Sunday, June 21, 2015

It's Official: America Has a China-Containment Policy





I conclude:







The United States has consistently looked for pretexts of varying quality to justify the South China Sea containment strategy.  It started with a threat to US naval operations off China; then switched to concern over a PRC regional threat to “freedom of navigation” based on a “core interest” formulation; now, as the Yomiuri piece indicates, we’re inching pretty close to the “PRC SCS activities represent an existential threat to the United States homeland” justification.
Yeah, that kinda looks like threat inflation, doesn’t it?  Let’s go, step by step.
First, into the Wayback Machine to July 2010 and my original “containment” post, two years before the “prioritization” cited by DuPont.  We materialize in the tastefully appointed offices of Time magazine:


Friday, July 09, 2010
It's Official: America Has a China-Containment Policy













Ah, good times.  Again, a reminder.  That’s from 2010, not 2015. 

This 2010 display of American muscularity was triggered, not by PRC aggrandizement in the never never land of the South China Sea’s Nine Dash Line, but by the PRC’s efforts to regulate US military activities in the PRC’s universally-recognized EEZ surrounding Hainan Island, the site of a PLA Navy strategic (i.e. carrying nuclear missiles) submarine base in 2009.

The Chinese government had started harassing the US survey vessels, employing non-PLAN ships to engage in chicken-of-the-sea close approaches to the vessels and their tow lines and pitching floating debris in their path.  In one infamous incident in 2009, PRC vessels subjected the crew of the USNS Impeccable to the spectacle of Chinese sailors stripping to their undergarmnets in response to a warning spray from a water cannon.

The US response to the Chinese challenge was multi-faceted.

Immediately, the US dispatched the destroyer USN Chung-Hoon to escort the Impeccable.

Although the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which defines acceptable EEZ activities, the US Navy exhaustively and persuasively parsed the treaty to claim that, through a combination of loopholes, intentional omissions, and determined interpretation, there is nothing in it to preclude military surveillance in the EEZ, even of a sort that might—by teaching the US navy how to detect and identify surreptitious Chinese nuclear-armed subs and nullify the sea leg of China’s deterrent—prejudice China’s security.  The canonical expression of the US position fell to Raul (Pete) Pedrozo, now a retired US Navy Judge Advocate who served in US Pacific Command.  His Close Encounters at Sea: The USNS Impeccable Incident appeared in the Summer 2009 Naval War College Review.

As Captain Pedrozo’s brief makes clear, the United States’ real concern has always been military freedom of the seas, not civilian freedom of navigation.  “FoS” involves more than sailing through somebody else’s EEZ in transit; it involves conducting purely military operations that have no commercial or scientific dimension (which would invoke the economic rights of the EEZ claimant): shooting off guns for practice, conducting training maneuvers and, most importantly, conducting surveillance, maybe mapping the sea floor for classified military charts and maybe tracking the PRC’s submarine strategic deterrent.

It’s worth pointing out that, in contrast to the insistence of the United States on absolute, undiluted FoS, key US allies in the region, including India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam all seek to impose limits on military FoS in a variety of matters relating to transit or exercises within their EEZs; and even the Philippines has expressed reservations. 
As a matter of geopolitics, asserting America’s right to disregard the bleatings of weaker coastal states about military activities in their EEZs that degrade their national security is not an intuitively popular product.

And, for that matter, the navy second most likely to exercise its FoS rights to operate inside the EEZs of suspicious and aggrieved nations surrounding the South China Sea is the PLA Navy; so it is perhaps understandable that “Freedom of the Seas” for military vessels was not a surefire propaganda point.

Indeed, it is noteworthy that the PRC apparently conceded the US point by reciprocally sending its surveillance ship to shadow the RIMPAC get-together within the Hawaiian EEZ in 2014.  

So it isn’t too surprising that the U.S. subsequently shelved its resentments concerning PRC obstructionism in its EEZ to military surveillance in favor a more promising and enduring point of contention: that U.S. diplomats were disturbed by the PRC’s elevation of the South China Sea to a “core interest” during meetings in Beijing in March 2010 in the run-up to the Iran UN sanctions process.

For the PRC, an important purpose of the March meeting was to gain the Obama administration’s acknowledgement of Tibet and Taiwan as China’s traditional “core interests”—something that the United States had deliberately if obliquely called into question as part of the campaign to pressure China to join the Iran sanctions process, by President Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama and raising the issue of arms sales to Taiwan.  

It would not seem to be the time for the PRC to try to throw a new core interest—as in an existential issue worth going to war for-- into the mix.

However, China’s “core interests” was originally a defensive formulation reflecting conditions in the 1970s, when the PRC was a Maoist basket case struggling to maintain order within its own borders, an insignificant presence in international trade and security, terrified of a war with the Soviet Union, and looking for a concrete US commitment not to shake two rather rickety pillars of its territorial and national sovereignty claims—Tibet and Taiwan.

In 2010, with China the second-largest economy on the planet and continually and deeply engaged with the world security and economic order, the PRC leadership apparently thought that the time was ripe for the “core interest” concept to receive a conceptual upgrade and tried to roll out the product during the discussions leading up to the decision to join the UN Iran sanctions-writing exercise.

In  2011, the New York Times’ Edward Wong—who first reported the core interest story in 2010—followed up on the “South China Sea is a core interest” puzzle with China Hedges Over Whether South China Sea is ‘Core Interest’ Worth War. 

It looks like State Councilor and foreign affairs point person Dai Bingguo had by 2009 apparently repurposed the phrase “core interests” as away from  “existential interests demanding every form of protection up to and including war” to “important stuff”, specifically, in Wong’s words, “maintaining its political system, defending its sovereignty claims and promoting its economic development”.  

In other words, perhaps “core interests” are national priorities in which the PRC desires US understanding and forbearance in an environment of peaceful coexistence, not existential red lines to be defended at any cost in a state of crisis.  

Points of contention like the South China Sea are “linked to” and defined by their significance to overarching Chinese core interests—primarily territorial sovereignty—but are not core interests in and of themselves.

Perhaps the Chinese intention was to make lemonade out of the lemons of US-China rancor, and bargain for US acknowledgement of a new formula of “core interests”, one that would include American acceptance of Chinese fiddling in the South China Sea, in return for PRC support on Iran sanctions.

If this was an attempt by the PRC to achieve some kind of backroom understanding with the US on the South China Sea issue, it backfired.  Instead, South China Sea issues were brought to the forefront as a Chinese vulnerability to be exploited, not accommodated.  Per the NYT:

By spring 2010, it appeared to some American officials that some Chinese officials were pushing beyond the standard sovereignty claims, calling the South China Sea a “core interest”.  In a November interview with The Australian, Mrs. Clinton said Dai Bingguo, the senior foreign policy official in the Chinese government, told her that at a summit meeting in May 2010.

“I immediately responded and said, ‘We don’t agree with that,’” Mrs. Clinton said, though some scholars in the United States and China question whether Mr. Dai made the remark.

Well, if Hillary Clinton says it happened…maybe it happened…kinda.  Judging from her skewed account of something I know a lot about—the Copenhagen climate summit debacle—in Hard Choices, I tend to regard Clinton’s public pronouncements with a degree of skepticism.  

It may have been somewhat dishonest for the U.S. to twist the PRC’s “core interest” reformulation into a Chinese war-whoop, but in 2010 the United States was looking for advantageous points of contention, not avoiding them.

There were ample opportunities for anti-China mischief in the South China Sea, thanks largely to China’s high-handed management of its disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines.

The real issues in the South China Sea—at least before bottling up two PLAN strategic missile subs was defined as an existential issue for American and its allies, at least as far as Yomiuri is concerned-- are remote to the United States and its security posture.  They relate to islands—territorial disputes--and the fishery and hydrocarbon resources surrounding them.

Over the last few years, most of the claimants have been migrating toward the definitions enshrined in the Law of the Sea treaty a.k.a. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS and its provision of a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, in order to define their claims in the South China Sea.

China, on the other hand, has clung to its ridiculous “nine dash line” a.k.a. the “cow tongue” (see below), which exists only as a notional boundary drawn on a piece of paper in Beijing, has never been surveyed, and runs roughshod over the borders as they would be defined if drawn according to the stipulations of the Law of the Sea treaty.

Successive US administrations have been unable to ratify the Law of the Sea treaty thanks to the sovereignty-related concerns of conservatives in the U.S. Senate.  Nevertheless, the U.S. adheres to the principles of the treaty, at least as it chooses to interpret it, and supports its application to the South China Sea.

In a perfect world, the UNCLOS boundaries would look something like this (the blue lines):

Unfortunately, it isn’t a perfect world.  The South China Sea is speckled with troublesome outcroppings like “the Spratlys”, “the Paracels”, “the Scarborough Shoal”, etc. (the grey dots).

According to UNCLOS, a habitable island confers significant advantages on its owner, chief among them the right to claim a 200 nautical mile  EEZ around the island.  A land feature that manages to stay dry at high tide but is not habitable gets a 12 mile territorial zone, but no EEZ.  Permanently underwater features, in which the South China Sea abounds, count for zip, even if dredgers build artificial islands on top of them.

The most pressing problem is that for decades everybody, not just China, has been claiming habitable and uninhabitable islands and reclaiming atolls that reside inside other people’s hypothetical EEZs.  And UNCLOS, understandably, does not automatically assign an island’s sovereignty to the nation whose EEZ would envelope it.

For instance, the South China Seas issue is muddied not only by China, the Philippines, and Vietnam; Taiwan maintains a coast guard force on its outpost at Itu Aba (area 0.49 km2, 1000 miles from the southernmost port on Taiwan, Kaohsiung), is expanding its airstrip and building a port, and sends a submarine to the island every once in a while to demonstrate its ongoing interest and resolve.  Malaysia has also claimed a few islands.

Which means, the map of claimed island sovereignty in the South China Seas looks like this:

Since the maritime claims of the various players, not just China, have historically followed their island possessions and also their irredentist claims, that map looks like this:

As can be seen, the PRC is not the only offender.  Vietnam uses its past control of the Paracel Islands—which China seized in 1974 in a much-resented incident—to assert a South China Sea claim almost as extensive as China’s.

However, since 2009 several of the key claimants, most notably Vietnam and the Philippines have started to rationalize their positions by defining baselines for their EEZs in filings with the UN according to UNCLOS—and guided by the awareness that many of the most valuable hydrocarbon reserves are near-shore and will benefit from multilateral definition and acceptance of the 200 mile EEZ.

So far, China has been the odd man out, vociferously asserting its prerogatives over almost the entire South China Sea, coastlines and islands be damned—including the central area which falls outside anybody’s EEZ and is an international maritime resource according to UNCLOS—on the basis of the anachronistic nine-dash-line.

The United States contemplated China’s territorial and diplomatic over-extension, considered the fact that the US had no territorial standing in the area, was not a member of the relevant regional grouping, ASEAN, and not a signatory to the relevant multilateral agreement, UNCLOS, and the limited diplomatic and public relations effectiveness of advocating for “military freedom of the seas” and settled on an awkward but usable pretext for making hay in the South China Sea: “freedom of navigation”.

It can be said that the overt “Pivot to Asia” actually debuted with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement of US interest in the South China Sea issue at the ASEAN foreign ministers conference in July 2010:

[W]e have a national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime domain, the maintenance of peace and stability, and respect for international law in the South China Sea. 

As the US initiative (concocted in cooperation—or as the Chinese government memorably characterized it, cahoots with Japan’s Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara, architect of the first Senkaku confrontation) gained traction, the Chinese government responded with genuine alarm and fury, viewing the injection of the US and Japan into its South China Sea arguments with its smaller ASEAN neighbors as on the pretext of “Freedom of Navigation” unnecessary, unjustified, malicious, and destabilizing.

The PRC has fulminated against the US playing of the “Freedom of Navigation” card, with good reason.

For one thing, “freedom of navigation”, for civilian vessels at least, is the closest thing to a bedrock value for all the Asian nations including China.

The PRC has continually affirmed freedom of navigation for commercial vessels transiting its territorial waters and has traditionally relied on adherence to this international convention, and not on an overbearing naval presence, to protect its own vessels—at least up to now.

As to the critical nature of freedom of navigation through the South China Sea to the world economy, that is true…if the linchpin of the world economy is understood to be China, as I have discussed.  Many times.  

To the PRC, the nation which has shown the most conspicuous interest in compromising freedom of navigation is actually the United States, the world’s naval hyperpower, which has made efforts under Presidents Bush and Obama (vehemently opposed by China at the United Nations) to expand the reach of the Proliferation Security Initiative (which would legalize third-party search-and-seizure of vessels on the open seas in pursuit of WMD cargos).




For another, the PRC had already backed down on the military “freedom of the seas” issue—the “freedom of navigation” that really concerned the US military, and US military vessels and aircraft were operating in the SCS pretty much unchallenged.

The signal, as the Chinese probably received it, was that the United States less concerned with the resolution of multilateral disputes in the South China Sea or ensuring freedom of navigation than it was in asserting the US right to hunt panda inside China’s EEZ and within the murky confines of the Nine-Dash-Line, and egging on the smaller states surrounding the South China Sea, especially the Philippines and Vietnam, to defy the PRC instead of continuing to participate in the bilateral negotiation cum chain-yanking exercise under the ASEAN aegis.

I, by the way, contend, to the fury of some observers, I must admit, that the US State Department under Kurt Campbell, the pivot progenitor, tag teamed with the Philippines’ China-hawk foreign minister, Alberto Del Rosario, to blow up efforts of the PRC and President Aquino to set up a bilateral resolution back channel in late 2012 that would undermine the nascent anti-PRC united front in the South China Sea.  My irritatingly facty breakdown is found here.

In January of 2013, the Philippines turned its back (again) on the PRC’s preferred bilateral process,  declined to put its eggs in the tattered ASEAN basket, and formally requested that the UNCLOS Arbitrational Tribunal invalidate the PRC’s nine-dash-line claim.  

Cleverly, the Philippines (and its US lawyers) decided to set aside the intractable territorial issues and base its case on seeking affirmation of its superior EEZ maritime rights over the PRC’s claim, laying the groundwork for a state of affairs where the PRC is struggling to assert sovereignty and claim habitability (and EEZs) over a few specks of land inside a Philippine EEZ that will be universally accepted (except by the PRC)…and laying the foundation for unrestricted Philippine exploitation of a potentially game-changing (at least for the revenues of the Philippine government) hydrocarbon play within its EEZ at Reed Bank.

Not so cleverly, perhaps, during the same period the PRC sailed its behemoth semi-submersible drilling rig, the HSYS981, into the South China Sea with an escort flotilla to yank Vietnam’s chain (perhaps as part of an effort to vaunt its de facto control over the Paracels), and make a spectacle of the impotence of the United States (the view which has now become the official orthodoxy)…

…or (alternative history) to try to pursue a “sequenced bilateralism” strategy for resolving the South China Sea issue.  The HYSY 981 gambit was presented by the PRC at the time as an interesting proposition drawing on the PRC’s interpretation of its UNCLOS, not Nine-Dash-Line prerogatives.

Looking back, it seems likely that the PRC possibly made its move believing that the Obama Asia team and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel were tired of the SCS brouhahaha.  If the US took a hands-off position and Vietnamese could be persuaded to fold, well then the Philippines would inevitably follow suit.  Peace would then break out in the South China Sea…and the China hawks would be deprived of their best, most advantageous opportunity for confrontation and escalation.

With the China hawk in full screech today, hard to believe we could have been anywhere else a year ago.  But…

I will probably bore my readership to tears by quoting at length en toto a piece I wrote in 2014 on the oil rig crisis.  But it is interesting to document a "might have been" alternative to the 9DL contretemps, and it is quite amazing to document the sea change in US government PRC policy that occurred in a few months from when I wrote the article until the Hagel reign at DoD, to use a landlubber’s parlance, went tits up:


Saturday, May 31, 2014

A Quiet Revolution in the South China Sea

Is the PRC Ditching the Nine Dash Line?









































Well, Vietnam sure didn’t fold, President Aquino of the Philippines signed on as a full-fledged China hawk, and the PRC’s “divide and conquer” dreams are, for now at least, in tatters.  As are the hopes of the China moderates, only represented in the administratiion I think by Lonely Joe Biden now that his buddy Chuck Hagel was pushed out of the Defense Department.

The Chuck Hagel years (Feb 2013-15) are a sore point for US hawks, and perhaps explain why they like to date the South China Sea crisis to 2012 and a period of accommodation/appeasement/common sense during which the PRC ran amok in the South China Sea, and not 2010 when the carnival really started.

In an end-2013 piece on the South China Sea, Bull In The China Shop, Professor Pedrozo, the legal muse for China hawks in the navy,  (now at the US Naval War College, the go-to institution for US SCS lawfare) gave full rein to his China hawk side.  Beginning with an epigraph from Franklin Roosevelt, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him”,  and concluding with an exhortation to America, with its allies, to “stand up to Chinese brinkmanship before it is too late”, Pedrozo’s piece is also remarkable for the venom it displays toward then Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, PACCOM’s Admiral Locklear, and the Obama China team for its caution/appeasement in dealing with the PRC on the Cowpens incident, the East China Sea ADIZ, and the tussle over Scarborough Shoal.

A key event in 2014 was a speech given in February by a key Navy insider and China hawk, Captain James Fanell to a US Naval Institute conference, in which he stated: 


Maybe bullshit, as in Fanell seizing on the  “everybody has a warplan for every contingency” thing to make China-bashing hay.  But the key element was that Captain Fannel was the head of intelligence for PACCOM…and he had gone off rez.

And he had gone off rez at the same time that Secretary Hagel was prepping for a make-nice trip with the PRC.





And Fanell’s speech to an obscure conference about East Asian hypotheticals miraculously received the widest possible attention in the non-specialist media.

Fanell was reassigned i.e. demoted in November 2014 (took a while, didn’t it?  Admiral Harris, at the time the nominated but not yet confirmed Commander, Pacific Command, promoted from Commander, Pacific Fleet [and Fanell’s boss], did the dirty, perhaps as a condition of his new employment). 

Navy Times reported:

Fanell's views have supporters inside naval intelligence, and he has become a high-profile spokesman for a more alarmist view of the rise of China than those espoused by Navy senior leadership, an intelligence source who spoke to Navy Times said. Fanell's articles on China have been published by Hoover Digest, Naval Intelligence Professionals Quarterly and the U. S. Naval Institute's Proceedings.

So Fanell was gone, but guess what?  Two weeks later, Hagel was gone as well!

Supposedly Hagel was booted because he wasn’t up to the IS challenge, but I wonder.  I’m not alone.  Per US News & World Reports at the announcement of Hagel’s involuntary retirement:

“I can’t figure out what he did to merit being voted off the island,” says Eric Edelman, who until 2009 served as the undersecretary of defense for policy, essentially the No. 3 position at the Pentagon. 

 “He gave them the strategy and the budget they asked for and wanted,” Edelman says. The White House has planned for a military drawdown after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a reset toward a renewed presence in the Pacific. “I understand there were a few occasions when he may have leaned a little too far forward on his skis with regards to ISIS. But it’s kind of hard to figure out what it is they found lacking in his performance.”

US Middle East policy in 2015 is, for lack of a better term, still totally for sh*t under Ash Carter and still characterized by conflicted flailing and an utter unwillingness by the US uniformed forces to re-embrace the jihadi tar baby, a sentiment that Hagel shared completely, but Asia policy…well, galloping along in the new hawkish direction.

Fanell retired too, but his January 31, 2015 retirement party was pretty much a victory lap and a sounding of the China threat tocsin.  In his farewell speech, Fanell said:

[T]he Communist Party of China’s designs stand in direct contrast to espoused U.S. national security objectives of freedom of navigation and free access to markets for all of Asia. 

This not only threatens our own national security, but is also very clearly upsetting the entire Asia Pacific region has enjoyed for over 70 years. 

The challenge, as I have seen it, is for intelligence professionals to make the case, to tell the truth and to convince national decision and policy makers to realize that China’s rise, if left unchecked or undeterred, will necessarily disrupt the peace and stability of our friends, partners and allies.  We should not have to wait for an actual shooting war to start before we acknowledge there is a problem and before we start taking serious action.  The “Rebalance” is a good first step forward, but it must be backed up with a real, tangible deterrent force and we must stand-up to Beijing’s propaganda and bullying campaign, especially those that come at the expense of our allies and partners.

To continue the synchronicity of Hagel & Fanell’s careers, Hagel’s retirement ceremony took place three days earlier and was, we can say, shrouded in defeat & failure:

A senior Pentagon official told NBC News at the time that Hagel was asked to step down because the president no longer had confidence in his ability to lead the military as it struggled to defeat Islamic extremists waging war in the Middle East.

'He wasn’t up to the job,' the official said. 


Today Earnest's stand-in, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, said 'friction' between the White House and the Pentagon is 'something that predates this administration.'

Schultz said the White House believes it has 'good relationships with the military leaders.'


With Hagel gone, the US on track to extract new defense guidelines from Japan, and with the DoD in the hands of the China hawks, it was clear to the PRC it was time to make hay while the sun shone and get its facts on the water for a prolonged period of China containment struggle, one that might endure for the next decade factoring in the possibility of two terms for Hillary Clinton.

The PRC refused to participate in the Philippine arbitration proceeding, and instead embarked upon a crash island-reclamation program in the South China Sea, perhaps digging in its heels in anticipation of a ruling, expected to come down in 2016, that will probably not go well for the PRC.  UNCLOS has no enforcement mechanism, but once it comes down China will only have recourse to its own intransigence (fueled by its resentment of the Philippines’ US-backed defiance) to sustain its claim.  And it will conceivably face demands of the international community led by the United States that it vacate various features—like reclamation hot button Fiery Cross Reef—that were apparently  constructed on top of below-water features inside the Philippine EEZ (though the PRC may be prepared to engage in some creative marine geology to assert the contrary) and enjoy no sovereign rights under UNCLOS.

Currently, China hawks are asserting their ascendancy in the key Asia-Pacific states of Japan, the Philippines, and Australia, and working to escalate the crisis so that the resolve of the various claimants to confront the PRC does not waver in the face of Chinese threats, blandishments, or a general unwillingness to go to war on behalf of the Philippines.

The PRC is ballyhooing an agreement it made with Vietnam on June 21, at what expense can only be imagined, to handle their disputes bilaterally but Vietnam is probably savoring the pleasure of hoisting the PRC on a cleft stick and will find good reasons to concurrently give aid and comfort to the US and Philippines in their SCS activities.

We’re approaching the culmination of a five-year effort to effect a containment strategy against the PRC in the South China Sea, albeit one with a two year hiccup of moderation; not the anxious, belated reaction of the United States that the PRC decided to float an oil rig or build an island in some remote sea.

And, if the DoD follows the Yomiuri line and declares that PRC sub activities in the SCS are an existential threat, then the China-containment cat’s fully and completely out of the bag.

Reuters presented the Chinese view on the occasion of the Shangri La conference of defense ministers in May 2013:

A Chinese military think-tank, the Centre for National Defence Policy, said this week the U.S. pivot to Asia had "shattered" the relative calm of the South China Sea.

"While the conditions do not yet exist for a large-scale armed clash, the dispute is becoming normalised and long-term ... and ineffective management may lead to a serious crisis," the report said, according to the China News Service.

Of course, nowadays (in 2015) “a serious crisis” may look more like a feature than a bug in the South China Sea to the United States. 



Andrea Ostrov Letania said...

Goodbye Europe.

It's interesting.

One of the great narratives of the West is the evil of the slave trade.

Yet, we don't see a single black descendant of the slave trade trying to return to Africa.

Instead, we see Africans whose ancestors were not sold as slaves(and, if anything, whose ancestors captured and sold slaves to whites and Arabs) risking their lives in rickety boats to go to Europe/West to live amongst white people.

It's as if the greater injustice had been perpetrated on blacks who were not captured and sold into slavery to the West. And those blacks now use unsafe ships to come to the West and to live under white governance.

By the way, many people seem to overlook the sexual dimension to this.

Just about 99% of the men in the photos are MEN.

Why is this? Isn't Africa filled with poor women as well as poor men?

So, why are all the refugees men and not women?

Could there be a Joe Buck factor(Midnight Cowboy)? Or Joe Black?

In MIDNIGHT COWBOY, Joe Buck the Texan is sure that NY urban men are a bunch of fruits or pansies and NY women are just dying for a tall Texan like himself as sex mate.

In today's age, even Africans have access to the internet and pop culture. They must have seen Hollywood movies with interracial couples(usually black male and white female). They must have seen rap music videos with Negro studs and white chicks. They must have seen interracial porn where black men dominate over white men and take white women. They must have seen the Kardashians. They must have seen sports where blacks dominate the field and are treated as gods in both US and Europe. They must have noticed and heard that the #1 sex tourism destiny for European women is black Africa. Rates of STD have gone up among British women because of this sex tourism.

So, a lot of black African men may feel like Joe Buck or Joe Black, racially and sexually superior to white men who are now PC-brainwashed geeks or dorks who always apologize about 'white privilege'. They may have the impression that European men are a bunch of pansies and fruits. White men can no longer pleasure their women, therefore white women now prefer the superior Negro over the wussy white guy.

So, a kind of Midnight Cowboy or Midnight Mandingo mentality might be at work in what is happening. I mean just think about it.

99% or more of the 'migrants' you see in photos are MEN, not women.

When it comes to the US-Mex border, it's not just the men. Mex women also come here to find work in restaurants or as nannies. Maybe more men come, but plenty of women come too, which is why so many Mex migrant men and Mex migrant women have lots of children.

The Vietnamese Boat People crisis was also about men AND women, not just the men.

But when we look at Africa and Europe, it is a Male Invasion. So, it would be dishonest to overlook the sexual dimension of this.

And since white European women are into rap music and hip hop culture(and interracist Hollywood movies), they might like the idea of a Europe teeming with big Negroes. Or maybe it's just PC brainwashing. Or maybe they are like the Eternals in ZARDOZ who, having been cocooned in safety and prosperity for so long, have no idea what is happening. Because it's a disaster worse than the Fall of Rome.

Rome was invaded by whites, and those whites could eventually become civilized and advanced, indeed more so than Southern Europeans.

But as Europe fills up with Joe Blacks, it's gonna be one big hell hole.

It is the suicide of Europe but also the cuckolding and rape of Europe.

The fact that US, the most powerful nation on Earth, twice elected a black guy must also encourage blacks to make the horny journey. And Obama is a what? A product of an African male sexually conquering a white woman.

Don Bacon said...

I wouldn't be too concerned about what the US could or might do in SCS. Ash Carter is a physicist who knows (regarding politics) a little bit about everything and a lot about nothing, and is no match for China which is toying with the US, which is easy when the US is Carter whose last pronouncement was that all SE Asia nations should stop improving islands in the South China Sea. Hah. Good luck on that, chum.

Generally, nobody in the US gives a damn.

Su Su said...


aneta qurdadze said...


Friv4 Games Online said...


Jenny Daring said...

gmail sign in | create a Gmail account

Mellisa Cooper said...

food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
food near me
restaurants nearby
chinese food near me
food near me
mcdonalds near me
places to eat near me
restaurants near me

Alice Denny said...

Big Farm | Slitherio | Tank Trouble
Happy Wheels | Goodgeme Empire |

Cute Soc said...

gun mayhem | can your pet
learn to fly | happy wheels
tank trouble 3

Blogger said...


Anonymous said...

zoxy games |
friv 10 games | friv games | friv 100 play

Bảo Gia said...

Wonderful post, really great tips and advice.
friv 3 games
friv 4 school
kizi 2

Blogger said...


Blogger said...

Listen Online: Sprinter - True Lya Lya (Electronic Music)

Blogger said...


Professional trading signals delivered to your cell phone every day.


Blogger said...

right away...


Blogger said...


Blogger said...


Friv games for Kids said...

Feel free to visit my website, you can play
Shellshock Live
Kizi4 school

Unknown said...

Obat Penyembuh Kutil Kelamin Tradisional 
bagaimana mengobati gatal karena eksim
Ciri-Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah Dan Cara Mengobatinya

Pankaj Singh said...

Website Designing Company