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/
SINGAPORE EXPATS FORUM
Singapore Expat Forum and Message Board for Expats in Singapore & Expatriates Relocating to Singapore
Policy of The West
Re: Policy of The West
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."
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."
Re: Policy of The West
I am pretty sure the US got very heavily criticised for this stance at the time.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."
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!!
- Max Headroom
- Reporter
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:31 am
- Location: Singapore
- Contact:
Re: Policy of The West
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??

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??



Re: Policy of The West
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.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??![]()
![]()
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!!
Re: Policy of The West
This case is also "country against country" - Philippines vs. China.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.
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.
China is trying to protect the shipping line through which 80% of their imported oil flows.Max Headroom wrote:What are they thinking??![]()
![]()
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?
- Max Headroom
- Reporter
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:31 am
- Location: Singapore
- Contact:
Re: Policy of The West
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 .maneo wrote:This case is also "country against country" - Philippines vs. China.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.
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.
China is trying to protect the shipping line through which 80% of their imported oil flows.Max Headroom wrote:What are they thinking??![]()
![]()
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?
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 1 Replies
- 1910 Views
-
Last post by 3carlos
Sat, 01 Jun 2019 10:52 pm
-
-
Latest policy on duration of a renewed S pass?
by kelvin167 » Wed, 17 Jul 2019 4:46 pm » in Careers & Jobs in Singapore - 1 Replies
- 1400 Views
-
Last post by sundaymorningstaple
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 7:27 pm
-
-
-
Singapore Expats - "Privacy policy"
by martincymru » Mon, 29 Jun 2020 3:10 pm » in Computer, Internet, Phone & Electronics - 2 Replies
- 2016 Views
-
Last post by sundaymorningstaple
Mon, 29 Jun 2020 5:43 pm
-
-
-
OMICRON is officially a mild virus; policy change?
by musical box » Fri, 24 Dec 2021 1:29 pm » in Beauty, Health & Fitness - 3 Replies
- 1958 Views
-
Last post by PNGMK
Sat, 25 Dec 2021 7:01 pm
-
-
-
Looking for a futsal/football game in the West
by harryk » Sun, 25 Mar 2018 8:27 pm » in Football Fans - 0 Replies
- 4306 Views
-
Last post by harryk
Sun, 25 Mar 2018 8:27 pm
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests