Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Generational Dynamics World View
*** 19-Jul-16 World View -- China's military deploys bombers and closes part of the South China Sea

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
  • China makes more delusional claims about the South China Sea
  • China continues to operate within the Philippines exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
  • China's military deploys bombers and closes part of the South China Sea

****
**** China makes more delusional claims about the South China Sea
****


[Image: g160718b.jpg]
China's map of countries supporting them (China Daily)

China state media has issued a report with a map claiming that 70
countries are supporting China's position to reject last week's
decision handed down by the United Nations Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague. (See my detailed analysis of the
Tribunal decision in "13-Jul-16 World View -- Philippines humiliates China in harsh Hague Tribunal ruling over South China Sea"
.)

The text in the map shown above says:

[indent]<QUOTE>"More than 70 countries have publicly voiced support
for China’s position that South China Sea disputes should be
resolved through negotiations and not arbitration. In contrast,
just several countries, mainly the United States and its close
allies, have publicly supported the Philippines and called for
observing the ruling as legally binding."<END QUOTE>
[/indent]

Once again, China's claims are totally delusional.

India, for example, most assuredly did not voice support for China's
claim that disputes should not be resolved through arbitration.
According to a statement issued by India's Ministry of External
Affairs:

[indent]<QUOTE>"India supports freedom of navigation and over flight,
and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international
law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS. India believes that
States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without
threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct
of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting
peace and stability.

Sea lanes of communication passing through the South China Sea are
critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development. As a
State Party to the UNCLOS, India urges all parties to show utmost
respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal
order of the seas and oceans."<END QUOTE>
[/indent]

The Indian statement was very carefully worded so as not to
strongly confront China, but it certainly did not reject arbitration.

Prior to the Tribunal ruling, China claimed that 60 countries were in
"a chorus" that publicly endorsed China's South China Sea position.
The list was completely delusional.

According to an analysis by the the Asia Maritime Transparency
Initiative (AMTI) of the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, 8 countries have publicly confirmed their support, 4 have
denied Beijing’s claim of support, and 45 have remained publicly
silent or have issued statements that are considerably vaguer than
indicated by China. In contrast, 11 countries plus the European Union
have said that the arbitral award will be legally binding and have
called on both China and the Philippines to respect it.

After the Tribunal ruling, an analysis by Lowy Institute seems to
indicate that China has fewer supporters today than before the ruling
-- not surprising in view of the clarity and presentation of evidence
in the ruling. According to Lowy, only three countries now reject the
ruling: China, Taiwan and Pakistan. 34 nations have publicly called
for the ruling to be respected. Others have either said nothing, or
acknowledged the ruling positively.

Also prior to the Tribunal ruling was issued, China released
"evidence" of its claims that turned out to be a complete hoax.
( "22-Jun-16 World View -- China's 'ironclad proof' of South China Sea claims revealed as hoax"
)

It's all very strange. The Tribunal's ruling is purely symbolic
in the sense that it has no way to enforce its ruling. Militarily,
China is ignoring the ruling anyway, as it prepares for war with
its neighbors and with the United States.

Despite all that, China continues to behave in a highly emotional,
irrational, panicky, nationalistic manner, issuing delusional and
fabricated evidence to support claims that everybody knows are false
claims.

This is what makes China so dangerous. They believe that the US has
been weakened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and too anxious to
risk another war. This is a major historic mistake that they will
regret. They claim to be "peace loving," but the way the world works
is that every leader goes to war by claiming to be "peace loving," and
blaming the other side. China Daily and India Ministry of External Affairs and Lowy Institute (Australia)

****
**** China continues to operate within the Philippines exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
****


China has claimed that the airstrips on their artificial islands in
the Spratly Islands are for civilian aircraft, and they backed up
their claims by reporting on two civilian flights, an Airbus A319
chartered by China Southern Airlines and a Boeing 737 by Hainan
Airlines, that landed on the airstrips.

We're getting used to outright fabrications and lies from the
Chinese, and no one seriously believes that these airstrips will
be used only for commercial flights. It's generally thought
that China is preparing for war with its neighbors, and that these
airstrips will be used for military purposes.

The claim that the artificial islands have only commercial use is
laughable. As one analyst wrote sarcastically, "The business plan for
the Spratlys would be interesting to read. Perhaps the Chinese would
allow Philippine civilian aircraft to land at Mischief Reef to boost
revenue."

One of China's artificial islands is on Mischief Reef, which the
Tribunal declared is part of the Philippines exclusive economic zone
(EEZ), according to last week's decision handed down by the United
Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague.

Indeed, Mischief Reef is 300 km (185 miles) west of the Philippines'
island of Palawan, but 1,100 km (685 miles) from China's Hainan
Island. So it's entirely within the Philippines EEZ, and therefore the
artificial islands that China built are now the legal property of the
Philippines. Press Trust of India and Reuters

****
**** China's military deploys bombers and closes part of the South China Sea
****


China announced that it will now deploy a combat air patrol with long
range bombers in the South China Sea as "a regular practice."
According to the Chinese military, "The PLA Air Force will firmly
defend national sovereignty, security and maritime interests,
safeguard regional peace and stability, and cope with various threats
and challenges."

Separately, China's maritime administration said that it is closing
off a part of the South China Sea for military exercises this week.

China is in a highly nationalistic, emotional, anxious and dangerous
state, and is rapidly increasing its military across the South China
Sea, preparing for war with its neighbors and with the United States.
AP and India Times


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, Philippines, South China Sea,
Permanent Court of Arbitration, Spratly Islands, Mischief Reef,
India, Taiwan, Pakistan, China Southern Airlines, Hainan Airlines

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
19-Jul-16 World View -- China's military deploys bombers and closes part of the SCS - by John J. Xenakis - 07-18-2016, 09:47 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
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 4,807 06-05-2020, 10:55 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Theory: cyclical generational hormone levels behind the four turnings and archetypes Ldr 2 3,394 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 4,669 01-08-2020, 08:37 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 15 16,242 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
Video Styxhexenhammer666 and his view of historical cycles. Kinser79 0 3,330 08-27-2017, 06:31 PM
Last Post: Kinser79

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)