# China's south china sea adventure **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594 "2015-05-22T15:19:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/141 "2015-05-30T14:36:01Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Legitimate question. How is China’s claim to these islands any different or weaker than the US claim of Wake Island or the UK’s claim to Diego Garcia? There’s two different principles at work. Not between China and the United States but between the United States and United Kingdom. You can obtain ownership of territory by occupation. This is when territory is unowned and uninhabited and you establish settlements on it. This is the method used by the United States to claim Wake Island and which China is using to claim the South China Sea islands. You can also obtain ownership by cession. This when territory is already owned by another recognized sovereign entity and that entity transfers ownership to you. This how Britain originally acquired ownership to Diego Garcia; France gave it to them in 1814. (France had originally acquired ownership by occupation. The island was uninhabited when France claimed it and began settling people there.) The British purchase of Diego Garcia in 1965 was somewhat anomalous. Mauritius was a British colony in 1965 when Britain purchased Diego Garcia from Mauritius. (Mauritius became independent in 1968.) So Britain was basically buying Diego Garcia from itself. But either way this was still transfer by cession. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/142 "2015-05-30T17:25:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So Britain was basically buying Diego Garcia from itself. But either way this was still transfer by cession. Thats very neat and tidy except for the approx 1500 people that lived there and were forcibly deported. Quote: “No current agreement exists on how many of the evacuees met the criteria to be an Ilois, and thus be an indigenous person at the time of their removal, but the UK and Mauritian governments agreed in 1972 that 426 families,[41] numbering 1,151 individuals,[24] were due compensation payments as exiled Ilois. The total number of people certified as Ilois by the Mauritian Government’s Ilois Trust Fund Board in 1982 was 1,579.[42] Five and Ten years after the last deportations, the Chahgossians received a small amount of compensation from the British, totaling $6,000 per person; some Chagossians received nothing. This relocation decision remains in litigation as of 2010.[43][44] Today, Chagossians remain highly impoverished and are living as “marginalized” outsiders on the island of Mauritius and the Seychelles.” Powerful countries claim areas far outside their territory, that’s true for western powers as well and claiming that it’s ok for the US, UK and France to do it but not China is just Tribalism. Simply thinking because my tribe does it, its ok. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/143 "2015-05-30T22:54:16Z")
[QUOTE=Gorilla] Since you evidently have personal access to this man, feel free to invite him to this thread and I shall gladly oblige. As for you, I’m quite confident that you’ll be able to use those active fingers of yours to do a quick googoo search for the relevant information. If googoo proves to be too hard, try bebo instead. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Lol! I’m so embarrassed! Now I see where the mistake occurred. Please forgive me, I must have skipped over the part of the thread where you made that comment and I later misread Lemmytheseal2’s post. I thought Lemmytheseal2 was posting a quote from foreign policy expert John Feffer. (Though, the error should have been obvious to you from the way it was quoted.) But now it makes sense. I was scratching my head thinking that there there was absolutely no way he could have made such a profoundly dumb and ignorant statement. I apologize sincerely for the error. > > Now that I know that it was you that made that statement, I can sleep better now. There’s still hope for the world. Whew!!! So, having realized you were quoting me you spewed out all of this nonsense in an attempt to cover your fuckup and blahblahblah, John Feffer googoo bebo? Gotcha. Apology accepted. As with most of your post, it’s just meaningless babble that has really nothing to do with the subject at hand, and frankly I think I’ve reached my limit with this sort of stuff with the King o’ Clad. > [@](#): > > By the way, those examples were not meant as “analogies”. That term wouldn’t do justice to the situation at all. What the US government did in acquiring Guantanamo Bay, and many of its activities in Latin America and the Pacific for the past century, were hundreds of orders of magnitude worse than anything China has recently done that you’ve spent this whole thread babbling about. If you can’t “connect the dots” as to how those examples are relevant to your China tantrums, I can’t be bothered to explain it to you. And no, ‘he’ obviously can’t see anything clearly other than the bug in front of ‘his’ nose. (Also, you need to be careful about using phrases like “pull it out of your ass” when you’re going around acting like you have a huge Chinese bug up yours. ) What the US government did or didn’t do in Guantanamo Bay has zero to do with what China is doing. You are right, it’s not even a weak analogy. And you’ve provided nothing in this post to show that you are engaging in the debate, let alone have clue about anything concerning the subject. Thanks for playing…I’d say we have some lovely parting gifts for you (I normally give out the SDM board game and a fine ceramic dog, but I really just can’t see your participation worth even those things to be honest…sorry). > [@](#): > > Just a bunch of uninformed blather that boils down to “haven’t the faintest clue how to respond to this (because there is no good response), so I’ll just stick my fingers in my ears and shout “aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh " You’re welcome. > Since I anticipated your rather knee-jerk reaction to my post (though, the entertainment value has been a pleasant surprise), I actually went to the trouble of finding a video for you online which may help you understand exactly why the US should be concerned about China’s activities but which have absolutely nothing to do with everything you’ve been babbling about. This is a video of foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer giving a speech (or “uninformed blather”, as you might call it) about China and foreign policy. I could easily have just said “go and read some of this man’s books” but I’m aware that for many people it’s much easier to just watch a video. No thanks needed. Just watch this amazing video that will explain it all!! Yeah, no thanks. If you can’t be bothered to write out whatever rebuttal you have or demonstrate even a cursory knowledge of what’s under discussion I don’t think I’m going to bother watching a(nother) amazing video that will explain everything to me. Feel free to summarize Mr. Mearsheimer’s points, whatever they may be. Or don’t…I really, honestly and from the bottom of my top don’t care. But, and I only say this because I really care, many decaffeinated beverages are just as tasty as the real thing these days…and I mean that sincerely. > [@](#): > > No…no…no. That is not the moral of the story. I shall be willing to go into a full elaboration as to what it is only after you’ve shown that you’re worth the time by completing the following tasks: > > 1. To prove that you can actually do online research (which is harder than just playing foreign policy hawk on the internet), go and find the exact year and location in which the US sat down with all the concerned countries in the East Asia region and they all agreed to certain set boundaries in terms of the “scale, scope and speed” at which the Spratly islands are to be occupied. > > 2. Finally (see how quick it is to count from one to two?), go and find out what the word “hyperpower” (not “superpower”) actually means and whether such a thing really exists in contemporary times outside of the imaginations of armchair internet warriors. > > When you’ve done that (to my satisfaction) I will then explain the right conclusion that should be drawn (and the best way forward) as a way to “sum it up”. Make haste! Oh, so tempting. So, I think you are clueless on this subject, but to prove that I’m worthy of some sort of coherent response from you I need to take a quiz on questions that don’t seem to have much to do with the subject at hand? Again, no thanks…you’ll have to take your satisfaction and your points, whatever they are and go play elsewhere. Or, you could make them to the other participants in this thread and perhaps engage in the actual discussion (I’d recommend READING what they write and following closely enough to determine that someone in the thread is making a comment and not quoting someone else). As you choose, chief. Whatever floats thy boat and drums thy fish. > [@](#): > > I hope you enjoyed that. It was the least I could do in return for your intriguingly amusing post. Again, you’re welcome. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/144 "2015-05-30T23:00:50Z")
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove] If you only read the narrative being put forward by XT, you would be under the impression that the current Chinese government just woke up last month and decided to seize a bunch of islands out of the blue, and that without an immediate US military response (to the Chinese constructing infrastructure on what they have long considered to be Chinese territory), Chinese tanks will be rolling through the streets of Manilla and Hanoi. [/QUOTE] You would only be under that impression if you didn’t actually read my posts, however. I never said that China just woke up yesterday and started seizing islands…in fact, this has been going on for literally decades, and China isn’t seizing any islands…they are building islands using local materials and then occupying and militarizing them in an attempt to display a presences and set a precedence which they hope will translate, at some future date, into arbitration by some international body into the area being ceded to them as sovereign territory. This is not even a good strawman of my position, nor is the strawman cartoonesque outcome anything like what I’ve been saying. As I told the King of Clad, you do know that folks can scroll up and actually look at what’s been written, yes? Because I don’t think anyone who ACTUALLY read what I wrote would buy this bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/145 "2015-05-30T23:37:02Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > Cite for that? IIRC at the time, China pulled back to existing borders. Wiki (not the authoritative word of course) doesn’t mention a permanent land grab. Here’s part of the Wiki I was going by: > **[Sino-Vietnamese War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War#Sino-Vietnamese_relations_after_the_war)** > > Status quo ante bellum; Both sides claim victory > Second > Third > [@China\_Guy](#): > > In 1999 after many years of negotiations, China and Vietnam signed a border pact.[62] There was an adjustment of the land border, resulting in Vietnam giving China part of its land which were lost during the battle, including the Ai Nam Quan Gate which served as the traditional border marker and entry point between Vietnam and China, which caused widespread frustration within Vietnam. Vietnam’s official news service reported the implementation of the new border around August 2001. In January 2009 the border demarcation was officially completed, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Vu Dung on the Vietnamese side and his Chinese counterpart, Wu Dawei, on the Chinese side. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/146 "2015-05-31T00:05:49Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Legitimate question. How is China’s claim to these islands any different or weaker than the US claim of Wake Island or the UK’s claim to Diego Garcia? When I was a kid, soldiers who had stolen Western US states from native Americans still walked the earth. So there’s no need to stress Wake Island. The US moral claim to most of its territory is just as weak, and a lot weaker than China’s to most of it’s territory. The US also is historically more warlike than China. For example: [http://www.japanfocus.org/-charles\_k\_-armstrong/3460/article.html](http://www.japanfocus.org/-charles_k_-armstrong/3460/article.html) Having said all that, it’s of little relevance to whether China’s effort to dominate the South China Sea is a problem. If China is successful, this will lead the smaller countries in the area, including Japan, to take an even stronger anti-China position. It also will embolden militaristic elements in the United States. Plus, China would then be in a better position to achieve its [territorial aims on Taiwan](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/06/us-asia-apec-china-taiwan-idUSBRE99503Q20131006). Now, since we have a son living in Taiwan, I do have a personal interest in deterring Chinese irredentism. But, putting that aside, from the perspective of a peace-loving American liberal, the last thing we want is a who-lost-Taiwan moral panic. Here’s a good way to think about this: > **[China’s Dangerous Game](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/chinas-dangerous-game/380789/)** > > The country's intensifying efforts to redraw maritime borders have its neighbors, and the U.S., fearing war. But does the aggression reflect a government growing in power—or one facing a crisis of legitimacy? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/147 "2015-05-31T00:08:32Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Thats very neat and tidy except for the approx 1500 people that lived there and were forcibly deported. Yes and they got shafted big time. But that had nothing to do with sovereignty. Britain didn’t take the island away from them. Those people have been British subjects all along. It was the legal equivalent of Britain deciding to kick everyone off the Isle of Wight. > [@coremelt](#): > > Powerful countries claim areas far outside their territory, that’s true for western powers as well and claiming that it’s ok for the US, UK and France to do it but not China is just Tribalism. Simply thinking because my tribe does it, its ok. That’s not the argument people are making. People are arguing that it was wrong for the United States to do it so it’s okay for China to do it. Which makes no sense. If it was wrong for the United States to do it, then it’s wrong for China to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/148 "2015-05-31T00:13:23Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > When I was a kid, soldiers who had stolen Western US states from native Americans still walked the earth. So there’s no need to stress Wake Island. Who did the United States steal Wake Island from? The native Wake Islanders? > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Having said all that, it’s of little relevance to whether China’s effort to dominate the South China Sea is a problem. If China is successful, this will lead the smaller countries in the area, including Japan, to take an even stronger anti-China position. Japan is not involved in the South China Sea and has no claims there. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/149 "2015-05-31T03:30:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Who did the United States steal Wake Island from? The native Wake Islanders? The Marshall Islanders. They called it Enen-kio and used to visit it for ritual purposes from time to time. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes and they got shafted big time. But that had nothing to do with sovereignty. Thats still being decided. The Chagossians are trying to take it to the EU court. It may be found that the Chagossians had sovereignty and so the UK purchase was illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/150 "2015-05-31T04:05:15Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > The Marshall Islanders. They called it Enen-kio and used to visit it for ritual purposes from time to time. So what? Lots of people used to visit the island from time to time. The point is that nobody was living there. So the Americans had just as much (or as little) right to claim the island as the Marshall Islanders did. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/151 "2015-05-31T04:13:28Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > The Chagossians are trying to take it to the EU court. It may be found that the Chagossians had sovereignty and so the UK purchase was illegal. The Chagossians might win some damages for being forcibly relocated. But they’re virtually certain to lose any attempt to claim they had sovereignty over Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Before that it was part of the British Crown Colony of Mauritius. British ownership of the island goes back to 1814 (actually 1810 if you go by de facto ownership). The British took the island from the French. And the French didn’t take it from anybody. Diego Garcia was uninhabited when France claimed ownership. The French were the ones who forcibly relocated the Chagossians to Diego Garcia. So the Chagossians can’t claim that they were an indigenous native people prior to European colonization. ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/152 "2015-05-31T13:41:26Z")
FWIW, the U.S. ignoring the issue has been the default for more than a decade: > **[Spratly Islands dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_dispute)** > > Spratly Islands dispute > Dangerous Ground (South China Sea) > Great Wall of Sand > History of the Spratly Islands > List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands > List of airports in the Spratly Islands > Vietnamese DK1 rigs > Royal Malaysian Navy Offshore Bases > Philippines and the Spratly Islands > Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads > Territorial disputes in the South China Sea > Southwest Cay incident (1975) > East Sea Campaign (1975) > Johnson South Reef skirmish (1988) > The Spratly Islands dispute is an ongo... ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2015, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/153 "2015-06-01T02:14:13Z")
> [@ralfy](#): > > FWIW, the U.S. ignoring the issue has been the default for more than a decade: > > [Spratly Islands dispute - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_dispute) What does this even mean? Are you saying the US is ignoring the issue today??? And why did you link to a Wiki that was cited earlier in this thread (in a post that actually quoted stuff from there to demonstrate one of those point thingies that you don’t seem to have)? What does your drive by link supposedly say that backs up whatever the hell your one line drive by is saying?? ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2015, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/154 "2015-06-01T03:34:43Z")
> [@XT](#): > > What does this even mean? Are you saying the US is ignoring the issue today??? And why did you link to a Wiki that was cited earlier in this thread (in a post that actually quoted stuff from there to demonstrate one of those point thingies that you don’t seem to have)? What does your drive by link supposedly say that backs up whatever the hell your one line drive by is saying?? It means exactly that: ignoring the issue has been the default for more than a decade and the U.S. is addressing it only now. Can we determine what will happen next given that, not to mention other factors, such as interpretation of the MDT between the U.S. and the Philippines: > **[SS](https://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/04/29/14/why-us-may-not-come-philippines-rescue-spratlys)** > > Get the latest breaking news on the Philippines and the world: News, Business, Overseas, Entertainment, Sports, and Lifestyle in text, video, photos, infographics and special reports. Also, how about trading statuses between China and the U.S., as well as between China and the other countries in the region? Joint military exercises between the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines, between China and Singapore, etc? ---
**Author:** ![iLemming](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90db22/32.png) [@iLemming](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iLemming)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2015, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/155 "2015-06-01T08:45:44Z")
> [@XT](#): > > What does this even mean? Are you saying the US is ignoring the issue today??? Most China watchers and those savvy with respect to geopolitics pertaining to that region of the world will tell you the same thing: The U.S., indeed **the West** , have put China’s expansion plans in the ‘too hard’ basket for years now. Partly due to the economic benefits a placated China brings and probably mostly because, frankly, it’s just too hard a stymied situation for ‘foreigners’ to solve and too dangerous to force the issue on. It’s only now that the Chinese economy is slowing somewhat and, as is the communist consuetude, the nationalist rhetoric is ratcheting up to divert peoples’ attention away from the what may taper to a 2 or even 1% growth in the coming years, that mainstream media have thought it new-worthy (have been given license to report?) and begun covering it. Thus the politics has followed. The horse has almost bolted on this one, methinks. Something should have been done long before China blooded their first carrier, knocked-off the JSF blueprints, near monopolised the Rear Earth Elements market and made science-for-trade deals with the Russians (…to say nothing of their all-reaching economic tentacles). No sanctions could be applied to China without literal world wide solidarity - not going to happen - and they sure cannot be ‘threatened’ back behind their Great Wall/s. All that’s left is for China to slowly metastasise their way across the resource rich area they’ve arbitrarily designated as theirs and for the U.S. to harrumph under their breaths as they wait to see where China moves leave them in the eyes of its allies and with respect to the balance of power in the world. Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia will all have to bite their tongues; the Philippines, return to trading bananas with forced smiles on their faces; and Japan must continue to spoil its citizens in preparation for the likely more ‘coflagrant’ Senkaku / Daioyu showdown, if in fact China decide those rocks belong to them also. (…With Kimmy Jong up the sleeve as the wildcard, of course). Related: [China raises prospect of South China Sea air defence zone](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd40ff7a-0447-11e5-a5c3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3bnTZo2Eh) ---
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2015, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594/156 "2015-06-02T04:03:40Z")
> [@iLemming](#): > > Most China watchers and those savvy with respect to geopolitics pertaining to that region of the world will tell you the same thing: The U.S., indeed **the West** , have put China’s expansion plans in the ‘too hard’ basket for years now. Partly due to the economic benefits a placated China brings and probably mostly because, frankly, it’s just too hard a stymied situation for ‘foreigners’ to solve and too dangerous to force the issue on. > > It’s only now that the Chinese economy is slowing somewhat and, as is the communist consuetude, the nationalist rhetoric is ratcheting up to divert peoples’ attention away from the what may taper to a 2 or even 1% growth in the coming years, that mainstream media have thought it new-worthy (have been given license to report?) and begun covering it. Thus the politics has followed. > > The horse has almost bolted on this one, methinks. Something should have been done long before China blooded their first carrier, knocked-off the JSF blueprints, near monopolised the Rear Earth Elements market and made science-for-trade deals with the Russians (…to say nothing of their all-reaching economic tentacles). No sanctions could be applied to China without literal world wide solidarity - not going to happen - and they sure cannot be ‘threatened’ back behind their Great Wall/s. All that’s left is for China to slowly metastasise their way across the resource rich area they’ve arbitrarily designated as theirs and for the U.S. to harrumph under their breaths as they wait to see where China moves leave them in the eyes of its allies and with respect to the balance of power in the world. > > Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia will all have to bite their tongues; the Philippines, return to trading bananas with forced smiles on their faces; and Japan must continue to spoil its citizens in preparation for the likely more ‘coflagrant’ Senkaku / Daioyu showdown, if in fact China decide those rocks belong to them also. (…With Kimmy Jong up the sleeve as the wildcard, of course). > > Related: [China raises prospect of South China Sea air defence zone](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd40ff7a-0447-11e5-a5c3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3bnTZo2Eh) What should also be noted is > **[Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Infrastructure_Investment_Bank)** > > The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a multilateral development bank and international financial institution that aims to collectively improve economic and social outcomes in Asia. It is the world's second largest multi-lateral development institution. Headquartered in Beijing, China, the bank currently has 110 members, including 12 prospective members from around the world. The breakdown of the 110 members by continents are as follows: 42 in Asia, 26 in Europe, 22 in Afric The Un... as well as major partnerships between China and other countries in the region. From what I remember, something like 70 pct of China’s trade involves these countries. Given that, one can argue that China will engage in conflict only because it is in economic distress. But that happens when a global economic crisis takes place. With that, war is inevitable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chinas-south-china-sea-adventure/720594.md?page=7)