User:Joncarton/sandbox

South China Sea Debate
The Nine-Dotted line is more of an informative article that needs a bit of a news update. The South China Sea disputes should be part of the wiki link's information because of the importance it will play in the near future. I want to just go over a few things that should be taken into consideration when you are deciding to take sides on the topic. As stated in the Law of the Seat Treaty 200 nautical miles is the range of an exclusive economic zone for any given nation or country. The Spartly islands have many claimants, but which are actually valid? China is 1000 miles away from these islands and in my opinion should have no thought in claiming these islands. Even though they claim to have people living there, the Sea treaty is clear when is states that the island must have its own stable economy. China is standing strong with their stance because of the resource rich areas in the sea. Mrs. Clinton spent a lot of time in China trying to have the Chinese have an easier stance on the subject due to the political unrest it is causing with Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei(Steven & Jane, 2012). Hopefully a resolution can come quickly to this growing problem but only time will tell.

I searched some more information on a different site that should be added to the current events of the South China Sea or Nine-Dotted Line page. China's outlook on the situation was reflected on an article I found from Platts Oilgram news. The article discussed that China offered nine oil and gas blocks in the South China Sea (Oilgram, 2012). The humorous yet cause of much trouble is the fact that the location of these blocks already lie within Vietnam's own EEZ. How can China be telling Vietnam that they can have what is rightfully theirs? It seems as thought China doesn't realize that they should not be the ones making offers when they should be the ones requesting land. Vietnam had a Signed agreement with China last October and has recently been thrown aside due to the high tension between these two sovereign nations. What is more interesting is that it is creating pain even for the American's and other Maritime heavy countries which have a major trade routes that run through that area. With high tension it is clear that merchant ships trying to do their everyday operations are being disrupted costing extra operational costs and delaying trade important to the global economy.

The Global economy is a fragile network heavily reliant on trade routes that is easily disrupted. Mrs. Clinton as the Secretary of state is doing her best to help resolve this issue in a timely manner. I think it is notable to add that operational costs just trying to avoid this trade area is already costing money to maritime Industries. Many countries have interests through this location and do have rights to innocent passage, but are being impeded by nations which cant get their agreements in order. Wikipedia was a bit weak in mentioning the side affects to the Sea dispute. Even though Clinton is trying to help resolve the issue of the South China Sea disputes with it's neighboring Asian countries it doesn't seem like we are at any close possible solutions to our current problem (Lee,2012). She was working closely with them to really drive home that the real solution lies within true political power, and does not want this situation to become something it really does not need to be. Hopefully this disagreement does not turn ugly bringing in any unnecessary military threats.

Joncarton (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)