New Leaders Forum contributor Javad Heydarian speaks with Right Livelihood Award winner Walden Bello about China, the U.S. role in Asia and his call for the renaming of the South China Sea.
In light of China’s increasingly bellicose rhetoric and recent incursions in the South China Sea, you were among the first leading Filipino figures to call for a more “assertive” position by the Philippine government by drafting a resolution that called upon the executive branch to rename the South China Sea as the “West Philippine Sea.” Was this proposal more of a symbolic gesture, or a tactical move to strengthen our claims in the Spratly islands?
Of course, the primary battle was at the politico-psychological level. If you keep on calling a site the South China Sea, it subliminally connotes some kind of “possession” by China. This is in light of the fact that often times our actions and thoughts are guided and shaped by forces that operate on the subliminal level. For us Filipinos, calling the area the West Philippine Sea marks a subliminal paradigm change. Suddenly the name that always carried China is now changed. This was a psychological blow to China.
Our proposal was also symbolic. It was meant to show to the world that our claims to the Spratly Islands are legitimate. There was also a tactical-legalistic dimension to our proposal, in terms of advancing our legitimate claims. There would be an impact in terms of advancing the legality of our claims to parts of the Spratly Islands and our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which we are entitled to based on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Did the terms West Philippine Sea carry any specific spatial demarcation or geographical specificity? Why did you choose to name the area after the Philippines when there are other claimant countries aside from China?
We didn’t make any clear demarcations. The resolution wasn’t meant to connote a specific territorial boundary. We wanted it just to reflect that this wasn’t China’s sea. We are by no means fixed with regards to our attitude to the name. We are open to multilateral arrangements and diplomatic solution. We are even open to calling it the Southeast Asia Sea or ASEAN Sea or what have you. Our proposal was at most a symbolic and politico-psychological move.
Earlier this year, you led the so-called “peace and sovereignty mission,” composed of congressional delegations, government officials, media, and members of the armed forces, in the Spratly islands, despite vehement opposition from Beijing. What was your primary objective in organizing this mission? In your opinion, to what extent was the mission successful? And, to what degree do you think that the mission reflected greater public sentiment?
Firstly, I think the mission reflected tremendous public sentiment. I think there’s no doubt in Filipino minds that we have rightful claims in the area. Second, we wanted to support our government stance that we have rightful claims in the Spratly Islands, and that we have a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. Most importantly, we wanted to reflect the country’s desire for a peaceful settlement of the issue. This was the main objective. Going there in a civilian plane and leading a congressional delegation had a very high impact. We wanted to make clear the reality that this isn’t just a diplomatic game, but instead it’s about the interests of the people. We had several audiences, but we definitely wanted to signal to China that they can’t get away with such brash claims that the entire West Philippine Sea belongs to them. We wanted to remind Beijing that it can’t take its neighbors for granted and just advance any claim it wishes to.
This was also an effort on our part, in term of messaging to China, that it should not follow the path of other imperial powers. Unfortunately, in this case, China was threading this path, and we wanted it to move away form that path before it was too late. What we didn’t expect was the vehement Chinese reaction, when they condemned the mission, denying our right to visit the area. This made the issue even bigger and more controversial. I’m very surprised at how China’s diplomacy, known for its sophistication, made a very bad mistake by polarizing the issue further, coming off to the world as a bully. They were practically telling others where they can and can’t go.
What do you think is the main driver behind China’s increasingly assertive behavior in the area?
There are several explanations. First, geo-economic factors are at play, serving as a motivation for some actors in Beijing to think that given China’s economic trajectory – and all the needs of the country to reach developed country status – they need to secure as many resources as possible, particularly in resource-rich areas, such as the West Philippine Sea, which are adjacent to the mainland. So it’s basically about locking up necessary resources to keep up the economic push.
Another explanation is that since China has achieved the first stage of economic modernization, namely the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy, it has entered into a post-Deng period of “national assertiveness” in both the military and diplomatic realms. Third, China is developing its navy, and the navy has been aggressively espousing its bureaucratic interests at the expense of other branches of the military, by emphasizing China’s need to assert itself in adjacent maritime waters. This is, after all, about China’s long-term bid to match U.S. supremacy in global waters.
The three factors are interrelated explanations. I think all three are functioning here to a certain degree. Does this mean China is moving onto an imperial path? I don’t think so, but there’s a danger of it happening. Yet the cooler heads and more strategic minds could still prevent this.
What was your impression when the Department for Foreign Affairs and the armed forces decided to formally adopt your proposal to rename the disputed waters as the “West Philippine Sea”? Do you think this was a reflection of a renewed strategic posturing by the Philippine state, or more of a symbolic move to stoke brewing nationalist sentiment among the Filipino populace?
I think they were getting worried about Chinese incursions, and how they have been harassing our fishing boats and exploratory ships, preventing them from navigating the area. Perhaps they weren’t expecting our proposal to come up. I remember my earlier conversations with Department of Foreign Affairs people, who focused on territorial disputes in the area. They were very excited about the possibility of our proposal coming out. They reacted very positively and said our idea is very good. In light of our weak military capabilities, the resolution provided a symbolic counter-attack, which was very effective. They realized how powerful “discourse” is. People realized that discourse was power. So our proposal carried immense tactical and symbolic implications, which were welcomed by the executive branch as well as the country’s armed forces.
To what degree do you think America’s apparent decline is influencing China’s regional behavior? Is China exploiting a perceived shift in the global balance of power?
There’s a growing recognition that the U.S. has overextended its strategic reach, while China has risen to become the world’s second largest economy. Of course, it’s just a matter of time before China becomes the world’s preeminent economic power. Cognizant of America’s relative decline, and confident of China’s steady rise, it comes as no surprise if some hawks in Beijing and the People’s Liberation Army have this increasing feeling that China must have it’s place in the sun.
However, the trend towards greater assertiveness isn’t irreversible. There’s nothing inevitable with respect to China’s behavior. Surely, China can remain rational and calculated in its external behavior? In my opinion, China’s increasing assertiveness should be seen from a more structural, rather than ideological, point of view. The country’s resource-intensive export-oriented model of development has placed immense pressure on the state to secure as much in raw materials – from hydrocarbon resources to minerals and agricultural products – as possible to sustain its current pace of growth. Unless China makes a decisive shift towards a more stable and tempered form of domestic market oriented model of development, the Chinese state will always feel the compulsion to secure strategic natural resources at any cost. Therefore, it’s very important for China to focus on re-structuring its current model of development, which relies heavily on resource-import and energy-intensive production.
What’s your impression of the Obama administration’s apparent “re-focus” or “re-engagement” with the Asia-Pacific region? This was very explicit in Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy article, ‘America’s Pacific Century,’ which underlined America’s commitment to remain as an anchor of stability and prosperity in the trans-Pacific region. Strategically, do you think that this policy of “re-engagement” is simply a veiled attempt by Washington to “contain” or constrain China’s continued rise?
It seems a desperate effort by the Obama administration to disentangle from the Middle East in order to have a piece of the Asian miracle. There’s an element of a “scramble” for Asia’s booming markets. But, there’s nothing new with Obama’s policy. President Bill Clinton was among the first leaders to focus his efforts on East Asia, recognizing the region’s economic dynamism and the benefits of greater trans-Pacific economic interaction and cooperation. Despite his initial identification of China as a strategic competitor, the exigencies of the “War on Terror” forced President Bush to increase America’s cooperation with China and other East Asian countries. My sense is that Obama’s re-engagement with Asia is informed by a sense of panic with the pace of China’s rise. There seems to be this lurking nostalgia for containing China. But, China is simply too big and powerful to contain. Any attempt at containment is doomed to fail. Moreover, given how America is still embedded in the Middle East – in light of the Arab uprisings, growing tension with Iran, troubles in Iraq, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan – this shift or re-focus on the Asia-Pacific region would be very difficult.
Let’s talk about strategic options for the Philippines as far as managing territorial conflicts with China are concerned. Do you feel that ASEAN has the institutional requisites and necessary political will to be helpful on this issue? Or do you think that the Philippines should strengthen its alliance with the U.S. as some kind of hedge against Chinese aggression?
I think that there’s a fundamental zero-sum relationship between pursuing multilateral solutions, within the ASEAN framework and under the auspices of the UNCLOS, on the one hand, and creating a bipolar Sino-American face-off by bringing America into the picture, on the other. The Philippine state should choose the multilateral option as its sole strategy in dealing with our disputes in the West Philippine Sea. Sure, ASEAN has its own shortcomings, but serious issues of common concern, such as territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea, should serve as an impetus for greater institutional development.
There are a lot of opportunities and ways by which ASEAN could be more constructive and productive on this particular issue. I believe that it’s time for ASEAN to grow up, develop a collective security arrangement, push forward with the establishment of a regional economic bloc, and deepen its engagements with the region’s civil society. Such institutional growth and regional integration would allow ASEAN to play a more decisive role in managing and resolving territorial conflicts, which threaten regional stability and prosperity.
We already see some positive developments in dealing with disputes in the area. For instance, we have recently witnessed efforts by ASEAN leaders to draft and implement a more binding code of conduct in the West Philippine Sea. Development of appropriate guidelines would be extremely crucial, and such efforts are already underway. Most importantly, ASEAN should use its deepening economic interdependence with China as some sort of leverage to moderate Beijing’s behavior and encourage a more rational and peaceful resolution of conflicts. After all, China relies heavily on Southeast Asian countries’ resources to feed its booming economy and growing needs.
In your opinion, what’s the most optimal and effective solution or approach to our territorial concerns in the region? What sorts of strategies could we adopt to influence China’s behavior? Do we have any leverage on China at all, given its immense economic dominance in Southeast Asia?
In my opinion, there are three things that the Philippines should do. First, we should maintain a strong posture. This means that we have to clearly communicate to Beijing and our partners that while we are committed to a peaceful resolution of the dispute, we are also equally committed to our national territorial integrity. We are willing to use all diplomatic and political tools at our disposal in order to defend and protect our legitimate territorial claims in the West Philippine Sea.
Second, we have to emphasize a multilateral settlement of the issue. All claimant countries should come to the table and resolve this issue within a constructive atmosphere, which espouses dialogue, discourages the use of force, adheres to principles of international law, and respects regional norms as enshrined by the ASEAN charter.
Lastly, our allies and us should refrain from bringing America into the picture. This will only lead to a great power conflict, which would compromise our efforts to resolve conflicts in accordance with the principles of international law and regional dialogue.
Walden Bello is the author of more than a dozen books including ‘Dilemmas of Domination: The Unmaking of the American Empire (2005).’ He was awarded the Right Livelihood Award (also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize) in 2003.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Maximus
Walden Bello doesn’t speak for any one. he is given too much prominence by the Diplomat. I question the Diplomat for highlighting this issue the South China Sea.
Whores by any other name
I agree he was always a leftist and far too many in South East Asia give him Credit.
The Filipinos many are like bamboo they blow East and West.
One day America is no good the next day they need them. The Phillipines
had no problems under Estrada and Arroyo cutting Chinese deals that were detrimental to the country. Now they have second thoughts?
Jim Jacinto
There was a lot of should, could and more rhetoric followed by “unfortunately” in this article. What is the value of this interview besides of stating the obvious and a lot of wishful thinking? Furthermore, a lot of Filipinos happen to consider USA as an indispensable ally in forging any significant strategy against China.
Whores by any other name
Sadly, they see America as a paycheck ( green cards and jobs )and a free ride
with aid , last year $487US million
If they really wanted the US friendship why did the bases close
Cyrus14
Maybe because the Americans kept the Dictator in Power for 20 years? Meanwhile, when the Americans needed the Filipino in WWII we helped and did disrupt Jap operations with Guerilla Raids. We gave Americans the Jap Plans that we retrieve in WWII. We helped America in Korean War we send 3 Battalion comban Teams, we sent in our contingent in the Vietnam War.
When America told us to defend Bataan and Corregidor as long as we can and help is coming. We did, American help never arrived, add salt to the wounds the Americans back tracked on their promise of Pensions for the Veterans that helped fight the Japs.
Major Lowen Gil Marquez, Phil Army
The creation of Laws renaming to Western Philippine Sea, makes a big factors in legal, psychological arena in asserting our claims of Spratley Island, that group of Island belong to us and it was discovered by Pilipino Mariner and it should be protected and the Philippine flag were always permanent in that territory. . .
Liang1a
Major Lowen Gil Marquez, Phil Army wrote:
December 17, 2011 at 3:45 am
The creation of Laws renaming to Western Philippine Sea, makes a big factors in legal, psychological arena in asserting our claims of Spratley Island, that group of Island belong to us and it was discovered by Pilipino Mariner and it should be protected and the Philippine flag were always permanent in that territory.
———————————-
Liang’s response:
A Filipino pirate by the name of Cloma went sailing around Nansha A. in the 1950’s claiming every island he saw. The Chinese discovered these islands in the 3rd Century BCE. And the Philippines say they can discovered what the Chinese had discovered more than 2,000 years ago? Obviously the Filipinos are a bunch of liars and everything else they say or do are just as much lies and thieveries. It is time for China to take back its sovereign territories. There is no need to be gentle with these thugs. The only thing these thugs understand is a hard punch that can knock their teeth down their throats.
Jim Jacinto
In response to Liang:
Of course, China did discovered the Spratly Island in one of their trip to the Philippines to trade their wares a long time ago. The Philippines however, never had to discover these Islands as they are literally within the backyard of Sulu. News for you, no one in the world is buying your excuse to invade these islands. It’s time to brake the communist party and get you non-member peasants some human rights.
Pearl
You”re right Major lowen Gil marquez.
One more concrete and precise explanation and very legal in nature is the 200NAUTICAL MILE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE which was implemented by the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA. Every state has an extension of 200nautical mile from the state’s baselines.
Philippines has an undisputable soveriegn rights on the islands well within the 200nautical mile EEZ.
Walden Belo is a leftist an a communist puppet. Whatever Walden Bello here is saying are all against the government of the Philippines and for the benefit of his communist comrades.
I consider Walden Belo a parasite to the Filipino people. He is boasting for nothing and speaking detrimental to the progress of the Philippines as their motive is to destroy the government.
reddog
I’ve got a brilliant suggestion. Why not expand it and name it the North Australian Sea! That way Australia can legally lay claim to what was always their territorial sovereignty, The North Australian Island Group, previously known as the Dutch East Indies and now Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. The Spratleys could be renamed The Rudds, or something. And Indonesia incorporated into the Northern Territory and become Australia’s seventh state.
Missed your chance NZ, 111years ago, but not to worry, we’ll rename the south western pacific the Australian ocean. May as well hand over your sheep now and avoid any possible encounter with our aircraft carrying sub-contractors.
reddog
On a more serious note, why not give the heads of state involved in the dispute a trillion dollars each and then conduct a gambling winner takes all competition at the casino right here in the Territory!
I know a whole buch of Territorians would be happy with that.
However, I just can’t get the picture of an Aussie bombshell standing on Kuta beach in her come ravish me swimwear for a tourism advertisement beseaching viewers ‘This is Australia, where the bloody hell are you?’
Liang1a
Since China has been demonized as bellicose and assertive it might as well live up to the reputation and go ahead and be truly assertive. It should immediately declare war on those who have invaded Chinese sovereign territories such as Vietnam and Philippines. If they don’t get out of China’s sovereign territories then it should just blow them away. China should send it its naval vessels and pound them with big guns and missiles until no invaders are left on China’s sovereign islands. Then there will be peace in the SOUTH CHINA SEA.
John Chan
I believe China is working on the least lethal means to expel those squatters inside the nine-dotted line. I envisage the means as following:
1. Set up layered area denial off limit zones around those squatters using ASBM, long range curse missiles, etc. to stop the busy body from interfering the eviction.
2. Park aircraft carries outside the islands where are being occupied illegally by those squatters.
3. Use low intensity police force to evict those squatters. Perhaps cut off supply lines to those squatters, and starve those squatters to leave by themselves.
Liang1a
John Chan wrote:
December 17, 2011 at 7:56 pm
I believe China is working on the least lethal means to expel those squatters inside the nine-dotted line. I envisage the means as following:
1. Set up layered area denial off limit zones around those squatters using ASBM, long range curse missiles, etc. to stop the busy body from interfering the eviction.
2. Park aircraft carries outside the islands where are being occupied illegally by those squatters.
3. Use low intensity police force to evict those squatters. Perhaps cut off supply lines to those squatters, and starve those squatters to leave by themselves.
———————-
Liang’s response:
John Chan, China is not fighting the US in the S. China Sea. The fight will be against Vietnam and Philippines. These countries’ military is not even 1/10 of China’s military. Maybe 1/50 or 1/100. China can simply destroy all of Vietnam’s air force and navy in a matter of hours. Then China can order Vietnam’s occupying forces on the islands to get out. If they don’t then just blow them away. Philippines doesn’t even have jet fighters and its flag ship is a WW2 frigate that can barely float. Philippines doesn’t even have any kind of air force or navy for China to fight. There is no need to use aircraft carriers against these people. It’d be like using a cannon to shoot flies. All China needs is to send a couple of its modern Aegis class destroyers and it is more than enough. Also China’s J-10, J-11, Su-27, and Su-30 all have combat radii of 1,500 km and can reach the Nansha Islands to do battle against any invading forces. After the invaders are evicted, China can build air bases and naval bases on a few of the bigger islands. There is no need to make the problem bigger than it really is. China isn’t going to fight WW3 in the S. China Sea. Just kicking out a few backward thugs.
John Chan
@Liang1a,
Although China is not fighting the US, but USA is the root of the troubles China is facing. China has been dancing around US’ aggression very tactfully too. But USA is a self appointed world policeman and ultra exceptionalist; kicking American’s lackeys out of those disputed islands will provide the right excuses for the USA to rally all other members of the Westpac and nations in the SCS to put China back to the era of unequal treaties.
USA, Japan, SK and India all have barged in the disputes in the SCS uninvited, and I do not think China’s current naval and air strength is sufficient to deal with all those Vietnam and Philippines’ backers in the ocean. You might have a lot of confidence in your projection, but I can not share your confidence. PLA probably has similar line of thinking too, that’s why I guess China is not doing anything despite the provocations from Philippines, Vietnam, USA, Japan and India.
I believe PLA would take action if the odd were not against them seriously.
Liang1a
John Chan wrote:
December 18, 2011 at 5:16 pm
@Liang1a,
Although China is not fighting the US, but USA is the root of the troubles China is facing. China has been dancing around US’ aggression very tactfully too. But USA is a self appointed world policeman and ultra exceptionalist; kicking American’s lackeys out of those disputed islands will provide the right excuses for the USA to rally all other members of the Westpac and nations in the SCS to put China back to the era of unequal treaties.
————————————-
Liang’s response:
Most people have misunderstood America’s intentions with regard to China. America’s goals with respect to China are two. The first is to make sure China cannot attack America. The second is to exploit China’s economic wealth. During the Cold War era there were genuine concerns that China could unite with USSR and attack America like Japan had done. Or that China could kick America out of Asia as Japan intended to do. But since then, especially in the last couple of decades, American politicians no longer think it likely that China would pose a serious military or economic threat to America. Therefore, the main goal of America now is to pry open China totally so that American businesses can dominate China to squeaze it dry of every last bit of economic wealth. American businesses wuold like to export $1 trillion of goods to China; it also like to produce within China and sell to Chinese consumers $1 trillion of goods and services. Given such a goal America will not likely go to war with China for fear of either destroying China’s economy or to get itself kicked out of China. Not only that, but the current depleted state of the American economy makes it imperative for it to maintain the economic status quo where China can continue to ship cheap consumer products to American consumers while recycling hundreds of billions of dollars back to the American economy to allow the American consumers to keep buying to prop up the American economy. Therefore, given all of these factors it is simply impossible for America to go to war against China. The Chinese people are scaring themselves for nothing.
======================================
John Chan wrote:
December 18, 2011 at 5:16 pm
USA, Japan, SK and India all have barged in the disputes in the SCS uninvited, and I do not think China’s current naval and air strength is sufficient to deal with all those Vietnam and Philippines’ backers in the ocean. You might have a lot of confidence in your projection, but I can not share your confidence. PLA probably has similar line of thinking too, that’s why I guess China is not doing anything despite the provocations from Philippines, Vietnam, USA, Japan and India.
—————————
Liang’s response:
Obviously China is not strong enough now to fight the combined forces of US, Japan, Sk and India. But it is simply impossible for these countries to attack China in an all out way because there is simply no need for such a war. China’s mainland is impgregnable due to its very powerful army backed up with all the most modern conventional land weapons. While China’s air force and navy are still not as powerful as the combined air forces and navies of these attackers they are powerful enough to guard China’s mainland against invasions. Furthermore, America cannot move all its military forces to China because then it would be exposed from attack by other countries. And if America got seriously hurt by China, then Japan would take the opportunity to kick America out of Japan. Don’t think Japan is America’s faithful sidekick forever. There is no love in Japanese hearts for the Americans. And for the reasons I gave above the US will not attack China and Japan also cannot attack China for the same reasons. This is why Japan is now asking China to separate war and economy so that it can fight a war with China and still retain its businesses in China to continue to suck Chinese economic blood. But if China kick out Japanese businesses at the first shot of war then Japan will not continue fighting. SK cannot attack China because it has to go through NK. And India will not attack China because it will get attacked by Pakistan. Therefore, the war in SCS will be between China and Philippines and Vietnam. If China makes it clear that it will fight with everything it has then the US, Japan and India will not enter the war. But if China is weak and undecisive then it will embolden these to attack China. Not to help Philippines and Vietnam but to pry open China’s domestic economy even more.
In the end, China will gain much more than any minimal risk it runs. Frankly, I think Obama would rather see China settle the problem in the SCS quickly with force so that the tension can be resolved and everybody can turn to developing the economies without having this black cloud hanging over everybody’s head. America needs China to develop its economy as well as the economies of SE Asia. America gets no benefit if China is destroyed, or China kicks America out of China or SE Asia is underdeveloped. Therefore, America simply will not fight a war in SCS against China other than to bluff China into giving up even more economic concessions.
the southeastasian
The Chinese underdog to Uncle Sam is only a Paper Tiger! Is it easier to “retake” the biggest island in the Spratly, the Taiping island from Taiwan? You can build an Chinese unsinkable aircraft carrier. I would bet you that all “your backward thugs” would retreat from the other islands/rocks due their respect to China. The next step is retaking “your beloved lost territory” Taiwan to build a bigger unsinkable aircraft carrier in Pacific without any protest from China’s neighbors. China would be then a Middle Kingdom again with all respect from neighboring countries. You dont need to go war to your neigbors!
Cyrus14
Aircraft Carriers? Wow how many do you have its plural now is it?
Liang1a
Many people in the West are still acting like they own the world. They can’t seem to understand that their days as undisputed rulers of the world have come to an end. China is no longer the sick man that it was 200 years ago. Even though it is far from as powerful as it can be, it is nevertheless already strong enough to protect itself against the US and Japan and India. The US cannot fight any wars now since it is half dead economically and is being propped up by China’s cheap exports and China’s infusion of dollars. Even if the US should fight a war against China, there is no guarantee that it can win. There is every likelihood that China could again surprise it with vigorous and shocking tactics that could decimate much of America’s military hardware. China can blow Japan and India away individually or in combination. So those Westerners who still think they can push China around better wake up and take a reality check. Time has changed.
Whores by any other name
It was America and the west that revived China
and yes the West annihilated China in the last century, which was wrong.
But remember what Japan Thought and the response don’t toot your horn too
loud you might need it to stick up your nose
JohnX
John Chan wrote
“I believe China is working on the least lethal means to expel those squatters inside the nine-dotted line. I envisage the means as following:
1. Set up layered area denial off limit zones around those squatters using ASBM, long range curse missiles, etc. to stop the busy body from interfering the eviction.
2. Park aircraft carries outside the islands where are being occupied illegally by those squatters.
3. Use low intensity police force to evict those squatters. Perhaps cut off supply lines to those squatters, and starve those squatters to leave by themselves.”
I hope you are being sarcastic John Chan.
That is the most boneheaded of ideas in the world. You might as well just say that you want to start a fight. Plus, what makes you think that they will play by your rules.
You invade their EEZ, you plant Naval vessels in thier waters, you send ’so called policeman to capture thier citizens’ and you say’its all thier fault. we are the victims.
I mean seriously, what do you think they will do and what do you do when you have to fight a big bully but you know you wont win by yourself? You get as many small guys who also don’t like the bully and you defeat him. One hits him head on, the other hits him from the side, the back etc.
He goes down and then you put the boot into him. I mean seriously, do you want China to get a beating, because thats what will happen if China acts like a bully as you and Lingua1 seem to want. Japan with all its military strenght, its weakened enemies and its agreements with Germany and Russia didn’t win WW2, what makes you so sure China has a prayer if it starts a war?
Plus, what about your supply routes, your access to oil, material resources, etc. If you start invading your neighbors, do you really think that distant nations wont notice and stop selling you goods. Do you want to go to war with the world?
Look at the USA, even with all its power it has to take into consideration others opinions. It also has many friends and they still wont let the US get away with somethings.
Liang1a
JohnX wrote:
December 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm
John Chan wrote
“I believe China is working on the least lethal means to expel those squatters inside the nine-dotted line. I envisage the means as following:
1. Set up layered area denial off limit zones around those squatters using ASBM, long range curse missiles, etc. to stop the busy body from interfering the eviction.
2. Park aircraft carries outside the islands where are being occupied illegally by those squatters.
3. Use low intensity police force to evict those squatters. Perhaps cut off supply lines to those squatters, and starve those squatters to leave by themselves.”
John X’s response:
I hope you are being sarcastic John Chan.
That is the most boneheaded of ideas in the world. You might as well just say that you want to start a fight. Plus, what makes you think that they will play by your rules.
———————————-
Liang’s comment:
Of course China can start a fight. Who is going to stop it? Philippines? Japan? India? The US? Do you think any of these can stop China? The truth is Philippines, Vietnam, India, Japan, the US, etc. are not at all important to China because China can develop much faster without these parasites. The best thing that could happen to China is for these parasites to cut off trade with China so that it can turn inward to develop its internal economy for the benefit of the Chinese people as a whole instead of squandering its energy and resources propping up parasitic foreigners’ moribund economies.
==================================
JohnX wrote:
You invade their EEZ, you plant Naval vessels in thier waters, you send ’so called policeman to capture thier citizens’ and you say’its all thier fault. we are the victims.
———————————-
Liang’s comment:
Just a minute. Did you say “their EEZ”? Obviously you’re confused. They are China’s EEZ. The islands are China’s islands. Each island owned by China has its own EEZ. Therefore, they are China’s EEZ. And China wants these invaders out of China’s sovereign territorial islands and China’s EEZ.
==============================
JohnX wrote:
Plus, what about your supply routes, your access to oil, material resources, etc. If you start invading your neighbors, do you really think that distant nations wont notice and stop selling you goods. Do you want to go to war with the world?
Look at the USA, even with all its power it has to take into consideration others opinions. It also has many friends and they still wont let the US get away with somethings.
——————————
Liang’s comment:
Philippines and Vietnam are deadbeats. China does not need them. Therefore, China should write them off as junk. China should concentrate on Laos and Cambodia. With Laos and Cambodia on its side China can isolate Vietnam. Then China can get Malaysia on its side because Malaysia hates Philippines. With Malaysia on its side, its sea lane through Malacca St. is secured. China can also build a naval and air base on Sabah which will allow it to protect Malaysia against Philippines while isolating Philippines from the rest of ASEAN. With Australia now hosting American military base, Indonesia is swinging to China’s side. And with Indonesia and Malaysia on China’s side, Singapore will have no choice but to swing over to China’s side also. And Thailand will be facing China on 3 sides and must also make peace with China. And Burma too will feel compelled to get back into China’s good graces. Then there will be peace in S. E. Asia with Vietnam in a box and Philippines ostracized. And peace will reign in S. E. Asia and grow prosperous. Philippines in the meanwhile will rot under the neglect of the US who won’t spend a dime to help it grow. Anyway, the US is broke so it can’t help Philippines anyway.
Nobody cares about what any other nations are doing. America attacks everybody. Does anybody care? Of course not. Everybody is eager to do business with America because they want to make money. Do you think any African country will refuse to sell billions of dollars worth of copper or platinum because China kicked Philippines’ teeth down its throat for whatever reason? China can tell these African countries that it is defending its sovereign territories. And they will be too happy to believe it. Of course, in this case it is actually the truth anyway. But even if China were committing naked aggression like America in Iraq, still they will believe China. Money trumps everything.
JohnX
An EEZ is a 200 km distance from the large land mass. It does not include reefs that are below water or small islands, those include a smaller distance.
Plus, even if it does, the distance is split equally between two nations according to the Law of the Sea, so it would still not include everything that you want it too.
Plus, when you consider that the China of today only has claims to what the CCP Government can claim, not what past Dynasties may have had (a claim does not make it so, as Britain can rightfully show).
Its not your territory, its still contested. Until the contestment is settled one way or the other, China has no more rights in that area than anyone else. Those rules have existed for thousands of years.
Today in the 21st Century, there are laws of the Sea, EEZ rules etc, that make it a different kettle of fish. I am sorry Liangua1, but saying something is yours does not make it so.
Though, if you use force to make something yours that may or may not be, then it enters into new areas.
Plus who can stop you from using force to take the area? Any and all the countries that border that area and working together can stop you. Plus, then you have nations further away that have close ties with those nations can support them to stop Chinese aggresion.
Its not an easy issue, Liangua1. Conflict never is and even when a nation appears to have a reason for action, the issue is not so clear once conflict starts.
JohnX
Liangua1,
I have re-read what you wrote and all I must say is that in all likelehood you propose the same actions that the extreme Japanese right did in the 1930s.
That ended badly for them as many nations did find they had problems with naked aggression. The environment is even more difficult today as many nations in that area have problems with not just current Chinese issues but also past.
Though whatever happens, I must warn you that if you continue to promote an aggressive militaristic China then you will be responsible for the crimes of such a nation. Many post WW2 Japanese came to regret thier support for a militaristic Japan and have had to carry the shame for thier actions for the rest of thier lives.
An aggressive militaristic China that acts like Japan did in the past is no better for world affairs than a rabid dog is for a family. Its better for China and its people to work peacefully with its neighbors and according to international law.
Cyrus14
Japan went to war with the US even if it dreaded the idea because they are running out of Oil.
Do you actually think your Oil supply can reach you with the US Presence in the Middle East? India in the Indian Ocean? Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand in the ASEAN Supply route?
I never thought Chinese are this stupid not to consider their supply routes before espousing war.
Liang1a
JohnX wrote:
December 18, 2011 at 3:07 am
An EEZ is a 200 km distance from the large land mass. It does not include reefs that are below water or small islands, those include a smaller distance.
————————–
Liang’s response:
First the EEZ is 200 nautcal miles and not 200 km. It is not from “large land mass” but from any coast including an island that qualifies as an island under the Regime of Islands provision of UNCLOS. There are many islands that satisfy the Regime of Island provision of UNCLOS among the islands of Nansha A. Also China can use the straight line method to define its coastal baseline in the Nansha A. Then the EEZ can extend from the baseline out 200 nm.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm
UNCLOS
Article121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is
above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous
zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are
determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to
other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own
shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
===================================
JohnX wrote:
Plus, even if it does, the distance is split equally between two nations according to the Law of the Sea, so it would still not include everything that you want it too.
——————
Liang’s response:
If the distance is split then the midpoint will be very close to the 9-dotted line boundary.
==================================
JohnX wrote:
Plus, when you consider that the China of today only has claims to what the CCP Government can claim, not what past Dynasties may have had (a claim does not make it so, as Britain can rightfully show).
—————–
Liang’s response:
This is flatly not true. China is a continuing nation that stretch back to the first dynasty which is the Xia Dynasty some 5,000 years ago. The CCP is just a government of the long existing Chinese nation. China is 中国. CCP is 中华人民共和国 which means the People’s Republic of “China”. Therefore, the two refer to the same political entity which is China. Therefore, China today can legally claim anything and everything China possessed thousands of years ago.
If you look at the China article in Wiki you see the following quote:
“China i/ˈtʃaɪnə/ (Chinese: 中国/中华; pinyin: Zhōngguó/Zhōnghuá; see also Names of China), officially the People’s Republic of China (PRC), is the most populous state in the world, with over 1.3 billion citizens.”
From this quote you can see that China is the nation and that PRC is only the current offial name. Therefore, China and PRC are referring to one and the same political entity.
============================
JohnX wrote:
Its not your territory, its still contested. Until the contestment is settled one way or the other, China has no more rights in that area than anyone else. Those rules have existed for thousands of years.
———————–
Liang’s response:
Such claims by other countries are facetious and baseless. Philippines’ claim is based on the “discovery” by a Filipino pirate in the 1950’s. This is obviously facetious because it is not possible to discover something the Chinese had already discovered thousands of years ago. The Vietnamese claimed they had “discovered” these islands in the 17th Century. Again this is facetious. Therefore, China does not need to dignify these facetious claims. It can simply wipe these invaders out of China’s sovereign territories. Do you think Japan would dignify a claim from S. Korea for Kyushu?
=======================
JohnX wrote:
Today in the 21st Century, there are laws of the Sea, EEZ rules etc, that make it a different kettle of fish. I am sorry Liangua1, but saying something is yours does not make it so.
———————–
Liang’s response:
Of course there are laws. The common international law would uphold China’s claim if honestly applied. Of course, saying something is your does not make it so. Therefore, the Filipinos and Vietnamese are liars and China should slap them down for committing acts of war against China.
========================
JohnX wrote:
Though, if you use force to make something yours that may or may not be, then it enters into new areas.
Plus who can stop you from using force to take the area? Any and all the countries that border that area and working together can stop you. Plus, then you have nations further away that have close ties with those nations can support them to stop Chinese aggresion.
——————–
Liang’s response:
Let them try to attack China. You are unrealistic if you think you are on the right and moral side of the invasion. China is on the right side and will defend its rightful sovereign territories. And who will fight China in the SCS? Nobody other than Philippines and Vietnam. In fact, I don’t even think these 2 thugs will fight China if China really starts shooting at them. They’d just turn tail and evacuate their invasion forces and go home. What friends do Philippines and Vietnam have? Who in SCS will help these two thugs? You think Indonesia and Malaysia will fight for them? Do you think Laos and Cambodia will fight for them? Do you think Thailand and Burma will fight for them? And do you think Singapore will fight for them? If you do, then you don’t know anything.
===========================
JohnX wrote:
Its not an easy issue, Liangua1. Conflict never is and even when a nation appears to have a reason for action, the issue is not so clear once conflict starts.
—————————
Liang’s response:
It is a clearcut issue. This is nothing more than an untenable invasion. China can and must terminate this by the use of force.
And can you at least get my name right? It is Liang1a.
francis
nothing will ever happen to what you are saying…
John Chan
@JohnX,
China does not pick a fight against anybody; China is only recovering its territory encroached by illegal squatters from Vietnam and Philippines. Evicting squatters is a matter of maintaining a nation’s law and order, that’s why China will only use law enforcement units to evict those squatters. All of those actions are international norm; there is no need for any other nation to get upset and involved, because they will do the same in the same circumstance.
Both Philippines and Vietnam are rascal states, they have been causing untold amount of troubles to their ASENA brothers, other ASEAN members would appreciate very much if China could rein those rascals in so that all of them can focus on building nation and improve living standard for their citizens instead of being dragged into meaningless lackey activities that serve the interests of their ex-colonial masters only.
Once the disputes get out of the way, China and all nations in the SCS can cooperate to develop the resources in their nations, and the new era of a prosper Asia can start.
JohnX
Ok John Chan, then do the World and your neighbors a favour and state your claims. Final and set, what do you want?
Then under the rules of the Sea and International maritime law take it to courts and make it a court with Judges made up from countries with no dogs in the fight.
Under international law and the agreements that China has agreed too, make your case and accept the verdict.
This needs to be done as while you can claim:
“Both Philippines and Vietnam are rascal states, they have been causing untold amount of troubles to their ASENA brothers, other ASEAN members would appreciate very much if China could rein those rascals in so that all of them can focus on building nation and improve living standard for their citizens instead of being dragged into meaningless lackey activities that serve the interests of their ex-colonial masters only.”
Other nations may have different points of view as to what rights they have. Thus let this be determined, Judged and settled.
If China is in the right, then they will win the case and if Vietnam and Philippines are in the right then they will win.
You cant keep on saying its your land and we claim such and such without getting it settled. If China keeps on intruding into Vietnamese EEZ then they are responsible for any misunderstandings and same rule applies to Vietnam vice versa.
Also mention to Lingua, that Mischief reef was a reef that was under water for 12 hrs out of every day and was called a reef not an Island. Then the Chinese navy built the reef up and made a naval resupply base on it and made an area claim from that point. It happens to be in Philippine area of interest and that was one of the issues that causes worries for them.
“The Philippines once largely controlled this feature. Filipino fishermen used to fish at the reef.[2][3][4] In 1994, the PRC built initial structures on stilts here while the Philippine Navy was not patrolling the area due to a monsoon season. Since the reef is just 130 miles (209 km) away from Palawan, well inside the Philippines’ EEZ, the Philippines immediately protested this action. However, China rejected the protest and stressed that the structures were shelter for fishermen. In 1999, another wave of protests from Manila occurred when China added more structures to Mischief Reef which resembled military installations more closely than shelters for fishermen.[4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_Reef
Oh what they dont say in that is the PLAN now calls it a naval resupply and fuel depot or they did in a couple of years ago. Wiki needs to be updated.
It these reasons that they want it discussed in a multi national environment and not in a one room two nation negotiating system where one of the parties negotiators oils his sidearm and makes off the cuff remarks that Chinese naval forces need to expand. This tends to frighten smaller nations when they are negotiating.
Cam
@john chan,
Stay where you are. Hainan is the southernmost of China territory. ASEAN is for ASEAN only, China has no parts on it. It is China’s thugging behavior that is trying the dirty tactics of “divide and conquer” among ASEAN member states. They need to be tough with “the sick man of Asia”.
John Chan’s Ancestor
John, you need to stop working with the CCP against your own kind, the Bai-Yueh. We’re ashamed because of you.
Kimbo Y. Laurel
I think that if China is going aggressive on their neighbors, it will just intense anger on the neighboring countries to form an economic and military bloc against China.Consequently, China will be increasingly isolated which is not good for the country. It is better to win the hearts and mind of the neighbors than ruthlessly against them. Plus I am not a big fan of Walden Bello for advocates an economic protectionist measures.
Whores by any other name
ASEAN sold the bill of good that China was your best new century friend
China steals technology and does not play by any rules, so hold on to your hats
and get ready for reality. ASEAN cannot save your asses. Make up your minds
who will be your friends.
The so-called economic miracle was suppose to happen for Japan in the 80s
and for Asia in this decade. Without selling your wares to the EU and USA
the bubbles created In China and South East Asia will pop once again.
Thailand floods
Philippines,floods
Japan meltdown. come on Asia speak to me.
If the USA goes down further what will you do for markets?
Stay awake and look around your neighbors don’t need your goods
the West does
Cyrus14
We have always been a loyal ally. Though we are trying to decrease our dependence on the United States history teaches us that.
Just look up Bataan and Corregidor, on what happened to the American Helped promised to us if we keep on fighting the Japs. America choose to attack Europe first and abandon the Philippines to its fate.
We did our end of the bargain we fought as hard as we can and is the only Nation in Asia able to hold the Japanese that long. You even took away the Pensions that was rightfully our Veterans.
Cyrus14
Communist fighting Communist, this is exciting.
I do not particularly like Bello being a Communist but I now believe in the saying “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, though I understand why he doesn’t want the US to get involved because he is a Communist and a strong and influential US in good terms with the Philippines is against the CPP interests.