Like Tree238Likes

China vs Japan on islands now

Reply
Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 ... LastLast
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    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.
    No, you keep missing the point. The first argument is perfectly correct. Shoals are not covered by the treaty. The US does not have an obligation to defend the shoals on behalf of the Philippines. If the US is to (hypothetically) protect the Philippines, it is because their armed forces are under attack, not because the shoals are taken over by China. In 1995, China took over Mischief Reef (which Philippines also claim jurisdiction) near Palawan island , but the US did nothing.

    My second point was that in any case, it is doubtful whether the US will come to the defence of Manila over Scarborough Shoal in the event of an armed conflict between Beijing and Manila.

    Am I clear now??
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 06:05 PM.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Clear Water Bay (In Da Jungle)
    Posts
    10,037

    Dammit where did I leave my rowing boat, I think its time for me to row over there and place the flag of Nepal on that piece of rock called Senkaku Islands/Diayo Islands according to the Chinese authorities; Tiaoyutai to the Taiwanese. What ever the feck its called.

    I shall rename it Wan Chai Island

    Brooklynexpat likes this.

  3. #73

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124
    Quote Originally Posted by wtbhotia:
    Dammit where did I leave my rowing boat, I think its time for me to row over there and place the flag of Nepal on that piece of rock called Senkaku Islands/Diayo Islands according to the Chinese authorities; Tiaoyutai to the Taiwanese. What ever the feck its called.

    I shall rename it Wan Chai Island
    I am claiming it for the UK, but we could use some Gurkhas to do the hard bit for us.
    wtbhotia and Brooklynexpat like this.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    No, you keep missing the point. The first argument is perfectly correct. Shoals are not covered by the treaty. The US does not have an obligation to defend the shoals on behalf of the Philippines. If the US is to (hypothetically) protect the Philippines, it is because their armed forces are under attack, not because the shoals are taken over by China. In 1995, China took over Mischief Reef (which Philippines also claim jurisdiction) near Palawan island , but the US did nothing.

    My second point was that in any case, it is doubtful whether the US will come to the defence of Manila over Scarborough Shoal.

    Am I clear now??
    So we agree on the following: if the Chinese sail up and claim the Shoal and the Philippines does nothing then the treaty is not invoked. If the Philippines tries to defend the Shoal and the Chinese fire on them then the treaty is invoked, in theory at least?
    Brooklynexpat likes this.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    So we agree on the following: if the Chinese sail up and claim the Shoal and the Philippines does nothing then the treaty is not invoked. If the Philippines tries to defend the Shoal and the Chinese fire on them then the treaty is invoked, in theory at least?
    Yes, in theory.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Discovery Bay
    Posts
    5,016

    F.A.O. Watercooler:

    It's funny that you're calling hullexile naive. What makes you think any decision on US intervention (or not) in the South China Sea is going to be made based on which ally matters more?

    dear giant and Brooklynexpat like this.

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,173

    It may drive the creation of a Coalition of Concerned who see a common threat to regional stability. Rightly or wrongly there does appear to be a common focal point around which other nations can align their strategies.

    It should not be down to the US alone to act as policemen for Asia but it is probably capable of encouraging a more united front. One errant leadership vs a weaker country may be a possible conflict but if it is against the region then the probability of an in-glorious defeat might just be too much to contemplate.

    dear giant likes this.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodraugen:
    Japan's reasons for doing so is anything but altruistic, though. China has benefited tremendously from it, no doubt
    Why have the apologies been given many times and the money provided?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodraugen:
    And its not as if China's hatred of Japan is not reciprocated, although it's usually less dramatic the other way around.
    Can you clarify this?

    Isn't it a case of hatred of an entire nation from one side and a dislike of a foreign totalitarian Government on the other?

    There are a few things the one government has used to fan the flames such as the shrine where the leadership go to not forget the horrors of war, a handful of schools who had a watered-down history books and probably a few other things.
    Last edited by East_coast; 20-08-2012 at 07:27 PM.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnought:
    F.A.O. Watercooler:

    It's funny that you're calling hullexile naive. What makes you think any decision on US intervention (or not) in the South China Sea is going to be made based on which ally matters more?
    What makes you think these treaties are written in stone? Nation-states are driven by self-interest in their actions on the international arena. Despite their rhetoric, they don't do things out of altruistic desires to help the downtrodden or weak members of the international community. They do it to protect their interest or to expand their power and influence. Whichever ally can help the US acheive those aims is what matters to the Americans, as is the case for all large hegemonic powers. And Philippines is way down the list of important allies for the US. Why would Americans risk their own lives and limbs to protect a second-rate country that won't benefit them much in return? (No offence to Filipinos, but that's the reality of realism and power politics that govern international relations). They keep this treaty on paper to placate Manila and their bullsh*t about democracy and freedom, whether they will really do what the treaty say is another matter entirely.
    Last edited by Watercooler; 20-08-2012 at 08:48 PM.

  10. #80

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

    History teaches us that treaties are often kept with enormous consequences (WW1 and WWII) on the other hand they can be broken (Germany and Russia).

    It all depends on how you look at it. The US currently has protective treaties with Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines (and Korea?). If it does not act on one what value do the others have. The hawks in Washington would I am sure argue that to let China get away with one would encourage the invasion of Taiwan for example. Dangerous games for the big boys to play.

    Last edited by hullexile; 20-08-2012 at 09:04 PM.

Reply
Page 8 of 27 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 ... LastLast