Home » Foreign Forces » China » China’s Past Participation in RIMPAC Didn’t Yield Intended Benefits of Easing Tensions


China’s Past Participation in RIMPAC Didn’t Yield Intended Benefits of Easing Tensions

An MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to the Black Knights of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 4 operates near the Military Sealift Command hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) and the People’s Republic of China medical ship Peace Ark (T-AH 866) during a close formation of 42 ships and submarines from 15 international partner nations during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2014. Twenty-two nations, 49 ships, six submarines, more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel are participating in RIMPAC exercise from June 26 to Aug. 1, US Navy photo.

When the U.S. military first invited China to participate in the biennial Rim of the Pacific naval exercise, it hoped China might stop its militarization of the South China Sea and realize that engaging in great power competition was futile. 

Now, four years later and with neither goal accomplished, a naval expert involved in inviting China to RIMPAC in the first place says he’s not surprised the country was disinvited this week from participating in this summer’s event.

Bryan Clark, who worked as a special assistant to then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert when China was invited to join the 2014 RIMPAC exercise, said the goal to discourage bad behavior in the South China Sea was always weighed against the dangers of letting the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) see American naval platforms, tactics and capabilities up close.

“RIMPAC has a big cost associated with it because of the potential for intelligence gathering,” said Clark, now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment.

When China participated in its first RIMPAC in 2014, the PLAN sent four invited ships and one uninvited spy ship, as reported by USNI News. RIMPAC, sponsored by U.S. Pacific Fleet, was first held in 1971 and has since grown to include more than two dozen nations, according to the Navy.

Clark said offering Chinese naval leaders a peek behind the curtain of U.S. high-end naval operations only seemed to encourage them to redouble their efforts to improve their own naval capabilities and to build artificial islands to host missiles, radars and other military gear.

“They’re developing their high-end capabilities, so there’s no deterrent, and their behavior has not changed,” Clark said.

Earlier this week, USNI News reported China’s not-yet-named first domestically built aircraft carrier returned from sea trials. The design for the Type-001A carrier is based on the Soviet-era Admiral Kuznetsov-class, but Clark said most analysts are confident the next carrier China builds will include systems for steam catapult launching and arrested landing.

“They’re developing a new clean-sheet design, somewhere between the Kuznetsov and Nimitz class,” Clark said.

The future Chinese aircraft carrier will likely be able to launch larger aircraft than PLAN’s current carriers can, Clark said. China is believed to be developing a type of airborne early warning and control aircraft for carrier operations.

Meanwhile, China has continued constructing what appear to be military bases on artificial islands. These “islands” are low-tide elevations land formations that are not recognized by the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention as commanding a territorial sea because they are underwater during high-tides. China has been a signatory to the UNLoS treaty for more than two decades, according to the U.N., though the U.S. has never signed the treaty.

Periodically, the U.S. Navy has sent warships near these disputed islands to conduct freedom of navigation operations. A recent FONOP mission occurred in March, when USNI News reported USS Mustin (DDG-89) sailed within 12 nautical miles of Mischief Reef, an artificial island in the Spratly Island chain with an airfield now constructed there. In January, USNI News learned USS Hopper (DDG-70) conducted a similar mission past Scarborough Shoal near the Philippines.

“The United States has hyped up the so-called ‘militarization’ of the South China Sea by ignoring the facts, and used it as an excuse to cancel the invitation for China to participate in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) – 2018 multinational naval exercise. The US’ decision is not constructive. Closing the door of communication at any time will not help enhance mutual trust and cooperation between the two militaries,” Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang, a Chinese military spokesman, said in an English-translation of a statement issued by China’s Ministry of National Defense on Thursday.

According to the Pentagon, the PLAN finds itself on the outside of the RIMPAC 2018 exercise because of its island-building efforts in the South China Sea.

“We have strong evidence that China has deployed anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, and electronic jammers to contested features in the Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea. China’s landing of bomber aircraft at Woody Island has also raised tensions,” Department of Defense spokesman Marine Lt. Col. Christopher Logan said in a statement announcing that China’s invitation had been revoked.
“We believe these recent deployments and the continued militarization of these features is a violation of the promise that President Xi made to the United States and the world not to militarize the Spratly Islands.”

In response, the Ministry of National Defense’s statement expressed China’s bedrock belief that their activities in the South China Sea are peaceful and legal according to international law.

“China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands and their adjacent waters of the South China Sea. It is the natural right of China as a sovereign state to carry out construction activities and deploy necessary defense facilities on its own territory, which is also a necessary measure to firmly safeguard national sovereignty and security and maintain regional peace and stability. It has nothing to do with ‘militarization’ and the US has no right to make irresponsible remarks on it,” Ren said in the statement.

However, Clark doesn’t think the current public snub will involve much more than a few sharply worded statements. China and the U.S. are still likely to conduct lower-level exercises involving navy and coast guard ships from both nations, Clark added. Plus, China only recently started participating in RIMPAC, Clark said, with the first invitation sent in 2012 ahead of the 2014 exercise.

“I think it’s not going to be a big imposition to the relationship because they weren’t at RIMPAC for a long time,” Clark said.

The following is the complete statement issued by Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang, spokesman for China’s Ministry of National Defense.

No matter whether China is invited to participate in the RIMPAC-2018 exercise or not, it is impossible to shake China’s determination to safeguard its sovereignty and security interests, Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang, spokesman for China’s Ministry of National Defense, said on Thursday in a written statement responding to the US’ disinviting China from the Rim of the Pacific exercise.

Ren Guoqiang said that recently, the United States has hyped up the so-called “militarization” of the South China Sea by ignoring the facts, and used it as an excuse to cancel the invitation for China to participate in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) – 2018 multinational naval exercise. The US’ decision is not constructive. Closing the door of communication at any time will not help enhance mutual trust and cooperation between the two militaries, Ren added.

China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands and their adjacent waters of the South China Sea. It is the natural right of China as a sovereign state to carry out construction activities and deploy necessary defense facilities on its own territory, which is also a necessary measure to firmly safeguard national sovereignty and security and maintain regional peace and stability. It has nothing to do with “militarization” and the US has no right to make irresponsible remarks on it, Ren stressed.

No matter whether China is invited to participate in the exercise or not, it is impossible to change China’s will to play a role in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, and it is unlikely to shake China’s determination to safeguard its sovereignty and security interests, Ren said.

To develop a healthy and stable mil-to-mil relationship between China and the US serves the common interests of both sides and requires the joint efforts of both sides to maintain it, Ren said.

We hope that the US side can focus on the overall situation, abandon the zero-sum mentality, properly handle differences, and try to make the mil-to-mil relationship a stable factor for China-US relations, Ren concluded.

  • Ed L

    Historically the Chinese has always had designs on all the land masses that border the China sea. They want the kitchen as well as all the rice that goes with it. China want Japan the Philippines and possibly Australia

    • Hugh

      Their 1st island chain, 2nd island chain,…….. And they are buying assets, making threats, and gaining/manufacturing influence into everything they can in Australia, (not to mention globally).

      • .Hugo.

        not too correct, none of your mentioned countries are within the chinese border based on any historical events. the philippine border was defined by the treaty of paris 1898 and it has never included any chinese islands west of the 118 degree east.

  • Sir Bateman

    US Policy towards China in general has been a disaster for decades, spanning multiple administrations in both parities.

  • D. Jones

    That picture is disturbing. How did they let Republic of China medical ship Peace Ark (T-AH 866) get within yodeling distance of our most critical defense asset???

  • Ed L

    I meant the Pre 1400 hundreds western civilization not modern history. The Chinese are ignoring any treaty’s prior to the interference of western powers. Remember a Chinese fleet arrived on the pacific shores of America long before Columbus showed up. If the Chinese had found the gold fields we be singing a different tune. Now a days A dangerous Middle Kingdom mindset prevails. Chinese people commonly believe they are superior to those of darker skin. The attitude towards whites, is much more complex. They tend to acknowledge the historical achievements of the west, but at the same time resent western hegemony and despise aspects of western culture, many believing that at some point in the future the innate virtue of Chinese civilisation will again assert itself. The Chinese thus tend to display a combination of respect and envy, superiority and inferiority, towards western culture.

  • TomD

    “When the U.S. military first invited China to participate in the biennial Rim of the Pacific naval exercise, it hoped China might stop its militarization of the South China Sea and realize that engaging in great power competition was futile. ”

    If this was the reasoning then it was dumb. It was obvious then and now that China has so far benefited from her actions, and so use of the word ‘futile’ is totally inappropriate. By itself militarization of portions of the South China Sea harm no one. It would be more accurate and appropriate to write “…engaging in great power competition was unnecessary and not in China’s interest”.

    • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

      Obama years. Naivety reigned supreme.

    • .Hugo.

      why not count how many u.s. bases and troops are there all around china and who has more bombers in the pacific, then to accuse china of stepping up its defense in the sea where most invaders have come from in the past?

  • TomD

    “and if the u.s. thought it was such a big favor and enough to make china to let go of its sovereignty claim in the south china sea,”

    If China sees the U.S. motive in these terms then no wonder there is a problem. There is no evidence that the U.S. wants China to “let go” of any sovereignty claims other than those of the artificial islands (and if China were to get a little creative with diplomacy she might be able to win the U.S. over on that issue). No, the issues are mostly about how that sovereignty is exercised, which are really minor. The competing claims of China’s neighbors, while of concern to the U.S., are not direct interests to the U.S.

    “…then the u.s. could only blame itself for such naïve thinking.”

    Arguably so, but you need to recognize that such “naïve thinking” is part of American idealism, and while such idealism of course has its limits (no need to list them in rebuttal, please) it is something that is important to Americans and in varying degrees to many other people, including many Chinese. This is a matter in which China might benefit from avoiding a too-quick dismissal. It could be one basis of agreements to China’s advantage.

    • tteng

      I would think, even a future hypothetical democratic and nationalistic China, one that is peer-2-peer mirror image of US, would naturally demand a ‘Monroe doctrine’ sphere of influence of its own. Therefore, what transpired today in SCS is not a contest of idealism (after all, US is hobnobbing with communist VN to counter another communist), but one of realpolitik in essence.

      • TomD

        Of course, but as I pointed out there are limits to idealism. Also, realpolitik can be used for idealistic ends, with the result that Americans will forever argue about the limits of that use.

        There is nothing wrong with the U.S. adopting a secondary position to a democratic China in its sphere of influence. The British certainly did in the Caribbean a century ago, but they to this day send an occasional naval vessel there without U.S. approval.

        • tteng

          Though it is good to be right (i.e. democracy), it takes might to make it right. And that ‘might’ is associated with realpolitik (i.e. wherewithal, cost/benefit, and the will to use). We get in trouble when we firstly miscalculated our might, and following that, tried to make a case of ‘right makes it might’.

          We did that with VN, and to some degree, GWOT. We have to be very careful not to repeat the same with China.

          • TomD

            I would disagree on Vietnam.

            First, what the U.S. did was right for 1960. It was not right for 1970, with the changes in geopolitics (especially the Sino-Soviet split). Had the South Vietnamese communists put off their insurgency a few years the U.S. intervention could well not have happened. Realpolitik has to reflect reality, after all.

            Second, U.S. might was seriously misused in Vietnam, both strategically and tactically; in some ways we were too violent, in others not enough. Within the last two decades military leaders from Hanoi have stated at USNI conferences that they would have lost the war if the U.S. had taken a different course. These decisions were the result of U.S. arrogance. The individual American serviceman should be commended for fighting under such serious conditions.

            I would partially disagree with the GWOT (what a lousy name!). The initial occupation of Iraq was botched, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, but we had little choice in the matter. Far worse was our covert actions in the Arab Spring.

            Regarding China, there is reason for optimism. China’s actions in the South China Sea hardly equal the invasions of the Rhineland or South Korea or Kuwait. I really believe that with proper diplomacy it will all pass and China will get what it wants, and the U.S. also.

          • tteng

            SCS will be a contest of wits & geopolitical maneuvering, yet I don’t see it rise to the point of conflict; however, ‘Taiwan’ will broach on emotion/realpolitik on three sides. First, though I don’t agree with Taiwan’s (under current pro-independent administration) strive for self-determination out of pragmatic reason, but I can’t deny its ideal to stay a democracy independent of China’s future. Same for the US, though it would not want to be ‘dragged’ into a cross strait conflict for realpolitik reason, I don’t know how the US will react if a shining example of democracy is attacked, plus Taiwan’s location on the 1st island chain. For China, it’s an amalgamation of resolving its last reminder of its past humiliation of lost territory (from its perspective, since 1895 first sino-japanese war) on top of ‘Taiwan’s strategic high ground’ to break the chain; its both emotional and realpolitik.

      • TomD

        That’s also my point. China would have such an expectation, and the U.S. under that circumstance (a democratic China) should respect that. “Naturally” is really the correct word. The big problem is getting there.

    • .Hugo.

      of course there is a u.s. motive. are you trying to tell us the u.s. is really about “helping” china to become strong and challenge its hegemony some day? guess not….
      .
      if the u.s. has no intention to make china forego its claim, it would have recognized the chinese claim since the prc took office. and do remind you that china here means the prc, as the u.s. has recognized the roc sovereignty much much more in the 1950s and 1960s in the south china sea. so again, we can see double standards of the u.s.
      .
      and no, china wont’ have to win the u.s. over, china is not a u.s. vassal like the philippines and the rest.
      .
      for china, it should be a minor issue, only the u.s. has continued to provoke china on the issue and china will have to respond.
      .
      and i don’t really see just how china is concern about american idealism right at china’s doorstep and when the u.s. is not even a scs state.

  • David C

    “You can trust the communists to be communists.” Over the last 60 years we seem to be relearning this with each new group to leaders, save RR.

  • Uncle Mike

    You mean to tell me that appeasement of our enemies doesn’t work? I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya.

  • TomD

    “are you trying to tell us the u.s. is really about “helping” china to become strong and challenge its hegemony some day?”

    Yes I am, or at least the U.S. should be so – can we try to make it so? The U.S. has no hegemony. If it did it would still be in Subic Bay and Clark Field. China should pursue ALL of her interests rather than abandoning some in favor of others.

    “china wont’ have to win the u.s. over, china is not a u.s. vassal”

    That is precisely the point. This is the winning of one equal to the viewpoint of another equal, by reason and persuasion. And BTW, the Philippines is not a U.S. vassal, that is quite obvious today.

    “i don’t really just how china is concern about american idealism right at china’s doorstep and when the u.s. is not even a scs state”

    Well, China should be. The idea that the SCS outside of territorial waters belongs to anyone is absurd. From a legal viewpoint the only real issue is the artificial islands, which treaty does not recognize. Many I make a suggestion? China should stop insisting that the artificial islands are covered by current international law. A better approach might be to construct them and state that China will seek to amend international law to grandfather them in at a later date. China would still get the islands and territorial waters and reduce tensions, at the cost of a slower timeframe. I think it’s a worthy approach.

    • .Hugo.

      how disappointed that you have to flag my valid reply as spam in order to avoid it?

      no, the u.s. does have hegemony in the region after ww2. if you say the u.s. has none then only because it is now being seriously challenged by china. and china is doing it to counter the u.s. dominance.
      .
      the bases in the philippines were virtually destroyed by volcanic eruption, and it would require massive funds to rebuild them. the u.s. could not force the philippines to pay for its as the philippines was broke, so what options the u.s. has? retreat to guam and okinawa, and to set up a small base in singapore. lucky the philippine lawmakers were also reviewing the lease renewal, good reason (aka excuse) to pull out.
      .
      how has the philippines still not a u.s. vassal? has it not receiving u.s. military and to have joint exercise? has the u.s. not tried to force it to stay away from china?
      .
      i suggest you to really read through unclos to learn more about how territorial waters (national waters and exclusive economic zone) is delimited. if you think distance matters then you should also say the u.k. keeping the falklands and south georgia (even fought for them in 1982) and diego garcia (to kick the local outs) far away from the british isles is even more absurd.
      .
      and to the exact opposite, building structures, including artificial islands, within one signatory country’s eez is allowed. you should read article 56. so no, china doesn’t have to amend any international law to build in its eez.
      .
      now i can certainly see how dangerous it is to apply american idealism onto a chinese territory, when the u.s. is basically internationally lawless (refused to sign on unclos) while china has followed the maritime convention.
      .
      and slower timeframe when half a century has passed since china lost its first islands? i don’t see the need to wait any longer, that’s why the rogue states which have stolen from china are all getting worried now. they know payback time is near.

  • tteng

    Hugo, we had back & forth before, and I know you are a Chinese patriot, but being that you are here, what is your purpose? are you trying to sway the U.S. public opinion to dislike China even more (as evident by their responses to you), or should you be explaining China as you see from China as Chinese. Remember, there is no win/lose on forum like this, only cross-pollination of ideas, conceptions (or mis). 2nd, as you’re pro-China because of your background, most everyone here is pro-US because of their background; there is no contradiction here, and both are not in a zero-sum relationship. As I see it, US-China relationship is not a zero-sum one. However, when protraited as such, someone has to lose. Well, nobody likes to lose, and that’s where real danger lies.

    • TomD

      Exactly right. The U.S. has little to lose in this, if we really had no choice we should just walk away from this, but the U.S. is doing the world and especially China a favor by insisting on reality. International law is what it is, and it would be better for China if she were to chase her objectives in ways that were less confrontational. The most worrisome part of all this is not what China wants but (as you point out) the zero-sum perception of what has to be done to get it. A China that gets what it wants in the SCS via the wrong methods is a country that may try to apply those methods elsewhere, with greater risk to others.

      Thank you for a very thoughtful post.

      • .Hugo.

        can’t tolerate my valid replies so you have to flag them as spam to hide them?

        .

        little to lose on what? rimpac? of course it has little to lose when china was only allowed to participate in the basic drills anyway. maybe you should say china has little to lose too because of that.
        .
        to the u.s. it might be a big favor, yet to china it is simply a returned courtesy to really join.
        .
        great you brought up international law, so just exactly which one are you referring to? don’t tell me it’s unclos as the u.s. has refused to sign on it, but still wants to enjoy its rights. also don’t tell me it’s the admiralty law (of the u.s.), as it doesn’t apply in chinese territorial waters.
        .
        wrong methods were used by the rogue states, not china, to grab chinese islands in the south china sea. care to point out by what means did the rogue states use to claim the islands? invasion and occupation. e.g. all the islands that the philippines is claiming are outside of its predefined border stated in the treaty of paris 1898, and it has no historic ownership on them.
        .
        needless to even mention the u.s. here as it is not even a scs state to call the shots.

        • TomD

          I don’t flag replies as spam.

          • .Hugo.

            unfortunately my inbox says you people do. 🙂
            .

          • TomD

            I don’t even know how to do that. If you got an email from Disqus that I did that then Disqus is in error.

        • SDW

          “Hugo”, repeating and restating the party line doesn’t help your cause. Whoever is telling you things about how the US has no right to care about freedom of navigation rights in the SCS is either uninformed or misinforming you. The UNCLOS is not the entire body of maritime law but it is sufficient to show you that dredging up coral sands from around a reef does not make an island that can have a 12 mile territorial “ring” around it, no less an EEZ.

          Your arguments are specious. For example, on one hand you claim that the US has no right to have an interest in the SCS being claimed wholesale by the PRC. On the other, you cite the US apparent acquiescence in accepting China’s (there was only one then) claims in 1947 as if that had significance to China today. Someday the Military Committee that really runs China will make a coherent statement but not today.

          China’s whole argument rests on rocks being considered islands and crayon marks on an old map that show nearly all the South China Sea as actual property of China–as if the name alone were enough to back up China’s claim.

          • .Hugo.

            why not prove which part of my reply was from the “party” first? where’s your source document to say that?
            .
            the u.s. has refused to sign on unclos, the u.s. is not a scs state. so what right the u.s. has to conduct military operations right inside other country’s eez and even territorial waters?
            .
            whose freedom of navigation has actually been hindered? when the last country to blockade a scs state was the u.s. itself?
            .
            and unclos is THE maritime law that most nations have signed and followed. if you don’t agree then why not tell us which other maritime laws are more relevant? don’t tell me it’s the admiralty law of the u.s. itself.
            .
            and don’t think you have read unclos correctly when you have the entire order wrong. china owns the island chains, so china is entitled to build in its eez based on unclos, and the new islands are not creating additional sea territory for china.
            .
            in fact the u.s. has recognized the roc claim in the scs. the u.s. follows a one china policy, so when china = prc, it has to recognize the prc claim too. of course we all know that it has not, because the prc is communist. 🙂
            .
            please find me that “crayon”, when the early chinese governments have published official maps including the island chains long before 1947. that’s why when modern china announced its maritime border in 1947, no country, including the u.s., has protested.
            .

  • TomD

    Well, that past is pre-20th century. China really has nothing to fear from its neighbors today, except perhaps North Korea. Most of those bases are a legacy of the Korean War and have almost nothing to do with China. You know this is all true.

    • .Hugo.

      not afraid of its neighbors is not a reason for slack defense. after all, the real challenger is the military superpower outside of the region which believes it will only bring sufferings to its foes far from its homeland. should china not stay alert in that case?
      .
      bombers in guam flew straight into chinese adiz and did not turn back until reaching the edge of the chinese airspace, and you said it has nothing to do with china, so what kind of “truth” are you asking me to accept?

  • TomD

    What a crock!

    1) The main reason the U.S. bases in the Philippines were not rebuilt by the U.S. was because the U.S. decided it no longer needed them.

    2) “how has the philippines still not a u.s. vassal? has it not receiving u.s. military and to have joint exercise?” Ha! By that reasoning China is a U.S. vassal for having participated in past RIMPACs! By that reasoning 85% of the nations on the earth are U.S. vassals! What utter foolishness!

    3) Your statements on UNCLOS are untrue.

    “and to the exact opposite, building structures, including artificial islands, within one signatory country’s eez is allowed.”
    True but per Article 47 of UNCLOS such actions cannot decrease the existing EEZs of neighboring countries – existing EEZs must be respected.

    The only objection the U.S. has to that treaty is the UN body set up to oversee deep sea mining that occurs outside of any EEZ. The U.S. has acceded to all other UNCLOS provisions, including all those that apply to the SCS. Your statements in this regard are pure propaganda.

    • .Hugo.

      so you have to flag my valid reply as spam to avoid it? what a shame. never mind, i can repost here.

      .

      1. and one of the main reasons was that it cost way too much to rebuild them.
      .
      2. and indeed we see u.s. vassals everywhere, you can see at least a few in every region.
      .
      “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists (against the u.s.).” remember who said this? is that u.s. not forcing everyone to take sides? just who but a few are powerful enough to say “no”?
      .
      3. really easy to answer this one. when eez overlaps, the states involved should negotiate for an agreed split (article 74), just like how the philippines has negotiated with indonesia earlier. so why not tell us since when the philippines has ever negotiated with china during aqunio’s term? he thought the u.s. would support the philippine claim and so he hired the pca to start an arbitration without china’s consent. at the end he has failed to gain anything, not even a little u.s. recognition of his claim.
      .
      i have no idea why you quoted article 47 either when it is not relevant, for the treaty of paris has never assigned any additional islands and shoals to the philippines west of the 118 degree east, even though the philippines is an archipelago (but so is the chinese south china sea territory with 4 island chains).
      .
      the u.s. has refused to sign on unclos in full, that’s a fact and not a propaganda. what you have tried to protect sounds more like one rather. in fact, the u.s. will not sign anything or simply exit from it when it is not good for the u.s. interest. the u.s. will simply not sacrifice anything for national interest and global dominance.

  • TomD

    See how your post is a big confrontation over nothing.

    I wrote that the U.S. has little to lose in the SCS. This is true, because the U.S. has very little interest in the SCS. You then read in all sorts of sinister intent and reply with all kinds of bellicose and jingoistic replies.

    All you are doing is proving my point about misguided Chinese thinking.

    • .Hugo.

      i don’t see there is a big confrontation when i don’t see china has lost anything by not joining rimpac.
      .
      and no, the u.s. has big interest in the south china sea as it wants to dominate all seas, especially the ones critical to china and russia. that’s why we are seeing constant fonops challenge chinese sovereignty.
      .
      and i am really interested to know just which international law china has not followed when i don’t see china has done that at all….
      .
      i have provided the philippine example of how chinese islands and sholas were invaded, if you said that’s sinister, bellicose, or jingoistic, then i can only relate them with the rogue states, as that was exactly what they have done to the chinese south china sea territory since the 1960s.
      .
      i don’t see there is any misguided chinese thinking either, when i am presenting facts.

  • E1 Kabong

    Why have your commie pals been trying to invade/take-over so many places?

  • E1 Kabong

    Answer the question, drone.

  • E1 Kabong

    Answer the question, drone, or shoo.

    Those islands outside territorial waters weren’t there until your pals occupied and built them.