South China Sea?

[InternationWar]

Who is right and who is wrong in the South China Sea? 

 

China, Russia, North Korea

 

or

 

USA, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea  

 

Which side will you choose? 

 

 

[Peter Quill]

The latter, of course.

[Thalmor]

I side with the latter.

[Licorice]

Latter as well

 

Also what does Russia and N.Korea got to do with South China Sea?

[Dillon A McCann]

Latter

[Ikhan]

Latter.

[Odin]

I'm German, so I side with Japan.

[Thalmor]

I'm German, so I side with Japan.

 

You're a little over 70 years to late for that.

[Sailor Jerry]

I'm German, so I side with Japan.

You filthy, stinking Kraut!!!!!.........j/k!!!    Anyway, here you go.......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

 

EDIT: And this...........https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

 

EDIT 2: And this......States and territories with borders on the sea (clockwise from north) include: the People's Republic of China (including Macau and Hong Kong), the Republic of China (Taiwan), the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore, and Vietnam.  Sorry Russia, North and South Korea, USA and Japan.

 

It really depends on where you are located within the SCS and what you are doing there.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Sailor Jerry

[James Hequ]

It is all mine.

[LordRahl2]

What is your question mate?

[WISD0MTREE]

I have a compromise for the Chinese written up. 

 

On the map below, all white areas mark the United States' territorial waters. Any foreign military ships may be sunk who are taking actions deemed potentially unpeaceful. 

 

[WISD0MTREE]

Well that's a lot of Russian planes we're going to shoot down...

Send 'em. 

 

Edit: More relevant link. 

Edited July 26, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[SoS]

We should let China have the sea in return for voiding our debt

 

Well that's a lot of Russian planes we're going to shoot down...

Debt? Haha. We'll just run it up til we go to war.

[----]

I choose the first (Chinese) group. One does not have to love the PRC, the RF or the DPRK to support that group. The choice of the first group simply reflects a desired restraint on American hegemoney for the sake of an international balance of power (USA=PRC=RF).

 

It is quite obvious that the second (American) group simply wishes to curb any possibility of a Chinese maritime sphere in order to maintain an outdated American model of Pacific hegemoney inherited after the Second World War. There is no obvious defence prerogative other than the defence of Asian regimes friendly to the United States. In this case, the PRC, surrounded by American bases in other Asian states (the Philippines, the ROK, Japan, Taiwan) is simply trying to break free from a maritime and military stranglehold. 

 

If one follows a balance of power approach, there is a clear trend that a  superpower usually controls a specific ocean. The USA already controls the Atlantic, so it would stand that the PRC 'should' control the Pacific. The RF's 'ocean' is the Arctic, which despite its present state, will become increasingly contentious as polar ice caps diminish and ships can further venture in the northern polar regions.    

Edited July 26, 2016 by Klemens Hawicki

[LordRahl2]

NATO does have a lock on the PRC...

 

Other than that obvious error your analysis is interesting. All wrong but interesting.

[SoS]

Yes, let's give them their fair share. Lol. Brilliant political analysis. They're weak. They don't get nothing!

[----]

Yes, let's give them their fair share. Lol. Brilliant political analysis. They're weak. They don't get nothing!

Who said anything about giving? The PRC is not asking for any 'donations', since they appear quite capable of taking what they want.

 

This is an opinion thread that asks the posters to choose between supporting the PRC bloc and the American bloc. I support the efforts of the PRC because its rise in the Pacific will counter American maritime hegemoney. I support this development on the basis of return to a balance of power in international relations. I have no connexions to the PRC nor do I especially have any interest in the PRC itself. All I support is the dismantlement of global hegemoney in favour of balanced multipolarism.

[SoS]

They'll need a donation, because they don't have the means to take it. Imo, since this is a discussion about opinions.

[LordRahl2]

Actually his understanding of BoB is quite weak. Overturning an established power structure is not really a balance, it is a so called "crisis". A better Balance of Power analysis would have States aligning to prevent a shift in the established order...which they are.

 

Although he cites BoP he does not really understand it.

[----]

Actually his understanding of BoB is quite weak. Overturning an established power structure is not really a balance, it is a so called "crisis". A better Balance of Power analysis would have States aligning to prevent a shift in the established order...which they are.

 

Although he cites BoP he does not really understand it.

 

I think that you might underestimate my understanding of certain terms. I am simply far less dogmatic than most persons.

 

Your definition can be approached in two ways. First, balance of power is not necessarily limited to one set of circumstances. Secondly, the situation in the South China Sea can also be from your perspective of 'crisis'.

 

An example of opposite circumstances surrounding the restoration of balance: 

The Prince von Metternich frequently advocated for the return of a balance of power to Europe. In 1793, this would have entailed a preventing a shift in the established order, namely preventing the rise of France. But, in 1812, Napoleonic Europe, constituted a hegemonic order, however short-lived it was. What mattered was that politically, enough time had passed to allow the establishment this Napoleonic order. From this view, the 1815 return to the balance of power necessitated the 'overturning' of the Napoleonic order, a process that effectively began in 1812  and gained full momentum after the 1813 German campaign. 

 

As for your 'crisis' definition, here is another interpretation to ponder. From the perspective of China's long history, the English and the United States have upset the established order in the Pacific. The presence of the US in the Pacific is the very 'crisis' against which states like the DPRK and the RF have aligned with the PRC.  

[Peter Quill]

I choose the first (Chinese) group. One does not have to love the PRC, the RF or the DPRK to support that group. The choice of the first group simply reflects a desired restraint on American hegemoney for the sake of an international balance of power (USA=PRC=RF).

 

It is quite obvious that the second (American) group simply wishes to curb any possibility of a Chinese maritime sphere in order to maintain an outdated American model of Pacific hegemoney inherited after the Second World War. There is no obvious defence prerogative other than the defence of Asian regimes friendly to the United States. In this case, the PRC, surrounded by American bases in other Asian states (the Philippines, the ROK, Japan, Taiwan) is simply trying to break free from a maritime and military stranglehold. 

 

If one follows a balance of power approach, there is a clear trend that a  superpower usually controls a specific ocean. The USA already controls the Atlantic, so it would stand that the PRC 'should' control the Pacific. The RF's 'ocean' is the Arctic, which despite its present state, will become increasingly contentious as polar ice caps diminish and ships can further venture in the northern polar regions.    

Let's break this down, shall we?

 

"...The choice of the first group simply reflects a desired restraint on American hegemoney for the sake of an international balance of power..."

Who told you there was no balance of power? China now has puppet nations it can control, just like America.

 

 

 

'It is quite obvious that the second (American) group simply wishes to curb any possibility of a Chinese maritime sphere in order to maintain an outdated American model of Pacific hegemoney inherited after the Second World War. There is no obvious defence prerogative other than the defence of Asian regimes friendly to the United States. In this case, the PRC, surrounded by American bases in other Asian states (the Philippines, the ROK, Japan, Taiwan) is simply trying to break free from a maritime and military stranglehold."

While some of this may be true, that in no way whatsoever justifies China bullying smaller nations with weak militaries (Vietnam, Philippines) and grabbing islands from their rightful owners.

 

"If one follows a balance of power approach, there is a clear trend that a  superpower usually controls a specific ocean. The USA already controls the Atlantic..."

lolwat?

 

 

"...so it would stand that the PRC 'should' control the Pacific. The RF's 'ocean' is the Arctic, which despite its present state, will become increasingly contentious as polar ice caps diminish and ships can further venture in the northern polar regions."

Again, lolwat?

[Licorice]

 

superpower usually controls a specific ocean. The USA already controls the Atlantic, so it would stand that the PRC 'should' control the Pacific.

No they shouldn't. No one country, superpower or third world, 'should' have de facto or de jure control over international water no matter how much resource and strategic value they have in there. Also Atlantic Ocean is international territory.

 

PRC did this move to ensure their growth, true. But maybe, just maybe, they should have try negotiating like responsible would-be superpower should instead of bringing an armada of fishing boats, military ships, a @#% oil rig, construct an entire goddamn AIRBASE in the middle of DISPUTED water and claim ridiculously to have sovereign over the sea all the way from mainland China to Malaysia based on maps from centuries ago.

 

Their goal are understandable, but their method ensure that they pretty much doomed their reputation, credibility and relations with many of their neighbors and paint themselves as the "bad guys".

Edited July 26, 2016 by Talerong

[LordRahl2]

I think that you might underestimate my understanding of certain terms. I am simply far less dogmatic than most persons.

 

Your definition can be approached in two ways. First, balance of power is not necessarily limited to one set of circumstances. Secondly, the situation in the South China Sea can also be from your perspective of 'crisis'.

 

An example of opposite circumstances surrounding the restoration of balance: 

The Prince von Metternich frequently advocated for the return of a balance of power to Europe. In 1793, this would have entailed a preventing a shift in the established order, namely preventing the rise of France. But, in 1812, Napoleonic Europe, constituted a hegemonic order, however short-lived it was. What mattered was that politically, enough time had passed to allow the establishment this Napoleonic order. From this view, the 1815 return to the balance of power necessitated the 'overturning' of the Napoleonic order, a process that effectively began in 1812  and gained full momentum after the 1813 German campaign. 

 

As for your 'crisis' definition, here is another interpretation to ponder. From the perspective of China's long history, the English and the United States have upset the established order in the Pacific. The presence of the US in the Pacific is the very 'crisis' against which states like the DPRK and the RF have aligned with the PRC.  

 

You pick a strangely weak counter example.  No, "Napoleonic Europe" by which I assume you mean Continental Napoleonic Europe was not a global hegemon.  It was not even able to dominate Europe at any time because another power was blocking it and ultimately defeated it (England).  And the deceive phase of that was the period marked by the Battle of the Nile to Trafalgar not 1812/1813.  London, wisely, did not want to have to expend herself managing Europe and preferred to ensure that others balanced Europe for her.  But obviously when this failed she was able to balance the continent.  So you example is spawned from an incorrect vision of how power was balanced within Europe (it was really a bi-polar setup until France failed to understand that she was the slightly weaker of the two and expended all her power and simply made London the global hegemon by default).

 

From the perspective of China's history, which is not particularly long, the English and the United States, both global hegemons, were and are sea powers where China is a land power, when she has power.  With a few (one?) exception(s) that actually proves the rule, China does not engage in sea trade management.  So the US and Britain have not really "upset" a "natural order" in the pacific based on China's history as you say.

 

Your desire to return to a multi or bi-polar world is interesting.  Uni-polar setups tend to be the most stable and beneficial for humanity in the broadest terms (yes terrible things still happen - but less often and usually with less intensity).  Being Polish you should know this.  When a true multi-polar world comes about Poland was and will be very vulnerable, again.

[----]

I think that you mis-understand the context of Napoleonic Europe. I never said that France was ever a global hegemon. But, the First French Empire was a hegemon in Continental Europe. You also overestimate Britain's role in restoring balance to Europe. That balance was finally achieved at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Britain's army was only active in the Iberian peninsula (1807-onwards) and moved into France in 1815, where it fought most famously at Waterloo. Waterloo, however, was merely an inevitable confirmation of what already took place. The principal defeats of the Grand Armee that led to Bonaparte's 1814 abdication occurred in 1813, the largest defeat being the Battle of the Nations (Leipzig, October 16-19). The British armed forces were completely absent from this theatre. I mentioned 1812, because the failed Russian campaign of 1812 provoked von Metternich's decision to turn against France in 1813. The successes of 1813 and 1814 allowed for the opening of the Congress of Vienna, which overturned the entire Napoleonic order in Europe.   

 

The point is that from 1801 (Lunéville) and definitely after 1806 (Bratislava/Preßburg), there was a definite French hegemon on the European continent. This hegemon created a specific order, which at one point attempted to regulate all trade within European ports under its control. This Continental hegemon was defeated by a coalition of Russia, Austria and Prussia. Furthermore, the political outcome after 1815 was largely dictated by Austria and Russia, with England marginalised from the Continent after the 1822 suicide of Viscount Castlereagh. 

I think that you forget that there was another side to the period spanning from 1789-1815. It was not merely Britain vs France. It was also France vs Russia, Austria and Prussia. My example revolved around the political developments of the latter group. 

 

As for Poland and unipolarism, here is my answer. First, never dictate how we Poles should think. We destroyed the fascist plague in 1945, drove out the Soviets in 1990, and hopefully will soon be free of the West. We Poles will never suffer to let others dictate how we think.

Secondly, Poland always is and was vulnerable, regardless of whether unipolarism existed. If the world is unipolar, nothing prevents Poland from being absorbed into the hegemon. In any other, non-unipolar arrangement, Poland becomes a bargaining chip that can, potentially, negotiate better terms for itself or even join a sphere it perceives as better suited to its interests. 

The latter option is a far stronger and more concrete guarantee of Poland's sovereignty than some meaningless paper signed in Washington. The threat of switching spheres will always keep all powers on edge. Just take the example of the SFR Yugoslavia and its role in founding the Non-Aligned Movement.