Fallows' take.

Post #366,995 by Another Scott 11/30/12 7:44:17 AM Reply	Fallows' take. http://www.theatlant...rry-about/265763/ I vote for over-reach by local officials. I expect this will blow over without too many problems, but the issue won't go away soon. There need to be agreed borders, but it's in too many interests to push the boundaries as far as possible before they're set. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,009 by jay 11/30/12 9:18:05 AM Reply	As an excuse it is likely China taking the "over-reach by local officials" as an excuse seems likely if China wants to back down. However, this is far to important and contested an issue to actually believe that it is accidental. I think it is much more likely that China did this intentionally to see how other Asian countries, the UN and the US would respond. Jay
Post #367,055 by Another Scott 11/30/12 9:15:20 PM Reply	He follows up. It seems to be more about agitators claiming islands than transit of ships. http://www.theatlant...ouncement/265791/ [...] Soon thereafter Peter Lee, who writes the China Matters blog, forwarded me the Chinese-language transcript of a Q-and-A at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In that session, the (Chinese) reporter asked about a change in policy toward "foreign fishing boats" ([...]), not seaborne traffic in general. But the spokesman's answer -- spokesmen have the same skills worldwide! -- was vague. Lee follows with a very detailed parsing of what is known, and not, about the thinking behind the new Chinese policy, based on available Chinese-language texts. I offer it for two reasons: For people following the substance of this dispute, it should be interesting; and for everyone else, it helps illustrate the ongoing difficulty of being sure exactly what "signals" different parts of the Chinese government are sending to the outside world (and to other groups in China) and why. Lee writes, starting with the "fishing boat" question: [...] Interesting. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!