Francisco F Moreno

This conversation is closed.

Who is responsible for resolving the issues of contested territories between nations? How can these opposing claims be settled?

"United States Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has called on China not to take unilateral action to resolve territorial disputes with Japan or other Asian countries that are increasingly anxious over its posture in territorial disputes.

"Great powers have great responsibilities. And China is a great power," Hagel said, adding he wanted to talk with China about its use of military power.

Hagel was speaking during a visit to ally Japan, where there is growing concern over China's military build-up and its increasingly assertive posture in a territorial dispute with Tokyo over islands in the East China Sea. The defence secretary to depart for Beijing on Monday for an official visit.

"I will be talking with the Chinese about its respect for their neighbours. Coercion, intimidation is a very deadly thing that leads only to conflict," he said, according to Reuters news agency.

"All nations deserve respect, no matter how large or how small," Hagel said, adding, "I think we're seeing some clear evidence of a lack of respect, and coercion and intimidation with ... what the Russians have done in Ukraine."

Countries had to speak up and clearly reject such a blatant violation of international law, said Hagel, referring to Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula.

Japan has recently drawn parallels between Russia's actions in Crimea and what it sees as China's challenge to the status quo in East China Sea.

Hagel hosted talks last week with Southeast Asian defence ministers where he also warned of growing US concern about territorial disputes in the South China Sea."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/04/us-warns-china-over-contested-islands-20144653128112293.html

Closing Statement from Francisco F Moreno

"Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. Adjustment of these boundaries is called, in international law, maritime delimitation.

The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf."

"The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) wide, but could be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea, there is no standard rule for resolving such conflicts and the states in question must negotiate their own compromise. The United States invoked a contiguous zone out to 24 nmi on 24 September 1999."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

  • thumb
    Apr 8 2014: A major point of the United Nations was to provide a forum for mediation when international disputes arose. With this in mind, the UN Security Council was created in 1946. The aims of the Security Council are:

    1) to maintain international peace and security;
    2) to develop friendly relations among nations;
    3) to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights;
    4) to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

    Unfortunately, the five permanent UN Security Council members - USA, UK, France, Russia and China - work through the act of veto to polarise and disable the wider Security Council's ability to act.

    The Security Council is the prime example of how humanity can't resolve conflict without war.
  • Apr 13 2014: I hate to be negative on things like this. BUT
    Politicians love to blow things out of proportion just to make themselves feel good.
    Defense Secretary Hagel is doing that.

    The Japanese are mining underwater for specific minerals and rare earths.
    They decided to so in territorial waters around islands. The Chinese have some claims
    that contradict Japan's. And since these specific minerals and rare earths are valuable,
    Defense Secretary Hagel probably wants a piece of the action.

    There are World Courts that can decide these issues.

    There is little need for Secretary Hagel to stick his nose between Japan and China.
    We are not Enforcers of "made up law". But the Secretary wants to stir things up a bit.
    Give a man a big gun and he quickly become a Bully.
  • Apr 13 2014: It is all about money: Last month we exported and imported 40 Billion from China, 15 Billion from Japan, and 3 billion from Russia so where are our priorities... make a wild guess. Our economy depends on China and Japan so anytime they are having quarrels, we are involved. Russia? Not so much as you see in Ukraine, we could care less what Russia does as long as they don't do it with our major trading partners. Hagel talks big but he has no stick. The world powers are all bound by financial bonds which are stronger than any politician anywhere. The "New World Order ie Banking system" is firmly in control and makes all the decisions that politicians used to make. So if you want real answers to these questions the bottom line is ask the Rothschilds, Rockefellers or Morgans.
    • thumb
      Apr 13 2014: Keith, my grandma told me that in World War II both the rich and the poor suffered!
      • Apr 13 2014: Precisely my point, the rich have figured that out and that is the only reason we do not have world wars anymore, it is not profitable. Profit! Profit who and at what price? Profit always has a price.
        What price would you pay? What price do you pay? Health? Security? Immorality? Freedom? Heritance? Your soul?

        "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?"

        The only things of real value in this world are the things you can take to the next world.
  • Apr 11 2014: BANGBANG! That is who is "responsible". That's how the world works.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2014: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.'' African Proverb

      "Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
      • Apr 12 2014: It really stinks that it's how the world works, too.
        • Apr 15 2014: not an American discovery ! It's the old strategy used by Assurbanipal, Caesar (Veni Vidi Vici) Ghinghiz Han, etc. Like Saturn coming down from V2, it is just an upgrading of BlitzKreig.
          And of course the whole issue is also the old Global Dominance (keeping the proportions right) through Amicus SPQR. Following Lord Balfour adagio, I strongly reject any possibility of moral base, justice, fairness etc in any country decisions or involvements. This beyond what Hollywood may try to induce.
  • Apr 8 2014: Francisco

    There is no such entity as you propose. The UN, by Charter, was designed to mediate such disputes among member nations. The first test came in 1950. The UN failed and consequently the Korean War, which it endorsed and required the US and 16 others nations to fight against one of its own Charter and Founding members, China.
    Since its inception the US, primary donor, has given the UN, hard to calculate, around $150 billion+. The US however, has served as the worlds police department at a staggering cost, both in dollars and lives. The battle cry for this action was to bring democracy to the world, to ensure peace around the world and that too, has failed, as the US is now broke and its military depleted and demoralized.

    I am convinced of wisdom of Karl Marx in this quote, "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."
    Karl Marx
    • thumb
      Apr 8 2014: I would be great if we could agree on a concise definition of democracy. China is a one party state, Russia is essentially run by ex KGB agents in a police state and the USA is one party away from being a one party state (300 million people retricting themselves to two choices). Long live democracy!!
      • Apr 8 2014: Juan
        Your !! are well noted. It was once said that," Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for lunch and. liberty is a well armed lamb." The best one can say about democracy is that it is mob rule and mobs always have leaders. I don't think that democracy can really be associated with freedom. As in the US now most people are on some form of government controlled welfare and, as human are prone to do, will abide by the rules that control the flow of money. With that in mind, what than is the value of democracy? It serves only to keep what money the government gives you, coming.
        How is freedom defined when 50.01 % can vote to destroy the other 49.,09%
        Perhaps we would do well to attempt to define 'Freedom" and than move backwards to find that which would best embrace such an elusive dream. Like the ancient quest for justice or are they one and the same?
        Is humanity capable of freedom?
        Why?
        Why not?
        Theism says that Man is inherently evil.
        Socialism says Man is inherently dependent on government
        Marx say Man is well, stupid I guess.
        Capitalism says Man must deal with others.

        You say the US is one party away from being a one party state. I don't think it matters how many parties you have if the same music is played at all of them. France is a good example.
        • Apr 12 2014: I tried to distance from a governmental perspective,though it seems impossible. I mean what values most is the well being of we the people,it is ourselves.

          I don't care who rules my country,what ideology is the party proclaiming. Neither socialism nor capitalism brings about a perfect world as they all adhere to. I am fed up with the lies and hypocrisies that politicians preaching everyday, don't listen to them.

          One thing in this world is certain, that is work hard,rely upon yourself,otherwise you will face shellacking.
        • Apr 15 2014: The best argument against Democracy is a 10 minutes talk with an average voter
          W. Churchill
          :)
    • Apr 12 2014: Was UN endorsement of Korean war legitimate?
      • Apr 12 2014: Raj

        A good question. N. Korea, China and Russia did not believe so. Russia and China are two of the Big Five permanent members.
        The history on this is extensive and I would suggest a thorough reading. I will however, provide my own thoughts.
        I stated that the UN failed in its primary mission of peace through negotiation, not just with subordinate member States, but with the Permanent Members. With such a split at the very top, at the onset of its existence, the future was decided. In terms of war and aggression; the UN is impotent.
        The recent incursions by China and Russia into the Sea of Japan and Russia in the Crimea are evidence to this assertion. Unrest, border sovereignty and the threat of war appear to be the guiding principles of the of the BIG Five members, but to what end?
        Was it legitimate? That question is usually answered by the person with the biggest gun. Slavery was deemed legal in the US, even though it violated the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln bought a big gun.
        Russia invaded the Ukraine and took the Crimea with a big gun. He claims it was legitimate.

        We can continue this if you like.
        • Apr 12 2014: Charles:

          We both have good understanding of the situation. Also there are no viable breakthrough to change human nature individually and of masses.

          I thank you for your response

          RAJ
        • Apr 13 2014: Absolutely agree with you, all that could determine a dispute or conflict between nations is power, don't be naive when you hear the lies and hypocrisies come from say US, Russia and China.

          UN charter and international laws are bullshit.
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: "Was UN endorsement of Korean war legitimate?" Raj Patel

        Who decides whether a decision or action of the UN is legitimate or not? Who polices the police?
        • Apr 15 2014: UN is not a police. It has no guns of itself. It was designed as a screen to legally cover the Great Strategy of the Powers
  • thumb
    Apr 19 2014: .
    Invalid happiness is.
    Quit it will solve them spontaneously.
    • thumb
      Apr 19 2014: W. Ying, please elaborate on what you mean by invalid happiness.

      “Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.” Konrad Lorenz
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2014: .
        Thanks!

        (1) Valid happiness is the short-time feeling of things being a-step-better
        . . for keeping our DNA alive.
        (2) Invalid happiness is the short-time feeling of things being pseudo-a-step-better (actually a-step-“worse”)
        . . for keeping our DNA alive.
  • Apr 12 2014: The world is a nasty and cruel place, especially when it comes to relations between countries, all that could determine the future of any dispute is power.

    US growing concerns is for its own sake, it has nothing to do with responsibility and peaceful global order. What would the world say if we witness the time when Japan annexed Diaoyu Islands and Ryukyu Kingdom in the 19th century.

    Tell you what, all the people are hypocrite,West and East, especially US politicians.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2014: Mr. Yeh, you're right. Hypocrite and cruel people are everywhere and they display their nature even more if they perceive they have a distinct advantage over their neighbors.

      History tells us that corrupt and evil power does not last and everyone pays dearly. Greed, arrogance, and vanity always have dire consequences. There are no winners in wars and conflicts.

      The dinosaurs are here with us today in the form of birds. The ancient dinosaurs evolved into birds to survive and thrive. But now the existence of birds and other living things is threatened by a more intelligent but more dangerous species called humans.
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2014: The UN Security Council is criticized by many sides for failing to carry through its mandate as the world’s leading collective security body. It is assailed by some for failing to act resolutely to halt what the United States has termed genocide in Darfur and to sanction Iran for failing to halt its uranium enrichment program. Others say it is a tool of Washington and other Western powers that neglects the security concerns of the poor and dispossessed. Many agree its structure is an anachronism, with permanent, veto-holding members reflecting the post-World War II power structure.

    http://www.cfr.org/international-organizations-and-alliances/effectiveness-un-security-council/p11520
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2014: The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action through Security Council resolutions; it is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states. The Security Council held its first session on 17 January 1946.

    Like the UN as a whole, the Security Council was created following World War II to address the failings of another international organization, the League of Nations, in maintaining world peace. In its early decades, the body was largely paralysed by the Cold War division between the US and USSR and their allies, though it authorized interventions in the Korean War and the Congo Crisis and peacekeeping missions in the Suez Crisis, Cyprus, and West New Guinea. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, UN peacekeeping efforts increased dramatically in scale, and the Security Council authorized major military and peacekeeping missions in Kuwait, Namibia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo with varying degrees of failure.

    The Security Council consists of fifteen members. The great powers that were the victors of World War II—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US—serve as the body's five permanent members. These permanent members can veto any substantive Security Council resolution, including those on the admission of new member states or candidates for Secretary-General. The Security Council also has 10 non-permanent members, elected on a regional basis to serve two-year terms. The body's presidency rotates monthly between its members.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2014: It is an interesting observation that so many nations claim veto power over UN decisions despite any majority of participants that might feel otherwise. Especially in light of all the chest thumping so many of those vetoing nations do about supporting and promoting "democracy". At least Russia and China are more honest about their arrogance while being no less arrogant than the others.
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2014: The United States will come to the aid of the Philippines in the event of conflict with China over disputed waters in the South China Sea, the commander of the U.S. Navy said on Thursday. The comments by Admiral Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations of the U.S. Navy, were the most explicit statement of U.S. support for the ill-equipped Philippine military which is facing a more assertive China in disputed waters. "Of course, we would help you," Greenert told students of the National Defense College of the Philippines in response to a question about a hypothetical Chinese occupation of one of the disputed Spratly Islands. "I don't know what that help would be specifically. I mean, we have an obligation because we have a treaty. But, I don't know in what capacity that help is."

    China claims about 90 percent of the South China Sea's 3.5 million sq. km (1.35 million sq. mile) waters. The sea provides 10 percent of the global fisheries catch and carries $5 trillion in ship-borne trade each year.

    Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Vietnam also claim parts of the sea.

    The Philippines has taken its dispute with China to arbitration under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea but China is refusing to participate in the case.

    China has rejected challenges to its sovereignty claims, and accused the Philippines of illegally occupying Chinese islands in the seas and of provoking tension there.

    Greenert said the United States supported the Philippines' case and opposed China's aggressive behavior and would work with allies to maintain freedom of navigation.

    The United States has spoken out against China's assertive moves which have in recent months included the imposition of an air defense identification zone in northeast Asia and new fishing rules in South China Sea.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-philippines-usa-southchinasea-idUSBREA1C0LV20140213
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2014: "On his first trip to China as the secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel is finding himself in the middle of a spat that would not be out of place in “Mean Girls,” a movie about social cliques in high school. For the first time, China will host the Western Pacific Naval Symposium, a meeting every two years of countries that border the Pacific Ocean. The W.P.N.S., as it is known in naval circles, counts among its members the United States, Australia, Chile, Canada and a number of Asian countries, including China and Japan.

    Often at such meetings, the host country organizes an international fleet review, at which the visiting countries can parade their ships and show off some fancy hardware. It can be an eye-popping display of war ships, destroyers and guided-missile cruisers. In 2008, when South Korea hosted the symposium, the United States sent the aircraft carrier George Washington, the guided missile cruiser Cowpens and the destroyer John S. McCain to take part. For this year’s fleet review, China, which is hosting the event in Qingdao, invited all the countries in the symposium to take part — except Japan. “It is so totally high school,” a senior American defense official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly. “We were, like, ‘Really? You’re going to do that? So on the eve of Mr. Hagel’s trip, which includes a visit to Qingdao, Pentagon officials announced that if Japan could not take part in the review, then neither would the United States. The United States will attend the meeting, the Pentagon said, but no American ships will sail in the fleet review. “As of this moment, there is no intent to send a U.S. ship to participate,” a Pentagon official said in a carefully worded statement."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/world/asia/hagel-asia.html?_r=0
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2014: Pro-Russian protesters have stormed government buildings in three eastern Ukrainian cities. In Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv they clashed with police, hung Russian flags from the buildings and called for a referendum on independence. Ukraine's acting president called an emergency security meeting in response.

    The unrest comes amid tensions between Russia and Ukraine over the removal of pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych and Russia's annexation of Crimea. These are not the first protests of this kind in eastern Ukraine. Nor are they that big. But they have resurfaced with renewed determination and co-ordination.

    Moscow will argue they show the strength of feeling among Russian speakers and reinforce Russia's call for speedy constitutional reform to give them more say over their own future. But after the Russian takeover in Crimea, Kiev suspects that this is not grassroots activism, but an orchestrated campaign designed to trap Kiev into either succumbing to demands to let eastern regions govern themselves or even break away to join Russia or running the risk of mounting unrest and a possible Russian invasion. So it is no wonder Ukraine's acting president has cancelled his trip abroad. If he can't stop these rallies from getting bigger and more violent, he fears that President Vladimir Putin could claim Kiev has lost control of eastern Ukraine, and Russia has no option but to intervene for "humanitarian" reasons.

    Why have protests erupted?

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow has the right to protect the Russian-speaking population there. Ukraine's leaders deny the country's Russian speakers are under threat and have said they will resist any intervention in their country. Ukrainian Acting President Olexander Turchynov cancelled a planned visit to Lithuania and called a meeting of the country's security chiefs to deal with the unrest.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26910210