South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
Strange in the 1930's Taiwan was part of Imperial Japan's brutal militarist expansion.
Fixed it for you.
It ended with 2 nuclear bombs dropped on Imperial Japan.
That's how they would piece the history together.
Last edited:
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Augh if you call the Shimonoseki treaty in which ended the Qing Empire ambition to maintain hegemony the old way as militarist expansion then I guess it was.
Just to keep the records straight Japan never militarily invade Taiwan or Qing's sovereign territory during the first Sino-Japan war, Japan LIBERATED the Korean peninsula from the vassal state status which the Qing Empire forced upon Korea.
Yeah, Imperial Japan liberated the Korean people and they still deeply love you guys until today, LOL. Propaganda you say?
It is more like two nuclear bombs over Imperial Japan liberated Taiwan from Imperial Japan's annexation.
Thank you USA for liberating Taiwan. LOL.
-----
-----
You sounded really convinced in what you just said.
Your school textbook really put the Stalinist indoctrination to shame in brain washing.
Last edited:
Incoming Philippines' administration will wait and see, before pursuing talks with China.
----------------
Published June 10, 2016 5:57pm
Updated June 10, 2016 6:29pm
The Philippines will not pursue bilateral talks with China until an international tribunal decides on a case brought by Manila in connection with claims in the South China Sea, incoming Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay said Friday.
The Philippines has brought a case at an international tribunal in The Hague contesting China's claims, a case rejected by China which wants to solve the issue bilaterally.
"We should not pursue any bilateral talks at this time until we hear, or wait for, the outcome of the decision of the arbitral tribunal to come out," Yasay said in a television interview.
Yasay's remarks follows advice from a former Philippine foreign minister and a US security expert for President-elect Rodrigo Duterte not to hold unconditional bilateral talks with China to try to resolve the dispute.
Review
Yasay said the Philippine government should first review the decision of the tribunal before deciding which step is the best move for the nation.
“We must first see what the decision is all about. If it is in favor of the Philippines, then we must fully understand what it means when we say it is in favor of the Philippines – what are the legal implications, and when the decision would imply that the other claimants including Vietnam, Brunei, and the rest of the other nations that have overlapping claims in the area would be affected by the decision –then certainly multilateral talks will have to be pursued. Otherwise, we will be leaving out nations to who have a stake in the issue,” he explained.
But Yasay made it clear that bilateral talks will be pursued if the decision allows it.
“On the other hand, when we will be reviewing the decision and we see that the ruling will require simply bilateral talks with China, then by all means, let’s pursue that. Let’s not drop the chance or the opportunity to pursue bilateral talks with China,” the incoming Foreign Affairs secretary said.
Also in the television interview, Yasay dismissed an American security analyst’s remark that the Philippines should not pursue bilateral talks until China drops its nine-dash claim. He said that the government will consider paramount national interests before anything else.
“I think even this administration and the incoming administration will have to decide on this issue considering the paramount national interest. We should not simply act on the basis of what other nations say. We should really act in protection and in upholding of our national interests. And this is how we should proceed on the matter,” he said.
“And I am sure the international community respects that we should carry on an independent foreign policy and do so precisely to uphold the paramount national interests. I would think that the basis of our action whether we would proceed on the bilateral or multilateral would be if it promotes national interest,” Yasay added.
China said on Wednesday the Philippines had ignored a proposal for a regular talks mechanism over maritime issues, as it repeated that its door was always open to bilateral talks with Manila.
China claims most of the waters, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims. — Reuters and Trisha Macas/RSJ, GMA News
----------------
Published June 10, 2016 5:57pm
Updated June 10, 2016 6:29pm
The Philippines will not pursue bilateral talks with China until an international tribunal decides on a case brought by Manila in connection with claims in the South China Sea, incoming Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay said Friday.
The Philippines has brought a case at an international tribunal in The Hague contesting China's claims, a case rejected by China which wants to solve the issue bilaterally.
"We should not pursue any bilateral talks at this time until we hear, or wait for, the outcome of the decision of the arbitral tribunal to come out," Yasay said in a television interview.
Yasay's remarks follows advice from a former Philippine foreign minister and a US security expert for President-elect Rodrigo Duterte not to hold unconditional bilateral talks with China to try to resolve the dispute.
Review
Yasay said the Philippine government should first review the decision of the tribunal before deciding which step is the best move for the nation.
“We must first see what the decision is all about. If it is in favor of the Philippines, then we must fully understand what it means when we say it is in favor of the Philippines – what are the legal implications, and when the decision would imply that the other claimants including Vietnam, Brunei, and the rest of the other nations that have overlapping claims in the area would be affected by the decision –then certainly multilateral talks will have to be pursued. Otherwise, we will be leaving out nations to who have a stake in the issue,” he explained.
But Yasay made it clear that bilateral talks will be pursued if the decision allows it.
“On the other hand, when we will be reviewing the decision and we see that the ruling will require simply bilateral talks with China, then by all means, let’s pursue that. Let’s not drop the chance or the opportunity to pursue bilateral talks with China,” the incoming Foreign Affairs secretary said.
Also in the television interview, Yasay dismissed an American security analyst’s remark that the Philippines should not pursue bilateral talks until China drops its nine-dash claim. He said that the government will consider paramount national interests before anything else.
“I think even this administration and the incoming administration will have to decide on this issue considering the paramount national interest. We should not simply act on the basis of what other nations say. We should really act in protection and in upholding of our national interests. And this is how we should proceed on the matter,” he said.
“And I am sure the international community respects that we should carry on an independent foreign policy and do so precisely to uphold the paramount national interests. I would think that the basis of our action whether we would proceed on the bilateral or multilateral would be if it promotes national interest,” Yasay added.
China said on Wednesday the Philippines had ignored a proposal for a regular talks mechanism over maritime issues, as it repeated that its door was always open to bilateral talks with Manila.
China claims most of the waters, through which $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes every year. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei have overlapping claims. — Reuters and Trisha Macas/RSJ, GMA News
Wow, this is truly scary. Is this what the new history textbooks in Japan are teaching kids about 'history' nowadays?
Can any of your posts be taken seriously after making an outrageously ridiculous statement like that? Is it any coincidence that the biggest China-bashers on this forum all have a radically screwed perception of reality?
@SamuraiBlue
Nope.
The fact is that the Korean government was facing a peasant revolt and asked for Chinese assistance. Then Japan used the situation to declare war against China.
China then lost the war, with the result that Korea became a Japanese vassal state instead. Key events include Imperial Japan assassinating the Queen of Korea.
The Koreans, Russian and the Americans all agree on this as well.
It's a big reason why Korean doesn't have a great relationship with Prime Minister Abe, because he thinks Japan *liberated* Korea as well.
Nope.
The fact is that the Korean government was facing a peasant revolt and asked for Chinese assistance. Then Japan used the situation to declare war against China.
China then lost the war, with the result that Korea became a Japanese vassal state instead. Key events include Imperial Japan assassinating the Queen of Korea.
The Koreans, Russian and the Americans all agree on this as well.
It's a big reason why Korean doesn't have a great relationship with Prime Minister Abe, because he thinks Japan *liberated* Korea as well.
An American tactic - sponsoring seminars and think tanks ....
--------
Editor: Li Kun 丨CCTV.com
06-02-2016 18:36 BJT
By Mathew Maavak, a doctoral student in Security Foresight at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
The rhetorical war between China and the United States over the South China Sea dispute is increasing in magnitude. Washington has wasted no time to sponsor seminars and think tanks to drive a wedge between Beijing and other claimant nations in the region.
Ambitious young ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) scholars and diplomats have been recruited for study fellowships and stints at prestigious American universities.
Vietnam is the suitor du jour in America's new game, called the "Asia Pivot." While Beijing is building infrastructure in Vietnam, Washington has offered weapons to Hanoi, a former enemy at war. They had fought in what was called the Vietnam War from the 1960s to the early 1970s.
Despite Chinese businesses having poured in investments worth $US7.9 billion in 2014 alone, the US has only offered to clean up chemically contaminated parts of the country some 40 years after the Vietnam War ended.
Yesterday's bitter enemies have become today's strategic partners. Yet history cannot be easily brushed aside, even if the United Nations 5-member temporary Court of Arbitration in The Hague rules in favor of the Philippines over its claims in the South China Sea. The ruling is expected to be announced this summer.
Why Extra-Regional Arbitration May Backfire
Manila's resort to The Hague may backfire for all claimants in the region, since it opens up a few legal Pandora's Boxes in Beijing's favor.
A shrewd legal expert on territorial claims and international law can punch holes once the UN and US are brought into the picture.
The US, the UN General Assembly, or any other permanent member of the UN Security Council cannot contest the validity of the 11-dash line that was unveiled on Dec 1, 1947 by the Republic of China – itself a permanent council member at the time.
Without a proper de jure challenge, "the international community" – a term Washington invokes all too often – seems to have proffered at least de facto recognition over China's 1947 claims.
Many contested islands in the South China Sea, namely the Paracels, Pratas and Spratly, were reclaimed by the Republic of China's naval forces in the immediate aftermath of Japan’s surrender in WWII.
No disputes have arisen until Vietnam lodged a counter-claim in 1951, but this was blunted by Beijing's concession of Bach Long Vi island to Hanoi in 1957.
Beijing's maritime claims were tempered by the Chinese government at that time, which had endorsed China's new 9-dash line.
For the next two decades, the status of contested islands slipped into limbo, since Washington was too busy fighting the Vietnamese.
Later it was trying to draw closer the People's Republic of China — starting in the late US President Richard Nixon's 1971 visit to Beijing. The geo-political pendulum had swung in Beijing's direction. Accordingly, there was no way Washington was going to honor Hanoi's claims.
Being the gracious loser, Washington had refused to engage in diplomatic relations with Hanoi from the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 until 1995.
Washington was also rousing international opinions, including those of ASEAN nations in favor of the genocidal Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.
More importantly in the context of the South China Sea, how did the US treat Vietnamese claims until 1995? Why is Washington offering arms and regional naval support, instead of paying war reparations to help future generations of Vietnamese babies, who may likely suffer from the after-effects of napalm?
Why are the islands in the South China Sea so important to the US? Is it just an attempt to exploit Hanoi to embolden its Pivot to Asia strategy?
--------
Editor: Li Kun 丨CCTV.com
06-02-2016 18:36 BJT
By Mathew Maavak, a doctoral student in Security Foresight at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
The rhetorical war between China and the United States over the South China Sea dispute is increasing in magnitude. Washington has wasted no time to sponsor seminars and think tanks to drive a wedge between Beijing and other claimant nations in the region.
Ambitious young ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) scholars and diplomats have been recruited for study fellowships and stints at prestigious American universities.
Vietnam is the suitor du jour in America's new game, called the "Asia Pivot." While Beijing is building infrastructure in Vietnam, Washington has offered weapons to Hanoi, a former enemy at war. They had fought in what was called the Vietnam War from the 1960s to the early 1970s.
Despite Chinese businesses having poured in investments worth $US7.9 billion in 2014 alone, the US has only offered to clean up chemically contaminated parts of the country some 40 years after the Vietnam War ended.
Yesterday's bitter enemies have become today's strategic partners. Yet history cannot be easily brushed aside, even if the United Nations 5-member temporary Court of Arbitration in The Hague rules in favor of the Philippines over its claims in the South China Sea. The ruling is expected to be announced this summer.
Why Extra-Regional Arbitration May Backfire
Manila's resort to The Hague may backfire for all claimants in the region, since it opens up a few legal Pandora's Boxes in Beijing's favor.
A shrewd legal expert on territorial claims and international law can punch holes once the UN and US are brought into the picture.
The US, the UN General Assembly, or any other permanent member of the UN Security Council cannot contest the validity of the 11-dash line that was unveiled on Dec 1, 1947 by the Republic of China – itself a permanent council member at the time.
Without a proper de jure challenge, "the international community" – a term Washington invokes all too often – seems to have proffered at least de facto recognition over China's 1947 claims.
Many contested islands in the South China Sea, namely the Paracels, Pratas and Spratly, were reclaimed by the Republic of China's naval forces in the immediate aftermath of Japan’s surrender in WWII.
No disputes have arisen until Vietnam lodged a counter-claim in 1951, but this was blunted by Beijing's concession of Bach Long Vi island to Hanoi in 1957.
Beijing's maritime claims were tempered by the Chinese government at that time, which had endorsed China's new 9-dash line.
For the next two decades, the status of contested islands slipped into limbo, since Washington was too busy fighting the Vietnamese.
Later it was trying to draw closer the People's Republic of China — starting in the late US President Richard Nixon's 1971 visit to Beijing. The geo-political pendulum had swung in Beijing's direction. Accordingly, there was no way Washington was going to honor Hanoi's claims.
Being the gracious loser, Washington had refused to engage in diplomatic relations with Hanoi from the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 until 1995.
Washington was also rousing international opinions, including those of ASEAN nations in favor of the genocidal Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.
More importantly in the context of the South China Sea, how did the US treat Vietnamese claims until 1995? Why is Washington offering arms and regional naval support, instead of paying war reparations to help future generations of Vietnamese babies, who may likely suffer from the after-effects of napalm?
Why are the islands in the South China Sea so important to the US? Is it just an attempt to exploit Hanoi to embolden its Pivot to Asia strategy?
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Have you ever heard of the in Korea?
It was created to celebrate the independence of Korea from China and would not have been possible without Japan's intervention.
You can state what ever you want but history states otherwise.