Tibet?
2 Likes
Chinaâs One Belt One Road initiative will buy up infrastructure globally.
Hambantota, Djibouti, Pireaus, East Africa, Kribi Cameroon and now the are making overtures to Russia for the NSR.
A Russo - China axis means they donât have to watch their backs. Both have Islamist terroristsin states to the South.
A shooting war with either is inconcievable. China would gain great kudos if they dealt with N Korea, then the whole region would breathe easier and the new world order would settle into place.
1 Like
Well, was Tibet ever an independent country, at least in the last few hundred years?
From 1720 to 1912 Tibet was under Qing Dynasty rule, but with some degree of autonomy under the Dalai Lama.
In the period after the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in China in 1912 until the formal annexation as an autonomous region of PRC in 1951, it had status as âProtectorateâ both of China and Britain.
In this period some claim that there existed a âdefacto independent Tibetâ for a short period of time, but that has never been accepted by any other countries, except Mongolia.
Today most countries accept that Tibet is an autonomous region of PRC, as does the UN.
1 Like
Yes China is flexing itâs commercial muscles around the world, as is itâs ârightsâ as the second largest single economy in the world. (If you count EU as a single economy then China is third, soon to become second)
Those countries that accept the fact of Chinaâs rise and their offer of financing and building of infrastructure in foreign countries will benefit from this.
Those who think that they can stop, or at least contain Chinaâs rise to world prominence will loose out.
Get out of the notion of white supremacy and American exceptionalism and accept that the new world order, centered in Asia, will happen. (Unless some madmen decides it is better to kill us all then to accept the inevitable)
Korean reunification would bring the United States to Chinaâs doorstep. The new regional order would have American forces uncomfortably close. North Korea serves as a buffer against a US allied Korea, as an effective distraction to the US/Japan/South Korea axis that drains the resources (political, economic, military) that would otherwise be free to focus on China, and as a bargaining chip to play whenever the US/Japan/South Korea wants to play rough on other matters such as trade or Taiwan.
No, the smart move for China is to keep feeding their rabid little dog - the more rabid the dog the more effective a deterrent it is.
Besides, any nuclear exchange between North Korea and the West shouldnât cause China or Russia much physical damage as long as they stay out of it. The winds will blow most of the fallout onto South Korea, Japan and Alaska/US West Coast and away from China (and Russia).
2 Likes
If America would stop looking for enemies to justify their large military budget and tried to build amicable relations with China, there would be no need to worry on either side.
The present policy of threats and provocations can only heighten the fear of seen American soldiers across the Yalu River.
Trump would be honoured to meet Kim Young Un, right??
Why not send him over there to sort out this sh*t, then ban him from re-entering because he has visited an unfriendly country? (Solve two problems with one stone)
For someone as old as you are Iâm surprised youâre not more jaded. Not an insult - an observation. In my country that wistful optimism is reserved for youths.
What has the world ever been but power plays between the Wants and the Haves? Those who want it try to get it. Those who have it try to keep it. This isnât reserved for whites, empires and Americans. But again, you know this is a basic human behavior.
What I donât get is your stance on how things should be as opposed to how things are. Put another way, for example, youâd say the world would be a safer place if everyone just got rid of their nukes which, while true, is about as reasonable as saying we could solve climate change if everyone stopped having children for about a half century.
2 Likes
[quote=âDeckApe, post:112, topic:45586, full:trueâ]
For someone as old as you are Iâm surprised youâre not more jaded. Not an insult - an observation. In my country that wistful optimism is reserved for youths.[/quote]
The day I lose my optimism and belief that it is possible to make the world a better place, that is the day Iâm REALLY OLD. It may come one day, but I hope not.
It has been a universal truth, but having seen the way things are developing in Scandinavia, I have a hope that it can change one day. Not today, tomorrow or the next day, but the trend here is pointing upwards.
My other home country, Singapore, has a different approach towards a similar goal and face a steeper resistance due to itâs location in the world.
No, none of the above. Nukes and MAD is what kept the Cold War cold. Even today it is what put a restrain on the madmen of the world.
If we could get rid of all madmen, I would agree, get rid of the nukes, but we are far from there yet.
As to limiting children to save the world from overheating? Not a likely solution, but education to reduce population growth in underdeveloped countries and migration to keep up the present population in the developed world to avoid global overpopulation would be a good start.
We already know what it takes to control the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, all we need to do is to convince people that short sighted policy and personal convenience has to take backseat to mutual world interest. (But that is a whole other discussion)
Politics and climate change are not our biggest problems, nor is whatever we might try to do about them a solution. It makes no difference who we elect or what wars they start or prevent.
The biggest problem is, has been, and will continue to be, overpopulation. Humankind is unwilling to even have an intelligent conversation about limiting population growth, much less to adopt urgently necessary controls.
Famine and disease are the mechanisms that nature uses to control population of a particular species and maintain a balance in the ecology. Humans have interfered with the natural regulatory mechanisms of famine and disease through technology and innovation. But humans have not won the war against nature, just a few battles. In the end nature always wins.
Sooner or later in a disease, such as the plague in the Middle Ages, will evolve from nature and half or more of the human population will be quickly and catastrophically wiped out. Economies will collapse and a long period of chaos, deindustrialization , and population decline will occur.
The natural balance of the earth ecosystem will be restored with a much much smaller human population. Climate change, ocean acidification, micro-plastics, and other human made environmental problems will disappear. Then the cycle will begin anew.
1 Like
Wars have also been the human way of controlling population. That and frequent outbreak of diseases. Since we learnt to separate sewage and drinking water, and with the advances in medical knowledge, the last one has greatly diminished natural early deaths, we are only left with wars as a major regulator.
I think malaria alone still kills more people each year than any other disease or wars. Finding a âcureâ for malaria would be a big mistake for the planet.
There is a few more things to say about this, but I think we have to refrain from mentioning more, otherwise we may be accused of cruel and/or inhumane remarks.
(Coughs) Spratley Islands?
2 Likes
Manchuria/Siberia was the cause of Sino-Soviet hostilities which was, I believe, the first time nuclear armed states actually engaged in armed conflict. (Something the United States still hasnât done.)
There is also an ongoing conflict with India over areas on their common border in the Himalayas: http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/3-messages-from-china-in-provocation-of-india-1721214
And in the east at Arunachal Pradesh, where the disagreement is over the McMahon Line, stretching from Bhutan to the boarder with Myanmar: http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/images/map-india-china-eastern-sector-1988.jpg|||India-China Border Map - Eastern Sector
Much of the population in this area and the northern parts of Myanmar originate from China and are not well integrated in the countries they now nominally belongs to. (Another vestige of Colonialism)
Internal conflicts are raging in Nagaland and the Karen district as well, without China being involved.
Interesting subject, which I have been interested in for many years. In my early days sailing in these waters, the entire area around the Spratleys, and most of the South China Sea outside the normal shipping lanes, were marked as âUnchartedâ.
The Spratleys and other islands and atolls in the South China Sea has been disputed for a long time. Here is the time line: http://www.spratlys.org/history/spratly-islands-history-timeline.htm
The Chinese ânine-dash lineâ claim has been discredited in the ICJ in Den Haag, but any settlement of the various claims are not on the card in the foreseeable future.
Here is Reutersâ short version of the background for the dispute: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debatâŚ-five-minutes/
âChina keeps on reminding everybody that they were not the first to create islands out of submerged coral reef, which reminded me of a story I heard while working for Datuk Harris in Labuan back in the early 1990s:
One of my colleagues there had been the Commander of the Navy Station at Labuan in the early 1980s and was responsible for patrolling the waters of the South China Sea claimed by Malaysia.
To strengthen the claim he was order to survey the reefs to see if it was possible to find any dry land within their EEZ that could be claimed as an island. He went out there with a survey team to chart the nearest reef, known as Swallow Reef.
He claimed that they found a small coral head that was actually above water at Highest High Tide, which is the definition of an âislandâ under UNCLOS. They placed a plaque on it to claim it for Malaysia.
He then went back to Labuan and arranged for dredging equipment to be secretively brought out to start creating the first small piece of land, enough to establish a ânaval baseâ there, consisting of a few tents and some anti-aircraft guns, before Malaysia declared the existence of an island called Layang-Layang, around which they claimed 12 n.miles territorial waters and 200 n.miles EEZ.
The size of the island was increased to where it today has an airstrip and a Dive Resort: http://www.avillion.com/avillionlayanglayang/
The Navy still maintain a station on the island, with a couple of CB-90 Fighting boats and still some anti-aircraft guns, or at least they did until a few years ago.
What may be less well known is the history of claims by various nations over the centuries, incl. some enterprising individuals who declared their own Republics on the few islands that is natural.
Here is the Wikipedia page about one of the Republics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...onghrati-Meads
The family has not entirely given up on their claim, but they donât stand much of a change against the big boys now claiming sovereignty over all or part of the area.
Unfortunately there are some inaccuracy in the Wiki report, so here is a more detailed article about this and other claims made over the last 150 years or so: http://www.insights-philippines.de/states.htm
As always, the truth is somewhat between the âfactsâ presented by the various parties who have interest here.
Putin is going in a different direction from his âfriendâ, Donald Trump. Opening borders rather than building walls:
Please tell me that was snark/sarcasm⌠because unless youâre the governor of Ebaye (Marshall Islands), expansionism these days isnât going to be about land so much, but some natural resource the other guy has.
The existence of oil and gas has certainly been speculated about enough, even in the general media, but drilling has been limited to the shallower parts near Taiwan, Hainan, Vietnam and the Reed Bank off Palawan.
Not sure how much seismic have been done by the various interested parties, but until you drill nobody REALLY know what may be hiding in the deep.
Even the fishing has been largely limited to the shallow waters in and around the lagoons and submerged reefs.
I got interested in the area because I got involved with some Norwegian speculators that bought a Russian longliner, but could not find any legal opportunities for it in the Southern Ocean.
The illegal options were too risky due to the French threatening to strip and sink any vessel caught fishing in the EEZ around their islands.
With a capability to fish in water depth to >3000 m. the possibility to find valuable species of fish in the deep and cold water in the South China Sea sounded attractive. Especially since we could register under Malaysian International Shipsregister (Labuan FT) and obtain license to operate from there.
Before we could get started the boat got sold to a company in New Zealand who had the necessary permit to fish for Toothfish in the CAMLAR Zone, so my theory that there were opportunities for longlining in deepwater SCS never got tested.
PS> This was back 20 or so years ago, before the dispute had got hot and in the news.
I guess you are right, they where right.
It is already a point of contention. Letâs hope that cool heads on both sides can keep it at this level.
Or even better, solve the dispute amicably through diplomatic channels, with the stake holders being involved through the ASEAN. To ram through a solution agreed between US and China only is not going to hack it, nor will provocations and threats.