US Pacific Commander Warns "Risks Are Growing" Between China & Japan

Tyler Durden's picture

While it is becoming increasingly clear that tensions between Japan and China (and in fact most of the Asian nations) are escalating; the fact that Admiral Samuel Locklear - commander of US forces in the Pacific - believes "risk calculations are growing," as the two large powers have a disagreement but are not willing to talk to each other, shows this is more than just talk. As The AP reports, Washington's treat obligations to its ally Japan mean it could be sucked into a conflict.

Via AP,

The commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific says the tensions between China and Japan are likely to grow unless they talk to each other.


The two Asian powers are at loggerheads over remote islands that are administered by Japan but also claimed by China.


Adm. Samuel Locklear told reporters Thursday that "the risk calculation can grow" when two large powers have a disagreement but are not talking to each other.


Locklear said the U.S. has to continue to encourage restraint and professionalism by the two nations' maritime security forces as they operate around the contested islands, and also hope for a diplomatic dialogue.


Washington's treaty obligations to its ally Japan mean it could be sucked into a conflict.




"In many cases, those are young naval officers or young civilian mariners who are out there" making decisions, Locklear said.




The Dec. 5 incident involving USS Cowpens and a Chinese naval ship was "unnecessary," Locklear said, attributing it to "unprofessional" Chinese conduct or a "lack of experience."


China's defense ministry has given few details about the confrontation — the most serious incident between the two navies since 2009 — but said its ship handled it according to operating procedures. Chinese media reports blamed the U.S. ship for getting too close to vessels escorting China's new aircraft carrier Liaoning.


"This just highlights to both of us, to both the PLA and to the U.S. military, that we have to do better at being able to communicate with each other in a way that allows us to not lead to miscalculation," Locklear said, referring to the People's Liberation Army, as China's military is formally known.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

Hey everyone, look over there!

Anusocracy's picture

Let's you and him have a fight.

i-dog's picture

Is "sucked into" new-speak for "provoked"?

zaphod's picture

The US only gets sucked into major conflict for oil.

Neither Japan or China have oil.

SWRichmond's picture

If Gavrio Princip lived today he would hijavk a Japanese fishing vessel, hoist the flag, sail it close to a Chinese frigate, and open fire.  The Chinese would sink it in response and off we go.

zaphod's picture

Please stop giving our betters ideas, they take these "suggestions" seriously.

johngaltfla's picture

Anyone care to wager if the Fed's primary shareholders (JPMGSCBACWFCetc) will all suddenly have massive SPX puts in the 120 range 2 hours before the first shot is fired?

jbvtme's picture

china v japan...anyone know the over under?

Matt's picture

Well, China is also aggitating with India, The Phillipinnes, Taiwan, and (I think) South Korea. Could get pretty interesting.

kralizec's picture

Yes.  Explains why India and Japan are looking for deeper cooperation, if one wants to survive in the Asian playground one better have allies to fend off the biggest bully on the block.  And unless something escalates into ICBMs the US is likely going to sit it out...I mean what is Obama gonna do?  Attack China?  It is why this talk about the need for "talk" is's because it is all the US can do at this point.

rbg81's picture

Why is China doing this now?  They probably view it as a golden opportunity because Obama is CINC.  Treaty obligations or not, Obama will not come to the aid of Japan--he will throw them under the bus.  He simply does not have the balls to stand up to China, period.

LetThemEatRand's picture

What part of bread and circus didn't you get?  Oh, right. You're a NeoCon.

nmewn's picture

"What part of bread and circus didn't you get?"

I think it was the frrrrreeeee! healthcare after getting droned part.

rbg81's picture

What's your point?  Are you implying that we want China and Japan to go to war?  Or, if it happens, do you think we should just pass the popcorn and watch?  I don't necessarily disagree with the latter course of action.  I just don't think Obama will do jack.

Dr. Engali's picture

I think you're at the wrong site. Here you go:

rwe2late's picture


Maybe not just "implying".

  The dispute is not simply about some small islands.

1) The dispute is about the US-promoted remilitarization of Japan.
2) The dispute is about globalist US plans to control resources, manipulate finances, 
and aggressively "contain" China economically and militarily.
3) The dispute is about Obama's so-called Asian Pivot.

The islands dispute could be settled if the US and Japan were willing to submit the matter to the ICJ (International Court of Justice).
The other matters behind the dispute cannot be resolved so easily.

"International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the world court that handles international boundary disputes at The Hague. The ICJ requires sovereign parties involved in the dispute to accept the court’s jurisdiction and abide by its ruling. Japan’s rejection of an ICJ case therefore indicates serious weaknesses in its territorial claims under existing international law."

"We don't have to refer the matter to a third party for adjudication because the islands indisputably belong to Japan both legally and in actuality," the official said, adding there is no basis for China's claims to the uninhabited islands.

This is a dispute that both sides should refer to the International Court of Justice, rather than allow to boil over in the streets. That said, when I look at the underlying question of who has the best claim, I’m sympathetic to China’s position. I don’t think it is 100 percent clear, partly because China seemed to acquiesce[*] to Japanese sovereignty between 1945 and 1970, but on balance I find the evidence for Chinese sovereignty quite compelling.

*["China" acquiesced between 1945 and 1970?  The NY Times must be instead referring to Taiwan, since the US did not officially recognize China until Nixon's visit.]

Jack Burton's picture

My god Rand, you have just bagged a real live Neo-Con on ZH. Like broken records, they just play the same line over and over again. The corward Obama will hand Japan over to China. Fuck me! Is FOX News off the air for technical problems and the smart conservatives are trolling ZH?

I suggest he switch to RT if FOX is down, it would be fun to see how long it would take for RT's news coverage to make his brain fucking explode like a suitcase nuke that the Chinese are bring into Long Beach on container ships and setting up all across America, for the DAY.

The NeoCon mind is what they meant all those years back on the anti drug commercials "A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste". FOX the most watched news channel in America! Now there is a thought to consider when you see the powers that control Washington lie America into invading Iraq for a decade,

rbg81's picture

Oh, I forgot.  Obama killed bin Laden, so everything is good.

BigJim's picture

Obama's a puppet, dufus.

Jack Burton's picture

Indeed Jim. Obama talks liberal, his policies are the same as Bush. I call him the black Bush. A puppet? Yes.

The Gooch's picture

The Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Taste   (full album!)

Thieves 0:00
Burning Inside 5:01
Never Believe 10:21
Cannibal Song 15:20
Breathe 21:31
So What 27:11
Test 35:25
Faith Collapsing 41:29
Dream Song

i-dog's picture


LOL ... you don't understand the puppet show, er, politics.

  • Japan has been a Jesuit fiefdom (via the Emperor) since 1868.
  • The US has been a Jesuit fiefdom since 1776 (sealed when the "Constitution" replaced the Articles of Confederation in 1789).
  • China has been a Jesuit fiefdom since they trained and financed Mao in 1948.
  • The Philippines has been a Jesuit fiefdom since the US seized it from Spain in the false-flag (remember the Maine?) Spanish-American War of 1898.

One magician holds all the pieces. There's another agenda in play here.


disabledvet's picture

the Chinese have never been big fans of little things.

I would be very wary of making such broad generalizations...

Not that i'm not doing the same thing of course.

i-dog's picture

A Buddha diversion? How cute. And transparent. LOL. have a more cogent analysis that takes into account all of the players? Do tell....

Yenbot's picture

You forgot "Silicon Valley is a Jesuit fiefdom". Santa Clara, neh? Anjinsan much!

i-dog's picture

Are you by any chance trying to implicate Santa Clara's Leon Panetta - Knight of Malta and Secretary of Defense during the Benghazi stand-down? Or Dame of Malta, and 'Big Sis', Janet Napolitano?

But neither of them are currently involved in this affair in the South China Sea (or in Silicon Valley, as far as I know). Nice diversion, though. Are you also a Jesuit?

Ghordius's picture

i-dog, what's exactly your point? are catholics not citizens? should they have restrictions on what kind of religious orders they are supposed to belong?

for all purposes, you don't deliver any proof or evidence that the Knights of Malta are anything else than a charity org, nowadays

and... it's a voluntary association. with most being knighted because of being catholic and prominent, or for giving money or help for the hospitals. I thought you were a fan of voluntary associations

sure, in the past they were something else. but today? no, I'm not defending Panetta or Napolitano per se. I'm advocating for their religious rights of choosing or keeping their creed and their rights to associate and participate to associations

the logical conclusion to your rants could be that only WASPs should reach the heights of US gov. is this what you are advocating?

i-dog's picture

Nice strawman, Ghordius (it's the Order of St.John of Malta, not the Order of Knights of Malta ... knighthoods are the highest grade within the charitable Order ... and you very well know that.

Anyway, this post I made a couple of weeks ago expresses my concern and answers your other logical fallacies:


i-dog Vote up!

Vote down!


Interesting question, YHC, and one I'm happy to comment on to [attempt to] clarify my concerns. 

My issue is one of allegiance ... which is not important for doctors (other than to their patients), charity workers, or even businessmen, but it is VERY important to question for political leaders, judges, civil servants, and our 'representatives' on international committees.

The Order of Hospitallers of St.John of Jerusalem began during the Crusades, way back in 1023, in Jerusalem ... so it began, along with the Knights Templar, with the Roman Church's early attempts to wrest control of Jerusalem from the Muslims (after, IMO, losing absolute control over Islam due to the unforeseen split into Sunni and Shi'a). The knights had the same objectives then as do the Zionists today.

As Wiki points out, the Order of St.John (SMOM) is quite large with "about 13,500 members, 80,000 volunteers, and 25,000 mostly medical employees". Like the Freemasons, it is a large charitable organisation with different "levels" of membership, and membership interests. Maybe your doctor friends are simply doing charitable work and have no idea of what may be known by those at the higher levels. For example, my own godfather was a very high level Freemason, and his father was the most senior 33rd degree Freemason in the country ... yet they were wonderful and charitable people (though highly political and 'connected' at the very highest levels, including hosting British royalty). At the time, I had no idea about the difference between the lowest 3 'degrees' of Freemasonry (which is entirely social/charitable, though serves as the incubator and selection pool for the higher levels) and the objectives of the higher degrees of the "Scottish Rite" (which is a Jesuit concoction introduced just 4 years after Freemasonry was taken over by the Illuminati). We never even discussed Freemasonry. I suspect this was not only because I have been an atheist from a very young age, but also because I was a rebel from a very young age. I'm not good at blindly following orders or at group-think.

I also comment often and negatively about the Jesuits, yet they also feature a split between those who take the basic 3 vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and those who go on to take the 4th vow. At the lower levels, the Jesuits are primarily involved in providing educational and scientific research establishments.

Those whom I rail against are those Jesuits in the political arena, as well as those cloistered and beavering away on political propaganda. It is worth noting that kings, emperors and popes have shared my concern over the centuries and have therefore banned the Jesuits from more than 80 countries from time to time for political meddling. In Japan, their priests and converts were even executed. Nagasaki was payback...pure and simple.

Yale's notorious Skull & Bones secret society is another Jesuit example: Only 15 boys are 'tapped' into the society each year and are sworn to secrecy (under very serious threats for breaching that secrecy), but they are also continually tutored, tested and monitored for the qualities that will see them selected later for key positions in government and the military. I'm sure that many, or even most, fail the tests and have no further involvement with the Jesuits' global agenda, though still remaining absolutely silent about what they learned and were subjected to as initiates.

I do not believe "the Vatican" have always been involved with the Zionists. There have been many battles over the centuries between the Jesuits (and their predecessors) and the Papacy. But I believe the Jesuits (who currently control the Vatican) are the Zionists (also acting through their alter-ego, the Sabbatean-Frankist-Ashkenazi Jews).

Ignatius Loyola himself was a Khazar Marrano (crypto-Jew) and was twice brought before the Dominican-led Spanish Inquisition before founding "The Company" (interestingly, a sobriquet also shared among members of both the CIA and Skull & Bones). Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, was also a Sabbatean-Frankist Khazar who was Jesuit trained and occupied the Jesuit chair of Canon Law at Ingolstadt University in Bavaria at the time he founded the Illuminati.

Back to the SMOM: Your doctor friends, if they were indeed "knighted" into the Order (ie. swore allegiance to the Black Pope, superceding allegiance to any other sovereign entity), then they share common allegiance to the Black Pope with such illustrious servants of the American people as:

  • Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
  • General William Westmoreland, Henry Kissinger, General Alexander Haig, Pat Buchanan, Richard Holbrooke, Robert Gates, Robert Zoellick, and Joseph Schmitz (the inspector general who "lost" $2.3 trillion in the Pentagon on his watch).
  • J.Edgar Hoover, "Wild Bill" Donovan, Allen Dulles, Cardinal Avery Dulles, John McCone, Robert McNamara, William Colby, James Jesus Angleton, William Casey, George Tenet, John C. Gannon, Michael Chertoff and Erik Prince.
  • Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, and John Bolton. well as some deceased luminaries, such as: William Randolph Hearst, Amschel Mayer Rothschild (eldest brother of Nathan Mayer Rothschild), Tip O'Neil, William F. Buckley, Joe Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and Larry Patton McDonald.

Some pretty illustrious company in the political and military arena that your friends keep! (though, admittedly, only from my American list).

On Pope Francis, I will only comment that he is the first openly Jesuit Pope. Most of the Popes since the mid-18th century (apart from a couple who were poisoned) were Jesuit-trained and some have even been suspected of being crypto-Jews. Benedict was even SMOM.

I hope that long ramble helps you...and others who may see this before this thread quickly goes dead.

Ghordius's picture

i-dog... do you have any proof or any evidence except for the fact that catholics and their orders and associations exist? I was wishing for an answer here

i-dog's picture

Do you have any proof or any evidence that anything I stated above is materially incorrect?

Ghordius's picture

i-dog, you state that you believe that "the Jesuits" (a group to which you include "Jesuit-trained" people) are Zionists. based on the fact that a different order, i.e. the Knights, wanted to free Jerusalem from the Muslims (like all Crusaders). can't disprove that you believe that, but isn't tenuos?

you also believe that the bombing of Nagasaki was payback. again, can't prove or disprove anything about that, but how about Hiroshima, then? though I fail to see the logic of bombing the most catholic of all Japanese cities out of revenge against... what? the Japanese removal of Jesuit influence?

but again, I'd prefer if you would answer my other questions. meanwhile this: do we agree that all those groups - Jesuits, Knights of Malta, the College of Cardinals, the Catholic Priesthood, etc. - are formed by mostly good people who voluntarily join to give their best to improve the world?

do we agree that those are voluntary organizations, the very thing you advocate as superior vs non-voluntary orgs like states?

i-dog's picture

Dear Ghordius, I hope you don't mind if I don't get sucked into your disingenuous sophistry. Your combined posts are a spaghetti soup of conflations and other fallacies. Kind regards.

Ghordius's picture

Dear i-dog, I am, after all, "Jesuit-trained" (went to a Jesuit school). and they do advocate the alternance of curiosity and logic

so you don't like my questions above. ok, I'll try with a new approach to find the lowest common denominator between us

Holy Lands/Israel: what importance has this territory to you? if you had five minutes before a seriously powerful audience willing to listen and act, what would you advocate?

I think this is the most sophistry-devoid question I can pose

i-dog's picture

I'd prefer that you address my only serious concern - that of allegiance, and specifically for politicians, judges, bureaucrats and representatives.

I have no advocacy at all for the "holy lands". As a voluntarist and atheist, those lands are of abslolutely no importance to me whatsoever (apart from contributing to their economy by way of tourism). I believe that is a question solely for the inhabitants for the time being of those lands to determine.

Are you advocating for uninvited interference in their internal affairs ... and seeking my approval?

Ghordius's picture

ah. ok. I was still under the spell of this guy's allegation you'd be a Christian Zionist or something (he hinted at the websites you quote). then let's put away the Holy Land discussion, or your "the Jesuits are setting the Jews up to take the blame [as usual]" comment, then I don't know how seriously you meant that

allegiance. it's a heavy word. like duty, honour, faith. they speaks loudly to my conservative soul, instead of my liberal mind or my heart

two extremes, imho:

- the British still ban Catholics from certain offices. Blair had to wait until his Prime Ministership ended to convert

- on the other side, the liberal practice of considering personal privacy, religion and association a sacrosanct right of everybody, even when officials of a state

personally, I prefer the last. but that's a personal preference, and a very unhelpful one in regard to your concerns, I realize. further, I understand that you see the British Royals as part of this network anyway.

the only thing that might help there is, imho the ancient Roman practice of having a "good conduct" process of all politicians, judges and bureaucrats after their spell. they can be dangerously overpoliticized, but it was the "best practice" for a long while. note that you can't make one for elected representatives, but that's another story

just an idea. cheers

i-dog's picture

You again side-stepped the critical question of a politician (or one of the other categories I listed) swearing allegiance to a sovereign country, its flag, its constitution and its people ... then (or prior) swearing an oath of allegiance to another sovereign and military order with competing interests. By all accounts, the oath sworn by a knight to the Jesuit Superior General supercedes all prior or subsequent oaths, on pain of onerous penalty.

By the way, the lifetime oath sworn to the Jesuit Superior General by initiates into Yale's Skull & Bones secret society is of a similar nature ... which is entirely inappropriate for someone who later becomes a Supreme Court Justice, a Director of Central Intelligence, or a President of the United States. Don't you agree?

Ghordius's picture

I fully agree that a Jesuit priest, by his public oath of obedience to the Pope (a sovereign) could be seen as having two "masters". And this was immediately persecuted, for example in England with the Jesuits Act of 1584, requesting that all Jesuits have to either swear an oath to obey the Queen or leave the country. The Swiss had a civil war about that 1848, and personally I understand who wants to ban Jesuit priests from public office. Currently, out of 22'000 Jesuit priests, there aren't any I know of that have been elected or appointed to office. this does not cover talking or writing about politics, or setting up schools, or advising politicians

But a Knight of the Sovereign Order of Malta? Completely different legal setup and precedent history. As a Knight, you don't swear political allegiance to the Order or the Pope. Yes, any Knight joining the banners during war would be expected to be under military discipline, particularly on warships. But otherwise? No way. A multiple citizen of modern sovereigns has way more conflicts than a Citizen & Knight - particularly because the Order is not at war since 1798

of course, dual or multiple citizenship can be an issue. yes. yet where is the difference between voting for someone that is both Athenian and Spartan or for someone that is only Athenian but gives his son the name "Spartan"? the issue is old, my example is a historic reference

I'm sorry, but some of your assuptions are based on strong associations between Jesuit priest = Knight of Malta = Yale's Skull & Bones "secret" society

I'm no expert on the Bonesmen, but I happen to know that for most of it's existence, the Skull & Bones society at Yale was reserved to White, Anglo-Saxon & Protestant members of rich and politically influential US East Coast families. Are you sure you are reading from websites that have any interest in facts? A Jesuit Superior General being involved in the secret initiation, besides being preposterous, would be a quite recent change to a club where Catholics used to be barred from joining at all

if true, this would mean that the "Black Pope" has recently infiltrated a previously already influential organization, previously known for it's Anti-Catholicism

sorry, i-dog, but methinks you are reading websites that are not much interested in facts. remember that writing conspiracy theories against the Catholic Church has a tradition that goes back to The Jesuit Plot of 1605, also known as The Gunpowder Plot

i-dog's picture

Though I find your persistent resort to ad hominem insulting in the extreme, I will address a couple of your other fallacies just to set you straight:

1. Though Jesuit priests (which I did not have brought them into the conversation to deliberately confuse the issue) do not hold public office, they have been driven out of more than 80 countries over recent centuries specifically for devoting themselves to meddling in the political affairs of those countries.

2. The Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta are acting in a state of war ... on two counts. Firstly, they are at war against all other religions. Secondly, the western countries are in a declared state of war against terrorism, drugs, poverty and a dozen other contrived nonsenses. The US has been in a State of Emergency not only since 9-11, but much earlier (can't be bothered looking back through my notes right now).

3. The Jesuit Skull & Bones society has been a crypto-Jesuit society from its very inception - financed from the spoils of Samuel Russell's Jesuit 'black ships' of the China opium trade and conducting its rituals around the actual skull and the bones of Torquemada himself.

Your willful ignorance on these matters is quite disturbing, Ghordius. You need to branch away from apologist websites and read some properly researched books.

Ghordius's picture

ad homs? where? in the fantasy world of all the websites that spring up whenever someone googles jesuit+conspiracy?

yes, they have been driven out. are they the same people that were driven out? in some cases over 100 years passed

the SMOM at war? how? a secret war? "at war against all other religions"? then where are the warships? where are the troops?

how do you set up a crypto-Jesuit society (at it's inception) in a pure WASP environment like Yale in past times?

which are those properly researched books?

i-dog's picture

Attempting to refute historical facts by means of semantics and negative inferences is truly pitiful, Ghordius. It's pure sophistry.

I think we're done.

Ghordius's picture

a second, different question to the issue of divided or multiple allegiances of officials

you wrote "As a voluntarist and atheist, those lands are of abslolutely no importance to me whatsoever (apart from contributing to their economy by way of tourism). I believe that is a question solely for the inhabitants for the time being of those lands to determine"

all inhabitants? or only the citizens? meaning the proper citizens, with the proper religion, affiliations, allegiances and so on?

I get the impression that you wish for fair treatment of all inhabitants of all territories in general, yet balk at it in specific cases

Ghordius's picture

a third answer. to a specific point "By all accounts, the oath sworn by a knight to the Jesuit Superior General supercedes all prior or subsequent oaths, on pain of onerous penalty."

By no account. A Knight of Malta does not swear any oaths to a Jesuit, even if the "Jesuit Superior General". In fact, a Knight of Malta makes a chivalrous oath of defending the faith, not to obedience to anything

which of course can provoke serious issues. let's say I'm French and a Knight Hospitallier. France declares war on the Catholic Church, starts to expropriate convents, bans the rites, closes the churches, persecutes the priests. then of course the oath has some weight. it happened during the French Revolution, for example

I have no clue what the Knights of Columbus do. but again, they are something completely different. which leads again to the thing that you mix all them together

and what onerous penalty would that be, anyway?

Ghordius's picture

i-dog, a completely different angle for you to ponder upon: if the world would shift to voluntarysm, the Knights of Malta would play an even bigger role

The Gooch's picture

"The two Asian powers are at Roggerheads..."


Jack Burton's picture

Brilliant! Roggerheads! +100

dwayne elizando's picture

Earlier there was a post on a CNN website stating China has dumped US treasuries. People are claiming it was a hack job but nobody knows for sure. TYLER PLEASE FIND OUT WHAT YOU CAN ABOUT THIS!

Ness.'s picture

It was a hack job.  Absolutely no movement in bonds.  



Open:  132-09

High: 132-10

Low:  132-05

Last:  132-06



Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Must be time for annual Budget Reviews again.