Chinese police plan to board vessels in disputed seas

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

China claims 'historical' right to disputed sea

The hell? I demand Spain to claim the Pacific Ocean since they mapped it as part of their trade routes!!!!

Why am I suddenly thinking of Monty Python and the Holy Grail - specifically, the scene after Lancelot massacres the wedding party and the host discovers he's one of King Arthur's Knights.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/lxFrXuly_B0

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[aohige]

China: but but but if ownership is renounced, it's automatically ours!! Because... because we're China!

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by aohige

China: but but but if ownership is renounced, it's automatically ours!! Because... because we're China!

Seriously, I'd like to see how the PRC would feel at one end of a new Cold War when alienating so many countries like that... just like it ended for the USSR when their traditional alliances got shaky and crumbled.

All countries doing business with the CCP created a monster when they shouldn't have (especially not with the 1989 incident at Tiananmen that should have left an unmovable black eye to the PRC), so it's time they find a way to reduce it (at least the current Beijing government) back to the state of a dwarf in a flask.

edit: That's up to the people to decide. If they keep the statu quo, that's their decision. But they shouldn't complain they have not been warned when history has plenty of examples like this.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

edit: That's up to the people to decide. If they keep the statu quo, that's their decision. But they shouldn't complain they have not been warned when history has plenty of examples like this.

...but there's no chance of that happening since China is so intertwined with business interests.

[ReddyRedWolf]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

...but there's no chance of that happening since China is so intertwined with business interests.

Tell that to the PLA that wants more budget by stirring up the pot.

Makes one wonder who really dictates foreign policy, the CCP or the PLA?

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by ReddyRedWolf

Tell that to the PLA that wants more budget by stirring up the pot.

Makes one wonder who really dictates foreign policy, the CCP or the PLA?

The PLA is not in control of China's foreign policy, even if it has some influence. It is certainly not the major arbiter.

We can see that the Party is always strongest by the simple fact that its top officials are of mostly civilian background. Of the last three sets of leaders, who were generals? It is true that the Paramount Leader generally assumes control of the military, but he is also the head of the CCP and more like the USA's President being the Commander-in-chief. There is nothing like a military junta in China. The PLA has a junior role to the CCP. The CCP is officially in charge of all public organizations, including the PLA.

Now it's true that the CCP is not monolithic and that there are competing interests within it. However, these competing interests are not really between military and civilian, or between actual ideological difference, but a complex web of interpersonal relations and financial interests doing their work. So you can't say "the PLA wants this", you can only say "some group of CCP officials are colluding with PLA officers to further their interests, with the result that foreign policy is affected negatively". The interests of the military still play a role of course, but it is subsidiary to the larger issue of CCP inner intrigue.

Of course, since this is China, it's really hard (actually impossible) to say how the CCP really is split or what specific divisions exist. We can only guess by looking at subtle signs.

[SaintessHeart]

If the signs point to anything it probably looks like Argentina during the Falklands war. The only question is what the government is desperate about.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

If the signs point to anything it probably looks like Argentina during the Falklands war. The only question is what the government is desperate about.

Good analogy. That is a million dollar question.

No one should ever underestimate a military force in any government, whatever the structure is. And whatever is going on with the CCP and the PLA, that doesn't smell good for anyone with their recent behaviour.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Good analogy. That is a million dollar question.

No one should ever underestimate a military force in any government, whatever the structure is. And whatever is going on with the CCP and the PLA, that doesn't smell good for anyone with their recent behaviour.

Except for Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed and Sukhoi. If it is a small conflict, it would mostly be an aircraft/missile war that benefit all these defence aircraft makers.

And of course, the defence stock traders.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by ReddyRedWolf

Tell that to the PLA that wants more budget by stirring up the pot.

Makes one wonder who really dictates foreign policy, the CCP or the PLA?

You mean the Pentagon don't?

Seriously, if anyone is known for a large defense budgets, the PLA are a bunch of frugal monks compared to the gluttonous devour of funds known as Pentagon.

Heck, they even have plans to go to war with Canada, seriously, Canada? Land of Maple, weed, and nice girls <3

As a side note, at least PLA don't have 4 military branches competing for funds with each other.

Edit: A large % of the funds that the PLA budget increase that the pentagon harp about actually go to stuff like FEEDING THE TROOPS. You should read about the awful conditions chinese troops had in the Korean war, with men sucking on cave walls for moisture and shit. Military food is also pretty bare during peacetime, especially in borders like Xinjiang and Indian.

Compare that to U.S camps in Afganstain, where Mcdonalds and Burger Kings are offered to all troops....

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Seriously, if anyone is known for a large defense budgets, the PLA are a bunch of frugal monks compared to the gluttonous devour of funds known as Pentagon.

You forgot: The PLA have their own corporations and companies making cash for them. They don't need to rely on the budget from the central government as most militaries. That's why they're more dangerous than most people think: the military is semi-autonomous from the state.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

You forgot: The PLA have their own corporations and companies making cash for them. They don't need to rely on the budget from the central government as most militaries. That's why they're more dangerous than most people think: the military is semi-autonomous from the state.

You mean Hauwei? Major Tele-Com company setup by a former military engineer in the PLA that the House of Rep is masturbating with rage on?

SERIOUSLY?

If you describe every company that has founder or known to hire U.S Vets to be "owned by the Pentagon" like it is owned by the PLA, then you would have some very interesting list

http://www.careerbliss.com/top-10-be...us-veterans-5/

1 General Dynamics 7.83 $83,789 View
2 BAE Systems 7.91 $78,659 View
3 ITT 7.01 $70,121 View
4 URS 8.09 $72,428 View
5 L-3 Communications 7.79 $71,342 View
6 Lockheed Martin 7.67 $73,621 View
7 Booz Allen Hamilton 7.34 $87,048 View
8 Serco 7.53 $56,927 View
9 QinetiQ 7.03 $78,380 View
10 Boeing 8.23 $76,784 View


Hey, this list looks familiar What did Ike say about the military industrial complex again?

[Sumeragi]

Your lack of knowledge shows. The PLA directly formed and owns trading companies like China Xinxing Import And Export Corporation, Everbright, and China Songhai Industrial Corporation. In addition, important industrial companies like Songliao Automobile Company or the vast mines and farms of the Chinese interior are directly controlled by the Military Districts which form up the PLA. We're not talking about veterans, we're talking about direct control by the military over companies, ensuring an independent source of income.

[willx]

Since we've gotten to the topic of State-owned or PLA-owned entities, either SOEs or SWFs. I must point this out to everyone on this thread and I'd like to chime in here and ask a few question to everyone involved:
Do we really believe many of China's SOEs are investing purely on an economic basis? Are there issues with foreign sovereigns owning another country's hard assets?

This is a question that has popped up in Canada with the proposed takeover of Nexen by CNOOC. I personally have had the privilege to listen to certain respected CEOs / billionaires speak on this topic. The response has been:
(FYI, this really should be more of a U.K issue due to Nexen's extensive North Sea assets, but it's a Canadian company)

-There are always concerns about any country taking over any hard asset
-There are concerns about the underlying values of the country making the takeover
-There are concerns about motives and the ability to enforce upon demanded concessions
-Specific to China there are concerns about political interests in asset takeovers
-Specific to China there have been concerns about certain .. questionable negotiating and "fact-finding" tactics

Case in Point: No one really cares what equity stakes Norges bank (investment manager of Norway's SWF) takes in any companies. Because their interests and motives are purely profit driven.

There are comments that I'm leaving out, purposely, as they were personal thoughts and musings of individuals off-the-record that are non-verifiable but paint a pretty stark picture about how certain transactions have been conducted. I'll leave it to your imagination but it becomes pretty .. "cloak and dagger" -- keep in mind I'm as skeptical as they come, but these are pretty damn credible sources, and they're sitting right in front of me live..

PS: I am not encouraging fear-mongering of any kind. I feel about 1% conflicted because I'm ethnically Cantonese (Han descent) .. but I'm Canadian and damn proud of it.

Reply hazy, ask again later

[ArchmageXin]

@Willx at least the Chinese are BUYING and PAYING. State owned or not.

BP had the Iranian government overthrown to get the oil.

United Fruit stomped over Caribbean countries for Bananas.

The entire European 19-20th century history involved armed robbery and plunder,

India became an starving nation from a breadbasket because East Indies company decided it need nothing but opium and rubber.

I would say the CHINESE METHOD of BUYING AN OIL ASSET is far more preferable than their western counterparts.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Your lack of knowledge shows. The PLA directly formed and owns trading companies like China Xinxing Import And Export Corporation, Everbright, and China Songhai Industrial Corporation. In addition, important industrial companies like Songliao Automobile Company or the vast mines and farms of the Chinese interior are directly controlled by the Military Districts which form up the PLA. We're not talking about veterans, we're talking about direct control by the military over companies, ensuring an independent source of income.

Everbright is an investment company oversea by the government per Wiki. Not sure how that is threatening.

China Xinxing Import And Export Corporation is indeed owned by the Chinese military now went public, with an value, and I quote from their website, a total of whopping $300 million usd/yr as "sales" and for all it is bluster, they don't even appear to sell GUNS.

Assuming a whopping 30% net income (nearly impossible-given Smith Wesson, an American gun company, makes only about 6% on 400 million of sales)

So, here is a Chinese company may pad the PLA's bottom line by as much as 100 million per year, for a army that is funded, by west most paranoid estimates, 142 billion (which is what 1/7 of Obama's)

So how is China XinXin matter in the grand scheme of things? I would sleep a lot less soundly thinking about Northtrop Grubman hoping to drum up a sale by having China start a war with someone. In fact, wasn't the SPANISH AMERICAN WAR started by a American Newspaper Mogul?

China Songhai Industrial Corporation-There is like 15 of those companies just on first glance of google alone. Can't make judgment until I see the one belong to PLA.

Chinese interior are directly controlled by the Military Districts which form up the PLA

o_O I am sure area-51 has martians too. Until you can bring up, even an pentagon-level paradoy "study" of Chinese military Independence...don't make me laugh.

[willx]

Pardon me for any historical inaccuracies but I'm being brief:

Iran - BP: I do believe it was a more multi-national effort, particularly orchestrated by the CIA that had the initial reinstatement of the Shah. This was also after Iran nationalized its oil industry.

United Fruit: I believe in this case, United Fruit already owned significant tracts of land, and it was primarily due to corruption and bribery. The shooting at the protesting civilians was a move by a local general.

Anyways, even in the cases you cite from the 19-20th centuries, the motives are primarily economically driven.

For better or worse for those of us currently living: Imperialism is a game that has been called off. Some countries that didn't get to play are understandably upset about this. Too bad. Unfortunately, Economic Imperialism has become an issue (not the popular definition of U.S. corporate interests, but national interests) -- why? Because China appears to be doing this: Economic transactions meant to accomplish political and strategic means. This isn't China meddling and controlling its own state economy, but making moves that impact the global economy.

Let's put this all in perspective: If for example we say, China should be allowed to buy whatever it wants because it has the cash.. It's a pure economic/business trade. Then we can also say, China's investments into foreign debt are just that, investments - a business transaction, right? So in that train of thought, should the U.S. just be allowed to say: "Oops! We can't pay you back. We're going to do a country-wide restructuring. Bad investment on your part. Ta!" without considering global implications? No. When countries are involved, particularly when motives are outside pure economic matters, implications outside of profit must be considered. To suggest otherwise is foolish.

Reply hazy, ask again later

[ArchmageXin]

Oh, everbright's operating income per filing with HK stock change is operating @533 million HK dollars, translating to U.S dollars is about $50 million. Man those dastardly PLA troops are surely rolling in Bing now.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by willx

Pardon me for any historical inaccuracies but I'm being brief:

Iran - BP: I do believe it was a more multi-national effort, particularly orchestrated by the CIA that had the initial reinstatement of the Shah. This was also after Iran nationalized its oil industry.

United Fruit: I believe in this case, United Fruit already owned significant tracts of land, and it was primarily due to corruption and bribery. The shooting at the protesting civilians was a move by a local general.

Anyways, even in the cases you cite from the 19-20th centuries, the motives are primarily economically driven.

For better or worse for those of us currently living: Imperialism is a game that has been called off. Some countries that didn't get to play are understandably upset about this. Too bad. Unfortunately, Economic Imperialism has become an issue (not the popular definition of U.S. corporate interests, but national interests) -- why? Because China appears to be doing this: Economic transactions meant to accomplish political and strategic means. This isn't China meddling and controlling its own state economy, but making moves that impact the global economy.

Let's put this all in perspective: If for example we say, China should be allowed to buy whatever it wants because it has the cash.. It's a pure economic/business trade. Then we can also say, China's investments into foreign debt are just that, investments - a business transaction, right? So in that train of thought, should the U.S. just be allowed to say: "Oops! We can't pay you back. We're going to do a country-wide restructuring. Bad investment on your part. Ta!" without considering global implications? No. When countries are involved, particularly when motives are outside pure economic matters, implications outside of profit must be considered. To suggest otherwise is foolish.

Reply hazy, ask again later

Want a recent example? IRAQ. You may be too young to remember, but at the end of 2003 when the conquest was done and "mission accomplished" was flagged, many people in the Bush Administration rumbled that those who were not part of the "willing" that joined the invasion or supported the invasion, will not be available to rebuild Iraq or get the oil contractors. Your Prime Minister, Harper I think? at that time, had to come to Bush to get assurance that Canada can get a piece of the pie.

Of course, the terrorism and carbombing made the whole thing unappealing to western "investors" shortly after.

[ArchmageXin]

Final reply: The budget for the PLA is 167 billion by paranoid American estimates.

That is 4 times of what APPLE made, net, 2012.

That is over 42 times what Boeing made, net, 2012.

That is 96 times what Rayoenon made, 2012.

That is 98 times of Northtrop Gruman made, 2012.

This is is 100 times of Goldman Saches made, 2012

So unless you want to tell me the PLA with their second of line investment companies has the earning to match the entire American military industrial complex+ the Epic vampire squid GS (which single handly sank the global financial industry and most of Europe), and thus can ignore central committe's budget.

Then....we shouldn't be worried about PLA at that point, we should be investing in our supreme communist overlords.