Good afternoon,

could the conflict after the tribunal's sentence have influence on air traffic in that region?

While China has signed the UNCLOS, the tribunal's ruling is binding even for China, but the Chinese government appears to intend to nevertheless ignore the ruling, which would be un-acceptable for the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Could the escalation of the conflict lead to the entire region being closed for international air traffic?

Best,
Ferroviarius

It's a fascinating topic for anyone that's interested global affairs, and it will drive the agenda for regional Asian dialogue for years to come. To me it's a missed opportunity by China to cement their position as a "benevolent" hegemon in Asia and honor the script they put out near daily about their pacifist intentions. The ruling that came down was unexpected in the totality of its finding against China in virtually every respect of their actions to date. Their forceful and, let's face it, outright militaristic actions in the South China Sea are directly contrary to their words. And unlike Crimea, the entire world is dependent on peace in this area which is the largest shipping route for trade on the planet. This is what will pit the interests of the US and its regional allies (including Australia and India) against China. The question I come back to personally is that I can't quite follow China's logic with the "Nine Dash Line" strategy. Militarily it makes little sense since the island reefs they're building are sitting ducks. So it leaves one with the economic angle and what must be the perceived wealth of the natural resources that might be claimed from the surrounding waters and sea bed (fish, oil etc). But to me the real economic advantage to China in not pursuing their claims so aggressively would've been the long-term displacement of the US as a power in the region. In this regard, any confrontation over this ruling will set them back for years and push traditional US allies further away and even help foster much closer ties between the US and newer allies like The Philippines and Vietnam. The lost economic "opportunity" here is greater than any gain from the natural resources China intends to claim solely for itself by the "Nine Dash" approach. Scary times ahead which will bring very serious tensions to the region.

Ferroviarius wrote:

While China has signed the UNCLOS, the tribunal's ruling is binding even for China, but the Chinese government appears to intend to nevertheless ignore the ruling, which would be un-acceptable for the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Could the escalation of the conflict lead to the entire region being closed for international air traffic?

China is no different than ignoring the Hague than the United States is. China has decided it is in its best interest to claim their territory, and the rest of the world can go pound sand. Likewise, most of the institutions that the west has built over the past century rely on American say so. The USA refuses to let our military or Bush / Cheney to be subject to the Hague, so why should China? It's just a toothless tiger that can only enforce its ruling assuming several of the "big" economies of the world say so.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

China is no different than ignoring the Hague than the United States is. China has decided it is in its best interest to claim their territory, and the rest of the world can go pound sand. Likewise, most of the institutions that the west has built over the past century rely on American say so. The USA refuses to let our military or Bush / Cheney to be subject to the Hague, so why should China? It's just a toothless tiger that can only enforce its ruling assuming several of the "big" economies of the world say so.

Not a valid comparison. The US has not attempted to annex territory in a very long time.

I think China saw Russia annex the Crimea while the rest of the world did nothing. The Hague Tribunal seems to be little more than an exercise in diplomatic masturbation.

Dreadnought wrote:

[
Not a valid comparison. The US has not attempted to annex territory in a very long time.

You mean like Hawaii that didn't become a state until 1959? Or all the territory taken during the Spanish American war? Or the 1978 Northern Mariana Islands annexation? How many coups d'états did we finance in Latin and South America in the past 50 years? China is becoming a massive super-power. Arguably, China resembles 1970 USA environmentally and politically like 1940, IMHO.

How about the invasions or take overs more recently like Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, or Iraq? You do realize that the reason George W Bush signed the Status of Force Agreement with Iraq to withdraw all combat forces was because Iraq refused to grant US forces immunity from the Hague to US soldiers, right?

Or in your mind is "a very long time" 10 years? Look, you are just going to have to get used to the fact that China is going to have its own say so over some very strategic things during the next 50 years. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world, and is likely going to take over the USA as #1 within 10 to 15 years. Additionally, it has a vast population that is 4xs larger than the US. Additionally, that gives them the money and power to dismiss the Hague and some Mickey Mouse forum of the UN or commission of an international court that they opt out of.

Or in your mind is "a very long time" 10 years? Look, you are just going to have to get used to the fact that China is going to have its own say so over some very strategic things during the next 50 years. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world, and is likely going to take over the USA as #1 within 10 to 15 years. Additionally, it has a vast population that is 4xs larger than the US. Additionally, that gives them the money and power to dismiss the Hague and some Mickey Mouse forum of the UN or commission of an international court that they opt out of.


Yes indeed, I have to ask, how do the proponents of a global economy feel about the attitude of the Chinese regarding the claims denied by the Tribunal in the Hague? Let us make them richer, more powerful than they are right now. Let us see their humanity backed by power accrued by them through the West sending our jobs and our wealth to them for profit for the 1% It sure did not do much for the rest of us. Remember Tiananmen Square. Now we see it in the South China Sea. Our enemy is certainly not our friend, and they are our enemy. Trump is correct on that, but unfortunately also a Hypocrite on the matter.

WarRI1 wrote:

Yes indeed, I have to ask, how do the proponents of a global economy feel about the attitude of the Chinese regarding the claims denied by the Tribunal in the Hague? Let us make them richer, more powerful than they are right now. Let us see their humanity backed by power accrued by them through the West sending our jobs and our wealth to them for profit for the 1% It sure did not do much for the rest of us. Remember Tiananmen Square. Now we see it in the South China Sea. Our enemy is certainly not our friend, and they are our enemy. Trump is correct on that, but unfortunately also a Hypocrite on the matter.

Yes. This is what I've been telling my friends for over a decade. My argument that hits home the most so far has been my argument about General Motors. I was asking over 10 years ago about what happens when/if GM is selling more cars in China than here in the USA, and makes more profit from the Chinese than from America.....what then? Now it's fact. GM makes more money and sells more cars in China than it does in the USA. So is GM truly an American company any more? Where is GM's business interests moving forward. GM is allowed to court and donate to US Congresscritters, PACs, and SuperPACs. Is that ok? When do we realize that just because it is an American based company that it may only get a small portion of its revenue and profit from the US, might have far more loyalty and dedication to an overseas country/market?

PacificBeach88 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

Yes indeed, I have to ask, how do the proponents of a global economy feel about the attitude of the Chinese regarding the claims denied by the Tribunal in the Hague? Let us make them richer, more powerful than they are right now. Let us see their humanity backed by power accrued by them through the West sending our jobs and our wealth to them for profit for the 1% It sure did not do much for the rest of us. Remember Tiananmen Square. Now we see it in the South China Sea. Our enemy is certainly not our friend, and they are our enemy. Trump is correct on that, but unfortunately also a Hypocrite on the matter.

Yes. This is what I've been telling my friends for over a decade. My argument that hits home the most so far has been my argument about General Motors. I was asking over 10 years ago about what happens when/if GM is selling more cars in China than here in the USA, and makes more profit from the Chinese than from America.....what then? Now it's fact. GM makes more money and sells more cars in China than it does in the USA. So is GM truly an American company any more? Where is GM's business interests moving forward. GM is allowed to court and donate to US Congresscritters, PACs, and SuperPACs. Is that ok? When do we realize that just because it is an American based company that it may only get a small portion of its revenue and profit from the US, might have far more loyalty and dedication to an overseas country/market?

I find it sickening and enraging, the utter stupidity and greed of the corporations, our government and ultimately the people for accepting this economic disaster. We have actually had proposals to make our military uniforms in China. I think it actually happened and was discontinued. I have called it the Walmart Economy, they make the billions and actually counseled people to collect welfare while paying dog wages. They forced US companies to transfer work to China and the people ate it up, look at the cheap prices they said. They appreciated the lower prices because they were earning sub-standard wages because the corporations sent all the good paying jobs to China and around the world. They are too ignorant to know they were and are getting screwed over. I just love these types who shop Walmart and vote Republican. Astounding. I have never been in one, never will.

WarRI1 wrote:

I just love these types who shop Walmart and vote Republican. Astounding. I have never been in one, never will.

I've spent more time at http://www.peopleofwalmart.com than I have Walmart itself. LOL! I was forever scarred when I went into a Walmart at 1:00 am on a Thursday night because I had a sick boyfriend that needed cough medicine. Also, another time was when I was living at Wrightsville Beach, NC and saw 1/4th or 1/3rd of the customers literally barefoot. (No flip flops, no nothing.....barefoot.) And no one paying attention to it. I picked up what I needed and was out of their in under 20 mins. It was gross. #NeverAgain

PacificBeach88 wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I just love these types who shop Walmart and vote Republican. Astounding. I have never been in one, never will.

I've spent more time at http://www.peopleofwalmart.com than I have Walmart itself. LOL! I was forever scarred when I went into a Walmart at 1:00 am on a Thursday night because I had a sick boyfriend that needed cough medicine. Also, another time was when I was living at Wrightsville Beach, NC and saw 1/4th or 1/3rd of the customers literally barefoot. (No flip flops, no nothing.....barefoot.) And no one paying attention to it. I picked up what I needed and was out of their in under 20 mins. It was gross. #NeverAgain

An amusing story, a few weeks ago, I cut through the Walmart Parking lot to show my Grandson what was being accomplished in a remodel next door on a building. I was almost through when a woman who had been shopping at Walmart backed into my truck. Trust me, never again near the joint. Walmart revenge for not giving them my money ??????

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:

[
Not a valid comparison. The US has not attempted to annex territory in a very long time.

You mean like Hawaii that didn't become a state until 1959? Or all the territory taken during the Spanish American war? Or the 1978 Northern Mariana Islands annexation? How many coups d'états did we finance in Latin and South America in the past 50 years? China is becoming a massive super-power. Arguably, China resembles 1970 USA environmentally and politically like 1940, IMHO.

How about the invasions or take overs more recently like Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, or Iraq? You do realize that the reason George W Bush signed the Status of Force Agreement with Iraq to withdraw all combat forces was because Iraq refused to grant US forces immunity from the Hague to US soldiers, right?

Or in your mind is "a very long time" 10 years? Look, you are just going to have to get used to the fact that China is going to have its own say so over some very strategic things during the next 50 years. China is the 2nd largest economy in the world, and is likely going to take over the USA as #1 within 10 to 15 years. Additionally, it has a vast population that is 4xs larger than the US. Additionally, that gives them the money and power to dismiss the Hague and some Mickey Mouse forum of the UN or commission of an international court that they opt out of.

Hawaii, etc were under American jurisdiction for a long time. It's been around a century since the US invaded territory with the intention of keeping it, even post facto.

WarRI1 wrote:

I find it sickening and enraging, the utter stupidity and greed of the corporations, our government and ultimately the people for accepting this economic disaster. We have actually had proposals to make our military uniforms in China. I think it actually happened and was discontinued. I have called it the Walmart Economy, they make the billions and actually counseled people to collect welfare while paying dog wages. They forced US companies to transfer work to China and the people ate it up, look at the cheap prices they said. They appreciated the lower prices because they were earning sub-standard wages because the corporations sent all the good paying jobs to China and around the world. They are too ignorant to know they were and are getting screwed over. I just love these types who shop Walmart and vote Republican. Astounding. I have never been in one, never will.

Then why don't you support Trump? This is exactly the type of thing he wants to stop, and so do I. I do question if the people will have the fortitude to stay the course and give up some of those cheap prices (let's face it, if someone sees his income go up by 50%, but the cost of a new TV goes up 25%, he's very likely to still bitch about cost inflation). But it is worth doing, slowly and gradually, to stop the utter destruction of our manufacturing base.

Establishment Democrats and Republicans have no interest in moving in this direction however. It would be a tough thing to get through. You imply that you vote Democrat - do you believe that they want to stop it? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.

Aaron747 wrote:

If he really believed in no offshoring, he'd have been practicing it all along. Idiots buy the line 'well it was the only way my companies can compete' - No, you're already a billionaire, so live by your principles. Tell your group companies it's OK to take 6% less on margin than competitors because you're making things in South Carolina and West Virginia instead of Vietnam.

Well.. if any significant number of people would live by that principles, we wouldn't have that problem. If you could sell "made in China/Vietnam/wherever" only with a steep discount vs. "Made in the US/EU/anotherplace with comparable costs and democracy" no one would outsource to China.

It is doable, and doesn't habe to cost more. For example I have no single piece of closing made in a dictatorship, and there is no noticrable price difference. Even if I buy "made in germany" stuff (Trigema), it doesn't cost more than a comparable quality piece from Nike or Puma made in some slave labor camp.

Anyone that compains about jobs going to China should just stick to their words and stop buying stuff made in China. While there are product categories were China is difficult to impossible to avoid, for lots and lots of stuff it is easy.

Best regards
Thomas

wingman wrote:

help foster much closer ties between the US and newer allies like The Philippines and Vietnam.

The same Philippines that were a US commonwealth until 1946? Not sure how "new" of an ally the Philippines are. We had a military base there until 1992, and it's getting reopened (sort of).

Sorry, just a nitpick there.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

You mean like Hawaii that didn't become a state until 1959? Or all the territory taken during the Spanish American war? Or the 1978 Northern Mariana Islands annexation? How many coups d'états did we finance in Latin and South America in the past 50 years? China is becoming a massive super-power. Arguably, China resembles 1970 USA environmentally and politically like 1940, IMHO.

What are you talking about? Hawai'i had been a US territory since the 1800s. Same with Puerto Rico and Guam.. The Northern Marianas were placed under American administration following the largest war in human history, which was not a "land grab" by the USA, mind you. The islands decided to seek territorial status with the US (I'm sure the response will be, "What a surprise!" or something similar).

So, yeah, the US hasn't done anything like what China is doing in a long time. I'd call 100+ years a long time. No one on the planet was alive the last time the US did anything remotely like what China is doing.

I can't quite follow China's logic with the "Nine Dash Line" strategy. Militarily it makes little sense since the island reefs they're building are sitting ducks.

That is only true in an all out war situation. Prior to all out war they give China police power in the SCS; the SCS becomes a Chinese lake.

cjg225 wrote:

What are you talking about? Hawai'i had been a US territory since the 1800s. Same with Puerto Rico and Guam.. The Northern Marianas were placed under American administration following the largest war in human history, which was not a "land grab" by the USA, mind you. The islands decided to seek territorial status with the US (I'm sure the response will be, "What a surprise!" or something similar).

So how many hundreds of years has Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and many islands in the China Sea been in various states of influence, control, and territories of China?

Look, I hate Chinese leadership and the authoritarian regime. That said, at least be honest about the hegemony the USA has practiced over the past 250 years before demanding another country live up to your manufactured standard or how America has behaved in just the past 35 years, long after it established itself as a global superpower earlier in the 20th century. China is simply walking in the footprints of the USA of years ago.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

So how many hundreds of years has Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and many islands in the China Sea been in various states of influence, control, and territories of China?

Look, I hate Chinese leadership and the authoritarian regime. That said, at least be honest about the hegemony the USA has practiced over the past 250 years before demanding another country live up to your manufactured standard or how America has behaved in just the past 35 years, long after it established itself as a global superpower earlier in the 20th century. China is simply walking in the footprints of the USA of years ago.

This is all very simple.

We live in the year 2016. Someone made a comment that the US has not tried to forcibly or subtly annex territory in a very long time. You claimed that they have recently. Your examples were completely off the mark, and the last real example was 100+ years ago, which, not-so-coincidentally, was during the last real age of colonialism by the major nations of the world.

So, the person who made the comment was right. In the year 2016, it's been a really long time since the US acted in a fashion like the Chinese are now.

Whether China is following in the footsteps of the US is a proper discussion, but the "but the US did it, too!" argument is just poor debating. It was a very different time. In no way does it "justify" what the US did, but it was a different time. It was commonly practiced by the major nations of the world at the time. It was considered quite acceptable. But now we're in 2016. Much has happened in the last 100+ years. Many things have changed. Society has evolved (sort of). And we're talking about what China is doing now, not 100+ years ago.

Establishment Democrats and Republicans have no interest in moving in this direction however. It would be a tough thing to get through. You imply that you vote Democrat - do you believe that they want to stop it? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.

I agree, I watch everything, read as much as I can. I trust no one, especially the congress. Neither Trump nor Hillary will accomplish anything meaningful if this congress continues on its present path. We need election reform first and foremost. The system is corrupt. both Parties are corrupted by money. I had hope for Trump until he started his swing to the right and started his rhetoric which is unceasingly not wise. I have hope that if Hillary wins, she will be pressured into pushing something to benefit the common man. With the Democrats, we have a small chance. with Trump and a Republican congress, we are screwed.

Trump lost me early on. He really lost me when he said he would seek approval of the Heritage foundation for his Supreme court nominee. We have had many years of a Conservative leaning majority on the USSC, let us try a more Liberal nominee this time. Maybe, just maybe we will have small chance to overturn Citizens' United, the most harmful dangerous corrupt ruling in many years, insuring more corruption by money and the continued destruction of our electoral process. Then maybe we can work on jobs for us, wealth for us and screw China and all the others who wish our destruction.

Anyone that complains about jobs going to China should just stick to their words and stop buying stuff made in China. While there are product categories were China is difficult to impossible to avoid, for lots and lots of stuff it is easy.

Nobody tries harder than I. Very difficult and getting harder. Now parts mixed in products, assembly, you name it, label of origin, harder to find. They have become very clever screwing us over.

Surely I can't be the only one finding it hilarious when the USA complains about other countries not following international law with regards to to territorial claims at sea? You know, the same USA that hasn't bothered to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. China probably won't follow the tribunal's ruling, but at least they submitted themselves to the judicial process. Countries that have territorial disputes with the US aren't able to enter arbitration since the US hasn't ratified UNCLOS.

As ever, the interesting way that international politics plays out has resulted in countries including Lesotho, Vanuatu, Kenya and Afghanistan supporting China's claim. Again, I find it a little entertaining that China is buying support for their maritime territorial claims from several landlocked countries.

So it leaves one with the economic angle and what must be the perceived wealth of the natural resources that might be claimed from the surrounding waters and sea bed (fish, oil etc).

The privileges of having the relevant waters as their EEZ will certainly be a benefit to China. They'll fish those waters until there's no fish left (mind you, the Philippines and Vietnam aren't much better in this regard).

zkojq wrote:

Surely I can't be the only one finding it hilarious when the USA complains about other countries not following international law with regards to to territorial claims at sea? You know, the same USA that hasn't bothered to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. China probably won't follow the tribunal's ruling, but at least they submitted themselves to the judicial process. Countries that have territorial disputes with the US aren't able to enter arbitration since the US hasn't ratified UNCLOS.

Didn't China refuse to participate in this proceeding? Or do you mean more generally that they submitted to UNCLOS?

cjg225 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Surely I can't be the only one finding it hilarious when the USA complains about other countries not following international law with regards to to territorial claims at sea? You know, the same USA that hasn't bothered to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. China probably won't follow the tribunal's ruling, but at least they submitted themselves to the judicial process. Countries that have territorial disputes with the US aren't able to enter arbitration since the US hasn't ratified UNCLOS.

Didn't China refuse to participate in this proceeding? Or do you mean more generally that they submitted to UNCLOS?

China ratified UNCLOS. We both know that they won't abide by the ruling, but legally they're obliged to.