South China Sea Forum

[ahojunk]

U.S. hype over 'militarization' in South China Sea double standards
Source: Xinhua | 2016-02-25 21:02:56 | Editor: huaxia

BEIJING, Feb. 25 (Xinhua) -- The whole brouhaha stirred up by the United States over alleged "militarization in the South China Sea" is clearly double standards, Defense Ministry spokesperson Wu Qian said Thursday at a monthly press briefing in Beijing.

Several high-ranking U.S. officials have recently accused China of militarizing the South China Sea and ratcheting up tensions.

The U.S. has sent military vessels and planes into China's territory without authorization to conduct surveillance, he said.

Some countries in the South China Sea are illegally occupying China's islands and reefs, and have deployed radars and artillery there.

He added that the U.S. had called on its allies and partners to conduct "targeted" joint drills and patrols.

"Is that not a kind of militarization?" he asked.

He said that the U.S. should not turn a blind eye to all those behaviors while throwing accusations at China. Otherwise it was blatant double standards.

 

[dichoi]

.Vietnam wants full lifting of U.S. arms embargo | The Japan Times

Vietnam wants full lifting of U.S. arms embargo

AP
WASHINGTON – Vietnam wants the U.S. to lift fully an embargo on arms sales that was eased last year, but Washington is calling for more progress by the communist-governed nation on improving human rights, their respective ambassadors said Tuesday.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the resumption of diplomatic relations between the former enemies. Vietnam says an end to the embargo, which was partially lifted last October to help improve Vietnam’s maritime security, would show relations are fully normalized.

“It has political symbolism,” Ambassador Pham Quang Vinh told the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

The U.S. and Vietnam have deepened ties as they find common cause in countering a rising China. Vietnam is also among 12 nations negotiating a U.S.-backed trans-Pacific trade pact that Washington wants to finalize this year to help boost exports to Asia.

The U.S., however, has voiced concern about Russia refueling military planes at the Vietnamese base at Cam Ranh Bay. U.S. Ambassador Ted Osius blamed Russia for using its arrangement with Vietnam for “provocative” actions that could raise regional tensions.

Vinh said Vietnam has a “clear understanding” with the U.S. that it won’t let its airports and other facilities to be used in a way harmful to third countries. He did not elaborate.

Osius said the most difficult aspect of the U.S.-Vietnam relationship remains human rights. He said there is increasing space for religious and political expression in Vietnam, but more progress is needed for the relationship to reach its fullest potential.

He urged a moratorium on arrests under provisions of Vietnamese law that he said are currently being revised to make them consistent with its constitution. The provisions cover areas such as Internet freedom, freedom of speech and assembly, he said.

Despite periodic releases of detainees, Human Rights Watch says there continues to be a “revolving door of political prisoners” in Vietnam with at least 29 prosecutions in 2014.

Vinh was stony-faced as one high-profile dissident, Cu Huy Ha Vu, who was released last April, criticized the government’s record on human rights at Tuesday’s event.

The ambassador said that everyone is equal under the law in Vietnam and there are no prisoners of conscience.

 

[anon45]

ADIZ doesn't mean we claim the sovereignty over the entire area but to signal that we have control over that space as you American did. And what make you think that we're not able to send anything to intercept in SCS regarding the ADIZ, we have SAM, we have 3 km airstrip and we will have fighters there, we can certainly reinforce our ADIZ credibility.

Unanswered violations of the ADIZ prove lack of control. We will see what China does, because it is going to be up to China to enforce it, or let it lose credibility. How would China enforce an ADIZ with a SAM without escalatiing the situation? AFAIK a SAM could only 'enforce' it by locking on to a craft... China doesn't want to see armed american fighters instead of unarmed recon craft or old american bombers.

We will see if China can enforce its ADIZ with aircraft.

I don't need to list any source regarding China ignored American ADIZ but base on reciprocity, you will get the same treatment as you did regarding our ADIZ

But we already did so in 2013, and yet it apparently hasn't happened yet...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/w...2s-into-chinas-expanded-air-defense-zone.html

I am confident the US will be able to intercept Chinese planes not following its ADIZ. We will see if China can do the same.

 

[xunzi]

Indeed, it is not the size of the island that matters. What matters is whether it is an islands under the law i.e. naturally formed. A terraformed reef - whatever its size - is not recognized as such. No sovereignty claims can be derived from it. That includes self-defence.

As for the "everybody does it, so it is ok for us to do so" argument, that's a fine philosophy. If 'everybody' steals, it is therefor ok for you to do so (in spite of both the law and morals) . If everybody jumps of a cliff, so should you? The point here is of course that it is a fallacy that everybody does it.

Face up to it, it is all about - increasingly scarce - resources. But then again, that's what everybody has been blaming US for in relation to Middle East. So, just admit it is about recources and don't complain when others (Russia > on the pole, US > in the MidEast,) do so.

HAWAII is a naturally formed Island, part of the US. Where's the land reclamation?

The rest of the world (and I don't mean the US) just sees a game of landgrab in the SCS. Naturally, governments are concerned, for obvious reasons.

You have a weird, double standard interpretation of international law governing the artificial islands. Let me remind you that international law (UNCLOS) allows any country to build artificial islands as long as it is within their administrative rights to do so. A natural island or artificial is an asset, a property of a sovereign country, and that sovereign country has the right for self-defense. Whether it is subject to 12nm entitlement requires negotiation and international laws where it is allowed. We have not yet make any claim on 12nm of artificial islands. Let us remind you of that.

Our position is always consistent with international norm and laws. There should be no double standard regarding to any state interest. An analogy to jumping of a cliff is a false statement. That is essentially telling us to watch other claimants building up islands while we stand and watch.

It is never about the resources. This accusation is unacceptable. It is about protecting our sea lane from subject of intimidation on blockage, forming an intelligent network to defend national security, and to provide humanitarian aid to civilian commercial ships. I'm sure you know that too well.

List of your artificial islands: Category:Artificial islands of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concern is overblown by you.

 

[xunzi]

Unanswered violations of the ADIZ prove lack of control. We will see what China does, because it is going to be up to China to enforce it, or let it lose credibility. How would China enforce an ADIZ with a SAM without escalatiing the situation? AFAIK a SAM could only 'enforce' it by locking on to a craft... China doesn't want to see armed american fighters instead of unarmed recon craft or old american bombers.

We will see if China can enforce its ADIZ with aircraft.




But we already did so in 2013, and yet it apparently hasn't happened yet...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/w...2s-into-chinas-expanded-air-defense-zone.html

I am confident the US will be able to intercept Chinese planes not following its ADIZ. We will see if China can do the same.

We did monitor B52 violation in our ADIZ but since they only cross over a tiny bit and flight back, it doesn't give enough time to intercept. Intercept only occur when you fly too close. For that, we done hundred of interception per year since the establishment of ADIZ.

 

[Rechoice]

US presence in Hawaii and SCS for stop expansionism of China in Specific Ocean. The different is that Hawaii is oversea territory of USA , but Paracel and Spresly is Vietnam's sea territory, part of its was stolen by Chinese recently..

 

[Rechoice]

I guess that had attracted of Vietnamese female tourists to China and came to settle in China, we should build more like that

This project is shameful for China.

 

[Pangu]

The Americans as usual are getting ahead of themselves, but what will be, will be...

 

[Dungeness]

“When they put their advanced missile systems on the Paracels, and when they build three 10,000 foot runways in the Spratlys on the basis that they’ve reclaimed — when they do all of that, they’re changing the operational landscape in the South China Sea,” Harris said.
“So, that is what’s changed. The United States and our patrols — military patrols, air and maritime in the South China Sea haven’t really changed. We have a consistent presence in the Western Pacific, and we have had that for decades.”

But was is different is how much influence China has over the region, “short of war they can rise to the level of having tactical control of the water ways of the South China Sea.”

Sorry for the inconvenience, Mr. Harris, you and your fleet will just have to get used to the changing reality, after all change is the way of life. It is China's neighborhood, and being a responsible global power, China will take it from here. Thank you very much for years of excellent service, and don't forget to stop by in HK and have some fun. Ciao!

 

[Aepsilons]

I just found out that S.Korea also have a dispute with China over Socotra Rock(some say its also claimed by even Japan ).

It is a minor eez clarification, Japan has no control over the Socotra rocks nor does it wish to antagonize Korea nor China over such trivial issues. Anyways, as far as i know Seoul and Beijing are currently working out to finalize a deal involving the features 苏岩礁. So, let's be optimistic, shall, we, Michael?

The same way as how Japan and Korea will learn to work on the Liancourt issue. I think Japan is prepared to make concessions.

 

[mike2000 is back]

It is a minor eez clarification, Japan has no control over the Socotra rocks nor does it wish to antagonize Korea nor China over such trivial issues. Anyways, as far as i know Seoul and Beijing are currently working out to finalize a deal involving the features 苏岩礁. So, let's be optimistic, shall, we, Michael?

The same way as how Japan and Korea will learn to work on the Liancourt issue. I think Japan is prepared to make concessions.

To be honest, I think Japan should have ceeded control of the islands it has to China, S.Korea and Russia. As a loser of the war it should have renounced all these disputed islands and avoid stocking resentment from its Asian neighbours.
To be honest though, the U.S played a role in this, The U.S instead of transfering these islands to Chinese and Japanese control after world she instead transfered them back to Japan and didnt force Japan to give up its claims over islands claimed by Korea and Russia. NOW Jappan has no intention of handing them.over. That was the wrong thing to do by the U.S.
Japan should fix this mistake today and make things right IMO.

 

[Aepsilons]

To be honest, I think Japan should have ceeded control of the islands it has to China, S.Korea and Russia. As a loser of the war it should have renounced all these disputed islands and avoid stocking resentment from its Asian neighbours.
To be honest though, the U.S played a role in this, The U.S instead of transfering these islands to Chinese and Japanese control after world she instead transfered them back to Japan and didnt force Japan to give up its claims over islands claimed by Korea and Russia. NOW Jappan has no intention of handing them.over. That was the wrong thing to do by the U.S.
Japan should fix this mistake today and make things right IMO.

Therein lies the issue many of us have in regards to the formal peace treaty, which was, ultimately, US-centric as per the terms of agreement. It would have been better had the United States accepted Japan's request for conditional surrender , which would have actually enabled all sides (Nationalist government of China, the Soviet Union, The United States, the UK, France, and Japan ) to have come to the peace table and discussed terms of surrender in a comprehensive and mutually beneficial manner, rather, instead of having been imposed on such a unilateral manner the way it was.

As for the issue of the Senkakus/ Diaoyutais and Dokdo/ Takeshima, these are rather miniscule inhabitable rock formations and do not have any economic incentives for either Japan, China or Korea, rather are areas that may be subject to politicization and national sentiments, which has been clearly shown. I do not disagree with you , in principle, that Dokdo should be recognized as a truly Korean territory , besides, Korea already has physical ownership of said island. In fact one of the negative talking points in Japanese foreign policy has been in the retention of claims on Takeshima / Dokdo , which actually serves to hurt Japanese-Korean interests and relations. I am optimistic that eventually, as the recent Seoul-Tokyo Comfort Women Landmark Deal had shown, Tokyo is currently not opposed to possibility of compromise with Seoul in regards to claim status of Dokdo/ Takeshima. Perhaps both can cosign a joint exploration deal regarding the territorial seas of Korea and Japan , which are contiguous to Dokdo/ Takeshima.

In fact, i believe it will come down to that, just another joint exploration block between Tokyo and Seoul.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Therein lies the issue many of us have in regards to the formal peace treaty, which was, ultimately, US-centric as per the terms of agreement. It would have been better had the United States accepted Japan's request for conditional surrender , which would have actually enabled all sides (Nationalist government of China, the Soviet Union, The United States, the UK, France, and Japan ) to have come to the peace table and discussed terms of surrender in a comprehensive and mutually beneficial manner, rather, instead of having been imposed on such a unilateral manner the way it was.

As for the issue of the Senkakus/ Diaoyutais and Dokdo/ Takeshima, these are rather miniscule inhabitable rock formations and do not have any economic incentives for either Japan, China or Korea, rather are areas that may be subject to politicization and national sentiments, which has been clearly shown. I do not disagree with you , in principle, that Dokdo should be recognized as a truly Korean territory , besides, Korea already has physical ownership of said island. In fact one of the negative talking points in Japanese foreign policy has been in the retention of claims on Takeshima / Dokdo , which actually serves to hurt Japanese-Korean interests and relations. I am optimistic that eventually, as the recent Seoul-Tokyo Comfort Women Landmark Deal had shown, Tokyo is currently not opposed to possibility of compromise with Seoul in regards to claim status of Dokdo/ Takeshima. Perhaps both can cosign a joint exploration deal regarding the territorial seas of Korea and Japan , which are contiguous to Dokdo/ Takeshima.

In fact, i believe it will come down to that, just another joint exploration block between Tokyo and Seoul.

JAPAN CAN STILL MAKE THINGS RIGHT. Just renounce all claims to Korean and Russian islands, and cede Senkakus to China/Taiwan. Its very simple actually. Dont need any magic/diplomatic rprowess to do that.

 

[Aepsilons]

JAPAN CAN STILL MAKE THINGS RIGHT. Just renounce all claims to Korean and Russian islands, and cede Senkakus to China/Taiwan. Its very simple actually. Dont need any magic/diplomatic rprowess to do that.

Ideologically there must be compromise in regards to these challenges since Japanese political economy is varied and eclectic with varying points of contention , especially in Government systems. The point is that as we move towards an integrated paradigm, there shall be greater joint cooperation, joint development schema , which will fundamentally change the context of territoriality for ever, in context to the East Asian Regional Praxis.

I suppose it is illustrative of the complex milieu that diplomacy and political reference leads one to appreciate. If i may draw to your own insular policies, it goes with the saying that British politicians are half way for integration with the EU , and halfway out of the EU for more inclusive multilateralism , as well as even secession ideologies, as in the case of recent Scotland-Referendum on Independence.

The EU referendum is already following the Scottish playbook, Project Fear 2.0 | Ruth Wishart | Opinion | The Guardian

Politic is not a white or black supra-spectrum, it is varied, complex, and has various sub-strata. It also requires one to appreciate each and every single independent variable of the over-arching praxis.


Regards.

Sincerely,
@Nihonjin1051

 

[Viet]

YES, we're willing to spend billions to control the strategic area regardless how tiny it is. And I don't have any doubt that you viets like to dream of nuclear exchange between China and US but there is more chance that US will nuke Vietnam more than China because it's an easy target without any option of retaliation, and Americans can get easily away without any accountability as how they did in Vietnam war with those agent orange, you viets couldn't simply retaliate. And for the same tonken you viets don't want to put the fate of Vietnam on the poker table against China...and that's how you become our vessal state for millennium...I guess I understand your logic...

As for territories, we earned and lost throughtout the history, that's not a big deal about that, Tibet and Xinjiang that were annexed thanks to Mongol and Manchu...and you never know next might be Vietnam

And pity for me?? no I pity you over your hopelss dream to see the reduced size of China but wake up with nightmare to see our islands reclamation allow us to fully control the SCS include which your south Vietnam is now effectively under our monitor screen,

You are nuts!