Territorial ambitions?
Take a look at this map (courtesy of the BBC) indicating China’s claimed territorial waters:
Having your cake and swimming in it
Seriously, take a good look at the extent of that red line. Talk about wanting your cake and swimming in it!
This emerged after the recent spat over the harrassment by Chinese vessels of an unarmed US surveillance ship operating in international waters. That’s right: international waters. I’ve had a close look at the map and, frankly, I’m impressed that the US ship found any international waters.
I suppose this is all a political move by Beijing to ratchet up the tensions or see how far it can push America. Remember what happened the time China took exception to an American plane flying in international air space? Silly feckers.
Update
A sensible response from Obama
March 11th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I am so glad that the Chinese economic zone didn’t include SF Bay and the Hudson Bay and the British Channel.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
The American spy ship was clearly within the Chinese EEZ, spying on a Chinese submarine base and looking for Chinese subs (aka “threats”). They were looking for trouble.
The Americans expect the Chinese sub to stay within 12 miles from Chinese soil while their subs are everywhere. Hypocritical bastards.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Yes, Bill. China probably believes that their ships on pirate duty off Somalia are still in home waters.
Pffefer, the Americans were operating within international waters. One world, one dream.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
International waters = anything outside 12 miles from land. EEZ is international water, sure. However foreign ships and airplane are not supposed to engage in activities that are detrimental to the economic (and security) interest of the host country while sailing or flying over the EEZ.
It really comes down to, the Americans are doing it simply because “they can”.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:06 am
“However foreign ships and airplane are not supposed to engage in activities that are detrimental to the economic (and security) interest of the host country while sailing or flying over the EEZ. ”
They were mapping the sea floor, weren’t they? Classic cold-war paranoia from China. I still say China’s trying to provoke an incident to whip up a bit of anti-Obamerica feeling. Or at least to take the new incumbent’s temperature when push comes to shove.
Any comment on the extent of that red line? Laughable!
March 12th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Mapping the sea floor? Don’t tell me that you seriously believe that. News for you stuart: The Americans were there hunting (Chinese) subs, according to their very own Pentagon:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_china_incident
“The U.S. Navy ship that got into a scrape with five Chinese vessels last weekend in the South China Sea was looking for threats such as submarines — presumably Chinese — in waters that China claims as its own, defense officials acknowledged Tuesday.”
By the way, any comment on how Obama allegedly snubbed your prime minister? Amazing!
March 12th, 2009 at 1:57 am
“By the way, any comment on how Obama allegedly snubbed your prime minister?”
Not aware of it, but I think it was probably a good idea. This Obama fella is the real deal.
Any relationship between your question and China’s territorial claims?
March 12th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
For the record, I think the concept that all of South China Sea is Chinese territory is ludicrous. That said, I think China’s claims for some of those islands and islets could be legitimate. After all your country has territories all over the place, in places that are far far far far far away from the british isles, doesn’t it?
I guess eventually it all comes down to who found/discovered it first and the ability to hold on to these territories. Of course, garnering local support helps too.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Stuart,
Haven’t been in contact for a little while–thought you might enjoy this.
Be well, good man!
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2009-03/09/content_7553110.htm
March 13th, 2009 at 3:18 am
“After all your country has territories all over the place, in places that are far far far far far away from the british isles, doesn’t it? ”
Not so much, these days. But the few remaining outposts of empire are a source of constant sniping from China, who do so love to refer to the Falklands as the ‘Malvinas’. Petty nonsense.
They’re also costly and troublesome extremities from time to time, as China has discovered with Tibet, and would surely discover with any attempt to procure a few militarily strategic lumps of rock that are closer to a dozen other countries than they are to the Chinese mainland. That sentence was too long.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Hey Michael, long time!
That piece of propaganda is unbelievable. I don’t know how the author can lie straight in bed.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Constant sniping from China? You gotta come up with something better than China referring to Malvinas as what is, “Malvinas”.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A6%8F%E5%85%8B%E5%85%B0%E7%BE%A4%E5%B2%9B
I am sure your country can set a great example by giving up those “costly” and “troublesome” overseas territorities. Oh wait, you even fought the Argentines over Malvinas. So whatever you say about China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea is just utterly hypocritical.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:53 am
If the people of Britain’s few remaining overseas rocks vote for change, they’ll get it. This article pretty much outlines how blind nationalism can lead to unnecessary fiasco.
There’s no hypocrisy; Britain’s former empire belonged to another age. China, on the other hand, usually gets hot under the collar about the past colonialist actions of others while at the same time seeking to expand her own territory.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
OK, so you people are ready to give up all overseas territories? How about the Malvinas? The Argentines will be very pleased.
I remeber the sore loser face on the face of that prince monkey (aka “Prince Charles”) when Hong Kong was returned. I doubt you people will just give them all up like that.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:39 am
“I remeber the sore loser face ”
The sorest losers that day were the people of Hong Kong – just ask them.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Before the handover, a lot of people were predicting mass exdus of people out of HK, it did not happen. HK did not enjoy democracy for the most part of the British rule, for the British to pretend that they care by asking the mainland to guarantee democracy in HK is laughable.
Compared to HK the mainland is a lot more restrictive. Yet it attacted people like you. HK will just be fine.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
“HK will just be fine.”
Yes, thanks to its former owners.
What a fantastic deal for China. Allow Britain to build a modern, vibrant, financial and trading centre in your backyard then ask for your toys back.
Even today there’s no Chinese city quite like HK; but ask those that have known life both pre and post 1997 and I think you’ll only get one answer: it was a better, fairer place before.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:06 am
“it was a better, fairer place before.”
really ?
Before you get into this pomies good, chinese bad rant, did you know that the colonial govt in HK routinly detent people without trial due to their political views?
No, you don’t ?
March 16th, 2009 at 5:02 am
st wrote: “really?”
Yes, really. The only people who don’t think so are CCP fodder or nationalistic fenqing. Not that the Chinese government have imposed martial law or anything, but they’ve certainly been sticking their noses in.
Your comment about detaining people for their political views is priceless. I’m guessing you’re currently living in a country where you can express your opposition freely. Don’t waste that opportunity while you have it.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:53 am
before you make a fool of yourself, I strongly suggest you do a bit of research on harrassment local newspapers got for negative reportings on the colonial government or the british motherland.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:33 am
st – stop being so ‘fenqing’ and read what I wrote more carefully.
Soon you’ll be claiming that Hong Kong is in Chinese territorial waters. Whatever next!
March 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am
seems to me you are like a little kid who has just learned a new “offensive” word and anytime you spotted someone who might disagree with you, you immediately started with all these name calling business.
So childish of you.
Anyway you wrote “ask those that have known life both pre and post 1997 and you’ll only get one answer: it was a better, fairer place before.”
May one inquire how do you define better and fairer and who are those people ? Would they be the British accented Martin Lees and Emily Laus ?
March 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I suggest you take a trip to HK and speak to people who have lived under both the colonists and the dictators. Then we can talk about it.
In the meantime, how about those territorial claims? wild!
March 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“Yes, thanks to its former owners.”
What did the British do to prop up HK? Everything the British did in HK was done to make sure HK remained a showcase for “British Benevolence”. Benevolence my ass. Why didn’t you grant democracy to HK earlier?
Mark my words, it won;t be too long before HK is outshined by other Chinese cities.
Consider how much you people have screwed up peoples around the world, HK might just be an exception, perhaps.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:10 am
“Mark my words, it won;t be too long before HK is outshined by other Chinese cities.”
That I believe.
“Consider how much you people have screwed up peoples around the world, HK might just be an exception, perhaps.”
That’s only half the story. There was also a strong element of moral responsibility about the way Britain administered its empire that set it apart from the other colonists of the day.
Watch historian Niall Ferguson’s excellent six-part series about how Britain came to rule half the planet. He doesn’t skip the atrocities, but offers a balanced view of the legacy of empire.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:25 am
“I suggest you take a trip to HK and speak to people who have lived under both the colonists and the dictators. Then we can talk about it.”
I have travelled to HK numerous times and had spoken to 14 local Hongkong people about the issue, 10 of whom doesn’t speak english worked in non-professional jobs or in small business, 1 x professional, 1 x senior technocrat who worked in the colonial government, 2 x young engineers.
The professional and technocrat migrated pre-97 and all had good jobs overseas. The technocrat went back to HK during 2000.
Out of the 14, the professional and 1 x engineer believed HK was better under the poms. Last I spoke to them during 2005 about the issues the professional was a commie hater as his old man was a KMT. The young engineer was a pomie licker and loved HM Queen.
The professional recently changed his stance to netural but the young engineer is still I believe, a staunch pomie licker.
So here are my results based on empirical data, 12: 1 against your statement. 1 neutral.
Would you care to shed some light on how you came up with your statement ?
March 17th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“That’s only half the story. There was also a strong element of moral responsibility about the way Britain administered its empire that set it apart from the other colonists of the day.”
Just ask the Iraqis.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
“So here are my results based on empirical data”
I think you need a better understanding of ‘empirical data’.
“Just ask the Iraqis.”
Just watch the series I mentioned.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:30 am
ok call it survey if you like.
So would you care to shed some light on how you came up with this statement: “ask those that have known life both pre and post 1997 and you’ll only get one answer: it was a better, fairer place before.”
How many people have you asked, what are their backgrounds ?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:17 am
st – It is no longer declarative. I’ve amended the original comment. Happy?
March 18th, 2009 at 8:56 am
what is there to be happy about ? There is nothing personal here …
I take it you also retract (ok .. declare no longer declarative) the following statement:”The only people who don’t think so are CCP fodder or nationalistic fenqing.”
“There was also a strong element of moral responsibility about the way Britain administered its empire that set it apart from the other colonists of the day. ”
Seriously ?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+tragedy+of+Hong+Kong.-a019989933
March 18th, 2009 at 9:23 am
“Your comment about detaining people for their political views is priceless.”
Are you denying or not aware that the pre-97 colonial government detained and tortured people for their political views?
Just to give you an example. TSANG Tak-sing, the current Secretary for Home Affairs Bureau was detained for 2 yrs during the 60s.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
“TSANG Tak-sing, the current Secretary for Home Affairs Bureau was detained for 2 yrs during the 60s.”
Any moment now I expect you to start a mantra about liberation from serfdom.
If you insist on going back to te 60′s let’s consider how China’s territorial claims (on topic) are growing with her increasing power. Sound like the definition of a global bully in the making.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
i like the way how you censored some of my other comments which are neither rude nor offensive, you know, just a polite request for clarification of some of your motherhood statements.
But this is your turf, you can do whatever you like.
“Any moment now I expect you to start a mantra about liberation from serfdom. ”
Again, you were the one who was carrying on about how great and wonderful the colonial rule pre-1997, and I beg to diff.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
st – I haven’t censored anything. Sometimes comments (esp. those with links) get caught up in the spam filter and I have to go fish them out, hence their delayed appearance.
Some of the comments I make are decidedly tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if you can’t see that.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:06 am
If you view everything with your “Chinese are full of Nationalistic fenqings”lens, guess what ? You will find exactly what are you are looking for.
“Some of the comments I make are decidedly tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if you can’t see that.”
There is nothing to be sorry about.
I accept that you could be a very witty and reasonable man in real life, but your web persona does come across as a mix bastard of a hyperbolic yank and a whinging pom.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:33 am
“…your web persona does come across as a mix bastard of a hyperbolic yank and a whinging pom.”
I assume that was said with all due respect.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:20 am
and indeed it was …
Same as in real life we are all very well mannered (or trying to be anyway) in the office and a few drinks in the pub after work, sexist and racist remarks comes left right centre.
Where as in real life you can blame alcohol for any irrational behaviour, in the web you can hide behind a virtual persona.
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:42 am
[...] here to see the original: Territorial ambitions? | Foundinchina.com Share and [...]
September 25th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
[...] And what price an incident is orchestrated as an excuse to strengthen internal unity or chase territorial ambitions? More likely than not on current [...]