Oil Riches Languish on China’s Doorstep

[555]

To China, the world’s biggest energy consumer, another Saudi Arabia of oil may lie beneath the ocean to its south. Escalating regional tensions mean large-scale drilling may be slipping further into the future.
The South China Sea may hold 213 billion barrels of oil, or 80 percent of Saudi Arabia’s reserves, according to Chinese studies cited in 2008 by the U.S. Energy Information Agency. The world’s second-largest economy claims “indisputable sovereignty” over most of the sea, including blocks off Vietnam that Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Russia’s Gazprom OAO (GAZP) are exploring.
Disputes have strained China’s ties with its neighbors and tensions rose this year as Vietnam said oil survey boats were harassed by Chinese vessels. The friction threatens maritime security in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes and may be discussed at a two-day summit of Asia-Pacific leaders hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama in Honolulu starting tomorrow.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-10/oil-riches-languish-on-china-doorstep-as-clashes-delay-drilling.html

[Rubber Duck]

Yes,always a good excuse for the US to interfere in regional politics.

I mean why shouldn't they seek to sustain their wasteful economy through military adventure. Very popular with the electorate in election year.

That is democracy in action.

[Avtal]

http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/tiffanyap/schinasea.gif

The Chinese claim is pretty extensive, reaching all the way to Malaysia. It leaves practically nothing for Vietnam and the Philippines.

One can imagine that China's neighbors are now looking for powerful allies.

As for US electoral politics, a foreign war doesn't seem like a good re-election strategy.

Avtal

[Rubber Duck]

http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/tiffanyap/schinasea.gif

The Chinese claim is pretty extensive, reaching all the way to Malaysia. It leaves practically nothing for Vietnam and the Philippines.

One can imagine that China's neighbors are now looking for powerful allies.

As for US electoral politics, a foreign war doesn't seem like a good re-election strategy.

Avtal

The Chinese claims are based on history, which is the same principle used everywhere else.

The US positon is based on oil. The Chinese claims actually have far more to do with the their fishing industries that date back centuries.

[Rubber Duck]

Besides, whilst the US has the World's greatest navy, it is actually now the Chinese that finance it.

Unless, the US is prepared to go Nuclear over this, they would be better advised just to shut the fuck up.

[Avtal]

The Chinese claims are based on history, which is the same principle used everywhere else.

If US borders were based on history, the US would disappear from the map. Some might say that would be a good thing, but my point is that it is not in the US's interest to place too much weight on historical borders.

If the current dispute convinces Vietnam to allow a US military base on its soil, that would actually be a big cost savings for the US. Much cheaper than a carrier group.

Avtal

[Avtal]

I came across an article in the Taipei Times, reporting on a mainland Chinese analyst's call to settle the dispute in the South China Sea by a short quick war: Chinese analyst calls for war in South China Sea (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/09/30/2003514541).

"Play a few small battles and big battles can be avoided,” Long wrote, adding that military action should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, “the two noisiest troublemakers,” to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys.

The analyst makes an analogy to the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, in which the US did little to help its friend Georgia.

I'm not sure if the analyst is aware of the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(U.S.%E2%80%93Philippines)).

Avtal

[mulligan]

杀鸡儆猴

[Avtal]

杀鸡儆猴

A nice saying, which Google Translate does a poor job of (hint: in Google Translate, put each character on a separate line).

杀鸡儆猴.com seems to be available, by the way.

Experts in Asian languages and geography (which I am not) may also wish to investigate the availability of the Chinese and Vietnamese names for the Paracel and Spratly island groups. Good name for a forum?

Avtal

[Rubber Duck]

The US will always do as much or as little as it feels is profitable regardless of treaties.

The analyst makes an analogy to the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, in which the US did little to help its friend Georgia.

I'm not sure if the analyst is aware of the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(U.S.%E2%80%93Philippines)).

Avtal

[Drewbert]

A nice saying, which Google Translate does a poor job of (hint: in Google Translate, put each character on a separate line).


Woot. I have to remember that trick.

[Rubber Duck]

If US borders were based on history, the US would disappear from the map. Some might say that would be a good thing, but my point is that it is not in the US's interest to place too much weight on historical borders.

If the current dispute convinces Vietnam to allow a US military base on its soil, that would actually be a big cost savings for the US. Much cheaper than a carrier group.

Avtal

Which of course would make the Chinese feel much like the US did during the Cuban missile crisis.