China , rattling the sabre, threatens Australia

[bob10]

China issues Australia a blunt warning over South China Sea (http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2016/08/02/china-australia-south-china-sea/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160803_TND)

[bob10]

"Paper cat "Australia will learn its lesson - Global Times (http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/997320.shtml)

[Gerokent]

"Paper cat "Australia will learn its lesson - Global Times (http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/997320.shtml)


Now that's something the mainstream media will never broadcast to us sheeple.
Good article.

cheers

[bob10]

The Philipines has a bet each way.

When superpowers court Rodrigo Duterte - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/07/superpowers-court-rodrigo-duterte-160730120958897.html?utm_source=Al+Jazeera+English +Newsletter+%7C+Weekly&utm_campaign=e376eeb15a-weekly_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e427298a68-e376eeb15a-225425297)

[Pickles2]

Well, I don't mind being flamed & I will say that the article is blatantly "Pro China" as one would expect coming from that source.
I believe Julie Bishop's response on behalf of Australia was exactly the right one, and she has of course, received acclaim for her "no nonsense" response.
I am not one who will support any country building "islands", arming them, and then telling others to keep away.
Pickles.

[DiscoMick]

We have an economy which depends on the Chinese buying our raw materials and on Chinese investment to build our economy. On the other hand, our foreign policy is based on always supporting the Americans. So, if the Americans and the Chinese are in conflict, which side do we choose? Something has to give.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Pickles2]

It's not a matter of "Supporting The Americans" at all, (although I knew there would be someone that would just "have" to say that), there are many countries that are affected by this, Japan is another, there are many that have voiced their displeasure.
In addition of course, China's actions have been ruled illegal, or whatever other definition you give it, by an International Court.
And, importantly, and I forgot to mention this in my earlier post, the ALP have stated that they don't think Julie's response was strong enough, and that we should send a naval vessel through there?
The main point here is that China has built Islands & armed them, and is now saying basically, "ya can't go there". That is simply not on, & has nothing to do with supporting, as some have cynically called, "The Land Of The Free"!
So Disco, you don't think what China has done is wrong mate, you think it's just all about us "supporting the U.S.",....even though our ships & ships from every Nation in the World need to pass through there?
Pickles.

[DiscoMick]

I didn't say I don't think what China has done is wrong. It is. Of course we should continue to keep it open to international trade.
I dont think the Chinese want to close it but they do want to control the waterway off their land. The issue is where to draw the boundary. Thats where the Philippines and Vietnam come into it.
I bet the Americans would get very antsy if Chinese warships were patrolling off the American coastline.
Fact is at some point we will have to choose between our economic and military interests.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

[Pickles2]

I hear what you say.
But there will be no "choosing",...what they are claiming is not "theirs" to claim, but they are trying to make it so.....and we are not talking of "off the Chinese Coatline",..it's a FAR greater distance than that.
How would it be if the British exhibited the same sentiments in the English Channel, or if some Mediteranean countries did th same.
Mate, you know as well as I do that the Chinese are getting bigger, stronger, in all sorts of ways, and they sure don't give a stuff about us, (They just do what they like,..Have you seen their recently released "blatant copy" of the landRover Evoque?...it's virtually identical to the U.K. version..JLR are taking action!)....but yes, they do "give a stuff" about the "Good Old U.S. of A", not because they want to, but because they have to, and for all our sakes, I'm glad they do.
But anyway, IMHO, better to keep on track I suppose, so to be simple, I just think China is absolutely wrong, and a stand has to be taken NOW, otherwise where will it end, what else will they decide is "theirs"?
Pickles.
Disco, the Evoque "copy" is called a LandWind X7,....you could google it,...you won't believe the similarity?

[roverv8]

TBH, I think Australia makes far to much noise with these issues...
Us by ourselves don't stand a chance against a country like China, so why do we make so much noise.
Our polies need to sit back & shut up, & only get involved when it comes crunch time. who do they think they are impressing...
Yes im glad we have big brother in the USA, but i think our country is far to vocal with these issues,
especially upsetting a trading partner, i don't see how it's necessary to do this at this point.
Why are the we & USA so friendly with the Japs now, have they forgotten Pearl Harbor, the bombing of Darwin, suddenly were all military pals.....

[bob10]

It's called diplomacy. Not too diplomatic to stand on a soapbox shouting "you're all a bunch of bastards!".Paper cats should not try that type of diplomacy. Interesting to see that the only effective deterrent /weapon in any future conflict in the area would be the submarine.

[bob10]

Well, I don't mind being flamed
Pickles.

I hope you are not trying to promote that type of behaviour in this part of the forum?

[Pickles2]

I hope you are not trying to promote that type of behaviour in this part of the forum?
CERTAINLY NOT.
Pickles.

[DiscoMick]

I assume the Chinese know they would get flogged in a naval fight with the USA, but there would be some Chinese military hotheads who would like to try anyway, but be held back by the pragmatic leadership, which seems to believe in a softly, softly approach.
Nor would the USA's current leadership want to provoke conflict, but what if Trump was President of the USA?
This could go pear-shaped very quickly if the hotheads prevailed. Our best interests lie in hosing down the reckless talk, not chest-beating, I think.

[DeanoH]

TBH, I think Australia makes far to much noise with these issues...
Us by ourselves don't stand a chance against a country like China, so why do we make so much noise.
Our polies need to sit back & shut up, & only get involved when it comes crunch time. who do they think they are impressing...
Yes im glad we have big brother in the USA, but i think our country is far to vocal with these issues,
especially upsetting a trading partner, i don't see how it's necessary to do this at this point.
Why are the we & USA so friendly with the Japs now, have they forgotten Pearl Harbor, the bombing of Darwin, suddenly were all military pals.....


"All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing"

Edmund Burke.

In this context China is the 'evil doer', using it's newly acquired power to bully and intimidate its weaker neighbours (including Australia) and the rest of the world.

Isolationism or burying ones head in the sand is not the answer to an aggressive and expansionist China.

Deano :)

[Geedublya]

Remember last time China tried to bully Vietnam? It didn't go so well for them.

[bob10]

"All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing"

Edmund Burke.

In this context China is the 'evil doer', using it's newly acquired power to bully and intimidate its weaker neighbours (including Australia) and the rest of the world.

Isolationism or burying ones head in the sand is not the answer to an aggressive and expansionist China.

Deano :)

Don't forget, China has Australia over a trade barrel. We need them, more than they need us. Also, giving China control over the Port of Darwin, doesn't look like such a good idea, now. The sale of the largest irrigation project in Australia to the Chinese , Cubby Station [ google it] looks like another good idea. Not sure what you mean by newly acquired power.

[bob10]

Remember last time China tried to bully Vietnam? It didn't go so well for them.

True, but you are talking about a Nation at war since 1939, [Vietnam] fighting the Japanese, French, Americans [ & allies], and patient enough to beat them all. A nation of soldiers, battle hardened over years of conflict, one that thinks losing one million people is a means to an end. And Australia? Battle hardened doesn't mean fighting for a seat at the MCG grand final. True, we have a core of professional military , as good as any. Better than most. But I suggest we have neither the resources, or the stomach, for a prolonged fight with China. Politicians start wars, Foreign Affairs Ministers should practice diplomacy.

[roverv8]

"All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing"

Edmund Burke.

In this context China is the 'evil doer', using it's newly acquired power to bully and intimidate its weaker neighbours (including Australia) and the rest of the world.

Isolationism or burying ones head in the sand is not the answer to an aggressive and expansionist China.

Deano :)

ok, so what do you propose, start an all out war...

the horse has already bolted, they've already built their islands & militarized them,
Excuse me China, can you please dismantle what you've already built, not going to happen, & they will defend them...
They will do as they please, Just as Puttin has done,
why wasn't the rest of the world onto this before it got this far, in both cases
I didn't say bury our heads in the sand, I said sit back until if & when it comes crunch time, & help who we need to.
Australia is like a chiwawa barking at a rottweiler with this, why **** them off at this point, they're a strong trade partner.

P.S im not Chinese, nor do i have any ties/family Chinese
also I dont see anyone taking care of that clown in N Korea playing with nukes, "All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing"

[DiscoMick]

It could go bad very quickly.
The Chinese have built bomb-proof aircraft hangers for jets on the islands and could move aircraft in very quickly. I see the Vietnamese have moved missiles onto their islands in the region. The South Koreans are nearby with plenty of missiles and jets. Lots of American firepower in South Korea and on their fleets. More nearby in Guam and Japan. Japan itself has one of the world's largest militaries. Even the Philippines could get involved. Who knows what North Korea would do.
Last thing we need is hotheads trying to blow up the situation by chest-beating. It is what it is. The Chinese are not going to back down.
Australia's only real interest is in making sure the shipping lanes stay open for our exports. We should curb the loose talk and focus on our national objectives.

[cuppabillytea]

Australia must protect Australia's interest.
The free movement of trade through the South China Sea is in Australia's interest.
A slice if the resources pie in the South China Sea is in Australia's interest.
Not allowing its self to be bullied by a far greater power is in Australia's interest.
As for which side we would choose. Australia is a free egalitarian open nation. China is a fundamentally corrupt closed nation, which does not allow freedom of expression or freedom of speech. China does not allow political descent. China does not allow foreign ownership of its land.
China has not always and probably will not always be Australia's major trading partner. Backing China in this dispute would alienate Australia from the rest of The rest of Asia From India to Vietnam. I dare say the Russians would be more than a little peeved as well.
Australia has to make a big noise on this issue, as do all of the other smaller Nations because it is in our best interest.

[Pickles2]

Australia must protect Australia's interest.
The free movement of trade through the South China Sea is in Australia's interest.
A slice if the resources pie in the South China Sea is in Australia's interest.
Not allowing its self to be bullied by a far greater power is in Australia's interest.
As for which side we would choose. Australia is a free egalitarian open nation. China is a fundamentally corrupt closed nation, which does not allow freedom of expression or freedom of speech. China does not allow political descent. China does not allow foreign ownership of its land.
China has not always and probably will not always be Australia's major trading partner. Backing China in this dispute would alienate Australia from the rest of The rest of Asia From India to Vietnam. I dare say the Russians would be more than a little peeved as well.
Australia has to make a big noise on this issue, as do all of the other smaller Nations because it is in our best interest.
WELL SAID Billy.
You speak the truth, even though some may not "like" it.
You make several good points, Pickles.

[bob10]

WELL SAID Billy.
You speak the truth, even though some may not "like" it.
You make several good points, Pickles.

No one has said we should back China. And expecting the other Asian Nations to agree to our stance is naive. They are pragmatic enough to know where their bread is buttered. The problem is Australian politicians have never understood the Asian mind. Standing up and berating China , having them lose face in the eyes of the rest of the World, is a dangerous tactic. Far better to use diplomatic channels, to guarantee free passage of trade through the area, then to have the hawks of the Chinese Government have their voices heard.

[bob10]

WELL SAID Billy.
You speak the truth, even though some may not "like" it.

Sure you are not trying to stir the pot, Pickles?

[bob10]

I dare say the Russians would be more than a little peeved as well.
.

Russia and China are preparing for major Naval exercises together, in the South China Sea. Asian politics are a tangled web, woe betide those who jump in , feet first.

[Pickles2]

Sure you are not trying to stir the pot, Pickles?
No Bob, just giving my opinion, but that based on some of my previous opinions, some definitely do not like them,...which is fine.
One of the great things in this Country Bob IMHO, is that we are all able to have our own opinion, totally free & without any ramifications. (For how long?.....Do you reckon this will always be the case Bob?).
All is good, Pickles.

[bob10]

No Bob, just giving my opinion, but that based on some of my previous opinions, some definitely do not like them,...which is fine.
One of the great things in this Country Bob IMHO, is that we are all able to have our own opinion, totally free & without any ramifications. (For how long?.....Do you reckon this will always be the case Bob?).
All is good, Pickles.

Pickles, mate, in my time in the military, it was often said " if you don't want to be shot at, don't make your self a target". Opinions have never been totally free in this country, or without ramifications -[a complex or unwelcome consequence of an action or event.]- and that is the beauty of where we live. You can be free to say your piece, within acceptable limits, but you must be open to others opinion , within acceptable limits. It is those acceptable limits that define our culture. Stay within the limits, all is fine. Don't accept the limits, we have anarchy.

[DiscoMick]

Australia must protect Australia's interest.
The free movement of trade through the South China Sea is in Australia's interest.
A slice if the resources pie in the South China Sea is in Australia's interest.
Not allowing its self to be bullied by a far greater power is in Australia's interest.
As for which side we would choose. Australia is a free egalitarian open nation. China is a fundamentally corrupt closed nation, which does not allow freedom of expression or freedom of speech. China does not allow political descent. China does not allow foreign ownership of its land.
China has not always and probably will not always be Australia's major trading partner. Backing China in this dispute would alienate Australia from the rest of The rest of Asia From India to Vietnam. I dare say the Russians would be more than a little peeved as well.
Australia has to make a big noise on this issue, as do all of the other smaller Nations because it is in our best interest.

Agree completely that the free movement of trade through the South China Sea is in Australia's interest.
Don't agree at all that we have any claim on a slice of the resources pie in the South China Sea. We are a long way away.
Talk about bullying is off the point, as are comparisons about our political systems. I'd be the first to criticise China's suppression of free speech, but it's irrelevant. Trade ties rise and fall.
China's neighbours are the ones entitled to 'make a big noise', not us. Vietnam's missiles could hit the islands claimed by China, but it's unlikely they would fire them - I hope. Russia understands why China is trying to dominate its region because Russia is doing the same thing in it's area, just as Australia tries to dominate our region.
We couldn't win this argument with China, the best possible result is we support those with a greater interest to set some boundaries.




Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[cuppabillytea]

Agree completely that the free movement of trade through the South China Sea is in Australia's interest.
Don't agree at all that we have any claim on a slice of the resources pie in the South China Sea. We are a long way away.
Talk about bullying is off the point, as are comparisons about our political systems. I'd be the first to criticise China's suppression of free speech, but it's irrelevant. Trade ties rise and fall.
China's neighbours are the ones entitled to 'make a big noise', not us. Vietnam's missiles could hit the islands claimed by China, but it's unlikely they would fire them - I hope. Russia understands why China is trying to dominate its region because Russia is doing the same thing in it's area, just as Australia tries to dominate our region.
We couldn't win this argument with China, the best possible result is we support those with a greater interest to set some boundaries.




Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
All fair points.
My post was meant to allude to where we should stand not to the manner in which we should stand.

[roverv8]

Im not all pro China,
I think our Government was stupid to lease the port in Darwin to them,
& finally sense has prevailed with the Gov blocking the sale of a Aus grid to them, can you imagine them having some control of our power, If a war did start, they would simply turn it off.....
I just think our Gov shouldn't be making so much noise at them at this point, especially with a trading partner.

Nor was i suggesting we should back China if any conflict starts

[DiscoMick]

Yeah, in diplomacy you don't influence a country by shouting at it, particularly a country like China where 'face' is so important.
The Chinese have long believed, rightly or wrongly, that the West has exploited and denigrated them. They have not forgotten the British invasion over opium, which did huge damage both to China's population and to its national pride. They will never forgive the Japanese for the 'rape of Nanking' and similar events.
They have a national interest in seeing their growing economic power recognized in their relations with their neighbours and other countries. That makes them no different to the way the USA relates to its neighbours, for example, or the way Australia seeks to dominate the South Pacific.
Australia has nothing to gain by insulting China. For what it's worth, I think Australia's best interests lie in peaceful co-operation with China. Keep the trade routes open and be careful about what we say in public.

[Pickles2]

Australia does not seek to "dominate" the South Pacific.
"Face"?..ALL countries are entitled to it, as long as it is not at the expense of any other Country's "Face",..Australia included.
Pickles.

[ozeraser]

Something people may find of interest here is China runs its own version of NATO called the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

It is both the US and Aus that are constantly flying over the international trade routes with their aircraft and moving through with their naval forces to show that the international community doesn't agree with China closing said international trade routes as they become Chinese territory.

It works in our favor for import and export to help the US and other allies patrol this area. On a military level we cant patrol these areas with our 40 war ships and 260 planes on our own.

[bob10]

Something people may find of interest here is China runs its own version of NATO called the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

It is both the US and Aus that are constantly flying over the international trade routes with their aircraft and moving through with their naval forces to show that the international community doesn't agree with China closing said international trade routes as they become Chinese territory.

It works in our favor for import and export to help the US and other allies patrol this area. On a military level we cant patrol these areas with our 40 war ships and 260 planes on our own.

China hasn't closed trade routes , the risk is at times of tension, It could do so a lot easier if the International court ratified the occupation of the islands. It is not in China's interests to close trade routes. We shouldn't kid ourselves, the flights over, and transit of ships through, are primarily to send a message to Asia that the USA is still in the game. The SCO is not a major military alliance yet, interesting to see one of the major leaders in the SCO is Mr Putin. Interesting times indeed. I think an old Asian proverb is, you have the clocks, we have the time.

[MrLandy]

'Australia' is an island that has been stolen and built and armed, and is telling others to keep away.

[DiscoMick]

China hasn't closed trade routes , the risk is at times of tension, It could do so a lot easier if the International court ratified the occupation of the islands. It is not in China's interests to close trade routes. We shouldn't kid ourselves, the flights over, and transit of ships through, are primarily to send a message to Asia that the USA is still in the game. The SCO is not a major military alliance yet, interesting to see one of the major leaders in the SCO is Mr Putin. Interesting times indeed. I think an old Asian proverb is, you have the clocks, we have the time.

Spot on. China has no reason to close trade routes - it wants them open to supply its industries and move its exports.
And Australia certainly does dominate our part of the Pacific - just ask our neighbours.
Its normal for a country to want to dominate its region.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

[Pickles2]

'Australia' is an island that has been stolen and built and armed, and is telling others to keep away.
I would certainly disagree with that.
And of course Disco, I disagree with you.
The "Cause" of the subject of this thread was that China has "built" Islands, armed them, then claimed excessive territorial rights around them, & warned other Countries to stay away. NOBODY else has done anything remotely similar, certainly not Aussie.
And what China has done has been deemed illegal by a proper international court.
There is only one "aggressor" here, & that is China.
Of course I hope, & I really believe, that in the end there'll be no real drama here, but IMHO Countries that are standing up to China, like we are, are doing exactly the right thing, otherwise where will it stop.
And finally, if anyone here thinks that China gives a stuff about us, or anyone else for that matter, they are IMHO, dreaming.
Pickles.

[bob10]

NOBODY else has done anything remotely similar, certainly not Aussie.

Pickles.China would disagree with that ;

"Even with a scarce population and vast land, Australia has disputes with other countries over territory. It claims nearly 5.9 million square meters of land in the Antarctic, accounting for 42 percent of the continent. In order to back its territorial claims, Australia even brought up the activities of the British in the Antarctic as evidence.

Since The Antarctic Treaty was signed, all territorial claims over the continent were suspended. Canberra then raised another claims to demand the Antarctic continental shelf. It cited Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to avoid a demand by arbitration by others.

Both historical rights and the exemption of arbitration as ruled in Article 298 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were denied by the arbitration tribunal. Australia showed blunt double standards as if no one had a memory of what it did and said over the Antarctic."

[bob10]

This is an interesting talk given at the University of Sydney, back in 2010, by Prof. John Meirsheimer. The last 9 paragraphs relate to Australia.


News | The University of Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=5351)

[cuppabillytea]

There always seems to be something for us to worry about.

That talk is predicated on the presumption that China continues to rise economically. I wonder how long that rise can be if China does not address the issue of corruption effectively.
Another country that relies heavily on the sea lanes to Australia's north is India. India's economy could mirror that of China's. What then? Those narrow waterways could end up being chock full of antagonistic warships.
A bonus, I suppose is that the Pirates would be contained.

[bob10]

India will be part of the team, there is a new World order in the wings. Do we trash talk the team, or try to find a way to play the game on an equal footing?



The SCO-India ....Russia has encouraged India to join the organisation as a full-time member, because they see it as a crucial future strategic partner.[62][63] China has also welcomed India's accession to the SCO.[64] India applied for membership in September 2014,[65] and was approved for membership by the SCO in July 2015.[66] It signed a memorandum of obligations on 24 June 2016 at Tashkent to join SCO to join as a full-fledged member. It is expected to formally accede to the organization by 2017.[2]China isn't pulling the strings.

Mr Putin said this-

At the 2007 SCO summit Iranian Vice President Parviz Davudi addressed an initiative that has been garnering greater interest and assuming a heightened sense of urgency when he said, "The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is a good venue for designing a new banking system which is independent from international banking systems".[31]

The address by Putin also included these comments:

"We now clearly see the defectiveness of the monopoly in world finance and the policy of economic selfishness. To solve the current problem Russia will take part in changing the global financial structure so that it will be able to guarantee stability and prosperity in the world and to ensure progress.
"The world is seeing the emergence of a qualitatively different geo-political situation, with the emergence of new centers of economic growth and political influence.
"We will witness and take part in the transformation of the global and regional security and development architectures adapted to new realities of the 21st century, when stability and prosperity are becoming inseparable notions."[32]

Leaders present at the SCO summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia in 2009.
On 16 June 2009, at the Yekaterinburg Summit, China announced plans to provide a US$10 billion loan to SCO member states to shore up the struggling economies of its members amid the global financial crisis.[33] The summit was held together with the first BRIC summit, and the China-Russia joint statement said that they want a bigger quota in the International Monetary Fund.[34]

[DeanoH]

Crikey Bob and here's me thinking this is a serious thread :), I love the sense of humour here

The address by Putin also included these comments:

"We will witness and take part in the transformation of the global and regional security and development architectures adapted to new realities of the 21st century, when stability and prosperity are becoming inseparable notions."

Done a great job Putin, destabilise neighboring Ukrainian Crimea, send in Russian troops in a blatant act of state sponsored terrorism, murder Ukrainian citizens and military and cap it off by shooting down a civilian aircraft killing hundreds. Putins a gangster pure and simple, unfortunately he's also a national leader.

I love this bit too, funny as hell.......................

Leaders present at the SCO summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia ............ from memory the last national leaders to visit Yekaterinburg didn't do so well :o.

Deano :)

[bob10]

Crikey Bob and here's me thinking this is a serious thread :), I love the sense of humour here

Deano :)

It's serious enough, alright. This group has selected Putin , and I'm sure China is inscrutable enough to go with the flow until they have what they need. The Nations signed up to this new group did so for a reason, and the West should not just fob them off in an arrogant manner. No doubt Putin huffs & puffs, but if he can get enough fringe dwellers to come on side, we had better make sure our houses are not made of straw. [ don't believe I said that] I'm sure this surge in Anti West sentiment is precipitated by the Ukranian " incident " , and consequent Putin loss of face.

[AndyG]

Echo's of Europe in the 30's and another megalomaniac everyone tried to appease. All we need now to complete the circus is for Trump to get in. Makes our pollies look pretty sane.

[bob10]

Echo's of Europe in the 30's and another megalomaniac everyone tried to appease. All we need now to complete the circus is for Trump to get in. Makes our pollies look pretty sane.

Here is another view on China, and the reasons behind their actions. It pays to look at all angles. To equate the present situation with Europe in the 30's is wrong , China has not taken any occupied territory [ in the case of the South China Sea] unlike Germany and the Munich agreement. But that is another story.

Why China cares about the South China Sea - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/07/china-cares-south-china-sea-160714105126859.html)

[bob10]

Oil and gas, in the South China Sea, an overview. [ 2013]

https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/regions-topics.cfm?RegionTopicID=SCS