Sunday Ship History: Operation Game Warden South Vietnam 1965- 1973

"Firefight" by R. G. Smith; 1968

In an earlier post, we took a look at Operation Market Time which was meant to halt the influx of weapons and other supplies by sea into South Vietnam. Operation Game Warden was initiated to cover the inland waters of parts of South Vietnam, as set out at the Navy History and Heritage Command Operation Game Warden: Keeping Shipping Channels Open

In 1965, the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) recognized that the enemy was supplying Viet Cong units via the Ho Chi Minh Trail and Cambodia. In December of that year, the Navy established the River Patrol Force (Task Force 116) to keep shipping channels open, search river craft, disrupt enemy troop movements, and support special operations and ground forces. Operation Game Warden limited the enemy’s use of South Vietnam’s larger rivers.

Below is a study of Game Warden prepared at the Navy's request by the Center for Naval Analysis in 1976. Before reading that report, it is worth reviewing some comments on the nature of the U.S. Navy's involvement with riverine warfare as set out here:

To our small initial Navy section of the Military Assistance and Advisory Group, Vietnam, we gradually added stronger coastal forces, rapidly increased the number of river patrol and minesweeping craft, and introduced a river assault force to give three major U.S. Navy combatant task forces in Vietnam. Also during the period of build up of U.S. Navy strength in Vietnam, the Vietnamese Navy itself was growing in coastal and river patrol, river assault, and logistics capabilities with the help of U.S. Navy advisors. In late 1968 operations were begun that combined the capabilities of all three major U.S. Navy task forces, the Vietnamese Navy, and other Free World ground and air forces to strike at enemy strongholds and interdict enemy supply routes. In addition to the combat operations on the many waterways of Vietnam, hundreds of large and small U.S. and Vietnamese Navy logistics craft form a vital link in the flow of supplies to allied forces at remote bases.

Riverine warfare is an extension of sea power. By controlling the high seas the Navy can project its strength along the inland waterways into the heart of enemy territory.

Operation Game Warden by lawofsea

PBR on Patrol by Charles Waterhouse

More on Game Warden here

.

It Case You Didn't Know - The Government of China Lies About Almost Everything

Case in point:

China "Coast Guard" vessel runs down Vietnamese fishing boat. China claims fishing boat attacked the "Coast Guard" vessel, as reporte in Philippines backs Vietnam after China sinks fishing boat

The Philippines on Wednesday expressed solidarity with Vietnam after Hanoi protested what it said was the ramming and sinking of a Vietnamese fishing boat by a Chinese coast guard ship in the disputed South China Sea.
***
China claims virtually the entire South China Sea and has built several islands equipped with military installations in the area, one of world's busiest shipping lanes. Vietnam has been the most vocal opponent of Beijing's territorial assertiveness.

The Philippines' Department of Foreign Affairs recalled that 22 Filipino fishermen were left floating in the high seas after a Chinese vessel sank their boat at Reed Bank on June 9 last year. They were rescued by a Vietnamese fishing vessel.
***
The Philippines warned that incidents like the sinking of the Vietnamese boat undermine the potential for a trusting relationship between the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China. It cited “positive momentum” in talks between ASEAN and China on a proposed “code of conduct” — a pact to prevent major clashes in the South China Sea, which many fear could be Asia’s next flashpoint.

China responded to Vietnam's diplomatic protest and demands for an investigation with its own statement accusing the Vietnamese boat of illegally entering Chinese waters. It said it collided with the Chinese ship Haijing 4301 after conducting “dangerous actions.”

All eight Vietnamese sailors were rescued by the Chinese and admitted to wrongdoing, China Maritime Police spokesman Zhang Jun was quoted as saying in a statement.

China seized the islands from Vietnam in 1974 and frequent confrontations have occurred there.

This is not the way civilized countries act, China. This is the way bullies act.

South China Sea: Vietnam Moves to Protect Its Interests

If you are shocked by this, you haven't been paying attention.

Reuters reports Exclusive: Vietnam moves new rocket launchers into disputed South China Sea

Vietnam has discreetly fortified several of its islands in the disputed South China Sea with new mobile rocket launchers capable of striking China's runways and military installations across the vital trade route, according to Western officials.

Diplomats and military officers told Reuters that intelligence shows Hanoi has shipped the launchers from the Vietnamese mainland into position on five bases in the Spratly islands in recent months, a move likely to raise tensions with Beijing.

Nature and threatened states will move to fill a vacuum. I guess Vietnam lacks confidence that the recent arbitration ruling concerning the SCS has any kind of enforcement mechanism.

I expect China will counter with its own equipment escalation.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Screw FONOPS - Let's Play Hardball in the South China Sea

The South China Sea is not now, nor should it ever become, a Chinese "lake."

Allowing China to have its way in the region is not good for international commerce, surrounding nations and the bodes ill for further Chinese expansionism as it asserts some fabricated "historical usage" right to waters that it sailed in "once upon a time." That "once upon a time" ended hundreds of years ago when China, due to internal reasons, abandoned the high seas and ended its exploration of the world.

Now, however, having read Mahan and studied its position in the world, China has decided that its "manifest destiny" lies in invading both international waters and the domestic waters of its neighbors to force them into a world where their adjacent seas are dominated by Chinese warships (including its large, aggressive "Coast Guard") as well as by a militia force of fishing vessels. Why? To create a 'strategic strait'?

"The logical conclusion drawn from China's adding ... islands in the southern part of the South China Sea with military-sized runways, substantial port facilities, radar platforms and space to accommodate military forces is that China's objective is to dominate the waters of the South China Sea at will," Peter Dutton, professor and director of the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College, said in a February speech at London's Chatham House.

"Building the islands is therefore, in my view, a significant strategic event," he said. "They leave the potential for the South China Sea to become a Chinese strait, rather than an open component of the global maritime commons."

Tuoi Tre News

The proof of this Chinese approach is daily recounted in news reports of the shouldering or ramming non-Chinese fishing vessels, in the aggressive response of Chinese military forces to military aircraft and ships transiting in what the rest of the world recognizes as "international waters" but which the Chinese are intent on grabbing. See Dangerous rocks in the South China Sea from the Washington Post:

Having made a “rebalancing” toward Asia a pillar of his foreign policy, President Obama may face a fateful test from China in his final months in office. President Xi Jinping already broke a promise he made to Mr. Obama not to militarize islets his regime has been building up in two parts of the South China Sea. Now Beijing appears to be contemplating building a base on a contested shoal just 150 miles from Subic Bay in the Philippines. A failure by the administration to prevent this audacious step could unravel much of what it has done to bolster U.S. influence in the region.

Disputed islands per Inhabit.com (red flags with yellow star = Vietnam; red/blue striped flag = Malaysia; other red/white/blue flag = Philippines; red flag with star in upper left = China)

Chinese development of Scarborough Shoal, a collection of rocks and coral reefs it seized from the Philippines four years ago, would escalate its already-belligerent behavior in the South China Sea in a number of ways. Until now, Beijing’s landfill work and construction of airstrips have occurred on islets it already controlled that are considerably closer to the Chinese mainland. Scarborough Shoal lies about 500 miles from China. A base there could allow Chinese radar and missiles to threaten Manila, as well as Philippine bases where U.S. forces are positioned.

Perhaps most importantly, the Chinese venture would concretize Beijing’s refusal to abide by international law in resolving territorial disputes with its neighbors.

The nations surrounding the South China Sea (SCS) are either arming themselves or inviting allies to "come back" and show a level of possible force.

One response of the United States has been to sail naval vessels into the SCS and conduct "Freedom of Navigation Operations" or "FONOPS."

These SCS FONOPS are discussed in a National Interest article by Zack Cooper and Bonnie S. Glaser, How America Picks Its Next Move in the South China Sea which describes the U.S.'s tiptoeing in and around the Chinese island building and aggression in the SCS. This is certainly a nice, nuanced approach to the situation, sending signals that are meant to warn the Chinese but without raising the stakes too high.

It also isn't working.

Fiery Cross Reef

The Chinese have moved from area to area, building military bases on artificial island after artificial island, with the latest efforts in the Spratly Islands.

As noted in several of the links above, China and the Philippines are awaiting a ruling from from an arbitration panel over the Chinese claims to the SCS - a ruling China has already denounced, despite many good reasons why it shouldn't.

As was discussed during one of the Midrats podcasts, Episode 321: The Year of the Monkey in the South China Sea w/Toshi Yoshihara (starting about 16:21), China views international law as not being binding because, it does not reflect Chinese "traditions." but rather "Western legal traditions" because of differing historical perspectives - China wants to start with "history first" as Dr. Yoshihara expressed it.

History may not be "bunk" but certain "historical events" are completely ignored by the Chinese as the make their claims, including World Wars I and II, and the last 70+ years of free access to the seas granted to the Chinese around the world brought to them courtesy of the Western world, especially by the U.S. and its allies.

When China was building up its large merchant shipping force, who was protecting freedom of the seas?

Hint - it wasn't the Chinese navy.

If any country could have made the SCS into a "lake" it would have been the U.S. following WWII - but which, instead, backed out of the area.

 China, not content with a free sea, is trying to fill what it perceives as a void and is not getting much in the way of push-back.

It's time the international community did something stronger than FONOPS, which are weak tea at best.

Sea Launch  Odyssey company photo

My modest proposal is to send a properly modified self-propelled drilling rig into the area and have it anchor itself at or near one of those SCS rock formations that China claims but which are generally not uncovered by the sea. Man the thing with scientists who ought to be screaming their heads off about the changing of the ecological state of the SCS by the Chinese island building campaign. Fly the UN flag. Support it from the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and

Ocean Odyssey before modifications

any other SCS stakeholders.

In short, it is time to quit playing soft games with the Chinese and move to hardball. Time to challenge every encroachment. Time to move to a higher level of activity. Time to increase the signal strength, if signaling is still needed.

Use this "sea base" as the locus of naval exercises involving those stakeholders and Aussies, Japanese, South Koreans and anyone else who chooses to play - except the Chinese.

Oh. and by the way, we need to take a look at Guam's status, too. 51st state. anyone?

Time to re-look at building up Midway? Wake Island?

Hardball.

Threats to Shipping - including an act of aggression from a Chinese ship

Most of the Office of Naval Intelligence World Wide Threat to Shipping report for 21 Jan 2016 is a rundown of the sordid side of criminal acts against merchant shipping and yachts. However, there is one incident from 16 14 Jan that deserves special attention because it highlights the on-going aggression by Chinese vessels against the fishing fleets of other nations in the South China Sea area:

2. (U) VIETNAM: On 14 January, Vietnam-flagged fishing boat QNg 98137 carrying 10 fishermen from Quang Ngai was operating in an area 90 nautical miles off the central city of Da Nang when it was attacked by a vessel with a steel hull, white cabin and Chinese letters on its side. After the first direct hit on the fishing boat's cabin, the fishermen rushed to retrieve all of the fishing nets to prevent them from being damaged or washed away. The Chinese vessel then crashed into the boat for a second time, this time at its starboard side, a spokesman said. The
attack caused severe damage to communication cables, the navigation cabin and several other parts of the ship,
(www.tuoitrenews.vn)

U.S. ONI World Wide Threat to Shipping Report of 21 Jan 2016

The map above shows Da Nang and has a line added to show the fictious Chinese assertion of "ownership" of a chunk of the South China Sea under their "nine dashed line" theory, also known as China's "land and sea grab."

South China Sea Bully: China's "People's War at Sea"

Armed Chinese "fishermen" attack Vietnamese fishing boats as reported by Tuoi Tre News here:

A Vietnamese fishing boat from the central province of Quang Ngai was operating in the Vietnamese waters in the East Vietnam Sea on Friday when it was reportedly attacked by three Chinese ships, local authorities said.

These Chinese ships got close to the QNg 96507 TS, with 16 fishermen on board, when it was fishing off Vietnam’s Hoang Sa (Paracel) archipelago, the authorities of the province’s Ly Son District said on Saturday, citing a report from the attacked boat’s captain, Nguoi Lao Dong (Laborer) newspaper reported.

Crew members of the foreign ships, which were in white and coded with 46102, 45101 and 37102, got on board the local boat, with AK assault rifles and electric batons in their hands, said captain Nguyen Loi.

These Chinese then beat a number of the fishermen with their weapons, causing injuries to them, Loi said.

The foreigners also smashed navigation equipment and fishing tools on the local ship, and took away all the aquatic products from it.

This report is covered by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence in its Worldwide Threats to Shipping report of 6 August 2015 (pdf).

In most of the world, fishermen do occasionally spar over fishing areas, but this reported incident has some interesting characteristics. First, the Chinese fishermen had weapons - "AK assault rifles and electric batons" - and this, with the Chinese, heavily implies some sort of official sanction in having fishing boats so equipped - though many near coastal fishing boats do carry some sort of weaponry to fend off sea robbers, this has the feel of something more.

In addition, as well set out by James Kraska in his Diplomat article, "China’s Maritime Militia Upends Rules on Naval Warfare: The use of fishing vessels as a maritime militia has profound legal implications":

With 200,000 vessels, China operates the largest fishing fleet in the world, and its commercial industry employs 14 million people – 25 percent of the world’s total. This massive enterprise operates in conjunction with the armed forces to promote Beijing’s strategic objectives in the South China Sea and East China Sea. The militia, for example, were involved in the 1974 invasion of the Paracel Islands, as well as impeding freedom of navigation of U.S. military survey ships. The maritime militia also provides logistics support to Chinese warships. In May 2008, for example, militia fishing craft transferred ammunition and fuel to two warships near Zhejiang Province.

Fishermen are assigned to collectives or attached to civilian companies and receive military training and political education in order to mobilize and promote China’s interests in the oceans. The fishing vessels of the militia are equipped with advanced electronics, including communications systems and radar that supplement the PLAN force structure and enhance interoperability with other agencies, such as the China Coast Guard. Many boats are equipped with satellite navigation and can track and relay vessel positions, and gather and report maritime intelligence.

The fleet support missions being undertaken by China’s maritime militia may make fishing vessels lawful targets during armed conflict, with potentially tragic consequences for legitimate fishermen from China and nearby states. This is an example of China’s “legal warfare,” which is the perversion of legal concepts or processes to counter an opponent. Unlike the Philippines’ arbitration case over China’s dashed line, which is not “legal warfare” because it simply seeks a legal determination based on the rule of law, the maritime militia exploit seams in the law and thereby place at risk the very civilians that the law is made to protect. (emphasis added)

Professor Kraska is also author (with Michael Monti) of a recent U.S. Naval War College (NWC) study The Law of Naval Warfare and China’s Maritime Militia (pdf):

China operates a distributed network of fishing vessels that are organized into a maritime militia to support the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The militia is positioned to conduct a “people’s war at sea” in any futureconflict. This strategy exploits a seam in the law of naval warfare, which protects coastal fishing vessels from capture or attack
unless they are integrated into the enemy’s naval force. The maritime militia forms an irregular naval force that provides the PLAN with an inexpensive force multiplier, raising operational, legal and political challenges for any opponent.
***
In a meeting last year, a former admiral of a blue water naval force in Northeast Asia said off the record that Chinese fishing vessels operate with military personnel on board — a point seconded by the retired chief of navy of a Southeast Asian State now at odds with China over maritime claims.
***
China believes that a civilian militia composed of fishing vessels may be a less provocative means of promoting its strategic goal of regional hegemony. During peacetime, this approach is likely correct since fishing vessels are not instruments of war. Opposing States are less inclined to mobilize to resist fishing vessels in the same way they would resist foreign warships. (emphasis added)

Well, that may be true to a point. But it seems to me to be a very short step from identifying the Chinese bullying tactics and the placement by the PLAN of armed troops on fishing boats for those threatened states to respond by placing their own armed military or quasi-military forces onto to their own fishing fleets and thereby potentially escalating matters with some rapidity.

I highly recommend reading the two Kraska pieces in their entirety - these are not dry law review articles concerning the meaning of the placement of an "and" instead of an "or" in some part of the Bankruptcy Code, but rather the analysis of Chinese efforts to push the limits of international law (not that international law seems to restrict great powers all that much, a cynic would say).

The greater point is there is more to worry about than just interference with regional fishing fleets in China's actions.

Interesting Addition to the Office of Naval Intelligence's Worldwide Threats to Shipping Report: China

From the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence's Worldwide Threats to Shipping Report of 30 July 2015 (pdf):

SOUTH CHINA SEA: On 21 July, two Vietnam-flagged fishing boats re
ported being chased and rammed by a Chinese ship in an area approximately 15 nm west of the western section of the Spratly Islands.

and

4.(U) SOUTH CHINA SEA: On 21 July, two Vietnam-flagged fishing boats reported being chased and rammed by a Chinese ship in an area approximately 15 nm west of the western section of the Spratly Islands. Both fishing boat captains reported that navigation lightsand other parts of their boats were damaged as a result of the repeated ramming. Reportedly, the Chinese ship had the number 994 on the hull. (www.vietnambreakingnews.com)

Spratly Islands are in the oval in the nearby map.

China's PLA Navy ship with hull number 994 is a 072A class landing ship.

Hmmm.

Well, yeah - "China’s New Islands Are Clearly Military, U.S. Pacific Chief Says "

Kevin Baron of DefenseOne reports "China’s New Islands Are Clearly Military, U.S. Pacific Chief Says" :

“I believe those facilities are clearly military in nature,” Harris said at the Aspen Security Forum, an annual gathering in Colorado of dozens of top U.S. national security leaders, convened by the Aspen Institute.

In his notably undiplomatic remarks, Harris called on China to show meaningful diplomacy to resolve the territorial disputes. But the four-star admiral also appeared resigned to seeing further construction and eventual deployment of military aircraft and ships.

Fiery Cross Reef sits smack in the middle of South China Sea sea lanes

“They are building ports that are deep enough to host warships and they’re building a 10,000-foot runway at Fiery Cross Reef,” Harris said, referring to one of China’s construction activities in the Spratly Islands that Japan has protested. “A 10,000-foot runaway is large enough to take a B-52, almost large enough for the Space Shuttle, and 3,000 feet longer than you need to take off a 747. So, there’s no small airplane that requires a runway of that length. They’re building rebutted aircraft hangers at some of the facilities there that are clearly designed, in my view, to host tactical fighter aircraft.”

Development on Fiery Cross Reef

I think the Admiral probably said "revetted" and not "rebutted" but that's a minor note. The major note is that -

The top U.S. military officer in the Pacific sternly warned China on Friday to immediately cease its “aggressive coercive island building” in the South China Sea, which he argued was intended clearly for China’s military use as forward operating bases in combat against their regional neighbors.

UPDATE: These maps from an older post might be helpful in visualizing sea lanes a/k/a sea lines of commerce:

CSIS South China Sea Conference

Given the importance of the events happening in and around the South China Sea, it is good to see that you can view or listen to the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Fifth Annual CSIS South China Sea Conference because they have kindly put up multimedia coverage on their website which is at the link above.

The site also includes links to publications from the conference.

The Fall of Vietnam - 40 years Ago and Lessons Learned

I keep getting reminded that I am not as young as I feel. The latest blow was a spate of headlines (e.g. here and an PBS show ("Last Days in Vietnam") commemorating the fall of the Republic of South Vietnam - 40 years ago:

In April of 1975, the North Vietnamese Army was closing in on Saigon as South Vietnamese resistance was crumbling. Approximately 5,000 Americans remained with roughly 24 hours to get out. Their South Vietnamese allies, co-workers, and friends faced certain imprisonment and possible death if they remained behind, yet there was no official evacuation plan in place. Still, over the last days in Vietnam, with the clock ticking and the city under fire, 135,000 South Vietnamese managed to escape with help from a number of heroic Americans who took matters into their own hands, engaging in unsanctioned and often makeshift operations in a desperate effort to save as many people as possible.

At the time of the fall of Vietnam, I was a LTJG and on shore duty. I had submitted my letter of resignation and was plotting my next move. As was common in those days, I had been assigned to one ship for a little over 3 years and I had been deployed about 1/2 of that time, not counting out of home port training.

In late March, 1972 we were off Vietnam headed for liberty in Thailand when we got turned around and sent back north. The North Vietnamese were rolling tanks into the south. U.S. destroyers, cruisers and carriers were in place to try to help stop the advance of the "Easter Offensive." There was a huge expenditure of ordnance. Ammo stocks fell so low so fast that eventually replacement stuff was being flown into to Subic Bay by air for loading onto the replenishment ships that sortied from the Naval Magazine to the "gun line." USS Pyro (AE-24) set a Navy record for ammunition transferred by an ammunition ship. From April to July the South Vietnamese forces held against and ultimately defeated the North Vietnamese forces at the Battle of An Loc. From June to mid -September, the South Vietnamese again defeated the North Vietnamese Army in the Second Battle of Quang Tri. In May, the U.S. Navy and Air Force mined North Vietnamese harbors, including the main harbor at Haiphong. These mining operations continued in bits and pieces for 8 months. In any event, the stiffened South Vietnamese response and the new attacks on North Vietnam both in conventional bombing and with the closure of its ports, drove the North Vietnamese to the peace table. Eventually, it looked like there would be a two state solution. See here.

However, starting in 1974, Congress began cutting funding to South Vietnam:

Congress places a $1 billion ceiling on military aid to South Vietnam for fiscal year 1974. This figure was trimmed further to $700 million by August 11. Military aid to South Vietnam in fiscal year 1973 was $2.8 billion; in 1975 it would be cut to $300 million. Once aid was cut, it took the North Vietnamese only 55 days to defeat the South Vietnamese forces when they launched their final offensive in 1975.

and this:

During his confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was sharply criticized by some senators after he stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam. However, Nixon was driven from office due to the Watergate scandal in 1974 and when the North Vietnamese began their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese to protect Saigon, citing strong opposition to American involvement in the war by Americans and the loss of American equipment to the North by retreating Southern forces. Thieu subsequently resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:

At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men.

The North Vietnamese entered Saigon on April 30 1975. Schlesinger had announced early in the morning of 29 April the evacuation from Saigon by helicopter of the last U.S. diplomatic, military, and civilian personnel.

Anyone who watched the debacle of the "evacuation" - or who had any conscience about abandoning our allies on the field of battle or who had had classmates and friends die in the war - was sickened. As noted here:

The immigration of thousands of people from Southeast Asia in the 1970s and 1980s impacted American-Vietnamese relations and gave rise to new communities of Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong Americans in the United States. Known as boat people for escaping Southeast Asia by sea, the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asians (predominantly Vietnamese) generated a political and humanitarian firestorm for the international community, the United States, and Vietnam.

The first wave in 1975 included 140,000 South Vietnamese, mostly political leaders, army officers, and skilled professionals escaping the communist takeover. Fewer than a thousand Vietnamese successfully fled the nation. Those who managed to escape pirates, typhoons, and starvation sought safety and a new life in refugee camps in Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Hong Kong. For many, these countries became permanent homes, while for others they were only waystations to acquiring political asylum in other nations, including the United States.

During the administration of President James Earl Carter, Vietnamese immigration to the United States became a prominent political issue. The number of refugees fleeing Vietnam by sea increased to nearly six thousand in 1976 and twenty thousand the following year. Officials estimated that nearly one-third of this total perished at sea from starvation, drowning, and pirates, problems that increased when some Asian countries began turning away boat people.

The waves of desperate refugees continued for years.

Somewhere in all this, driven by news reports of the plight of the refugees, I withdrew my resignation and remained on active duty for another couple of years, making another deployment to the Western Pacific - albeit too late to assist those in need.

Years later, we began to see that we were not the only ones who learned lessons from the U.S. abandonment of its ally. In nearly every conflict we've been involved in since, including the long war with al Qaeda and its ilk, the theory of our enemies has been that if they can hang on through the initial overwhelming force delivered by the Americans, they will outlast the American "will to fight."

Our enemies know our Congress too well.

So, 40 years later, I am still mad as hell at the Congress that buckled when a spine was needed to see Vietnam was not abandoned to its fate.

In that cratering I see too many links to the messes we find ourselves in now.

Osama bin Laden said:

Bin Laden's hatred and disdain for the U.S. were also manifested while he lived in Sudan. There he told Al-Qaeda fighters-in-training:[23]
“ America appeared so mighty ... but it was actually weak and cowardly. Look at Vietnam, look at Lebanon. Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat. Such a country needs only to be confronted with two or three sharp blows, then it will flee in panic, as it always has. ... It cannot stand against warriors of faith who do not fear death.

I would suggest he was not referring to our troops, but to the weak-kneed folks who refer to our young American warriors as "kids" as if they need coddling. These people seem to believe that by withdrawing from war we are safer.  That is clearly not a lesson that history would support.

No wonder 40 years seems like yesterday to me.

History, if not repeating, certainly seems to be rhyming.

South China Sea: China and Vietnam Heat Up the Waters

Headlines read Vietnam and China face off in South China Sea:

Vietnam said on Wednesday a Chinese vessel intentionally rammed two of its ships in a part of the disputed South China Sea where Beijing has deployed a giant oil rig, sending tensions spiraling in the region.

The foreign ministry in Hanoi said the collisions took place on Sunday and caused considerable damage to the Vietnamese ships. Six people sustained minor injuries, it said.

"On May 4, Chinese ships intentionally rammed two Vietnamese Sea Guard vessels," said Tran Duy Hai, a foreign ministry official and deputy head of Vietnam's national border committee.

"Chinese ships, with air support, sought to intimidate Vietnamese vessels. Water cannon was used," he told a news conference in Hanoi. Six other ships were also hit, other officials said, but not as badly.

Dozens of navy and coastguard vessels from both countries are in the area where China has deployed the giant rig, Vietnamese officials have said.

"No shots have been fired yet," said a Vietnamese navy official, who could not be identified because he was not authorized to speak to media. "Vietnam won't fire unless China fires first."

By the way, this may not the first time that Vietnam and China have had a set to over an offshore oil rig. Way back in 1983, there was tension between the two countries over off-shore drilling. The clipping to the left reports on part of the issue.

More on the Glomar Java Sea here.

UPDATE: You can review the pdf of the U.S. Coast Guard report on the loss of Glomar Java Sea here. Some of you may recall there were questions of whether a Vietnamese vessel had rammed the vessel at some point, perhaps weakening its hull and contributing to its loss. There were also reports that some of the crew had been taken ashore. The CG report addressed some of these issues at page 19:

UPDATE2: Vietnam's side of the story:

The information was released by Rear Admiral Ngo Ngoc Thu, vice commander of the Viet Nam Marine Police at the international press conference in Ha Noi on Wednesday afternoon.

He said that Chinese ships intentionally crashed into and caused damages to the vessels of the Vietnamese marine police and fisheries surveillance force right in Viet Nam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf though the Vietnamese forces exercised restraint over the perverse acts of Chinese ships.

The rear admiral also showed footage provided by the Vietnamese fisheries surveillance force of a Vietnamese boat being besieged by Chinese ships during a clash. Mr. Thu said six Vietnamese people have been injured.

Speaking at the press conference, Spokesperson of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Le Hai Binh said that China’s acts violate Viet Nam’s sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Southeast Asian country’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf as stipulated in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Earlier on May 6, Deputy PM, FM Pham Binh Minh made a phone call to Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi after China illegally deployed a drilling rig and vessels in the oil and gas lot 143 belonging to Viet Nam’s continental shelf since May 1.

Deputy PM, FM Minh stressed that China’s unilateral deployment of the drilling rig HD-981 and a large number of vessels, even military ones, in this area is illegal, runs counter to the international law and practices, seriously violates Viet Nam’s sovereignty over Hoang Sa archipelago and sovereign right and jurisdiction over Viet Nam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

This act negatively impacts mutual political trust and cooperation aspects between the two countries and hurts the Vietnamese people’s sentiment.

Viet Nam cannot accept and resolutely protests the China’s act and demands China totally withdraw the drilling rig HD-981 as well as escort vessels from this area, together with Viet Nam to join talks to handle the related differences.

UPDATE3: More here. Photos of action are from Vietnamese Marine Police.

UPDATE4: Good stuff at USNI News.

Not a surprise: "Oil and gas will drive future control of the South China Sea"

If you've been reading this blog, this will not come as a surprise to you, but if Robert Kaplan writes and talks about it, perhaps others will get the idea: "Oil and gas will drive future control of the South China Sea". From MarketPlace.org (and NPR):

In his new book “Asia's Cauldron: The South China Sea and The End of a Stable Pacific”, Robert Kaplan breaks down how a possible dispute over the South China Sea could have a substantial impact.
***
Kaplan said the possible dispute over who owns the South China Sea could have a staunching economic impact.

“If the pacific is no longer stable, that will affect investment, growth rates, etc.” said Kaplan. “If you ask me what’s the biggest question in the world today; it’s not ‘Will Iran get its Nukes?’ it’s the direction of the Chinese economy.”

South China Sea: China's Activity - Vietnam calls it "sabotage"

With tip of the hat to Walter Russell Mead Chinese Sabotage in the South China Sea, it's off to the Chinese "Bad Neighbor Policy" or, perhaps, the "Chinese Big Ugly Stick Policy."

See Vietnam accuses China of maritime sabotage and this Reuters piece, . From the latter:

Vietnam's condemnation came a day after its state oil and gas company, Petrovietnam, accused Chinese boats of sabotaging an exploration operation by cutting a seismic cable being towed behind a Vietnamese boat.

Vietnam's Foreign Ministry spokesman condemned the cable cutting as well as some recent Chinese provincial regulations that identified the disputed Spratly and Paracel islands as Chinese, and a map that did the same thing.

"The actions of the Chinese side have seriously violated Vietnam's sovereignty over the two archipelagos," the spokesman, Luong Thanh Nghi, said in a statement.
***
India has also declared itself ready to deploy naval vessels to the South China Sea to protect its oil-exploration interests there, a new source of tension in a disputed area where fears of conflict have been growing steadily.

Indian navy chief, Admiral D.K Joshi, said on Monday that, while India was not a territorial claimant in the South China Sea, it was prepared to act, if necessary, to protect its maritime and economic interests in the region.

"When the requirement is there, for example, in situations where our country's interests are involved, for example ONGC ... we will be required to go there and we are prepared for that," Joshi told a news conference.

CDR Salamander has a post on the potential Indian deployment here.

Something else to keep and eye on.

Pirates: Counter-Piracy Operations

Multinational counter-piracy operations off the Somali coast are defined by reports like this one from Nov 21, 2012, EU Naval Force and Combined Task Force 151 Work Together to Ensure No Safe Haven for Pirates In Indian Ocean:

The boarding team from ROS Regele Ferdinand brings the apprehended pirates and their skiff back to the Romanian warship (EUNAVFOR photo)

Earlier today, Romanian frigate ROS Regele Ferdinand, under command of the EU Naval Force (EU NAVFOR) worked in close co-operation with Turkish warship TCG Gemlik of Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-151) to apprehended nine suspected pirates at sea off the coast of Somalia.

In the early hours of the morning, Swedish EU NAVFOR Maritime Patrol Aircraft located the suspicious skiff at sea 420 nautical miles east of Mogadishu. Counter piracy forces in the area were quickly alerted, and being the two closest warships, both TCG Gemlik and ROS Regele Ferdinand made haste to the area to investigate, as the Luxembourg EU NAVFOR patrol aircraft maintained visual coverage from the air.

Once at the scene, TCG Gemlik sent a boarding team to search the suspect vessel, which had tried, unsuccessfully, to evade capture for over an hour. In an excellent demonstration of co-operation between the 2 counter-piracy forces, ROS Regele Ferdinand then embarked the suspect pirates on to the Romanian frigate for further questioning and evidence collection in order to fully assess the possibility of prosecution of the nine suspects.

After gathering intelligence, the skiff was destroyed, thus preventing the suspect pirates from using it to attack ships in the future.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Africa, Nigeria does counter-piracy as set out here:

A ONE-WEEK onslaught against crude oil theft and other illegal activities on sea by the army, navy and air force has led to the arrest of two oil tankers and interrogation of 15 others at the Gulf of Guinea.

The raid tagged ‘Exercise FARAUTA’ was sequel to the mandate by President Goodluck Jonathan when he appointed two new service chiefs, urging the military to get rid of oil thieves from Nigeria’s seaways.

The Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Dele Ezeoba, who was on board the Nigerian Navy ship ‘Thunder’, led the operation at sea.

“We interrogated 17 vessels at sea, out of which, we found two culpable. Some would have to explain as per the quantity of the petroleum they have on board, some were in excess of what was approved and one of the other vessels did not have any documentation at all. It is important to note that this exercise would continue. For us to continue to do what we are supposed to do, it is important we get all the support we can get from government. The navy needs to be encouraged. Crude oil thieves and pirates have already seen the signals and they don’t have a choice than to leave our waters,” Ezeoba said.

South China Sea, yellow circle indicates area of attack

The Office of Naval Intelligence Worldwide Threat to Shipping Report (to 28 Nov 12) (here (pdf) shows mostly robberies at anchorage but there is this:

VIETNAM: Tanker hijacked on 19 November in the vicinity of 07:10 N – 109:09 E, approximately 174.4 nm southeast of Con Son Island. Eleven pirates armed with long knives and pistols hijacked the tanker. The nine crew members were forced overboard into a life raft and rescued shortly after by a Vietnamese fishing trawler. While thought to be enroute toward Vietnam to sell the vessels cargo of marine gas oil illegally in Vietnam waters/ port, all eleven pirates were apprehended by the Vietnam Marine Police Special Task Force and are currently under the custody of the VMP. Prior to apprehension, it was reported that the pirates had changed the IMO number and name of the vessel. (ReCAAP ISC)

UPDATE: ReCAAP update here (pdf):

On 22 Nov 12 at or about 0404 hrs (local time), Zafirah was located at
approximately 35 nm south-east of Vung Tung (09o 50.10’ N, 107o 19.59’ E). The
Vietnam Marine Police despatched two patrol vessels to the location to monitor the
situation. The tanker was reported to have been renamed ‘MD FEAHORSE’ and has a
different IMO number. From the statement made by the master of Zafirah, there were
11 pirates onboard the tanker and they were armed with long knives and pistols. On 22
Nov 12 at or about 1600 hrs (local time), the Vietnam Marine Police Special Task Force
boarded Zafirah and apprehended all 11 pirates who are currently under the custody of
the VMP.

China: A Maritime Strategy

From the China Daily, a Chinese view of maritime strategy in "Safeguard maritime rights and interests":

. . . China's maritime strategy should focus on the following:

First, it should clarify its maritime strategy based on the three pillars of traditional and non-traditional maritime security; marine economy and technology; and its diplomatic strategy, making full use of international law, including the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Second, it should strive for an understanding with the US and explore a bilateral coordination mechanism to maintain a dynamic balance of competition and cooperation. China has no intention of challenging the US' maritime hegemony, so the US should respect China's maritime rights and interests "on its doorstep".

Sino-Russian and Sino-Indian cooperation should be expanded and Sino-Japanese competition controlled.

China and Russia are making efforts to safeguard their legitimate maritime rights and interests and held a large-scale joint military exercise in the Yellow Sea in April.

Third, it must avoid getting isolated while dealing with the territorial disputes with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam.

Fourth, China must resolutely and effectively defend its maritime territorial sovereignty and core interests. It must resolve disputes caused by overlapping exclusive economic zone and fishery and oil, gas and mineral resources disputes through negotiations and consultations, and safeguard the security of sea-lanes through regional multilateral cooperation.

Fifth, China should establish an institutional mechanism to develop its marine economy and integrate the use of law enforcement, diplomatic, military and other means, strengthen department coordination, and coordination between the central government and coastal provinces, and set up a national institution specifically responsible for dealing with marine affairs.

Earlier in the piece is this:

. . . [T]he specific territorial disputes between China and some neighboring countries, which have been aggravated by the lack of strategic trust between the United States and China. The maritime sovereignty disputes between China and Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines are complex and troublesome, and the last thing China wants is to see these countries and the US joining hands against China. In fact, China and the US have no maritime sovereignty disputes, they are contending for sea power and influence.

Hmmm "lack of stratgic trust?" Does that mean standing up for allies with those claims contrary to China's?

"Sea power and influence" . . . time to dig out my Mahan again.

Asian Partnerships: India and Vietnam

Interesting read from the Turkish Weekly analysis on the India-Vietnam Strategic Partnership Getting Stronger:

The India-Vietnam Neighborhood

The relationships between the two countries make a lot of sense when they share common interest- maritime security, fighting terrorism, security of the sea lanes of communications, piracy and natural disasters. Ever since India and Vietnam signed the New Strategic Partnership in 2007, there witnessed significant improvement in a multifaceted ties ranging from political and economic engagements, security and defence cooperation, science and technology and close cultural contacts. Despite Chinese objections, India and Vietnam went a step ahead to signing six agreements encompassing promote oil exploration in South China Sea, extradition treaty, deepen trade, security and strategic ties, etc. *** What makes this relationship special is because of the close understanding that both countries share over the growing rise of China and its subsequent implication on the security of both countries.

India’s ONGC has entered into a deal with a Vietnamese oil company to jointly explore resources in the South China Sea. This move has caused significant alarm in China because it perceive such move is aimed at containing China’s growing clout in the South East Asian region. Vietnam offer for the exploration of resources is part of the gaining strategic understanding between the two countries. However, the Chinese foreign ministry has repeatedly warned India against such moves that amount to interference in China’s relationship with its neighbors. In response to Chinese reaction, Indian Foreign Minister SM Krishna asserted that the exploration projects do not violate international law, and that China’s opposition has no legal basis.

While China on the other hand is steadily increasing its military presence close to India’s borders in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Srilanka. By doing this, Chinese have never thought what would be its implications to India’s security. In recent times, China has expanded its footprint to Pakistan occupied Kashmir, which India claimed to be its own. How can China warn India to remain away when it is expanding close to India’s border and even to India’s claim territory?

Not much doubt about who is believed to be the big threat in the area, is there?

The "post-Cold War world" heads off on a lot of interesting paths.

UPDATE: India is not interested, apparently, in multinational alliances but prefers bilateral agreements, according to this report:

India on Thursday firmly rejected any prospect of joining or forging a trilateral security pact with the US and Australia, remaining steadfast on its long-standing stand of bolstering defence cooperation with other countries on a strictly bilateral basis.

No reason to rattle the Dragon's tail too much, I suppose . . .

China and the South China Sea: Back to the "Cow's Tongue"

Red dashed line is the "Cow's Tongue"

There are a couple of things floating about the internet involving China and its assertion of claims to a large chunk of the South China Sea - a topic that I remind you has been discussed here and on Midrats on several occasions (see China: "The Cow's Tongue", Midrats (Dr. Michael Auslin in first part of show) and, more recently, A War of Words Over the South China Sea).

Senator James Webb has taken on this South China Sea issue as "America's Munich Moment":

So when the senator opines that the United States is ‘approaching a Munich moment with China’ in the South China Sea, it’s worth taking his words seriously.

He levels an incendiary charge. If this is a Munich moment in the making, who are the protagonists? Webb seemingly casts China in the part of Nazi Germany, an aggressive, acquisitive power bent on increasing its geopolitical sway at small states’ expense. This makes President Hu Jintao the counterpart to German dictator Adolf Hitler. President Barack Obama plays the part of Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who traded away much of Czechoslovakia in 1938 in the hope of slaking Hitler’s land hunger.
***
Americans seldom follow Southeast Asian politics, despite the importance of this maritime crossroads to US and global commerce. Filipino leaders maintain that the 1951 security treaty between Manila and Washington covers maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea. Would Americans fight to defend such claims, or are they, like Czech sovereignty for the Western powers in 1938, a secondary affair?

As noted here. the U.S. Senate has taken a stand on the South China Sea by passing a resolution condemning the use of force in the disputed waters in Southeast Asia. See, from Senator Webb's website, U.S. Senate Unanimously “Deplores” China’s Use of Force in South China Sea:

The text of S.Res.217 is below:

Title: Calling for a peaceful and multilateral resolution to maritime territorial disputes in Southeast Asia.

Whereas, on June 9, 2011, 3 vessels from China, including 1 fishing vessel and 2 maritime security vessels, ran into and disabled the cables of an exploration ship from Vietnam, the VIKING 2;
Whereas that use of force occurred within 200 nautical miles of Vietnam, an area recognized as its Exclusive Economic Zone;
Whereas, on May 26, 2011, a maritime security vessel from China cut the cables of another exploration ship from Vietnam, the BINH MINH, in the South China Sea in waters near Cam Ranh Bay;
Whereas, in March 2011, the Government of the Philippines reported that patrol boats from China attempted to ram 1 of its surveillance ships;
Whereas those incidents occurred within disputed maritime territories of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands, composed of 21 islands and atolls, 50 submerged land atolls, and 28 partly submerged reefs over an area of 340,000 square miles, and the Paracel Islands, a smaller group of islands located south of China’s Hainan Island;
Whereas China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei have disputed territorial claims over the Spratly Islands, and China and Vietnam have a disputed claim over the Paracel Islands;
Whereas the Government of China claims most of the 648,000 square miles of the South China Sea, more than any other nation involved in those territorial disputes;
Whereas, in 2002, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China signed a declaration on the code of conduct of parties in the South China Sea;
Whereas that declaration committed all parties to those territorial disputes to “reaffirm their respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea” and to “resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force”;
Whereas the South China Sea contains vital commercial shipping lines and points of access between the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean;
Whereas, although not a party to these disputes, the United States has a national economic and a security interest in ensuring that no party uses force unilaterally to assert maritime territorial claims in East Asia;
Whereas, in September 2010, the Government of China also deliberately provoked a controversy within the waters of the Senkaku Islands, territory under the legal administration of Japan in the East China Sea;
Whereas the actions of the Government of China in the South China Sea have also affected United States military and maritime vessels transiting through international air space and waters, including the collision of a fighter plane of the Government of China with a United States surveillance plane in 2001, the harassment of the USNS IMPECCABLE in March 2009, and the collision of a Chinese submarine with the sonar cable of the USS JOHN MCCAIN in June 2009;
Whereas, like every nation, the United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation and open access to the maritime commons of Asia;
Whereas the Government of the United States expressed support for the declaration by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China in 2002 on the code of conduct of parties in the South China Sea, and supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion;
Whereas the United States has a national interest in freedom of navigation and in unimpeded economic development and commerce;
Whereas, on October 11, 2010, Secretary Gates maintained “The United States has always exercised our rights and supported the rights of others to transit through, and operate in, international waters.”;
Whereas, on June 3, 2011, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Secretary Gates stated that “[m]aritime security remains an issue of particular importance for the region, with questions about territorial claims and the appropriate use of the maritime domain presenting on-going challenges to regional stability and prosperity”;
Whereas, on June 4, 2011, at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Liang Guanglie, the Defense Minister from China, said, “China is committed to maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea.”;
Whereas, on June 11, 2011, the Government of Vietnam held a live-fire military exercise on the uninhabited island of Hon Ong, 25 miles off the coast of Vietnam in the South China Sea; and
Whereas, on June 11, 2011, Hong Lei, the Foreign Ministry spokesman of China, stated, “[China] will not resort to force or the threat of force” to resolve the territorial dispute: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate—
(1) reaffirms the strong support of the United States for the peaceful resolution of maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and pledges continued efforts to facilitate a multilateral, peaceful process to resolve these disputes;
(2) deplores the use of force by naval and maritime security vessels from China in the South China Sea;
(3) calls on all parties to the territorial dispute to refrain from threatening force or using force to assert territorial claims; and
(4) supports the continuation of operations by the United States Armed Forces in support of freedom of navigation rights in international waters and air space in the South China Sea.

Now comes Vietnam to assert its complaints against China's encroachment into what it asserts are Vietnamese waters, in The East Sea: Seizing opportunity, getting out of danger:

If we look at the map of the East Sea, the territorial water sovereignty of each country and the international maritime order have been clearly clarified under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS).

China's Nine-Dotted Line Map

But why China dares to put forward the U-shape line to claim up to 80 percent of the East Sea – which could only happen if the wheel of history have reversed to the time before the World War II; when Vietnam, the Philippines and the countries around the East Sea were not recognized as independent nations and when Vietnamese, Filipino and other peoples did not have independence and freedom?
***
In that context, China has two options: 1) Cooperating with other super powers in the world, led by the US, to supply goods for maintaining the international order, the stability and prosperity development based on cooperation and global trade; 2) replacing the US and the US’ strategic allies (West Europe and Japan) to set up the new world order and new military alliance headed by the US in order to force others to obey the new order.

In fact, China has chosen the second. This process began by trampling on the UNCLOS in order to turn the East Sea into its pond. It is uneasy for China to realize that ambition because: 1) it abolishes the sovereignty of countries around the East Sea and goes on the contrary with the trend of the time (the campaign to struggle for independence for nations after the fascism was defeated). 2) In the long run, it can make a bad precedent for appropriating the rights of free navigation and maritime safety on international sea routes. Other countries (except for China) will have to pay fees or be fined or banned from using international sea routes or air routes, which are controlled by China.

The key point here is the clear difference between international maritime routes and maritime routes in China’s waters. When politic or interest conflicts occur, China can use its control right to ban related countries from traveling in the East Sea, though in principle, China commits maintaining free navigation. This will not happen if China cannot impose its real control on the waters bordered by the U-shape line.

The sovereignty disputes in the East Sea are not a bilateral matter, but the issue of regional and international security. China understands it very clearly and China understands that the US, Japan, West Europe and other superpowers in the world, like Russia and India also know its plot.

This game shows adventure in the strategy that China is pursuing. Carefully analyzing that game will create international agreement to solve the East Sea disputes, which China makes up into “bilateral conflicts” on the “indisputable sovereignty” in which China is the victim.

Now, with heads turning toward the U.S. to be a presence, ask yourself, "What fleet do we need?"

And, make no mistake, this is all about naval power and power projection.