Chinese vessel sinks Filipino fishing boat an flees

[Old55]

A Chinese vessel stuck and sank an anchored Filipino fishing boat abandoning 22 Filipinos to their fate. According to AFP Western Comand Spokesman this was not an accident but a deliberate action.  

Fortunately a nearby Vietnamese boat came to their rescue saving all 22 fishermen.

It will be interesting what the president says or not.

[Mark Berkowitz]

1 hour ago, Old55 said:

It will be interesting what the president says or not.

I will also be waiting to see what he says (or not). 

[Peaceful John]

The Chinese will give Duerte 22 telephone poles and Duerte will claim a new political break through with China.  Issue settled.

[Dave Hounddriver]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/world/asia/philippines-china-fishing-boat.html

In the above article, they show protest marchers in Manila.  However, what can they do?  Even Chinese protesters in their own country do not get an ear from their government.

China knows exactly what they can get away with and they constantly push the limits.  Of course, that isn't really any different than Putin or President but China is closer and directly affects the Philippines.

[scott h]

4 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

they constantly push the limits. 

Spot on Dave, they have taken a page out of Teddy Roosevelts book. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

[GeoffH]

23 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Even Chinese protesters in their own country do not get an ear from their government.

A million(ish) protesters in the center of Hong Kong not being enough to get to talk to the local Hong Kong government (let along someone from the mainland) says you're right about that (see western media link and chinese media link).

And even if the Philippines did have the will to take action about this realistically what could they do?

https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/hong-kong-protests-june-12-intl-hnk/index.html

And now the the China Daily are claiming that the protesters were in fact supporting the extradition bill, not opposing it.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkedition/2019-06/10/content_37478727.htm

Edited June 13, 2019 by GeoffH

[Mark Berkowitz]

27 minutes ago, scott h said:

Spot on Dave, they have taken a page out of Teddy Roosevelts book. "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

"China is Walking Softly and Carrying a Small Stick

The alarm bells that are ringing among various governments and in the press with respect to China’s growing global military presence are overdone. Yes, in doing so, China is indeed seeking to expand its global political, as well as its ability to project its military power abroad. As the world’s second largest economy and de facto superpower, what, exactly, would the West and its neighbors expect it to be doing? The difference is, unlike when the other Great Powers sought to expand their own global reach, China actually has little ability to project its power at the present time.

Not Really a String of Pearls

For more than a decade now, the West has been pounding the ‘String of Pearls’ drum, arguing that China has been seeking to secure its flow of natural resources from around the world by using its economic and military relationships with governments throughout Asia to establish numerous military facilities throughout the region. There is some truth to this, of course, with the Chinese having either financed, established or having access to ports in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan. But a recent report from the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) notes that, based on its long-standing foreign policy principles and objectives, there is little reason to believe that China will make much additional headway in pursuing more in the way of a String of Pearls, and there is actually no evidence that China is using any of these sites for military activities.

Moreover, China’s history in the region are still prominent in its popular memory, given Beijing’s 1979 invasion of Vietnam, its support of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia (1976-1979), and accusations of involvement in Indonesia’s 1965 coup.

Furthermore, China still has unresolved border disputes with several nations in the region, including Bhutan, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia, as well as claiming a sizeable chunk of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. These will presumably make it difficult for China to achieve much more in the way of an enhanced naval presence elsewhere in Asia.

China’s ongoing regional disputes over the Senkaku, Spratly, and Paracel Islands have only exacerbated regional tensions. China’s ‘nine dash dotted line’ — which denotes an imaginary maritime boundary extending hundreds of miles beyond its internationally recognized Exclusive Economic Zone into the South China Sea – will never stand up in international court, but that has not prevented China from assertively pursuing its territorial claims there. Its recent construction of air strips in the South China Sea is as much intended to intimidate its neighbors as to project its military power.

Not Taking Africa by Storm

The Chinese have been trying to establish a military base in the geo-strategically significant nation of Djibouti for years, whose president recently said that China’s presence there would be welcome, which is hardly surprising given how close the two countries have become economically. Both countries signed an agreement last year allowing for a Chinese naval presence, and now Beijing is intent on building a permanent military base in the northern city of Obock.

Djibouti already serves as the U.S. military headquarters on the African continent, where the U.S. projects its own power in Africa and the Middle East. Both France and Japan also already have a presence there, and Djibouti is routinely used by other navies to battle pirates in Somalia. If it does build a military installation there, China will just be one more country that recognizes Djibouti’s strategic importance and seeks to project its power from the tiny country.

As South Sudan’s number one foreign investor, China has come to play an unusually active role in an effort to resolve the ongoing conflict there. Such involvement contradicts China’s traditional doctrine of non-interference in foreign countries’ domestic disputes, but Beijing’s economic and geopolitical interests in South Sudan have convinced it to bend its rules. China has high stakes in both Sudan and South Sudan, having invested $20 billion in Sudan prior to the 2011 partition, and an additional $8 billion in South Sudan following its secession. While playing its diplomatic role, China also happens to be the government’s top weapons provider. Last year China sold $38 million worth of ammunition, grenade launchers, machine guns and missiles to South Sudan’s government.

As a result, many voices in South Sudan and the international community have accused Beijing of prolonging the conflict. Some rebel figures have also criticized Beijing, claiming it is playing a contradictory role by arming South Sudan’s military while investing time, effort and money in peace talks. South Sudan’s rebels do not view China as a legitimate or genuine peace broker, and accuse it of playing peacemaker simply to protect its oil interests. Such a perception can only be heightened by China’s deployment of 700 troops to the South Sudanese states of Unity and Upper Nile, in an effort to safeguard China’s workers and assets. It marks Beijing’s first contribution of a battalion to any UN peacekeeping force. Some might ask, what took it so long to do so?"

https://intpolicydigest.org/2015/05/13/china-is-walking-softly-and-carrying-a-small-stick/

 

[Dave Hounddriver]

2 hours ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

As the world’s second largest economy and de facto superpower, what, exactly, would the West and its neighbors expect it to be doing?

That is a question I can answer.  Canada is next door to the largest economy and superpower.  If the US were to take a currently unpopulated island in Canadian waters and turn it into a military base, then "I", and "the West", and all our neighbors would expect them to ask for and get permission AND THEN obey the world courts decision if there was no agreement between the friends/neighbors.

The article sounds like it is feeding us bullchit dressed up as fertilizer.  Same shit, different spin.

[Mark Berkowitz]

 

5 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

our neighbors would expect them to ask for and get permission AND THEN obey the world courts decision if there was no agreement between the friends/neighbors.

   

I really should not comment!... but since China is not obeying the world courts, the only solution that I can think of is to create a naval blockade of their man made islands.  This would require the military support of the US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.  Who will green light this endeavor?

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 minute ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

since China is not obeying the world courts, the only solution that I can think of is to create a naval blockade of their man made islands. 

Maybe we can just build a wall around their island and get them to pay for it.  Just kidding.  My objection to the article was that the writer seems to suggest that China is doing the same as any other superpower would do.  I offered my opinion of what other superpowers would do.

On second thought, though, perhaps China is doing this because it is "only the Philippines"  They would not do it to Japan, or at least they would not get away with it.  In the same way, the USA would not do it to Canada but have no problem doing it in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  So there are some comparables and maybe the writer does have some valid points.