
What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea - anonu
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html
======
timiblossom
The building to convert reef to island is one of the first steps to claim the
entire Southeast-Asia sea by China. It will then have the self-declared
ownership right to block all sea/air traffics through this region and bully
other neighboring countries. Besides having a huge oil/gas reserve and fishes,
in term of economic impact, this sea is as important as or more than Panama
Canal or Suez Canal. A country with the right to block or own it will harm the
rest of the world. Currently, the allies have been formed with a group of
countries Japan, Philippine, Viet Nam, America and others trying to stop China
but they have not found any solution nor success yet.

Here is the map that China wants to claim:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea#/media/File:South_China_Sea_vector.svg)

~~~
lambdasquirrel
Can I call horseshit on HN again? The Strait of Malacca (which is close by)
would be on par with the Panama Canal or Suez. The South China Sea is not a
transit point for goods in the same manner, and is not as important.

When you look at China's claims in comparison with everyone else's claims,
(especially Vietnam's), it does not look that outlandish, and _everyone_ in
the region effectively wants to be able to say "these are our waters you're
passing through." The actors in this region are not as innocent as you would
think they are.

[http://pages.stolaf.edu/asiaforecast2014/portfolio/sino-
viet...](http://pages.stolaf.edu/asiaforecast2014/portfolio/sino-vietnam-
relations/)

You have to trace back to Japanese actions before WWII and look at the
geopolitical insecurity of these countries in order to understand these
motivations, and then recognize that China does what it does because it does
not think that the powers-that-be will be able or willing to defend its
economic interests in the future. The only reason why China seems scary is
because it would appear as if it can actually build up and defend its claims,
unlike everyone else, but even then, it doesn't have a blue water navy like
the United States. They can't instigate an area denial attack on these claims
without strangling their own economy either, so it's kind of a tempest in a
teapot.

~~~
cowardlydragon
Our blue water navy would be at the bottom of the ocean in the first day if
any of them are in ICBM range of China in a war.

The navy has zero defenses that can stop a 1970s ballistic antiship missle.

~~~
greedo
Well, considering the range of an ICBM is by definition "intercontinental,"
your caution is a bit misplaced. First, the DF-21d isn't an ICBM, it's approx
unclassified range is 900 miles.

And of course the USN has defenses. First are soft defenses like ECM, followed
by AEGIS and SM3.

Not only are there defenses against the missile themselves, but it's not like
the navy would just sit idle while being targeted. They'd work the entire kill
chain, and most of this is assuming that the DF-21 can even find the
carriers...

~~~
lambdasquirrel
Agreed. There's a lot of frickin' ocean, and they'd have to saturate it, one
missile for every 20 sq. miles, in order to have a hope of hitting a carrier.
That's assuming the USN ships don't try to shoot down said missiles. They've
got a lot of missiles, but not that much. China can talk trash all they want,
but there's not much they can do–or would want to do, really.

The fact is, the United States is effectively guaranteeing the trade lanes for
everyone. They have not tried to own the oceans for themselves as others did.
They have not tried to own resources or markets for themselves the way the
Europeans did in the age of mercantilism.

China does what it does out of paranoia. And because people have been jerks to
them in the past. But they know that what they have is not effective for
waging expansionist war. Those missiles could make it really, _really_ hurt if
the United States were to try to take a military action against the Chinese
mainland, because that would place a number of CBGs in close proximity to the
mainland, where it'd be _much_ easier to track and launch said missiles at
them. A more ambitious project would be to cut off American support for
Taiwan, and that would be a much longer-term issue for both sides, and one
that is not abetted by these islands.

As for the islands, there isn't even any military value in holding them. They
are a military _liability_ rather than an asset. Unlike Guam, etc., they are
not useful as a staging point, because the range of modern ships makes them
kind of useless as a staging or refueling point. They are small–they don't
even have fresh water–and thus they are easy to saturate with a few cruise
missiles (the USN has 3000 tomahawks in inventory, last I checked?), so,
forget about trying to put serious static defenses there. When you look at the
fluff, yea, it seems alarming, and that's what it's for. It's __politics __.
The Chinese are doing it because they know the Vietnamese and the Filipinos
_can 't_, and the U.S. will just #facepalm and mostly go back to staring at
maps of the Middle East the next month, in spite of all the talk of an Asian
pivot.

------
jacquesm
What a pity they destroyed those reefs.

Besides that, artificial land is nothing new, a good chunk of NL was made by
manipulating the sea. Even so this is clearly a 'landgrab', but not much
different other than the time in which it happens (the present, rather than a
few hundred years ago). NL did it with the colonies and plenty of other
countries did it too. A lot of that has reverted over the last 3 decades but
there are still quite a few remnants such as Cyprus (claimed by the Turks and
the Greeks), the Falkland islands (UK vs Argentina) and a whole bunch of
smaller ones.

The world map will always be in flux due to territorial disputes like these,
in the end it is all about money.

~~~
oblio
It's not only about money, you cannot discount nationalism. Cyprus is a
different situation than Falklands or the Spratly Islands.

You can't compare an island with 1 million inhabitants to basically
uninhabited islands.

~~~
jacquesm
The Spratly islands are in the middle of one of the most important sea
corridors. Ultimately, even nationalism is about money, after all which war
_ever_ in the history of man did not start as a dispute over resources or
territory?

~~~
orf
Ones involving love, religion or ideology? Blanket statements like that never
hold water.

~~~
task_queue
I'm having a hard time thinking of an example of any of these that weren't
about land or resources.

~~~
sangnoir
I'm no history buff, (apologies for the insta-Godwin): but was WWII fought
over land or resources?

How about the US' involvement in Vietnam, that seems like an ideological war.

~~~
task_queue
The Nazi narrative was all about reclaiming what was rightfully the German
people's land and resources after they were depressed by the reparations from
WWI. It was created to get people behind the party and it worked.

We got involved with Europe's affairs because we made a killing selling them
military equipment to blow each other up. Then it started to seem as if the
Nazis might take over the continent. To drive this point home, we sold weapons
to the Nazis until 1941.

Pearl Harbor happened because we started an oil embargo with Japan.

Vietnam was a proxy war, it's inherently about not letting the enemy gain land
or an ally in a certain territory.

There is something to gain behind every aggression and it is usually material
and for personal profit to the those initiating it.

------
dak1
A big part of this is also "creating facts on the ground" that align as
closely as possible with the PRC's "9-dash line"[1], especially prior to a
decision being made in the Philippines v. China case before the Permanent
Court of Arbitration. Those facts also provide much better power projection
capabilities to the PLAN (the PRC's Navy).

Development of the islands actually accelerated dramatically when the case was
filed, and I suspect the PRC wanted to get the largest and most obvious work
done before that case concludes, since, although the PRC doesn't recognize the
court's jurisdiction, past cases where other countries have acted with similar
disregard suggest the optics surrounding it still matters.[2]

[1] See: [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
pacific-13748349](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349) and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-
dotted_line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line)

[2] For example: [http://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/article/caving-
inter...](http://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/article/caving-
international-pressure-russia-releases-greenpeace-boat)

~~~
mc32
But isn't this tactic of fabricating islands to lay claim too transparent?

How could any court agree to the claims, why, yes, you demonstrated prior
control, you indeed had a permanent population there"?

To anyone seeing this this is an obvious objective to nullify claims by ph,
vn, my, jp, etc.

Can international courts be persuaded by these obvious artificial methods of
establishing jurisdiction?

~~~
dak1
It doesn't really matter how transparent it is, since, International Law has
rather little ability to enforce its decisions.

As much as we try to develop rules and norms to constrain and moderate
behavior by countries in the international community, at the end of the day,
"the strong [still] do as they can and the weak [still] suffer what they
must".

And yes, you're right that the actions and intentions are pretty transparent,
with just some uncertainty surrounding the extent (ie, what reasoning will the
PRC ultimately use to justify its claims, as it's also been quite ambiguous
about them).

------
mafribe
I wonder to what extend the real issue is Taiwan. After all China has a (often
strongly expressed) territorial claim to Taiwan (and vice versa, but that is
not as well-known). If China were to cede alleged land-rights w.r.t. to these
islands, it might set a precedent that Taiwan might try to exploit. Maybe
China wants to avoid this situation.

~~~
dak1
I think they're both related to upholding territorial claims, which the PRC
says is a "core interest" (ie, something they're willing to go to war over),
but I don't think it's viewed as a direct domino effect.

The more direct link is potentially to the CCP's claim to legitimacy as the
government of China. If they can't defend China's "historic" claims to
territory then they could lose legitimacy in the eyes of an increasingly
nationalistic public.

~~~
mafribe
I agree, but it would be much easier to sell giving up on the Spratly Islands
to the Chinese population than accepting Taiwan as a sovereign state. Indeed I
would not be too surprised if China did the former. The ability to do so gives
China a lot of leverage in negotiations with regional or international
competitors, just like the US uses the unresolved Taiwan situation as a lever
in negotiations with China.

------
m-i-l
See also "China's Island Factory" at
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29107792](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29107792)

------
iaskwhy
While not expanded/ing, the Savages Islands are an European example of
disputed Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) between Spain and Portugal:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands)

------
contingencies
Ironically, the NYT is banned by the great firewall here in China.

On nomenclature, _Indochina Sea_ would perhaps be a reasonable candidate for a
more honest toponym, being as it is both suggestive of the general area and
adequately distanced from any specific modern political entities.

~~~
dump100
honestly, how does indo come into picture?

~~~
contingencies
Indochina was the name for the eastern projection of the upper mainland
Southeast Asian peninsula region under French domination - hence, "French
Indochina". The name probably derives from the fact that the historic and
modern cultures of the region are a mix of Chinese and Indian: a little known
fact is that there were all-out Hindu kingdoms as close to modern China as
central Vietnam, northern Burma, southern Laos and Cambodia. Indian influence
is also heavily felt in Burma, Thailand, and upper Laos, for instance in
writing systems (abugidas), language, mythology, law, religion and royal/court
rituals.

------
logfromblammo
It all comes down to the international laws of the sea.

Planting your flag on a 1m wide rock above the high tide line enables an
exclusive zone with radius 12 NM for excluding all foreign vessels, a radius
of 24 NM for enforcement of your laws, and one with radius 200 NM for
exclusive economic activities, like oil drilling, undersea mining, and
fishing.

It's a resource grab. China wants the fish and the seafloor.

What they're going to end up doing is forging a multilateral treaty between
Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Phillippines, and possibly Taiwan, with
Australia and the USA giving a nod and a wink from the back of the room.

I think that there won't be a shooting war. It will be about 95% economic
warfare.

~~~
jcranmer
Artificially-constructed islands don't count for expanding EEZ per UNCLOS.
What China appears to be doing is attempting a mixture of trying to dilute the
facts so as to increase ambiguity and developing "facts on the ground" (cf.
the Israeli settlement patterns in Palestinian territory) so that any grand
compromise hews more to their favor.

I think the last thing China wants is a multilateral treaty: the more people
that are involved in a treaty, the less powerful China's negotiating time is.
China has made repeated angry noises against proposals to treat the issue as a
single regional issue rather than a collection of bilateral disputes. The
disputes are also a large factor into why all the other south-east Asian
countries (including especially Vietnam!) are trying to cozy up to the US and
get the protection of the US Navy.

~~~
logfromblammo
Some of them are natural islands that have been artificially expanded to
support a military presence.

The 12 NM territorial limit for a natural island certainly allows the power
owning it to build barracks, airfields, and artillery batteries within that
limit. And that prevents other countries from claiming or disputing the
island.

------
georgeecollins
China is very smart to pursue this strategy. The US is committed to fleet
carriers and expensive aircraft, while the Chinese focus on island bases and
balistic missiles. The US is hampered by the organizational inertia that keeps
us poring resources into systems that worked in WW2 or the Cold War.

In that sense the failurs of the F-35 are kind of a blessing for the US Navy.
It forces them to think about drones. If there is a future for surface ships
it is probably as missile platforms or as some sort of drone platform, not
aircraft carriers.

~~~
fraserharris
High-speed drones will still need landing strips. It will probably be optimal
to have smaller, more numerous drone carriers, but not by much.

~~~
perfTerm
Possibly not if they're solar or hybrid powered, fuel efficient, and have
large enough fuel stores. A plane recently flew around the entirety of the
earth without stopping so it's certainly conceivable to fly half way around
the planet and back again.

~~~
fraserharris
That would have limited military use. Long-term airborne drones are slow,
light, and carry a small payload.

------
ctdonath
Buy your remote deserted desert island while you still can!

~~~
slayed0
Or just buy a dredger and make one

~~~
brador
Seriously, how much would it cost per square foot to build an island?

~~~
ctdonath
More a matter of cost per _cubic_ foot.

Have to find someplace where the seafloor is close to the surface, then dump
enough _volume_ of dirt on it to reach a viable altitude.

------
damon_c
If national control of contested territory was a board game and China pulled
this move at my house, I would not invite them over again.

~~~
fatjokes
You would if you also ran a business where they were your biggest customer.

------
wedesoft
According to a "Megastructures" documentary, because Shanghai harbour is to
small for the new generation of container ships.

------
shernan111
How come the UN is not stopping this stupidity? Their 9 dash nine rule is so
stupid.

~~~
fatjokes
You realize that China is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council, right?

The only time the UN can act is with the support of all five permanent
members, which also includes Russia. Guess how often that happens.

------
redwood
This is Chinese manifest destiny.

------
cmscheye
way to save the reefs, china

------
eonw
if that's not the creation of and FOB, i dont know what is.

------
curiousjorge
The question is, is President Xi willing to risk military conflict to enforce
whatever new lines he draws on the map? I don't think he is. As we saw the air
zone China drew that overlapped Korea, Japan and Taiwan, it was promptly
ignored by all countries and when the US stealth bombers were flying China was
_silent_.

An actual combat that results in Chinese loss would be detrimental to the
continuity of Xi's party and the Communist Party itself. The risk is far too
great for the small gain it gets. Chinese leadership operates on a
cost/benefit analysis, I don't think anything has changed.

So the only logical conclusion is that Xi, along with his anti-corruption
campaign to take out his foes, is using brinkmanship to further his popularity
and distract people from internal problems that could lead to massive unrest.
Economic downturn would certainly be a threat and war drumming has been a
common political tool used by many different countries at different points in
history.

A military conflict that would be launched by China so far away from it's
coastline makes no sense where US has dozens of nearby bases in different
countries and logistic support on it's own and from host countries to sustain
a prolonged naval warfare. If there was a war, China should pick it's
coastlines where it has anti-access/area denial weapons (allegedly) and
opposing force would not risk their assets. It would be a nightmare in terms
of logistics for PLAN if they did launch some provocation so far away from the
mainland. The island building is a clever way to provoke without risking it's
military.

~~~
dm2
China does have 2.3 million active troops and 700 million humans who would be
able to serve if needed.

They are considered the 3rd most powerful military.

What is the risk?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Unless they're going to swim or row, those 700 million humans who could fight
if needed don't do much in a naval war.

The risk is, if the Chinese pick a naval fight and their navy gets pummeled,
it's a PR disaster. That's a risk for the leadership, not so much for the
country.

~~~
dm2
That's 700 million potential factory workers, military support staff, and
soldiers, and the factories are already built, US companies paid for many of
them.

~~~
curiousjorge
so what does that have to do with naval warfare? You going to build thousand
islands on sand during wartime?

------
honest_joe
The whole asia is just a boling pot that is going to explode but nobody knows
when.

I predict the peak to be when the North Korean regime collapses and South
tries to absorb the North de facto creating an option for Korea to become a
regional military super house. Japanese right wing extremists pushing
government to start massive military spending once again creating much more
powerful Japan.

I do not really know what will China do at this stage to be honest. It may try
to ally with Korea but i think koreans stay neutral and will try to rebuild
the North. It is highly possible that the second miracle on the han river may
actually happen and Korea gets richer and richer (after all North has a
massive mineral resources and a cheap workforce) and korean GDP might start
reaching interesting numbers.

I predict Japan will try to push forward and claim the disputed islands with
the support of uncle Sam.

At this point I do not know what happens but i see Korea as a random factor
that might start shooting at everyone who is not korean.

~~~
Xixi
I'm not sure why you are bringing Japan into this: Japan doesn't have any
claim on the Spartly islands, and it would be completely ridiculous for them
to make such a claim. If Japan gets involved it will be through an alliance
with one (or several) of the countries with an actual stake in this, like the
Philippines.

I know anti-Japanese propaganda is strong in China, but there is no need to
invent conflicts that do not exist to fuel more hate.

EDIT: for that matter Korea doesn't have any stake in this either. I know
there is an important territorial dispute between China and Japan (Senkaku
islands), and minor conflicts between Japan/Korea and China/Korea. So a
conflict around the Spartly islands could spill in this area, but I don't see
it starting from Korea or Japan.

~~~
honest_joe
Because Japan has a dispute with China on other islands. I never said they
would try to claim the spartlys.

Heavy Japan alliance with Phillippines is unlikely (history, empire of japan,
blah blah).

It's not about anti-japanese sentiment here but more like japanese fear of
revenge from chinese and maybe the right time to make a point.

The more passive-aggressive China is the more likely it's that Korea and Japan
will do something about it.

~~~
Xixi
I quote you: "I predict Japan will try to push forward and claim the disputed
islands with the support of uncle Sam."

Which islands were you thinking about? Japan has three notable territorial
conflicts: the Kuril islands with Russia (controlled by Russia), the Senkaku
islands with China (controlled by Japan) and the Takeshima islands (controlled
by Korea).

Of these three conflicts the ones with Korea and Russia are largely under the
radar: most Japanese people I know aren't even aware of them. Though I think
the reverse is not true in Korea... And Japan cannot "push forward and claim"
the Senkaku: they are already controlling them.

~~~
honest_joe
They do not really control the senkaku islands. At least not from chinese POV
:P

And yes Dokdo (Takeshima in Japan) is a big thing in Korea.

~~~
Xixi
Controlling is not really a matter of point of view. It's a matter of
patrolling, and sending boats away if they are not allowed in the area, etc.
Japan inherited this control from the US, and China is perfectly allowed to
dispute ownership of the islands. But claiming that Japan is not -at present-
controlling the islands is simply not correct.

The Liancourt Rocks case is interesting, because it is so asymmetric: all the
Korean people I know feel so strongly about it, but none of the Japanese
people I know either know or care about it. If I were in Japan I would try to
give up all claims on Dokdo as part of a wider friendship treaty with Korea,
and try to prop up the relations between the two countries. But Japanese
politicians are questionable at best, and Korean politicians seem to enjoy
Japan bashing, so I doubt it will happen in the foreseeable future...

~~~
honest_joe
Japan"bought" the islands from private owners (funny right?).

I do not feel that there will ever be any real friendship between these two
countries. I would compare it to polish russian relationship.

Koreans have every right to feel strong about it. Every damn right. But this
is a discussion for another evening.

And replying to your comments above i was talking about the situation in asia
in general. You should also know that Korea donated a war ship to Philippines.
Do you think this gesture did not have anything to do with the situation in
the area ? I very much doubt so.

~~~
Xixi
The state of France in my hometown recently sold a former military estate to a
private company to build a hotel: I don't see what's funny about it, or what
it has to do with sovereignty. I don't know where you are from, but I am sure
the state sometimes buy or sell lands/assets there too.

The state of Japan bought the islands to prevent promoters from exploiting
them, to try to maintain the status quo with China. Obviously it was a
failure, and outright buying the islands was not a good solution. But the
liberal Japanese government at that time was very inexperienced: I don't think
Abe for example -despite being a nationalist- would have done the same
mistake.

I am from Europe, and I do not share your pessimism about Asia. The city where
I'm born switched between France and Germany at least four times over the last
150 years. Hell, there is not a single border on the continent that makes
sense. Peace and "friendship" between states is a political construct, built
strictly out of political will, the rest is nationalist bullshit. That's true
of Poland and Russia too.

------
kspaans
Given the various names for that stretch of water, I'm surprised the NYT
doesn't spin the article by calling it e.g. the West Philippine Sea. Maybe
because South China Sea is more recognizable in a headline?

~~~
woodchuck64
Petition to change name of South China Sea to Southeast Asia Sea:
[https://www.change.org/p/change-the-name-south-china-sea-
to-...](https://www.change.org/p/change-the-name-south-china-sea-to-southeast-
asia-sea)

420,000+ signatures so far...

~~~
eevilspock
China has a billion people. A petition battle is not the way to go.

~~~
swuecho
you are right. even 1 million is a very tiny number.

------
haosdent
America do this thing in the whole word while China just do this thing in
China Sea....

~~~
redwood
An important difference is that Americans are diverse, not as the world
itself, but more than any other large nation. A far cry from homogeneous
societies.

------
zaczac
What U.S. had been done with Hawaii? Entire mexico gulf? starting Gulf War for
owning red sea? And Pacific Ocean becomes U.S. domestic lake? who brought up
the world tension?

~~~
adventured
The US doesn't lay claim to the Pacific Ocean, and it has a right to transit
its navy in open waters. It does not make a habit of navigating its navy into
other nation's waters without their permission.

The US does not claim ownership over any part of the Gulf of Mexico that it
doesn't blatantly have a right to, as this image makes very clear:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Te...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Territorial_waters_-
_United_States.svg/2000px-Territorial_waters_-_United_States.svg.png)

The southern tip of Texas across to the southern tip of Florida is extremely
reasonable as a water claim.

~~~
zaczac
What if China ran their war ships into Mexico gulf just like U.S did in
Southern China Sea?We shall think it is quiet fair because in the "public"
ocean?

~~~
adventured
That's exactly what would happen: the US would not freak out about it.

Russia was just busy flying bombers 40 miles off the coast of California last
week. Last time I checked, we haven't declared war on Russia for it. They
regularly do the same thing with their navy in various ways, whether off the
Atlantic or Pacific coast, or near Cuba / Florida waters.

~~~
cygwin98
Cuban missile crisis in 1962?

~~~
run4yourlives2
There's a pretty big difference in China sending a couple of warships to the
gulf and USSR setting up a nuclear missile base with missiles pointed at the
US on Cuba.

~~~
cygwin98
Nuclear missles or "90000 tons of diplomacy" are both certain kinds of
deterrence, nothing more, nothing less. If US does not have those carrier
combat groups, China wouldn't care either.

~~~
run4yourlives2
Instant destruction that you can't defend against is not the same as an
annoying ship floating around off your coast.

The proper comparison to cuba is Star Wars type missile shields. And
USSR/Russia has long been quite opposed to that, for good reason.

------
farooo123
So when Dubai does it it's tourism, but when Chinese do it it's a bullying
tactic?

~~~
oblio
Does Dubai do it in contested international waters? ;)

~~~
aet
We (USA) have a gigantic navy base replete with nuclear weapons 1000mi from
China mainland. Where is the closest Chinese nuke base to the US?

~~~
twothamendment
Does it matter where nuclear weapons are? Can China or the US deliver one
anywhere in the world?

~~~
temuze
With nuclear subs, it really doesn't matter.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
With ICBMs with 12,000 mile range, it doesn't either.

~~~
aet
Then why do we do it?

------
xkiwi
I am surprised most of us only believe/get news from CNN & MSNBCish. Vietnam
is the one who building in the South China Sea. Vietnam is building two
islands: West London Reef and Sand Cay, at the year of 2010.

Vietnam build islands, CNN FOX cricket, cricket. China build islands, it is
against international law.

\- [http://amti.csis.org/west-reef-tracker/](http://amti.csis.org/west-reef-
tracker/)

\-
[http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/16087/20150508/vietnam-...](http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/16087/20150508/vietnam-
building-islands-south-china-sea.htm)

\- [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/08/us-
southchinasea-v...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/08/us-
southchinasea-vietnam-idUSKBN0NT04820150508)

China, human right violations. [https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-
chapters/china...](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-
chapters/china-and-tibet) VS. Former University of Cincinnati police officer
pleads not guilty \- [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2015/07/30...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2015/07/30/former-university-of-cincinnati-police-officer-pleads-
not-guilty/)

And Stop and frisk.

\- [http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-
data](http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data)

I am not sure who is violating human right now.

~~~
run4yourlives2
I think the difference here is that Vietnam isn't extending it's claim to
thousands of miles off shore.

The article clearly shows Vietnam is building islands too. It also shows them
being pretty close to mainland Vietnam.

~~~
xkiwi

      The robbery just such a small amount, it should not be charged.
      Since the amount is so small, i am going to forgive it.
    

You mean the difference like this?

