• 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!

Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South China

Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Oil, gas, fishing rights, minerals and control of the area. They can easily create a Denial of Area to any country they wish to.
Denial of Area, making it costly in blood and treasure is meant to lock out the US from Asia.
And China play a long game, and that is my opinion.
They want Asia and the countries near them to be more like client states.
TPP will also cost them trade and investment.
India is upping their military spending, why, due to China and security issues.
But China only has so long to do this.
Aging population and as economists say, China will be old, before they are rich.
India on the other hand is or will be a Superpower in the next 20-30 years.
Then we have Malaysia, economy on fire and growing fast.
As to the US pivot to Asia, well that is what most countries are doing as Asia is where growth is.
There will not be a Unipolar world for much longer, with the US at the top of the heap.
More likely Tri Polar. US-China-India-
And Russia, well until they reform their economy and legal titles to property, rid themselves of corruption, they will be China's Putz Boys.

;)

But UNCLOS doesn’t make it quite so easy for countries to parcel up the sea in search of tuna and crude. An island must be naturally formed—and not reclaimed—land that sits above water at high tide—otherwise it gives the claimant country no right at all. Meanwhile, rocks that can’t “sustain human habitation or economic life of their own” grant their owners no more than the 12-nm territorial sea.

photo4.jpeg



It certainly also means supporting the fishing fleet, oil and natural-gas exploration, the ability to support law enforcement and coast guard, in addition to military activities,” says Dutton. “The islands being built up in the South China Seas really do present a major problem for other claimants in the region in that regard, because China simply outclasses them in every dimension of state power needed to reinforce [its claims].”.....snip~
 
Last edited:
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Do they legally own each one of the many rock outcroppings?

Who's defining "legally" here. If you have any knowledge about how the US came into possession of Hawaii, I'd like you to explain to me how it merits your definition of legal?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

We've been over this repeatedly. Yes, having read from an array of differing accounts, taking into consideration all the different biases and subjective interests of not only the six countries which have the overlapping claims, but various advocacy groups, experts in international/foreign affairs, and so on, China emerges as the most legitimate claimant, they simply do. And I remain frustrated by those that continue to point to the infrastructure that China has built on "disputed islands" while the other claimants (save Brunei) have in fact constructed their own infrastructures as well as rotated troops upon the very same "disputed islands" without a single mention, let alone criticism. Additionally you won't comment on the fact that Taiwan has laid claim to the entire Spratly archipelago and the implications that has on Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia??!!
China and Taiwan agreed years ago on this.
Building was for the most part halted with the agreement made some time ago.
China also thru that agreement out the door along with all claimants discussing a solution.
They are making a Territory claim on other countries territory.
Then China goes on a massive building spree, and claiming all of the disputed Islands.
Do they have legal claims to some, yes, all of them, no.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

With China's title to the Spratly's, why wouldn't they have the traditional 12 nautical mile radius around them. Why have US ships remained outside that radius?

Why would they poke China in their face.
The US position is for all parties to jointly negotiate a settlement.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

China and Taiwan agreed years ago on this.
Building was for the most part halted with the agreement made some time ago.
China also thru that agreement out the door along with all claimants discussing a solution.
They are making a Territory claim on other countries territory.
Then China goes on a massive building spree, and claiming all of the disputed Islands.
Do they have legal claims to some, yes, all of them, no.

How in the world can it be "other countries territory" when the islands are DISPUTED?? Which islands do you acknowledge China's legitimate claims to?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Who's defining "legally" here. If you have any knowledge about how the US came into possession of Hawaii, I'd like you to explain to me how it merits your definition of legal?

Not on topic now is it.
Note I used a ? mark.
Or are you stating that China has the right of military might to take what they want?
Is that what you are implying?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

How in the world can it be "other countries territory" when the islands are DISPUTED??

Look at the areas claimed by China.
They cannot be all China's.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Why would they poke China in their face.
The US position is for all parties to jointly negotiate a settlement.

That's right, going inside the twelve nautical mile radius would be entering China's territorial waters, and of course poking them in the face.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Look at the areas claimed by China.
They cannot be all China's.

Right. So you don't even know, but they just "cannot be all China's".!!!
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Not on topic now is it.
Note I used a ? mark.
Or are you stating that China has the right of military might to take what they want?
Is that what you are implying?

A country that possesses land acquisitions in this manner, have no legitimacy in criticizing others.

By the time the United States got serious about looking beyond its own borders to conquer new lands, much of the world had already been claimed. Only a few distant territories in Africa and Asia and remote islands in the Pacific remained free from imperial grasp. Hawaii was one such plum. Led by a hereditary monarch, the inhabitants of the kingdom prevailed as an independent state. American expansionists looked with greed on the strategically located islands and waited patiently to plan their move.

Foothold in Hawaii
Hawaiian Annexation [ushistory.org]
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

What 'massive' Chinese build up could there possibly be on islands with an area of a few hundred hectares ? By far the largest island in the group is less than a mile long and a quarter mile wide so they are not going to be docking supercarriers there any time soon nor launching any invasions of its neighbours. What has been massive though is the US overreaction given the recent movement of the USS Ronald Reagan battle group into the far east

Freedom of navigation.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Come on Jack I cannot believe you are that naieve. They knew exactly what they were doing and why they were there and I know you do too

Of course, but the point they were making is they the right to fly there. There's no naivete in that; freedom of navigation/flight is a core US vital national interest.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Why ? What is it of such great strategic importance for the US on this tiny archipeligo, and don't blather on about that freedom of the seas/piracy BS because that doesn't wash. China has not threatened to close any sea lanes and does have the strongest historic claim here.

That zone was in the East China Sea a couple of years ago.

There is no claim, historic or otherwise, on international waters. If you use the term "BS" and say it doesn't wash then you do not understand the issue. Freedom of navigation is a core vital national interest of the US, for which I think we would go to war.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Right. So you don't even know, but they just "cannot be all China's".!!!

And you know they are?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

A country that possesses land acquisitions in this manner, have no legitimacy in criticizing others.

By the time the United States got serious about looking beyond its own borders to conquer new lands, much of the world had already been claimed. Only a few distant territories in Africa and Asia and remote islands in the Pacific remained free from imperial grasp. Hawaii was one such plum. Led by a hereditary monarch, the inhabitants of the kingdom prevailed as an independent state. American expansionists looked with greed on the strategically located islands and waited patiently to plan their move.

Foothold in Hawaii
Hawaiian Annexation [ushistory.org]

Ancient history. Would you state that same if China attempts to recover territory lost to Russia and their is the India problem?


China To Engage In 'Six Inevitable Wars' Involving U.S., Japan, India And More, According To Pro-Government Chinese Newspaper
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Right. So you don't even know, but they just "cannot be all China's".!!!

OK - Which ones?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

And you know they are?

Yes. Surely by now that's clear.

b) The Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong) carried an article on Dec. 31 of 1973 which quotes the British High Commissioner to Singapore as having said in 1970: "Spratly Island (Nanwei Island in Chinese) was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province… and was returned to China after the war. We can not find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China."

b) Yearbook of the World published in Japan in 1972 says that Chinese territory includes not only the mainland, but also Hainan Island, Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea.

a) Columbia Lippincott World Toponymic Dictionary published in the United States in 1961 states that the Nansha Islands on the South China Sea are part of Guangdong Province and belong to China.

b) The Worldmark Encyclopaedia of the Nations published in the United States in 1963 says that the islands of the People's Republic extend southward to include those isles and coral reefs on the South China Sea at the north latitude 4°.

c) World Administrative Divisions Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that the People's Republic has a number of archipelagoes, including Hainan Island near the South China Sea, which is the largest, and a few others on the South China Sea extending to as far as the north latitude 4°, such as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.

a) Vice Foreign Minister Dung Van Khiem of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam received Mr. Li Zhimin, charge d'affaires ad interim of the Chinese Embassy in Viet Nam and told him that "according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha and Nansha Islands are historically part of Chinese territory." Mr. Le Doc, Acting Director of the Asian Department of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, who was present then, added that "judging from history, these islands were already part of China at the time of the Song Dynasty."
 
Last edited:
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Yes. Surely by now that's clear.

b) The Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong) carried an article on Dec. 31 of 1973 which quotes the British High Commissioner to Singapore as having said in 1970: "Spratly Island (Nanwei Island in Chinese) was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province… and was returned to China after the war. We can not find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China."

b) Yearbook of the World published in Japan in 1972 says that Chinese territory includes not only the mainland, but also Hainan Island, Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea.

a) Columbia Lippincott World Toponymic Dictionary published in the United States in 1961 states that the Nansha Islands on the South China Sea are part of Guangdong Province and belong to China.

b) The Worldmark Encyclopaedia of the Nations published in the United States in 1963 says that the islands of the People's Republic extend southward to include those isles and coral reefs on the South China Sea at the north latitude 4°.

c) World Administrative Divisions Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that the People's Republic has a number of archipelagoes, including Hainan Island near the South China Sea, which is the largest, and a few others on the South China Sea extending to as far as the north latitude 4°, such as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.
Then Chinese claims, the U Shape dotted line is legal according to you?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Ancient history. Would you state that same if China attempts to recover territory lost to Russia and their is the India problem?


China To Engage In 'Six Inevitable Wars' Involving U.S., Japan, India And More, According To Pro-Government Chinese Newspaper

I offered that up to demonstrate the blatant hypocrisy in the US position taken against China regarding the Spratly islands.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Then Chinese claims, the U Shape dotted line is legal according to you?

How does that address the five pieces of evidence bolstering China's claims in the quote, speak to them please!
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

I offered that up to demonstrate the blatant hypocrisy in the US position taken against China regarding the Spratly islands.

A standard to which you hold only the US. Every country on Earth is the product of conquest.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

How does that address the five pieces of evidence bolstering China's claims in the quote, speak to them please!

China's Aggression Is a Godsend for the United StatesNew York Observer‎ - 2 days ago

". . . China's aggression is incredibly stupid. . . ."

". . . China’s border strategy is no smarter than the Kaiser inserting himself into meaningless colonial disputes. An extra source of natural gas will not significantly affect China’s rise to regional dominance. The only thing that could is if Beijing picks enough border quarrels with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, and others to push them into an alliance. There’s no reason they should otherwise: these are vastly different regimes and all stand to get rich if China gets rich. . . ."

". . . The only thing that could stop China from dominating Asia would be if a hostile, sustainable alliance of Pacific Rim nations emerged. Right now, many of the Pacific Rim nations are on the fence, protected by U.S. military power, politically neutral, and getting rich off China. But America cannot be a long-term guarantor of peace: its resolve will waver, and it is, after all, 8,000 miles away. The sole motivation for that alliance to form would be exactly what China is doing now: blustering, pawn-grabbing, using its superior local power to claim disproportionately insignificant objectives. That behavior is a godsend to the U.S., which doesn’t have to prod its Asian allies to band together and oppose China. They’ll do it anyway. Control of the Spratly Islands will not determine the future political course of Asia. But grabbing them might."



 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Chinese financial leverage over the US is a myth. I'd be delighted if they tried something like that but they won't, because they know they've got nothing. As for "the other way around," the US aircraft was flying in international air space and the Chinese threats (eight, IIRC) were recorded.

What?!?

Over $1.3 trillion is a heck of a myth (China and Hong Kong U.S. debt held).

Japan now holds more U.S. debt than China - Apr. 15, 2015


If China suddenly dumped all of it's debt, interest rates would shoot up...guaranteed. You cannot just dump a trillion dollars of bonds on the market and have your interest rates unaffacted. And America is TOTALLY dependant on VERY low interest rates right now. How is that good for either U.S. debt or consumers?

Plus, the value of the dollar would plunge - making imports (including oil) much more expensive. And the poor/those on fixed incomes would get hit the hardest on this as they largely depend on those cheap imports.

Additionally, confidence in the dollar would fall further...undermining it's world currency status.


And how on Earth would it hurt China? They would sell the bonds - probably for dollars - and then convert that into hard currency (they already buy more gold then anyone else) and other raw materials they need for their economy. ANd they could buy foreign real estate and just about anything else they want.
Plus, the value of the yuan would rise, which would make buying those raw materials less expensive.
Sure, that would hurt exports to some extent. But since the dollar would be weaker, almost all other currencies would be stronger, so the affect would not be as great. Besides, China is trying to force their economy inwards and less outwards...this would facilitate that.
Also, China does not depend on America as much as most think for trading. They only send 1/6 of their exports to America. Sure, it would hurt their economy if that were cut off. But it's no back breaker.

• China: main export partners 2014 | Statistic


Overall, China dumping it's U.S. debt could hurt China a bit. And it would probably not be catastrophic for America.

But the idea that China suddenly dumping all of it's U.S. debt not hurting America significantly is - no offense - totally erroneous.

You disagree - fine.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom