babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Diplomatic resolution sought in South China Sea standoff

NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

;;

 

 


Comments

NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Diplomatic Resolution Sought in South China Sea Standoff

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/world/asia/diplomatic-resolution-sough...

 

Philippine and Chinese officials on Wednesday called for a diplomatic solution to a naval standoff in the South China Sea, while insisting that they would defend their territorial claims in the region.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Working link.

ETA: Whoops! Crossposted.

 


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Who was saying in another thread that they never heard the word "imperialism" except on babble?

Here it is again. U.S. imperialism. Learn that term. Better late than never. And thank babble.

 

 


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

"In an article published online this week, a Chinese Army officer accused the Philippines of trying to use American power to intimidate China. The officer, Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, warned that China might reconsider its planned $50 billion investments in the Philippines."


NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

This is all part of the US plan to hem China in

Quote:
The Philippines, an ally of the United States, has become a particular target of China’s anger in the South China Sea disputes. Some analysts speculate that Beijing’s harsher tone could be a tit-for-tat after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stood on the deck of an American warship last November in Manila Bay and reaffirmed the military alliance between the Philippines and the United States.

Mrs. Clinton referred to an area of the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea — a name used by the Philippines but not other nations — a point that irritated the Chinese.

In a demonstration of how exploration of oil and gas is a crucial aspect of the South China Sea territorial disputes, American and Philippine naval exercises this month will include one that involves retaking a hijacked oil rig, according to the Philippine military. The current naval standoff began Sunday when Philippine surveillance aircraft spotted eight Chinese fishing boats near Scarborough Shoal, an outcropping of rocks 124 nautical miles east of Luzon Island in the Philippines. The shoal, which is called Panatag in the Philippines and Huangyan in China, is claimed by both countries.

 


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

I don't get it. China holds most of the USA's debt. If they have a war does that nullify the trade debt or something?


NorthReport
Online
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

 

I'm having a hard time seeing how China can claim that territory when it's obvious the Philippines and a few other nations are much closer. China is doing the same crap with South Korea, Japan, Vietnam and several other nations. The more they build up their navy the more they that start pushing on neighboring nations territories. But then the Philippines are a US ally so they have to be evil and up to no good and must be opposed at any cost.

Right guys?


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I'm having a hard time seeing how China can claim that territory when it's obvious the Philippines and a few other nations are much closer.

I don't know why they don't just name you as arbitrator. With logic like yours, peaceful solutions based on geographic proximity would be so simple, compared to messy issues of law.

PS: Could you send me a copy of your decision awarding the Malvinas to Argentina - or are you still measuring the distance to Buckingham Palace?

 


Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

Thanks, unfortunately it's not always that simple. The Malvinas belong to Argentina, Britain took them by force.

 

So back to the supject at hand: your with China on this one, right?


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

So back to the supject at hand: your with China on this one, right?

Absolutely not. I have no idea of the history or the legalities. You, on the contrary, seem to draw conclusions about who owns what from distances on maps.

What I know for sure is that U.S. imperialism should get out or be physically thrown out of that region, and everywhere else for that matter. Do you get the distinction, or would you like some more explanation with more examples, etc.?

 


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Scarborough Shoal Again in the News

http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/national/1304-scarborough-shoal-...

"..When Antonio Trilleres became senator, he authored the first bill defining the country's baselines, which was needed for our submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. In his version, Scarborough Shoal was included in the baselines primarily because he said, 'the distance from Luzon is less than the 125 nm limit.' With this our country stands to gain approximately 14,500 sq nm of EEZ and Continental Shelf,' he added.

The Arroyo government version, was what became law, designated Scarborough as 'a regime of islands.' As regime of islands, it is still part of Philipines territory, but as Trilleres pointed out, Scarborough Shoal is basically a rock, and according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the regime of islands has an exception and that is Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf..."

Scarborough Tension Eased

http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/news/national/1306-scarborough-tensio...

"Philipine Coast Guard ship relieves 'Del Pilar'; standoff now a civilian issue.."

 


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

Clinton Embraces the Navy

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/12/clinton_embraces_the_na...

"...As part of the 'pivot to Asia' the Obama administration has adopted the Navy's vision of the centrality of seapower to grand strategy, and appreciates the multifaceted role that the Navy will play in shaping East Asia politics. It seem unlikely though, that the Chinese will be too excited about seeing more American warships in their backyard. Clinton acknowledged this obliquely, saying,

'I am well aware that some in Asia fear that a robust American presence, and our talk of architecture, institutions and norms is really code for protecting Western perogatives and denying rising powers their fair share of influence. The argument goes that we're trying to draw them into a rigged system that favours us.'

Well, yes."


Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

Unionist wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

So back to the supject at hand: your with China on this one, right?

Absolutely not. I have no idea of the history or the legalities. You, on the contrary, seem to draw conclusions about who owns what from distances on maps.

What I know for sure is that U.S. imperialism should get out or be physically thrown out of that region, and everywhere else for that matter. Do you get the distinction, or would you like some more explanation with more examples, etc.?

 

 

I'm not drawing anything here. I just showed a map, that I didn't draw by the way, and said it would seem China's claim seems to ignore other nations in the area that are obviously closer to that area. I also said that in allot of these territorial disputes China is turning out to be quit the imperialist force its self... something many here seem to ignore or don't know about. Every indication is it's only going to get worse as China builds up its navy. If you want to dispute that go for it.  

I already know your AI stance, nothing new there.


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Apparently, everyone's oil and gas deposits everywhere are a strategic resource for the USSA, hence it's always seen as a pressing national security concern of theirs when other nations start getting all uppity about who owns what. That's why the US State Department and their loyal national information bureaus, the media in other words, get all bent out of shape when folks like the Russians or the Venezuelans for instance elect the wrong candidates. Hell, for that matter, someone holding up a poster on Pennsylvania Avenue that says 'down with the imperialists' constitutes a potential national security threat. It really doesn't take a whole lot these days. It might be worthwhile to research the history of negotiations, if any exist, between the successions of US backed puppet rulers in the Philippines and the PRC over the disputed areas. We might also surmise that the performance bonus envelopes of the oil and gas industry executives on Capitol Hill, aka the lackey representatives in Congress, might be a little lighter than usual if they're not kicking up a stink whenever their bosses interests are not being advanced in the halls of influence.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

The tail end of that NYT article mentions China's disagreement with Vietnam and the Philippines over a multilateral approach:

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/south_east_asia/AJ201204040082

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/31925/china-urges-direct-talks-on-marit...


Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

 

Yeah but it isn't just China vs Philippines in this dispute. Vietnam, Malaysia and several other counties have claims in the area as well. Does that make them all USA patsies?


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Vietnam, Malaysia and several other counties have claims in the area as well.

They're not counties yet. They're still independent.

Quote:
Does that make them all USA patsies?

You don't get it, do you? That's a rhetorical question. There's only one problem here. Let me spell it out for you:

U-S I-M-P-E-R-I-A-L-I-S-M

Ok, now back to the New York Times story:

Quote:
Some analysts speculate that Beijing’s harsher tone could be a tit-for-tat after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stood on the deck of an American warship last November in Manila Bay and reaffirmed the military alliance between the Philippines and the United States.

Mrs. Clinton referred to an area of the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea — a name used by the Philippines but not other nations — a point that irritated the Chinese.

You see, "Mrs." Clinton's buttocks should, and one day soon will, be very rudely kicked out of that region, where she sells arms for profit, provokes disputes between countries that have never been at war, and deliberately incites conflicts by inventing a name ("West Philippine Sea") which has no international recognition.

I would invite you to imagine the following scenario where China signs a military treaty with France, and the Chinese foreign minister, from the deck of a Chinese warship lurking off the coast of Newfoundland smirks and scowls, reaffirms China's "sacred determination" to protect St-Pierre and Miquelon against "any and all aggressors", and makes passing reference to Newfoundland as "the 21st arrondissement of Paris".

No, these countries are not "patsies" of the U.S. The U.S. has all the patsies it needs, right here in Canada.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Gee I think Canada shoud withdraw some of its claims in the north since Russia and Norway and the US all have competing claims.  Damn if we only had the largest military on the planet we could just sail in and intimidate countries and sabre rattle till we get our own way.

I hope the Russians and US don't decide to make the North a crisis area by sending in massive navel fleets to determine their "might" to the oil. 

Bec your portrayal of China as an imperialist country is interesting.  You have a lot of military knowledge so maybe you can tell me how many countries they have military bases in? I know the US spends about 12 times the amount on weapons compared to China.  And can you point me to the stated imperial design that the Chinese are following.  The US of course for nearly 200 years has had its Munroe Doctrine.  It states that in areas that are contingent to it like the Philippines are to China, "we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

Seems to me the US is adopting an unfriendly disposition towards China in inserting its military into a region of the world that they have no right or reason to think they should control. Except of course for the fact of American "exceptionalism."  Ask most Americans they will tell you the US is the guiding light and should direct the "free world" in all its activities because God made their constitution in His image.


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

All the same, it might be kinda nice to use 'patsies' as our very own Canadianized description, like humor vs. humour.  I think the US has had a lock on the words stooge and lackey for some time.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Seems to me that patsies in foreign governments provide the pasties for naked agression by US/NATO imperialists.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

No. There are at least two stories here.

There is the U.S. wrongly getting involved in this dispute for its own gain and power, and there is also the dispute between China and the other countries in the region (not all of which are puppets of the United States), who seem to want to avoid divide and conquer tactics.

 

 


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

A regional discussion limited to interested nations who are actually located in the region can't be of interest to anyone on Wall Street.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

I'm waiting for China's navy armed with nukes to sail into the Arctic and claim that it supporting Norway's bid.  Would anybody find that scenario acceptable?

6079, it seems to me that the only outlier in the South China Sea dispute is the USA.  Like our Arctic I think that diplomacy between the countries involved is what is required. There is no place for the US in this dispute.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ kropotkin1951

I said myself that the U.S. should not involve itself in that dispute. 

But China also seems to be off-side with the other countries involved in this dispute, and not above using its power to force its position and influence other countries to support it (Cambodia).

Diplomacy between the countries is a good idea. I think China is the only claimant which wants to take the other parties into a back room one-by-one rather than sitting down at the table together.

 


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Ugly Amerikkaner diplomacy has no place anywhere.  It's practitioners should all be taken out for a dunk in the latest Gulf of Mexico oil sheen.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ kropotkin1951

I said myself that the U.S. should not involve itself in that dispute. 

But China also seems to be off-side with the other countries involved in this dispute, and not above using its power to force its position and influence other countries to support it (Cambodia).

Diplomacy between the countries is a good idea. I think China is the only claimant which wants to take the other parties into a back room one-by-one rather than sitting down at the table together.

 

Hey Smith. This is none of the U.S.'s business. It is none of our business as Canadians. What you're proposing is very similar to how the U.S. is trying to insert itself in the dispute - "Mrs." Clinton warning unnamed countries not to intimidate anyone. If China wants to negotiate one on one, that's China's business and whoever agrees to negotiate that way.

Colonial thinking runs deep. Let's just pretend that the people of those countries are almost as smart as we and "Mrs." Clinton are when it comes to handling their own sovereign affairs. I know it's a stretch, but let's try anyway.

 


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

If China was not "offside" with the other countries there wouldn't be a dispute.

If the US navy was not being sent to the region at the same time as Clinton's sabre rattling it would not be an international crisis.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Unionist wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ kropotkin1951

I said myself that the U.S. should not involve itself in that dispute. 

But China also seems to be off-side with the other countries involved in this dispute, and not above using its power to force its position and influence other countries to support it (Cambodia).

Diplomacy between the countries is a good idea. I think China is the only claimant which wants to take the other parties into a back room one-by-one rather than sitting down at the table together.

 

Hey Smith. This is none of the U.S.'s business. It is none of our business as Canadians. What you're proposing is very similar to how the U.S. is trying to insert itself in the dispute - "Mrs." Clinton warning unnamed countries not to intimidate anyone. If China wants to negotiate one on one, that's China's business and whoever agrees to negotiate that way.

Colonial thinking runs deep. Let's just pretend that the people of those countries are almost as smart as we and "Mrs." Clinton are when it comes to handling their own sovereign affairs. I know it's a stretch, but let's try anyway.

 

Sorry Unionist, but WTF are you talking about? Did I say that I think Canada or any other outside country should interfere in this situation? Did I say anything to imply that anyone over there is not smart enough to handle diplomatic affairs? I happen to think the Chinese tactic in this is very smart - a very smart series of attempts to pressure and divide its neighbours, and interfere with THEIR desire for a multilateral negotiated solution.

And did I propose anything at all (other than saying that the U.S. should not be there, that is)? I don't think so, so I am not sure what you are on about with comparisons between my ideas and those of the U.S. Imperialists.

...or you accusing me of thinking that other people aren't intelligent.

and @ kropotkin

Actually it would be an international crisis whether the U.S. was there or not. It just wouldn't be one which would draw our attention.

 

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
I'm having a hard time seeing how China can claim that territory when it's obvious the Philippines and a few other nations are much closer.

Come on, Bec. Uncle Sam and his oil companies had their kick at the can in South East Asia with Vietnam. It's time to let go.

China's Discovery Boom: Large Oil and Gas Fields Detected Offshore

South China Sea is another potentially large oil and gas basin.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments