Thursday, October 20, 2011

Does the name determine ownership?

The South China Sea. Must belong to China?

There has been a lot of buzz over the past year, at least, about the buzz from the Global Times, a Chinese news source. It seems to be airing the possibility of dire straights in the South China Sea.

According to this article, and Wikipedia,
"Global Times (环球时报, Huanqiu Shibao) is not an official newspaper. Published on weekdays, it focuses on international issues and foreign reaction to developments in China. But it is sponsored by and produced under the auspices of People’s Daily (人民日报, Renmin Ribao), the official daily newspaper of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee."

One story has particularly gone round the web, e.g., this, this, and this.

Time to teach those around South China Sea a lesson
Vietnam’s insults in the South China Sea remained unpunished today. It encouraged nearby countries to try their hands in the “disputed” area and attracted the attention of the US so that a regional conflict gradually turned international.

China, concentrating on interior development and harmony, has been ultimately merciful in preventing such issue turning into a global affair so that regional peace and prosperity can be secured.

But it is probably the right time for us to reason, think ahead and strike first before things gradually run out of hands.

Singapore brings home high-end stealth aircraft while Australia, India and Japan are all stockpiling arms for a possible “world-class” battle. The US, provoking regional conflict itself, did not hesitate to meet the demands of all of the above.

It’s very amusing to see some of the countries vow to threaten or even confront China with force just because the US announced that it has “returned to Asia.”
The tension of war is escalating second by second but the initiative is not in our hand. China should take part in the exploitation of oil and gas in South China Sea.
For those who infringe upon our sovereignty to steal the oil, we need to warn them politely, and then take action if they don’t respond.

We shouldn’t waste the opportunity to launch some tiny-scale battles that could deter provocateurs from going further.

By the way, I think it’s necessary to figure out who is really afraid of being involved in military activities. There are more than 1,000 oil and gas wells plus four airports and numerous other facilities in the area but none of them is built by China.

Everything will be burned to the ground should a military conflict break out. Who’ll suffer most when Western oil giants withdraw?

But out there could just be an ideal place to punish them. Such punishment should be restricted only to the Philippines and Vietnam, who have been acting extremely aggressive these days.

The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars have already set some bad examples for us in terms of the scale of potential battles, but the minnows will get a reality check by the art of our move.

Many scholars believe that the US presence in this area caused our inability to sort the mess out.

However, I think US pressure in the South China Sea should not be taken seriously, at least for now given the war on terror in the Middle East and elsewhere is still plaguing it hard.

We should make good preparations for a small-scale battle while giving the other side the option of war or peace.

Russia’s decisive move on Caspian Sea issues in 2008 proved that actions from bigger countries might cause a shockwave for a little while but will provide its region with long-term peace.

Meanwhile, back in Guambat's neck of the Pacific: A force buildup on Guam anchors a broad US military strategy to keep China in check.



However, Senator John McCain, with Armed Services Chair Levin, is leading the charge to freeze Guam Build-Up spending, and Congress is turning inward, blocking any military hardening on Guam, with several Congresspeople wanting nothing to do with spending money on US military bases in "foreign" territory. Ai adai.

Ironically (?), that is the same decision Congress made in the late 1930's when Japan was exercising military drilling for oil. For lack of a few million dollars then, the US ending up spending billions of dollars and tens of thousands of US soldiers' lives, and untold numbers of civilian casualties to take back the abandoned Guam.

How do you spell strategic?

$trategic.


And up north, ...

Fitial offers to lease some islands to China
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial told an economic forum of nearly 400 in Beijing that he is willing to lease some of the CNMI's islands but only if it's not for military purposes, so that the Commonwealth can provide job opportunities and improve its economy.

Press secretary Angel Demapan, when asked for confirmation yesterday, said that Fitial was making reference to the availability of mass public lands in the undeveloped and uninhabited Northern Islands.

The Northern Islands include Farallon de Medinilla, Anatahan, Sarigan, Guiguan, Alamagan, Pagan, Agrihan, Asuncion, Maug, and Farallon de Pajaros or Uracas.

“In this regard, Governor Fitial took the opportunity to market the NMI’s greatest resource-availability of land-for large-scale investments like agriculture, retirement communities, timeshare homes, and electronics manufacturing to both large business entities and/or public-private partnerships or co-ops. Of course, in regards to private lands, that’s up to the respective landowners,” Demapan told Saipan Tribune.

“If you are interested, I am offering these islands to China. Lease these islands so that I can have enough financial resources to provide for more full employment for my people,” Business Week quoted the governor as saying when he addressed a group of “Chinese governors and provincial Community Party Secretaries” at a Beijing conference.

It also quoted the governor as saying that he has the right to lease the islands to “anybody.”

“We control the islands, the islands belong to us. We have to make sure in the lease agreement that we won't allow anything that will be military because we are under the U.S. government,” Business Week quoted the governor as saying.

Public Lands Secretary Oscar M. Babauta, in a separate interview yesterday, said the CNMI can lease islands to interested investors.

However, he said if the public land to be leased is more than 5 hectares, the approval of the CNMI House and Senate is needed.

“If it's for investment opportunities and economic development, the CNMI can lease islands. I am sure the governor was referring to Northern Islands. But here on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota, investors can lease public and private lands as they do now,” said Babauta, a former House speaker.

And speaking of up north and things pacific ...
Leaked report says AG violated laws

AG: Leaked docs 'not official'

AG lawsuit vs Pai re-assigned to Govendo; Wiseman recuses self

'Focus must be on whether Buckingham should be prosecuted'

OAG files case vs Pai's wife for alleged theft of utilities

And all that in just one day's edition of the Saipan Tribune, mind you.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Blogger Vest said...

Re China sea.
The geo name does not determine ownership.
Britain would have by now placed tolls each end of the English Channel and charging all non EEC countries access.

22 October 2011 at 5:53:00 pm GMT+10  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home