| 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 Kalayaan, Panatag & other disputed islands; Future conflict zones? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 2 2005, 08:00 PM (156,107 Views) | |
| C.C. | Mar 14 2009, 07:58 PM Post #171 |
|
Green-haired Immortal Pizza Witch!!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Perhaps for Malacanang to back up its words with deeds. Start upgrading our external defenses to at least a level that will make an aggressor think twice before he tries to grab the islands we control. Sovereignty, which includes control of the natural resources and shipping lanes in these areas are at stake. China may not move now, but as its economy and military stature reaches the level of a world superpower, the likelihood that it will in force its law that the Spratlys are Chinese territory becomes greater. Let’s also not forget the other claimants whose militaries are far superior compared to ours. |
![]() Ay put&! Nahulog.................... | |
![]() |
|
| valiant | Mar 15 2009, 08:20 AM Post #172 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Can we for once stop being paranoid about China? I really think it has no intention of physically taking all of the Spratlys with force, it just could not handle the backlash, both economic and political. The government is right when it did not force its claim through the Baselines Act, there should be a diplomatic solution to satisfy all claims. |
![]() |
|
| Fmr TOPP Awardee 82'PNP | Mar 15 2009, 10:09 AM Post #173 |
|
PDFF Moderator
![]()
|
Capable or not, the military is not the one that assert sovereignty. It's task is only to defend a sovereign state and it's boundaries. It is the state that assert sovereignty. If the Philippines has not declared the Spratlys as a part and parcel of it's sovereignty under the Base Line Law, then there's nothing to defend. The military's rule in the island is only a gesture of presence not control unless it is juridically declared as a part of the sovereign state. Any power can drive them out there and control the island without any hitch. Perhaps rather without perhaps, the Chinese is only grinding their teeth with restraint to get rid of political implications. As we can see they were not even able to bring Taiwan back to the fold with the same reason. |
![]() "GUILTY CONSCIENCE NEEDS NO ACCUSER" | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 15 2009, 04:57 PM Post #174 |
![]()
|
now, here's China's MILITARY RESPONSE to the Baselines bill and the USNS Impeccable incident...
|
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 15 2009, 05:00 PM Post #175 |
![]()
|
now, here's China's MILITARY RESPONSE to the Baselines bill and the USNS Impeccable incident...
|
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| systema | Mar 15 2009, 06:50 PM Post #176 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
China is years early in looking for a war, maybe comeback later after 10 years. If they start one, they will lose it all, Spratlys, Taiwan, Tibet. |
![]() |
|
| al'Lan Mandragoran | Mar 15 2009, 08:24 PM Post #177 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Its just a symbolic gesture from China, its not even a very well-armed ship. China cannot afford to rattle swords in these hard economic times, what with billions of dollars of its money tied up in shaky US investments. The US can cripple China without firing a single shot, just a push of a button from a suit at the Treasury Department (sorry, no DoD here). |
|
"In wars, boy, fools kill other fools for foolish causes." "Run when you have to, fight when you must, rest when you can." - Robert Jordan; The Wheel of Time | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 16 2009, 12:35 AM Post #178 |
![]()
|
Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you wish for peace, prepare for war. |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Mar 16 2009, 12:39 AM Post #179 |
![]()
|
China shows might in South China Sea Security chief Gonzales worried by move By Christian V. Esguerra Philippine Daily Inquirer, Agence France-Presse First Posted 01:18:00 03/16/2009 MANILA, Philippines—China’s dispatch of a state-of-the-art patrol ship in the South China Sea doesn’t necessarily smack of gunboat diplomacy, but Malacañang is taking it seriously. National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales Sunday said he would call for an immediate meeting of the Cabinet’s security group to discuss the Chinese action in the wake of Beijing’s protest over the signing of the Philippine Archipelagic Baselines Law. “The deployment of the patrol ship was a message and we cannot just ignore it,” Gonzales told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in a phone interview. “We have to take it seriously.” China’s state media Sunday reported that the country had dispatched its “most modern patrol ship” in the South China Sea following an incident with a US naval vessel and the signing of the Philippine baselines law. “This should remind us that even in this era of dialogue and understanding in the world, there will always be nations that will show might and threaten perceived weak nations like us,” Gonzales said. He said the meeting of the national security cluster would tackle the Philippine government’s response to the ship deployment in the context of the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. “That’s where we should be going,” he said. “The only thing we can do is to resort to diplomacy.” In the declaration, China and Southeast Asian nations agreed to “exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays and other features, and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.” Baselines bill ‘illegal’ China had earlier protested the signing of the baselines bill, describing it as “illegal.” But the Philippine government maintained that it was standing by its claim on the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal—an area potentially rich in oil. The baselines law excludes the disputed Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough Shoal from the archipelago, treating them instead as part of a “regime of islands.” Still, China was adamant that the Philippines was claiming its territories in the Spratlys, particularly Huangyan Island and the Nansha Islands. Gonzales said the Chinese protest could be considered a form of diplomatic “posturing.” Press Secretary Cerge Remonde Sunday described Beijing’s move as a “normal conduct in international diplomacy.” “We should not be worried about it,” Remonde said in his Sunday media forum on state-owned Radyo ng Bayan. “The United Nations will be the final arbiter of the issue.” UN Law of the Sea Remonde maintained that the baselines law was consistent with requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. “What our President and our government (officials) did was in accordance to their sworn constitutional duty which is to uphold and protect the sovereignty of our country,” he said. Remonde said the Philippine government would also have lodged a similar diplomatic protest if China or other claimants of the disputed island came up with an official action similar to the baselines law. No official reaction has been issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs, but a DFA official who did not wish to be named said that the Chinese move seemed to comply with the 2002 declaration, particularly its provision on notification coursed through official media. Beijing News said the Chinese vessel would conduct patrols of what it called China’s exclusive maritime zone in the disputed waters surrounding the Paracel and Spratlys, according to Agence France Presse. The report said that the converted naval rescue ship would aid Chinese fishing boats and transport vessels. Standoff in South China Sea Tensions in the area rose when the United States sent destroyers to international waters off southern China to protect a naval surveillance patrol that was involved in a standoff with Chinese vessels. China said the US patrol vessels were within its 200-kilometer economic exclusive zone, but the United States has insisted they were in international waters. The Spratly and Paracel island chains have been flash points for years. The Spratlys are claimed in full or part by China and Vietnam, as well as the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan, and the Paracels are claimed by China, which now occupies them, as well as by Vietnam and Taiwan. |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| pachador | Mar 16 2009, 04:02 AM Post #180 |
![]()
|
once scenario short of shooting war is for this situation to turn into a fisheries war similar to the Cod wars in the european north sea wherein warships of opposing countries would smash into each other's hulls. here is a history of the cod wars and lessons we can learn from it in case it happens in the 200 mile EEZ of palawan and western luzon: how iceland coast guard cut the trawl nets of foreign poachers: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucvanbraekel/2584440340/ Cod wars history: http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/CodWar.htm http://www.american.edu/ted/icefish.htm |
![]() |
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






8:32 AM Jul 11