Hacker News Reader

Comment by jariel | Hacker News Reader

There is no equivalence between the two actions.

China is claiming vast regions which are currently regarded as 'international waters', or worse 'sovereign waters of other nations' as it's own, sovereign territory.

The US is not declaring the Bahamas to be 'US Territory', for example.

Not only that, the US Navy ensures that everyone - including China, Russia, Iran etc. can have 'safe passage' in international waters, and especially Panama Canal, Suez, Gulf etc. - which is quite literally the opposite of China's intentions in the S. China sea.

View on HN

Simultaneously, they are trying to squeeze as much land as possible from their neighbors. Recently, Chinese soldiers killed 20 Indian soldiers who foiled their land-grabbing attempt.

To be fair, this was a quibble among unarmed soldiers, literally fist-fighting on a bridge, in the middle of the night. I'm not sure if it counts for anything, and I don't think that on the whole, India's sovereignty is threatened.

The issue will be in areas wherein China can claim supremacy without much resistance, for example, off the coast of weaker neighbours in the region.

It's a pretty bold ploy - at the same time, I actually believe that the 'chip wars' will be more important!

The weapon used by the Chinese troops indicates that it was more than a fist-fight[0].

I do agree that coastal waters of certain ASEAN countries, which are practically defenseless, are at a significantly higher risk.

0. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53089037

Which leads me to believe this was probably just a breakdown in discipline, on both sides, and not something to read too deeply into. If it was some kind of intentional action, why wouldn't shots have been fired?

> The absence of firearms in the clash dates back to a 1996 agreement between the two sides that guns and explosives be prohibited along the disputed stretch of the border, to deter escalation.

People can't even trust US police, not to mention US military.

You don’t have to, the US navy’s role in securing free trade on the seas speaks for itself.

As in, enforcing US sanctions against their competitors?

The US Navy does not enforce sanctions against economic competitors. It may be involved in enforcing sanctions against military threats, like North Korea and Iran, but even then, not really.

The US Navy defends the interests of the US largely by defending allies and promoting rules-based order. This is constantly the norm, day in day out, around the world. You see it in Panama Canal, Suez, especially the Gulf.

We have a Monroe doctrine in our whole hemisphere. AND we have bases surrounding like 80% of China's coast (Korea, Japan, phillipines).

Them, as a great power, wanting to have an open sea route that they control isn't really that outrageous as far as how great powers act.

These moral equivalence arguments vis-a-vis China are not working.

The US has bases in Korea, Japan etc. by invitation of those nations and it not 'control' any of the waters or territories there.

Sovereign territories are controlled by sovereigns, and international waters are international - anyone can use them.

The US doesn't even have a large enough fleet to project force or truly patrol over there, though it does so tacitly (i.e. where there is a problem, there is focus).

"wanting to have an open sea route that they control isn't really that outrageous as far as how great powers act."

China is declaring vast areas as de-facto sovereign territory, which is far beyond 'control' it's literally 'ownership'.

All international 'sea routes' are effectively open, thanks in large part to the US Navy (and others of course).

China is absolutely free to help patrol waters and to ensure international laws are respected - in fact - if that were the behavior of China, everyone would be relieved - but that is not what is happening at all.

> The US has bases in Korea, Japan etc. by invitation of those nations and it not 'control' any of the waters or territories there.

This is outright revisionism. When US bases were established in Japan, German and Korea, the countries were effectively client states of the United States.

How were those bases established, pray tell?

You can draw up as many technicalities as you'd like, but those technicalities are tools to serve power. They're tossed the second they aren't useful, by whichever country that can afford it.

It would be monumentally stupid for the Chinese to just assume that we'll faithfully honor "international waters neutrality" forever, especially at the moment when they're eclipsing us economically.

"How were those bases established, pray tell?"

Yes - let's 'go there'.

The difference between having a strategic relationship with the US, versus one with China, is literally embodied in the difference between North and south Korea.

The US defeated a pariah nation, Japan, and helped build it into a highly advanced, free nation, with whom the US enjoys a very positive strategic relationship. And FYI Japanese could ask the US to leave at any time, but that won't happen because of course Japan absolutely wants to maintain their partnership.

North Korea is the ugliest, totalitarian 'prison state' in the worst in the world, maybe one of the worst the world has ever seen. That's 'Team China'.

"It would be monumentally stupid for the Chinese to just assume that we'll faithfully honour "international waters neutrality" forever, especially at the moment when they're eclipsing us economically."

Not only is this wrong, it also does not justify their actions.

First - so long as there is no 'hot war' the Chinese will be able to ship their goods and navigate waters as they please. It won't matter if they have a 'bigger economy' than the US.

Second - none of this justifies grabbing territory. As I mentioned, if China were to use its navy to actively support open navigation of international waters, then the world would welcome that. We'd all be working with on the issue. But that is not the case: China has Imperial ambitions, and if it means putting a few more million Muslims in concentration camps, then so be it.

It's really sad to see these constant duplicitous China arguments. That it's not perfectly black and white does not make it entirely murky either - China is a pariah state.

Just FYI: South Korea was a brutal military dictatorship until the late 1980s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com