• 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

So you think we should ignore our treaty obligations?

I'm totally in favor of renegotiating our treaties with Japan and the Philippines (others too) as I don't believe we should bind ourselves to militarily defending either of them should they attack China over this dispute.

We don't have any treaty obligations to fight for the Philippines claims on the Spratly islands. And, the 1887 boundary convention signed by France and China at the conclusion of the Sino-French war, recognizes China's ownership of the Spratlys. Japan wrested possession of the Spratlys from China in 1939. But they were returned in 1947 after Japan had surrendered and was in their restitution phase. North Vietnam also recognised China's ownership of the islands.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Please produce titles from Vietnam and the Philippines.

I just got done telling you that anybody could claim title as they have historically been largely unoccupied territory. At different times through recorded history various peoples have occupied the islands in dispute - none lasting. Who is to say that Vietnam, the Philippines, China, and any other claimant is more rightful than the others but an impartial international judge? Not you, Monte, not you. You don't have the bona fides. I don't claim to either, but if it was ever so clear as you maintain, then there wouldn't be any dispute, now would there?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

I just got done telling you that anybody could claim title as they have historically been largely unoccupied territory. At different times through recorded history various peoples have occupied the islands in dispute - none lasting. Who is to say that Vietnam, the Philippines, China, and any other claimant is more rightful than the others but an impartial international judge? Not you, Monte, not you. You don't have the bona fides. I don't claim to either, but if it was ever so clear as you maintain, then there wouldn't be any dispute, now would there?

Post 51
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Bolded. As was the case in Iraq, another that you should have opposed.

No disagreement with respect to the 2003 war.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

I'm totally in favor of renegotiating our treaties with Japan and the Philippines (others too) as I don't believe we should bind ourselves to militarily defending either of them should they attack China over this dispute.

Fine. Who is threatening to attack China?

We don't have any treaty obligations to fight for the Philippines claims on the Spratly islands. And, the 1887 boundary convention signed by France and China at the conclusion of the Sino-French war, recognizes China's ownership of the Spratlys. Japan wrested possession of the Spratlys from China in 1939. But they were returned in 1947 after Japan had surrendered and was in their restitution phase. North Vietnam also recognised China's ownership of the islands.

I didn't say we would support any Philippine claim. I don't care what France, Japan , or North Vietnam said decades or over a century ago. None of these countries alone is the sole arbiter of who owns the islands. Put the claims, with or without merit, on the table of international judgement and let the chips fall where they may. If such a simple resolution makes me part of the "I hate China" crowd as you claim, then any reasonable offering other than China simply taking them is also an "I hate China" stance.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch


That info is not (that I know of) available on the internet.

And before you start... That really wasn't the point of my post.

You're welcome to take it or leave it. :shrug:
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Yes, true enough. Has anybody disputed that?? Now kindly show me where China has threatened to compromise anybody's ability to continue to peddle their trade via the shipping lanes that straddle the Spratlys?


How about we look at Vietnam Monte. Did China invoke a ban on fishing? Does that affect merchants?



Vietnam has strongly condemned a temporary Chinese ban on fishing in the South China Sea, calling the move a violation of its sovereignty, as the neighboring countries seek to repair ties damaged by Beijing’s deployment of an oil rig to the contested waters a year ago. The annual May 16-Aug. 1 fishing ban, which threatens violators with confiscations and legal action, was introduced in 1999 “to promote the sustainable development of the fishing industry in the South China Sea and protect the fundamental interest of fishermen,” China’s official Xinhua news agency said in a report.

Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh voiced strong protest over the fishing ban, saying the act violated the country’s jurisdiction over the waters under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), according to the state-run Vietnam News.

"Viet Nam vehemently opposes this void decision," Binh said of the ban, which includes the Gulf of Tonkin and the disputed Paracel islands.....snip~

Vietnam Condemns Chinese Ban on Fishing in South China Sea
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Free trade and free passage are not limited to strictly maritime issues. Additionally, there are also disputed fishing rights among other things. All suggest that a solution be settled at a table for discussion, negotiation, and arbitration if necessary.


Yeah HB and Vietnam has claim to some of the Spratlys too. Still they didn't like the Chinese Putting up and Oil Rig in their Waters.




While communist parties rule both Vietnam and China and annual trade has risen to $50 billion, Hanoi has long been wary of China, especially over Beijing's claims to most of the potentially energy-rich South China Sea. Beijing's placement of an oil rig in waters claimed by Vietnam earlier this year infuriated Hanoi but the coastguard vessels it dispatched to the platform were always chased off by larger Chinese boats.

The Vietnamese are likely to run so-called area denial operations off its coast and around its military bases in the Spratly island chain of the South China Sea once the submarines are fully operational, experts said.

That would complicate Chinese calculations over any military move against Vietnamese holdings in the Spratlys or in the event of an armed clash over disputed oil fields, even though China has a much larger navy, including a fleet of 70 submarines, they added.....snip~

Vietnam building deterrent against China in disputed seas with submarines
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Fine. Who is threatening to attack China?



I didn't say we would support any Philippine claim. I don't care what France, Japan , or North Vietnam said decades or over a century ago. None of these countries alone is the sole arbiter of who owns the islands. Put the claims, with or without merit, on the table of international judgement and let the chips fall where they may. If such a simple resolution makes me part of the "I hate China" crowd as you claim, then any reasonable offering other than China simply taking them is also an "I hate China" stance.

I don't know that anybody is, but you brought up treaty obligations. I don't believe we should be bound to the military defense of the Philippines or Japan "if" they attack China, or if either they or someone else pulls a "gulf of Tonkin" incident (wink wink, nod nod).

The rest of your post is total patronising bull ****. If decades or centuries old treaties and precedence aren't acceptable factors, then there's a whole bunch of real estate that the US (and others) are holding illegitimately. Nothing needs to be laid on any damn table. China has the premier claim to them. Shall we have Mexico claim Hawaii, and insist that the US go back before your "table of international judgement" and prove that it belongs to us?

You're barking up the wrong tree with this, and it's damn sure not worth risking a US/China military engagement over.

And furthermore. You don't give a damn about those tiny uninhabitable islands. Out of complete ignorance of the history of those islands, if its China, you're against it.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

How about we look at Vietnam Monte. Did China invoke a ban on fishing? Does that affect merchants?



Vietnam has strongly condemned a temporary Chinese ban on fishing in the South China Sea, calling the move a violation of its sovereignty, as the neighboring countries seek to repair ties damaged by Beijing’s deployment of an oil rig to the contested waters a year ago. The annual May 16-Aug. 1 fishing ban, which threatens violators with confiscations and legal action, was introduced in 1999 “to promote the sustainable development of the fishing industry in the South China Sea and protect the fundamental interest of fishermen,” China’s official Xinhua news agency said in a report.

Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh voiced strong protest over the fishing ban, saying the act violated the country’s jurisdiction over the waters under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), according to the state-run Vietnam News.

"Viet Nam vehemently opposes this void decision," Binh said of the ban, which includes the Gulf of Tonkin and the disputed Paracel islands.....snip~

Vietnam Condemns Chinese Ban on Fishing in South China Sea

Again, that's between Vietnam and China. As much as you froth at the mouth to have the US flexing its muscle all over the world, in order to assure yourself that you still have some balls, it's not the US's business. Furthermore, I've been responding to posters making the claim that the sea lanes that 6 trillion dollars worth of trade goods passes through annually is what gives the US legitimacy in butting in. Except that China hasn't threatened to disrupt that!
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Ah. I see that you added the link. Article from around 1999? Problem is not China's participation in the atoll derby, but rather China's threats against freedom of navigation. That is unlike any of the other derby participants.


Moreover JH, :2wave: China's Claim goes back to their Middle Kingdom which isn't really an accurate map. That's the one they use with the one in 1940.


Beijing claims sovereignty over nearly all of the resource-rich South China Sea, even areas approaching the coasts of Vietnam and other Southeast Asian nations, based on a 1940s Chinese map with segmented dashes outlining its territory.

But critics say the nine dashes delineate territory that is more than 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) from the nearest major Chinese landmass in places, and well within the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of neighboring countries.....snip~
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Stop being coy Jack, you know what "disputed" means. Taiwan and China claim all the islands in the Spratly archipelago while others claim various numbers and Brunei just one.

The intractable and contentious nature of jurisdictional disputes over the Spratlys has prompted claimant states to take efforts to enforce their claims by stationing a permanent military presence in the archipelago. By 1999, nearly 1650 troops of five claimant governments had occupiedatleastforty-sixoffifty-onelandformationsintheSpratlyarchipelago.42 Intheprocess, the two principal antagonists, China and Vietnam, have each increased naval patrols and established new military outposts on previously unoccupied islets in the region (See Table 1).43

http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/cbmapspratly.pdf

China has a title found in the boundary convention in 1880 signed between France and China at the conclusion of the Sino-French war which recognised China as the rightful owner of the Spratlys. Upon Japan's surrender at the conclusion of WW11, ownership of the Spratlys was returned to China. Japan having seized them from China in 1939.

They have had differing claims.

Nine-dotted line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Following the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II, the Republic of China re-claimed the entirety of the Paracels, Pratas and Spratly Islands after accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. In November 1946, the Republic of China sent naval ships to take control of these islands after the surrender of Japan.[8]

The nine-dotted line was originally an eleven-dotted-line first shown on a map published by the Kuomintang government of the Republic of China (1912–1949) in December 1947 to justify its claims in the South China Sea.[6] After the Communist Party of China took over mainland China and formed the People's Republic of China in 1949, the line was adopted and revised to nine as endorsed by Zhou Enlai.[6] After evacuating to Taiwan, the Republic of China has continued its claims, and the nine-dotted line remains as the rationale for Taiwan's claims to the Spratly and Paracel Islands.
This is China's 2009 nine-dash map submission to the UN that heightened the regional dispute. The map here is the second page in a two-page document. The first page is a text addressed to the UN Secretary General, noting China's sovereignty claim to the "islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters", however, the document remains ambiguous by being silent as to the precise meaning of the map enclosed, and the meaning of the nine-dash line on it.[9]

The nine-dotted line has been used by China to show the maximum extent of its claim without indicating how the dots would be joined if it was continuous and how that would affect the extent of the area claimed by China.[6] The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia have all officially protested over the use of such a line.[10] Immediately after China submitted a map to the UN including the 9-dotted lines territorial claim in the South China Sea on May 7, 2009, the Philippines lodged a diplomatic protest against China for claiming the whole of South China Sea illegally. Vietnam and Malaysia filed their joint protest a day after China submitted its 9-dash line map to the UN. Indonesia also registered its protest, even though it did not have a claim on the South China Sea.[4]

It is reported that in 2013 the PRC extended their claims with a new ten-dash map, but in fact the "new" dash is to the east of Taiwan, not in the South China Sea.[1

Note that both of these claims intrude into other countries territorial waters, and one photo has it claiming parts of Malaysian and Vietnam itself. From 1947
View attachment 67184838

Now this one. Note how it also intrudes into clearly territorial waters of other countries.

View attachment 67184839
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

I don't know that anybody is, but you brought up treaty obligations. I don't believe we should be bound to the military defense of the Philippines or Japan "if" they attack China, or if either they or someone else pulls a "gulf of Tonkin" incident (wink wink, nod nod).

They are defense treaties.

The rest of your post is total patronising bull ****. If decades or centuries old treaties and precedence aren't acceptable factors, then there's a whole bunch of real estate that the US (and others) are holding illegitimately. Nothing needs to be laid on any damn table. China has the premier claim to them. Shall we have Mexico claim Hawaii, and insist that the US go back before your "table of international judgement" and prove that it belongs to us?

You're barking up the wrong tree with this, and it's damn sure not worth risking a US/China military engagement over.

And furthermore. You don't give a damn about those tiny uninhabitable islands. Out of complete ignorance of the history of those islands, if its China, you're against it.

You are correct that I don't give a damn about the islands. The people that live in the area do, and it's up to them to resolve their differences, but many of us are hopeful that such a resolution can be achieved without bloodshed that could draw the US into the conflict. Who wants that? You keep implying that I do because without that strawman, you're the one barking up the wrong tree. This is not about renegotiating the entire status of the world the way you'd like to see it - things are as they are, and withdrawing from the rest of the world is not an option. The world will visit us uninvited. If China is spoiling for a "Maine" type of incident, they're certainly setting the stage in the accustomed fashion. As you yourself point out in the above, anybody can make a claim. If you're satisfied with China's claim, then write them and tell them of your undying support. I'm not buying even a bit of it, but it does seem you believe the Philippines are spoiling for a fight with China.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Oh, 1999. In this instance, the older the better. China has the strongest proof of title of any of the claimants. And the Us doesn't have a dog in this race, beyond it's typical intrusion and interference in regional issues that they have no business in.

US has a defense cooperation agreement with the Philippines. Guess what comes next with other members of ASEAN.
Analyzing the US-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement | The Diplomat
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

They are defense treaties.



You are correct that I don't give a damn about the islands. The people that live in the area do, and it's up to them to resolve their differences, but many of us are hopeful that such a resolution can be achieved without bloodshed that could draw the US into the conflict. Who wants that? You keep implying that I do because without that strawman, you're the one barking up the wrong tree. This is not about renegotiating the entire status of the world the way you'd like to see it - things are as they are, and withdrawing from the rest of the world is not an option. The world will visit us uninvited. If China is spoiling for a "Maine" type of incident, they're certainly setting the stage in the accustomed fashion. As you yourself point out in the above, anybody can make a claim. If you're satisfied with China's claim, then write them and tell them of your undying support. I'm not buying even a bit of it, but it does seem you believe the Philippines are spoiling for a fight with China.

In the scenario I suggested, we would have to have Offence treaties. I think the US with your support is spoiling for a fight with China. Don't forget Obama's trip to and speech in Australia in 2011.

This should be for those six nations with overlapping claims to iron out. The only way that the US has an ounce of (questionable) legitimacy in this, is to stay the **** out, until, China attacks a nation that we have defense treaties with.
 
Last edited:
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Again, that's between Vietnam and China. As much as you froth at the mouth to have the US flexing its muscle all over the world, in order to assure yourself that you still have some balls, it's not the US's business. Furthermore, I've been responding to posters making the claim that the sea lanes that 6 trillion dollars worth of trade goods passes through annually is what gives the US legitimacy in butting in. Except that China hasn't threatened to disrupt that!



Again thats others and their actions......specifically China encroaching up on others and whats theirs. Yes you would look to blame the US just like you always do. Nothing new there.

That's why you can't figure out what Japan has been doing. Its why they sent 6 Coast Guard vessels to the Philippines. 5 to Vietnam.

Did you catch that part about Russia sending Vietnam 2 Subs?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

US has a defense cooperation agreement with the Philippines. Guess what comes next with other members of ASEAN.
Analyzing the US-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement | The Diplomat

You're not defending the Philippines by supporting them if they attack China. But besides that, all such treaties exist for the sole purpose of the US to feign legitimacy in interfering where it has no business.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Again thats others and their actions......specifically China encroaching up on others and whats theirs. Yes you would look to blame the US just like you always do. Nothing new there.

That's why you can't figure out what Japan has been doing. Its why they sent 6 Coast Guard vessels to the Philippines. 5 to Vietnam.

Did you catch that part about Russia sending Vietnam 2 Subs?

Apparently you are under the false impression that the US is one of the six countries with overlapping claims to those islands. It's also apparent, you're rubbing your hands together with anticipation of another fight somewhere. Sick dude!
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

You so nicely describe the US with that. Otherwise I agree with you that China understands the value of hard power, which is a no brainer, who doesn't. But China's understanding of this doesn't end with their experiences with Japan. The current military spending spree, (approximately 18% annual increase) has directly correlated to US military adventurism in the Middle East which has taken both China and Russia's breath away. And they have declared there concerns over it, and even blocked further US aggressions at the UN level. USFP is pushing Russia and China together, and pushing China on the Spratlys, (and greater SCS) and coming to unfounded conclusions about their intentions is either the product of bias hatred of China (god knows why) or just plain ignorance, or maybe both.

Russia was broke for years. Then sudden wealth from oil arrived. This allowed Russia to become more assertive. They then closed gas lines feeding the EU. other threats, and interfering as with other countries. Gegia is one example, Georgia, Moldava 1990,

Transnistria War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same as they are playing both sides in the Armenian - Azerbaijan conflict.
Global Conflict Tracker
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

China will do nothing against America.

As Fenton said above, they need America too much.

This will probably end in some international court that will decide it. Then China will ignore it. And then just before America starts putting sanctions on Chinese imports, China will back down just enough to avoid sanctions...but the problem will continue to simmer for years.
China is VERY protective of land it considers as historically Chinese. But they are also somewhat pragmatic and they fully realize that loss of U.S. (and probably Europe) trade would hurt them SO much that it could send the economy into recession. And the only thing keeping their leaders in power is a growing economy.
Take that away and their people will get real tired REAL fast of the repressive regime they live under...and the Chinese government must know this.

Nothing will come of this situation...for at least many years.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

That info is not (that I know of) available on the internet.

And before you start... That really wasn't the point of my post.

You're welcome to take it or leave it. :shrug:

Concession accepted. Next time, don't make stupid, bogus claims. Here was the closest thing I could find to this.

Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War | WIRED

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

One cannot act aggressively when defending their territory. And China has several forms of title to the Spratlys, the others none. And China has accussed the others, save Brunei, of their own aggressive actions over the years in building military infrastructures on various islands in the archipelago, as well as stationing troops on them. This is NOT this cut and dry situation that the "hate China" crowd depicts. I suppose your amongst the party of hawks that even thinks China's pursuit of its interests in the South China Sea are worthy of a military response???

Why do they not take it to the UN??????
There are settlement mechanisms in the Laws of the Seas Convention.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why, because a substantial portion of their claims are groundless.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Would you stop it with your bull**** rhetoric. China isn't threatening merchant ship travel in the shipping lanes in the straight.

Oh, 1999. In this instance, the older the better. China has the strongest proof of title of any of the claimants. And the Us doesn't have a dog in this race, beyond it's typical intrusion and interference in regional issues that they have no business in.

You really need to know more before you post so assertively.

China’s dangerous provocation demands a response from the U.S.

Editorial Board MAY 26
The United States must hold firm against the Asian giant’s buildup in the Spratly Islands.

"THE UNITED States last week stepped up its efforts to call attention to China’s massive and provocative expansion of infrastructure in a disputed portion of the South China Sea. The Navy invited CNN aboard a surveillance flight and released video the next day of what one U.S. official called an attempt “to make sovereign land out of sand castles” in the Spratly Islands. The flight by a P-8A Poseidon aircraft drew eight warnings from the Chinese navy and an angry denunciation by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which called it “very irresponsible and also very dangerous.” But the U.S. action was legal and appropriate. . . .

"Other nations have reclaimed land and built installations in the Spratlys. But China’s operation stands out for its scale and speed and for the brazenness with which the regime of Xi Jinping advances questionable territorial claims while rejecting international mediation or a negotiated code of conduct. Relying on a slapdash map dating to the 1940s, which consists of nine dashes across the waters east of China, Beijing claims 80 percent of the South China Sea, which is crisscrossed by international shipping lanes. It seeks to exclude foreign ships and planes from a 200-mile zone around its claimed territory, rather than the 12 miles recognized by the United States. . . . "
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

You're not defending the Philippines by supporting them if they attack China. But besides that, all such treaties exist for the sole purpose of the US to feign legitimacy in interfering where it has no business.

The Philippines knows that. They will not initiate hostilities.
It will be China that goes that route.
The present Poobah has been quite keen on playing to China's nationalists. Note the incursion the other year into Indian territory, set up camp and stayed for a tad. No innocent error in border crossing.
Once that comes into play, like any battle plan, only lasts till first contact, then it takes on a way of its own.
Then they are cornered into a Military response.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

China will do nothing against America.

As Fenton said above, they need America too much.

This will probably end in some international court that will decide it. Then China will ignore it. And then just before America starts putting sanctions on Chinese imports, China will back down just enough to avoid sanctions...but the problem will continue to simmer for years.
China is VERY protective of land it considers as historically Chinese. But they are also somewhat pragmatic and they fully realize that loss of U.S. (and probably Europe) trade would hurt them SO much that it could send the economy into recession. And the only thing keeping their leaders in power is a growing economy.
Take that away and their people will get real tired REAL fast of the repressive regime they live under...and the Chinese government must know this.

Nothing will come of this situation...for at least many years.

China's targets are its neighbors rather than the US. In the current matter China's goal is to undermine the US defense commitment to China's neighbors, and to cause those neighbors to doubt US resolve.
 
Back
Top Bottom