Japan from the inside out

The new ruler of the waves

Posted by ampontan on Saturday, December 1, 2012

ANYONE who’s surprised at this has either been kidding themselves or hasn’t been paying attention. From the China Daily, via the Sidney Morning Herald:

Police in the southern Chinese island province of Hainan will board and search ships which enter into what China considers its territorial waters in the disputed South China Sea, state media said.

From January 1, Hainan police will have the authority to board and seize control of foreign ships which “illegally enter” Chinese waters and order them to change course or stop sailing, the China Daily reported.

“Activities such as entering the island province’s waters without permission, damaging coastal defence facilities and engaging in publicity that threatens national security are illegal,” the English-language newspaper said.

“If foreign ships or crew members violate regulations, Hainan police have the right to take over the ships or their communication systems, under the revised regulations,” it added.

Note the use of the word “police”, rather than navy. The China Times article I found didn’t include all the information cited here, but it did have this headline:

Hainan border police given new powers

Border police, eh?

But not to worry. Here’s another article on the China Times site.

China’s Defense Ministry spokesman on Thursday stressed that the country’s move to build itself into a maritime power has nothing to do with seeking hegemony.

China wants to become a maritime power in order to enhance its capacity to exploit marine resources, develop the marine economy, safeguard the country’s maritime rights and interests, and ensure a sustainable economic and social development, Geng Yansheng told a regular press conference.

That does not mean that China is aiming at expanding its presence at sea, nor at marine hegemony, Geng said.

“Enhance its capacity”…”safeguard the country’s maritime rights and interests”…”Sustainable economic and social development”…Sending all those Chinese young people to the US to study at American universities certainly has paid off, hasn’t it?

The first China Times article did have this passage, however:

It also emphasizes that border police should strengthen the patrol of the waters off Sansha city and coordinate activities with the routine patrols of the South China Sea to protect the country’s maritime interests.

Now you know why the news last July about Sansha was so important, though most people overlooked it.

Meanwhile, Chinese fishery patrol vessels have entered the contiguous waters off the Senkakus every day for more than a month, demanding that the Japanese Coast Guard ships leave Chinese territory at once.

That’s next. The Chinese have the smaller fish of Vietnam and The Philippines to fry first.

And the maroons of the Western media are concerned because of the growing Japanese interest in assuming responsibility for their own defense.

Drive-by pundit Walter Russell Mead, asks, “Your move, Mr. President?”.

You in the back, stop laughing! This is serious!

If Mr. Obama can tear himself away from the golf course long enough for Valerie Jarrett to make up his mind, his “move” will probably be to dispatch someone to China to have a “conversation”. Of course, one of the reasons the Chinese are doing all this to begin with is that they have assayed Mr. Obama’s mettle. The Chinese behavior follows logically from that assessment.

Those with the eyes to see…


Really, there’s no longer any excuse for the Sinophiles. The title of this article is Elton John exposes himself as an agent of imperialism.

If Elton John was so concerned about censorship, and political dissidents, then why has Elton never spoken up for the American political dissidents locked down, like Mumia Abu Jamal, and Leonard Peltier? Real political dissidents that oppose real fascism. Maybe because Elton is a fascist himself?


I always hear about how China is authoritarian, and totalitarian, albeit, mostly from shills. Never the less, how is it that these “enemies” of China, and trouble makers keep getting into China, if China was really that authoritarian?

This from the country that arrested its first Nobel Prize winner. The Peace Prize, no less.

Then there’s this:

If I was issuing visas, I certainly would not have allowed Elton in for several reasons. Firstly, he’s an imperialist, and secondly, he is taking away money from China. He most likely “earned” (stole is more like it) millions from Chinese concert goers. Now western demagogues often cite that Chinese enterprises are stealing western jobs, or denying westerners of opportunities. The same principle can be applied here. If people spend their money on an Elton John concert, then they won’t be spending it on Chinese concerts. Elton has just denied opportunities to many Chinese artists. The Chinese government is encouraging domestic consumption to keep the economy alive with a decline in western demand. How exactly is allowing Elton to take away millions, and pump that money into the British economy, helpful to the Chinese economy? It only allows “enemies” like Elton to take away millions of Chinese’ hard earned cash. Trade should be reciprocal. This is a line frequently pitched by western demagogues, and their compradores. When was the last time any Chinese musician walked away with millions of dollars in the west? So why does China keep allowing western “musicians” to walk away with millions of Chinese money? Reminds me of the opium trade. If you truly believe in “fair trade”, then China should not allow any western musicians to perform until the west starts generating millions in profits for Chinese musicians.

See what people mean when they talk about Sinocentric Culturalism?

Replace those flags with the 五星红旗, and you get the idea.

What? You’re not interested in learning Chinese characters?

How unlucky for you.

4 Responses to “The new ruler of the waves”

  1. patfla said

    But what maritime border are the Chinese proposing to police? The one that extends all the way down to some short distance off the north coast of Borneo?

  2. Andrew in Ezo said

    Good news (also saw it on the morning TV news):

    *Kudos to Sen. Webb, who has some backbone unlike seemingly many in his party who have sinophile tendencies.

  3. ACT said

    Hegemonism? perhaps not global, but definitely regional, and that’s becoming increasingly obvious. the US government has known for quite some time that one of the ultimate objectives of the PRC is the removal of US forces from the Asia-Pacific region. Why? because US forces are the only significant barrier to the re-establishment of the Chinese Empire, and its suzerainty over much of the region. For those without dictionaries on hand, Suzerainty means “the practice of tributary rule, where nations are granted limited autonomy in exchange for deference and aid to the suzerain, usually in the form of soldiers and goods”. One must remember that before 1840, when the Chinese military was utterly defeated by that of Britain, a nation with less than 1/15th China’s population, the traditional Chinese practice was to afford trade rights to nations based upon how Chinese they had become; the more Chinese you dressed and acted, and the more deference you gave, the more military “protection” you got, and the more your needs were recognized at court. On paper, these nations could govern themselves, but one need only look at Vietnam, which has been invaded or attacked by the Chinese Dynasties no less than 20 times over their existence (five of which are in the later 20th century) to realize what truly went on; Finlandization: the practice of defacto autonomy, where in reality all political and diplomatic decisions save for only the most local governance is made by a much more powerful neighbor. In any case,I suspect that Sansha’s role in all of this is as the first stone in a “Great Sea Wall of China”, island fortresses packed to the shores with ASBMs and ASCMs designed to deter and dissuade anyone (read: the US) who might want to interfere with the new Chinese Empire’s “internal affairs”.

  4. patfla said

    As regards the border the Chinese claim, the nytimes gave me my answer today:

    I wasn’t familiar with the ‘nine-dash’ line – now I am.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: