US military units to stay for South China Sea patrols

[boomerangutang]

Lawrence Chee: "So this idea of a blockade is ridiculous and counter productive as is any preemptive strike that will only impact civilians."

I agree with half the above. A blockade would be counter-productive. However, a preemptive strike would try to avoid civilian casualties. It would be aimed at military targets. Some military folks would get harmed, and that's regrettable, but the US always tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. It may happen that Chinese authorities will purposefully place civilians at or near military posts. If so, that would be a grave mistake. On the other hand, civilian casualties would inflame Chinese anger to the bursting point, and that would lead to immediate cyber attacks and quite possibly attacks against American tourists/workers in China. Chinese leaders know that and, for that reason, it would be in their interest to place civilians near military installations.

[keemapoot]

Once the International Court of Arbitration issues its ruling, governments of the region will have the rationale to proceed in joint patrols. (NZ PM John Key just this week told Beijing to bugger off with its threats of trade punishments if NZ didn't break with the regional stance to resist and confront CCP over the SCS.) Australia is doing air recon over the Sea and is waiting for the Court to rule before deciding on joint naval operations with US and others. Japan has announced it will conduct certain air recon over the Sea and it has donated more than $100 million in small naval and coast guard craft to the Phils.

Chances of a Munich in the SCS are slim and none, and slim has left town already.

I've redacted most of the above text as I only want to respond to the issue of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. As an aside, I might add that I never understood colleagues of mine who wanted to practice international public law. It always seemed to me a practice in futility, mutual masturbation, or at worst self-flagellation. The reason, is that unlike private international arbitration, there is no enforcement mechanism for awards in arbitration from the Hague. No international sheriff will come and collect the award, or enforce an injunction. Parties just rulings without substance or action to back them up or enforce them.

China argued, with good basis, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and in any event, the Philippines prevailed and appear to be heading for an award positive ruling. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Assuming the court does rule against China, how expansive may the ruling be? We don't know yet. It may be limited in scope, and to expect that the US or other parties may then have legal justification for a blockade or other actions based on this action brought by the Philippines is premature.

It is important to note that Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Japan dispatched representatives to the hearings in July last year. Vietnam expressed its support to the arbitral tribunal regarding this case and asked the tribunal to pay due attention to the legal rights and interests of Vietnam. Such moves could be interpreted as a sign that some of these countries might take a similar path after the Philippines has blazed a trail.

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/south-china-sea-arbitration-what-may-follow

As reasoned in that Straits Times article, other aggrieved countries, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, have asked the tribunal to also tangentially rule on their rights, but the court will not rule on any issue as a holding, not properly brought before it, other than as non-binding legal dicta.

Therefore, to assume that this ruling by the Hague will result in a broadly-based international legal justification for a broad SCS blockade or other action is again, is again, whistling in the wind at this point.

But, it does provide at least some ammunition for further action.

[tonbridgebrit]

Lawrence Chee: "So this idea of a blockade is ridiculous and counter productive as is any preemptive strike that will only impact civilians."

I agree with half the above. A blockade would be counter-productive. However, a preemptive strike would try to avoid civilian casualties. It would be aimed at military targets. Some military folks would get harmed, and that's regrettable, but the US always tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. It may happen that Chinese authorities will purposefully place civilians at or near military posts. If so, that would be a grave mistake. On the other hand, civilian casualties would inflame Chinese anger to the bursting point, and that would lead to immediate cyber attacks and quite possibly attacks against American tourists/workers in China. Chinese leaders know that and, for that reason, it would be in their interest to place civilians near military installations.

boomer, the word 'chinaman' is a racist term, none of us would use the word 'negro' to describe Barak Obama.

A blockade would be counter-productive ? Yes, off-course. It is America and the EU who are importing a mountain of goods that are made in China. America does not actually want to see this trade being partially blocked.

You seem to think that some kind of pre-emptive strike is a good idea ? Boomer, Publicus IS a war-monger, but Publicus does actually know that a military strike would be suicidal for the USA. That's why Publicus is suggesting a blockade of 'Chinese military assets'. Yes, Publicus knows that America must have the cheap Chinese goods, hence, no way should ships carrying Chinese goods are to be stopped. And because Publicus (and most of us agree here) knows it's suicidal to actually attack China, well, that's why Publicus is against any attack.

Now, bearing in mind that Publicus hates Beijing, and Publicus is a war-monger, well, he still has enough sense to not cheer on any actual attack on China.

Don't YOU reckon, that an attack on China by America will cause Russia to join in ? And Russia will be fighting alongside China, and NOT America ? Surely, it's not worth fighting a World War Three over this ? If Washington really did want to harm China, they would simply refuse to import the Chinese goods. This might hurt America (a lot of the goods in America's shops are from China) but it would hurt China too.

Surely, an economic war is better than World War Three ? Actually, best would be no economic war as well.

[boomerangutang]

Lawrence Chee: "So this idea of a blockade is ridiculous and counter productive as is any preemptive strike that will only impact civilians."

I agree with half the above. A blockade would be counter-productive. However, a preemptive strike would try to avoid civilian casualties. It would be aimed at military targets. Some military folks would get harmed, and that's regrettable, but the US always tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. It may happen that Chinese authorities will purposefully place civilians at or near military posts. If so, that would be a grave mistake. On the other hand, civilian casualties would inflame Chinese anger to the bursting point, and that would lead to immediate cyber attacks and quite possibly attacks against American tourists/workers in China. Chinese leaders know that and, for that reason, it would be in their interest to place civilians near military installations.

boomer, the word 'chinaman' is a racist term, none of us would use the word 'negro' to describe Barak Obama.

A blockade would be counter-productive ? Yes, off-course. It is America and the EU who are importing a mountain of goods that are made in China. America does not actually want to see this trade being partially blocked.

You seem to think that some kind of pre-emptive strike is a good idea ? Boomer, Publicus IS a war-monger, but Publicus does actually know that a military strike would be suicidal for the USA. That's why Publicus is suggesting a blockade of 'Chinese military assets'. Yes, Publicus knows that America must have the cheap Chinese goods, hence, no way should ships carrying Chinese goods are to be stopped. And because Publicus (and most of us agree here) knows it's suicidal to actually attack China, well, that's why Publicus is against any attack.

Now, bearing in mind that Publicus hates Beijing, and Publicus is a war-monger, well, he still has enough sense to not cheer on any actual attack on China.

Don't YOU reckon, that an attack on China by America will cause Russia to join in ? And Russia will be fighting alongside China, and NOT America ? Surely, it's not worth fighting a World War Three over this ? If Washington really did want to harm China, they would simply refuse to import the Chinese goods. This might hurt America (a lot of the goods in America's shops are from China) but it would hurt China too.

Surely, an economic war is better than World War Three ? Actually, best would be no economic war as well.

First off, it's not an attack on China. China doesn't own the islands. The attack would be on military installations on the islands or military resources protecting Chinese military on the islands. It's akin to the Israelis' preemptive attack on the Iraqi nuke facility from decades ago. If Israel had discussed the issue prior ad nauseum, then nothing would have stopped Iraq from building N facilities and developing N bombs. As it was, the Israeli jets did their job, and not much else ensued.

Of course, if there was a preemptive strike on missile batteries in the Paracels, for example, it wouldn't blow over as easily & quickly as the Israeli strike mentioned above.

It's looking more and more like China will be able to keep its territory grab and China will be able to increasingly militarize the region. Although I favor a preemptive surgical strike (against purely military targets), I admit the repercussions (economic, cyber-warfare, targeting US tourists in China, etc ) would make it problematic to counter China's territory-grab. China could ease the situation by stating, unequivocally, that it would not militarize any of the islands (including parking navy ships nearby). China won't promise that.

As for Russia, they're not going to jump into the fray. They have their own problems, and they don't love the Chinese. They tolerate the Chinese, with whom they share a long border, but I don't see any way they're going to get into a fight for the islands. They'll just sit back and watch the fireworks (pass the popcorn and vodka!).

WWIII ? ....could get sparked at any one of a dozen places. Middle East, Koreas, India/Pakistan, SW Russia, Baltics, ....the potential flashpoints are many.

[keemapoot]

It's looking more and more like China will be able to keep its territory grab and China will be able to increasingly militarize the region. Although I favor a preemptive surgical strike (against purely military targets), I admit the repercussions (economic, cyber-warfare, targeting US tourists in China, etc ) would make it problematic to counter China's territory-grab. China could ease the situation by stating, unequivocally, that it would not militarize any of the islands (including parking navy ships nearby). China won't promise that.

As for Russia, they're not going to jump into the fray. They have their own problems, and they don't love the Chinese. They tolerate the Chinese, with whom they share a long border, but I don't see any way they're going to get into a fight for the islands. They'll just sit back and watch the fireworks (pass the popcorn and vodka!).

WWIII ? ....could get sparked at any one of a dozen places. Middle East, Koreas, India/Pakistan, SW Russia, Baltics, ....the potential flashpoints are many.

Apologies for redacting but I wanted only to address the issue with Russia. I happen to have had very deep dealings with the Russian and Vietnam partners of the JV Vietsovpetro, which produces half of all Vietnamese crude oil, and is Vietnam's 5th largest company. It was established in 1981, and Russia and Vietnam extended the venture to 2030. It is an extremely important and strategic part of Vietnam's oil future, and opposing interests against China in the SCS.

In Vung Tau and Saigon, there are communities of "little Russia" where the only language you hear is Russian.

Russia is for sure not going to side with China in any SCS dispute, as they have a long history dating back to Soviet times, and vested interest in this JV and its future exploration in the SCS. So, yes, you are correct that Russia will not intervene, at least with respect to interests that are claimed by Vietnam.

Yes, China will continue its slow, strategic territory grab, but there are a lot of interesting alliances that will counter this, including the Russian -Vietnam one.

[LawrenceChee]

Lawrence Chee: "So this idea of a blockade is ridiculous and counter productive as is any preemptive strike that will only impact civilians."

I agree with half the above. A blockade would be counter-productive. However, a preemptive strike would try to avoid civilian casualties. It would be aimed at military targets. Some military folks would get harmed, and that's regrettable, but the US always tries to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. It may happen that Chinese authorities will purposefully place civilians at or near military posts. If so, that would be a grave mistake. On the other hand, civilian casualties would inflame Chinese anger to the bursting point, and that would lead to immediate cyber attacks and quite possibly attacks against American tourists/workers in China. Chinese leaders know that and, for that reason, it would be in their interest to place civilians near military installations.

Boom - Have you visited China before ?

Suggest a city if you are a military commander in charge where it is low in civilians count and serve as an effective base for military installation in terms of mobility for defence and effective range

With 1.3 billion people no matter where you fire you will hit something in China.

[LawrenceChee]

It's looking more and more like China will be able to keep its territory grab and China will be able to increasingly militarize the region. Although I favor a preemptive surgical strike (against purely military targets), I admit the repercussions (economic, cyber-warfare, targeting US tourists in China, etc ) would make it problematic to counter China's territory-grab. China could ease the situation by stating, unequivocally, that it would not militarize any of the islands (including parking navy ships nearby). China won't promise that.

As for Russia, they're not going to jump into the fray. They have their own problems, and they don't love the Chinese. They tolerate the Chinese, with whom they share a long border, but I don't see any way they're going to get into a fight for the islands. They'll just sit back and watch the fireworks (pass the popcorn and vodka!).

WWIII ? ....could get sparked at any one of a dozen places. Middle East, Koreas, India/Pakistan, SW Russia, Baltics, ....the potential flashpoints are many.

Apologies for redacting but I wanted only to address the issue with Russia. I happen to have had very deep dealings with the Russian and Vietnam partners of the JV Vietsovpetro, which produces half of all Vietnamese crude oil, and is Vietnam's 5th largest company. It was established in 1981, and Russia and Vietnam extended the venture to 2030. It is an extremely important and strategic part of Vietnam's oil future, and opposing interests against China in the SCS.

In Vung Tau and Saigon, there are communities of "little Russia" where the only language you hear is Russian.

Russia is for sure not going to side with China in any SCS dispute, as they have a long history dating back to Soviet times, and vested interest in this JV and its future exploration in the SCS. So, yes, you are correct that Russia will not intervene, at least with respect to interests that are claimed by Vietnam.

Yes, China will continue its slow, strategic territory grab, but there are a lot of interesting alliances that will counter this, including the Russian -Vietnam one.

Very good observation by someone on the know ....the Chinese know the Russians are not coming in to help.

Contrary to a lot of thoughts , the Chinese and Russian are strange bed fellows. Although both communist , the earlier experiences China had and the technology transfer convinced the Chinese the Russians has an agenda on their own

There is deep mistrust between the two and Russians are very good at playing the Cold War games , much better than most will give them credit.

Vietnamese , Laos , Russia , Cambodia , Myanmar , China are linked in many ways by goverance but they are not good friends

The inter-dependence is real, so they just live with each other and hope there is no crazy moves

Much as no one gives China credit , keeping North Korea Calm and relatively quiet saved for the rhetorics have been a difficult balanced act

The south Koreas know it well , no matter how much military allies there are in this region, it will not help the south when you unleashed a hungry North Korea on the country ....there is no infrastructure to sustain that and also fight their military

The deep mistrust between the Koreans and Japanese will limit the co-operation

I see North Asia as a jig saw pieces , every one has something to say politically and they will all allow it as this is what Politicians have to do ...quietly and on the side trade goes on as that is the lifeline of Asia

[Publicus]

Once the International Court of Arbitration issues its ruling, governments of the region will have the rationale to proceed in joint patrols. (NZ PM John Key just this week told Beijing to bugger off with its threats of trade punishments if NZ didn't break with the regional stance to resist and confront CCP over the SCS.) Australia is doing air recon over the Sea and is waiting for the Court to rule before deciding on joint naval operations with US and others. Japan has announced it will conduct certain air recon over the Sea and it has donated more than $100 million in small naval and coast guard craft to the Phils.

Chances of a Munich in the SCS are slim and none, and slim has left town already.

I've redacted most of the above text as I only want to respond to the issue of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. As an aside, I might add that I never understood colleagues of mine who wanted to practice international public law. It always seemed to me a practice in futility, mutual masturbation, or at worst self-flagellation. The reason, is that unlike private international arbitration, there is no enforcement mechanism for awards in arbitration from the Hague. No international sheriff will come and collect the award, or enforce an injunction. Parties just rulings without substance or action to back them up or enforce them.

China argued, with good basis, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and in any event, the Philippines prevailed and appear to be heading for an award positive ruling. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Assuming the court does rule against China, how expansive may the ruling be? We don't know yet. It may be limited in scope, and to expect that the US or other parties may then have legal justification for a blockade or other actions based on this action brought by the Philippines is premature.

It is important to note that Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Japan dispatched representatives to the hearings in July last year. Vietnam expressed its support to the arbitral tribunal regarding this case and asked the tribunal to pay due attention to the legal rights and interests of Vietnam. Such moves could be interpreted as a sign that some of these countries might take a similar path after the Philippines has blazed a trail.

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/south-china-sea-arbitration-what-may-follow

As reasoned in that Straits Times article, other aggrieved countries, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, have asked the tribunal to also tangentially rule on their rights, but the court will not rule on any issue as a holding, not properly brought before it, other than as non-binding legal dicta.

Therefore, to assume that this ruling by the Hague will result in a broadly-based international legal justification for a broad SCS blockade or other action is again, is again, whistling in the wind at this point.

But, it does provide at least some ammunition for further action.

Indeed, the Arbitral Court in The Hague will provide a definitive legal basis in international law of objections and opposition to CCP's moves in the Sea and against CCP claims of sovereignty. In the vernacular, the Court rulings will provide cover for governments and elites of the region to stand up to CCP and to engage it, led by the United States. However the Court rules, CCP is further isolated...by its own thinking, attitudes, actions against its own neighbors.

The Philippine government have their own legal team arguing the case but Manila also hired the Boston & Washington high powered and big bucks firm Foley Hoag to provide their principal counsel Paul Reichter before the Court, along with partner Andrew Lowenstein, due to their wealth of knowledge and experience in the ILOS. So yes, as noted in the post, inquiring minds want to know how wrong CCP law will be when it is held up to international law.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/11/26/1526040/philippines-no-basis-international-law-chinese-claims

Of the three major issues the Court will rule on, only one would give CCP wiggle room, i.e., the nine-dash "cow's tongue" line by which CCP give to themselves practically all of the Sea. The Court will indeed say something about the cow's tongue line, which means Beijing is not going to be pleased. CCP can respond or not respond, make small changes to the shape and size of the cow's tongue or not. CCP can show respect of the Court or not show any respect. Based on the record of the CCP Dictators, the latter is greatly more likely.

On the second of the three issues the Court said it has jursidiction over, the manmade features, there is Article 60(8) of UNCLOS, which defines the situation: “Artificial islands, installations, and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, or the continental shelf.” Lawyers are lawyers and judges are lawyers, but there's not much realistic or practical wiggle room there. CCP is in compliance with the ILOS or it is not.

Third of the three major issues is the current CCP blockade of the Spratlys and of Scarborough Shoal where in each instance Philippine fishermen are stopped by CCP coast guard and maritime patrol ships from entering the waters of each to ply their trade. Or chased out when discovered in the waters of either CCP occupied natural feature. CCP does in fact operate a CCP blockade against commercial Phils fishermen, but not only Phils fishermen. The CCP blockade of the Spratlys and of Scarborough was implemented by CCP and the 'protective' blockade is enforced by CCP coastal maritime forces (low intensity maritime forces).

US Navy freedom of navigation exercises have ruptured the 'sanctity; of the CCP blockade of the Phils owned two island groups, and USN FONOPs will continue to do so. US in its FONOPs is not escorting Phils fishermen through the CCP ships in their blockade of access to the Phils territorial waters and islands. However, US FONOPs are among other important matters successfully establishing that CCP has no sovereignty or jurisdiction at either the Spratlys or at Scarborough, and that CCP is in fact an intruder into Phils territories as defined by the ILOS. Be interesting in more ways than one to see how the Court handles this one.

All the same...

In terms of principle, the case is important because it is a bold attempt to begin to untangle the knotty South China Sea disputes through the rule of law rather than the might makes right approach that China has been using over the past few years. Since 2009, China has increased its assertiveness in the South China Sea, including by seizing Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines in 2012, forcibly moving an oil rig into Vietnamese waters in 2014, building artificial islands, and encroaching even into the southernmost extent of its nine-dash line reaching into Malaysia and Indonesia. This disturbing and destabilizing pattern has continued despite repeated protests that it violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), other agreements like the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties Beijing inked with Southeast Asian states, and general principles like the peaceful settlement of disputes

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/does-the-philippines-south-china-sea-case-against-china-really-matter/

[LawrenceChee]

I see from the above , the poster is referring to an article from Straits Times Singapore

It's a known fact that that's a Govt mouthpiece for the Singapore government.

Singapore media freedom rankings is right now at 153 out of 180 countries , even lower than Russia.

Good source indeed to read.

[keemapoot]

I've redacted most of the above text as I only want to respond to the issue of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. As an aside, I might add that I never understood colleagues of mine who wanted to practice international public law. It always seemed to me a practice in futility, mutual masturbation, or at worst self-flagellation. The reason, is that unlike private international arbitration, there is no enforcement mechanism for awards in arbitration from the Hague. No international sheriff will come and collect the award, or enforce an injunction. Parties just rulings without substance or action to back them up or enforce them.

China argued, with good basis, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and in any event, the Philippines prevailed and appear to be heading for an award positive ruling. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Assuming the court does rule against China, how expansive may the ruling be? We don't know yet. It may be limited in scope, and to expect that the US or other parties may then have legal justification for a blockade or other actions based on this action brought by the Philippines is premature.

It is important to note that Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Japan dispatched representatives to the hearings in July last year. Vietnam expressed its support to the arbitral tribunal regarding this case and asked the tribunal to pay due attention to the legal rights and interests of Vietnam. Such moves could be interpreted as a sign that some of these countries might take a similar path after the Philippines has blazed a trail.

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/south-china-sea-arbitration-what-may-follow

As reasoned in that Straits Times article, other aggrieved countries, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, have asked the tribunal to also tangentially rule on their rights, but the court will not rule on any issue as a holding, not properly brought before it, other than as non-binding legal dicta.

Therefore, to assume that this ruling by the Hague will result in a broadly-based international legal justification for a broad SCS blockade or other action is again, is again, whistling in the wind at this point.

But, it does provide at least some ammunition for further action.

Indeed, the Arbitral Court in The Hague will provide a definitive legal basis in international law of objections and opposition to CCP's moves in the Sea and against CCP claims of sovereignty. In the vernacular, the Court rulings will provide cover for governments and elites of the region to stand up to CCP and to engage it, led by the United States. However the Court rules, CCP is further isolated...by its own thinking, attitudes, actions against its own neighbors.

The Philippine government have their own legal team arguing the case but Manila also hired the Boston & Washington high powered and big bucks firm Foley Hoag to provide their principal counsel Paul Reichter before the Court, along with partner Andrew Lowenstein, due to their wealth of knowledge and experience in the ILOS. So yes, as noted in the post, inquiring minds want to know how wrong CCP law will be when it is held up to international law.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/11/26/1526040/philippines-no-basis-international-law-chinese-claims

Of the three major issues the Court will rule on, only one would give CCP wiggle room, i.e., the nine-dash "cow's tongue" line by which CCP give to themselves practically all of the Sea. The Court will indeed say something about the cow's tongue line, which means Beijing is not going to be pleased. CCP can respond or not respond, make small changes to the shape and size of the cow's tongue or not. CCP can show respect of the Court or not show any respect. Based on the record of the CCP Dictators, the latter is greatly more likely.

On the second of the three issues the Court said it has jursidiction over, the manmade features, there is Article 60(8) of UNCLOS, which defines the situation: “Artificial islands, installations, and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, or the continental shelf.” Lawyers are lawyers and judges are lawyers, but there's not much realistic or practical wiggle room there. CCP is in compliance with the ILOS or it is not.

Third of the three major issues is the current CCP blockade of the Spratlys and of Scarborough Shoal where in each instance Philippine fishermen are stopped by CCP coast guard and maritime patrol ships from entering the waters of each to ply their trade. Or chased out when discovered in the waters of either CCP occupied natural feature. CCP does in fact operate a CCP blockade against commercial Phils fishermen, but not only Phils fishermen. The CCP blockade of the Spratlys and of Scarborough was implemented by CCP and the 'protective' blockade is enforced by CCP coastal maritime forces (low intensity maritime forces).

US Navy freedom of navigation exercises have ruptured the 'sanctity; of the CCP blockade of the Phils owned two island groups, and USN FONOPs will continue to do so. US in its FONOPs is not escorting Phils fishermen through the CCP ships in their blockade of access to the Phils territorial waters and islands. However, US FONOPs are among other important matters successfully establishing that CCP has no sovereignty or jurisdiction at either the Spratlys or at Scarborough, and that CCP is in fact an intruder into Phils territories as defined by the ILOS. Be interesting in more ways than one to see how the Court handles this one.

All the same...

In terms of principle, the case is important because it is a bold attempt to begin to untangle the knotty South China Sea disputes through the rule of law rather than the might makes right approach that China has been using over the past few years. Since 2009, China has increased its assertiveness in the South China Sea, including by seizing Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines in 2012, forcibly moving an oil rig into Vietnamese waters in 2014, building artificial islands, and encroaching even into the southernmost extent of its nine-dash line reaching into Malaysia and Indonesia. This disturbing and destabilizing pattern has continued despite repeated protests that it violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), other agreements like the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties Beijing inked with Southeast Asian states, and general principles like the peaceful settlement of disputes

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/does-the-philippines-south-china-sea-case-against-china-really-matter/

Certainly the Philippines has hired world-class legal talent for this case, including lead counsel Reicher and his stellar team. Anyone who wants to listen to an in-depth interview about the case with Reicher can listen here: http://amti.csis.org/interview-with-paul-reichler-lead-counsel-for-the-philippines-in-its-case-against-china/

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/125985/us-lawyer-for-ph-expert-in-maritime-boundary-cases

However, as I've maintained, any victory at the Hague (no matter how costly, and believe me this legal bill will be huge), is empty and meaningless without an enforcement mechanism or practical effect. If the argument is that it provides legal cover for anti-China countries on this issue to start all sorts of actions, then yes, that's true, but that going down a rabbit hole, and once you start defending Philippines, are you going to chase China around with military action and blockades on behalf of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc...?

Veteran Philippine trial lawyer, and former delegate to the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, Estelito Mendoza recommends a more practical approach and one that results in tangible results.

“If China does not recognize it, what shall we do? We cannot go to war, certainly not. The US is not going to war for us,” he said in reference to the Philippines' treaty ally.

Mendoza narrated that he first became part of the UNCLOS negotiations when ex-justice secretary Vicente Abad Santos, his former teacher and law dean, tapped him to join the team.

He recalled how he gathered archipelagic states – the Philippines, Indonesia, Fiji and Mauritius – in Manila to craft a common position in the negotiations.

From the talks, Mendoza learned that multilateral negotiations are “a matter of getting the support of the majority,” “making friends and not making enemies.”

“What the government doesn't get is a country acts only based on its own interest. There is no other interest a country is expected to support except its own interest. If the Philippines says in the South China Sea that the US, Japan, Vietnam are with us, that is an illusion. They have their own respective interests. Their interest is different from ours,” Mendoza said.

http://www.rappler.com/nation/114223-estelito-mendoza-philippines-arbitration-china

As a businessman who has spent most of his life involved in international private litigation which has gone to some of the world's highest courts, and where enforcement is relatively easier, believe me, there is really never any winner at the end of the day in litigation or arbitration, especially when litigating against obstinate sovereign foreign governments (which I have).

China will never recognize the Arbitral award. We already know it. They're already unequivocally stated so. Philippines will achieve a moral victory, and give legal cover to start all sorts of military posturing and action, but at what cost? And, who will act as the new sea cop of the SCS chasing China around on behalf of all these countries? USA?

There are more balanced and effective approaches, that leverage all the countries who have claims, but it requires tremendous leadership in foreign policy. I wonder if Clinton's secretary of State will be up to the task?

[boomerangutang]

There are more balanced and effective approaches, that leverage all the countries who have claims, but it requires tremendous leadership in foreign policy. I wonder if Clinton's secretary of State will be up to the task?

Like what? What sort of "balanced and effective approaches" would get the Chinese to go back to China? If you ask me, Nothing short of military or the real threat of military action.

The Phil Navy could send war ships out to take back their islands, but that would only provoke a military response from China, and it's plain that, given a few days, China could mobilize an awesome force. It's similar for Vietnam re; the Paracels.

Citizens in respective countries could enact demonstrations such as carrying placards and chanting in front of embassies (Fils demonstrating at the Chinese embassy in Manila, and/or Chinese demonstrating at the Fil Embassy in Beijing). Yet such actions wouldn't accomplish anything other than gain headlines in newspapers.

Sadly, I think the world has to accept China's commandeering of the islands. The only action that would get Chinese to leave is military, and it's doubtful that will happen - because repercussions (cyber war by Chinese, and harming farang tourists in China) will be too dire a collateral price to pay. If it were just a brief military conflict like the Falklands, then it would be fathomable and (in my view) worthwhile. But Chinese citizens will go ballistic en masse, and that could have unforeseen repercussions.

We've seen what they can do in frenzied group-think. It wasn't so long ago, during the Cultural Revolution, where professors were killed in public and many of Tibet's centuries-old temples were defaced and monks killed. It doesn't take much to get a group-think frenzy going in countries like China or N.Korea.

[LawrenceChee]

Boomer - This last paragraph is what exactly gets China more insular.

When they opened up , in the last 40 years , they have achieved a lot , infrastructure , social spending , fiscal policy , environmental protection , install their own social environment , adjusting political maturity, doctrine adjustment , bilateral ties and trade driven interactions

This is more than what can be said about some western countries who are resting on their laurels and believe they are still in a position to critique the Chinese like they believe they own it. This is now the worlds second largest economy and they are in a right of their own to stamp their own identity like any other country

The Chinese will continue to engage partners , they will continue to pursue their interests , they will continue to build strong military might as a deterrence and they will continue to hold firm to what they believe is best for the development of their people

In my commerce chambers south , we have influenced a lot of policy making and this is a small puzzle piece to the big country.

I am thankful there are more professionals who continue to engage China and encourage them not to be insular but stay open

Military patrols will do nothing , there is nothing you can enbloc , this is China not some dimwit islands you believe you can command

[Publicus]

I've redacted most of the above text as I only want to respond to the issue of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. As an aside, I might add that I never understood colleagues of mine who wanted to practice international public law. It always seemed to me a practice in futility, mutual masturbation, or at worst self-flagellation. The reason, is that unlike private international arbitration, there is no enforcement mechanism for awards in arbitration from the Hague. No international sheriff will come and collect the award, or enforce an injunction. Parties just rulings without substance or action to back them up or enforce them.

China argued, with good basis, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and in any event, the Philippines prevailed and appear to be heading for an award positive ruling. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Assuming the court does rule against China, how expansive may the ruling be? We don't know yet. It may be limited in scope, and to expect that the US or other parties may then have legal justification for a blockade or other actions based on this action brought by the Philippines is premature.

<<snip>>

As reasoned in that Straits Times article, other aggrieved countries, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, have asked the tribunal to also tangentially rule on their rights, but the court will not rule on any issue as a holding, not properly brought before it, other than as non-binding legal dicta.

Therefore, to assume that this ruling by the Hague will result in a broadly-based international legal justification for a broad SCS blockade or other action is again, is again, whistling in the wind at this point.

But, it does provide at least some ammunition for further action.

Indeed, the Arbitral Court in The Hague will provide a definitive legal basis in international law of objections and opposition to CCP's moves in the Sea and against CCP claims of sovereignty. In the vernacular, the Court rulings will provide cover for governments and elites of the region to stand up to CCP and to engage it, led by the United States. However the Court rules, CCP is further isolated...by its own thinking, attitudes, actions against its own neighbors.

The Philippine government have their own legal team arguing the case but Manila also hired the Boston & Washington high powered and big bucks firm Foley Hoag to provide their principal counsel Paul Reichter before the Court, along with partner Andrew Lowenstein, due to their wealth of knowledge and experience in the ILOS. So yes, as noted in the post, inquiring minds want to know how wrong CCP law will be when it is held up to international law.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/11/26/1526040/philippines-no-basis-international-law-chinese-claims

Of the three major issues the Court will rule on, only one would give CCP wiggle room, i.e., the nine-dash "cow's tongue" line by which CCP give to themselves practically all of the Sea. The Court will indeed say something about the cow's tongue line, which means Beijing is not going to be pleased. CCP can respond or not respond, make small changes to the shape and size of the cow's tongue or not. CCP can show respect of the Court or not show any respect. Based on the record of the CCP Dictators, the latter is greatly more likely.

On the second of the three issues the Court said it has jursidiction over, the manmade features, there is Article 60(8) of UNCLOS, which defines the situation: “Artificial islands, installations, and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, or the continental shelf.” Lawyers are lawyers and judges are lawyers, but there's not much realistic or practical wiggle room there. CCP is in compliance with the ILOS or it is not.

Third of the three major issues is the current CCP blockade of the Spratlys and of Scarborough Shoal where in each instance Philippine fishermen are stopped by CCP coast guard and maritime patrol ships from entering the waters of each to ply their trade. Or chased out when discovered in the waters of either CCP occupied natural feature. CCP does in fact operate a CCP blockade against commercial Phils fishermen, but not only Phils fishermen. The CCP blockade of the Spratlys and of Scarborough was implemented by CCP and the 'protective' blockade is enforced by CCP coastal maritime forces (low intensity maritime forces).

US Navy freedom of navigation exercises have ruptured the 'sanctity; of the CCP blockade of the Phils owned two island groups, and USN FONOPs will continue to do so. US in its FONOPs is not escorting Phils fishermen through the CCP ships in their blockade of access to the Phils territorial waters and islands. However, US FONOPs are among other important matters successfully establishing that CCP has no sovereignty or jurisdiction at either the Spratlys or at Scarborough, and that CCP is in fact an intruder into Phils territories as defined by the ILOS. Be interesting in more ways than one to see how the Court handles this one.

All the same...

In terms of principle, the case is important because it is a bold attempt to begin to untangle the knotty South China Sea disputes through the rule of law rather than the might makes right approach that China has been using over the past few years. Since 2009, China has increased its assertiveness in the South China Sea, including by seizing Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines in 2012, forcibly moving an oil rig into Vietnamese waters in 2014, building artificial islands, and encroaching even into the southernmost extent of its nine-dash line reaching into Malaysia and Indonesia. This disturbing and destabilizing pattern has continued despite repeated protests that it violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), other agreements like the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties Beijing inked with Southeast Asian states, and general principles like the peaceful settlement of disputes

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/does-the-philippines-south-china-sea-case-against-china-really-matter/

Certainly the Philippines has hired world-class legal talent for this case, including lead counsel Reicher and his stellar team. Anyone who wants to listen to an in-depth interview about the case with Reicher can listen here: http://amti.csis.org/interview-with-paul-reichler-lead-counsel-for-the-philippines-in-its-case-against-china/

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/125985/us-lawyer-for-ph-expert-in-maritime-boundary-cases

However, as I've maintained, any victory at the Hague (no matter how costly, and believe me this legal bill will be huge), is empty and meaningless without an enforcement mechanism or practical effect. If the argument is that it provides legal cover for anti-China countries on this issue to start all sorts of actions, then yes, that's true, but that going down a rabbit hole, and once you start defending Philippines, are you going to chase China around with military action and blockades on behalf of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc...?

Veteran Philippine trial lawyer, and former delegate to the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, Estelito Mendoza recommends a more practical approach and one that results in tangible results.

“If China does not recognize it, what shall we do? We cannot go to war, certainly not. The US is not going to war for us,” he said in reference to the Philippines' treaty ally.

Mendoza narrated that he first became part of the UNCLOS negotiations when ex-justice secretary Vicente Abad Santos, his former teacher and law dean, tapped him to join the team.

He recalled how he gathered archipelagic states – the Philippines, Indonesia, Fiji and Mauritius – in Manila to craft a common position in the negotiations.

From the talks, Mendoza learned that multilateral negotiations are “a matter of getting the support of the majority,” “making friends and not making enemies.”

“What the government doesn't get is a country acts only based on its own interest. There is no other interest a country is expected to support except its own interest. If the Philippines says in the South China Sea that the US, Japan, Vietnam are with us, that is an illusion. They have their own respective interests. Their interest is different from ours,” Mendoza said.

http://www.rappler.com/nation/114223-estelito-mendoza-philippines-arbitration-china

As a businessman who has spent most of his life involved in international private litigation which has gone to some of the world's highest courts, and where enforcement is relatively easier, believe me, there is really never any winner at the end of the day in litigation or arbitration, especially when litigating against obstinate sovereign foreign governments (which I have).

China will never recognize the Arbitral award. We already know it. They're already unequivocally stated so. Philippines will achieve a moral victory, and give legal cover to start all sorts of military posturing and action, but at what cost? And, who will act as the new sea cop of the SCS chasing China around on behalf of all these countries? USA?

There are more balanced and effective approaches, that leverage all the countries who have claims, but it requires tremendous leadership in foreign policy. I wonder if Clinton's secretary of State will be up to the task?

CCP in Beijing are the new old Chinese emperors-dictators. That is, there is always no compromise, no negotiation, no arbiters, nothing except Chinese diktats. Beijing is causing the commotion in the SCS so the commotion will not end until CCP owns and controls the SCS. Then would come the East Sea and Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. Australia and NZ would already have been absorbed in a SCS victory by CCP.

The only "balanced and effective" approach by the targeted countries of the region, with the US they have turned to for support, is to whack CCP between the eyes with a 2x4. Short of that however, will come the joint sea and also air combined exercises by countries of the region in strategic partnership between each other and among 'em all, to include five or six Asean member states. US and the countries have new "strategic agreements" or US has formal treaty alliances with other countries. India is in this mix as well, especially in its supporting relationship with Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, the USA.

The grouping together is already occurring as I've stated in posts above, and after the Court decision the currently active countries will be joined by other governments of the region in the joint sea and combined air exercises. This may lead to a US blockade subscribed to by a number of countries of the region, but it may not lead to a USN SCS blockade of CCP military assets because it may not have to.

I think a USN partner and allied subscribed USN blockade will be necessary and it is in fact on the table foreseeably as everyone involved knows throughout the region. This response to CCP is not proceeding blindly or on any ad hoc basis. The response has a goal, purpose, means; a flexible timetable and a timing of developments, escalations.

The South China Sea is host to a growing web of security relationships, all largely driven by concerns over Chinese intentions and behavior. It seems only a matter of time—barring a major discontinuity in the conduct of Chinese foreign policy—before the threads of this web are knitted together.

Conventional wisdom suggests that this will be a slow, cautious process. But that process is already accelerating. What’s more, recent Vietnamese and Philippine decisions—the strategic partnership; the Philippines’ pursuit of international arbitration in its dispute with Beijing; Vietnam’s pursuit of closer security ties with wartime foe Washington—suggest Hanoi and Manila have decided that caution in their approaches to China may not be the better part of valor. As China continues to push outward into the South China Sea, others are likely to follow suit.

http://www.aei.org/publication/made-china-vietnam-philippines-axis/

Philippines, Vietnam upgrade ties in show of unity against China

The strategic partnership will step up high-level contacts between the two militaries, through joint naval patrols, training and exercises.

Beijing has started construction work on six reefs it occupies in the Spratlys to expand the territories, building ports, an airfield and communications and surveillance facilities. It has also deployed more navy and coastguard ships.

"The massive reclamation is a threat to all of us," Del Rosario said, adding it has fed tension.

China's assertiveness is leading to closer cooperation among its neighbors, in some cases, erasing old distrust

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-vietnam-idUSKBN0L21JP20150129

CCP Dictators and their new dynasty of emperors in business suits are the same as previous incarnations of Chinese emperors and dynasties because this new CCP dynasty continues the long traditions and customs of China as being only arbitrary, authoritarian, superior, overbearing, ex cathedra, ambitious and aggressive one stitch at a time, grandiose, lecturing and scolding, win-lose, zero-sum, winner take all and worse.

This entire mess is Made in China so as with almost everything made in China it is junk that is thrown together without realistic thought and it breaks easily. I reiterate, China is the autistic country -- China has always been autistic and it compulsively continues to be the autistic country. Indeed, Most cases of autism appear to be caused by a combination of autism risk genes and environmental factors influencing early brain development. That is, Chinese dynastic history plus the CCP dynasty.

[Publicus]

China will not back down one mm on the SCS imbroglio. Which countries are supporting its territory grab? None.

What spooks me, as much as building airstrips, is pouring tons of concrete to place weapons and bunkers, particularly (now) at the Paracels, which Vietnam contests. Crap is going to hit the fan. The sooner preemptive strikes happen (probably by US stealth weapons), the less comparative damage will be done. Will the next US prez have the will to commit? I hope so.

SecDef Ashton Carter is a preemptive strike kind of guy. He advocated a preemptive focused hit against North Korea nuclear missile and other launch facilities in 2006 while he was at Harvard. Conventional weapons, cruise missile, then and there.

Still, the focused SCS blockade of military assets only is consistent with CCP worst fears...

Beijing seeks dominion over the disputed islands to, at least in part, prevent a giant American blockade of China’s coast in the event of an armed conflict, but the odds of a full-blown shooting war breaking out between the U.S. and China remain incredibly low given the astronomical potential costs of such an encounter. Thus, Beijing has pursued a solution to a merely imagined problem.

Perhaps worse, deeper U.S. engagement in the Western Pacific is something Beijing has overtly sought to avoid, but the pressure China has placed on its neighbors have forced them to turn to the U.S. for support, providing convenient diplomatic cover for American activity and interest in the South China Sea.

As long as China continues to exacerbate tensions with its neighbors in the South China Sea, the United States should seek greater engagement. While Beijing may see imagined military benefits from, and domestic support for, its endeavors, in reality China has given the U.S. an opening to exploit. Far from dissuading American involvement in the region, Beijing’s actions in the South China Sea are in fact only giving the U.S. more and more of a reason to be there.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/articles/2016-03-11/china-gave-the-us-an-opening-in-the-south-china-sea

Whatever CCP does in the SCS, it's not going to gain much from it, especially considering the countries and the trends CCP has set against it throughout the region and globally.

CCP is much like the domestic rightwhingenuts of the USA in that CCP is always growling and grumbling about something -- anything, that challenges it in any respect. In this instance CCP is being challenged for its summary and arbitrary actions in the SCS, and for its diktats, orders to cease and desist and for its authoritarian demands that everyone accept CCP and be happy about it. Dismissive or challenging actions against CCP simply produces more overbearing CCP scolding and lecturing of everyone.

To wit.......

China is not a happy panda. In the past week, Beijing has raged at the United States for its support of Japan and the Philippines against Chinese expansionism in the East and South China Seas, for its sale of defensive arms to Taiwan, for its meetings in Washington with pro-democracy activists from Hong Kong, and for its criticism of China's dismal human rights record.

Each new week, if not each day, brings China a fresh batch of things to be angry about. I can hardly wait to see what news the panda will growl at tomorrow.

China will make "no compromise, no concessions" in territorial disputes with Japan and the Philippines, said Chang at a press briefing. "The Chinese military can assemble as soon as summoned, fight any battle and win." China's power, Chang added, "can never be contained." One day soon, said a brave product of China's officer education program at the National Defense University, "China will be too big a challenge for the United States to cope with. ... Therefore you are using such issues ... to make trouble to hamper [China's] development."

Such statements are deeply revealing as to the mindset that the United States and China's neighbors are dealing with. "For Chinese people, the obsession with power is in the bones," said Chinese author and former civil servant Wang Xiaofang in 2012, "We worship power. That is the real China, that is its essence." Such an obsession does not bode well for the region or for the world.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/04/15/chinas-power-obsession-keeps-it-angry-at-the-us

[tonbridgebrit]

China will not back down one mm on the SCS imbroglio. Which countries are supporting its territory grab? None.

What spooks me, as much as building airstrips, is pouring tons of concrete to place weapons and bunkers, particularly (now) at the Paracels, which Vietnam contests. Crap is going to hit the fan. The sooner preemptive strikes happen (probably by US stealth weapons), the less comparative damage will be done. Will the next US prez have the will to commit? I hope so.

SecDef Ashton Carter is a preemptive strike kind of guy. He advocated a preemptive focused hit against North Korea nuclear missile and other launch facilities in 2006 while he was at Harvard. Conventional weapons, cruise missile, then and there.

Such statements are deeply revealing as to the mindset that the United States and China's neighbors are dealing with. "For Chinese people, the obsession with power is in the bones," said Chinese author and former civil servant Wang Xiaofang in 2012, "We worship power. That is the real China, that is its essence." Such an obsession does not bode well for the region or for the world.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/04/15/chinas-power-obsession-keeps-it-angry-at-the-us

I do have a smirk on my face over how you guys want to talk tough, but you're actually a couple of 'plastic soldiers' !!!

Boomer, you've already said on previous posts that a military strike is unlikely. An attack on whatever little islands is the same thing (as far as Beijing is concerned) as an attack on China itself. Yes, it will become a full-blown war, something that neither Washington nor Beijing wants. So, Boomer, you reckon it's unlikely, BUT you're hoping that it will happen ? You're a bigger war-monger than Publicus ? Oh well, I suppose Publicus is a cheer-leader, NEVER will you see Publicus actually write about cheering on an actual attack. He just wants to give us the gory details of how powerful the latest American aircraft carrier is, and make a load of comments about how bad and evil Beijing is.

Note how Publicus switches between attacking Beijing (the actual Chinese government) and then attacks the Chinese people themselves (comments that condemn the so-called Chinese mentality). See, Publicus doesn't just attack the Chinese government, he attacks the Chinese people as well. For me, I might criticise Washington, the US government, but I'm not interested in attacking the American people.

Publicus, you wrote "SecDef Ashton Carter is a preemptive strike kind of guy. He advocated a preemptive focused hit against North Korea nuclear missile and other launch facilities in 2006 while he was at Harvard. Conventional weapons, cruise missile, then and there."

Publicus, just say that you know that a military strike against China would be suicidal, and that's why it's not going to happen. Either that, or be like Boomer, go and say that you reckon it will be a good idea to do a strike !

You also wrote [ "For Chinese people, the obsession with power is in the bones," said Chinese author and former civil servant Wang Xiaofang in 2012, "We worship power. That is the real China, that is its essence." Such an obsession does not bode well for the region or for the world. ]

It's ridiculous. I can easily find whatever writer from the USA, making comments that are just as nonsense !!

Okay, I'ill say that Moscow and Washington HATE each other, the friction between Beijing and Moscow is far LESS than the hatred between Moscow and Washington. And any differences between Beijing and Washington are also far less than the ones between Moscow and Washington. Everybody knows that.

World War Three is NOT going to be USA and Russia against China. And if there is a war between China and America (and a military strike on any islands in the Pacific will cause a full-blown war between the two counries, at least that's one thing myself and Publicus agree on), Russia will jump in on China's side.

Will Moscow sit back and do nothing ? Correct, Moscow doesn't actually love Beijing, but Moscow dis-likes Washington, Moscow does NOT want to see Washington being massively strengthened by a victorious war over China. Whenever the Americans get involved in whatever war, the Russians are usually involved in some way. The Russians are doing it to prevent America taking over whatever place, correct, the Russians don't actually love whatever country that is fighting America. And indeed, the 'proxy' wars that we have seen since World War Two are all about America and Russia not wanting the other side to beat and take-over whatever other country.

[LawrenceChee]

The Chinese have grown into a balanced panda.

It's not ridiculously happy like one on weed as the responsibilities of being the worlds second largest economy does means some things done in the earlier decades cannot be repeated

It also realised it has been duped in many early manufacturing deals by the west and now the pollution is real and needs to be controlled. They should have trusted the Russians advice on that one but of course they didn't as they don't trust the Russians much too but on that account the Russians economic Advisors were right on a rare note that the west was exploiting the labor resources of China early on

As its history bears on it and the humiliation of the defeats of Japan and UK looms , it also means there is a lot of self reflection on what self defence means and how assertive they should be in pursuing their national interests without being a warmonger like USA .

They have no interest to start or participate in wars that are expensive ...indeed in the Chinese DNA is an extreme gene that tells them often to mind their own business and not interfere , explaining its many successful deals in Africa and South America , Australia etc . They went for trade with no interests for your current state of politics

However the Chinese are determined not to be pushovers in every field and rightly so as a powerful country. Being communists has an advantage , they have no need to share their data and military tactics and abilities and they are not weak.

The USA military units can stay , patrol or do what they want , they will find this is useless as at this time you only have dredgers there ...the Chinese have learnt the USA commanders methodology , you cannot Attack civilians ...hence while the patrols go on , just like the Great Wall of china

This outpost will be built one brick , sandbar at a time. China's time.

[keemapoot]

^^Tonbridge, you illustrate well the difference between those who analyze this SCS situation similar to what we might hear in an undergraduate lecture at the US Naval Academy, and those of us with more real life concerns who have been actively involved with business and government in China and SE Asia.

Surprisingly, the two posters you reference, both educated and thoughtful, are firmly liberal in terms of political views, but on the issue of China, are very hawkish. And, as you correctly state, stereotyping a 4,000 year old empire and its people, who don't have a history of expansionism as if expansionism is in their DNA is a gross misreading of history.

In terms of China's justification for expansionism, I think there are similarities with the rise of the US empire in the early 19th century. America had the 'Monroe Doctrine' which America used to dominate the Americas. It provided: that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. In many ways, China an now an expanding empire and world power, seeks to define its sphere of influence, discover new oil and natural resources, and do all the things any new world power would do.

Having said that, US does have strategic vested interests in the area, both with China and with each of the countries negatively affected by China. There will have to be some checking of China's expansion, and I continue to maintain there are much more effective ways than simply rattling the sword while standing on the bridge staring into the wind.

[keemapoot]

The Chinese have grown into a balanced panda.

It's not ridiculously happy like one on weed as the responsibilities of being the worlds second largest economy does means some things done in the earlier decades cannot be repeated

It also realised it has been duped in many early manufacturing deals by the west and now the pollution is real and needs to be controlled. They should have trusted the Russians advice on that one but of course they didn't as they don't trust the Russians much too but on that account the Russians economic Advisors were right on a rare note that the west was exploiting the labor resources of China early on

As its history bears on it and the humiliation of the defeats of Japan and UK looms , it also means there is a lot of self reflection on what self defence means and how assertive they should be in pursuing their national interests without being a warmonger like USA .

They have no interest to start or participate in wars that are expensive ...indeed in the Chinese DNA is an extreme gene that tells them often to mind their own business and not interfere , explaining its many successful deals in Africa and South America , Australia etc . They went for trade with no interests for your current state of politics

However the Chinese are determined not to be pushovers in every field and rightly so as a powerful country. Being communists has an advantage , they have no need to share their data and military tactics and abilities and they are not weak.

The USA military units can stay , patrol or do what they want , they will find this is useless as at this time you only have dredgers there ...the Chinese have learnt the USA commanders methodology , you cannot Attack civilians ...hence while the patrols go on , just like the Great Wall of china

This outpost will be built one brick , sandbar at a time. China's time.

Lawrence, to be honest, what seems to be in the DNA of Chinese is a lot of larceny. The stories of Intellectual Property theft in China is well known and legendary. I have been involved in one of the biggest cases of massive wholesale theft of technology by China. There is a private museum in Bangkok located at the Thailand's largest law firm (which has one of the largest intellectual property litigation practices in Asia), called the IP museum, which has thousands of pirated products, drugs, software, every conceivable product and service, mostly from China. If you're interested, you can get a private tour for your company.

So, let's not kid ourselves. The Chinese are slowly stealing the SCS. And as you say, bit by bit, with a Chinese view of history, that is 4 or 5 thousand years. So, let's not try to say Chinese are not wanting to expand now at this stage of their emergence. It is the job of other countries to join together to contain China's running roughshod over everyone else. A strong US leadership on this is essential, and military options are a good threat, but not a good solution.

**I think this is natural by the way. The US did it in its ramp up to global superpower status, and I expect China to do it. Natural order of things.

[LawrenceChee]

I respect that view Keemapoot

Respectfully , the Chinese as you say will head off in the SCS ...the other nations can protest and I am hoping the current strategy of dealing with each nation and getting trade deals will negate most of the concerns

The Chinese has a virtue of being patient and as we see in Asia being patient is a good thing seeing govts change over time and indeed perspectives of friendliness dip and rise with each leadership core

A military threat is a option available to many but the lack of information on what the Chinese can do makes a lot of commanders jittery ;

I agree with your last statement ; indeed at one time the Chinese thought Africa will be an easier land grab ...a quick history studies there on the likes of that attempted by the west and the political pitfall plus the distance and logistics to support such a warfare attempt meant the CCP wisely left it as a trade partner

As for the SCS , it bears the name , it's close to home , it has strategic location and intent for both defence and attack and the Chinese sees the benefits of holding that vs allowing others to come in early and attempt to do the same

They have been poring over books related to Sir Raffles strategies when he did the land grab on behalf of HM under the East Indies Straits Company and having read many of his private journals would say the man is a strategist in land grabs

That is probably as close as I can disclose on a public forum on that ....

[boomerangutang]

Lawrence Chee: "They have no interest to start or participate in wars that are expensive ...indeed in the Chinese DNA is an extreme gene that tells them often to mind their own business and not interfere"

There are two sides to the concept of 'minding one's own business.' A naughty boy, when caught with a pile of cookies in his bedroom, can say to his brother; "mind your own business. Don't look at these cookies. Forget you saw them, and don't tell mom."

China is fully engaged in other peoples' business when it suits China Using it's superior military, it took over Tibet. That was Tibetans' business. China still has dozens (or hundreds?) of missiles aimed at Taiwan, that's the business of Taiwanese. China claims territory belonging to India (along two long fronts!), ...that's the business of Indians. It lays claim to an island which lies between Japan and Taiwan. Now it's claiming it owns islands far away from its mainland, which any reasonable/objective people know are owned by the respective countries near the islands.

LC ends his statement with the phrase "....not interfere." Is that a joke? All that's mentioned by me above, is blatant interference. If I take over your house, is that not interference in your affairs? If I take a sword and hold it to the neck of your favorite dog (maybe it's a dashhound?) ....would that constitute interference in your affairs?

I'm still annoyed by the issues that no one on the planet, except me, has floated the idea of the islands (and their surrounding waters) being designated as an International Marine Reserve - owned by no one and everyone. No oil drilling, no overfishing, no militarization. Is that such an alien concept to Asians? Can they not fathom the concept of an area of ocean NOT BEING OWNED by people or countries? Asians already contribute mightily to the Pacific Trash Vortex (PTV - google it), massively polluting the upper Pacific Ocean. Asians are not lifting a finger to do anything about it. Zero. They don't even acknowledge the PTV exists. All study of the PTV has been done by farang.

At the least, Asians can partially compensate by allowing the designation of the SCS as a Marine Reserve.

[Publicus]

^^Tonbridge, you illustrate well the difference between those who analyze this SCS situation similar to what we might hear in an undergraduate lecture at the US Naval Academy, and those of us with more real life concerns who have been actively involved with business and government in China and SE Asia.

Surprisingly, the two posters you reference, both educated and thoughtful, are firmly liberal in terms of political views, but on the issue of China, are very hawkish. And, as you correctly state, stereotyping a 4,000 year old empire and its people, who don't have a history of expansionism as if expansionism is in their DNA is a gross misreading of history.

In terms of China's justification for expansionism, I think there are similarities with the rise of the US empire in the early 19th century. America had the 'Monroe Doctrine' which America used to dominate the Americas. It provided: that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. In many ways, China an now an expanding empire and world power, seeks to define its sphere of influence, discover new oil and natural resources, and do all the things any new world power would do.

Having said that, US does have strategic vested interests in the area, both with China and with each of the countries negatively affected by China. There will have to be some checking of China's expansion, and I continue to maintain there are much more effective ways than simply rattling the sword while standing on the bridge staring into the wind.

there are much more effective ways than simply rattling the sword while standing on the bridge staring into the wind.

The SCS Code of Conduct, first negltiated between Asean and CCP in 2002 at Asean's initiative and mutually agreed between the two after four years of discussion is a fine document as virtually everyone agrees. It is an excellent example of the rule of law mutually constructed and agreed.

Likewise for the Declaration on the Code of Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea which until 2012 had been in effect after it also had been mutually agreed by Asean and CCP after years of mutual discussions and negotiations initiated by Asean and supported by the United States..

Yet divisions within Asean tanked both documents at the Asean annual meeting in Cambodia in 2012. During the meeting, CCP which has observer status got Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar to disagree to a continuation of the CoC and the DoC. The United States which also has observer status at the meeting advocated continuation of the revised and improved documents. Since 2012 there has been no common agreement between CCP and the Asean states in respect of either document. This has affected most directly the Philippines and Vietnam, and more recently Malaysia.

CCP has the past week cemented the Asean divide by issuing a statement of its righteousness in the SCS supported by Cambodia, Laos, Brunei. Notably absent at this time from the Beijing Minority Against the Rule of Law in the SCS is Myanmar, which President Obama has visited twice during his second term.

The statement in the post that "there are much more effective ways" to resolve the SCS antagonisms and hostile posturings is a nice glittering and high minded assertion. Given the record of CCP abuse of genuine and sincere efforts by Asean to agree on the rule of law in the SCS, and CCP destruction of it consciously, systematically, willfully, the statement is vacuous.

Here's one approach that, while it originates from one side in the dispute, can be considered to be sound, rational, reasonable, given it is not the USA or Asean that are uncompromisingly forcing themselves on the CCP Dictators in Beijing -- that it is the CCP new dynasty of emperors in business suits that are aggressively and forcefully imposing themselves into the legitimate territories of certain Asean members to include Japan in the East Sea...

From Daniel Russel, AsstSecState for East Asia and the Pacific, speaking Friday at the University of Southern California China Center...

There is a lot of tough talk about China defending its “indisputable” sovereignty, but sovereignty over what? Over recognized land features, in keeping with international law? Or over global sea lanes and maritime areas within 200 miles of other countries?

There is an important distinction between these two types of claims, although both need to be made in ways that are consistent with international law.

Territorial claims are notoriously hard to resolve, and some disputes pre-date the creation of the People’s Republic of China.

But maritime issues were dealt with comprehensively in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, which China ratified. It covers issues such as who has jurisdiction to fish or drill for oil in any given location. It covers the rights and freedoms enjoyed at sea. It guarantees to all countries the freedoms of navigation, overflight, and other lawful uses of the seas.

“We don’t ask China to renounce its territorial claims in the East or South China Seas, but we do ask China to renounce unilateral and destabilizing actions that change the status quo at the expense of the other claimants,” he said.

“We don’t object to China exercising international maritime rights, but we do urge it to clarify its South China Sea maritime claims consistent with international law,” he added.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/04/24/1576207/us-china-resolve-sea-row-peacefully

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2016/04/256509.htm

With CCP test firing its ICBM over the SCS earlier this month and announcing it will set up nuclear energy facilities on islands in the SCS (where typhoons are common and regular) the statement quoted in this post is not only vacuous, it is nonsense in that it serves no useful or practical, realistic purpose whatsoever.

simply rattling the sword while standing on the bridge staring into the wind.

Sorry but this statement from the post needs to be received in the manner it deserves

[keemapoot]

Lawrence Chee: "They have no interest to start or participate in wars that are expensive ...indeed in the Chinese DNA is an extreme gene that tells them often to mind their own business and not interfere"

There are two sides to the concept of 'minding one's own business.' A naughty boy, when caught with a pile of cookies in his bedroom, can say to his brother; "mind your own business. Don't look at these cookies. Forget you saw them, and don't tell mom."

China is fully engaged in other peoples' business when it suits China Using it's superior military, it took over Tibet. That was Tibetans' business. China still has dozens (or hundreds?) of missiles aimed at Taiwan, that's the business of Taiwanese. China claims territory belonging to India (along two long fronts!), ...that's the business of Indians. It lays claim to an island which lies between Japan and Taiwan. Now it's claiming it owns islands far away from its mainland, which any reasonable/objective people know are owned by the respective countries near the islands.

LC ends his statement with the phrase "....not interfere." Is that a joke? All that's mentioned by me above, is blatant interference. If I take over your house, is that not interference in your affairs? If I take a sword and hold it to the neck of your favorite dog (maybe it's a dashhound?) ....would that constitute interference in your affairs?

I'm still annoyed by the issues that no one on the planet, except me, has floated the idea of the islands (and their surrounding waters) being designated as an International Marine Reserve - owned by no one and everyone. No oil drilling, no overfishing, no militarization. Is that such an alien concept to Asians? Can they not fathom the concept of an area of ocean NOT BEING OWNED by people or countries? Asians already contribute mightily to the Pacific Trash Vortex (PTV - google it), massively polluting the upper Pacific Ocean. Asians are not lifting a finger to do anything about it. Zero. They don't even acknowledge the PTV exists. All study of the PTV has been done by farang.

At the least, Asians can partially compensate by allowing the designation of the SCS as a Marine Reserve.

Boomer, as noble as your idea might be, I'm sorry but where there are promises of black gold under the sea, there will never be anyone agree to a marine reserve.

[keemapoot]

^^As to Publicus, you add a lot to these discussions with your copious research and thoughtful postings, and to be honest, most of us are not that willing to commit the time, so I applaud you.

Again, my primary issue is with enforcement of actions. The Hague is largely a paper tiger, as is UN in many instances. You quote Daniel Russell, who articulates the issue as succinctly as anyone, yet again, as in much of diplomacy, it's an exercise in self masturbation (I guess that's redundant).

Granted, all these actions and building of a case based in international law will convey the right of might to the US and others, but go ahead and see what happens against an intransigent China. Rattle your saber, and go ahead an line up your sea vessels and cutters in a blockade, and see how far that gets you.

Or, use alternative methods such as trade blocs, incentives, convening those with mutual interests, such as the Russians and Vietnamese, and other methods along with the threat of military action. I'm not an expert in foreign relations, so I'm not sure of all the options, but I know a few ambassadors and diplomats, and they seem comfortable in their ivory towers too.

[Publicus]

There are more balanced and effective approaches, that leverage all the countries who have claims, but it requires tremendous leadership in foreign policy. I wonder if Clinton's secretary of State will be up to the task?

Like what? What sort of "balanced and effective approaches" would get the Chinese to go back to China? If you ask me, Nothing short of military or the real threat of military action.

The Phil Navy could send war ships out to take back their islands, but that would only provoke a military response from China, and it's plain that, given a few days, China could mobilize an awesome force. It's similar for Vietnam re; the Paracels.

Citizens in respective countries could enact demonstrations such as carrying placards and chanting in front of embassies (Fils demonstrating at the Chinese embassy in Manila, and/or Chinese demonstrating at the Fil Embassy in Beijing). Yet such actions wouldn't accomplish anything other than gain headlines in newspapers.

Sadly, I think the world has to accept China's commandeering of the islands. The only action that would get Chinese to leave is military, and it's doubtful that will happen - because repercussions (cyber war by Chinese, and harming farang tourists in China) will be too dire a collateral price to pay. If it were just a brief military conflict like the Falklands, then it would be fathomable and (in my view) worthwhile. But Chinese citizens will go ballistic en masse, and that could have unforeseen repercussions.

We've seen what they can do in frenzied group-think. It wasn't so long ago, during the Cultural Revolution, where professors were killed in public and many of Tibet's centuries-old temples were defaced and monks killed. It doesn't take much to get a group-think frenzy going in countries like China or N.Korea.

This $1 billion CCP oil drilling rig aka 981 is again 126 miles off the coast of Vietnam, i.e., within the territorial Economic Exclusion Zone of the Republic of Vietnam.

CCP Dictators in Beijing continue to ignore the Asean-CCP agreed Code of Conduct for the South China Sea, since 2012 when CCP busted up the Asean annual meeting in Cambodia with the support of |Asean members Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar.

CCP is also ignoring the Declaration of Conduct by Parties in the South China Sea which had also been agreed by Asean and CCP but which CCP also sabotaged in Cambodia in 20012.

CCP is uncompromising, unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary, arrogantly scolding and lecturing, in its determination to become an East Asia hegemon and to transmogrify both the SCS into a Chinese lake and Asean itself into a grouping of CCP China tributary states. As the West learned from 1920 to 1945, there is only one way to deal with an aggressive and absolutist dictatorship that sees itself as superior and as inherently entitled.

Friday, 8 April 2016

Vietnam has demanded that China remove an oil exploration rig from a sea area where the countries are still negotiating a delineation of control.

Foreign Minstry spokesman Le Hai Binh said that Vietnam opposes China's actions and urges China to contribute to peace and stability in the region.

The Haiyang Shiyou oil rig was at the center of standoff between the countries in 2014 when China parked the oil rig near the Paracel islands that Vietnam claims as its exclusive economic zone.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/asiapacific/2016/04/08/vietnam-demands-china-to-remove-oil-rig.html#sthash.L205T5pG.dpuf

May 7, 2014

Up to 21 dead as anti-China riots spread in Vietnam

Anti-China riots erupted in industrial zones in the south of the country on Tuesday after protests against Beijing placing an oil rig in a part of the South China Sea claimed by Hanoi.

China expressed serious concern over the violence in Vietnam and urged it to punish criminals and compensate victims. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying suggested Hanoi had turned a blind eye to the protesters.

"The looting and stealing that has taken place at Chinese businesses and to Chinese people has a direct relationship with Vietnam's winking at and indulging law breakers there.

https://news.vice.com/article/vietnam-is-pissed-that-china-is-blowing-up-the-south-china-sea

"The United States has long said it remains neutral in the dispute and has essentially taken a pretty passive stance as to what's going on in the South China Sea," Michael Mazza, a research fellow with American Enterprise Institute, told VICE News. "I think the United States needs to, in conjunction with its allies and partners in the region, actually come down on at least what it believes are high seas versus territorial waters. And perhaps make some judgment on what are plausible claims and what are not. That can give the United States a baseline from which to act in the region to push back against particularly egregious Chinese behavior, or egregious behavior from others, in order to deter more aggressive activities."

https://news.vice.com/article/vietnam-is-pissed-that-china-is-blowing-up-the-south-china-sea

[Publicus]

^^As to Publicus, you add a lot to these discussions with your copious research and thoughtful postings, and to be honest, most of us are not that willing to commit the time, so I applaud you.

Again, my primary issue is with enforcement of actions. The Hague is largely a paper tiger, as is UN in many instances. You quote Daniel Russell, who articulates the issue as succinctly as anyone, yet again, as in much of diplomacy, it's an exercise in self masturbation (I guess that's redundant).

Granted, all these actions and building of a case based in international law will convey the right of might to the US and others, but go ahead and see what happens against an intransigent China. Rattle your saber, and go ahead an line up your sea vessels and cutters in a blockade, and see how far that gets you.

Or, use alternative methods such as trade blocs, incentives, convening those with mutual interests, such as the Russians and Vietnamese, and other methods along with the threat of military action. I'm not an expert in foreign relations, so I'm not sure of all the options, but I know a few ambassadors and diplomats, and they seem comfortable in their ivory towers too.

Anyone who might have specific proposals as to how to persuade and use reason to enlighten the CCP Dictators in Beijing would be most welcome.

No one has appeared however in any venue or forum. The reason is that there isn't any such possibility no matter who, no matter what, when, why. It is not realistic at all to even consider economic or trade sanctions against the CCP, to include tariff levies etc. CCP sits on the UN Security Council, with its dubious ally Russia, so scratch that. Etc.

One strides far afield to refer to those who do deal realistically and practically with these matters as 2nd year Naval Academy cadets or as existing in an "ivory tower." This is due to the reality people who have nothing specific and offer only vague and nice sounding generalities exist in a vacuum.

In dealing with irredentist and revanchist powers that are a throwback to the Europe of the 1920s and 1930s through 1945, there is only one real world approach. No Munichs in the 21st century.

From a speech several years ago to the CCP Central Military Commission by the then Defense Minister and Commission Vice-Chairman, Gen. Chi Hotian....

As we all know, Nazi Germany also placed much emphasis on the education of the people, especially the younger generation. The Nazi party and government organized and established various propaganda and educational institutions aimed at instilling into the people’s minds the idea that German people are superior, and convincing people that the historical mission of the Arian people is to become the “lords of earth” that “rule over the world.”

The fundamental reason for the defeats of Germany and Japan is that history did not arrange them to be the “lords of the earth,” for they are, after all, not the most superior race. Ostensibly, in comparison, today’s China is alarmingly similar to Germany back then. Both of them regard themselves as the most superior races

And yet, if we really are to make a comparison between Germany and China, then, as Comrade Jiang Zemin put it, Germany belongs to “pediatrics”—too trivial to be compared. How large is Germany’s population? How big is its territory? And how long is its history?

Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages.

The bottom line is, only China, not Germany, is a reliable force in resisting the Western parliament-based democratic system.

http://rense.com/general85/China%27sPlanToConquer.htm

[boomerangutang]

We couldn't be having this online discussion if the blog was in in China.

Also, as a comparison, there's the Mekong River which was, until recently, one of the only large rivers in the world which had not been dammed. Now it is, but by China. 8 dams planned by last count, about half already built. Although China is a major player re; the river and its flow (though only 17% of its flow comes out of China), if is not a member of The Mekong River Commission. MRC comprises the other little countries downstream. This is where there are comparisons with the SCS problems. China purposefully doesn't join the Commission because it doesn't want to be compelled to adhere to the wishes of other countries. You see the pattern: China wants to keep doing what it wants (with the Mekong and the SCS), without having to deal with the wishes of other affected parties. Similarly, China has already stated it won't abide by any findings handed down by any international tribunal or the UN. In sum: China sees itself as a law unto itself. What China wants, China gets, and screw all the less populated and smaller countries.

[LawrenceChee]

We couldn't be having this online discussion if the blog was in in China.

Also, as a comparison, there's the Mekong River which was, until recently, one of the only large rivers in the world which had not been dammed. Now it is, but by China. 8 dams planned by last count, about half already built. Although China is a major player re; the river and its flow (though only 17% of its flow comes out of China), if is not a member of The Mekong River Commission. MRC comprises the other little countries downstream. This is where there are comparisons with the SCS problems. China purposefully doesn't join the Commission because it doesn't want to be compelled to adhere to the wishes of other countries. You see the pattern: China wants to keep doing what it wants (with the Mekong and the SCS), without having to deal with the wishes of other affected parties. Similarly, China has already stated it won't abide by any findings handed down by any international tribunal or the UN. In sum: China sees itself as a law unto itself. What China wants, China gets, and screw all the less populated and smaller countries.

Not true there are blogs like this in China but most Chinese prefer to discuss things behind closed door and not in a forum where they may meet some posters like P which makes it rather unpleasant

[Publicus]

We couldn't be having this online discussion if the blog was in in China.

Also, as a comparison, there's the Mekong River which was, until recently, one of the only large rivers in the world which had not been dammed. Now it is, but by China. 8 dams planned by last count, about half already built. Although China is a major player re; the river and its flow (though only 17% of its flow comes out of China), if is not a member of The Mekong River Commission. MRC comprises the other little countries downstream. This is where there are comparisons with the SCS problems. China purposefully doesn't join the Commission because it doesn't want to be compelled to adhere to the wishes of other countries. You see the pattern: China wants to keep doing what it wants (with the Mekong and the SCS), without having to deal with the wishes of other affected parties. Similarly, China has already stated it won't abide by any findings handed down by any international tribunal or the UN. In sum: China sees itself as a law unto itself. What China wants, China gets, and screw all the less populated and smaller countries.

Not true there are blogs like this in China but most Chinese prefer to discuss things behind closed door and not in a forum where they may meet some posters like P which makes it rather unpleasant

Speaking of something actually unpleasant, ji zhua* because that is all the statement is, nothing else.

This internet thread or any thread like it is impossible in the CCP China.

(Virtually no thread at any TVFs are possible in the CCP. Further, when I visit CCP, which is several times a year, I can get TVF reasonably well using a vpn but TVF is s-l-o-w without vpn. And it varies by geography, i.e., I can do well to get TVF at a public internet cafe in progressive Shenzhen and Guangzhou, but it is extremely difficult to access or to manage in Guilin. A home connection to TVF anywhere in CCP is a tough nut to crack into. TVF does have free speech, which as we well know is verboten in CCP. Some approved publications in CCP, such as Caixin in Beijing (a business journal) have limited and closely regulated speech latitude, but they are rare indeed. If anything, it is the local media and press that includes some careful freedom of latitude by some who dare, however, equally few provincial and no state media organs. There is some limited academic freedom also, but exclusively at certain elite universities or 'think tanks' where Party loyalty is not in question.)

Further, if this web domain were in CCP, which as I note is impossible, everyone here would be arrested or investigated but, given the nature of the comments, arrested and charged with sedition or on up to treason.

And you Mr. Chee would be arrested for incompetence in trying to defend the CCP brethren and comrades. A gross failure to present any credible statements. But then in reality, you and any other CCP defender has precious little to work with that is defensible or credible concerning CCP.

CCP half-yuans living on the mainland are taught formally to argue the CCP lines even if it is only in the CCP rigid style. You only resemble that in a cultural way, as I'd pointed out, i.e., when criticised or critiqued, attack attack attack. Admit nothing and yield nothing while trying to shift the focus to the other side and the other guy. CCP for instance is doing nothing wrong in the SCS -- absolutely nothing wrong or illegal, nothing duplicitous or sinister. So you're not even a CCP 50-cents poster, i.e., not worth the people's investment. (I have to go to other websites to find and dissemble the CCP half-yuans aka 50-cents.)

A post to the thread for instance ruminates on how CCP officials sit in conferences to discuss and analyise policy priorities, goals, means, purposes. You said the CCP discussions are profound and thorough, conducted intelligently by intelligent leaders. This however does not distinguish CCP China or any given country. They all do this, so there is nothing unique or special about the CCP, except they scheme against democracy, capitalism, free speech and human rights -- modernism. They live by the old ways of dictatorship and dynasty. Stalin was a crafty schemer and plotter too and he also existed inside a failed system and paradigm.

So kindly carry on because this poster needs you...and your couple of buddies here too thx.

*Cooked chicken claws.

[LawrenceChee]

Wow what a bunch of BS ...I can only conclude that the VPN you are using is a lousy one or a free app

No clue what a half yuan is but its probably one of your dimwit comments that's almost racially wrong but at your age I will give you a free pass so that you don't pass out from typing out all these long messages

[keemapoot]

Wow what a bunch of BS ...I can only conclude that the VPN you are using is a lousy one or a free app

No clue what a half yuan is but its probably one of your dimwit comments that's almost racially wrong but at your age I will give you a free pass so that you don't pass out from typing out all these long messages

Anyone who grew up in the era of "Duck and Cover" is darned scared of reds!