Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Asia risk analyst doubts China will go to war over Spratlys
Topic Started: Jan 23 2013, 12:46 PM (2,461 Views)
spearhead
Member Avatar
DoctorNO, Your Neutral Observer.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Asia risk analyst doubts China will go to war over Spratlys
AMITA O. LEGASPI, GMA NewsJanuary 17, 2013 8:25pm


Amid the reported Chinese intrusions in the disputed Spratly Islands in West Philippine Sea, a risk strategist on Thursday said he doubts China will actually to go to war over the territories it claims it owns.

What China will do is test the waters and see how far can go intimidating other claimants, Richard Jacobson, operations director of Pacific Strategies and Assessments, told a forum in Makati City organized by the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines.

Pacific Strategies is a business risk consultancy focusing on Asia, with offices in Hong Kong, Manila, Shanghai, Beijing, Bangkok, Milwaukee and Sydney.

“It appears doubtful that China has any intention to go to war for the South China Sea territorial claims,” the analyst noted. “Nevertheless it can be expected of Beijing to test the waters and in many ways see how far they can intimidate other claimants,” Jacobson added.

Apart from China – which claims the whole of South China Sea or West Philippine Sea – and the Philippines, other countries with claiming territorial ownership over the Spratlys are Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei.

The area is believed to be rich in oil and gas resources.

Jacobson said China also exploited the differences among members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. As a regional bloc, ASEAN has been proven ineffective in reducing tensions over the disputes especially with China – the world's second largest economy after the United States.

In last year's ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh, the regional block failed to issue a joint communique for the first time in its over 40-year history because of the resistance by Cambodia – a close ally of China and last year's ASEAN chairman – toward the inclusion in writing of the escalating tensions between China and the Philippines and Vietnam.

The Philippines and other claimants want to involve ASEAN and United Nations in resolving the disputes, but China insists on bilateral talks with individual claimant counties.

The new ASEAN chairman, Brunei, and new ASEAN Secretary General, Vietnam's Le Luong Minh, vowed to pursue a binding code of conduct among countries with competing claims over South China Sea.

Vietnam and the Philippines have been issuing diplomatic protests against China's incursions into the disputed territories. As part of the protest, Vietnam and the Philippines have refused to stamp China's new passport which features a map of Beijing's claim to almost all of South China Sea. — VS, GMA News

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/290805/news/nation/asia-risk-analyst-doubts-china-will-go-to-war-over-spratlys
"Men of War must learn the art of numbers or he will not know how to array his troops." - Plato

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marschall
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
China would not have to go to war at all - considering it might be able to effectively take control over the area without even firing a shot (just was what happened in Mischief Shoal and Bajo de Masinloc). There's only a risk of war if an opposing party is willing to defend it territory. The Philippines is not one of those. Maybe that's what the analyst means...
"THE BEST PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF LIBERTY AMONGST MEN IS TRUTH" ~ Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei

“When learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven’t got any.” - G. K. Chesterton

MSantor is not a man of sound reason. Savages have always preferred the club for they know that they are powerless against the pen. But who is the greater fool - the savage or the one that gives him power? May Truth rebuke you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Things have changed already. Hillary dropped on China the A-bomb as far as where it stand on the Senkaku's. (US position on island dispute)It is because the islands are under Japan's control and therefore is under the security treaty with the US. The same could be said to the 8 islands that we occupy, although it is disputed the same as the Senkaku's, could also be under the treaty we have with the US. Therefore, the US is obligated to respond if we invoke the MDT. I don't think China is dumb enough to take the risk that maybe the US will not respond. On Vietnam could be another story. But then again Vietnam is no slouch either. They have the most islands in the Spratly's and they are not going to play dead if threatened.
Edited by Santi Kampilan, Jan 23 2013, 01:36 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pachador


the analyst is right if his assumption is correct that china decides based on truth, commonsense and rationality.. I'm afraid that assumption is not 100% reliable because they have no free media and free discussion or public discourse is not allowed which means only opinions or the side that favors the government line of jingoism, ultra-nationalism, martyr complex, etc is allowed. with no public criticism of the government stand allowed, there is absence of rationality and reason that is why you see them pushing their demands down the throats of neighboring countries. its best to prepare as best as we can for the worst.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Here's what the MDT says pertaining to territories under our jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by US-Phillipines Mutual Defence Treaty
ARTICLE IV

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

ARTICLE V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsukiyomi
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Never doubt Chinese resolve to use force if it feels it is in it's best interests to do so. To feel that China would never use force to support a claim based on economic reasons would be foolish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

Deeper trade relations cannot stop war over South China Sea -expert
By Camille Diola (philstar.com)
May 28, 2014



MANILA, Philippines - An armed conflict between China and the United States' regional partners including the Philippines, over the South China Sea is not unlikely despite the countries' deep economic ties, an Australian security expert said.

Alan Dupont, professor of International Security at University of New South Wales, said in a statement that China may choose to risk financially as it seeks to dominate the strategic waterway claimed by its neighbors and challenges the US' pre-eminence in the region.


"It should not be forgotten that Britain and Germany's extensive trade ties in the early 20th century did not prevent them going to war in 1914. It would be wrong to conclude that deepening levels of trade interdependence are a guarantee or peace. Resource insecurity is another important driver of China's muscular unilateralism. In a little more than two decades the country has moved from a net exporter to importing more than 55 per cent of its oil. Even China's enormous ­reserves of coal are insufficient to meet domestic demand. This resource vulnerability weighs heavily on the minds of Chinese leaders who, in addition to worrying about terrorism, piracy and environmental disruptions to their energy supplies, are acutely aware that their main competitor, the US."

- Alan Dupont, professor of International Security

For Dupont, China has more to gain than lose once it establishes itself in the potentially oil-rich disputed waters.

He also cited a recent Georgetown University study suggesting that East Asian countries such as China and Japan may choose to lose economically than lose maritime and territorial sovereignty.

Micah Zenko, a fellow at the New York-based think tank Council on Foreign Relations, said in a recent piece for Foreign Policy that war between the US and China is "not preordained" but tensions may lead to it.


"The United States could be drawn into a conflict over a territorial dispute involving China, especially since the United States has bilateral defense treaties with Japan and the Philippines. Involved states can avoid war only if they establish clear interpretations of actions within exclusive economic zones."

- Micah Zenko, Council on Foreign Relations



Philstar


Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andres Boning
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
For Dupont, China has more to gain than lose once it establishes itself in the potentially oil-rich disputed waters.
. That's a BiG IF? it can establish itself..? :armyroleyes:

IMO, What China is trying to do is just to salvage whatever it can, to grab everything they can get a hold of in WPS/ SCS playing house of cards.

They know that all their claims are baseless, legally and once the law is applied, meaning UNCLOS ruling comes out in favour of the Philippines, it's game over for them and their mad 9 dash line ambitions.

What ever they can steal now, they keep, because it's a different story giving them all back after, so it's much better to resist any new moves, like what they are illegally building now (reclamation area) for possible airfield, a violation on the DoC agreement of claimants.

PRoC will tend to lose everything, especially if the US gets involve, economically and Militarily and for sure the US strategy, if ever Naval Skirmish occurs, would be to anti-access denial or to paralyze them for good.

China will have a hard time if ever a War breaks out in Spratly's, they will definitely lose due to far proximity of it's mainland to the FP area, US/ PH will have the advantage using PH mainland as jumping point and anti-access denial strategy being the closest to the flashpoint area and considering the closest as to where, the PLA Contingent will have to pass through.

This is not the same as circumstances in the Falklands, for they will be dealing w/ a Super Military Power Country and it's Allies.

US Debts to China will be totally wiped out, hence the economic sanctions, US maintains being the top Superpower Economy.

Notice when the recent attempt to resupply our PMarines stationed in Ayungin by the Govt., PMarines accompanied by Local Filipino Journalist, when they where secretly shadowed by a US P3-O, how the Chinese White ships first reactions and were surprised by the outcome, eventually backed off...?

Then the second, with the Australian Reporter, though they still try to block or follow any other non-Chinese ships in the area, the minute they find out that there are international eyes involved, they just basically back off and play less aggressive. China's actions means that they are cautious and afraid of the possible consequences deep inside and are just playing tough, trying to take advantage of what's left possible for them to take.

I bet you they wouldn't try a Vietnam like move on the Philippines, especially now that the US are back in the house.. for it could mean suicide to all their dreams and future.

If ever WAR breaks out in Spratlys, the first once China will lose are all their occupied Islands particularly Mischief Reef, Subi Reef, and others.

just my 2 cents.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China

China's Ready to Rumble
By Joshua Kurlantzick
May 29, 2014


Over the past two months, as China's maritime disputes with Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam have escalated, most foreign observers and American officials, though worried, have shown little concern that the conflicts would explode into a full-scale war. After all, for more than three decades China has profited enormously from being part of the global economic system. Its military, though growing, remains far less technologically advanced than American armed forces. And for 30 years, predictions that China one day would try to dominate its region by force have always been proven wrong.

- Repeated warnings, with nothing coming of them, created a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario in Washington.

- Instead China launched a charm offensive aimed at its neighbors, boosting aid, investment, and cultural diplomacy across the region.

- Western foreign policy leaders and China experts have come to assume that China has too much invested in the world today to smash it up.



But this time the wolf might actually be here.

- China's highly nationalistic new leadership may no longer simply accede to the existing international economic and security order; instead it appears to want to change that order, even if that means harming some of China's most important trade ties. Beijing has started to show its tough-guy stance by, among other things, claiming ownership of islands lying between it and Japan and by enforcing its massive - and utterly ridiculous - claims to almost the entire South China Sea.

- The countries of Southeast Asia see the wolf at the door. And with Washington increasingly committing itself to backing Asian partners, the U.S. might feel compelled to join a conflict as well.



Bloomberg







Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pachador


news reporter after news reporter keep making incorrect assumptions about their views .the latest is China's Ready to Rumble By Joshua Kurlantzick . http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-29/is-china-ready-to-use-military-might-in-southeast-asia?campaign_id=yhoo

he is assuming that SEA countries cannot make decisions on national security outside of the ASEAN framework . it looks like he is likening ASEAN to the Euro zone.

in the second place, ASEAN is just a pat each other's back feel good group so I hope by now the philippines has already looked past ASEAN and concentrate on building war alliances with countries that wont hesitate to confront the bully such as australia, japan, the US.

Edited by pachador, May 31 2014, 12:55 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic »
Add Reply