Diplomatic resolution sought in South China Sea standoff

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Slumberjack

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Maybe this will help, maybe it woun't.

The folks at BBC Imagery are always helpful aren't they?  And their journalists have explained so much to us over the years.  I find the occasional visit helps inform my take on things too.

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Fidel wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Speaking of Vietnam, they have an interest in this too, which has nothing to do with the Americans.

You're kidding, right?

 

No, you've got to be kidding with that post... that link shows NOTHING about Vietnam besides it being on the map.

 

Here let me help you out...

 

Vietnam Says Cnooc's South China Sea Bids Violate Territory

 

Vietnam, China tension escalates

 

 

 

So what are you saying? Are you suggesting the U.S. military buildup is about backing Vietnam and their territorial claims? 

And btw, when will Uncle Sam be paying Vietnam the incalculable hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations for massive loss of life and destruction the US Military was directly responsible for the last time they helped out in that country?

6079_Smith_W

So remind me please who here is arguing in favour of U.S. intervention in the area, since some people still seem to think it is a point of contention.

And SJ, at least Bec posted a map that didn't have Taiwan identified as a nation, unlike the Washington Post graphic from Fidel. Are we supposed to automatically disbelieve that one too because of its source, or does that only apply to things we disagree with?

And what's your point? Are you suggesting the map is wrong? Do you think China doesn't have a claim on those waters? 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Well I can see my devious  divide and conquer strategy is working just fine.

And regarding the map, yes, it does seem a little bit overreaching, doesn't it? Thing is, if you start googling every map confirms that line.

http://www.eyedrd.org/2011/06/china-claims-80-of-the-south-china-sea.html  

Here is another article regarding the dispute, including the sea's importance as a tramsport route. It also mentions some of the military conflicts that have happened there in recent years:

http://southchinaseastudies.org/en/conferences-and-seminars-/507-south-c...

One encounter involved a U.S. ship, but a number of then had nothing to do with any U.S.  puppet states at all.

 

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And SJ, at least Bec posted a map that didn't have Taiwan identified as a nation, unlike the Washington Post graphic from Fidel. Are we supposed to automatically disbelieve that one too because of its source, or does that only apply to things we disagree with?

If you haven't noticed by now, there's a few of us around that take issue with Fidel on some of the finer points, like on the notion that the choice between three parties with an imperialist supporting track record represents no choice at all, along with the point about there being three such parties indeed, each of whom having earned the respective primetime slots currently assigned to them, in the usual manner.  By the same token we don't necessarily have to always condemn the Washington Post's every attention to detail, or inattention as it were.  Similar to a broken clock as the saying goes, they're still bound to be right at least twice a day through no mechanical effort of their own.

Quote:
And what's your point? Are you suggesting the map is wrong? Do you think China doesn't have a claim on those waters? 

Yes about the map.  I thought we were done with putting our faith in cartoons stills after Colin Powell's mobile WMD Lab showing at the UN.  But then there's never a Douglas MacArthur laying around doing nothing when you need one. The BBC's red dotted line has the Chinese going right up against the beach for chrissakes.  That's Doug's beach!

Anyone curious to know about China's claims in the region should be well advised to consider the source of that particular graphic, is all I'm saying.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It also mentions some of the military conflicts that have happened there in recent years:

They seem to have stopped in 1998. Where do you see the ones in "recent years"?

"Mrs." Clinton shooting off her mouth doesn't count.

6079_Smith_W

Well seeing as  this concerns a country whose former leader , Zhou En Lai, said it was "too soon to tell" what the legacy of the French Revolution was, and which is basing its claim in this case on 700-year-old maps, I'd say the last 40 years IS recent history. 

Are you making a point there, or is it just monkey poo? 

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So remind me please who here is arguing in favour of U.S. intervention in the area, since some people still seem to think it is a point of contention.

It's just that you said this earlier:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So sorry, I can see why China's variousneighbours on all sides might feel threatened, and I think their tactics of turning down multinational talks and threatening withdrawl of investment is a bad one.

Even though the U.S. Military and its NATO allies have attacked numerous countries around the world since 1991, you seem to be worried about China, a country that has withdrawn investment in various western enterprises since the military attacks on Libya and this business with trying to provoke war in Syria.

I do not fear China, I am not sure why anyone in the world would have reason to fear military aggression from China. 

 And by coincidence the U.S. Military buildup ringing China and Russia seems to be happening at a time when U.S. economic dominance is on the wane. It's as if colder war hawks feel a need to re-assert their presence in the Pacific all these years later.

OTOH if I were an Asian person, I might instead choose to be fearful of a certain western country ringing China with all manner of naval and military buildups including nuclear weaponry.

Just some observations. Carry on.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

From The Economist (February 2011): The South China Sea: A sea of disputes

excerpt:

Some of these arguments might in theory be soluble under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), established in 1982. Some of the parties have tried to align their claim with UNCLOS. In 2009, for example, Malaysia and Vietnam made a joint submission, showing where they thought their claims lay, based on their continental shelves. This implied that the Spratlys-a collection of reefs, rocks and tiny islands-were all too small to support human habitation and hence have their own exclusive economic zones (EEZs) under UNCLOS. 

China, however, objected to that submission and tabled its own map, with nine dotted lines outlining its claim. Joined up, the dotted lines give it not just the two chains, but almost the whole sea. There seems to be no basis for this in UNCLOS. But China points to history. It says the map has been in use since the Republic of China published it in 1946, and, until quite recently, nobody minded. Indonesia, in turn, subsequently objected to China's objection, which gave China a claim over some Indonesian waters, too. According to American officials, China has upped the ante by talking of its territorial claims in the South China Sea as a "core" national interest, on a par with Tibet and Taiwan. 

There is a huge amount at stake. Besides fisheries, the sea, particularly around the Spratlys, is believed to be enormously rich in hydrocarbons. The lure of such riches ought to make it attractive to devise joint-development mechanisms so that all could benefit. In practice, the resources potentially available make it even harder for any country to moderate its claim. 

The sea is also a vital shipping route, accounting for a big chunk of world trade. It is the importance of the freedom of navigation and of overflight that has given America its pretext for louder involvement. This was initially welcomed by the members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations when voiced at a regional forum in Hanoi in July last year, So fiercely did China object to America's rather disingenuous offer of "mediation", however, that some countries may now be ruing it. 

So a second related dispute is between two regional superpowers: China and America. In particular, America and China differ over whether military activities are permissible in another country's EEZ. America insists they are. China objects to them and has on occasion harassed America's spy planes and survey ships. 

A third dispute is between China and ASEAN. These two reached a common "Declaration on Conduct" (DoC) in 2002 in an attempt to minimise the risk of conflict. But efforts to turn it into a formal and binding code have got nowhere, partly because of China's anger at ASEAN's attempts to develop a common approach. 

China argues that ASEAN has no role in territorial issues, and insists on negotiating with the other claimants bilaterally. ASEAN sees this as an effort to pick off its members one by one. It argues that its own charter forces members to consult, as they do before each working group on the code of conduct (the next one is due in March).

excerpt:

In their complexity, the South China Sea disputes provide material for endless scholarly bickering. Now that America has made it a focus for its re-engagement in Asia's seas as a superpower and guarantor of the peace, and China has made clear it resents this, they also present some serious risks.

comment: who made America the World Police?

kropotkin1951

Interesting that both Taiwan and China agree that China in some form or another owns the whole shebang. Not surprising given the fact that China's claim predates Mao's defeat of Chiang.  It was the KMT who first made this assertion in 1946. 

Thx Boom Boom for that article I laughed at the part where the US offered to be a mediator. Gee I wonder why the Chinese don't see them as an honest broker.  After all that is part of the centuries old American mythology. LOL

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, that was good. If there's a crisis, the US are the last people that should be involved given their record. They're butting in everywhere because with their military spending more than the rest of the world combined, they feel they can do as they please and who can stand in their way?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I believe the USA secretly (maybe openly?) truly and deeply wants an all-out  war with China, because the US lives by the dictum that 'war is good for business' and China is the biggest opportunity ever. So they'll lose a few million in casualties - the US doesn't give a f*ck, they want to use up all those munitions they have lying around, maybe use a few A-bombs before they rust out and have to be de-commissioned and scrapped. Once the stockpile of weapons is used up, business will happilly hum along and build more.

I'm kidding! Been watching Dr. Strangelove. Laughing

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I posted mostly because I find the comparison of imperial China to the US so ludicrous that it reads like cheap propaganda.  

 

It's more than just cheap porpaganda... its real.

 

China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988]

 

China's version

 

Vietnam's version

 

 

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Fidel wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So remind me please who here is arguing in favour of U.S. intervention in the area, since some people still seem to think it is a point of contention.

It's just that you said this earlier:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So sorry, I can see why China's variousneighbours on all sides might feel threatened, and I think their tactics of turning down multinational talks and threatening withdrawl of investment is a bad one.

Even though the U.S. Military and its NATO allies have attacked numerous countries around the world since 1991, you seem to be worried about China, a country that has withdrawn investment in various western enterprises since the military attacks on Libya and this business with trying to provoke war in Syria.

I do not fear China, I am not sure why anyone in the world would have reason to fear military aggression from China. 

 And by coincidence the U.S. Military buildup ringing China and Russia seems to be happening at a time when U.S. economic dominance is on the wane. It's as if colder war hawks feel a need to re-assert their presence in the Pacific all these years later.

OTOH if I were an Asian person, I might instead choose to be fearful of a certain western country ringing China with all manner of naval and military buildups including nuclear weaponry.

Just some observations. Carry on.

Well that's just it Fidel. 

Eveyone here has said that the U.S. should not be interfering in the region, so my first question stands. But as I said, China isn't  the only party in this dispute. The Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei are all countries  (in the case of Taiwan, de facto), and they are all affected by China's 80% claim, and its refusal to join in a multilateral negotiated settlement, 

I'm not targetting them or afraid of them, I'm just saying they seem to be making a claim that doesn't take into account the interest of these other countries, and they are not above using presure tactics. In another article I read that China warned India to not make any agreements with Vietnam to develop oil in Vietnam's territorial waters. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/16/china-vietnam-india-idUSL3E7LE...

and @ Boom Boom

Yes, good article. I presume the scare quotes are in the original. Even an international business journal speaks openly about the fact that the U.S. has an ulterior motive here.

 

 

kropotkin1951

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I posted mostly because I find the comparison of imperial China to the US so ludicrous that it reads like cheap propaganda.  

 

It's more than just cheap porpaganda... its real.

 

China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988]

 

China's version

 

Vietnam's version

In your world view then that incident is the same as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the destruction of Libya and the ongoing drone strikes in at least 6 different countries.

Thx for highlighting my point that there is simply no relative comparison between the naked aggression of NATO/US and the Chinese.  The Chinese are lightweight imperialists.  So in 1988 there were a few casualties and you compare it to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and close to 2 million displaced refugees.  Yup the Chinese are definitively not in the same league as the real imperial power.

kropotkin1951

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Eveyone here has said that the U.S. should not be interfering in the region, so my first question stands. But as I said, China isn't  the only party in this dispute. The Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei are all countries  (in the case of Taiwan, de facto), and they are all affected by China's 80% claim, and its refusal to join in a multilateral negotiated settlement, 

 

Lets see China is to be vilified for refusing multilateral talks and at the same time we need to vilify Iran for refusing bilateral talks and insisting on multilateral ones instead.  Its always the same. Any position in opposition to the NATO/US position is vilified. That is just the way our MSM works in the democratic world.

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I posted mostly because I find the comparison of imperial China to the US so ludicrous that it reads like cheap propaganda.  

 

It's more than just cheap porpaganda... its real.

 

China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988]

 

China's version

 

Vietnam's version

In your world view then that incident is the same as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the destruction of Libya and the ongoing drone strikes in at least 6 different countries.

Thx for highlighting my point that there is simply no relative comparison between the naked aggression of NATO/US and the Chinese.  The Chinese are lightweight imperialists.  So in 1988 there were a few casualties and you compare it to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and close to 2 million displaced refugees.  Yup the Chinese are definitively not in the same league as the real imperial power.

In the first place, I think your last point might be moot when it comes to what China's neighbours are facing in this dispute. Who cares how strong an opponent is relative to other bullies? The important question is how much stronger they are than you.

And secondly, you might remember that Vietnam does understand what it means to face the force of that real imperial power (and the French before them), and their relations with China are probably the most strained of any of those countries, with the exception of Taiwan.

kropotkin1951

Yup China and Vietnam have been at odds forever.  You said my last point was moot.  Please explain how my last point that the Chinese are light weight as imperialists compared to others is moot.  Unless of course you intended the other meaning of moot and meant not that it was irrelevant and over as an issue because they are imperialists as bad as others but whether their place on a scale of murderous imperial powers is a debatable point.

Given recent events in Libya and Syria even Canada has actually killed more citizens in a foreign country lately than the Chinese. Deciding who is acting in the most murderous imperial fashion in 2012 is a debatable point. I continue to maintain that the Chinese are in the lightweight category and if Canada follows the NATO lead in Syria and Iran we will be more murderously imperialist than the Chinese.  If you want to "moot" that point I am fine with a debate if you are telling me the debate is over and you win well I beg to differ.

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin, 

I explained why I think it is moot: It doesn't matter how strong an opponent is relative to others; it only matters how strong they are relative to you. 

Similarly, it is one thing for us to compare China and the U.S. (which we all agree should not be in there) and say we aren't afraid of them. It is quite another for someone living in the shadow of a very powerful and aggressive neighbour.

 

6079_Smith_W

*sigh*

Did I say anything like that? No. 

 

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It is quite another for someone living in the shadow of a very powerful and aggressive neighbour.

So you're saying all the average Vietnamese has to do to avoid Chinese aggression is not wade out into the watery atolls and reefs situated near Spratly Islands 400 km East of Vietnam?

Vietnamese weren't able to avoid imperial aggression so easily when the doctor and the madman bombed hell out Vietnam and waged chemical warfare against women and children. Tricky Dick promised them billions in reparations, and not one thin U.S. dime so far.

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

*sigh*

Did I say anything like that? No. 

 

 

I'm not sure, but I think you are trying to draw a weak association between China's military aggression WRT Spratly Islands a quarter century ago and that of U.S. and NATO imperialism of today. 

I wish it was a case that Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Libyans, Syrians etcetera were able to avoid living under the shadow of imperial aggression by simply avoiding a few rocks emerging from the water outside a 200 mile limit. If only it was that easy, life could be a lot easier for millions living under the shadow of actually existing imperialist aggression(s) occurring as we live and breathe.

Just so long as we recognize that it is a weak and remote association between the two very different styles WRT breadth and depth of military aggression, I think we can carry on dealing in reality no harm done. 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I posted mostly because I find the comparison of imperial China to the US so ludicrous that it reads like cheap propaganda.  

 

It's more than just cheap porpaganda... its real.

 

China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988]

 

China's version

 

Vietnam's version

In your world view then that incident is the same as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the destruction of Libya and the ongoing drone strikes in at least 6 different countries.

Thx for highlighting my point that there is simply no relative comparison between the naked aggression of NATO/US and the Chinese.  The Chinese are lightweight imperialists.  So in 1988 there were a few casualties and you compare it to hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and close to 2 million displaced refugees.  Yup the Chinese are definitively not in the same league as the real imperial power.

Oh for Christ sake... This is a thread about China, its neighbors and the disputed South China Sea not US world imperialism. There are plenty of other threads here that cover the topics I highlited so there's no need to rehash that here. I could sit here and rail about how Chinese fishing boats move into South Korean fishing grounds to fish illegally and flee to the safety of their navy waiting right outside the zone when the Korean Coast Guard tries to catch them. But that isn't in the South China Sea so I won't...

I have never said here China is as imperialistic as the US is, just that they are imperialistic (even if it's a little bit) and the dispute in the South China Sea, the 1988 sea battle included, is proof of it. Comparing the two nations to each other tit for tat is pretty much irrelevant to this thread. 

I also contend that, in the future, as China grows stronger militarily they have the very real potential to be even more so. This is making China's neighbors nervous and this is even driving some of them like the Philippines farther into USA sphere of influence. After seeing that video, even if it was 1988, of the Chinese navy chopping down pretty much defenseless Vietnamese infantry in waste deep water (that was really fucked up) I can't wonder if that has more to do with that fear or apprehension than any USA bullshit rhetoric against China. Still: the USA shooting drones at people on the other side of the planet or whatever has nothing to do with the South China Sea. You obviously disagree with that, fine, but only the passage of time will tell who's right in this situation.

 

 

Fidel

Like Filipinos have any say about U.S. military buildup in their country. Let's not pretend that Uncle Sam is there to spread democracy or contribute to resolving anything peacefully.

How can diplomacy have a chance if it's actually about threatening China militarily and ensuring that democracy does not actually take root in places like the Philippines?

Increasing U.S. Military presence on the other side of the world and political diplomacy are generally incompatible themes as usual.

6079_Smith_W

Fidel wrote:

I'm not sure, but I think you are trying to draw a weak association between China's military aggression WRT Spratly Islands a quarter century ago and that of U.S. and NATO imperialism of today. 

Just so long as we recognize that it is a weak and remote association between the two very different styles WRT breadth and depth of military aggression, I think we can carry on dealing in reality no harm done. 

Um, no I didn't. How about responding to things I actually said, instead of reacting to me daring to look at some aspect of this other than the evil Americans?

Or better still, how about doing a bit of your own reading, rather than pretending that the tension between those two countries ended with their war in 1979?

Like a $11,000 USD per person ransom for Vietnamese seized in disputed waters:

http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_china/2012-03-22/china-defends-ca...

How about I get my nose out of joint unless you agree that this international incident pales in comparison to the impending alien invasion they covered up in Roswell? Can we talk about it then? If this sort of discussion must always be framed in the context of the U.S. being the greater international threat (which I never questioned) , so be it. 

I'll just draw up a boilerplate afterword to all my posts pointing out that THE AMERICANS ARE WORSE, just in case I forget to say so.

Sounds good?

 

 

 

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fidel wrote:

How can diplomacy have a chance if it's actually about threatening China militarily and ensuring that democracy does not actually take root in places like the Philippines?

So what are you saying there? The Philippines dosn't have a democraticly elected government? 

kropotkin1951

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I also contend that, in the future, as China grows stronger militarily they have the very real potential to be even more so. This is making China's neighbors nervous and this is even driving some of them like the Philippines farther into USA sphere of influence.

LOL the Philippines have been a defacto colony of the US for over a hundred years except of course for the period that Japan claimed them.  How does one get further into the US's sphere than the Philippines have historically been.

If this is not about American imperialism then what the fuck is their navy doing in the South China Sea and why are they ringing China with offensive military installations. You never did answer me as to the number of bases in other countries China maintains.  Hell the US now has a major base in Australia.  I guess the Aussies need the protection from the POTENTIAL threat that China posses.

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Fidel wrote:

How can diplomacy have a chance if it's actually about threatening China militarily and ensuring that democracy does not actually take root in places like the Philippines?

So what are you saying there? The Philippines dosn't have a democraticly elected government? 

 

Well if you believe that death squad governments are the norm, then whatever you say is fine with us. But only if you believe in the right for paranoid governments to order sweeping arrests of physicians and other health care workers accused of being communists and even terrorists. I'd be more interested to know what do you think, Bec.

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:
How about I get my nose out of joint unless you agree that this international incident pales in comparison to the impending alien invasion they covered up in Roswell?
 

From the looks of your comments in this thread I don't think I'd want to get very deep into the subject of Roswell with you, either. I'm guessing bet your commentary would read a lot like standard US Government boilerplate, or whatever this latest CIA-sponsored 'Area 51' book says about them capturing a spy plane sent by Stalin in '47. Wacky to say the least.

6079_Smith_W

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Fidel wrote:

How can diplomacy have a chance if it's actually about threatening China militarily and ensuring that democracy does not actually take root in places like the Philippines?

So what are you saying there? The Philippines dosn't have a democraticly elected government? 

How can diplomacy have a chance?

This also begs the question of which parties are pushing for a multilateral diplomatic solution, and which are refusing to take part, and insisting on dealing one-on-one.

And what's with passing judgment on what the Philippines is and is not? Suppose I came on here and started questioning the sovreignty, human rights record, and generally how things are done and should be done in a foreign country - particularly a country which is vulnerable and developing. 

What sort of lecture do you think I might get about keeping my nose out of it, and not imposing my western values on people who should rightly be determining their own way, regardless of whether they do things which might be seen as mistakes?

 

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And what's with passing judgment on what the Philippines is and is not? Suppose I came on here and started questioning the sovreignty, human rights record, and generally how things are done and should be done in a foreign country - particularly a country which is vulnerable and developing. 

What sort of lecture do you think I might get about keeping my nose out of it, and not imposing my western values on people who should rightly be determining their own way of doing things, regardless of whether they do things which might be seen as mistakes?

 

What would you or Uncle Sam have to say if the Russians or China were to proceed setting up naval and air bases in the Caribbean and ringing America with nuclear weapons? Or would escalation of hostilities and a possible WW III scenario be considered irrelevant?

6079_Smith_W

Um... I'd say that would make for a pretty interesting movie starring Kevin Costner. 

What are you fishing for here that I haven't addressed and re-answered  numerous times? 

Besides, it would hardly matter, would it, because the Americans would still be worse.

 

 

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Besides, it would hardly matter, would it, because the Americans would still be worse.

Except that some of us have family members who are American citizens and have absolutely nothing to do with the imperialism.

Let's just say that the US Military is right in the thick of it there in the South China Sea. They've been sticking their noses in Asian affairs for a lot longer than mainland China has been without an emperor or the former pro-Anglo-American thug, Chiang Kai-shek.

Fidel

Never blink and might is right, eh, Bec?

Slumberjack

How bout shorn from all reality?

6079_Smith_W

Fidel wrote:

Except that some of us have family members who are American citizens and have absolutely nothing to do with the imperialism.

Split hairs much, Fidel? Sounds like a good subject.... for another thread. As for this one, I think you know what I meant.

And as for reality, I think Boom Boom's quote from the international business paper struck a fairly balanced approach. At least it afforded some respect to  the members of ASEAN by acknowledging they are countries with their own perspectives, which make their own policy.

 

The sea is also a vital shipping route, accounting for a big chunk of world trade. It is the importance of the freedom of navigation and of overflight that has given America its pretext for louder involvement. This was initially welcomed by the members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations when voiced at a regional forum in Hanoi in July last year, So fiercely did China object to America's rather disingenuous offer of "mediation", however, that some countries may now be ruing it.

 

kropotkin1951

I agree 6079 that is a very telling quote. 

As I've been saying America sticking its nose into other countries affairs has turned this dispute into a crisis. The ASEAN countries rue the day the Yanks got involved.  Gun boat diplomacy is an old Yankee tactic that the Chinese are pretty familiar with and apparently they don't want to play.

6079_Smith_W

Yes kropotkin, but sitting down at the table with their neighbours as a group is not the same as giving in to the Yanks. For that matter, dividing control of the sea along equitable lines isn't giving into them either. And on that point there is en existing crisis even without the Americans there. 

And as a matter of fact, all parties in this dispute, including China, have used their fair share of gunboats to make their point. They don't seem reticent about using them at all. One would think a negotiated settlement - what the ASEAN nations are calling for -  would be the most reasonable alternative to that.

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If this is not about American imperialism then what the fuck is their navy doing in the South China Sea and why are they ringing China with offensive military installations. You never did answer me as to the number of bases in other countries China maintains.  Hell the US now has a major base in Australia.  I guess the Aussies need the protection from the POTENTIAL threat that China posses.

You're just going to go round and round aren't you? LOL

I said before China has none becouse they don't need none... for now. Of course one could argue China has bases or out posts out side it boarders on those islands out in the South China Sea... but again they are nothing compared to the USA.

Round and round we go....Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

kropotkin1951

Of course a negotiated solution is the only way to go. I have said nothing different than that.  Personally I don't know enough of the intricate details of the diplomatic initiatives to be able to pontificate on any of the countries positions.  My other comment has been the non Asian country is the outlier.

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Yes and despite the US navy being there no US ships have attacked or interfered with shipping or fishing in the South China Sea, the US has not seized and detained crews for money or fines nor are the US Marines standing in waste deep water around a US flag anywhere in the South China Sea. And yet, according to you here, they are the biggest threat in the area just because "they are there" doing horrendous stuff like sitting in ports or patrolling international waters where they, like it or not, have every legal right to be under international law.

Oh and you do realize there are ships besides the USA form European countries in the South China Sea as well doing piracy prevention missions with host nations. Do they have no business being there as well?   

In the end there will be a settlement between the local nations involved, there will be no war or whatever...

Come to think of it: if you look at all the threads here on babble some of you guys have in the near future the USA invading Syria, invading Samolia, invading Yeman, invading Iran, invading North Korea and now we're invading the South China Sea. WTF guys, you ever step back and look at all this stuff and say wow thats allot of shit to be doing a once?

I mean really... 

NDPP

Hidden Depths in South China Sea Tension  - by Roberto Tofani

http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ND13Ae03.html

"...Most of all Beijing does not want any interference in the South China Sea. In an editorial published in the People's Daily online, demands to respect the freedom of navigation and take responsible actions in the South China Sea, made by Lieutenant General Burton Field, the commander of US forces Japan, were labeled as 'not responsible.'

'The US is deliberately blurring the issue of the freedom of navigation and the issue of territorial sovereignty and is deliberately creating a type of public opinion to pave the way for implementing its strategy..."

kropotkin1951

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

Yes and despite the US navy being there no US ships have attacked or interfered with shipping or fishing in the South China Sea, the US has not seized and detained crews for money or fines nor are the US Marines standing in waste deep water around a US flag anywhere in the South China Sea. And yet, according to you here, they are the biggest threat in the area just because "they are there" doing horrendous stuff like sitting in ports or patrolling international waters where they, like it or not, have every legal right to be under international law.

Oh and you do realize there are ships besides the USA form European countries in the South China Sea as well doing piracy prevention missions with host nations. Do they have no business being there as well?   

In the end there will be a settlement between the local nations involved, there will be no war or whatever...

Come to think of it: if you look at all the threads here on babble some of you guys have in the near future the USA invading Syria, invading Samolia, invading Yeman, invading Iran, invading North Korea and now we're invading the South China Sea. WTF guys, you ever step back and look at all this stuff and say wow thats allot of shit to be doing a once?

I mean really... 

Blah blah blah blah

Lets all ignore the gorilla in the room. You apparently believe in American Exceptionalism and their right to tell the world what to do. I think that American Exceptionalism is the biggest steaming pile of shit.  It makes me want to puke every time I hear Obama or Clinton or Bush and Rice before them pontificate about leading the free world. President of the World is the mantle that America has taken for their leader.  Of course only Americans get to elect that President.

I'll temper my commentary on the US as soon as they elect a President who reigns in the military industrial complex and sets a course to reduce their arms spending to no more than double their nearest rival.  In the meantime I will not ignore the elephant in the room because that elephant when it rolls over crushes whole countries.

As well I live in a city that is over 50% people of Asian descent of those about half are new immigrants. I find some of the China bashing one reads in the US MSM to be just more yellow peril racist slop.  They are all robotic automatons controlled by evil mass manipulators.  If only they could have a system like America's where the people's representatives have contracted out all the decision making to off book actors in the shadows.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Well blah blah blah back at you...Tongue out

 

Nice rant by the way; I must have a tougher stomach than you, it takes allot more than just people talking to get me sick.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I'll temper my commentary on the US as soon as they elect a President who reigns in the military industrial complex and sets a course to reduce their arms spending to no more than double their nearest rival.  In the meantime I will not ignore the elephant in the room because that elephant when it rolls over crushes whole countries.

That's one of the better things I've read today. thanks! Smile

Fidel

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
 And yet, according to you here, they are the biggest threat in the area just because "they are there" doing horrendous stuff like sitting in ports or patrolling international waters where they, like it or not, have every legal right to be under international law.

Philippines says US not needed in South China Sea dispute 2010

Robert Romulo, Philippines Foreign Secretary wrote:
"It's ASEAN and China. Can I make myself clear? It's ASEAN and China. Is that clear enough?" Romulo told reporters.

So if they are not needed, what is the U.S. Military doing there? Why does the U.S. Military dictatorship always resort to military solutions and military threats?

What purpose does encircling China with hundreds of military bases and military comms installations, and nuclear-armed battleships roaming the seven seas actually serve? 

It is illegal since Nuremberg to threaten sovereign countries militarily.

And there can be no legitimate purpose for nuclear-armed threats.

Note to Uncle Sam and the Military-Industrial Complex: The 1950s called, and they want MacArthur and all his wannabes back.

NDPP

America's Policy of China Containment

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_13/71633362/

"According to a source close to the White House, China is now clearly perceived by the American political establishment as the most important threat to US interests in the long run, so Washington believes it is advisable to start to control China today.."

kropotkin1951

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Come to think of it: if you look at all the threads here on babble some of you guys have in the near future the USA invading Syria, invading Samolia, invading Yeman, invading Iran, invading North Korea and now we're invading the South China Sea. WTF guys, you ever step back and look at all this stuff and say wow thats allot of shit to be doing a once?

I mean really... 

When you start using terms like SOME OF YOU GUYS when I am making specific points quite frankly there is nothing else to say except blah blah blah.  When you try to make cartoon caricature of lefties on this board you've stopped debating. So yup you got the blah blah. Its was for you and all of your war mongering fellow travelers who post about America. You all sound the same blah blah blah.

Get it now Bec. I'll debate you any time but if you want to engage in rhetorical devices expect to be called on them.

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Get it now Bec. I'll debate you any time but if you want to engage in rhetorical devices expect to be called on them.

 

 

That's fine and to use your own analogy: you can keep an eye on the biggest gorilla or the biggest elephant in the room if you want to but you also need to watch all the other animals in there as well; they might be smaller they can still mess you up if they want to.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
It makes me want to puke every time I hear Obama or Clinton or Bush and Rice before them pontificate about leading the free world.

You should show some respect. That's "Mrs." Clinton. I remember when she used to be Ms. Rodham. But "Mrs." "Clinton" works so much better in the country which leads the free world.

 

Pages