Chinese ships have repeatedly rammed Philippine ships in the South China Sea. The U.S. has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, which could lead to American intervention.

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.worksEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I know it’s cliche, but I really think you need to go look up the the definition of dictator.

    Or, crack a political science 101 book and skip right to the section on political systems.

    Or maybe your misunderstanding is just a lack of knowledge of how China’s government structure functioned post-Mao, pre-Xi.

    Whatever the reason, I think you need to do a little bit of reading, but it’s not like you’re alone in this misconception so I don’t mean this as an insult.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.caEnglish
      01·
      3 months ago

      Do you mean like the summary in Wikipedia? Or how about the Democracy-Dictatorship Index? It seems a lot of people in political circles have been calling China a civilian dictatorship for at least 36 years, just based on the cute little pictures.

      Feel free to read a definition that’s more than one sentence long if you want an explanation for something as nuanced as political systems.

      • pandapoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        Your first link shows exactly why the CCP wasn’t a dictatorship in the era the preceded Xi, and your second link has nothing to do with that era at all.

        I have an academic background in this field, so the idea that my understanding is based on reading a single sentence, or a few Wikipedia entries, is amusing.

        Here’s a nice simple infographic article that would be a good starting point before jumping into any dry academic readings.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.caEnglish
          01·
          3 months ago

          My first link has the following quote:

          Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian,[1] and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies. (emphasis mine)

          China has been a one-party state for the last 75 years, so the only question is whether or not it was also a dictatorship.

          My second link has an infographic labeling China as a civilian dictatorship in 1988, which is prior to Xi putting himself in absolute authority, so how does it have nothing to do with the era prior to Xi taking absolute authority?

          As for the handy little link you provided, that only talks about Xi, and we’re agreed that he is a dictator running a dictatorship, so, while it’s interesting, I’m not sure of the relevance unless your proposal is the the only thing that qualifies as a dictatorship is if it’s run by a single individual. In which case, it seems there are a number of people in your purported field who disagree with that stance.

          • pandapoo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            So…you couldn’t even be bothered to read more than a few paragraphs?

            The Communist Party has long been the ultimate decision maker in China. But after Mao died, Deng Xiaoping and his successors built some checks against excessive power, hoping to avoid a repeat of Mao’s turbulent rule.

            The party and government systems worked in tandem. Party leaders often set broad policy, and government ministries and agencies refined and implemented their goals, sending feedback to the leaders.

            Dictatorships don’t have legal and systemic checks against the autocratic rule, which is why Xi removed them.

            You’re using a lot of words, but they’re based on your lack of understanding post-Mao CCP goverence that Xi upended when he seized power.

            But I’m done going back and forth on this. You should feel free to go on believing that I am wrong, and that you are right, because I have no confidence that you would read any dry academic writings on the topic that I respond with, as you couldn’t even make it through a few hundred words of a NYT article.

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.caEnglish
              01·
              3 months ago

              Meanwhile, any question I ask that has a simple answer is ignored. Why was it commonly believed that China was a civilian dictatorship in 1988, more than a few years after Mao and Dengs time? Why is the one-party state of China not considered a dictatorship when one-party states are?

              This entire conversation has been moving goalposts, and every time I defined the goalposts clearly enough to not be moved, you simply ran in another direction. I may not have gotten a university degree, but you’ve still done an amazingly poor job of defending your thesis.

              I will give you points on the checks and balances applied after Mao reducing the risks of harm from the dictatorship of China, but the definition of a dictatorship doesn’t rely on the benevolence of the leadership, merely the lack of power of the people to change it, which was not negated by dividing the powers of government between different levels.