SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Foreign Minister Saifuddin says Malaysia's decision to take South China Sea claim to UN is its 'sovereign right'. Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs Saifuddin Abdullah said late on Friday that Kuala Lumpur has the "sovereign right to claim whatever that is there that is within our waters".
"For China to claim that the whole of South China Sea belongs to China, I think that is ridiculous," Saifuddin said in response to an Al Jazeera question about Malaysia's decision last week to take its case to the United Nations.
"It is a claim that we have made, and we will defend our claim. But of course, having said that, anyone can challenge and dispute, which is not something unusual."
The move has angered China, which claims "historic rights" over all of South China Sea. It has also blamed the United States for raising tensions in the area.
In response, the US Navy's Pacific Fleet commander, Admiral John Aquilino accused China of "bullying" its Southeast Asian neighbours.
Malaysia and China are both signatories of the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which codifies the rights and responsibilities of independent states' use of the oceans.
Under the UNCLOS, coastal states like Malaysia are entitled to an EEZ. Beyond that is considered the high seas, common to all nations. UNCLOS also defines rules in case of overlapping EEZs.
It was on this basis that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague rejected in 2016 China's claims to the large swaths of water, which sees an estimated $3 trillion of trade pass each year.
China, however, rejects the ruling in The Hague, and since then has expanded its presence in the region, building artificial islands with runways and installing advanced missile system.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 22 2019, @06:53AM (13 children)
If China plays the long game, intelligently, they're going to make the entire China sea their own. One stupid atoll, and a reef at a time, they'll continue to build fortresses, and have the ability to deny access to whoever, whenever. With no overt acts of war, there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by bolek_b on Sunday December 22 2019, @08:18AM (10 children)
I think there are lessons from history -- Alexander the Great, Roman empire etc. -- that when an empire spreads too large, it loses its ability to defend itself efficiently. There are higher costs to maintain defensive forces, complexity of command structures grows, you inadvertly create lots of common-interest adversaries... I can see China succeeding in a mid-term, but only until the bullied nations (Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia, perhaps Japan and Taiwan) will answer with coordinated response.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 22 2019, @09:43AM (9 children)
Lessons to be learned, sure. But, how do those lessons apply, in today's modern warfare world? When infantry or whatever type was the power of the day, it was limited to a walking pace. Even forced marches were only good for about 20 to 25 miles per day. Communications were largely limited to the running pace of a good horse. Reaction times could be measured in weeks, and even months, possibly even years in some cases.
Today, powerful nations can get news instantly, mobilize a division, and transport that division around the world in a day or two. (note that only a few nations can do that, and actual response time may be as much as a week, I'm just showing possibilities here) Sea power response time has gone down almost as drastically, primarily due to instant comms, secondarily due to faster ships. And then, there is air power. The ten most powerful nations today can pretty much destroy the infrastructure of less powerful nations almost overnight, using planes, drones and missiles, without ever committing any ground troops.
When we actually develop bases, stations, and colonies off of earth, those old lessons will be much more applicable again. The powerful won't be able to deploy overwhelming force overnight, or even within a week, in most cases.
As much as I may hate it, China is in a very good position, today. Then can project overwhelming force anywhere they want to in the Pacific, and in most of Asia. If they continue to play the long game, I think they are unstoppable. If they lose sight of the goal, not so much. They want to avoid major confrontations for another 10 years, minimum, up to about 30 years.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Booga1 on Sunday December 22 2019, @11:27AM
Indeed. The way things are going, countries can disrupt, cripple, or even destroy certain parts of infrastructure without even leaving their office. How many articles have we had now about electrical grid vulnerabilities or other systems exposed to the internet? Look at Stuxnet, [wikipedia.org] where the attack was so subtle that even the targets weren't known for months/years after the deed had been done.
Not to mention the possibility of nukes. Empires used to need to expend human lives if they wanted to go break something. Now they can push a button and wipe out whole cities. A bully throwing a tantrum when they lose now has truly apocalyptic potential.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday December 22 2019, @11:37AM
One problem is that warfare has transcended the military already.
Chemical and biological weapons. Economy, demography, possible breakthroughs in climate manipulation, radiation...
Even the atomic bomb, once the secret gets out, ceases to be in the domain of the military manufacturing or logistics, becoming a terrorist weapon.
So, we have conventional war as long as everybody is willing to stick to it. I read China military power as the index of China's power overall. Will it last? will it prevail? Technically IMHO the system is already one and worldwide so... we've always been at war with eastasia.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 22 2019, @03:27PM (6 children)
Even more so. The fortified islands are even less useful now than they would be in the past.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 22 2019, @03:41PM (3 children)
I think I'm going to have to disagree with that. In days gone by, a fortified island was pretty much on it's own, when the SHTF. Communications weren't dependable, and resupply was very iffy. If several ships, some of them with landing forces (actually, before the Marine Corps grew so big in Vietnam, ship's forces WERE the landing forces) ganged up on an island, it would be taken in time. Logistics had everything to do with that.
Today, you almost have to nuke an island to subdue it before reinforcements can arrive from the mainland. Of course, said island won't be much use to anyone, for any purpose, for some time afterward. And, of course, world condemnation for nuking the island may result in alliances shifting, and a rapid beatdown from the rest of the world.
I think those islands are of more use than you believe them to be.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 22 2019, @03:56PM (2 children)
Here's an example. Why would you nuke an island to subdue it before reinforcements arrive, when you can nuke the island to subdue it after they arrive? If you have military superiority in the region, you don't need a bunch of fortified islands. If you don't have military superiority, then these islands are merely liabilities, which you can make worse by sending them more resources to lose.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 22 2019, @05:02PM (1 child)
Well, on the one hand, possession of one or more hard points increases your options, in the event of a conflict.
On the other hand, those possessions tend to influence perceptions among potential opponents. That is, those fortresses may work to intimidate some opponents.
On yet another hand, the Chinese may consider those fortresses to be little more than early warning, much as our DEW Line was during the Cold War. Yeah, we can get past them, but it's unlikely we can get past them unseen.
Yet another alternative that I wouldn't count on: The Chinese are investing all that time, money, and energy into the islands, because they believe the islands to be impregnable. If so, they are much greater fools than I have ever given them credit for. ;^) Far more likely that the fortresses are a distraction, to keep us from looking at something more important. Do the Chinese have a Space Force yet?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 22 2019, @11:03PM
They don't have to believe them impreganable, they just have to invest too much resources in them. You mentioned a few advantages, but you forgot the disadvantages - the enemy knows where they are.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Mykl on Sunday December 22 2019, @08:30PM (1 child)
I don't think the fortified islands are there to really form any type of defence against an attacking force. They are simply there to bolster China's claim that they have an ongoing occupying presence of the area, and therefore ownership.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday December 24 2019, @05:03AM
Much as isolated stones in Go give you an edge in an area when conflict finally reaches there.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday December 22 2019, @09:30PM
On top of that they can collect taxes/tolls from all the routes, impose tariffs/embargoes, etc. There's more than just a military play here. Personally, I think it is a bit too late now to stop this behemoth - and the democratic west will take too long to organize themselves, assuming they even can - there's a lot of corruption hidden in that bureaucracy, to make any meaningful counter.
The air space, and sub-orbital space, is still open, I'd go straight for that and leave the waters for the commies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 22 2019, @11:11PM
Just like the Jews.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 22 2019, @12:17PM (5 children)
Abdullah better watch out or the Chinamen will dock him some social credit points.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 22 2019, @02:56PM (4 children)
China eats Muslims for breakfast. They've got a million of them in internment camps and almost nobody cares.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 22 2019, @03:45PM (3 children)
At a guess, about a billion Muslims care, to varying degrees, depending on whether they are Shia, or Sunni, or one of the splinter groups. Aside from those, you're probably right.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 22 2019, @05:20PM (1 child)
There are about 300 million splinter groups: not just Shia and Sunni, but also Sufi, Omarites, 7th Imanites, 11th Imanites, Fatimites, Uighurs, Wahabi, Wasabi, Jihadi, etc. Whenever three or more Muslims get together they seem to form a new sect and then start a fight with the other sects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 22 2019, @05:52PM
So, they are like Baptists in the USA?
"Splitters!" with apologies to Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 22 2019, @06:59PM
Maybe not. Check this out:
Xinjiang re-education camps [wikipedia.org]
Reactions by other countries [wikipedia.org]
The supporters are listed as "alleged" due to the status of the letter. But you can see that the list includes Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and UAE. Only Qatar has "withdrawn" support and the opposition seems to be mostly European countries.
The mighty Chinese Yuan continues to reach far.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 22 2019, @02:52PM (1 child)
>It was unclear what prompted Malaysia to file a formal submission this month
This issue has been going on for years so why now?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 22 2019, @03:35PM
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RamiK on Sunday December 22 2019, @07:13PM (5 children)
China effectively gave up on naval expansion and relinquished its claim over the region since 1433: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages#Aftermath [wikipedia.org]
By 1525 they burned their own fleets, illegalized sea trade and restricted the construction, owning and sailing of large ships:
( https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/history-ming-treasure-fleet.htm [globalsecurity.org] )
compiling...
(Score: 2) by corey on Sunday December 22 2019, @08:37PM (4 children)
Yes, and by "historic rights", Hong Kong can be claimed by the British, Taiwan by the Dutch, etc. Let's give it all back and China can have the South China Sea. Doubt that'll go down well.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday December 22 2019, @10:36PM (3 children)
Well no Hong Kong was chartered to the British for a limited period and the term simply expired without the British ever arguing for a right to stay there. Taiwan's circumstances is a bit more special since both ROC and PRC agree Taiwan belongs to China, but oddly enough disagree on who is the legitimate government that should rule China...
Convenient as it may be, I'm afraid generalizations don't work in matters of sovereignty. Historical claims can and do stick at times. Just not this time.
compiling...
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @12:34AM (1 child)
The New Territories were 'chartered' (99 year lease), Hong Kong itself was ceded in perpetuity.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday December 23 2019, @01:37AM
Hong Kong and Kowloon specifically. Not that it matters considering the British themselves believed they're inseparable and ceded them back to China:
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong [wikipedia.org] )
For reference: The island is 80km2, Kowloon is 70km2 and the new territories are 1000km2.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @03:41PM
Macau was also a Chinese territory administrated by Portuguses. Portuguese could do business there and in turn they would hunt and take down pirates and paid a rent and some taxed. In the beginning, they could only park the navy, dry food and refill, not even allowed to build any building in land... later negotiations allowed expanded rights, giving total administration to the Macau region for almost 500 years, returning to China administration in 1999, one year later than Hong Kong (the first to arrive, the last to leave)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @03:44PM
Hey, China, Mongolia have historic rights over your country, if you really like to talk about that!