South China Sea

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
ilha formosa
South China Sea

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/South_China_Sea_claims_map.jpg

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Amid Tensions, US Decides to Further Militarize South China Sea

China has been angered by what it views as provocative U.S. military patrols close to islands that China controls in the South China Sea.

The U.S. Navy's Third Fleet will send more ships to East Asia to operate outside its normal theater alongside the Japan-based Seventh Fleet, a U.S. official said on Tuesday, a move that comes at a time of heightened tensions with China.

The Third Fleet's Pacific Surface Action Group, which includes the guided-missile destroyers USS Spruance and USS Momsen, was deployed to East Asia in April.

More Third Fleet vessels will be deployed in the region in the future, said a U.S. official who requested anonymity. He and a second official said the vessels would conduct a range of operations, but gave no details.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which US$5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims, as well as close military ties with the United States....

ilha formosa

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Good summary by P Escobar. See ...

The US Will Not Allow China to Reduce Its Strategic Vulnerability


Quote:
At the moment China's sea lines of communication are vulnerable to choke points that the US Navy controls, hence its "aggressive" efforts to seeks resources closer to home in the South China Sea.

Some points from the article ...

1. about the upcoming ruling:

"So no wonder Beijing decided not to be a part of the arbitration procedure, and preemptively rejects whatever ruling (which is non-binding anyway), insisting the court has no jurisdiction. The Philippines case is about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation; these are subject to general international law, not the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)."

The US regime claims to be in favor of UNCLOS but doesn't abide by itself not even having ratified it. But then again, rules are for other countries to obey. The USA just bombs people. Or threatens to.

2. "International law does not specifically forbid reclamation at sea. What China is applying is a quite audacious, self-described“blue soil” strategy. Vietnam, Malaysia and even the Philippines had been carrying out reclamation in the South China Sea for a while. China arrived later, but in full force – building airstrips, lighthouses, garrisons in neglected or abandoned islets in the Spratlys and the Paracels. Once again, this is all about energy; to harness an astonishing unexplored wealth of 10 billion barrels of oil and 30 trillion cubic meters of natural gas."

3.

Quote:
President Xi Jinping has emphasized over and over again that China will not militarize any reclaimed land. Yet the Pentagon’s insistence on those innocuous “freedom of navigation” operations coupled with USAF overflights can only be interpreted as provocations leading to further militarization.

Who's being "aggressive"  again?

4. In conclusion...

Quote:
... brings us back to what happens after the arbitration in The Hague. Something very Asian; Beijing and Manila will sit down again and try to reach a deal, without ever bothering to refer to the ruling. Face will be saved on both sides. China will continue to go mobile - in search of all that oil and gas.

And count on the Pentagon to continue its meddling.

ilha formosa

On the military utility of the islands:

Quote:
Submarine hunting, sea control and fighter aircraft will likely be based on the islands with the longest runways. Even the smaller ones will be able to operate helicopters and work as forward refueling and rearming points. Fiery Cross Reef Island’s runway and airbase is big enough to be a forward operating and refueling base for China’s ever-more active long-range bomber fleet.

Yet the most logical of all militarization for China’s “new” islands are missile systems. Not only of the anti-air kind but also of the anti-ship variety. These systems can be deployed to even tiny islands without runways large enough to land transport aircraft. They don’t even need their own radars or targeting systems. Instead they can use the sensor picture from other missile and sensor systems based on other islands, as well as from surveillance aircraft. When activated, combined these islands will lay down an overlapping anti-access/area-denial net over massive swathes of the South China Sea, giving China the ability to claim it as their own and control its airspace and shipping channels on a whim.

One thing is certain, the clock is running out when it comes to forestalling total and persistent dominance of the South China Sea by China and once these islands are fully armed and operational there will be little hope of turning back the clock.

http://thedailyintrep.com/chinese-sams-on-woody-island/

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Yeah, how dare the Chinese think they should play a significant role in the South China Sea? Who do they think they are? Everyone knows that the USA, pure as driven snow, rules the world in a benign manner, good for everyone except the evil doers.  So what if the US Navy controls all the bottlenecks for Chinese shipping lanes! Everyone knows the US wouldn't ever, ever harm a flea! My mom told me so! And if you say anything about my mom, .......

This month the evil doers are China, Russia, North Korea, and, of course, Muslims. Except if they're "our" Muslims. Then they're OK.

[/end dripping sarcasm]

ilha formosa

Mom says if the US is evil then everyone else must be purely good.

swallow swallow's picture

It's not a US-China dispute, it's a dispute of China vs. Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. 

NorthReport

China is the Bully of the East and deserves a good thumpin'
Unfortunately once again it will be left up to the USA to settle them down

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

swallow wrote:

It's not a US-China dispute, it's a dispute of China vs. Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. 

OK. US and its sock puppets.

Viet Nam is the recent beneficiary (or soon to be beneficiary) of shiploads of US weapons. Remarkable change from the time when those two countries were at war.

The Philippines population is so brainwashed that they love the USA more than they love their own country. This is a matter of public record by reputable polling on more than one occassion.

According to Escobar, China is the latecomer to the game of land reclamation. His article notes all of the above already doing the same. And the feverish speculation about weaponizing tiny islands is just that - speculation. Of course if the USA keeps flying attack aircraft on trigger alert over Chinese mariners, and charges full steam with Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers 10,000 km from US shores, then the Chinese better take notice. They might be next for dinner by the lidless eye in Washington.

The US policy is entirely predictable. Keep the whole world on a trigger alert - with war preparations in every corner of the globe - and wait till someone blinks. China is just one more target of Barad-dur. I mean Washington.

ilha formosa

The PRC's actions in the SCS have been motivating Vietnam and the Philippines to look for a counterweight. Lo and behold, who is already in the region?

swallow swallow's picture

Calling the Philippines' population "brainwashed" and entire Asian non-aligned countries US "sock puppets" is, in my view, tiptoeing towards racist imagery. 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

swallow wrote:

Calling the Philippines' population "brainwashed" and entire Asian non-aligned countries US "sock puppets" is, in my view, tiptoeing towards racist imagery. 

The US killed a million Philipinos in the Spanish-American War (the first real colonial war [excluding the ethnic cleansing of First Nations] by the USA for which it was denounced by that great American, Samuel Clemens, and other great lights of humanity) and this has been virtually erased from Philipino consciousness. But Filipinos, by and large, unremember the slaughter of their countrymen/women and think the USA brought only blessings of Merrica. And the data on the brainwashing is well documented; fill your boots.

Eduardo Tadem, Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Philippines wrote:
Also remember that Philippine presidents were consistently supportive of the US. You probably saw the survey that shows that the Philippine people love the United States more than Americans love themselves. So for the Americans it is easy to get support for their China policy here.”

The above is from a Philipino professor. I guess he's racist against Philipinos as well?

This stuff is no different from the pathological Russophobia in North America and Europe. But noting that fact isn't "racist" is it?

Filipinos like the US even more than Americans do

Servility to the USA will not help the Aquino regime

The last link is, I think, from a time when Al Jazeera wasn't itself so obsequious to US interests as it is now.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Below is a better map showing the landfill efforts by: China, Malaysia, Philipines, Taiwan, Vietnam in the South China Sea area.


Funny, I don't remember the Canadian MSM mentioning those "other" countries (besides China). Must have been an "oversight".

swallow swallow's picture

Never disputed the survey, ikosmos, attitudes in the Philippines towards American culture are probably the most pro-US in the world, for sure.
But you're suggesting entire nations can't think for themselves, that they are mindless tools of America. It is my personal opinion, again, that this denial of agency to people of colour is tiptoeing towards racism. 

The War of 1898 (which Americans call the Spanish-American war, but which really should be called the Spanish-American-Filipino-Cuban War for all the peoples who fought in it) is very much alive in Filipino historical consciousness. It is often mentioned - the Sison article you linked mentions it, for instance. So too is the popular struggle against US bases that was finally successful. 

Sison is a reliable voice of the Philippines left. Note what he says in the article you linked: 

Quote:

Because the Philippines now feels protected from China's bullying this has emboldened the Aquino government to oppose China's nine-dash line claim over the South China Sea. The exaggerated image of China as a threat to the security of other countries is used as justification to further entrench US military power in the Philippines and has given the US an opportunity to expand militarily in the Asia-Pacific region.

However, China itself has not helped to allay fears because of its claims to 90 percent of the South China sea, including the high seas. China has also threatened to grab the Philippine exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf to the extent of 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

In other words, both the US and China are acting aggressively towards smaller powers. I agree with Sison's analysis. Do you, or do you insist that all Filipinos are puppets of te US empire, incapable of agency? 

Also, it's Filipino/Finipina, not Philipino, just fyi.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

swallow's quote ...

 

Quote:
Because the Philippines now feels protected from China's bullying this has emboldened the Aquino government to oppose China's nine-dash line claim over the South China Sea. The exaggerated image of China as a threat to the security of other countries is used as justification to further entrench US military power in the Philippines and has given the US an opportunity to expand militarily in the Asia-Pacific region.

However, China itself has not helped to allay fears because of its claims to 90 percent of the South China sea, including the high seas. China has also threatened to grab the Philippine exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf to the extent of 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

P. Escobar notes above that the appropriate law is general international law and not the Law of the Sea. He also seems to be of the opinion that China and its neighbours are likely to negotiate directly to solve some of these problems. I don't think the US wants that; I really think that they want to keep the tension up. This reflects, IMHO, a hegemonic determination to allow no other country, or group of countries, to challenge the US economic and military dominance of the planet. 

Escobar will be publishing another piece in the next week or so. It should be worth reading.

Quote:
Also, it's Filipino/Finipina, not Philipino, just fyi.

Yeah, I've got about 6 different spellings upthread.

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

ilha formosa wrote:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/South_China_Sea_claims_map.jpg

Wow that's a HUGE chunk of the SCS China is claiming.

ilha formosa

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Wow that's a HUGE chunk of the SCS China is claiming.

I'd say so too. Making over-reaching claims is a good way to start a dispute. Just go and try claiming the land in front of your neighbor’s doorstep. Do the same to the neighbor across the very busy street and another down the street from there. Patrol the area and demand that all people identify themselves and their reason for transiting through the rough triangle demarcated by these points you’ve seized (like an air defence identification zone, ADIZ, enforced from the Paracels, Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal). Also claim exclusive rights to subsurface resources, even those in your neighbor’s former front yard. See if the neighbor doesn’t get pissed off as you get wealthy from those resources. And if he does tell him tough shit power flows from the barrel of a gun and I’ve got more firepower than you. Or, try to make a back room deal with him to give the rules you set over the 'hood an appeareance of greater legitimacy.

If and when petro resources are found, my bet is that the Chinese "Communist" Party would distribute the wealth more like the Sultanate of Brunei than the Kingdom of Norway.

And yes, yes, yes, moral equivalence, western imperial powers have staked out many little island colonies around the world. And, not equivalent, the SCS is like a carotid artery in China's network of supply lines. Still, one look at the map shows China's claim as quite an affront to its neighbors.

kropotkin1951

ilha formosa wrote:

Making over-reaching claims is a good way to start a dispute. Just go and try claiming the land in front of your neighbor’s doorstep. Do the same to the neighbor across the very busy street and another down the street from there. Patrol the area and demand that all people identify themselves and their reason for transiting through the rough triangle demarcated by these points you’ve seized (like an air defence identification zone). Also claim exclusive rights to subsurface resources, even those in your neighbor’s former front yard. See if the neighbor doesn’t get pissed off as you get wealthy from those resources. And if he does tell him tough shit power flows from the barrel of a gun and I’ve got more firepower than you. Or, try to make a back room deal with him to give the rules you set over the 'hood an appeareance of greater legitimacy.

Gee you seem to be describing BC in the 1850's. Of course the British won the right to steal the land and resources after Douglas pushed back against the American miners who wanted to turn BC into the next California or Texas. Mind you we are still overriding the rights of First Nations in this province because we have the firepower and we also now have the appearance of Truth and Reconciliation while we steal land and resources.

I agree with you ilha formosa that only white settlers should have the ability to steal land and resources when anyone else does it is just wrong, wrong, wrong and everyone from "democratic" countries should vilify them.

NorthReport

Shouldn't this thread be entitled South Philippine Sea?

kropotkin1951

NorthReport wrote:

Shouldn't this thread be entitled South Philippine Sea?

North or West Philippine Sea maybe or the Sulu Sea but certainly not South Philippine. 

ilha formosa

More replies to the Escobar article:

The problem with the case in The Hague is that the Philippines did not try to solve it bilaterally; off the record, ASEAN diplomats admit that would be the only solution. - P. Escobar

Take the 2012 Scarborough Shoal incident as the bilateral negotiation between the Philippines and China. The latter showed how trustworthy it was. So the case goes to arbitration and No, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling may not be binding, but it will provide a measure of moral justification, which the PRC cares enough about to go around the world trying to buy support for its position vs. the Philippines, while saying in advance that it does not recognize the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

So no wonder Beijing decided not to be a part of the arbitration procedure, and preemptively rejects whatever ruling (which is non-binding anyway), insisting the court has no jurisdiction.

Former Canadian Ambassador to China David Mulroney called China's approach to international law "cafeteria style" - choose what you want, reject what you want, as per your own liking. If one looks at the way the PRC approaches its own domestic law as an indicator of how it views international law, one would see an utter mess. China throughout its history has never really known an independent judiciary, and this remains true to this day. Power, not principle, has the last word. And yes I am an idealist for thinking that adhering to principles is important.

the US has not ratified UNCLOS, so it’s in no position to impose its interpretation of the treaty on any nation, in Asia or beyond.

Why does Escobar say UNCLOS doesn't apply in this case, and then go on to say the US position is invalid because it hasn't ratified UNCLOS? Anyways, other countries are boosting the US position.

Quote:

France Enters the South China Sea Fray June 19, 2016 - France’s Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian entered into the South China Sea debate by expressing the hope that European navies would move to have a “regular and visible presence” patrolling the region. Citing concern for future breaches of International Maritime Law, Le Drian stated, “If the law of the sea is not respected today in the China seas, it will be threatened tomorrow in the Arctic, the Mediterranean, and elsewhere.” While Beijing shot back at Minister Le Drian for his comments, his remarks were echoed by Canadian, Indian, and NATO representatives who were also present.

[...] 
France and other members of the European Union are signed parties to the convention (as is China). Thus, the potential support and partnership with France and possible coordination amongst other European Union nations following the International Court of Arbitration’s verdict legitimizes the United States’ position and champions European principles. Europe has no direct strategic presence or role in Asia, simply economic and trade interests. Therefore, their entrance into the debate carries significance against other great powers that attempt to resolve territorial disputes through force or coercion. With France’s entrance into the debate, the United States now has some of its closest allies in on the conversation. A strong condemnation from EU nations regarding Beijing’s failure to comply with the future ruling strategically strengthens the US position.

 

ilha formosa

NorthReport wrote:

Shouldn't this thread be entitled South Philippine Sea?

Or the East Vietnam Sea, or the North Malaysia Sea, or how about the Indochina Sea? Southeast Asia Sea?

ilha formosa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I agree with you ilha formosa that only white settlers should have the ability to steal land and resources when anyone else does it is just wrong, wrong, wrong and everyone from "democratic" countries should vilify them.

Precisely where did I say that? Quote me. And provide the link.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

So, near as I can gather, reclaiming islands and trying to ensure that the US military doesn't completely dominate the entire planet is "aggression" by China. Blovation about militarizing islands is speculation aimed at justifying more Yanqui sabre-rattling. I suppose this is much the same as Russian assistance to prevent ethnic cleansing in Ukraine is "aggression" by Russia. It's all so predictable and follows the script of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, that is ...

Quote:
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere ... This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

Nothing has changed. The hegemon will never accept a rival of any kind. The contempt with which the USA treats international courts, the law of the sea, bans on torture, ex-judicial execution by drones, endless war crimes against entire countries and regions of the planet, etc. etc.,   is only matched by the shrill and barking orders that it gives for others to obey such rules and laws.

There is an expression in law called "fruit of the poisonous tree", which basically argues that claims, evidence, etc., from illegal and criminal actions are themselves tainted by the original crime. Now this is only a legal metaphor but it's a good one - virtually everything the US does in the international arena is tainted like this. Poisonous.

In particular, US lectures to the rest of the world about following this or that law are completely worthless when that barbarous regime does not and has no intention of obeying international agreements, etc., if it is not in the advantage of that regime.

Escobar's upcoming reads should be of interest. I would recommend having a close look at them and that might help babblers free themselves from parrotting the missives of the Empire.

 

 

ilha formosa

ikosmos wrote:
Nothing has changed. The hegemon will never accept a rival of any kind. The contempt with which the USA treats international courts, the law of the sea, bans on torture, ex-judicial execution by drones, etc. etc.,   is only matched by the shrill and barking orders that it gives for others to obey such rules and laws.

I see the PRC's aggression, thus far, as primarily against Vietnam (the oil rig incident) and the Philippines (Scarborough Shoal). It's unfortunate the US is the only counterweight in the region, as distrust of it as a brutal hegemon is well-deserved. I would like to see other ships, for example from India, also conducting freedom of navigation operations in the busy waterway.   

ikosmos wrote:
Escobar's upcoming reads should be of interest. I would recommend having a close look at them and that might help babblers free themselves from parrotting the missives of the Empire.

I prefer a world with no hegemons or aspiring hegemons, global or regional.

swallow swallow's picture

It's Western Philippine Sea, according to Filipinos. 

But of course, when I say Filipinos (or Malaysians, or Indonesians, or Vietnamese) the defenders of Chinese imperial agression will simply read "American" and deny that Southeast Asians can think for themselves. 

 

Rev Pesky

I look forward to the time when Chinese warships come to the aid of Mexican claims in the Gulf of Mexico.

ilha formosa

ikosmos wrote:
P. Escobar notes above that the appropriate law is general international law and not the Law of the Sea.

What is "general international law"? Where is it codified? I think the closest thing would be what is called "customary international law," the unwritten but mutually accepted practice of nations in the international arena. (One could also look at the UN Charter, specifically Chapter VI Article 33 on peaceful settlement of disputes.) Escobar’s knowledge of international affairs far surpasses mine, but my guess is that the “general” international law he refers to would apply to land territories and not maritime claims. Rules for maritime claims were a hodgepodge - UNCLOS negotiations began in 1956 precisely for that reason, and contrary to Escobar's assertion UNCLOS rules should apply in the SCS disputes.

UNCLOS sets rules on maritime claims based on terrestrial features controlled. The PRC has recently seized one such feature within the exclusive economic zone of another country:

Quote:
[Philippines Ambassador] Cuisia said he was involved in a U.S. State Department-brokered deal for China and the Philippines to withdraw their ships simultaneously from Scarborough [Shoal] to avoid a potential clash during a tense standoff in 2012. China reneged on that deal by refusing to withdraw its ships after the Philippines did and now claims there was no such deal, he said. "We were shortchanged," Cuisia said.

So does “general international law” consist of what the powerful can get away with? What kind of standard is that, and if followed, where will it lead to in these times?

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:
I look forward to the time when Chinese warships come to the aid of Mexican claims in the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, exactly - or off the coast of Cuba, Venezuela, or Ecuador, or (landlocked) Bolivia - which are much more likely scenarios of Yanqui atrocities/provocations since the US has a long, ugly ONGOING history of destabilizing Latin American governments that don't obey the Master.

Maybe our "reluctant" supporters of US intervention in the South China Sea can give us some recent examples of helpful US intervention ... anywhere. As Escobar has written, the US is an "Empire of Chaos", cultivating bloodshed and death wherever they go, giddily enthusiastic in creating emnity and war between neighbouring states around the globe. Over 50 State Department "diplomats" just in the last week excercised their right to "dissent" and called for War on Syria. Diplomats braying for war - and thousands more dead Syrians - and it arouses no consternation in US ruling circles. On and on it goes. The history is lengthy and banal. I think Arendt said something about that.

The US is simply completely unreliable in any international role, perhaps other than cleaning toilets, when it comes to resolving disputes peacefully. Then are - by several orders of magnitude - the leading culprit of "might makes right" on Planet Earth and, rather than create and/or strengthen  international arrangements and institutions which help to resolve differences, they do everything in their power to emasculate such institutions, or turn them into sock puppets for their own foreign policy interests, or use terrorism for political ends, or carry our War Crimes like drone strikes on civilian populations (under their Nobel Peace Prize President, I might add!) , or spy on the entire Planet, or apply their own law extra-territorially (while thumbing their nose at international law that holds the US responsible for anything) , or carry out Colour Revolutions and Hybrid Warface across the Globe. They very idea of this regime playing a benign role is like inviting Satan to a BBQ.

See articles on the Empire of Chaos, P. Escobar for more details.

Empire of Chaos

 

kropotkin1951

swallow wrote:

It's Western Philippine Sea, according to Filipinos. 

But of course, when I say Filipinos (or Malaysians, or Indonesians, or Vietnamese) the defenders of Chinese imperial agression will simply read "American" and deny that Southeast Asians can think for themselves. 

The defenders of Pax Americana believe that no one from anywhere in the world, except the US of A, can think for themselves. I actually think that South Asians are capable of resolving their own problems without the Americans telling them what to do. 

kropotkin1951

ilha formosa wrote:

I see the PRC's aggression, thus far, as primarily against Vietnam (the oil rig incident) and the Philippines (Scarborough Shoal). It's unfortunate the US is the only counterweight in the region, as distrust of it as a brutal hegemon is well-deserved. I would like to see other ships, for example from India, also conducting freedom of navigation operations in the busy waterway.   

Could you explain what you mean by this bizarre commentary. Strange you would rightly call it a bust waterway and then say it should be used byt other countries. Are you really implying that merchant ships are not currently using the waterway or are you advocating that other countries send their navies to patrol/sabre rattle off of China's coastline like the Americans are doing?

 

swallow swallow's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

swallow wrote:

It's Western Philippine Sea, according to Filipinos. 

But of course, when I say Filipinos (or Malaysians, or Indonesians, or Vietnamese) the defenders of Chinese imperial agression will simply read "American" and deny that Southeast Asians can think for themselves. 

The defenders of Pax Americana believe that no one from anywhere in the world, except the US of A, can think for themselves. I actually think that South Asians are capable of resolving their own problems without the Americans telling them what to do. 

I agree 100%. (As an aside, South Asian = India + Pakistan + neighbours, East Asia = China + Japan + Korea, Southeast Asia = Burma, Vietnam, and points SE - ie ASEAN members in general. I don't think any South Asian countries are directly involved, although in general [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Se... is siding with Vietnam and against China[/url].)

There is a dispute between several Southeast Asian countries and China. All countries involved are capable of making their own decisions. All have the right to appeal to UN tribunals, too. 

ilha formosa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

ilha formosa wrote:

I see the PRC's aggression, thus far, as primarily against Vietnam (the oil rig incident) and the Philippines (Scarborough Shoal). It's unfortunate the US is the only counterweight in the region, as distrust of it as a brutal hegemon is well-deserved. I would like to see other ships, for example from India, also conducting freedom of navigation operations in the busy waterway.   

Could you explain what you mean by this bizarre commentary. Strange you would rightly call it a bust waterway and then say it should be used byt other countries. Are you really implying that merchant ships are not currently using the waterway or are you advocating that other countries send their navies to patrol/sabre rattle off of China's coastline like the Americans are doing?

Correct your bizarre spelling so that I know what to respond to. "bust waterway?"

ilha formosa

Quote:
excerpt of Le Drian's comments at Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore, 05 June 2016

…respect for the rule of law, seeking dialogue and steadfastness when this rule is violated – are at the heart of responsible multilateralism which, in France's view, must be the hallmark of the European Union's action. It is for this reason that the situation in the China seas, for example, directly affects the European Union – it is not just in the interest of our economies that the freedom of maritime traffic needs to be respected.

Why shouldn't the European navies, therefore, coordinate to ensure a presence that is as regular and visible as possible in the maritime areas in Asia?...Our long-standing ties with our Asian partners are being further strengthened and, on this basis, France will continue to support regional security in all its dimensions…In this regard, the Indo-Pacific region has an opportunity to be globally protected from open conflicts. France will therefore play its part in our collective responsibility to preserve and strengthen the stability and security of this region.

ilha formosa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

...are you advocating that other countries send their navies to patrol/sabre rattle off of China's coastline like the Americans are doing?

If you look at the map, it's not exactly China's coastline.

Freedom of navigation is not an American invention, it’s a right on the high seas that existed in customary international law, and was codified in UNCLOS. Ships are allowed the “right of innocent passage” and to transit through waters as long as they don’t stop to do anything in those waters. This has been the justification of the US “freedom of navigation operations.”

I’m arguing for multilateral enforcement of rules that arose from international negotiations. So yes, other countries should also engage in similar freedom of navigation operations, to underline that it’s an international convention that needs to be observed, and not the US containing China. They don’t have to be military ships.

No disputing that the USA was the biggest perpetrator of “might makes right” in the 20th century and that it has seized plenty of territory by force. The PRC is applying the same principle (if it can be called that) regionally, and importantly, is also undermining an internationally agreed upon convention (with the glaring exception of the US non-ratification - another reason that other countries need to be involved). The world should look at the way the PRC seized Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines.  

Quote:
“If the law of the sea is not respected today in the China seas, it will be threatened tomorrow in the Arctic, in the Mediterranean, or elsewhere,” [French Minister of Defense] Le Drian told the security conference, known as the Shangri-La Dialogue and hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

...[also,] India has become increasingly vocal about the challenge China poses to free navigation in the Western Pacific.

Europeans Push Back Against Beijing in the South China Sea

 

ilha formosa

More on "China's coastline":

Quote:
Historical Fiction: China’s South China Sea Claims

…"For centuries, the masters of the oceans were the Malayo-Polynesian peoples who colonized much of the world, from Taiwan to New Zealand and Hawaii to the south and east, and to Madagascar in the west. Bronze vessels were being traded with Palawan, just south of Scarborough, at the time of Confucius…Ships from what is now the Philippines traded with Funan, a state in what is now southern Vietnam, a thousand years before the Yuan dynasty.”

…China’s so-called “historic claims” to the South China Sea are actually not “centuries old.” They only go back to 1947, when Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist government drew the so-called “eleven-dash line” on Chinese maps of the South China Sea, enclosing the Spratly Islands and other chains that the ruling Kuomintang party declared were now under Chinese sovereignty. Chiang himself, saying he saw German fascism as a model for China, was fascinated by the Nazi concept of an expanded Lebensraum (“living space”) for the Chinese nation. He did not have the opportunity to be expansionist himself because the Japanese put him on the defensive, but cartographers of the nationalist regime drew the U-shape of eleven dashes in an attempt to enlarge China’s “living space” in the South China Sea. Following the victory of the Chinese Communist Party in the civil war in 1949, the People’s Republic of China adopted this cartographic coup, revising Chiang’s notion into a “nine-dash line” after erasing two dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1953.

 …One reason Southeast Asians find it difficult to accept Chinese territorial claims is that they carry with them an assertion of Han racial superiority over other Asian races and empires. Says Jay Batongbacal of the University of the Philippines law school: “Intuitively, acceptance of the nine-dash line is a corresponding denial of the very identity and history of the ancestors of the Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Malays; it is practically a modern revival of China’s denigration of non-Chinese as ‘barbarians’ not entitled to equal respect and dignity as peoples.”…

  …[these are] multilateral disputes requiring international arbitration. But Beijing has insisted that these disputes are bilateral in order to place its opponents between the anvil of its revisionist history and the hammer of its growing military power.

Note: The bit about the Japanese putting Chiang on the defensive would be more accurate if it were written "the CCP" that put him on the defensive, post 1947.

The Philippines and Vietnam rank #12 and #14 in the world in terms of population. The sea really should be called something like the Southeast Asia Sea instead. And no, not the US Sock Puppet Sea either.

NorthReport

Georgia Straight is Canada's version

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_Sea

kropotkin1951

I think that the Chinese are wrong to deny the rights of the international community to protect its shipping. China didn't have any such rights until the evil Communists seized control. It would be better for all if we went back to the rules that were in place until WWII.

I for one cannot think of a single reason why the Chinese would not want Americans involved in their affairs. For over 70 years they showed themselves to be benevolent overseers of the backward Chinese who wanted to run their own country.

Quote:

During the 1860s and 1870s, American merchant ships were prominent on the lower Yangtze, operating up to the deepwater port of Hankow 680 mi (1,090 km) inland. The added mission of anti-piracy patrols required U.S. naval and marine landing parties be put ashore several times to protect American interests. In 1874, the U.S. gunboatUSS Ashuelot, reached as far as Ichang, at the foot of the Yangtze gorges, 975 miles (1,569 km) from the sea. During this period, most US personnel found a tour in the Yangtze to be uneventful, as a major American shipping company had sold its interests to a Chinese firm, leaving the patrol with little to protect. However, as the stability of China began to deteriorate after 1890, the U.S. naval presence began to increase along the Yangtze.[1]

20th century

In 1901, American-flagged merchant vessels returned to the Yangtze when Standard Oil Companyplaced a steam tanker in service on the lower river. Within the decade, several small motorships began hauling kerosene, the principal petroleum product used in China for that company. At the same time, the Navy acquired three Spanish-built vessels (the gunboats USS Elcano, Villalobosand Callao), which it had seized in the Philippines during the Spanish–American War. These vessels became the core of the Yangtze River patrol for the first dozen years of the 20th century, but they lacked the power to go beyond Ichang onto the more difficult stretches of the river.

The USS Palos and Monocacy were the first American gunboats built specifically for service on the Yangtze river. The Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California built them in 1913. The U.S. Navy then had them disassembled and shipped to China aboard the American steamer Mongolia. The Kiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai reassembled them and put them into service in 1914.

Later in 1914, both vessels demonstrated their ability to handle the rapids of the upper river when they reached Chungking, which was more than 1,300 mi (2,100 km) from the sea, and then went further to Kiating on the Min River. In 1917, the U.S. entered World War I. The U.S. rendered the guns of Palos and Monocacy inoperable to protect Chinese neutrality. After China entered the war on the side of the allies, the U.S. Navy reactivated the guns.

In 1917, the first Standard Oil tanker reached Chungking, and a pattern of American commerce on the river began to emerge. On January 17, 1918, armed Chinese men attacked Monocacy and she was forced to return fire with her 6-pounder gun. Passenger and cargo service by American-flag ships began in 1920 with the Robert Dollar Line and the American West China Company. They were followed in 1923 by the Yangtze River Steamship Company, which stayed on the river until 1935, long after the other American passenger-cargo ships were gone.

In the early 1920s, the patrol found itself fighting the forces of deadly warlords and ruthless bandits. To accommodate its increased responsibilities on the river, the Navy constructed six new gunboats in Shanghai in 1926–1927 and commissioned in 1928 to replace four craft originally seized from Spain during the Spanish–American War that had been patrolling since 1903. All were capable of reaching Chungking at high water, and two year-round. USS Luzon and Mindanao were the largest, USS Oahu and Panay next in size, and USS Guam and Tutuila the smallest. These vessels gave the navy the capability it needed at a time when operational requirements were growing rapidly.

In the late 1920s, Chiang Kai-shek and the Northern Expedition created a volatile military situation for the patrol along the Yangtze. During the early-1930s, National Revolutionary Army took control of much of the north bank of the middle river. The climax of hostilities occurred in 1937 with theRape of Nanking and the sinking of Panay by the Japanese. The USS Panay incident was the first loss of a US Navy vessel in the conflict which would soon become World War II.[2]

ilha formosa

Despite the sorrows caused and atrocities committed by the US in Vietnam and the Philippines, both Asian countries now have closer military ties with the global hegemon in order to counterbalance the regional hegemon. Not saying it's right, good or desirable; they know their own circumstances and chose from the options before them.

kropotkin1951

ilha formosa wrote:

Despite the sorrows caused and atrocities committed by the US in Vietnam and the Philippines, both Asian countries now have closer military ties with the global hegemon in order to counterbalance the regional hegemon. Not saying it's right, good or desirable; they know their own circumstances and chose from the options before them.

I think you have gotten drunk on the Yankee koolade.  When has the US empire every helped anyone except its own oligarchy? This is a fight over oil and gas just like in Syria and Iran and Iraq. It is being driven by American oil and gas oligarchs and they like to bribe anyone that can help them access resources. You know like Kinder Morgan trying to bribe First Nations in BC to support its pipelines.

kropotkin1951

ilha formosa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

ilha formosa wrote:

I see the PRC's aggression, thus far, as primarily against Vietnam (the oil rig incident) and the Philippines (Scarborough Shoal). It's unfortunate the US is the only counterweight in the region, as distrust of it as a brutal hegemon is well-deserved. I would like to see other ships, for example from India, also conducting freedom of navigation operations in the busy waterway.   

Could you explain what you mean by this bizarre commentary. Strange you would rightly call it a bust waterway and then say it should be used byt other countries. Are you really implying that merchant ships are not currently using the waterway or are you advocating that other countries send their navies to patrol/sabre rattle off of China's coastline like the Americans are doing?

Correct your bizarre spelling so that I know what to respond to. "bust waterway?"

Flaming spells are lame and the last retreat of posters who have nothing of substance to say.

"busy waterway" is the term you used and I misspelled it but I guess that was just to hard for you to see. Much like your wilful blindness to the corruption and misery that the US brings everywhere it goes.

ilha formosa

I thought of taking the spelling flame down but your attacks get rather personal. It's quite evident you have not been reading all posts in this thread.

swallow wrote:

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Se... is siding with Vietnam and against China[/url].

There is a dispute between several Southeast Asian countries and China. All countries involved are capable of making their own decisions. All have the right to appeal to UN tribunals, too. 

What about your willful blindness to the free will and agency of Southeast Asian nations? No, no, they can only act as US puppets.

If the USA acts in evil ways (and I agree *once again* that it does), that does not make everyone in opposition to it angels.

kropotkin1951

ilha formosa wrote:

What about your willful blindness to the free will and agency of Southeast Asian nations? No, no, they can only act as US puppets.

If the USA acts in evil ways (and I agree *once again* that it does), that does not make everyone in opposition to it angels.

Please re-post the post where I have called those nations US puppets or said that the Chinese regime are angels.

I live in BC where we have a more than hundred year tradition of anti-Chinese sentiment. Your posts sound like they fit into that tradition nicely and that is why some of my posts are a tad on the testy side. China bashing is a common theme among Canadian racists and since you are not one maybe you might want to dial back your rhetoric so you don't sound like one.

ilha formosa

Do you know what "Ilha Formosa" refers to? I admit it's a colonizer's name, but it's easier for others to write than ”台灣“. If you went to Taiwan, you would hear much stronger anti-PRC rhetoric than mine from millions of people. If you were to do the math, you might figure out that a few of them have lineage going back to China. So would you call them racists? Or is it racist to think they should all support every action of the PRC?

kropotkin1951

ilha formosa wrote:

Do you know what "Ilha Formosa" refers to? I admit it's a colonizer's name, but it's easier for others to write than ”台灣“. If you went to Taiwan, you would hear much stronger anti-PRC rhetoric than mine from millions of people. If you were to do the math, you might figure out that a few of them have lineage going back to China. So would you call them racists? Or is it racist to think they should all support every action of the PRC?

 I am quite aware your handle is a Portuguese name for Taiwan and means Beautiful Island. It is my understanding that the Portuguese liked the name so much they named at least a half a dozen islands with that name.

My friends from Taiwan would never use it and they actively dissuaded others from its use as well. 

Yes I do know that there are many people in Taiwan that have lineage that goes back to the Kuomintang. Given the history of the White Terror I can imagine the shithole of a country that China would be today if the Kuomintang had not been overthrown by the People's Army. 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..not sure if this is a drift or not but wanted to show an expression of discontent by a people in the area as well as the distance between them and their governments.

Okinawa: Tens of Thousands Protest U.S. Bases After Woman's Murder

In Japan, tens of thousands of people gathered on the island of Okinawa to demand the ouster of U.S. military bases. Activists said 65,000 people attended what they called the largest protest in two decades against the U.S. military presence. The protests erupted after a former marine working as a civilian contractor at a U.S. base was accused of raping and murdering a 20-year-old woman. The victim’s father has called for the removal of all U.S. bases on Okinawa, which hosts about 26,000 U.S. troops. At Sunday’s rally, Lia Camargo said U.S. soldiers should also be held accountable for their crimes.

Lia Camargo: "The slogans are like 'get the bases out of here,' but I don’t think it’s that simple. I think making sure that the responsibility of the soldiers, if they do commit a crime, that has to be weighed in the same gravity as a Japanese person who commits that same crime."

ilha formosa

It's not a thread drift if we want to expand the topic to the East China Sea as well. I see this as the appropriate thread to do so; opening another one would be redundant.

The prize in the middle of the PRC's East and South China Sea claims is of course Taiwan.

Quote:
Japanese claim on Okinawa challenged in China (2013)

“It is, at the very least, an interesting new development and obviously meant to increase pressure on Japan over the disputed Senkaku Islands,” Corbett told RT.

ilha formosa

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Yes I do know that there are many people in Taiwan that have lineage that goes back to the Kuomintang.

Then I assume you are also aware that most people in Taiwan with Chinese lineage can trace some roots back to migrants who crossed the strait before the founding of the KMT, therefore also before the founding of the CCP.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Given the history of the White Terror I can imagine the shithole of a country that China would be today if the Kuomintang had not been overthrown by the People's Army.

Finally, something we agree upon. Doesn't change my statements on the main topic of this thread though.

kropotkin1951

ilha formosa wrote:

It's not a thread drift if we want to expand the topic to the East China Sea as well. I see this as the appropriate thread to do so; opening another one would be redundant.

The prize in the middle of the PRC's East and South China Sea claims is of course Taiwan.

The expansion of the topic leaves the same question and is totally related to Okinawa.

Japan, Taiwan, China, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and the U.S.  What country in this list is not the same as the rest?

There is one global aggressor and people in many countries including the people of Okinawa and the people of China do not want it to control them. There is no good that comes out of Pax Americana only death and destruction. The world would be a far better place if the US did not have bases in all parts of the world. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

swallow swallow's picture

I remember the Filipino people's struggle to remove US bases. It was a good model.

Pages