China Goes Ballistic Over Hague Maritime Ruling

I defer to Wanren's analysis. I also believe Obama' withdrawal of the US from world stage signalled China to move in and take advantage of the vacuum left behind in this area now under conflict and this is a reaction that has taken place since Obama came to power and was perceived by China as weak.


China picks who it bullies, i.e., the Philippines, Vietnam. . However it does appear to be giving Japan and Taiwan the finger as well on this one.

No doubt it feels embolded right now knowing Putin threw in his lot with China and won't interfere.

There was a time China felt caught between Russia and the USA and now it feels neither.

My question is and I know Wanren knows, is whether the continued tensions trigger a militarization of Japan.

I think if China continues the sabre rattling it will resurrect Godzilla (Japan).

 

http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/noy-bribed-by-washington-on-edca-lsf

Its embedded in the "Noy bribed by Washington on EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement" line. Seems that the usupported claim of a bribe comes from Charisse Bañez, LFS chairman. Here she is.

 

I don't see the issue we should be making an ally of China against Terrorists if that means we have to support them by calling them the power in Asia and in principle not interfere with their China Sea and other activities as long as they stay say 50 miles from key allies then fine cut the deal in principle. If they decide to ignore the ruling and they likely will there is nothing to stop them unless we send in the Pacific Fleet.

 

I was reading up on China's position. It seems those islands were always seen by China as being historically theirs, and that is something you cannot take away from a country without having them feel they have been violated. Frankly I don't think it should have been brought to the Hague, because there is no way that China is going to bow to the ruling.

China and the Philippines should have come to an understanding without the court, and if Washington really wanted the best for the Philippines, then it would have helped by mediating the negotiations in a positive way... but that's not something it is accustomed to doing. I see nothing as having been gained by the ruling other than it being another provocation and causing more resentments in China.

In the past 2-3 years China has been trying to develop its silk road trade routes across Eurasia because it fears a blockade by the American fleet. In order to hinder China from developing other routes, and to maintain control over them, Washington has been pushing for regime changes and causing troubles in the Central Asian States.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a lot more here than meets the eye, and the ruling in the Hague only exacerbates the situation.

 

You know;All 3 of Russia,USA,and China should be getting together to fight terrorists.
That's what really should happen.
China has been getting out of hand with that "South Sea" stuff.
Not sure if the video of them mowing down about 100 Viet guys with rifles standing on a sandbar is still around.
That was pretty sickening.They used a Vulcan-type gun.

 

We will continue to send ships through international waters in the China Sea, and it will be Chinas call as to what it wants to do about it. They'll probably go all Russia on us, buzing or ships with fighter jets. And nobody is interfering with Chinas activities in the China Sea and it is the law, the Philippines, most all of the International community that is opposed to Chinas excluding of all other nations activities in those international waters. Excluding Philippian fisherman from waters that are closer to Philippine territory than they are to China. Based upon nothing more than the construction of territory in international waters where no territory exists. Would be like the US building an Island in the Caribbean and telling Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and Haiti, sorry, previously International waters where you were free to fish and extract oil, are now US territorial waters and you can no longer do either. And youll need our permission if you want to send through any naval ships.

 

did you ever look at US history on how US enforce caribbean in 19-early 20th century against other european nations, its the same thing china is doing.

i think you got fool by media regarding US navy not allow to sail through ScS by china. this dispute is really about influence in ScS and surrounding countries, china never say they will stop ships travel through ScS, unless its the 12nm within their claimant/disputed island.

 

Yes, I do .... I am NOT an American !!

There is an old joke that war was invented to teach Americans geography, but that no longer seems to be true.

A National Geographic poll of over 500 young Americans, aged 18 to 24, showed that six per cent failed to locate their own country on a map of the world.

Among those with a high school education or less, the figure was one in ten.

Only one in three could find Great Britain on a map.

In the same National Geographic poll, conducted three years after the Iraq War began, only 37 per cent of young Americans could find Iraq on a map of the Middle East.

The same percentage could point out Saudi Arabia.

Only one in four could locate Israel or Iran.

Even among college students, only 23 per cent found all four countries.

I wonder how many Americans actually know where the Philippines is on a map .... !!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...misunderstood-misrepresented-or-ignorant.html

 

The act of defining terrorism is pointless because it is inherently subjective. Research conducted by Alex Schmid cites over 250 definitions of terrorism. Definitions of terrorism are always political, that they always carry a purpose. Whether in academia or politics, these ‘definitions' tend to reflect the interests of those who do the defining. So, who exactly are those terrorists you believe should be 'fought against' by US, Russia and China collectively. ? ... Americans have a rather simple definition of Terrorism; Anyone who is against American Imperialism is an enemy of America, and anyone who tries to "resist" attempted subjugation by the Americans and who opposes American Global Hegemonic ambitions and Imperialistic interests is a "Terrorist"..


And what about the "Mass killings under Communist regimes" propaganda by the Americans.?? You guys say that Communist Regimes have killed 85 -100 million unarmed civilians. Communists had been your perceived enemies ... But this time around, the Americans have"found" a new enemy; an unidentifiable one, and the one who is extremely useful for Washington to justify American aggression anywhere in the world.

 

What I'm talking about is this:

http://english.cri.cn/6909/2014/03/02/2724s815329.htm

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/IS...Russian-apostates-vows-to-attack-Putin-447009

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/big-list-of-muslim-terror-attacks-in-u-s-since-911/

Everyone that's not Muslim is having problems with them.

http://www.ibtimes.com/private-litt...-thailand-rages-ignored-outside-world-1560930

It's been going on in southern Thailand for years.

 

Care to cite such an example? Regardless, all before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

 

Uyghur Muslim Ethnic Separatism in Xinjiang, China is something that is going on since 1940s. And the Russians are bombing ISIS in Syria. So, "ISIS branch calling on Muslims to kill 'Russian apostates', vowing to attack Putin" is quite understandable. But I fail to see any "relevance" here ...

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America

You Are More Than 7 Times As Likely To Be Killed By A Right-Wing Extremist Than By Muslim Terrorists

There are a lot of ongoing armed insurgencies around the world, and not all insurgents are Muslims. Why single out Muslims ? Or what you actually want to say is that the US, Russia and China should get together to fight Muslims ?

 

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/beijings-caribbean-logic-10120 also heard of Monroe Doctrine?

you do know china has this dispute and claim since ming dynasty, which is in the 1500 AD, republic of china(AKA Taiwan) inherit the claim/control from Qing Dynasty(17-19th century), then the same claim was adapted by CCP in 1948 to this day, well before UNCLOS. further more we never ratify UNCLOS. Also if you track the Hague case, the phillippine case is about those reef are consider island or not, thus given them right for EEZ, Not about who has control over. Well how many nations do you think has reef under their control and use it to extend its own EEZ, a lot including US, Vietnam, malasia, Taiwan, japan, UK, etc etc. The case is not only affect china but other nations as well, example Taiwan already said it doesn't recognize the ruling and has send warship to its island.

I'm not saying china bully is right, but few mins of google can draw many parallel between US, British empire, and how every rising power behave including Japan, Spain, Portugal etc, especially those rely on sea or has long coast line.

 

Shame on China. It is in violation of the revised 2016 Monroe Doctrine which places the South China Sea in the Western Hemisphere.

Ignorance of US geography is no excuse.

 

Im not seeing any such example at your link.

 

its there read it, the author already mention how US vs Europe and other to establish influence/control over the area, you just choose to ignore.
also look at Nicaragua vs US case, Netherlands vs Russia, and Chago island vs UK case. as for Caribbean read Monroe doctrine and its subsequent history.

here is a short paragraph but there is a lot more in the history.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/roosevelt-and-monroe-doctrine

like I said china already use these case to muddy the water and excuses to ignore Hague ruling.

 

If the Philippines wanted to solve the problems with China it should have asked a neutral nation to mediate, and left the US out of the picture.

Asked to comment, Michel Chossudovsky, the director of the Montreal-based Center for Research on Globalization, told Sputnik that the Hague 'tempest in a teapot' is much less worrying than Washington's efforts to militarize the region.

There are two central issues, Professor Chossudovsky explained. "One is the fact that the United States has a project to militarize the Asia Pacific region, specifically threatening China. The other issue is…the [territorial] disputes between China, the Philippines, The second issue, according to the analyst, would be much easier to resolve if it weren't for US involvement, which is using the territorial disputes as part of its so-called 'pivot to Asia', "essentially preventing these countries from reaching negotiations, and building a situation of crisis within the Asia-Pacific region."​

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160714/1042961465/hague-ruling-teapot-tempest-commentary.html

 

Let the Philippinos fight the Chinese. They don't need our help. They Philippinos have not lifted a finger to help up in fighting in Iraq or A-stan.

Time for them to put on their big boy pants and man up to China.

 

Part of the senate are very anti America at the same time the very same anti America senators have many of their own family members residing in the USA, they have investment properties etc. in the USA. They are anti America in the front and pro America on their back. After the end of the Vietnam war the USA was starting to downsize its military this include releasing many none USA personal working on USA bases. The US bases presence has always been argued as a mean to protect the Philippines from foreign invasion it is supposed to be a joint effort the irony is that while other US bases in Japan and in Korea the host countries are paying their fair share to keep the US bases their the Philippine government wanted more from the US that include increase quota for Filipino immigrants, certain additional benefits for Filipinos that serve or work for the US military as none combat personnel, recognition and granting of full American status to Filipinos who fought under the American flag during WWII in which the Philippines at that time was a Commonwealth nation of the USA. The colonialism is just a front a tool to get public support and it worked unfortunately for the Philippine the US decided to throw in the cards the stakes are too high and its not worth the gamble they calculated the returns is not worth it so the US decided to leave. This created a vacuum that takes us to were the Philippine is now. China's position is for the Philippines and all other nation's involve in the dispute is to recognize China's claim in return China will work closely under joint venture to allow those nations some form of autonomy to explore, fish or settle in those islands, of course under China's flag.

China's claim is based on their historical records which will make sense when once upon a time dynasty China was an empire that has strong influence, presence and claims of those areas in fact they may have legitimate dynasty claims also on some parts of Japan such as Okinawa, parts of Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. WWI and WWII started from such historical claims and the reason why international law has evolved it is to avoid such historical claims and disputes and present a fair boundary. The UN three mile radius is a fair presentation, if China can make claims based on historical boundaries what will stop other countries from doing the same?

As you can see China's claim stretches miles all the way so close to the entire Philippine coast leaving very little sea for the Philippines fisheries.

View attachment 44497

 

The Philippine has been a very loyal and have stood side by side with the US since WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War and before the Afghan and Iraq war the Philippines has been fighting with Islamic radicals since the 1960's in their own backyard. The downsize is that the Philippine has dysfunctional government that is so occupied with corruption and it is this corruption that has affected the way they govern. Many good Filipinos ended up migrating to foreign countries and finding success in those countries, success that could have been applied in the Philippines.

 

IMO the USA does not want to get involved the USA is hoping that China will compromise with those nations be a responsible super power and draw back their historical claims give those nations some national integrity and respect.

 

For China the Hugue ruling is just a reminder or reminiscent of colonial Europe especially during the Opium wars of the 1800's when China was forced to accept unfair treaties seceding Hong Kong, Macua, and large parts of southern coastal China to foreign authorities.

- - - Updated - - -

That is the problem it is a Monroe doctrine not a China doctrine. Europe or the West have enacted many laws and doctrines that in China's view is not to China's benefit but to Western benefit.

 

You are being very naive. Here is a bit of reality:

Asked to comment, Michel Chossudovsky, the director of the Montreal-based Center for Research on Globalization, told Sputnik that the Hague 'tempest in a teapot' is much less worrying than Washington's efforts to militarize the region.

There are two central issues, Professor Chossudovsky explained. "One is the fact that the United States has a project to militarize the Asia Pacific region, specifically threatening China. The other issue is…the [territorial] disputes between China, the Philippines, The second issue, according to the analyst, would be much easier to resolve if it weren't for US involvement, which is using the territorial disputes as part of its so-called 'pivot to Asia'​

essentially preventing these countries from reaching negotiations, and building a situation of crisis within the Asia-Pacific region."​

 

Decades of those countries exercising sovereignty over their territory, extinguishes any such ancient claims.

 

. The Hague is basically a USA tool of influence and leverage!