South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Dayuhan]

I would be immensely surprised if the people of Philippines who, as you say are concerned solely with corruption and inadequacies of their Govt and Moros, would sit still and not protest such needless spending on Defence. Their silence proves that they also feel that China is a threat. I am merely going by logic. You have to prove that this logic is wrong!

Nobody is concerned "solely" with anything. There's a hierarchy of concern, and the hierarchy is different among different individuals. As stated above, the actual proposed expenditures for defence are not large, and there's still considerable debate over where the money is to be sourced. There are many other concerns, many of them equally pressing, some of them more pressing.

When a threat looms all close ranks.

The Chinese hegemonic pursuits have not really regaled the ASEAN. They are treading softly, but they are watching with great concern the moves by China. Militarily, they are no match for China. But should China misstep, their united pacific stance would make China lose face and that would be a big blow to China.

Don't expect ASEAN to close ranks, except perhaps with a statement. Not likely to happen. The level of perceived threat is very different for different members: the Philippines and Vietnam ar emore concerned, Malaysia and Indonesia less so, Thailand and Singapore still less.

I took it that you, being the expert on Philippines, said that Moros were the No 1 threat.

But given the situation between the Philippines and China, and giving the due to your expert opinion that China is no threat, I stated that the Philippines must have downgraded the internal issues and given priority to Chinese activities or else why the brouhaha in the media and sudden US interest?

You persist in casting this as all or nothing, "#1 threat" or no threat at all, as if there were no middle ground. As I said above, I never said the Moros were the #1 threat, I said they were the primary focus of US/Philippine military cooperation. The Philippine government has long classified the NPA as a greater security threat than the Moros.

The media make a brouhaha when there's an incident. When there's an incident in the south, the brouhaha and the US concern are all about the Moros. When there's an incident on Scarborough shoal, the media all look at that. The media are fickle, and if you look at coverage in any particular moment without the historical and political context, you're likely to get a quite inaccurate impression.

I would feel that not being enslaved or pushed around with negative ramifications by a foreign power (China) would be the first priority, whether one was the elite or the poor beggarman!

Nobody's looking at a threat of being "enslaved". The threat is of losing access to some fishing areas and to potential energy deposits. While being pushed around is humiliating and arouses an emotional response, most people here have much more immediate concerns.

It is interesting to note that you feel that the Filipinos are great ones to manoeuvre foreign nations to give them freebies by false pretentions of threats.

Do I take it that the others are equally gullible to fall hook, line and sinker for that ploy? Are the US diplomats and intelligence agencies inept and incompetent as you make them out to be?

It's worked in the past. Ferdinand Marcos cast himself as the sole bulwark against impending Commie takeover (despite being the best thing that ever happened to the Communists), and the Americans obediently threw vast sums of money in his direction, providing unquestioning support for most of his reign. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo drew a substantial upgrade in US aid by casting herself as a loyal ally in the GWOT. There were real hopes in some circles that casting the Philippines as the first line of defense against the red horde would bring in a bunch of high end military equipment and a bunch of money, and there was some real disappointment when that did not materialize. Apparently the US diplomats and agencies are smarter than they once were.

You raise another interesting issue. To quote you – Where I live the Manila government and its armed forces are seen as a more immediate threat than the Chinese.

You have now got me more confused with this assertion.

Philippines is a democracy? Or is it a dictatorship like China? If it is a democracy, then why should it be a greater threat than China?

Again, lack of context leads to misunderstanding. Throughout the tribal regions in the north (where I live), the Manila government is seen as a colonial power, trying to push its way in and grab timber, minerals, hydropower. People here fought a substantial war against the government from the late 70s through the early 90s. The town I live in was under virtual military occupation for a number of years; civilians were killed and there were many human rights abuses. There's peace now, mostly because the military stays out or keeps a very low profile and the big resource exploitation projects have been cancelled, but the people still see the Philippine military as a threat and the fighting could easily resume.

That's not unique: a long history of corruption, elite domination, and human rights abuse leaves large numbers of Filipinos seeing their own government as a major threat - and certainly a more immediate threat than China.

China has to be fought, if Philippines has the Might. On the other hand in a democracy, the Philippines Govt can be chucked out by the ballot. So, how is it a greater threat than China? What is a greater threat – the bullet or the ballot?

You might want to read up a bit on the nature of Philippine "democracy". I can e-mail you an article on the subject that makes a good start point, if you like. The online version is behind a paywall.

You wrote that Philippine does not find the US a dependable ally.

I am sure you know who you meant by ‘Philippines’!

I think you underestimate the US as an ally and do you think the US speaks with a ‘forked tongue’?

What makes you feel that the US will not live up to its words as per the Treaty?

What I said was that many Filipinos do not see the US as a dependable ally, not that "Philippine does not find the US a dependable ally".

I think Filipinos would be wise not to depend on the US to do whatever Filipinos want them to do. The US will act according to its own perceived interests.

The US has already made it clear that they've no intention of providing weaponry competitive with any regional peer, and that they will not take sides in territorial disputes. The treaty, as discussed before, obligates nothing beyond response "in accordance with constitutional procedures", which guarantees nothing. If US constitutional procedure concludes that the appropriate response to an incident is a diplomatic protest, that's all they are obligated to do.

Whether or not that makes the US a "dependable ally" depends on what you were depending on them to do in the first place. I think the Filipinos can depend on the US to at according to perceived US interests at any given time, which is all you'd expect from anyone in the realm of international affairs.

[Ray]

Say what you wish to, but you are not in the grip of reality.

[Dayuhan]

... and you are right, I remain outside the grip of your preferred alternate realty.

[Ray]

Analysis: Beijing’s tough line vs. Manila in Panatag Shoal standoff

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...shoal-standoff

[Ray]

China infuriated by US-Philippines defense plans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMmfL...eature=related

[Bob's World]

Many of China's neighbors, as judged by their renewed willingness to reach out to the US for strengthened security partnerships, grow increasingly wary of their powerful neighbor. This does not mean they do not embrace the economic aspect of their relationship with China, or that they seek some sort of alliance with one power to the exclusion of the others. It merely means that they recognize the value of balancing relationships with larger nations as they remain focused on their own interests as they perceive them.

Many in the West grow wary of China as well. The West has grown used to a China that was for a century too weak to defend its own sovereignty from "100 years of humiliation" at the hands of nations such as Japan, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, and yes, the US as well. Since the fall of the Nationalists China's focus has been largely internal, as it worked to redefine and reestablish itself as a viable, sovereign nation.

Recently China went on record regarding her "core interests" as she defines them; and yet much like Generals Willoughby and MacArthur in 1950, the West ignores clear expressions of red lines, purpose and intent. If I were to categorize China's posture it would be one of "strategic defense," but after so long being compressed within a posture forced upon her by others, I can see why so many see China simply shrugging her shoulders of compromises forced upon her by others, and seeking to stand up tall once again as a nation to seem "offensive" in nature.

The South China Sea is one of several regions of the world where several sphere's of influence overlap. Given the potential benefits of control over that region it is logical that competition will occur. The sooner we work to establish a reasonable distribution of the wealth from and the influence over that region the better. Otherwise such competition can only lead to conflict, warfare, and potentially war. Such a war benefits no one, but China is clear, that if given no other options, once the time is right they will exercise whatever is necessary to secure their core interests.

China is actually far less obtuse than the US when it comes to defining core interests and spheres of influence. The US seems to act as if global hegemony is some enduring right, rather than fleeting coincidence; and that our sphere of influence is, and should remain the entire globe up to the 12-mile limits and borders of Russia and China. Why else do we bandy about odd (and expensive) concepts such as "A2/AD" and Air-Sea Warfare, or somehow come to interpret a simple recognition of the importance of the far East to our national economy as a call to "contain" a rising China?

Chinese government officials have been declaring on different occasions that Taiwan, Tibet, South China Sea and Yellow Sea are national core interests. Agree or disagree, but I caution that to simply ignore is the same brand of foolishness that brought China and America to war 60 + years ago in Korea.

China is a coiled spring. She has tolerated arms sales to Taiwan because she had no choice but to do so. That does not mean that such sales do not cross a clearly marked red-line on her part. If the US continues to cross that line there will come a day when China feels she is in position to respond in kind to what she sees as an act of war against her. Better we recognize that now, rather than continuing to push dated policies that act as if China' position on such matters is irrelevant.

I am no expert on Asian culture, but know enough to roughly appreciate the concept of "losing face." Even if one only drills Wikipedia deep, it is a sobering concept to consider:

Lin Yutang considered the psychology of "face."

Interesting as the Chinese physiological face is, the psychological face makes a still more fascinating study. It is not a face that can be washed or shaved, but a face that can be "granted" and "lost" and "fought for" and "presented as a gift." Here we arrive at the most curious point of Chinese social psychology. Abstract and intangible, it is yet the most delicate standard by which Chinese social intercourse is regulated. (1935: 199-200)

How much "face" does a society such as China lose in an era declared as "100 years of humiliation"? How about in an ensuing 60 years of containment? Perhaps it is time to simply treat China with appropriate respect in general and respect specifically in regard to her declared core interests? Isn't it time to work to find a new balance of power in that region that secures the sovereignty of the smaller nations of the region without at the same time compressing so vigorously the sovereignty of the largest?

[Ray]

[

B]U.S. triples military aid to Philippines in 2012[/B]

Washington agreed to provide $30 million in FMF this year, up from an initial 2012 allocation of $15 million and from $11.9 million last year. In 2003, funding amounted to $50 million as Washington sent forces to help the Philippines battle al Qaeda-linked militants.

The Philippines is offering the United States greater access to its airfields and may open new areas for U.S. soldiers to use as it seeks stronger military ties with its ally and faces rising tensions with China in the maritime dispute.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8G340E20120503

It is interesting to note the increase in the funding from what the US gave for fighting AQ elements and what it is now giving.

The AQ threat continues to be there or has it gone?

If there is still the AQ threat, then it requires no elaboration as to why the US has increased the aid.

It is also worth noting that the Philippines are offering the United States greater access to its airfields and may open new areas for U.S. soldiers to use.

[Ray]

China is actually far less obtuse than the US when it comes to defining core interests and spheres of influence. The US seems to act as if global hegemony is some enduring right, rather than fleeting coincidence; and that our sphere of influence is, and should remain the entire globe up to the 12-mile limits and borders of Russia and China. Why else do we bandy about odd (and expensive) concepts such as "A2/AD" and Air-Sea Warfare, or somehow come to interpret a simple recognition of the importance of the far East to our national economy as a call to "contain" a rising China?

It is true that the US acts as if global hegemony is some enduring right.

Without debating the morality of such action, I presume the US does what she does because the US has the wherewithal to ensure her desires.

China does not have the same wherewithal as the US to act as if global hegemony is her enduring right.

Without having the same wherewithal as the US, she is acting as if hegemony in her neighbourhood is China's enduring right.

When China gears up with her wherewithal, would she lie dormant if what she is doing is an indictor of things to come?

That is the question!

[Bob's World]

It is true that the US acts as if global hegemony is some enduring right.

Without debating the morality of such action, I presume the US does what she does because the US has the wherewithal to ensure her desires.

China does not have the same wherewithal as the US to act as if global hegemony is her enduring right.

Without having the same wherewithal as the US, she is acting as if hegemony in her neighborhood is China's enduring right.

When China gears up with her wherewithal, would she lie dormant if what she is doing is an indicator of things to come?

That is the question!

Actually, I don't that is either the situation or the question.

First, the US does not have the resources to act as a hegemon, and has been subsidizing the security of friend and foe alike for decades due to our irrational desire/belief that we must act like one. We lose no face by recognizing that the temporary high tide of US relative power has ebbed, instead we set ourselves up to lose massive face by attempting to sustain it artificially on the backs of the US taxpayer.

Currently we cross several Chinese Red lines. We don't have to recognize them for them to be Chinese Red lines, after all, they are theirs, not ours. We do, however need to be aware when we do it, and ensure that it is a calculated risk that offers some corresponding potential gain. Currently we assume all risk with no potential gain. That is a sucker's game that China is happy to let us play for now, as it only speeds the day of their relative rise in the region.

Better we take an appetite suppressant of our own volition now, than have one delivered to us in the form of a sunk aircraft carrier or the loss of several top end fighters on some needless dust-up in the near future. It was US policy to recognize China as one of 4 "policemen" to work with the US post WWII in lieu of the failed League of Nations to help provide security in our respective regions (UK and Russia being the other two). That did not happen then, but it is no reason some similar role could not be recognized in the near future. We must understand the past, not cling to it; and we must have a vision to see to what best secures our interests in a stable future. Picking a fight with China over issues that are existential critical interests to them, but merely policy desirements of our own is worse than illogical, it is professional malpractice.

The President of the US told us to look to the Pacific, as our future lies there. I have no problem with that. He did not concurrently tell us to turn our clocks back 60 years and switch off our brains.

The US will ultimately come to new agreements with China that many in the region will not like. Hopefully we will be timely enough to make such bargains on terms we still possess the influence to shape. Some may call those agreements "disloyal" to countries we have protected and helped elevate in the post WWII era that might come up a bit short in such bargains. But America's principal loyalty must be to the US and to US citizens. To compromise those in favor of the governments and populaces of some foreign land is appeasement of the worst kind. Ideally we will continue to be able to be all things to all people, but that is simplistic and unrealistic.

It is time America developed a Pacific strategy that focused on American interests first. Anything else that places our nation at unnecessary risk or that incurs unnecessary costs (both that can be borne by those they affect most if they must be borne at all) is a very bad idea. Sadly, it is a very bad idea that has a great deal of inertia and support behind it.

[Ray]

Bob

It is a natural human instinct to be the Top Gun. Survival of the Fittest, so to say. That feeling is hardly irrational. If it were an irrational stimulus, then gaining the maximum medals in the Olympics or winning the European Football would be exercises in irrationality, which may actually be the case, and yet it is attitude that drives homo sapiens to be the Head Honcho! Or else, why not go to the Himalayan tops, shed all materialism and mediate to achieve the Sublime. It has been done and it is still done, but then such souls do not represent the majority of the peoples of the world.

What is this American Dream that is so tomtomed about? Would it not be wonderful to live merely on social securities and handouts? Why is Tiger Woods wanting to get back to be No 1? He has proved his point. Why is he not satisfied to quietly fade out?


By that logic you have given, China should be satisfied with its large Empire and not aspire for more. And yet it does.

Therefore, whether the US power has ebbed or not, to abdicate its prime position may not quite be what is routine in social psychology.

For instance, what was the necessity to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan? True many people died in the 9/11 assault. Well, given the logic, one could have taken the philosophical view that many more die on the US highways every year and so it was no big deal! But that is not how it was viewed. It was viewed as it would be viewed in social psychology – avenge! And every US taxpayer was all for it! And a whole lot of taxpayer money was lost in an abysmal pit of war!

It is a sucker’s game. No country would like to lose its pristine position.

The US is doing it globally and China is doing it regionally.

I would not like to believe that one should get cautious about ‘redlines’. Redlines are to be challenged. Call it brinkmanship, if you will. Take it to its limit and see who blinks first. Hunkering down will only allow the other side to bully one further into submission.

If US is to 'respect' Chinese Redlines, don't you think China should respect US Redlines? It takes two hands to clap!

If one is worried that its aircraft carrier is sunk or top end fighters destroyed, why have them. Save the money so wasted or keep them in the museum.

One does not pick up fights, but when one is thrown the gauntlet, one should have the courage to pick up the gauntlet.

The US President has not said that American throw their brains in the garbage can. In fact, he (Obama) is a pacifist compared to Regan or Bush. If it were Regan or Bush, China would have been put in their place.

By the logic of not being a hegemon, don’t you think the US should stop Drone attacks on Pakistan. Have a dialogue with Pakistan and hand over Afghanistan to them? That would be the ideal solution.

[Bob's World]

So, we place our red lines on the very borders of our competitors? Is India prepared to submit to the US applying such a red line to them? Is India prepared to beg permission of the US to venture into the Indian Ocean??

No, such lines must be Suitable, Acceptable and Feasible; and our current postures run increasingly afoul on each of those criteria. It is time for the US to re-balance, refocus, and to develop new policies and strategies for the world as it actually exists around us, not a world as we wish existed based on some romantic vision of our Cold War experience.

As to the US being #1, for now that is a role that no one can take us down from escept ourselves. We hasten that day in the future by over extending our reach in the here and now. Time for others to crack out their own wallets and man their own bastions and to prepare once again to treat powerful neighbors with appropriate respect so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts. In the past it was sound US strategy to allow allies to act in such ways, and to live or die with the consequences as they fought the wars they brought upon themselves. Certainly, the US came in in time to secure our own interests, but only after others had expended much of themselves against each other first. To presume that the US should be first to fight the wars of others is unrealistic, illogical, and quite frankly, un-American.

On this Memorial day where we honor those who fell in such conflicts, let us also celebrate the millions who did not due to policies of wise constraint applied in generations past that delayed American intervention.

In my experience smaller friends make better decisions when they appreciate that they are fully responsible for the consequences of their actions. A return to such responsibility serves us all better than assumptions that American blood and treasure will be the first spent in actions not of our making and far from our true vital interests.

[Ray]

So, we place our red lines on the very borders of our competitors? Is India prepared to submit to the US applying such a red line to them? Is India prepared to beg permission of the US to venture into the Indian Ocean??

US has already placed many a redline on India. What's new?

Check why Op Parakrama was abortive.

Check why the Kargil Op went the way it did and the reason why India did not escalate the issue into a full blown war.

Oil import from Iran.

Abandoning the Iran - Pakistan - India oil and gas pipeline.

Isolation of Myanmar.

No, such lines must be Suitable, Acceptable and Feasible; and our current postures run increasingly afoul on each of those criteria. It is time for the US to re-balance, refocus, and to develop new policies and strategies for the world as it actually exists around us, not a world as we wish existed based on some romantic vision of our Cold War experience.

What is the new Vision, policies, strategies beyond the Cold War do you suggest that the US should follow?

Ideal would be the return to the Monroe Doctrine and isolation.

As to the US being #1, for now that is a role that no one can take us down from escept ourselves. We hasten that day in the future by over extending our reach in the here and now. Time for others to crack out their own wallets and man their own bastions and to prepare once again to treat powerful neighbors with appropriate respect so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts. In the past it was sound US strategy to allow allies to act in such ways, and to live or die with the consequences as they fought the wars they brought upon themselves. Certainly, the US came in in time to secure our own interests, but only after others had expended much of themselves against each other first. To presume that the US should be first to fight the wars of others is unrealistic, illogical, and quite frankly, un-American.

To be #1, the US should not over extend itself? In other words, the US is merely capable of being a military force that is #1 in a static mode – a sort of ‘threat in being’ and when it acts to enforce its policy ‘by other means’, it get over extended and cannot quite rise to the demands of its desired role or global strategy?

In the Cold War, it was a formidable force but I wonder if it was because it was merely static and never tested!

If lesser nations were to be cowed down by powerful regional countries, then those lesser nations might as well abdicate their governance and become vassals. There are many nations around who have the wallet to buy war matériels, but then as they don’t have the technology, they have to pay extortionist prices and so are baulked!

9/11 comes to mind. Why did Bush take on such a huge, formidable and worldwide force like the AQ and it multiple derivatives? And why has the world joined that War? After all, there are many countries which joined have had no attacks by the AQ and its derivative. eg Japan to name one. Why are they fighting the US' War?

No one is suggesting the US fight others’ wars or have US presence on their sovereign territory. However, if it were not in line with the US strategic interests, why is the US making its presence felt in South Korea, Japan, Philippines (to some extent), Australia and Singapore (two warships are permanently stationed or to be stationed). Japan is not too pleased with the US presence and yet the US is there. The US, by that logic, should stay in Hawaii and East of that and not even Guam!

On this Memorial day where we honor those who fell in such conflicts, let us also celebrate the millions who did not due to policies of wise constraint applied in generations past that delayed American intervention.

It is befitting to honour the martyrs. In India, we appreciate the way the US and UK honour their brave soldiers, and lament that we don’t emulate this wonderful gesture.

But then, the martyrs would not have been martyrs if the Govts of that time exhibited ‘wise’ constraints and not go out to war. Many lives would have been saved. The issue is that it is easy to judge on hindsight and not when the event is brewing and boiling over.

Neville Chamberlain comes to mind. He too wanted to save lives and not go to war. His appeasement foreign policy, and in particular his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany and consequences therefore resulting in a worse catastrophe i.e. WW II proved that Peace at All Cost and turning the Nelson's eye or emulating an ostrich is signing aw warrant to pay a heavier price later.

In my experience smaller friends make better decisions when they appreciate that they are fully responsible for the consequences of their actions. A return to such responsibility serves us all better than assumptions that American blood and treasure will be the first spent in actions not of our making and far from our true vital interests.

No nation wants to go to war for the sake of going to war. All nations, big or small, understand the consequences and prefer to defer war as the last straw that broke the camel’s back!

[carl]

So, we place our red lines on the very borders of our competitors?

Why yes we do, or should. If that competitor is bordered by a peaceful nation which the competitor invades to conquer, I would say yes very definitely that is where the red line goes. I believe that is where we placed a red line in 1991.

Time for others to crack out their own wallets and man their own bastions and to prepare once again to treat powerful neighbors with appropriate respect so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

Now this is an interesting statement. What is "appropriate respect"? Who determines what it is? I don't believe there is an internationally agreed upon definition of that term. I think it depends mostly upon the disposition of the powerful neighbor. If unlucky enough to be next to Red China, it means something very different than if you are lucky enough to be next to the US. It seems to me that what you are saying is simply that the law of the jungle prevails. I realize that life is often like that but it is not something to aspire to, it results in too much fighting.

[carl]

It was US policy to recognize China as one of 4 "policemen" to work with the US post WWII in lieu of the failed League of Nations to help provide security in our respective regions (UK and Russia being the other two). That did not happen then, but it is no reason some similar role could not be recognized in the near future.

This is another interesting statement. That 4 policemen thing was mostly the result of FDR's dreamy eyed misapprehension of the nature of the USSR and the strength of China. It could never have worked, didn't work, because one of the "policemen" was the most murderous regime in the history of the world, or maybe not-the USSR and Red China are neck and neck in that competition. People don't like being policed by psychopathic killers. That is the same reason it won't happen now. People wouldn't like being "policed" by the most murderous regime in the history of the world, or maybe not-Red China and the USSR being neck and neck in that competition.

Picking a fight with China over issues that are existential critical interests to them, but merely policy desirements of our own is worse than illogical, it is professional malpractice.

Since this discussion is about the South China Sea, I assume that is what you are talking about. If that is what you are talking about, your statement makes no sense. Red China has done quite well, very well in fact over the history of its existence with the status of the South China Sea being as it is now. It is obviously not an existential problem for them. It is just something they want.

[carl]

Recently China went on record regarding her "core interests" as she defines them; and yet much like Generals Willoughby and MacArthur in 1950, the West ignores clear expressions of red lines, purpose and intent. If I were to categorize China's posture it would be one of "strategic defense," but after so long being compressed within a posture forced upon her by others, I can see why so many see China simply shrugging her shoulders of compromises forced upon her by others, and seeking to stand up tall once again as a nation to seem "offensive" in nature.

The South China Sea is one of several regions of the world where several sphere's of influence overlap. Given the potential benefits of control over that region it is logical that competition will occur. The sooner we work to establish a reasonable distribution of the wealth from and the influence over that region the better. Otherwise such competition can only lead to conflict, warfare, and potentially war. Such a war benefits no one, but China is clear, that if given no other options, once the time is right they will exercise whatever is necessary to secure their core interests.

China is actually far less obtuse than the US when it comes to defining core interests and spheres of influence. The US seems to act as if global hegemony is some enduring right, rather than fleeting coincidence; and that our sphere of influence is, and should remain the entire globe up to the 12-mile limits and borders of Russia and China. Why else do we bandy about odd (and expensive) concepts such as "A2/AD" and Air-Sea Warfare, or somehow come to interpret a simple recognition of the importance of the far East to our national economy as a call to "contain" a rising China?

Chinese government officials have been declaring on different occasions that Taiwan, Tibet, South China Sea and Yellow Sea are national core interests. Agree or disagree, but I caution that to simply ignore is the same brand of foolishness that brought China and America to war 60 + years ago in Korea.

China is a coiled spring. She has tolerated arms sales to Taiwan because she had no choice but to do so. That does not mean that such sales do not cross a clearly marked red-line on her part. If the US continues to cross that line there will come a day when China feels she is in position to respond in kind to what she sees as an act of war against her. Better we recognize that now, rather than continuing to push dated policies that act as if China' position on such matters is irrelevant.

And these, are the most interesting statements of all. Taken together they mean give Red China what is wants if we know what is good for us. (Come to think of it, that is exactly what the ChiComs say too.) Granted, deferring to Red Chinese desires will simplify the formulation of American foreign policy-as long as we keep paying our long distance phone bills-but it leads to another problem. What if having waved a tearful but mature farewell to Taiwan, Tibet, South China Sea and the Yellow Sea, Red China decides it want more? When you yield to the demands of a thug, you ensure absolutely there will be more demands, and the ChiComs are world class all time thugs.

The sooner we work to establish a reasonable distribution of the wealth from and the influence over that region the better.

This sentence by itself isn't interesting, just disturbing, a little creepy even. It conjures up an image of the Americans sitting down with the most murderous regime in the history of the world, or not etc. etc., and divying up portions of the world, countries populated by real people. It seems on the face of it wrong, un-American even.

[Ray]

DFA slams Chinese report on agreement on Unclos | Inquirer Global Nation

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has disputed a report posted on the website of the Chinese Embassy in Manila that claims that both the Philippines and China agree that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) “cannot be utilized as a legal ground to claim territorial sovereignty.”....

Last month, the foreign office temporarily stopped diplomatic meetings with the Chinese embassy, charging the Chinese diplomats with relaying inaccurate information to Beijing.

The DFA had accused Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing of wrongfully conveying a nonexistent agreement of a pullout of all vessels in the Panatag Shoal area.....

“I said…there was no agreement. That’s why we are in a stalemate. They were harping that we didn’t honor an agreement. I felt I should clarify that with the Chinese government, it seems that report was not accurate,” Del Rosario told a recent DFA press briefing.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/382...ment-on-unclos

An attempt by China to obfuscate the issue so as to indicate All Quiet on the Panatag Shoal area?

Neat!

[Bob's World]

[


It is interesting to note the increase in the funding from what the US gave for fighting AQ elements and what it is now giving.

The AQ threat continues to be there or has it gone?

If there is still the AQ threat, then it requires no elaboration as to why the US has increased the aid.

It is also worth noting that the Philippines are offering the United States greater access to its airfields and may open new areas for U.S. soldiers to use.

Don't confuse the arguent made at home to validate the money with the purpose the money was spent to advance. This clearly has little to do with AQ.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

You live in a simple world where things are black and white; good and evil; us and them. You define that world solely from the perch of your own perspectives, agendas and aspriations. That works for you, but I live in a world where nothing is that simple.

To simply ignore the Chinese perspective is crazy. To simply agree with their perspective is crazy as well.

Try this. Study China for a few days, and then attempt to write a post from the perspective of the Chinese version of yourself, born and raised and equally as sure of the rightness of his country as you are of yours. For every one of you there are a dozen of such counterparts. Worth remembering as you go up to their door acting like you own the place and looking for a fight.

[Ray]

Don't confuse the arguent made at home to validate the money with the purpose the money was spent to advance. This clearly has little to do with AQ.

Thank you.

I am not confused. It is you who has not understood what I was stating.

It is just the point I was making.

The increase in aid indicates that the US is concerned about China's hegemonic pursuit in SCS in general and the threat to Philippines in particular.

And the Philippines allowing greater access to airfields and areas for bases indicates that the Chinese forays into areas claimed by China is paramount in their threat perception.

[Ray]

Try this. Study China for a few days, and then attempt to write a post from the perspective of the Chinese version of yourself, born and raised and equally as sure of the rightness of his country as you are of yours. For every one of you there are a dozen of such counterparts. Worth remembering as you go up to their door acting like you own the place and looking for a fight.

I think this is applicable for any country on the globe.

Try to see their way and I would add, superimpose on that the way you see the world and your interests and see how you should approach the issue.

No country should go up to the door acting as if they own the place and looking for a fight......not even China!