Judging Freedom - AMB Charles Freeman: Why Is the US Navy in the South China Sea?

Episode Date: September 12, 2024

AMB Charles Freeman: Why Is the US Navy in the South China Sea?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, September 12, 2024. My apologies for the delayed start of a technical issue, which we have, of course, now overcome. Our guest today is the revered Ambassador Charles Freeman. Ambassador, it's a joy to be able to chat with you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for joining us. I have a lot of topics that I want to discuss with you, the principle of which is an area of your personal expertise,

which is China and the United States Navy and the South China Sea. But before we get there, there are other pressing topics that I need to address with you. Prime Minister Netanyahu announced this week for the third time that he has instructed the IDF to prepare to invade Lebanon. Why would he make these announcements, and wouldn't such an invasion, without the United States physically there, be suicidal? Well, I think the fact that the United States is there and cannot remain there indefinitely is a major factor in this. Obviously, within Israel,

there are an enormous number of people displaced from the north by the exchanges of gunfire between the Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah, and they are agitating to go home. And so from a political point of view, it's to Netanyahu's advantage to appear to be doing something. But the United States Navy, almost all of the United States Navy, is now lurking around Israel, the Persian Gulf, and the Arabian Sea. In fact, to jump ahead a little bit to China, there are no aircraft carriers anymore in the Pacific. They've all moved to the Middle East. And sustaining this force for the amount of time it's been there is a great strain on the sailors sailors and airmen and Marines, and it is very expensive. So you have an operations tempo issue and you have a budgetary issue. And I know that the head of CENTCOM, General Kirilla, has been in Israel. I suspect he was there to basically tell Netanyahu, look, if you're going to do something about Lebanon, you better do it now because we're not going to be able to hang around while you diddle. That's very unfortunate.

Or, Ambassador, might he have said the opposite? Might he have said, if you're going to do something about Lebanon, please wait until after November 5th. He might well have said that, yes. Because, of course, that's another factor here in the thinking, particularly of countries like Iran, which has held back from the reprisal that it has promised, probably because it doesn't want to hand former President Trump a boost in the polls, which he could badly use now after his debate performance the other night. The IDF murdered a young American woman, shot her in the head. Eyewitnesses have testified to it. The IDF says it was unintentional, and the State Department doesn't seem to care. Are you surprised? shot in the water in their lifeboats, many killed on the ship, and the whole thing was covered up. We have the tapes from the time that showed that the Israeli pilots queried their commanding

commanders back in Israel. This is an American ship. Do you really want us to shoot it up? And the answer was yes. So that is the start. There are many other Americans who have been murdered. Rachel Curry, the Palestinian-American journalist who was shot in the head also. This was an accident, unintentional, only in the sense that the Israeli sniper did not know that he was killing an American. He was doing what the Israeli snipers routinely do, which is kill people randomly. An unarmed female civilian. Exactly. This has happened many times before. And of course, if you put it into perspective, think of how many unarmed women have been killed in Gaza,

not just by snipers, but by bombs. And so this is a disgrace for the United States that we don't protect our citizens against Israel. We don't protest. The President of the United States, Joe Biden, accepted the Israeli prevarication about this. And Mr. Blinken responded initially with really not much of anything and then said, well, we've got to tell Israel that it needs to rearrange its rules of engagement in the West Bank. This is weak, it is humiliating, and it is absolutely a forfeit on government responsibility to American citizens. Ambassador, the United Kingdom purports publicly to have second thoughts about the amount of aid it is shipping to Israel because of the perception in the new labor government that it might, might violate international law. Prime Minister Keir

Stormer and his foreign minister are on their way to Washington. Is this a serious second thought and misgiving or just some political nonsense for domestic political purposes in England? I think it is a bow in the direction of the rule of law, which should be applauded, because British laws, like American laws, prohibit the use of weapons supplied to other countries for gross violations of human rights, which is clearly occurring in Israel. But on the other hand, it is purely symbolic. I think it's only about 8% of British arms sales to Israel that are interrupted, and the main instruments of Israeli depredations in Gaza are not affected. The UK is a manufacturer of many parts of the F-35, which is what the Israelis are using to bomb Gaza, and those parts for the F-35 are not being interrupted.

So this is by David Lamy, the British Foreign Secretary. This is a gesture toward the rule of one of the hostages who was murdered. And of course, it didn't go well for Prime Minister Netanyahu. It never goes well because of the public perception that he doesn't, I think it's reality. It's not just a perception. He doesn't seem to care about the hostages. However, in the Haaretz article describing this, they referred to a new nickname that the parents of the hostages have given him. I don't know if you've heard this. The hangman of Gaza Street. Oh boy. Oh boy. Now that hasn't made its way west yet, but apparently that's circulating in Israel.

The last question about Israel, I don't know if you know this, because this book just came out in the past hour. Hillary Rodham Clinton has published her third memoir. And in this memoir, she claims that her husband in the year 2000, I don't know if you know about this, if it could possibly be true, crafted a two-state solution that the Israelis accepted, and Yasser Arafat did not, and she blames Arafat for everything that happened since then. If Arafat had listened to my husband,

the Palestinians would be celebrating their 23rd year as a sovereign nation. Could this possibly be true? It's utter nonsense. It is the Israeli line about the last ditch effort of the Clinton administration to produce something viable in the Holy Land. One can get into needless detail, but essentially, Yasser Arafat was isolated. He was not offered an acceptable basis for two states. The effort failed, and it failed in part because, I think think of the insensitivity of some of the Americans who arranged this meeting.

It is in case that the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, which Yasser Arafat headed, required, and because of its relationship to the Arab world more broadly, and to its own people, required the ability to consult actively with other Arabs and with other Palestinians. And they were sequestered and not allowed to communicate. And this, of course, even if the offer that had been made was acceptable, was an impediment to agreement. This was a case of inept diplomacy on our part, as much as it was the usual Israeli refusal to offer terms that give the Palestinians the dignity of self-determination. And the usual Israeli refusal was under the tutelage of the so-called liberal Prime Minister Ehud Barak, whom I've met many times, but aside from my having met him, because he was at Fox a lot when I was there, it reinforces what you and Professor Mearsheimer and Colonel McGregor and Professor Sachs have

been saying. It doesn't matter who is the Israeli prime minister, other than personality and tone and personal likability, the attitude, the political attitude is going to be the same or they won't be the prime minister. Ehud Barak is a brilliant man. He was a brilliant soldier, but he was very much a Zionist. From the very beginning, even before the independence of Israel in 1948, the objective of the Zionists has been to empty Palestine of Palestinians. They succeeded in the Nakba in expelling over half of the Palestinian population from historic Palestine.

They are now engaged in a war of extermination in Gaza and openly declaring that they intend to annex the northern part of Gaza. And of course, they are extending the extermination campaign now actively to the West Bank, the occupied territories. Mr. Netanyahu now sees an opportunity to complete what his predecessors were unable to complete. And I would just close on this by saying that in 1967,

oh, before 1967, in 1948, the ideal objective of Zionism to establish a Jewish minority state in Palestine was accomplished. But in 1967, Israel captured the Palestinians it had expelled from the rest of Palestine, Israel proper, in 1948, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. And it had a choice to make. It could consolidate the Jewish majority state with a small Arab minority, 20% or so, in Israel proper, or it could choose land over peace. And it chose land over peace. And when it did that, it revived the Zionist aim of expelling all Palestinians, except for a tiny minority, a manageable minority, if you will, from Palestine.

That's what's happening now. There has never been any Israeli offer of peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians. There have been American efforts to broker that, some of them inept, like the one at the end of the Clinton administration, but there's never been an Israeli effort to achieve peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians because they don't want

the Palestinians gone. They don't want to coexist with them. I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about and has a rational mind could possibly disagree with or challenge anything that you said. Transitioning to Ukraine, yesterday the British Prime Minister David Lemme and the Secretary- Foreign Minister. Pardon me? Foreign Minister. Foreign Secretary. Foreign Minister, correct. Thank you. And the U.S. Secretary of State spent the day with the former president of Ukraine, Zelensky, and the statements made afterwards caused the Wall Street Journal and others to claim that by reading between the lines, the Secretary of State was giving hints that the British Prime Minister and President Biden will announce this weekend when they're together in Washington,

that they've authorized the use of long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia, which would mean Moscow and St. Petersburg. How do you read this? How reckless would this be? Well, it's very reckless, and I believe it's opposed by the Pentagon, because the U.S. Armed Forces understand very well what the risks are. There's no one as bloodthirsty as a civilian remote from the battle lines. That is Mr. Blinken. That is Mr. Lamy. And so I think they did go to Kiev to meet with Zelensky, as you said, no longer the constitutional president of Ukraine, but there as president, in the name of a president. They went there to consult with him on the terms of a decision that has been made. I believe the Pentagon lost the argument in Washington.

What will happen next, we cannot tell, because we've already heard from Sergei Ryabkov, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in Moscow, that there will be a reaction and there will be nothing good. What will the reaction be? Russia has many, many options. And this is tied into the allegation, so far unproven and denied by Iran, that Iran has transferred short-range missiles to

Russia, with which Russia can cover areas closer to the battle lines. Russia, of course, has an ample supply of its own missiles, but they tend to be longer range. So this allegation, it seems to me, was put forward as a justification for the escalation by the United States and Britain that you described. Here's what Secretary Blinken said in a press conference in Kiev, late in the day in Kiev, with the British foreign minister next to him. Please pay attention

to the last line that he uses, which is pretty remarkable for him to say this. Chris, cut number 22. It's important that the Ukrainian people continue to hear directly from us. We remain fully committed to Ukraine's victory, to not only ensuring that Ukraine can defend itself today, but can stand on its own feet strongly, militarily, economically, democratically, for many, many days ahead, to securing the path the Ukrainian people have chosen toward greater integration in the Euro-Atlantic community, including the European Union and NATO. NATO, that's either... He's poking the bear right in its face. Well, so is the offer of long-range strikes into Russia with U.S. and British support.

In effect, when we do things like this, we validate the Russian security concern that led them to demand the return of Ukraine to the neutrality on which it was founded. Western weapons forward placed in Ukraine, whether they are in the hands of the Ukrainians or NATO troops, who would definitely follow the admission of Ukraine to NATO, as we've seen everywhere else in Eastern Europe, these are a direct and intolerable threat to the Russians. So they will not accept the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, whatever is left of Ukraine. It is, I think, somewhat ludicrous at this point

to talk about victory on the battlefield for Ukraine. The incursion into Kursk reminds me, at least, of nothing so much as Robert E. Lee's tactically brilliant attack on Gettysburg in Pennsylvania and Antietam. This was tactically brilliant, but it was strategically disastrous for the Confederacy, and it hastened the end of the war and their defeat in it. And I think what has happened at Kursk is that the Ukrainians have lost already about half of their men and at least half of their equipment. The Russians had been content to stand off and bombard them from the air and with artillery, but they are now on the offensive on the ground,

mopping up the remaining Ukrainian force, some of which will have to, you know, may get back to Ukraine, perhaps riding in stolen cars because their armored vehicles have largely been destroyed. But this is not, you know, the motivations for this, by the way, are very similar to the ones that Richmond had in launching Lee's attack on Gettysburg. First, to buck up domestic morale, which was sagging. Second, to reassure the closet partners of the Confederacy, namely the British, that they were still, the Confederacy was

a viable entity and that its military could yet win on the battlefield. And third, of course, to demoralize the North. The North reacted in much the way that Russia has reacted. Instead of being demoralized, it was galvanized into even more intense opposition to the Confederacy. So I don't think talking about victory at the moment, and by the way, this was a conference about recovering Crimea, which, you know, if you ask people in Crimea, they don't want to be part of Ukraine. They showed that on several occasions prior to the Russian-staged referendum. So I think this is delusional fantasy foreign policy in action, and it's coupled with an

almost absurd willingness to take risks that I think our own military do not share. If you look at the statements of Secretary of Defense Austin, he is very cautious, and he does not predict a Ukrainian victory. Switching gears, Ambassador, who owns the South China Sea? China, or is it international waters? It is divided. the South China Sea? China or is it international waters? It is divided. The Law of the Sea Treaty, which we took a major role in concluding but which we have failed to ratify and therefore not part of it, has dispute resolution mechanisms

which we cannot avail ourselves of because we're not part of it. There was an effort made by us at the Law of the Sea Tribunal to obtain a default judgment against China, which we succeeded in doing. The Chinese did not participate in the proceeding. It was an arbitration. It ruled that there were no islands in the South China Sea, an island defined as a body of land that can sustain human life directly without external support. That means that there is no ability of any land structure in the South China Sea to create an exclusive

economic zone. And the continental shelf extending from the Philippines, Vietnam, China, Malaysia determines where exclusive economic zones are. But land features that are above high tide, that are visible above high tide, can have a 12-mile territorial sea. There are 48 structures that Vietnam claims do that. There are three structures that Malaysia claims do that. There are nine structures that the Philippines claims do that. China and Taipei, Beijing together, have, I believe, none.

And around these structures, there are territorial seas, 12-mile, 12 territorial seas. We do not accept the Chinese method of drawing baselines and defining the limit of these territorial seas. And therefore, in the name of freedom of navigation, we violate what they regard to be as their territory. So this is now, it began as a no man's land. Traditionally, in pre-modern times, all of the littoral states sent fishermen to these places. They got along with each other.

The Western concept of sovereignty came in around the beginning of the 20th century in the region. And it wasn't until the 1970s and 80s that countries began to claim specific land features. Oddly enough, if you bear with me for a minute, the first such claim was launched by a Philippine lawyer who created something in the Spratly Islands called Freedomland, the sole purpose of which was to issue postage stamps for the benefit of his purse. He was eventually forced by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos to yield his rights, whatever they were, probably non-existent, to these non-islands for one Philippine peso.

And that is the basis of the Philippine claim. The Vietnamese claim is based on the French claim against China in the Second Franco-Chinese War, in which China got an agreement and a treaty at the end, relinquishing the French claims. The Malaysian claim originated in the 1980s. So we somehow in 2000, Hillary Clinton, whom you mentioned earlier, in a meeting in Hanoi inserted the United States into this and said we had an interest in how it was dealt with. We never defined how it should be dealt with. We never defined how it should be dealt with. The obvious thing would have been to take the Vietnamese and Filipinos and Malaysians and put them all together in one room and have

them straight out the claims they have against each other so they can make a common stand against Chinese claims. But we didn't do that. And so there is no negotiation about territorial issues. The tribunal had no authority to rule on territorial issues, sovereignty and the like. And it's a mess. And it is incendiary because U.S. and Chinese vessels, mostly Coast Guard and the part of the Chinese, mostly Navy on our part, are contending for dominance of the region. The final point, it is said that all of this is a vital waterway for global commerce. Yes, two-thirds of the boats, the ships, and the cargo that pass through the South China Sea are going to or from China.

China has the largest interest in freedom of navigation of any country. And yet we claim that we are defending freedom of navigation by interfering with the Chinese presence there. So this is the U.S., again, in China's face. We could imagine what we would feel like if the Chinese started behaving this way in the Caribbean, which we dominate. And it is a possible casus belli. It could become a war. Your knowledge is simply encyclopedic, Ambassador,

and deeply grateful that you gave us that lesson. I mean, the Philippines is an American ally, not only by history, but by treaty. I mean, this American admiral who threatened his Chinese counterpart, who interestingly was a general, not an admiral, I'm not familiar with the Chinese military nomenclature. The word admiral is from Arabic. It means Amir al-Bahar, the leader of the

sea or the prince of the sea. It got into English via Spanish and Italian. And so we call generals who command fleets something different as Arabs do from generals who command troops on the ground. But the Chinese make no such distinction just as the Chinese language does not distinguish between male and female. He and she don't exist. So this is confusing, but it's easily straightened out. When you translated for President

Richard Nixon at his meeting with Chinese leaders Mao Tse-Tung in 1972, one, two, or three, I forget the year, did you have to explain this to him? No, I don't think we talked about admirals, actually. All right, so back to the admirals. An American general, whoever is the commander, an American admiral, whoever is the commander of what few ships we have in the Pacific, admonished the Chinese general in charge of the many ships they have in the South China Sea to stay out of our faces, and the Chinese told them to go pound salt. There will be a follow-up meeting between the respective admirals, if you will, the commander of the South China Sea Fleet for China and the commander of the Pacific Fleet,

Indo-Pacific Fleet for us to take place in Hawaii. So even though the tone of that exchange that you referred to was accusatory and really not terribly helpful in terms of building a relationship, both sides are trying to remain in contact because both sides recognize that this is a very dangerous situation. It is almost asking for an accident that could then become the basis for an escalated conflict. Ambassador, why is the United States Navy in the South China Sea? Very simple.

We defeated the Japanese Empire in 1945. That left a vacuum which we filled. We remain there despite the fact that the countries in the region have now filled the vacuum. Japan is back as a wealthy, powerful country. China is no longer on the ropes, as it was in 1945. The Philippines is independent, sovereign, and cantankerous. Vietnam has shown everyone that it's capable of defending itself.

And so, you know, I mean, we are asserting a right of primacy, the right to manage the affairs of the Asia Pacific, Pacific Asia, if you will, that is a holdover from history. And we have put everybody in the region in a position where they have to tell us repeatedly, look, we don't want to choose between you and China. We want you to get along. We don't want the Taiwan issue to become the cause of a war.

We want you to manage that issue with China. And, of course, what we're doing at the moment is military confrontation posturing and sole reliance on military deterrence with no shred of diplomacy at all. That is why the meeting between Admiral Paparo, the Pacific Fleet commander, and his Chinese counterpart is important. Someday I would like to moderate a debate on all of this between you and Admiral Kirby. I think you would eat his lunch. Well, I don't know. I mean, it's very hard to argue with a madman.

Thank you, Ambassador. A treasure trove of information, a fascinating and captivating experience we have all just had with you. We hope you'll come back again and visit with us next week. Try to do that. Thank you. Thank you. All the best. Truly,

truly a brilliant and gifted man. Coming up later today at three o'clock, two more brilliant and gifted man. Coming up later today at three o'clock, two more brilliant and gifted men, Professor John Mearsheimer at three and Max Blumenthal at four. Judson Napolitano for Judging Freedom. We'll see you next time.