Discussion in 'China' started by Martian, Apr 3, 2014.
My comment on Philippine Star.
Phl case vs China will fail - US expert | Philippine Star
Who is this China Lee?
Seems to be a dreamer!
China seems to be asking for trouble and she has come to the right place!
Russia could do what she did because of genuine history and no fudged maps.
Further, there was none to oppose.
SCS is full of folks who hate China and its hegemonic pursuits.
And then there is the Pivot in the Pacific!
I think martian here is china lee replying to the comments section of the website.
The bottom line is that military power decides national boundaries.
UNCLOS is a waste of time.
Whoever has the military might will draw the map. It's that simple.
Legally Philippines has a strong case against China.
That's what Germany thought too.
Also the other commentator is correct, the two issues are quite different. Crimea is ethnically populated by Russians and has cultural and historic ties to Russia and was illegally transferred to Ukraine (not to mention the illegal coup in Kiev sponsored by the West.)
Though military might is a strong factor, you can not say a sea belongs to you unless you are some mermaid species or something.
China's might is growing, there will no much time left for PHL.....
Wow ... can the PRC leadership match the expectations of its people. Who knows what is best for PRC is it the leadership is it the people.
Malaysia's criticism over plane probe 'irresponsible': China
Read more at:
now who is this US expert guy?
Professor Marwyn Samuels has worked and
lived in the People's Republic of China for some 30 years as an
advisor to a variety of China's central, provincial and municipal
government agencies, a consultant to Fortune 500 corporations, and as an
investor-manager of joint venture and privately-held enterprises in the
telecommunications and entertainment media industries, in agribusiness,
environmental management and in infrastructure development....
Unfortunately it is not that simple my friend.
China is not the most powerful, Philippines is weak but it has friends and diplomatic strengths. Beijing and Manila are not the only players.
Says who? A Chinese, really!
Try it, and see the response China ends up getting. The USA isn't just piling up her military and naval assets in your surroundings for the heck of it, nor are the ASEAN countries flocking behind the USA for fun either. The EU will be all too happy to pay a visit, more importantly I would suggest you reflect on the very geo-strategic reasons as to why the EU was formed and why they will be all too keen to be involved in the region.
Don't fool yourself into believing that if the economic integrations are happening, it automatically translates into military alliances being formed. People, you guys are trying to challenge, still have the economic levers of your economy in their hands.
The other, a country which spends more on internal security than on external security, faces a humongous task of keeping it's people together, and you think the west will not flirt with the idea of creating significant internal disturbances when China plans a Russia!
Anyway, first of all brace up for the legal battle, and make a legitimate case for yourself. From the looks of it, China already has lost the diplomatic battle there, and Philippines pretty much walking away with a coup there.
Smell the coffee before it's too late, as they say!
The Philippines has a strong case against China but at the same time the weakest navy and basically no air force in that region. Therefore China uses the most pressure against them and not against Vietnam, Malaysia or Indionesia. It's a lesson for politicians who don't want to spend enough money on the armed forces for decades.
Now president Aquino has to try to get foreign support. But if foreigners really want to come forward to die for a reef is not only not guaranteed but unlikely. Remember the occupation of the Falkland Islands by Argentina: Not one nation came forward and did help the UK at the frontline. Either you can do it yourself or you have lost it.
For Vietnam you can be sure they will just watch. No reason to risk a 500 million $ submarine for them if they never have and never can do anything for us.
I will give you a reason ....Freedom if Navigation! If the 9 dashed line is justified and recognized, anyone who wishes to pass through the scs must beg for passage from China. Also if China forces the issue militarily and succeeds, while Vietnam watches from a hammock, hah, better get ready cause She will most likely be next unless you are willing to lick chinese ass. Remember Ho Chi Minh's words, "I would rather eat french shit than ...(am sure you know it anh...)
Freedom of navigation is also for the US a flexible concept that is used when it`s possible, but ignored when it becomes too risky.
Take the eastern part of the Baltic sea during 40 years of cold war: Do you remember even a single US Navy submarine daring to go there for 40 years? Only today, when visiting new NATO members like Estonia is such "freedom of navigation" for US navy ships possible.
At the end of the day it comes down to the risks involved and the possible rewards. Look also at the Crimean crisis for a situation when some nations talk about intervention but have no will or big stick to do the job. Reality is what happens and not what would be nice to get.
For Vietnam it's a different situation than for the Philippines. China could only take total control of all Islands in the SCS if they start a big war. This is unlikely as the duration and outcome is hard to predict.Cooperation with other nations around the SCS is also unlikely as claims overlap and capabilities are not similar.
Nobody can deny that this move it the move which delivers the biggest blow so far to China's strategy in the SCA
Freedom of passage will be necessary for trade more importantly than warships specailly for US warships nowadays where it goes unnopossed or unnoticed wherever it goes. Therefore, comparing scs with that of the baltic sea, and during the cold war is apples and oranges. If China legalizes the 9 dashed line, trade in the scs will be controlled solely by china. Example, If a commercial ship from vietnam wants to go to the philippines and china does not allow it, it has to go around to god knows where. Therefore, being one if not the bussiest sea lanes in the world, the scs is of big interest for the US and the whole international community.-
Ok as for alliances on the scs against China may have less chances because of China's clout which is fast sweeping vietnam also but the US involvement is most likely due to the fact that they have a lot of their key interest at stake plus the mutual defense treaty tbey have with the phiippines which holds more water than crimea
How many islands did vietnam control during the Vietnam war and how many do they control now. China's strtegy is creeping invasion so yes china do not need a big war to take all islands and reefs from vietnam if all you do is sit down A full blown war will mean the end of CCP as what happened to the nazi regime. Everybody can do what vietnam is doing sitting down but there wont be any island to dispute later on once china is done. Therefore the best way is to stop china on is tracks is to openly oppose them in front of the international community by legal and diplomatic means. China should be forced to sit down on a multilateral forum to finaly find a durable solution to these disputes. In this era, maritime and land borders should be clearly drawn, that is the only way this troubles can end.
As a matter of fact Vietnam controls Nansha (Spratleys) now more than before the Vietnam War. After Battle of the Paracel Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Vietnam rushed to build up physical presence on shoals / reefs that they never held previously to exert their claim.
VN controls the most islets of Nansha ((Spratleys) in this way >>
The envisaged "united multilateral front" is delusional against China over SCS. VN and PH's claims overlap largely while VN is the biggest de facto holder of Spratleys. Therefore PH and VN would rather fight themselves out than see each other eye to eye in the first place in order to "stop China" jointly.
A full blown war over uninhabited reefs? What an overhyping! What is needed for Chinese is only routine surveillance, patrolling and to set up permanent buildings on such as Ren'ai (Ayungin). What has hampered "free passage" so far? Just another pretext for intervention. Will US head into a direct clash with China for PH? On the contrary the US expects PH and VN to play offshore balancing instead of itself going ashore. The louder America barks the less likely it'll jump to the forefront to bite China since the barking is for the sake of intimidation before things get ugly. NPT? Soviet Union also had an NPT with VN in time of Chinese 1979 retaliation but did it ever become VN's pawn?
VN has recognized there's no chance in a David and Goliath contest thus taken another approach such as China, Vietnam to set up group to explore disputed South China Sea | South China Morning Post PH ought to stop the hoopla as well.
You may have a point but considering Vietnam's hold on the Paracels and considering major islands, they lost more to China.
As i have said, a full blown war is unlikely as China's strategy is creeping invasion. In the case of a US China confrontation, the appropriate question is whether China is willing to battle it out with a far superior US military / Navy. The answer is NO, otherwise China will not think twice about forcefully taking territories. Your assumption that the US will not come to aid the Philippines in a conflict is only pure speculation on your part because the fact is there is actually a treaty in place. And yes there are multilateral parties involved, therefore, a multilateral discussion/ negotiation must take place and NOT China's bilateral approach.
Joint cooperation is not a durable solution. This will only prolong the dispute and give more time for China's creeping invasion. boundaries must be drawn clearly and all parties must sit down and discuss a solution multilaterally instead of answering to Beijing only.
China will quit from UNCLOS if the result is not favour China.
Ps. Just like US.
signed, but not ratified
did not sign
Separate names with a comma.