South China/West Philippine Sea

[maxiev]

I don't quite follow. Why would the vote of the Senate not have made a difference?

Because I don't think the Americans would have abandoned these installations which, at that time, were vital to their national interests. If the US felt that it needed the bases there would most probably have been backdoor negotiations between US officials and officials of the Philippine government that would have indefinitely extended the Americans' use of the bases and, at the same time, the negotiations would have provided the senators who voted to close the bases a way to save face. I'm pretty certain that would have been the scenario back then.

 

But then, this is just speculation on my part and it's all really moot and academic now.

[MangNyakis]

Because I don't think the Americans would have abandoned these installations which, at that time, were vital to their national interests. If the US felt that it needed the bases there would most probably have been backdoor negotiations between US officials and officials of the Philippine government that would have indefinitely extended the Americans' use of the bases and, at the same time, the negotiations would have provided the senators who voted to close the bases a way to save face. I'm pretty certain that would have been the scenario back then.

 

But then, this is just speculation on my part and it's all really moot and academic now.

my thoughts exactly..... we all know naman our politicians are easily "persuaded" if the price is right. if the Americans would really want something then rest assured it will happen.

[MentalQ]

So historically speaking, China really has a right to it but under today's laws under the UNCLOS and geographically speaking, the Philippines has a right to it. China's claiming of the Spratlys is akin to Iraq's claiming of Kuwait since historically Kuwait was a part of Iraq which precipitated Gulf War I.

But then, some parts of what is now Southeast Asia (Vietnam, at least as I recall offhand) have been tribute states of China at one time. So the "historical" right may not hold in this case.

 

But what I observed over the years: Chinese and Vietnamese are ready and had actually put in a lot more (like a few company-size skirmishes) than what Filipinos would actually be willing to do.

 

The Chinese are extremely sensitive about territorial issues (I think there is also an ongoing dispute with Japan), but also very sensitive about being labeled an aggressor. At one point, I thought that the sensitivity has more to do with the Tibet issue (which technically they annexed/occupied in the 1950s), but later on I felt that it might be more than that. It seems its part of their social consciousness (parts of China were "controlled" by western powers and later Japan).

 

But clearly, this is a case of bullying and the Philippines does not have the wherewithal to put up a fight. And for which the Philippines would need a clear policy and extreme diplomatic savvy. Sadly, I can't figure out which is in shorter supply: the military resources or clear policy and diplomatic savvy!

[Bugatti Veyron]

But then, some parts of what is now Southeast Asia (Vietnam, at least as I recall offhand) have been tribute states of China at one time. So the "historical" right may not hold in this case.

 

But what I observed over the years: Chinese and Vietnamese are ready and had actually put in a lot more (like a few company-size skirmishes) than what Filipinos would actually be willing to do.

 

The Chinese are extremely sensitive about territorial issues (I think there is also an ongoing dispute with Japan), but also very sensitive about being labeled an aggressor. At one point, I thought that the sensitivity has more to do with the Tibet issue (which technically they annexed/occupied in the 1950s), but later on I felt that it might be more than that. It seems its part of their social consciousness (parts of China were "controlled" by western powers and later Japan).

 

But clearly, this is a case of bullying and the Philippines does not have the wherewithal to put up a fight. And for which the Philippines would need a clear policy and extreme diplomatic savvy. Sadly, I can't figure out which is in shorter supply: the military resources or clear policy and diplomatic savvy!

 

The lessons of "Gunboat Diplomacy" is something the Chinese seem to have imbibed from the British. What was done to them in the 1800's they're now doing now to their South East Asian neighbors.

[Bugatti Veyron]

But then, some parts of what is now Southeast Asia (Vietnam, at least as I recall offhand) have been tribute states of China at one time. So the "historical" right may not hold in this case.

 

But what I observed over the years: Chinese and Vietnamese are ready and had actually put in a lot more (like a few company-size skirmishes) than what Filipinos would actually be willing to do.

 

The Chinese are extremely sensitive about territorial issues (I think there is also an ongoing dispute with Japan), but also very sensitive about being labeled an aggressor. At one point, I thought that the sensitivity has more to do with the Tibet issue (which technically they annexed/occupied in the 1950s), but later on I felt that it might be more than that. It seems its part of their social consciousness (parts of China were "controlled" by western powers and later Japan).

 

But clearly, this is a case of bullying and the Philippines does not have the wherewithal to put up a fight. And for which the Philippines would need a clear policy and extreme diplomatic savvy. Sadly, I can't figure out which is in shorter supply: the military resources or clear policy and diplomatic savvy!

I would say both are in short supply. We cannot compare our military resources with the modern military weapons of China. And without a modern military, Chinese leaders will unfortunately not take Philippine diplomats seriously. Diplomacy must always be backed with military might. Because when all I said and done, the Chinese can easily dismiss Filipino diplomats and tell them "so what do you intend to do about it....?

[dungeonbaby]

Bro, the way it was explained to me, if the Americans really wanted to stay, I don't think the Senate vote would have made any difference. They would have stayed. The Americans left Subic and Clark because of the havoc caused by Mt. Pinatubo.

 

I agree having super carriers docked at Subic and US jets patrolling Philippine skies would have made a great deterrent to Chinese aggression in the Spratleys. But that's all water under the bridge now.

 

they left because we raised the rent on them too.

 

But clearly, this is a case of bullying and the Philippines does not have the wherewithal to put up a fight. And for which the Philippines would need a clear policy and extreme diplomatic savvy. Sadly, I can't figure out which is in shorter supply: the military resources or clear policy and diplomatic savvy!

 

we cannot afford to wait until we "have the wherewithal to put up a fight," because that might not ever happen. as diplomatic efforts fail, chinese ships cordon off our islands. put people on these islands, fish the surrounding waters as we've always done. it's highly unlikely the chinese boats will shoot a filipino fisherman first. not now.

[wackyracer]

The presence of US military bases in RP soil will not stop the Chinese from asserting their claim on the Spratleys. It didn't stop them from entering the waters of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands despite the US military presence in Japan. It didn't stop them in 1971 from occupying and establishing its military presence in the Spratleys despite the US bases in Clark and Subic.

 

Wikileaks: Chinese Occupation of Ligaw Island, 1971

 

 

As always, US action, be it military or otherwise, will be to its (USA's) own best interest.

[Bugatti Veyron]

The presence of US military bases in RP soil will not stop the Chinese from asserting their claim on the Spratleys. It didn't stop them from entering the waters of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands despite the US military presence in Japan. It didn't stop them in 1971 from occupying and establishing its military presence in the Spratleys despite the US bases in Clark and Subic.

 

Wikileaks: Chinese Occupation of Ligaw Island, 1971

 

 

As always, US action, be it military or otherwise, will be to its (USA's) own best interest.

No it won't stop the Chinese from asserting their claim on the Spratleys. What it would do is prevent them from doing anything provocative or hostile like sending warships into the area especially if US warships are close by.

[wackyracer]

No it won't stop the Chinese from asserting their claim on the Spratleys. What it would do is prevent them from doing anything provocative or hostile like sending warships into the area especially if US warships are close by.

 

I would classify occupying Ligaw island and firing warning shots at Philippine aircraft and maritime vehicles more provocative and hostile. The presence of US forces in Clark Air Base and Subic Naval Base did not prevent the Chinese from committing these hostile acts. The presence of US bases in Japan, likewise, didn't prevent the PROC from sending 8 Chinese ships in the disputed Senkaku islands, an act deemed provocative and hostile.

[komissar]

they left because we raised the rent on them too.

 

 

We raised the rent because what they were asking (or demanding) was rock bottom rates that, as what i read from a book written by the head of the RP negotiating team tasked to renegotiate the stay of the RP bases, even the its members were "ashamed" of its figures.

 

But i guess the withdrawal of the US bases was for the better coz we have been very dependent with US might and military power. I guess its about time we learn to raise and defend our military

[hit05]

But then, some parts of what is now Southeast Asia (Vietnam, at least as I recall offhand) have been tribute states of China at one time. So the "historical" right may not hold in this case.

 

But what I observed over the years: Chinese and Vietnamese are ready and had actually put in a lot more (like a few company-size skirmishes) than what Filipinos would actually be willing to do.

 

The Chinese are extremely sensitive about territorial issues (I think there is also an ongoing dispute with Japan), but also very sensitive about being labeled an aggressor. At one point, I thought that the sensitivity has more to do with the Tibet issue (which technically they annexed/occupied in the 1950s), but later on I felt that it might be more than that. It seems its part of their social consciousness (parts of China were "controlled" by western powers and later Japan).

 

But clearly, this is a case of bullying and the Philippines does not have the wherewithal to put up a fight. And for which the Philippines would need a clear policy and extreme diplomatic savvy. Sadly, I can't figure out which is in shorter supply: the military resources or clear policy and diplomatic savvy!

 

 

The Chinese have been under a foreign power for centuries and the present communist regime does not even consider the Manchu dynasty as Chinese. The Manchurians are distinct from the Han Chinese in many ways and in fact, there is a website in HK which distinguishes the physical characteristics of the two races. Manchurians have more in common with Japanese than Chinese physically.

 

What does communism have in common with Chinese history based on propaganda? Both are extremely hard to justify in today's information age.

 

An expanded China is definitely non existent. The expansion happened and China was at the mercy of the conqueror rather than the other way around. It was Mongolia under the Khans which covered the largest area of the world including China which Marco Polo wrote about as the Middle Kingdom. The next expansion happened under the Manchus and this failed too, leading to the bankruptcy of the monarchy and the rise of the nationalists. In fact the disputed islands claimed by both Japanese and Chinese today were reparation for war that was initiated by China under the Manchus. The northern island of Manchuria was among those given to Japan as settlement.

Edited April 26, 2013 by hit05

[dungeonbaby]

first the Chinese claimed Scarborough/Panatag Shoal as theirs.

 

then they sent Chinese ships to block our fishermen from fishing and taking refuge on Panatag...

 

...implementing a 15-mile no fishing zone - that apparently, and laughably, only applied to Filipino fishermen.

 

now this fishing ban has become a full-on exclusion zone, with China issuing a maritime alert that no ships are to enter the "zone."

 

 

 

so...who was saying here last year that occupation meant nothing?

 

 

 

The problem with the current Philippine strategy on territorial disputes is that Philippine officials actually believe that irrefutable legal rights, confidence building measures, and favorable international opinion will do the trick and win the day for the country. What they cannot seem to understand is that in the history of the world, all territorial claims are determined by the capacity of the claimant to bleed for its claim, physically occupy its claim, and not just blabber about it in endless track 1 and track 2 diplomatic activities.

 

- from Jose Custodio's "Losing Ground," May 9, 2013

 

(Jose Antonio A. Custodio is a security and defense consultant having worked at private sector and government offices. He was a technical adviser for a US defense company working for the US Pacific Command. He also specializes in military history and has post-graduate studies in history from the University of the Philippines.)

Edited May 9, 2013 by dungeonbaby

[dos8dos]

No it won't stop the Chinese from asserting their claim on the Spratleys. What it would do is prevent them from doing anything provocative or hostile like sending warships into the area especially if US warships are close by.

 

http://youtu.be/rMvakC4-k7Q

Edited May 12, 2013 by dos8dos

[sonnyt111]

http://youtu.be/rMvakC4-k7Q

I think incidents like these are inevitable. There are always instances when one side wants to see how the other side will react given a provocative situation. These sort of incidents have been going on for a very long time now.

 

It's a different matter altogether when the Chinese see a whole flotilla of American naval vessels in full combat readiness especially if accompanied by a US aircraft carrier. No Chinese military commander/admiral would dare do what they just did to that unarmed US vessel.

 

Any attempt to approach a naval convoy such as this will be regarded as hostile and may be fired upon.

[Bugatti Veyron]

I think incidents like these are inevitable. There are always instances when one side wants to see how the other side will react given a provocative situation. These sort of incidents have been going on for a very long time now.

 

It's a different matter altogether when the Chinese see a whole flotilla of American naval vessels in full combat readiness especially if accompanied by a US aircraft carrier. No Chinese military commander/admiral would dare do what they just did to that unarmed US vessel.

 

Any attempt to approach a naval convoy such as this will be regarded as hostile and may be fired upon.

I agree with this view. It's one thing to try to bait a single American vessel, another to tangle with a whole fleet of warships.

[maxiev]

We raised the rent because what they were asking (or demanding) was rock bottom rates that, as what i read from a book written by the head of the RP negotiating team tasked to renegotiate the stay of the RP bases, even the its members were "ashamed" of its figures.

 

But i guess the withdrawal of the US bases was for the better coz we have been very dependent with US might and military power. I guess its about time we learn to raise and defend our military

Seems our military is going to find it difficult to defend against a superior Chinese navy. Our military (and the US military support that was given back then) was/is suited for the purpose of containing both communist and Muslim insurgencies. Not to confront a first world military power such as the Chinese military. Our military is just no match against the Chinese. We need an American presence to deter Chinese aggression.

[camiar]

Seems our military is going to find it difficult to defend against a superior Chinese navy. Our military (and the US military support that was given back then) was/is suited for the purpose of containing both communist and Muslim insurgencies. Not to confront a first world military power such as the Chinese military. Our military is just no match against the Chinese. We need an American presence to deter Chinese aggression.

We do not need to match the might of Chinese PLA. We are not going on a full scale war with them anyway.

 

The American presence will be there, in the background. And so will Japan's, India's, and our neighboring South East Asia's military presence -- these countries, individually, are also no match to China, but collectively a credible deterrent.

 

We just need to build up our navy and air force to be able to challenge their increasing aggressiveness in our area. The minimum we need are several new Offshore Patrol Vessels, Multi-purpose Landing Dock Vessels, Interceptor Fighter Jets, Navy helicopters. The number of acquisitions that we can afford will not be a match if there is a full scale war, but it would be useful in policing our economic zones and "showing the flag" in the territories we are trying to protect.

 

In military principle, the aggressor would need to deploy five times the strength of the defending force to be able to invade and control a territory. So theoretically, the Philippines would just need to match only at least one-fifth of what China is deploying in our West Philippine Sea to counter them effectively.

Edited May 13, 2013 by camiar

[maxiev]

We do not need to match the might of Chinese PLA. We are not going on a full scale war with them anyway.

 

The American presence will be there, in the background. And so will Japan's, India's, and our neighboring South East Asia's military presence -- these countries, individually, are also no match to China, but collectively a credible deterrent.

 

We just need to build up our navy and air force to be able to challenge their increasing aggressiveness in our area. The minimum we need are several new Offshore Patrol Vessels, Multi-purpose Landing Dock Vessels, Interceptor Fighter Jets, Navy helicopters. The number of acquisitions that we can afford will not be a match if there is a full scale war, but it would be useful in policing our economic zones and "showing the flag" in the territories we are trying to protect.

 

In military principle, the aggressor would need to deploy five times the strength of the defending force to be able to invade and control a territory. So theoretically, the Philippines would just need to match only at least one-fifth of what China is deploying in our West Philippine Sea to counter them effectively.

Hmm...hope your right. What I'm worried about really is if a Philippine navy warship opens fire even on a Chinese fishing vessel. Such a provocative act could have dire consequences for the Philippines. China may seek to even the score which may include destroying some of our naval assets. I hope I am wrong.

[dungeonbaby]

funny.

 

our coast guard already fired on and killed a taiwanese fisherman, far from our shores and on no provocation. no statement from the prez yet because, as we all know, campaigning is so much more important than international matters.

Edited May 14, 2013 by dungeonbaby

[heatseeker0714]

funny.

 

our coast guard already fired on and killed a taiwanese fisherman, far from our shores and on no provocation. no statement from the prez yet because, as we all know, campaigning is so much more important than international matters.

 

The investigation regarding the incident is still ongoing, plus let me point out some facts, namely;

 

1.) The PCG did not intentionally k*ll that fisherman. It was an accident. They were aiming for the ship's engine and didn't even know they hit someone till they got back to port. your phrase "our coast guard already fired on and killed a taiwanese fisherman," has a certain slant that to the uninitiated, would come out as our coasties deliberately targeted that fisherman.

 

2.) Far from our shores??? Please check the coordinates again. They were within the vicinity of Batanes, that's why the area was being patrolled by the PCG on BFAR ships.

 

3.) No provocation??? Says who??? Them Taiwanese??? Of course they'll say that. For their politicians to admit otherwise would be political suicide. For the record, the PCG has saved countless Taiwanese lives who get in trouble in those waters, and then all of a sudden they turn into non thinking mongoloids and just shoot at anybody???

 

4.) Abnoy not commenting on the issue because "He's busy campaigning" is quite... well, let's just put it this way, i don't like Abnoy, i didn't even vote for the guy, voted for his cousin instead, but as time goes by, the way he handles incidents regarding our security and disputed areas, he's winning over a lot of skeptics both inside and outside the Military and Security Forces of the country. He has his abnormalities, i mean who doesn't, but when it comes to Military and Foreign Affairs, he's doing good. Besides, like i said, let's just wait for the results of the official investigation. You wouldn't want our President stooping down to the Taiwanese President's level diba? Issuing ultimatums and ordering their navy and coast guard to the proximity of the area just to satisfy his citizenry. Bandang huli nyan sila pa magmumukhang eng-eng dahil sa over-reaction nila na sila naman din ang mali.

[camiar]

 

4.) Abnoy not commenting on the issue because "He's busy campaigning" is quite... well, let's just put it this way, i don't like Abnoy, i didn't even vote for the guy, voted for his cousin instead, but as time goes by, the way he handles incidents regarding our security and disputed areas, he's winning over a lot of skeptics both inside and outside the Military and Security Forces of the country. He has his abnormalities, i mean who doesn't, but when it comes to Military and Foreign Affairs, he's doing good. Besides, like i said, let's just wait for the results of the official investigation. You wouldn't want our President stooping down to the Taiwanese President's level diba? Issuing ultimatums and ordering their navy and coast guard to the proximity of the area just to satisfy his citizenry. Bandang huli nyan sila pa magmumukhang eng-eng dahil sa over-reaction nila na sila naman din ang mali.

 

BS Aquino should have made a well thought out official statement regarding the incident, instead of keeping mum about it.

But, past experience have thought his "handlers" to get Abnoy to keep his mouth shut, and likewise, so should Lacierda, Valte, and Carandang.

 

Maybe when it comes to military affairs, BS Aquino is "doing good". But do you really think his military policy is really his and not of his "handlers"?. For me. I'm just thankful he has good "advisers" on military matters.

 

I also voted for Gibo. It is during times like this that I wish Gibo was our prez.

Edited May 14, 2013 by camiar

[heatseeker0714]

BS Aquino should have made a well thought out official statement regarding the incident, instead of keeping mum about it.

But, past experience have thought his "handlers" to get Abnoy to keep his mouth shut, and likewise, so should Lacierda, Valte, and Carandang.

 

Maybe when it comes to military affairs, BS Aquino is "doing good". But do you really think his military policy is really his and not of his "handlers"?. For me. I'm just thankful he has good "advisers" on military matters.

 

I also voted for Gibo. It is during times like this that I wish Gibo was our prez.

 

1.) By keeping mum on the issue, it shows his capacity to hold his tongue in check on certain matters of national importance plus the fact that by doing so, he wouldn't preempt the investigators in doing their jobs.

 

2.) his military policy may not be entirely his, he may have lots of advisers, but you have to remember, he's the one who decides on which counsel to heed. It's his neck that's on the line, not his advisers'. It's him who would earn the people's wrath, not some adviser.

[hit05]

The investigation regarding the incident is still ongoing, plus let me point out some facts, namely;

 

1.) The PCG did not intentionally k*ll that fisherman. It was an accident. They were aiming for the ship's engine and didn't even know they hit someone till they got back to port. your phrase "our coast guard already fired on and killed a taiwanese fisherman," has a certain slant that to the uninitiated, would come out as our coasties deliberately targeted that fisherman.

 

2.) Far from our shores??? Please check the coordinates again. They were within the vicinity of Batanes, that's why the area was being patrolled by the PCG on BFAR ships.

 

3.) No provocation??? Says who??? Them Taiwanese??? Of course they'll say that. For their politicians to admit otherwise would be political suicide. For the record, the PCG has saved countless Taiwanese lives who get in trouble in those waters, and then all of a sudden they turn into non thinking mongoloids and just shoot at anybody???

 

4.) Abnoy not commenting on the issue because "He's busy campaigning" is quite... well, let's just put it this way, i don't like Abnoy, i didn't even vote for the guy, voted for his cousin instead, but as time goes by, the way he handles incidents regarding our security and disputed areas, he's winning over a lot of skeptics both inside and outside the Military and Security Forces of the country. He has his abnormalities, i mean who doesn't, but when it comes to Military and Foreign Affairs, he's doing good. Besides, like i said, let's just wait for the results of the official investigation. You wouldn't want our President stooping down to the Taiwanese President's level diba? Issuing ultimatums and ordering their navy and coast guard to the proximity of the area just to satisfy his citizenry. Bandang huli nyan sila pa magmumukhang eng-eng dahil sa over-reaction nila na sila naman din ang mali.

 

The recent shooting of a civilian from Taiwan vessel that got no weapons and out-maneuvered and out-ran our Filipino military boats can explain that the problem is our own government. The US Department of Foreign Affairs tackled the issue of territorial dispute with China by emphasizing International Sea Lanes of safe passage and neutrality. Yet Filipinos shooting an unarmed civilian Taiwanese vessel is proof enough that like China, it too got no idea of what sea lanes are, which should have been pre-defined and minded. Moreover, it seems they are also ignorant of the protocols and rules of engagement that must be executed to clearly communicate a warning and the intention to fire and protect territory to an intruding unauthorized vessel.

 

What is also quite apparent is the disaster that our military did when it purchased patrol boats much slower and less dependable/maneuverable than a private boat from Taiwan that escaped. Despite the heavy firepower and armor, these military grade vessels are no match for the current technology that delivers speed, sprint and agility. The steel age in the shipping industry is over and composite materials are in, which even TV program History Channel shows being used in the latest US Navy aircraft carrier. We are not modernizing our navy but piling up obsolete and practically useless military inventory that cannot do its job when the time comes.

[heatseeker0714]

The recent shooting of a civilian from Taiwan vessel that got no weapons and out-maneuvered and out-ran our Filipino military boats can explain that the problem is our own government. The US Department of Foreign Affairs tackled the issue of territorial dispute with China by emphasizing International Sea Lanes of safe passage and neutrality. Yet Filipinos shooting an unarmed civilian Taiwanese vessel is proof enough that like China, it too got no idea of what sea lanes are, which should have been pre-defined and minded. Moreover, it seems they are also ignorant of the protocols and rules of engagement that must be executed to clearly communicate a warning and the intention to fire and protect territory to an intruding unauthorized vessel.

 

What is also quite apparent is the disaster that our military did when it purchased patrol boats much slower and less dependable/maneuverable than a private boat from Taiwan that escaped. Despite the heavy firepower and armor, these military grade vessels are no match for the current technology that delivers speed, sprint and agility. The steel age in the shipping industry is over and composite materials are in, which even TV program History Channel shows being used in the latest US Navy aircraft carrier. We are not modernizing our navy but piling up obsolete and practically useless military inventory that cannot do its job when the time comes.

 

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Filipino military boats??????????? The Philippine Coast Guard under the Dept. of Transportation and Communications and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources under the Dept. of Agriculture operating MILITARY BOATS?????????

 

The US has a Department of Foreign Affairs???????

 

International Sea Lanes in Batanes Waters???????

 

PCG-BFAR Personnel ignorant of the protocols and rules of engagement?????

 

What have you been sniffing??? Rugby??? Glue??? Mighty bond??? Heated cough syrup??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Janja]

Sarap banatan yung mga taiwanese ngayon... Parang mga ogag lang sila na nga trespasser sila pa nagyayabang.