Like Tree238Likes

China vs Japan on islands now

Reply
Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 ... LastLast
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,593
    Quote Originally Posted by dear giant:
    The US will have to get involved if China really does try anything nasty regardless of whether the target is Japan, the Philippines, or Vietnam (which has begun dramatically warming up to Washington, as has Myanmar). The saner elements in Beijing are aware of this but they might be overruled by delusional Boxer-Rebellion-retread-wannabes.
    Stand in line GI Joe, the Japanese/Chinese/Korean and Europeans are way ahead of the americans when it comes to Myanmar. (tourisnm, business...)

    Granted the US have a shiny Embassy there but you would be hardpressed to find an american in the street or anything (aside from Coca Cola and Sprite, there is barely anything american in Myanmar)

    In terms of gvt relation, President Thein Sein has embarked on a program of opening the country which automatically means indeed that the US and all other Eu?westerns countries should be able at some point (assuming this movement of opening the country continues) to do business there relatively in line with what they do in other countries in the region (vietnam, cambodia...).

    It's a very very long way to go and Myanmar is nowhere near where Vietnam, Cambodia or Thailand are in terms of development.

    It's an awesome place though but that's another thread altogether,

  2. #62

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Mat:
    Perhaps/perhaps not (I am no gvt official nor do I know of any high ranked enough in both countries to tell me what is/was really going on) except here we are not talking about the Scarborough here and Japan is a much stronger (sorry Hull) opponent that the Philippines.

    So both countries should cut the crap and move fwd.
    Regardless of the military strength of both countries if China agreed to go to ITLOS with the Japanese they would be under intense pressure to do the same with Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. The trouble is like the boy who cried wolf, having claimed any island that has ever appeared on a map written in Chinese it is difficult to believe their claims anymore.

    P.S. not sure what the "perhaps/perhaps not" referred to, it is a matter of record that the Philippine Gov't has proposed going to ITLOS and the Chinese Gov't have rejected the idea.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by dear giant:
    The US will have to get involved if China really does try anything nasty regardless of whether the target is Japan, the Philippines, or Vietnam (which has begun dramatically warming up to Washington, as has Myanmar). The saner elements in Beijing are aware of this but they might be overruled by delusional Boxer-Rebellion-retread-wannabes.
    US does not want to get involved unless they absolutely have to. It is not too hard for the Chinese to conduct lightning strikes against any Philippine military assets around the shoal before the Americans can react. The Americans did not react during a conflict between China and Vietnam in 1988 over the islands.

    Japan is another matter however, since the US is bound by security treaty to protect Japan. And arguably Japan alone can take on China.

    It is also important to know that regardless of the island disputes, China does have legitimate interest in the region. The West tend to automatically side with China's neighbors in any conflict regardless of the facts. Sometimes, what we have is not the simple "big bully China terrorizing poor little XX neighbor" scenario that most people think.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 04:13 PM.
    dear giant, Mat and Dodraugen like this.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    US does not want to get involved unless they absolutely have to. It is not too hard for the Chinese to conduct lightning strikes against any Philippine military assets around the shoal before the Americans can react. The Americans did not react during a conflict between China and Vietnam in 1988 over the islands.

    Japan is another matter however, since the US is bound by security treaty to protect Japan. And arguably Japan alone can take on China.
    The US has a Mutual Defence agreement with the Philippines, signed in 1951 and resigned in the Manila Declaration this year by Hillary Clinton.
    dear giant and Brooklynexpat like this.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    The US has a Mutual Defence agreement with the Philippines, signed in 1951 and resigned in the Manila Declaration this year by Hillary Clinton.
    That does not cover the disputed areas. US does not have an obligation to protect Manila over the shoals. Only if there is an attack on undisputed part of the Philippines (i.e. Luzon) will the US be obliged to come to Manila's defence.

    Diaoyu Islands is another matter since the US recognize Diaoyu/Senkaku islands as falling under the coverage of the security treaty, which means the US may have to respond if Chinese occupied the islands.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 04:11 PM.
    Mat likes this.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124

    Based on what?

    The treaty states:

    Article V

    For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific

    Therefore if there was a conflict anywhere in the Pacific any attack by China would be deemed to invoke the treaty.

    dear giant and Brooklynexpat like this.

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    Based on what?

    The treaty states:

    Article V

    For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific

    Therefore if there was a conflict anywhere in the Pacific any attack by China would be deemed to invoke the treaty.
    island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific

    The shoal is not under the jurisdiction of Manila. It is disputed. The US does not take an official side in the dispute-because it does not recognize the shoal as part of the Philippines. Philippines cannot call the US to its' aid by invoking the treaty in its' dispute with China.

    On the part of its' armed forces, you have too much faith in such treaties. Just because it states the US will defend does not mean it will. Vietnam had a security treaty with USSR, China attacked Vietnam anyway in 1979 and the USSR did not respond.

    As I said, the US is not keen to be dragged into a conflict with China over the disputed islands. If Manila provoked China over the islands and armed exchanges occur, realistically, the US is not going to simply launch itself to the fray to defend Manila.

    Japan is different. Much more is at stake for the US with Japan, so the Americans is going to hew much closer to the treaty. Sad to say, but Japan (and Taiwan for that matter) means alot more to US than the Philippines.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 04:39 PM.
    Dodraugen likes this.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124

    Read the treaty again. Within its jurisdiction OR repeat OR on its armed services, etc in the Pacific. Not on its armed forces, public vessels etc within its jurisdiction but ANYWHERE in the Pacific. It seems clear to me.

    dear giant and Brooklynexpat like this.

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    Read the treaty again. Within its jurisdiction OR repeat OR on its armed services, etc in the Pacific. Not on its armed forces, public vessels etc within its jurisdiction but ANYWHERE in the Pacific. It seems clear to me.
    No, you are just naive. It is anything but clear. International relations is not domestic law. Enforcement is not as clear-cut as you think. It's power politics. The Americans do not want to be dragged into a conflict with China over some tiny shoals in the South China Sea. They will find some excuse to not honor the treaty or find ways to stop the Philippines. And they have also assured China they will not get involved with the island dispute.

    The Philippines cannot invoke their treaty in their standoff with China. Even if they did, it is highly questionable whether the US will then come charging down with an aircraft carrier battle group.

    Regardless of what the treaty says, its' the willingness and intent of the larger parties (US and China) that matters. As I said, Japan matters alot more to US than the Philippines.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 05:11 PM.
    Dodraugen likes this.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    No, you are just naive. It is anything but clear. International relations is not domestic law. Enforcement is not as clear-cut as you think. It's power politics. The Americans do not want to be dragged into a conflict with China over some tiny shoals in the South China Sea. They will find some excuse to not honor the treaty or find ways to stop the Philippines. And they have also assured China they will not get involved with the island dispute.

    The Philippines cannot invoke their treaty in their standoff with China. Even if they did, it is highly questionable whether the US will then come charging down with an aircraft carrier battle group.

    Regardless of what the treaty says, its' the willingness and intent of the larger parties (US and China) that matters. As I said, Japan matters alot more to US than the Philippines.
    So you are changing your argument from "it is not in the treaty" to "they won't honour the treaty"? Good idea as the first argument was wrong but the second may well be correct.

    P.S. I think that was the lamest climb down I have ever read.
    Last edited by hullexile; 20-08-2012 at 05:25 PM.
    bookblogger likes this.

Reply
Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 ... LastLast