| 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: |
| The China Threat; military, political, economic, etc. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 16 2004, 01:56 AM (13,559 Views) | |
| Ka DRe | Sep 30 2004, 12:00 PM Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
 
|
The Peoples Republic of China OFFICIALLY CLAIMS THE WHOLE SOUTH CHINA SEA AS PART OF HER TERRITORY unlike other claimants! That is the major difference with the PROC and other claimants. Our claim on the Kalayaan islands is based on the UN Law of the Sea Convention[the archipelagic doctrine]. |
 
|
|
| Ka DRe | Sep 30 2004, 12:14 PM Post #12 |
|
Unregistered
|
I don't speak for any goverment organization by the way... Reference: PRoC claim: http://www.uscc.gov/researchreports/2004/s...seamilitary.htm The PRC's assertions of sovereignty in the South China Sea rest on historical claims of discovery and occupation. The Chinese case is well documented. Archaeological findings about the Xisha Islands during 770-476 B.C. suggest Chinese fishing expeditions visited the region.(18) References made in Chou Ch'u-fei's Ling-Wai-tai-ta (Information on What Lies Beyond the Passes) during the Sung dynasty (12th century)(19) and in the records of Chinese navigators during the Qing dynasty (18th century) also describe considerable naval activity in the area.(20) Notable problems of authenticity and accuracy exist, however, in describing coastal points as implied references for the Spratly Islands. These problems are compounded by the fundamental question of whether proof of historical title today carries sufficient legal weight to validate acquisition of territory. Modern international law clearly recognizes that mere discovery of some territory is not sufficient to vest in the discoverer valid title of ownership to territory. Rather, discovery only creates inchoate title, which must be perfected by subsequent continuous and effective acts of occupation, generally construed to mean permanent settlement.(21) Evidence of such permanent settlement is not compelling in the case of China's claim to the Spratlys.(22) Philipine claim: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Spratly_I...Spratly_Islands A second argument used by the Philippines regarding their geographical claim over the Spratly's is that all the islands claimed by the Philippines lie within their archipelagic baselines, the only claimant who can make such a statement. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stated that a coastal state could claim two hundred nautical miles of jurisdiction beyond its land boundaries. It is perhaps telling that while the Philippines is a signatory to UNCLOS, the PRC and Vietnam are not. The Philippines also argue, under Law of the Sea provisions, that the PRC can not extend its baseline claims to the Spratly's because the PRC is not an archipelagic state. Whether this argument (or any other used by the Philippines) would hold up in court is debatable but possibly moot, as the PRC and Vietnam seem unwilling to legally substantiate their claims and have rejected Philippine challenges to take the dispute to the World Maritime Tribunal in Hamburg. |
|
|
|
| Masamang Damo | Oct 2 2004, 05:35 PM Post #13 |
|
Unregistered
|
di na kailingan, di ba buong mundo kalat na ang mga tsekwa |
|
|
|
| ColdDeadFish | Oct 5 2004, 09:13 PM Post #14 |
Major
  ![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
PRC has already made their offensive five years ago. PRC has clearly recognized that the economy shall the battlefield of the future, intermix this with business objectives, PRC becomes a country difficult to control when it controls the trade balances of the region. Case in point, Janshe motorcycles. Jianshe is a rebranded yamaha motorbike, where the PRC bought the yamaha production facilities from japan. Jianshe is sold into the Philippines with 36 months credit to the distributor. The distributor in the RP only have to pay for shipping, he can pass the terms to his customers for 36 months, all the distributor has to do is pay for monthly amortization at sub inflation rates on items sold. Meaning, the PRC is lending the manufacturer, who relends it to overseas distributors who relends it to customers, hereby indebting the target country trade positive in favor to the PRC. Now think about that and transpose that to other products, we could see a trade blackhole in China where it lends and supplies the material demands of the world, hence all of the wealth of this world is slowly funneling to China. We have seen that in History my friends, UK and the colonies, France and the Colonies, The US and it allies, the USSR and the satellites and now China and the hungry global consumer. To me, that is a real threat, we do not need another sovereign behemoth. Just imagine the diplomatic angle when everyone owes PRC their motorbikes and cars. That's why it is the top agenda of the G7 summit. If china does not float its currency, it can unfairly bias the balance of global free trade. Hungry nations will look for a fight, because they have nothing to lose anymore. The Spratly's? its just an exercise to illicit soveriegn reaction, it is an exercise to quantify the country's capability to play "chicken". It is miniscule compared to the permutations of possible outcomes. |
| |
 |
|
| ctrlaltdel | Oct 6 2004, 11:08 AM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
i agree with colddead here one-month stoppage lang ng mga tsekwa kahit lang sa electronic components production sira na ekonomiya sa europe at US |
|
|
|
| Lickerblade | Oct 22 2004, 07:14 PM Post #16 |
|
Member
|
oo nga no - pc ko made in China halos lahat ng components... |
|
|
|
| flipzi | Nov 2 2004, 06:31 PM Post #17 |
R-A-T-S
|
China's neighbors, including RP is threatened much about its growing economy. - It has a very strong and huge market potential for ANY BUSINESS. - It's people are beginning to be competitive, in terms of cost and quality. - It has the capability to be with among the world's hi-technology products exporter, from consumer electronics to state-of-the-art war machines. Much of the US electronic industries are now relocating their factories to China because of lower production cost. With regard to the security issue, their bullying in the Spratly's has solidified the perception that China is a threat to the ASEAN countries indeed. Their "TALK AND TAKE" strategy is known to many. If China wants to improve its relationship with its neighbors, it must give smaller countries like that of RP their chance to develop and strengthen their economy. China will benefit much if it can be the catalyst for ASEAN commerce, where every participating nation will benefit much from this partnership and have their opportunity to improve their own economy. The ideal direction for China is to BE THE CATALYST FOR ASEAN TRADE. If it can succeed in that, China will soon realize that there's much to being the one who has helped the others who are weak ..... than being the bully despite being the one who already have much to share. |
 " Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them! - Art. II Sec 1, Philippine Constitution " " People don't care what we know until they know we care. " getflipzi@yahoo.com | |
|
|
|
| ColdDeadFish | Nov 17 2004, 05:20 PM Post #18 |
|
Major
|
But why would China do it? What's in it for them? why help them if you can have them? My take China is heading for the wall, its like seeing japan in the early 30s all over again. One eco embargo and China will go beserk. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| flipzi | Nov 17 2004, 05:36 PM Post #19 |
|
R-A-T-S
|
China nor any other country can never repeat what Japan tried to do in the 1940s. The UN shall always be there to remind everyone that gone are the days when you can just conquer any nation whenever it pleases you. Remember the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? I believe China just wanted to get a stronger hold of the vast oil and gas reserves lying underneath the Spratly's. The reefs and shoals within and the sorrounding waters are rich in marine resources. Even the claim that the structures were only meant to provide shelter to the Chinese fishermen plying that route proves that it is a strategic base for supporting industries based on marine resource consumption. China's requirement is growing and it has to do something to support that requirement. China is even trying to get back Taiwan like what it did with Hong Kong because these two have already grown economically and getting these pots of gold will speed up China's emergence as an economic power not just in Asia but in a global scope. |
|
" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them! - Art. II Sec 1, Philippine Constitution " " People don't care what we know until they know we care. " getflipzi@yahoo.com | |
|
|
|
| ColdDeadFish | Nov 17 2004, 06:27 PM Post #20 |
|
Major
|
This debatable but I will let you get away with it for now. There surely are parallels in history. If China expands economically without expanding its geopolitical strength, it will be the first geopolitical anomaly. Case in point, Singapore's security strengths grew as its economy. And singapore is a small country which started with meager resources. It may not have the capability to maintain a long term sustained war but it does have good first strike punch. Now transpose that to China, its patriotic sense and its cultural context. China's national security is key to its eco security and China's national security is the regional and global national insecurity. Its just the facts. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Military and Law Enforcement · Next Topic » |
2:50 PM Jul 13