Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Sign in to follow this  
flee

U.S. studying Chinese complaint that B-52 flew near man-made island

Recommended Posts

Sabah as part of Malaysia is recognised widely by international communities.

 

South China Sea as part of China? Well... No one recognised this.

 

The two issues are worlds apart.

 

China only starts reclaming lands and making noises in last couple of years now that they are stronger. Even the map on their passport was only changed to include the South China Sea few years ago. They are just being a bully cause South East Asia countries cannot fight back and rely on China for trade.

 

The Phillppines is pursing the claims on Sabah through historical claims, Malaysia is continuing to pay rent to the Filipino government annual as rental for Sabah. Don't underestimate historical claims. It entitles you to what you belong. International recognition is only a small part of the solution, which do not form the ultimate basis of a claim. The historical claim of Sabah is between Malaysia and the Philippines, the International Community can only sit back with a pack of popcorn and a cup of soft drink - to watch the drama while can't do anything.

 

The Spratlys as mentioned before was claimed by the ROC government all along. One fact which has been omitted by many governments and the majority who do not have any historical understanding of it. This is why Taiwan is not making any noise or complaint about China, because silently they know they are part of China and not an independent country on its own. They played it hand-in-hand. Neither is the US making any noise about Taiwan's claim and patrolling of some of the islands as they are allies.

 

Seriously, many of you out there, please wake up to the fact that Uncle Sam only helps you when it suits theirs interest. They are not your saviour, "international police" or Judge Judy of the World. Like Mr. Lee said, any power will have an expansionist element. The US has their own expansionist game too, but just not at your backyard. Look where they are sending their troops to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Malaysia is still paying RM5,300 stipend/compensation annually to Sulu Sultan in compliance to treaty between Sulu Sultan and North Borneo Company. Philippines nationalist claim over Sabah is not dissimilar to Chinese historical claim over Spratly islands.

 

In time of domestic crisis, it is almost certain Spratly and Senkaku islands will be a national threat for CPC to consolidate power, conflict with others is collateral damage.

 

For Diaoyu Island, it could be a showy thing. Who knows. In the past, China has been giving out many of their territories or allowing others to have a piece of it. Consolidating power, may be, but it has been part of the Communist Party's goal since formation to drive the "foreign devil" away. They are definitely challenging and testing the boundaries, which I think is okay. Silently, I think China knows they cannot afford to go into direct conflict with the US. So they opted to cooperate with the US rather than going against them, like Russia or the USSR did. The US on the other hand are telling their people that they can do away with China completely. However the money god is not on their side. In this age of International trade, nobody can afford to say they do not need each other. The US seems to be helping the Filippino, could also be a showy thing, so they can continue to be an international police. They know they can't go directly into conflict with China either, China owns a good amount of things in the US. Who is going to fund the US for going into war? In the past, Japan and China funded some US warfare. So would the Chinese fund the US going to the war against their motherland? Highly unlikely!

 

On the subject of the US helping allies, ever wonder why there is a strong US presence in Japan. It is not because Uncle Sam is so benevolent and kind. If I read correctly, Japan is paying the US force to station in Japan as Japan is a pacifist nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US foreign policies have, in part, helped ASEAN countries, China, Japan, South Korea to grow and prosper. I am not sure what China's foreign policies will bring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Phillppines is pursing the claims on Sabah through historical claims, Malaysia is continuing to pay rent to the Filipino government annual as rental for Sabah. Don't underestimate historical claims. It entitles you to what you belong. International recognition is only a small part of the solution, which do not form the ultimate basis of a claim. The historical claim of Sabah is between Malaysia and the Philippines, the International Community can only sit back with a pack of popcorn and a cup of soft drink - to watch the drama while can't do anything.

 

The Spratlys as mentioned before was claimed by the ROC government all along. One fact which has been omitted by many governments and the majority who do not have any historical understanding of it. This is why Taiwan is not making any noise or complaint about China, because silently they know they are part of China and not an independent country on its own. They played it hand-in-hand. Neither is the US making any noise about Taiwan's claim and patrolling of some of the islands as they are allies.

 

Seriously, many of you out there, please wake up to the fact that Uncle Sam only helps you when it suits theirs interest. They are not your saviour, "international police" or Judge Judy of the World. Like Mr. Lee said, any power will have an expansionist element. The US has their own expansionist game too, but just not at your backyard. Look where they are sending their troops to.

 

For Diaoyu Island, it could be a showy thing. Who knows. In the past, China has been giving out many of their territories or allowing others to have a piece of it. Consolidating power, may be, but it has been part of the Communist Party's goal since formation to drive the "foreign devil" away. They are definitely challenging and testing the boundaries, which I think is okay. Silently, I think China knows they cannot afford to go into direct conflict with the US. So they opted to cooperate with the US rather than going against them, like Russia or the USSR did. The US on the other hand are telling their people that they can do away with China completely. However the money god is not on their side. In this age of International trade, nobody can afford to say they do not need each other. The US seems to be helping the Filippino, could also be a showy thing, so they can continue to be an international police. They know they can't go directly into conflict with China either, China owns a good amount of things in the US. Who is going to fund the US for going into war? In the past, Japan and China funded some US warfare. So would the Chinese fund the US going to the war against their motherland? Highly unlikely!

 

On the subject of the US helping allies, ever wonder why there is a strong US presence in Japan. It is not because Uncle Sam is so benevolent and kind. If I read correctly, Japan is paying the US force to station in Japan as Japan is a pacifist nation.

Borders change over time, if historical or culture is used to claim territory, contention is endless e.g. Turkey could lay claim on Iraq, Syria; Iran on Pakistan, India; Thailand on Kelantan, Kedah, Laos; Burma on Thailand; China on Vietnam, Korea, etc. To avoid endless claim, counter claim and conflict, international convention was established after wwi, delineate border at line of effective control.

 

The rise of China economy in the last 30 years was with the assistance of U.S. Until recently, U.S never seen China as a threat. However, PLA always view U.S as their No 1 enemy since Korean war. The current balance of power in East/South East Asia has ensure peaceful existence since the end of Vietnam war. A shift of power tipping the region to conflict for Chinese domestic agenda is not in any country interest; hence, it is neighbouring countries strategic interest to have U.S present to ensure any regional conflict will be a price too high to pay.

 

China may hold the most US bond, 2008 financial crisis showed, hiccup in US economy will have negative impact on China and rise of US Fed rate will have direct impact on RMB. Chinese economy is more intervene with US than many people realised. As China is not self sufficient in natural resources, China economy will reach a plateau sooner than most expected like Japan.

Edited by KK Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the WWII, there is no record roc defended spratly islands against Japanese. After WWII, neither roc or pla navy patrol the area until recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the WWII, there is no record roc defended spratly islands against Japanese. After WWII, neither roc or pla navy patrol the area until recently.

 

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

 

"In the 19th century, Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually sojourned on the Spratly islands for part of the year, while in 1877 it was the British who launched the first modern legal claims to the Spratlys

 

When the Spratlys and Paracels were being surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests against them. The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.[53][54] China sent naval forces on inspection tours in 1902 and 1907 and placed flags and markers on the islands. The Qing dynasty's successor state, the Republic of China, claimed the Spratly and Paracel islands under the jurisdiction of Hainan.

 

In 1935, the ROC government also announced a sovereignty claim on the Spratly Islands. Japanoccupied some of the islands in 1939 during World War II, and it used the islands as a submarine base for the occupation of Southeast Asia. During the Japanese occupation, these islands were called Shinnan Shoto (新南諸島), literally the New Southern Islands, and together with the Paracel Islands (西沙群岛), they were put under the governance of the Japanese colonial authority in Taiwan.

Japan occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys from February 1939 to August 1945.[58] Japan administered the Spratlys via Taiwan's jurisdiction and the Paracels via Hainan's jurisdiction.[51] Parts of the Paracels and Spratlys were occupied by Republic of China after the 1945 surrender of Japan,[59] since the Allied powers assigned the Republic of China to receive Japanese surrenders in that area,[54]however no successor was named to the islands.

In November 1946, the ROC sent naval ships to take control of the islands after the surrender of Japan.[58] It had chosen the largest and perhaps the only inhabitable island, Taiping Island, as its base, and it renamed the island under the name of the naval vessel as Taiping. Also following the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II, the ROC re-claimed the entirety of the Spratly Islands (including Taiping Island) after accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. The Republic of China then garrisoned Itu Aba (Taiping) island in 1946 and posted Chinese flags and markers on it along with Woody island in the Paracels. France tried, but failed, to make them leave Woody island.[51] The aim of the Republic of China was to block the French claims.[54][60] The Republic of China drew up the map showing the U-shaped claim on the entire South China Sea, showing the Spratly and Paracels in Chinese territory, in 1947.[54] Japan had renounced all claims to the islands in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty together with the Paracels, Pratas and other islands captured from the Chinese, and upon these declarations, the government of the Republic of China reasserted its claim to the islands. The KMT force of the ROC government withdrew from most of the Spratly and Paracel Islands after they retreated to Taiwan from the opposing Communist Party of China due to their losses in the Chinese Civil War and the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949.[56] The ROC quietly withdrew troops from Taiping Island in 1950, but then reinstated them in 1956 in response to Tomás Cloma's sudden claim to the island as part of Freedomland.[61] As of 2013, Taiping Island is administered by the ROC.[62]

After pulling out its garrison in 1950 when the Republic of China evacuated to Taiwan, when the Filipino Tomas Cloma uprooted an ROC flag on Itu Aba laid claim to the Spratlys and, the Republic of China (now Taiwan) again regarrisoned Itu Aba on 1956.[63] In 1946, the Americans reminded the Philippines at its independence that the Spratlys was not Philippine territory, both to not anger Chiang Kai-shek in China and because the Spratlys were not part of the Philippines per the 1898 treaty Spain signed with America.[51] The Philippines then claimed the Spratlys in 1971 under President Marcos, after Taiwanese troops attacked and shot at a Philippine fishing boat on Itu Aba.[64]

Taiwan's garrison from 1946–1950 and 1956-now on Itu Aba represents an "effective occupation" of the Spratlys.[64][65] China established a coastal defence system against Japanese pirates or smugglers.[66]

North Vietnam recognised China's claims on the Paracels and Spratlys during the Vietnam War as it was being supported by China. Only after winning the war and conquering South Vietnam did North Vietnam retract its recognition and admitted it recognised them as part of China to receive aid from China in fighting the Americans.[67]

In 1988, the Vietnamese and Chinese navies engaged in a skirmish in the area of Johnson South Reef (also called Yongshu reef in China and Mabini reef in Philippines).[68]

Under President Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan stated that "legally, historically, geographically, or in reality", all of the South China Sea and Spratly islands were Taiwan's territory and under Taiwanese sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken there by Malaysia and the Philippines, in a statement on 13 July 1999 released by the foreign ministry of Taiwan.[69] Taiwan and China's claims "mirror" each other; during international talks involving the Spratly islands, China and Taiwan have cooperated with each other since both have the same claims.[64][70]

Taiwan and China are largely strategically aligned on the Spratly islands issue, since they both claim exactly the same area, so Taiwan's control of Itu Aba (Taiping) island is viewed as an extension of China's claim.[53] Taiwan and China both claim the entire island chain, while all the other claimaints only claim portions of them. China has proposed co-operation with Taiwan against all the other countries claiming the islands. Taiwanese lawmakers have demanded that Taiwan fortify Itu Aba (Taiping) island with weapons to defend against the Vietnamese, and both China and Taiwanese NGOs have pressured Taiwan to expand Taiwan's military capabilities on the island, which played a role in Taiwan expanding the island's runway in 2012.[74] China has urged Taiwan to co-operate and offered Taiwan a share in oil and gas resources while shutting out all the other rival claimaints. Taiwanese lawmakers have complained about repeated Vietnamese aggression and trespassing on Taiwan's Itu Aba (Taiping), and Taiwan has started viewing Vietnam as an enemy over the Spratly Islands, not China.[75] Taiwan's state run oil company CPC Corp's board director Chiu Yi has called Vietnam as the "greatest threat" to Taiwan.[74] Taiwan's airstrip on Taiping has irritated Vietnam.[76] China views Taiwan's expansion of its military and airstrip on Taiping as benefiting China's position against the other rival claimaints from southeast Asian countries.[65] China's claims to the Spratlys benefit from legal weight because of Taiwan's presence on Itu Aba, while America on the other hand has regularly ignored Taiwan's claims in the South China Sea and does not include Taiwan in any talks on dispute resolution for the area.[77]

Taiwan performed live fire military exercises on Taiping island in September 2012; reports said that Vietnam was explicitly named by the Taiwanese military as the "imaginary enemy" in the drill. Vietnam protested against the exercises as violation of its territory and "voiced anger", demanding that Taiwan stop the drill. Among the inspectors of the live fire drill were Taiwanese national legislators, adding to the tensions.[78]"

 

The Phillppines were late to the party and they were expanding their territory too, however, they are vowing the US to win them a new territory.

 

See what I said about the role of ROC government earlier? The US played down significant on the role of ROC government in Taiwan, because Taiwan (ROC) is an Ally of the US. The US is gathering anti-Chinese support from ASEAN for their own gain. The Phillippines is also seeking to reclaim Sabah. I believe they have stronger historical evidence of Sabah than the Spratlys. However, it has been played down severely too. If it was China trying to reclaim, it, POOF, it will make headline.

US foreign policies have, in part, helped ASEAN countries, China, Japan, South Korea to grow and prosper. I am not sure what China's foreign policies will bring.

 

Well the US foreign policies have also helped China and the ROC, but also created warfare and separation in Korea and Vietnam. Pros and Cons. All in the interest of Uncle Sam and $$$

Edited by S V Choong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this instance, I am happy Uncle Sam and gang are playing international police. Otherwise, South East Asia countries will be bullied by China even more.

 

The South China Sea was rather peaceful until this large scaled land reclamation by China and warnings to others who come close.. Their coast guards even sailed all the way to the proximity of Sarawak. Melampau!

 

Like "bad behaviours" of Chinese tourists, this is bad behaviour of Chinese government.

 

China uses this to stir up nationalistic sentiments. Good for them. Bad for us.

 

BTW, Malaysia is not paying any rent to Filipino gov but just "cessation" money to some who claimed to be descendants of Sulu Sultanate. I think we should stop paying altogether but it's another topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BTW, Malaysia is not paying any rent to Filipino gov but just "cessation" money to some who claimed to be descendants of Sulu Sultanate. I think we should stop paying altogether but it's another topic.

 

Hold on there. Please do not jump to your own conclusion here. You are effectively playing China's game of "unilateral" claim if you do that.

 

There are two documents signed during the lease between the Sulu Sultanate and the British syndicate. One in Malay and the other one in English.

 

"The key word in the agreement is padjak, a Malay term which was translated by Spanish linguists in 1878 and by American anthropologists H. Otley Beyer and Harold Conklin in 1946 as "arrendamiento" or "lease".[14][15][16] However, the British used the interpretation of historian Najeeb Mitry Saleeby in 1908 and William George Maxwell and William Summer Gibson in 1924, which translated padjak as "grant and cede".[12][17][18][19] It can be argued however, that "padjak" means "mortgage" or "pawn" or even "wholesale", as per the contemporary meaning of "padjak" in Sulu and Malay, where the modern spelling is "pajak".[20][21]

However, it is acknowledged that the British never paid such compensation to the Sultanate of Sulu but during a meeting of Maphilindo between the Philippine, Malayan and Indonesian governments in 1963, the Philippine government said the Sultan of Sulu wanted the payment of 5,000 from the Malaysian government.[22] The first Malaysian Prime Minister at the time, Tunku Abdul Rahman said he would go back to Kuala Lumpur and get on the request.[22] Since then, the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines issues a check in the amount of 5,300 ringgit (US$1710 or about 77,000 Philippine pesos) to the legal counsel of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu. Malaysia considers the amount an annual “cession” payment for the land, while the sultan’s descendants consider it “rent”.[23]""

To date, Malaysia maintains that the Sabah claim is a non-issue and non-negotiable, thereby rejecting any calls from the Philippines to resolve the matter in ICJ. Sabah authorities sees the claim made by the Philippines' Moro leader Nur Misuari to take Sabah to International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a non-issue and thus dismissed the claim.[36]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US foreign policies have, in part, helped ASEAN countries, China, Japan, South Korea to grow and prosper. I am not sure what China's foreign policies will bring.

 

On a brighter note. China's foreign policy has benefited two ASEAN member so far. Singapore and Indonesia of late. Indonesia has given China the contract to build a high speed rail from Bandung to Jakarta. The Indonesia government do not have to even invest in it, thus lessen their financial burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The key word in the agreement is padjak, a Malay term which was translated by Spanish linguists in 1878 and by American anthropologists H. Otley Beyer and Harold Conklin in 1946 as "arrendamiento" or "lease".[14][15][16] However, the British used the interpretation of historian Najeeb Mitry Saleeby in 1908 and William George Maxwell and William Summer Gibson in 1924, which translated padjak as "grant and cede".[12][17][18][19] It can be argued however, that "padjak" means "mortgage" or "pawn" or even "wholesale", as per the contemporary meaning of "padjak" in Sulu and Malay, where the modern spelling is "pajak".[20][21]

However, it is acknowledged that the British never paid such compensation to the Sultanate of Sulu but during a meeting of Maphilindo between the Philippine, Malayan and Indonesian governments in 1963, the Philippine government said the Sultan of Sulu wanted the payment of 5,000 from the Malaysian government.[22] The first Malaysian Prime Minister at the time, Tunku Abdul Rahman said he would go back to Kuala Lumpur and get on the request.[22] Since then, the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines issues a check in the amount of 5,300 ringgit (US$1710 or about 77,000 Philippine pesos) to the legal counsel of the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu. Malaysia considers the amount an annual “cession” payment for the land, while the sultan’s descendants consider it “rent”.[23]""

To date, Malaysia maintains that the Sabah claim is a non-issue and non-negotiable, thereby rejecting any calls from the Philippines to resolve the matter in ICJ. Sabah authorities sees the claim made by the Philippines' Moro leader Nur Misuari to take Sabah to International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a non-issue and thus dismissed the claim.[36]

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

 

The Sulu Sultanate does not exist anymore. No countries in the world recognize them. Too many claimants. Malaysia is still kind enough to continue give their descendants "cessation money".

 

If it were rent, the leasor would still have some power like ending the contract, increase the rent or have some degree of autonomy over the state, but no, Malaysia has full autonomy of Sabah.

 

So this Sabah Sulu issue is entirely different from South China Sea issue altogether.

 

On a brighter note. China's foreign policy has benefited two ASEAN member so far. Singapore and Indonesia of late. Indonesia has given China the contract to build a high speed rail from Bandung to Jakarta. The Indonesia government do not have to even invest in it, thus lessen their financial burden.

 

This I agree. Life is not black and white.. Somethings they do are good.. Some bad.. China has lots of money and we should welcome appropriate investments.. Though personally, I would like to see Japanese HSR plying KL Singapore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Sulu Sultanate does not exist anymore. No countries in the world recognize them. Too many claimants. Malaysia is still kind enough to continue give their descendants "cessation money".

 

If it were rent, the leasor would still have some power like ending the contract, increase the rent or have some degree of autonomy over the state, but no, Malaysia has full autonomy of Sabah.

 

So this Sabah Sulu issue is entirely different from South China Sea issue altogether.

 

This I agree. Life is not black and white.. Somethings they do are good.. Some bad.. China has lots of money and we should welcome appropriate investments.. Though personally, I would like to see Japanese HSR plying KL Singapore.

 

I would love to see more cooperation within East and South East Asia. China should be friendly with Japan. However there is this right wing and hard-line element in Japan which cannot be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would love to see more cooperation within East and South East Asia. China should be friendly with Japan. However there is this right wing and hard-line element in Japan which cannot be ignored.

 

There are always right wing, hard-line element in every country. Today's Japan is unlike pre-war, is a democracy and ageing nation, military ambition is not in any political party agenda. However, in China, CPC need justification to rule and won't hesitate to instigate sentiment or crisis for power consolidation. Hence, PLA is more likely to make first strike than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are always right wing, hard-line element in every country. Today's Japan is unlike pre-war, is a democracy and ageing nation, military ambition is not in any political party agenda. However, in China, CPC need justification to rule and won't hesitate to instigate sentiment or crisis for power consolidation. Hence, PLA is more likely to make first strike than anyone else.

 

The right wing element had gained momentum recently due to stagnant in Japanese economy. They blamed it on the rise of China too in Japan. The reason why Japan became aggressive before World War II was due to this right wing extremist element.

 

China is not stupid as I said, they are merely claiming back their lost territory (as viewed by them) but has been seen by many as an advancement or expansion due to ill understanding of the ownership and history of the islands. Every country consolidates their power and justify their rules somehow, in the past, Japan did it at the cost of China and Korea (not yet a country back then). Foreigners will always be seen as an evil, to a greater or lesser extent, by countries across the world. Not something unique to China. In this instance, regarding the Spratlys islands claim, China is being protrayed as an evil too, in order for the US to instigate fear and consolidate power against 'evil' China.

 

It is perhaps better to see foreigners as evil, unlike our very own country. Where fellow citizens of different ethnicity are used as subject to instigate fear for some party's political gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a brighter note. China's foreign policy has benefited two ASEAN member so far. Singapore and Indonesia of late. Indonesia has given China the contract to build a high speed rail from Bandung to Jakarta. The Indonesia government do not have to even invest in it, thus lessen their financial burden.

This is like feeding fish to them rather than giving them the tools to fish. The long term effects remain to be seen.

 

I remember the Indonesian Air Force used to have some MiGs from the USSR in the 1960s and most of these aircraft were idle due to the lack of spare parts. Lets hope that this new railway will have the maintenance it requires for the next few decades.

China should be friendly with Japan. However there is this right wing and hard-line element in Japan which cannot be ignored.

China got prosperous very quickly - in many ways, its people still have third world mentality while being filthy rich. Yet, there are still many who are living in poverty. China still has a lot of domestic problems to solve.

 

We used to laugh at the many campaigns (e.g. courtesy campaign) that Lee Kuan Yew's government ran in the 1970s and 1980s - now we can clearly see that a nation needs to develop its citizens to first world levels in tandem with the tangible infrastructure. A rich country is not complete if its people are still living in the dark ages.

 

Japan should be wary of this rapid development in China and is understandably cautious with regards to China's sincerity when they can see that China still has some way to go to be a truly first world nation.

 

Having visited both Japan and China, I can clearly see the gap in the two societies. China would do well to bring its people up to reflect its economic status. They cannot have the current inequalities forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like feeding fish to them rather than giving them the tools to fish. The long term effects remain to be seen.

 

I remember the Indonesian Air Force used to have some MiGs from the USSR in the 1960s and most of these aYeircraft were idle due to the lack of spare parts. Lets hope that this new railway will have the maintenance it requires for the next few decades.

 

Strictly speaking all international bids involves some kind of fish feeding to the locals than teaching them how to hunt. Japan's proposal for Indonesian high speed rail is no less. They will not pass on the technology to the locals, it is their well guarded secret that gives them the competitive edge. Unless you pay them a lot of money.

 

I remember the Overseas Development Aid (ODA) of Japan, is same kind of business. They promise to give you soft loan (often to build a facility), but in order to be granted the loan, the subject country will have to allow Japanese professionals and workers to come in and build the facility. Sometimes the operation will have to be run by the Japanese too. Indonesia and the Philippines have received substantial ODA in the past and they are still indebt to Japan, paying off the loan interest and etc. Moreover, the receivers of the ODA will have to downplay Japan's aggression and killings during World War II in order to secure the loan, which is why you don't see South East Asia nagging Japan about the whitewashing of their history, but only China and South Korea.

 

The following article which says Japan is likely to win India's first HSR bid.... "Tokyo has sounded out New Delhi about providing yen loans on the premise that the railway contract will be given to a consortium of Japanese firms, the source said."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/08/business/japan-win-contract-indias-first-high-speed-railway/#.Vn9toPl94uU

 

India sees China as a rival and naturally will not award the railway contract to China, not to mention this is not a competitive tender. While Shinkansen technology might be great, I will say it is great for island like Japan and Taiwan. If India adopted their technology, they will have problems connecting it to other network, such at the Europeans. I read signals are much different. Secondly I have no confidence with India, when it comes to managing the railway. India is way behind China almost everything but population growth.

Edited by S V Choong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Strictly speaking all international bids involves some kind of fish feeding to the locals than teaching them how to hunt. Japan's proposal for Indonesian high speed rail is no less. They will not pass on the technology to the locals, it is their well guarded secret that gives them the competitive edge. Unless you pay them a lot of money.

 

I remember the Overseas Development Aid (ODA) of Japan, is same kind of business. They promise to give you soft loan (often to build a facility), but in order to be granted the loan, the subject country will have to allow Japanese professionals and workers to come in and build the facility. Sometimes the operation will have to be run by the Japanese too. Indonesia and the Philippines have received substantial ODA in the past and they are still indebt to Japan, paying off the loan interest and etc. Moreover, the receivers of the ODA will have to downplay Japan's aggression and killings during World War II in order to secure the loan, which is why you don't see South East Asia nagging Japan about the whitewashing of their history, but only China and South Korea.

 

The following article which says Japan is likely to win India's first HSR bid.... "Tokyo has sounded out New Delhi about providing yen loans on the premise that the railway contract will be given to a consortium of Japanese firms, the source said."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/08/business/japan-win-contract-indias-first-high-speed-railway/#.Vn9toPl94uU

 

India sees China as a rival and naturally will not award the railway contract to China, not to mention this is not a competitive tender. While Shinkansen technology might be great, I will say it is great for island like Japan and Taiwan. If India adopted their technology, they will have problems connecting it to other network, such at the Europeans. I read signals are much different. Secondly I have no confidence with India, when it comes to managing the railway. India is way behind China almost everything but population growth.

Similarly, all Chinese financed projects must have Chinese main contractor and only granted to countries that are politically friendly to China or in exchange of natural resources.

 

Believe current Chinese high speed train is a clone of Japanese shinkansen, was developed with Japanese assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly, all Chinese financed projects must have Chinese main contractor and only granted to countries that are politically friendly to China or in exchange of natural resources.

 

Believe current Chinese high speed train is a clone of Japanese shinkansen, was developed with Japanese assistance.

 

It is. So either way, what I mean is, they won't give you the tool for fishing, they will give you the fish and you pay the price they set for it, be it Chinese, Japanese or French.

 

One particular trainset was developed with Hitachi. The other train sets including Bombardier and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are always right wing, hard-line element in every country. Today's Japan is unlike pre-war, is a democracy and ageing nation, military ambition is not in any political party agenda. However, in China, CPC need justification to rule and won't hesitate to instigate sentiment or crisis for power consolidation. Hence, PLA is more likely to make first strike than anyone else.

 

 

Sorry I missed out on reply to this. I am not a politician and political ideologist. I am going to disagree with you from the point of view of history, the US is a clear winner on being a war monger than anyone else. They go into war for various reasons but mainly for resources - namely oil. So many of us easily and conveniently forgot who launched wars to obtain resources of other countries as we were all in it with them, or being brained washed by their freedom dogma. As Putin rightly said, the US is able to get away with a lot of things, even if they were doing a lot of bad shite.

 

Not sure if you are well verse with East Asian history, but China, for the record, has never launched any kind of expansion thus far. As I said they were basically claiming the islands based on the previous claim by Taiwan, the Philippines had no rights to claim them. If there were some sort of war, it will be out of defending territories. Japan and the US was past aggressor to China, heck, they went in and ransacked China. In today's context, Japan does not matter anymore. Their aging population is about to be replaced by increasing number of Chinese who went to live in Japan. The US being the world's only super power is more than likely to contain China through various ways, which many of us aren't even aware of. I would be more worried about the US launching some sort of attack (may not be direct warfare) on China, after all they would not want China to rise to displace them. If we look at the US and their "allies" relationship, they are not allies actually, their so called allies are more like their vassals. This Spratlys Island case is yet another case of US "allies" versus China arm wrestling, rather than the Phillppines. It really depends whether there are opportunities or interest which the US wants to explore. If yes, there will be a warfare, if not, it is likely to be taken by China.

 

Freedom and democracy dogma as propagated by the US, which may not be practical for China. America sells it anyway, it is a way of their multi-corporate entering the Chinese market. Much to the ignorance of the average Joe in America, they promote it as if the Chinese desperately need democracy overnight. Despite the fact that the Chinese communist party won the majority of the approval (80-90%). Singapore on the other hand, Lee Kuan Yew has openly said, democracy of the West serves no pragmatic purpose for Singapore. I will say the US is very undemocratic when it comes to respecting political ideology that is different from their own, they use it as a weapon, but at the same time they are tolerant of Saudi Arabia which has one of the poorest human rights, if not the worst. By the way, the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapon and they did it twice in Japan.

 

Kevin Rudd puts it right if you look at this clip on TED:

https://youtu.be/X-aG2viPaVs

 

Putin has said it himself - the US does not want allies, they want vassals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=932K6tZ5Ea4

 

Can China rise peacefully?

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/can-china-rise-peacefully-10204

Edited by S V Choong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy summed it up in a nut shell (in English).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU0R8mysZ2E

 

For those who think proximity makes a lot of difference. Pondor this, Sipadan and Ligitan islands off Sabah's coast is closer to Kalimantan than it is to Sabah, the International Court of Justice awarded them to Malaysia based on "effective occupation". Guam is closer to Taiwan and Japan than they are to US mainland. British Indian Ocean Territory where Diego Garcia is, is much closer to India and Maldives, than the UK. Why do they still belong to the British?

Edited by S V Choong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I missed out on reply to this. I am not a politician and political ideologist. I am going to disagree with you from the point of view of history, the US is a clear winner on being a war monger than anyone else. They go into war for various reasons but mainly for resources - namely oil. So many of us easily and conveniently forgot who launched wars to obtain resources of other countries as we were all in it with them, or being brained washed by their freedom dogma. As Putin rightly said, the US is able to get away with a lot of things, even if they were doing a lot of bad shite.

 

Not sure if you are well verse with East Asian history, but China, for the record, has never launched any kind of expansion thus far. As I said they were basically claiming the islands based on the previous claim by Taiwan, the Philippines had no rights to claim them. If there were some sort of war, it will be out of defending territories. Japan and the US was past aggressor to China, heck, they went in and ransacked China. In today's context, Japan does not matter anymore. Their aging population is about to be replaced by increasing number of Chinese who went to live in Japan. The US being the world's only super power is more than likely to contain China through various ways, which many of us aren't even aware of. I would be more worried about the US launching some sort of attack (may not be direct warfare) on China, after all they would not want China to rise to displace them. If we look at the US and their "allies" relationship, they are not allies actually, their so called allies are more like their vassals. This Spratlys Island case is yet another case of US "allies" versus China arm wrestling, rather than the Phillppines. It really depends whether there are opportunities or interest which the US wants to explore. If yes, there will be a warfare, if not, it is likely to be taken by China.

 

Freedom and democracy dogma as propagated by the US, which may not be practical for China. America sells it anyway, it is a way of their multi-corporate entering the Chinese market. Much to the ignorance of the average Joe in America, they promote it as if the Chinese desperately need democracy overnight. Despite the fact that the Chinese communist party won the majority of the approval (80-90%). Singapore on the other hand, Lee Kuan Yew has openly said, democracy of the West serves no pragmatic purpose for Singapore. I will say the US is very undemocratic when it comes to respecting political ideology that is different from their own, they use it as a weapon, but at the same time they are tolerant of Saudi Arabia which has one of the poorest human rights, if not the worst. By the way, the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapon and they did it twice in Japan.

 

Kevin Rudd puts it right if you look at this clip on TED:

https://youtu.be/X-aG2viPaVs

 

Putin has said it himself - the US does not want allies, they want vassals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=932K6tZ5Ea4

 

Can China rise peacefully?

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/can-china-rise-peacefully-10204

Before china invaded Tibet in 1950, Tibet was a independent country.

 

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/ir/cews/database/Tibet/tibet.pdf

 

Due to limited natural resources, china economy couldn't grow unlimitedly. In time of discontent, it couldn't discount cpc will extend china territory to justify its rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before china invaded Tibet in 1950, Tibet was a independent country.

 

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/ir/cews/database/Tibet/tibet.pdf

 

Due to limited natural resources, china economy couldn't grow unlimitedly. In time of discontent, it couldn't discount cpc will extend china territory to justify its rule.

 

No, sorry, Tibet was not an independent country, if you go back to the history. They were part of the territory which belonged to Qing Dynasty and even prior (as far back as Genghis Khan and his Mongolian Yuan Dynasty). Tibet is an independent country only according to American dogma. The Americans and the West would not tell you much about the history of Tibet prior to 1950 as that will weaken their claim. Some say Hawaii isn't a territory of US either, it was forcibly acquired by the US.

 

Map of Qing Dynasty, China in 1871 (Gall and Inglis, 1871)

map-chinese-empire-and-japan-gall-inglis

 

Map published by the Republic of China in 1930s including the Nansha Islands (Spratlys)

193x_ROC_Map_1.jpg

 

Territories claimed by the Republic of China (in Taiwan) to date

ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg.png

 

The Republic of China (the government in Taiwan) claimed the Tibet to be part of their territory to this date, they even claimed Mongolia to be part of them too. The US and the West do not publish these claims intentionally as ROC is their ally and also a good way to demonise the People's Republic of China. It was the British who wanted to make Tibet a colony at the beginning and the US secretly helped Dalai Lama to create an independent territory, of course, that has ended with no success and the US continues to fund Dalai Lama and his government in exile to this date. By the way, Dalai Lama was overly glorified by the US and the West. One just need to look at what the Dalai Lama and his forefathers did in Tibet when they were ruling Tibet, how they treat their peasants. It contradicts sharply to the tame and calm Dalai Lama as we know of today.

 

If China does expand, what wrong with it? If one can tolerate America to extend their territory due to limited resources, I don't see why they shouldn't welcome China on the basis of mutual benefit. While taking a piece of someone's territory is not a mutual benefit.

 

The US attempts at curbing China at every possible way, while appearing they are not doing much in front of the ignorant public. The US has been funding a lot of stuff at the background which is largely not known to the public. This includes the occupy Central movement last year in HK. One should look up Wikileaks. All done to keep China busy and making sure the US is the only super power in the world and that position should remained unchallenged.

Edited by S V Choong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if anything happened or things threatened to boil over at airspace over the Spratly Islands / South China Sea area today ? 

I notice the vast majority of flights were routed over Vietnam airspace earlier in the evening, instead of flying north/south over the South China Sea and the Philippines. As of now, some flights are returning to the area though

Two Jin Air flights into BKI tonight (from ICN and PUS) were diverted to Jeju (CJU), now enroute again to BKI

The 'inaugural' BKI-HKG flight was also routed via Vietnam airspace

 

Ok, got it - jahur has reported it as Manila FIR going kaput 😁

BKI 2021 - Page 2 - Observation Hill - MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal

Edited by BC Tam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...