What's new

China-US Geopolitics: News & Discussions

So who is the Ukraine of SCS?
There is no equivalent of Ukraine in the SCS, even the US would have loved to have some islands there, China just took in the international law of the sea concerning inhabitant islands, that they should be habitable to be claimed, so China did just that, otherwise they, according to Western concocted International law of the sea, were just islands that belonged to no one, otherwise some no man's lands..
If China took Taiwan , that can be to some extent comparable to Russia taking back Crimea.. but to compare it to empty Islands claimed for centuries by China does not make sense..
 
What's more hilarious
"The way we’ve got to deal with this is we’ve got to show back up in the region with our traditional allies in Southeast Asia," he said."

Supapowa coward US need others to fight for them .

Uncle Sam has no balls. :lol:

US is on the way to become a text book example of a rogue state. Mad dogs are supposed to be put to sleep before they hurt anybody.
US is a coward against big countries like China. Best for them to stick to middle East.

We have, and we will up the ante. In '17, there will be up to three US aircraft carrier fleets running in the SCS and nearby region.
Fire first shot or shut the **** up.
Best you guys continue shooting rag tag taliban.

:lol:

And just how exactly is the US gonna stand in our way getting access to our islands in SCS if i may ask? :cuckoo:
Certainly not tough talking Tillerson lol
 
But China has no issues with cyber espionage ?
During the recent senate hearing on Russian hacking (Jan 5,2017) the US Intelligence Chief James Clapper was questioned on whether China's hacking of 22 million government workers' information should trigger a similar response. The official responded with a no, due to the passive nature of hacks from China. He justified that the Russian hack was active hacking in nature, it had tried to influence the internal politics of the US.

He said China's hacks are within the norms of the intelligence community conduct. He stated "we did not retaliate against an act of espionage anymore than other countries necessarily retaliate against us for when we conduct espionage", to the dismay of senator John Sullvan.(1:47:14)

James Clapper also detailed the cyber security agreement between China and US when asked whether China had curtailed cyber espionage on the United States (1:45:11). The defence chief replied, "They(China) have... *interrupted by senator John Sullivan*...they continue to conduct cyber espionage, they have curtailed as best as we can tell. There has been a reduction, I think the private sector would agree with this, there had been some reduction in their cyber activity. The agreement simply called for a stopping such ex-filtration for commercial gain." (1:46:40)

Espionage is a widely accepted norm in the intelligence community. There is a clear distinction between espionage(information gathering) vs active hacking(influence and disruption).
 
Last edited:
There is no equivalent of Ukraine in the SCS, even the US would have loved to have some islands there, China just took loopholes in the international law of the sea concerning inhabitant islands, that they should be habitable to be claimed, so China did just that, otherwise they, according to Western concocted International law of the sea, were just islands that belonged to no one, otherwise some no man's lands..
If China took Taiwan , that can be to some extent comparable to Russia taking back Crimea.. but to compare it to empty Islands claimed for centuries by China does not make sense..

That is the problem to turn a retired businessman into a half way decent politician, they don't know much about international politics beyond dollars and cents. Now you have a bunch of these people with political knowledge not much better than an average internet dude, poised to take over the most powerful government in the world.

It's one thing to turn an election into a circus, and it's quite another to run an office that could determine the fate of many.
 
That is the problem to turn a retired businessman into a half way decent politician, they don't know much about international politics beyond dollars and cents. Now you have a bunch of these people with political knowledge not much better than an average internet dude, poised to take over the most powerful government in the world.

It's one thing to turn an election into a circus, and it's quite another to run an office that could determine the fate of many.
He should do like Henry Ford who was almost illiterate but surrounded himself with the best advisors, vice presidents, directors and scientists and hence made a huge success of his company..
First of all Trump should get some good PR advisors and get some wise speak-person..
 
During the recent senate hearing...
You missed the point, buddy. But then again, you guys usually misses the point.

The original argument was that China do not like US ships performing passive EM intelligence operations off Chinese coast, even if the those operations were/are outside of Chinese territorial 12 nm waters. Hence, China have been acting aggressively against US naval operations in the SCS.

The argument is absurd in light of Chinese cyber operations against US targets.

I will put it another way...

Embassies are operation centers for espionage. Everyone knows this. Embassies are also considered sovereign properties of the guest countries.

If China is so angry at US Navy operations off Chinese coast, then why not China break down the doors of US embassy and consulate in China and arrest CIA officers ?

Here is the deal...

Ultimately, embassy/consulate grounds are properties of the host country, not the guests. In the interests of diplomatic respect and reasonably friendly relations, the host ALLOWS the recognition of embassy/consulate grounds to be sovereign soil of the guests. That allowance is only as good as the guest want to be in the country and the host want the guest to be in the country.

So if China is angry that the US Navy conducts passive intelligence operations off Chinese coast, then China should be livid at CIA operations going on inside US embassy/consulate grounds in China.

But if China respect those embassy/consulate grounds to be US sovereign soil, then China should respect US Navy operations as long as those ops do not trespass that 12 nm territorial waters zone.

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) means that area of the sea is exclusive to a country only for economic exploitation, not for that country to exercise absolute authority. Foreign ships can come and go as they please, as long as they do not perform acts that would damage the potential economic wealth of the area. We are not drilling for oil or do we cast nets for fish in China's EEZ.
 
Here is the most inadequate statement of the article, like if he was talking about Taiwan!!!
" In comments expected to enrage Beijing, Rex Tillerson told his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that China's building of islands and putting military assets on those islands was "akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine."

So US will not take any military action in SCS as US didn't do it in regard to Ukrain.
 
The Americans had better walk the talk, & try to bar us from our islands, but I guess loud words sounds scarier than some carriers sailing up & down, & up & down, & up & down the SCS.... :lol:
 
China’s Global Times: Are Paper’s Warnings of War With U.S. Legitimate?
by Mark Hanrahan




a_30stk_frayer_southchinasea_160708.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg

Is China Militarizing in the South China Sea? 0:36
Donald Trump's administration has yet to take power, but his Cabinet picks are already risking a "large-scale war" with China — at least if one state-run media outlet is to be believed.

During his Senate confirmation hearing Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick for Secretary of State, likened China's activities reclaiming land in disputed regions of the South China Sea to Russia's annexation of Ukraine.


A man looks at a newsstand with a copy of the nationalistic Global Times tabloid displayed on a basket in Beijing, China, on April 5, 2016. Ng Han Guan / AP, file
He added: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

The prospect of the U.S. blocking China from accessing the islands it has built in the region drew a predictably furious response from the Global Times, a state-run newspaper and website that frequently publishes nationalistic and bombastic editorials on international affairs.

"Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories," the paper wrote in an editorial Friday.

It added: "Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish."


The paper's response was notable, both for its attention-grabbing threats, but also for how strongly it differed in tone from Beijing's official response.

Chinese foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang paraphrased some of Tillerson's other remarks, saying: "China and the U.S. have some differences but also share a lot of common interests and consensus, and we should see the positive dimensions in our relationship rather than let disagreements over other issues exclude areas for productive partnership."


Chinese construction teams work on Johnson South Reef in the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Armed Forces Of The Philippines via The New York Times
So how closely do the provocative editorials in the Global Times reflect the thinking inside the ruling party?

"The Global Times as a newspaper has its own way to respond to issues like this," Dr. Xin Xin, a reader at the Communication and Media Research Institute at the U.K.'s University of Westminster told NBC News.

She added: "Though it is part of a party organ — it follows different rules ... In terms of how it formulates the party's view, they have more flexibility. In order to generate readership it does adopt techniques you would be familiar with in Western newspapers."

The paper's editor-in-chief, former army officer and Chinese Communist Party member Hu Xijin, claims the discrepancy can be attributed to his paper publishing what party officials privately think, but don't express publicly.

In an interview with online news outlet Quartz, Hu said that he regularly spends time with officials from the foreign and security ministries, and that their views aligned with his paper's editorial stance.

Other experts suggest that Global Times' controversial editorials should not be seen as a direct statement of the positions or intentions of the Chinese government, but as communications that reflect, and speak to, certain sections of both China's general population, as well as the ruling party and military.


China's Liaoning aircraft carrier conducts a drill in the South China Sea in December. China Stringer Network / Reuters, file
"Global Times' editorials are used to assuage a nationalist demographic, which is generally young and extremely hawkish, at a time when nationalist passions are inflamed," Dr. Jonathan Sullivan, director of the China Policy Institute at the U.K.'s University of Nottingham told NBC News. "What Tillerson said is effectively calling for a blockade — an action usually interpreted as an act of war. The Chinese government would be inviting trouble from this demographic if it didn't respond."

Experts told NBC News that the Global Times has a "substantial" readership in China and that the paper would not pursue such an extreme editorial line if there was no demand for it.

Estimates suggest that the Chinese-language edition of the paper sells between 1.5 and 2 million copies a day, while its English-language edition sells around 100,000. Its websites reportedly attract around 15 million visitors a day.

The English-language edition of the paper is widely read by foreigners in China and beyond, resulting in its controversial pronouncements generating significant column inches in overseas media compared to other Chinese media outlets.


Some commentators, however, suggest that Western media has an outsized perception of the paper's actual influence.

A 2014 report by a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Western Australia found that only 0.8 percent of over 1,400 respondents in five Chinese cities said they got their information on the South China Sea dispute from the Global Times.

Sullivan predicted that the Global Times will be an increasingly useful tool for China's government in the coming months.

"Beijing is still not sure how to interpret Team Trump, and does not want to respond with actions that could spiral," he said. "It also still holds some hope that Trump's pronouncements are negotiating tactics rather than actual policy. Thus a response within the rhetorical arena is, for now, a useful tactic for China; which is where Global Times serves very well."
 
I am glad that China has a news paper like "Global Times", as it is the only influential tabloid that can return the favor if someone tried to play dirty mouth to China.
 
The Americans had better walk the talk, & try to bar us from our islands, but I guess loud words sounds scarier than some carriers sailing up & down, & up & down, & up & down the SCS.... :lol:
Considering China claimed the SCS as private property, when the world sees the US sailing up & down, & up & down, & up & down the SCS.... :lol:
 
We have, and we will up the ante. In '17, there will be up to three US aircraft carrier fleets running in the SCS and nearby region.
You want your carrier to be target board for our DF-21D. Well done, boy. Come nearer :enjoy:
 
Considering China claimed the SCS as private property, when the world sees the US sailing up & down, & up & down, & up & down the SCS.... :lol:

lmao, why don't you try to do something about them islands? sailing some ships don't matter in the grand scheme of geopolitics.
 

Back
Top Bottom