if Mexican authority start endanger US citizen by using navy ship either fire upon the trawler, then yes we have every right to protect the live of US citizen. No matter how you say it, few hundred kg of fish do not worth the live of humans. If someone start shooting and kill the thief that stolen their car outside their garage, at the minimum they could be charge with manslaughter or more, at least here in US. the fact is death of fisherman kill by Indonesian navy did happen, unless those fisherman shooting first or they are drug dealer its not justifiable to shoot at them. Yes china has its CG in the water etc, they could also send navy if death of their citizens occurred, especially if Indoesia/China relationship are tense. That's why I said, use navy in a volatile are such as ScS is not a good idea. Just because some other country do it in a calm area, doesn't mean indoesia should do it either. Did Japan/Vietnam use navy to shoot/chase down trawlers?
South China Sea thoughts?
- Thread starter SpartanSG
- Start date
if Mexican authority start endanger US citizen by using navy ship either fire upon the trawler, then yes we have every right to protect the live of US citizen. No matter how you say it, few hundred kg of fish do not worth the live of humans. If someone start shooting and kill the thief that stolen their car outside their garage, at the minimum they could be charge with manslaughter or more, at least here in US. the fact is death of fisherman kill by Indonesian navy did happen, unless those fisherman shooting first or they are drug dealer its not justifiable to shoot at them. Yes china has its CG in the water etc, they could also send navy if death of their citizens occurred, especially if Indoesia/China relationship are tense. That's why I said, use navy in a volatile are such as ScS is not a good idea. Just because some other country do it in a calm area, doesn't mean indoesia should do it either. Did Japan/Vietnam use navy to shoot/chase down trawlers?
right and everyone follow rules of FON. I do agree Chinese CG interrupt Indonesia is wrong, but then so does navy shooting runaway trawler. plenty case where nations don't follow FON rules. I did read up the issue from several article and compare against same type issues between phillippine/china, Vietnam/phillippine, Vietnam/china etc. does Vietnam/Japan use navy to chase down trawlers? I haven't found it yet, but if they do let me know.
all i'm saying is better get some bigger CG rather than navy in a volatile region in ScS. give china excuse to send its own navy if they ever decide doing it.
Last edited:
Wrong how? Procedures were followed.
Let's pretend that you are a duly authorized law enforcement officer. You were told by the dispatcher that somebody reported a theft is ongoing on Maple Street. You go to Maple Street and you see a gang of twenty loading up boxes into various vehicles. You approach and ask them what they are doing and ID. They notice you and scatter. What the hell is an LEO supposed to do? In this particular case, they chose to call for backup and give chase. You yell "Freeze, police!" but they kept running. You fire warning shots into the air. They ignored it. Now, at this point the analogy breaks down because ships aren't people, but the navy (which I remind you do have maritime law enforcement power) either fired across the bow or disabled the engine. I personally suspect the later, but whatever. The ship is disabled, everyone is arrested, and they will get their day in court.
This is all by the book. Open and shut case.
Navies have maritime law enforcement powers. It is not their main task, but they do act as duly authorized agent of the government etc. If a crime happens on the sea and they happen to be nearby or they were requested to assist then they do have the duty and the authority to enforce the law.
Let's pretend that you are a duly authorized law enforcement officer. You were told by the dispatcher that somebody reported a theft is ongoing on Maple Street. You go to Maple Street and you see a gang of twenty loading up boxes into various vehicles. You approach and ask them what they are doing and ID. They notice you and scatter. What the hell is an LEO supposed to do? In this particular case, they chose to call for backup and give chase. You yell "Freeze, police!" but they kept running. You fire warning shots into the air. They ignored it. Now, at this point the analogy breaks down because ships aren't people, but the navy (which I remind you do have maritime law enforcement power) either fired across the bow or disabled the engine. I personally suspect the later, but whatever. The ship is disabled, everyone is arrested, and they will get their day in court.
This is all by the book. Open and shut case.
Navies have maritime law enforcement powers. It is not their main task, but they do act as duly authorized agent of the government etc. If a crime happens on the sea and they happen to be nearby or they were requested to assist then they do have the duty and the authority to enforce the law.
Not sure what you mean by ''afraid'' but all the claimants have been taking steps to defend their possessions in the area and have been for decade. It's not as if certain claimants are defending their possessions whilst others are not. As for Vietnam - as I previously mentioned - the way it goes about addressing the Spratlys issue is driven by the fact that it has had waters and islands that were taken by China using force and in recent times, China has been acting more aggressively or provocatively towards Vietnam than it has towards others. In ancient times Vietnam was routinely invaded by China and in 1979 fought a border war initiated by China' thus it's no surprise that Vietnam's threat perceptions or insecurities toward China differs from the other claimants.
Also, it's not Vietnam alone that is pursuing that ''option'' or Indonesia by bolstering its presence in the Natunas but also the Philippines and Malaysia. In Malaysia's case it's no coincidence that its SSKs are based in Sabah [where they are strategically placed to deploy to the South China Sea]. I stand by what I said about Durarte's visit to China. He'll go out of his way to avoid offending them and the Chinese will go to great efforts to woe him by offering loans and promising bilateral talks but like others before him; Durtate will discover that China will say one thing, whilst doing something else. Relations will improve but China will continue doing what it does.
peterAustralia
Member
In regards to this 'pivot' of the Philippines from the USA to China. I was surprised, but logic dictates that it should not have been surprising.
Military power, political power and diplomatic power, is based on economic power. As China's economy grows and grows, their influence will increase. Perhaps this is the first visible sign of a trend that has had such momentum.
China wants to get out of the containment ring that the US seeks to surround it with. If China can apply the carrot and stick approach, eventually some of the nation states around China may buckle. With gaps in the containment net, China has a way out. So for a few billion dollars in aid, investment, recognition of fishing rights etc, China gains great influence.
Is there a moral reason why China should not have greater influence in the Philippines that the USA?
The US has only been in the Philippines since 1899, they invaded when the Spanish left. Note at this time, the Spanish and the US had a fake war. The Spanish and Americans decided one would replace the other, yet rather than call it a hand over, the idea was hatched that it should be done militarily so that the Spanish could retain their honor. So they had a fake war, no one was killed, the Spanish left, and the next day the Americans moved in.
The Spanish told the Philippines that they would grant them Independence, but in reality they just handed them over to the US. A guerrilla war followed and there were tens of thousand of casualties on the Filipino side.
I am not saying this was right or wrong. It is just what it is. Just one in a large number of things that happen when a powerful nation meets a weak nation.
The US has had influence in the Philippines for approx 100 years, now that is declining. I may not be happy about it, but it is what it is.
I predict that China will start to look to nation states in or bordering the Pacific and Indian Oceans, in order to develop naval and air bases there. They have the money. It may be east africa, it may be Burma, it may be Kiribas, maybe the Solomons, who knows.
I see this as one of those 'oh sh**' moments when the US realises the limits of their power. They huff and puff, they aren't happy, but there is not much they can do about it. With the US the largest debtor country in the world, its economic influence is lessened. Yes its military is still far far more powerful, but the gap is closing and military strength is not everything.
Another 'oh sh**' moment I recall was when Condoleeza Rice went off the wall when Russia invaded Georgia. She was furious, but there was nothing she could do about it. As the US has had to cede some influence as Russia gets out of the mess it was in, now it will have to cede some influence to China, as one economy grows at a much higher rate than the others.
Military power, political power and diplomatic power, is based on economic power. As China's economy grows and grows, their influence will increase. Perhaps this is the first visible sign of a trend that has had such momentum.
China wants to get out of the containment ring that the US seeks to surround it with. If China can apply the carrot and stick approach, eventually some of the nation states around China may buckle. With gaps in the containment net, China has a way out. So for a few billion dollars in aid, investment, recognition of fishing rights etc, China gains great influence.
Is there a moral reason why China should not have greater influence in the Philippines that the USA?
The US has only been in the Philippines since 1899, they invaded when the Spanish left. Note at this time, the Spanish and the US had a fake war. The Spanish and Americans decided one would replace the other, yet rather than call it a hand over, the idea was hatched that it should be done militarily so that the Spanish could retain their honor. So they had a fake war, no one was killed, the Spanish left, and the next day the Americans moved in.
The Spanish told the Philippines that they would grant them Independence, but in reality they just handed them over to the US. A guerrilla war followed and there were tens of thousand of casualties on the Filipino side.
I am not saying this was right or wrong. It is just what it is. Just one in a large number of things that happen when a powerful nation meets a weak nation.
The US has had influence in the Philippines for approx 100 years, now that is declining. I may not be happy about it, but it is what it is.
I predict that China will start to look to nation states in or bordering the Pacific and Indian Oceans, in order to develop naval and air bases there. They have the money. It may be east africa, it may be Burma, it may be Kiribas, maybe the Solomons, who knows.
I see this as one of those 'oh sh**' moments when the US realises the limits of their power. They huff and puff, they aren't happy, but there is not much they can do about it. With the US the largest debtor country in the world, its economic influence is lessened. Yes its military is still far far more powerful, but the gap is closing and military strength is not everything.
Another 'oh sh**' moment I recall was when Condoleeza Rice went off the wall when Russia invaded Georgia. She was furious, but there was nothing she could do about it. As the US has had to cede some influence as Russia gets out of the mess it was in, now it will have to cede some influence to China, as one economy grows at a much higher rate than the others.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Sturm..what I mean by not being afraid in here..is not being afraid to be seen officially to take China on their position. China protested officially that Indonesian Navy attacked their fisherman on what they called 'traditionall fishing ground'..Indonesian officially respond saying that it's Indonesian water that those fisherman being aprrehended...and refuse China pressure to released them..and stating Indonesia will keep on doing what being done so far to any illegal fishing on its water..
The possition which lately I only seen 'officially' only Vietnam and Indonesia willing to take in SEA..possition that will be seen by some part on Chinese sides as direct confronting them.
Off course I'm not saying that anyone else not guarding their own teritory against China..but seems anyone else try to be more subtle with China, asside Vietnam and lately Indonesia on Natuna waters issue..but again do not mean Vietnam and Indonesia stop try to engage China.
Like I said before, every individual SEA country will choose their own strategy on how engaging China..and it's just Vietnam and Indonesia so far choose officially more tougher faces with China on particular SCS issue, compared to others. For me it's nothing wrong as each country will choose to engage to china based on their own situation.
gazzzwp
Member
Not true.
https://www.ft.com/content/acd3f2fc-084a-11e6-876d-b823056b209b
The article mentions some $25Tn debt and rapidly rising. A major property bubble over there is of huge concern that has the potential to dwarf the US crisis of 2007-2008.
Things are not looking rosy for the Chinese economy.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Argentine shoot and sank Chinese Trawlers using their CG...not their Navy ships..Shown CG can also be lethal..
Again you continue talking old tune and shown lack of basic research..and begin to sound like many Chinese Internet Wariors in Chinese forum or Pakistan Defence forum...
Who say that by using Navy ships then you are automatically going to shoot the trawlers..you can shoot and sunk trawlers by using CG. Whether using Navy, CG, Police, or even Customs boats..any Authority vessels have the right to upheld the maritime law on their jurisdiction waters. They will try to shoot the trawlers as warning shoot if their warning is being ignored and have the rights to shoot or board any illegal vessels to disabble them..
RAN being used to do most CG job, including chasing illegal trawlers, since Australia do not have CG..nothing wrong with that..then again you won't see the fact that not all country even some of the large ones, need CG..and back again to same arguments..
Try to do the 'basic' research, Indonesia blown up the illegal foreign trawlers that it's already been ceased, apprehanded, and not still with crews on that.
Are you really an American ?..since you more and more like Chinese internet warriors that try to justified the Chinese CG action on trespassing others teritory in the name of protecting their so called 'traditional fishing ground'..
gazzzwp
Member
US to deploy 16 F-35's to Japan in 2017.
U.S. to deploy F-35 fighters in western Japan next year | The Japan Times
I haven't checked the manufacturing schedule to see how many they will have in service by the end of next year. That would be useful information.
U.S. to deploy F-35 fighters in western Japan next year | The Japan Times
I haven't checked the manufacturing schedule to see how many they will have in service by the end of next year. That would be useful information.
There might not be a moral reason but the fact remains that the Philippines and the U.S. share quite a history. Also, of all the ASEAN countries the Philippines is certainly the most ''Americanised''.
It remains to be seen how things pan out but the fact remains that Durtarte is not predictable and has been known to later say or do something that contradicts what he earlier said. I've said this before : if Durtarte truly wants to pursue an independent foreign policy and review ties with the U.S.; he should renounce the mutual defence treat that obliges the U.S. to come to the aid of the Philippines in the event of an external attack. The Philippines Cost Guard is scheduled to receive ex-US Sherpas soon. Lets see if Durtarte declines to accept them.
Ananda,
Just because a particular country is not as vocal as another; doesn't mean it's not protesting or making noise. Quite often countries will register a complain via back door channels as opposed to doing it publicly and announcing it to the media. As for ''vocal'' just a few days ago the Malaysian PM announced that China was a friend but that Malaysia would defend it's territories in the Spratlys.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Agree..and I believe that's my point in my previous posts..each country will choose how they are going to enggage to China in each own consideration..
I believe frm begining I argue your opinion which 'correct me if I'm wrong' critisise countries that tend to be more vocal and used deffense approach as part of their engagement to China as less productive.
I argue that's not true..since their situation might be difference, thus considering more vocal and used defense approach as 'parrarel' approach to diplomacy with China..deemed workable in their position.
So, I don't too critisises the possition of countries that choose less vocal and more subtle approach..altough personally I believe China act is making more subtle approach as engagement strategy increasingly less effective.
Yes you're wrong. I'm never criticised anyone or suggested that what certain claimants were doing was wrong. I made it very clear that what work's for some doesn't work for others and that some will behave or act differently because the circumstances are different, including threat perceptions and insecurities.
Funny enough but when Malaysia physically occupied some reefs in the early 1980's [troops had to live on reefs the size of a basketball court which was almost fully submerged at high tide] and when it launched an operation to tow living modules all the way from Peninsular Malaysia in 1999; the concern was not China but how the Philippines and Vietnam would react.
The whole idea in diplomacy is to make compromises : to give something [when needed] in the hope that the other side will reciprocate. China has announced that Filipino fishermen may be allowed to operate in parts of the Spratlys controlled by China; with ''conditions'' of course. Ultimately, what China is saying is that ''this whole area belongs to us. Behave and we might let you fish there but the fact remains that the area is still an indisputable part of China and the only reason you can operate there is because we allow you to do so ....
Ananda
The Bunker Group
This shown that China moved in SCS is the factor of their new found wealth..and acted like new rich guys to demand everyone else acknowledged their status.
That's what I'm affraid off..when other neighbours also got more wealth, based on their own economic development..they will also want to be acknowledged for that..so the wholle neighbourhood will not act on respecting each other based on good neighbours..but want to be acknowledged on their economic status..which thus made them to be able to procured new assets to back it up..
In such make the situation more like 'powder keg' then now..
It will take another decade to do that..but a decade ago..most of SCS neighbourhood is more concern to each other than to China..well China is not rich enough to act like now a decade ago..
Last edited:
China's actions are driven mainly by its desire to be a acknowledged as a great power, arrogance, it's geopolitical goals, history and insecurity. The last century, and even before that actually, wasn't a pleasant one for China. It was weak and divided; enabling outside powers to grab Chinese territory under false and dubious pretexts; to dictate terms and act as they wanted on Chinese territory. Long before WW2 China faced an aggressive Japan and had parts of its territory governed/administered by Western powers [for their benefit] in places where Chinese citizens had inferior rights. The Chinese haven't forgotten all this [the victims or weaker parties usually don't] and I'm sure this plays a part in China's actions today.
Yes it does very much. They call it the Century of Shame from 1839 to 1949; the First Opium War. The British traded opium (illegally) for Chinese silver because the Chinese govt would only allow payment in silver for Chinese tea and porcelain. After a while the British were running short of silver so they illegally (against both Chinese and British law) sold opium in China for Chinese silver.
Ever since every Chinese govt has made it a point to catch up with the west and to be in the position where China won't be subject to foreign invasion again either by land or sea. In fact I would argue that this is what is driving them more than anything else. The 100 year of humiliation has been taught in schools since the 1950's at least and most likely before and it's imbued in the national psyche with the Party ensuring that it stays that way.
In one of his books Robert Kaplan mentions that China's land borders are more secure than they have been for the past hundred years or so; it's the sea or maritime borders that now worry China.
Not to get off topic but it would be interesting to speculate how Russia's history and its phobia of foreign invasions plays a part in its actions today. Actions seen as provocative by the West are probably seen as justifiable or in self-defence by Russia's leaders. On several occasions during the Cold War, Soviet leaders actually thought that NATO was close to launching an attack and this fear drove a lot of what the Soviet Union did.
Not to get off topic but it would be interesting to speculate how Russia's history and its phobia of foreign invasions plays a part in its actions today. Actions seen as provocative by the West are probably seen as justifiable or in self-defence by Russia's leaders. On several occasions during the Cold War, Soviet leaders actually thought that NATO was close to launching an attack and this fear drove a lot of what the Soviet Union did.
Wrong, I'm afraid. Opium was legal to buy, sell, import & export in England. It wasn't regulated at all until 1868, & that regulation merely banned anyone other than pharmacists from selling it. It wasn't regulated more tightly until the 20th century.
Despite China having had foreign soldiers on its borders with better guns for well over 100 years, & Chinese pirates having been better armed for most of that time.
BTW, at the time of the first Opium War British troops had muzzle-loading smoothbore flintlock muskets (they wouldn't start getting rifled muskets for another ten years, apart from a few skirmishers, & percussion cap muskets were just beginning to be issued), & there was only one British steamship (owned by the HEIC) in East Asian waters. China had been using cannon for 500 years. The backwardness of the Manchu soldiers was extraordinary. They were worse armed than Central Asian tribesmen on the borders.
Oh, & Congreve rockets were based on Indian artillery rockets used against British troops in the late 18th century, the origins of which could ultimately be traced back to China. Rockets were first used in warfare by Chinese armies.
Last edited:
Redrighthand
New Member
Inevitably, our different views of history are always going to colour our motivations - Israel and Palestine are a classic example - and of course China is bringing their own viewpoints across. One trouble is that no one outside of the Party has much say in how they do things - it's not like they've got a free press or much freedom of expression to criticise their own government's actions, much less an opposition party.
At the other end, if Duterte decides to align more closely with China, that's a major victory for China in their current SCS policy. If the other players in the region also back down in various ways - and I'm not sure what choice they'll have, ultimately - it paints a bleak picture for the future of the region. Nobody wants a war over this, obviously. But what other options remain, assuming China continues down this track, and what would be the breaking point? Trade sanctions could ultimately be a good thing, and give some other growing economies in the region some impetus. I watch this situation with growing concern.
At the other end, if Duterte decides to align more closely with China, that's a major victory for China in their current SCS policy. If the other players in the region also back down in various ways - and I'm not sure what choice they'll have, ultimately - it paints a bleak picture for the future of the region. Nobody wants a war over this, obviously. But what other options remain, assuming China continues down this track, and what would be the breaking point? Trade sanctions could ultimately be a good thing, and give some other growing economies in the region some impetus. I watch this situation with growing concern.
It appears that Philippine fishermen have regained unimpeded access to the Scarborough Shoals. The reasons why or for how long remains uncertain.
Tracking China’s Compliance with the South China Sea Arbitral Award: Scarborough Shoal Update
Tracking China’s Compliance with the South China Sea Arbitral Award: Scarborough Shoal Update
chinese militia and guard vessels abandoned the area a few days back - a symbolic gesture to help duterte save face and secure their geopolitical position
china announced today that there had been no change however on ownership etc...