South China Sea
Last quote about South China Sea
All quotes about South China Sea
This year, expect more of an emphasis on naval power projection capabilities, given ongoing uncertainty in the South China Sea. Double digit nominal growth in defense expenditure is expected to be sustained over the next five years barring a major deterioration in the economic or fiscal landscape.
I think areas in the South China Sea that are part of international waters and international activities... I think the US is going to make sure that we protect our interests there. So it's a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yes, we're gonna make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country. When he met the head of Alibaba a couple of weeks ago, that was part of the point. There's huge market issue there. But in many cases, it's not a two-way street.
Both Tillerson and Spicer seem to be trying to show China that the Trump administration will adopt a tougher approach on the South China Sea, but it's evident that they haven't yet developed a policy.
Donald Trump has pointed out that China is one of the main threats to America. If America pushes back militarily (in the South China Sea), as has been stated (suggested) by some, then China, which feels insecure internally, tries to push back – you could have an accidental spark up of some conflict between the two of them. That would have devastating implications economically, as well as geopolitically.
But certainly that policy is on the table if China doesn't also come to the table and work with us on trade, work with us on the South China Sea and what's happening there.
This does not bode well at all ... and it means that the continued war drums from America on the South China Sea would not help matters at all.
The issue of the South China Sea is linked directly to regional peace and stability, and is of concern to the entire international community.
The Liaoning aircraft carrier group in the South China Sea is carrying out scientific research and training, in accordance with plans. The purpose is to test the performance of weapons and equipment.
(The visit) is very important but that's not enough because (there will be) a new president in a few weeks and his policy is quite unpredictable. If Trump keeps escalating the situation, … (the) worst case scenario might be … something happening in the South China Sea.
That would have been a very oblique way to make that point as nothing about the drone had anything to do with Taiwan, so I suspect its primarily about surveillance activities. Previous harassment of U.S. navy ships occurred much closer to the Chinese mainland but this incident took place as about 600 kilometers away, and it was even outside the Chinese nine-dash line, which Beijing has used to claim much of the South China Sea.
They use the South China Sea as political, economic and informational means to project power and to influence domestic and external perception that the South China Sea is basically Chinese. This puts the U.S. and China into contending trajectories, but neither side has the strategic interest to escalate beyond these low-level incidents.
This notwithstanding, the Philippine government reaffirms its respect for and firm adherence to this milestone ruling and will be guided by its parameters when tackling the issue of maritime claims in the South China Sea. I also wish to reiterate what the President has stated in the past that he will not deviate from the four corners of the ruling.
We have registered our objection to China's unlawful seizure of a U.S. unmanned underwater vehicle operating in international waters in the South China Sea. Through direct engagement with Chinese authorities, we have secured an understanding that the Chinese will return the UUV to the United States.
The islands of the South China Sea are China's inherent territory. China's building of facilities and necessary territorial defensive facilities on its own territory is perfectly natural – the normal right of a sovereign nation under international law.
But if true it is a big concern for us and the international community who use the South China Sea lanes for trade. It would mean that the Chinese are militarizing the area which is not good.
The timing is significant in that these first clear images come amid Trump's challenging comments about China and its South China Sea fortresses.
China will argue that they are entitled to place whatever they want there in reaction to U.S. actions. The big question is whether Trump will embark on a more strident or discordant policy in the South China Sea.
From the outset, it's been quite obvious that the artificial islands were designed to serve as military outposts in the South China Sea.
We hope the United States can abide by its promises on not taking sides on the sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea, respect the efforts of countries in the region to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea region and do more to promote peace and stability there.
Whatever the current problems in the U.S.-China relationship today, our reneging on the Taiwan part of the packaged deal would not provide leverage on trade, North Korea, the South China Sea, or any of the other issues that roil the relationship. More likely, it would rattle the entire framework of the relationship, and cause Beijing to rethink its policy of seeking reunification by peaceful means.
China hopes the U.S. will scrupulously abide by its promise to not take sides in relevant territorial disputes, and play a constructive role in safeguarding peace and stability in the South China Sea.
I don't know why we have to be bound by a one-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade. I mean, look, we're being hurt very badly by China with devaluation; with taxing us heavy at the borders when we don't tax them; with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn't be doing; and frankly, with not helping us at all with North Korea.
I fully understand the One-China policy. But I don't know why we have to be bound by a One-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade. We are being hurt very badly by China with devaluation, with taxing us heavy at the borders when we don't tax them, with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn't be doing.
Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into their country (the U.S. doesn't tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don't think so!
Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency, heavily tax our products going into their country or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don't think so! Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.
Did China ask us if it was OK to carry out a number of actions such as build up disputed islands in the South China Sea or take economic measures hurtful to the United States.
This marks the return of the South China Sea issue to the correct track of resolution via dialogue and consultation, and means the conspiracies of relevant countries to use the South China Sea issue to disorder the region have been thoroughly broken.
Singapore has gone from being seen as a useful facilitator of U.S.-China relations to being in the vanguard of an anti-China coalition, particularly on the South China Sea. The days of Beijing comfortably seeing Singapore has vaguely neutral are over, and it is reacting accordingly.
Doing so would likely mean that they would threaten China's sovereignty in the South China Sea. If she steps over these red lines, I believe China will take responsive action.
China's sovereignty and jurisdiction of Huangyan Island has not and will not change. We hope China and the Philippines can continue to strengthen dialogue and cooperation, and make the South China Sea issue a positive factor in promoting bilateral friendship and cooperation.
Beijing would be happy to see a drawback of U.S. military activities in the South China Sea.
While it's not a game-changer it does give China a much improved operational strike capability. It gives China a modern long-range strike capability that is able to carry much heavier payloads into areas of the Pacific and South China Sea that it was previously unable to reach in an effective manner.
China regards Malaysia as an important player in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc, and a claimant that Beijing believes it can have a more reasonable dialogue to address and resolve the South China Sea dispute, notwithstanding Malaysia's own shifting and ambiguous stance.
I think the biggest factor impacting exploration activities, or lack thereof, in the South China Sea are the low oil prices that we've seen for the past two years now – that's been big disincentive to do exploration activity there. Plus, nobody knows exactly how much energy is there.
There is more Chinese assertion in the South China Sea and Japan has more worries it will do the same the same in the East China Sea.
In regard to the problem in the South China Sea, we are looking reach a diplomatic solution through co-operation between with the countries involved.
The two sides agreed that they will do what they agreed (to do) five years ago, that is to pursue bilateral dialogue and consultation in seeking a proper settlement of the South China Sea issue.
The two sides briefly mentioned the South China Sea. Both sides agreed that this issue is not the sum total of bilateral relations.
A "budding bilateral friendship could boost chances of removing one of their biggest bones of contention in the South China Sea.
In general, the talks between Duterte and the Chinese leaders will focus on economic aid to the Philippines and the Chinese leaders will continue to stick to the dual-track thought in handling the South China Sea issue.
China's position on the South China Sea is clear and consistent. There is no change and there will be no change. This position accords with historical facts and international law.
Officials in Washington must now be seriously worried about the trajectory of U.S.-Philippine relations. Especially military-to-military issues such as joint exercises and U.S. access to Philippine bases, and whether Duterte will try and cut a deal with Beijing over the South China Sea that will allow China to advance its maritime claims.
Let's have a look at the results of Japan's throwing things into disorder over this same time period ... trying to confuse the South China Sea situation under the pretence of (acting for) the international community.
We will continue to work to ensure that disputes are resolved peacefully, including in the South China Sea.
There is no indication at the preparatory ASEAN SOM yet as to what, if anything, the Philippines would raise at the summit regarding the South China Sea.
China will continue to firmly safeguard its sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea. At the same time, it will persist in peacefully resolving disputes through consultations with parties directly involved.
Where we see them violating international rules and norms, as we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behaviour when it comes to economic policy, we've been very firm. And we've indicated to them that there will be consequences.
Weapons have become sacred to the North Koreans and just as non-negotiable as sovereignty over the South China Sea is to the Chinese.
Clinton has been a long-term outspoken critic of China's human rights record and has been vocal in her opposition to China's territorial claims in the South China Sea. A Clinton Presidency could represent a geopolitical risk that could turn out to have adverse implications for U.S.-Sino relations, and thus have negative implications for global growth.
Asean has done a commendable job in management [of] the South China Sea within the limitations that [it] operates [in].
The dispute in the South China Sea is between the Philippines and China, not ASEAN and China.
It will have enormous impact on future jurisprudence and on the perceived legitimacy of other claims in the South China Sea and around the world.
The ruling can serve as a foundation on which we can start the process of negotiations, which hopefully will eventually lead to the peaceful settlement of the maritime dispute in the South China Sea.
On whether China will set up an air defence zone over the South China Sea, what we have to make clear first is that China has the right to ... But whether we need one in the South China Sea depends on the level of threats we face. China hoped to return to bilateral talks with Manila.
As for whether China will declare an air defence identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea, first of all we must make it clear that China has the right to do so.
The former Philippine government and the United States behind it have conspired for a long time to blackmail China regarding its historic rights to the South China Sea, but to do it through a tribunal that tramples on international justice goes too far.
This award represents a devastating legal blow to China's jurisdictional claims in the South China Sea. China will respond with fury, certainly in terms of rhetoric and possibly through more aggressive actions at sea.
The South China Sea ruling was expected, and is mainly a matter of face, the direct impact on the market is pretty limited.
If the nine dash nine is illegal as applied against the Philippines as the tribunal declared today, then it is equally illegal as applied against Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and other states along the South China Sea.
The decision today by the Tribunal in the Philippines-China arbitration is an important contribution to the shared goal of a peaceful resolution to disputes in the South China Sea. The United States expresses its hope and expectation that both parties will comply with their obligations. In the aftermath of this important decision, we urge all claimants to avoid provocative statements or actions.
Japan has always insisted on the importance of the rule of law and the use of peaceful means, not the use of force and coercion. The countries concerned should submit to today's decision of the Arbitration Court. Japan hopes that, by complying with that decision of the countries concerned, the conflict over the South China Sea will be peacefully settled.
The power of international law is primarily reputational and measured in terms of legitimacy. My speculation would be that China has basically calculated that it will take some near-term, rather assertive actions in the South China Sea, and pay short-term reputation costs in exchange for what it believes to be longer-term strategic gains.
China will work with ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] countries to safeguard the peace and stability of the South China Sea. We've pointed out many times recently that as for the relevant dispute, China does not accept any decision imposed by a third party as a means of resolution, nor any solution plan that is forced upon China.
Definitely if the Philippines backs away somewhat from supporting the U.S. in the South China Sea, this would be a problem for the U.S. China likes to present the U.S. as a destabilizing outsider in the South China Sea and in Asia more generally. The fewer Asian states that publicly counter this Chinese depiction, the more isolated the U.S.
The number of people supporting China rises by the day, so I have no way of giving you a precise figure. The actual number was not the most important thing. As long as you have an objective and impartial position, as long as you understand the main points of the history of the South China Sea and the essence of the so-called 'arbitration case', any unbiased country, organization or person will unhesitatingly chose China's just position.
Freedom of navigation in this region, through the South China Sea, is crucial for any further development in the region and it's difficult to imagine that without this freedom, there will be stability and peace in this region.
As for the South China Sea, we share serious concerns over unilateral actions that raise tensions, such as large-scale reclamation, the building of facilities and militarization. It is a significant achievement that we have agreed to cooperate to secure rule-based, free, safe seas.
Prime Minister (Shinzo) Abe led discussion on the current situation in the South China Sea and East China Sea. Other G7 leaders said it is necessary for G7 to issue a clear signal.
China is resolutely opposed to individual countries hyping up the South China Sea for personal gain.
US-Philippine joint patrols in the South China Sea promote regional militarization and undermine regional peace and stability. The Chinese military will pay very close attention to related developments, and firmly safeguard China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.
In fact, based on the joint efforts of China and other regional countries, the South China Sea is currently one of the safest and freest shipping lanes in the world.
What keeps us up at night is that one of the big tension areas is the South China Sea. We would like as a business community to see those differences and overlapping claims be addressed in a way that is done though discussion rather than military confrontation.
No cooperation between any countries should be directed at a third party. Countries from outside the area must stop pushing forward the militarization of the South China Sea, cease endangering the sovereignty and national security of littoral countries in the name of 'freedom of navigation' and harming the peace and stability of the region.
We must establish a regional order whereby the principle of the rule of law is truly upheld and practiced. I would like to renew my call for the early conclusion of an effective Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.
China consistently respects and supports the freedom of navigation and fly over that all countries' enjoy in the South China Sea under international law, but resolutely opposes any country using so-called 'freedom of navigation' as an excuse to damage China's sovereignty, security and maritime rights.
Neither the U.S. nor China desires a military conflict, but the key problem is that the core interests of both sides collide in the South China Sea. It's hard to see either side backing down.
There have been no changes or delays to the schedule of the HMAS Arunta and HMAS Stuart since the United States activity in the South China Sea on 27 October 2015.
We believe Chinese people on both sides of the Strait have a duty to jointly protect China's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests and safeguard the stability of the South China Sea region.
We have a strong interest in the manner in which the disputes of the South China Sea are addressed and in the conduct of the parties. We very much hope to see progress soon on a substantive Code of Conduct in order to ensure stability in this vital region.
Together with our international partners, we are now pushing further east into the South China Sea and further into the Indian Ocean. We want nothing more than to find the plane as quickly as possible.