Nicky on
November 9, 2019 made interesting comments on Submarine Matters article South
Korea Could Export Submarines to Philippines of November 6, 2019 to which I
respond.
No matter the US attitude to human rights in the Philippines
(Phils) the US has little influence
over what country the Phils buys submarines from. The US has not exported a
conventional sub in decades so wouldn’t itself export subs to the Phils.
Furthermore the US combat system (eg. sensors and computer components) are generally too electrical power hungry to be included in any submarines
that other countries would export to the Phils.
The risk is if there are even small US components on subs of potential sub suppliers to the Philippines (ie. German-TKMS, French-Naval Group, Spanish-Navantia, Swedish-Saab or South Korean-DSME) the US might block such a sale on intellectual property-licencing grounds. The Philippines may then turn to suppliers that have no US components, ie. China and Russia.
The risk is if there are even small US components on subs of potential sub suppliers to the Philippines (ie. German-TKMS, French-Naval Group, Spanish-Navantia, Swedish-Saab or South Korean-DSME) the US might block such a sale on intellectual property-licencing grounds. The Philippines may then turn to suppliers that have no US components, ie. China and Russia.
If the US did try to pressure the Phils on a submarine buy
over human rights or other reasons this might just encourage the Phils to "do a Thailand". Thailand was heavily criticized by the US after Thailand's 2014 coup. Thailand commenced the purchase of 3
Chinese submarines in 2015. Alternatively US pressure might speed the Phils into
the arms of Putin with a possible sale of Russian built Kilo subs to the Phils.
The Philippines buying submarines from China or Russia would not
be an outcome that the US (though tending to downgrade established alliances under Trump)
would want.
If a sale of Chinese or Russian submarines did occur this
may mean years of Russian or Chinese supervision of Philippine submarines (and perhaps increased undersea sensor laying). This would heighten the geographical reality
that Philippine archipelago forms a part barrier to access of US submarines
from Squadron 15 (based in Guam)
to the South China Sea.
Even though the US no longer has air or naval bases in
the Philippines USN
SSNs, SSGNs and surface ships still visit the Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
The
US also relies on the Enhanced
Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the Philippines which permits US Special Forces to
fight and advise against Philippine Islamist-Separatist “terrorists” in the southern
Philippines - part of the US’s international “War on Terrorism”. Some of these
terrorists can be categorized as Islamic
State while others come under the longer established acronyms MNLF
and MILF.
Pete
US combines two implausible things in many cases -
ReplyDeleteblatant hypocrisy with geopolitical buffoonery ...it is quite a feat (of course right up drongo donnie's alley, a gifted natural talent in this case)
Thanks to such toothless wonders of decisions pitchforked on top of one another over time, we have an ascendant China blatantly bullying and behaving like the neighborhood thug brazenly. Now with Samoan bases, PLAN will have a wall right from the Saipan Island.
If Philippines ends up getting the Kilos, this simply be another mistake in a long line of mistakes by the US in abandoning allies at will. It will be useless too, as China knows the in and outs of this class. Trusting the US now, is bit like trusting and mounting a clay horse to cross a raging river.
https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/taiwan-submarine-capabilities/ --> remember Taiwan?, GWB and Obama both abandoned them when they could have asked Huntington Ingalls to easily build a great DE sub or assemble one by getting older hulls from Europe... the Taiwanese were left twiddling their thumbs at the end. Ditto for new P-3Cs and F-16s... though I must say the F-16A/B upgrades to the F-16V standard is not bad.
US can easily sell decent ASW gear increasing the pain for the PLAN...nope, they won't
PS: considering the impossibly wretched number of cluster effs donnie has managed, a rabid dingo on top of the democratic ticket should be winning by a landslide.... sadly... these are not normal times..religious nutjobs form such a solid bloc, donnie is a 2020 shoo-in
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteWe have done . it before and the US has blocked the sale of Rifles to Philippines on the grounds of piss poor Human rights. For example;
Exclusive: U.S. stopped Philippines rifle sale that senator opposed - sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-usa-rifles-idUSKBN12V2AM
PHILIPPINES: U.S. STOPS SALE OF 26,000 ASSAULT RIFLES AMID DUTERTE DRUG WAR CONCERNS
https://www.newsweek.com/us-cancels-assault-rifle-sale-philippines-protest-duterte-drug-war-515624
US stops sale of assault rifles to PNP
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/838789/us-stops-sale-of-assault-rifles-to-pnp
U.S. Halted Sale of Weapons to Philippines Over Duterte's Deadly Drug War
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-halted-sale-weapons-philippines-over-duterte-s-deadly-n676221
Philippines' Duterte slams US for halting rifle sale
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/philippines-duterte-slams-halting-rifle-sale-161102180556481.html
It's also why the US can even do it with any Military sale that has US made parts or components in them. It's why the US Government has VETO power on any Military gear that has US made parts, weapons, components and weapons. Since the Philippines have a piss poor human rights record, US Congress could block the sale and it would force the Philippines to buy Submarines with Non US Made Components.
It's also why the European Union has a feud with the Philippines over human rights and if the European Union puts its weight in, they could block the Philippines from buying military gear from Europe on human rights grounds. It's why the Philippines have this pipedream of buying the Gripen but their Human rights record is gona hound them and make it impossible for Europe to sell Military gear to the Philippines.
Philippines president Duterte threatens to expel EU ambassadors in 24 hours
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/13/philippines-president-duterte-threatens-to-expel-eu-ambassadors-in-24-hours
Hi Nicky
ReplyDeleteAs I implied in https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/11/any-us-block-on-philippines-buying.html not only would US pro-human rights measures alienate the Philippine leadership but measures would be ineffective in modifying behavior.
The thing is the US is no longer the vastly dominant world superpower that can rely on a weakened Russia and a weak China.
Now some formerly pro-Western countries can and are choosing Russia for major arms purchases (eg. NATO's Turkey buying the Russian S-400 SAM systems) and Thailand buying thse 3 new Chinese submarines.
The US is no longer in a bipolar world where it could happily back anti-Communist human-rights violating strongmen "our bastards" (eg. Marcos in the Philippines) who accepted US money and/or military support.
It puzzles me that the Philippines would have to buy foreign assault weapons. The Phils have a substantial manufacturing base, that should be able to produce any small arms weapons.considering the dozens of countries happy to sell Kalasnikovs parts.
ReplyDeleteHi GhalibKabir
ReplyDeleteSpot on.
Thanks for reminding me how China is getting closer to Samoa (used to be firmly in Western camp) see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-21/china-and-samoa-ink-deals-ahead-of-pacific-island-economic-forum/11622096 .
This is in addition to China’s strategy of investment-aid-almost bribes then debt-trap then eventually military-base-potential relations with many Pacific island nations in a crescent around Australia.
These Pacific island nations also include:
- Fiji https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/fiji-and-china-benefitting-from-military-cooperation-qian-bo/
- Vanuatu
- Papua New Guinea
- Solomons https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/11/chinas-future-forward-base-of-tulagi.html and
- East Timor (often classes itself as being like a Pacific island nation).
The US, indeed has a declining aid-power focus or an inevitable diminishing relative regional power compared to China in the Southwest Pacific region.
France (in New Caledonia and Polynesia/Tahiti) is one Western asset on Australia’s side. This was one reason why Australia selected and is paying so much for the Naval Group Attack class sub - money buying strategic support.
Regards
Pete
Hi Lee McCurtayne
ReplyDeleteYes if the Philippines wants M-16 rifles
A. it makes its own - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PVAR_rifle "The Pneumatic Valve and Rod rifle also known as UDMC PVAR rifle is a Filipino assault rifle, manufactured by United Defense Manufacturing Corporation, and is a variant of the Armalite AR-15 and M16 rifle."
[UDMC is a Philippine defense contractor and firearms manufacturer based in Parañaque, Philippines].
B. it can buy them from China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Others "The Chinese Norinco CQ is an unlicensed derivative of the M16A1 made specifically for export, with the most obvious external differences being in its handguard and revolver-style pistol grip."
Some Philippine units also use AKM assault rifles donated by Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Philippine_Army#Infantry_weapons
Regards
Pete
ReplyDelete@[Pete November 13, 2019 at 10:29 AM]
My thoughts largely mirror this article though I think the US will not allow a third island chain line where it is being suggested nor will China see much value in a fifth chain
https://amti.csis.org/chinas-reach-grown-island-chains/
But the chain marked 4th in the map is usable as a third island chain and the first Island chain can be technically linked all the way to Seychelles to form a tiered defense starting from the Persian Gulf all the way to Saipan... once CBGs are active in the PLAN, the first island can be extended easily via the Sunda strait passing near enough Cocos keeling region to Seychelles where the Chinese are busy turfing out the Indian Navy.
Nice post, Pete, but let me just share my opinion also on this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, even if the US does block the Philippines from buying Submarines with their parts on it, I don't see the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) go to China or Russia instead, and that is because a Philippine President's powers have been severely clipped under the 1986 Constitution, especially in terms of the Military.
And right now, the Philippine military is mostly pro-US. This is why Duterte cannot order the military the same way that Erdogan can, for example. Erdogan tells his military to buy this or that, and they follow. In the Philippines, its not as straightforward as that.
The 1986 Constitution for example allows a Vice President to be elected from the opposing political party, giving the military the option to turn to another elected official if need be.
The 1986 Constitution also tells our soldiers to be loyal not to the President of the Philippines, but to an inanimate object like the Constitution whose representative of course can be conveniently assigned to someone else during critical times.
For better or for worse, after Marcos' Dictatorial Rule, contingencies have been put in place to assure that any President will not have complete control of the Philippine military.
So as long as our military mostly stays with the US, it's gonna be that way, and no Philippine President can change that, at least as long as those provisions in the 1986 is intact.
Hi pete,
ReplyDeleteThen again all it takes is one US Congressman to file a formal complaint and the US Government can block the Philippines from buying anything that has US made parts, weapons or systems on any grounds including Human rights. It's why many Filipinos think they can buy the Gripen for example, but they seem to forget that Sweden has a democracy clause in any Military sale and the Filipinos won't be able to meet it.
As for the idea of South Korea exporting SSK's to the Philippines, It would all hinge on the US allowing it because every South Korean submarine has some US made computer, component, weapons and systems in it and the US COULD Veto the sale on Human rights grounds and it would force South Korea to build an SSK with Non-US Parts, weapons and systems.
It's why I think the Improved Kilo class SSK is a Viable option in terms of shear cost and the Improved Kilo class SSK doesn't come with any political, social and economic strings attached to it.
Hi GhalibKabir
ReplyDeleteI don't know if island chain "ography" is a very helpful concept.
Concentrating on "South China Sea" or "Philippine Archipelago" or "isolated Indian Ocean island groups near Africa" is less enslaved to the ideas of Chinese geo-academics (all ultimately servants of Chinese Communist Party obscurantism).
Regards
Pete
Hi rhk111 (at November 13, 2019 at 6:53 PM) and Nicky (November 14, 2019 at 2:43 AM)
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I have responded substantially at http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/11/submarine-choices-for-phillipines.html
Cheers
Pete
Hi again GhalibKabir
ReplyDeleteHere is an over-arching reason why the US cannot indulge in the luxury of applying human-rights tests to its allies. The US under Trump has diminished in power relative to China's rise.
Brahma Chellaney, in his Novemeber 17, 2019 article "US’s feeble Indo-Pacific strategy"
comments https://navalinstitute.com.au/uss-feeble-indo-pacific-strategy/ :
"...the Quad members that were supposed to serve as the pillars of a free and open Indo-Pacific have lately been hedging their bets on the US. Japan—whose prime minister, Shinzo Abe, originated the concept—has quietly dropped the term ‘strategy’ from its policy vision for the Indo-Pacific. Australia has forged a comprehensive strategic partnership with China. And Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently hosted Xi in Chennai.
The longer the US fails to act as a convincing counterweight to China, the more strategic space Xi will have to pursue his neo-imperialist agenda, and the less likely he will be to submit to US pressure, economic or otherwise. To prevent that, the US must provide strategic weight to its Indo-Pacific policy, including by establishing a clear plan for resisting China’s efforts to alter the status quo in the South China Sea.
If the US oil company ExxonMobil exits Vietnam’s largest gas project, as seems likely, this will become even more urgent, given China’s interest in shutting extra-regional energy firms out of the South China Sea..."
Cheers
Pete
Will the US do it? All the signs indicate to a no as the answer. (in game theory terms, will the US bite the bullet and actually threaten action to the point where China will stop what it is doing and back off?...no)... the US has gotten too messy internally...
ReplyDeleteThe Xi-Modi Chennai summit did not work as the Chinese are even more disdainful of India given their strength and have all but decided they want border settlements on their terms and India regionally emasculated geopolitics-wise. They do not want to give India 'face' (I am sure you know 'losing face' is considered very humiliating in parts of Asia)
Xi is rightly calculating that, 4-5 more years and the Chinese armed forces will be able to regionally match the US on a near equal footing. He is not budging on trade hence.
With India and rest of the motley crew, he thinks they can be picked off one by one easily. He thinks India will be hobbled by its federal structure and impede growth repeatedly. (something Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew lectured on at the party school in Beijing in 1990)
Vietnam, Japan, India, Australia are all on their own. I have a sinking feeling, Xi is just getting started. Historically, a very strong centripetal force in China has always meant very bad news for its neighbors..Xi ain't going away in 2024, but Modi is and Abe is...
Modi, it seems has been surprised by the needless extent to which China is becoming hardheaded (the territorial dispute will end in their favor as some claims are quite fair). Just like 1962, it seems the Chinese are bent on showing India its place in the pecking order.... forget the offers of a generous settlement... the whip is out big time..
Hi GhalibKabir [at November 18, 2019 at 9:23 PM]
ReplyDeleteOne can only hope China hangs back from a hardlined agressive stance because this may further impact on trade with major economies eg. US, Japan, India, UK, EU etc. My hope being China sees trade as essential to its economic growth. With China's growth making communist rule tolerable for the 100s of millions of Chinese not-yet-haves.
Then again if China uses "Belt and Road" for investment and aid "debt trap" to island nations and other poor-small economies (Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Mongolia, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the other 'stans, etc). Then China can economically benefit by being the dominant partner of many bilateral trade relationships with weak and bought nations throughout the Indo-Pacific including African nations.
And yes the US seems to be regressing militarily and in trade under Trump - so China fills the void.
Chinese tade and investment can also persuade bigger players (Russia, Vietnam, Japan, India, Australia etc) that good economic relations with China is preferable to trade losses due to strategic tension with China.
Indeed, only Putin will match Xi for longevity and experience while all the democratic nations electorally shed their leaders (with knowledge and experience) ever 3 (eg. Australia) to 8 years.
Regards
Pete
the problem with trade is, China wants to be a goods supplier/factory and do that even for services moving forward...so a reasonably balanced trade is impossible as implicitly China wants to run a trade surplus and control all the levers.
ReplyDeleteThis is increasingly getting linked to the political and military side of things as the Vietnamese and Indians recent travails show...
India sat out of the RCEP partly because this would have wiped the MSME base in India or whatever is left of it...Already the Lankans, Pakistanis, Samoans, Djiboutians, Ethiopians all are chock-a-block indebted to China and,
what is common everywhere? .... a naval 'facility' hosting visits from Shang 093G SSNs and Type 052D destroyers etc.. and soon will have to host 001A carrier/type 055 led CBGs on 'goodwill' calls
US-China: Pot meet Kettle.. Kettle meet Pot... the new guy is just as bad as the old guy...
China's hardline 'take it all and somemore' stance will continue for a decade at least...4 more years of drongo donnie will help China immensely accelerate this process.
Hi GhalibKabir
ReplyDeleteHere's a potential new worry for India https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/shifting-alliances-gulf-boon-china
"Iran’s offer to connect Chabahar port to Pakistan’s Gwadar will frustrate India but might also encourage China.
...Tehran has grown increasingly frustrated with New Delhi in recent months over what might be described as a policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds in the wake of US-Iran tensions. After crippling unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran by the US, India also shut down oil imports from Iran, leading to warnings that New Delhi’s future in Chabahar port might be hurt.
Iran has instead looked to China. Beijing has continued importing oil from Iran, despite the sanctions reimposed by the US last year.
...Yet Iran has invited not only Pakistan but also China to participate in the Chabahar seaport project and development of its link with Gwadar Port.
Contrary to India’s plan to develop Chabahar as competitor to Gwadar port, Iran wants the two ports to complement each other. Tehran this year proposed Islamabad connect Chabahar and Gwadar by road and rail links.
Should China hold a crucial stake in both Gwadar and Chabahar, it is bound to reap great economic, commercial, and strategic benefits, with a presence opposite to the Strait of Hormuz and close to the Persian Gulf. China would be well-positioned to act as policeman for the security of the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.
SEE MORE AT https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/shifting-alliances-gulf-boon-china