Brian Ross wrote on Dec 8^th, 2025 at 12:10pm:


Because most Australians understand the benefits. Only the noisy anti-Australian minority are against it.

AUKUS ministers meet in Washington as Hegseth praises Australia for 'stepping up'

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 13^th, 2025 at 1:44pm:


Yes: the cost of protection demanded by the mafia US...

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 13^th, 2025 at 3:38pm:


Blaming China for wanting to assert UN res 2758?

The resolution, passed on 25 October 1971, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and removed "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" (referring to the then Kuomintang regime as the dominant party in the Republic of China (ROC), whose central government had retreated to Taiwan from the mainland) from the United Nations.

Note: the ROC, after losing the civil war in 1949, retreated to Taiwan which had been returned to China after Japan's defeat in 1945.

Of course Kissinger didn't really think it through,  when Nixon recognised the PRC in 1971...

Belgarion wrote on Dec 13^th, 2025 at 7:14pm:


Your error: Taiwan is Chinese territory; just because  you don't like one-party government doesn't mean you can accuse the PRC of being 'aggressive" merely  because it defends Chinese sovereignty.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 14^th, 2025 at 10:02am:


Yes, with Chinese sovereignty established during the Qing dynasty, occupied by Japan 1895-1945, and restored to China after Japan's defeat.

Quote:


Until recently the ROC - having retreated  to Taiwan in 1949 -  claimed to be the sole government of China.

Just because the DPP (in the ROC) have now recognised reality, doesn't mean they can now decide to split from China. 

Quote:


Yeh - well some  Scots want to split from the UK....; but smart Tibetans, like smart Abos , recognise the benefits of the economically superior culture. 

(And Tibet also acknowledged Qing sovereignty).

The SCS disputes are exacerbated by US bases in the Philippines, Japan and Okinawa.   

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 14^th, 2025 at 10:53am:


The facts, from the days of empire ("might is right")

(google)

The Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) incorporated Tibet into its empire, establishing administrative oversight through the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs (Xuanzheng Yuan), creating a "priest-patron" relationship where Mongol rulers were patrons of Tibetan Buddhism, but Tibet maintained a degree of internal autonomy under Sakya lamas, with the Yuan exercising ultimate administrative and military authority. This established a historical precedent for later Chinese claims of sovereignty, though the nature of rule varied significantly across subsequent dynasties like the Ming and Qing.

As for Taiwan, the inhabitants were still hunter-gatherers in the 17th century before the Qing established sovereignty (like the natives in Oz in 1788).

Quote:


(google)

Dalai Lama's Stance: The 14th Dalai Lama advocates the "Middle Way Approach," seeking genuine autonomy for Tibet within China, not independence, to protect Tibetan culture and rights.

Quote:


.....while democratic governments are more subversive in the way they entrench generational disadvantage and poverty, under the guise of "freedom".

Quote:


I think South Pacific islanders are pretty good at playing the geopolitical competition between Western powers and the PRC, for their own advantage.

As for the SCS, China wants peace with relevant ASEAN countries, but US bases everywhere in the area complicate matters.