The building to convert reef to island is one of the first steps to claim the entire Southeast-Asia sea by China. It will then have the self-declared ownership right to block all sea/air traffics through this region and bully other neighboring countries. Besides having a huge oil/gas reserve and fishes, in term of economic impact, this sea is as important as or more than Panama Canal or Suez Canal. A country with the right to block or own it will harm the rest of the world. Currently, the allies have been formed with a group of countries Japan, Philippine, Viet Nam, America and others trying to stop China but they have not found any solution nor success yet.
Can I call horseshit on HN again? The Strait of Malacca (which is close by) would be on par with the Panama Canal or Suez. The South China Sea is not a transit point for goods in the same manner, and is not as important.
When you look at China's claims in comparison with everyone else's claims, (especially Vietnam's), it does not look that outlandish, and everyone in the region effectively wants to be able to say "these are our waters you're passing through." The actors in this region are not as innocent as you would think they are.
You have to trace back to Japanese actions before WWII and look at the geopolitical insecurity of these countries in order to understand these motivations, and then recognize that China does what it does because it does not think that the powers-that-be will be able or willing to defend its economic interests in the future. The only reason why China seems scary is because it would appear as if it can actually build up and defend its claims, unlike everyone else, but even then, it doesn't have a blue water navy like the United States. They can't instigate an area denial attack on these claims without strangling their own economy either, so it's kind of a tempest in a teapot.
This. Thank you for being a voice of reason. Historical context is so important here, especially the lessons China learned the hard way. Like just what the U.S., U.K., France, and other countries can do to you if you show weakness.
Well, considering the range of an ICBM is by definition "intercontinental," your caution is a bit misplaced. First, the DF-21d isn't an ICBM, it's approx unclassified range is 900 miles.
And of course the USN has defenses. First are soft defenses like ECM, followed by AEGIS and SM3.
Not only are there defenses against the missile themselves, but it's not like the navy would just sit idle while being targeted. They'd work the entire kill chain, and most of this is assuming that the DF-21 can even find the carriers...
Agreed. There's a lot of frickin' ocean, and they'd have to saturate it, one missile for every 20 sq. miles, in order to have a hope of hitting a carrier. That's assuming the USN ships don't try to shoot down said missiles. They've got a lot of missiles, but not that much. China can talk trash all they want, but there's not much they can do–or would want to do, really.
The fact is, the United States is effectively guaranteeing the trade lanes for everyone. They have not tried to own the oceans for themselves as others did. They have not tried to own resources or markets for themselves the way the Europeans did in the age of mercantilism.
China does what it does out of paranoia. And because people have been jerks to them in the past. But they know that what they have is not effective for waging expansionist war. Those missiles could make it really, really hurt if the United States were to try to take a military action against the Chinese mainland, because that would place a number of CBGs in close proximity to the mainland, where it'd be much easier to track and launch said missiles at them. A more ambitious project would be to cut off American support for Taiwan, and that would be a much longer-term issue for both sides, and one that is not abetted by these islands.
As for the islands, there isn't even any military value in holding them. They are a military liability rather than an asset. Unlike Guam, etc., they are not useful as a staging point, because the range of modern ships makes them kind of useless as a staging or refueling point. They are small–they don't even have fresh water–and thus they are easy to saturate with a few cruise missiles (the USN has 3000 tomahawks in inventory, last I checked?), so, forget about trying to put serious static defenses there. When you look at the fluff, yea, it seems alarming, and that's what it's for. It's politics. The Chinese are doing it because they know the Vietnamese and the Filipinos can't, and the U.S. will just #facepalm and mostly go back to staring at maps of the Middle East the next month, in spite of all the talk of an Asian pivot.
If China block ships from the area it wont be too hard to block their ships from Panama and Suez canals and deny access to Americas
Watch their economy crumble if they are prevented from selling this cheap knacks to the rest of the world.
It be a stupid move and the Chinese are far from stupid unlike the the Russians who are doing their best to tick every checkbox on a rogue criminal state chalkboard
My word the southern reaches of the Chinese claim are extremely grabby! Is this just similar to haggling in a bazaar for an item listed at $30, which you personally value at $20 so you open with a lowballed offer of $10?
You're implying ASEAN members all act in unison -- they do not. They fight amongst each-other almost as much as they do with China.
And while they fight amongst each-other, China voices support for one while undermining that support in another fashion. Pitting them against each-other is common.
You're being generous. China is annexing territory that belongs to Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. The same thing that Russia is doing in Ukraine. It's an act of war, the issue is that the world is very afraid of China (both militarily and economically).
No, it's a territorial claim - so far. It's not yet an act of war. Trying to enforce the claim will be an act of war.
Building the islands... well, everybody else who claims that area also seems to be building there. That could, arguably, be considered an act of war, but so far everybody's doing it and we do not yet have a war.
But the U.S. builds some bases pretty close to China's coasts... To be fair, some of those island bases in Asia are used for the CIA torture program, so its purported purpose is probably not aggression towards China.
It really sounds like the fascist/autocratic states in Asia (Russia/China) with its economy failing, is slowly resorting to territorial aggression against neighboring countries in order to claim more resources. With Russia bumping against all of europe, and China bumping against Japan/Korea/Taiwan/Vietnam/Malaysia/Indonesia/Phillipines, this is boding ill for global stability.
Why is it moral for the U.S. and U.K. to build bases on random little islands in Asia, but not China and other Asian countries?
Edit: Clarification, since so many of the smaller uninhabited islands have been claimed by the UK, US, and other Western nations, how is it wrong to build some uninhabited islands of your own?
Because in recent times building a base isn't used to justify ownership of all the surrounding sea's (and where that is done it's because we/they previously owned that island, like the Falklands).
Creating an island out of thin air and then claiming the territory around it is 1 step short of Sealand.
That said no we aren't perfect and we did stuff like this as well but two wrongs in this case don't make a right, this is nothing but a very destabilising move.
That actually seems like a pretty good strategy, TBH. Not saying this in an inflammatory way, as this seems applicable to a lot of other areas.
Execute massive land grab first to get strategic high ground, and then bitflip your previous moves to be wrong for anyone else to do. That makes sure that anyone else trying to catch up to you is unable to do so. Boom. Barriers to entry. Done.
The British empire built itself on the backs of foreigners (everything up to and including slavery) and in many way shaped the world the way it is now.
However the world has moved on, that it moved on at a time when the West was dominant (for now) wasn't planned it was just how it was.
In fairness how far back do we apply this, should the Italians be censored for what the Romans did in the North of England, or the Mongols for what they did to most of Europe or the Spanish for what they did in South America or what we (the British) did to...well basically everybody.
If you hold that no past behaviour is considered expired then pretty much every country on the planet or the people who live there before it was that country is responsible for something.
African tribes have warred for millenia, European tribes have warred for millenia, South America, Middle East, Far East pretty much everyone has at some point beaten up their neighbours and not so near neighbours.
Yeah, we could at least give Guam residents the right to vote. Them not having that right has a lot to do with racist legislators in a previous era feeling like votes by "alien races" (e.g., Asians) would be detrimental.
Besides that, artificial land is nothing new, a good chunk of NL was made by manipulating the sea. Even so this is clearly a 'landgrab', but not much different other than the time in which it happens (the present, rather than a few hundred years ago). NL did it with the colonies and plenty of other countries did it too. A lot of that has reverted over the last 3 decades but there are still quite a few remnants such as Cyprus (claimed by the Turks and the Greeks), the Falkland islands (UK vs Argentina) and a whole bunch of smaller ones.
The world map will always be in flux due to territorial disputes like these, in the end it is all about money.
The Spratly islands are in the middle of one of the most important sea corridors. Ultimately, even nationalism is about money, after all which war ever in the history of man did not start as a dispute over resources or territory?
Outside of mythology, I can't think of any in the first category; most of those that are traditionally described in the second or third were about groups control of land of material resources, though the basis of the claim to that control (or at least the propaganda to get people to fight for it) may have been based on religion/ideology.
religion and ideology are just tools to unite people, once you unite a bunch people behind a common cause, then you go take stuff from other people, or at least prevent your stuff from being taken.
The Nazi narrative was all about reclaiming what was rightfully the German people's land and resources after they were depressed by the reparations from WWI. It was created to get people behind the party and it worked.
We got involved with Europe's affairs because we made a killing selling them military equipment to blow each other up. Then it started to seem as if the Nazis might take over the continent. To drive this point home, we sold weapons to the Nazis until 1941.
Pearl Harbor happened because we started an oil embargo with Japan.
Vietnam was a proxy war, it's inherently about not letting the enemy gain land or an ally in a certain territory.
There is something to gain behind every aggression and it is usually material and for personal profit to the those initiating it.
That whole story kind of strikes me as propaganda with deliberately provided intel and probably even satellite images.
There is increasing necessity to condition Americans for what is seen as a coming confrontation with China. People need to start being worried and have concerns. I'm not placing any kind of judgement on whether that is good or bad, but it is happening and our government deems it necessary to "educate" the public and we all very well know that the NYT, along with many other mainstream news sources, are little more than government propaganda channels.
I wouldn't say it's about money. From the bottom it looks like it's all about money, because there is a huge money layer that blocks the view; but from the top, it becomes rather clear that it's not really about money at all when you have all the money you ever need. It's about power, control, and legacy; all far more elusive goals than simply money.
Not everything is an American conspiracy of some kind. These issue need to be addressed before a smaller country and China start to take shots at each other (I mean this literally and figuratively). Similar issues are happening in Ukraine with Russia annexing Crimeria.
What if China wants a piece of the Philippines or Vietnam? It needs to be addressed on an international stage before the civilians on both sides begin suffering.
I'm not saying you're wrong - it certainly needs to be addressed - but you make it sound like Russia and China are the only villains.
I think these issues need to be resolved without assessing blame, because the world's most powerful countries always try to impose their will on other smaller sovereign states.
I see what your are getting at and they are not the only villains (see US/Iraq conflict). The biggest difference between Russia's expansion and the US' conflicts is the US doesn't annex the countries we invade (in modern times at least).
Only mentioned Vietnam because it was discussed in the article. Besides US Troops arent fighting proxy wars with Russia at the moment. Just fighting "Terrorists", whatever that means at this time.
Of course, at the time China's economy and military where much smaller. But so was Vietnam's.
Out of China's neighbors that should be worried Vietnam is probably the least likely target since it's basically an armadillo. The rest, however, have plenty to fear.
And it is not only Vietnam that China should be worried about. They have heavily armed koreans and crazy japanese at their doorsteps. God knows what could really happen.
The problems in that area are nothing new, the local medias of each involved country have been talking about it for years, before the US began to take sides.
It is if you ignore artificial land construction which had no effect on territorial boundaries. Which, after all, is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Also - hitting closer to home for me is that a good chunk of Boston is on top of man made land. The entire "Back Bay" area (which is what most people consider downtown Boston) was originally underwater.
Neither of which allow the US to make 200 mile exclusive economic zone claims under the UN convention on the law of the sea that they otherwise wouldn't be able to make, so they're hardly relevant to the China case.
A big part of this is also "creating facts on the ground" that align as closely as possible with the PRC's "9-dash line"[1], especially prior to a decision being made in the Philippines v. China case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Those facts also provide much better power projection capabilities to the PLAN (the PRC's Navy).
Development of the islands actually accelerated dramatically when the case was filed, and I suspect the PRC wanted to get the largest and most obvious work done before that case concludes, since, although the PRC doesn't recognize the court's jurisdiction, past cases where other countries have acted with similar disregard suggest the optics surrounding it still matters.[2]
It doesn't really matter how transparent it is, since, International Law has rather little ability to enforce its decisions.
As much as we try to develop rules and norms to constrain and moderate behavior by countries in the international community, at the end of the day, "the strong [still] do as they can and the weak [still] suffer what they must".
And yes, you're right that the actions and intentions are pretty transparent, with just some uncertainty surrounding the extent (ie, what reasoning will the PRC ultimately use to justify its claims, as it's also been quite ambiguous about them).
I wonder to what extend the real issue is Taiwan. After all China has a (often strongly expressed) territorial claim to Taiwan (and vice versa, but that is not as well-known). If China were to cede alleged land-rights w.r.t. to these islands, it might set a precedent that Taiwan might try to exploit. Maybe China wants to avoid this situation.
I think they're both related to upholding territorial claims, which the PRC says is a "core interest" (ie, something they're willing to go to war over), but I don't think it's viewed as a direct domino effect.
The more direct link is potentially to the CCP's claim to legitimacy as the government of China. If they can't defend China's "historic" claims to territory then they could lose legitimacy in the eyes of an increasingly nationalistic public.
I agree, but it would be much easier to sell giving up on the Spratly Islands to the Chinese population than accepting Taiwan as a sovereign state. Indeed I would not be too surprised if China did the former. The ability to do so gives China a lot of leverage in negotiations with regional or international competitors, just like the US uses the unresolved Taiwan situation as a lever in negotiations with China.
While not expanded/ing, the Savages Islands are an European example of disputed Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) between Spain and Portugal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands
Ironically, the NYT is banned by the great firewall here in China.
On nomenclature, Indochina Sea would perhaps be a reasonable candidate for a more honest toponym, being as it is both suggestive of the general area and adequately distanced from any specific modern political entities.
Indochina was the name for the eastern projection of the upper mainland Southeast Asian peninsula region under French domination - hence, "French Indochina". The name probably derives from the fact that the historic and modern cultures of the region are a mix of Chinese and Indian: a little known fact is that there were all-out Hindu kingdoms as close to modern China as central Vietnam, northern Burma, southern Laos and Cambodia. Indian influence is also heavily felt in Burma, Thailand, and upper Laos, for instance in writing systems (abugidas), language, mythology, law, religion and royal/court rituals.
It all comes down to the international laws of the sea.
Planting your flag on a 1m wide rock above the high tide line enables an exclusive zone with radius 12 NM for excluding all foreign vessels, a radius of 24 NM for enforcement of your laws, and one with radius 200 NM for exclusive economic activities, like oil drilling, undersea mining, and fishing.
It's a resource grab. China wants the fish and the seafloor.
What they're going to end up doing is forging a multilateral treaty between Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Phillippines, and possibly Taiwan, with Australia and the USA giving a nod and a wink from the back of the room.
I think that there won't be a shooting war. It will be about 95% economic warfare.
Artificially-constructed islands don't count for expanding EEZ per UNCLOS. What China appears to be doing is attempting a mixture of trying to dilute the facts so as to increase ambiguity and developing "facts on the ground" (cf. the Israeli settlement patterns in Palestinian territory) so that any grand compromise hews more to their favor.
I think the last thing China wants is a multilateral treaty: the more people that are involved in a treaty, the less powerful China's negotiating time is. China has made repeated angry noises against proposals to treat the issue as a single regional issue rather than a collection of bilateral disputes. The disputes are also a large factor into why all the other south-east Asian countries (including especially Vietnam!) are trying to cozy up to the US and get the protection of the US Navy.
Some of them are natural islands that have been artificially expanded to support a military presence.
The 12 NM territorial limit for a natural island certainly allows the power owning it to build barracks, airfields, and artillery batteries within that limit. And that prevents other countries from claiming or disputing the island.
I agree, it goes against the best interest of any of these countries to risk a military clash with China over it building infrastructure on some unoccupied patches of sand in the middle of the sea.
The shipping routes are in international straights. China would not disrupt them because Chinese ships would be at risk in other waterways they can not project power to.
If you look at the map, China is attempting to claim ownership of said straights.
Your second point is accurate, but China having the ability to disrupt a route brings it up to par with other powers, whereas right now they are solely at the mercy of foreign nations wrt other waterways, with no ability to respond in kind. This gives them that ability.
China is very smart to pursue this strategy. The US is committed to fleet carriers and expensive aircraft, while the Chinese focus on island bases and balistic missiles. The US is hampered by the organizational inertia that keeps us poring resources into systems that worked in WW2 or the Cold War.
In that sense the failurs of the F-35 are kind of a blessing for the US Navy. It forces them to think about drones. If there is a future for surface ships it is probably as missile platforms or as some sort of drone platform, not aircraft carriers.
Possibly not if they're solar or hybrid powered, fuel efficient, and have large enough fuel stores. A plane recently flew around the entirety of the earth without stopping so it's certainly conceivable to fly half way around the planet and back again.
The question is, is President Xi willing to risk military conflict to enforce whatever new lines he draws on the map? I don't think he is. As we saw the air zone China drew that overlapped Korea, Japan and Taiwan, it was promptly ignored by all countries and when the US stealth bombers were flying China was silent.
An actual combat that results in Chinese loss would be detrimental to the continuity of Xi's party and the Communist Party itself. The risk is far too great for the small gain it gets. Chinese leadership operates on a cost/benefit analysis, I don't think anything has changed.
So the only logical conclusion is that Xi, along with his anti-corruption campaign to take out his foes, is using brinkmanship to further his popularity and distract people from internal problems that could lead to massive unrest. Economic downturn would certainly be a threat and war drumming has been a common political tool used by many different countries at different points in history.
A military conflict that would be launched by China so far away from it's coastline makes no sense where US has dozens of nearby bases in different countries and logistic support on it's own and from host countries to sustain a prolonged naval warfare. If there was a war, China should pick it's coastlines where it has anti-access/area denial weapons (allegedly) and opposing force would not risk their assets. It would be a nightmare in terms of logistics for PLAN if they did launch some provocation so far away from the mainland. The island building is a clever way to provoke without risking it's military.
Unless they're going to swim or row, those 700 million humans who could fight if needed don't do much in a naval war.
The risk is, if the Chinese pick a naval fight and their navy gets pummeled, it's a PR disaster. That's a risk for the leadership, not so much for the country.
That's 700 million potential factory workers, military support staff, and soldiers, and the factories are already built, US companies paid for many of them.
Logistics. I don't think people realize that to move around army of even 10% of that 2.3 million, you require significant logistic support (sort of like upkeep in Warcraft 3). You then have to question which country has the access to most of the world's ports and bases outside of their own. Most importantly, you need to be on good terms and friends with these host countries. This is what China is going up against. A huge military resting at home means jack all if you can't mobilize it and upkeep it.
Mao had this approach: "Advance at the point of the bayonet. If you meet resistance, back off." That is, take whatever others won't actively defend, and keep taking until you run into something that they will.
This seems to still be China's approach, at least in this area.
China's approach has a lot to do with historical context and some really hard lessons. Like what happens if you don't take the necessary measures to make sure you're strong and strategically positioned so other people can't blockade you. In case you don't know what happens: you get colonized, other countries kidnap your heads of state until you give them land concessions, and you get pummeled into accepting opium imports. Don't think it's just U.K. and France. The U.S. is guilty too.
It's kind of puzzling regarding the Chinese plans for the South China Sea. They are antagonizing many of their neighbors there that are normally friendly or neutral to them in most respects. If China persists in making these territorial claims in the South China Sea, how will they enforce it? They don't have any safe harbors in the area for their Navy to go to in case of a war, while the US has bases and allies throughout the region. As far as I can tell, the Chinese government usually acts family pragmatic with regards to it's foreign policy, though I'll admit that Xi does seem to be a different type of leader than their previous premiers.
Read that last week, it's a about a future war between the US and the Chinese, it's bordering on sci-fi but interesting nonetheless and a good read.
Interestingly it posits a future where the US economy is in major trouble as the reason why the US Navy has been severely downsized, they had to do that since the current US Navy vs the current PLA Navy while horrific wouldn't be remotely a fair fight.
I don't think so unless nukes is all they had (ex. North Korea). The first side to threaten nuclear attack would be effectively declaring military defeat.
The whole asia is just a boling pot that is going to explode but nobody knows when.
I predict the peak to be when the North Korean regime collapses and South tries to absorb the North de facto creating an option for Korea to become a regional military super house.
Japanese right wing extremists pushing government to start massive military spending once again creating much more powerful Japan.
I do not really know what will China do at this stage to be honest. It may try to ally with Korea but i think koreans stay neutral and will try to rebuild the North. It is highly possible that the second miracle on the han river may actually happen and Korea gets richer and richer (after all North has a massive mineral resources and a cheap workforce) and korean GDP might start reaching interesting numbers.
I predict Japan will try to push forward and claim the disputed islands with the support of uncle Sam.
At this point I do not know what happens but i see Korea as a random factor that might start shooting at everyone who is not korean.
I'm not sure why you are bringing Japan into this: Japan doesn't have any claim on the Spartly islands, and it would be completely ridiculous for them to make such a claim. If Japan gets involved it will be through an alliance with one (or several) of the countries with an actual stake in this, like the Philippines.
I know anti-Japanese propaganda is strong in China, but there is no need to invent conflicts that do not exist to fuel more hate.
EDIT: for that matter Korea doesn't have any stake in this either. I know there is an important territorial dispute between China and Japan (Senkaku islands), and minor conflicts between Japan/Korea and China/Korea. So a conflict around the Spartly islands could spill in this area, but I don't see it starting from Korea or Japan.
I quote you: "I predict Japan will try to push forward and claim the disputed islands with the support of uncle Sam."
Which islands were you thinking about? Japan has three notable territorial conflicts: the Kuril islands with Russia (controlled by Russia), the Senkaku islands with China (controlled by Japan) and the Takeshima islands (controlled by Korea).
Of these three conflicts the ones with Korea and Russia are largely under the radar: most Japanese people I know aren't even aware of them. Though I think the reverse is not true in Korea... And Japan cannot "push forward and claim" the Senkaku: they are already controlling them.
Controlling is not really a matter of point of view. It's a matter of patrolling, and sending boats away if they are not allowed in the area, etc. Japan inherited this control from the US, and China is perfectly allowed to dispute ownership of the islands. But claiming that Japan is not -at present- controlling the islands is simply not correct.
The Liancourt Rocks case is interesting, because it is so asymmetric: all the Korean people I know feel so strongly about it, but none of the Japanese people I know either know or care about it. If I were in Japan I would try to give up all claims on Dokdo as part of a wider friendship treaty with Korea, and try to prop up the relations between the two countries. But Japanese politicians are questionable at best, and Korean politicians seem to enjoy Japan bashing, so I doubt it will happen in the foreseeable future...
Japan"bought" the islands from private owners (funny right?).
I do not feel that there will ever be any real friendship between these two countries. I would compare it to polish russian relationship.
Koreans have every right to feel strong about it. Every damn right. But this is a discussion for another evening.
And replying to your comments above i was talking about the situation in asia in general. You should also know that Korea donated a war ship to Philippines. Do you think this gesture did not have anything to do with the situation in the area ?
I very much doubt so.
The state of France in my hometown recently sold a former military estate to a private company to build a hotel: I don't see what's funny about it, or what it has to do with sovereignty. I don't know where you are from, but I am sure the state sometimes buy or sell lands/assets there too.
The state of Japan bought the islands to prevent promoters from exploiting them, to try to maintain the status quo with China. Obviously it was a failure, and outright buying the islands was not a good solution. But the liberal Japanese government at that time was very inexperienced: I don't think Abe for example -despite being a nationalist- would have done the same mistake.
I am from Europe, and I do not share your pessimism about Asia. The city where I'm born switched between France and Germany at least four times over the last 150 years. Hell, there is not a single border on the continent that makes sense. Peace and "friendship" between states is a political construct, built strictly out of political will, the rest is nationalist bullshit. That's true of Poland and Russia too.
South tries to absorb the North de facto creating an option for Korea to become a regional military super house
Can you detail your reasoning? If the lessons of West/East Germany are anything to go by, reunification will be followed by an inward looking period in which the work of integration absorbs all resources.
Also the Nork military while large, really wouldn't add anything to the capability of the South - it's poorly equipped, malnourished and badly trained. If it wasn't for the risk of collateral damage to Seoul, any modern military could rout it just as fast as Israel won the Six Day War or the Coalition rolled over Iraq in Gulf War 1.
The only thing that prevents reunification is the chaebols and politics.
And East germany did not have a shitload of minerals they could use / sell.
All true but South is already a regional military powerhouse with the troops from north and 40-60years of work they could really become as strong as the Empire of Japan was.
The only thing? I think the Norks might have something to say about that...
Ironically tho' if they did achieve their wildest dreams and conquer the South they would be more, not less, vulnerable, because they wouldn't have any Western ally to hold to ransom anymore.
Given the various names for that stretch of water, I'm surprised the NYT doesn't spin the article by calling it e.g. the West Philippine Sea. Maybe because South China Sea is more recognizable in a headline?
An important difference is that Americans are diverse, not as the world itself, but more than any other large nation. A far cry from homogeneous societies.
What U.S. had been done with Hawaii?
Entire mexico gulf?
starting Gulf War for owning red sea?
And Pacific Ocean becomes U.S. domestic lake?
who brought up the world tension?
The US doesn't lay claim to the Pacific Ocean, and it has a right to transit its navy in open waters. It does not make a habit of navigating its navy into other nation's waters without their permission.
The US does not claim ownership over any part of the Gulf of Mexico that it doesn't blatantly have a right to, as this image makes very clear:
What if China ran their war ships into Mexico gulf just like U.S did in Southern China Sea?We shall think it is quiet fair because in the "public" ocean?
That's exactly what would happen: the US would not freak out about it.
Russia was just busy flying bombers 40 miles off the coast of California last week. Last time I checked, we haven't declared war on Russia for it. They regularly do the same thing with their navy in various ways, whether off the Atlantic or Pacific coast, or near Cuba / Florida waters.
There's a pretty big difference in China sending a couple of warships to the gulf and USSR setting up a nuclear missile base with missiles pointed at the US on Cuba.
Nuclear missles or "90000 tons of diplomacy" are both certain kinds of deterrence, nothing more, nothing less. If US does not have those carrier combat groups, China wouldn't care either.
I'm going to sound like an apologist, but the Cold War nuclear miltary-political calculus was very different pre-ICMB+MAD on both sides of the Soviet-US split.
SLBMs were just being developed in the early 60s, and so Cuban-based missiles represented a novel, more credible first-strike threat given distance (~20 minutes flight time).
"Don't look at what we're doing over here, look at these other people over there."
It's equivalent to a direct admission that what China is doing is wrong and you know it. Presumably if you could actualy defend China's actions, you do so instead of changing the subject.
Your response is implicitly an acknowledgment and approval of previous US actions as well... I don't think we can deny that these things happened. The West has the privilege of saying it happened in the 1800s and brushing it under the carpet.
China is free to try to negotiate the establishment of navy bases anywhere in the world they see fit. And so is the US. The US has vastly more allies globally than China does, and that's the difference. Few countries trust China enough to establish long-term military arrangements with them. Whereas the US has been part of NATO for decades, and has been openly protecting Europe for decades - and the Europeans welcome it.
You think Germany wants China to set up a large military base in their country? How about South Korea or Japan? Of course not.
I don't remember Dubai building military installations, only selling mansions to those who can afford it. Also they did it right off their own coast and not miles into disputed waters.
I am surprised most of us only believe/get news from CNN & MSNBCish.
Vietnam is the one who building in the South China Sea.
Vietnam is building two islands: West London Reef and Sand Cay, at the year of 2010.
Vietnam build islands, CNN FOX cricket, cricket.
China build islands, it is against international law.
Here is the map that China wants to claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...