The police
reported that a boy was seen carry a pen knife in the vicinity. The police
claimed that the boy was dangerous, carrying a very dangerous weapon. Then the
police sent in their forces, armed with machine guns, rocket launchers,
armoured cars, tanks and F35 fighter aircraft, B52 nuclear bombers, to look for
the dangerous boy. The police said they are for peace and their heavy weapons
are for peace, the boy and his pen knife is disturbing the peace and very
dangerous to peace and stability in the neighbourhood. You can substitute the
word ‘gangster’ for the word ‘police’ for the real picture. Who is more
dangerous, the police/gangster or the boy?
This is
exactly what the Americans are saying and doing in the South China Sea and the Asia Pacific region. They
are accusing China
Below is a brief
extract from a book ' Rebalancing U.S. Forces: Basing and Forward Presence in the
Asia-Pacific’ by Carnes Lord and Andrew Erickson.
Erickson
and Justin D. Mikolay begin the book’s examination on Guam . Political constraints
and friction with allies and partners around the region have led U.S. Guam , U.S. Okinawa , actually clamor for a
larger military presence. The result is plans to greatly expand the basing of
submarines, airpower, and Marines on the island,…. Singapore South China Sea , and is the critical
gateway for the U.S. Indian Ocean ….. American bases abroad are one of the clearest
manifestations of the United States Japan South Korea Thailand Philippines
And the US deployed 325,000
military personnel in Asia and Africa according to Global Research, 97,000 in
Asia, 40,258 in South Korea, 40,045 in Japan, 491 in Diego Garcia, 100 in the
Philippines and increasing, 113 in Thailand, 195 in Singapore, 200 in Australia,
16,600 afloat in ships and aircraft carriers
With the pervasive presence
of American bases in the region, who is the one that is militarising the region
and South China Sea ? Who
is more dangerous, the boy or the police/gangster? Who carries more destructive
weapons and is more deadly? The US
29 comments:
Asia and SE Asia need the presence of the PRC, a stronger PRC, to check the overwhelming presence of the Americans so that they cannot misbehaved, cannot threaten anyone anytime they like and conduct regime change. The countries will be freer and safer when two supper powers can check each other. Absolute power in one country is the recipe for bullying.
The region would be safer if there is a more equitable balqance of power. The fate of the Arab and Muslim countries will befall SE Asia if there is no one to balance the Americans.
"Asia and SE Asia need the presence of the PRC, a stronger PRC, to check the overwhelming presence of the Americans"
February 20, 2016 10:56 am
No need lah.
America will ownself check ownself.
"The region would be safer if there is a more equitable balqance of power. The fate of the Arab and Muslim countries will befall SE Asia if there is no one to balance the Americans."
February 20, 2016 10:56 am
What about Singapore?
Will Singapore be safer if there is a more equitable balance of power?
Will the fate of the Arab and Muslim countries befall Singapore if there is no one to balance the PAP?
Come on!
This small "FAT" boy is not carrying a pen knife. But possibly a "dirty" bomb --- not just the normal delivered ballistic missile one but possible the portable suitcase type. This is why they want to remove this madman. The scariest part is the Fatty refuse to listen to the Motherland.....
Sin is playing a major role
in hosting the Rogue
International Policeman.
Sinkies should feel protected
and safe.
World needs craftsman...not thinkers...
Anon 5:43,
The one that is mad are those that believed everything the Americans said.
This fat boy and his papa and grand papa would not become dear leaders if they were mad.
Anon 9:53pm
You know this round i kind of believe the US. Reason is how the people wailed not just cry when the father passed away. Damn similar with what happen last year in our country which is scary enough to change the election result. Some still have the sticker on the car! So what else is not possible with this fatty to create madness within his country?
Another thing is this fatty is so fat where his people is not even remotely close. FYI, he got gout which is related to (i let you find out more).
Anon 12:24,
Don't be stupid can or not? Go and visit North Korea and see for yourself what is real.
@ Anon 8:32 am
Why in denial?
Satellite images have noticed vast difference of power usage at night at borders near china.
Forgot to mention something else funny.
China sponsored NK to build the MRT. Fatty was captured on media smoking in the train and his doggy help to carry around the ash tray which he also did not use as the ash went onto the ground. Dun even want to know what is not captured. Country is in madness!!
Cont to cover your eyes and ears to see and hear only what you want.....
The US is drumming up such a trivial defensive Chinese matter to the countries of South East Asia in order to frighten them that China is going to attack them. Those simple-minded leaders would flock to USA to buy arms from it. The Americans are very notorious for that. Without drumming for war nobody would buy their obsolete weapons and they would not have their means to invent new ones. Throughout the recent history there is a pattern to this type of American tricks even fictitious ones.
1. The Americans sank one of their own crafts in the Gulf of Tonkin and blamed it on the North Vietnamese. There was an excuse to bomb North Vietnam.
2. The Americans fought against Iran because it refused to use the petro dollars to trade.
3. The Americans fought against Saddam Hussein because for the same reason.
4. the Americans killed Gadafi because it wanted to use gold to trade with oil.
5. The Americans sided with Japan after the WW2 and refused to punish those guilty because it has a great share in the bullions that the Japanese had taken from the nations of Asia that it invaded.
ASEAN countries must be aware of supporting America. Do not let America con them.
YEO HONG ENG
China was the last to build a runway on the disputed islands. While M'sia, Vietnam and others were building, nobody said anything. The US was quiet too. But when China does it, it's all about freedom of navigation blah blah blah. Trouble is, the US is like an international gangster.
Imagine a gangster which has a gang of many members owes a big business owner money. When the gangster can't pay up what will he do? He'll start a war and thereby absolve himself from having to pay his debt. This is the US. When it can't pay off it's debt, it will use it's military to start conflict. In a war, all debts are cancelled.
@Dan Yong
FYI, China not only build runway but reclaim reefs to become islands that stun a lot.
They also refused international arbitration but wanted one to one nego (giant ver ant).
For me this is the way of the gangster. Who knows what they will reclaim or do next?
Better to have another gangster to check on another gangster so that he would have to think twice again before doing anything stunning again to its surrounding smaller neighbour.
Reclaiming ones' own reefs in ones' territory is against International Law?
Where are You from? The depth of the well?
'Anonymous said...
@Dan Yong
FYI, China not only build runway but reclaim reefs to become islands that stun a lot.
They also refused international arbitration but wanted one to one nego (giant ver ant).
For me this is the way of the gangster. Who knows what they will reclaim or do next?'
Want to know the answer? They will claim to be your father and slept with your mother.
Good morning Hong Eng and Dan Yong,
Welcome to the blog. China is being tagged by the Americans, the real trouble maker, as the trouble maker and unfortunately many bananas think they are Americans and the Americans are right and will not start to call Chinese got no talent, inscrutable when the Chinese Civilisation is like in the 19th and 20th Centuries. And they will be restricted to be cooks and laundrymen. Oh, I forgot, they can also become coolies to build the railroads in America.
@ Anon 10:07pm
Hello? Go and read more at http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/no-china-is-not-reclaiming-land-in-the-south-china-sea/
A commentary written by Chinese academic Shen Dingli argues that there is no prohibition in international law about land reclamation. He cites the examples of Shanghai city, Japan’s Kansai International Airport, Hong Kong and Dubai. None of these examples are comparable to what it taking place in the South China Sea.
Let’s be clear: China is not reclaiming land in the South China Sea in order to improve conditions on a land feature – an island – that has deteriorated due the impact of the environment or human use. China is dredging sand from the seabed and coral reefs to create artificial islands. China misleadingly states it is reclaiming land on islands over which it has sovereignty. This is not the case. China is building artificial structures on low tide elevations (submerged features at high tide) and rocks. China cannot claim sovereignty over these features. These features are not entitled to maritime zones or airspace.
Artificial islands have a distinct meaning in international law. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sovereignty over artificial islands can only be exercised by a coastal state in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Article 56 states, “In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has…jurisdiction… with regard to: (i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures…” Article 60 gives the coastal state “exclusive right to construct… artificial islands.” And Article 80 extends this provision to artificial islands on a coastal state’s continental shelf.
This case applies to the philippines claim "islands" and is different case from vietnam one.
Part 1: PROOF OF CHINA’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLES & REEFS OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
==========================
1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island
a) China Sea Pilot compiled and printed by the Hydrography Department of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom in 1912 has accounts of the activities of the Chinese people on the Nansha Islands in a number of places.
b) The Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong) carried an article on Dec. 31 of 1973 which quotes the British High Commissioner to Singapore as having said in 1970: "Spratly Island (Nanwei Island in Chinese) was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province… and was returned to China after the war. We can not find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China."
2. France
a) Le Monde Colonial Illustre mentioned the Nansha Islands in its September 1933 issue. According to that issue, when a French gunboat named Malicieuse surveyed the Nanwei Island of the Nansha Islands in 1930, they saw three Chinese on the island and when France invaded nine of the Nansha Islands by force in April 1933, they found all the people on the islands were Chinese, with 7 Chinese on the Nanzi Reef, 5 on the Zhongye Island, 4 on the Nanwei Island, thatched houses, water wells and holy statues left by Chinese on the Nanyue Island and a signboard with Chinese characters marking a grain storage on the Taiping Island.
b) Atlas International Larousse published in 1965 in France marks the Xisha, Nansha and Dongsha Islands by their Chinese names and gives clear indication of their ownership as China in brackets.
3) Japan
a) Yearbook of New China published in Japan in 1966 describes the coastline of China as 11 thousand kilometers long from Liaodong Peninsula in the north to the Nansha Islands in the south, or 20 thousand kilometers if including the coastlines of all the islands along its coast;
b) Yearbook of the World published in Japan in 1972 says that Chinese territory includes not only the mainland, but also Hainan Island, Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea.
Part 2:
4. The United States
a) Columbia Lippincott World Toponymic Dictionary published in the United States in 1961 states that the Nansha Islands on the South China Sea are part of Guangdong Province and belong to China.
b) The Worldmark Encyclopaedia of the Nations published in the United States in 1963 says that the islands of the People's Republic extend southward to include those isles and coral reefs on the South China Sea at the north latitude 4°.
c) World Administrative Divisions Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that the People's Republic has a number of archipelagoes, including Hainan Island near the South China Sea, which is the largest, and a few others on the South China Sea extending to as far as the north latitude 4°, such as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.
5. Viet Nam
a) Vice Foreign Minister Dung Van Khiem of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam received Mr. Li Zhimin, charge d'affaires ad interim of the Chinese Embassy in Viet Nam and told him that "according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha and Nansha Islands are historically part of Chinese territory." Mr. Le Doc, Acting Director of the Asian Department of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, who was present then, added that "judging from history, these islands were already part of China at the time of the Song Dynasty."
b) Nhan Dan of Viet Nam reported in great detail on September 6, 1958 the Chinese Government's Declaration of September 4, 1958 that the breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China should be 12 nautical miles and that this provision should apply to all territories of the People's Republic of China, including all islands on the South China Sea. On September 14 the same year, Premier Pham Van Dong of the Vietnamese Government solemnly stated in his note to Premier Zhou Enlai that Viet Nam "recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's territorial sea."
c) It is stated in the lesson The People's Republic of China of a standard Vietnamese school textbook on geography published in 1974 that the islands from the Nansha and Xisha Islands to Hainan Island and Taiwan constitute a great wall for the defense of the mainland of China.
Part c:
B. The maps printed by other countries in the world that mark the islands on the South China Sea as part of Chinese territory include:
1. The Welt-Atlas published by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1954, 1961 and 1970 respectively;
2. World Atlas published by the Soviet Union in 1954 and 1967 respectively;
3. World Atlas published by Romania in 1957;
4. Oxford Australian Atlas and Philips Record Atlas published by Britain in 1957 and Encyclopaedia Britannica World Atlas published by Britain in 1958;
5. World Atlas drawn and printed by the mapping unit of the Headquarters of the General Staff of the People's Army of Viet Nam in 1960;
6. Haack Welt Atlas published by German Democratic in 1968;
7. Daily Telegraph World Atlas published by Britain in 1968;
8. Atlas International Larousse published by France in 1968 and 1969 respectively;
9. World Map Ordinary published by the Institut Geographique National (IGN) of France in 1968;
10. World Atlas published by the Surveying and Mapping Bureau of the Prime Minister's Office of Viet Nam in 1972; and
11. China Atlas published by Neibonsya of Japan in 1973.
C. China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands is recognized in numerous international conferences.
1. The 1951 San Francisco Conference on Peace Treaty called on Japan to give up the Xisha and Nansha Islands. Andrei Gromyko, Head of the Delegation of the Soviet Union to the Conference, pointed out in his statement that the Xisha and Nansha Islands were an inalienable part of Chinese territory. It is true that the San Francisco Peace Treaty failed to unambiguously ask Japan to restore the Xisha and Nansha Islands to China. But the Xisha, Nansha, Dongsha and Zhongsha Islands that Japan was asked to abandun by the Peace Agreement of San Francisco Conference were all clearly marked as Chinese territory in the fifteenth map A Map of Southeast Asia of the Standard World Atlas published by Japan in 1952, the second year after the peace conference in San Francisco, which was recommended by the then Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuo Okazaki in his own handwriting.
2. The International Civil Aviation Organization held its first conference on Asia-Pacific regional aviation in Manila of the Philippines on 27 October 1955. Sixteen countries or regions were represented at the conference, including South Viet Nam and the Taiwan authorities, apart from Australia, Canada, Chile, Dominica, Japan, the Laos, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and France. The Chief Representative of the Philippines served as Chairman of the conference and the Chief Representative of France its first Vice Chairman. It was agreed at the conference that the Dongsha, Xisha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea were located at the communication hub of the Pacific and therefore the meteorological reports of these islands were vital to world civil aviation service. In this context, the conference adopted Resolution No. 24, asking China's Taiwan authorities to improve meteorological observation on the Nansha Islands, four times a day. When this resolution was put for voting, all the representatives, including those of the Philippines and the South Viet Nam, were for it.
No representative at the conference made any objection to or reservation about it.
@ Dan Yong
If this is the case where there is so much evidence, why didnt China participate in the court? and be absent from any representation.
The key word here is artificial island reclaim from reefs. Reefs are submerged items when tide is high. UN law states that sovereignty over these artificial islands have specific rules and regulations. To rub salt into the wound, why US is not signatory country and China is one? So should China honour its signatory?
So many things need to iron out and China refuse to participate and start to reclaim by itself. If everyone just goes ahead and do everything it wants, what would happened? Does it mean the bigger muscle will do everything it can (mind you there is always bigger and smarter asses out there), now China has fall into a trap set by US to be perceived as a big bully irregardless of Hague court verdict even though these islands "may" be China's.
If Hague court announce that these artificial islands belong to Philippines, what is China's next move to bug out or continue to stay put？？ knowingly there will be UN led response.
Have you ever wondered what is the real objective of US?
Hey Redbean,
How come you have so many "anynymous" posters? Shouldn't you make it compulsory to leave some identifier? BTW nice blog. I've been following your articles for a while.
@ Dan Yong
Wah lau? Your Part 1,2 and C were all copied from the website : http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/topics_665678/3754_666060/t19232.shtml
which is the official website of China Foreign Ministry. Sometimes even articles from the media are biased not to mention in this case China govt media which is a claimant country. Even a secondary school student can google and cut and paste.
I think we need to understand and digest the information and not just memorized and vomit out the whole chunk without doing anything analytical. I hate to admit this but somehow employers have stated that our local youths cannot think out of the box and this is the partial reason why our PMETs are displaced.
FYI, this is the 2 points from the joint statement (US - Asean) released from whitehouse on the Maryland summit 2016.
7. Shared commitment to peaceful resolution of disputes, including full respect for legal and diplomatic processes, without resorting to the threat or use of force in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law and the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS);
8. Shared commitment to maintain peace, security and stability in the region, ensuring maritime security and safety, including the rights of freedom of navigation and overflight and other lawful uses of the seas, and unimpeded lawful maritime commerce as described in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as well as non-militarization and self-restraint in the conduct of activities;
Depending on how you see, these could have lots of meaning?
What say you?
Wow
One copied wholesale fron a China Website alleged Another.
Haha.....
Where then did the Another gets his/her
Data?
From US Website?
@ Anon 11:53 am
Aiyoh, you dun know the back ground story of this Dan Yong.
It doesnt matter if you quote US or China news media for news and analysis, as long as you quote it and let people know your source. Plus you at least digest a bit and not vomit everything out.
This clown go and copy wholesale from China Ministry of Foreign Affairs website not just any website, never quote the source, some more it is a claimant country and then "pui" everything without digesting. Philippines is disputing a lot of things under 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and China/Philippines are signatory countries. Not saying that 9 dash line is illegal and claims are false but there is seriously a lot of disputes which needs iron out. For eg this case is totally a different case with Vietnam claims.
Eg. Reefs, artificial island, island, EEZ, continental shelf all have special meanings in law and these meanings will have impact on their sovereignty whether it is airspace and its surrounding waters.
That is why the whole issue goes to court and lawyers will debate.....
Not only this, this clown also go around and write that US has 1000 ballistic missiles in South Korea soil. Total bullshit!
Talk rubbish never mind but talk rubbish + supply misleading "facts" is something else, You agree?
Hi Dan Yong,
Thank you for the factual and scholarly research on the South China Sea islands. Just ignore the noise. These are bananas that did not know what they are talking about and are afraid to be proven wrong and be shamed in public. So they will conveniently hide behind anonymous to attack people.
What is impt is not just the source of a document but whether it is true for false. The American media are all shits and getting shittier by the days. But these bananas would claim that they are authoritative despite the nonsense they are publishing daily.
If these bananas are serious for the truth they would go and check the validity of your points. But no, they would just attack you personally and ignoring the facts you put up.
Thank you once again for the informative posts.
Why would China want to entertain spurious claims in a court dominated by the Americans and western interests?
Would you go to court just because your crazy neighbours stake a claim to your property that you are living in if you don't have to, or if you know the court is likely to fix you up?
Hi RedBean,
Thanks for your kind words. And I totally agree with you about those who hide behind anonymous posts. Its always dodgy when people do that. When people stop discussing the points and attack people personally that's when you know they have nothing to say and have lost it. I try not to pay too much attention to such posts. Waste of time.
Anyhow, as to the often cited argument of why doesn't China go to the world court, besides the reason stated by you that there is simply no reason to do so, which I totally agree, there are also more important reasons. China should not fall into the trap.
Here is the reply I gave to someone who was obviously from the Philippines, "As with the tribunal, there is so much big power influence that you'll have to be a fool to submit yourself to that. You'll not necessarily be getting justice. History has shown that. Did you know that in recently history, up to 8 countries where in China ransacking the capital and carving up the country? 7 of those countries were European. And now becos China is rich, those same countries line up to sign biz deals with it. There is no justice. No country will willingly limit its own rights.
Look at your own country, the USA usurped Spain. It stole Texas, broke up Mexico and eventually claimed Philippines. And it was all started by the USA bombing it's own battle cruiser which was anchored in Cuba. Killing several hundred Americans. That's how the Spanish American war started. Spain was blamed. The USA did what it did becos it could. My point? You can't trust them to administer justice and be a true arbitrator.
As for the strong bullying the weak, did you know that about two years ago, the Philippine navy shot up a Taiwanese fishing boat killing the captain? The wooden boat had more than 100 bullet holes. That only those that landed on the boat. How many were fired? Was the violence necessary? If it was a China fishing boat do you think your navy would have dared to do that that? As China's leader recently said, "History has shown that a strong military is the best safeguard for peace." (remember 8 nations ransacking Beijing)."
That shooting of the Taiwanese fishing boats showed how wild the Pinoys were with guns in their hands. It also showed how shameful the Taiwanese were as a state, unable to protect their people against a weak and half bankrupt trigger happy country.
Post a Comment