South China/West Philippine Sea

[sonnyt111]

What about his video? It's no longer available.

 

Yeah I know. The video got pulled. It was a poorly made video in my opinion. Just some cheap North Korean propaganda.

[sonnyt111]

Good idea. The question now is, how long can these students camp on Taiwan's portion of the Spratlys? Or do they have relievers on a rotation basis so that Taiwan's portion of the Spratlys would always have Taiwanese on it?

 

I would imagine students camped there today will be relieved in a couple of days on a rotation basis. Sure fire way to occupy the contested islands on a continuing basis. Evicting these Taiwanese by force by the Mainlanders is tantamount to full scale war which could have severe repercussions for China if the US decides to counter Chinese aggression with military intervention.

[airport-noo]

this is what i've been saying we should be doing: taiwan students, teachers to camp in spratlys

Malakas loob nila dahil hindi sila babarilin ng China. The prospect of reunification makes this move favorable to China. Unlike the VIetnamese who were massacred when they pulled this stunt.

Edited February 7, 2013 by airport-noo

[heatseeker0714]

this is what i've been saying we should be doing: taiwan students, teachers to camp in spratlys

 

You do that, we lose the moral high ground. Us lodging our complaint in that International Tribunal has boosted our standing in the eyes of other countries. As one ASEAN Diplomat stated, "The Philippines Foreign Service has been for decades, not held in very high regard, but with this move, it shows that they clearly did their homework."

 

Sec. Albert Del Rosario et al put China in a bind... If they ignore said complaint, they'll be seen as not participating in the proper and legal forum. If they send delegates to said tribunal, they'll concede their position of "Irrefutable Sovereignty" and recognize our complaint.

[heatseeker0714]

Occupation is one thing. Asserting control is another. I don't think we can do the latter.

 

Hence our 3 pronged approach, namely, Political, Diplomatic and Legal.

 

Political - Our Government talking with theirs about said issue.

Diplomatic - Our Government shouting at the top of its lungs to get everybody's (International Community) attention on the situation.

Legal - Our Government going to the International Tribunal.

[dungeonbaby]

You do that, we lose the moral high ground. Us lodging our complaint in that International Tribunal has boosted our standing in the eyes of other countries. As one ASEAN Diplomat stated, "The Philippines Foreign Service has been for decades, not held in very high regard, but with this move, it shows that they clearly did their homework."

 

Sec. Albert Del Rosario et al put China in a bind... If they ignore said complaint, they'll be seen as not participating in the proper and legal forum. If they send delegates to said tribunal, they'll concede their position of "Irrefutable Sovereignty" and recognize our complaint.

 

taiwan's dnd has been doing it for 3 years, according to reports. how's taiwan's moral highground?

 

and how is panatag shoal, is its entrance still barred by the Chinese?

[tk421]

Hence our 3 pronged approach, namely, Political, Diplomatic and Legal.

 

Political - Our Government talking with theirs about said issue.

Diplomatic - Our Government shouting at the top of its lungs to get everybody's (International Community) attention on the situation.

Legal - Our Government going to the International Tribunal.

 

I'm afraid those are not enough. We can win all three, but if the Chinese Navy can do any damn thing they want in the vicinity, then we still can't claim effective control over the territory.

[tk421]

taiwan's dnd has been doing it for 3 years, according to reports. how's taiwan's moral highground?

 

and how is panatag shoal, is its entrance still barred by the Chinese?

 

Taiwan doesn't need 'moral high ground'. If they're occupying it and no one else is infringing in their set borders, then it's effectively their's.

[dungeonbaby]

Taiwan doesn't need 'moral high ground'. If they're occupying it and no one else is infringing in their set borders, then it's effectively their's.

 

which would make my point, wouldn't it

[camiar]

Occupation is one thing. Asserting control is another. I don't think we can do the latter.

We have been asserting control on Pag-asa Island in the Spratlys for decades already.

 

We have Philippine Marines there. It has a 1.2 km long airstrip there that can allow huge C-130 military transport planes to land and take-off.

 

Recently, the Department of Education officially opened an Elementary School there to cater to the growing number of children among the Filipino community living there. There is a fully functioning Barangay in the island. Elections are conducted there in conjunction with our regular elections here in Manila.

 

We have not just occupied the Pag-asa Island, we are asserting control over it.

 

All Taiwan can do is to let their students to camp in some unoccupied sandbar in the area.

 

We, on the other hand, have already been occupying and governing the biggest island in the Spratleys.

 

Yes, China can take that island from us by overwhelming force. But at what price? I doubt if they will do it.

Edited February 7, 2013 by camiar

[tk421]

They dont have to take it. All they have to do is make a blockade around it and prevent supplies from coming through...

[hit05]

The real issue here is our officials are deeply divided. There is no clear cut policy. Even the Chinese Envoy during the start of Noynoy's term publicly proclaimed that promises have been broken and the president's word does not have integrity.

 

Maybe what Filipinos should be doing today is simply to collate the headline news and stop allowing media/information controls to erase the facts to SHORTEN our memory.

 

What PROMISES were given by Noynoy to China? He did sit down with Chinese officials and decided on the Spratly issue. The bilateral decision by China and the Philippines summon the call for ASEAN nations to mobilize a contigent military force as resistance to the act of taking over the disputed islands. It also made the US State Secretary steadfast in her duty to both APEC and Asean groups to protect the region from Chinese expansionist activities by revising the VFA and perhaps altering the protocol or judgment call for military action.

 

There is also recent crack in Senate unity which stems from Sen Enrile revelations about Sen Trillanes' secret missions to China as negotiator for Noynoy. The Senate as a separate and independent body has been compromised by Sen Trillanes' act of accepting missions fit for a Cabinet Secretary instead. Such secret and unofficial moves not only confuses all the parties concerned but demoralizes the DFA in its effort to resist FALSE and misleading claims by China.

 

Today the DFA is boldly using multilateral UN settlement to calm all parties but it does not disclose the damage done by earlier negotiations or the unnecessary trips of Senator Trillanes who got no authority to decide on behalf of the State. One of the chief officials that Noynoy appointed to study the matter openly admitted on TV that he lived in China for sometime and knew about the territorial claims gap. According to this lawyer, China base its map on the CLAIM of the Nationalists that went into the island of Formosa and establish the Republic of Taiwan. But COMMON SENSE would tell us that China went through as FAILED cultural revolution which is based on lies and preposterous propaganda. This Cultural Revolution is an abject failure and its officers were in fact executed as traitors aka Gang of Four after the death of Chairman Mao. Moreover even the Taiwanese today refuses to accept deals of unification with the mainland and does not consider themselves a part of China so why even entertain the territorial claim which is a HOAX.

[camiar]

They dont have to take it. All they have to do is make a blockade around it and prevent supplies from coming through...

Blockade Pag-asa Island? what excuse would they use to justify it? That would only make them look bad to the international community.

 

To prevent supplies from coming through? To do that they also have to enforce a no-fly zone since we are capable of re-supplying by air. But to enforce the no-fly zone, they would have to declare war. War against whom? the Philippines? What a laugh! They will just make themselves look like fools.

 

You give too much credit on China's perceived strength. The fact is, China can't do much with their claims as we are with ours. You should understand that they cannot touch our claimed islands not because we are strong enough to defend them, but because our neighbors and allies are watching. But having said that, I still believe that we should build up our own military strength to protect our claims. Defending our territory and sovereignty is our responsibility, not the USA, nor any of our neighbors and allies.

Edited February 8, 2013 by camiar

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Blockade Pag-asa Island? what excuse would they use to justify it? That would only make them look bad to the international community.

 

To prevent supplies from coming through? To do that they also have to enforce a no-fly zone since we are capable of re-supplying by air. But to enforce the no-fly zone, they would have to declare war. War against whom? the Philippines? What a laugh! They will just make themselves look like fools.

 

You give too much credit on China's perceived strength. The fact is, China can't do much with their claims as we are with ours. You should understand that they cannot touch our claimed islands not because we are strong enough to defend them, but because our neighbors and allies are watching. But having said that, I still believe that we should build up our own military strength to protect our claims. Defending our territory and sovereignty is our responsibility, not the USA, nor any of our neighbors and allies.

 

Was wondering if I understood you correctly. That in order to enforce an embargo, there is a need to declare war. Was I right in my interpretation? If so, how is it that JFK managed to declare a naval quarantine off Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 without declaring war? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a quarantine similar to an embargo? Is there really a need to declare war against a country before an embargo can take effect?

 

I agree with your statement that China can't do much with their claims as we are with ours. I've always maintained that China stands to lose much should hostilities break out. I believe that, as much as possible, China doesn't want to provoke the US from entering into the equation by siding with an ASEAN member which happens to be at odds with China. Not to mention having to confront other ASEAN member countries which may come to the aid of their ally.

[camiar]

Was wondering if I understood you correctly. That in order to enforce an embargo, there is a need to declare war. Was I right in my interpretation? If so, how is it that JFK managed to declare a naval quarantine off Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 without declaring war? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a quarantine similar to an embargo? Is there really a need to declare war against a country before an embargo can take effect?

 

You have to read a few posts back to put it in the right context. We were talking about China taking Pag-asa Island by overwhelming force, which tk421 says China don't have to but just to blockade the island (presumably to force it to surrender).

 

Under what pretense would China blockade Pag-asa Island? Can you give a scenario of a full naval blockade with a no-fly-zone that is not a state of war?