Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jaz5pdv wrote



alphahydra t1_jazo158 wrote

China was one of the driving forces behind brokering this deal.

They may not give a fuck about other countries' sovereign waters, but they do care about their own interests. As a country that consumes vast amounts of fish, they're actually more exposed to loss of ocean biodiversity than a lot of other nations, and the CCP is aware of it. They can't send out factory ships to steal fish from other waters if there aren't any fish.

The agreement is (in part) about where fishing can be done, and they'll be hoping that the 30% of protected ocean (including protecting spawning sites or whatever) will be enough to feed the remainder with fish so they can carry on much as they have been outside those areas.

Also, don't assume that in the final implementation, China will be allowing any of those protected areas close to its waters.


dc456 t1_jazv9v8 wrote

> Also, don’t assume that in the final implementation, China will be allowing any of those protected areas close to its waters.

They will if they want more fish. When these areas have been implemented elsewhere, the unprotected areas immediately surrounding the protected ones saw a large increase in the amount of fish, as they spilled over from the protected areas.


De3NA t1_jb16r0p wrote

Kinda smart imo. Fishing outside spawn points.


morningreis t1_jb06d83 wrote

Them being a driver of it doesn't mean they will abide by it. They have made agreements in the past only to break it after the other party upholds their part and withdraws.

I would expect them to continue to overfish in these areas, knowing that every other nation won't be. They view the whole world as their own, and care very little for the environment, so this would be very on brand for China.


alphahydra t1_jb07rbp wrote

Right, it would be naïve to blindly assume China is going to do the right thing, but it's also cartoonish to assume China is completely ungenuine about their environmental goals.

I don't think their motives are pure and altruistic, but I think they are at least somewhat serious about environmental reform.

The Chinese government is untrustworthy and malevolent in a lot of ways, but they're not stupid. Their geopolitical dream is to become the world's biggest superpower and leading economy. They're looking ten, twenty, fifty years down the line, and they're conscious that for that dream to come true, there needs to be a world worth leading in.


andeleidun t1_jb0n50j wrote

>They're looking ten, twenty, fifty years down the line, and they're conscious that for that dream to come true, there needs to be a world worth leading in.

It's sad that we've completely abandoned this principle, not only in government but almost entirely as a nation. Everything important happens between next quarter and 5 years from now. We don't even really try to plan beyond that anymore.

On one hand, our government is far too unstable and unpredictable. Heavy division and the two party system has resulted in legislative deadlock and every chance that what one president says won't be followed up by the next one. Other countries can only rely on our agreements for 4 years at a time.

On the other hand, profits for the next 4 quarters is what drives everything else. CEOs get brought in to increase immediate profits at the expense of longevity, and they walk away with multimillion dollar payouts for leaving 10,000 people without a job. R&D still happens, but only that which can have a good shot to turn a profit in the next 5 years.


WuTangFinance24 t1_jb1nc2w wrote

The last part is utter nonsense. If what you said were true to the extreme you implied, Tesla wouldn't exist. SpaceX wouldn't exist. We wouldn't be funding nuclear fusion. Venture capital wouldn't be a meaningful thing. OpenAI wouldn't exist. Tesla wouldn't be trying to create FSD. Google, Meta, etc. Wouldn't be investing in AI. The US is arguably leading the world in moving AI forward in both academics and in private industry. There are so many counterpoints to your pessimistic worldview in private enterprise that to suggest it's the reason why the US isn't thinking ahead is a lie, or willful ignorance. The government on the other hand, this is absolutely true. But it's also the nature of democracy. It's the fault of the voters because we reward politicians for short term thinking, not long term thinking.


andeleidun t1_jb1rj8e wrote

>Tesla wouldn't exist. SpaceX wouldn't exist. We wouldn't be funding nuclear fusion. Venture capital wouldn't be a meaningful thing. OpenAI wouldn't exist. Tesla wouldn't be trying to create FSD. Google, Meta, etc. Wouldn't be investing in AI.

The only thing that across belongs on this list is fusion, and I'll grant you that. There's dreamers out there, but by and large underfunded.

None of the other things tolerate MVP launch time frames of less than 5 years. Yes, they have larger plans conceptually, but nothing they'll actually plan for, stick to, the way the Chinese do. If it can't make a sale within 5 years, it's in the vague possible todo pile.

The Chinese actually plan their future out much further. They make modifications, but the concept behind them is to figure out how to bring circumstances back into alignment with the plan, rather than jumping ship to the next biggest profit opportunity.

And you've obviously no idea how venture capital works. If you have a 100MM fund to invest, you are actively planning for one or a combination of the start ups to be worth more than 100MM in 5 years. If not, it's a failure. If you can't convince a VC that you have a way to a profitable valuation in 5 years, you get no money.


morningreis t1_jb0ad8a wrote

Seems like their plan to become the leading superpower is to make the whole world its EEZ.


designatedcrasher t1_jb08rv5 wrote

us has entered the chat


morningreis t1_jb0a842 wrote

The US?

Remember when the UK returned Hong Kong with the agreement that it would remain autonomous? China agreed, then broke it

And I don't know how many times China has broken agreements with the Philippines over islands close to the Philippines... One instance was a mutual agreement to withdraw any forces... Then once Philippine forces were gone, China moved in and set up shop.

These people give no fucks.


designatedcrasher t1_jb0cphp wrote

remember when the uk took hong kong as compensation for the opium wars and then funded extremists during the hand back. remember when the us took over the Phillipines and installed military bases throughout the country gave them independence and kept the military bases


morningreis t1_jb0gp2n wrote

I like how you compare events from 1842 to 2019 like it's the same governments.

I also like how there's been no mention of the US on my part, but you've tried to shoehorn them in twice in an effort to deflect.

And FYI the US has no military bases in the Philippines, they all belong to the Philippines.

And neither of these are even examples of opportunistic breaking of agreements in the style of China.


morningreis t1_jb0n5ed wrote

All of those bases belong to the Philippines. US only goes there with Philippine permission.

Do you want to deflect to the US one more time?


RedDragonRoar t1_jb0vk2r wrote

From what I understand, the Philippine government values US military involvement in the region, primarily because China is a massive problem for any country in the South China Sea.

Having a counter to your biggest geopolitical opponent on hand as a strategic partner is generally something countries like.


designatedcrasher t1_jb1e0dp wrote

it seems like the us wants china to be the big bad wolf while china hasnt invaded a country america is still ripping the middle east apart


RedDragonRoar t1_jb1hx2k wrote

China litterally invaded Vietnam after the US pulled out. Not only that, China has been acting belligerent and has claimed 90% of the South China Sea. They have also threatened to invade Taiwan.


designatedcrasher t1_jb23oup wrote

us pulled out is a cute way of saying lost the war. us has claimed the globe as theirs and regularly threatens any country if they dont tow the line


RedDragonRoar t1_jb27r5t wrote

The United States does not have active claims to the territory of another sovereign state or any claims outside of the territory it currently controls. Claiming otherwise either shows serious delusions or is intentionally misleading.

Furthermore, I did not comment on the outcome of the Vietnam War, only that after the US had left the region, regardless of why they left, that the PRC proceeded to invade Vietnam in an attempt to annex its sovereign territory.


designatedcrasher t1_jb2fej8 wrote

so your shameless about iraq afganistan cool


RedDragonRoar t1_jb2k5aa wrote

What do they have to do with anything in this context?

They were two wars of ideological struggle. One to contain what was believed to be a totalitarian dictator while the other was to contain a terrorist state. Both tried to install democratic governments in their respective regions, and only one succeeded. They were not wars of conquest, although neither were really good for the US or the invaded party, if you exclude Kuwait, as they were liberated as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

Regardless, my opinion of those wars don't change the fact that the countries in the South China Sea see the United States as a valuable strategic partner in containing Chinese aggression in the region, and vice versa.


designatedcrasher t1_jb2pivz wrote

funny how its chinese aggression in the south china sea and not the us thousands of miles away from their coast being aggressive. countries in the region rely on us money and tow the line at their masters bidding


RedDragonRoar t1_jb2rfzx wrote

Do you also think that Putin invading Ukraine isn't aggression, but the US funding them is just because of distance?

Or do you think that Finland and Sweeden joining NATO is Western aggression because they are closer to Russia than the US?


designatedcrasher t1_jb4fpz4 wrote

Ukraine which had become a us puppet filed with far right nationalists and the most corrupt country in the west, even zelensky was named in


WikiSummarizerBot t1_jb4fqtk wrote

Azov Regiment

>Azov Assault Brigade (Ukrainian: Штурмова бригада «Азов», romanized: Shturmova bryhada "Azov") is a formation of the National Guard of Ukraine formerly based in Mariupol, in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov, from which it derives its name. It was founded in May 2014 as Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: батальйон «Азов», romanized: Batalion "Azov"), a volunteer paramilitary militia under the command of Andriy Biletsky to fight pro-Russian forces in the Donbas War.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


barriekansai t1_jb0bin5 wrote

Nice whatabout-ism.


drippy_candles t1_jb09749 wrote

Sorry to say this, but that's so incredibly naive. It's reported that China is responsible for 25% of the entire world's illegal fishing. They've been caught fishing within the Galapagos Islands - you don't need the UN to tell you not to do that. And they're known to constantly turn off their tracking devices right before entering illegal waters (over many many places in the world). So yea they'll just continue to tell you what you want to hear and then not comply.


alphahydra t1_jb0a8fd wrote

I didn't say I think they'll stop illegally fishing. If anything, this is so they can continue to illegally fish in other countries' waters. Can't illegally fish if there's no fish.


hgs25 t1_jb0dita wrote

And the rest of the time, they fish just outside of the waters with military enforcement. It’s a game of “I’m not touching you” like poachers do in Africa when they draw lions out of sanctuaries with bait.


Helkafen1 t1_jb0ltfu wrote

25% isn't too surprising, for a country that has one fifth of global population and has relatively poor arable soil.


drippy_candles t1_jb2n8k1 wrote

I'm not sure if you're justifying this, but it seems like it. It's illegal fishing. They also have 17% of the world's population. So they're fishing 33% more than their population. Are they also able to just take 25% of whatever they want?


Helkafen1 t1_jb2qtcm wrote

I'm just reminding people to have a bit of perspective and read the news with calm. A lot of news about China elicit a strong "yellow peril" vibe.

A more interesting take on this topic could be the following: Yes, illegal fishing and overfishing are a global problem, so what are we doing to solve it? A pragmatic answer could be: let's not eat so much fish.


GhostBurger12 t1_jazer62 wrote

Military enforcement?

"Free" fishing vessels for your countries permissible fishing waters isn't awful?


hgs25 t1_jb0d7xb wrote

The primary purpose of the Costa Rican “Navy” is not to deal with pirates or cartels, but arresting Chinese fishing vessels.