Professor Shinichi Kitaoka, the former Japanese ambassador to the United Nations pointed out what is not in dispute: that the islands had long been administered by Japan and that they had never physically been occupied by China.
He added that it was only in 1968 when it was discovered that the seabed around the islands could contain oil reserves that China raised the issue of sovereignty.
He observed that Taiwan also lays claim to the islands; and, with a smile, added that the People’s Republic of China makes its own claim precisely through the belief that Taiwan is itself wholly and indivisibly part of its rightful territory.
Shinichi, a veteran of these disputes, told me that one of the problems he had found when discussing such matters with negotiators from the People’s Republic was that over the years they would come up with different “official” views over what constitutes China’s legitimate territory: “Sometimes they would tell us ‘The Korean peninsula is ours’.
On other occasions they would even show us maps on which all Asia apart from Japan and India is designated as China.”
Like many less well-informed souls, the former Japanese UN Ambassador is deeply worried by what he sees as the deliberate stoking of aggressive nationalism by the Chinese leadership.
His own belief is that this stems from the collapse of the Soviet Union: that with the collapse of Marxism as a unifying ideology – and witnessing what that meant for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – the Chinese leadership realised that only nationalism could fill the gap.
A number of Japanese businesses on Monday suspended their Chinese operations. Chinese fishing boats, which often seem suspiciously well-drilled and organised, have clashed with the Japanese coastguard over the Diaoyu, or Senkaku, islands before, but never in such numbers. They were expected to arrive on Monday night, according to the state-run China News Service, and may also be joined by six Chinese maritime patrol ships, which briefly entered Japanese waters last Friday in a show of defiance.
Originally posted by DaesDaemar
What I find strange is that while Japan occupied China and fought a war with Russia, no one cared, but if China was to take a stand against Japan, you can guarantee that they will 'care' then.
James R. Norman argued that the U.S. and its allies use the price of oil as an economic weapon. The oil economic war against the Soviet Union worked so well in the 1980s, that this strategy is now being employed against "our other big geopolitical enemy," China, which currently imports more oil than the US, and is much less able to pay for it, he outlined. The thinking in Washington is, it's going to slow things down for China, and could put a crack in their political system, he continued.
Other aspects of the economic war the US is waging with China are on the front page of the paper almost every day-- with fights over trade actions, interest rates, and currency levels, he noted. The whole Chinese business model is based on predatory trade practices, and that's why the world is ganging up on them, Norman said, adding that China is facing large amounts of unemployment and social unrest, and their banks are sitting on huge assets of non-performing loans. Norman estimated that the actual cost of oil is between $10- $20 a barrel, but when US citizens shell out $4 a gallon at the pump, it's collateral damage or the price we pay to engage in an economic rather than physical war with China.
Companies like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley are the economic warfare equivalent of a carrier battle group, because they are able to project power-- that's why financial restrictions were lessened for them, he explained. Morgan also touched on geopolitical/economic situations in such places as Russia, Europe, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by SplitInfinity
China doesn't have to control us or militarily muscle us. All they need to is agree to a restructuring of power between themselves and the US government in a new world paradigm. They aren't bullying us - they're complicit in the plan. Just as the US is.
In essence it's like two crime families divvying up turf, and agreeing to protect both mutual and exclusive interests.
Originally posted by penninja
I differ with the speaker on Coast to Coast because I believe he is using the example of how we used Oil leverage against the Soviets and making an assumption that we have the same goals in regards to the Chinese. This isn't the "Cold War" we have a different relationship with China, occupation of these nations and the building of this pipeline assures the USA gets a small bite of the oil pumped to China over time and when you really look into how much Oil the US has in various forms like Shale not $ per $ worthwhile to refine until such a time as the ME's oil has shrunk considerably it's easy to see how 17 Trillion isn't a very big number in regards to our debt. I doubt we are after the collapse of china.
It then raises the question whether those same price-control levers have lately been pushed in the opposite direction to rein in another target: the oil-short Peoples Republic of China. Contrary to popular perceptions, media commentary and official explanations, the book methodically lays out the geopolitical logic and the market mechanisms behind the stunning 12-fold run-up of oil prices from 1998 to mid-2008. It also offers an explanation for the sudden price drop from almost $150/barrel to under $100 as Russia again flexed its muscle by invading Georgia.
Jim Norman is a veteran business journalist and energy reporter. He is currently a contributing writer for McGraw-Hill's Platts Oilgram News, where he was a senior writer for 10 years before retiring in mid-2007. He has also been a senior editor at Forbes magazine and for 10 years was at BusinessWeek, where he was Houston bureau chief in the mid-1980s. Prior to that, he won an AP award for investigative reporting (on an oil and gas scam) while a reporter for the Ann Arbor News in his home state of Michigan.
He lives in New York City. At Platts, Norman has been noted for his coverage of oil industry finance, economics, deal-making and chicanery. His "prophetic press reports," as early as 1998, were cited by Paul Volcker's UN Independent Inquiry Committee for laying bare the likelihood of kickbacks and money laundering involving the Iraq Oil-For-Food program. His critical analysis of Enron accounting and governance in mid-2001 helped trigger the SEC investigation which led to Enron's downfall.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Hefficide
The U.S. does not purchase anything from China that the U.S. really needs. In effect...the U.S. could collapse the entire Chinese Economy within a week by stopping all U.S. Bound Container Ships as well as stop loan payments.