U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2016, 05:16 PM
 
4,685 posts, read 3,614,137 times
Reputation: 7382

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
And yet, the US adheres the the Convention despite not signing on, while China, a signatory, disregards the treaty.

Why shouldn't the US take the high ground? Actions speak louder than words, no? The traditional American ideal is self-determination and freedom of access among peoples within an international rule of law. In contrast, traditional American attitude: we seek self-determination and freedom of access among all peoples within an international rule of law. In stark contrast, the Chinese political tradition sees that China is a single centralized state embracing all persons of Chinese culture, united under a common social order and a common political dispensation, with no exceptions.



It makes no sense? That's a strange perspective!

The US has guaranteed FON for the past 70 years, during which much of that time China was closed to the outside world and playing in its own toilet muck. Yes, much of that trade benefits China. But, it also benefits everyone else, including the US.

What exactly is strange about this?



They haven't ever been able to do so, until recently. But, that isn't necessarily, or even likely, what the Chinese hope to do.



Says nobody but China.



Sure you want to go there? Tibet? Xinjiang?



Again, nonsense.

In fact:

1. The US has been leaving bases (Philippines) when asked to and would do so if Japan asked it to, and for the past decade at least has been trying to hand over control of the military operations in South Korea to the South Koreans, who keep begging the US to remain in charge, there; and

2. The US has always maintained an "Open Door" policy with China and would like nothing better than to have good relations with China. This policy goes back to the very founding of the US, but took tangible form when the US advocated for an Open Door policy with China, and drafted a statement of principles in 1899 and 1900 for the protection of equal privileges among countries trading with China and in support of Chinese territorial and administrative integrity. While other Western powers accepted reparations from China after the Boxer Rebellion, the US used its to found and establish Tsinghua University in Beijing, to benefit the Chinese. When Mao and the PRC closed off China and cut relations with the US, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, on August 5, 1949, stated "The historic policy of the United States of friendship and aid toward the people of China was, however, maintained in both peace and war. ... And now it is abundantly clear that we must face the situation as it exists in fact. We will not help the Chinese or ourselves by basing our policy on wishful thinking. We continue to believe that, however tragic may be the immediate future of China and however ruthlessly a major portion of this great people may be exploited by a party in the interest of a foreign imperialism, ultimately the profound civilization and the democratic individualism of China will reassert themselves and she will throw off the foreign yoke. I consider that we should encourage all developments in China which now and in the future work toward this end. In the immediate future, however, the implementation of our historic policy of friendship for China must be profoundly affected by current developments. It will necessarily be influenced by the degree to which the Chinese people come to recognize that the Communist regime serves not their interests but those of Soviet Russia and the manner in which, having become aware of the facts, they react to this foreign domination. ... Meanwhile our policy will continue to be based upon our own respect for the (UN) Charter, our friendship for China, and our traditional support for the Open Door and for China's independence and administrative and territorial integrity."



The US would like nothing more than to have friendly relations with China. But, Communist China does not give any reason to believe that it will use its newly growing power in a benevolent way. Rather, China seeks power to benefit China, and only China.
Seriously, I am pretty critical of Chinese cultural norms at times, but I think you take the cake for being the world's biggest US booster....wow. The US is such a saint, really!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2016, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,761 posts, read 1,102,358 times
Reputation: 2989
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post
Seriously, I am pretty critical of Chinese cultural norms at times, but I think you take the cake for being the world's biggest US booster....wow. The US is such a saint, really!
Yes, I have noted your criticism of certain aspects of Chinese culture. But, my stating facts regarding US policy does not make me a cheer leader for the US, nor does it equate to regarding the US as a saint.

Now, have you any substantive response to the facts I posted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 02:54 AM
 
4,685 posts, read 3,614,137 times
Reputation: 7382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Yes, I have noted your criticism of certain aspects of Chinese culture. But, my stating facts regarding US policy does not make me a cheer leader for the US, nor does it equate to regarding the US as a saint.

Now, have you any substantive response to the facts I posted?
No I don't. I am not the Chinese government nor do I speak for it. I have noted some aspects of the argument that seem not to make sense and I have already stated it. But if you are hell bend on arguing that the US has the moral right to play referee in the SCS, despite it being right on China's doorstep, then so be it. The Chinese beg to differ and you and I don't call the shots. I think China will continue to do what it does and happily watch the US sail its big ships up and down the SCS. China has a lot of big ships too and the place will get crowded pretty quick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 03:40 AM
 
4,231 posts, read 2,714,198 times
Reputation: 2207
How about companies??

Do they have great companies and expertise??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Asia
2,761 posts, read 1,102,358 times
Reputation: 2989
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post
No I don't. I am not the Chinese government nor do I speak for it. I have noted some aspects of the argument that seem not to make sense and I have already stated it. But if you are hell bend on arguing that the US has the moral right to play referee in the SCS, despite it being right on China's doorstep, then so be it. The Chinese beg to differ and you and I don't call the shots. I think China will continue to do what it does and happily watch the US sail its big ships up and down the SCS. China has a lot of big ships too and the place will get crowded pretty quick.
Nice dodge!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 11:22 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,262,981 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Freedom of navigation is extremely important for all nations, and the US simply follows the rules of the UNCLOS even though the US is not a signatory.


Come on, do you really insist this is about "freedom of navigation"? Really??


The US follows international rules when it suits its need and won't hesitate for a second to break it when it doesn't. Do I really need to give examples here?


The UN, International Laws mean nothing to the US. And you pretend (or naively believe) that the US is some sort of righteous knight defending world justice. I don't know what to say.


And exactly how did China threaten FON?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,761 posts, read 1,102,358 times
Reputation: 2989
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
Come on, do you really insist this is about "freedom of navigation"? Really??
Of course. The US has been ensuring FON for the past 70 years. Why should it be different now?

You have nothing to prove that what has been true for the past 70 years is no longer true. You're just spouting your Chinese nationalistic mantra.

If you have some actual evidence that the US is not concerned with FON or some stated policy that the US is not concerned with FON, let's see a cite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
The US follows international rules when it suits its need and won't hesitate for a second to break it when it doesn't. Do I really need to give examples here?
With respect to the US ensuring FON, yes, you do need to give examples. Please show us when the US in the past 70 years, or in its entire history, for that matter, has not been an advocate for or protector of FON.

Come on, get to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
The UN, International Laws mean nothing to the US.
That's an exaggeration. And it applies more to China, actually.

But, again, if you deny that the US is concerned with FON and peace in the SCS, then give us some examples of the US flaunting International law in East Asia.

Come on, you seem to think that examples abound. So, let's have some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
And you pretend (or naively believe) that the US is some sort of righteous knight defending world justice. I don't know what to say.
That's right. You don't know what to say, so you post straw men and hyperbole.

I do not present that the US is a "white knight". But, in matters of FON, the US has been an advocate and protect and ensurer of the same.

As you disagree, it is your burden to post examples showing how I am wrong in this regard.

Let's go! Get to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
And exactly how did China threaten FON?
Maybe you're too young to remember when the Chinese pilot "Wrong Way" hit the US observation plane and caused the US plane to have to make an emergency landing on Hainan island?

Maybe you do not pay attention to Chinese claims that it owns all of the SCS and would exercise its rights to the EEZs and navigation rights there as well?

Perhaps you are ignorant too of China's threat to shoot down Australian surveillance aircraft cruising in the skies above the South China Sea?

It appears you are ignorant of the ridiculous Chinese claims that innocent passage violates Chinese law? China signed the UNCLOS, yet without any solid reasoning wants to claim all of the SCS and then apply Chinese law rather than the UNCLOS in restricting FON. In an example of pure irony, Chinese National Defense spokesman Yang Yujun stated that a US Navy FON operation this past January severely violated Chinese law, sabotaged the peace, security and good order of the waters, and undermined the region’s peace and stability.

That's too funny! For the past 70 years, the US Navy has secured peace and security in the SCS and has ensured FON, which has greatly benefitted China, and no nation in the region has considered US actions there to be a threat to the peace and security of the region.

China can blow it out its arse. Why are all of the nations of the region nervous about Chinese expansion and muscle flexing but welcome the US Navy actions in the region?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 05:45 AM
 
4,685 posts, read 3,614,137 times
Reputation: 7382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
Of course. The US has been ensuring FON for the past 70 years. Why should it be different now?

You have nothing to prove that what has been true for the past 70 years is no longer true. You're just spouting your Chinese nationalistic mantra.

If you have some actual evidence that the US is not concerned with FON or some stated policy that the US is not concerned with FON, let's see a cite.



With respect to the US ensuring FON, yes, you do need to give examples. Please show us when the US in the past 70 years, or in its entire history, for that matter, has not been an advocate for or protector of FON.

Come on, get to it.



That's an exaggeration. And it applies more to China, actually.

But, again, if you deny that the US is concerned with FON and peace in the SCS, then give us some examples of the US flaunting International law in East Asia.

Come on, you seem to think that examples abound. So, let's have some.



That's right. You don't know what to say, so you post straw men and hyperbole.

I do not present that the US is a "white knight". But, in matters of FON, the US has been an advocate and protect and ensurer of the same.

As you disagree, it is your burden to post examples showing how I am wrong in this regard.

Let's go! Get to it.



Maybe you're too young to remember when the Chinese pilot "Wrong Way" hit the US observation plane and caused the US plane to have to make an emergency landing on Hainan island?

Maybe you do not pay attention to Chinese claims that it owns all of the SCS and would exercise its rights to the EEZs and navigation rights there as well?

Perhaps you are ignorant too of China's threat to shoot down Australian surveillance aircraft cruising in the skies above the South China Sea?

It appears you are ignorant of the ridiculous Chinese claims that innocent passage violates Chinese law? China signed the UNCLOS, yet without any solid reasoning wants to claim all of the SCS and then apply Chinese law rather than the UNCLOS in restricting FON. In an example of pure irony, Chinese National Defense spokesman Yang Yujun stated that a US Navy FON operation this past January severely violated Chinese law, sabotaged the peace, security and good order of the waters, and undermined the regionís peace and stability.

That's too funny! For the past 70 years, the US Navy has secured peace and security in the SCS and has ensured FON, which has greatly benefitted China, and no nation in the region has considered US actions there to be a threat to the peace and security of the region.

China can blow it out its arse. Why are all of the nations of the region nervous about Chinese expansion and muscle flexing but welcome the US Navy actions in the region?
Yes, you do have a point. China is big and getting so strong, and unlike the US, China is actually a resident of that neighborhood. So, these little countries can try to get the US back into Asia to counter China, but when it's all said and done, the US is still very far away, and China is right there. So they'll have to deal with China one way or another. It is basically Chinese backyard whether it pleases you or not.

Now all those Chinese "area denial" weapons like the DF 21 (aircraft killers) make sense. Having the means to make US intervention extremely costly and even futile is apparently China's goal. I don't blame China for wanting its own backyard now that it is strong enough. At the height of US military power, we had ships and planes cruising everywhere. Even that incident with the Chinese pilot...the US spy plane was cruising near Hainan island, which has an extremely important Chinese naval base. So why was the US flying something so close to China's shore? The US plane wasn't in the middle of the Pacific or in the Caribbean. If you say the US has a right to fly anywhere, then I guess the Chinese have the right to harass and sometimes have an accident bumping things out of the sky too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Asia
2,761 posts, read 1,102,358 times
Reputation: 2989
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post
Even that incident with the Chinese pilot...the US spy plane was cruising near Hainan island, which has an extremely important Chinese naval base. So why was the US flying something so close to China's shore? The US plane wasn't in the middle of the Pacific or in the Caribbean. If you say the US has a right to fly anywhere, then I guess the Chinese have the right to harass and sometimes have an accident bumping things out of the sky too.
You are wrong, and you do not understand the UNCLOS. Are you Chinese?

The UNCLOS states clearly that any nation's airspace, including Chinese airspace, is limited to the space above that nation's sea space, which extends only 12 n. miles from that nation's coast. The idiotic Chinese pilot, "Wrong Way", hit the US plane some 60 miles away from China's coastline. China is not special. It signed onto the UNCLOS, and cannot make up its own rules. Just as other nations, China's airspace is limited to the air above its land and the air extending only 12 n. miles from its coast. China cannot go ramming other nations' planes outside of that limited space, even if such planes are watching or listening to China.

Seems China doesn't like to play by the rules it agrees to... Can't imagine why the nations of the region are concerned????



Moreover, the US EP-3 plane involved in that incident was NOT a spy plane. It was clearly marked as a military aircraft and was conducting overt surveillance, rather than covert spying. Clearly marked military aircraft conducting overt surveillance are NOT spying. By definition, spying requires [at least an attempt at] secret and covert operations (like what unmarked Chinese "fishing" vessels do off the coast of California).

Moreover, per the UNCLOS, to which China has signed onto, the airspace in which the US aircraft was flying was not airspace which China has a right to defend. Non-Chinese aircraft, even military aircraft, are permitted, again per the UNCLOS, innocent passage.

The Chinese actually do spy on the US from "fishing" trawlers all the time. The Soviets spied from planes all the time. There were no such aggressive incidents. No one in the US was screaming murder. There was and is no US outrage. And that was and is actual covert spying, rather than overt surveillance! Yet, China throws a hissy fit every time any nation engages in "innocent passage" through international waters or airspace anywhere near what China claims as its own, despite the clear provisions of the UNCLOS, which China agreed to and signed on to.

What the Chinese did in that incident was indefensible. The US observation plane was legally conducting operations well within the parameters of the UNCLOS, to which China is a party. The Chinese tried to argue, contrary to the clear provisions of the UNCLOS, that China has rights to the airspace above China's exclusive economic zone. But, in fact, the EEZ includes only the sea and the sea bed... not the air space above it. Thus, the Chinese were wrong, as the UNCLOS states clearly that Chinese airspace is limited to the space above the Chinese sea space, which extends only 12 n. miles from the Chinese coast. The US observation plane was hit by the Chinese plane some 60 miles south of the Chinese coast, well outside of Chinese air space.

And it was worse than even that! The US had complained specifically about the Chinese pilot (Wrong Wei) who had been hot-dogging and violating the agreement re safety measures. Prior to the incident, the US and China had held discussions regarding what was then increasingly dangerous flying by the Chinese pilots, including "Wrong Way" himself, and China agreed to a set of "rules" for such interceptions of US observation planes flying in international airspace. China did not then feel constrained apparently by that agreement.

Why should anyone trust China with respect to its intentions in the SCS? Its claims to the entire region are ridiculous, and its insistence on interpreting the UNCLOS in a way that is clearly wrong, do not inspire trust or confidence.

So, yes, the US has not signed the UNCLOS. But, the US has been advocating and ensuring FON for many years before the UNCLOS was even dreamed up! China signed on to UNCLOS, but, doesn't want to adhere to the provisions of the same!

Last edited by Salmonburgher; 04-20-2016 at 09:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2016, 09:51 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,262,981 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post

Seems China doesn't like to play by the rules it agrees to... Can't imagine why the nations of the region are concerned????
Does the US play by the rules it agrees to? Let's see.


In using force against first Afghanistan and then Iraq in a period of less than three years, the United States acted in violation of article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations. This provision of the Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another sovereign State. The bombing of Afghanistan can be seen from photos taken from above the Earth as having changed the topography of the country. The United States and its allies literally bombed parts of Afghanistan off the map.


Is it really the rules the US is concerned about? or something else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top