4 ms·

Interesting that the article chides the US military for not preventing China from militarising their own neighbourhood (South China Sea). However there’s nothin

Interesting that the article chides the US military for not preventing China from militarising their own neighbourhood (South China Sea). However there’s nothing wrong apparently with the US militarising the Caribbean, or the South China Sea for that matter. The same could be said for access to manufacturing for Huawei vs US companies.

blackrock 6y ago
Some senator should propose a bill renaming the Caribbean to the South American Sea. That’ll show everyone that America means business when it comes to territorial possessions! He might even win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so. LOL.
jariel 6y ago
There is no equivalence between the two actions. China is claiming vast regions which are currently regarded as 'international waters', or worse 'sovereign waters of other nations' as it's own, sovereign territory. The US is not declaring the Bahamas to be 'US Territory', for example. Not only that, the US Navy ensures that everyone - including China, Russia, Iran etc. can have 'safe passage' in international waters, and especially Panama Canal, Suez, Gulf etc. - which is quite literally the opposite of China's intentions in the S. China sea.
- sbmthakur 6y ago
  Simultaneously, they are trying to squeeze as much land as possible from their neighbors. Recently, Chinese soldiers killed 20 Indian soldiers who foiled their land-grabbing attempt.
  - jariel 6y ago
    To be fair, this was a quibble among unarmed soldiers, literally fist-fighting on a bridge, in the middle of the night. I'm not sure if it counts for anything, and I don't think that on the whole, India's sovereignty is threatened. The issue will be in areas wherein China can claim supremacy without much resistance, for example, off the coast of weaker neighbours in the region. It's a pretty bold ploy - at the same time, I actually believe that the 'chip wars' will be more important!
    - sbmthakur 6y ago
      The weapon used by the Chinese troops indicates that it was more than a fist-fight[0]. I do agree that coastal waters of certain ASEAN countries, which are practically defenseless, are at a significantly higher risk. 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53089037 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53089037
      - remarkEon 6y ago
        Which leads me to believe this was probably just a breakdown in discipline, on both sides, and not something to read too deeply into. If it was some kind of intentional action, why wouldn't shots have been fired?
        htfu 6y ago
        > The absence of firearms in the clash dates back to a 1996 agreement between the two sides that guns and explosives be prohibited along the disputed stretch of the border, to deter escalation.
- michaelyoshika 6y ago
  People can't even trust US police, not to mention US military.
  - plandis 6y ago
    You don’t have to, the US navy’s role in securing free trade on the seas speaks for itself.
    - trasz 6y ago
      As in, enforcing US sanctions against their competitors?
      - jariel 6y ago
        The US Navy does not enforce sanctions against economic competitors. It may be involved in enforcing sanctions against military threats, like North Korea and Iran, but even then, not really. The US Navy defends the interests of the US largely by defending allies and promoting rules-based order. This is constantly the norm, day in day out, around the world. You see it in Panama Canal, Suez, especially the Gulf.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- free_rms 6y ago
  We have a Monroe doctrine in our whole hemisphere. AND we have bases surrounding like 80% of China's coast (Korea, Japan, phillipines). Them, as a great power, wanting to have an open sea route that they control isn't really that outrageous as far as how great powers act.
  - jariel 6y ago
    These moral equivalence arguments vis-a-vis China are not working. The US has bases in Korea, Japan etc. by invitation of those nations and it not 'control' any of the waters or territories there. Sovereign territories are controlled by sovereigns, and international waters are international - anyone can use them. The US doesn't even have a large enough fleet to project force or truly patrol over there, though it does so tacitly (i.e. where there is a problem, there is focus). "wanting to have an open sea route that they control isn't really that outrageous as far as how great powers act." China is declaring vast areas as de-facto sovereign territory, which is far beyond 'control' it's literally 'ownership'. All international 'sea routes' are effectively open, thanks in large part to the US Navy (and others of course). China is absolutely free to help patrol waters and to ensure international laws are respected - in fact - if that were the behavior of China, everyone would be relieved - but that is not what is happening at all.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      How were those bases established, pray tell? You can draw up as many technicalities as you'd like, but those technicalities are tools to serve power. They're tossed the second they aren't useful, by whichever country that can afford it. It would be monumentally stupid for the Chinese to just assume that we'll faithfully honor "international waters neutrality" forever, especially at the moment when they're eclipsing us economically.
      - jariel 6y ago
        "How were those bases established, pray tell?" Yes - let's 'go there'. The difference between having a strategic relationship with the US, versus one with China, is literally embodied in the difference between North and south Korea. The US defeated a pariah nation, Japan, and helped build it into a highly advanced, free nation, with whom the US enjoys a very positive strategic relationship. And FYI Japanese could ask the US to leave at any time, but that won't happen because of course Japan absolutely wants to maintain their partnership. North Korea is the ugliest, totalitarian 'prison state' in the worst in the world, maybe one of the worst the world has ever seen. That's 'Team China'. "It would be monumentally stupid for the Chinese to just assume that we'll faithfully honour "international waters neutrality" forever, especially at the moment when they're eclipsing us economically." Not only is this wrong, it also does not justify their actions. First - so long as there is no 'hot war' the Chinese will be able to ship their goods and navigate waters as they please. It won't matter if they have a 'bigger economy' than the US. Second - none of this justifies grabbing territory. As I mentioned, if China were to use its navy to actively support open navigation of international waters, then the world would welcome that. We'd all be working with on the issue. But that is not the case: China has Imperial ambitions, and if it means putting a few more million Muslims in concentration camps, then so be it. It's really sad to see these constant duplicitous China arguments. That it's not perfectly black and white does not make it entirely murky either - China is a pariah state.
AWildC182 6y ago
The important difference here is China has claimed territorial waters from other sovereign and non-cooperative countries.

blackrock 6y ago

Some senator should propose a bill renaming the Caribbean to the South American Sea. That’ll show everyone that America means business when it comes to territorial possessions! He might even win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so. LOL.

jariel 6y ago

There is no equivalence between the two actions. China is claiming vast regions which are currently regarded as 'international waters', or worse 'sovereign waters of other nations' as it's own, sovereign territory. The US is not declaring the Bahamas to be 'US Territory', for example. Not only that, the US Navy ensures that everyone - including China, Russia, Iran etc. can have 'safe passage' in international waters, and especially Panama Canal, Suez, Gulf etc. - which is quite literally the opposite of China's intentions in the S. China sea.

sbmthakur 6y ago
Simultaneously, they are trying to squeeze as much land as possible from their neighbors. Recently, Chinese soldiers killed 20 Indian soldiers who foiled their land-grabbing attempt.
- jariel 6y ago
  To be fair, this was a quibble among unarmed soldiers, literally fist-fighting on a bridge, in the middle of the night. I'm not sure if it counts for anything, and I don't think that on the whole, India's sovereignty is threatened. The issue will be in areas wherein China can claim supremacy without much resistance, for example, off the coast of weaker neighbours in the region. It's a pretty bold ploy - at the same time, I actually believe that the 'chip wars' will be more important!
  - sbmthakur 6y ago
    The weapon used by the Chinese troops indicates that it was more than a fist-fight[0]. I do agree that coastal waters of certain ASEAN countries, which are practically defenseless, are at a significantly higher risk. 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53089037 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53089037
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      Which leads me to believe this was probably just a breakdown in discipline, on both sides, and not something to read too deeply into. If it was some kind of intentional action, why wouldn't shots have been fired?
      - htfu 6y ago
        > The absence of firearms in the clash dates back to a 1996 agreement between the two sides that guns and explosives be prohibited along the disputed stretch of the border, to deter escalation.
michaelyoshika 6y ago
People can't even trust US police, not to mention US military.
- plandis 6y ago
  You don’t have to, the US navy’s role in securing free trade on the seas speaks for itself.
  - trasz 6y ago
    As in, enforcing US sanctions against their competitors?
    - jariel 6y ago
      The US Navy does not enforce sanctions against economic competitors. It may be involved in enforcing sanctions against military threats, like North Korea and Iran, but even then, not really. The US Navy defends the interests of the US largely by defending allies and promoting rules-based order. This is constantly the norm, day in day out, around the world. You see it in Panama Canal, Suez, especially the Gulf.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
free_rms 6y ago
We have a Monroe doctrine in our whole hemisphere. AND we have bases surrounding like 80% of China's coast (Korea, Japan, phillipines). Them, as a great power, wanting to have an open sea route that they control isn't really that outrageous as far as how great powers act.
- jariel 6y ago
  These moral equivalence arguments vis-a-vis China are not working. The US has bases in Korea, Japan etc. by invitation of those nations and it not 'control' any of the waters or territories there. Sovereign territories are controlled by sovereigns, and international waters are international - anyone can use them. The US doesn't even have a large enough fleet to project force or truly patrol over there, though it does so tacitly (i.e. where there is a problem, there is focus). "wanting to have an open sea route that they control isn't really that outrageous as far as how great powers act." China is declaring vast areas as de-facto sovereign territory, which is far beyond 'control' it's literally 'ownership'. All international 'sea routes' are effectively open, thanks in large part to the US Navy (and others of course). China is absolutely free to help patrol waters and to ensure international laws are respected - in fact - if that were the behavior of China, everyone would be relieved - but that is not what is happening at all.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    How were those bases established, pray tell? You can draw up as many technicalities as you'd like, but those technicalities are tools to serve power. They're tossed the second they aren't useful, by whichever country that can afford it. It would be monumentally stupid for the Chinese to just assume that we'll faithfully honor "international waters neutrality" forever, especially at the moment when they're eclipsing us economically.
    - jariel 6y ago
      "How were those bases established, pray tell?" Yes - let's 'go there'. The difference between having a strategic relationship with the US, versus one with China, is literally embodied in the difference between North and south Korea. The US defeated a pariah nation, Japan, and helped build it into a highly advanced, free nation, with whom the US enjoys a very positive strategic relationship. And FYI Japanese could ask the US to leave at any time, but that won't happen because of course Japan absolutely wants to maintain their partnership. North Korea is the ugliest, totalitarian 'prison state' in the worst in the world, maybe one of the worst the world has ever seen. That's 'Team China'. "It would be monumentally stupid for the Chinese to just assume that we'll faithfully honour "international waters neutrality" forever, especially at the moment when they're eclipsing us economically." Not only is this wrong, it also does not justify their actions. First - so long as there is no 'hot war' the Chinese will be able to ship their goods and navigate waters as they please. It won't matter if they have a 'bigger economy' than the US. Second - none of this justifies grabbing territory. As I mentioned, if China were to use its navy to actively support open navigation of international waters, then the world would welcome that. We'd all be working with on the issue. But that is not the case: China has Imperial ambitions, and if it means putting a few more million Muslims in concentration camps, then so be it. It's really sad to see these constant duplicitous China arguments. That it's not perfectly black and white does not make it entirely murky either - China is a pariah state.

AWildC182 6y ago

The important difference here is China has claimed territorial waters from other sovereign and non-cooperative countries.