Hi Jules,

About China's building on reefs and shoals, you ask:

"If this is aggression, against whom is it aggression? "

The obvious answer is: Everybody, according to international law. Particularly when it is obvious that China will use this leap-frogging strategy to occupy and build up more shoals and reefs, and eventually make a claim on the entire South China Sea as its own national waterway.

Or is that just a bit paranoid ? No, I don't think so. That's how the area is displayed on Chinese maps, a legacy from the anti-Communist Kuomintang, who had claimed authority for it from the Manchu invaders of China - a bit like India, having once been in the British Empire, claiming bits and pieces now all over the world which also had once been part of the British Empire, and other bits that Britain had claimed, such as reefs and shoals.

We'll see.

No, the Pacific is not an American lake. And neither is the South China Sea Chinese. Or the Black Sea Russian, if complete irrelevance is the order of the day, in this stupid 'tu quoque' argument.

Interesting that you use the Nazis' excuse of needing 'lebensraum' in relation to Chinese claims on South China Sea reefs. Can you see just a slight contradiction there, Jules ?

Joe

Your post is so confused that I am not sure which side you are arguing on.

The various territorial limits are 12 Nm for territorial waters 24Nm for the contiguous zone (control zone), and 200Nm for economic zone ownership of mineral rights.

China has claimed right up to 12Nm of all those bordering the China sea and has effectively annexed all the mineral and fishing rights of these seas, actually shooting at Filipino fishing boats, and trying to control navigation in one of the busiest water ways in the world.

This is far far more than freedom of navigation, and unless China stops there is a real risk of a shooting war starting.

We are in a very bad position. One day, maybe soon, The US and China will come into conflict. When that happens the first thing we will be TOLD by the seppoes is to stop selling coal and iron ore to china. We will have to choose between our alliance with the americans and destruction of our economy.

Then there is the question of whether the americans would/could really protect us if it came down to china saying we want those resources and we are going to take them.

Our best hope in those circumstances, and I believe us Aussies could do it, is to arm the whole population and tell the chinese they will have to kill every single one of us if they want our country. And we will take as many of them with us as we can. Even the chinese would probably baulk at that.

Not too sure about that Mikk, it could backfire.

More than half our population could not hit a barn wall, from the inside, with the door shut, with a shot gun. I would not like most of them standing behind me armed, even if on my side.

Then we have the likes of EmperorJulian, Paul & a few others who going by their posts could even be on the other side, if we were on the US side. I most definitely would not like them behind me.

Hopefully sanity will prevail. The Chinese needs the US, & to a lesser extent the EU consumers. Without them the whole Chinese pack of cards economy comes tumbling down.

Perhaps things are worse than we know with their economy now, & they are playing this game to build a nationalistic fervour to replace a faltering growth. Even the loss of a few tens of millions would not worry them, if it maintained their power structure.

I am a little surprised, I thought the Chinese leadership had enough on it's plate at home. The worry is if this is their answer to a faltering wealth creation there.

Does anybody think that the situation in the South China Sea might end up as another Cuban missile crisis with the US demanding the withdrawal of China's missiles from their newly created man-made island military bases?

 "it is obvious that China will use this leap-frogging strategy to occupy and build up more shoals and reefs, and eventually make a claim on the entire South China Sea as its own national waterway."

“It is obvious that ...” means “please accept my assertion that...”

“That's how the area is displayed on Chinese maps”

Really? Maps in the public domain acknowledged by the PRC to be PRC maps? Do they really accept Kuomintang claims? Is the evidence for that accessible on the Internet or in accessible books and journals?

“No, the Pacific is not an American lake”... “complete irrelevance”.

No, highly relevant to implied claims that America has a right to treat encroachment into the Pacific Ocean as if it were encroachment into America and expect its Australian cheer squad to treat it the same way.

(cont)