Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) in-laws have ordered 10 massive cargo ships from the Chinese government since the senator’s wife Elaine Chao became Secretary of Transportation. The deep financial ties between the Chao family’s shipping business Foremost Group and the Chinese regime were first revealed in the #1 New York Times bestseller Secret Empires.
Foremost Group, which is owned by Sec. Elaine Chao’s father and Sen. McConnell’s father-in-law James S.C. Chao, signed contracts with a subsidiary of the state-owned China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) for four bulk cargo ships in June and September 2017. In December 2017, Chao’s company signed another contract with state-owned CSSC at Foremost’s New York office for two massive 210,000-ton ships. James S.C. Chao and two of Elaine’s sisters were in attendance. So, too, was the Consul General of China in New York, as well as representatives from the CSSC. The financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed.
Then on January 31, 2018, Foremost Group ordered four more 210,000-ton ships from CSSC. Angela Chao, sister to Sec. Elaine Chao and Foremost’s Deputy Chairman, said she expects cooperation between the two entities to extend into the future. In January 2017, Angela Chao joined the board of the state-owned Bank of China.
The finances of Sec. Elaine Chao and her husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell, are closely tied to the Foremost Group. In 2008, James Chao gave a $5 million-$25 million “gift” to Sen. McConnell, more than tripling his net worth. Contracts with other Chinese state-owned enterprises make up a significant portion of Foremost’s business. James and Angela Chao previously served on the board of CSSC Holdings, a major contractor for the Chinese military and a key supporter of the PLA Navy.
Despite increasing threats of a trade war between the Trump Administration and the Chinese government, the Chao family’s ties to the Chinese government do not seem to have cooled. To the contrary, as the 10-ship order suggests, they have accelerated. Moreover, James Chao was recently in China for an event promoting his new Chinese-language biography. The event was sponsored by Xinhua, the Chinese state-owned media outlet, and the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries (CPAFFC), a branch of the Communist Party known to be active in foreign influence operations. Sponsors praised James Chao as a great promoter of China abroad, referring to him as “vanguard of China-US exchanges.”
The Chao’s Chinese counterparties are often closely aligned with China’s foreign policy elite. CPAFFC President Li Xiaolin, attended the book event with the Chao’s. She is the daughter of a former Chinese president and wife of a former Major General in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Another official in attendance now serves as Deputy Director of the United Front Work Department, a division of the Communist Party involved in managing foreign relationships.
Trade and infrastructure deals around the globe have become a centerpiece of China’s foreign policy in recent years. These deals are part of the strategic “One Belt, One Road” initiative, a massive plan to expand China’s sphere of influence across Asia and Africa. U.S. analysts view OBOR as both a military and economic challenge to the United States. One detailed study regards it as a “state-directed effort to bolster Chinese political influence and extend its military reach from Indonesia to East Africa.”
But the Chao family describes it in much more benign terms. In a March 2017 statement, Angela Chao called OBOR “very important not only to China’s development, but for the many surrounding and neighboring countries, and thus the world….I hope to also be able to contribute to this important initiative that has the potential to raise the standard of living for so many.”
The United States has so far declined to participate directly in OBOR or join China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). However, the Trump Administration sent a delegation to the 2017 Belt & Road Forum in a notable deviation from previous policy. Elaine Chao’s position as Transportation Secretary gives her great influence over U.S. policy regarding central components of the plan. Secretary Chao is spearheading the Trump administration’s $200 billion infrastructure proposal.
Foremost has yet to disclose the financial details of its latest deals with CSSC. Similar transactions with CSSC have recently cost over $47 million per vessel, a price that would place the total value of the Foremost deals at nearly half a billion dollars. Under current federal disclosure laws, which do not apply to adult relatives, Secretary Chao and Senator McConnell are not required to report their family’s dealings with a major foreign military contractor.
Secretary Chao is known to be extremely close with her father, who claims that she calls him nightly and involves him in official administration events “as often as she can.”
(This post was last modified: 05-01-2018 04:42 AM by Belgrano.)
New areas of US-China tension emerging in the last few days.
The White House sharply criticized China's attempts to force foreign airlines to remove references on their websites or in other material that suggested Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau were part of countries independent from China.
Quote:The White House on Saturday condemned China’s Civil Aviation Administration for ordering 36 foreign carriers, including US airlines, to remove references on their websites or in other material that suggested Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau were part of countries independent from China.
The White House said the demands were “Orwellian nonsense” and US President Donald Trump “will stand up for Americans resisting efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to impose Chinese political correctness on American companies and citizens”.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a statement on Sunday that Washington’s rhetoric would not change the fact “there’s only one China, and Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are inseparable parts of China”.
Geng said all foreign enterprises operating in China must respect China’s sovereignty and the “Chinese people’s national feeling”.
...
In January, the Cyberspace Administration of China ordered the US Marriott Hotel chain to temporarily suspend operations after its website listed Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau as separate countries.
A month later, German car company Mercedes-Benz apologized for an Instagram post featuring a quote from Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, whom Beijing considers a separatist.
Quote:BEIJING — Tensions between the United States and China flared on two military fronts as Washington accused the Chinese of harassing American pilots flying over the African nation of Djibouti and warned of consequences to the deployment of missiles on artificial islands China has built in disputed waters in the South China Sea.
The Pentagon’s spokeswoman, Dana W. White, said Thursday that personnel at China’s military base in Djibouti have in recent weeks been aiming powerful lasers at American aircraft that also operate in or near the country, which is where the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden meet.
...
The United States also objected to the deployment of antiaircraft and anti-ship missiles on islands that China claims in the South China Sea. Such deployments have been reported before, but never before have they been so explicitly confirmed by American and Chinese officials. The deployments contradict assurances that Mr. Xi made to President Barack Obama in 2015 not to “militarize” the area.
“We’ve raised concerns directly with the Chinese about this,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said on Thursday when asked if the deployment of missiles in the South China Sea crossed “a red line” for the United States.
“And there will be near-term and long-term consequences,” she added.
The Chinese appeared unfazed by the warnings. Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, confirmed the deployment of weapons to the islands, saying they were defensive and intended “to safeguard China’s sovereignty and security.”
Quote:China and the United States may be plunged into another round of trade sanction threats after high-level talks between trade representatives failed to secure any breakthroughs, and it will be up to negotiations between the two nations’ top leaders to resolve the deep rifts, Chinese analysts said.
Documents prepared by the two governments ahead of the talks, reviewed by the South China Morning Post, reflected the deep divisions between the nations.
The US demanded that China cut the trade deficit the US currently has by at least US$200 billion by the end of 2020. In addition, the US demanded that China halt state subsidies for industries under its “Made in China 2025” plan.
Also, it called on Beijing not to take retaliatory trade measures against Washington.
China called on the US to halt its section 301 investigation into its trade and industrial policies, and to lift restrictions on high-technology exports to China.
The difference in positions is simply too great - China wants to dominate the industries of the future and is willing to help their companies do it (including facilitating IPR theft and massive subsidies), while the US wants an equal playing field. The trade deficit is certainly important and a long term weakness, but I think the tech and AI race is a more pressing issue over the next 5-10 years. If we lower the deficit by getting more Chinese tourists, selling more real estate, soybeans, and natural gas, but lose the AI, driverless/electric car, robotics, aviation, and biotech race, then we are screwed.
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2018 07:53 AM by Arado.)
Bannon is brilliant as always. Trump's victory in 2016 has given Western civilisation at least a sliver of hope.
"We were told from Bush-Clinton Bush Obama, this is not about political party, this is not about ideology; that it was impossible to stop the rise of China... President Trump, in less than five or six months has put a lie to that. We have tremendous operating leverage and we still have time before China 2025 comes into being to actually combat this, and if we don't do it now, we will pay a huge price. And I don't care if the stock market goes up for a few days. What the financial community thinks of this is all short term, What secretary Mnuchin, who I consider a friend and a great guy, commented, that the trade war is on hold, is dead wrong, China hasn't put it on hold, China is still in economic warfare against us... is still in a trade war against us, we've unilaterally put it on hold"
Of course, like everything the media says, reality is the opposite of what they say.
We've been in a trade war for over a decade, with us suffering nearly half a trillion in losses per year. It's a war with one side isn't shooting back. It's not really a war, more like a slaughter or massacre.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
So is the trade war on or is this another ploy to get them to the negotiating table? Link
Quote:Donald Trump announces tariffs on US$50 billion of Chinese goods, sparking promise of retaliation from Beijing
The 25 per cent tariffs take aim at China’s strategic plan to dominate hi-tech industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the US and other countries
US President Donald Trump confirmed his plan to slap punitive tariffs on goods from China that “contain industrially significant technologies” as part of his effort to close a bilateral trade gap and force Beijing to change the way it acquires US technology.
The announcement sparked an immediate response from Beijing, which said it will retaliate with punitive tariffs on an equivalent volume of US products and that Trump’s move invalidates recent high-level negotiations aimed at averting a trade war.
The US will put a 25 per cent tariff on US$50 billion worth of annual imports from China, including “goods related to China’s Made in China 2025 strategic plan to dominate the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the United States and many other countries”, Trump said in an official White House statement.
Made in China 2025 refers to Beijing’s industrial policy of subsidising domestic companies developing strategic advanced technologies, including robotics and artificial intelligence.
China has “long been engaging in several unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology. These practices … harm our economic and national security and deepen our already massive trade imbalance with China,” the president said.
Not sure if this is the right time to also start trade conflicts with the other G7 countries - it would be better to have them on our side when going against China, which is by far a bigger threat long term than Canada or Germany.
(06-15-2018 09:31 AM)Arado Wrote: Not sure if this is the right time to also start trade conflicts with the other G7 countries - it would be better to have them on our side when going against China, which is by far a bigger threat long term than Canada or Germany.
In a globalised world, what is stopping China doing the bare minimum of finishing in the EU or Canada to count as being of local origin?
One of the problems I had with the TPP was it allowed a large minority of a good's production to occur in a non-treaty country(read, China), but counted the whole good as being from the treaty-country, thus allowing another proportion from a non-treaty country ad infinitum so when it reaches its final destination, the majority of the value added may have been from China despite them not having to abide by any of the conditions of the TPP
I'm assuming Trump is trying to get a common framework together that helps all nations instead of China-addicted multinationals.
(06-15-2018 09:31 AM)Arado Wrote: Not sure if this is the right time to also start trade conflicts with the other G7 countries - it would be better to have them on our side when going against China, which is by far a bigger threat long term than Canada or Germany.
In a globalised world, what is stopping China doing the bare minimum of finishing in the EU or Canada to count as being of local origin?
One of the problems I had with the TPP was it allowed a large minority of a good's production to occur in a non-treaty country(read, China), but counted the whole good as being from the treaty-country, thus allowing another proportion from a non-treaty country ad infinitum so when it reaches its final destination, the majority of the value added may have been from China despite them not having to abide by any of the conditions of the TPP
I'm assuming Trump is trying to get a common framework together that helps all nations instead of China-addicted multinationals.
Most China watchers were pushing TPP in order to exclude China from further trade integration until they stopped their unfair practices. If Chinese content in TPP countries was the main concern, it should have been loudly articulated and addressed in the negotiations. An anti-China message would find much more receptivity instead of blanket statements about globalism, America first, and bad deals.
Everyone is going gaga over Trump's picture standing up to Merkel, Macron, and Trudeau at the G7. However, that's peanuts. If Trump stands up to Xi Jinping when talking trade, South China Sea, NK, or Taiwan policy, then that's really where it matters. China has been taking advantage of the US far more than Canada or Europe has.
(06-15-2018 09:31 AM)Arado Wrote: So is the trade war on or is this another ploy to get them to the negotiating table? Link
Quote:Donald Trump announces tariffs on US$50 billion of Chinese goods, sparking promise of retaliation from Beijing
The 25 per cent tariffs take aim at China’s strategic plan to dominate hi-tech industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the US and other countries
US President Donald Trump confirmed his plan to slap punitive tariffs on goods from China that “contain industrially significant technologies” as part of his effort to close a bilateral trade gap and force Beijing to change the way it acquires US technology.
The announcement sparked an immediate response from Beijing, which said it will retaliate with punitive tariffs on an equivalent volume of US products and that Trump’s move invalidates recent high-level negotiations aimed at averting a trade war.
The US will put a 25 per cent tariff on US$50 billion worth of annual imports from China, including “goods related to China’s Made in China 2025 strategic plan to dominate the emerging high-technology industries that will drive future economic growth for China, but hurt economic growth for the United States and many other countries”, Trump said in an official White House statement.
Made in China 2025 refers to Beijing’s industrial policy of subsidising domestic companies developing strategic advanced technologies, including robotics and artificial intelligence.
China has “long been engaging in several unfair practices related to the acquisition of American intellectual property and technology. These practices … harm our economic and national security and deepen our already massive trade imbalance with China,” the president said.
Not sure if this is the right time to also start trade conflicts with the other G7 countries - it would be better to have them on our side when going against China, which is by far a bigger threat long term than Canada or Germany.
Trump shows zero weakness, which lets China know not to fuck around. Trump is harsh even with his closest allies, which means China must respect Trump or get destroyed by US tariffs. China has roughly ~10x as much to lose in a trade war than the US does.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Just as China promised, they have responded "immediately" to President Trump's "very big tariffs" and just unveiled $50 billion in tariffs against US goods including soybeans, light aircraft, orange juice, whiskey and beef, starting July 6th. American aircrafts are not on the list, but they can come soon.
If President Trump believes he can bully China the same way he bullies his European vassals he is for a big surprise.
With God's help, I'll conquer this terrible affliction.
By way of deception, thou shalt game women.
Diaboli virtus in lumbar est -The Devil's virtue is in his loins.
(06-18-2018 07:46 AM)Luvianka Wrote: Just as China promised, they have responded "immediately" to President Trump's "very big tariffs" and just unveiled $50 billion in tariffs against US goods including soybeans, light aircraft, orange juice, whiskey and beef, starting July 6th. American aircrafts are not on the list, but they can come soon. If President Trump believes he can bully China the same way he bullies his European vassals he is for a big surprise.
So if Trump doesn't allow China to continue with the extreme trade surplus they run with us, that's bullying? By that definition, I want him to put America first and keep bullying. We can make anything we get from China here at home. If China wants access to our markets, they can adjust their policies so competitive US products sell in China, at least up to the point where the trade balance is slightly favorable to the US.
Maybe Trump can acheive this goal by being nice, and not saying or doing anything the Chinese don't like?
I'm the tower of power, too sweet to be sour. I'm funky like a monkey. Sky's the limit and space is the place!
-Randy Savage
(06-18-2018 07:46 AM)Luvianka Wrote: Just as China promised, they have responded "immediately" to President Trump's "very big tariffs" and just unveiled $50 billion in tariffs against US goods including soybeans, light aircraft, orange juice, whiskey and beef, starting July 6th. American aircrafts are not on the list, but they can come soon.
If President Trump believes he can bully China the same way he bullies his European vassals he is for a big surprise.
China limits foreign exchange to $50,000 per person. Yes, you read that right. Each person can exchange no more than the RMB equivalent of $50,000 USD into other foreign currencies each year. Enough to pay your kid's annual tuition at a US post-secondary institution, but not enough to buy spent much money buying foreign products.
Companies must apply to government permission to exchange any amount of RMB into foreign currency and permission is routinely denied. They don't need any reason to deny permission and they only grant it if they are convinced that doing so will strongly be in China's favour.
So, businesses and individuals in China that want to purchase and import foreign goods, typically cannot.
Quote:In effect, Washington and the latest trade salvos are intended to tell China to keep its place in the US-version of a globalized liberal world where the state is not allowed to play any significant role, one where decisive power is held by a multinational corporate elite. Xi Jinping, having just consolidated his position with no restrictions on his term and consolidating his role as no previous Chinese leader since Mao, is not about to revert to what China sees as bowing to foreign pressures on its economic sovereignty. Privately, as I have confirmed in numerous discussions in China in the years since the 2008 financial crisis, China views the United States as a declining hegemon, much like the British Empire after 1873. It is determined to prepare a multi-polar alternative to the post-1990 US “sole superpower.” Its close recent bonds with Russia include preparing gold-backed currencies, alternatives to the Western SWIFT, military defenses against any potential US threat in the South China Sea or elsewhere. Notable in this light the first trip abroad of new China Defense Minister Wei Fenghe was to meet his Russian counterpart and signal the close ties of the two Eurasian powers to Washington. The Chinese view the US as a former industrial power whose debt is out of control and whose “free market” model has manifestly failed America, let alone the world.
Quote:An April 3 editorial in the official Beijing Global Times suggests China has no intent to back down or revert to the World Bank agenda. It declares, “Washington wanted to demonstrate its authority to the world, but unfortunately it gambled badly. The entire US elites have overestimated the strength and execution.” The editorial continues, “There is no way for the US to rebuild the hegemony that elites in Washington picture. As globalization and democracy have dented the foundation for that hegemony, the US lacks the strength, will and internal unity needed. In fact, the US has found it difficult to subdue Iran and North Korea, not to mention major countries like China. Washington cannot rule the world as an empire.”
06-24-2018 10:50 PM
TravelerKai
Innovative Casanova
Posts: 7,390
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 280
Quote:In effect, Washington and the latest trade salvos are intended to tell China to keep its place in the US-version of a globalized liberal world where the state is not allowed to play any significant role, one where decisive power is held by a multinational corporate elite. Xi Jinping, having just consolidated his position with no restrictions on his term and consolidating his role as no previous Chinese leader since Mao, is not about to revert to what China sees as bowing to foreign pressures on its economic sovereignty. Privately, as I have confirmed in numerous discussions in China in the years since the 2008 financial crisis, China views the United States as a declining hegemon, much like the British Empire after 1873. It is determined to prepare a multi-polar alternative to the post-1990 US “sole superpower.” Its close recent bonds with Russia include preparing gold-backed currencies, alternatives to the Western SWIFT, military defenses against any potential US threat in the South China Sea or elsewhere. Notable in this light the first trip abroad of new China Defense Minister Wei Fenghe was to meet his Russian counterpart and signal the close ties of the two Eurasian powers to Washington. The Chinese view the US as a former industrial power whose debt is out of control and whose “free market” model has manifestly failed America, let alone the world.
Quote:An April 3 editorial in the official Beijing Global Times suggests China has no intent to back down or revert to the World Bank agenda. It declares, “Washington wanted to demonstrate its authority to the world, but unfortunately it gambled badly. The entire US elites have overestimated the strength and execution.” The editorial continues, “There is no way for the US to rebuild the hegemony that elites in Washington picture. As globalization and democracy have dented the foundation for that hegemony, the US lacks the strength, will and internal unity needed. In fact, the US has found it difficult to subdue Iran and North Korea, not to mention major countries like China. Washington cannot rule the world as an empire.”
No idea why you used the Kobe gif. There was no slam dunks in that piece.
That very first sentence is flat out wrong. Trump you could argue is bucking the trend of letting corporations dictate American financial strength. He is extremely hands on compared to virtually any president before him for several decades. He openly threatened on TV and Twitter several US industries to do what he says to get hit hard. The tariffs, the ripping up of TPP, NAFTA demands, you name it.
You could argue that Trump is acting more like China would trade wise.
American Capitalism with Chinese characteristics?
The only thing this guy is correct about is this line:
Quote:China views the United States as a declining hegemon, much like the British Empire after 1873. It is determined to prepare a multi-polar alternative to the post-1990 US “sole superpower.”
This is going to happen regardless of how hard America or China screws each other in the butt. Hegemony is beginning to appear to be a byproduct of massive worldwide military conflicts. So if no fighting occurs growth will continue to branch out. In the short term however, Xi may not be in a position to win a all out trade war. In some ways, Trump would wreck the stock market/economy by doing too much on tariffs. Most tough trade talk is just that. Talk.
People also need to likely (myself included) move away from "Empire" comparisons. Technology has destroyed many governance models of old. Politics, just like Information Technology has gone from simple point to point network topologies to mesh/web ones, that are complicated and all over the place.
I think economic alliances will be the determining factors in the future. Currencies and banking appear to be the next new warzones. China is going to make it's own team with most of Africa. America could end up losing financial alliances if Western Europe devolves into a series of shitholes due to instability.
What is more likely to happen is the US and China continue to be big trade partners but do it begrudgingly. Russia is about to get assed out. They have no real seat at the table and their military might will crumble regardless of how fast their nukes are. A Russia that is losing economically may not be good for the world, but that is a problem for a younger generation to solve.
(06-25-2018 08:57 AM)TravelerKai Wrote: That very first sentence is flat out wrong. Trump you could argue is bucking the trend of letting corporations dictate American financial strength. He is extremely hands on compared to virtually any president before him for several decades. He openly threatened on TV and Twitter several US industries to do what he says to get hit hard. The tariffs, the ripping up of TPP, NAFTA demands, you name it.
My point exactly. All bark and no bite. Trump as usual. China knows this.
(06-25-2018 08:57 AM)TravelerKai Wrote: That very first sentence is flat out wrong. Trump you could argue is bucking the trend of letting corporations dictate American financial strength. He is extremely hands on compared to virtually any president before him for several decades. He openly threatened on TV and Twitter several US industries to do what he says to get hit hard. The tariffs, the ripping up of TPP, NAFTA demands, you name it.
My point exactly. All bark and no bite. Trump as usual. China knows this.
What exactly do you think Trump should do?
He already started putting tariffs on Chinese products. Most notably Chinese steel that has been flooding the international markets. Hardly no bite, but it sounds like you know exactly what should be done and I would be interested in reading it.
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2018 10:07 AM by worldwidetraveler.)
06-25-2018 10:06 AM
The following 1 user Likes worldwidetraveler's post:1 user Likes worldwidetraveler's post Transsimian
TravelerKai
Innovative Casanova
Posts: 7,390
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 280
(06-25-2018 08:57 AM)TravelerKai Wrote: That very first sentence is flat out wrong. Trump you could argue is bucking the trend of letting corporations dictate American financial strength. He is extremely hands on compared to virtually any president before him for several decades. He openly threatened on TV and Twitter several US industries to do what he says to get hit hard. The tariffs, the ripping up of TPP, NAFTA demands, you name it.
My point exactly. All bark and no bite. Trump as usual. China knows this.
Tiger are you high on drugs bro?
Look at all the jobs they brought back to the US! Heck I got a sweet gig DIRECTLY because of the Trump threats to my clients/customers. People in my world only got shitty contracts for as long as I can remember.
You do not make threats unless you can make good on them. Trump knew exactly what he was doing. Obama was a spineless wimp. He never threatened corporations. He let Silicon Valley convince him that jobs shipped to India and SEA would never come back to the USA. He just sat there and took that explanation like a bitch made loser.
Trump not only did not ask them first, he openly demanded they bring em back or get hit hard in the face.
Trump knows business and economics. Obama is a social worker with a law degree. He was out of his league and was following Globalist orders.
This is the first time in a long time someone has fought for the American worker. If you cannot see this you are just dishonest and salty. We all know you hate America. Cool we get it. Don't be dishonest though. You just look like a loser when you are clearly more intelligent than that.
Quote:South China Sea: Beijing won’t give up “even one inch” of the territory it claims
With tensions mounting over its increasingly assertive actions in the South China Sea, China just made clear that its position isn’t about to change. Meeting US defense secretary James Mattis in Beijing yesterday, Chinese president Xi Jinping said, “we cannot lose even one inch of the territory left behind by our ancestors.” He added, “what is other people’s we do not want at all.”
Those statements are no doubt galling to those familiar with international law.
China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, using as justification its “nine-dash line,” which encircles most of the waterway. Problematically, the line intersects with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of other nations. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), within the EEZ a coastal nation has sole rights to (pdf, p. 37) the natural resources in the water (fish, for instance) and below the seabed (oil and natural gas). The zone extends out 200 nautical miles (370 km, 230 miles).
China has repeatedly discouraged nations in the region, including Vietnam and the Philippines, from exercising these exclusive rights in areas that fall within both their EEZs and China’s claimed territory.
In May, Beijing issued a stark warning to Russian energy giant Rosneft after it started drilling for natural gas, with Hanoi’s blessing, in an area falling within both Vietnam’s EEZ and China’s nine-dash line. In 2011, Chinese patrol vessels nearly rammed a survey ship that was operating, with Manila’s permission, in Reed Bank, an oil-rich area that falls within both the Philippines’ EEZ and the nine-dash line
China’s legal justification for such behavior is shaky, to say the least. In July 2016, an international tribunal in the Hague invalidated the country’s sweeping claims to the sea in a ruling containing nearly 500 pages. Beijing dismissed the legal proceedings.
Meanwhile China has forged ahead with its militarization of the sea. Earlier this year it installed anti-ship cruise missiles and surface-to-air missile systems on its fortified outposts in the Spratly archipelago. One of them, Mischief Reef, is just 217 km (135 miles) from the coast of the Philippines’ Palawan island.
The Philippines initiated the case resulting in the 2016 ruling. But by the time the tribunal announced its decision, the nation had a new president, Rodrigo Duterte. The mercurial leader essentially ignored the ruling and sought greater cooperation with China, missing a key chance to rally international pressure against Beijing.
06-28-2018 12:06 PM
TravelerKai
Innovative Casanova
Posts: 7,390
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 280
Is that really a surprise to you? Or anyone else for that matter? Read a history book or map from 1700s and earlier and you can see why. Would you back off that, now that you have some semblance of a navy? I wouldn't. I cannot blame them. If the year was 2047 and Mexico is in a golden age and is powerful and moved ships into most of the Gulf of Mexico, declaring the entire thing -50 miles from American borders, would the US tolerate that? If I were the American president, I would tell them to fuck off. Might even rename it the Gulf of Texas just to piss them off.
Trump is doing good work - China got away with so much, because US corporations were in on the con. Trump is fighting back at least some of the excesses.
Ultimately China will still become the super-power in the century, but in the short term Trump is causing a return of jobs to the US. It was clear even just by his sheer announcements and the first 100 days. Obama was a globalist stooge just as Hillary would have been - you might just have Goldman Sachs sitting in the Oval office with either one of them. (Bush too if we are honest)
(06-28-2018 05:10 PM)Luvianka Wrote: I told you so, Trump cannot bully China.
He'd better start negotiating with Mandarin Xi Jinping and Tsar Vladimir Putin a new Tripolar World Order.
Hang on now.
Russia has no serious economic leverage to squeeze Trump with. That said, they could start selling weapons or "loaning" them out to people that piss us (and China too) off.
Trump wants Russia part of any trade deals to cut the bullshit off at the pass. You do not want to have actual beef (not the kind on the forum) and there are no carrots left to use to stop aggression with.
I brought this up in another thread recently, Russia is in a funny position right now globally. Nobody is afraid of their hyper sonic nukes and they have a shitshow for an economy. Soviet Union 2.0? China is not going to suck their cocks either. They allegedly have hyper sonic rockets/nukes as well. China wants business and sort of does not care with who, as long as the work and money continues to flow. The USA and China together could easily squeeze Russia or anyone else for that matter, as shown by NK capitulating so fast.
Question is, how well can two economic hegemonic nations get along with each other in today's political climate? We shall see.
(06-28-2018 05:10 PM)Luvianka Wrote: I told you so, Trump cannot bully China.
He'd better start negotiating with Mandarin Xi Jinping and Tsar Vladimir Putin a new Tripolar World Order.
Hang on now.
Russia has no serious economic leverage to squeeze Trump with. That said, they could start selling weapons or "loaning" them out to people that piss us (and China too) off.
Trump wants Russia part of any trade deals to cut the bullshit off at the pass. You do not want to have actual beef (not the kind on the forum) and there are no carrots left to use to stop aggression with.
I brought this up in another thread recently, Russia is in a funny position right now globally. Nobody is afraid of their hyper sonic nukes and they have a shitshow for an economy. Soviet Union 2.0? China is not going to suck their cocks either. They allegedly have hyper sonic rockets/nukes as well. China wants business and sort of does not care with who, as long as the work and money continues to flow. The USA and China together could easily squeeze Russia or anyone else for that matter, as shown by NK capitulating so fast.
Question is, how well can two economic hegemonic nations get along with each other in today's political climate? We shall see.
First: American unipolar World Order is over; American exceptionalism is over as well, the faster the American establishment understands that the better.
Second: Neither Russia nor China are willing to accept American shit any longer.
Third: China and Russia need each other to push for a Trilateral New World Order in which the three major powers can negotiate their interests and responsabilities. China needs the nuclear-ballistic Russian umbrella and a cheap supply of gas and oil; while Russia needs China's economic muscle.
Four: As an outsider, President Trump has a chance to stick a deal with both China and Russia. However, I see he is going to try to play the Russian card against China in Helsinki when he meets President Trump. Good luck with that!
Five: Russia doesn't want to rebuild the Soviet Union, it would be costly to lift up countries like Georgia, Azaerbaiyan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, etc., That task is for China.
With God's help, I'll conquer this terrible affliction.
By way of deception, thou shalt game women.
Diaboli virtus in lumbar est -The Devil's virtue is in his loins.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2018 05:42 PM by Luvianka.)
(06-28-2018 04:22 PM)TravelerKai Wrote: Is that really a surprise to you? Or anyone else for that matter? Read a history book or map from 1700s and earlier and you can see why. Would you back off that, now that you have some semblance of a navy? I wouldn't. I cannot blame them. If the year was 2047 and Mexico is in a golden age and is powerful and moved ships into most of the Gulf of Mexico, declaring the entire thing -50 miles from American borders, would the US tolerate that? If I were the American president, I would tell them to fuck off. Might even rename it the Gulf of Texas just to piss them off.
Obviously I don't blame China - of course it's in their interest to control a key waterway for the world's trade, as well as a future oil/gas/fish source, not to mention military logistics.
I don't understand your analogy though. In your scenario, the equivalent would be the US building a bunch of islands off the coast of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama, and declaring that the entire Caribbean sea was ours and no foreign military vessel could sail within 12 miles of the artificial islands we built. It would be totally ridiculous, even if it was in the US's interest to do so.
The question is whether the US should risk war in order to prevent China from continuing their expansion and becoming the hegemon of Asia.
If we don't stop them in the South China Sea, how do we know that they will stop at just the South China Sea? Then what about Taiwan, Arunchal Pradesh, Kashmir, Doklam, Senkaku Islands, the entire country of Mongolia(which was part of China during the Qing dynasty) etc. Going by "history" there is plenty of land that China could seize.
After all, how well did it work out for the UK when they allowed Hitler to seize the Sudetenland, in exchange for "no further territorial demands"?
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 4 users Like Belgrano's post:
RE: The Trump China Policy Thread 
