'We have no fear of trouble': China talks tough over South China Sea

[jpak]

Source: CNN

(CNN) A senior Chinese admiral strongly defended his country's activities in the South China Sea Sunday, restating Beijing's sovereignty in the region and warning it "had no fear of trouble."

Admiral Sun Jianguo, deputy chief of general staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, addressed the tensions resulting from overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, an annual conference on security in the Asia-Pacific region.

Sun said that the issue had "become overheated because of provocations of certain countries for their own selfish interests." He also reiterated that Beijing would not recognize a pending decision of an international tribunal in The Hague in a case brought by the Philippines contesting China's claim to some territory in the region.

"We do not make trouble, but we have no fear of trouble," he said. "China will not bear the consequences, nor will it allow any infringement upon its sovereignty and security interests or stay indifferent to the irresponsible behavior of some countries in and around the South China Sea."

<more>

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/05/asia/china-admiral-south-china-sea/

[warrprayer]

1. ...

[DemMomma4Sanders]

2. Good on them. Chinese renewables are growing steadily

while the western world grapples with and ALLOWS the dinosaur energy industry to propagandize pseudoscience raping the world in the process.

China isn't the problem here. Western corporate fears are. US waving its military DI@k in foreign waters is the problem.

China isn't about to commit genocide. So what is it we're worried about.

Them lifting people out of poverty?

Despite this, China’s resource-intensive growth model has helped African growth – underpinning the “Africa rising” narrative that has emerged in recent years.

Furthermore, in 2008 Beijing’s financial authorities used a sizeable stimulus of approximately $570 billion to pump-prime economic growth. This was in response to rapidly slowing global growth following the financial crisis, and it had a very positive knock-on effect on Africa’s growth trajectory. Ironically, China’s actions reinforced Africa’s commodity dependence, with strong commodity prices providing a deterrent – or at the very least a distraction – for African policy-makers to accelerate their efforts towards diversification.

But changes now impacting the Chinese domestic economy hold out a new promise for aspirational African economies. The rising cost pressures on China’s light industrial manufacturing sector will increasingly lead to manufacturing capacity to relocate to lower-cost foreign economies over the long term. This trend of Chinese “hollowing out” of low-end manufacturing and offshoring to Africa is likely to be the next driving force of the relationship. This forms part of what is often referred to as China’s “economic rebalancing”. If this opportunity is seized by progressively reformist African states, they could well be on the cusp of a 19th-century style industrial revolution – generating jobs and creating new industries.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/03/what-the-shift-in-chinas-economy-means-for-africa/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Nothing to do with Africa or renewables.

There are two hidden agendas:

1) It is a proxy to buttress China's claim to Tibet and Taiwan.

2) It is to inspire nationalistic sentiment at home as the ruling Communist Party finds a rising need for diversions from growing political unrest as the engine of growth declines and the legitimacy of the Party begins to be questioned, quietly, very quietly. It was always the social contract that the people would forgive the Party their rigid iron control if the Party delivered spectacular growth. That contract is starting to crumble a bit.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

4. Tibet is more Chinese than Hawaii or guantanamo bay will ever be American

Stop bullying China and we must look at our own evils first.

[cstanleytech]

5. Ya but the Spratly islands are far closer to the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia

so maybe China should stop trying to bully those 3?

[DemMomma4Sanders]

6. When the Chinese military starts raping citizens in the phillipines

as American military often does in Japan....let me know.

Otherwise lets make sure that all foreign territories taken by the west....Basically their entire landbase, is returned.


Meanwhile how are Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan looking today? Are they in need of IMF loans to rebuild what the US Bombed To Hell?

Yup

[cstanleytech]

7. None of that has shit to do with the fact that Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippians

are far closer to the region.
Get back to me when you actually have a legitimate reason why its ok for China to fuck them over.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

8. They have a history there, The Us does not.

The nine-dashed line was first discovered and owned by China. It is a maritime boundary line formed after China’s long-term jurisdiction and development of the South China Sea islands.

China holds sovereignty and jurisdiction rights within the nine-dashed line. Other countries’ ships have the right to freedom of navigation and their aircraft enjoy rights to fly over the territory.

There had been no problem with the nine-dashed line before the 1970s, but with Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries pushing further territorial claims, more governments are beginning to deny legitimacy of the nine-dashed line.

The United States and other countries have intervened in the South China Sea issue; using the so-called freedom of navigation in the South China Sea to deny the nine-dashed line to disregard China’s territorial rights.

http://english.cctv.com/2016/05/23/ARTIFE1lVCNa03TBiqHecNlG160523.shtml

Freedom of navigation should not mean the ability to threaten sovereign nations with guns and missikes.

The US, by building up on China's borders with the Pivot to china, is an act of war the US would respond to aggressively if China did the same in the Gulf.

[PersonNumber503602]

9. When the countries in the region ask for US assistance with this issue

How do you believe the US should respond? Also, how do you believe these countries should respond to China? Should they just accept what China does because China is bigger?

What's your opinion on the recently discussion of Vietnam purchasing weapons from the US? If you're against that, are you also against Vietnam purchasing weapons from say Russia?

[DemMomma4Sanders]

10. They will have a destabilizing effect.

Its unfortunate that the US has hedged its economy on violence and poisonous resources.

Its a pretty commonly known, provable fact. Weapons transfers during disputes is adds fuel to a fire the US pretends it wishes to put out.......by spreading its corporate version of democracy.

This time though The US is bullying someone who actually has what it needs to fight back.....and it will. Give it time. Eventually US will loose its ability to petulanty embargo nations, impose crippling sanctions because CHINA will guarentee real freedom of navigation vs US play by our rules or suffer our global police!

Now I ask you? Whats your opinion on the US supplying the gas cannisters to Saudi Arabia that were used to terrorize protesters in Bahrain? You realize Doctors who sided with the opposition were killed with us arms?

............crickets.........

As noted earlier, the US carries out arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain—two of its allies. The US Fifth Fleet has its main base in Bahrain, undergirding diplomatic ties between the two nations. However, during the 2011 uprisings in Bahrain, the Bahrain and Saudi governments used violence and force against protestors which was briefly criticized by President Obama. Although President Obama criticized the handling of protestors in Bahrain, the US continues to sell millions of dollars in arms there. In October 2011, the Obama administration delayed a $53 million arms sale to Bahrain “pending the outcome of a local investigation into alleged human rights abuses since an uprising began in February 2011.” But in May 2012, the Obama administration resumed certain sales to Bahrain, although the administration would “maintain a hold on TOW missiles, Humvees and some other items for now” (Quinn). Fox News cites two reasons for a lack of US intervention, or at least a more vigorous (verbal) denunciation, regarding the handling of protestors in Bahrain: stability and timing. With Iran threatening to close of the Strait of Hormuz and to preemptively attack Israeli and American interests in the region, the US fleet must be ready to act swiftly in case of attack. If the fleet is preoccupied with quelling tensions in Bahrain, countering Iran’s acts may be difficult

http://forusa.org/content/us-militarization-middle-east

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. This has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. Old tactic to muddy the water when losing a debate. . . nt

[PersonNumber503602]

13. I would rather the US stop supplying the Saudis with weapons

They are assholes. Although I suppose there could be a discussion about the pro and cons of not supporting the Saudis, but my 'knee-jerk' response is screw them. I'd be open to listening/reading a discussion about this subject in an appropriate thread though.

So now smaller countries in the region feel they are being "bullied" by China. Do you disagree with their assessment of this? Vietnam in particular has reason to be fearful of China, as they have had a history of conflict with them. China invaded them in the late 70's and they had skirmishes throughout the 80's. Vietnam knows a few things about what it's like to have outside countries trying to push them around (French, Japanese, US, China, etc) So I find it difficult to fault them for being leery of the big brute to their north. They had a hard enough time dealing with bully brutes thousands of miles away. So again, do you believe they should just give into whatever it is that China demands? The same for all the other smaller Asian countries in the region?

Also, are you just as critical of Russia supplying arms/support to rebels in East Ukraine? How about Russia/China supplying Iran with anti-aircraft systems? And you didn't answer my question if you would support Russia, France, India, or whomever, selling arms to Vietnam. Say if Russia provided them with a bunch of SU-35s or something.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

14. Its has to do with US standing and hypocrisy in the face kf China...a nation that attacked no one

US los any right to Asian issues when it granted Unit 731 immunity.

[DemMomma4Sanders]

15. China wants to guarentee freedom of commercial navigation

not freedom to Dick wave military ships through the area causing regional instability.

Its no wonder China is nervous about Asian countries doing business with the US given DC's history of funding violent conflicts in order to overthrow regimes they view as corporate unfriendly.

[EX500rider]

16. "China wants to guarentee freedom of commercial navigation" lol

...and they do that by seizing their neighbors territory? Good one!

The US is the one trying to guarantee freedom of navigation, China is the one trying to keep others out.

[PersonNumber503602]

17. So you're fine with Chinese warships sailing through international waters in the area, but not US?

How would you feel when Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, etc, sail their navy ships and fly their planes through these international waters? Are they bullying China too? Let's say the US did completely disengage from the region and told these countries that it would not involve itself. Would those countries have the right to confront China over what they feel are unreasonable demands? What if they united and sailed their ships through the international waters China is claiming as their own? Would you be opposed to that, or are you only opposed to objections to it when the US is directly involved?

I fully understand the idea of reigning in the US melding around the world. I'm not a total isolationist myself, but I think the US sticks its nose in far too many places. I get wanting to stop bigger nations from imposing their will on smaller countries, and fighting against our modern day versions of imperialism. However, I'm not getting a sense that you're against imperialism-like behavior as a whole, but are only against the US/Western world. As a result you cheer on or look the other way when other countries do the same. I notice this becoming more and more common as the US power degrades and others move up (China, Russia) I suspect we're going to be seeing a lot of this as time goes by and these countries begin asserting their will over others more.

I don't think China is viewed as corporate unfriendly at all. So I'm not sure what that comment is about. I don't think anyone would want to see China break out into turmoil, as that would be devastating to the global economy. I think the US' goal is to contain china by not allowing them to dominate their neighbors in the region.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. The Chinese have a history of invading Vietnam, for one. Most recently in 1979. . . nt