Do you agree with China’s insistence that maritime rows be settled directly with neighbours or the US stance they be settled by international law? Territorial disputes linger over the Spratly Islands.

Send suggestions

Bangkok Post » Poll

Do you agree with China’s insistence that maritime rows be settled directly with neighbours or the US stance they be settled by international law? Territorial disputes linger over the Spratly Islands.

Do you agree with China’s insistence that maritime rows be settled directly with neighbours or the US stance they be settled by international law? Territorial disputes linger over the Spratly Islands.

  • Start date:Jul 16, 2012
  • End date:Jul 18, 2012
  • Voters: 2,205 times
  • China’s stance
  • US stance

Share your thoughts

For more candid, lengthy, conversational and open discussion between one another, use our Forum

Report objectionable comments click here. Include: discussion #, commenter name, comment date / time as it looks on the page. Example: discussion 15: 09/01/2009 at 10:00 AM.

  • Discussion 12 : 18 Jul 2012 at 03.2212

    Khun Ravbrat #10, don't you think the USA had anything to do with the ruling Hawaiian monarchy being overthrown, then slowly engineering a political takeover? It's the same playbook, the UK used rather successfully to take over India. At least, India gained its independence back, but Hawaii did not. I just can't even fathom how Thai people would do something shameful like that, surrendering their independence and sovereignty to be ruled over by another country. May be Hawaiian people were like that, but definitely, not Thai people, just ask the Burmese!

    The second Falklands War will be just a matter of time as soon as the UK finds a large oil deposit in that Argentinian backyard, given how weak the UK is right now economically and militarily.

    As I said before, it depends on whether the USA can bounce back economically beginning this November, in order to keep China in check. China is very patient and to wait 30 more years is nothing for them. It can wait another 100 years, if need to, remember Hong Kong?

  • geoffo

    ThailandPost : 4,154

    Send message

    Discussion 11 : 17 Jul 2012 at 16.2211

    D3 , This is not a technical question it is a poll on whether readers think following long standing international convention is the right path or whether China can be allowed to do a deal one on one which will mean bullying or bribing.

    Everyone knows they will back off and accept the islands instead of everything "this time".

    Their population is out of control. The imbalance between the Chinese sexes will create serious problems over the next twenty or more years for everyone because they have to export their surplus males and can only do it by expanding the empire or alternatively they will start a war.

    Give them a finger and they will want an arm. Bring back the Russians

  • Discussion 10 : 17 Jul 2012 at 15.5810

    Spiceman, The Falklands belong to UK not America. Hawaii was not taken by the USA, citizens overthrew their 'leader' and they chose to be a territory and later voted themselves into the USA. China won't be able to match US naval power for another 30 years. They have not even built a single aircraft carrier yet; they had to buy a small old Russian one and refurb it & it is still in sea trials now and nowhere near ready to deploy.

    The US does not want a conflict but China will push the issue because Asia is militarily unable to defend itself and that will require them to ask the US to help defend them. What is more of an issue is that on July 25, Thailand becomes the Asean representative to China to resolve the issue. What will they do (or not do)???

  • Discussion 9 : 17 Jul 2012 at 08.339

    Khun Ravbrat #11, the UK and the USA were the masters of manipulation when it comes to taking on new territories. I like to believe that it was an sheer accident for the UK to sail halfway around the world, or the US sailing 2,300 miles to accidentally end up at the Falklands and Hawaii. The logic was "If we don't take it, someone else will take it. So, why not us?" The same story with the Malay Peninsular and Cambodia which use to belong to Thailand.

    I do agree with you that China seems to bite off more than what it can chew, given its limited but still growing seapower, and the weakening but still formidable power of the USN. Whether China can make good on its outrageous claim will depend on whether the USA can make a comeback economically, to keep China's power in check. I guess we have to wait and see. However, history teaches us that the world is still governed by an aggressive use of force. So, what China is trying to do is nothing new at all.

  • Discussion 8 : 17 Jul 2012 at 07.598

    D10, Your statement for Hawaii & Falklands does not have a strong foundation. Hawaiian people themselves voted to become a 'state' in the USA in 1959. If they want to go, they can vote themselves out also.

    The issue with China is that they claim ownership of "all" the waters in the China sea, including waters on the beaches of other countries. This is in violation of long standing international law respecting legal maritime borders and legal sovereign economic zones. If PI actually had any less of government then China would certainly claim ownership of them also.

    It is also a problem because China wants to control open all the international waters and shipping lanes that transport 78% of all global trade. How can anyone consider this legal or think that it is OK?

  • Discussion 7 : 17 Jul 2012 at 04.367

    China is simply following bad examples set by the former superpowers like UK, and the USA. At least, the Spratly Islands is a lot closer to China, than the Falklands Island to the UK, or Hawaii Islands to the USA. So, unless the UK and the USA are willing to set good examples by disclaiming the Falklands and Hawaii, I can't think of any reason why China can't do the same, given its ever growing military power, made possible by its growing economic strength. Is it "Do what I say, but not what I do?"

  • genii

    ThailandPost : 1,669

    Send message

    Discussion 6 : 16 Jul 2012 at 19.516

    International law is the only defense these smaller nations have against a giant like China.

  • Discussion 5 : 16 Jul 2012 at 18.555

    I think we can safely say that China will use all avenues to negotiate (bully) what it feels is a favourable agreement. I don't believe that any other powerful nation would act differently, even when using international convention. I can see why the situation needs an arbitrator, but despair at some of these "international agencies". If they are not driven by the super powers they are often growth industries staffed by unelected bureaucrats indulging their own aspirations and agendas. How many times do we see big nations totally ignoring their rulings when it does not suit them or using a veto to grind proceedings to a halt.

  • Discussion 4 : 16 Jul 2012 at 16.114

    There is a more or less deliberate attempt to muddy the water in this poll. The dispute between China and some neighboring nation is over the ownership of some island in the south and east China sea, most have never been claimed by any nation until oil was found and USA started to stir the bucket. Once the ownership has been established, hopefully peacefully between the states involved and without interference from outside, the rest is taken care of by international law, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is by the way not signed by the USA!

  • Discussion 3 : 16 Jul 2012 at 15.123

    Most interesting of this "poll" - with only 2 options given! - will be to see how many BP readers consider themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to form an opinion on this technical subject.


Sign in once and access every part of the website at your convenience!

Please log in to our community to post your comments.
You can sign in to the community by clicking here.

If you weren't part of the community yet, please sign up here.
By being part of this community you will get all these privileges.