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.