• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Philippines protests to China over oil rig plan

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
article

I know the South China Sea is off the radar for many people because events in the Middle East and Central Asia has the attention of many Americans and others around the world, but the South China Sea has been simmering as a hot spot for about two decades. In the past couple of years, things have been slowly heating up with Chinese encroachments into the EEZ and/or territorial waters of Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Now, it seems that the Chinese are about to go one step further.


MANILA (AFP) – The Philippines said Wednesday it had formally protested to Beijing over recent activity in disputed waters of the South China Sea and Chinese plans to anchor an oil rig there.

China's charge d'affaires in Manila was summoned to the foreign ministry on Tuesday to hear the government's concerns over actions by the Chinese military in the South China Sea, a ministry statement said.

The foreign ministry said it "requested clarification from the Chinese embassy on the recent sightings of a China Marine Surveillance vessel and other People's Liberation Army Navy ships".

China along with the four ASEAN claimant states have signed agreements to work together to jointly develop the resources of the sea basin and ensure freedom of navigation, but China has never backed down from its claim that the entire bed of the South China Sea is a part of its internal waters. This would trigger major territorial disputes with Viet Nam, Indonesia, Brunei Darusalaam, Malaysia and the Philippines.

This has serious implications for the United States and Japan, among other states. Viet Nam and the Philippines have openly been courting closer ties with the United States over fears of Chinese expansionism and it is assumed that Indonesia will make similar pushes when Obama meets SBY later this year. I have also seen many editorials in Indonesian newspapers supporting closer relations with the United States (note - relations between Indonesia and the United States has been generally good since the late 1960s the East Timor - now Timor Leste - situation notwithstanding).

The U.S. should cultivate its relations with states in the region. The U.S. is generally well-liked in many east and southeast Asian countries and it is the one power that can ensure stability in the region. Considering that some of the world's businest trade routes are in the region and as a maritime nation, the U.S. relies on passage through those routes as much as anyone else, it is in the national interests of the United States to remain engaged and a force for stability in the region.

To accomplish this, it will require statecraft and a knowledge of the region that doesn't really seem to exist in the White House (and hasn't for quite some time) as well as some gumption to resist the bias in the State Department that has been there for China for the past three decades.
 
Obama's commitments to our long time allies is questionable to some, but in my mind he's a spineless, weak kneed, marsh mallow milk toast, with an agenda known only yo his Radical friends and Czars, etc.

He is not one to back up anything that doesn't result in furthering his assault on the Constitution and the values our Nation has stood for for over 230 years.

What is his end Game? I have no clue but in the last two year he has insulted the UK and Israel and Bowed and scared to Islamic countries that wish nothing more than our destruction.

Why would he stand up to China for the Philippines where we no longer have much control.
 
article

HANOI, Vietnam – Vietnam fired artillery rounds off its central coast Monday in naval drills announced during a maritime spat with Beijing, as conflicts heat up between China and its neighbors over the potentially oil-rich South China Sea.

Vietnam accuses Chinese boats of disrupting oil and gas exploration in its waters, echoing a similar dispute that flared last week with the Philippines concerning Beijing's ramped-up moves to assert its sovereignty over disputed areas in recent months.

Vietnam said it would welcome foreign involvement to keep the peace, in an apparent reference to the United States, which last year angered China by offering to mediate South China Sea disputes and calling them a matter of its own national interest.

This is heating up. The Philippines is also getting riled up and Taiwan is talking of senting marines to Taiping Island in the Spratleys...
 
Obama won't mess with China. He's too busy getting into the Libyan War.
 
IMO, the U.S. needs to let China know in unambiguous terms how it views the South China sea. Ambiguity invites problems that affect multiple countries, as well as critical U.S. interests. A viable approach has to accommodate the needs of all the countries that border the South China Sea.
 
Obama's commitments to our long time allies is questionable to some, but in my mind he's a spineless, weak kneed, marsh mallow milk toast, with an agenda known only yo his Radical friends and Czars, etc.

He is not one to back up anything that doesn't result in furthering his assault on the Constitution and the values our Nation has stood for for over 230 years.

What is his end Game? I have no clue but in the last two year he has insulted the UK and Israel and Bowed and scared to Islamic countries that wish nothing more than our destruction.

Why would he stand up to China for the Philippines where we no longer have much control.

Find me a news article from some other President "getting tough with China" the last time the Philipeans and China had a spit over the South China sea, go ahead I'll wait.
 
So much for the tough talk from Obama during the campaign...

Just goes to show, can't trust a Harvard Law grad... (we have the same problem here in Taiwan, BTW)

US policy towards Taiwan has changed so little in the last 20 or so years I'd bet you'd have a hard time finding an instance of major change.
U.S. Approval of Taiwan Arms Sales Angers China - NYTimes.com

Here's a break down of all US arms sales to Taiwan since 1990, let it load and put 68 into the page number to see. Clearly there's been no meaningful change since 1990 of US arms sales to Taiwan, although the most recent one included F-16 components which hasn't happened since 1992. I don't credit Obama for that because I doubt that's motivated by anything other than just a need by Taiwan for those parts, not him actually being tougher.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30957.pdf
So what do you want from Obama, talk that the US will defend Taiwan or the weapons to do so? Now I'll wait for a reversal that Obama is spending too much money on foreign aid, and this is a perfect example!

My point? Obama isn't acting any tougher or selling Taiwan more, in fact its Taiwan who makes it sales requests not the US telling Taiwan "this is what we will sell you, and you must take it." But while the US stance regarding Taiwan isn't tougher under Obama, its certainly NOT weaker.
 
US policy towards Taiwan has changed so little in the last 20 or so years I'd bet you'd have a hard time finding an instance of major change.
U.S. Approval of Taiwan Arms Sales Angers China - NYTimes.com

Here's a break down of all US arms sales to Taiwan since 1990, let it load and put 68 into the page number to see. Clearly there's been no meaningful change since 1990 of US arms sales to Taiwan, although the most recent one included F-16 components which hasn't happened since 1992. I don't credit Obama for that because I doubt that's motivated by anything other than just a need by Taiwan for those parts, not him actually being tougher.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30957.pdf
So what do you want from Obama, talk that the US will defend Taiwan or the weapons to do so? Now I'll wait for a reversal that Obama is spending too much money on foreign aid, and this is a perfect example!

My point? Obama isn't acting any tougher or selling Taiwan more, in fact its Taiwan who makes it sales requests not the US telling Taiwan "this is what we will sell you, and you must take it." But while the US stance regarding Taiwan isn't tougher under Obama, its certainly NOT weaker.

Hope and change. :D
 
IMO, the U.S. needs to let China know in unambiguous terms how it views the South China sea. Ambiguity invites problems that affect multiple countries, as well as critical U.S. interests. A viable approach has to accommodate the needs of all the countries that border the South China Sea.

Totally agree. Most of it is international waters and the U.S. must insist (as it traditionally has elsewhere) on the right of maritime nations to use that waterway. This is an important tenant of traditional international law and now clearly codified in the United Nations Law of the Sea (which, while the US lobbied hard to get that in there against the wishes of states like Canada and Indonesia, the US is not a party to the convention the last I checked). The U.S. needs to speak strongly on the rights of all littoral states to their EEZs as well and oppose Chinese aggression in the region. It is one of the world's busiest trade routes and certainly influences vital U.S. interests as well as the interests of other states...
 
US policy towards Taiwan has changed so little in the last 20 or so years I'd bet you'd have a hard time finding an instance of major change.
U.S. Approval of Taiwan Arms Sales Angers China - NYTimes.com

Here's a break down of all US arms sales to Taiwan since 1990, let it load and put 68 into the page number to see. Clearly there's been no meaningful change since 1990 of US arms sales to Taiwan, although the most recent one included F-16 components which hasn't happened since 1992. I don't credit Obama for that because I doubt that's motivated by anything other than just a need by Taiwan for those parts, not him actually being tougher.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30957.pdf
So what do you want from Obama, talk that the US will defend Taiwan or the weapons to do so? Now I'll wait for a reversal that Obama is spending too much money on foreign aid, and this is a perfect example!

My point? Obama isn't acting any tougher or selling Taiwan more, in fact its Taiwan who makes it sales requests not the US telling Taiwan "this is what we will sell you, and you must take it." But while the US stance regarding Taiwan isn't tougher under Obama, its certainly NOT weaker.

You completely missed what I was saying. The problem the U.S. and Taiwan have in common is both have a Harvard-Law educated president with rose colored glasses...
 
You completely missed what I was saying. The problem the U.S. and Taiwan have in common is both have a Harvard-Law educated president with rose colored glasses...

rose-colored-glasses.jpg
 
Hope and change. :D

I don't understand what you are getting at, are you making a point? Should Obama have changed every single thing, including policies I assume you support because they help keep China at bay? I hate to ask but is a no win situation for Obama? Should he have changed it and thus gotten your ire for changing a good policy, or not changed it and gotten your ire for, in your eyes, breaking a campaign slogan?

You completely missed what I was saying. The problem the U.S. and Taiwan have in common is both have a Harvard-Law educated president with rose colored glasses...

O I thought you were talking about something in important, not meaningless trivia.
 
Not meaningless... a lesson... no more presidents who graduated from Harvard Law

Are you seriously that sterotypical? And do you seriously base your opinion of people on such meaningless information?
 
Well, I thought this was going to be an actual thread on policy, yet it looks like another meaningless "let's bash Obama thread." What is happening to this forum, seems rather than actual policy discussion amongst intelligent people, we simply get ever more childlike name calling and meaningless drivel.
 
Well, I thought this was going to be an actual thread on policy, yet it looks like another meaningless "let's bash Obama thread." What is happening to this forum, seems rather than actual policy discussion amongst intelligent people, we simply get ever more childlike name calling and meaningless drivel.

Well, if President Obama -- who has at times said the right things about this situation -- will get out there and actually call China out for what he said he would during the campaign, as well as speak out against China's aggression in the South China Sea, I would be behind him on it...

The fact is that the U.S. is not seen as being as reliable an ally in this part of the world as in the past and President Obama is part (not all) of the reason for that...
 
Well, if President Obama -- who has at times said the right things about this situation -- will get out there and actually call China out for what he said he would during the campaign, as well as speak out against China's aggression in the South China Sea, I would be behind him on it...

The fact is that the U.S. is not seen as being as reliable an ally in this part of the world as in the past and President Obama is part (not all) of the reason for that...

Look at my information to the left of this post, my location is one of a very reliable ally, at least in my opinion. But what campaign pledge did Obama break regarding China and the South China sea, I'm curious.
 
Look at my information to the left of this post, my location is one of a very reliable ally, at least in my opinion. But what campaign pledge did Obama break regarding China and the South China sea, I'm curious.

There were no promises specifically regarding the South China Sea that I can recall, but he did make many regarding China and even one regarding Taiwan as well...
 
Not meaningless... a lesson... no more presidents who graduated from Harvard Law

It's funny how "Harvard Law Graduate" has morphed from meaning a top-tier attorney into a dysfunctional liberal loon. But it has, and it is.
 
Well, if President Obama -- who has at times said the right things about this situation -- will get out there and actually call China out for what he said he would during the campaign, as well as speak out against China's aggression in the South China Sea, I would be behind him on it...

The fact is that the U.S. is not seen as being as reliable an ally in this part of the world as in the past and President Obama is part (not all) of the reason for that...

The real issue here is whether or not the United States is going to take on it's largest trading partner for the sake of the smaller Southeast Asian nations. Now, policy wise it may make sense to call China on behaving aggressively in an area that is recognized as intenational waters. However, until China actually fires upon another vessel or the like, I do not forsee any such confrontation. What people fail to recognize is that these relationships are all about money, and until China's actions make going against them more profitable than minding our own business, that is what we will do.
 
The real issue here is whether or not the United States is going to take on it's largest trading partner for the sake of the smaller Southeast Asian nations. Now, policy wise it may make sense to call China on behaving aggressively in an area that is recognized as intenational waters. However, until China actually fires upon another vessel or the like, I do not forsee any such confrontation. What people fail to recognize is that these relationships are all about money, and until China's actions make going against them more profitable than minding our own business, that is what we will do.

I believe that the U.S. should privately communicate with China a clear position of its interests in the South China Sea, its commitments to its allies, and its view that a reasonable South China framework would have to accommodate the needs of all the bordering states, including but not limited to China. It should convey that the sooner a reasonable accommodation is achieved, the less likely miscalculations would be. China's neighbors have genuine concerns about China's intentions in the context of China's growing regional power. If things get out of hand, China and its neighbors could all be worse off.

Moreover, not all of China's ambitions are about money or economics. The Taiwan issue is one that China considers more important than economic considerations. It has made clear on various occasions that its response to a formal assertion of independence by Taiwan would lead to military action and that its definition of its national interest would take precedence over economic considerations. Given China's history, I don't believe China is bluffing.

Finally, China may well be viewing the South China Sea through the prism of the historic maximum extent of its empire. The context of that situation was vastly different from today's context. China was able to exert regional preeminence at that time due to a combination of its own power, how is neighbors viewed it, and the neighboring entities' lack of capacity to exert independence from China's influence. Today, there are well-organized, independent sovereign states with their own distinct interests. Accommodation is the more viable approach, if confrontation is to be avoided and mutual benefit maximized.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand what you are getting at, are you making a point? Should Obama have changed every single thing, including policies I assume you support because they help keep China at bay? I hate to ask but is a no win situation for Obama? Should he have changed it and thus gotten your ire for changing a good policy, or not changed it and gotten your ire for, in your eyes, breaking a campaign slogan?



O I thought you were talking about something in important, not meaningless trivia.
I was making a joke.
 
I believe that the U.S. should privately communicate with China a clear position of its interests in the South China Sea, its commitments to its allies, and its view that a reasonable South China framework would have to accommodate the needs of all the bordering states, including but not limited to China. It should convey that the sooner a reasonable accommodation is achieved, the less likely miscalculations would be. China's neighbors have genuine concerns about China's intentions in the context of China's growing regional power. If things get out of hand, China and its neighbors could all be worse off.

Moreover, not all of China's ambitions are about money or economics. The Taiwan issue is one that China considers more important than economic considerations. It has made clear on various occasions that its response to a formal assertion of independence by Taiwan would lead to military action and that its definition of its national interest would take precedence over economic considerations. Given China's history, I don't believe China is bluffing.

Finally, China may well be viewing the South China Sea through the prism of the historic maximum extent of its empire. The context of that situation was vastly different from today's context. China was able to exert regional preeminence at that time due to a combination of its own power, how is neighbors viewed it, and the neighboring entities' lack of capacity to exert independence from China's influence. Today, there are well-organized, independent sovereign states with their own distinct interests. Accommodation is the more viable approach, if confrontation is to be avoided and mutual benefit maximized.

I do not doubt at all China's seriousness when it comes to the Taiwan issue. However, the US has continued to arm Taiwan and China continually denounces it, yet things remain the same. One must remember that the Chinese governments biggest fear is any type of instability within their borders, and the propoganda ministry takes great pains at balancing nationalist sentiments against the US, Japan and Taiwan.

If the people are looking too favorably upon the US, Japan, or Taiwan the national media will begin to circulate stories that will cause an increase in ire against any or all of the three nations. Yet the government must indeed be careful to avoid the people demanding some type of military action against the US, Japan, or Taiwan. The government knows that if a scenario arose they would be forced into actual war else face appearing impotent and weak which would not bode well for the governing body.

The US may indeed put pressure on China to rein in their activity in the South China Sea, yet China is very much aware of the delicate balance that must be struck there. The Chinese are doing what they have done for the last 40 years and that is flexing muscles in the region. I do not think they will actually carryout any direct military action in the region against any neighbor. The only way I see China ever putting nationalist interests above economic is in the case of Taiwan declaring formal independence.

Now, over the past decade China and Taiwan have greatly improved relations, with there now even being flights between the two, and the two populations are becoming ever more sympathetic towards eachother, even though any declaration would certainly cause war.

In the end though all one needs to know about the Beijing government is that they want at all costs to avoid looking unable to control their naition and unable to lead successfully. If they go into all out war with the US or even their neighbors, the economic downfall alone may very well create unstability within the nation leading to mass uprisings. Thus, there is a delicate balance there and as long as the US and it's allies realize how to use this balance to their advantage, I do not see any dire threats coming down the pike.
 
The US may indeed put pressure on China to rein in their activity in the South China Sea, yet China is very much aware of the delicate balance that must be struck there. The Chinese are doing what they have done for the last 40 years and that is flexing muscles in the region. I do not think they will actually carryout any direct military action in the region against any neighbor. The only way I see China ever putting nationalist interests above economic is in the case of Taiwan declaring formal independence.

We don't disagree on China's likely response were Taiwan to assert independence. In terms of the South China Sea, the changed ingredient is China's rising regional power. In that context, China's actions are viewed more warily by its neighbors. Left unmanaged, the risk of a dangerous miscalculation and mutually disadvantageous consequences will increase.

This is exactly the kind of situation that calls for proactive diplomacy. To minimize acting in a fashion that China would find offensive or worse, the diplomacy needs to be conducted privately. The previous U.S. offer to help mediate the growing dispute in the South China Sea was made publicly and China reacted harshly. It viewed the offer as merely an attempt by outsiders to dictate a solution. Unless China's sensitivies are dealt with, even well-intended diplomatic initiatives could backfire.

Having said all that, the U.S. does need to clearly articulate its interests and reaffirm its commitments to China. The United States' reactive, ad hoc response to Mideast events may well have suggested that U.S. commitments are limited. After all, the U.S. actively turned on a long-time dependable ally in Egypt, appeared poised to sacrifice the friendly government in Bahrain even as Bahrain hosted the largest U.S. naval base in the region and those arrayed against it enjoyed at least the public support of Iran, and even squeezed Israel beyond what any previous Administration had done despite its being a highly visible strategic ally. The combination of China's growing power and signals of limits to U.S. commitments might well have created an incentive for China to "test" things in the South China Sea. Continuing U.S. ambiguity could lead to further tests and, over time, a growing risk of miscalculation.

As I have stated in the past, I do not believe the U.S.-China relationship needs to evolve into a confrontational one. The path it takes will depend on the decisions and choices made both in China and the U.S. in coming years and beyond. In that context, it is crucial that China fully understand U.S. interests and know that the U.S. will not abandon its commitments to its regional allies. The U.S. also has to fully understand China's interests and needs. Once the constraints are readily understood on both sides of the Pacific, the bilateral relationship could then focus on the broad common ground that could yield enormous benefits to the U.S., China, and China's neighbors. Regional stability has provided vast benefits to all the countries. Proactive diplomacy would be an investment in sustaining that beneficial stability.
 
Back
Top Bottom