[late]

Not if you accept China's territorial claims over the Paracels and Spratleys. Why have you rejected them out of hand, by the way?

Because it's more than that, and again, encroaches on the recognized territorial waters of a number of countries.

It's also worth noting China has rejected compromise, they want it all..

[Fasces]

Admin Edit: Rule 16 Violation

The rest of us certainly do.

The United States certainly doesn't.

Expecting one superpower to abide by rules the other ignores is admirable, and I wish China would, but ultimately an absurd critique.

The Chinese state, constitutionally, cannot recognize any international or foreign power on the question of its territorial integrity. Blame colonialism for that one.

Because it's more than that, and again, encroaches on the recognized territorial waters of a number of countries.

More countries recognize the Paracels as Chinese. Read the Cairo Declaration explicitly giving them to China in the 1940s.

And as much as it pains me that such basic facts must be stated: the islands are not within the territorial waters of any country. They're hundreds of kilometers away, in fact.

Why do you, personally, feel the Vietnamese claim has more merit?

It's also worth noting China has rejected compromise, they want it all.

If France claimed the channel islands, is Britain rejecting compromise unless they give them Jersey?

[Patrickov]

The Chinese state, constitutionally, cannot recognize any international or foreign power on the question of its territorial integrity. Blame colonialism for that one.

1. The CCP itself does not respect the Chinese constitution it wrote anyways, for example in respecting the freedom of its citizens. If it does not respect its own constitution and integrity there's no surprise that others have absolutely no intention to.
2. The way they assert territorial integrity ironically proves that colonialism being a superior state to be applied on the place. In fact, both Hong Kong and Taiwan, colonized by foreign powers, turned out to be better than the rest of China, and for the former case, China's return absolutely ruined the place.

You get what you sow.

[Fasces]

[late]

The United States certainly doesn't.



The Chinese state, constitutionally, cannot recognize any international or foreign power on the question of its territorial integrity. Blame colonialism for that one.



More countries recognize the Paracels as Chinese. Read the Cairo Declaration explicitly giving them to China in the 1940s.


Why do you, personally, feel the Vietnamese claim has more merit?

I let that slide for a while. While we are not perfect, the Asian economic success has a lot to do with us creating that environment, and policing it.

They did, until recently.

It's a lot more than the Paracels, that's a lazy dodge.

I thought that obvious, there needs to be a compromise that respects established marine boundaries...

[Fasces]

I let that slide for a while. While we are not perfect, the Asian economic success has a lot to do with us creating that environment, and policing it.

And that justifies the hypocrisy of the USA in demanding other powers abide by an international law they neither recognize or obey? You don't believe the US should be subject to international rules because it's strong?

Then why would China act any other way - if strength is enough to justify not obeying a rules based international order, then the only real justification China needs to claim these lands is the equipment on its military bases there.

They did, until recently.

Elaborate?

It's a lot more than the Paracels, that's a lazy dodge.

The Paracels are an example. The only one dodging anything is you, by refusing to actually examine the details of any claims.

The territory is in dispute. That is the only neutral way to describe it.

If I described the Hans Island dispute as Canada claiming Danish land, I've already taken a position that the territory is Danish. Similarly when you describe the South China Sea dispute as "China claiming XYZ's territory", you're presuming the validity of the claims of the latter over that territory.

So I'm asking you - why do you feel their territorial claims to the Paracels or Spratleys or other islands are more valid than China's? On what basis?

[noemon]

And that justifies the hypocrisy of the USA in demanding other powers abide by an international law they neither recognize or obey? You don't believe the US should be subject to international rules because it's strong?

Then why would China act any other way - if strength is enough to justify not obeying a rules based international order, then the only real justification China needs to claim these lands is the equipment on its military bases there.

That is precisely what hawkish American neo-cons used to argue in here and the reason this forum trashed those American neo-cons and their adventures in the Midde-East. Why should this forum give a pass to China to spit on International Courts and norms when no such quarter was given to America and her lapdogs in this forum?

And since you were part of those criticizing the US for its hypocrisy along with myself and others, it becomes obvious that your criticism was based purely on anti-Americanism. The standards that you applied to the US, you now do not want them applied to China ever since you took a job in that country.

The only hypocrite in here is yourself.

China's claims have been rendered illegal by the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

[Fasces]

you now do not want them applied to China ever since you took a job in that country.

On the contrary - China, like the US, should absolutely abide by the rulings of the Hague Court and other international institutions. I don't particularly like their posturing in the South China Sea, especially the vague nonsense claim over open ocean.

I've never claimed China is perfect, whatever you say, and I'm perfectly happy to criticize it - the real factual China, not the myth built up in the heads of many in this forum by Cold War esque atrocity propoganda.

China's claims have been rendered illegal by the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

To be precise, China's claim of territorial sovereignty over open ocean within the Philippine EEZ has been ruled as without merit. The broader territorial dispute between China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines over the Paracels, the Spratleys, and other islands has never been addressed in any international Court case, and the dispute is ongoing.

[late]

And that justifies the hypocrisy of the USA in demanding other powers abide by an international law they neither recognize or obey? You don't believe the US should be subject to international rules because it's strong?

Then why would China act any other way - if strength is enough to justify not obeying a rules based international order, then the only real justification China needs to claim these lands is the equipment on its military bases there.



Elaborate?



The Paracels are an example. The only one dodging anything is you, by refusing to actually examine the details of any claims.

The territory is in dispute. That is the only neutral way to describe it.

If I described the Hans Island dispute as Canada claiming Danish land, I've already taken a position that the territory is Danish. Similarly when you describe the South China Sea dispute as "China claiming XYZ's territory", you're presuming the validity of the claims of the latter over that territory.

So I'm asking you - why do you feel their territorial claims to the Paracels or Spratleys or other islands are more valid than China's? On what basis?

Repeating BS doesn't improve it.

[Patrickov]

That is precisely what hawkish American neo-cons used to argue in here and the reason this forum trashed those American neo-cons and their adventures in the Midde-East. Why should this forum give a pass to China to spit on International Courts and norms when no such quarter was given to America and her lapdogs in this forum?

Actually China should be given even less leverage because at least the United States encourages freedom and debate while China encourages neither.

I believe the probability that a neo-cons' call for screwing the ICJ is agreeable is higher than an apparently similar (but different) call from an entirely selfish rogue state.

[AFAIK]

TIL that the SCS is located in Africa. It's a weird card to play so early since China's behaviour in Africa is easy to criticise.

4 years ago Le Monde reported that China had not only generously built a new HQ for the AU but had gone above and beyond by equipping the walls and furniture with microphones that transferred data to Shanghai each night. Whilst Le Monde acknowledged that other countries also spied on African gov'ts at the national and supra-national level it's clear why Chinese spying is so concerning;

Plus, if the Le Monde report is true, more than the AU may have been compromised. The AU headquarters is far from the only government building China has constructed in Africa. China recently inked deals to build and finance parliament buildings in Zimbabwe and the Republic of Congo, not to mention the entire Central Business District of Egypt’s new administrative capital. Finished projects include parliament buildings in Malawi, Seychelles, Guinea-Bissau, and Lesotho as well as a renovation of the parliament building of Sierra Leone.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/if-chin ... e-worried/

Original in French- https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/ ... _3212.html

[Rancid]

Where does this thread fall in the context of what is happening in Sri Lanka?

[Fasces]

Less than half of Sri Lana's foreign debt is owed to China, who in 2022 has agreed to a debt restructuring deal totalling 2 billion (out of 3.3 billion total owed to China), has approved an additional loan of 1 billion to help the Sri Lanka foreign reserves crunch in February and is considering additional debt alleviation measures as of March 2022.

This is in line with the article in the OP and consistent with past Chinese actions regarding its debt financing.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-04-01/

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-03-21/

The cynic would say that India is sensing an opportunity to "buy back" Sri Lanka from China and use the crisis to bring Sri Lanka back under its regional umbrella, forcing China to agree to the restructuring today to keep its hold over Sri Lanka tomorrow.

The optimist would point out China has consistently shown a willingness to forgive or restructure debts in the past to maintain good relations with the developing world as it grows its soft power, in line with Beijing’s objectives of peaceful/defensive development.