Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Generational Dynamics World View
*** 30-May-18 World View -- Philippine President Duterte reverses position, says he would go to war with China over South China Sea

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
  • Philippine President Duterte reverses position, says he would go to war with China over South China Sea
  • China raises 'combat readiness' as US-China relations become increasingly hostile

****
**** Philippine President Duterte reverses position, says he would go to war with China over South China Sea
****


[Image: g180529b.jpg]
Philippine President Duterte warns China over South China Sea development (AP)

Ever since taking office, Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has
sided with China, refusing to take a position opposing China's illegal
activities in the South China Sea. This is particularly ironic for
the president of the Philippines, since it was the Philippines that
brought the lawsuit in the United Nations Permanent Court of
Arbitration in the Hague, which ruled that all of China's activities in the South China Sea are illegal and in violation of international law.

As recently as two weeks ago, Duterte was defending his refusal to
challenge China's activities in the South China Sea. Duterte said
that the court ruling came before he took office, but he had no choice
but to support China anyway:

<QUOTE>"It did not come during my term. But then again, if I
were the President at that time, what could I have done? I can
send my Marines there. I can send every policeman there. But what
will happen? They will all be massacred."<END QUOTE>


Duterte's decision was never particularly popular with the Philippines
people. Polls show that China's favorable rating is around 54%, while
America's approval rating is around 92%. Basically, the people of
China and the people of the Philippines hate each other for historical
reasons.

But now apparently Duterte has been stung by recent reports that China
is basing bombers and cruise missiles on the illegal artificial
islands. Furthermore, the Philippines is within range of these
bombers and missiles. This has apparently infuriated a lot of people
in the Philippines.

So Duterte's Foreign Affairs Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano on Tuesday
announced that Duterte is setting some "red lines" which, if crossed
by China, would lead to war:

<QUOTE>"What is our red line? Our red line is that they
cannot build on Scarborough [Shoal].

Another red line is: Nobody can get natural resources there on
their own.

That's what the president said. If anyone gets the natural
resources in the West Philippine Sea-South China Sea, he will go
to war. He said: 'Bahala na.' He will go to war. So those were our
red lines."<END QUOTE>


According to the internet, "Bahala Na!" is a Tagalog expression that
perfectly encapsulates the typical Filipino attitude towards life.
The oft-used phrase Bahala Na can be translated into English as: Come
what may. What happens will happen. Scholars tend to label it as a
form of fatalism. Inquirer (Philippines, 21-May) and Philippines Star
and Tagalog Language

Related Articles

****
**** China raises 'combat readiness' as US-China relations become increasingly hostile
****


Two U.S. Navy warships conducted a freedom of navigation operation
(FONOP) on Sunday in the South China Sea, near islands occupied by
China in the Paracel Islands. This is the location where, as we
reported several days ago, China is building barracks capable of
housing thousands of soldiers.

According to China's foreign ministry:

<QUOTE>"The US Warships' unauthorized entry into China's
territorial waters off the [Paracel] Islands again has violated
the Chinese law and relevant international law, severely
undermined China's sovereignty and put in jeopardy the peace,
security and sound order in relevant waters. China expresses
strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to the relevant act of
the US, and strongly urges it to immediately stop such provocation
that infringes upon China's sovereignty and threatens China's
security. China will continue to take every necessary measure to
safeguard its sovereignty and security."<END QUOTE>


It's laughable for China to reference "international law," when China
itself does not recognize international law. As for Chinese law, who
care? If China won't recognize international law, then why should we
recognize Chinese law?

The "relevant international law" is the Tribunal ruling that all of
China's activities in the South China Sea are illegal, which means
that Chinese officials are international criminals.

Relations between the US and China in the South China Sea are becoming
increasingly hostile. China is building hundreds of buildings on its
illegal islands, as we recently reported,
allowing thousands of troops to be stationed there.

Shortly before that, China announced that it has begun landing bombers
on the artificial islands it created in the South China sea, in
preparation for the Battle of the South China Sea. And that
announcement came just two weeks after China deployed offensive cruise
and surface-to-air missiles in South China Sea.

The US responded by withdrawing an invitation for China to take part
in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific Drill, because China's activities in
the South China Sea "raise tensions and destabilize the region." This
was followed by Sunday's FONOP, which was different from previous
FONOPs because it used two warships instead of just one.

China's foreign ministry threat, was followed by reports that the
U.S. Navy considers that the actions of Chinese warships on Sunday was
"safe but unprofessional," because the Chinese ships maneuvered
erratically.

In the last two days, there have been additional reports about China's
militarization of its illegal islands.

China announced that it has set up an "intelligent microgrid" that
will supply electricity to weapons systems on all of China's
artificial islands. According to Chinese media:

<QUOTE>"The microgrid also aids military personnel and
weaponry, analysts said.

Stable electricity underwrites military stations and daily
military operations in the South China Sea. Surface-to-air and
anti-ship missiles, for example, need not depend solely on
electric vehicles, said Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV
commentator.

The service life of weaponry can be extended by reducing their
reliance on self-contained chargers, Song told the Global Times on
Monday.

Stable electricity was also critical at armories and arms depots
for handling the high temperatures, humidity and salinity of the
islands, Song noted."<END QUOTE>


According another report in Chinese media, China is aggressively
developing its next generation of nuclear weapons:

<QUOTE>"China is aggressively developing its next generation
of nuclear weapons, conducting an average of five tests a month to
simulate nuclear blasts, according to a major Chinese weapons
research institute.

Its number of simulated tests has in recent years outpaced that of
the United States, which conducts them less than once a month on
average. ...

Over the past three years, Chinese nuclear scientists have
performed more such tests than their American counterparts have in
15 years.

In tunnels deep under mountains in Mianyang, southwestern Sichuan
province, where China’s main nuclear design facilities are based,
loud blasts from these experiments can be heard more than once a
week.

In comparison, between 2003 and 2017, the US fired a total of 150
simulated shots at its Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental
Research (Jasper) facility at the Nevada National Security
Site."<END QUOTE>


These new military developments seem to be coming more and more
quickly, as if China is rushing to meet a target date to launch a war.
I've seen one estimate that the target date is 2020, but it could just
as easily be 2019 or 2021. Foreign Ministry of China and AP and Global Times (Beijing) and South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) and Sputnik News (Moscow)

Related Articles:


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Philippines, China, South China Sea,
Rodrigo R. Duterte, Alan Peter Cayetano, Scarborough Shoal,
United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration, Bahala Na,
Paracel Islands, Xi Jinping

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 05-14-2016, 03:21 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 05-23-2016, 10:31 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 08-11-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 01-18-2017, 09:23 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 02-04-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 03-13-2017, 03:33 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 03-15-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 03-15-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 05-30-2017, 01:04 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 07-08-2017, 01:34 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 08-09-2017, 11:07 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 08-10-2017, 02:38 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 10-25-2017, 03:07 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by rds - 10-31-2017, 03:35 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by rds - 10-31-2017, 06:33 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by noway2 - 11-20-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 12-28-2017, 11:00 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 12-31-2017, 11:14 PM
30-May-18 World View -- Philippine President Duterte reverses position, says he would - by John J. Xenakis - 05-29-2018, 11:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 06-22-2018, 02:54 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:42 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:54 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-19-2018, 12:43 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-25-2018, 02:18 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:58 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 08-18-2018, 03:42 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 08-19-2018, 04:39 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 09-25-2019, 11:12 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 03-09-2020, 02:11 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Camz - 03-10-2020, 10:10 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 03-12-2020, 11:11 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 03-16-2020, 03:21 PM
RE: 58 year rule - by Tim Randal Walker - 04-01-2020, 11:17 AM
RE: 58 year rule - by John J. Xenakis - 04-02-2020, 12:25 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Isoko - 05-04-2020, 02:51 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 01-04-2021, 12:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by CH86 - 01-05-2021, 11:17 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-10-2021, 06:16 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-11-2021, 09:06 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-12-2021, 02:53 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-13-2021, 03:58 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-13-2021, 04:16 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-15-2021, 03:36 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 08-19-2021, 03:03 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 08-21-2021, 01:41 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-27-2022, 06:06 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-27-2022, 10:42 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-28-2022, 12:26 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-28-2022, 04:08 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why the social dynamics viewpoint to the Strauss-Howe generational theory is wrong Ldr 5 4,828 06-05-2020, 10:55 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Theory: cyclical generational hormone levels behind the four turnings and archetypes Ldr 2 3,410 03-16-2020, 06:17 AM
Last Post: Ldr
  The Fall of Cities of the Ancient World (42 Years) The Sacred Name of God 42 Letters Mark40 5 4,694 01-08-2020, 08:37 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 15 16,290 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
Video Styxhexenhammer666 and his view of historical cycles. Kinser79 0 3,342 08-27-2017, 06:31 PM
Last Post: Kinser79

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)