US-Japanese plans to "strangle China"

South China Sea Dispute series:

Part I: Taiwan's Claim to a South China Sea EEZ, August 11 2020
Part II: Forbes: "Strangle China's Economy," August 24, 2020
Part III: US-Japanese plans to "strangle China"

Toshi Yoshihara in his report Dragon Against the Sun, presents the views of Chinese strategic thinkers particularly with respect to the "island chain" problem for China. The author makes an extensive presentation on the Chinese maritime strategy perspective from open sources published in China, and then proceeds to critically examine them. In a video presentation associated with the report the author makes a telling Freudian slip in connection with the US-Japan alliance aimed at containing China. Wishing to emphasize the need for US-Japanese "cohesion," he slips and says "coercion."

In his report, the author presents this Chinese view of the Japanese strategy:

Zhang Ming concurs:
From Japan’s perspective, complicating and internationalizing the South China Sea problem will create an interactive dynamic between the East China Sea and the South China Sea disputes. This linkage will help to diffuse the energy of China’s rights protection [维权] efforts in the direction of the East China Sea, exhaust China’s good-neighbor diplomacy, and confer
more leverage to Japan in negotiations with China over the East China Sea.95*

*Dragon Against the Sun: Chinese views of Japanese Seapower, Toshi Yoshihara
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA8211_(Dragon_against_the_Sun_Report)_FINAL.pdf
https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/dragon-against-the-sun-chinese-views-of-japanese-seapower

Necessarily, Toshi Yoshihara finds Chinese assessments of Japanese motives for an offensive maritime strategy that challenges the growing Chinese "threat" are based on faulty Chinese analysis. According to Yoshihara, the Chinese experts are unduly influenced by caricatures of Japan as a warlike civilization, if not outright Chinese racism against Japan. This is a most ironic projection, as both the US and Japan are notoriously subject to ethnocentric, if not wholly racist, concepts of exceptionalism, providing justifications for their condescending views of other countries. But to Yoshihara, the Japanese strategy (like that of the US) is ostensibly motivated by principle seeking only the rewards of the so called "rules based order." So he is, in effect, preaching to the choir here in the US. Yoshihara does yeoman's work trying to defuse, disguise and dismiss the Chinese notion that there is historic continuity with Meiji military expansionism in the current Japanese maritime strategy. Japan's modern maritime policy reflects their tradition of adopting western and US theories of seapower which are essentially offensive in nature. The US role of enabling Japan's offensive maritime domination of East Asia in the early 20th Century is attributed to England for obvious reasons. One might otherwise be somewhat reticent about wholeheartedly embracing an imperial maritime alliance strategy that could lead to a major war, again, by underestimating the scope of Japanese strategic goals.

Yet increased risk of war, is attributed by Yoshihara to growth in Chinese naval power and irrational "self referential" Chinese myopia concerning US-Japanese alliance motives. It is far more likely, that the reinforcing phenomenon of two powerful states, Japan and the US, both with extensive traditions of imperialism and a religious like faith in gunboat diplomacy will cause the next major war. The institutional nature of the alliance as a structure, whose requirements are served by an infrastructure that permeates government institutions, industry, business, academia, and media in both countries raises the possibility that the Japanese "self defense" forces are not just subservient to the American naval command, but may in fact be unduly influencing American strategy to Japanese ends. In the echo chamber of alliance enthralled members poring over their naval theories, legal rationalizations, and institutional accolades, the tactics and policies promoted and adopted by the politicians, admirals and "diplomats" in Japan and the US become more extreme and inclined to take unwise risks staking out untenable positions.

Yoshihara's work is worthwhile to review because a presentation of the Chinese strategic perspective in English allows the US reader an unprecedented view of Chinese naval thinking without having to succumb to the author's "self referential" characterizations of Chinese bias. Some of the Chinese observations are sufficiently profound that they withstand the expert's criticisms quite well. Although definitely not his intention, it's almost as if, Yoshihara by publishing this report makes the Chinese case for them.

Forbes: "Strangle China's Economy"

Below is the latest representation in American delusional thought concerning China from the editors at Forbes:

Cutting off China from its trading partners and sources of oil, natural gas and other resources could be the best, and least costly, way for the United States to defeat China in a major war.

To that end, the U.S. Navy should prepare to blockade China, according to Bradford Dismukes, a retired Navy captain and political scientist. “Globalization has made China, a great continental power, dependent on the use of the sea and thus vulnerable to coercion from the sea,” Dismukes wrote.

Blockade is an ancient strategy. Surround your enemies. Starve and impoverish them.*

*To Defeat China in War, Strangle its Economy: Expert: Forbes August 24, 2020, by David Axe “Editors Pick"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/08/24/to-defeat-china-in-war-strangle-its-economy/#677bda7131a9

Expert? Forbes? Editors Pick? Loved this part, “That’s easier said than done, of course. Blockading China would require a coordinated effort by the whole of the U.S. government and its closest allies.” Which allies are going to participate?

I’m a big fan of James Bradley's book, The China Mirage. Bradley, a historian, reviews US ignorance and miscalculation concerning Asia, imperialism, etc., which caused one military debacle after another in Asia in the 20th Century. He was an advisor to John Pilger for his video The Coming War with China, available on youtube. He appears in the video.

The South China Sea claims of China are consistently misrepresented as “aggression” in English language sources. The US styles the Permanent Court of Arbitration decision against China as the last word on the subject and conducts it’s naval and air operations accordingly with zero regard for Chinese claims and legal arguments. The principal issue isn’t freedom of navigation as the US claims but rather the sovereignty over the associated 200 nm maritime economic zones that the Chinese claim (Taiwan included) around the Pratas, Spratlys, and Paracels. There are enormous oil and gas fields in the South China Sea, that is the real US interest, a commercial one. When one includes the economic zone around the Chinese island of Hainan, the Chinese claims related historically to the so called 9 Dash line in the South China Sea don’t seem so absurd as the western media depict. The Chinese claims to the extensive maritime zone are of course disputed by other states in the region.

This article cited below depicts the Chinese position on the so called “arbitration” by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the International Tribunal for Law of the Sea. Please refer to the article for a more complete description of the PCA's unsound assumption of jurisdiction and decision. The Chinese never acquiesced to PCA jurisdiction and the court's reasoning on jurisdiction is defective. Consequently, the decision is void.

The bottom line is there is no PCA/ITLOS jurisdiction over Chinese sovereignty claims:

…The overall obligation to submit to a compulsory conciliation procedure under 298(1)(a)(i) will however not apply in respect of a maritime boundary dispute which “necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over the continental shelf or insular territory”.21 In other words, obligation contained in article 298(1)(a)(i) to submit a conciliation procedure is subject to three conditions: (i) the dispute should have arisen after the Convention entered into force; (ii) no agreement could be reached between the parties settling the dispute within a reasonable period of time; and (iii) that the dispute did not involve “the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental shelf or insular land territory”.*

*The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju Author
Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2016, Pages 265–307, https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmw019
Published: 20 June 2016 https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

The PCA decision proceeds from a Philippine admission arguendo on the jurisdictional exclusion for territorial claims to a complete rejection of Chinese EEZ claims in the Spratley’s (and the Paracels by western operational extension).

“73…To this extent there is obvious contradiction or lack of consistency in the position of the Tribunal. On the one hand, it declares that it is not empowered to deal with issues of sovereignty and maritime delimitation in view of the Chinese Declaration pertaining to the disputes under the UNCLOS but, on the other hand, it declares itself competent to examine “the source of maritime entitlements of China in the South China Sea”. In that sense, the position of the Tribunal is manifestly self-contradictory.”*

*Id., https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/15/2/265/2548386

Shunji Yanai, the jurist and then president of ITLOS, is “a rightwing Japanese intent on ridding Japan of post-war arrangements.” He is the Baron Kentaro Kaneko of the 21st century as James Bradley might characterize him. The Baron was Teddy Roosevelt’s colleague from Harvard who worked for Ito Hirobumi. He and Roosevelt were of one mind in carving up East Asia to their respective advantages. When the romance wore off some decades later, WWII began. WWII in Asia for the Chinese and Koreans began much earlier, before WWI.

Shunji Yanai, the ITLOS director was a former Japanese ambassador to D.C. He appointed the “arbitrators” to the PCA. He is the darling of Abe and the right wing of Japan, who want to make Japan “great again.” All the higher ups in the current US naval chain of command, the Air Force, and BG Stilwell in the State department are adherents of an irredentist Japanese view of Asia, where all historical disputes should be decided against China (including Taiwan) and Russia for that matter, and other pre-colonial claimants like South Korea. The Japanese are historical revisionists, the US is tied to their Meiji revisionist view of history and territorial claims particularly of the maritime nature in the East Asian littoral. Most Americans are unaware of how the Japanese view of history, which is contrary to the US experience of WWII, has permeated contemporary media, government, business and military circles in the US, as it is consistent with the innate imperialism of the US and Japan just as it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

US "freedom of navigation operations," are based upon little more than jingoism, covering up a seriously defective treatment of international law and history.

.

South Korea: Corona virus welcoming party, Season 2

만평-코로나대환장파티시즌2

(Source- 열린공감TV August 15) Lee Man-hui, Sincheonji cult leader, and Jeon Kwang-hun, Chrisian Council of Korea, use covid-19 as a political weapon. The image below them indicates the addition of the judiciary to the conservative prosecution-press cartel applauding the religious fanatics' covid attacks on the democratic administration in South Korea.

Lee Man-hui was arrested and jailed earlier this year, his cult was responsible for the spread of covid-19 in the southern provinces in South Korea around Taegu. At one point, health authorities confirmed his cult was responsible for 60 percent of confirmed cases in South Korea. He has passed the covid 19 torch to Jeon Kwang-hun.

(Source- 열린공감TV August 15) The two judges whose decisions encouraged the reemergence of the corona virus pandemic in South Korea. The graphic indicated that Jeon's church had an explosion of 134 cases of covid 19, including 115 cases reported in one day.

The judge on the right let the right wing demagogue "pastor," Jeon Gwang-hun, out of jail on bail on the condition he not engage in political assemblies. The judge on the left granted the Out of Many One Patriots Federation and two other groups demonstrating against the April 15 election and Moon Jae-in, permission for the assembly near Ganghwamun, provided the demonstrators stayed on the sidewalk in a prescribed area and maintained social distancing of about two meters. The judge did not regard the threat of the pandemic to public health to be significant enough to limit the petitioner's right to assemble.

The One Out of Many group authorized to demonstrate at a location under the specified limits of the judge's order gave notice of 100 participants. It is estimated that 5000 members of Jeon's Love First Church showed up by one o'clock August 15. None of the demonstrators maintained social distancing or stayed within the sidewalk area. Traffic was blocked as demonstrators crossed barricades, people sang and yelled at police in close proximity to each other. There was some minor violence and about 30 persons were reported arrested. Estimates of total crowd size on August 15 was 20,000. It is almost certain the event will aggravate the so called second wave of covid-19 in South Korea. It is apparent that Jeon and perhaps other members of his church were in direct violation of quarantine orders at the time of demonstration. As a known contact, Jeon brazenly announced that he would not obey the quarantine, and accused the Moon administration of inflicting the virus on his church as a form of "terror." He made other absurd charges against President Moon for which he said Moon must apologize and leave office. He expressed sarcastic concern that Moon not commit "suicide."

Update August 17:

Jeon Gwang-hun has tested positive for covid 19. His wife is also reported to have been confirmed positive. Now he's using his need for treatment as a reason to postpone his trial hearing for violating election campaign laws. The trial was scheduled for August 24. It was anticipated by some that he would be taken into custody at that time.

(Source- JTBC News 8.17) "I don't have a fever. I have absolutely no symptoms. But they gave me notice that I had to be quarantined. Those bums..." "They want to confine me in my home. I want to ask you a question, do I have to do this?" (video from Aug. 15)

More on the anti Moon Jae-in demonstrations in Seoul.

(Source- 알리미 황희두 08.15) A Japanese flag in Seoul at the August 15 right wing demonstrations against "leftist dictator Moon Jae-in."

A Japanese flag on Liberation Day? This reveals so much about the political forces behind these ill conceived far right tactics, which are so out of step with modern Korean trends. So too, with the banners lionizing dictators Syngmun Rhee and Park Chung-hee, proxies for the US and Japan respectively.

So one dumb judge let the right wing demagogue "pastor," Jeon Gwang-hun, out of jail on bail on the condition he not engage in political assemblies, and another dumb judge granted a permit for the Ilpa Mapa patriots group to assemble as long as they stayed on the sidewalk and limited their group to one hundred persons. It's estimated that approximately twenty thousand persons showed up for the anti- Moon Jae-in, anti April 15 election results demonstrations. The crowds simply disregarded the barricades. 30 persons were reported arrested so far in confrontations with police. The police are gathering evidence at the scene and will be pursuing all law violators. Jeon himself violated the conditions of release on bail. He also violated the quarantine restriction on him as a known contact of covid 19 cases from his church. Additionally, at least one news report indicates from anonymous sources that a pastor associated with Jeon's church encouraged church members to avoid quarantine tracking by shutting their phone off. In another case, another church member showing signs of covid 19 was told not to go to a public health center. The penalty for violating quarantine conditions is a 10 million won fine and up to a year in jail. It is expected that Jeon will be arrested.

Jeon claimed among other wild accusations that President Moon released the corona virus on his church. He said Moon was damaging the alliance with the US and making the South Korean people vulnerable to another invasion by North Korea. He demanded Moon apologize to the people and remove himself from office. He also, in a carefully worded threat, implored the President not to "commit suicide" as had former President Noh Mu-hyun and the recently deceased Mayor of Seoul, Park Won-soon. This shows the coordinated nature of the demonstrations and the politically motivated prosecutions of prominent democratic politicians and progressive activists. Interestingly enough, there was a chiron on the youtube production associated with the demonstration and Jeon's speech calling for donations in English that could be made to through the Wells Fargo Bank. Jeon's speech was translated into English for the benefit of his supporters in the US, evidently. The demonstrations are continuing.

This is an earlier report from August 15:

Right wing demonstrations in Seoul during covid 19 upsurge

(Source- JTBC Morning News, 8.15)

(Source- JTBC Morning News, 8.15)

(Source- JTBC Morning News, 8.15)

There is a confirmed cluster of covid-19 cases associated with Jeon Gwang-hun's Love First Church, so at least two congregations, one in Seoul and one in Chuncheong have been closed by government order for two weeks. Pastor Jeon claims the outbreak is the result of a virus "terror" plot. While Jeon is not on the list of 115 newly infected cases of covid 19 in his church, he is violating the government order to quarantine as a known contact.

He publicly stated in Seoul this morning on a stage at the demonstration that he would not comply with government quarantine measures. There have been a total of 155 cases documented at his church thus far. Seoul and Gyeongido are undergoing a resurgence of covid 19 cases in last few days. Over 150 new cases were reported by JTBC this morning. The right wing christian evangelical demonstrations aimed at removing the democratic Moon Jae-in government are taking place at critical moment which may decide the future of the epidemic in South Korea. Jeon's church and movement are beginning to look like the Shincheonji cult on steroids.

Police are said to be collecting all possible evidence with a view to later charges against demonstrators who are in violation of the prohibition on large public assemblies in Seoul and other health code restrictions. Video shows many police with cameras for filming demonstrators and a few physical confrontations where the police are apparently asking individual demonstrators to identify themselves.

Seoul - Unlawful far right demonstrations expected on Liberation Day August 15

(Source- 뉴스반장 Aug. 14 ) Political banner in Gyeongnamdo. "Taegukki (South Korean Flag) assembly in Seoul, August 15. Remove the left wing dictatorship of Moon Jae-in." Advertisements for the demonstration were also carried in the conservative Chosun Ilbo newspaper.

South Korea's celebration of Liberation Day from Japan (August 15, 1945) will likely be marred by unlawful demonstrations in central Seoul. The groups planning the demonstrations in the midst of public health decrees barring large assemblies will meet in the usual venues. Taegukki group members will assemble in front of the old National Bank building. The more numerous far right evangelicals will march on Gwanghwamoon, not too far from the US embassy. Other authoritarian elements will meet at the Syngmun Rhee Plaza. There is some talk among the more extremist elements of marching on the Blue House, which, if it occurs, will almost certainly result in arrests and possibly violence.

(Source- 뉴스반장 Aug. 14 ) Pastor Jeon Gwang-hun, (left) leader of the controversial right wing evangelical Christian Council of Korea. Last January Jeon was found guilty of ten charges of violation of public election laws involving illegal fund raising. He was released on bail April 20 pending rehearings on appeal. One of the conditions of bail is that he not attend political assemblies. Given his lawyer's arguments in court, he may not comply with that condition.

The religious elements, which have been led by "pastor" Jeon Gwang-hun in the past, will hide behind their claim that the health ban on large assemblies is a violation of their religious freedom. This time, they seem to be avoiding overt political threats of overthrow of the democratic Moon Jae-in administration, yet there is an implied physical threat in the willful violation of the emergency health measures declared to protect the public health. Public health experts anticipate that the demonstrations will result in new clusters of covid-19. Typically, once at the demonstration, Jeon and the other evangelicals use political speech similar to the more radical Taegukki paramilitary types.

(Source- 뉴스반장 Aug. 14 ) Typical right wing social media post advertising the unlawful assembly in Seoul. "Liberation Day Assembly at Gwanghwamun on August 15. Expel the administration of Moon Jae-in. United we will live, dispersed we will die."

The same cannot be said for the extremist Taegukki group, which explicitly calls for the "dictatorship of leftist President Moon Jae-in" to be driven out along with claims that the overwhelming victory of the democratic party candidates in the April 15 general election to the National Assembly were the result of election fraud and the democratic government is illegitimate. There is simply no evidence of this.

Police sources are advising the public to stay home to protect against the spread of covid-19 and making it clear that large public assemblies in Seoul are illegal. Organizers and group leaders arriving in Seoul to carry out large demonstrations will be arrested. Members of such groups are also warned that they may be subject to criminal charges as well. According to the source cited for the photographs here, so far the police have apparently not decided to deploy water cannons and tier gas.

The plans for public assembly are a direct challenge to democratic rule in South Korea. This is the latest of an escalating series of miscalculations by the right designed to destabilize the Moon administration and the now filibuster proof democratic majority in the National Assembly. The gatherings in Seoul will be a direct challenge to the public health ban on large assemblies in public venues in Seoul since the former mayor of Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon dispersed the right wing demonstrations earlier this year. The objective of the renewed demonstrations is to bring down the most democratic government South Korea has ever had.

비 내리는 고모령 Rainy Gomoryeong

Looking back to the time I let go mother's hand
The owl cried and I cried too,
I long for the evening we crossed over the mountain ridges
with fallen leaves flying about.

How many years was it, I picked the amaranth blooming
Behind the water mill, enraptured?
How could I ever forget, the forget-me-not's pledge?
When will the falling rain cross Gomo pass?

Tears of childhood life, how many hills were there?
Among lanterns closely hung in the Tavern house,
Writing these sentimental notes to myself,
This evening yet, the night sings the homesick song


작사 유호 Lyrics Ryu Ho
작곡 박시춘 Music Park Si-choon
노래 현인 Original artist Hyun Ryin

Multiple artists have recorded this song since Hyun Ryin's original. It's theme is about the lingering nostalgia for the life before coming of age and leaving the family home town ( 고 향 ) in the country. As usual, this interpretation of the lyrics is subjective. A literal translation is difficult.

Taiwan's Claim to a South China Sea EEZ.

I looked at some discussions of the Permanent Court of Arbitration decision on the South China Sea, which is the basis for five eyes + Japan policy with respect to China's exclusive economic zone claim on the South China Sea. The key issues seem to pivot on one island that belongs to Taiwan that one rarely hears discussed, Taiping or Itu Aba. The PCA decision is styled as an arbitration adjudication of competing claims of the Philippines and the PRC in the South China Sea. The PRC did not participate in the arbitration and doesn't recognize the Court's decision. The court claimed it didn't decide any matter of sovereignty but it did. It discredited Chinese claims to an extensive EEZ in the South China Sea.

Taiping Island, also known as Itu Aba, and also known by various other names, is the largest of the naturally occurring Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.[3][4][5][6][7] The island is elliptical in shape being 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) in length and 0.4 kilometres (0.25 mi) in width, with an area of 46 hectares (110 acres). It is located on the northern edge of the Tizard Bank (Zheng He Reefs; 鄭和群礁). The runway of the Taiping Island Airport is easily the most prominent feature on the island, running its entire length.

The island is administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan), as part of Cijin, Kaohsiung. It is also claimed by the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Philippines and Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island

Contrary to the contentions of the PCA which purport to find that Taiping Island is an "uninhabitable rock," Taiping is a habitable island that can and does support human habitation. This is the argument of Taiwan.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) 中華民國外交部 - 全球資訊網英文網
Taiping Island is an island, not a rock, and the ROC possesses full rights associated with an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in accordance with UNCLOS...

https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=8157691CA2AA32F8&sms=4F8ED5441E33EA7B&s=174B7FC38E9C9F9B

So US arguments about PRC "aggression" in the South China sea appear to be based, at least in part, on a poorly reasoned "arbitration" relying on crafty wordsmithing which finds that Taiping is a rock rather than a habitable island. There are a few expert opinions published on the web which question the reasoning of the decision. A simple perusal of the Wikipedia entry on Taiping renders the contention that it is not a habitable island a hard sell. Taiping Island is the largest island of the Spratly Islands.

Once one realizes that Taiping is a habitable island capable of supporting a small community, the whole US discussion about Communist China's "unsupported" claim to the South China Sea EEZ within 200 nm of that island falls apart. In the west, the historical claim of China to the nine dash line is ridiculed as some ridiculously feeble claim without a discussion of the historical Chinese presence in the region and their claim to Taiping Island. Their claim to economic hegemony in the Spratly's has a basis on an exclusive economic zone around the island of Taiping. The diplomatic history during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries also supports their historical claims to an internationally recognized Chinese interest in the South China Sea.

Typically, the US media focus on the "artificial islands" that the PRC is building in the South China Sea, and claiming that they interfere with "freedom of navigation." Therefore the US claims it's naval and air operations in the South China Sea are "freedom of navigation operations." Yet, the actual bone of contention is the unwillingness of the United States, the five eyes partners, and the local states with sovereignty or EEZ claims contrary to those of the Chinese, to concede exclusive economic exploitation rights to China. ROC sovereignty of Taiping Island is a valid basis to claim an exclusive EEZ as far as 200 nm from that island. In addition, the PRC sovereignty over Woody Island, the largest island in the Paracels gives China a strong claim to another 200 nm EEZ. Vietnam disputes PRC sovereignty over Woody Island.

One wonders what sort of mental gymnastics would be required to conclude that Woody island is not a basis for a PRC EEZ in the South China Sea. While the PCA's ruling is lauded as a legally sound one in the west, the fact is that it is not based in law, but rather loosely construed equity considerations such that it is not equitable for rights to such an extensive economic maritime domain to be determined by such a small geographic feature. Also, the distance of Taiwan to Taiping was a consideration, "giving a remote country rights." Clearly this is specious reasoning. The real party in interest is the sovereign of China, not so far away, wrongfully deprived of its legal interests during the imperial era, and having legitimate economic and military interests in the "South China Sea." Because the west and the smaller states who can not practically assert their interests against China don't like the reemergence of Chinese power in the region, they seek to deny the normal definition of words and impose a rule of "equity" which just happens to favor western oil and gas interests. These commercial goals dovetail with US military objectives of containing Chinese naval power and denying them offshore bases to defend their perimeter and extend their ability to project maritime power. The principle of equity in law essentially means that the legal definitions of record don't provide a suitable remedy from the jurists point of view so we are going to reinterpret them to do what's fair. Fair in who's eyes? Fair in the eyes of the "remote" naval hegemon operating in the traditional role of imperial gunboat diplomat.

Artificial islands do not affect the boundaries of the economic zones in any way. The US Navy routinely closes within 12 nm of the artificial islands China has created merely as a form of confrontation. There is a loophole in UNCLOS concerning artificial islands. It seems when the convention was negotiated no one anticipated the creation of artificial islands in international waters. So artificial islands don’t have territorial buffers around them. US warships and aircraft can approach as close as physically possible to these artificial islands. This is clearly something that could be negotiated to create a safe zone around the islands and their airspace. There is no significant impact on “freedom of navigation” or territorial claims to economic exploitation of the area outside the immediate limit whether it is established at 12 nm or less. A terminal control area or similar airspace could also be recognizable around and above the artificial islands. The only colorable argument against the presence or construction of an artificial island would need to based on a finding that it was constructed in the EEZ of another state. A finding that Taiping was an island would have created another untenable situation the PCA apparently sought to avoid, creating an extensive EEZ for the ROC which would not avoid the PRC claim but only postpone its recognition without lowering the potential for confrontation. The PCA finessed the situation by defining the principal problem into non-existence with a legal fiction contrary to the common meaning of words.

As a practical matter the overlapping national claims to economic zones are a serious problem, that can only be negotiated among the affected parties. The US position actually reflects the interest of western corporate interests who wish to be free to exploit mining rights in South China Sea under the national flags of non-Chinese states with competing South China Sea claims to such areas. So the FON claims of the US are to a large extent a wedge issue serving as a pretext, under the color of "international law" for physical confrontation to define interests that the traditional colonial powers can exploit. The risk of war is obvious. The Permanent Court of Arbitration decision is a contrived decision which provides an inadequate base for resolution of the complex competing claims in the South China Sea. It is clear that it will not ever be acknowledged by the PRC.

South Korea: Press- Prosecution collusion affair- the cast

Lee Seong-ryun, Chief of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Branch, Seoul, regarded as the "restraint" on Yoon Seok-yeol. Ultimately, Lee could be a candidate for Prosecutor General, the top position now currently held by Yoon Seok-yeol when the latter's term ends. Lee may be indispensable to the independence of the current investigation into alleged press-prosecution collusion. Investigation of the immediate case of the Channel A News scandal centered around Lee Dong-jae and former Senior Prosecutor Han Dong-hun is the focus of a struggle for control of South Korea's prosecutorial powers.

Ultimately, the Justice Ministry is seeking to break the effective monopoly held by Yoon Seok-yeol. The political situation affecting Chief Prosecutor Lee's struggle against Yoon and the conservative cadre of attorneys in the so called group of experts is complex. A desire to maintain an independent investigation of suspected press-prosecution collusion by the Central District Branch may be holding up Justice Ministry announcements concerning 11 high level prosecutor appointments throughout South Korea that were expected last week. Those appointments by Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae are expected to further attenuate the power of Yoon's "division ( 사단 )."

The above is a graphic of the original report by MBC News of the relationship among Lee Chol, former VIK representative in prison on financial charges; the "informant" an associate of Lee Chol; and (unidentified at the time) former Channel A News reporter Lee Dong-jae. Reporter Lee sent Lee Chol four letters in prison inquiring into the financial consideration he provided to Yoo Shi-min, an influential pundit, foundation director, and former minister. Reporter Lee then met three time with the anonymous informant who acted as Lee Chol's proxy allegedly to see what Lee Chol could get for offering false testimony in an investigation against Yoo Shi-min. The informant reported exclusively to MBC that former Channel A News reporter Lee had shared recorded audio of a conversation with prosecutor Han Dong-hun to show he was acting with the backing of a prosecutor with close ties at the highest level.

Yoo Shi-min appears in the white jacket in this graphic referring to the MBC exclusive report. According to the anonymous informer, Lee Dong-jae persistently made demands to take down Yoo Shi-min. Allegedly he said, "Yoo was the face of a monster." Yoo Shi-min as the director of the No Moo-hyun foundation is a well known and outspoken pundit of the democratic left who appears regularly in South Korean media. (No Moo-hyun was the late liberal president of South Korea). Yoo was the Health and Welfare Minister in the administration of former President No Moo-hyun.

Yoon Seok-yeol, current Prosecutor General of South Korea. Yoon is the current leading contender on the right to be a candidate for president of South Korea. He polls only at 13.8 percent. Lee Nak-yon, the leading democratic party contender polls at 25.6 percent. Yoon is allegedly responsible for carrying out a series of politically motivated prosecutions, in particular the cases against Yoo Shi-min, former minister Cho-Guk, and Kyeongkido governor Lee Jae-myeong. Lee Jae-myeong was acquitted recently of rather bizarre charges revolving around involuntary commitment proceedings against his brother. Lee was accused of abusing his official position, and impersonating a law officer. Lee Jae-myeong is now ahead of Yoon in presidential preference polls at about 19.6 percent. Had Governor Lee been convicted he would be disqualified from running for or holding political office.


The improper investigation of Yoo Shi-min was allegedly carried out by Yoon's right hand man, former Senior Prosecutor Han Dong-hun. The prosecution of former Justice Minister Cho Guk, and his wife, as well as Governor Lee and Director Yoo, were intended to affect the outcome of the April 15 elections by branding leading democratic figures as criminals and hypocrites. Former Justice Minister Cho was also the lead advocate for the so called fast track prosecutorial reforms. Cho has been pursuing litigation against multiple reporters from mainstream media and the internet who have libeled his wife, and daughter, and has obtained some sizable judgments. His prosecution is still pending but his wife was found innocent recently of several charges. The cases appear to be faltering.

Last week Yoon's panel of experts reviewing evidence collected before the investigation of the Channel A News case was complete recommended ending the investigation and resolving the matter against Prosecutor Han Dong-hun with a no indictment disposition. The recommendation is little more than a public relations effort to be exploited by the conservative media supporting Yoon. Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae had removed the Prosecutor General's supervisory role over the investigation and disposition of the case because of an apparent conflict of interest.

Yoon is also suspected of burying criminal investigations into leading conservatives, including Na Kyung-won and Hwang Kyo-ahn, and other right wing national assembly members who conducted themselves unlawfully last spring in a futile attempts to obstruct passage of the so called fast track prosecutorial reform measures by National Assembly. Yoon and the right in general view the democratic administration's attempts to interfere with his unfettered discretion on who gets prosecuted and who doesn't, as despotism dressed in democratic clothes.

Senior Prosecutor Han Dong-hun (on left) vs. Chief Criminal Investigation, team 1, Jung Jin-oong (right). War by proxies? Han suspected of colluding with former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae, was served with a warrant last week by a the lower ranking prosecutor who works for Lee Seong-ryun, the Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Branch Prosecutor's office. Han resisted Jung's attempt to seize his hand phone and a physical confrontation ensued. Jung went to the hospital later allegedly for injuries sustained in the altercation. Han is regarded as someone quite close to Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, and his proxy. Jung is regarded as the proxy for Chief Prosecutor Lee Seong-ryun.

Observers regard the conflicting stories of Han and Jung as to how the altercation ensured as an embarrassment to prosecutors in general. Han is obviously trying to portray himself as the victim, and at the same time create legal grounds to block the admissibility of any evidence obtained from the audio files on the sim chip from his phone. Han claims Jung committed a battery without cause. Han's account is widely portrayed in the conventional conservative South Korean media, and also on social media by conservative "akpullers" ( 악플러 ) or trolls as they are known in the west. A drawing in Cho-sun Ilbo of the alleged assault on Han by Jung was indicative of how partial the owners of that media network are to Yoon.

In the above picture, Lee Dong-jae, the former Channel A News reporter suspected of attempting to create false testimony against Yoo Shi-min. He is at the center of litigation in the Channel A News case. He is committed to pre-trial confinement after being ruled a potential threat to investigation of evidence by the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office, investigation team number one. Last week a Seoul court ruled that a search warrant for his hand phones and notebook was executed improperly. Here Yoo Shi-min is quoted in a MBC News interview saying it would be best legally if Lee Dong-jae disclosed all he knows related to suspected press-prosecution collusion.
Addendum- Jeong Jin-woong found not guilty of assualt on Han Dong-hun by Appeals Court, affirmed by Supreme Court. Hanguk Ilbo, Nov. 30, 2022; '압수수색 중 한동훈 폭행 논란' 정진웅 검사, 대법서 무죄 확정; https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2022113011300004763 Absolutely consistent with Lee Jae-myung's "who is the criminal" theme on abuse of government powers by Han and Yoon Seok-yeol.