to get that unless you develop a sizable, modern military, because at this point the military is pretty small potatoes.” Military spending increased to 81.96 trillion rupiah ($7.1 billion) in 2013 from 72.94 trillion rupiah in 2012, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. ‘Balanced force’ China’s defense budget will rise 12.2 percent this year to 808.2 billion yuan ($129 billion). President Xi Jinping has made a navy with longer reach a priority to boost China’s claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea. Despite being a maritime country, Indonesia seeks to build a “balanced force” between the army, the navy and the air force, Sjamsoeddin said in the March interview, as “eventually all battles end on land.” Indonesia, which is also spending on tanks, faced decades of internal discord in East Timor, an independent nation since 2002. Indonesia isn’t in an arms race and spends less than 1 percent of gross domestic product on defense, compared with 3 percent to 4 percent among other Asean nations, Sjamsoeddin said. If countries in the region have heavy tanks then Indonesia should have heavy tanks, said Sjamsoeddin, 61, adding some military equipment in use is older than he is. Natuna islands Indonesia will deploy four Boeing Apache attack helicopters to the Natuna Islands, IHS Jane’s reported on its website in March, citing General Budiman, the army’s chief of staff, as a pre-emptive measure against instability in the South China Sea. With China more assertive in the southern part of the South China Sea, “the Indonesian armed forces are strengthening their military presence on the Natuna Islands, and that includes preparing facilities on the Natuna Islands to accommodate jet fighters,” said Ian Storey, senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. How far Indonesia pushes back against China may depend on the presidential election, with neither candidate detailing foreign policy goals so far. Widodo, who will face off against a former general, Prabowo Subianto, pledged to boost defense spending to 1.5 percent of GDP within five years, according to his policy paper. Spending is now 0.9 percent of GDP, according to Sipri. “There seems to be a commitment to increasing defense spending, increasing Indonesia’s overall military strength, more in accordance to what they see is a normal, large power in the region,” Bitzinger said. “They’re increasingly interested too in being able to be a modern military, to project power.”   CHINA UNDETERRED AND UNAPOLOGETIC China’s audacious land reclamation activities in the South China Sea are only the latest sign that its approach to settling maritime disputes with its neighbors has taken a sharp and dangerous turn. Although China began acting more assertively after perceiving its ascension to great power status in the wake of the global financial crisis, Beijing still felt compelled to justify its muscular movements in Asia as necessary reactions to the provocations of “troublemakers” in the region. Sure, China was standing strong, but arguably in response to the adventurism of others. It was more retaliatory than overtly belligerent. As Beijing made a habit of tempering and justifying its behavior, leading Western analysts developed terms like “reactive assertiveness” and described Chinese revisionism as “cautious and considered.” The seizureof Scarborough Reef in the South China Sea in April 2012 was explained as a compulsory response to the Philippines’ use of a naval vessel (rather than a coast guard ship) to interdict illegal Chinese fishermen. Similarly, China’s persistent incursions into Japanese-administered waters around the Senkaku Islands have been, according to Beijing, an obligatory answer to Tokyo’s purchase and “nationalization” of the islands in September 2012. Over the last eight months, however, China’s efforts to alter Asia’s geography have become unequivocally self-initiated. On the eve of Vice President Biden’s trip to Beijing last November, China announced the establishment of a new air defense identification zone in the East China Sea that extended over areas controlled by Japan and South Korea. This triggered widespread speculation about what had compelled Beijing to make this provocative move. Was it comments by the Japanese defense minister threatening to shoot down Chinese drones that wandered into Japanese airspace? It had to be something, right? The following month saw the promulgation of new fishing regulations with which China blessed itself with additional legal authorities in the South China Sea, further advancing its claims over hotly contested territories. Nowhere to be found, however, was the kind of defensive pretext that would have accompanied a similar step in years prior. Fast-forward to May 2014 and China sent a $1 billion oil rig into disputed waters off the coast of Vietnam. Desperate for an explanation, American commentators speculated that perhaps this was a retort to President Obama’s April trip to the region. But again, the Chinese offered no excuses, arguing instead that they were conducting normal economic activities in Chinese waters. And now comes land reclamation and the enlargement of small outcrops into islands that will likely be used for military activities. Not content to simply change facts on the ground, China is now changing the ground. In public, Chinese officials continue to deny this shift toward proactive assertiveness. Lieutenant General Wang Guanzhong told a capacity crowd at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on June 1 that, “China has never taken the first step to provoke troubles.” This rhetoric is likely to endure, but unfortunately for China’s propaganda machine, the track record of the last several months speaks for itself. So what’s changed? At least three elements explain this more assertive turn. First, the newly appointed President Xi Jinping is willing—and he hassaid as much—to be more forceful in achieving China’s territorial aims and to accept higher degrees of regional instability in the process. Second, China’s governing institutions have become more coherent through theconsolidation of maritime agencies and stronger coordination among its national security policymaking bodies. And finally, Chinese capability is growing in terms of both military and maritime capacity, as well as economic instruments like the deep water oil rig now floating off the coast of Vietnam. It’s actually not that complicated. China is changing the status quo in Asia because it wants to and thinks it can. Xi Jinping is a confident and powerful leader with a high-priority to-do list, and he’s increasingly enabled with greater capabilities and the institutions to deploy them. Mix in an economic slowdown and a healthy dose of nationalism and you have a recipe for revisionism. The result, however, is that American aspirations for China’s rise have gone terribly off-script. For decades, U.S. policy toward China has comprised a dual-track “hedging” strategy that includes engaging Beijing in an effort to induce China to support the existing international order, accompanied by a balancing component in which the United States and its allies deter Beijing from choosing an aggressive path. But now this strategy is coming apart at both ends: China neither accepts the territorial realities of Asia, nor is it deterred from coercive acts of revisionism. The real problem is that China’s bullying will endure as long as no one gets in the way. Why wouldn’t it? Beijing is pushing on an open door, incurring few tangible costs for its assertiveness and appearing to believe (perhaps rightly so) that it can ride out whatever regional criticism arises in response. Based on its track record of the last several years, it’s understandable that Beijing remains confident that most countries in the region will, at the end of the day, be unwilling to imperil their economic relationship with China. Alarm bells ought be ringing more loudly in Washington. Ultimately, it will be up to the United States to staunch China’s mounting revisionism. But this will first require a sober recognition that the old theories of how to shape China’s rise aren’t working. This is a difficult conversation to have in Washington because acknowledging Chinese behavior for what it is—undeterred and unapologetic assertiveness—will necessitate a more serious American response than we have seen to date. This doesn’t mean forgoing the cooperative elements of the “hedge” and committing to a highly competitive relationship with China. We’re not there yet. And besides, there’s a big difference between determining that China is presently undeterred versus determining that it is patently undeterrable. Before definitively drawing the latter conclusion, the immediate task for U.S. policymakers is to test the elasticity of Chinese decision-making. This calls for greater attention to cost-imposition strategies that attempt to shape the relative value of continued revisionism for China. Washington will have to explore the full potential range of economic, military, diplomatic and political points of leverage over Beijing (and there are many) to increase the costs of Chinese assertiveness, including areas that directly impinge on the interests of China’s leaders. The United States will also have to develop more tailored options for responding directly to maritime coercion in ways that repel specific acts of revisionism, rather than simply exacting lateral forms of punishment after the fact. China’s slow but steady revisions to the territorial status quo in Asia are not a legacy the Obama administration wants to leave behind. Being more proactive in stemming this behavior represents the principal challenge for Washington’s China policy today.     Image Credit: Flickr/ anthonylibrarian How Indonesia and the Philippines Solved Their Maritime Dispute The recent Indonesian-Philippine maritime pact offers important lessons for the South China Sea disputes. The recent conclusion of negotiations over maritime boundaries between Indonesia and the Philippines was a significant development for the two ASEAN member states. Their negotiation commenced in June 1994 and was dormant until 2003. The positive turn came amidst rising tensions in the South China Sea sparked by worsening disputes over competing maritime claims. The successful conclusion of the talks between Jakarta and Manila holds important lessons for all claimant states over disputed waters in the South China Sea. How it began In December 2003, I was assigned to jumpstart the maritime boundaries negotiation with the Philippines that was left dormant by both countries for almost a decade. I worked with my counterpart until 2010 when I left for Brussels, with my successor continuing the negotiation until it was completed and signed just last month on May 23, 2014 in Manila. Negotiations on maritime boundaries require patience and resolve. It is a long haul. Negotiation with the Philippines is particularly significant because Indonesia and the Philippines are two of the largest archipelagic countries in the world, initiators of the archipelagic legal principle, and member states of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Yet the Philippines was left with the historical issue of the rectangular line of the Treaty of Paris of 1898, which ended the Spanish-American War but left behind unclear territorial boundaries with Manila’s neighbors. Indonesia disputed the rectangular line of this Treaty on the ground that it did not conform with UNCLOS 1982, which Indonesia and the Philippines are parties to. It was a complicated issue for both countries because Indonesia rejected the claim. While my Philippine counterpart understood the reasons for our objection, they were under intense domestic pressure to somehow keep the Treaty of Paris on the table. The Philippines eventually aligned its position with UNCLOS 1982 and thus cleared the way for the conclusion of the maritime boundaries negotiation. The alignment of the Philippines position with UNCLOS 1982 can be seen as commendable state practice in international law. Negotiation over Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) When maritime boundaries negotiations were going on between Indonesia and the Philippines as well as Indonesia and Malaysia, I was also involved in 2007 in the negotiation over the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) – a multilateral partnership of six countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands. Of these countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Timor-Leste had no maritime boundaries in 2007. Yet they managed to work together, even establishing a Secretariat, to address the urgent threats facing the coastal and marine resources of one of the most biologically diverse and ecologically rich regions on earth. On another front, in the busiest waters on earth – the Strait of Malacca and Singapore – the three littoral states of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have been able to work together in the areas with little maritime boundaries, all for the larger good. Two lessons for South China Sea claimants There are two important lessons arising from the negotiations between Indonesia and the Philippines over their bilateral maritime boundaries. Firstly, whether you like it or not, the current prevailing law to settle maritime boundaries is UNCLOS. This is true regardless of your historical record, even if it is 115 years old. If a rectangular line map from a century-old Treaty had to be aligned with UNCLOS, aligning a dash-line map that was created only in the mid-1940s with UNCLOS should be relatively problem-free. While there is a difference in shape between the rectangular line of the Treaty of Paris that the Philippines previously used with Indonesia, and the nine dash-line map that China currently bases its maritime claims in the South China Sea on, they share one similarity: both are unilateral expressions of claims that are not based on international law. The first Indonesia-Philippines maritime boundary signifies the emergence of a state practice whereby in a maritime boundary dispute a unilateral proclamation of maps will eventually be aligned with prevailing international law. Secondly, the claimants need not look far to see how countries in the region can work together for the larger interest over a large swath of waters devoid of maritime boundaries. The larger interest in CTI is the protection of the environment; in the Straits of Malacca, it is maritime security. They are public goods promoted and protected by countries regardless of the lack of maritime boundaries. These are concrete and excellent state practices in Southeast Asia. These are also clear examples demonstrating that we in Southeast Asia do have a culture of international law. Therefore, the recent escalations in the overlapping claims in the South China Sea are not the regional norm. They are an anomaly to the existing state practice in Southeast Asia and must be corrected. It is my conviction that all claimant states in the South China Sea, especially China, which is also a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, carry the moral, political, and legal responsibility of creating peace and stability in the world and are able to work together peacefully. Asia could very well be a world leader in conflict prevention and management of disputes regardless of the existence of boundaries. This can be done by putting the larger common interest and public goods, namely regional stability and security, over and above narrow national views. Are we up to the test?   http://