Singapore Expats Forum

Policy of The West

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

earthfriendly
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat, 20 Aug 2005

Policy of The West

Postby earthfriendly » Wed, 22 Jun 2016 6:11 am

A nice analysis. Altho the blames ring true, moving onto this new century, I don't think we should adopt too much of this blame-y and self-reproach attitude. One gotta move on. And not cave in to nationalistic urges. Nationalism will bring down the entire human race.

http://observer.com/2016/06/why-the-wes ... -in-china/

User avatar
maneo
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat, 15 Mar 2008
Location: Titik Merah Kecil

Re: Policy of The West

Postby maneo » Tue, 19 Jul 2016 4:21 pm

Yes, it was a thoughtful analysis.

China is not "reclaiming small chunks of land in the South China Sea" just for the hell of it, or merely to thumb their nose at the West.
It is actually to protect their supply of imported oil - 80% of which passes through the South China Sea.
Follow the path of their oil and it's easy to see why China needs each of these posts.

As long as the US stops interfering in the area, there should be no dangerous escalation to worry about.

Besides that, the US has no say whatsoever in the matter.
The US is not a signatory to the agreement.

Furthermore, having ignored world opinion and tribunal judgement over the support of the Nicaragua Contras, the US criticism of China is merely "the pot calling the kettle black."

User avatar
Barnsley
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pasir Ris
Contact:

Re: Policy of The West

Postby Barnsley » Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:58 am

maneo wrote:
Furthermore, having ignored world opinion and tribunal judgement over the support of the Nicaragua Contras, the US criticism of China is merely "the pot calling the kettle black."


I am pretty sure the US got very heavily criticised for this stance at the time.

Therefore for many in the World community , being critical of China's stance here seems to me like no difference.

The South China Sea ruling , just stated that none the "Islands" were "Islands" so were just rocks and therefore they didnt amount to contributing to a countries EEZ, thus everyone is free to use the waters as they "international" , I am not sure what the issue with that is.

It didn't state anything about who "owned" what, I believe.

Good news is that China is apprently going to build some nuclear power stations there , great news for everyone.
Life is short, paddle harder!!

User avatar
Max Headroom
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed, 08 May 2013
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Policy of The West

Postby Max Headroom » Wed, 20 Jul 2016 1:33 pm

The main difference with previous cases of countries refusing to follow international tribunal's rulings, such as in the case of the US vs. Nicaragua or Russia vs. Holland, is that these were country against country.

In this South China Sea issue, however, China is taking on half a dozen other countries. They're not just pinching a bit of the Philippines' property, they're seizing pretty much all of the South China Sea! At the expense of all the incumbent countries.

What are they thinking?? :???: :???: :???:

User avatar
Barnsley
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2066
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pasir Ris
Contact:

Re: Policy of The West

Postby Barnsley » Wed, 20 Jul 2016 2:04 pm

Max Headroom wrote:The main difference with previous cases of countries refusing to follow international tribunal's rulings, such as in the case of the US vs. Nicaragua or Russia vs. Holland, is that these were country against country.

In this South China Sea issue, however, China is taking on half a dozen other countries. They're not just pinching a bit of the Philippines' property, they're seizing pretty much all of the South China Sea! At the expense of all the incumbent countries.

What are they thinking?? :???: :???: :???:


When the economy is getting a bit rocky , nothing like a bit of Nationalism to keep the natives distracted, its a popular tactic around the world.

I really do wonder if the folk in the far west of China really give monkeys who does what in the South China Sea.

The whole thing seems easily avoidable to me.
Life is short, paddle harder!!

User avatar
maneo
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat, 15 Mar 2008
Location: Titik Merah Kecil

Re: Policy of The West

Postby maneo » Wed, 20 Jul 2016 6:26 pm

Max Headroom wrote:The main difference with previous cases of countries refusing to follow international tribunal's rulings, such as in the case of the US vs. Nicaragua or Russia vs. Holland, is that these were country against country.

This case is also "country against country" - Philippines vs. China.
No other country is party to the case.

Until the US ratifies the UNCLOS, and respects the previous adverse tribunal ruling, they have no moral ground for objecting to China's refusal. That is the point.

Max Headroom wrote:What are they thinking?? :???: :???: :???:

China is trying to protect the shipping line through which 80% of their imported oil flows.
Thus, it is a security issue for them.

What the rest of the world thinks does not matter to China.
Being in the Security Council, they have veto power in the UN, too.
World opinion was ignored outright in June 1989, when China had a less developed economy.
Why should world opinion matter now, now that China is much stronger economically and militarily?

User avatar
Max Headroom
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed, 08 May 2013
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Policy of The West

Postby Max Headroom » Wed, 20 Jul 2016 7:10 pm

maneo wrote:
Max Headroom wrote:The main difference with previous cases of countries refusing to follow international tribunal's rulings, such as in the case of the US vs. Nicaragua or Russia vs. Holland, is that these were country against country.

This case is also "country against country" - Philippines vs. China.
No other country is party to the case.

Until the US ratifies the UNCLOS, and respects the previous adverse tribunal ruling, they have no moral ground for objecting to China's refusal. That is the point.

Max Headroom wrote:What are they thinking?? :???: :???: :???:

China is trying to protect the shipping line through which 80% of their imported oil flows.
Thus, it is a security issue for them.

What the rest of the world thinks does not matter to China.
Being in the Security Council, they have veto power in the UN, too.
World opinion was ignored outright in June 1989, when China had a less developed economy.
Why should world opinion matter now, now that China is much stronger economically and militarily?


Yes, in this case, it's China vs. Phillippines, as it's the latter that filed against the former. But this applies just to this particular case. Aside from this case, there are a bunch of other countries whose territory China is seizing. Clearly, if and when these countries follow suit, the permanent court of arbitration will rule the same way .


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests