Twitter | Search | |
Greg Poling
Director of & Fellow with . Tweets on other topics as they strike my fancy. All opinions my own. RTs≠endorsements.
7,929
Tweets
1,285
Following
7,295
Followers
Tweets
Greg Poling 23h
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling 23h
1994 redux. Kim Dae-jung's criticism of "Asian values" is as true now as it was then.
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 24
Well worth reading
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 24
The clam harvesting vessel at Scarborough Shoal is a strange choice of images.
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 24
Even Mark Valencia is admitting Chinese fishers around Thitu are actually maritime militia. That's a reversal of months of denials. But credit where it's due for admitting the evidence is now overwhelming
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 24
Replying to @BDHerzinger @AsiaMTI
And then there's my plan to retire and sell vintage spyglasses from a shop in Palawan, which I will obviously call the "Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative"
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 24
Replying to @BDHerzinger @AsiaMTI
Not to mention my series of overly-detailed treatises on maritime law, "TMI from "
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 24
Replying to @BDHerzinger
That might get in the way of my planned public opinion surveys "Polling by Poling"
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling retweeted
Max Walden May 23
“[Prabowo] wants to step up the chaos in order to create the impression that there is a true uprising against the alleged electoral manipulations. Of course, there is no such uprising.” via
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
The President may waive sanctions for countries recognizing Chinese sovereignty, but there is no waiver authority regarding the sanctions on Chinese entities. That's where the bill will definitely need to be modified before any president would ratify. END.
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
The bill also bans most assistance to countries that recognize Chinese sovereignty over contested territory or airspace (oddly it says nothing about waters) in the SCS or ECS after the passage of the bill. So those like Pakistan which have already do so are grandfathered in.
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
That list of 24 is not exhaustive, and most of those that would be sanctioned for illegal and destabilizing activities aren't on it, incl. those behind the maritime militia & poaching rings. Those would be the hardest to identify but have a big impact.
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
Sec State would be required to submit a report to Congress & public on entities to be sanctioned. The bill lists 24 Chinese entities that must be reviewed. Most relate to dredging, construction, oil & gas (CCCC Dredging, CHEC, CNPC, CNOOC) along w/ aerospace & shipping
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
In the 2 years since the language was drafted, China has undertaken 2 of the 7 triggering actions: it deployed surface-to-air missiles to the Spratlys and increased harassment of Philippine vessels. So do these sanctions on banks happen automatically if the bill passes now?
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
The bill would activate sanctions against financial institutions that work w/ sanctioned Chinese entities if China takes any of 7 additional destabilizing actions listed. In 2017, this might have served a deterrent effect. But...
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
But it would be better if the text made reference to sanctioning entities engaged in activities that violate intl law including the 2016 arbitral award. This would be a less capricious standard that would cover most of the same activities & be more likely to garner intl support
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
More useful is the less-specific language sanctioning any Chinese citizen engaged in activities that "threaten the peace, security, or stability" of contested areas of the SCS or ECS. This could include activities like militia operations & poaching not expressly listed.
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
But the bill's language () has problems. It calls for sanctioning any Chinese citizen "that contributes to construction or development projects" in areas contested by an SEA claimant. That's a double-standard; most other claimants would fail that standard.
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
Targeted sanctions against Chinese entities engaged in illegal activities in the SCS are warranted. It's absurd that the US and partners have (rightly) sanctioned Russian entities for illegal acts in Crimea/eastern Ukraine, but haven't done the same for Chinese bad actors
Reply Retweet Like
Greg Poling May 23
Replying to @GregPoling
This is way overdue. The SCS disputes have no military solutions, yet WH & State have left DOD to try to run SCS policy w/ purely military tools. Sustained, multinational diplomatic & economic pressure, backed by mil deterrence, are the only hope of altering Beijing's calculus.
Reply Retweet Like