Imperial Chinese Court Regency

Advocacy via Regency for Constitutional Monarchy in China

Archive for the category “35th State”

Update : South Sea Provinces – Sansha City, Yongxing Island, South Sea Provinces – 08:23, June 20, 2012

China dissatisfied over Vietnam’s island patrols: spokesman (People’s Daily Online) 08:23, June 20, 2012
A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry at a regular press briefing on June 19 (File photo/ Foreign Ministry of China)

A developed Sansha City on Yongxing Island envisioned.

BEIJING, June 20 (People’s Daily Online) — A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday expressed strong dissatisfaction over Vietnamese fighters’ recent patrolling and reconnaissance on Nansha Islands in the South China Sea.

Speaking at a regular press briefing in response to a journalist’s question on the subject, Hong Lei said, “China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters. Vietnam’s recent action is a serious violation of China’s sovereignty.”

He said China urges Vietnam to strictly abide by the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, avoid actions escalating or complicating the situation, and make efforts to safeguard regional peace and stability.

ICCR Notes :

A 30% flat ‘sequestered asset requisition fund’ which applied against Chinese citizen billionaires (who cannot refuse capitalist style), could easily raise up to 300 billion to build a high tech Naval Fortress and sea colony at the Nansha Archipelago to end all arguments once and for all. What would Mao have required in earlier times but total defence of China’s territories?

China’s biggest, least populated city of Xisha born in disputed waters – June 22, 9:03 pm | By Xu Weiwei

China has raised the administrative status of Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands from county to prefectural level in disputed waters, the latest escalation in tensions over the resource-rich South China Sea, according to an official statement released on Thursday following a Vietnamese law asserting sovereignty over the islands.

The statement from the Ministry of Civil Affairs said the State Council has approved to set up the prefectural-level city of Sansha to administer the three island groups and their surrounding waters. It said the government seat will be stationed on Yongxing Island, part of the Xisha Islands.

The county-level administration complex for the islands, was established on Yongxing in 1959, and will be built up to a prefectural level, the statement said.

The new-born city is China’s biggest by size and least populated, with 13 square kilometers of islands area and over 200 square kilometers of waters where around 3,500 Chinese citizes live permanently and 25,000 a floating population, according to the Legal Evening News. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Civil Affairs told the official Xinhua News Agency on Thursday that setting up Sansha city will help to improve China’s “administrative management on Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands and their future development”.

“It is also conducive to protecting the oceanic environment of the South China Sea,” the spokesperson was quoted as saying. China first discovered and named the reefs, islets and surrounding waters of Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands, and has long had sovereignty over the area, the spokesperson said.

China has conflicting claims with the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan across the South China Sea, key shipping lanes thought to contain rich energy reserves. Vietnam and the Philippines have been the most vocal opponents of China’s claims.

Xu Liping, an expert on Southeast Asia issues at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the move shows China’s latest measure to assert sovereignty over the area, and is also a response to the Philippines and Vietnam’s asserting sovereignty over the islands. Vietnam’s new Maritime Law declaring sovereignty and jurisdiction drew such a huge outcry from the locals that Beijing decided to formalise a prefecture. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun summoned Vietnamese Ambassador Nguyen Van Tho clarified “serious violations” and called for an “immediate corrections” amidst the celebrations among the locals, Reuters reported.

Excerpt from Global Times’ : A Positivist View by reporter Wang Zhaokun

A good choice to consolidate sovereignty in accordance with local conditions is to organize fishermen to establish some fishing companies, which can help protect Chinese fishing resources. This can also bring benefits to local fishermen.

Another possible choice is to establish several economic development zones in the area. We can invite foreign companies to cooperate with their Chinese counterparts to invest and develop resources in the South China Sea. This can demonstrate China’s sincerity in putting aside disputes and seeking common development.

The South China Sea is known as one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. We might also considering establishing supply bases there to offer supply and maintenance to passing merchant ships and fishing vessels.

The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Wang Zhaokun based on an interview with Zhuang Guotu, director of the Center for Southeast Asia Studies at Xiamen University.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/717003.shtml

China tightening grip on Spratlys by Pia Lee-Brago (The Philippine Star) Updated June 23, 2012 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines – China has set up a new “prefecture level” city called Sansha to administer three disputed islands in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), according to Chinese state-owned Xinhua news agency.

The development has tightened China’s grip on islands that it calls its own in the West Philippine Sea, particularly the Spratlys.

On Thursday, Xinhua reported that Xisha (Paracels), Zhongsha (Macclesfield bank), and Nansha (Spratlys) islands have been collectively elevated to prefecture status under Sansha city from their previous county-level status.

Sansha means “city of three sands” in Chinese.

A statement from the Ministry of Civil Affairs said the State Council or China’s Cabinet has approved the establishment of Sansha, with its seat of government on Yongxing Island, which is part of the Paracels.

The county-level “administration office” for the three islands was also based on Yongxing Island.

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs said the creation of Sansha city would help improve China’s “administrative management on Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands and their future development.”

“It is also conducive to protecting the oceanic environment of the South China Sea,” the spokesman said.

He claimed that China set up the administration office for the three islands in 1959.

He also maintained that it was China which first discovered and named the reefs and islets around Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.

The Department of Foreign Affairs said it had no detailed information on China’s latest declaration.

“We don’t have yet the details of this report,” DFA spokesman Raul Hernandez said.

Also on Thursday, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei urged Philippine officials to refrain from making remarks meant to influence public opinion on the month-old standoff at Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal.

Hong issued the statement at a press briefing in Beijing when asked to comment on President Aquino’s announcement that Philippine Air Force planes would fly over Panatag Shoal to check on the situation in the area.

Hong asserted it was the Philippine warships’ “harassment” of Chinese fishermen in early April that triggered the Panatag Shoal incident.

He said the Philippines’ tough and high profile stance on the issue had only heightened tensions.

But he said tensions have eased and that the two sides have been vigorously exerting efforts to repair bilateral relations.

“China hopes the Philippine side will do more to help the development of bilateral ties and refrain from stirring public opinion, so as to safeguard the recovery of bilateral ties,” Hong said.

The DFA also said the Philippines greatly appreciates the United States’ reaffirming of its support for the country in its territorial dispute with China, as relayed by Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr.

“What US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. said on Thursday was a reiteration of the US position on the territorial dispute and support for the Philippines to seek resolution,” Hernandez said.

The US has been pressing China, the Philippines and other countries with territorial claims in the West Philippine Sea to resolve their dispute through diplomacy, particularly in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). At the 2+2 meeting in May in Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had expressed deep concern over developments in the West Philippine Sea and urged China to clarify its motivation and interest in the region. Hernandez said that Clinton’s message was for nations involved to “subscribe to a rules-based approach in resolving competing claims in maritime areas through peaceful, collaborative, multilateral and diplomatic processes within the framework of international law, reflected in the UNCLOS.”

“This is the same position that the Philippines has repeatedly conveyed to China,” Hernandez said.

Unmindful of China

As China appears to be tightening its grip on territories being claimed by its smaller neighbors, the mayor of Kalayaan town in the Spratlys said he and his constituents would never give up asserting Philippines sovereignty. Mayor Eugenio Bito-onon, in a telephone interview, said that while China cannot be prevented from doing “crazy things,” they would never recognize its latest effort to strengthen its “administrative control” over the Spratlys.

“We do not recognize that. We are a regime of islands under the Philippine government,” Bito-onon, said, stressing that Kalayaaan town has been in existence for 34 years. He said his municipality celebrated its founding anniversary last June 11.

He also said the seat of the so-called Sansha city on Yongxing Island or Woody Island in the Paracels – a Chinese island garrison – is 364 nautical miles from Kalayaan island town.

“It’s very far from Pag-Asa. It’s not going to affect us,” he said.

Aside from China and the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia have territorial claims in the area.

All Spratlys claimant countries have troops in the region except for Brunei. Jaime Laude

ICCR Notes :

Do not be hasty in choosing sides Mayor Eugenio Bito-onon. All citizens of of the autonomous village of Kalayaan will be given appropriate UN compliant options to be part of China’s prosperity or be accorded permanent resident rights with all existing ownerships and properties recognized. Do not be so quick to assert for forces that will make no difference in your lives Kalayaans!

Make the right decision and like Puerto Rico (also the offer under consideration for extention to President Benigno by the Lord Protector which is being mulled . . . ) choose the better of 2 nations in an openly conducted referendum between Mayor Eugenio and the CPCC official with any attendant mandarin overseeing discussions. The people of Kalayaan must choose the best future, instead of decades of stagnation under corrupted and fractionated governments (think the Ampatuan Massacre led by you-know-who, which could never happen under autonomous status with China’s protection), and who knows, instead of unecessary strife and war, be part of a massive tourism centre piece and luxury tourism industry building up around the bad decision makers. It willl be a glorious day for all new and old Chinese citizens, do not miss the opportunity!

As for naysayers, Do not play ‘Gaza’ with China. Look at your Ming maps for any legality to save face by not attack face with. China is NOT Israel taking decades to quell territories that UN has earlier confirmed boundaries of. Kelayaans have And those Chinese settlers and cities like Kalayaan who should submit referendums to UN for joining China, will be well backed by forces worth far more than a peaceful cooperation and withdrawal of claim than any escalation could achieve. China doubtful though will claim more to ‘keep face’ at the UN. There will be zero tolerance for any military action against peaceful settlers who have legally bought land titles or drilling rights, though China will always be open to normalisation after recognition and withdrawal of offending statements for ‘peace’.

Being on the morally wrong side is something China will not do, but ancient claims are valid where they stand.  And dont bother about oil, there is nothing fossil fuels will be worth in a short while. Fusion or other green energies are already present. Welcome to the Chinese Millenium, it is as if the Ming Dynasty continued after 700 years – that is the extent of the issue. China is finally setting up a beautiful new city in the long neglected Southern Sea Provinces. Long live the Imperium.

China dissatisfied over Vietnam’s island patrols: spokesman (People’s Daily Online) 08:23, June 20, 2012

A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry at a regular press briefing on June 19 (File photo/ Foreign Ministry of China)

BEIJING, June 20 (People’s Daily Online) — A spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday expressed strong dissatisfaction over Vietnamese fighters’ recent patrolling and reconnaissance on Nansha Islands in the South China Sea.

Speaking at a regular press briefing in response to a journalist’s question on the subject, Hong Lei said, “China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters. Vietnam’s recent action is a serious violation of China’s sovereignty.”

He said China urges Vietnam to strictly abide by the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, avoid actions escalating or complicating the situation, and make efforts to safeguard regional peace and stability.

ICCR Notes :

The 30% flat ‘sequestered asset requisition fund’ which applied against Chinese citizen billionaires (who cannot refuse capitalist style), could easily raise up to 300 billion to build a high tech Naval Fortress and sea colony at the Nansha Archipelago to end all arguments once and for all. What would Mao have required in earlier times but total defence of China’s territories?

China’s biggest, least populated city of Xisha born in disputed waters – June 22, 9:03 pm | By Xu Weiwei

China has raised the administrative status of Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands from county to prefectural level in disputed waters, the latest escalation in tensions over the resource-rich South China Sea, according to an official statement released on Thursday following a Vietnamese law asserting sovereignty over the islands.

The statement from the Ministry of Civil Affairs said the State Council has approved to set up the prefectural-level city of Sansha to administer the three island groups and their surrounding waters. It said the government seat will be stationed on Yongxing Island, part of the Xisha Islands.

The county-level administration complex for the islands, was established on Yongxing in 1959, and will be built up to a prefectural level, the statement said.

The new-born city is China’s biggest by size and least populated, with 13 square kilometers of islands area and over 200 square kilometers of waters where around 3,500 Chinese citizes live permanently and 25,000 a floating population, according to the Legal

Evening News. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Civil Affairs told the official Xinhua News Agency on Thursday that setting up Sansha city will help to improve China’s “administrative management on Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands and their future development”.

“It is also conducive to protecting the oceanic environment of the South China Sea,” the spokesperson was quoted as saying. China first discovered and named the reefs, islets and surrounding waters of Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands, and has long had sovereignty over the area, the spokesperson said.

China has conflicting claims with the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan across the South China Sea, key shipping lanes thought to contain rich energy reserves. Vietnam and the Philippines have been the most vocal opponents of China’s claims.

Xu Liping, an expert on Southeast Asia issues at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the move shows China’s latest measure to assert sovereignty over the area, and is also a response to the Philippines and Vietnam’s asserting sovereignty over the islands. Vietnam’s new Maritime Law declaring sovereignty and jurisdiction drew such a huge outcry from the locals that Beijing decided to formalise a prefecture. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun summoned Vietnamese Ambassador Nguyen Van

Tho clarified “serious violations” and called for an “immediate corrections” amidst the celebrations among the locals, Reuters reported.

China tightening grip on Spratlys by Pia Lee-Brago (The Philippine Star) Updated June 23, 2012 12:00 AM Comments (20) View comments

MANILA, Philippines – China has set up a new “prefecture level” city called Sansha to administer three disputed islands in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), according to Chinese state-owned Xinhua news agency.

The development has tightened China’s grip on islands that it calls its own in the West Philippine Sea, particularly the Spratlys.

On Thursday, Xinhua reported that Xisha (Paracels), Zhongsha (Macclesfield bank), and Nansha (Spratlys) islands have been collectively elevated to prefecture status under Sansha city from their previous county-level status.

Sansha means “city of three sands” in Chinese.

A statement from the Ministry of Civil Affairs said the State Council or China’s Cabinet has approved the establishment of Sansha, with its seat of government on Yongxing Island, which is part of the Paracels.

The county-level “administration office” for the three islands was also based on Yongxing Island.

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs said the creation of Sansha city would help improve China’s “administrative management on Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha islands and their future development.”

“It is also conducive to protecting the oceanic environment of the South China Sea,” the spokesman said.

He claimed that China set up the administration office for the three islands in 1959.

He also maintained that it was China which first discovered and named the reefs and islets around Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.

The Department of Foreign Affairs said it had no detailed information on China’s latest declaration.

“We don’t have yet the details of this report,” DFA spokesman Raul Hernandez said.

Also on Thursday, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei urged Philippine officials to refrain from making remarks meant to influence public opinion on the month-old standoff at Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal.

Hong issued the statement at a press briefing in Beijing when asked to comment on President Aquino’s announcement that Philippine Air Force planes would fly over Panatag Shoal to check on the situation in the area.

Hong asserted it was the Philippine warships’ “harassment” of Chinese fishermen in early April that triggered the Panatag Shoal incident.

He said the Philippines’ tough and high profile stance on the issue had only heightened tensions.

But he said tensions have eased and that the two sides have been vigorously exerting efforts to repair bilateral relations.

“China hopes the Philippine side will do more to help the development of bilateral ties and refrain from stirring public opinion, so as to safeguard the recovery of bilateral ties,” Hong said.

The DFA also said the Philippines greatly appreciates the United States’ reaffirming of its support for the country in its territorial dispute with China, as relayed by Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr.

“What US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. said on Thursday was a reiteration of the US position on the territorial dispute and support for the Philippines to seek resolution,” Hernandez said.

The US has been pressing China, the Philippines and other countries with territorial claims in the West Philippine Sea to resolve their dispute through diplomacy, particularly in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). At the 2+2 meeting in May in Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had expressed deep concern over developments in the West Philippine Sea and urged China to clarify its motivation and interest in the region. Hernandez said that Clinton’s message was for nations involved to “subscribe to a rules-based approach in resolving competing claims in maritime areas through peaceful, collaborative, multilateral and diplomatic processes within the framework of international law, reflected in the UNCLOS.”

“This is the same position that the Philippines has repeatedly conveyed to China,” Hernandez said.

Unmindful of China

As China appears to be tightening its grip on territories being claimed by its smaller neighbors, the mayor of Kalayaan town in the Spratlys said he and his constituents would never give up asserting Philippines sovereignty. Mayor Eugenio Bito-onon, in a telephone interview, said that while China cannot be prevented from doing “crazy things,” they would never recognize its latest effort to strengthen its “administrative control” over the Spratlys.

“We do not recognize that. We are a regime of islands under the Philippine government,” Bito-onon, said, stressing that Kalayaaan town has been in existence for 34 years. He said his municipality celebrated its founding anniversary last June 11.

He also said the seat of the so-called Sansha city on Yongxing Island or Woody Island in the Paracels – a Chinese island garrison – is 364 nautical miles from Kalayaan island town. “It’s very far from Pag-Asa. It’s not going to affect us,” he said.

Aside from China and the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia have territorial claims in the area. All Spratlys claimant countries have troops in the region except for Brunei. Jaime Laude

ICCR Notes :

Do not play ‘Gaza’ with China. There will be zero tolerance for any military action against peaceful settlers who have legally bought land titles or drilling rights, though China will always be open to normalisation after recognition and withdrawal of statements for ‘peace’. All citizens of of the autonomous village of Kalayaan will be given appropriate UN compliant options to be part of China’s prosperity or be accorded permananent resident rights with all existing ownerships and properties recognized. Do not be so quick to assert for forces that will make no difference in your lives Kalayaans!

Make the right decision and like Puerto Rico (also the offer under consideration for extention to President Benigno by the Lord Protector which is being mulled . . . ) choose the better of 2 nations in an openly conducted referendum between Mayor Eugenio and the CPCC official with any attendant mandarin overseeing discussions. The people of Kalayaan must choose the best future, instead of decades of stagnation under corrupted and fractionated governments (think the Ampatuan Massacre – which could never happen under autonomous status with China’s protection), and who knows, instead of unecessary strife and war, be part of a massive tourism centre piece and luxury tourism industry building up around the bad decision makers. It willl be glorious day for all new and old Chinese citizens, do not miss the opportunity!

As for naysayers, look at your Ming maps for any legality to save face by not attack face with. China is NOT Israel taking decades to quell territories that UN has earlier confirned boundaries of. Kelayaans have And those Chinese settlers and cities like Kalayaan who should submit referendums to UN for joining China, will be well backed by forces wort far more than a peaceful cooperation and withdrawal of claim than any escalation could achieve. China doubtful though will claim more to ‘keep face’ at the UN. Being on the morally wrong side is something China will not do, but ancient claims are valid where they stand.  And dont bother about oil, there is nothing fossil fuels will be worth in a short while. Fusion or other green energies are already present. Welcome to the Chinese Millenium, as if the Ming Dynasty continued after 700 years that is the extent of the issue.

Great Oceanic Wall of China

Vietnam’s Central Localities Oppose China’s Sansha City Plan – June 25, 2012 13:29 PM

HANOI, June 25 (Bernama) — Leaders of Da Nang city and Khanh Hoa province have voiced their objection to China’s decision to establish the so-called Sansha city that administratively covers the Vietnamese island districts of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa.

Nguyen Chien Thang, chairman of the Khanh Hoa Provincial People’s Committee, said the island district of Truong Sa is an inseparable part of the Vietnamese territory and is under the administrative management of the central province of Khanh Hoa.

The Khanh Hoa administration and people are unhappy over China’s decision which they said seriously violates Vietnam’s sovereignty and has no legal value, Vietnam News Agency quoted Nguyen as saying.

“We strongly oppose and demand that China quash its wrongful and illegal decision, and do not take further action detrimental to bilateral ties and friendship between the two countries,” said Thang.

Chairman of the Da Nang Municipal People’s Committee Van Huu Chien said Hoang Sa’s island district is part of the country’s territory which comes under Da Nang city’s administration.

Van strongly opposed the Chinese plan and requested China to rescind it.

— BERNAMA

ICCR Notes :

As said. Welcome to the Chinese Millenium, as if the Ming Dynasty continued after 700 years – that is the extent of the issue.

Vietnam should think longer term and in historical context. Dropping these claims on what was already agreed upon since the Ming Dynasty (Vietnam incidentally,  recognized China’s ownership of Sansha all the way up to WW2 . . . ) could be the best thing in the long run. After all who knows if USA is still smarting from the last war USA lost, and teams up with China on this one if anything does happen? Just a few islands and as detailed in the rebuttal of an earlier article, up to 1911 or even after WW2, Vietnam has known that China has been controlling the islands.

This is unwritten Asian politeness. And Vietnam should not change stance on this as an Far East Asian gentleman, especially AFTER China has invested so much in Vietnam lately. 600+ years of assent that the islands belong to China, then after WW2, this sudden turn around emboldened by a UN Sea Laws by UN which also backed USA’s attempt at colonization after WW2? Some consistency and sense of fairplay please Vietnam?

Please reconsider withdrawing all offending statements and policies on China’s sovereign territory Vietnam. History and the logistical odds are not on Vietnam’s page here. UN was formed in 1949, then the USA tried to colonize Vietnam AFTER French incursion  of the last century. These territorial claims and recognition go back to as far as Vietnam’s first established dynasty. Polite deference on a long claimed territory is in order and China is in many ways not being unfair about the claims. Vietnam of course will be like all other nations, especially in ASEAN, welcome to invest in Sansha.

All claimant houses in ICCR and the Council of Regency strongly oppose the Vietnam plan and request Vietnam to rescind all recent actions on China’s South Sea Dominions.

Advertisements

News update from Huangyan Island District, Wanlishitang Archipelago 35th Province, People’s Republic of China

Chinese fishing boats leave Huangyan Island – Updated: 2012-04-14 19:28 (Xinhua)

MANILA – All the Chinese fishing boats left the lagoon in Huangyan Island in South China Seas on Friday night, after a five-day stalemate, according to sources from the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the military on Saturday.

Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said in a statement issued on Saturday that all the Chinese fishing vessels had left the lagoon, and only one Chinese surveillance ship remained there.

The standoff erupted when the Philippine Navy spotted some Chinese fishing boats sought refuge from bad weather at a lagoon off the Huangyan Island on April 8. The Philippines sent its largest warship Gregorio del Pilar there to block the entrance of the lagoon on April 10. Two Chinese Marine Surveillance ships near the area rushed to the scene to protect the Chinese fishermen from being harassed.

Del Rosario said that the Philippines side at first agreed to allow the Chinese boats to return to China after their harvest of endangered species were confiscated. But Chinese ambassador to the Philippines Ma Keqing insisted that the Chinese fishing vessels would be subject to inspection by relevant Chinese authorities.

Anthony Alcantara, Northern Luzon Command chief of the Philippine Armed Forces, said Saturday that seven Chinese vessels including their marine survey vessel left the area Friday noon. At around 7 pm local time, five more vessels pulled out accompanied by a Chinese fisheries law enforcement ship.

However, the standoff continues as a Chinese surveillance ship and a Philippine Coast Guard craft remain there, Alcantara said.

Huangyan Island is an integral part of the Chinese territory and its surrounding  waters have always been a traditional fishing ground for Chinese fishermen. China has abundant historical and jurisprudential evidence to support its exercising of sovereignty over the island and the surrounding waters, legal experts say.

Huangyan Island

Note : If the Phillipines wants to war over the islands, China should not take the war to the Phillipine shores and ONLY protect it’s own centuries old claimed territory. USA has overreached in the Middle East and will not want a war with China over a small island.

And if Phillipines wants to go to war with China, that might well be suicide when the first Phillipine landing force hits any Chinese shore, becoming merely an opportunity for China to colonize the Phillipines if that occurs (to rename the place Tagalog instead?). This will be a very short skirmish with China winning at a less than 1% deployment of Naval forces. Perhaps even Taiwan and North Korea could join in the fun and expand territory. The social and economic effects of insisting on keeping 1 small island compared with dragging USA and China to war the will be devastating to Phillipines. The USA and China could well ignore the Phillipines with the final result of China increasing troop presence in all claimed territories in this region to support ancient territorial claims. Phillipines is unable to take on China and is causing major diplomatic problems for USA. China is just maintaning a region that was long claimed centuries ago.

Several decades and USA has not finished playing Israel’s Gaza game yet. China is not Palestine and Huangyan Island is not as large as Gaza. Why would USA want to favour getting into a spat with 1000 times at least less land (physical terrritory to gain) than Gaza, 10 times more difficult than Vietnam (Vietnam lasted 30 years and then USA still failed, Vietnam though even respects China enough to at least play along for a win-win, so China being at least 10 times tougher than Vietnam, would take USA 300 years of conventional warfare to retreat from??? (Nukes are absolutely meaningless again . . . ) AND effectively destroy a major growth driver of the world economy to boot.

Do the math. China can militarily occupy the Island and USA should not bother. This is calculated common sense. It’s fun to impress a few LBSMs off and on but this is not worth fighting that bouncer bf for. GF Israel needs help with the laundry and taking out the trash . . .

Unless China tried invading Phillipines which is not likely except if Phillipines tries something very serious, the ‘war’ could be as localised as the one between Israel and Palestine, except that if the former 2 were annihilated out of existence, no difference would be made to the world. The world however could not do without a critical driver of growth China which is 100s of times larger than both mentioned examples Palestine AND Israel, as opposed to Phillipines as an advanced military base that is quite useless until Middle East issues (i.e. Israel and Palestine) are resolved, which looks increasingly unlikely in another Vietnam style withdrawal occuring just now in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not even completed yet!

Phillipines should withdraw and concede to China’s claim instead of dragging the world into WW3 via USA. Lets put things plainly in strategic terms, unless USA is able to take on Vietnam AGAIN and also *WIN* to reclaim face and actually occupy Vietnam successfully this time, USA should not set those hegemonist eyes on China (which Vioetnam at least respects and has ‘defeated’ USA) at all and leave Huangyan Island alone as a bilateral issue that Phillipines will have to concede on. Overreaching China is Russia AGAIN, though not the Soviet Union, could, unless USA gets South America on USA’s side (something that could take DECADES), make mincemeat of USA combined with China, so how about everyone focus on their own backyards and clearing up the economy first? Meanwhile Iran vs. USA potential battle is still unresolved. I’d say USA will ignore this China Phillipines dispute, chalking up the issue to being an inconsequential regional issue.

There is no issue of freedom of navigation, China is addressing sovereignty of Huangyan Island, sovereign resources, nothing else. Anyone can ‘navigate’ for all they want. The South China Sea Archipelago is the 35th Province and Sovereign Territory of China. Should Phillipines wish to withdraw the encroaching Fillipino Navy vessels and consider an invitation to be a dependency of China instead of a ASEAN turncoat (perhaps a renaming of Phillipines to The Tagalog Islands or something more local than indicative of a colonial controlled nation), Phillipines will be welcome to act accordingly. Or do fire that first shot Phillipines . . .

ICCR’s Suggestions for development and marking of limits of ownership :

Try a line of Oil Rig form platform homes (at 10km intervals perhaps?) for any who want to live an pelagic simulating lifestyle (without oil drill equipment) at the limits of China’s EEZ. Place oil rig type platforms/customs posts at intervals at the limits of claimed territory (China can afford to do this, might as well spend some money). At every 50li interval, a customs point with helipads, airstrips, hotels or series or individual homes perhaps, military outpost base and warehouse-port facility, could also be placed. This way the limits of China’s territory will be very clearly marked. China can afford to do this.

Example of private 50li platform community . . .

Since China has 20,000k worth of coast, this would mean 2000 projects or private luxury homes, much like or fashioned in the manner (excepting that there will be ocean around the tower instead) of :

A series of private or state funded maritime towers overlooking a few hundred acres of artificial reefs, and a series of atolls with deep sea fishery facilities should be quite pleasant to own as a get-away (fashioned after the Antilles perhaps?) and could be marketed to China’s billionaires if not the state itself to fund. An Oceanic Great Wall of China (‘Great Barrier Reef’ style) for the new millenium if you will.

At every 500li interval, a fully functional Seastead City (with Chinese characteristics as always) also with seaport and airport, with all the facilities and modern conveniences spanning 8km sq in size. For the most quake or tsunami prone areas (generally Southern Areas), such cities could be ‘closable’ FLOATING platforms of similar size (with air filtration capabilities) that could also act as CIVILISATIONAL life rafts in case of any massive world wide disaster (with flight modules added later – super struture considerations to be considered into building for this expansion which should be viable when Fusion technology makes energy free and unlimited) occurs. There should be 30 of these Seasteading Cities.

500li Seastead installation. This artwork is derived and edited from another source, ownership of original work is not intended for infringement upon as ‘Chinese Characteristics’ will be added to the rather drab and ‘corporatised’ form as seen here.

At every 1500li interval a major Oceanic Capital with fortress (with Chinese characteristics) based around 88 km square artificial islands could be built. As China’s coast stretches 20,000 km, only 13 of these artificial islands need to be built.

To be superlative, three Pacific Sea Capitals at – 4500km intervals (approx 2500li) of a size of 888 sq kms of platforms (under which massive eco-tourism reserve and diving reefs could be grown, rare species rehabilitated etc..) and reclaimed land, fashioned after microstates like Singapore (Singapore is located in a muddy and brackish water area unsuitable for eco-tourism which is about to be overtaken by the Isthmus of Kra Canal in Southern Thailand . . . ) and could also be built posthaste under cooperative by billionaires for a start. One only takes a look at the Gulf of Mexico and wonder what indeed truly happened there and stress how important this proposed Great ‘Oceanic Wall of China’ could turn out to be . . .

Something from 2010 to contrast the positive growth of relations between USA and China over the past 2 years

China’s Military Threatens America: ‘We Will Hurt You’ – The Pentagon finally takes the hint from China’s openly hostile flag officers. by Gordon G. Chang – June 14, 2010 – 12:02 am

“Every nation has a right to defend itself and to spend as it sees fit for that purpose, but a gap as wide as what seems to be forming between China’s stated intent and its military programs leaves me more than curious about the end result,” said Admiral Mike Mullen this Wednesday. “Indeed, I have moved from being curious to being genuinely concerned.”

It’s about time the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in public, expressed disquiet about the Chinese military buildup. For decades, American flag officers, many of them from the Navy, have remained optimistic about America’s military relations with China. And after every Chinese hostile act — even those constituting direct attacks on the United States, such as the March 2009 attempt to interfere with the Impeccable in the South China Sea — American admirals have either remained silent or said they were “perplexed” or “befuddled” by Beijing’s intentions.

Why the befuddlement? The assumption in Washington has been that America was so powerful that we could integrate hardline Chinese leaders into a liberal international system they had no hand in creating. To this end, successive administrations sought, among other things, to foster ties between the American and Chinese militaries.

The Pentagon, therefore, pushed for port calls, reciprocal visits of officers, a hot line, and an incidents-at-sea agreement, with varying degrees of success. Admiral Timothy Keating even went so far as to offer to help China build aircraft carriers.

Keating’s offer, made in May 2007 when he was commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, may have been extended with the knowledge the Chinese would reject it, but the apparent generosity was nonetheless in keeping with the general approach of the Navy during the Bush administration, an approach that President Obama has also adopted. So if there is any significance to Mullen’s recent comment, it is that the American military, at the highest levels, is beginning to voice in open forums its doubts about Beijing’s ultimate intentions. At this point, however, the expressions of “genuine concern” remain muted.

Senior Chinese officers, on the other hand, have no trouble telling us how they really feel.

In February, Colonel Meng Xianging promised a “hand-to-hand fight with the U.S.” sometime within the next 10 years “when we’re strong enough.” “We must make them hurt,” said Major-General Yang Yi this year, referring to the United States.

And last month, at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Beijing, a Chinese flag officer launched a three-minute rant that stunned the 65 or so American officials in the audience. Everything that is right with U.S. relations with China is due to China, said Rear Admiral Guan Youfei. Everything that is wrong is Washington’s fault. According to Guan, the United States sees China as an enemy.

A senior American official traveling on Secretary of State Clinton’s plane back to the United States said the admiral’s comments were “out of step” with the views of China’s civilian leaders. U.S. officials at the time also predicted that Beijing would soon welcome Robert Gates on his long-planned trip to China.

They were wrong. On June 3 the Chinese foreign ministry announced that the Defense secretary was in fact not welcome. Gates, who also thought he would travel to Beijing this month, said the turndown was just the military’s fault. “Nearly all of the aspects of the relationship between the United States and China are moving forward in a positive direction, with the sole exception of the military-to-military relationship,” he said on his way to Singapore. “The PLA is significantly less interested in developing this relationship than the political leadership of the country.”

Is that true? “Admiral Guan was representing what all of us think about the United States in our hearts,” a senior Chinese official told the Washington Post. “It may not have been politically correct, but it wasn’t an accident.” Chinese flag officers do not launch into polemical speeches at tightly scripted events, such as the once-a-year Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and it was reckless for American officials to assume, despite everything, that Admiral Guan was speaking only for himself.

Gates perhaps knows better now. After having his visit rejected at the last moment, he had to endure a series of hostile comments from Chinese flag officers at a security conference in Singapore at the beginning of this month. And that is just more evidence our officials and diplomats, even after more than three decades of close relations with their counterparts in Beijing, still do not understand China.

That, of course, is another “genuine concern.” So what, exactly, is the consequence of our miscomprehending the Chinese, refusing to hear what they openly say? It’s worse than the rejection of official visits to Beijing by overly eager Defense secretaries. Listen to former State Department analyst Robert Sutter: “China is the only large power in the world preparing to shoot Americans.”

Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World and The Coming Collapse of China.

Some selected responses :

Dave M. (now in S. Korea)

I’ll say it on behalf of the American people: China, you are our enemy. There, now that it is out in the open let’s prepare ourselves to make China hurt even more in our soon to come “hand-to-hand fight.” Oh, and when the missiles start firing, remember that it was Bill Clinton’s White House that provided the Chicoms with the technology. If Bush gave them anything, he needs to be called on it as well. – June 14, 2010 – 4:20 am

Master C

Stop obsessing about what an unknown Colonel says and focus on what Chairman Hu says. There will always be hawks and doves in any nation, so anyone should understand what harm such words can cause. Be sincere and consistent in actions as well. Respect the 1China policy and compare how China does not sell weapons to Cuba or other US unfriendly Latin American nations as opposed to the US selling weapons to Taiwan. – June 15, 2010 – 12:26 am

GreyLion

These would be good thoughts if they were true. As centralized as the Chinese communist government is the Premier sneezes and a colonel breaks wind. China has exported conventional arms to countries which include Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand, North Korea and Bangladesh. These weapons include submarines, various missile types, fighter and transport aircraft, radar intercept devices and artillery pieces. Taiwan IS the legitimate China, the one China. The other China would be remiss to assume that Taiwan will be an easy conquest, even without US help which is problematic given our current stupidity. Lastly, no one but no one really wants to confront the Japanese when their precieved national interest is at stake and anything involving Chinese “adventurism” involves the Japanese national interest. – June 15, 2010 – 5:41 am

@Master C

Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand and Bangladesh are not US unfriendly nations are they? And these are countries mostly in Central Asia and Asia. Does the US have more right than nations nearby to ‘project power’ in these regions when US does not even have the respect or goodwill of South American nations? As for North Korea, let us say that it is in China’s best interests to normalize their neighbours. And Iran is a likely a tit for tat response for US’s meddling in Taiwan. Try reversing the Taiwanese weapons sales policies and China will respond in kind on Iran.

Try making friends with parts of Europe to begin with instead of using the IMF to indebt them, and engaging the Middle East with more respect. Finish those wars in the Middle East (or quit the region), remove the Zionists back home to a state of reasonable democratic independence, and solve the multi-trillion dollar debts and dismantle the Federal Reserve before getting all paranoid on China. US has enough problems at home without wanting to make an enemy of China via irresponsible commentators who represent organisations that thrive on war and geo-political chaos.

China’s just doing it’s own thing AND does not have 101 military bases around the world poised to seize ‘rogue’ governments (aka not US/NWO/Zionist puppets). All this meaningless posturing while the unaccountability, irresponsibility and greed of some factions back home have reached unbelievable proportions is a sign of very deep rot, the world needs a peace-loving US reflected in policy and action as well . . .

June 17, 2010 – 4:47 am

@thought_criminal

BobN writes: “…China will attempt to conquer Taiwan during the Obama regime’s first term.”

Your otherwise solid analysis was sullied by the laughable use of the quantifier “first” in describing Obama’s length of time at the helm. Four years will be all that rational and sane people will be able to take. Now, do we have a lot of irrational and insane people? Sure. But by November 2012 the mask will be completely off and there won’t be another term for the current regime.

June 14, 2010 – 11:03 am

@Master C

The Taiwanese are Chinese as well, culturally and linguistically similar. There is no need for China to conquer anyone. It is political power mongers within local parties that have no regard for the lives on either side of the straits and that the Taiwanese would be far better off rejoining China than being a US(Illuminati/NWO) puppet.

Try getting the Zionists out of your own home nation first and getting out of the Middle East and closing down all those offensive military bases worldwide before even engaging the Far East in supposed friendly overtures. Having Japan by the throat in Okinawa is enough of a deterant to any development in friendly ties with any nation worldwide anytime soon.

Oh and what has the UN and Security Council done so far to punish the US/England for the unilateral war on Iraq that resulted in 100s of thousands killed? Nothing? And when Iran exercise it’s 2nd Amendment Rights in building nuclear deterants or asking for S300 defenses, the IAEA sanctions them? Why has Israel the right to own nukes but Iran has not? Racism and religious discrimination are ways of fascist regimes, which US increasingly looks set to become. At least stop projecting power via the 1000s of military bases around the world for a start, then talk.
June 15, 2010 – 12:59 am

@Mary in LA

Since when does Iran have “Second Amendment rights?” They’d have to be using the U.S. Constitution. They don’t. Under sharia, no one has rights — only obligations to submit to Islamic authority and kill infidels. “Islam” does not mean “peace”, but “submission”.

June 15, 2010 – 9:41 am

@Master C

They do not, but the US should extend all the democratic freedoms it believes in for itself to all other nations of the world. The world’s super power could do no less ! And in sharing these freedoms, the obligation to respect the US will come later . . .

Also, Islam is not all like you think. Under sharia, Muslims have obligations to submit to Islamic authority but non-Muslims do not. There are some very prominent Muslims who can make the distinction between both Muslim and non-Muslim and respect the rights as well as not impose the responsibilities on non-Muslims.

Speaking as if Islam was blindly oppressive does not make a case for better relations, nor encourage better behaviour and only re-affirms the wrong application of the religion for the lunatic fringe among Muslims. If properly studied, your understanding of Islam was not what the Prophet had intended in application, though in SOME (and only SOME) places what you say is true.

Talking like that is insulting, insensitive and provokes worse behaviour from Muslims, especially the less educated and emotional among them. How about a little apology to all Muslims reading here and a pledge to not label all Muslims like this in the future? It’s not helping the situation.

There are Muslims where I reside, and everyday is a struggle for quite a number them in trying to differentiate their rights and the rights of non-Muslims. Help them think clearly by being patient and polite, yet not conceding when they encroach on your rights (i.e. Stand your ground.).

There is no harm in engaging a fellow human being at their level if only to teach them what self determinism and the right to self expression is about, even while they themselves may choose to never experience it. Is this not supposed to be the American way, embrace of diversity? Or have I set too high a standard for ‘Superpower Nation’? Where is that positive aspect of exceptionalism that this exchange implies is required of USA?
June 17, 2010 – 5:33 am

@Paul

Master C – Iran’s 2nd Amendment Rights to develop nukes? Surely you don’t believe Iranians are bound by our United States Constitution, do you? The idiocy of the people like Master C never ceases to amaze me, and the sad reality is that Master C probably voted for Obamalamadingdong in reaction to “hope and change”. God Save Us!

June 15, 2010 – 10:39 am

@Mark Razak

Paul, I understand your sentiment, but I believe we must avoid the urge to characterize ‘Master C’ and ‘alex’ as idiots. Their comments serve to remind us that there are people out there who do not wish us well. And they are constantly working and struggling to achieve a level of power that will allow them to seriously harm us if we give them the opportunity. The problem with sites like this one, even as informative as this one, is that they run the risk of being echo chambers. That’s why as irritating as ‘Master C’ and his ilk may be, their comments give us a look into how our adversaries think. We need to evaluate their comments and act accordingly. We must never take our leadership in science, technology, medicine, etc, for granted; the moment we do will be the moment we surely begin to lose it. “A wise man is constantly seeking knowledge; but the moment he believes he has found it, he becomes a fool.” Our institutions, media, etc are infested with leftists and Marxists whose primary goal is the destruction of America. I agree with one of commenters above, that China is, as of now, the least of our worries. We need to concentrate on the fight at home.

June 15, 2010 – 12:32 pm

Master C
Breeding paranoia and distrust never benefited anyone and only shows a deprived upbringing. But if basing action on insecurity instead of sincere engagement with would be friends is necessary to the process of a nation growing up, it is the misfortune of the citizens of that nation then. But remember that the rest of the world will have closed ranks while ‘Superpower Nation’ arms itself to the teeth to militant agendas, oppresses it’s own citizens with idiot laws and becomes from unaccountable Capitalists sequestering wealth in third world tax-havens, makes enemies with it’s immediate neighbours, obsesses with Zionist cult theology, cuts of trade via useless sanctions, wages meaningless and unwinnable wars and angers local populations, and makes enemies of allies by imposing military bases and missile shields on continents 1000s of miles away (while the South American backyard or even Mexican immediate neighbour remains unfriendly at best.) It’s hard to be friends with nations like that, though the rest of the world and China (via the SCO Shanghai Cooperative Operation) can certainly try to contain these ills to their sources. Other than that US and Israel are absolutely the most well loved nations in the world.

June 17, 2010 – 5:04 am

ICCR does not support ethnic Chinese persons like Gordon G. Chang who author disparaging and ‘enemy propaganda-like’ books like ‘Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World’ and ‘The Coming Collapse of China’, and would advise all ethnic Chinese to boycott where possible where aware of any and all books published by Random House, Inc.. We hope all authors who might be affected by such a boycott to change publishers or get into self publishing and use Random House unaffiliated publishers instead. Any with the best interests of Mankind in mind will wish the best for ASEAN+3 (North Korea makes up 0.5 of the 3), instead of promotion of War in the Oriental Far East.

Post Navigation