What's new

South China Sea Forum

US Navy commander warns of possible South China Sea arms race
REUTERS — PUBLISHED ABOUT 11 HOURS AGO
566faf8f515c1.jpg

"My concern is that after many decades of peace and prosperity, we may be seeing the leading edge of a return of 'might makes it right' to the region," Swift said on Monday in a speech in Hawaii, according to a copy seen by Reuters. — AP/File

TOKYO: The United States (US) Pacific Fleet Commander has warned of a possible arms race in the disputed South China Sea which could engulf the region, as nations become increasingly tempted to use military force to settle territorial spats instead of international law.

Commander Admiral Scott Swift urged nations, like China, to seek arbitration to settle maritime disputes.

"My concern is that after many decades of peace and prosperity, we may be seeing the leading edge of a return of 'might makes it right' to the region," Swift said on Monday in a speech in Hawaii, according to a copy seen by Reuters.

By resorting to military strength to impose territorial claims, nations, including China, risked sparking a military arms race that could engulf the region, he said.

"Claimants and non-claimants alike are transferring larger shares of national wealth to develop more capable naval forces beyond what is needed merely for self defence," Swift said.

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which more than $5 trillion of world trade ships every year, a fifth of it heading to and from US ports.

Beijing is building seven man-made islands on reefs in the Spratly Islands, including a 10,000-foot airstrip on one of the sites, according to satellite imagery of the area.

'Superfluous warnings' threaten ships, aircraft
"Even now, ships and aircraft operating nearby these features, in accordance with international law are subject to superfluous warnings that threaten routine and commercial operations," Swift said, speaking at the Cooperative Strategy Forum to naval commanders from Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia and other countries.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan also claim parts of the South China Sea.

In October, the US guided missile destroyer Lassen sailed close to one of China's man-made islands, drawing an angry rebuke from China and a shadowing patrol.

The US Navy is unlikely to carry out another patrol within 12 nautical miles of Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea this year as officials had initially suggested, three US defence officials said on Monday.

In a challenge to China's island building program, Manila has asked the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague to affirm its right to areas within 200 nautical miles of its coastline, under the terms of a United Nations (UN) convention.

"The Arbitration Tribunal's case between the Philippines and China could become the latest opportunity to demonstrate lawful access to regional prosperity for all nations," Swift said.

Beijing so far has rejected the courts jurisdiction and has boycotted the hearing. Rulings are supposed to be binding on its member countries, which include China. But the tribunal has no powers of enforcement and its verdicts have sometimes been ignored.

The People's Daily, the official newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party, on Tuesday described the arbitration case as a "farce" designed to rip territory from China it has had sovereignty over since ancient times.

"Certain people in the Philippines are blinded by lust for gain," the newspaper wrote in a commentary, adding it was a "vain illusion" to think the case would sway China's determination to protect its lands.
 
You can agree or disagree with China's approach to the South China Sea but one thing is certain these islands are extremely impressive feats as far as I know without equal in terms of ability to construct what seems impractical and focus on strategic objectives
 
with hight technology, US can build floating island in SCS.

You can agree or disagree with China's approach to the South China Sea but one thing is certain these islands are extremely impressive feats as far as I know without equal in terms of ability to construct what seems impractical and focus on strategic objectives
 
Taiwan Minister Christens Projects on Taiping, Among Spratly Islands
Official inaugurates new wharf, lighthouse, reasserting Taiwan’s territorial claims in South China Sea

View attachment 279408

By JEREMY PAGE
Dec. 13, 2015 9:57 a.m. ET

BEIJING—Taiwan’s interior minister has paid a rare visit to a disputed island in the South China Sea and inaugurated a new wharf and lighthouse there, reasserting his government’s territorial claims in a region where China’s land reclamation has ignited international tensions.

Chen Wei-zen and other senior officials flew to Taiping Island on Saturday to preside over a ceremony marking the completion of a two-year project to upgrade infrastructure, according to a statement from Taiwan’s interior ministry.

Taiping Island, which houses a military airfield, is the largest natural island in the Spratlys chain and the only one controlled by Taiwan, whose claims in the area overlap with those of China, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei.

:
:

But Mr. Chen, the interior minister, also thanked coast-guard personnel and construction workers for helping to defend the island, according to the statement.

And he reaffirmed Taiwan’s position that Taiping should be considered a natural island, rather than a rock, because it had sufficient ground water and other resources to sustain human life, according to the statement.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a natural island capable of sustaining human habitation is entitled to an exclusive economic zone—which allows regulation of matters such as mineral and fishing rights—stretching up to 200 nautical miles from its shores.

Defense experts say Taiwan has been building a new wharf on Taiping Island—also known as Itu Aba—to allow larger ships to dock there, while upgrading its airstrip to allow frequent flights by larger cargo planes.

The island’s 1,195-meter (3,944-foot) airstrip is big enough to accommodate Taiwan’s F-16 fighters, C-130 Hercules cargo planes and P-3 maritime patrol aircraft, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, in Washington.

Taiwan took control of Taiping Island in 1946, established a permanent base in 1956 and sent 100 coast-guard personnel to replace its marines there in 2000, according to the CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, which monitors territorial disputes in the area.

Taiwan urged to end violations of Vietnam’s sovereignty

Vietnam requests that Taiwan (China) immediately end its actions that violate Vietnam’s sovereignty and not to repeat such violations, said Vietnamese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Le Hai Binh on December 13
The spokesperson made the demand after Taiwanese officials attended a so-called inaugural ceremony of several facilities on Ba Binh island - part of Vietnam’s Truong Sa (Spratly) archipelago – on December 12.

“Vietnam has sufficient legal grounds and historical evidence to prove its indisputable sovereignty over Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa archipelagoes,” the spokesperson affirmed, adding that all activities of any side in those areas without Vietnam’s consent are illegal and void.

He stressed that Taiwan has seriously violated Vietnam’s sovereignty, caused tensions and complicated the situation in the East Sea when it sent officials to Ba Binh island in Vietnam’s Truong Sa archipelago and declared to put into operation a number of facilities on the island, in disregard of the concerns of Vietnam, other countries and the international community.

Vietnam resolutely opposes these acts, the spokesperson said.
 
Hey, China, this is why democracies beat autocracies in a fight. (So back off the South China Sea.) - The Washington Post

Democracies win almost all of the wars they start and about two-thirds of the wars in which they are the targets.

The U.S. is working actively, and successfully, to build large coalitions to support its goals in the South China Sea and elsewhere. By contrast, adversaries like China and Russia largely stand alone in these disputes.

For many members of the U.S. coalition in Asia, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia, China is the nearer neighbor and a rising trade partner. China is likely more economically important to the future of these countries than the U.S. Similarly, Ukraine and the Baltics share a border with Russia, not the United States. So why do these countries (seek to) ally with us?

One answer is that the United States is pursuing public goods — like open sea lanes or territorial integrity — while China and Russia are seeking territory, which is a private good. It’s easier to build a coalition around the pursuit of something that benefits everyone, rather than an asset that must be divided up, often unequally.

Democracies don’t just win because of who they are, but because of what they want (and what they don’t). As long as states seek things that coalition partners can share, they tend to win and to get their way in world politics.
 
Hey, China, this is why democracies beat autocracies in a fight. (So back off the South China Sea.) - The Washington Post

Democracies win almost all of the wars they start and about two-thirds of the wars in which they are the targets.

The U.S. is working actively, and successfully, to build large coalitions to support its goals in the South China Sea and elsewhere. By contrast, adversaries like China and Russia largely stand alone in these disputes.

For many members of the U.S. coalition in Asia, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia, China is the nearer neighbor and a rising trade partner. China is likely more economically important to the future of these countries than the U.S. Similarly, Ukraine and the Baltics share a border with Russia, not the United States. So why do these countries (seek to) ally with us?

One answer is that the United States is pursuing public goods — like open sea lanes or territorial integrity — while China and Russia are seeking territory, which is a private good. It’s easier to build a coalition around the pursuit of something that benefits everyone, rather than an asset that must be divided up, often unequally.

Democracies don’t just win because of who they are, but because of what they want (and what they don’t). As long as states seek things that coalition partners can share, they tend to win and to get their way in world politics.
On one side you have Communist China and it's supporters, on the other side you have Communist Vietnam and it's supporters. So in the fight for South China Sea islands, whichever side wins a communist country will emerge as a winner. It's embarrassing to see you posting a dumb article.
 
On one side you have Communist China and it's supporters, on the other side you have Communist Vietnam and it's supporters. So in the fight for South China Sea islands, whichever side wins a communist country will emerge as a winner. It's embarrassing to see you posting a dumb article.
It is embarrassing for YOU to be on this forum, intellectually stunted as you are.

A communist country will emerge as a winner ? Is that the best you can do ? Who is on Viet Nam's side ? Who is on China's side ? You are hopeful that China can win in a limited war for control of the SCS, while every credible military analysts in the world, including some in the PLA, pretty give the fight to the US and allies. And we will have allies while China will stand alone.

You missed the point of the article, which is that control of the SCS have different contexts and perceptions for everyone involved. The perception is that China want control of the SCS for selfish reasons while the US want control of the SCS for altruistic reasons. The reality is that the US have been making good for our reasons all these decades since the end of WW II. The result is that regional powers will believe US more than believing in China.

Go back to wherever sandbox you came from, kid.
 
But you forgot that most of the countries in the region are not able or indirectly don't practice democratic system as per western standard.
Democratic system is not the answer to everything. They (those in the region) can't even agree among themselves before unite to fight China, what do you expect them to do?
And seriously, who need war in the region? they are so fxcking poor and still want to go war?

It is embarrassing for YOU to be on this forum, intellectually stunted as you are.

A communist country will emerge as a winner ? Is that the best you can do ? Who is on Viet Nam's side ? Who is on China's side ? You are hopeful that China can win in a limited war for control of the SCS, while every credible military analysts in the world, including some in the PLA, pretty give the fight to the US and allies. And we will have allies while China will stand alone.

You missed the point of the article, which is that control of the SCS have different contexts and perceptions for everyone involved. The perception is that China want control of the SCS for selfish reasons while the US want control of the SCS for altruistic reasons. The reality is that the US have been making good for our reasons all these decades since the end of WW II. The result is that regional powers will believe US more than believing in China.

Go back to wherever sandbox you came from, kid.
 
Hey, China, this is why democracies beat autocracies in a fight. (So back off the South China Sea.) - The Washington Post

Democracies win almost all of the wars they start and about two-thirds of the wars in which they are the targets.

The U.S. is working actively, and successfully, to build large coalitions to support its goals in the South China Sea and elsewhere. By contrast, adversaries like China and Russia largely stand alone in these disputes.

For many members of the U.S. coalition in Asia, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia, China is the nearer neighbor and a rising trade partner. China is likely more economically important to the future of these countries than the U.S. Similarly, Ukraine and the Baltics share a border with Russia, not the United States. So why do these countries (seek to) ally with us?

One answer is that the United States is pursuing public goods — like open sea lanes or territorial integrity — while China and Russia are seeking territory, which is a private good. It’s easier to build a coalition around the pursuit of something that benefits everyone, rather than an asset that must be divided up, often unequally.

Democracies don’t just win because of who they are, but because of what they want (and what they don’t). As long as states seek things that coalition partners can share, they tend to win and to get their way in world politics.
Nothing new here ... just look back what U.S help during CCP-KMT Civil War, North-South Vietnam War, Russia-Georgia conflict, West-East Ukraine conflict, ISIS in Iraqi ... sometimes the U.S promise just b@llsh!t, they might help u as long as not directly conflict with Russia or China. U.S can betray some small nation at any time for their interests in this region, if they feel necessary even can make friends with their rival like China at any time.:lol:
qjwb20090108a0017v01b004.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nothing new here ... just look back what U.S help during CCP-KMT Civil War, North-South Vietnam War, Russia-Georgia conflict, West-East Ukraine conflict, ISIS in Iraqi ... sometimes the U.S promise just b@llsh!t, they might help u as long as not directly conflict with Russia or China. U.S can betray some small nation at any time for their interests in this region, if they feel necessary even can make friends with their rival like China at any time.:lol:
View attachment 279731

Ya right and china is better oh please who can say one thing and does other is no better
 
My point, it's China is useful for U.S interest in this region ... that's the reason why U.S need us in Cold War, the same reason they also can betray others for their interest with China.

No its not its problem for the people of the region there is no good thing about your just causing trouble trying to be other USSR
 
No its not its problem for the people of the region there is no good thing about your just causing trouble trying to be other USSR
LOL ... the nation u mentioned here, ever ally nations with U.S in WWII and China ever ally with U.S in Cold War. I had said, if necessary U.S will be friend with Russia and China for their interests in this region, they won't war with Russia or China for other small nations, coz that against American interests and reduce U.S power in the world.
 
LOL ... the nation u mentioned here, ever ally nations with U.S in WWII and China ever ally with U.S in Cold War. I had said, if necessary U.S will be friend with Russia and China for their interests in this region, they won't war with Russia or China for other small nations, coz that against American interests and reduce U.S power in the world.

Wow so that excellently but with chinese characters i dont care about your country's dream of being a super power but as long hurt others its our business no amount of justification is enough to repeat the past just to be like them knowing what they did to get there.
 
Back
Top Bottom