Tag Archives: United States

If the US continues to go down the wrong path, there will be irretrievable consequences for the China-US relations and the US will have to pay an unbearable price

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is very similar to the Chinese-Taiwan conflict. NATO and the EU in Ukraine are a big threat to Russia. The same can be said about Taiwan. NATO in Taiwan will be a threat to China. So, this is the next big problem for the United States.

The tension is rising, and China is building up its military bases and have 14 warplanes in Taiwan`s air-defense zone.

President Biden said yesterday in a speech in Tokyo that he vows to intervene militarily if China invades Taiwan. «We have a commitment to do that,» Biden said. But that is not an official U.S policy. Is Biden trying to change U.S policy?

Photo by u674eu6602u8ed2 on Pexels.com

The U.S officials walked back Biden`s comments quite quickly and said this after his speech: «As the President said, our policy has not changed. He reiterated our One China policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He also reiterated our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself.»

The Taiwan Relations Act obligates the U.S to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, and maintain the capacity of the U.S to resist any resort to force. But despite U.S weapons sales to Taiwan, the U.S has been ambiguous about whether it would intervene militarily, and the U.S acknowledges that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is one China, and Taiwan is a part of China, as Biden reiterated yesterday.

In a speech in Japan yesterday, president Biden said; «We agree with the one-China policy. We have signed on to it and all the attendant agreements are made from there. But the idea that it can be taken by force, will dislocate the entire region and be another action similar to what happened in Ukraine. And so it`s a burden that is even stronger.»

China`s reaction to President Biden`s comments on Taiwan came very quickly: «China will take firm actions to safeguard its sovereignty and security interests. We mean what we say.»

What China wants is reunification. So, China is right now threatening Taiwan militarily.

The U.S policy dates back to December 15, 1978, when Jimmy Carter restored relations with Beijing and ended formal ties with Taipei (capital of Taiwan). Taiwan is a big chip-maker, and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said intense economic talks with Taiwan will take place in the weeks to come.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Wang Wenbin said this yesterday:

«The US has been racking its brains to play with words when it comes to the one-China principle. I want to remind the US side that no forces, the US included, can hold back the Chinese people’s endeavor to reunify the nation. Also, no forces, the US included, can change the fate of the “Taiwan independence” forces who are doomed to fail. 

Reneging on its promise on the Taiwan question, the US has obscured and hollowed out the one-China principle, and publicly or stealthily incited and endorsed “Taiwan independence” separatist activities. If the US continues to go down the wrong path, there will be irretrievable consequences for the China-US relations and the US will have to pay unbearable price.

Our stern warning to the US: There is but one China in the world, Taiwan is part of China’s territory and the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China. This is a consensus of the international community and a commitment made by the US to China.

The one-China principle is unshakable, China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity cannot be violated and the red line of avoiding creating “two Chinas” and “one China, one Taiwan” must not be crossed. 

China has full confidence and capability and is fully prepared to firmly stem the “Taiwan independence” separatist activities, foil all external interference and resolutely uphold its sovereignty and territorial integrity. I’d like to advise the US to listen to a well-known Chinese song with these lyrics: “For our friends, we have fine wine. For jackals or wolves, we welcome with shotguns.”

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Putin and Russia are articulating their own version of the Monroe Doctrine

What president or prime minister won`t protect its own country and its own citizens? Most of the countries around the world have their own foreign policy, which is their activities in relation to their interactions with other states, unions, and other political entities.

Diplomacy has been practiced for a very long time. The idea of long-term management of relationships followed the development of professional diplomatic corps that managed diplomacy. Since 1711, the term diplomacy has been taken to mean the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations.

In the 18th century, due to extreme turbulence in European diplomacy and ongoing conflicts, the practice of diplomacy was often fragmented by the necessity to deal with isolated issues, termed «affairs».

Picture: Gillans’s 1896 political cartoon, Uncle Sam stands with a rifle between the Europeans and Latin Americans, By Victor Gillam – https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002697703/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=115553767

Organizations such as the Council of Foreign Relations in the United States are sometimes employed by government foreign relations organizations to develop foreign policy proposals as alternatives to an existing policy, or to provide analytical assessments of evolving relationships.

There are several objectives that may motivate a government`s foreign policy. Among other reasons, foreign policy may be directed for defense and security, for economic benefit, or to provide assistance to states that need it.

All foreign policy objectives are interconnected and contribute to a single, comprehensive foreign policy for each state. Unlike domestic policy, foreign policy issues tend to arise suddenly in response to developments and major events in foreign countries.

Foreign policy is often directed for the purpose of ensuring national security.

Governments have historically formed military alliances with foreign states in order to deter and show stronger resistance to attack. Foreign policy also focuses on combating adversarial states through soft power, international isolation, or war.

In the 21st century, defensive foreign policy has expanded to address the threat of global terrorism. Foreign measures such as foreign aid and financial sanctions are believed to decrease terrorist activity, while military intervention and military aid risk increase terrorist activity.

Foreign policy is central to a country`s role within the world economy and international trade. Economic foreign policy issues may include the establishment of trade agreements, the distribution of foreign aid, and the management of imports and exports. The World Trade Organization facilitates the economic foreign policies of most countries.

Superpowers are able to project power and exercise their influence across the world, while great powers and middle powers have moderate influence in global affairs.

Small powers have less ability to exercise influence unilaterally, as they have fewer economic and military resources to leverage. As a result, they are more likely to support international and multilateral organizations.

The diplomatic bureaucracies of smaller states are also smaller, which limits their capacity to engage in complex diplomacy. Smaller states may seek to ally themselves with larger countries for economic and defensive benefits, or they may avoid involvement in international disputes so as to remain on friendly terms with all countries.

The political institutions and forms of government play a role in a country`s foreign policy. In a democracy, public opinion and the methods of political representation both affect a country`s foreign policy.

Democratic countries are also believed to be less likely to resort to military conflict with one another.

Autocratic states are less likely to use legalism in their foreign policies. Under a dictatorship, a state`s foreign policy may depend heavily on the preferences of the dictator. Dictators that interfere significantly with their foreign policy apparatus may be less predictable and more likely to make foreign policy blunders.

Picture: US President James Monroe, By Samuel Finley Breese Morse – https://www.whitehousehistory.org/photos/james-monroe, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71911950

The Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S.

The doctrine was central to U.S foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close to independence.

Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S security.

In turn, the U.S would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.

By the end of the 19th century, Monroe`s declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. The intent and effect of the doctrine persisted for over a century, with only small variations, and would be invoked by many U.S statesmen and several U.S presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kenndy, and Ronald Reagan.

After 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted by Latin American lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism (an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal) and non-intervention.

Despite the United States’ beginnings as an isolationist country, the foundation of the Monroe Doctrine was already laid even during George Washington`s presidency. According to S.E. Morison, «as early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to keep out of Europe.

Alexander Hamilton wanted to establish the United States as a world power and hoped that it would suddenly become strong enough to keep the European powers outside of the Americas, despite the fact that the European countries controlled much more of the Americas than the U.S herself.

Hamilton expected that the United States would become the dominant power in the New World and would, in the future, act as an intermediary between the European powers and any new countries blossoming near the U.S.

Great Britain shared the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine and even wanted to declare a joint statement to keep other European powers from further colonizing the New World.

The U.S government feared the victorious European powers that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (1814 – 1815) would revive monarchical government. France had already agreed to restore the Spanish monarchy in exchange for Cuba.

As the revolutionary Napoleonic Wars (1803 – 1815) ended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed the Holy Alliance to defend monarchism. In particular, the Holy Alliance authorized military incursions to re-establish Bourbon rule over Spain and its colonies, which were establishing their independence.

(The Holy Alliance was a coalition linking the monarchist great powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. It was created after the final defeat of Napoleon at the behest of Emperor (Tsar) Alexander I of Russia and signed in Paris on 26 September 1815. The alliance aimed to restrain liberalism and secularism in Europe in the wake of the devastating French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, and it nominally succeeded in this until the Crimean War).

About three months after the Final Act of the Congress of Vianna, the monarchs of Catholic (Austria), Protestant (Prussia), and Orthodox (Russia) confession promised to act on the basis of «justice, love, and peace», both in internal and foreign affairs, for «consolidating human institutions and remedying their imperfections».

The British feared their trade with the New World would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S lacking sufficient naval capability.

The U.S resisted a joint statement because of the recent memory of the War of 1812, however, the immediate provocation was the Russian Ukase of 1821 asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.

In 1902, Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country`s protection.

The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee by the United States, the US Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, making invading North America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at home.

Scholars such as Neil Smith have written that Woodrow Wilson effectively proposed a «Global Monroe Doctrine» expanding US supremacy over the entire world. Some analysts assert that this prerogative for indirect control and sporadic invasions and occupations across the planet has largely come to fruition with the American superpower role since World War II.

Such an expansion of the doctrine is premised on the «normal equality» of independent states. Such superficial equality is often undermined by material inequality, making the US a de facto global empire.

Smith argued that the founding of the United Nations played a role in the establishing of this global protectorate situation.

After World War II began, a majority of Americans supported defending the entire Western Hemisphere against foreign invasion. A 1940 national survey found that 81% supported defending Canada, 75% Mexico and Central America, 69% South America, 66% West Indies, and 59% Greenland.

In 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the 10th Pan-American Conference in Caracas, Venezuela, denouncing the intervention of Soviet Communism in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy said at an August 29, 1962 news conference:

The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today.

That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS (Organization of American States) and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.

During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the farmers of US foreign policy. When the Cuban Revolution (1953 – 1959) established a Communist government with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to present the spread of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America.

Under this rationale, the U.S provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion (as in the case of Operation Condor).

In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds of the United States’ confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic on Cuban soil.

The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran-Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.S CIA had been covertly training «Contra» guerrilla soldiers in Honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its president, Daniel Ortega.

CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.S intervention in Nicaragua would be «totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine».

President Barack Obama`s Secretary of State John Kerry told the OAS in November 2013 that the «era of the Monroe Doctrine is over».

Several commentators have noted that Kerry`s call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe`s intentions than the policies enacted after his death.

President Donald Trump implied potential use of the doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela after his CIA Director Mike Pompeo declared that the nation`s deterioration was the result of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.

In February 2018, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson praised the Monroe Doctrine as «clearly…..a success», warning of «imperial» Chinese trade ambitions and touting the United States as the region`s preferred trade partner.

Trump reiterated his commitment to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 73rd UN General Assembly in 2018. Vasily Nebenzya criticized the US for what the Russian Federation perceives as an implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 8452nd emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on January 26, 2019.

Venezuela`s representative listed 27 interventions in Latin America that Venezuela considers to be implementations of the Monroe Doctrine, and stated that, in the context of the statements, they consider it «a direct military threat to the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela».

Cuba`s representative formulated a similar opinion, «The current Administration of the United States of America has declared the Monroe Doctrine to be in effect…..».

On March 3, 2019, National Security Advisor John Bolton invoked the Monroe Doctrine in describing the Trump administration`s policy in the Americas, saying «In this administration, we`re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine….. It`s been the objective of American presidents going back to President Ronald Reagan to have a completely democratic hemisphere.

Noam Chomsky argues that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has been used by the U.S government as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.

When we talk about great power politics, rights in the final analysis just don`t matter. Might makes right, according to John Mearsheimer

In international politics, states usually pay attention to international law. They also pay attention to moral precepts as long as they`re in their strategic interests. But if there is a conflict between international law and a country`s strategic interests, the country will always privilege its strategic interests, and international law and human rights will be pushed off the table.

This is why Mearsheimer thinks it`s not very helpful to talk about rights. When you talk about whether Russia has the right to have a buffer state, or Ukraine has the right to have its own foreign policy. These are concepts that get you into all sorts of trouble.

In the international system; «MIGHT MAKES RIGHT».

For example; the United States would never tolerate a situation where Canada or Mexico invited in a legal way, China to bring military forces into Toronto or Mexico City.

The U.S has the Monroe Doctrine which is in the U.S’ strategic interest, and the Monroe Doctrine says; no distant great power is allowed to put military forces in the Western Hemisphere. Period. End of story.

What the Russians are doing is they`re basically articulating their own version of the Monroe Doctrine. They`re saying you cannot turn Ukraine into a Western bastion on our border. That has nothing to do with rights.

It doesn`t matter whether Ukraine has the right to do this or that. Putin and Russia are saying they can`t do it. Just like the U.S is saying that Cuba can`t invite the Soviets to bring military forces into the Western Hemisphere.

Rights just don`t matter. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

Those who can`t put themselves in Putin`s shoes have a huge problem.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Brexit has a 70% approval rating, and Socialism is dead in England

It`s funny to watch Great Britain and the United States at the moment. In the U.S, the conservatives lost the election and Biden and his left wing democrat administration won. In the U.K, Boris Johnson and his conservative friends won in a landslide. The same can not be said about Biden.

They are both outside of the EU and Trump and Johnson was considered to be a win against socialism. Take a look at the slogan Johnson has; Build back better. They are leaving the business club EU and want to build back better.

But take a look at Biden and his slogan; Build back better. Biden and the democrats wants to build back what Trump did. They are on two different planets, with two different world views.

Everything has been great with the Labour Party for years, but they have been in trouble before. One of the most deprived areas of the UK, the blue-collar port saws its steel industry collapse in the 1970s and 80s and the unemployment rate remains among the highest in the century.

Politically, it`s backed the Labour Party at every UK election for almost half a century, but then came Brexit.

As of April 12, Boris Johnson`s approval rating remain very high at 70%. Not only that. Brexit has also a 70% approval rating, so there is not doubt that the people in Great Britain support the conservatives and Brexit.

According to Nigel Farage, the Labour Party is finish in England. The country is about the change rapidly. Queen Elizabeth said in the Parliament a few days ago that the UK will strengthen the borders. Legislation will also be introduced to ensure the integrity of elections.

They saw what happened in Georgia during the U.S election and learned from the mistakes in the U.S. Dead voters will have problems to vote if they have to show up personally with a picture on the voting day.

Freedom of speech will also be protected. This is very similar to whats happening the U.S. They are both about the change rapidly. What a interesting world we are living in.

To contact the author: post@shinybull.com

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

The biggest welfare state in the world is France

I need to follow up my recent article about tax, GDP, a free lunch and big governments. The Biden administration is calling for a tax hike and a much bigger government. Is the United States on the way to be a socialist country like France? If so, how would that be?

Let`s take a look at France. The biggest welfare state in the world. No other coutries in the world spend more money on welfare than the French government. No other coutries has higher taxes either.

But who is protesting a lot? No other countries in the world are protesting more than the people of France, and the yellow vest protesters showed us that. There were multiple reasons for all the protests in France. What they all had in common is that they were all dissatisfied.

Does the people of the United States really want to be a socialist state like France?

Photo by Alex Azabache on Pexels.com

First of all; lets talk about tax. No other countries in the world have higher taxes than France. Personal income tax has dropped to 45%, down from 59,6% about twenty years ago. In other words; half of your hard earned money goes to the government.

Corporate tax rate in France dropped to 28% under president Macron. Do doubt that Macron is doing something right. A Trump strategy that is boosting the economy with lower taxes (but that was before the covid attack).

In the early 80`s, the corporate tax rate in France was at a record high with 50%. All that happened under President Fracois Mitterand who served as a President of France from 1981 to 1995, the longest time in office in the history of France.

Mitterand started political life on the Catholic nationalist right, but joined the resistance and moved to the left. He opposed Charles de Gaulle`s establishment of the Fifth Republic.

He invited the Communist Party into his first government, which was a controversial decision at the time. In the event, the Communists were boxed in as junior partners and, rather than taking advantage, saw their support erode. The left the cabinet in 1984.

Interestingly, right after that, the taxes started to decline. Mitterand followed a radical left-wing economic agenda, including nationalisation of key firms, but after two years, with the economy in crisis, he reversed course.

He pushed a socially liberal agenda with reforms such as the 39-hour week, and the end of a government monopoly in radio and television broadcasting.

His partnership with German Chancellor Hermut Kohl advanced European integration via the Maastricht Treaty, but he reluctantly accepted German reunification. By the way; he was also the only French President to ever have named a female Prime Minister; Edith Cresson.

Beyond making the French left electable, Mitterand presided over the rise of the Socialist Party to dominance of the left, and the decline of the once-mighty Communist Party (as a share of the popular vote in the first presidential round, the Communists shrank from a peak of 21,27% in 1969 to 8,66% in 1995, at the end of Mitterand`s second term).

As you can see, the popularity of the Communist Party declined from about 21% to 8%, but so did the corporate tax rate under Mitterand too.

But taxes need to come from someone, and that is the people. How is that going to work out if millions are unemployed? In France, the unemployment rate has always been high. It dropped to 8% in December of 2020, down from 9,1% in the previous period.

The number of unemployed people decreased by 340 thousand to 2,4 million. That sounds expensive. Someone has to pay for it.

France spend nearly one third of their GDP on social welfare, according to OECD. France are on top of the list (27,5) while the U.S is number 22 with 14,3% (as a percentage of GDP).

If we look at total net social spending, France is still at the top with 31,7%, but interestingly, the U:S is second with 30%. Total net social spending takes into account public and private social expenditure, and also includes the effect of direct taxes (income tax and social security contributions), indirect taxation of consumption on cash benefits, as well as tax breaks for social purposes.

Top 20 list of all the countries with tax revenue as a percent of GDP from 40% to 50% are all from Europe. except one; Cuba, at number 8 on the list. A communist country among all the European countries.

The debt in France is skyrocketing. Under Mitterand, the debt to GDP was about 20. Now, under Macron it has increased to 115,70 percent in 2020 from 97,60 percent in 2019.

At the same time, Government Budget in France decreased to -9,20 percent of GDP in 2020 from -3,10 percent in 2019. In other words; the government spends more money than it takes in from taxes and other fees.

So, socialist welfare state France has more debt than the United States. Devt to GDP in the U.S increased to 107,60 percent in 2020, up from 106,90 percent in 2019.

The unemployment rate is also lower in the U.S. The unemployment rate fell to 6 percent in March of 2021. The U.S government is also spending more money than they have. In 2019, the U.S recorded a government budget deficit equal to 4,60 percent of the GDP, but it`s expected to be about 13 percent in 2020.

On top of all the taxes, people in France also need to pay for the roads. A typical socialist country has toll roads. From Boreaux to Paris, you need to pay 55,60 euros for Classe A and 85,60 euros for Classe B.

All the money you earn from Janury to June goes to the government. The govenment will give the money you give them to sick people who ask for free healthcare. State healthcare insurance is available to everyone staying in France for more than three months.

The French Social Security system runs this insurance (called PUMA), and this insurance covers about 70% of the medical costs, and in some cases, even 100% of the costs. The state also pays for every child`s education from 6 to 16 years old.

So, if you pay nearly half of your hard earned money to your welfare state, and drive a car from Boreaux to Paris often, you have to ask yourself what your real tax actually is?

To contact the author: post@shinybull.com

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Uncategorized

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said “it will be bloody” if the the South China Sea dispute with China escalates

The tension in the South China Sea is very high, and the main reason for that is the CCP. They claim it`s their territory. China`s claim to the sea is based both on the law of the Sea Convention and its so-called «nine-dash» line.

This line extends for 2,000 kilometers from the Chinese mainland, encompassing over half of the sea. This consept is important: it means that by definition, the South China Sea is a shared maritime space.

But why is South China Sea so dangerous? The area is poorly charted, making it exceptionally dangerous to navigate. The major Singapore-to-Hong-Kong routes go well to the west and east of the area, and this is one of the reasons why the South China Sea is so important for the U.S, but also for the Global UK.

Hear the war drum beats and watch the video

Maintaining freedom of navigation is a fundamental interest of the U.S. Unhindered navigation by all ships and aircraft in the South China Sea is essential for the peace and prosperity of the entire Asia-Pasific region, including the United States.

Since the two-day clash of arms between China and the former Republic of Vietnam (South) in January 1974, the Paracels have been firmly in Chinese control, while the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam are each holding a part of the Spratlies.

This is a dangerous global conflict, and China`s sweeping claims of soverignty over the sea, and the sea`s estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, have antogonized competing claimants Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is warning; if the the South China Sea dispute with China escalates, «it will be bloody.»

President Duterte has said he is prepared to send military ships to «stake a claim» over oil and mineral resources in the South China Sea, while noting that challenging Beijing in the disputed waters will only lead to violence.

«If we go there to assert our jurisdiction, it will be bloody,» Duterte said in a televised briefing, his first remarks after hundreds of Chinese vessels were spotted at a disputed reef in March.

Not only the U.S marines are one the way to the South China Sea. So are Britain, with a huge naval force. The war-drums is also a wake-up call for Australia.

The largest naval flotilla assembled by Britain in recent years will set sail in May on a months long voyage through tha Pacific, the country`s Defence Ministry said.

«When our Carrier Strike Group (CSG) sets sail next month, it will be flying the flag for Global Britain, projecting our influence, signaling our power, engaging with our friends and reaffirming our commitment to addressing the security challenges of today and tomorrow,» UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said on Monday.

«The UK is not stepping back but sailing forth to play an active role in shaping the international system of the 21 century,» Mr Wallace said.

To contact the author: post@shinybull.com

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics