Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their reef

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their reef

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 16 May 2014, 00:29:28

On Thursday the Philippines released photos to validate its claim that China is building structures and a possible airstrip on the disputed Johnson Reef.

Wednesday the Philippines accused China of building structures on the disputed Johnson Reef in the South China Sea, which Manila said was in violation of the non-binding 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea agreement signed between China and the 10 member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

On Thursday the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) released four overhead shots of the Reef that date from between March 2012 and March of this year. The photos appear to show in stages China’s reclamation of the Johnson Reef, which the Philippines refers to as Mabini Reef. A DFA spokesperson said that the photos had been obtained by Philippine intelligence sources.

Image
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-15/philippines-releases-photos-chinas-construction-disputed-south-china-sea


So.. why do they need an airstrip near the Phillipines.. :?:
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby BobInget » Fri 16 May 2014, 10:25:43

I wrote about this yesterday. Chinese dredges are pumping fill on to what are laughingly called 'islands'
(a few rocks) in order to substantiate their geographical claims.

That air-strip will morph into a military base into tanker loading docks. If ever there were a more clear cut , obvious oil conflict in the making, this one would win first prize for press secrecy. I notice reporters wince when they need to mention the drilling rig. The closest any came in the past was to say 'resource rich' China Sea.

The 'public' need not be put to any great concern.

India just elected a Hard Right, Hindu Nationalist, Strong Man as PM, what could go wrong now?
BobInget
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012, 17:46:44

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 16 May 2014, 10:54:46

"...in violation of the non-binding 2002 Declaration". IOW China promised to do nothing there unless they changed their minds and decide they want to do something out there.

Maybe a chopper or a fast boat response base. Keeping a ship on station at sea is expensive. So the Chinese will have a sh*t hole post at Johnston Reef just like we have at the NSF Diego Garcia. Now the Chinese have a new "punishment post". LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 16 May 2014, 11:56:10

Sixstrings wrote:So.. why do they need an airstrip near the Phillipines.. :?:

By building this airstrip and establishing a permanent presence, China is taking possession of some of disputed areas of the ocean off the coast of the Phillippines. They are using the same strategy against VietNam by moving a drill rig and navy support fleet into VietNamese waters. They are now in possession.

AND after all, possession is nine-tenths of the law.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sun 29 Jan 2017, 22:03:32, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed not available photo.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26607
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 16 May 2014, 13:28:26

Plantagenet wrote:By building this airstrip and establishing a permanent presence, China is taking possession of some of disputed areas of the ocean off the coast of the Phillippines. They are using the same strategy against VietNam by moving a drill rig and navy support fleet into VietNamese waters. They are now in possession.


That's a good point. It's like Crimea. Possession is all that matters, if there's no "global cop" around.

I wish there were a national discussion going on here, a serious one in congress and the executive branch and pentagon, about whether we are still doing this global cop stuff or if we're staying at home.

We really need to decide these things. Are we sticking by South Korea and Japan, or aren't we. Are we sticking with east europe and NATO, or aren't we.

If we are, then, there needs to already have been some American moves in the Pacific to counter China.
And a stronger stance in Europe.

Seems to me that China and Russia are both counting on a weakened US. China will take some things, these oil patches in the water, and build some airstrips and pressure Japan and South Korea and Vietnam. But yet they're still invested in the US, they're still building their weapons with money they get from us buying iPhones.

They're still eating the pork they get from the American Smithfield Ham they bought.

Oddly, they want to build a bullet train through Alaska to California.

I guess that's the real state of things. That China and Russia are just going to expand and push out a bit, with Russia really cutting ties with us, but China playing a middle game. What the US must do is decide on a strategy, it is one or the other, sitting back or getting a handle on the Pacific and Europe.

If we wanted to counter China, it needed to start a year or more ago. We can build airstrips on Philippino reefs (if invited by them). We could deploy forces to secure the Pacific. We just have to decide, this not knowing wtf we're doing isn't a strategy.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 16 May 2014, 14:25:00

The problem with your theory is thus, American election cycles regarding foreign policy are only four years long. Each President gets to set the foreign policy of the country for four full years. President Obama will continue to se American foreign policy for another two years and eight months, two weeks. He has demostrated over the first five years four months of his admnistration a certain stance on foreign policy and the Russian and Chinese governments are reacting in what they percieve as their own best interest. The rule before 1945 was, possession is nine tenths of the law. Up until the creation of the UN if a country was strong enough to take an hold territory, it was theirs to do with as they willed.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 16 May 2014, 17:52:57

Six - I think the bigger question might be if the US is going to be the global cop what will the rules of engagement be. Like the old joke bout the English Street cop chasing a thief. He yells "Stop! Or I'll yell stop again". If you're an unarmed cop how do stop the bad guy...tell him that you're going hit him with some sanctions next month? Sanctions that might also result in 'problems for your populace? Maybe the UN can interject some of their Blueberries into the situation. Then they can sit there and "monitor" the situation like they've done in Africa as they "monitored" the slaughter of tens of thousands of unarmed civilians.

If the Chinese have get 10,000 of their own troops killed to defend their claims I don't doubt for a moment they would. In the meantime tens of thousands of civilians continue to die in Syria and the US, EU, UN and NATO are doing nothing other then paying tens of $million of their money for the destruction of those chemical weapons. They can't be the "bad cop" that needs to deal with Assad. And some expect they might go toe to toe with China? LOLLLLLLL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 16 May 2014, 22:10:46

Sixstrings wrote:That's a good point. It's like Crimea. Possession is all that matters, if there's no "global cop" around.
I wish there were a national discussion going on here, a serious one in congress and the executive branch and pentagon, about whether we are still doing this global cop stuff or if we're staying at home. ... We really need to decide these things.

This problem has been taking place for two decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_ ... l_disputes And that has been on-going even with the presence of a mutual defense treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_De ... #Specifics
Thus, we have a continuation of what took place during the last five decades or so, where there was no "global cop" but military powers dealing with each other and preying on weaker countries. The only "we" in such events are military forces backed by financial elite. Citizens pay for the military costs, or worse become collateral damage.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sun 29 Jan 2017, 22:10:37, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed excessive requoting.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby peterjames » Sat 17 May 2014, 02:34:12

Theres now over 500 million chinese who have been accustomed to a western lifestyle, and 10's of millions more being added each year. The chinese know full well the party aint going to last to much longer into the future. Its simply going to be a matter of, do we let 200 million men sitting around being idle and disrupting society, or do we utilise that resource and push chinese nationalism as far as we can, just like so many other countries have done before.
peterjames
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun 16 Feb 2014, 03:46:16

Re: Phillipines accuses China of building airstrip on their

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 21 May 2014, 14:04:48

Update: Reuters - Philex Petroleum Corp plans to start drilling two more wells in disputed waters in the South China Sea even without a partner and despite rising tensions with Beijing. Forum Energy Plc will likely start drilling the appraisal wells in its Sampaguita gas field in the Reed Bank in early 2016, said Philex chairman Manuel Pangilinan. That means the exploration firm will seek another extension of a drilling permit for the area from the Philippine government. Its current permit expires in August 2015. "Yes, that is our intention," Pangilinan said when asked if the company would conduct oil and gas exploration alone and start drilling by 2016. "We do not know how China would react," he said. Territorial disputes between the Philippines and China have hampered Forum's plan to drill at least two more appraisal wells within the Service Contract 72 exploration permit awarded to it by the Philippine government in 2010. In 2011, Chinese patrol vessels almost rammed a survey ship contracted by Philex in Reed Bank. Appraisal wells are drilled to assess the size of gas or oil discoveries. Philex has previously said it had held initial talks with a unit of China National Offshore Oil Company, for a possible joint venture to explore in the Sampaguita field and defuse tensions between the claimant nations. But the talks have not progressed so far, with Philex saying it was considering speaking to other potential partners. Manila also said any joint venture should adhere to the constitution and that any gas produced should be used domestically. A deadline for exploration in the Sampaguita field was first set for August 2013, but Forum requested an extension. The Sampaguita gas field is believed to have reserves of as much as 20 trillion cubic feet. Philex Petroleum, a unit of the Philippines' top gold and copper producer Philex Mining Corp, holds indirect and direct stakes totaling nearly 65 percent in Forum. China claims nearly all of the South China Sea, while the Philippines and Vietnam, along with Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei, claim parts of it. Manila insists the Reed Bank is within its 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Despite competing claims, the Philippines launched on May 9 a tender for exploration rights in 11 oil and gas blocks, including one in a disputed area, Area 7, in Reed Bank.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruling

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 10 Jul 2016, 01:54:53

China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruling China’s foreign minister has spoken with US secretary of state John Kerry by telephone ahead of a key international court ruling on China’s South China Sea claims and warned Washington against moves that infringe on China’s sovereignty, Beijing’s official Xinhua news agency reported.
Xinhua said Wang Yi repeated China’s rejection of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Arbitration in a case the Philippines has brought against China’s claims to nearly all of the South China Sea, calling it a “farce” that should come to an end.
The court, based in The Hague, is due to give its ruling on Tuesday, raising fears of confrontation in the region. ... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/06/south-china-sea-john-kerry
Well, this will be interesting, whatever happens after the Hague court rules on Tuesday.

China flatly rejects the international maritime court's jurisdiction (isn't that contrary to international law, how can China just claim sovereignty over the south china sea and say in advance it will ignore any court ruling?)

The Philippines brought the case, originally, and the ruling's on Tuesday. Per the article, if the court rules against China then the US may step up freedom of navigation patrols closer to the man-made Chinese islands.

So where do you guys think this thing may go?
[b]Europe turning vocal ahead of South China Sea ruling
Everyone's problem
The EU is working behind the scenes to release a statement as early as Tuesday urging China to respect the ruling, a European insider said. Germany and France are spearheading this effort, despite nations in central and eastern Europe receiving a good deal of Chinese aid, the source revealed. ... China's refusal to accept the ruling also could embolden President Vladimir Putin in Russia, who continues to take a hard stance following its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.
http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Europe-turning-vocal-ahead-of-South-China-Sea-ruling

However much Europe wants the US to do something / stand up on this issue, makes a BIG difference. If the EU were ambivalent, then the situation is far less clear, about what the US should do.

From how it looks right now, Europe is concerned about international law being flouted, and the precedent that would set for the middle east and Russia.

Image
Tokyo denies Beijing’s claim that Japanese jets locked targeting radar on fighters over East China Sea
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/05/national/beijing-accuses-asdf-jets-radar-lock-targeting-fighters-east-china-sea/#.V4HjmPkrK70


Japan-China tensions after warplanes come close to dogfight
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc87a5e0-4274-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html#axzz4Dyz1KotU


China dismisses US appeal to accept tribunal verdict on South China Sea
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Abraham Denmark has appealed to China to accept the tribunal verdict to be delivered on July 12.
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/china-dismisses-us-appeal-to-accept-tribunal-verdict-on-south-china-sea-2903742/


China’s South China Sea activities madness: US diplomat Thomas Shannon

NEW DELHI: Close on heels of China's intransigence that denied India an NSG membership, US on Wednesday made it clear that what China is doing in South China Sea (SCS) region is madness, and noted that Washington views Delhi as a natural strategic power in the Indian Ocean Region.

"What China is doing in the South China Sea region is madness. Building air strips and landing aircraft on that. As far as their navy is concerned, all they are doing is building targets. Our own view is that China can keep the sea-lanes open through its navy in the region.

It is our hope that China will be able to follow a rule-based international order," US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon said in his address to a select gathering in the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) here.

"We see India as a partner. As China works to secure the South China Sea, it does so with the idea of broadening its presence in the Indian Ocean. We see India as a natural strategic power in the Indian Ocean," said Shannon, indicating Indo-US joint collaboration in the Indian Ocean will balance China's presence in the region.

"...It is no coincidence that the US has a 'rebalance' to Asia policy, and India an 'Act East' policy, as we recognise the indispensable role of our partnership for peace and prosperity in the region."

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/chinas-south-china-sea-activities-madness-us-diplomat-thomas-shannon/articleshow/52981611.cms
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sun 29 Jan 2017, 22:16:26, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed excessive quoting of two items.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 10 Jul 2016, 07:07:49

International law is only valid under two conditions; the first condition is the powerful countries of the world join together with sanction and/or force to make the loser comply. The second is the losing country voluntarily com0plies when the ruling goes against them.

China has already stated if the court rules against them they will not voluntarily comply.

That leaves sanction and/or force, which would be suicidally stupid for the already crumbling EU, or for the USA that has made itself dependent on Chinese trade.

IOW the so called court in The Hague can rule any way it thinks is best, but unless t sides with China its opinions are not worth the electronic pixels they are digitized with.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby GregT » Sun 10 Jul 2016, 16:27:23

Sixstrings wrote:So where do you guys think this thing may go?


China isn't Iraq, Syria, or Libya. If Washington manages to keep their next hot war limited to conventional weapons only, this could be the solution to population overshoot, CC, and the sixth mass extinction event. If not, now would be a great time to join them in the Grand Cayman Islands.
GregT
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu 24 Jan 2013, 21:18:20
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 10 Jul 2016, 18:13:41

Tanada wrote:International law is only valid under two conditions; the first condition is the powerful countries of the world join together with sanction and/or force to make the loser comply.


Yep, that's realpolitik and whether the rest of the world wants to uphold international law order, or not. It famously broke down in WWII and the League of Nations, and Mussolini and Hitler began grabbing things.. the League did a few sanctions, but nothing too tough. The world looked away, and it got worse.

The nations of the world will consider their own interests first and foremost -- if China sets this precedent, then everyone else is going to be worried about bad actors in their neighborhood doing likewise.

That leaves sanction and/or force, which would be suicidally stupid for the already crumbling EU, or for the USA that has made itself dependent on Chinese trade.


Well so far, the Germans are taking it seriously, and others in the EU. They're worried about international law breaking down, and maybe Russia and some ME nations claiming ocean zones of their own, or new territory, and the world no longer goes to this international tribunal to resolve disputes.. this could reverberate to the arctic too, eventually.

Russia could just grab a bunch of ocean and ask the Canadians "so what you gonna do about it?"

As for the US and what I think our position should be -- it's complicated. There's definitely gonna be some more freedom of navigation patrols. The Navy will go in closer to those islands, and see how China handles it.

My hunch is that it's hard to believe the Chinese really would rock the boat too much with us.. maybe some sort of stalemate will ensue, where the US Navy can just do enough patrols to slow down and impede further artificial islands development / deny China from having any exclusive air ID zone.

Personally, my opinion depends just on how China responds and how aggressive they are or are not, with our forces. That would indicate to us what kind of problem China may be, or really is not.

Otherwise, just personally, I'm not concerned about China. Chinese actually love American tv shows and movies. They love French wine, consumerism, all things western. They don't have democracy, yet just among their people, they're beginning to become like us more.. with western attitudes.

Asians are pretty pragmatic overall, it's not quite like a Russia siutation.

Something to understand -- the US *is* going to confront china a bit, in the south china sea. I think that's been decided already. There was that entire "pivot to Asia." There are US diplomats in India, talking to them.. telling the Indians that if you let China branch out too much then next thing you know, China's gonna be in the Indian ocean.

US is offering India an Indo-US partnership for the Indian ocean, to counter China. My guess is the Indians will go for that, because China pisses India off half the time.

China's biggest strategic mistake is in at least not making that one rising power neighbor happy with them, India. China just has everyone against them, and all those people get behind uncle sam (it's not OUR fault, it's like a Russia situation, it's that China pisses off all their neighbors).

BUT ANYHOW -- I hope it works out with China, the whole thing is complex; if China can show they are not oppositional to us and a threat to us, then for US policy we could LET them have some more control in that sea. (I don't see any reason to be fundamentally against China at this point, as yet)

There just has to be something worked out legally and diplomatically, and a lot of that is China's responsibility to work out -- welcome to the big leagues, China.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 10 Jul 2016, 18:41:04

Image

Chinese navy holds massive combat drills in disputed South China Sea
https://youtu.be/ihrQPGOrpWY


Image

Is China Preparing Offensive Op Against India In The Wake Of South China Sea Court Ruling?

Amid possibility of China defying verdict on South China Sea dispute by Permanent Court of Arbitration, China seems to have preparing a major border offensive against India. China is mobilizing troops on Indian border.

There is a consistent international pressure on China to accept the tribunal ruling by following in the footsteps of India which accepted the same courts’ 2014 Bay of Bengal rulings in which court awarded 19,467km of the 25,602km EEZ to Bangladesh after both the countries failed to resolve the issue despite bilateral negotiations protracted from 1974 to 2009. Deploying rapid reinforcement to Tibet could be part of China’s arms twisting strategy to hold India back from adversely affecting China’s crisis management.
https://youtu.be/sR501SHu7As


Some good general info in that above vid, but no -- China ain't gonna "invade India." But I'm posting that as an example of Indian viewpoint.

Many in India may not think it's fair, that India accepted a similar martime dispute tribunal ruling, but China doesn't have to. So, this whole thing, China just announcing it doesn't follow international courts -- that would affect a LOT of things, going forward. Other powers in the world would reject peaceful international law resolution, too.

Image

Chinese Media Threatens US Over South China Sea

"The US [will] pay a cost it cannot stand if it intervenes in the South China Sea," according to the mouth piece of the Chinese Communist Party.
https://youtu.be/ZOGh2tR2bRw
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 10 Jul 2016, 19:25:19

Australia says the court's ruling is binding on China:

Beijing tantrum on South China Sea ruling looming

Such a reaction to the expected upholding by the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the case brought by The Philippines would cause Washington and ­regional nations to respond, said Kurt Campbell, who was assistant secretary of state for East Asia in the first Obama administration.

This would put pressure on the Turnbull government to join in a forceful ­response, Canberra sources said.

“The Australian government considers the ruling to be binding on China and The Philippines,
” Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told The Australian.

“We call on both countries to abide by the decision. We also call on all countries to resolve ongoing differences through negotiation and in a manner consistent with inter­national law, rather than unilateral or coercive actions.”

Beijing rejects the court’s authority and has said it will not abide by any decision against Beijing.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/beijing-tantrum-on-south-china-sea-ruling-looming/news-story/f4f0861050dd805f06bbf90b2557a91b
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 10 Jul 2016, 21:42:24

You can say anything you want as well Six, but unless you have a lot of backup you can't force anyone else to agree with you if they don't wish to.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 11 Jul 2016, 00:31:10

Tanada wrote:You can say anything you want as well Six, but unless you have a lot of backup you can't force anyone else to agree with you if they don't wish to.


Well, regarding globalism and America the global cop -- *I* am divided on it, actually. About 50/50. Just me personally, as a citizen and voter.

All I know is that things made more sense and were handled right with W. Bush in office, or old HW Bush.

But yet we can't have 3 trillion dollar wars, either, and Iraq was not handled quite right and the neocon theory did not work out (turn the ME into democracies).

Rationally I know, though -- that SOMEBODY, or a group of nations sombodies, has to intervene in things sometimes *to prevent larger and dangerous threats to national security*. Or, mass migration, because Syria was never handled.

On the pro side of anti globalism -- our government could start spending half that current $580 billion military budget, on other things. And then LET China lead in the Pacific, or LET war break out over there and Europe too and Africa and everywhere else, and let's just not care anymore and hope radioactive clouds never come our way.

We could just say, "okay Canada and Australia, we just want to be neutral total anti war like you are. We're not gonna do anything anymore. You guys are on your own, go lead in the world, we're done, we GIVE UP. Somebody call Putin, see if he'd like the job."

On the con side of anti globalism -- maybe, with empire gone, the economy would be a lot smaller though. Maybe economic depression. Nobody really knows.

I'm divided about it, Tanada. I can do a list of pros and cons, for either globalism or anti globalism.

And these are all very big questions that most voters don't think about -- the "elite" have to, the "establishment." And yeah, we all think we're not a part of that.. but actually we are.. we're in the boat too.

P.S. My opinion is that whatever is done in the Pacific, it should probably only be if the world community is asking us too, and all the allies out there, and the Europeans too. We're only doing all this for THEM, to start with.

And the tangential benefit is some trade and commerce advantage for the US, by leading the trade deals. And then, the security advantage of having all these allies, and they buy our US bonds and they buy US dollars. And then they want us to solve their problems and lead / stabilize their regions in return for that, that's the reality folks.

Just old school strategy -- yes, there's national benefit if you've got the border area ringed with allied governments. Things would be riskier if the line is at Hawaii, and maybe the Pacific is Chinese controlled.

In the middle of all that -- maybe China isn't really a problem for us, maybe China can work with us more, and we don't care if they're the future leader.. since they're pretty much consumerist like we are, and they like western things and American tv and movies. They wouldn't quite be like communism, taking over the world.

So there, those are my thoguhts about it. It's not simple. :lol:

But if the US Navy wants to get Teddy Roosevelt tough and get the big stick out and cruise around those islands, then that is simple, China ain't gonna do nothin'. The global order is reasonable. It would like China, and everyone else, to follow international law and the maritime disputes tribunal in the Hague.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 11 Jul 2016, 00:56:19

Image

The South China Sea is a powder keg with disturbing echoes of 1914

With all the Brexit drama, it is easy to forget that on the other side of the world a contest for primacy is brewing that will probably do more to tell the tale of what our multipolar world evolves into than anything presently happening in Europe. If the US and China manage their emerging geostrategic rivalry in Asia, all will be broadly well. If they do not, an updated version of World War I is entirely plausible.
http://www.cityam.com/245098/south-china-sea-powder-keg-disturbing-echoes-1914
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: China issues warning to US ahead of South China Sea ruli

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 11 Jul 2016, 02:44:36

The US totally ignored the ICJ's ruling when Nicaragua brought a case in the 80's and won.

link

In a decision on November 26, 1984, the ICJ by a unanimous vote again rejected the arguments of the US concerning jurisdiction and inadmissibility. Particularly interesting in this context was the fact that the American judge on the court, Stephen Schwebel, voted with the other members of the court in their decision that the arguments of the United States regarding inadmissability were without merit.

Up to this point the US had at least basically followed and respected the procedural rules of the ICJ, in as much as it had participated in the proceedings. Furthermore, after the Court’s provisional order, the most blatant violations of Nicaraguan sovereignty had not been repeated and Congress at this point in time showed some reluctance to fund further adventures by the Contras. Up to this point in the proceedings the international adjudication system had basically survived the test. But things were soon to take a sharp turn for the worse.

On January 18. 1985, citing errors and distortions of law and fact in the Court’s November 26 decision, the United States announced that it would withdraw from further proceedings in the case. And on October 7 of the same year the United States went one step further in formally declaring its withdrawal altogether from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. A State Department press release stated:

‘In 1946 we accepted the risks for our submitting to the court’s compulsory jurisdiction because we believed that the respect owed to the court by other states and the court’s own appreciation of the need to adhere scrupulously to its proper judicial rule would prevent the court process from being used for political ends. These assumptions have now proved wrong.’


Even more predictable than the judgment itself was the subsequent reaction of the US government. The spokesman of the State Department, Charles Redman, stated as the judgment was made public: ‘The court is simply not equipped to deal with a case of this nature, involving complex facts and intelligence information.’ Referring to the possibility that the court could order the United States to pay damages to Managua, Mr. Redman said: ‘The court’s decisions are not self-enforcing.’


And the US now expects China to comply?

As we have seen, the purpose of the ICJ is to resolve peacefully disputes between nations and thus prevent such disputes from developing into armed conflicts. As we also have seen, however, the authority of the court rests ultimately with the UN Security Council, in cases when a party fails to comply with a judgment rendered by the court.

This construction brings into focus a serious problem. As we know each of the five permanent members of the Security Council has veto power against any decision by that organ.


China is a permanent member of the Security Council.

International law for some, but some are above the law.

So this is, once again, just the West trying this in the court of public opinion, knowing full well they had already pulled the teeth of the ICJ themselves.

And the US remains an outlaw nation, for it's failure to comply with the courts previous rulings. To start jumping up and down about China stating they will do the same is actually quite humorous.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Next

Return to Asia Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests