What's new

South China Sea Forum

peace. what else?
or do you expect money? ok...how to make a deal: after the pact is signed, I can invite you to a cheap chinese/viet meal here in a shopping centre. not far from where I work.


I had expected more: a US carrier crusing close to Paracels.
a AC or destroyer does make any difference .

Because usa sends warship to scs just to comfort its allies not to fight us.Just a political show.
 
. . . . .
Are there any new pictures of the Chinese islands been a month since the last set came out
 
.
peace. what else?
or do you expect money? ok...how to make a deal: after the pact is signed, I can invite you to a cheap chinese/viet meal here in a shopping centre. not far from where I work.

How can we sign a pact when you still claim our territory in the Paracels?

Give up those claims first and you can have the pact. :enjoy:
 
.
we can destroy your fake Island from our mainland.

20141118-kham-pha-kho-ten-lua-do-so-cua-quan-doi-viet-nam-10.jpg

What's the antique ?

Our missiles is origin made by Russia. You can sea how Russian killed IS in Syria by such toys..
We know Ru weapon much better than you :sniper:
 
.
It's Mao's famous word and China basic diplomatic policy since 1949.

"人不犯我我不犯人,人若犯我我必犯人"
We(China) will not attack unless we are attacked; if we are attacked, we will certainly counter attack.
One of my favorites quotes:
"Was interessiert mich mein Geschwaetz von gestern?"

A german chancellor.

That fits perfect to you chinese.
 
.
How can we sign a pact when you still claim our territory in the Paracels?

Give up those claims first and you can have the pact. :enjoy:
I'm pretty sure all terms and conditions can be negotiated on and under the table. But you can't issue one sided demand in advance as it is unproductive and leads to nowhere.
 
.
Never said it was. China never made any attempt in stopping air or surface traffic through the region. Rather US vessel did enter the 12nm zone if case you haven't notice.
Chinese recently did the same in US 12nmi zone at the Aleutians. Thats not the point. Even if the islands were Chinese territory, the U.S. Navy or any navy could pass within 12 miles under the rule of "innocent passage," which allows ships to sail if they are not conducting military maneuvers.

The point refers to sovereignty (territorial) claims on the one hand, EEZ on the other and what international shipping can/cannot do in an EEZ. AFAIK, under international law, navies can conduct activities in waters beyond the territorial sea of another state without prior notification or consent including in an exclusive economic zone of another country. See e.g. Impeccable incident re. attempts at stopping surface traffic ( a Chinese intelligence collection ship challenged Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or 'suffer the consequences').

_67616829_south_china-sea_1_464.gif


'China no longer a Western colony & won't be bullied'

While the world’s attention has been focused on events in the Middle East and Ukraine and the US-Russia standoff, another crisis has been brewing in the South China Sea where Washington’s writ is being contested by China.
It is a territorial dispute that goes back centuries, but which has become increasingly tense in recent years.

Deepening tensions in the South China Sea involving a territorial dispute over the Paracel and Spratly Islands – in truth, submerged pieces of rock - are particularly delicate, given that the dispute involves multiple countries, including China, Vietnam, Singapore Malaysia, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

The waters around these islands are known to be rich in natural resources, and would constitute a significant boon to the economy of the state that has sovereignty over them.

Meanwhile, China - much to the consternation of the United States - has been actively constructing a man-made island in the area, which includes a runway big enough for military aircraft.

This dispute cannot be treated in isolation from its wider geopolitical context. As China’s economy continues to grow relative to the US economy, Washington is using this dispute as an excuse to exert pressure on China militarily with the objective of intimidating Beijing and reminding it to know its place in the global scheme of things.

Consider the extent to which the US has been arming Japan, South Korea, and its other South Asian satellite states in recent years. The official line is that US allies located in proximity to China are upping their military spending in response to China’s own increase in military spending, which is set to rise by around 10 percent this year, pushing it just over $140 billion.

However, China’s military budget still remains miniscule compared to the US equivalent, which the Obama administration has decided will come in at around a mammoth $585 billion in 2016.

Beijing claims that its increase in military spending is primarily to meet the cost of modernization, as it equips its army, air force, and navy with the latest technology and weaponry, and works to integrate them. It is also the case that as China’s economic footprint grows so does its security needs in order to protect those interests.

More importantly, we have to consider the deep national scars that remain ever present within the Chinese national psyche over the humiliation it has experienced in its history – not to mention brutality and barbarism – as a consequence of its occupation by Japan between 1931 and 1945, and prior to that as a colony of the Western powers.

All these factors play into the territorial disputes that are ongoing in both the South China Sea and East China Sea (in the latter case with Japan), and which show no sign of abating anytime soon. China’s determination to assert its territorial claim is a product of its determination to deter any would-be aggressor and ensure that its sovereignty remains inviolate.

Without any sense of irony, the US, operating on behalf of the other nations involved in the dispute, claims that China’s actions are a violation of international law and freedom of navigation.

This at least is the justification for the recent provocative appearance of the USS Lassen – a US Navy guided missile destroyer - patrolling waters claimed by China around the Spratly Islands.

In response, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the US Ambassador to China, Max Baucus, for an explanation, railing against what it considers was a clear violation of its territory.

China also issued the following statement through its foreign affairs spokesman, Lu Kang: “If any country thinks that, through some gimmicks, they will be able to interfere with or even prevent China from engaging in reasonable, legitimate and legal activities in its own territories, I want to suggest those countries give up such fantasy."

He added that China “would resolutely respond to any country’s deliberately provocative actions.”

For too long Washington has viewed the world as a giant chessboard and nation states as mere pieces, available to be moved around according to US economic and strategic interests. When Chinese and Russian naval carrier groups are operating up and down US coastal waters on a regular basis, and when China controls the global economy via currency hegemony, then the more discerning among us may be willing to entertain criticisms of Beijing.

Until then we can only continue to expose the rampant hypocrisy and double standards that informs US engagement with other nations and regions. China is no longer a colony of the West and will not be bullied; this much is clear. Also clear is that the only path to peace and stability is a multipolar alternative to the unipolarity enjoyed by the US over the past three decades.

And let the midwife of this multipolar world not be chaos and conflict but diplomacy, compromise, and respect for the rights and interests of all states and nations. Let there be an end to a two-tier world made up of the US and its allies at the top, and the rest of the world below.

The alternative, after all, is just too awful to contemplate.

'China no longer a Western colony & won't be bullied' — RT Op-Edge

Yawn. Boohoo on the colonization period. It is not like Chinese history/development hasn't involved colonization

Depending on the preferred definition of "colonies", Chinese states in fact established innumerable colonies throughout history. Certainly the most common form was overland colonies created in conquered "barbarian" territories. This processes lasts up till today; Beijing's sinicisation and settlement policies in Tibet and Xinjiang are viewed with some justification as colonialisation.
While not overseas like how we usually envision "colonies", this isn't unique to China. In Europe, the colonial expansion observed in Tsarist Russia similarly spread overland. In the earliest times, there's also a certain similarity to the Roman and Greek colonies of classical antiquity. More stereotypical colonies were also founded later, though in most cases they were eclipsed and swept away by the more successfully European colonial empires.
china - Why aren't there any Chinese colonies? - History Stack Exchange

Which is not to deny that in recent history China suffered foreign enclaves
Concessions in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of former foreign enclaves in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or that in the late 1930s is suffered brutal invasion and occupation by Imperial Japan, after Japan had already invaded Manchuria in 1931, beginning the Second Sino-Japanese War.
Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nanking Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaUnit 731 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
. . .
Don't just talk. Follow your master to patrol the reef and show your ability.:-)

Ha ha, we do it regularly. Don't you known that ?

In this moment we can take a relax, let US ship do it for us. Using enemy of enemy to counter enemy is our tactic , kid.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom