Editor in Chief Bill | 23 Sep 2016 7:28 p.m. PST |
Three South China Sea and maritime law experts advocated a tougher stance against illegal Chinese actions, calling for more freedom of navigation operations, possibly with regional allies, that are aimed at Chinese territorial claims that have not previously been challenged… link |
zoneofcontrol | 23 Sep 2016 8:17 p.m. PST |
Yes, instead of telling them that we don't like it, we should tell them that we REALLY don't like it!!! That'll show 'em. |
Battle Phlox | 23 Sep 2016 10:12 p.m. PST |
The Chinese are about to control a big chunk of the Pacific water lanes with brute force and our response is more legal and diplomatic minutiae? =/ Are they really that out of touch? At this point there are two options: let them control trade routes or use violence to force them of. Anything else is nonsense. |
Mako11 | 23 Sep 2016 10:31 p.m. PST |
Ummmm, a bit late for that, isn't it. |
piper909 | 23 Sep 2016 11:50 p.m. PST |
More implied "America is the world's cop" sentiments. Does the US own the world's oceans and waterways? Then why the anguish? Is this the Gulf of "Mexico" or a sea far away from our shores? If there's a problem with international maritime law, then it's a matter for an international body to take up. That used to be what the UN was supposed to look after, isn't it? Worries about what someone else is doing someplace far, far away sounds like what Victorian British upper and middle-classes used to get upset about over their morning papers. Isn't it time for a different, less imperial paradigm? |
Tgunner | 24 Sep 2016 7:32 a.m. PST |
" Does the US own the world's oceans and waterways? Then why the anguish? Is this the Gulf of "Mexico" or a sea far away from our shores? If there's a problem with international maritime law, then it's a matter for an international body to take up. That used to be what the UN was supposed to look after, isn't it?" piper909 It's about the freedom of the seas and fair access to sea lanes. The US has always challenged excessive territorial claims at sea and it's for a simple reason. World trade right now is based off open and free sea lanes whereby commercial craft can travel uninhibited. Excessive, and in this case, baseless claims threaten that simple concept. If these claims aren't challenged then more, unsavory, nations can place claims and disrupt trade. More importantly, China could easily use these "claims" to strangle neighbors such as Japan and Taiwan by shutting down their trade by simple asserting their "unassailable" claims. Is this imperialism? Yes, but you're looking in the wrong direction for it. This is about free and fair access to the water ways of the world- the so called "global commons". Keeping it open and challenging excessive or unreasonable claims is vital to keeping these vital arteries of trade open. Remember, no nation is a true island anymore with the global economy. So yeah, while America could care less about who actually claims a particular rock in this sea, excessive and reasonable claims is a huge problem to even a nation that is literally 1000's of miles away. Because a ripple there WILL have a direct effect on the movement of goods across the seas of the world. |
Mako11 | 24 Sep 2016 11:28 a.m. PST |
Don't get me started on the UN……. I do wonder what effect the threat of a boycott would do to Chinese policy. Granted, that cuts both ways, but I suspect they have more to lose in an economic boycott than other, wealthier nations do. |
Skarper | 25 Sep 2016 11:22 a.m. PST |
China is far weaker than it makes out. This is precisely why they are being so bellicose. A full on trade war with China would collapse their economy in short order – a year at best. Trouble is it would also sow the seeds of electoral defeat in the other big economies – Japan especially would suffer terribly as would Australia. People don't want another shooting war but they also don't want another trade war. China is banking on this. The infamous TPP is an attempt to set the stage for a trade war but is also a Trojan horse for numerous appalling bits of capitalist chicanery. It may still get thru but has been hijacked along the way. Regardless of the US senate/congress many key signatories are having second thoughts. I agree a more robust stance is needed but the anti China block is close to falling apart. Duterte is a loose cannon who cannot be depended on. Other countries and making overtures about bilateral accords. I don't want China to 'win' and still think they won't but it is a dodgy situation. I try to keep up since I can see the East Sea [aka SCS] from my house – well nearly. |
Mako11 | 25 Sep 2016 11:59 a.m. PST |
Yep, that's what I figure, and I imagine we can get, and/or produce anything we really "need" in the interim. |
Rod I Robertson | 25 Sep 2016 12:18 p.m. PST |
|
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 25 Sep 2016 1:22 p.m. PST |
The problem is that China has employed a patient "salami-slicing" strategy carefully calculated to slowly accumulate power in her sphere. The west so far has no answer for it. |