China Colonizes the Spratly Islands-In Accord With international Law?

[ralph124c]

Satelliet photos show that Chinese forces are now building landing strips and bases on one of the islands. this archipelago lies over 1000 miles off shore from china-is this action legal? Suppose it is not-who gets to evict them?

[Chronos]

Does anyone already live there? Are they recognized as the territory of any other nation? If the answer to both questions is “no”, then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with what China is doing. If the answer to either is “yes”, then it depends on whether they have permission from the owners.

[XT]

@Chronos

Does anyone already live there? Are they recognized as the territory of any other nation? If the answer to both questions is “no”, then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with what China is doing. If the answer to either is “yes”, then it depends on whether they have permission from the owners.

No one lives there (outside of some soldiers and fishermen), as far as I can tell. But the area is in dispute and claimed by several countries, so China doing this is just ratcheting up the tension. Here’s a wiki article on the islands that also touches on the disputes:

The Spratly Islands (Chinese: Nansha islands, Filipino: Kapuluan ng Kalayaan,[8] Malay: Kepulauan Spratly and Vietnamese: Quần đảo Trường Sa) are a disputed group of more than 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays and islands in the South China Sea.[9] The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines, Malaysia, and southern Vietnam. Named after the 19th-century British whaling captain Richard Spratly who sighted Spratly Island in 1843, the islands contain approximately 4 km2 (1.5 mi2) of land area spread over a vast area of more than 425,000 km2 (164,000 mi2).

The Spratlys are one of the major archipelagos in the South China Sea which comprise more than 30,000 islands and reefs,[citation needed] and which complicate governance and economics in this part of Southeast Asia. Such small and remote islands have little economic value in themselves, but are important to the claimants in their attempts to establish international boundaries. The islands have no indigenous inhabitants, but offer rich fishing grounds, and may contain significant oil and natural gas reserves.[10][11]

The northeast of the Spratlys are known to mariners as Dangerous Ground, and are characterised by many low islands, sunken reefs and atolls awash, with reefs often rising abruptly from ocean depths greater than 1000m - all of which makes the area dangerous for navigation.

In addition to various territorial claims, some of the features have civilian settlements, but of the approximately 45 islands, reefs, cays and other features that are occupied, all contain structures which are occupied by military forces (from the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan), Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia). Additionally, Brunei has claimed (but does not occupy) an exclusive economic zone in the southeastern part of the Spratlys which includes the Louisa Reef. These claims and occupations have led to escalating tensions between these countries over the status and “ownership” of the islands.

[bump]

The way I understand it, the Philippines, China and Vietnam all claim the Spratlys, but while Vietnam has no real permanent presence, and the Philippines have their troops stationed in some ghastly rusting hulk, the Chinese are flexing their economic muscles and actually building on the islands, apparently under the two theories that possession is 9/10 of the law, and “who’s going to stop us?”.

[AK84]

The internationally recognized principal of Pedicabo ego vos habeamus maioribus fistulis supports the PRC claim.

Yes, I did use Google Translate

[TriPolar]

@AK84

The internationally recognized principal of Pedicabo ego vos habeamus maioribus fistulis supports the PRC claim.

Yes, I did use Google Translate

I tried to translate dibs but got no results.

[Alessan]

@AK84

The internationally recognized principal of Pedicabo ego vos habeamus maioribus fistulis supports the PRC claim.

Yes, I did use Google Translate

Ultima ratio regum, huh?

[bob_2]

Beijing only took control of Johnson South Reef in 1988 after a bloody battle with Vietnam that left 70 Vietnamese sailors dead. Hanoi has never forgiven Beijing.

Since then China has shied away from direct military confrontation.

But now Beijing has decided it is time to move, to assert its claim and to back it up by creating new facts on the ground - a string of island bases and an unsinkable aircraft carrier, right in the middle of the South China Sea.

It is an oft-repeated statement that the coral atolls of the South China Sea sit atop potentially huge reserves of oil and gas. The struggle to control the Spratlys would certainly make more sense if it were true.

But a recent study by the US government suggests the main oil and gas reserves under the South China Sea do not lie anywhere near the Spratly Islands.

For China the struggle over the South China Sea is less about resources, though, than it is about sovereignty and strategic space. Nor is this just a quarrel with the Philippines and other countries bordering the sea.

Instead it is about China’s real strategic rival - the United States.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8701/index.html

[davida03801]

Yes good question. just who is going to evict them ?

[LSLGuy]

For those uninitiated into the controversy, this Nine-dash line - Wikipedia is a decent place to start.

In a nutshell the mainland Chinese government after WWII asserted that it owned all the waters and islands in southeast asia almost up to the shores of all the adjacent countries. When Mao took over he reiterated the claim, as have all subsequent PRC governments.

This is a big issue and will be a world-affecting problem for the next hundred years.

[Little_Nemo]

The problem the Chinese face is that from an impartial standpoint they probably have the weakest claim to the Spratley Islands. (Although they have the advantage that they are far more powerful than any of the other claimants.) If China pushed the issue right now, the situation might be resolved by an arbitration through some agency like the UN - and there’s a good chance China would lose such an arbitration based on the current facts.

So I would speculate that this is a Chinese attempt to improve their claim by establishing “settlements”. Once they’ve built up a strong enough claim, they will seek international arbitration to get official title.

[LSLGuy]

Exactly. They’re creating “facts on the ground” in the argot. Once they’ve been there for a few years they make a formal application through the UN & treaty processes.

Meantime the opportunity for skirmishes and impatient hotheads on both sides goes nowhere but up. Other countries also realize that preventing “facts on the ground” is their most urgent need.

[Saint_Cad]

@Alessan

Ultima ratio regum, huh?

Ummmm … Non potest esse nisi unum, Mcleod

[Haberdash]

There is no “international law” because these cases are renegotiated every single time one happens. The only predictable regime of legal enforcement between countries is in very mundane areas such as passport reciprocity and mail delivery across borders. When it comes to territorial disputes, human rights violations, and general compliance with treaties, it’s total fiction to claim that anything but case-specific resolutions based on power politics reigns.

[AK84]

@Alessan

Ultima ratio regum, huh?

Yup. And its only going to get worse. China is newly prosperous. Newly prosperous nations have a large middle class. That tends to reduce conflict; internal conflict. However, the middle classes are the most reliably blood thirsty part of the populace for foreign adventures. Giving Johnny Foreigner a damn good thrashing goes down well at home.

China is in short like the US in the McKinley era.

[QUOTE=LSLGuy]
Meantime the opportunity for skirmishes and impatient hotheads on both sides goes nowhere but up. Other countries also realize that preventing “facts on the ground” is their most urgent need.

[/QUOTE]

Any conflict is going to be in Chinas favour, there is really no regional power that can stop them and the US is not going to war over a few sparse islands.

[LSLGuy]

@Haberdash

There is no “international law” because these cases are renegotiated every single time one happens. The only predictable regime of legal enforcement between countries is in very mundane areas such as passport reciprocity and mail delivery across borders. When it comes to territorial disputes, human rights violations, and general compliance with treaties, it’s total fiction to claim that anything but case-specific resolutions based on power politics reigns.

I wouldn’t go quite that far. Especially not when speaking of disputes between small countries overshadowed by larger neighbors.

In this specific case where one of the contestants is China I agree with you. This one will be settled by power politics. One hopes the Obama administration’s much criticized “pivot to Asia” doesn’t turn out to be far too little far too late.