China and US at it again

[xul]

3) is the most common resolution between civilized countries (e.g. Canada and US).

So, even civilized countries like Canada and US, also need to calculate their chance of winning a military showdown to decide whether or not to count on UN or ICJ

The NWP is a more murky situation since the presumption is the NWP are Canadian internal waters unless it is an existing shipping lane. The US has deliberately sent ships through the NWP in order to establish its use as a shipping lane. In the end, Canada and the US will agree to disagree on the NWP status since Canada has no way to block ships from using the passage nor is is it in Canada's interest to engage in a military showdown over the passage.

[xul]

International law already grants countries economic rights to the waters going out 200 nautical miles. The Chinese are ignoring this and threatening smaller neighbours out of greed and avarice, projecting imperialist power in an attempt to steal other people's territory.

Have you ever seen Canadian grandpas and grandmas driving 1970-aged cars on roads?

Obviously these cars can not pass present emission tests but the laws simply don't require them to do the test.

Why?

Because these cars had already been on roads before the emission laws was taken effect. So these grandpas and grandmas have their rights to keep their cars.

China claimed the islands far before the year when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea took effect, so UNCLOS can not re-define the ownership of these islands.

For example:

If there is an island between country A and country B. The island is within the EEZ of country B, but before the UNCLOS took effect, it was already the territory of country A. According to the rules of UNCLOS , the maritime boundary shoud be between the island and the shore of country B. Because the island also has it own EEZ and it is country A's EEZ. In this case, country B's EEZ can not re-define which country the island belongs.

If you check the map, you will find Tsushima Island is just between Korea and Japan and within the range of 200 nautical miles from Korean shore. But Korean can not claim Tsushima based on this. On the contrary, Japan can use Tsushima to push its EEZ boundary further to Korean side.

Edited November 2, 2015 by xul

[Argus]

Have you ever seen Canadian grandpas and grandmas driving 1970-aged cars on roads?

Oh stop embarrassing yourself. The suggestion China owned these waters, far, far from China long before the law of the sea was established is one of those blandly nonsensical claims that no one but an autocratic government full of bureaucrats afraid of pointing out the truth to their masters can produce.

It really boils down to one thing. The only way China is going to get its claws on that territory is to fight for it, and if you fight you lose, and go back to being a shit hole country full of peasants rooting in the rice paddies.

[-1=e^ipi]

International law is clearly on the side of the US in this dispute since the law says quite clearly that a country can't create artificial islands and then claim sovereign rights.

Not all of the Spratly Islands are artificial. And if you look at the land claims, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has the best claim to the Islands. As far as I am concerned, without the permission of Taiwan, the US is trespassing.

Malaysia, Philippines and Brunei's claims all depend on the islands becoming res nullius after WW2, which is absurd, the Spratly Islands were part of Taiwan administered by Japan at the end of WW2, and then Taiwan was given back to the Republic of China after WW2.

Vietnam gave up claim to the Spratly islands in 1887 after the French-Sino war and China never ceded their claim. The Republic of China was awarded the Islands after WW2.

That leaves the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. Given that the Republic of China had control over China before the civil war, and the People's Republic of China never conquered the Spratly Islands nor Taiwan during the civil war, the Spratly Islands nor Taiwan can be considered territory of the People's Republic of China.

[-1=e^ipi]

the Communist party lead Chinese people drive all the aggressors away. Now it becomes great sucessful to becomes the 2nd largest economy in the world.

Wow the communist propaganda you must have been brainwashed with.

China is the world's second largest economy primarily because it has 1.4 billion people. The communists just held China back economically for decades. The only reason China has experienced such rapid economic growth was because they were held back for decades by the communists and what China is experiencing is a catch-up effect. If the Republic of China won the civil war, rather than the People's Republic of China, China would be as rich as South Korea or Taiwan are today.

As for many people dead in the first few years was caused by multiple reason, nature disasters, the distroyed economy during the wars, the sanction lead by US and others.

And Mao. You forget Mao.

China involve Korean war is after US army reach the border between China and Korea and US bomb already dropped into China, so China drive US back to the 38 line and return back. It was US that want to invade China from Korea the help KMT fight back to China from Taiwain.

And look at how well that's worked out for the people of North Korea. Thanks PRC for causing decades of impoverishment to the DPRK!

[-1=e^ipi]

Fairness requires that the people living there be allowed to make their own choice about whether to join with China or become an official independent state.

Should the people of Crimea, Eastern Ukraine or Quebec also have the right to self-determination?

[Wilber]

There are far more freedom of speech in China than in US and in Canada.

There are too many pro-US, pro-capitalism, pro-democracy, pro-freedom pro-every-thing-of-western-world literatures in Chinese mainstream media, even when US economy is not in a good shape and too many negative event happened in US.

There is almost no pro-Communism, pro-China literatures in US and Canada mainstream media, even when too many achievements happened in China in the recent 30 years, even when from toys to iPhone to 60 inch LED TV, almost everyone use somethings from China.

That fact clearly shows that people in China enjoy much more freedom of speech than in US and in Canada.

That's interesting. The latest Legatum Prosperity Index rates Canada 6th overall and 1st in personal freedoms The US ranks 11th overall and 15th in personal freedoms.

China ranks 52nd overall and 120th in personal freedoms.

[-1=e^ipi]

As for P.R.China, the legal successor of R.O.C., exactly is the last one of all parties which sending troops to garrison the islands.

What nonsense. The Republic of China is the legal successor of the Republic of China. In case you haven't noticed, the Republic of China is still around.

[-1=e^ipi]

UN isn't always as neutral as you think. If you read the wiki timeline carefully, you will find that in 1947 ROC published the map, British and U.S didn't oppose the claim. But in 1951, all of them except Soviet argued against ROA's claim. Why was there a dramatic turn just within 4 years?

Maybe because the Republic of China isn't the People's Republic of China. But I'm glad that you are pointing out the fact that the Spratly Islands belong to the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China.

[-1=e^ipi]

There are far more freedom of speech in China than in US and in Canada.

.........................................................................................................................Really?

Okay, I challenge you to go to Tiananmen Square with a sign that says 'Communist Party of China sucks' and tell everyone the Communist Party sucks. Let me know how it goes.

[honeybee]

Wow the communist propaganda you must have been brainwashed with.

I do not see this a valid argument due to lack of premise.

China is the world's second largest economy primarily because it has 1.4 billion people. The communists just held China back economically for decades. The only reason China has experienced such rapid economic growth was because they were held back for decades by the communists and what China is experiencing is a catch-up effect.

The fact that China is the 2nd largest economy is an undeniable achievement that even you agrees.

For the reasons of that, your explanation has some point in it, but is not complete, there are so many countries, why other counties start from same poverty level did not develop so fast? There are other reason, the most reason is not in your answer.

I think another reason it the effect of dictatorship, that is not a propaganda, several Canadian politicians has said similar things, and there are still other reasons.

If the Republic of China won the civil war, rather than the People's Republic of China, China would be as rich as South Korea or Taiwan are today.

...

And look at how well that's worked out for the people of North Korea. Thanks PRC for causing decades of impoverishment to the DPRK!

You can not prove it, because you can not change history to see if it works.

Actually, Taiwan developed very slow these years since it changed to "democracy" which is very low efficient governance.

In recent years, South Korea's development has a large portion that benefit from China. China is South Korea's largest economic partner.

North Korea's problem is not caused by China, It's their own choice.

And Mao. You forget Mao.

My opinion is different with you, but I don't want to talk about Mao now, I have talked about him in the this forum.

[honeybee]

.........................................................................................................................Really?

Okay, I challenge you to go to Tiananmen Square with a sign that says 'Communist Party of China sucks' and tell everyone the Communist Party sucks. Let me know how it goes.

I can not go to Tianamen Square with that sign just like you can not go to prime minister Trudeau or Harper's office with some inappropriate things. But I can certainly find many places in Beijing or other part of China for that.

And that is basically meaningless, it has nothing to do with improve the life quality of China and the world. Just like I did not go street during G20, so I have no trouble with cops that hundreds of Canadians suffers.

[honeybee]

That's interesting. The latest Legatum Prosperity Index rates Canada 6th overall and 1st in personal freedoms The US ranks 11th overall and 15th in personal freedoms.

China ranks 52nd overall and 120th in personal freedoms.

I believe that index is with strong bias.

Just one example, if Governance US is 11 and China is 67, why 20% of US citizens have been convinced guilty, while China has not.

In that list, the only column looks somewhat reasonable is economy. which said China is 3 and Canada is 8.

[TimG]

So, even civilized countries like Canada and US, also need to calculate their chance of winning a military showdown to decide whether or not to count on UN or ICJ

It is not about who is likely to win in a military confrontation. It is about whether it is worth poisoning your relationship with your neighbors over relatively trivial matters. China clearly does not care about good relations with its neighbors.

[TimG]

I can not go to Tianamen Square with that sign just like you can not go to prime minister Trudeau or Harper's office with some inappropriate things.

Tianamen Square is hardly a private office. It is more like Parliament Hill and people often gather there to say things that the government does not like. No such right exists in China. In fact, it appears that saying things that displease the government while editing newspaper will get you fired:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-newspaper-editor-fired-for-groundless-commentary-1446460786?mod=fox_australian

The premise that any sort of freedom of speech comparable to what people in democracies have exists in China is laughable. The unwillingness to allow competing ideas to be aired and discussed will undermine future progress in China.

Edited November 4, 2015 by TimG

[honeybee]

Tianamen Square is hardly a private office. It is more like Parliament Hill and people often gather there to say things that the government does not like. No such right exists in China. In fact, it appears that saying things that displease the government while editing newspaper will get you fired:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-newspaper-editor-fired-for-groundless-commentary-1446460786?mod=fox_australian

The premise that any sort of freedom of speech comparable to what people in democracies have exists in China is laughable. The unwillingness to allow competing ideas to be aired and discussed will undermine future progress in China.

How many issues said by the people before Parliament Hill solved?

That is not the way to solve problems.

As for some people get fired, is Canada better than China? Can Canada media hold some different opinion? I did not see any pro-Communist article in Canada mainstream media, but there are many pro-Canada, pro-USA article in China main-stream media. That's the point shows China has more freedom of speech than Canada.

Jane Wong published the article "Get under the desk" in The Globe and Mail on September 16, 2006.[11] In it, the author drew a link between the actions of Marc Lépine, Valery Fabrikant and Kimveer Gill, assassins of the shootings of the École Polytechnique, Concordia University and Dawson College respectively, and the existence in Quebec of bill 101, the "decades-long linguistic struggle". She implied a relation between the fact that the three were not old-stock Québécois and the murders they committed, since they were, according to Wong, alienated in a Quebec society concerned with "racial purity".

Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced Wong's article in a letter to the newspaper published on September 21, 2006 saying that her "argument is patently absurd and without foundation."[13] On September 20, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion requesting an apology for the column.[14]

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Wong

Wong descended into a long period of deep depression following the controversy and, unable to work, went on sick leave. The Globe ordered her back to work,[6] withdrew her sick pay and ultimately negotiated her dismissal with an undisclosed monetary settlement.[15][16][17] According to Wong: "I wrote a feature story that sparked a political backlash, my employers failed to support me and later silenced me, and after I became clinically depressed, they fired me.”[15]

[TimG]

How many issues said by the people before Parliament Hill solved?

Evasion. This is not about solving issues. It is about expressing opinions. Something which Chinese are not free to do.

As for some people get fired, is Canada better than China? Can Canada media hold some different opinion?

Newspapers are filled with columnists who hold very different opinions from each other that regularly attack the government. Andrew Coyne disagreed NP election endorsement and he ended resigning as the head of editorial board but the NP still wants him to publish his opinions as a columnist in the newspaper.

While it is true that they are many people that would like to suppress opinions that disagree with them the principal of free speech is protected by the constitution. Nothing close to this level of freedom exists in China.

Jane Wong published the article "Get under the desk" in The Globe and Mail on September 16, 2006.

What is interesting about this story is Jan Wong was not fired for it. Nor was she censored. All the politicians did is pass a non-binding motion calling for an apology. In the end she left the G&M with a large severance package because she objected to how her employers handled the outrage. She later went on to publish a book about here experience and is currently employed as journalist and a professor. In China someone like her would be rotting in a jail cell. Edited November 4, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

The fact that China is the 2nd largest economy is an undeniable achievement that even you agrees.

Not when you have the largest population by a large margin (excluding India).

For the reasons of that, your explanation has some point in it, but is not complete, there are so many countries, why other counties start from same poverty level did not develop so fast? There are other reason, the most reason is not in your answer.

I think the Solow model of economic growth is a decent model at explaining this observation. If you want to learn more you can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan_model

But basically, the reason PR China is experiencing higher economic growth than Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Singapore is because they started catching up to western nations later, so there was a larger gap in economic differences and more technological spillovers that PR China could take advantage of. The high economic growth China is experiencing is not because of the wonderfulness of the Communist Party, but rather due to the terrible decisions that the Communist Party made under Mao which held China in poverty for decades more than it needed to be.

Japan experienced very large economic growth after WW2. South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore all experienced very high growth during the second half of the 20th century. The reason these rates of economic growth were slower than PR China is primarily because China started growing later.

Here is what happens when a country stops doing stupid policies and changes to more sane economic policies (as China did after 1978), economic growth starts to accelerate, peak and then decrease slowly as the country catches up to other countries until that country's growth rate becomes the same as the rich countries. We've seen this occur with Japan, with South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, West Germany after WW2, East Germany and Poland after the end of the Cold War, etc. China's growth has peaked and is slowing down. It will continue to slow down for the next 2 decades after which China will hopefully become a developed country.

Here is a simple graph that demonstrates this effect. Japan used to be much poorer than the USA and after the Meiji restoration they started to catch up. After the end of WW2, their rate of economic growth started to accelerate even more due to adopting better economic polices. Eventually the standard of living in Japan reached comparable levels with the USA, and now Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc. all have comparable rates of real GDP per capita growth of 2% per year.

In recent years, South Korea's development has a large portion that benefit from China. China is South Korea's largest economic partner.

Because Taiwan, Korea and Japan has already developed. PR China is just catching up due to the fact that the communist kept them poor for decades and lagging behind Taiwan, Korea and Japan.

North Korea's problem is not caused by China, It's their own choice.

The North Korean government only exists because PR China backed them in the Korean War. The existence of the North Korean government is due to PR China.

[Wilber]

I believe that index is with strong bias.

Just one example, if Governance US is 11 and China is 67, why 20% of US citizens have been convinced guilty, while China has not.

In that list, the only column looks somewhat reasonable is economy. which said China is 3 and Canada is 8.

Ah, so only good news is unbiased.

[xul]

Oh stop embarrassing yourself. The suggestion China owned these waters, far, far from China long before the law of the sea was established is one of those blandly nonsensical claims that no one but an autocratic government full of bureaucrats afraid of pointing out the truth to their masters can produce.

It really boils down to one thing. The only way China is going to get its claws on that territory is to fight for it, and if you fight you lose, and go back to being a shit hole country full of peasants rooting in the rice paddies.

I think you has embarrassed yourself by making such baseless rant against my reasonable argument,

China did engaged Republic of Vietnam, which was an US ally I suppose, and it seems China hasn't be gone back a bit since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands

The Battle of the Paracel Islands was a military engagement between the naval forces of the People's Republic of Chinaand those of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) in the Paracel Islands on January 19, 1974. The battle was an effort of the Republic of Vietnam Navy to expel the People's Liberation Army's naval vessels from the vicinity of some of the Paracels.

As a result of the battle, China established permanent control over the Crescent Group of the Paracel Islands, completing its objective to assert its claim based on the "Nine-dotted line" that includes the majority of the South China Sea.^[1]

Edited November 4, 2015 by xul

[xul]

It is not about who is likely to win in a military confrontation. It is about whether it is worth poisoning your relationship with your neighbors over relatively trivial matters. China clearly does not care about good relations with its neighbors.

Friendship can not be established by merely giving up your interests to your neighbours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

China, the ROC, did has given up too much to Japanese aggression at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War, trying to avert a general war, but only got contempt from Japanese and made it more aggressive.

Philippines isn't a such innocent peace lover as you thinks. When It was on the high ground, Philippines used to use military guns against Chinese (and other parties) fisher men in the disputed water before China began to build these artificial islands and project naval force over the there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Guang_Da_Xing_No._28_incident

The 2013 Guang Da Xing No. 28 incident was a fatal shooting incident that occurred on 9 May 2013 involving the Taiwanesefishing boat Guang Da Xing No. 28 and the Philippine Coast Guard patrol boat Maritime Control Surveillance 3001, which led to the death of Taiwanese fisherman Hung Shih-cheng (洪石成) by gunfire from the Philippine vessel.^[2]

China and Vietnam did has settled their land border dispute after the Sino-Vietnamese War.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/china.vietnam/

(CNN) -- China and Vietnam have settled a lengthy border dispute nearly 30 years after a month-long war that left tens of thousands of people dead, state-run media reported.

Edited November 4, 2015 by xul

[xul]

Maybe because the Republic of China isn't the People's Republic of China. But I'm glad that you are pointing out the fact that the Spratly Islands belong to the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China.

To the other parties of the region, they are the same thing. If you bought a Volkswagen, you would not care who, the old CEO or the new CEO, was in charge in the company. You only care when the company will fix your engine problem.

[Rue]

Well the tensions between Taiwan and China are aptly posed by their ambassadors on this form Pi and Xul. I can visualize Chen Hai Shek and Mao sitting across from one another looking very stern at one another.

Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Russia, North Korea, The Philippines, Indonesia, Australia all have concerns over the position China is taking.

Putin seems to have backed off with any Russian disputes with China for now. Japan and Russia and China still all feud over certain islands as does Taiwan and China.

I believe China is engaging in bully expansionist tactics with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan over certain islands but I sympathize with them over certain disputes with the Japanese and Russians as well.

Its very very complex indeed and I think many equally as valid legal disputes but I do think China illegally has seized Vietnamese territory setting a nasty precedent and there is a huge leadership vacuum in this area of the Pacific thanks to Obama all but crippling the US in the Pacific rim from military operations except for token support of South Korea or the Phlippines.

Until a Republican is in office in the US I do not think anyone in the Pacific is relying on the US for protection.

Island disputes over oil are serious. Two other issues though are equally as serious-militant extreme Muslim terrorists operating in the Philippines and Indonesia, and the wild card called North Korea who everyone in the Pacific relies on China to control so can not afford to alienate China.

I believe within twenty years Japan will militarize again causing a new source of fire in the region to offset the decline of the US empire in the Pacific.

[TimG]

I believe within twenty years Japan will militarize again causing a new source of fire in the region to offset the decline of the US empire in the Pacific.

And the blame for this rests entirely with China. Prior to China's aggressive tactics the Japanese would have considered changing their constitution unthinkable. Now they feel they have no choice given the fact they live next to a aggressive expansionary power who is only looking for vassals to kowtow. The future of the world must be built by nations would work as partners with other nations. The 19th century power game that China and Russia are playing helps no one and risks much.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Its very very complex indeed and I think many equally as valid legal disputes but I do think China illegally has seized Vietnamese territory setting a nasty precedent and there is a huge leadership vacuum in this area of the Pacific thanks to Obama all but crippling the US in the Pacific rim from military operations except for token support of South Korea or the Phlippines.

Until a Republican is in office in the US I do not think anyone in the Pacific is relying on the US for protection.

A Republican in the White House won't matter....the USA already has considerable tactical and strategic assets deployed for the region. There are 28,000 U.S. troops in South Korea alone. U.S. Seventh Fleet is home ported in Japan. U.S. Marines are completing their fourth rotation to bases in Australia, along with tactical aircraft.

The USA has about 200 warships and 350,000 military personnel deployed to the Asia-Pacific region. If that is not enough, then Canada can come and save the day.