China's Peaceful Rise

[JasonJ]

 

 

Once it becomes apparent to North Vietnam that the United States will intervene on their behalf if a tripwire is crossed, I have little doubt the North Vietnamese will trigger it themselves.

 

The Vietnamese would blow up the Maine if they thought it would trigger a clash between china and the United States on behalf of their interests, to cement their territorial claims, and to be able to call upon the United States Navy to protect those claims and interests.

 

The only worthy tripwire is if Chinese coast guard ships blockade a currently held Vietnamese reef/island and ram/chase away any Vietnamese ships trying to reach their blockaded reef/island in the Spratlys. If the Vietnamese shoot at Chinese coast guard ships while doing something stupid like ramming Chinese ships near Chinese held islands/reefs, then I can't endorse support for Vietnam.

I for one would never support North Vietnam.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that they are funneling troops and weapons to the southern battlefields along the Ho Chi Minh trail. They deny it, but we know it's definitely going on.

Still going on? Why would they still be doing that?

[tankerwanabe]

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/05/china-warns-of-world-war-3/

 

The PRC is now threatening WW3.

 

We should be developing plans to Nuke Bejing.

[Fritz]

We should be developing plans to Nuke Bejing.

 

I'm sure the Pentagon has always had these plans, just as China probably has had plans for nuking the US as long as it has had nukes.

[Corinthian]

Once it becomes apparent to North Vietnam that the United States will intervene on their behalf if a tripwire is crossed, I have little doubt the North Vietnamese will trigger it themselves.

 

I love it when 1960s Cold War mentality is still in some people's hearts and minds!

[Heirophant]

 

 

 

Once it becomes apparent to North Vietnam that the United States will intervene on their behalf if a tripwire is crossed, I have little doubt the North Vietnamese will trigger it themselves.

 

The Vietnamese would blow up the Maine if they thought it would trigger a clash between china and the United States on behalf of their interests, to cement their territorial claims, and to be able to call upon the United States Navy to protect those claims and interests.

The only worthy tripwire is if Chinese coast guard ships blockade a currently held Vietnamese reef/island and ram/chase away any Vietnamese ships trying to reach their blockaded reef/island in the Spratlys. If the Vietnamese shoot at Chinese coast guard ships while doing something stupid like ramming Chinese ships near Chinese held islands/reefs, then I can't endorse support for Vietnam.

I for one would never support North Vietnam.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that they are funneling troops and weapons to the southern battlefields along the Ho Chi Minh trail. They deny it, but we know it's definitely going on.

Still going on? Why would they still be doing that?

 

 

 

 

Once it becomes apparent to North Vietnam that the United States will intervene on their behalf if a tripwire is crossed, I have little doubt the North Vietnamese will trigger it themselves.

 

I love it when 1960s Cold War mentality is still in some people's hearts and minds!

 

 

Sorry about that. It was all in keeping with the wording of Nobu's post.

 

Sarcasm, and all that.

 

Corinthian had it pegged right from the start.

[Mobius]

Why not just build our own island right next door? End the Island gap! Close down Gitmo and send the prisoners there.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Mobius

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

 

Once it becomes apparent to North Vietnam that the United States will intervene on their behalf if a tripwire is crossed, I have little doubt the North Vietnamese will trigger it themselves.

 

The Vietnamese would blow up the Maine if they thought it would trigger a clash between china and the United States on behalf of their interests, to cement their territorial claims, and to be able to call upon the United States Navy to protect those claims and interests.

 

The only worthy tripwire is if Chinese coast guard ships blockade a currently held Vietnamese reef/island and ram/chase away any Vietnamese ships trying to reach their blockaded reef/island in the Spratlys. If the Vietnamese shoot at Chinese coast guard ships while doing something stupid like ramming Chinese ships near Chinese held islands/reefs, then I can't endorse support for Vietnam.

I for one would never support North Vietnam.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that they are funneling troops and weapons to the southern battlefields along the Ho Chi Minh trail. They deny it, but we know it's definitely going on.

Still going on? Why would they still be doing that?

 

 

Once it becomes apparent to North Vietnam that the United States will intervene on their behalf if a tripwire is crossed, I have little doubt the North Vietnamese will trigger it themselves.

 

I love it when 1960s Cold War mentality is still in some people's hearts and minds!

Sorry about that. It was all in keeping with the wording of Nobu's post.

 

Sarcasm, and all that.

 

Corinthian had it pegged right from the start.

 

[JasonJ]

 

The United States on Saturday called for an “immediate and lasting halt” to reclamation works in disputed waters in the South China Sea, saying Beijing’s behavior in the area was “out of step” with international norms.SINGAPORE –

 

“First, we want a peaceful resolution of all disputes. To that end, there should be an immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation by all claimants,” U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter told a high-level security conference in Singapore.

“We also oppose any further militarization of disputed features,” he said, stressing that U.S. forces would continue entering what he called international waters and airspace in the tense region.

 

The land reclamation projects are out of step with international rules, and turning underwater land into airfields won’t expand its sovereignty, Carter said, stepping up America’s condemnation of the communist giant as Beijing officials sat in the audience.

 

His remarks were immediately slammed as “groundless and not constructive” by a Chinese military officer in the audience.

 

Carter’s comments came as defense officials revealed that China had put two large artillery vehicles on one of the artificial islands it is creating in the South China Sea. The discovery, made at least several weeks ago, fuels fears in the U.S and across the Asia-Pacific that China will try to use the land reclamation projects for military purposes.

 

The weaponry was discovered at least several weeks ago, and two U.S. officials who are familiar with intelligence about the vehicles say they have been removed. The officials weren’t authorized to discuss the intelligence and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

 

The Pentagon would not release any photos to support its contention that the vehicles were there.

 

China’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea has become an increasingly sore point in relations with the United States, even as President Barack Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping have sought to deepen cooperation in other areas, such as climate change.

 

Pentagon spokesman Brent Colburn said the U.S. was aware of the artillery, but he declined to provide other details. Defense officials described the weapons as self-propelled artillery vehicles and said they posed no threat to the U.S. or American territories.

While Carter did not refer directly to the weapons in his speech, he told the audience that now is the time for a diplomatic solution to the territorial disputes because “we all know there is no military solution.”

 

“Turning an underwater rock into an airfield simply does not afford the rights of sovereignty or permit restrictions on international air or maritime transit,” Carter told the audience at the International Institute for Strategic Studies summit.

 

China’s actions have been “reasonable and justified,” said Senior Col. Zhao Xiaozhuo, deputy director of the Center on China-America Defense Relations at the People’s Liberation Army’s Academy of Military Science.

 

Zhao challenged Carter, asking whether America’s criticism of China and its military reconnaissance activities in the South China Sea “help to resolve the disputes” and maintain peace and stability in the region.

 

Carter responded that China’s expanding land reclamation projects are unprecedented in scale. He said the U.S. has been flying and operating ships in the region for decades and has no intention of stopping.

 

While Carter’s criticism was aimed largely at China, he made it clear that other nations who are doing smaller land reclamation projects also must stop.

 

One of those countries is Vietnam, which Carter is scheduled to visit during this 11-day trip across Asia. Others are Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan.

 

Asked about images of weapons on the islands, China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said she was “not aware of the situation you mention.”

 

She also scolded Carter, saying the U.S. should be “rational and calm and stop making any provocative remarks, because such remarks not only do not help ease the controversies in the South China Sea, but they also will aggravate the regional peace and stability.”

 

Carter appeared to strike back in his speech, saying that the U.S. is concerned about “the prospect of further militarization, as well as the potential for these activities to increase the risk of miscalculation or conflict.” And he said the U.S. “has every right to be involved and be concerned.”

 

But while Carter stood in China’s backyard and added to the persistent drumbeat of U.S. opposition to Beijing’s activities, he did little to give Asia-Pacific nations a glimpse into what America is willing to do to achieve a solution.

 

He said the U.S. will continue to sail, fly and operate in the region, and warned that the Pentagon will be sending its “best platforms and people” to the Asia-Pacific. Those would include, he said, new high-tech submarines, surveillance aircraft, the stealth destroyer and new aircraft carrier-based early-warning aircraft.

 

But he said little about how to solve the stand-off with China, other than calling for diplomatic talks and peaceful resolutions.

 

One senior defense official has said the U.S. is considering more military flights and patrols closer to the projects in the South China Sea, to emphasize that reclaimed lands are not China’s territorial waters. Officials also are looking at ways to adjust the military exercises in the region to increase U.S. presence if needed. That official was not authorized to discuss the options publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

One possibility would be for U.S. ships to travel within 12 miles of the artificial islands, to further make the point that they are not sovereign Chinese land.

 

The U.S. has been flying surveillance aircraft in the region, prompting China to file a formal protest.

 

U.S. and other regional officials have expressed concerns about the island building, including worries that it may be a prelude to navigation restrictions or the enforcement of a possible air defense identification zone over the South China Sea. China declared such a zone over disputed Japanese-held islands in the East China Sea in 2013.

 

Last June, the U.S. called for a freeze on construction work in disputed areas, but Beijing only increased its land reclamation. In recent months, commercial satellite imagery has put a spotlight on the rapid expansion of artificial islands.

 

China has said the islands are its territory and that the buildings and other infrastructure are for public service use and to support fishermen.

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/30/asia-pacific/u-s-demands-immediate-halt-to-south-china-sea-reclamation-projects/#.VWlDh0bkVQX

 

 

 

 

 

 

Australia taking a similar stance with the US.

 

China has moved weaponry onto artificial islands that it is building in contested areas of the South China Sea, adding to the risks of a confrontation with the United States and its regional security partners including Australia.

 

Australian officials are concerned that China could also introduce long-range radar, anti-aircraft guns and regular surveillance flights that will enable it to project military power across a maritime expanse which include some of Australia's busiest trading lanes.

 

Fairfax understands that these concerns are prompting discussions in senior military circles that could lead to Australian naval officers and air force pilots embarking on "freedom of navigation" missions to demonstrate that Canberra does not accept Beijing's hardening claims.

 

The options, which include fly-throughs, sail-throughs and exercises involving various regional partners, are expected to crystallise after officials deliver a personal briefing to Prime Minister Tony Abbott during the next fortnight.

 

Already, diplomats have dropped "talking points" about Australia not taking sides in the multi-layered territorial contest, which Chinese officials have used as evidence of Australian support.

 

More substantially, Australia's intelligence agencies are upgrading the strategic threat assessments which will inform the Abbott government's first Defence White Paper, according to government sources. Late on Wednesday, Australia's top defence official, Dennis Richardson, brought Canberra's growing concerns into public view by telling a Sydney forum that China's "unprecedented" land reclamations raise questions of "intent" and risks of "miscalculation".

 

"It is legitimate to ask the purpose of the land reclamation – tourism appears unlikely," said Mr Richardson, delivering the annual Blamey Oration at the New South Wales state Parliament.

 

"Given the size and modernisation of China's military, the use by China of land reclamation for military purposes would be of particular concern," he said.

 

The Defence Secretary's comments were the most detailed and forthright from a senior Australian official since China began building its audacious network of airstrips, deep-water ports and other military-capable infrastructure on previously submerged reefs in the Spratly Islands last year.

 

China says the new sand islands will be used for humanitarian, environmental, fishing and other internationally-minded purposes.

But it warned this week in its own Defence White Paper that it would gradually expand "offshore waters defence" to include "open seas protection", adding that it would not tolerate other countries "meddling".

 

In Canberra, Fairfax understands that China's frenetic building activity has prompted the Defence Intelligence Organisation and Office of National Assessments to adopt a more hawkish tone since they each delivered major strategic threat assessments to the National Security Committee of Committee (NSC) mid-last year.

 

Their revised strategic assessments, due to be submitted to the NSC in coming weeks, will show how the reclamations could enable China to greatly amplify threats of coercive force in order to play a gate-keeping role across hotly-contested maritime areas, if left unchecked.

 

What Australia should do about the challenge is a more difficult question.

 

Australian military officers and officials have discussed a need to demonstrate that they do not recognise any 12-mile territorial zone or more expansive economic zone that China may unilaterally claim around its freshly-minted islands. But they are grappling with the need to avoid inflaming a potential confrontation Australia's largest trading partner.

 

Last week the United States demonstrated its position with a flyover by a P-8 surveillance plane, which carried a CNN journalist.

The voice of an Australian can be heard over the aircraft's radio.

 

Senior officers and officials have speculated that Australia could join a humanitarian or military exercise with the United States or one of several regional partners including Japan, Malaysia and Singapore.

 

Such a move has been discussed in Washington and key capitals in the region but no proposal has yet been put to Canberra, it is understood.

 

It could also dispatch naval vessels or air force planes through a contested area on route to a routine destination.

 

Officials say that any such "demonstration" is likely to be conducted with minimal publicity, to avoid inflaming China's reaction.

 

Mr Richardson, in his Sydney address to the Royal United Services Institute, said the area of previously-submerged atolls that China has reclaimed in the past year is nearly four times as large as that which the five other claimant states have achieved over several decades.

 

And he critiqued the nebulous nature of China's claims which, on some readings, cover more than 80 per cent of the entire South China Sea.

 

"It is not constructive to give the appearance of seeking to change facts on the ground without any clarification of actual claims," he said.

 

"It is legitimate to raise such questions and express such concerns because tensions and potential miscalculations are not in anyone's interest."

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/china-moves-weapons-on-to-artificial-islands-in-south-china-sea-20150527-ghb3vv.html

Edited May 30, 2015 by JasonJ

[chino]

I wonder what is the long term strategy China is pursuing.

 

Anyway, China won't be the first one to shoot because whatever it is they are doing/planning, it is still WIP and surely depends on being able to do it without shells flying all over the place.

[JasonJ]

I wonder what is the long term strategy China is pursuing.

 

Anyway, China won't be the first one to shoot because whatever it is they are doing/planning, it is still WIP and surely depends on being able to do it without shells flying all over the place.

 

Of course, not being the first to shoot doesn't make the right in the case of one of the others shoot. If a burglar invades a home and refuses to leave no matter home times the home owner says stop taking my stuff, and after getting into a fist fight (boat ramming) and the Bulgar pushes the other down the ground incapable, and the burglar keeps going in and out taking more stuff, I'd say the home owner is in the right to shoot. China is breaking international laws and norms, and is taking away EEZ territory away from the other neighboring countries. China is trying to take away what could be fair sharing from the others in territory where it is the furthest. What about the poor Chinese communities that need fishing. Well what about the those in the other countries. China tells them FU and takes resources. And of course, they steal intellectual property by large volume. Now, I want China to have a chance to prosper. I know that opening up freedom of expression is a slow process should it happen with little blood. But that is internal. And that's no excuse for them to try and bully the others and shake up international relations.That kind of behavior twists my sense of justice. South China Sea is Chinese sovereignty my ass. It is no longer just barking. They are seriously trying to turn that barking nonsense into reality. Deep down in me, I want to see that airstrip construction carpet bombed..

[Heirophant]

 

I wonder what is the long term strategy China is pursuing.

 

Anyway, China won't be the first one to shoot because whatever it is they are doing/planning, it is still WIP and surely depends on being able to do it without shells flying all over the place.

 

Of course, not being the first to shoot doesn't make the right in the case of one of the others shoot. If a burglar invades a home and refuses to leave no matter home times the home owner says stop taking my stuff, and after getting into a fist fight (boat ramming) and the Bulgar pushes the other down the ground incapable, and the burglar keeps going in and out taking more stuff, I'd say the home owner is in the right to shoot. China is breaking international laws and norms, and is taking away EEZ territory away from the other neighboring countries. China is trying to take away what could be fair sharing from the others in territory where it is the furthest. What about the poor Chinese communities that need fishing. Well what about the those in the other countries. China tells them FU and takes resources. And of course, they steal intellectual property by large volume. Now, I want China to have a chance to prosper. I know that opening up freedom of expression is a slow process should it happen with little blood. But that is internal. And that's no excuse for them to try and bully the others and shake up international relations.That kind of behavior twists my sense of justice. South China Sea is Chinese sovereignty my ass. It is no longer just barking. They are seriously trying to turn that barking nonsense into reality. Deep down in me, I want to see that airstrip construction carpet bombed..

 

 

The whole South China Sea affair is so ambiguous, and therein is the problem..

 

When I say ambiguous, I mean acts which could be construed as hostile don't quite cross the line into actual warfare. Thus, Vietnam was perhaps the first island-builder, followed by the rest (and in a big way by China, but they did so after seeing NO censure of Vietnam's actions).

 

Actual ramming does constitute an act of war, right? In that case, nations should feel free to open fire with actual weapons on the offending ships.

 

As for chasing away each others' fishermen, note that all parties there have done it, and continue to do so when able. No one bothers the Mainland Chinese fishermen anymore, but the Filipinos, Vietnamese, Malaysians and Taiwanese harass each other regularly, to this day.

 

They all do it because so many of their "Exclusive Economic Zones" overlap each others', and they all claim to be right, and to have the strongest "legal basis".

 

There was a particular somewhat recent incident when a Filipino navy patrol vessel actually opened fire (!) with heavy machineguns, raking a Taiwanese civilian fishing boat which "refused to be detained in international waters" (Taiwan's version)/ or "resisted arrest in Filipino waters (according to the Philippines). Who was right? Who knows - but the Filipinos did manage to kill a Taiwanese fisherman - a tragic and UNambiguous result (and it enraged Taiwan's people).

 

With incidents like that, all the countries there are understandably paranoid and protective of their citizens - China included.

 

In the end, it is the sheer ambiguity of the situation there that prevents more overt actions on anyone's part. China dares not, even against the most minor rival, fire the first shot. That would make them the aggressor. So they use water cannons, stationing their coast-guard on fishing areas, moving in oil rigs and building artificial islands. They cannot and will not do more.

 

Nor can we, lest we be the clear aggressor.

 

My recommendation is this: PLAY THE GAME, PATIENTLY. Persistence and patience are what's required. We must be more patient and more persistent than China, and we must be ready to meet ambiguity with ambiguity. Send planes and ships within 12 nautical miles of their islands. Overfly them regularly. Make it clear that their islands mean nothing. Be prepared for a long commitment to Asia - a very, very long commitment.

 

China will not START a war. Neither should we.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Heirophant

[Colin]

Take the Gitmo inmates, strap parachutes to them and drop them onto the islands, same with any other nutbars you have, solve 2 problems at once

[JasonJ]

 

 

I wonder what is the long term strategy China is pursuing.

 

Anyway, China won't be the first one to shoot because whatever it is they are doing/planning, it is still WIP and surely depends on being able to do it without shells flying all over the place.

 

Of course, not being the first to shoot doesn't make the right in the case of one of the others shoot. If a burglar invades a home and refuses to leave no matter home times the home owner says stop taking my stuff, and after getting into a fist fight (boat ramming) and the Bulgar pushes the other down the ground incapable, and the burglar keeps going in and out taking more stuff, I'd say the home owner is in the right to shoot. China is breaking international laws and norms, and is taking away EEZ territory away from the other neighboring countries. China is trying to take away what could be fair sharing from the others in territory where it is the furthest. What about the poor Chinese communities that need fishing. Well what about the those in the other countries. China tells them FU and takes resources. And of course, they steal intellectual property by large volume. Now, I want China to have a chance to prosper. I know that opening up freedom of expression is a slow process should it happen with little blood. But that is internal. And that's no excuse for them to try and bully the others and shake up international relations.That kind of behavior twists my sense of justice. South China Sea is Chinese sovereignty my ass. It is no longer just barking. They are seriously trying to turn that barking nonsense into reality. Deep down in me, I want to see that airstrip construction carpet bombed..

The whole South China Sea affair is so ambiguous, and therein is the problem..

 

When I say ambiguous, I mean acts which could be construed as hostile don't quite cross the line into actual warfare. Thus, Vietnam was perhaps the first island-builder, followed by the rest (and in a big way by China, but they did so after seeing NO censure of Vietnam's actions).

 

Actual ramming does constitute an act of war, right? In that case, nations should feel free to open fire with actual weapons on the offending ships.

 

As for chasing away each others' fishermen, note that all parties there have done it, and continue to do so when able. No one bothers the Mainland Chinese fishermen anymore, but the Filipinos, Vietnamese, Malaysians and Taiwanese harass each other regularly, to this day.

 

They all do it because so many of their "Exclusive Economic Zones" overlap each others', and they all claim to be right, and to have the strongest "legal basis".

 

There was a particular somewhat recent incident when a Filipino navy patrol vessel actually opened fire (!) with heavy machineguns, raking a Taiwanese civilian fishing boat which "refused to be detained in international waters" (Taiwan's version)/ or "resisted arrest in Filipino waters (according to the Philippines). Who was right? Who knows - but the Filipinos did manage to kill a Taiwanese fisherman - a tragic and UNambiguous result (and it enraged Taiwan's people).

 

With incidents like that, all the countries there are understandably paranoid and protective of their citizens - China included.

 

In the end, it is the sheer ambiguity of the situation there that prevents more overt actions on anyone's part. China dares not, even against the most minor rival, fire the first shot. That would make them the aggressor. So they use water cannons, stationing their coast-guard on fishing areas, moving in oil rigs and building artificial islands. They cannot and will not do more.

 

Nor can we, lest we be the clear aggressor.

 

My recommendation is this: PLAY THE GAME, PATIENTLY. Persistence and patience are what's required. We must be more patient and more persistent than China, and we must be ready to meet ambiguity with ambiguity. Send planes and ships within 12 nautical miles of their islands. Overfly them regularly. Make it clear that their islands mean nothing. Be prepared for a long commitment to Asia - a very, very long commitment.

 

China will not START a war. Neither should we.

Why should China be in the Spratlys at all? If they must have a presence there, why in the form of a 3,000 runway? Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam can do all the silly stuff that they may do and it won't bother anyone else. Only China has a large dash claiming by far the largest. The claims of the other 3 and Brunei overlap, the EEZs don't really overlap. Their claims dont claim even half the amount China claims.

[toysoldier]

Only China can make it interesting...

[swerve]

Why should China be in the Spratlys at all? If they must have a presence there, why in the form of a 3,000 runway? Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam can do all the silly stuff that they may do and it won't bother anyone else. Only China has a large dash claiming by far the largest. The claims of the other 3 and Brunei overlap, the EEZs don't really overlap. Their claims dont claim even half the amount China claims.

 

Exactly.

 

All the other countries involved can legitimately lay claim to EEZs which between 'em cover a lot of the area in contention, extending out from land which is indisputably theirs. That's more or less what they all claim.

 

China is different. It's the only country laying claim to the Spratlys which doesn't have such legitimacy. It's also the only one which claims everything. It claims that every single rock, shoal, & reef counts as land (in direct contradiction to its own policies elsewhere), & they all belong to China. It lays claim to waters which are closer to the mainland of other countries than they are even to any of the rocks & the like claimed (with no legal or historical basis) by China. Nobody else does this.

[Josh]

 

Why should China be in the Spratlys at all? If they must have a presence there, why in the form of a 3,000 runway? Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam can do all the silly stuff that they may do and it won't bother anyone else. Only China has a large dash claiming by far the largest. The claims of the other 3 and Brunei overlap, the EEZs don't really overlap. Their claims dont claim even half the amount China claims.

 

 

The obvious counter argument would be why should the USN be there either. We have no territory anywhere near the area. I agree with Heirophant; the US simply needs to peacefully make their presence known and their position clear by continually operating as if it is all open water and airspace.

[JasonJ]

 

Why should China be in the Spratlys at all? If they must have a presence there, why in the form of a 3,000 runway? Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam can do all the silly stuff that they may do and it won't bother anyone else. Only China has a large dash claiming by far the largest. The claims of the other 3 and Brunei overlap, the EEZs don't really overlap. Their claims dont claim even half the amount China claims.

 

Exactly.

 

All the other countries involved can legitimately lay claim to EEZs which between 'em cover a lot of the area in contention, extending out from land which is indisputably theirs. That's more or less what they all claim.

 

China is different. It's the only country laying claim to the Spratlys which doesn't have such legitimacy. It's also the only one which claims everything. It claims that every single rock, shoal, & reef counts as land (in direct contradiction to its own policies elsewhere), & they all belong to China. It lays claim to waters which are closer to the mainland of other countries than they are even to any of the rocks & the like claimed (with no legal or historical basis) by China. Nobody else does this.

 

 

Yes thank you, why is this point continually overlooked?

 

 

 

 

Why should China be in the Spratlys at all? If they must have a presence there, why in the form of a 3,000 runway? Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam can do all the silly stuff that they may do and it won't bother anyone else. Only China has a large dash claiming by far the largest. The claims of the other 3 and Brunei overlap, the EEZs don't really overlap. Their claims dont claim even half the amount China claims.

 

 

The obvious counter argument would be why should the USN be there either. We have no territory anywhere near the area. I agree with Heirophant; the US simply needs to peacefully make their presence known and their position clear by continually operating as if it is all open water and airspace.

 

 

Peacefully or with force depends on China's actions. If China is going to keep building up the islands and keep saying that it is sovereign territory and keep telling US patrol craft to go away, then China is a fault by putting the US in the position of "to enforce or to not enforce, that is the question" is I may say it like that. Do you think China's current activities in the SCS completely in the right of China?

[Josh]

 

Peacefully or with force depends on China's actions. If China is going to keep building up the islands and keep saying that it is sovereign territory and keep telling US patrol craft to go away, then China is a fault by putting the US in the position of "to enforce or to not enforce, that is the question" is I may say it like that. Do you think China's current activities in the SCS completely in the right of China?

 

 

Realistically the US isn't going to land Marines and kick the Chinese out, and certainly no one else will - the only country with anything like the capability is Japan, and I can't see them making that leap of faith. Therefore the game will go on indefinitely, regardless of the how legal or unreasonable China's claims are.

[JasonJ]

 

Peacefully or with force depends on China's actions. If China is going to keep building up the islands and keep saying that it is sovereign territory and keep telling US patrol craft to go away, then China is a fault by putting the US in the position of "to enforce or to not enforce, that is the question" is I may say it like that. Do you think China's current activities in the SCS completely in the right of China?

 

Realistically the US isn't going to land Marines and kick the Chinese out, and certainly no one else will - the only country with anything like the capability is Japan, and I can't see them making that leap of faith. Therefore the game will go on indefinitely, regardless of the how legal or unreasonable China's claims are.

Ultimately, I wouldn't care so much if China had better freedoms of expression. I feel like a broken record repeating freedom of expression but ultimately the quality of life hinges on freedom of expression. If China can't domestically support, then that is their issue and theirs only if they were a small power that doesn't influence others. But China is a growing world power with still some of the worse limits in freedom of expression. The ironic thing is that if China was a country of greater freedom of expression, they might not even be pushing some silly 9 dash line claim now with the island construction, etc. Instead they would have shelved the 9 dash line claim as they did in the early 1980s and would have just left it there collecting dust. To some extent, good economy is needed for the chance of freedom of expression to develop like in Taiwan and South Korea. But those two countries are small. How much more economic power would China need to finally be ripe to transitioning to greater freedom expression? China may have too much world power before reaching economic levels where freedom of expression can open up.

[Nobu]

The Nationalist Chinese claim complicates matters considerably. As long as the flag of Nationalist China flies over one island, the PRC is unlikely to lower its flag from its own. Doing so would be a clear diplomatic signal of tacit recognition of Taiwanese independence.

 

This is basic 1980s level Polisci 1A.

[JasonJ]

The Nationalist Chinese claim complicates matters considerably. As long as the flag of Nationalist China flies over one island, the PRC is unlikely to lower its flag from its own. Doing so would be a clear diplomatic signal of tacit recognition of Taiwanese independence.

 

This is basic 1980s level Polisci 1A.

Taiwan has a reasonable deal right now with Japan over the Senkaku islands. I'm sure Taiwan would be reasonable in the SCS if the PRC was reasonable.

 

Edit:

On further thought, Taiwan can't possible develop into the slightest sort of threat in the SCS. If PRC only needed to be in the SCS to counter Taiwan presence one or two artificial islands would be enough. Not 6 with one have a runway almost twice the length of the one Taiwan has.

Edited June 3, 2015 by JasonJ

[JasonJ]

Aquino makes the Nazi Germany comparison while making a speech at the Japanese parliament.

 

The Philippine president has likened present-day China to Nazi Germany, hinting that the world cannot continue to appease Beijing as it claims ever more territory in the South China Sea.

 

Benigno Aquino’s comments – made during a speech in Japan – came as disquiet grows over the quickening pace of China’s land reclamation programme in international waters, including its construction of a runway long enough for large military planes.

 

“If there was a vacuum, if the United States, which is the superpower, says ‘we are not interested’, perhaps there is no brake to ambitions of other countries,” he told an audience of business leaders in Tokyo.

 

“I’m an amateur student of history and I’m reminded of ... how Germany was testing the waters and what the response was by various other European powers,” he said, referring to the Nazis’ territorial conquests in the months before the outbreak of the second world war.

 

“They tested the waters and they were ready to back down if, for instance, in that aspect, France said (to back down).

 

But unfortunately, up to the annexation of the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, the annexation of the entire country of Czechoslovakia, nobody said stop.

 

If somebody said stop to Hitler at that point in time, or to Germany at that time, would we have avoided World War II.”

 

Aquino, who is in Japan on a four-day visit, has previously made similar comments comparing China’s actions to those of the Third Reich.

 

“At what point do you say, ‘Enough is enough’? Well, the world has to say it – remember that the Sudetenland was given in an attempt to appease Hitler to prevent World War II,” he told the New York Times last year.

 

That provoked fury in Beijing, which labelled the Philippine president “amateurish”, “ignorant” and “lame”.

 

Aquino’s comments came after the US president, Barack Obama, this week weighed in on the growing tensions in the South China Sea, urging regional powers – particularly China – to respect the law and stop “throwing elbows”.

 

China has rejected US demands to stop all reclamation works in the South China Sea, saying it was exercising its sovereignty and using the outposts to fulfil international responsibilities.

 

Beijing insists it has sovereignty over nearly all of the South China Sea, a major global shipping route believed to be home to oil and gas reserves, but rival claimants accuse it of expansionism.

 

Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have varied claims over islets and reefs in the area.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/03/china-nazi-germany-south-china-sea-philippine-president-benigno-aquino

[swerve]

 

 

Why should China be in the Spratlys at all? If they must have a presence there, why in the form of a 3,000 runway? Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam can do all the silly stuff that they may do and it won't bother anyone else. Only China has a large dash claiming by far the largest. The claims of the other 3 and Brunei overlap, the EEZs don't really overlap. Their claims dont claim even half the amount China claims.

 

 

The obvious counter argument would be why should the USN be there either. We have no territory anywhere near the area. I agree with Heirophant; the US simply needs to peacefully make their presence known and their position clear by continually operating as if it is all open water and airspace.

 

Rather different. The USA doesn't claim any of it, just objects to China laying claim to the territory & EEZs of the USA's friends & allies.

[Josh]

The Nationalist Chinese claim complicates matters considerably. As long as the flag of Nationalist China flies over one island, the PRC is unlikely to lower its flag from its own. Doing so would be a clear diplomatic signal of tacit recognition of Taiwanese independence.

 

This is basic 1980s level Polisci 1A.

 

Oh please, the mainland never made an issue of these islands until it had a big enough dick to push its neighbors around. This no longer has anything to do with Taiwan outside of the fact it is one of the nations China is challenging.

[Cinaruco]

China is also making another long term move, that is purely economical, though if openly hostile to the US, and that is in Venezuela If you think America has a debt problem with China, you need to examine the Venezuelan situation. In order to secure short term loans, the Bolivarian government has sold out the long term rights to some of the most strategic oil fields in the country, with the Orinoco Delta should now be the Norinoco Delta.

 

Its brilliant for their part, ripping off and manipulating a gullible, corrupt and both literally and economically illiterate governments at the US own's door. I wonder, where did that strategy began (Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc). Its not so much the local goverments as ripping off US strategy from the 50s.