Mr.Nobody wrote: ↑
...
but in Eastern ethics, the real strong is the one who protects the weak and maintain justice,hence in our mindset, if you want to show you are strong, you must show you are fair and protective enough. that's why China doesn't bully countries aournd us but treat them as good neighbours, you don't beat up your neighbour unless he attempts to steal from you little by little... even after you've warned him for several times.
Cannot agree with these points for some reasons:
- Geographical and political borders have stabilized for the most parts, but the real practice in the world is still divide and conquer. For example, the massive domination over smaller manufacturers by giant Chinese companies, the gutting up of Nokia by MicroSoft. The rule to play with has never been "fair and protective", it is just opting for the most beneficial. Be frank, can PRC win over the heart of people in Japan and Korea in just a sheer theoretical case of ruling over them? I mean there's a big loss cost to rule over a place that one cannot efficient rule and let people cooperate with you. There is still a lot of "soft skills" and propaganda tactics to learn in the case of Hong Kong and Taiwan for the PRC.
What I do hear good words about PRC are from countries that are further away from the PRC or even from Asia: African countries think China is finally a big country that treats them fairly, and so similarly does many middle Eastern countries think.
- The case of „South China Sea“ is not just "...your neighbour ... attempts to steal from you little by little... even after you've warned him for several times..."
First, those tiny deserted islands might have some historical reasons to be part of China, however some think that can be controversial. On top of that, even if those are undisputedly Chinese deserted islands, their sizes are not operational - neither for docking nor for construction support.
Second, that location is actually along the exact primary oil shipping routes to all east Asian countries, Japan and Korea included - some people name these locations "Geographic Choke Points". US navy has great presence there, to "defend" of course. For the Chinese, having some counter-measures to the proximity to these crucial "choke points" enable them to secure their energy need just in case (not everything is nuclear-powered, when large number of things have to be mobilized in emergency).
As to the legal basis of whether or how such project can be done, e.g. like the Northstar Island by Royal Dutch Shell in Alaska, I do not have friends specialize in International law.
On July 7yh 2017, the United Nations adopted the first treaty imposing a total ban on nuclear weapons. This Nuclear Prohibition Treaty covers all aspects of nuclear weapons, including their use and threat of use, testing, development, possession, sharing and stationing in a different country. "... The nine countries generally recognized as possessing nuclear weapons — the U.S., Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel — were noticeably absent from the negotiations, as were most members of NATO. ..." Some of these absentees even refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
I guess that is how rulers of countries treat "International laws".
