Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

#31

Post by Meegul »

adventured wrote: post #19
chvid wrote: post #10

Hardly any surprise. A tiny piece in the massive chess game that is China's rising military dominance and the west's declining ditto. This will play out over decades and is at its heart driven by a Chinese economy that expands faster the west's.

China's economy isn't expanding faster than the West's. It was. China's economy is hardly growing at all, and is no longer growing organically. They require extremely vast amounts of new debt to continue growing at just a few percent per year. That's a scenario they can't maintain going forward. The US economy by itself is expanding as much as China in dollar GDP terms, and is doing so without taking on the kind of d…

Assuming your 3% number is correct (which I cannot find a source for), China's yearly gains will outpace ours in just under 10 years, overtaking us in raw GDP in 50 years.

That's taking your figures exactly, that is. I highly doubt Chinese GDP growth is at 3%. They might not be able to sustain 8%+ for much longer, but even a 6% annual growth would make their economy larger than the US's in under 13 years, with their annual $ addition to their economy already outpacing ours.

Re: Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

#32

Post by altcognito »

dak1 wrote: post #30
sanxiyn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Itu Aba is not an island" was indeed a surprise, and I think it is a mistake. In particular, it was not part of the case. The court brought the issue in because it was necessary to rule on Philippines' claim that Mischief Reef is within its EEZ, because if Itu Aba is an island EEZ generated by it needs to be considered. I think this was a bad idea and an underhanded tactic.

I believe the Philippines did actually ask the Tribunal to rule on the status of Itu Aba, for exactly the reason you mention. The Philippines also argued that it was not. I'm reading the ruling now and it appears the Tribunal based its decision on Itu Aba lacking a "stable community of people." I think most observers expected the opposite decision based on the fresh water on Itu Aba and its capacity to support human…

> and its capacity to support human habitation

Well, that "island" created via an act of human intervention that must be utilized on a regular basis, I'm not sure the habitation angle is completely supportable.

Re: Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

#33

Post by dak1 »

altcognito wrote: post #32
dak1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the Philippines did actually ask the Tribunal to rule on the status of Itu Aba, for exactly the reason you mention. The Philippines also argued that it was not. I'm reading the ruling now and it appears the Tribunal based its decision on Itu Aba lacking a "stable community of people." I think most observers expected the opposite decision based on the fresh water on Itu Aba and its capacity to support human…

> and its capacity to support human habitation Well, that "island" created via an act of human intervention that must be utilized on a regular basis, I'm not sure the habitation angle is completely supportable.

The land reclamation on Itu Aba was almost non-existant compared to the land reclamation China was doing. Itu Aba is the largest naturally occurring feature in the Spratly's and does have fresh ground water.

You can see some of the before/after picutres of Itu Aba and some of the other features here: http://amti.csis.org/before-and-after-the-south-china-sea-tr...

Re: Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

#35

Post by aab0 »

joristers wrote: post #17

...China, which has displayed a willingness to negotiate in many such situations. In just over 60 years, China has gone from 23 land disputes down to just six. In the majority of its settlements, China accepted less than one-half of the territory it originally claimed. [1] 1. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

"In the majority of its settlements, China accepted less than one-half of the territory it originally claimed. [1]"

If those original claims are as overgrown as the nine-dash line, that looks like a huge success for China.

Re: Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

#37

Post by AngeloAnolin »

The multimedia article shared by stefap2 is a good one.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078612

What's concerning about this is on the end of the slide, there is a text which says:

"The Tribunal in the Hague ruled on Tuesday, July 12, that China's claim was illegal. But it has no power to enforce the decision."

Some questions: 1. If that's the case, then what good would the Hague ruling be if it is not going to be enforced? 2. Who should be enforcing the said ruling in this case?

Re: Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

#38

Post by dragonwriter »

toyg wrote: post #5
kiba wrote: post #3

I am no geopolitical expert, but the Chinese seemed to be playing with fire. At which point a war will erupt in the South China Sea, especially when those nations won't take it anymore?

Which nations? Vietnam, who lost two conflicts with China already, when China was even poorer and weaker than it is now? Or the Philippines, who can barely keep their own state together as it is? Maybe Malaysia, a country constantly rocked by internal dissent because of huge economic inequality? Singapore? The only nation who might decide they "won't take it anymore" is the United States; but post-Iraq, the US will s…

> Vietnam, who lost two conflicts with China already, when China was even poorer and weaker than it is now?

What? I assume at the "two conflicts" you are referring to are

(1) the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam (Sino-Vietnamese War; Third Indochina War) which had two strategic objectives: forcing Vietnam to withdraw troops from Cambodia, and forcing Vietnam to surrender the Spratly Islands -- neither of which China achieved, as Vietnam diverted no troops from Cambodia and did not surrender the Spratly's,

(2) The period of intermittent armed conflict between China and Vietnam following the Chinese withdrawal after the 1979 invasion (sometimes called the Second Sino-Vietnamese War; sometimes considered with the 1979 invasion part of the Third Indochina War).

Neither of these was a clear win for China, and while China was "poorer and weaker" then than it is now, so was Vietnam.

> Or the Philippines, who can barely keep their own state together as it is? Maybe Malaysia, a country constantly rocked by internal dissent because of huge economic inequality?

Actually -- whether this is good policy or not -- external conflicts are often escalated (not uncommonly resulting in war, whether or not that was the intent) by countries with problems with domestic unity/dissent, specifically to use the external crisis as to either promote unity (by a "rally around the flag" effect) or as a pretext to more vigorously suppress domestic dissent by tying it to the external threat.

> The only nation who might decide they "won't take it anymore" is the United States; but post-Iraq, the US will struggle to justify any significant intervention abroad for another generation, let alone against a nuclear superpower.

Vietnam barely had that much effect, and there's preciously little evidence that Iraq has had anything like Vietnam's effect on the US's political willingness to intervene overseas.

Re: Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

vetinari wrote: post #11
toyg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which nations? Vietnam, who lost two conflicts with China already, when China was even poorer and weaker than it is now? Or the Philippines, who can barely keep their own state together as it is? Maybe Malaysia, a country constantly rocked by internal dissent because of huge economic inequality? Singapore? The only nation who might decide they "won't take it anymore" is the United States; but post-Iraq, the US will s…

Why downvoting this guy? He is somewhat right. And it is "just" strategic military positioning - to protect the new silk road naval routes. The bases are going to be there so China's naval trade routes cannot be potentially blocked by a hostile naval power.

> And it is "just" strategic military positioning - to protect the new silk road naval routes.

Yeah, it certainly has nothing to do with South China Sea oil reserves, and China's exponentially growing per-capita energy consumption.

Re: Philippines Wins South China Sea Case Against China

#40

Post by snowwrestler »

AngeloAnolin wrote: post #37

The multimedia article shared by stefap2 is a good one. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078612 What's concerning about this is on the end of the slide, there is a text which says: "The Tribunal in the Hague ruled on Tuesday, July 12, that China's claim was illegal. But it has no power to enforce the decision." Some questions: 1. If that's the case, then what good would the Hague ruling be if it is not going to…

No one enforces international law except the individual nations themselves.

This is different from a national or (in the U.S.) state government, which is typically embued with police and military powers to enforce the national laws.

The state of Virginia has state police and a state court system that will arrest and put people into state prison if they violate a state law. The U.S. has federal police and a federal court system that will put people into federal prison for breaking federal law.

The U.N. does not have a global police or military force. It can be thought of more as a venue for developing a shared understanding of the world, than a government that creates and enforces its own laws.

In this case, this ruling essentially says that most of the world does not agree with China about its territorial claims. This will lend moral authority to the actions of other nations like the Philippines, U.S., Australia, Japan, when they transit and operate in the South China Sea.

Post reply on HN