China, Russia to Begin Joint Mass Production of New Heavy Helicopter

According to Russian’s report on July 18, China and Russia have jointly developed a new heavy helicopter with takeoff weight between 38.4 to 40.9 metric tons, commercial load between 10 to 15 tons, maximum range of 630 km and speed of 300 km/hour. The helicopter adopts the advanced technology of Russia’s Mi-26 helicopter and is able to operation day and night in all kinds of weather.

Due to conscientious cooperation, it takes only one year to finish the design and resolve all the technological problems since the cooperation development agreement was signed in June 2016 when Russian President Putin visited China.

Russia is in charge of technological investment, proposal of technological suggestions and some specific systems of the helicopter while China is in charge of the design and manufacture of the prototype, test flight, certification and sales.

Mass production of the advanced heavy helicopters will be carried out in China.

Source: “Russia media: Technological problems resolved in China-Russia joint development of heavy helicopter: China is in charge of manufacture” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese)

China Subdues the US with Strategy and Diplomacy

I said in my post “China’s Space Era Strategy Overwhelmingly Superior to US Air-Sea Battle” on June 22:

There is no denial that the US regards China as its top potential enemy. Obama made it very clear that his Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was directed at China.

Obama’s pivot to Asia, in spite of his claim that it was not directed at China, was directed at China. That was clear to everybody.

The US is obsessed with military solution. That is why it maintains an excessive military budget in spite of its shortage of funds for its people’s welfare and its essential but dilapidated infrastructures. Obama’s major approach for his pivot to Asia was to deploy 60% of US military in Asia.

China follows its gifted strategist Sun Tzu’s teachings: Subdue the enemy with strategy is the best of best, with diplomacy the next best, with fighting the third option while with attacking enemy cities the last choice. Its approaches have been strategy and diplomacy.

I have mentioned China’s strategy to enhance its geographical advantages by its construction of artificial islands with three airstrips in the South China Sea and its weapon strategy to develop integrated space and air capabilities for both attack and defense. In addition China has subdued the US with diplomacy.

First, there is the question: Has China really achieved that?

Recently, we have well-known US media’s articles on US losing to China. They, though perhaps do not follow Sun Tzu’s instructions, know well in the conflicts between the US and China, diplomacy is preferred to war.

With such a perspective, they publish articles on US losing to China.

First, Foreign Affair published an article titled “The United States Is Losing Asia to China” by Ely Ratner and Samir Kumar on May 12.

As a senior fellow in China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Ely Ratner is quite an expert on U.S.-China relations, regional security in East Asia, and U.S. national security policy.

There has been no opposition to the article’s views from any heavy-weight experts.

That article was followed by WSJ article “The U.S. Is Losing the Pacific to China” by Ben Bohane on June 7, 2017. US loss is now much larger: not only Asia but the entire Pacific.

Ben Bohane is a photojournalist, author and television producer who has covered Asia and the Pacific islands for the past 25 years. His article shall be taken seriously.

However, the losses referred to in the articles means diplomatic losses not physical losses. Neither the US nor China have Asia or the Pacific as their own.

Mr. Bohane says in his article, “For more than 100 years, the US has viewed the Pacific Ocean as an ‘American lake’”. It is but US view instead of any US claim to the Pacific. China can regard a large area of the South China Sea as its lake as it has drawn a nine-dash line to encircle the area it claims and no one had opposed the line for more than two decades after it has been included in China’s map since 1947.

The US has never drawn any line whether nine-dash or ninety-dash to encircle the Pacific Ocean to support its claim to the Pacific. If it had drawn such a line, it would have encountered fierce opposition from lots of countries.

What Mr. Bohane means is in fact that China is establishing good relations with Pacific island nations while the US has neglected those nations. The island nations have not been US allies or spheres of influence. Nor are they China’s allies or spheres of influence; therefore, the actual situation there is that China has been making efforts to make friends there while the US has done nothing.

In Asia, what Mr. Ratner means in his article is but US loss of Southeast Asia to China. The US has kept Japan and South Korea as its allies. As for South and Central Asia, they have long been Russia’s spheres of influence. China has not substituted its influence for Russia’s. Even if it has, the areas have been lost by Russia instead of US to China.

As for the Middle East in Asia, the US does seem to have been losing it but not to China as China’s influence there remains very much limited.

What we have to discuss is how the US has lost its influence in Asia, especially Russia, Southeast Asia and Pakistan and how China has been gaining influence in Pacific island nations.

What is Sun Tzu’s teachings?

Sun Tzu says, “In the past, those who were skilled in war made themselves invincible first and then waited for the time when the enemy could be defeated. One relies on one’s own for invincibility, but whether one’s enemy can be defeated is determined by the enemy. Therefore, those who are skilled in war are able to make themselves invincible, but unable to make the enemy surely defeatable.

Therefore, those who are skilled in war put themselves in an invincible position and lose no chance of their enemies’ possible loss. Hence, a winning army fights after it has got the opportunity to win while a losing army fights first and then seek victory.

Let’s see what China has done to put itself in an invincible position. China had been improving its relations with Russia, its long-term enemy in history, For quite a long time since it began its reform and opening up it had been making efforts to improve its relations with Russia as it needed a peaceful environment for economic growth. At the same time, Russia had been trying hard to improve its relations with the West. In fact, at that time Russia adopted a political and economic system quite similar to the West. There was hope that Russia might be accepted by the West.

However, the West always has an intention to contain Russia in order to prevent it from becoming a superpower similar to the Soviet Union. After all, Russia is the major part of the Soviet Union.

China’s improvement in its relations with Russia put it in an invincible diplomatic position to prevent the West from sowing discord between Russia and China. However, though both of them felt the pressure from the US to contain them, there has been no breakthrough to establish mutual trust for closer relations, especially an alliance for that.

Then there was Obama’s pivot to Asia and later the West’s street coup that overthrew a pro-Russia Ukrainian government. China exploited the chances for the establishment of an anti-US alliance between China and Russia.

EU and US mistake in their street revolution to bring about regime change in Ukraine gave China the opportunity to entirely win over Russia and made Russia China’s close ally.

In East and Southeast Asia, China has developed economic relations with ASEAN, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand quietly till the relations become so close as to enable China to set up free trade areas with them. Moreover, China has made efforts to grow its market much larger and even larger that no other market can replace China’s.

China has thus established its invincible position in East and Southeast Asia. Its invincible position in Southeast Asia has been strengthened by its willingness to conduct win-win cooperation with other claimants in exploiting the fish and energy resources in the disputed sea areas. Still it could not defeat the US diplomatically there until the US made the mistake to give China the opportunity to win.

In fact, the US must have been very clear that due to ASEAN’s close economic relations with China, it is impossible for the US to make ASEAN join it in containing China.

Still the US made the mistake in instigating the Philippines to file an arbitration and helping it to win the arbitration without military support to impose the arbitration award. That gave China the opportunity to subdue the US with firm posture to defend its sovereignty and interests militarily while making efforts to win over the Philippines with the diplomacy by allowing the Philippines to fish in the area around Scarborough Shoal and promising win-win cooperation in exploiting the resources in the disputed waters.

China’s diplomatic victory in dealing with the Philippines has caused the US to lose the entire Southeast Asia.

The diplomatic victory in Southeast Asia has made the US unable to use any ASEAN member as its base to attack China. Together with the military control of the South China Sea has removed the threat of US attack at China from the South China Sea.

There remains the threat of the US cutting China’s trade lifelines through the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

For the west route, China has launched its Silk Road economic belt and 21st century maritime Silk Road initiative. It has set up land connections with Europe through Russia and Central Asia through the initiative and is now busy building the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor for connection with the Middle East, which is vital for China’s energy imports.

However, in spite of China’s efforts to develop close economic relations with EU, China’s growing influence in eastern Europe has given rise to EU’s concerns as a result, China’s position though quite strong, cannot be regarded as invincible. However, US mistake in dealing with its relations with EU provides China with opportunity for closer times with EU. China owes its diplomatic victory in Europe to US mistake.

Now, China’s trade lifeline through the Pacific remains unsafe. China’s trade with Americas is much smaller than that with EU but American markets especially those in Latin America have great growth potential.

What shall China do?

According to Wall Street Journal’s article “US Is Losing the Pacific to China” on June 23, China has made multibillion-dollar investments throughout the islands of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia is offering critical infrastructure projects, sending lots of tourists there and providing access to financial inclusion, but the US “continues to neglect its treaty allies in Micronesia and ignore the rest of the region.”

The article says, “Palau is still waiting on US$216 million in funds promised in 2011 as part of its agreement to provide the US with exclusive military access. Similar frustrations may lead the Federated States of Micronesia to terminate its own treaty with the US next year, well ahead of its expected 2023 expiration.”

Again China is establishing invincible position while the US is making mistakes to provide China with the opportunity to win with diplomacy.

If such diplomacy is combined with the construction of artificial islands on some reefs or floating artificial islands, each of which is supported with two aircraft carrier battle groups, China’s trade lifelines across the Pacific will thus be secure.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Foreign Policy and Wall Street Journal’s articles, full text of which can respectively be viewed at and

Russia and China tell North Korea, U.S. and South Korea to embrace de-escalation plan

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping walk past honour guards during a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia July 4, 2017. Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Kremlin via REUTERS

Russia and China joined diplomatic forces on Tuesday and called on North Korea, South Korea and the United States to sign up to a Chinese de-escalation plan designed to defuse tensions around Pyongyang’s missile program.

The plan would see North Korea suspend its ballistic missile program and the United States and South Korea simultaneously call a moratorium on large-scale missile exercises, both moves aimed at paving the way for multilateral talks.

The initiative was set out in a joint statement from the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries issued shortly after President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping held wide-ranging talks in the Kremlin.

“The situation in the region affects the national interests of both countries,” the joint statement said. “Russia and China will work in close coordination to advance a solution to the complex problem of the Korean Peninsula in every possible way.”

North Korea said on Tuesday it had successfully test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for the first time, which flew a trajectory that experts said could allow a weapon to hit the U.S. state of Alaska.

Russia and China both share a land border with North Korea and have been involved in past efforts to try to calm tensions between Pyongyang and the West.

Moscow and Beijing used the same joint declaration to call on Washington to immediately halt deployment of its THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea, a move Washington says is necessitated by the North Korean missile threat.

The statement said Washington was using North Korea as a pretext to expand its military infrastructure in Asia and risked upsetting the strategic balance of power in the area.

“The deployment … of THAAD will cause serious harm to the strategic security interests of regional states, including Russia and China,” the statement said.

“Russia and China oppose the deployment of such systems and call on the relevant countries to immediately halt and cancel the process of deployment.”

(Reporting by Denis Dyomkin/Vladimir Soldatkin/Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

Source: Reuters “Russia and China tell North Korea, U.S. and South Korea to embrace de-escalation plan”

Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.

China, Russia Seeks linking Belt and Road with Eurasian Union

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at Astana, Kazakhstan on June 8. Photo: AP

SCMP says in its report “Beijing’s new Silk Road may extend to Moscow-led Eurasian union” yesterday, “China and Russia are working to connect their flagship economic diplomacy projects, a move that could potentially reduce tensions between Beijing and Moscow as they jostle for regional influence.”

China and Russia are now close allies in countering the US, but due to conflict of interests linking China’s One Belt, One Road with Russia-led Eurasian Union is difficult as Russia is afraid that China’s establishment of Silk Road economic belt in Central Asia might draw Central Asia that Russia regards as its backyard away from Russia.

That is why though China and Russian issued a joint statement on linking the two economic strategies in 2015, there has been no progress in that respect.

Now, China’s Ministry of Commerce said ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Russia visit, that the two countries would sign an agreement for a study on the feasibility of linking the two.

This blogger believes that no matter whether the study will find the linking feasible, relations between China and Russia will become closer as the strategy illiterate US is screwing up its pressure on both countries. Anyway, the alliance between the two traditional enemies would have been very difficult in the first place if Obama had not facilitated it with his pivot-to-Asia folly.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on SCMP’s article, full text of which can be viewed at

US worries Russia could step up North Korea support to fill China void

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley testifies to the House Appropriations State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Subcommittee on the budget for the U.N. in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 27, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

By Michelle Nichols | UNITED NATIONS Tue Jun 27, 2017 | 5:26pm EDT

As the United States pressures China to enforce United Nations sanctions on its ally North Korea, Washington is concerned that Russia could provide support to Pyongyang and fill any vacuum left by Beijing, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on Tuesday.

“I’m concerned that Russia may backfill North Korea,” Haley told U.S. lawmakers in Washington. “We don’t have proof of that, but we are watching that carefully.”

While Washington has urged countries to downgrade ties with Pyongyang over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, a cross-border ferry service was launched in May between North Korea and neighboring Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the world should talk to, rather than threaten, North Korea.

“We just need to keep the pressure on China, we need to keep our eyes on Russia, and we need to continue to let the North Korea regime know we are not looking for regime change … we just want them to stop the nuclear activity,” Haley said.

The U.N. Security Council first imposed sanctions on North Korea in 2006 over its ballistic missile and nuclear programs and has ratcheted up the measures in response to five nuclear tests and two long-range missile launches. The government in Pyongyang is threatening a sixth nuclear test.

The Trump administration has been pressing China aggressively to rein in its reclusive neighbor, warning that all options are on the table if Pyongyang persists with its nuclear and missile development programs.

Beijing has repeatedly said its influence on North Korea is limited and that it is doing all it can, but U.S. President Donald Trump last week said China’s efforts had failed.

The United States has struggled to slow North Korea’s programs, which have become a security priority given Pyongyang’s vow to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland.

“The pressure on China can’t stop,” Haley said. “We have to have China doing what they’re supposed to. At the same time all other countries need to make sure they’re enforcing the sanctions that the Security Council has already put in place.”

Trump, increasingly frustrated with China over its inaction on North Korea and bilateral trade issues, is now considering possible trade actions against Beijing, senior administration officials told Reuters.

The United States also plans to place China on its global list of worst offenders in human trafficking and forced labor, sources said, a step that could aggravate tensions with Beijing.

(Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle, editing by G Crosse)

Source: Reuters “US worries Russia could step up North Korea support to fill China void”

Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.

Beyond air show, newcomers challenge Airbus-Boeing duopoly

Visitors walk past the aircrafts on the static display. REUTERS/Pascal Rossignol

By Matthias Blamont and Victoria Bryan | PARIS Thu Jun 22, 2017 | 2:08pm EDT

This year’s Paris Air Show was dominated by the annual order battle between Airbus (AIR.PA) and Boeing (BA.N), but industry executives said the duopoly will be forced to share the stage at future shows as newcomers from Russia, China and Japan muscle into the passenger plane market.

Japan’s Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp (7011.T) brought its MRJ regional jet to Europe for the first time during the air show. China and Russia carried out maiden flights of new narrow-body aircraft last month in their bids to enter the $100 billion-plus annual aerospace market.

The two countries have also set up a joint venture to build wide-body jets to challenge incumbents.

Consultants Alix Partners estimates that of the current order backlog of around 13,000 planes, about 7-8 percent are for planes from new entrants, among them Russia, China and Japan.

Delegates at the show said mounting a proper challenge will take Russia and China at least a decade. The newcomers face headwinds including proving their technology, and gaining customer confidence by deploying and maintaining a quality aircraft maintenance and support network.

“Overall, there are big steps not only on the product side but on the support and services side for the airlines to feel confident that they can go in and order those aircraft,” Pascal Fabre, managing director at Alix Partners in Paris, said.

However, China and Russia are large enough markets that orders from their home countries alone could propel the respective airliner ventures.

Among COMAC’s first customers for its C919 was China Eastern, which has ordered up to 20 planes from the Chinese manufacturer, while Aeroflot is due to take the Russian MS21.

COMAC said this week total orders for the C919 stood at 600 from 24 customers.

Giorgio Callegari, strategy and alliances director at Russian carrier Aeroflot (AFLT.MM), said people he met at the air show showed great interest in the MS21 and the Russian-China wide-body cooperation. Aeroflot is set to lease 50 MS21 planes from state defense conglomerate Rostec.

“If maybe in the past, Russian airplanes were discarded as a non-factor, they are now taken much more seriously and people can see that they are potentially a serious competitor,” he told Reuters.

The chief executive of Qatar Airways, Akbar Al Baker, said he would not have a problem buying jets from Chinese or Russian manufacturers, provided they met operational and performance requirements.


Some executives at the airshow said the marketplace would eventually settle on three major manufacturers and placed their bets on China’s COMAC to win that third spot.

“Twenty years from now, I think there’ll be the big three manufacturers of Airbus, Boeing and China,” said Airbus sales chief John Leahy.

However, Leahy said it would be hard for countries to make billions of dollars of investments over decades to get the product line and support network up to scratch.

Cedric Goubet, vice president of commercial engines at Safran (SAF.PA), said he too is betting on the Chinese.

“My feeling is that it will be the Chinese. They have the resources, the skills, the national ambitions and a huge domestic market,” he said, while adding that it was also crucial to get export orders.

Dang Thiehong, deputy head of marketing at China’s COMAC, told Reuters the aircraft market was big enough to share. “We hope to provide our services and products to the market no matter in which part of the world,” he said.

China is crucial to the growth prospects of all the major airliner manufacturers.

Randy Tinseth, vice president of marketing and sales at Boeing’s commercial aircraft division, cautioned against the dangers of underestimating new rivals, “Never sell your competition short.”

Japan’s Mitsubishi has set its sights on the regional jet market instead of going head to head with the larger planes sold by Airbus and Boeing or rising Chinese and Russian rivals.

Yugo Fukuhara, vice president sales and marketing at Mitsubishi, told Reuters, “Our vision of this business is to become one of two major regional plane makers. We don’t compete with China and Russia.”

(Additional reporting by Tim Hepher, Andrea Shalal, Giulia Segreti, Cyril Altmeyer, Mike Stone; Editing by Adrian Croft)

Source: Reuters “Beyond air show, newcomers challenge Airbus-Boeing duopoly”

Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.

China’s Islands Building Wins in South China Sea and Then in Pacific

Modules of China’s planned super large floating island

On May 12, Ely Ratner, the Maurice R. Greenberg senior fellow in China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, published an article along with Samir Kumar titled “The United States Is Losing Asia to China” .

I posted my comment on the article on June 14 titled “Why the United States Is Losing Asia to China?” to make my analysis of the reasons why the US has been losing Asia. I point out that the US has lost due to its own problems and that China has done nothing to grab Asian leadership from the US.

Unhappy with US loss, Mr. Ratner published another article on Foreign Affairs on June 13 titled “Course Correction: How to Stop China’s Maritime Advance” to give US government his advices on the measures that the US shall adopt to stop China’s advance in exerting full control of the South China Sea, including revival of Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the adoption of some other measures with similar effects to TTP to put an end to ASEAN countries economic dependence on China and providing weapons and military support for them to stand up against China in the South China Sea.

Such measures will certainly be economic burdens too heavy for a hard-up US to bear. In the final analysis, however, Mr. Ratner does not want such US efforts to result in a war with China. He believes that such measures will force China to retreat as China fears a war with the US.

He simply does not understand the Chinese dream that Chinese President Xi Jinping has used to overcome the serious split between conservatives and reformists and make China a united nation.

Chinese people cherish the Chinese dream due to their memory of China’s misery of being bullied by foreign powers for nearly a century. They want the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation to make China strong to be able to resist foreign bully, which now comes from the US, the only hegemon in the world now.

In 1947, China published its map with an 11-dash line (9-dash now) encircling most of the South China Sea to show its historical claim. The map in fact means that the South China Sea is China’s lake. The US did not oppose as at that time China was very weak and depended on US support for its claim. At that time, China’s lake means America’s lake for US politicians and military.

Unfortunately, there has been regime change and China’s unexpected rise. Now China has grown so strong that it can claim the lake on its own strength. The US can no longer dominate Southeast Asia and the South China Sea. Ratner believes that such loss means US loss of Asia.

In fact, in spite of its ambition, the US has never had Asia. North and Central Asia was parts of the Soviet Union and now Russia and areas under Russian influence. South Asia especially India is under Russian influence. US influence in Pakistan has long been replaced by China. Pakistan now regards itself as China’s closes brother.

To further west, the US lost Iran long ago and now has Iran as its dead enemy. The US is losing the Middle East possibly to Islamic extremists but not to China.

Therefore, Mr. Ratner’s statement that the US is losing Asia to China merely reflects US impudence and fear of a rising China. China cannot have Asia even if the US does not exist in the world. How can China take Russia, India or Japan? China simply shall not have the ambition to take them. China shall take care of its own people and have no ambition for world hegemony.

However, due to Chinese people’s dream for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, they will fight to resist foreign bully no matter how strong the bully is.

China’s posture to fight was shown very clear in Chinese navy chief Adm. Wu Shengli’s meeting with his US counterpart. We have a photo of Wu pointing his finger at his US counterpart when he was told to respect Hague arbitration award that entirely denies China’s historical rights and interests. China conducted large-scale military drill around the time when the award was declared and began combat patrol of the South China Sea immediately after that.

What was US response at that time? It simply dare not respond militarily but only declared that it would maintain its naval presence in the South China Sea.

I said repeatedly in my posts that with geographical advantages, especially the seven large artificial islands with three airports, China has full control of the South China Sea and made it China’s lake as it has claimed long ago.

China can deploy at least 600 fighter jets on the three airports of the artificial islands. There are in addition land-based fighter jets on Chinese coast that may join the fight through refueling as China’s J-20s will have air supremacy. The US only has 10 aircraft carriers but cannot send all of them to fight as they are so sophisticated as to need long-term overhaul periodically so that only two third of them can be in service. As a result, the US can only send a maximum of 7 carriers with at most 560 fighter jets to deal with more than 1,000 land- and island-based Chinese fighter jets.

Chinese fighter jets are now as good as US ones.

They say Chinese pilots lack the experience in fighting modern war. So are US pilots. They have never had any air battles with advanced air force. They have defeated Iraqi air force much inferior to them and can have gained no experience they need in fighting China’s air force.

In an emergency, land based fighter jets can land on Chinese expressways when Chinese airports are damaged but carrier-based fighter jets in the South China Sea can only fall into the sea or land on Chinese airports to be captured by China.

Moreover, artificial islands are large and can deploy the best air defense and anti-ship missiles and rocket artillery to destroy entire US attacking navy. China has built islands to not only defeat US aircraft carrier battle groups but also prevent US submarines from attacking China with submarine-launched missiles.

China’s strategy of island building is much better than US strategy of carrier building.

Artificial islands can be used as fishing and mining bases and can even generate income as tourist resorts. US navy has conducted a research and proved that one floating island and two aircraft carriers have the capabilities of five carriers.

I can safely predict that China can dominate the Pacific if it has built three floating islands and six aircraft carriers and deploy them in the Pacific. China’s Silk Road economic belt initiatives have enabled it to have land routes to Europe and the Middle East through Russia, Central Asia and Pakistan so that it has no need to deploy its navy in the Indian Ocean. Its three floating islands and six carriers with capabilities of 15 carriers are more than enough to protect its trade lifelines in the Pacific against US navy that can deploy at most only 7 carriers.

Moreover, China is able to build nuclear submarines better than US ones and have built a plant able to build four nuclear submarines simultaneously. The US only has the capacity to build two. Even so, it has funding problem to maintain such scale of construction.

The US is not capable to stop China’s control of the South China Sea. Mr. Ratner had better worry about the Pacific than the South China Sea.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Foreign Affairs’ article, full text of which can be viewed at