Burma-China alliance threatens ASEAN unity, Burma support China in South China Sea dispute Options

[qwerty2010]

Sometimes I just wish there's no oil in South China Sea. Perhaps everyone can live more peacefully together if there's no oil in that region.

Agreed...also, things will be a lot simpler, just worked out among those who are directly involved, and not attract "interested parties".

The cutting of the cable seems to me more like a "warning", and not necessarily to Vietnam, the big guys are always proxy-boxing with each other.

Much of the political turmoil in this region, from Red Shirts-Yellow Shirts near civil war in Thailand to N-S Korea are manifest of this, if people are willing to dig deeper.

For sure China will try to avoid the US dominated areas, eg. through Burma. Perhaps that would tone down the level of hostility in SC Sea.

This post has been edited by qwerty2010: Jun 8 2011, 11:11 AM

[Rayzor]

Agreed...also, things will be a lot simpler, just worked out among those who are directly involved, and not attract "interested parties".

The cutting of the cable seems to me more like a "warning", and not necessarily to Vietnam, the big guys are always proxy-boxing with each other.

Much of the political turmoil in this region, from Red Shirts-Yellow Shirts near civil war in Thailand to N-S Korea are manifest of this, if people are willing to dig deeper.

For sure China will try to avoid the US dominated areas, eg. through Burma. Perhaps that would tone down the level of hostility in SC Sea.

That is why I think they should just listen to Malaysia proposal in sharing economic activities. Less political turmoil. Problem solved.

M'sia Proposes Sharing of Economic Activities in South China Sea

SINGAPORE, 6 JUNE, 2011: Malaysia has proposed the setting up of a special purpose vehicle for the sharing of economic activities among the claimant countries in the South China Sea.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had suggested that the countries concerned create multilateral discussions rather than bilateral talks.

"If we may translate the suggestion, we would like to explore the natural resources, in particular hydro carbon, to be shared among the claimant countries.

"A special purpose vehicle can be created to share not only in terms of equity participation but also in terms of sharing the exploration of the natural resources," he said at the question-and-answer session on the final day of the 10th IISS Asia Security Summit - The Shangri-La Dialogue, here, Sunday.

Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam all have a stake on the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Of these countries, only Brunei lacks a military presence in the area.

Dr Ahmad Zahid said: "Our key performance index is not based on how many wars we are going to win but how many wars or crises we are going to avoid.

"So our role is basically to avoid the crises, the wars or even the battles.

"In this case, dialogues, especially multilateral dialogues, are of utmost importance "for us to resolve some of the problems as suggested by China's Minister of National Defence, Gen Liang Guanglie, and (Malaysian) PM Najib."

Dr Ahmad Zahid pointed that the second issue was on the territorial rights.

"We are facing territorial rights problems, not so much on disunity but mainly due to the economic values (attached) to it," he said.

He said: "We had problems with our neighbours due to fisheries activities.

Citing a problem between fishermen and enforcement officers, Dr Ahmad Zahid said that "jokingly a friend was telling me that no visa or passport is needed for the fishes to cross the borders.

"The fishermen will follow where the fishes go and, in this case, I think what we should do is more towards sharing the economic activities rather than taking a hard line in resolving the problems," he said.

According to him, Indonesia and Malaysia, for instance, were using their standard operating procedures to resolve the problems between their fishermen.

He said this had taken place following the political commitment by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Najib for their countries to share the natural resources rather than create unnecessary problems.

- Bernama

http://www.malaysiandigest.com/component/c...-china-sea.html

[Chan-Ho]

Jeez, what COMPLETE HYPOCRISY, what about Korea throwing out map after map of HISTORIC MAPS to justify Dokdo/Takeshima belongs to Korea??? By YOUR definition, that amounts to GREED against Japan too.

I'm not a hypocrite at all. I'm of the opinion that Japan and Korea share the East-Sea/Sea of Japan right down the middle.

This post has been edited by Chan-Ho: Jun 8 2011, 11:25 AM

[SoCal]

I'm not a hypocrite at all. I'm of the opinion that Japan and Korea share the East-Sea/Sea of Japan right down the middle.

How about Russia?

[Chan-Ho]

How about Russia?

Let's not get off topic. The three countries will share it based on their EEZ and continental shelves.

[Flowerseed]

I'm not a hypocrite at all. I'm of the opinion that Japan and Korea share the East-Sea/Sea of Japan right down the middle.

Lol a big country and small country share right down the middle = no hypocrite at all, why dont you share the territory according to propotion?


This post has been edited by Flowerseed: Jun 8 2011, 11:38 AM

[Chan-Ho]

Lol a big country and small country share right down the middle = no hypocrite at all, why dont you share the territory according to propotion?

Those who have rights to the territory are those who live close by per capita, not the entire country with populations who live hundreds or thousands of miles away. In this sense, it's fair in terms of proportion. For example, why should people in Moscow have rights to territory in the East Sea/ Sea of Japan? Russia get's territory in proportion to the RUSSIANS who live near the East Sea / Sea of Japan.

Get it?

This post has been edited by Chan-Ho: Jun 8 2011, 11:52 AM

[Flowerseed]

Those who have rights to the territory are those who live close by per capita, not the entire country with populations who live hundreds or thousands of miles away. In this sense, it's fair in terms of proportion. For example, why should people in Moscow have rights to territory in the East Sea/ Sea of Japan? Russia get's a piece in proportion to the RUSSIANS who live near the East Sea / Sea of Japan territory itself.

Get it?

Nope, bigger country deserve more sea territories as ressource/territory according to propostion as bigger country need more ressource/territory in general to support their population, more importantly bigger countries are more capable in extending and holding more sea territories than smaller countries, if you dont have the capabilities to "convince" others (by force or not) or actually control the territories you have no right too, if you need to bringing in others for your own territorial disputes noone would take you seriously.

This post has been edited by Flowerseed: Jun 8 2011, 12:04 PM

[Chan-Ho]

Nope, bigger country deserve more sea territories as ressource/territory according to propostion as bigger country need more ressource/territory in general to support their population, more importantly bigger countries are more capable in extending and holding more sea territories than smaller countries, if you dont have the capabilities to "convince" others (by force or not) or actually control the territories you have no right too, if you need to bringing in others for your own territorial disputes noone would take you seriously.

Wow, that's sounds mighty imperialistic of you. Since China has such a "big" population, you could easily justify annexing other territories across the world with the same logic. Since I was talking about fairness, are you admitting the Chinese have no intention of being fair?

[Flowerseed]

Wow, that's sounds mighty imperialistic of you. Since China has such a "big" population, you could easily justify annexing other territories across the world with the same logic. Since I was talking about fairness, are you admitting the Chinese have no intention of being fair?

There is nothing imperialistic about it and we are talking about "disputed" territories, and its the the ultimate fairness for the nature of things, big and mighty deserve more within certain frameworks(while accepting existance and general sovereignty of others) , it kept human society moving forward in general, become more prosperous and stronger and "deserve" more rights in security and ressources. Nature selection of evolution is fair too, yet it wont happen if the weak and small enjoy the same "fairness" as those who are moving foward.

This post has been edited by Flowerseed: Jun 8 2011, 12:23 PM

[Chan-Ho]

There is nothing imperialistic about it and we are talking about "disputed" territories, and its the the ultimate fairness for the nature of things, big and mighty deserve more within certain frameworks(while accepting existance and general sovereignty of others) , it kept human society moving forward in general, become more prosperous and stronger and "deserve" more rights in security and ressources. Nature selection of evolution is fair too, yet it wont happen if the weak and small enjoy the same "fairness" as those who are moving foward.

LOL. Well, with this mentality, are China's "smaller and weaker" neighbors justified in fearing China's rise?

[Flowerseed]

LOL. Well, with this mentality, are China's "smaller and weaker" neighbors justified in fearing China's rise?

As justified as about any others, and china is acting well within the framework and its not like chinas claims have ever shifted with the rise of wealth and power, not about extending claims over anything else because china is becoming stronger, conflicts of interest is inevitable between nations but china is ever ready to settle matters in peacefully/civilized manner, like the conflicts with russa and central asian countries were resolved.

In my opinion fearing China's rise is certainly justified, but the extend is debatable as china simply cant be considered as being "aggressive" or "unreasonable" and the policy/style of acting changed little with the "rising", in other word its not necessary to fear china more than you already do, while in the same time the rise of china have created more opportunity for the world.

This post has been edited by Flowerseed: Jun 8 2011, 12:46 PM

[Hugham]

That is why I think they should just listen to Malaysia proposal in sharing economic activities. Less political turmoil. Problem solved.

M'sia Proposes Sharing of Economic Activities in South China Sea

SINGAPORE, 6 JUNE, 2011: Malaysia has proposed the setting up of a special purpose vehicle for the sharing of economic activities among the claimant countries in the South China Sea.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak had suggested that the countries concerned create multilateral discussions rather than bilateral talks.

"If we may translate the suggestion, we would like to explore the natural resources, in particular hydro carbon, to be shared among the claimant countries.

"A special purpose vehicle can be created to share not only in terms of equity participation but also in terms of sharing the exploration of the natural resources," he said at the question-and-answer session on the final day of the 10th IISS Asia Security Summit - The Shangri-La Dialogue, here, Sunday.

Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam all have a stake on the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Of these countries, only Brunei lacks a military presence in the area.

Dr Ahmad Zahid said: "Our key performance index is not based on how many wars we are going to win but how many wars or crises we are going to avoid.

"So our role is basically to avoid the crises, the wars or even the battles.

"In this case, dialogues, especially multilateral dialogues, are of utmost importance "for us to resolve some of the problems as suggested by China's Minister of National Defence, Gen Liang Guanglie, and (Malaysian) PM Najib."

Dr Ahmad Zahid pointed that the second issue was on the territorial rights.

"We are facing territorial rights problems, not so much on disunity but mainly due to the economic values (attached) to it," he said.

He said: "We had problems with our neighbours due to fisheries activities.

Citing a problem between fishermen and enforcement officers, Dr Ahmad Zahid said that "jokingly a friend was telling me that no visa or passport is needed for the fishes to cross the borders.

"The fishermen will follow where the fishes go and, in this case, I think what we should do is more towards sharing the economic activities rather than taking a hard line in resolving the problems," he said.

According to him, Indonesia and Malaysia, for instance, were using their standard operating procedures to resolve the problems between their fishermen.

He said this had taken place following the political commitment by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Najib for their countries to share the natural resources rather than create unnecessary problems.

- Bernama

http://www.malaysiandigest.com/component/c...-china-sea.html

What do you think guys?

This is our islands, what are these young countries thinking?

They even didn't exist when Republic of China established in 1911.

[Hugham]

Wow, that's sounds mighty imperialistic of you. Since China has such a "big" population, you could easily justify annexing other territories across the world with the same logic. Since I was talking about fairness, are you admitting the Chinese have no intention of being fair?

Annexing what?

These are young countries. When we draw our territory, these countries didn't exist.

[happyluckygo]

Burma is a rogue state that allegedly abuse human rights, sponsor terrorism, and it is a threat to its own people. In fact, the senior General Than Shwe, the head of state who made the number it is listed on top four spot in Parade Magazine's 2009 list of World's Worst Dictators.

Getting support from Burma is like getting support from North Korea or even Al Qaeda. They don't have much of a good reputation or political capita. But out of desperation for validations, some individuals made it seem like it is a "good" thing.

This post has been edited by happyluckygo: Jun 8 2011, 01:53 PM

[KochiGachi]

Nope, bigger country deserve more sea territories as ressource/territory according to propostion as bigger country need more ressource/territory in general to support their population, more importantly bigger countries are more capable in extending and holding more sea territories than smaller countries, if you dont have the capabilities to "convince" others (by force or not) or actually control the territories you have no right too, if you need to bringing in others for your own territorial disputes noone would take you seriously.

Sea territory are divided accordingly to EEZ rule. So bigger the territory they have larger share of EEZ.

Actually Japan do have more gain by looking at below maps:



and here is what S.Korea have:

[Titanium]

Wow, that's sounds mighty imperialistic of you. Since China has such a "big" population, you could easily justify annexing other territories across the world with the same logic. Since I was talking about fairness, are you admitting the Chinese have no intention of being fair?

Nope, you're the only one that chose to bring the subject of annexation to this conversation. Not surprising to say the least.

[Chan-Ho]

It's also funny that flowerseed justifies China's claims on population size when the South-East Asian parties involved have a population of almost 500 million combined living WITHIN the vicinity of the "disputed" territory.

This post has been edited by Chan-Ho: Jun 8 2011, 09:18 PM

[robot_devil]

It's also funny that flowerseed justifies China's claims on population size when the South-East Asian parties involved have a population of almost 500 million combined living WITHIN the vicinity of the "disputed" territory.

What an idiot. The disputed territory is not between ASEAN and China, its between China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philipines with a population at roughly 200 million.

It really has nothing to do with ASEAN, and if the Viets want to bring ASEAN into it (Like their crying to every other power from USA to Russia for interference) expect China to play the member states against each other. ASEAN is toothless anyhow.

[Titanium]

It's also funny that flowerseed justifies China's claims on population size when the South-East Asian parties involved have a population of almost 500 million combined living WITHIN the vicinity of the "disputed" territory.

So many errors in one post that it's amazing:

A. SE Asia is not a unified nation state that shares the same interests with regards to the South China Sea.
B. SE Asia's total population is actually close to 593 million.
C. Not that it matters since the total # of people involved is only 200 million (Vietnam, Phillippines, Brunei, Malaysia).
D. 593 million is still nowhere near 1.3 billion.

This post has been edited by Titanium: Jun 8 2011, 10:29 PM