The South China Sea's Georgia Scenario

The U.S. can't risk overplaying its hand in China's disputes with its neighbors.

BY LYLE GOLDSTEIN | JULY 11, 2011

When Cui Tiankai, China's vice foreign minister, warned U.S. officials in Honolulu on June 22 that "individual countries [in Southeast Asia] are playing with fire" and that he hoped the fire "doesn't reach the United States," it was a major departure from the customary rhetoric of summitry. China's message: Do not intervene in the Spratly Island dispute of the South China Sea, where five other claimants are jostling with Beijing for the rights to exploit the potentially rich, undersea energy deposits of the area.

In this atmosphere, the China-Vietnam relationship, which has been on a generally positive course since 1990, has suddenly veered into a dangerous crisis. Vietnam has conducted live-fire drills as an apparent warning to Beijing, and U.S. officials have chimed in with "increasing concerns" and have also moved to strengthen the traditionally close ties with the Philippines, one of the claimants in this maritime territorial dispute. At a meeting with Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen in Beijing on July 11, Chinese Army Chief Chen Bingde described U.S. joint exercises with Vietnam and the Philippines as "extremely inappropriate". With three wars now under way in the Middle East, U.S. leaders would do well to reflect on how "smart power" rather than military brinkmanship can point the way out of the present crisis and toward a more stable and peaceful Asia-Pacific region.

For much of the last decade, the South China Sea had actually been relatively quiet thanks to a 2002 agreement between Beijing and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on a "code of conduct" for the South China Sea. The agreement helped mitigate tensions that had built up after naval skirmishes in 1988 and by further aggressive jockeying in the 1990s. Scholar Joshua Kurlantzick and others had actually described China's approach in Southeast Asia over the past decade as a "charm offensive," the centerpiece of which was a China-ASEAN free trade agreement that may have helped cushion the region from the worst of the recent global recession.

However, the deployment of Chinese nuclear submarines and other advanced warships to a new and sprawling base at Hainan Island on the South China Sea had raised eyebrows around the region during the last decade. Major tensions began to flare in the spring of 2009, when a clutch of Chinese ships harassed a U.S. surveillance vessel operating in international waters south of Hainan Island. Such Cold War-type surveillance operations are still routinely conducted by the U.S. armed forces all along China's coast (but outside the 12-mile territorial limit) -- a practice that Chinese military leaders consider to be gravely threatening and that they now identify as a major barrier to U.S.-China military cooperation. Dangerous interactions between U.S. and Chinese aircraft and vessels have become the norm, and one life has already been lost, in the April 2001 surveillance-plane incident, which also took place close to Hainan Island in the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, local states, such as Vietnam, have been vigorously pursuing energy exploration in areas that are close to or within China's vast claim line that encompasses virtually the entire area of the South China Sea. When Hanoi announced in 2009 that it intended to spend significant funds to purchase six submarines from Russia, it became amply evident that the regional arms race, already simmering for some years, was heating up in earnest.

JASON REED/AFP/Getty Images

 

Lyle Goldstein is an associate professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is co-editor of the recent volumes China, the United States and 21st-Century Sea Power: Defining a Maritime Security Partnership and Chinese Aerospace Power: Evolving Maritime Roles.

GACMA

10:38 AM ET

July 11, 2011

The article is too much

The article is too much biased in favor of China. Readers who know the topic can spot out easily that the article was written with the presumption that China does indeed have legitimate sovereignty claim over the vast majority area of South China Sea and its archipelagos -Spratlys & Paracels. This presumption is simply NOT TRUE.

***

Quote - "Beijing's disgust with the fact that Hanoi continues to actively explore in disputed areas."

This is NOT the fact. Hanoi always carries out explorations within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as defined in the UNCLOS (an area extending 200 nautical-miles from a country's coastline). This area is NOT a disputed area.

It is fairly clear for those who track closely China's foreign policy that Beijing's strategy has been always 2 steps: FIRST, provoke and cause incidents to turn the sea territory genuinely belong to other countries (here, Vietnam & Philippines) into disputed water; and THEN, raise the flag "putting aside disputes, going in for joint development". China's voice towards its neighbors can be best described as "What is mine is mine, what is YOURs is OURs!"

***

Quote - "Those viewing Chinese "aggression" as the impetus for current tension might reasonably be asked why Beijing has only six outposts in the Spratlys (compared with 29 occupied by Vietnam), why Beijing is one of the only claimant states not currently pumping oil out of the South China Sea, and why the largest island in the Spratlys archipelago is actually occupied by Taiwan. "

These questions are simply too naive if they were meant to explain that China was not aggressive.

There is one single answer to these questions - China has no legal ground, nor any concrete historical evidence for their vague claim over the South China Sea territory and its resources. That's why it is already too much even if China just occupied only a single islet in the South China Sea, let alone the fact that China did invade and occupy the entire Paracel archipelago from Vietnam in 1974 (at time, South Vietnam) by force, and later in 1988, killed nearly 70 Vietnamese soldiers to invade another 6 islets in the Spratlys. As far as oil drilling is concerned, China has not done so because they has no legal right to do so, and PLA has not become powerful enough to defend those illegal activities if it were to happen in the past.

***

Perhaps, China is feeling that it has accumulated enough military power to the extent that it can now well step over international conventions and standards and can use force to justify any type of claims.

To all Chinese people those have a good sense of fairness and justice, don't let the minority of your greedy leaders ruin China's way towards a Respected and Responsible Great Nation!

 

MISHMAEL

2:53 PM ET

July 11, 2011

This Person

This Person is just as biased against China. He or she does not actually provide reasons for the Philippines or Vietnam to have a greater claim on the South China Sea, instead he or she uses the inflammatory tactic of inciting fear through made-up paraphrasing.

The UNCLOS does NOT demarcate areas of the ocean clearly to certian countries. It provides the BASIS of negotiation for countries to agree upon them separately. Furthermore, the claims made are in regards to the small islands or rocks within the South China Sea, not to the sea itself. It is disingenious and misleading to claim that parts of the ocean are "unidsputed" territories of Vietnam. China has every right to press its case.

Might I suggest, that as the far larger country, China would make far better use of the resources than either Vietnam or Philippines? Given the current levels of resources and governance, it is inconcievable that VIetnam could make the South China Sea safer or more prodictive than China could. The above commentator seems to take the position that in any dispute with China, the opposing vierw is automatically superior by virtue of the fact that the Chinese oppose it. This is either the result of raw, unthinking nationalism or an impulsive fear of greater Chinese influence. Neither of which are compatible with the reality of the modern world, which is in part defined by China's undeniably large role within it.

 

NIHONSEAN

6:30 PM ET

July 11, 2011

Actually GACMA Does Provide a Rationale for Vietnamese Claims

GACMA: Hanoi always carries out explorations within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as defined in the UNCLOS (an area extending 200 nautical-miles from a country's coastline). This area is NOT a disputed area.

Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines use UNCLOS as the basis of their claims. China uses the dubious accounts Zheng He's voyages during the Ming dynasty.

I also like your arguement that the larger country could make better use of the territory, so should be given greater consideration. Perhaps we should just give Vietnam and the Philippines to China since China, as the larger nation, could make much better use of their resources than the inefficient local governments ever could.

 

NIHONSEAN

6:30 PM ET

July 11, 2011

Actually GACMA Does Provide a Rationale for Vietnamese Claims

GACMA: Hanoi always carries out explorations within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as defined in the UNCLOS (an area extending 200 nautical-miles from a country's coastline). This area is NOT a disputed area.

Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines use UNCLOS as the basis of their claims. China uses the dubious accounts Zheng He's voyages during the Ming dynasty.

I also like your arguement that the larger country could make better use of the territory, so should be given greater consideration. Perhaps we should just give Vietnam and the Philippines to China since China, as the larger nation, could make much better use of their resources than the inefficient local governments ever could.

 

MISHMAEL

7:42 PM ET

July 11, 2011

My point was that UNCLOS

My point was that UNCLOS cannot be a justification of this claim. It stipulates the 200 nauticle mile limit for economic exploration yes, but If you look at a map you will see that Vietnam's and China's overlap significantly (especially if one considers China's de facto sovereignty over the Paracel islands). These areas are most certianly disputed in that existing international agreements can justify both claimants' claims. There is nothing unique or special about Vietnam, the Philippines, or China, who each have equally valid claims if based entirely on existing international treaties.

I strongly suspect that if one examined Vietnam's claims and compared them with China's, one would see an equal if not more preposterous rationales based upon historical revisionism. Using the term "dubious" to descirbe any one account in particular is unecessarily provocative - history is almost never agreed upon between nations. Technically, if one sticks only to empirically verifiable history, China does in fact have a more legitimate claim since there is documented evidence of maritime activity conducted by a Chinese state before such activity were condicted by other states in the region.

I cannot tell if you are serious with your last remark, but my intention was never to endorse imerialism, which is what you were implying. The point was that given the ambiguous nature of international law and the messiness of historical revisionism, a better benchmark of legitimating claims should be the planned use or objective intent of the claiming country. I stand by my assertion that China has a better record of governnance and economic development that any of the other states involved, and has a larger stake in maritime trade (as the author of the article originally pointed out). China also possesses the capability and possibly the intention of enforcing some sort of mandate, as evidenced by its provocative though nonethless principled stance on restricing fishing activities in the sea. This in my view makes China a better steward of the South China Sea than any of the other claimants.

I suspect the only reason why so many are opposed to China's claims and are therefore by default in support of the claims of Vietnam and the Philippines is that they fear China. This is in my view an instinctive and irrational fear, because there is nothing evident in China, its politics, or its public statements that is really different from Vietnam. The only difference is in capability, not in intent. For all those who nonetheless insist that bigger countries are always badder, I can only remind you that China does not actually possess the most powerful armed forces.

 

GOODGRIEFCB

10:55 PM ET

July 11, 2011

GACMA understands the game - squatting .. win,win

he nails it
"It is fairly clear for those who track closely China's foreign policy that Beijing's strategy has been always 2 steps: FIRST, provoke and cause incidents to turn the sea territory genuinely belong to other countries (here, Vietnam & Philippines) into disputed water; and THEN, raise the flag "putting aside disputes, going in for joint development". "
- see also occupation of Indian territory
- or you can trade off giving back what was never yours for some economic "win-win", "friendship" agreements
- see http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/index.html for a very perceptive analysis
"Beijing is using the trick “turning nothing into something”
and an EXTENSIVE documented history of occupation and use of the Champa Sea
- and if you DON'T have a real navy (yet) this buys you time
the US should help Vietnam, the Phillipines and the other "nine-dash" ( burst of laughter )
neighbors come to a joint position and agreement
and if angry chinese squatters jump up and down and announce they may become VERY angry
or even have a major tantrum
congratulate them on their mastery of classical chinese negotiating tricks

 

BIG BOY

12:42 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Actually, China's Claims are very strong...

China's historical claims to the islands in the South China Sea are stronger than America's claims of ownership over America (Native American land). China claims that the island chains extend over centuries, as far back as the Tang Dynasty (8th century AD) when China had trading ties to Southeast Asia. There is a famous shipwreck off the coast of Indonesia carrying 100,000 pieces of Tang Dynasty pottery that was discovered in the last 5 years, proving of the strong naval presence of Chinese activities in Southeast Asia, and there are countless written accounts of Chinese naval activities dating from this period all the way to the Ming Dynasty (mid 14th Century) when the Chinese Naval admiral Zheng He made his journey throughout the waters of Southeast Asia, across the Indian Ocean and all the way along the East Coast of Africa. This was 50 years before Columbus first set sail for America.

 

PEACEMESSI

3:21 AM ET

July 13, 2011

China's claims are not as strong as you think

@Big Boy:

In the 9th century, an Arab trading dhow sank off Belitung Island, in what are now Indonesian waters, at the southern reaches of the South China Sea. The ship was laden with 60,000 artifacts of gold, silver, and exquisite porcelain apparently from China’s southern port metropolis of Guangzhou and bound for markets in Southeast Asia. The dhow was discovered in 1998 by Indonesian fishermen and is now considered one of the most important finds in maritime archeology.

The Belitung wreck was not a Chinese merchant vessel (Tang Dynasty China did not have a functioning seafaring culture), but it is emblematic of China’s new Sinocentric ideology of preeminence in East Asia. The Chinese government’s claim to the South China Sea is based in part on ancient relics, coins, pottery shards, and the like that litter South China Sea islets. The fact that these artifacts most likely were not left by Chinese sailors does not appear to influence Beijing’s outlandish claims.

 

DEMDAIACMONG

10:45 PM ET

July 15, 2011

Your Idear is the one of war supporter

As my viewpoint, you are a war supporter as far as I see. We can't let any country come to our homeland & say your gate & your second floor is mine. That's ridiculously funny. If you say that words, there are some punches toward your face immediately...!!

 

IAN

2:56 PM ET

July 11, 2011

Talk about China love...

Border disputes ending peacfully... That may be true that more ended peacefully than not, yet ask Tibet about that, what would they say about peaceful ending of border disputes. Or Taiwan, if China felt they had a chance of successfully ending that border dispute without involvement by other major Pacific powers? Just because they can browbeat other nations into peaceful dispute endings, doesn't mean they wouldn't jump at the chance to show their newfound blue-water power if they thought they could get away with it. Do you really think that if the US up and said they wouldn't become involved in any South China Sea military debate, China wouldn't jump down Vietnam's or the Philippine’s throats in a heartbeat over the South China Sea? Really? And, as for China's claim to that whole Sea, well, I guess they can cause it's got China in the name, right? That's how this works, right? Wake up...

 

FREDERICK LIST

3:27 PM ET

July 11, 2011

International waters vs. Chinese lake

The principle that has guided US policy has NOT been "nonintervention" - the consistent principle is that the S. China Seas are international waters.

The US is inevitably in conflict with China on this. Either these waters are international, and American naval vessels and merchant ships are allowed to freely pass through them, or in Beijing's view, the SCS is a Chinese lake in which it has every right to exclude US ships and transform Vietnam and Brunei into landlocked countries.

 

KEYBASHER

1:05 PM ET

July 12, 2011

Hm ... "Freedom of the Seas"

I haven't heard that one since elementary school.

 

GRANT

4:14 PM ET

July 11, 2011

There is no mention as far as

There is no mention as far as I can see that China's claims also extend nearly up to the coasts of several other nations.

 

UNCLOS

7:17 PM ET

July 11, 2011

Author is wrong or biassed

The author said "Beijing is one of the only claimant states not currently pumping oil out of the South China Sea". In fact Beijing DOES exploit oil & gas in the South China Sea. The other SCS countries don't complain because, unlike Beijing, they don't claim most of the SCS.

Yes, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines DO exploit oil & gas in the SCS, but has the author cared to look on a map where these exploitations are? For example, Vietnam exploit oil & gas from the Nam Con Son Basin, but this basin is far closer to Vietnam's uncontested territories than to the contested Spratlys.

Let me ask the author: Is it right for Beijing to be disgusted that Vietnam carries out oil & gas development in the Nam Con Son basin, while Vietnam is not disgusted while Beijing carries out oil & gas development in the Qiongdongnan basin?

 

FREDERICK LIST

8:35 PM ET

July 11, 2011

Excellent!

Who does FP dredge up to write its essays?

There is a lot more expertise in the comments section than in the original article!

Fancy that!

 

THEPALADIN

8:39 PM ET

July 11, 2011

uninformed opinion

Mr. Goldstein,
First, the water limit is 120 nautical miles, be it Vietnam, China or the United States. Countries that have overlapping borders work out mutual agreements.

You seem to know the territorial claim of China of the SCS well, why not put it here for everyone to see?
http://img.tintuc.vietgiaitri.com/2011/7/5/bien-dong-toi-thoi-cua-thai-do-tot-va-hanh-xu-dung-02d5f6.jpg
I'll let everyone be with his own judgement.

That brings me to my second point, are you aware how far Chinese navel vessels venture into Vietnam's internationally recognized water to cut the seismic cable in the earlier May incident? 80 miles out of Vietnam's shoreline and 600 off the coast of Hainan island is not disputed water.

Sincerely,

 

TRUONG LE

9:11 PM ET

July 11, 2011

Biased from tittle to contents

I wonder why this article is rather biased and imposing that China is one neutral country in all its military and oil- researching efforts.

 

PEACEMESSI

2:26 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Author is too biased in favor of China

Vietnam has been carrying oil & gas activities well inside its EEZ. The places where Vietnamese survey ships were harassed are not located in the overlapping regions of EEZs of China and Vietnam due to following reasons:

1, They are quite far from the Spratlys and Paracels (more than 200 mls), therefore, according to UNCLOS 1982, even if the two archipelagos possess 200ml-extending EEZs, these EEZs can not cover the places where Vietnamese ships were harassed. In reality, because islands in the Spratlys and Paracels are quite tiny and uninhabited, they can not possess 200ml-extending EEZs, but can only have territorial waters extending within 12 ml.

2, The places where Vietnamese survey ships were harassed are quite far from China’ Hainan (>500 mls), but close to Vietnam’s coastline (<200 mls).

3, The Paracels and Spratlys belong to Vietnam. China forcibly seized the Paracels in 1974 from South Vietnam, and some islets in the Spratlys from Vietnam in 1988, killing about 70 Vietnamese sailors. All the “historical evidences” to prove China’s sovereignty over these two archipelagos are vague and the weakest among all other claimants’ arguments. The southernmost point of China in all its genuine ancient maps till the end of XIX century is Hainan Island. The Paracels and Spratlys were not included in these maps. Meanwhile, Vietnam has exercised the jurisdiction in these two archipelagoes since XVII century. These archipelagoes have also been included in Vietnam’s ancient maps since then.

Conclusion: The places where Vietnamese ships were harassed are located exclusively within Vietnam’s EEZ. These regions are not disputed ones. China did trespass onto Vietnam’s EEZ.

 

PEACEMESSI

3:04 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Author is too biased in favor of China

The author mentioned live-fire drills conducted by Vietnam, but he/she forgot to include that China also conducted large-scale live-fire drills almost at the same time and in the contested Spratlys, whereas Vietnam carried exercises much closer to its coast with smaller scale.

The author mentioned Vietnam’s purchase of 6 submarines as one of the signals of the regional arms race, but he/she did not mention how many naval vessels, including nuclear submarines, China has already possessed. The budget that China reportedly allocated for defense in 2010 is about $ 90 billion, which is comparable to the whole GDP of Vietnam in the same year. Much of this budget has been spent for China’s navy to acquire/build new ships, including the air-carriers.

The author said that China has not resorted to a major use of force since 1979. He/she forgot to mention that several skirmishes occurred in the South China Sea have all been involved with China, including the China’s invasion of Johnson Reef in 1988 where its navy killed about 70 Vietnamese sailors and captured several islets in the Spratlys since then. Just 5 years earlier (in 1974) China also forcibly captured the Pacarels after a battle with South Vietnam's troops

 

ELVIECEJA262

5:23 AM ET

July 12, 2011

totally agree

totally agree

 

PEACEMESSI

2:56 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Author is too biased in favor of China

The author mentioned live-fire drills conducted by Vietnam, but he/she forgot to include that China also conducted large-scale live-fire drills almost at the same time and in the contested Spratlys, whereas Vietnam carried exercises much closer to its coast with smaller scale.

The author mentioned Vietnam’s purchase of 6 submarines as one of the signals of the regional arms race, but he/she did not mention how many naval vessels, including nuclear submarines, China has already possessed. The budget that China reportedly allocated for defense in 2010 is about $ 90 billion, which is comparable to the whole GDP of Vietnam in the same year. Much of this budget has been spent for China’s navy to acquire/build new ships, including the air-carriers.

The author said that China has not resorted to a major use of force since 1979. He/she forgot to mention that several skirmishes occurred in the South China Sea have all been involved with China, including the China’s invasion of Johnson Reef in 1988 where its navy killed about 70 Vietnamese sailors and captured several islets in the Spratlys since then. Just 5 years earlier (in 1974) China also forcibly captured the Pacarels after a battle with South Vietnam's troops.

 

MARTY MARTEL

4:37 AM ET

July 12, 2011

South China Sea could become America’s ‘Waterloo’

All signs point to South China Sea becoming America’s ’Waterloo’ and coming decline of overstretched U. S. and unchallengeable rise of China to world’s only ’super power’ status.

China already has US by the tail - US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Home Depot, Sears and Macy’s filled with Chinese goods prove and US government is hooked to huge investments that China makes in US governmental securities from the sales of cheap Chinese products to US businesses.

China’s rise to super power status to challenge US is a fitting monument to the much-celebrated foresight of Nixon-Kissinger to embrace China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 just as 9/11 attacks is a fitting monument to the Reagan embrace of Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan.

World history will record last forty years as the most momentous for the very fact that balance of power has started to shift from West to East because of West’s leader i.e. Nixon embracing China to counter Russia in 1972.

Little could Mao or Deng have imagined that by wearing a capitalist mask, their followers will beat capitalists at their own game. Lenin used to say that ’capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them’. With West selling such proverbial ropes in the form of technology transfers, Chinese Communists have proven that Lenin saying quite prophetic.

It behooves China to erect the statue of anti-Communist Nixon right next to die-hard Communist Mao in Beijing for speeding up China’s rise to super power status.

 

KEYBASHER

1:04 PM ET

July 12, 2011

The Olympic Curse

Ever hear of the Olympic Curse? That's the one where whenever a one-party state hosts an Olympics, ten years later that state circles the drain if it's not already down it. To wit:

1936: Berlin Olympics / Garmisch-Partenkirchen Winter Olympics
1946: Allied Occupation

1980: Moscow Olympics
1990: Collapse of Communism

1984: Sarajevo Winter Olympics
1994: Yugoslav Civil War

2008: Beijing Olympics
2018: ?

Remember, you heard it here first.

 

CAVREADER

12:07 AM ET

July 13, 2011

You are so off base with the

You are so off base with the statement "China already has US by the tail ". China has just posted a trade deficit for the first time in over 10 years. They went from sizable surpluses to deficits in a record time. Their main advantages have revolved around cheap labor, manipulated currency to make their exports cheaper which has resulted in skyrocketing inflation, and their total disregard for any environmental or labor regulations that other countries have to deal with. As a result of the inflation their workforce has begun demanding increases in salaries. They are also in competition with other countries such as Vietnam and India in the labor cost competition. The US may import a bunch of consumer products from China but all of those products can be obtained from others or even domestically produced once the price advantages no longer provide any benefit to the US companies. On the other hand China has increased their food imports from the US by a factor of 5 over the past 10 years. And by the way China is still about 4 trillion dollars behind the US GDP and their rate of growth is slowing and China has over 4 times the population of the US to support in thier economy creating a per-capita GDP no where near the US levels. Another thing to keep in mind is that even though China's manufacturing and exports have grown the US is still ranked as the #1 manufacturing country in the world.

 

ELLERVEIRA

6:55 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Butt-inski-ism

Of course the US is trying to get involved in the S. China Sea question or questions because it thinks it is obligated to get involved in almost every issue around the world. Call it congenital buttinskism.
Hillary is a prime practitioner. And in addition the US is still fighting for the ghost of Chiang Kai Shek, defending Taiwan and keeping China "subdued" and in its place. Think how humiliating it would be for the US if China actually became the dominant power in the Western Pacific. Where would our big navy go and what would it have to do? So when Asiatic damsels in distress (Vietnam, the Philippines) cry out for help, Uncle Sam is always there, ready to save their honor and protect their interests. Some day Uncle Sam is going to get a bloody nose as a result, but I don't think he realizes that yet.

 

MUSNAUHT

7:34 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Indochina & East Sea...

Is Beijing Communist Groups was time to aggressively invade and annex all territory in Indochina and East Sea territorial integrity. The insidious of the Beijing Communist Groups is now try to open full throttle on the actual control of China for the international maritime route through the East Sea. (a) increase the ability to create conflict, spreading to areas not in dispute, through the compression of the right to exploit the resources nature excluded, namely oil, gas and so many great different resources under the ocean (b) According through history to the present day that Communist Group in Beijing are shifty and used henchman strategy as conspiracy Vietnamese Communist back in 1958 by diplomatic notes Sales of Nation Content of Pham Van Dong / Ho Chi Minh ordered in 1958. Beijing Communist Group has persistently distorted history and violations GENEVE ACCORDS 1954.- Beijing Communist Groups stubborn as mule to bring troops invade territorial seas of the REPUBLIC VIET NAM in 1974.( belong to South Vietnam Sovereignty).Beijing Communist Groups chosen of location and time to attack, that had almost the highest increase both the benefits short and long term. Beijing Communist Groups is continued to execute the invasion of Vietnam in the land and on waters over the period 1979/1988.(c)Beijing Communist Groups continues to maintain in same roots and also to the same location and time hurting and even killed Vietnamese fisherman also expel or arrest of the fishing boats in the zone of water the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands, and surroundings sea areas completely belong to Vietnam sovereignty. Beijing Communist Groups to brazen faced spreading occupy on the continental shelf, close to the coast of Vietnam, and Philippine Islands. Recently, through over 02 cases of Binh Minh 2 and Viking 02. At this crucial time if Vietnam and small countries in the region are not clear enough for the compression of aggression as robbery to others property by Beijing Communist Groups usually did that the world must be forced to unilaterally safeguard the outbreak of the conflict. While U.S and the allies not fully respond promptly, just because a conflict may appear to be only small scale and from which the annexation occurs very fast, then subsequent to Beijing Communist Groups continued to show off one’s strength to the world and continue to annex, bilateral conflicts will spread wider, more complex, then Beijing Communist Groups can use the advantages superior to squash the invasion of Vietnam and others small countries in the region to wrap up in the same boxes, which is aim for most long-term benefits for their own groups interests in Beijing. Beijing Communist Groups keep their tongue moved alike a snake. Beijing Communist Groups keep their language always opposite by their action. Therefore Beijing Communist Groups are driving the conflict about the status of bilateral, in the context of efforts have way to argue against the Western superpower and pretend to the world that China is an effort to curb the conflict in the region. It’s really horrible when they acted duplicity under many forms. Really! current insidious strategy such dishonest and cruel of the Beijing Communist Groups are an organizations such as the great pirate rules tissue of monster intend to disruption in the region, as well as security threats to use force for international shipping such Sea Trade Route extremely important in the Pacific region.SEA TRADE routes as well as the core of the Pacific economic region in which the United States(U.S).For these reasons from the past as now and in the future, the biggest problem is the priority development of rich natural resources in the region and international maritime at East Sea has been hampered by the Beijing Communist Groups brazen it out continuing playing randomizing strategies and bring other countries in the region indifference. For reasonable time to the Western Superpower and the whole International Communities around the Global must condemned the Beijing Communist Groups that must stamp out unruly expansionism dreams, attempt and muscle strength lead to groundless legal decision,brazen aggression, disregard United Nations (UN) continuing stubbornly violating about international treaties that it's always been.

 

CALEAL

7:53 AM ET

July 12, 2011

CHINA AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Although I tend to agree that the base of the article does flow towards China, the bigger question that should have been asked. Why is China and its neighbors so interested in a group of rocks along the South China Sea? This is not about who controls these group of islands, but rather the resources that are underneath these strip of islands. Over the last decade China has been on a resource excursion to secure ample natural resources to feed its industrial base. It recognized a long time ago that in order to become a world power it needs to secure raw materials. This is not about securing islands but rather uncontested exploration of the natural resources, that by all estimates some 213 billion barrels of oil lie untapped. I only fault Mr.Goldstein for leaving out this very crucial point. The rest is just political games!

 

CAMIO

9:20 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Agree.

Agree.

 

CAMIO

8:59 AM ET

July 12, 2011

Admiral Mullen today

Admiral Mullen today continued with his four-day visit to China. Today he visited an air force base in Shandong province where he climbed up a Chinese made Su-27 jet and asked several questions. After that he showed up in a group army based in Zhejiang province (my guess is The 1st Group Army of PLA Ground Force whose predecessor was founded in early years of CCP and part of which were deployed to Sino-Vietnam border in 1985 during the armed conflicts between the two countries). There he watched a anti-terrorism exercise carried out by a mechanized regiment.

Well, sounds pretty nice, isn't it? But be realistic. Yesterday Mullen claimed in Beijing that the US will not quit South China Sea. And also on yesterday PLA Chief Chen Bingde re-clamied that China's recent efforts on promoting its military power is only a compensation for the past years when the gonvernment only focused on economy development and neglected the military.

An arms race in South China Sea seems inevitable.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

11:04 AM ET

July 12, 2011

The author is pro-US

The question is not who has the say in disputed waters, it's what can the US gain from being engaged too much with one side. Whether China has the rights to the waters is merely an interpretation reflecting the current geopolitics. The US is already in economic crisis, how will getting involved in this mess do anything other than putting extra burden on the tax payers while benefiting mostly non-Americans?

The fact is that countries like vietnam and phillipines is doing exactly the same China is doing, namely to secure strategic resources. They would do exactly what China is doing if they could.

 

AND REW

1:50 PM ET

July 12, 2011

RE

Let's not forget it was China that abruptly halted military-to-military negotiations with the US.

Also let's not forget that China's claim on the South China Sea is simply crazy (you can find the maps if you want). So I don't think it is as much disputed as you are saying here.

Third, I think the fault rests mostly on China's side. Why? Since the global recession they have been overestimating the demise of the US. Maybe they have been reading too much BRICs stuff and what not. That's why they have been doing a good amount of wishful-thinking, probably seeing the situation as how it may be in a few decades--not now.

 

BETALOVER

7:54 PM ET

July 14, 2011

"For much of the last decade,

"For much of the last decade, the South China Sea had actually been relatively quiet thanks to a 2002 agreement between Beijing and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on a "code of conduct" for the South China Sea."

The reader will be better served if the details of such agreement were disclosed so that the party that violates the agreement to the greatest extent can be known.

The SCS involves claims by many countries. Claims are just that. The outcome will be from negotiation.

Taiwan and Tibet are not only claims make by China. Both are recognized by all or nearly all members at the UN. These were claims made by China that have been recognized so they have become diplomatic reality.

It is not logical to equate claims in the SCS with diplomatic reality of Taiwan and Tibet.

The USA does not only claim Alaska; Alaska is a part of the USA as per diplomatic recognition.

China's claim on the SCS is based on history of a civilization that involves assimilation of the various east asian peoples. Now at this snapshot of history, fate has it that Vietnam is a country. How does one definitively divide the SCS based on historical claims that centers on civilizations? It is not possible so the division has to be arbitrary.

Non is distance the entire crux. Why is the Falkland a part of the UK thousands of miles away?

 

STFREECHOICE

2:40 PM ET

July 15, 2011

America already has too much on its plate

Lets be realistic America has too much on its plate to start playing super power games with China. US foreign policy should focus on assisting Arab springs (without boots on the ground) and continuing its solid progress in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. It has been a good first six months of 2011 for US.

Of course events in Tibet and continuing human rights violations are tragic but can US really change China's stance here. I do not think so.

South China Sea stuff? It is a complete irrelevance from what I can see and not our business morally or otherwise.

Want to take China on? Sort US deficit out first it will give you a lot more credibility with the biggest buyer of US bonds - China!

 

TAVARES

12:36 AM ET

July 22, 2011

Perhaps we should just give

Perhaps we should just give Vietnam and the Philippines to China Tavares since China, as the larger nation, could make much better use of their resources than the inefficient local governments ever could.

 

CRIACAOSITES

12:00 PM ET

July 24, 2011

Oerüwe

Možda mi samo treba dati Vijetnamu i na Filipinima u Kinu jer Kina Tavares, kao najve?i narod, bi mogao napraviti puno bolje koristiti svojih resursa od lokalnih vlasti nikada ne bi mogao neu?inkovita. leilão online
leilão onlinecontabilidade rj criação de lojas virtuais criação de sites de compras coletivas criação de sites de leilão vidraçaria em são paulo

 

DAVIDKIM

3:15 AM ET

August 11, 2011

China Rise

Lets face it the Chinese don't have a good track record and they need to create a lot of oil and gas jobs to keep their populace happy. China is growing fast and strong and will stop at nothing to get what they want but at least they do it properly.