• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Philippines protests to China over oil rig plan

donsutherland1 said:
We don't disagree on China's likely response were Taiwan to assert independence. In terms of the South China Sea, the changed ingredient is China's rising regional power. In that context, China's actions are viewed more warily by its neighbors. Left unmanaged, the risk of a dangerous miscalculation and mutually disadvantageous consequences will increase.

This is exactly the kind of situation that calls for proactive diplomacy. To minimize acting in a fashion that China would find offensive or worse, the diplomacy needs to be conducted privately. The previous U.S. offer to help mediate the growing dispute in the South China Sea was made publicly and China reacted harshly. It viewed the offer as merely an attempt by outsiders to dictate a solution. Unless China's sensitivies are dealt with, even well-intended diplomatic initiatives could backfire.

Having said all that, the U.S. does need to clearly articulate its interests and reaffirm its commitments to China. The United States' reactive, ad hoc response to Mideast events may well have suggested that U.S. commitments are limited. After all, the U.S. actively turned on a long-time dependable ally in Egypt, appeared poised to sacrifice the friendly government in Bahrain even as Bahrain hosted the largest U.S. naval base in the region and those arrayed against it enjoyed at least the public support of Iran, and even squeezed Israel beyond what any previous Administration had done despite its being a highly visible strategic ally. The combination of China's growing power and signals of limits to U.S. commitments might well have created an incentive for China to "test" things in the South China Sea. Continuing U.S. ambiguity could lead to further tests and, over time, a growing risk of miscalculation.

As I have stated in the past, I do not believe the U.S.-China relationship needs to evolve into a confrontational one. The path it takes will depend on the decisions and choices made both in China and the U.S. in coming years and beyond. In that context, it is crucial that China fully understand U.S. interests and know that the U.S. will not abandon its commitments to its regional allies. The U.S. also has to fully understand China's interests and needs. Once the constraints are readily understood on both sides of the Pacific, the bilateral relationship could then focus on the broad common ground that could yield enormous benefits to the U.S., China, and China's neighbors. Regional stability has provided vast benefits to all the countries. Proactive diplomacy would be an investment in sustaining that beneficial stability.
Click to expand...

Agreed, your assertion of "private" diplomatic resolution on the matter coincides with China's need to remain powerful in the eyes of it's people. Problems will arise though if such talks are leaked and the media portrays China as backing down or something of the sort over US pressure.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Agreed, your assertion of "private" diplomatic resolution on the matter coincides with China's need to remain powerful in the eyes of it's people. Problems will arise though if such talks are leaked and the media portrays China as backing down or something of the sort over US pressure.
Click to expand...

My guess is that if the diplomatic discussions were held in Beijing, one would not have to worry about media leaks. Given the sensitivity of the diplomacy, I believe that's where talks should be held so as to minimize leaks. Moreover, I believe there are creative proposals that could be introduced that would expand the incentives for the parties to accommodate one another, transcend territorial frictions, and produce mutual benefits for China and its neighbors.
 
donsutherland1 said:
My guess is that if the diplomatic discussions were held in Beijing, one would not have to worry about media leaks. Given the sensitivity of the diplomacy, I believe that's where talks should be held so as to minimize leaks. Moreover, I believe there are creative proposals that could be introduced that would expand the incentives for the parties to accommodate one another, transcend territorial frictions, and produce mutual benefits for China and its neighbors.
Click to expand...

It will certainly benefit China and its neighbors diplomatically. However, as I and many have predicted, as energy usage rises in the developing nations, the most likely cause of war among Eastern nations and perhaps a cause for WWIII would indeed be energy resources. China may not be so willing to accomodate its neighbors when it comes to securing its growing oil needs. Especially if it considers the sea part of its historic territory.
 
tlmorg02 said:
It will certainly benefit China and its neighbors diplomatically. However, as I and many have predicted, as energy usage rises in the developing nations, the most likely cause of war among Eastern nations and perhaps a cause for WWIII would indeed be energy resources. China may not be so willing to accomodate its neighbors when it comes to securing its growing oil needs. Especially if it considers the sea part of its historic territory.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unfortunately, in what has become a longstanding bipartisan tradition, the U.S. still lacks a credible and coherent energy policy. Ambitious political rhetoric notwithstanding (usually around the election cycle), no such policy is present.

I believe that the chronic absence of such a policy has already reduced the United States' strategic flexibility and increased its vulnerability to energy shocks. In the long-run, the risks will mount. At a minimum, I expect resource nationalism to grow more commonplace. At worst, there could be conflicts over resources.

Hence, at least in my view, the continuing absence of such an energy policy is really quite incomprehensible. It is an extraordinary evasion of political responsibility. Nonetheless, given the bipartisan commitment to the status quo, I expect no significant changes anytime soon (aggressive investments/policies/outcomes).
 
Erod said:
It's funny how "Harvard Law Graduate" has morphed from meaning a top-tier attorney into a dysfunctional liberal loon. But it has, and it is.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is President Ma (Taiwan's president and a Harvard Law grad) is not a lawyer, has never practiced law and hasn't even passed the local bar exam. If memory serves, Obama didn't practice law either, though I don't know if he passed the bar or not...
 
tlmorg02 said:
The real issue here is whether or not the United States is going to take on it's largest trading partner for the sake of the smaller Southeast Asian nations. Now, policy wise it may make sense to call China on behaving aggressively in an area that is recognized as intenational waters. However, until China actually fires upon another vessel or the like, I do not forsee any such confrontation. What people fail to recognize is that these relationships are all about money, and until China's actions make going against them more profitable than minding our own business, that is what we will do.
Click to expand...

So they can ram, harass, take into custody, but so long as they don't fire, it is ok.

And you don't foresee any such confrontation? Do you know what is actually going on down there?

Also, the U.S. taking a stand wouldn't only be to speak in support of the smaller states (many of whom are quite friendly to the U.S.) in the region, but also protect the vital U.S. interest of freedom of navigation. It would also be a signal to U.S. friends and allies in the region that the U.S. can be counted on.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I believe that the U.S. should privately communicate with China a clear position of its interests in the South China Sea, its commitments to its allies, and its view that a reasonable South China framework would have to accommodate the needs of all the bordering states, including but not limited to China. It should convey that the sooner a reasonable accommodation is achieved, the less likely miscalculations would be. China's neighbors have genuine concerns about China's intentions in the context of China's growing regional power. If things get out of hand, China and its neighbors could all be worse off.

Moreover, not all of China's ambitions are about money or economics. The Taiwan issue is one that China considers more important than economic considerations. It has made clear on various occasions that its response to a formal assertion of independence by Taiwan would lead to military action and that its definition of its national interest would take precedence over economic considerations. Given China's history, I don't believe China is bluffing.

Finally, China may well be viewing the South China Sea through the prism of the historic maximum extent of its empire. The context of that situation was vastly different from today's context. China was able to exert regional preeminence at that time due to a combination of its own power, how is neighbors viewed it, and the neighboring entities' lack of capacity to exert independence from China's influence. Today, there are well-organized, independent sovereign states with their own distinct interests. Accommodation is the more viable approach, if confrontation is to be avoided and mutual benefit maximized.
Click to expand...

China is not historically a maritime nation, but rather a land-based power. This is understandable considering that for most of its history, threats to the country came from the north, not from the south or the seas. There were short exceptions to that, especially during the reign of Zhu Di in the Ming Dynasty, but that was rather the exception rather than the rule.

If China is looking at the maximum extent of its 'empire', then Russia better watch carefully as well as much of central Asia. China claims that those areas were once under Chinese control as well, in addition to much of the Middle East...

For both the South China Sea and Taiwan, the US and the rest of the international community needs to make it clear to China that it expects Beijing to handle any and all disputes in accordance with international law. China has not shown a willingness to allow international law or international courts be a factor here.
 
tlmorg02 said:
INow, over the past decade China and Taiwan have greatly improved relations, with there now even being flights between the two, and the two populations are becoming ever more sympathetic towards eachother, even though any declaration would certainly cause war.
Click to expand...

Actually, while the people in Taiwan are not anti-China, hatred of the Chinese government is nearly universal as well as a desire to maintain the independence of Taiwan as a separate state from China.
 
donsutherland1 said:
My guess is that if the diplomatic discussions were held in Beijing, one would not have to worry about media leaks. Given the sensitivity of the diplomacy, I believe that's where talks should be held so as to minimize leaks. Moreover, I believe there are creative proposals that could be introduced that would expand the incentives for the parties to accommodate one another, transcend territorial frictions, and produce mutual benefits for China and its neighbors.
Click to expand...

Come on Don, you guys are agreeing too damn much. This is a debate forum. ;) Pump up the rhetoric a bit.
 
ludahai said:
China is not historically a maritime nation, but rather a land-based power. This is understandable considering that for most of its history, threats to the country came from the north, not from the south or the seas. There were short exceptions to that, especially during the reign of Zhu Di in the Ming Dynasty, but that was rather the exception rather than the rule.

If China is looking at the maximum extent of its 'empire', then Russia better watch carefully as well as much of central Asia. China claims that those areas were once under Chinese control as well, in addition to much of the Middle East...

For both the South China Sea and Taiwan, the US and the rest of the international community needs to make it clear to China that it expects Beijing to handle any and all disputes in accordance with international law. China has not shown a willingness to allow international law or international courts be a factor here.
Click to expand...

China won't be moving west, they don't need the trouble that the muslims will cause them. South maybe, but it would stop short of the Phillipines. China really doesn't have much area they could expand to.
 
ludahai said:
For both the South China Sea and Taiwan, the US and the rest of the international community needs to make it clear to China that it expects Beijing to handle any and all disputes in accordance with international law.
Click to expand...

I agree. Failure to do so or dealing with the issues ambiguously will lead to larger problems down the road. In addition, any turn to neo-isolationism by the U.S., even if in the name of fiscal consolidation, would be extremely dangerous and short-sighted.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I agree. Failure to do so or dealing with the issues ambiguously will lead to larger problems down the road. In addition, any turn to neo-isolationism by the U.S., even if in the name of fiscal consolidation, would be extremely dangerous and short-sighted.
Click to expand...

I think as long as we maintain a good trade relationship with China, things will work out.
 
American said:
I think as long as we maintain a good trade relationship with China, things will work out.
Click to expand...

While I don't believe things inevitably have to head to confrontation or worse, I don't believe trade/economic ties, alone, can assure a benign outcome. After all, prior to the outbreak of WW I, trade among Europe's nations was especially vigorous. Other factors can trump economic ones. They have in the past.

I favor engagement and trade with China. However, I also believe the U.S. can ill afford to ignore its critical regional interests and the needs of its regional allies. There are areas of broad common interest between China and the U.S. on which a productive relationship can be based. However, there are also differences. Those differences need to be managed carefully.
 
Here is my main concern guys, all this talk sounds like "containment," and that is the one policy that Beijing continuously claims the US is trying to do, even as Chinese authorities assert that China has no goals of expansion. However, I do think that as the economic history pendulum continues to swing the other direction (China was after all the world power when Europe was in the Dark Ages) and the economies of the East once again ascend to the top, the Beijing government is going to indeed find itself with evermore power. Thus, as Ludahai, I believe it was said, if we are really talking about containment, Russia must be on board and understand that China is a great potential threat to them as well.

I would suggest some sort of meeting in Beijing that would include the Southeast Asian nations, as well as Russia and the US. Though international cooperation must be the catch phrase, as any allusion to containment will automatically put Beijing on the defensive.
 
donsutherland1 said:
While I don't believe things inevitably have to head to confrontation or worse, I don't believe trade/economic ties, alone, can assure a benign outcome. After all, prior to the outbreak of WW I, trade among Europe's nations was especially vigorous. Other factors can trump economic ones. They have in the past.

I favor engagement and trade with China. However, I also believe the U.S. can ill afford to ignore its critical regional interests and the needs of its regional allies. There are areas of broad common interest between China and the U.S. on which a productive relationship can be based. However, there are also differences. Those differences need to be managed carefully.
Click to expand...

Have we ever not paid attention to that region. I don't believe we have.
 
American said:
Have we ever not paid attention to that region. I don't believe we have.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that the U.S. has not paid attention to the region. It certainly has in the post-WW II timeframe.

My worry is that, much like the Middle East, U.S. policy is becoming increasingly ad hoc and reactive. As a result, the U.S. risks falling behind events or getting overly involved in peripheral matters that have little connection to its critical interests (Somalia was one example in the past; Libya is one recent example). Taking a disproportionately reactive approach reduces the United States' strategic options. Reduced strategic flexibility entails higher costs and diminished capacity to shape events, both of which will become even riskier in an era of fiscal consolidation that is both inevitable and necessary.

U.S. foreign policy needs to be more proactive so as to reduce the risks of miscalculations and maximize the United States' ability to help shape events in a fashion that is compatible with its interests and the needs of its allies. China's recent actions are, in part, an expression of how China views the South China Sea with respect to its interests and aspirations. It is also, in part, a reflection of its calculations pertaining to the expected response by the United States and neighboring states, as well as their actual capabilities to respond. The U.S. might not be able to have much short-term impact on the former situation. It has a lot of capacity to affect the latter one.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Here is my main concern guys, all this talk sounds like "containment," and that is the one policy that Beijing continuously claims the US is trying to do, even as Chinese authorities assert that China has no goals of expansion. However, I do think that as the economic history pendulum continues to swing the other direction (China was after all the world power when Europe was in the Dark Ages) and the economies of the East once again ascend to the top, the Beijing government is going to indeed find itself with evermore power. Thus, as Ludahai, I believe it was said, if we are really talking about containment, Russia must be on board and understand that China is a great potential threat to them as well.

I would suggest some sort of meeting in Beijing that would include the Southeast Asian nations, as well as Russia and the US. Though international cooperation must be the catch phrase, as any allusion to containment will automatically put Beijing on the defensive.
Click to expand...

I do not favor attempts at Containment. Such an approach would only reinforce China's historic fears, rekindle memories of the tragedies China suffered during the 19th and 20th centuries, and lay a foundation for a bad relationship even as the region's balance of power shifts toward greater Chinese influence. Such an effort very likely would fail and worse, would probably create a self-fulfilling prophecy of a belligerent China.

Cooperation should be pursued in the broad areas of common interest. Diplomacy should seek to find mutually acceptable remedies for areas of difference so as to preserve regional stability and mitigate the risks of miscalculation/conflict and, IMO, creative diplomacy can offer mutually-acceptable solutions for the South China Sea dispute. Respect for international law and use of that framework to create a process for resolving that dispute is a good starting point.

Finally, all the parties need to clearly articulate their critical interests (to avoid misunderstanding) and the U.S. also needs to assure that its commitments to the region and its allies remain credible (to reduce the risk of miscalculations). The combination of looming fiscal consolidation, which almost certainly will have a short- and medium-term impact on U.S. power, and neo-isolationist rhetoric among some political figures creates credibility challenges. Ineffectual diplomacy can only exacerbate those challenges and increase prospects of destabilizing events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom