GlassEye-Boy posted:

https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/1773379528678900159?s=20

Some Guy TT posted:

are the other respondents dont know or is just literally every country in the world selected at random by the remaining fifty eight percent

Some Guy TT posted:

are the other respondents dont know or is just literally every country in the world selected at random by the remaining fifty eight percent

mawarannahr posted:

boiled eggplant with ham and corn

Weka posted:

Mostly don't know/refused but also no country

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/27/americans-name-china-as-the-country-posing-the-greatest-threat-to-the-us/

Weka posted:

Mostly don't know/refused but also no country

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/27/americans-name-china-as-the-country-posing-the-greatest-threat-to-the-us/

Trimson Grondag 3 posted:

Bald Stalin posted:

'Australia' doesn't exist. Kill the Australian in your mind.

Bald Stalin posted:

'Australia' doesn't exist. Kill the Australian in your mind.

Dr. Jerrold Coe posted:

Have a drink, mate? Have a fight, mate? Have a taste of dust and sweat, mate? There's nothing else out here.

fits my needs posted:

https://x.com/markets/status/1774621382694903998?s=20

Weka posted:

So could anyone expand on how the Philippines has broken its commitments in the SCS?

quote:

The US is playing a very dangerous game in the South China Sea, where instead of trying to appease tensions like a responsible power should do, it backs maximalist claims that violate International Law, and lies egregiously for that purpose.

Here is Nicholas Burns, the US ambassador to China, saying in an interview 2 weeks ago (https://youtube.com/watch?v=a38IsiPMnoI):

“You've seen over the last couple of months some 10 standoffs between Filipino naval forces and both Chinese coastguards and Chinese military vessels at a place called Second Thomas Shoal and also in Scarborough Shoal. Now it's important for everybody on this zoomcast to understand that the International Court of Justice, which is the relevant legal body, ruled in July 2016 decisively in favour of the Philippines. And so that that territory is the sovereign territory of the Philippines and that China’s legal claim to it has no basis in international law. All the rest of the world understands that and recognises that this is sovereign Filipino territory.”

This is absolutely packed with lies.

First of all, it was NOT the International Court of Justice (ICJ) but the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that made the July 2016 ruling (https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/). This is a very important distinction because rulings by the PCA - unlike rulings by the ICJ - do NOT carry the weight of international law. Furthermore, in this case, China declined to participate in the arbitration.

Secondly the PCA ruling in question absolutely does NOT confirm the Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal as "sovereign Filipino territory". For the simple reason that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which is the international law framework the PCA was asked to arbitrate under, “does not address the sovereignty of states over land territory”. In fact the PCA, in its ruling, specifically said that it had “not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which state enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands [where the Second Thomas Shoal is] or Scarborough Shoal”!

This is all the more ironic because the US is one of the rare countries out there that refused to sign or ratify UNCLOS, contrary to China...

What the ruling DID say with regards to the Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal is as follows:

- For the Scarborough Shoal, it ruled that they are rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, do not generate an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf entitlements beyond their 12-nautical-mile territorial sea. It also ruled that both Chinese and Filipino fishermen, among others, had traditional fishing rights in the area and that no party should prevent the other from exercising these rights.

- For the Second Thomas Shoal, the ruling declared that it is a "low-tide elevation", that "does not generate entitlements to a territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, or continental shelf" but that it is "within the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines", with the consequence that the Philippines have rights over the resources in these areas.

That's it, it's a ruling about maritime entitlements under UNCLOS, not about the sovereignty over these territories.

Thirdly, Burns’ statement that “all the rest of the world understands that and recognises that this is sovereign Philippine territory” is even more egregious. This is patently untrue, even for US allies. For instance Britain, France and Germany in their 2020 "note verbale" to the UN on the matter (https://un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mys_12_12_2019/2020_09_16_DEU_NV_UN_001.pdf), specifically wrote that they “take no position” over the “disputed territorial sovereignty to naturally formed land features and to areas of the continental shelf in the South China Sea”.

In fact, until this declaration by Burns, this would have been untrue for the US themselves! Their position so far had been that - just like Britain, France and Germany - they did not take a position on the sovereignty claims themselves. The main reason is because these claims do not only involve the PRC and the Philippines but also the ROC (Taiwan), who also claim both the Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal, as well as Vietnam and Malaysia who have also made claims over other parts of the Spratly Islands archipelago (of which the Second Thomas Shoal is part of). As such, unilaterally siding with one of the claimants over the others is a rather bizarre position for Washington.

Lastly, if the US wanted to be constructive here, instead of backing one state or the other in its maximalist claims in order to fuel conflict, it should encourage the negotiation of the Code of Conduct (CoC) for the South China Sea that's currently being discussed between ASEAN countries and China.

This is a diplomatic effort to end disputes. Why not support that instead of siding with one party against others, which can only fuel the disputes? The answer is simple: this is part of a broader and immensely worrying trend which we see in U.S. conduct generally (be it in Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, etc.) where the U.S. 1) jumps on all opportunities to sabotage diplomacy and fan the flames of conflict and war and 2) support the arbitrary and ever-changing self-interested rules of its "rules-based order" in opposition of International Law.

Why do they do that? I genuinely think we need to seriously ask ourselves if the U.S. doesn't want to recreate a WW2-type scenario where the whole world is in flames and the U.S., protected by its immensely favorable geography, ends up reaping the benefits. If there's a "great reset" initiative going on, that might be the one. WW2 placed the U.S. at the top of the global pecking order: at a time when this "leadership" is crumbling down, it's not inconceivable that they wouldn't mind a remake...

quote:

If you're a Filipino who follows this issue, you must know very well that those water cannons aren't to prevent fishing in the area but to prevent construction material to be brought over to the Sierra Madre wreck in order to transform it into a permanent feature over the Second Thomas Shoal, which is actually illegal under international law...

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

If that is the US' goal. What geographical advantage do they think they have over China? Land invasion though the Himalayas? Restart the Korean war first?

crepeface posted:

I'm assuming, like with Russia and Europe, the goal isn't to defeat China in a military conflict (tho they would be delighted if they could). it's to force their proxies in the region to pick a side and extract wealth from the ones that alienate China. a new iron curtain.

quote:

But Russia’s economic resilience in the face of supposedly devastating sanctions is only one reflection of a great transformation of world trade. China’s exports to the Global South doubled during the past three years and China now exports more to the South than to developed markets. China’s unprecedented exporting success, in turn, stems from the rapid automation of Chinese industry, which now installs more industrial robots per year than the rest of the world combined.

This is evident, I added, in China’s newfound dominance in the world automotive market but it also has critical military implications. China claims that it has automated plants that can make 1,000 cruise missiles a day—not impossible given that it can manufacture 1,000 EVs a day, or thousands of 5G base stations.

The implication is that China can produce the equivalent of America’s inventory of 4,000 cruise missiles in a week while American defense contractors take years to assemble them by hand.

crepeface posted:

https://twitter.com/policytensor/status/1772397814351278427?s=20

article is about ukraine/russia, but this caught my eye:

Orange Devil posted:

loving lmao.

Only more evidence for my theory that China can outproduce the entire west in artillery shells at truly astonishing rates. Like a single Chinese factory probably produces more than everyone in NATO combined.

crepeface posted:

https://twitter.com/policytensor/status/1772397814351278427?s=20

article is about ukraine/russia, but this caught my eye:

tractor fanatic posted:

No, thank you. The US's anxiety about China's conventional military growth means it's getting increasingly belligerent and more likely to use nuclear weapons. The Atlantic Council even floated a couple articles arguing for nuclear first use

stephenthinkpad posted:

The US military was talking about using nuke against China in one of the Taiwan strait crises in the late 50s, just a few years before PRC tested their first nuke. So the only thing that can prevent the US use nuke is expedite warhead stockpile and reach near nuclear parity against the US.

fits my needs posted:

https://x.com/Reuters/status/1774856754922181115?s=20

Orange Devil posted:

loving lmao.

Only more evidence for my theory that China can outproduce the entire west in artillery shells at truly astonishing rates. Like a single Chinese factory probably produces more than everyone in NATO combined.

fits my needs posted:

https://x.com/Reuters/status/1774856754922181115?s=20