Tensions in South China Sea build

Tensions continue to build in the South China Sea after Chinese navy reportedly told a US spy plane to leave eight times.

According to CNN reporters on board the US spy plane, the P8-A Poseidon, American pilots once responded to the request to leave by saying they were in international airspace to which came the reply “This is the Chinese navy … you go!”.

CNN reporters say the plane flew at 4,500 meters at its lowest altitude.

Speaking on Chinese government television station CNTV, Spokesman for China’s foreign ministry Hong Lei said he was unaware of the incident and that he hoped the US would respect China’s authority in the South China Sea.

“China has the right to engage in monitoring in the relevant air space and waters to protect the country’s sovereignty and prevent accidents at sea,” he said.

He also emphasized China’s right to monitor their air space and condemned the US for their surveillance.

“The recent surveillance activity by a U.S. plane posed potential threats to China’s islands and reefs, making it highly possible to lead to misjudgment, which could cause maritime or air accidents.”

“The move is very irresponsible and dangerous, putting regional peace and stability in jeopardy. China expresses its strong dissatisfaction,” he said.

Australia was drawn into the tension after China warned against the possibility of Australia hosting a US B1-bomber.

Both Australia and The US have since denied claims that the Northern Territory would host an American B1-Bomber after the US Assistant Defence Secretary David Shear “Mispoke” that one would be included as a part of America’s strategy to combat Chinese aggression in the South China Sea.

“I’ve sought some information about the testimony provided in Washington by an official. I understand that the official misspoke and that the U.S. does not have any plans to base those aircraft in Australia,” said Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Speaking to the Australian Financial Review Lei expressed concerns over Secretary Shear’s comments.

“It is China’s stand that co-operation between countries should promote the peace, stability and prosperity of Asia Pacific area and it should be carried out in a constructive way,” he said.

The disputed areas form part of a major trade route and with a close proximity to Australia some security experts have concerns about an inevitable involvement from Australia.

The cost of fair report

The prisoner, skeletal and hallowed like he has endured months of torture, kneels on the ground and hands bound behind his back. His orange robes hang off him giving the appearance they once fit the man he used to be. Beside him stand an Islamic state militant, clad in black, a balaclava covering his face. In his hand a haunting machete. We’ve seen it all too many times before, we know how this story ends. But still we watch.

Of course we watch, or listen, the message the videos are exactly as terrifying as they are meant to be. There is no reason we wouldn’t be scared and that’s exactly what they want.

In the past journalists have been used as Joe Blow’s window to the war. Previous military campaigns saw journalists play a vital role in showing the average white collar worker what was going on in distant lands where fighting took place. They often strived to bring home news of triumph and victory. But as the nature of both war and journalism have changed in recent years and perhaps it is time we reconsider the role of journalists in conflict.

While most of the wars the world has seen until now were about on the ground fighting, dropping bombs and governments exchanging threats, the conflict with the Islamic State is something entirely different. IS are an extremely tech-savvy organisation that employ strong social media tactics in almost everything they do from recruitment and propaganda to executions. It is not uncommon for IS militants to make social media declarations before, during, or after attacks. It is clear they are using it as a way to promote fear and exercise power. US security expert, Brian Jenkins once said that “terrorism is theatre” and this is exactly what he meant.

Scholars Alex Peter Schmid and Janny de Graaf explained terrorism in terms of communication. The success or failure of an act of terrorism is determined by the size of its audience, not the number of casualties. Using this logic we should think that if the media were to seize reporting on acts of terror by IS they might just seize to have the impact and influence they do.

But why then do we continue to feed into this terror cycle? Put simply, it sells. Of course there are more philosophical reasons about the public’s right to know and the duty of the journalist. But perhaps it was time we had the discussion of whether it is worth the toll it is taking.