China warns U.S. not to take sides in sea disputes

China warns U.S. not to take sides in sea disputes

www.reuters.com

China warned the United States not to get involved in South China Sea territorial disputes on Tuesday as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Beijing pledging to pass on a strong message on the need to calm regional tension.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.reuters.com

The article also states:

But her visit has been overshadowed by disputes over tiny islets and craggy outcrops in oil- and gas-rich areas of the South and East China Seas that have set China against U.S. regional allies such as the Philippines and Japan.

Personally, I would pick this section as being the most important in the article:

But Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei suggested at an earlier news briefing that Washington has not been a helpful force in the maritime disputes, suggesting Clinton may face some push back in Wednesday's talks.

"We have noted that the United States has stated many times that it does not take sides," he said when asked about the U.S. role. "We hope that the United States will abide by its promises and do more that is beneficial to regional peace and stability, and not the opposite."

The first thing that came to my mind was:

How can they say the U.S. doesn't take sides? The U.S. makes very serious promises and commitments to their allies. A few protocols signed here and there, and the U.S. Gov makes a very serious effort into preserving, or at least using, those same alliances.

I think the Chinese are twisting the American stand, by implying that the unbiased stand should represent an absence in influence against China in their own disputes.

If I had to make this article fit into one sentence, that would be :

China is an allied of the West and U.S., continuing the economical exchanges, as long as the U.S. doesn't interfere in their own resources battles.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

For the life of me, I can not recognize in any quote anything remotely resembling a "warning."

Of course we know that Reuters, among others; loves to "craft" for it's audience the "interpretation" of events, rather than the facts - which might not be as eye-catching. This is a common function of serving an agenda. Then of course there are the secondary reports which will be the interpretation of their 'take' on the "warning" (where there was none.)

It appears this is another piece meant to get people to think in certain terms... like "Wow, things are heating up!"

reply to post by Maxmars

For the life of me, I can not recognize in any quote anything remotely resembling a "warning."

To be honest, me neither. Reuters later retitled the article to "China to U.S.: Don't take sides in sea disputes", but that was after my post. When I made this thread, the article was still in the highlights, and the title of the thread was the title of the article.

But, in any case, it's well known that the wording of an article is very vulnerable to what the journalist thinks, or how he sees a certain issue.

That's why - in my opinion - it is so important that journalists are culturally and intellectually sound.

And as a sidenote, the reason why I use Reuters more often than any other news agency, is mostly due to two big reasons:

1- Most newspapers go to Reuters for their own news, and I prefer to use the original source instead of a secondary interpretation.
2- In ATS, Reuters seems to be considered more credible than any other news agency.

I simply prefer that people talk about the issues presented, instead of attacking the source.

This is a common function of serving an agenda. Then of course there are the secondary reports which will be the interpretation of their 'take' on the "warning" (where there was none.)

I think that Reuters adopted that headline because of this previous - but related - article:

Clinton warns against coercion in South China Sea dispute

In which there is the following quote of Hillary Clinton's speech:

"The United States does not take a position on competing territorial claims over land features, but we believe the nations of the region should work collaboratively together to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation, without threats and certainly without the use of force," she said.

It seems that the Chinese response was more of a reply to the previous remarks made by Clinton rather than an actual warning, in which your view seems to be correct.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy


Please don't confuse my comment for a criticism of your contribution. I saw the original title too. I was sort of annoyed that the precursor article (which you pointed out) was also peppered with the "warning" flavor. In fact, I wouldn't categorize the Clinton quote as a warning either.

I don't single out Reuters as a particularly 'bad' actor in this. I think they all are. Responsible journalism relies heavily on responsible editorial practices... the two balance each other out.

What I recoil against is the embedding of "fear" terminology in everything. "Warning" is a big word when discussing ideological adversaries and global competitors. It is usually accepted as it logically appears.... a warning is offered to avoid 'consequences' which are not even touched upon in the statesman-play we see here.

By building a story around the meme "warning' everything that follows is tinged with some aspect of fear for a bad outcome. The key being that it seems the professional media set cannot even attempt to bring us any indication that China and the US are working together to find solutions to the territorial conflicts.

Granted the other side of the coin is the valid question of how things get characterized more directly... like "The US doesn't take sides" which would be as incorrect as saying "China doesn't take sides." (or anyone doesn't take sides for that matter.)

I find it quite irritating that the US has its fingers into everything, is this part of US foreign policy?

The reminds me of the guy on the playground that always wanted to inject themselves into dramatic situations either to stir the pot further and create more drama or gain something from the build of tension.

Either way, I don’t think Hilary is going to be promoting “calmness”

That's a bit strange, China asks the US not to take sides and acknowledges that the US says they're not going to take sides, but then asks the US to do more. So are they actually asking the US to take sides and make sure it's the Chinese side?

Just thought that was strange, but for the most part this sounds a lot like a couple of school kids arguing over a toy car.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

China is an allied of the West and U.S

They are not an ally. China is an economical powerhouse, due to their massive population, they provide cheap (slave) labor for pretty much every major US corporation and in return, they sell us cheap, toxin tainted toys and gadgets.
Its just a business relationship and we all know how steady those can be.

reply to post by Maxmars

Please don't confuse my comment for a criticism of your contribution. I saw the original title too.

No, not at all.

I was merely expanding your thoughts (or what I believe were your thoughts) on the matter.

I was sort of annoyed that the precursor article (which you pointed out) was also peppered with the "warning" flavor. In fact, I wouldn't categorize the Clinton quote as a warning either.

Yes, agreed. That frequent attitude makes any reasonable person question if some actions - or at least, some exchange of words - aren't influenced or even manipulated by the news and the way those same news are presented to the public.

Maybe politicians are aware of this (I hope), but if the public has their mind set on one view of the issue, the politicians - in order to keep their public status quo - may be forced to play along those lines. Failing to do so may compromise the public opinion of them, like portraying weakness or being pro/against a certain event or stand.

I don't single out Reuters as a particularly 'bad' actor in this. I think they all are. Responsible journalism relies heavily on responsible editorial practices... the two balance each other out.

I agree. And if I may add, the fact that even Reuters pulls that tactic, is a reason to be concerned about the current state of the Mass Media.

By building a story around the meme "warning' everything that follows is tinged with some aspect of fear for a bad outcome. The key being that it seems the professional media set cannot even attempt to bring us any indication that China and the US are working together to find solutions to the territorial conflicts.

Very true.

Sometimes I wonder if the way the Mass Media presents stories and news doesn't influence our attitude towards armed conflict (in terms of them being necessary).

The fact that news agencies like Reuters play around the possibility of direct confrontation - instead of giving peace resolutions a thought - may influence the public opinion (or awareness) about any good and reasonable resolution.

Upon reading and learning about a certain issue, the point of view that everyone will parrot when speaking of such events will be influenced by this need to describe and utilize the imminent threat fear.

From the "point 0" forward, most issues seem to be tainted by the possibility of confrontation.

If this is done on purpose or just because journalists get too excited, I've yet to find out.

Granted the other side of the coin is the valid question of how things get characterized more directly... like "The US doesn't take sides" which would be as incorrect as saying "China doesn't take sides." (or anyone doesn't take sides for that matter.)

The rhetoric used by both parties (U.S. and China) seems to be a bit odd, doesn't it?

Even if you clear out the dust that was spread over the speech's, they do seem odd to me. Politicians study their words carefully, there isn't a single word or even comma that they don't put there for a purpose. That makes me question and analyze what China and the U.S. have been saying under a different light.

Personally, the fact that Hilary Clinton mentions "without the use of force" seems a bit odd. Why does she need to refer to use of force when addressing a country like China, or the Pacific?

Maybe that was the reason why both articles have that imminent threat feeling to it.

reply to post by Juggernog

They are not an ally. China is an economical powerhouse, due to their massive population, they provide cheap (slave) labor for pretty much every major US corporation and in return, they sell us cheap, toxin tainted toys and gadgets.

Please do not quote such a small portion of my words, because you take the risk of twisting - even if unintentional - what was my original idea.

If I can give an advice, you should have quoted the whole concept of what I was really saying:

If I had to make this article fit into one sentence, that would be :

China is an allied of the West and U.S., continuing the economical exchanges, as long as the U.S. doesn't interfere in their own resources battles.

(quote from my OP)

Key sentence being the highlighted part.

The alliance I refer to in that sentence is an alliance in more general terms, not an actual signed and verified treaty between the two countries. It was just a short word used to describe the cooperation between the two, that has roots that extend as far as World War II.

They have an alliance in the sense that both share interests for the region and world economics, and are willing to work together.

Its just a business relationship and we all know how steady those can be.

I'm aware of what you mean by that, but I would also like to add that business relationships can last as long as any type of relationship.

If I had to present an example of a long-lasting economic relationship between countries that don't necessarily share cultural bases, I would refer to the European Union.

It's a union that was born from economic interests, it still exists to this day, and disregards minor outside-of-economics issues in favor of the business relationships.

In the end, we have to eat, and business puts food on the table. That reason is strong enough for most people.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

Please do not quote such a small portion of my words, because you take the risk of twisting - even if unintentional - what was my original idea.

Fair enough. Wasnt trying to twist your words or the basis of your thread, if it seemed that way, it was unintentional.
I was just trying to point out that China, really isnt our ally, its more of a partnership. They provide cheap labor for our leach corporations and we buy their cheap toxic junk.

If China wants the territory there isn't much anyone can do or more correctly is willing to do. Much like Germany's anschluss of Austria in 1938 or seizure of Czechoslovakia in 1939. People criticize Chamberlain but there was hardly anyone at the time wanted to go to war over these territory grabs and that's probably what it would have taken to stop it. Today I can't see any major nation capable of stopping China willing to go to war over some islands. I doubt China would be willing to go to war themselves but they may be willing to out bluff anyone who could threaten to stop them.

reply to post by Strakha

If China wants the territory there isn't much anyone can do or more correctly is willing to do.

Following the comments of Chinese leadership that it was China's goal to replace the U.S. as the currency standard (how they planned to accomplish this by basing the value of their own dollar off of purchased U.S. debt is unknown); the U.S. began offering large bonds and other purchasable debt to other nations.

Japan, if I remember correctly, now owns more of our debt than China.

In essence - we devalued their currency and have put pressure on their government already dealing with internal conflicts (riots due to unemployment and the lack of purchasing power).

A lot of Asian cultures put huge emphasis on appearance. China gives the outward appearance that everything is fine and that they are growing. The truth is less glorious. China is spiraling into an economic crisis that is only made worse by the fact that they are pissing away valuable resources on military development and procurement that they don't have a hope in the world of supporting in the long term.

Today I can't see any major nation capable of stopping China willing to go to war over some islands.

A Chinese invasion of the Philippines would not go unabated by the U.S.

We can trash their country with two carrier battle groups in an attritionary exchange. We'd lose those carriers - but we could shut down major strategic resources that would put China back ten years from being able to field a globally relevant military force.

Currently, their military is a paper tiger to the U.S. Their naval power (essential to deal with us) is decades behind in both capability and training/experience.

Plus - India is a factor many people fail to consider. India and China are in direct competition with each other for industry and economic pursuits. India can ramp up to supply almost everything to the U.S. that China does (with better quality, I might add - I've had the luxury of sampling many of their products while living in foreign regions - and they hit both the affordable and quality check-boxes... they even seem to respect international patents/copyrights). Further - they are looking for ways to undermine China's expansion (and have reason to give China a good thumping for pushing their territorial claims).

It's quite possible that India would intervene pre-emptively. www.mb.com.ph...

India has its own interest in trade with the Philippines, and its own territory disputes with China. They are also pursuing military development to include a Naval force that currently rivals China's.

articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

thediplomat.com...

india.blogs.nytimes.com...

The picture is somewhat hazy - but we may see India get involved if China makes a push for the Philippines from the "we may be next" line of reasoning. Exactly how they might go about this is anyone's guess - but it's hard to see them not taking such a push very seriously. With the Philippines representing an increasing economic interest (small though it may be), it's possible they could become far more directly involved than one would first anticipate.

That, and it could just be done out of virtue.

Would be quite interesting to see Japan, Australia, India, and a few other growing regional powers stand up and smack China on the nose for sticking it where all of them feel it doesn't belong.

I'm almost embarrassed to ask such an unsophisticated question after the really great posts above, but my curiosity has the best of me.

Can China attempt to pressure the US into not defending our allies in the area? If so, how? It has been pointed out that they can't beat us militarily. Are we sending signals, somehow, that we're prepared to cave in to their pressure? Wouldn't that be disastrous?

reply to post by charles1952

Can China attempt to pressure the US into not defending our allies in the area? If so, how?

It's like a game of pick-up sticks. Everything is so inter-related that action by China is economically suicidal.

www.uschina.org...

U.S. Exports to China were roughly $100 billion in 2011.

U.S. Imports from China were roughly $400 billion in 2011.

Total Chinese exports for 2010 were roughly 1.575 Trillion.

Other major export destinations for China:

Japan: about 300 billion.
Hong Kong: about 230 billion.
South Korea: about 200 billion.
Taiwan: about 140 billion.

Spare for Hong Kong - each of those countries are liable to take economic action against China, at the least, if they start making territory disputes a military affair. They're in the back yard of China's territorial claims - and would not appreciate such motions from China.

Investment in China will precipitate off a cliff and many of China's current customers would begin to look for other industrial suppliers. I've been a couple years' removed from the "hard" industries that China has, over the past 20-30 years been sucking up; but the trend was moving away from China - particularly for parts that required high precision and quality control. Not only is China not cost-competitive in these markets (where precision machinery and technical expertise are needed) - things like territory disputes around major trade routes tend to make people seek out alternative suppliers in case things heat up and shipping becomes unreliable.

As far as the U.S. is concerned - taking action against China would be more of an economic inconvenience than suicide. We'd feel the crunch as industry shifted and jostled suppliers to meet demand; but we can plausibly survive the event.

It's not so clear how China would be able to do so. Their industries are far too government owned (they are more of a Fascist state than anything - business owners run the country) and are far too involved in politics to do much of anything in what could be considered a rapid or autonomous manner.

Consider that China has few other major customers that can step in to take the place of the U.S..... while the U.S. is a major consumer that would merely be looking for willing suppliers (and who turns down tens of billions of annual trade?).... the economic situation is rather one-sided.

It's an inconvenience for us. It's suicide to them.

Are we sending signals, somehow, that we're prepared to cave in to their pressure? Wouldn't that be disastrous?

To be blunt; a lot of foreign countries see our current President as an appeaser. That's not necessarily that they think he is 'weak' - but they have observed his trend to yield to other nations at the cost of U.S. interests. Basically - make a complaint and see what the President can do for you.

To be fair - we don't need a President who is going to be a total dick to the rest of the world and say: "# off" - but the extent this President has been willing to deface the U.S. for the sake of other nations is a little troubling.

Personally, I think the U.S. should just put China in its place by officially recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation.

What are they going to do? Place tariffs on our exports to them? Disregard international patents placed on U.S. products?

Hell - they could even place an embargo on us for the sake of being hypothetical... there goes 1/4 of their total exports. Have fun with that.

About the worst they could do would be to release U.S. security notes on the market in an attempt to devalue our currency. The problem with that is that we sold those notes to China and we could just as easily publicly declare those notes only valid for China - destroying any re-sale value they might have.

I would like to think that China is smart enough to realize that they are not in a fraction of the position they think they are. But... well - you never know what is going on in the minds of leadership. Assuming competence is just as dangerous as assuming incompetence.

come on everybody, we all know US foreign policy is a complete and utter failure, let's not pretend that the military industrial complex 'means well'.

as for the article, I was questioning the 'warning' too...stupid propaganda...

reply to post by Aim64C

Would be quite interesting to see Japan, Australia, India, and a few other growing regional powers stand up and smack China on the nose for sticking it where all of them feel it doesn't belong.

Should it be your government being smacked on the
nose for all they have done? Sorry to burst your bubble
but if there is a ww3, im sure america will have sonething
to do with it.

reply to post by charles1952

I'm almost embarrassed to ask such an unsophisticated question after the really great posts above, but my curiosity has the best of me.

Sometimes it's the most unsophisticated and basic questions that force us to question our real motives, values and knowledge.

There is no shame in pursuing knowledge, and I value more when someone makes questions, instead of someone who makes certainty.

Usually the second is wrong, while the first can't be.

Can China attempt to pressure the US into not defending our allies in the area? If so, how?

The chinese can try, but if we use examples like North/South Korea relations and diplomatic incidents, then it becomes much harder to assume the U.S. would give in to the chinese, and allow them to have further influence, power and strategic strength in the region.

North Korea is nearly untouchable because it's China's buffer zone to western influence. It's a very small territory, especially when compared to the size of China, but it's both a psychological and a strategical barrier against the West.

The fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons, and to top that has such an aggressive rhetoric, means that the U.S. won't dare to touch it. The consequences of doing so are impossible to predict.

So, using that example to explain my point, the Philippines - one of the countries involved - are to the U.S. what North Korea is to China. A very small but important buffer zone that separates political and military influence in the region.

Along with South Korea, those U.S. allies are advanced posts that give the ability to the West of keeping close surveillance on their political enemies.

The only way I can imagine China attempting to put pressure in the U.S. is to use emotional, manipulative and propaganda rhetoric. Like the usual speeches and rhetoric you hear from the Middle East regarding the U.S. policy.

But the chinese aren't like that. In fact, if we had to attribute the chinese a characteristic, that would be of unemotional.

It has been pointed out that they can't beat us militarily.

As we stand today, they can't. They have massive numbers and are very cost-effective in their arsenal and equipment, but they are still growing. China will only be able to equal U.S. military by 2020/2025. And that is assuming that the U.S. military doesn't grow until then, either in size or technologically.

However, History has showed us through several examples that a country can turn a switch on and become a serious military super-power, especially when talking about countries of a magnitude like the U.S., China or Russia.

War time legislation, industry and labour are very effective, both in cost and in production. It gives a country the ability to put all it's effort into state affairs and interests. All national companies start working almost for free, producing whatever the government requires them to produce.

To give perspective into what I'm saying, I can point out both the German and American examples during and prior to the second World War.

The U.S. armed forces, despite having aircraft carriers, were considered second-rate. The numbers weren't all that impressive, if there were any at all. It was mainly due to Pearl Harbor that the U.S. became a super-power, and that status continued after the war ended.

Germany is also a good study case. Firstly because they were severely hit by World War I, and secondly because they were under strict scrutiny from the international community. Even with the Treaty of Versailles limitations, Hitler was able to force Germany into a respectable power status, just prior to the Poland invasion.

That growth continued until the Allied Forces, led by the U.S., started to attack - with air raids - both industry and economic interests that fueled Germany.

Are we sending signals, somehow, that we're prepared to cave in to their pressure? Wouldn't that be disastrous?

I don't believe so. At least, not by looking at Clinton's words. Like I previously stated, it is rather curious that she mentioned "use of force" in her speech to the chinese representatives. She does mention peace talks, and peaceful resolutions. But in politics, you don't mention something unless you really want to.

But, if the U.S. does make the mistake of showing weakness, it can produce serious consequences, in my opinion. The same way showing weakness to a predator could doom your fate.

However, I don't believe China will show aggression. Aim64C made a good post explaining the reasons why it would be stupid to do so.

reply to post by Jay-morris

Should it be your government being smacked on the
nose for all they have done?

If anyone feels so motivated. As the saying goes: "Come at me, bro!"

Just don't expect us to be the good guys and spare civilian infrastructure when we deal with the problem.

Sorry to burst your bubble

Son, there's an ultimate reality in this world.

Those who survive to reproduce inherit the future. We are all in competition with each other. All current humans stem from a few women who can be traced back to Africa. All Europeans descend from one of seven matriarchal lines. Which means that, despite the thousands procreating at the time - only the descendants of those seven women survived to this day.

Similar tracing has been done with the patriarchal lines contained in the Y chromosome of our DNA. Of the thousands of other males - most men stem almost directly from one of forty "sons of Adam" (if you will) worldwide. The figure is about the same for our mitochondrial heritage in our matriarchal lines.

Which means that - of the thousands; millions, even, of other matriarchal lineages - only those few survived to the present.

So - we can sit here and preach all the ideals we want. At the end of the day - it's not the idealists that inherit the future, but the resourceful survivors. However it is they accomplish those feats.

but if there is a ww3, im sure america will have sonething
to do with it.

No one is saying we wouldn't.

I would be one of the first to sign on the line to reinforce South Korea. Good people, they are. I'd also stand on a front in Malaysia quite willingly. Not the most developed place on the planet - but good people. India, the same. Japan can be made to sweat a little bit for their insistence on electing politicians that want to kick us out of the region because of a 'marine' who raped an elderly lady some 20 years ago. China knocking down their door might help them move beyond the past.

If the sight of marines pisses them off - Chinese on their soil would have them livid beyond all reason.

Yeah - I'll play that card.

Maybe we can award their taking of such preliminary steps by allowing them to own their own munitions for their self defense force (interestingly enough - they check their weapons with us).