War in South China Sea?

[Queenmandy85]

All power comes from the payload of an ICBM.

[herples]

The presence of Taiwan or Vietnam is irrelevant to the ruling which basically rejected all of China's claims (i.e. the fact that Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims is immaterial). In practice China will ignore the ruling but it does establish that that China is willing to ignore the treaties it signs whenever they are inconvenient. This should be a warning for any country that thinks they can sign any treaty with China because there is zero chance that China will honour the terms.

Your post makes no sense at all.

[betsy]

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Walkers_World_War_in_South_China_Sea_999.html

I honestly forgot which thread topic it was in, but I remember having a discussion a few weeks back on the topic of the next world war, with the Chinese being a key participant:

They’re referring to the Spratly Islands for those not in the know.........

More racial harmony from the Middle Kingdom…….interestingly enough, both nations of “monkeys” have been recently conducting naval exercises with the United States.

Ahhh……The Americans won’t intervene……..Tora, Tora, Tora

Ahh…..India, one of the other Asian nuclear powers……..whom don’t really get along with their nuclear neighbour……Pakistan, the very nation that has had it’s intelligence agency involved in attacks on US forces in Afghanistan

Last time the US defence budget didn’t allow for a strengthen of forces on Guam, the world was just coming out of the great depression………….Like I said to Jacee(?) don’t waste your time protesting the “current system”, and don’t worry about the global economy and an increase on social spending to get us out of the financial mess………We’ll revert back to that age old trick of sorting out our problems……….in the end, what’s left of Red China, can use their current holdings of US T-bills to keep warm, for that is all they’ll be worth.......

The Philippines has the right. It's been decided.

South China Sea: Court rules in favor of Philippines over China

An international tribunal in The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines in a maritime dispute Tuesday, concluding China has no legal basis to claim historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea.

Chinese President Xi Jinping rejected the decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which is likely to have lasting implications for the resource-rich hot spot, which sees $5 trillion worth of shipborne trade pass through each year.

"China will never accept any claim or action based on those awards," Xi said. China had boycotted the proceedings.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/asia/china-philippines-south-china-sea/

It doesn't bode well though. There could be war over this.

Edited August 7, 2016 by betsy

[eyeball]

Well, there's bound to be a war over resources before too long...who shoots first is really neither here nor there.

[TimG]

Your post makes no sense at all.

What was too hard to understand? That the UNCLOS ruling on the merits of Chinese claims is not affected by the claims of other parties or that China any treaties that China signs are worthless because China won't abide by them if it is inconvenient? Edited August 8, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

The presence of Taiwan or Vietnam is irrelevant to the ruling which basically rejected all of China's claims (i.e. the fact that Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims is immaterial). In practice China will ignore the ruling but it does establish that that China is willing to ignore the treaties it signs whenever they are inconvenient. This should be a warning for any country that thinks they can sign any treaty with China because there is zero chance that China will honour the terms.

All countries ignore treaties that they find inconvenient, or they simply absolve themselves of them. See Israel ignoring the Geneva Conventions, or the US unilaterally dissolving the ABM treaty, and every country on earth ignoring their Kyoto commitments, or Russia's adventures in Crimea and Georgia.

That's because there's really no such thing as international law. Might makes right, and laws are enforced only when there's a "posse" willing to enforce them, and the posse only rides if its in their own direct interests.

The balance of power in the world is changing because of incidents like Iraq and Afghanistan where the west showed it cannot bear the cost of major conflicts, nor can it achieve its goals. So countries like Russia and China are poking at and prodding at the western global security network... testing it... Seeing how far they can bend the rules...

But make no mistake about it. China will only go so far... they are completely and utterly dependent on western consumer markets, and its the huge amount of business we do with them that will avoid a major confrontation, not our military or blustering from our leaders or the paper tigers that the UN and NATO have become.

[TimG]

But make no mistake about it. China will only go so far..

After Tienanmen China started preaching extreme hate-filled nationalism to children in order to distract people from pushing for democracy and a free press. This has grown into a monster which the party can no longer completely control. It quite possible that the navy will start a war without seeking permission first and the Chinese government will be forced to back them up or face a huge loss of face.

IOW - no one can say China will 'only go so far'. It is possible that the non-response of US could be the best given the character of China but at some point it will come to head. Chinese nationalists have started talking about taking Okinawa back from the Japanese (a lovely piece of revisionist history since Okinawa was never part of China).

Edited August 8, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

Your post makes no sense at all.

Are you having trouble reading English?

[dre]

After Tienanmen China started preaching extreme hate-filled nationalism to children in order to distract people from pushing for democracy and a free press. This has grown into a monster which the party can no longer completely control. It quite possible that the navy will start a war without seeking permission first and the Chinese government will be forced to back them up or face a huge loss of face.

IOW - no one can say China will 'only go so far'. It is possible that the non-response of US could be the best given the character of China but at some point it will come to head. Chinese nationalists have started talking about taking Okinawa back from the Japanese (a lovely piece of revisionist history since Okinawa was never part of China).

Anything is possible but I find your scenario to be extremely unlikely. Chinese forces are well disciplined, and there's a strong top-down command structure. Its very unlikely they would ever fire the first shot in ANY conflict without a direct order from the government lead CMC.

[herples]

What was too hard to understand? That the UNCLOS ruling on the merits of Chinese claims is not affected by the claims of other parties or that China any treaties that China signs are worthless because China won't abide by them if it is inconvenient?

UNCLOS isn't an organization it's a treaty. And the arbitration isn't valid since for one you can't have an arbitration by yourself it involves other parties as well and those parties are Taiwan, Vietnam and China. China refused and Vietnam and Taiwan were not invited. The Philippines has the weakest claim since there is not map in the history of the Philippines that showed it having the Spratley Islands. The islands were not part of the Philippines when it was transferred by Spain to the Americans and not ever when it became independent.

http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=Asia&item=/Asia1905h.sid&wid=500&hei=400&props=item(Name,Description),cat(Name,Description)&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl#

Are you having trouble reading English?

What is the relevance of your post exactly?

[TimG]

UNCLOS isn't an organization it's a treaty.

And the arbitration panel ruled that China's claims are completely invalid under the terms of the treaty. It did not make any definitive ruling on the Philippines claim - just that China is in violation of its treaty obligations. The presence of Vietnam (which does not dispute those islands) or Taiwan is irrelevant.

Frankly, playing legalistic games like that simply illustrate how ridiculous the Chinese claims are.

I am aware that China will simply bully its way to take what it wants from weaker nations and that is the way of the world. But lets not pretend that China is anything other than a pathetic bully intent on stealing what does not belong to them.

Edited August 9, 2016 by TimG

[herples]

And the arbitration panel ruled that China's claims are completely invalid under the terms of the treaty. It did not make any definitive ruling on the Philippines claim - just that China is in violation of its treaty obligations. The presence of Vietnam (which does not dispute those islands) or Taiwan is irrelevant.

Frankly, playing legalistic games like that simply illustrate how ridiculous the Chinese claims are.

I am aware that China will simply bully its way to take what it wants from weaker nations and that is the way of the world. But lets not pretend that China is anything other than a pathetic bully intent on stealing what does not belong to them.

And China did not agree to participate in the arbitration which means there was nothing for the panel to arbitrate if one side isn't at the table.

Here are the rules http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/10_1_1958.pdf

at the very beginning.

PREAMBLE The undertaking to arbitrate is based on the following fundamental rules:

1. Any undertaking to have recourse to arbitration in order to settle a dispute between States constitutes a legal obligation which must be carried out in good faith.

2. Such an undertaking results from agreement between the parties and may relate to existing disputes or to disputes arising subsequently.

3. The undertaking must be embodied in a written instrument, whatever the form of the instrument may be.

4. The procedures suggested to States Parties to a dispute by these model rules shall not be compulsory unless the States concerned have agreed, either in the compromis or in some other undertaking, to have recourse thereto.

5. The parties shall be equal in all proceedings before the arbitral tribunal.

1. Where a State, State-controlled entity, or intergovernmental organization has agreed with one or more States, State-controlled entities, intergovernmental organizations, or private parties that disputes between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual, treatybased, or otherwise, shall be referred to arbitration under the Permanent Court of Arbitration Arbitration Rules 2012 (hereinafter the “Rules”), then such disputes shall be settled in accordance with these Rules subject to such modification as the parties may agree.

Rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, rules the court themselves ignored.

https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2015/11/PCA-Arbitration-Rules-2012.pdf

[TimG]

And China did not agree to participate in the arbitration which means there was nothing for the panel to arbitrate if one side isn't at the table.

China did not agree because was fully aware that it is violating the treaty. The fact that China did not participate does not make the ruling incorrect.

The question is why doesn't China have the honesty to admit that does not care about such treaties and plans to do whatever pleases. Why does China insist on such silly legalistic games to avoid stating what everyone in the world knows?

Edited August 9, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

The question is why doesn't China have the honesty to admit that does not care about such treaties and plans to do whatever pleases. Why does China insist on such silly legalistic games to avoid stating what everyone in the world knows?

The same reason any other super-power does when it feels entitled to what it wants.

[bjre]

I am aware that China will simply bully its way to take what it wants from weaker nations and that is the way of the world. But lets not pretend that China is anything other than a pathetic bully intent on stealing what does not belong to them.

It is funny that you can not see US constantly bully Canada and the rest of the world, but you can recognize something else as bullying.

Heres the twisted part.According to my wife,the USA is supporting Vietnams position now(because its the anti-Chinese thing to do).

Why aren't the Americans trying to be the peacemaker hear(their so-called traditional roll).

Mafia love to say they love peace too.

It has nothing to do with peace making, It is about US interest. It is about US does not like China develop without give it enough protect fees.

The CIA Director John Brennan has said.

...

"I met with the heads of the services, intelligence services, from the ASEAN countries, as well as with my Chinese counterpart, as a way to maintain the dialogue and to let them know that the US treats this region of the world very seriously, and we have very important national-security interests that we're not going step away from.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/there-is-a-reason-for-us-to-pay-attention-to-what-china-do-john-brennan/articleshow/52982956.cms

Or are the US intentionally trying to escalate this conflict?

Definitely.

The US would create conflicts to justify their presence in the resource rich continent by any means including a way to generate a crisis within their targeted area of interest. As Rahm Emanuel, the former Chief of Staff to US President Barack Obama once said “no crisis should go to waste” is a motto that Washington is obviously using.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-invades-africa-the-resource-war-and-the-invasion-of-mali/5315477

[eyeball]

It is funny that you can not see US constantly bully Canada and the rest of the world, but you can recognize something else as bullying.

Are you suggesting it takes a bully to know one?

You'll get no argument from me.

[marcus]

It quite possible that the navy will start a war without seeking permission first and the Chinese government will be forced to back them up or face a huge loss of face.

What? The navy will go to war without the permission of the government? How did you come up with that?

[Big Guy]

What? The navy will go to war without the permission of the government? How did you come up with that?

Interesting. The you would have to believe that the reverse was true: The navy will not go to war when ordered by the government.

Might happen with President Trump.

[TimG]

What? The navy will go to war without the permission of the government? How did you come up with that?

Navy has weapons. They have the power to act without approval. The PLA is also filled with pro-China bigots who think China should just take whatever it wants. The only question is how the government reacts. If a US officer acted without approval, he would be court martial and the US would seek a diplomatic resolution. If a Chinese officer did such a thing the Chinese obsession with "saving face" could leave the government unable to repudiate the actions even if it was not ordered.

[bjre]

It quite possible that the navy will start a war without seeking permission first and the Chinese government will be forced to back them up or face a huge loss of face.

Sound like you are the boss of the US navy. And of course the puppet-master of the US government. That's why you said Trump has only little money, that imply you have more money than Trump?

So you call it "the navy", that tells you are from US. You have already planed how the war will start?. Are other conflicts happened all over the world recently planed by you too?

[marcus]

Navy has weapons. They have the power to act without approval. The PLA is also filled with pro-China bigots who think China should just take whatever it wants. The only question is how the government reacts. If a US officer acted without approval, he would be court martial and the US would seek a diplomatic resolution. If a Chinese officer did such a thing the Chinese obsession with "saving face" could leave the government unable to repudiate the actions even if it was not ordered.

I'm still trying to figure out how you came up with the assumption that the Chinese navy would go to war without the approval of the government. Is there a rift between them? Is there a history of Chinese military going against their government?

[herples]

China did not agree because was fully aware that it is violating the treaty. The fact that China did not participate does not make the ruling incorrect.

The question is why doesn't China have the honesty to admit that does not care about such treaties and plans to do whatever pleases. Why does China insist on such silly legalistic games to avoid stating what everyone in the world knows?

The fact China did not participate makes the ruling nonsense. An arbitration requires that two countries be in agreement for it.

Edited August 12, 2016 by herples

[TimG]

The fact China did not participate makes the ruling nonsense. An arbitration requires that two countries be in agreement for it.

You don't understand what arbitration means. It is used only when two parties do not agree and an independent arbitrator looks at the rules and makes a ruling on who is correct.

I get that China does not care about international law and it wants to re-create the great power era that brought us so many wonderful things like WWI. What I don't get is why apologists for China can't concede that China is willfully breaking the terms of UNCLOS through its actions in the south china sea.

Edited August 12, 2016 by TimG

[herples]

You don't understand what arbitration means. It is used only when two parties do not agree and an independent arbitrator looks at the rules and makes a ruling on who is correct.

I get that China does not care about international law and it wants to re-create the great power era that brought us so many wonderful things like WWI. What I don't get is why apologists for China can't concede that China is willfully breaking the terms of UNCLOS through its actions in the south china sea.

I have posted before what the UN and ICJ consider to be a valid arbitration. It is valid when both parties agree to arbitration over a matter.

[TimG]

I have posted before what the UN and ICJ consider to be a valid arbitration. It is valid when both parties agree to arbitration over a matter.

The point that you are missing is that criticism does not make the ruling on the rules wrong. It is equivalent to a judge dismissing a murder charge on appeal because the police did not follow the rules. The murderer may not technically get convicted but the original finding of guilt is still a valid statement of facts even if it has no legal relevance.

By arguing procedural errors you are saying China wants to be vindicated by a technicality.

Edited August 12, 2016 by TimG