Who owns the South China Sea?

The bars and drawing rooms of Europe have always been too self-centred. Now, with the Euro crises driving the financial crises and fears of a financial Armageddon, what is happening in the other side of the World will seem irrelevant. Furthermore, with the perceived failure of recent military ventures, the last thing anybody wants to hear is that there is trouble elsewhere: because if there it is not our problem!

The trouble is that could be so wrong.

I doubt whether anybody in Europe has noticed but China has said that all of the South China Sea is theirs. And that includes the potentially oil rich Spratley Islands as well as a lump of rock and shoals called Scarborough Shoal. The Spratley’s are the most significant with 750 reefs, islets, atolls and islands with a land area of about 4 square kilometres in 425,000 square kilometres in sea area. Nobody lives there but they are good fishing grounds and most likely have significant oil reserves beneath them. Parts, or all of them, are claimed by Brunei, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Taiwan, Philippines and of course China. The argument over exact ownership has been going on for years. China does have a small base on one island and the Philippines have a landing strip on another. Both China and Philippines have mobile phone towers on the islands - I suppose that is the contemporary replacement for a flag!

Further north and 130 miles off the Philippine coast is Scarborough Shoal which has very little land above water but there is a lagoon and several reefs and is a another rich fishing ground. It was here over a month ago that the Philippine navy tried to arrest some Chinese trawlers for allegedly illegal fishing - in particular catching endangered and protected species. The arrest was blocked by Chinese patrol ships and thus the standoff started. Since then there has been much rhetoric on both sides and warships are in range whilst rival patrol boats keep overt watch. There have been protests outside the Chinese embassy in Manila. The Chinese have suspended tourism to PI and have blocked the import of Philippines’ bananas on what looks like a technicality. A Chinese TV newsreader even went so far as to suggest the whole of the Philippines is Chinese territory. The Philippines are saying the matter should be settled by international arbitration but the Chinese say it must be done bilaterally. The hot heads in the Philippines are talking about war - ignoring the fact that they have virtually no serious military hardware: it is virtually all pass me down from the US.

Of course the Philippines are emboldened by various treaties with the US that makes some think if push comes to shove the US will have to step in to protect little brother.

As for the ownership disputes there is much merit on both sides. On that basis the disputes are difficult. China will inevitable be accused of bullying as she is so much bigger than everybody else, and on all sides there is far more jingoism than is maybe wise. But besides few lumps of rock, that have been considered unimportant for centuries, there is more than just oil. The real elephant in the room is the whole issue of power. The US has already announced they intend to refocus their military (and thus diplomatic) power on Asia. And the US have vehemently denied China’s claim to the whole South China Sea quoting vital trade routes - they cannot allow that sea to become a Chinese pond.

So an insignificant lump of rock is rapidly becoming an important pawn in a major power game. It is easy to blame the Philippines for pushing the issue at the wrong time by trying to arrest Chinese fishermen but suddenly there is an increase in Chinese fishing boats in the Spratley’s waters as well and there are usually a few weather or geographical vessels nearby. The view is the Chinese are using ‘fishing boat diplomacy’ to press their claim. There have been calls in the Philippines for Uncle Sam to show up however there was little sign - other than a few supportive words - that he was ‘on the ground,’ although in this day and age of drones who knows what or who is watching. And then suddenly USS North Carolina an ultra modern attack class submarine pops up in the middle of Subic Bay- an old US Naval base 140 miles from the Scarborough Shoal. It may of course be a scheduled visit but it also seems a bit of a coincidence.

For US President Obama the last thing he needs, in an election year, is a shooting war with the Chinese and I am pretty sure the Chinese don’t want one either. However gunboat diplomacy is always a dangerous game and the Chinese may think this is good moment to push believing neither the US president nor the US people have any appetite for a military confrontation.

The danger for the US is that history tells is that if they give an inch the Chinese are going to take a mile. A tough line now may be required in order to stop a much bigger problem later.

As ever international diplomacy is never easy and the last thing anybody wants is a new super power stand off as in the cold war: because this time is maybe the US and not the other side that runs out of money first. But saying I own a large sea with several other countries fronting on to it is provocative and worrying for those countries. So like it or not; it might be an idea to watch what is happening in Asia lest those troubles embroil us in another’s conflict.

Note.

As of now both sides have declared seasonal fishing bans, to preserve fish stocks, around the Scarborough shoal and in China’s case a large area of the South China Sea. It may deescalate the problems there but Viet Nam is far from happy.

See http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=807755&publicationSubCategoryId=63

Politicians and the media.

The Leveson inquiry in the UK has many tut tuting and worse about the relationship between the press and politicians. My view would be simple - what do you expect. I immediately think back to one of my own jobs - that of a restaurant reviewer. Whilst I tried to remain anonymous some restaurant owners inevitable knew me. To an extent I knew what was going on because I had run restaurants and understood both sides. As an owner of course I was going to suck up to somebody whose review could do a lot of good or untold harm. As a reviewer I was always interested in talking to restaurateurs for useful titbits. Did it affect my review - I will of course say no but if I am honest I might concede it did - a little. And I was invited to openings and parties to butter me up. I knew why I was there and of course the person inviting me was hoping I would cut them some slack. If I was on the other side when I opened a new place I invited the press and poured alcohol down their throats and told what a jolly good guy I was and that my new place was wonderful. Needless to say a politician would almost certainly do the same: a few positive column inches is worth several hustings.

Newspapers are not beyond putting pressure back - a number of times, as a reviewer, I have been told ‘be nice: they will advertise.” Inference we lose revenue if you say anything bad - as a writer I know that advertising = revenue = my salary.

Of course as a writer I do not have full control over what I write - I submit copy and then it is up to an editor to check and maybe amend it. As a lowly restaurant reviewer that will be a copy editor and although I may fume over a few small changes the likelihood is that my copy will be substantially the same. But if I was a political writer the main editor may take more interest and he may not accept my views. Of course that brings me neatly to news versus opinion. The old adage was that the two should not be confused. But writers have opinions too and political writers are likely to have political opinions - as are editors. It is not difficult to skew an article one way or another - simple ask for a few quotes from the public and use the ones that suit your view. If that is so in the press the situation in broadcasting is even more complex. There are several editors involved and the need of time limits etcetera give all kinds of licence to change complete meanings by chopping relevant sentences and or words.

However I am talking at the lower end of the food chain and the issues recently raised by Leveson are at the top. The Editor makes the main decisions as to editorial direction, or maybe even an editorial board. There is a theory that the Editor should be free to provide editorial direction as he sees fit. But of course an editor in appointed by the owner - be it a corporation - and they are unlikely to appoint somebody with totally opposing views. In addition media is often identified as having a particular political stance which means right wing media generally supports right wing politicians  and ideas, and vice versa. Some - notable the BBC - are supposed to unbiased. These days I watch BBC World a great deal and I am prepared to accept that it is so although I don’t always agree with the slant of it’s reporting.

But it has to be indisputable that media has massive influence and the bigger the media the more the influence. In this article Charles Moore suggests that no UK politician dare cut the BBC licence fee less the Beeb turn against it, and it is no coincidence that in any coups or revolution the first place the tanks roll up to is the radio or TV station. The power of the media is indeed mighty but what can we do about it?

There are many calls to emasculate the press and or block their relationship with the politicians - but I fear that is unreasonable. The media is not called the fourth estate without reason - it is a very important part of our democracy. The danger comes from concentrating too much power in a single entity. But frighteningly it is not just the press that is now in that position - globalisation has done that with many companies.

But what would be wrong is to try and stop politicians talking to the press - those cosy one on one chats serve a purpose. In my view most of the issues get back the fundamental problem with our society today - there are no moral standards. In time of yore there was a moral code that applied and, if people stepped outside that code, society rather than the law punished the perpetrators. But now we all think it should be the law and that is well nigh impossible. From industrialists taking multi million pound salaries to paying people for salacious stories about acquaintances  to sucking up to the press to gain favourable political commentary; they are all amoral activities rather that strictly illegal one. If a company buyer is invited to hospitality he knows why: the question to Cameron over the horse should be not that he rode it but did he understand why he was riding it?

Longevity - why does government promote it?

Let me start off by saying I am no spring chicken - in fact I am well within sight of God’s allocated span for man of three score years and ten and that means I am one of the greedy baby boomers who has had it so good. Well that the new line the politician seem to be peddling now we are at the age when our investment in ourselves is about to pay off. And in a way I have sympathy with that line - way back in the 60’s studying economics we discussed the problem of what would happen when us baby boomers got to retirement age - we agreed the system needed to be changed so we actually built up individual retirement pools - or at least created a fund to do so. Of course successive governments did damn all about it and spent every penny we invested in national insurance in paying that moments retirees. Result a black hole which has been compounded by us all living longer and longer. And that brings me neatly to the crux of the problem.

When Beveridge set up social security, complete with pensions, male life expectancy was 69 - that meant the average man retired at 65 and had four years drawing a pension before he conveniently shuffled off. Now for men it is 78 and women 82 - on that basis the cost of the average male pension has moved from 4 to 13 years: an increase of over 300%. No wonder governments are saying the nearest thing they can to we can’t afford this. Increasing the retirement age helps a little but with life expectancy growing the danger is the gap will remain.

One of the first lessons in economics is the effect of an ageing and declining population - in a nutshell less people to do the work to support more people - and that is partly the argument for allowing immigration. Of course it is then nullified by jobs disappearing but that is another argument.

But the clear problem is increasing longevity - if life expectancy was still 69 for men then the pension problem would disappear overnight and on top of that pensions could be increased - well maybe!

So I have to ask why oh why are the government so obsessed with keeping us alive longer?

I have always facetiously suggested that the government should give all retirees’ 40 cigarettes and a bottle of alcohol a day and make certain they smoke and drink them.

However on a more serious note we now have a growing elderly population in care. My father spent the last years of his life in such a home and it was not a place I enjoyed visiting - it truely was God’s waiting room. Sometime a go a Doctor friend suggested to me that problems of dementia normally appear after 80 - it is an awful disease that sees intelligent rational people reduced to a pathetic drooling hulk with no memory and absolutely no purpose in life. If we kept animals alive in those circumstances we would be prosecuted. But I am not even advocating euthanasia although I must admit the last time I saw my father I would happily have shot him and knew he would have thanked me - if he could understand. But that is a totally different issue although needless to say they often come together. In the good old days many a family doctor helped a terminally ill patient on their way - but these days they don’t dare.

And in some ways that is part of what I am saying. We have government that tries to stop us smoking, does not want us to be fat, drink or do anything that may endanger our health and when you look at the issues of longevity you wonder why are they doing it?

A reduction in life expectancy would be a significant economic boost and the stupid thing is it would also save money by stopping all the PR and advertising associated with such campaigns. And I know the argument that dying of smoking related diseases often means expensive medical bills but we all die anyway and that invariable means expensive medical bills. Getting back to my Father, one Saturday the home called a doctor to see him and the Doctor just said send him to hospital. He was about a week stuck in ward with nothing much wrong with him - other than he had dementia and was well over 80 - whilst the medical professionals tried to work out if he was actually ill. My sister and were demanding he be returned to the home where he was provided with better care than in the hospital. But the point is he should never have been sent to hospital and after that we made it clear: never again. But it is all part of the culture of keeping people alive come what may!

I accept this is a difficult issue but surely the endless efforts to keeps us alive longer fly in the face of economic reality not to mention the issue of population size, cost of old age and housing. With medical research ongoing there is real possibility of extending life expectancy further - retirement at 75 maybe - think of what that means!

But like so many ‘inconvenient’ issues longevity is not even considered a problem. But surely it is: and one we should not only face up to but consider what we can do about it. I know nobody of my age group of mid sixties who wants to live forever and certainly not in a retirement home waiting for our number to come up.