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

[flee 5]

The Pentagon said on Friday it was looking at Chinese complaints that a B-52 bomber recently flew near a Chinese artificial island in the South China Sea, a sensitive issue because the two powers disagree over Beijing's territorial claims in the region.

Navy Commander Bill Urban, a Pentagon spokesman, said the United States regularly conducts B-52 training missions throughout the region but there was no plan for the B-52 to fly within 12 nautical miles of any artificial island.

"This was not a Freedom of Navigation operation," said Urban, referring to regular U.S. Navy missions conducted to challenge what the United States believes are excessive territorial claims made by other countries.

"The Chinese have raised concerns with us about the flight path of a recent training mission," Urban said. "We are looking into the matter."

More: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-idUSKBN0U12NL20151219

[flee 5]

China accuses US of B-52 'provocation' over Spratly Islands

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35140802

[KK Lee 5]

China accuses US of B-52 'provocation' over Spratly Islands

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35140802

Believe this is the beginning of a long contention which may lead to regional conflict.

[Kenny Sing 0]

let's see how US dealing with it. My personal opinion is China claimed too much territory over South China sea, and it could be troublesome for countries within the region e.g our country.

[flee 5]

let's see how US dealing with it. My personal opinion is China claimed too much territory over South China sea, and it could be troublesome for countries within the region e.g our country.

Well, before the island building saga, there was no problem sailing or flying over the Spratlys. Now, when one does that, even in a single piston engined plane, the Chinese Navy will start buzzing your radio!

[Alif A. F. 0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVH68ysyIv0

 

Listen to this...

[KK Lee 5]

Historically, it is normal for rising power to extend her territory, weaker neighbours are among the first to suffer.

 

As Japan and Korea energy supply is routing through this area, U.S is more likely to intervene for Japan and Korea.

Edited December 21, 2015 by KK Lee

[S V Choong 4]

Historically, it is normal for rising power to extend her territory, weaker neighbours are among the first to suffer.

 

As Japan and Korea energy supply is routing through this area, U.S is more likely to intervene for Japan and Korea.

 

Indeed, the US is really really far away from their home soil and now they are patrolling this area?

 

Both the US is playing cats and dog games. On one hand they are containing China and on the other hand they are saying they aren't but they sell Taiwan their weapons anyway. On one hand they have not returned to China the disputed island currently occupied by Japan and on the other hand, the US is playing it to their advantage. It is also about China trying to made it difficult for their rivals to deliver the energy.

 

let's see how US dealing with it. My personal opinion is China claimed too much territory over South China sea, and it could be troublesome for countries within the region e.g our country.

 

Best to stay as personal opinion then. Do read up the history about the islands, if you have the time

 

http://www.spratlys.org/history/spratly-islands-history-timeline.htm

 

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

Edited December 21, 2015 by S V Choong

[Mohd Suhaimi Fariz 2]

Best to stay as personal opinion then. Do read up the history about the islands, if you have the time

 

http://www.spratlys.org/history/spratly-islands-history-timeline.htm

 

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

 

So the country with the best claim to the island is...Taiwan.

[S V Choong 4]

 

So the country with the best claim to the island is...Taiwan.

 

Except Taiwan is not a country. whether you like it or not. Officially, they are not an independent state and neither are they a legitimate government of China. Taiwan is officially "Republic of China", which was a political party known as Kuomintang that used to run the entire China but fled to the Taiwan Province in 1949 after being defeated by the Communist party.

 

This is what gave China the rise to the claim, as they are the legitimate government of China. The UN seat security coucil was previously occupied by the Republic of China (aka Taiwan government) before 1972 when the West still recognised China as the legitimate government of China. After 1972, the West and the majority of the world moved to recognised Communist China as the legitimate China, hence the security council's seat was given to the People's Republic. Taiwan no longer has a seat in the UN as they are not a country.

 

This Spratlys island thing, China is playing hand-in-hand with Taiwan. We don't see that Taiwan is making any noise. In fact, after World War 2, Taiwan was unable to defend the Spratlys Islands as the ROC government was busy with their defence against the Communists. This has given the Filipino and Vietnam, Malaysia and others the chance to claim the islands.

 

I believe the whole reason why the US is making a noise is because they want to corner China. This is the whole reason why they didn't mention "Taiwan" or Republic of China's historical claim. Traditionally, Uncle Sam likes to use the bullying tactic, which draws the support from many countries and use it against their target, which is a typical part of the democratic process. The same thing as you won't see Uncle Sam going all loud mouth about Diaoyu or Senkaku Island not part of Japan, but part of Taiwan province when it was ceded to the Japanese. Japan, as a loser of the war, was supposed to return the islands along with Taiwan to China after the World War 2, but they never did. It will not be in Uncle Sam's interest to announce that the islands belong to China because it would mean Japan's line of defense and military coastline will have to be pushed East-ward away from China.

 

The Philippines traditionally would like to claim as much as they can, including Sabah. They are just toothless cat (not even tiger) who just nags all the time. Seriously, they can be ignored completely.

Edited December 21, 2015 by S V Choong

[KK Lee 5]

 

The same thing as you won't see Uncle Sam going all loud mouth about Diaoyu or Senkaku Island not part of Japan, but part of Taiwan province when it was ceded to the Japanese. Japan, as a loser of the war, was supposed to return the islands along with Taiwan to China after the World War 2, but they never did. It will not be in Uncle Sam's interest to announce that the islands belong to China because it would mean Japan's line of defense and military coastline will have to be pushed East-ward away from China.

 

 

Who really owns the Senkaku islands?

 

OVER the past year the Senkaku islands, a clutch of five uninhabited islets in the East China Sea, have shown their ability to convulse relations between China and Japan, Asia’s two biggest powers. They have even raised the spectre of military conflict, which America fears it might be dragged into. The stakes are high. So who actually owns the Senkakus?

If possession is nine-tenths of the law, the answer is simple: Japan. It claims to have “discovered” the islands, a terra nullius belonging to no one, in 1884. In early 1895 it annexed them, shortly after Japan had defeated a weakened China in a brief war and seized Taiwan, which lies just to their south, as war spoils. One Tatsushiro Koga was licensed to develop the islands. He set up a bonito-processing station whose 200 employees also killed the once-abundant short-tailed albatross for its feathers. The Koga family’s last employees left during the second world war. Upon Japan’s defeat in 1945 control fell to the Americans, who used the islands for bombing practice. In 1972, at the end of the American occupation, the Japanese government resumed responsibility for the Senkakus.

By then, however, oil and gas reserves had been identified under the seabed surrounding the islands. China, which calls them the Diaoyu islands, asserted its claim, as did Taiwan, which is closest to the islands (and which is also claimed by China). China’s claim is vague, and is based on things such as a Chinese portolano from 1403 recording the islands. It all speaks to an earlier world in which China lay at the heart of an ordered East Asian system of tributary states—an order shattered by Japan’s militarist rise from the late 19th century. What this history tells you is not—contrary to modern Chinese claims—that China controlled the Diaoyus, for it never did. Rather, the islands were known to the Chinese because they served as navigational waypoints for tributary missions between the great cosmopolitan Chinese port of Quanzhou and Naha, capital of the Ryukyu island kingdom, China’s most loyal vassal. In 1879 Japan snuffed out the ancient kingdom. Naha is now the main town on the main island of Japan’s archipelago prefecture of Okinawa. Some Chinese nationalists call not only for the Senkakus’ return, but for Okinawa too.

In the late 1970s China and Japan agreed to kick the dispute into the long grass. But China’s attitude has hardened, especially since September 2012, when the Japanese government bought from their private owner three of the islands it did not already own. It was in order to prevent them falling into the hands of an ultranationalist, Shintaro Ishihara, then governor of Tokyo. But China saw it as a provocation and sent vessels and aircraft to challenge Japan’s control of the Senkakus. China’s announcement on November 23rd of an East China Sea “air defence identification zone” which covers the Senkakus is further evidence of its attempt to alter the status quo. Much more than presumed oil and gas reserves, emotion is now driving China’s actions, in particular notions of national honour and a desire to regain the centrality in East Asia that it for centuries enjoyed. This dispute is a microcosm of that desire, which makes it so potentially dangerous.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-1

http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568696-behind-row-over-bunch-pacific-rocks-lies-sad-magical-history-okinawa-narrative

 

 

China's worst diplomat

The fall guy

 

The Zongli Yamen, a relatively new body, was a good match for Chonghou, as it proved disastrously ineffective. The first audience the emperor gave on that summer day, to an envoy from Japan, was a momentous test for his foreign-policy team. Actually it was more a trap than a test, and the Chinese obligingly fell into it.

The trap concerned a chain of islands between the two countries, the Ryukyu islands, which stretch from Okinawa towards Taiwan. The Ryukyu kingdom paid tribute to both China and Japan but was nominally independent, while Taiwan then belonged to China. What the Zongli Yamen failed to appreciate was just how intent Japan was on changing that status quo.

The Japanese foreign minister came to the court personally to ask that the emperor pay compensation for an attack on sailors from the Ryukyu islands by aborigines on the eastern end of Taiwan. By making this request, Japan was asserting sovereignty over the Ryukyus (and acknowledging Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan). Put off by the damages, China disavowed responsibility and told the Japanese to resolve the matter themselves.

That was all the invitation Japan needed. It dispatched an expeditionary force to Taiwan (including some Americans). China, belatedly realising that Japan might use this as a pretext to stake a claim to Taiwan, sent its own force to the island. Suddenly the situation seemed at risk of spinning out of control. H.B. Morse, a historian, wrote, in a summary with eerie resonance today: “The two countries seemed to be drifting into war, which might at any moment be precipitated by a chance collision between their forces.” The British minister to China, Thomas Francis Wade, appealed to both sides for a settlement. China ultimately paid a ransom to Japan to withdraw from Taiwan. “I certainly did not expect to find China willing to pay for being invaded,” Wade quipped.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21591796-bad-emperors-get-all-credit-crumbling-dynasties-what-incompetent

 

Indeed, the US is really really far away from their home soil and now they are patrolling this area?

 

Both the US is playing cats and dog games. On one hand they are containing China and on the other hand they are saying they aren't but they sell Taiwan their weapons anyway. On one hand they have not returned to China the disputed island currently occupied by Japan and on the other hand, the US is playing it to their advantage. It is also about China trying to made it difficult for their rivals to deliver the energy.

 

 

U.S have treaty with Japan and Korea and is obliged to defence them.

 

U.S Navy ship and aircraft is not unfamiliar sight in this region or further away in Indian Ocean. Until recently, no one has been warned to keep off these islands.

 

A sword cut both way, unless Chinese neighbours allowed to be bullied, they naturally will seek protection from Chinese rivals.

Edited December 21, 2015 by KK Lee

[S V Choong 4]

 

Who really owns the Senkaku islands?

 

OVER the past year the Senkaku islands, a clutch of five uninhabited islets in the East China Sea, have shown their ability to convulse relations between China and Japan, Asia’s two biggest powers. They have even raised the spectre of military conflict, which America fears it might be dragged into. The stakes are high. So who actually owns the Senkakus?

If possession is nine-tenths of the law, the answer is simple: Japan. It claims to have “discovered” the islands, a terra nullius belonging to no one, in 1884. In early 1895 it annexed them, shortly after Japan had defeated a weakened China in a brief war and seized Taiwan, which lies just to their south, as war spoils. One Tatsushiro Koga was licensed to develop the islands. He set up a bonito-processing station whose 200 employees also killed the once-abundant short-tailed albatross for its feathers. The Koga family’s last employees left during the second world war. Upon Japan’s defeat in 1945 control fell to the Americans, who used the islands for bombing practice. In 1972, at the end of the American occupation, the Japanese government resumed responsibility for the Senkakus.

By then, however, oil and gas reserves had been identified under the seabed surrounding the islands. China, which calls them the Diaoyu islands, asserted its claim, as did Taiwan, which is closest to the islands (and which is also claimed by China). China’s claim is vague, and is based on things such as a Chinese portolano from 1403 recording the islands. It all speaks to an earlier world in which China lay at the heart of an ordered East Asian system of tributary states—an order shattered by Japan’s militarist rise from the late 19th century. What this history tells you is not—contrary to modern Chinese claims—that China controlled the Diaoyus, for it never did. Rather, the islands were known to the Chinese because they served as navigational waypoints for tributary missions between the great cosmopolitan Chinese port of Quanzhou and Naha, capital of the Ryukyu island kingdom, China’s most loyal vassal. In 1879 Japan snuffed out the ancient kingdom. Naha is now the main town on the main island of Japan’s archipelago prefecture of Okinawa. Some Chinese nationalists call not only for the Senkakus’ return, but for Okinawa too.

In the late 1970s China and Japan agreed to kick the dispute into the long grass. But China’s attitude has hardened, especially since September 2012, when the Japanese government bought from their private owner three of the islands it did not already own. It was in order to prevent them falling into the hands of an ultranationalist, Shintaro Ishihara, then governor of Tokyo. But China saw it as a provocation and sent vessels and aircraft to challenge Japan’s control of the Senkakus. China’s announcement on November 23rd of an East China Sea “air defence identification zone” which covers the Senkakus is further evidence of its attempt to alter the status quo. Much more than presumed oil and gas reserves, emotion is now driving China’s actions, in particular notions of national honour and a desire to regain the centrality in East Asia that it for centuries enjoyed. This dispute is a microcosm of that desire, which makes it so potentially dangerous.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/12/economist-explains-1

http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568696-behind-row-over-bunch-pacific-rocks-lies-sad-magical-history-okinawa-narrative

 

 

China's worst diplomat

The fall guy

 

The Zongli Yamen, a relatively new body, was a good match for Chonghou, as it proved disastrously ineffective. The first audience the emperor gave on that summer day, to an envoy from Japan, was a momentous test for his foreign-policy team. Actually it was more a trap than a test, and the Chinese obligingly fell into it.

The trap concerned a chain of islands between the two countries, the Ryukyu islands, which stretch from Okinawa towards Taiwan. The Ryukyu kingdom paid tribute to both China and Japan but was nominally independent, while Taiwan then belonged to China. What the Zongli Yamen failed to appreciate was just how intent Japan was on changing that status quo.

The Japanese foreign minister came to the court personally to ask that the emperor pay compensation for an attack on sailors from the Ryukyu islands by aborigines on the eastern end of Taiwan. By making this request, Japan was asserting sovereignty over the Ryukyus (and acknowledging Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan). Put off by the damages, China disavowed responsibility and told the Japanese to resolve the matter themselves.

That was all the invitation Japan needed. It dispatched an expeditionary force to Taiwan (including some Americans). China, belatedly realising that Japan might use this as a pretext to stake a claim to Taiwan, sent its own force to the island. Suddenly the situation seemed at risk of spinning out of control. H.B. Morse, a historian, wrote, in a summary with eerie resonance today: “The two countries seemed to be drifting into war, which might at any moment be precipitated by a chance collision between their forces.” The British minister to China, Thomas Francis Wade, appealed to both sides for a settlement. China ultimately paid a ransom to Japan to withdraw from Taiwan. “I certainly did not expect to find China willing to pay for being invaded,” Wade quipped.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21591796-bad-emperors-get-all-credit-crumbling-dynasties-what-incompetent

 

U.S have treaty with Japan and Korea and is obliged to defence them.

 

U.S Navy ship and aircraft is not unfamiliar sight in this region or further away in Indian Ocean. Until recently, no one has been warned to keep off these islands.

 

A sword cut both way, unless Chinese neighbours allowed to be bullied, they naturally will seek protection from Chinese rivals.

 

 

Long story short. I wouldn't rely on the Economist, a Western media, to be impartial when it comes to any sort of historical dispute. Often the dispute is multi-dimensional and certainly western approach to things isn't the only way out. This is also due to traditional or non-western feudal societies do not rely on western perspectives and approach to things. Modern day countries inherited these historical claims and they lose out on these claims if western approach is the only way to resolve it. For example, the Chinese invented chopsticks, but the Korean or Japanese may come in and copyright or patent it. Copyright and patenting is a western thing. In this case, we know who the original inventor is but at the same time the original investor could be denied acknowledgement all due to western way of approach to things!

 

I couldn't resist laughing when I read the point about the Spratlys should belonged to the Austronesian people (ancestors of Malay and Pacific Islander), the Austronesian do not have any form of established government/ kingdom to justify the claim. I hope the author know what he/she is writing about.

 

The article is obviously siding Japan as what allies would do to another ally. Japan was pretty much westernised when they attempt to occupy the "Senkaku" islands, therefore they know how to get things done in the western way. China on the other hand were still Qing Dynasty at the time, they lacked understanding of the western approach to things. Is western approach a good way to resolve these dispute? It is certainly questionable. The "Senkaku" islands actually belong to the Taiwan provnice, rather than the Ryukyu Kingdom according to Chinese understanding, China was able to prove the Chinese have set foot on these islands. However, it wasn't even mentioned in the Economist's article.

 

There is no real impartiality with territorial dispute, often rising power or bigger power will deal with the weaker ones. When Uncle Sam went to attack Iraq, literally raping the country, despite strong protest from other nations - it is not that different, except Uncle Sam is much better at marketing or brain washing tactics. Or sometimes they come to a compromise out of mutual interests.

 

While in the past there was no problem with travelling within the islands that is because China or Taiwan was unable to defend these island, hence leaving it open and vulnerable for others to claim. With the status of China as they are today, they can afford and distribute more resources to protect these islands and their interests. Fasten your seat belt and don't get to comfy with status quo for this world is ever changing rather than stand still.

Edited December 22, 2015 by S V Choong

[KK Lee 5]

 

 

 

While in the past there was no problem with travelling within the islands that is because China or Taiwan was unable to defend these island, hence leaving it open and vulnerable for others to claim. With the status of China as they are today, they can afford and distribute more resources to protect these islands and their interests. Fasten your seat belt and don't get to comfy with status quo for this world is ever changing rather than stand still.

 

Whenever there is domestic resentment or crisis, CPC have a history to orchestrate foreign threat/incident to rally the people and consolidate power. Given China economy growth is expected to reach plateau and possible prolonged down trend, skirmish with neighbours or U.S couldn't be ruled out.

[S V Choong 4]

 

Whenever there is domestic resentment or crisis, CPC have a history to orchestrate foreign threat/incident to rally the people and consolidate power. Given China economy growth is expected to reach plateau and possible prolonged down trend, skirmish with neighbours or U.S couldn't be ruled out.

 

The parallel can been seen with the US. Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Harbouring terrorists and they went in for the oil etc. Now the IS stuff, could be another excuse in the brewing. I guess we are not that different after all.

 

May be the Chinese is better at diplomacy than most people portrayed them to be.

[flee 5]

I wouldn't rely on the Economist, a Western media, to be impartial when it comes to any sort of historical dispute.

I think that with regards to media, one should peruse the information sources and make an attempt to see if they are reliable or credible.

 

Media in China is, more often than not, state propaganda. Whatever third party media that exists in China is subject to state censorship. Same thing happens in Malaysia too - lots of government propaganda and unfavourable stories are censored/banned.

 

So, lets just forget about depending on media, whether it is Chinese, or Western sources. Read widely and, somewhere, one should be able to establish some common position. Depending on only one or two media sources will make it difficult to form an informed opinion on the matters at hand.

 

My personal opinion right now is that China is being over aggressive on this issue and it is bullying the SE Asian nations. I think the Philippines would be very much affected, as is Vietnam. However, these countries are still weak and are in no position to stand up to China. As such the Japanese and Koreans (together with their allies, the US) are trying to slow down the progress of China's aggression in claiming their territorial rights. Further to that, environmentalists are now joining the bandwagon because what China is doing is changing the marine ecosystems in the region.

 

It is a complex issue and more negotiations need to be carried out. Unfortunately, China has acted unilaterally and behaved as if recent history has zero effect on the situation today. China will definitely further its own cause if it was not so aggressive in island building and enforcing its "territorial rights" as it is doing at the moment.

[BC Tam 2]

May be the Chinese is better at diplomacy than most people portrayed them to be.

Dunno about diplomacy, but I am quite sure the Chinese are aware they stand to lose much, much more if they opt for anything more than these posturing gestures

That is what I hope for anyway, for those islands are quite close to my home, relatively in grand scheme of things anyway !

[S V Choong 4]

I think that with regards to media, one should peruse the information sources and make an attempt to see if they are reliable or credible.

 

Media in China is, more often than not, state propaganda. Whatever third party media that exists in China is subject to state censorship. Same thing happens in Malaysia too - lots of government propaganda and unfavourable stories are censored/banned.

 

So, lets just forget about depending on media, whether it is Chinese, or Western sources. Read widely and, somewhere, one should be able to establish some common position. Depending on only one or two media sources will make it difficult to form an informed opinion on the matters at hand.

 

My personal opinion right now is that China is being over aggressive on this issue and it is bullying the SE Asian nations. I think the Philippines would be very much affected, as is Vietnam. However, these countries are still weak and are in no position to stand up to China. As such the Japanese and Koreans (together with their allies, the US) are trying to slow down the progress of China's aggression in claiming their territorial rights. Further to that, environmentalists are now joining the bandwagon because what China is doing is changing the marine ecosystems in the region.

 

It is a complex issue and more negotiations need to be carried out. Unfortunately, China has acted unilaterally and behaved as if recent history has zero effect on the situation today. China will definitely further its own cause if it was not so aggressive in island building and enforcing its "territorial rights" as it is doing at the moment.

 

Well, the western media aren't exactly free of any sort of propaganda either. Media has been used widely as a tool, democratic or not, to control the mind of people. While they may not have been controlled by the state in the US directly, but lets remember who runs the show in the US. It is those businessmen and corporate giants. If one think they do not have anything to do with manipulating the media, I suggest they do a bit of research and think through all the possibilities. I hope most people here are not a believer of the US story when they planned on attacking Iraq back then. By the way, did they admit about the fact that they were the one who created IS and ISIS as they played double agent on both sides whenever the interests suits them? They did admit to their people their mistakes? Did they ever tell their own people that Uncle Sam needs to enter a war with some country and they need to keep them in fear in order to justify another war with another country? Of course not! Would you read that in the media? Yes you can, but they won't win any kind of attention.

 

I agree, read up from different perspectives and then analyse yourself. I have gone through both sides of the stories and have formed my own view. I hope people here will too, not just forming their own idea based on Western stories.

 

I am not going to say who is right or wrong because it is meaningless. China might be a new comer to the scene, but from China's perspective historical claim is based on "Taiwan" or the Republic of China's and Qing Dynasty before that and etc. Many of us who grew up post war, which these islands are not of any contest. Post war after 1945, Taiwan or the Republic of China government continued to claim the Spratlys and do note, nobody contested this during this time as Taiwan and ROC govt fell under the US protection, hence everything was alright. It wasn't until the ROC govt based in Taiwan were elbowed off the UN security council and lost a seat in the UN in the early 1970s, then all the claims from nearby Philippines and Vietnam began. The US elbowed Taiwan off any talks about the Island as they are no longer the legitimate China. As I said earlier, China was poor in the 1970s and 80s, so they were unable to defend their territories back then. Now they are a rising power, so they are able to enforce and guard them. From their perspective, they are just returning to the scene that's all.

 

 

Dunno about diplomacy, but I am quite sure the Chinese are aware they stand to lose much, much more if they opt for anything more than these posturing gestures

That is what I hope for anyway, for those islands are quite close to my home, relatively in grand scheme of things anyway !

 

Indeed, fairly speaking it is too close for comfort. Then again, it may help to deter the Sulu Sultanate to lodge any claim on Sabah. Honestly, there is no way in hell I would become a Bun-Bun! No way!

 

There are those in the PLA who would really want to do more than just rubbing shoulders with the US. Internally, I believe the Chinese government is trying and struggling to cool them down, which is why you see attitude like this. These clowns really believe they can out-do the almighty power of the US. Well still a long way to go!

 

Just out of interest, I wonder, on the flip side, if China were to send an aircraft carrier to the western coast of the US and fly their reconnaissance aircraft along the edge of the international boundary off the coastline. I wonder if that would trigger any sort of complaint or warfare

Edited December 22, 2015 by S V Choong

[KK Lee 5]

 

 

There are those in the PLA who would really want to do more than just rubbing shoulders with the US. Internally, I believe the Chinese government is trying and struggling to cool them down, which is why you see attitude like this. These clowns really believe they can out-do the almighty power of the US. Well still a long way to go!

 

Just out of interest, I wonder, on the flip side, if China were to send an aircraft carrier to the western coast of the US and fly their reconnaissance aircraft along the edge of the international boundary off the coastline. I wonder if that would trigger any sort of complaint or warfare

 

Russian bombers circled the U.S. military hub on the Pacific island of Guam last week in the latest case of Moscow’s nuclear saber rattling.

“On Nov. 25th, two Russian bomber aircraft circumvented Guam, transiting international airspace,” said Army Maj. Dave Eastburn, a Pacific Command spokesman.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-bombers-again-circle-guam/

Two of the Russian bombers peeled off and headed west, while the other two flew south and were identified by U.S. F-15 fighters within 50 miles of the California coast.

Capt. Jeff Davis, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, said at the time that it was the first time American jets had intercepted Russian military aircraft off California since 2012 -- an encounter that also took place on July Fourth.

Davis said the Russian planes were entirely within their rights, and it was a professional encounter on both sides. He said in 2014 that Russian flights into the air defense zone are intercepted about 10 times a year.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politics/us-russian-bombers-july-4-intercept/

The U.S. Navy launched four armed fighter jets to intercept two Russian Tu-142 Bear aircraft that were flying near the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan in the Pacific Ocean, the Navy said Thursday.

The four F/A-18 fighter jets were sent as "standard operating procedure" to escort planes flying near Navy ships, according to a Navy statement.

The Russian aircraft came within one nautical mile and were flying at 500 feet in altitude while the 100,000-ton warship was participating in a bilateral training exercise with South Korea on Tuesday.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/us-aircraft-carrier-russian-plane-encounter/

 

Russian reconnaissance flight near US coast and vs is not uncommon. It is a matter of time, PLA will send H-6K to probe Guam.

Edited December 22, 2015 by KK Lee

[S V Choong 4]

I was being specific, west coast of the US mainland. Guam and Hawaii is the first line of defence.

 

Just as an analogy, I am just curious as to how many of us would voluntarily give up our land if we are entitled to claim it. If one has the full right to say an Estate or Mansion, for example, would you be kind enough to sell it or subdivide it and give it to each claimants? It is not impossible between brothers and sisters within the same family. I would imagine the same gesture would not be offered to outsiders!

 

While words out there about China reclaiming the islands and cause severe damage to Eco systems there, well very true, but Malaysia had also done that too. Google up Avilion Layang Layang resort. A landing strip and a resort was built on the reclaimed land a number of years ago it not decades.

 

When you claim the territory yours of course you would not like others to pass by freely. One would need to obtain prior permission before allowing to pass. Doesn't matter if it was a free travel zone before because they are enforcing the new rules. Same as Japan, do they really welcome China patrolling the Senkaku Islands? By the way, the Koreans took the Japanese island with both sides claiming their. It has been watered down severely because of US involvement keeping both sides cool. China has been seen as an unwelcome guest, a large part of it because they aren't an US ally, unlike others in the area.

Edited December 23, 2015 by S V Choong

[KK Lee 5]

I was being specific, west coast of the US mainland. Guam and Hawaii is the first line of defence.

 

 

Believe PLA currently doesn't has the capability to mount reconnaissance flight to US west coast.

 

As long as aircraft or ship doesn't comes within 12 miles of coast line, anyone could travel freely subject to navigation protocol.

[Cheng Long 0]

China is just being too excessive with their claims and large scaled land reclamation. Just look at how much they are claiming.. China at the top with the vast sea protruding all the way down to the seashore of South East Asia countries including ours.. Much of the area they claim is no where near mainland China.

 

Countries' territory change with time. Modern history does not recognize China's claim. No other country does.

 

If they want to stake their claim, they will have to fight for it and expect resistance.

 

I understand Philippine already brought this matter to international court. They can fight for it in the court.

 

I am happy with Freedom of Navigation operations. Imagine needing to ask China for permission just to pass by South China Sea.

[flee 5]

As long as aircraft or ship doesn't comes within 12 miles of coast line, anyone could travel freely subject to navigation protocol.

Well, China's Navy is warning aircraft and shipping that travel near the islands, even if they are more than that distance away.

[S V Choong 4]

 

Countries' territory change with time. Modern history does not recognize China's claim. No other country does.

 

If they want to stake their claim, they will have to fight for it and expect resistance.

 

I understand Philippine already brought this matter to international court. They can fight for it in the court.

 

I am happy with Freedom of Navigation operations. Imagine needing to ask China for permission just to pass by South China Sea.

Same opinion of the bulk majority out there who lacked understanding the history of the islands.

 

The Philippines likes to claim Sabah too but Malaysia refused to go to international court with them? Why? Chicken? I don't think so, because something that belongs to you, you simply won't let others having the chance to challenge it. What has the Phillipines done to claim spratlys theirs? By illegally occupying territories that didn't belong to them but the ROC government in Taiwan?

 

It seems China is ready to defend the islands. so fasten your seat belt.

[KK Lee 5]

Same opinion of the bulk majority out there who lacked understanding the history of the islands.

 

The Philippines likes to claim Sabah too but Malaysia refused to go to international court with them? Why? Chicken? I don't think so, because something that belongs to you, you simply won't let others having the chance to challenge it. What has the Phillipines done to claim spratlys theirs? By illegally occupying territories that didn't belong to them but the ROC government in Taiwan?

 

It seems China is ready to defend the islands. so fasten your seat belt.

 

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.

http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/Lawnet/SabahLaws/Treaties/viewdoc.aspx?document=GrantBySultanOfSuluOfTerritoriesAndLandsOnTheMainlandOfTheIslandOfBorneo.pdf

http://www.lawnet.sabah.gov.my/Lawnet/SabahLaws/Treaties/viewdoc.aspx?document=Protocol%28Madrid%29.pdf

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/new-sulu-sultan-revives-ownership-bid-for-sabah-with-win-win-offer

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/04/02/1440112/dfa-malaysia-paying-rent-sabah

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/poorest-sultan-sent-sulu-followers-to-sabah-for-better-life

Edited December 23, 2015 by KK Lee

[Cheng Long 0]

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.