South China/West Philippine Sea

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

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?

Well yes that was my original question. When JFK declared a naval blockade (a naval quarantine) off Cuba to prevent Soviet warships from reaching Cuba, did a formal state of war exist between the US and Cuba/Soviet Union? Yes I know there was the Cold War back in those days. But can the Cold War actually be considered as a formal declaration of war that would warrant a naval blockade?

[tk421]

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.

 

 

What excuse do they need? They could just say they're conducting a live fire naval exercise in the area (with no definite end time, of course).

 

And since it's part of a disputed territory, none can claim war over territorial breaches. And if a non aligned supply ship attempts to get through the excersie area... Well accidents do happen in live fire exercises.

[dungeonbaby]

What excuse do they need? They could just say they're conducting a live fire naval exercise in the area (with no definite end time, of course).

 

And since it's part of a disputed territory, none can claim war over territorial breaches. And if a non aligned supply ship attempts to get through the excersie area... Well accidents do happen in live fire exercises.

 

 

maybe they don't need an excuse, but i think the point being made is that it's not worth their while to up the ante with regard to Pag-asa, especially when there are other areas where there is bound to be less resistance to an aggressive move.

 

but really, the interesting thing here is your mention of accidents. now reasonable posters may react violently to this, but what if a boat that was blockading an area was accidentally rammed? what are they going to do, start a war over the poor navigation skills of innocent fisherfolk? taiwan and china have been in this situation and so far...no war.

[Bugatti Veyron]

maybe they don't need an excuse, but i think the point being made is that it's not worth their while to up the ante with regard to Pag-asa, especially when there are other areas where there is bound to be less resistance to an aggressive move.

 

but really, the interesting thing here is your mention of accidents. now reasonable posters may react violently to this, but what if a boat that was blockading an area was accidentally rammed? what are they going to do, start a war over the poor navigation skills of innocent fisherfolk? taiwan and china have been in this situation and so far...no war.

 

As far as I know, WW1 was triggered after Arch Duke Ferdinand of Austria was assasinated by anarchists in Sarajevo in 1914. Throughout history, war can and has been declared for much smaller reasons than this. So if China is really bent on war, it can use the poor navigational skills of innocent fisherfolk as a justification for war. All it's waiting for is a slip-up. Whether it was a deliberate ramming or just an accident really isn't the point.

 

Fact that China and Taiwan haven't been to war after all this time is a good sign that relations between the two, though cold, are stable and civil, if not cordial.

[dungeonbaby]

So if China is really bent on war, it can use the poor navigational skills of innocent fisherfolk as a justification for war. All it's waiting for is a slip-up. Whether it was a deliberate ramming or just an accident really isn't the point.

 

like i said, they don't need an excuse to start a war. can it afford to is the million peso question. all it's waiting for is a slip up? maybe, maybe not. note that China was more aggressive during the Marcos years, and even then Marcos blew up a lighthouse the Chinese built in the Spratlys. similarly, India is fighting China on their borders. has China gone to war? the point is no it hasn't.

 

Fact that China and Taiwan haven't been to war after all this time is a good sign that relations between the two, though cold, are stable and civil, if not cordial.

 

maybe it's because of stable and civil relations, maybe it's because going to war would be economically insane. what's your point? what are you advocating?

[camiar]

What excuse do they need? They could just say they're conducting a live fire naval exercise in the area (with no definite end time, of course).

 

And since it's part of a disputed territory, none can claim war over territorial breaches. And if a non aligned supply ship attempts to get through the excersie area... Well accidents do happen in live fire exercises.

 

They need a good excuse so that if they ever use force against Pag-asa Island, the international community will not come to our aid and start WW3. But if your basis is that the Chinese are so cocky to think they can do anything they want against us because they are stronger, then there's no point arguing with you.

 

Anyway, the Chinese won't be so stupid.

 

My prediction is that the Spratlys row will eventually be settled diplomatically, with all claimants joining to develop that area and share the the wealth.

Edited February 9, 2013 by camiar

[Bugatti Veyron]

like i said, they don't need an excuse to start a war. can it afford to is the million peso question. all it's waiting for is a slip up? maybe, maybe not. note that China was more aggressive during the Marcos years, and even then Marcos blew up a lighthouse the Chinese built in the Spratlys. similarly, India is fighting China on their borders. has China gone to war? the point is no it hasn't.

 

 

maybe it's because of stable and civil relations, maybe it's because going to war would be economically insane. what's your point? what are you advocating?

 

I disagree with what you said about not needing an excuse to start a war. Even Adolf Hitler needed an excuse to invade Poland in 1939. He used German intelligence officers dressed in Polish military uniforms to attack a garrison of German troops. This provocative act gave Hitler the justification to attack Poland. You don't even have to look very far to find that excuses are always needed to justify an act. Marcos could have declared martial law without justifying it. Yet he used the leftists as his excuse to declare PD 10181. Even had his secretary of defense shoot up his own car to justify the implementation of martial law.

 

Why does China need an excuse? Well because China now enjoys the respect of the rest of the world. To continue to enjoy that respect it must adhere to internatonal laws and decisions lest it be considered a pariah in the international community. I don't think China is willing to rock the boat insofar as its dealings with the west and the rest of the world.

 

Given this, China has much to lose if it goes to war without any provocation. Without any excuse. What I said is IF China wanted to go to war it would need some sort of provocation to justify its action. It would definetely wait for a slip-up. No where did I mention that it wants to or is even willing to go to war because as you correctly pointed out, this would be economic suicide.

 

Now aside from this, I reiterate my belief that one of the major reasons China and Taiwan have so far avoided war is because of stable relations between both countries. That plus the fact that China has so much to lose, not only economically, but prestige as well in the eyes of the international community. It cannot afford to lose all its gains in the past 30 years just to pursue a policy that, at least to me, is archaic. The one China policy is something China hasn't even talked about in a long time. Whether this is still on the agenda of the polituburo, once can only speculate.

[camiar]

Well yes that was my original question. When JFK declared a naval blockade (a naval quarantine) off Cuba to prevent Soviet warships from reaching Cuba, did a formal state of war exist between the US and Cuba/Soviet Union? Yes I know there was the Cold War back in those days. But can the Cold War actually be considered as a formal declaration of war that would warrant a naval blockade?

You answered your own question. What the US did then was virtually an act of war against Cuba. It just so happen that Russia did not cross the line because they know they will never win a fight right in the USA's backyard, and Cuba was too weak to resist. Cuba's neighbors, the Latin American States, are pro-USA. So nobody raised a finger vs. Uncle Sam.

 

The South China Sea dispute is entirely different. Our neighbors are not pro-China. In fact they are our allies and many of them also have territorial disputes with China just like us. So, as long as we don't provoke China militarily, any military agression they conduct against Pag-asa Island will be viewed by our neighbors and allies as an act of war against us, and most likely, they will come to our aid. China can't afford to be in that situation.

Edited February 9, 2013 by camiar

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

You answered your own question. What the US did then was virtually an act of war against Cuba. It just so happen that Russia did not cross the line because they know they will never win a fight right in the USA's backyard, and Cuba was too weak to resist. Cuba's neighbors, the Latin American States, are pro-USA. So nobody raised a finger vs. Uncle Sam.

 

The South China Sea dispute is entirely different. Our neighbors are not pro-China. In fact they are our allies and many of them also have territorial disputes with China just like us. So, as long as we don't provoke China militarily, any military agression they conduct against Pag-asa Island will be viewed by our neighbors and allies as an act of war against us, and most likely, they will come to our aid. China can't afford to be in that situation.

 

Ok so in other words, since the US unilaterally decided to put up a military blockade to prevent Soviet missiles from reaching Cuba, that was tantamount to an act of war. No need to formally declare war on another country and only then set up a military blockade. The military blockade in itself is already a declaration of war.

[camiar]

Ok so in other words, since the US unilaterally decided to put up a military blockade to prevent Soviet missiles from reaching Cuba, that was tantamount to an act of war. No need to formally declare war on another country and only then set up a military blockade. The military blockade in itself is already a declaration of war.

An undeclared war? The USA did that to Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. And what they did then was worse than a blockade.

Edited February 9, 2013 by camiar

[dungeonbaby]

Now aside from this, I reiterate my belief that one of the major reasons China and Taiwan have so far avoided war is because of stable relations between both countries. That plus the fact that China has so much to lose, not only economically, but prestige as well in the eyes of the international community. It cannot afford to lose all its gains in the past 30 years just to pursue a policy that, at least to me, is archaic. The one China policy is something China hasn't even talked about in a long time. Whether this is still on the agenda of the polituburo, once can only speculate.

 

to paraphrase you, China doesn't need a good excuse if it is bent on war. so whether they have an excuse or not doesn't really matter. making up excuses is easy and not beyond the communist/fascist playbook anyway, as you point out in your Nazi example. let me paraphrase you in a way that will make it clear that we actually have the same point - it's irrelevant whether they have a legitimate excuse or not, if they want a war, they will find a way to have a war.

 

now let me qualify your statement a little - China has 'stable relations' with Taiwan despite the latter's history of ramming Chinese boats. so...

 

again, my question, why not do as Taiwan/India/Vietnam do? why be timid when sustained occupation is how our neighbors are playing the game?

 

 

[camiar]

again, my question, why not do as Taiwan/India/Vietnam do? why be timid when sustained occupation is how our neighbors are playing the game?

 

Taiwan and India have the military capability to take on China on territorial dispute skirmishes. To a certain extent, Vietnam can hold up on their own too, but they were trounced by China several times before.

 

Our navy and airforce, on the other hand, at present can't do anything substantial until we get our new ships and fighters delivered to us a few years from now. We have to keep quiet for a while longer while we build up our strength. We may look timid, but what else can we do? We have to rely more on diplomacy.

[tk421]

All this talk of China going to war with us...? What I mean is China will not have to declare war on us. It'll never happen (ok, at least it's likely it won't happen). It just doesn't have to, if their sole aim is to control the South China Sea. They'll just keep occupying more space until all other claimant nations just give in.

[dungeonbaby]

Taiwan and India have the military capability to take on China on territorial dispute skirmishes. To a certain extent, Vietnam can hold up on their own too, but they were trounced by China several times before.

 

Our navy and airforce, on the other hand, at present can't do anything substantial until we get our new ships and fighters delivered to us a few years from now. We have to keep quiet for a while longer while we build up our strength. We may look timid, but what else can we do? We have to rely more on diplomacy.

 

all true. but if the main reason China isn't responding is because of international optics (how it will look to the rest of the world) then military strength isn't the key. and if that's the case...why wait for equipment to arrive? apart from the reality that even with new ships and fighters we have no money to really practice on these things, this course of action (waiting) is exactly what China is hoping our response will be. in the meantime panatag shoal is effectively surrounded by the Chinese, Taiwan continues to make its presence felt...

 

The South China Sea dispute is entirely different. Our neighbors are not pro-China. In fact they are our allies and many of them also have territorial disputes with China just like us. So, as long as we don't provoke China militarily, any military agression they conduct against Pag-asa Island will be viewed by our neighbors and allies as an act of war against us, and most likely, they will come to our aid. China can't afford to be in that situation.

 

question: our neighbors are not pro-China but it's not like they're pro-Pinas either, right? if China wasn't bullying everyone else all at once, it isn't as if our neighbors would award us the islands we claim?

 

seems to me we are more petulant towards the USS Guardian than the real aggressors.

[camiar]

again, my question, why not do as Taiwan/India/Vietnam do? why be timid when sustained occupation is how our neighbors are playing the game?

 

Taiwan and India have the military capability to take on China on territorial dispute skirmishes. To a certain extent, Vietnam can hold up on their own too, but they were trounced by China several times before.

 

Our navy and airforce, on the other hand, at present can't do anything substantial until we get our new ships and fighters delivered to us a few years from now. We have to keep quiet for a while longer while we build up our strength. We may look timid, but what else can we do? We have to rely more on diplomacy.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

to paraphrase you, China doesn't need a good excuse if it is bent on war. so whether they have an excuse or not doesn't really matter. making up excuses is easy and not beyond the communist/fascist playbook anyway, as you point out in your Nazi example. let me paraphrase you in a way that will make it clear that we actually have the same point - it's irrelevant whether they have a legitimate excuse or not, if they want a war, they will find a way to have a war.

 

now let me qualify your statement a little - China has 'stable relations' with Taiwan despite the latter's history of ramming Chinese boats. so...

 

again, my question, why not do as Taiwan/India/Vietnam do? why be timid when sustained occupation is how our neighbors are playing the game?

 

 

 

This is a valid point you're making. China may not need any real excuse to go to war if it doesn't care about international condemnation.

Edited February 9, 2013 by oscartamaguchiblackface

[Bugatti Veyron]

to paraphrase you, China doesn't need a good excuse if it is bent on war. so whether they have an excuse or not doesn't really matter. making up excuses is easy and not beyond the communist/fascist playbook anyway, as you point out in your Nazi example. let me paraphrase you in a way that will make it clear that we actually have the same point - it's irrelevant whether they have a legitimate excuse or not, if they want a war, they will find a way to have a war.

 

now let me qualify your statement a little - China has 'stable relations' with Taiwan despite the latter's history of ramming Chinese boats. so...

 

again, my question, why not do as Taiwan/India/Vietnam do? why be timid when sustained occupation is how our neighbors are playing the game?

 

to paraphrase you, China doesn't need a good excuse if it is bent on war. so whether they have an excuse or not doesn't really matter. making up excuses is easy and not beyond the communist/fascist playbook anyway, as you point out in your Nazi example. let me paraphrase you in a way that will make it clear that we actually have the same point - it's irrelevant whether they have a legitimate excuse or not, if they want a war, they will find a way to have a war.

 

Point well taken. Military force by China in the West Philippine Sea won't sit well with ASEAN, the US, and the rest of the world whether it has an excuse or not. But tell me, what if, for argument's sake, China had a really legitimate excuse to use military force. For instance (and this is really all hypothetical) a Philippine contingent landed on an island that had Chinese civilians present and the Philippine contingent mowed them down. Just so happened, it was just one drunk Phlippine soldier that opened fire at the Chinese civilians. There were no instructions by Malacanang to k*ll innocent people.....it was just the act of one drunk man.

 

Now would this be considered a legitimate excuse for China to start a full blown war? Would the world give China its imprimatur to go ahead and attack the Philippines because of this incident? Seems WW1 was started because of the assasination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand...one man murdered and millions of people killed in Europe because of the assasination. So there is already a historical precedent.

 

I know, this is all hypothetical, in the realm of pure speculation. Possible but highly improbable. I just wanted to discuss this in response to what you said about excuses. What constitutes a legitimate excuse? Would the above scenario be considered legitimate? Would the rest of the world still condemn Chinese military aggression/declaration of war given this turn of events?

[Bugatti Veyron]

Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and Chinese civilians are not the same in status. The former is a head of state and the latter are civilians. The assassination of a head of state by another country would be an act of war while taking out civilians won't be considered an act of war but the aggrieved country would make the erring country have to answer for this abominable action via the United Nations but before that, the erring soldier would most certainly be court martialed by the AFP. The Serbian assassins who took out Archduke Ferdinand were really gonna murder him while the drunk Philippine soldier did it under the influence with no intent to k*ll but because of rage due to being under the influence. Of course, being drunk doesn't mitigate the gravity of killing civilians but no country in its right mind would start a war due to a drunk soldier. This is my opinion of how things would play out if your scenario happened.

Yes I see your point. But China may seize this opportunity. It's been looking for a way to take action for a long time. The fact that the soldier who shot the Chinese citizens was drunk is beside the point. The Chinese will say it was on purpose. It will convince the world the killngs were on purpose. Nothing like a senseless massacre like this to give the Chinese government the upperhand. The ammunition it needs and the moral ascendancy to attack.

 

I don't believe for a moment that it will act with any restraint like filing a diplomatic protest with the UN. As stated earlier by Ms. dungeonbaby, China will attack with or without an excuse. Well if China had an excuse that many countries would buy, so much the better wouldn't you say? After all, they were the "victims". China will definitely play up this incident in the world press to give it as much media mileage as it can in its bid to take over islands controlled or occupied by the Philippines. It could attack a Philippine controlled island and justify this by saying their intelligence sources indicated that the erring Philippine soldiers were last sighted on that island and they were there to arrest the soldiers but they fought back.

 

Anything is possible given the above circumstances. The Chinese are notorious for the use of propaganda. The act of one single drunk Philippine soldier would simply be fuel they need badly to boost their propoganda.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Bugatti Veyron

[heatseeker0714]

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?

 

China's not bothering Taiwan on the WPS Issue simply because they view Taiwan as an extension of China. In their eyes, Taiwan will eventually be returned to their fold.

[dungeonbaby]

^^ implying it's more about political maneuvering than "moral highground," which was the point. and, Taiwan looks at China in the same exact way.

[maxiev]

China's not bothering Taiwan on the WPS Issue simply because they view Taiwan as an extension of China. In their eyes, Taiwan will eventually be returned to their fold.

I don't know if Taiwan wants to be re-united with the Mainland. The Mainland economy has since caught up and may have even surpassed Taiwan's economy so being re-united with the Mainland may appeal to Taiwan's leaders. I'm not an expert on Taiwanese-Mainland relations and would want to hear opinions of others regarding this subject.

 

The thing I'd really like to know is whether prospects are high for re-unification or whether this is a remote possibility.

[heatseeker0714]

I don't know if Taiwan wants to be re-united with the Mainland. The Mainland economy has since caught up and may have even surpassed Taiwan's economy so being re-united with the Mainland may appeal to Taiwan's leaders. I'm not an expert on Taiwanese-Mainland relations and would want to hear opinions of others regarding this subject.

 

The thing I'd really like to know is whether prospects are high for re-unification or whether this is a remote possibility.

 

No they don't. It's the Mainland that's after them. Even if the PRC surpasses the ROC's economy, they'll still want to get the ROC back. To the Mainlanders, it's all about "Saving Face"... They already got Hong Kong and Macau back, the ROC's the last rock they haven't been able to get back. To them, the ROC is the last vestige of Western Colonialism that tarnishes their "Invicibility"...

[Bugatti Veyron]

No they don't. It's the Mainland that's after them. Even if the PRC surpasses the ROC's economy, they'll still want to get the ROC back. To the Mainlanders, it's all about "Saving Face"... They already got Hong Kong and Macau back, the ROC's the last rock they haven't been able to get back. To them, the ROC is the last vestige of Western Colonialism that tarnishes their "Invicibility"...

What about Taiwan? Do you think there are those in the administration that are calling for a re-concilliation with the Mainland? What's the advantge to Taiwan? What's the advantage to the PROC? Do both countries treat each other with mutual respect and admiration? Is there mutual trust?

[tk421]

Yup under one flag... But they still can't decide which flag of their to use.

 

Taiwan is actually warming up to the mainland compared to when the government was under the Pan-green coalition.

 

As for reuniting with China... maybe it's on Taiwan's agenda... But I can tell you it's not in the near future. More important to them now is to build economic stability to both sides of the strait.

[Bugatti Veyron]

A news item was mentioned on tv patrol this evening which showed that National Bookstore was selling globes made in China which indicated the extent of China's claims in the South China/West Philippine Sea. The globe showed the territorial claims of China extended very close to Palawan.

 

These globes were pulled out and replaced with globes made in Taiwan which doesn't reflect the political claims of China in the disputed area.