An escalating series of clashes in the South China Sea between the Philippines and China could draw the U.S., which has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, into the conflict.

A 60 Minutes crew got a close look at the tense situation when traveling on a Philippine Coast Guard ship that was rammed by the Chinese Coast Guard.

China has repeatedly rammed Philippine ships and blasted them with water cannons over the last two years. There are ongoing conversations between Washington and Manila about which scenarios would trigger U.S. involvement, Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro said in an interview.

“I really don’t know the end state,” Teodoro said. “All I know is that we cannot let them get away with what they’re doing.”

China as “the proverbial schoolyard bully”

China claims sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea, through which more than $3 trillion in goods flow annually. But in 2016, an international tribunal at the Hague ruled the Philippines has exclusive economic rights in a 200-mile zone that includes the area where the ship with the 60 Minutes team on board got rammed.

China does not recognize the international tribunal’s ruling.

      • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m aware…but it’s still not the reason they are attempting to expand their territorial waters…

          • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It’s about expanding their ability to project naval power in general, but more specifically, trying to to build effective defensive counters against potential future naval blockades and maritime containment e.g. Island Chain Strategy

            That’s oversimplified, and there are other aspects to it, including domestic political cultural ones, but naval power and national security is the most significant.

            I am not taking any position on justification, legal standing, or strategic prudence for this strategy.

            There are any number of white papers, from both Chinese and American security organizations/think-tanks, that will cover the subject in much greater depth if you’re interested.

              • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Are you saying that national security strategies, and war in general, didn’t appear in this world until capitalism emerged?

                • bobburger@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m saying that those stratigies are being executed to support their capitalist ambitions. You need freedom of the seas to ensure trade and they’re enhancing their power projection capabilities to ensure they’ll be free to continue trading in the event of forgein interfere.

                  It’s the exact same reason the United States enacts similar “national security strategies”.

                  • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    That statement is so incredibly wrong in this particular context that it’s actually impressive.

                    Well, maybe not impressive, but it does show off your ability to speak authoritatively on a topic that you know absolutely nothing about, except of course for your firm conviction that capitalism is clearly the only thing motivating it all.