PACOM boss: Plenty of ocean for everybody

PACOM boss: Plenty of ocean for everybody

With Eurosatory over, it’s back to our regularly scheduled programming, and a domain jump from land to sea.

Adm. Samuel Locklear, the head of Pacific Command, told reporters Friday that if every nation tried to be as restrictive in its claims to the ocean as is China — and others, he was careful to add — there wouldn’t be much water left open to everyone else.

Here’s what he said in answer to a question at the Pentagon:


There are countries that place excessive claims and excessive restrictions not consistent with international law and the law of the sea — it’s not just China though, there are many. As we look at the future, if you were to take all the world’s economic zones and put the same restrictions … you would basically restrict about 35 percent of the world’s oceans. Every major sea line of communication, every major strait, would fall into that and it would globally put all nations concerned with access to the global commons — access to the maritime commons — it would put them, I think, further at risk if these excessive claims aren’t resolved.

I encourage us as we go forward to have this dialogue but we should certainly use this format of law, international law, a format of forums to express those claims, articulate them. There’ll have to be some compromise — you can’t just have continually competing claims that end up causing miscalculation at some point that lead us to conflict — peace is the most important thing. These should be solved peaceably. There’s enough resources about everyone in the world, we just have to be able to solve this adequately.

Locklear said he is planning to visit China soon, at its leaders’ invitation, and he planned to bring this up. Beijing just can’t claim the entire South China Sea as its own private lake, the U.S. insists — you can’t just decide that a coastal nation like Vietnam is suddenly land-locked. Everybody benefits from the trillions of dollars of trade that pass through the neighborhood, so why spoil the party?

What Locklear and other American commanders want is to handle this issue in a dull series of international summits and fora, not in tense standoffs on the high seas. That’s one reason why the Defense Department has renewed its push for the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea convention, so the U.S. will have a “leg to stand on,” as it takes part in these international processes about freedom of navigation.

“By not acceding, we potentially undercut our credibility in a number of Asia-focused multilateral venues,” Secretary Panetta told the Senate last month. “We’re pushing, for example, for a rules-based order in the region and the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes in the South China Sea, the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere.”

But the treaty has been languishing for years and it continues to have powerful opponents. Besides, a skeptic might argue — why would China suddenly give up its regional ambitions just because a few of its neighbors and the United States approached with a big stack of forms to sign?

Whatever happens among the diplomats, Locklear reaffirmed the Pentagon’s belief that it must have its own relationships with its Chinese military counterparts, which both sides ideally could fall back upon in the event of a spike in tensions.

“It’s critical that as China emerges we understand each other; we prevent misevaluation as we go forward,” he said. “We’d certainly like to have our Chinese military counterparts be a positive influence on the security environment.”

Join the Conversation

Besides, a skeptic might argue — why would China suddenly give up its regional ambitions just because a few of its neighbors and the United States approached with a big stack of forms to sign?

Maybe a big stick would work better than forms. Just sayin’.

Not forms it taxes from the Government LOL!!!

Glad to see us return to the US original territorial are of interest, the Pacific. Overall the US is wasting money on land based program our navy and large portions of the USAF need to be upgraded and modernized far more than the Army ever needs. While some LA class subs do well this day and age the fact hat there only 2 newer Sea-wolfs and only a handful of Virgina’s in service show wee need to upgraded many and get more subs into service.

Good comments and outlook taken by Adm Locklear, regarding plenty of Ocean for everyone…

Freedom of Navigation and International Maritime Law is straight forward too, and need not be blown out of proportion, or exercise at the cost or implied ‘humiliation’ or threat of and to others.

If the U.S. made claims on land we used to control, I am pretty sure we would be in control of a part of Beijing

When is the Navy going to close Sasebo? Its an easy target for the Chinese, as an article in G2mil points out.

Benjamin,

That’s really going to far and isn’t even necessary to throw out for discussion. It’s much more simple. It’s simply about Freedom of Navigation and International Maritime Law. That’s it. And if there’s a dispute, take it to arbitration. Both sides today are mature enough to do that, thankfully, and I think it’s a sign of the times that we can achieve such peaceful, negotiated agreements based on law, cooperation and arbitration. It’s a win win win all around really and isn’t a compromise on any interests on any side, a loss of freedom of navigation, or a humiliation to any side.

You’d be surprised, dan. Just about anything is ‘an easy target’ if they put their mind to it, for a major power today. Now just imagine in 10–15 years from now how easy, ‘easy targets’ will be.

So just about anything such as the point of interest you noted there truly isn’t about debating whether or not such a place can survive an all-out strike, as being some sort of litmus test to determine whether or not it should be closed, but rather it’s about being a show of presence first and an important symbolic demonstration of continued support for an ally… but it can also be effectively turned into a diplomatic test and potential asset for proactive negotiations for a win win opportunity down when the time presents itself.

China greed is unsatiable, Beijing won’t just claim the entire South China Sea as its own private lake, they want half of the Pacific Ocean, Australia, and Russia Siberia as their own properties to sustain their expansion and new breeding grounds.

The U.S. government has implicated China in several cyber attacks on U.S. military and industrial systems, the Chinese have engaged in repeated confrontations with U.S. naval vessels in international waters, they have forced down and captured an American military aircraft, and so on. These are not the acts of a country that also believes there is plenty of ocean to go around. This is a country that is actively engaged in acquiring huge amounts of ocean and, so far, is succeeding. The U.S. in is danger of one day realizing that it has already happened while we were busy negotiating.

The U.S. should, by all means, continue to negotiate and hope for the best but we need to remember that the most successful negotiations occur from a position of strength. The U.S. military should vigorously exercise its rights of passage and provide strong support for the various countries that are coming into conflict with China’s aspirations.

ComNavOps http://​navy​-matters​.blogspot​.com

That’s easy for you to say, but for countries surrounding the SC Sea it’s a matter of life or death. Ever since China published its so-called 9-segment, cow-tongue map of the SC Sea claiming nearly 80% of the total sea surface, they have been aggressively persecuting area fishermen who had been plying their trade for generations. They also harassed and bullied research vessels, including non-military vessels, that traverse within the economic zone of the concerned countries. What will happen when China gain total control of the SC Sea?

Naive imbeciles. Like China is going to obey a law or agreement. They make their own rules.

China claims the entire South China Sea just as United States claim the entire Western hemisphere as her own backyard (ie. Monroe Doctrine)… if there was a sea called “Sea of America”, you’d bet America would claim preeminence in that area of the woods too.

China is Afghanistan? 60 years ago, we stalled US at Korean. Nowadays, even your fake missile chips were labelled ‘made in china’. How are you going to fight?
Moron…

The same old “blame America first”, “American Imperialism” that the left is famous for. Such BS. When’s the last time we enforced the Monroe doctrine? We “claim” the Western hemisphere? Yep, lotta good that’s doing in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Equador. You might want to crack a book or read up on the latest developments comparing China’s claims and ours (I know of NONE). Start with the Spratly Islands and compare it against Brazil’s drilling in the gulf.

BTW, ever heard of the Gulf of MEXICO?

Wow for a military beaurocrat with lots of time on his hands you seem to have read nothing. How many times does it have to be explained that the fact you have “never heard” of something is only proof of your ignorance. Take a class or something.

Whats happening in the philippines right now — well the Chinese have said that there will be a lot fewer tourists visiting this year. That has a real cost to an fragile economy. The Phillippines government has asked us for a donation to make up the difference but let them know we are just there to create problems not fix them.

Meanwhile Thailand wants to let the Chinese use the base we are trying to setup there — so that there is no preception of pro-US bias by the Chinese.

It smacks of desperation that we are now claiming that laws we havent ratified for decades are now important in defending a socialist disctatorship’s exports to China that we are willing to kill Americans to see it carried out. Or is it Chinese access to cheap middle east oil that we are defending ? — it’s hard to tell with the muddled thinking and chanting of please god give us an enemy that we cant fight (ie that isnt an Afghan farmer) going on.

All China has a lot of presence in Afgfrica these days. All has to do is see that a few Affrican expacts get the necessary resources for a terrorist attack on the CONUS and the whole pacifc “strategy” will collapse like a hot air balloon.

According to the Thai General in change of regional relationships we have asked Phillippines, Thailand and Vietnam for bases and have been turned down. He went on to say:

“Endorsement of a US request would become an unwarranted invitation for a US showdown with China that would irritate it’s Asean nighbours and sour the good relations between Thailand and China”.

Fine, it’s a two way street. Keep all those freighters filled with cheap crap out of our waters. Losing millions a day for China and creating jobs in this country.…..sounds like a fair trade!

What will China gain for total control of SC sea?

1. Coral harvesting which is going on.…they have mother ships on anchor while the baby boats are all over the area harvesting corals..
2..Sea turtles
3. Endangered fishes

Nah..these stuffs are insignificant..who cares about corals and sea turtles and endangeres sea animals.….….….….…

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.