[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
China also has a legal advantage in that there’s a treaty going back to when France still ruled Indochina in which France and China negotiated a naval boundary and France ceded Indochina’s claim to the islands to China. Vietnam can say that it’s not bound by this colonial treaty but China can say that it means that when Vietnam was founded as a country, the South China Sea islands were not part of Vietnam.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Vietnam is definitely a tangled mess, but I’d have to say there that China has the advantage. It was the SOUTH Vietnamese government that claimed the area, while the North supported (at the time) China’s claims (big surprise I’m sure), and even made several statements during the Vietnam war to the effect that they supported China’s claims. They have reversed that in the last decade or so, and the major clashes that have lead to a loss of life have been between China and Vietnam, with China encroaching even on the 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zone of Vietnam (and claiming the Vietnamese coast line as part of their territory).
Only if you draw an arbitrary timeline of ‘modern times’…several of the countries have historical claims that can be validated in the 19th century, and China has gone back and forth on this issue in the last 50 years. Also, as you note, both Chinese governments (if we can call Taiwan a legitimate government in the eyes of the law) claim the area using the same evidence.
As far as modern times, I’m going with the “then to now” principle. China can show that its current claim has been in existence longer than any other country’s current claim. Which granted was largely a matter of circumstance - other countries weren’t able to make sovereignty claims because they were themselves the colonies of foreign powers.
As for “historical” claims, that’s probably the most ambiguous issue in a pretty ambiguous situation. Several countries in the region, including China, have produced social or archaeological evidence or antique documents that they claim shows that these islands have been considered “theirs” for thousand of years. These claims are, in my opinion, silly. The reality is that these islands were uninhabited up until very recent times. Only the weakest of arguments can be based on who might have been fishing in those islands sixteen hundred years ago.
As for the two China debate, I’ll note the irony that the People’s Republic of China is basing its legal claim on treaties and proclamations that predate the communist revolution and were therefore made by and with the Nationalist government. The PRC’s claim, of course, is that sole “legitimate” government of China it inherited all the legal claims that the Republic of China had. Which is weakened by the reality that the Republic of China is still a going concern.
Cite for that? IIRC at the time, China pulled back to existing borders. Wiki (not the authoritative word of course) doesn’t mention a permanent land grab.
(Referring to bolded) Could he possibly have been serious when he made that statement? Was he not aware that his own government had already set (or at least followed) a precedent for that sort of thing a long time ago??? How does he think the US got Guantanamo Bay in the first place? And what does he think his own government has been doing in Latin America and the Pacific for the past century?
It’s interesting to hear people saying “this is just about maintaining the welfare and integrity of trade routes; that’s all it is; we’re only concerned about the trade.” As if the vast majority of that trade doesn’t actually involve China itself. Why would China want to jeopardize its own economic growth by harming the trade between itself and the rest of the world? And what indication is there that they would be crazy enough to try to interrupt the comparatively minor trade between the smaller countries next to them and the rest of the world, as if there wouldn’t be any repercussions for doing that? But it’s probably the best (most face-saving) way to frame US angst over China’s current actions, given the US’s own expansionist history (which makes China look like a recluse in comparison).
The best thing for US officials to say to China (and the entire world) might be “Look, we know we ourselves have been naughty in the past. But let’s all agree that two million wrongs do not make a right.”
As, some may argue, they’re doing with their agricultural land buy-ups (no.1 in AU now, taking the mantle from the U.S.), influx of tainted goods under “free trade” banners (recent Chinese-made refrigerant gas recall in the same region due to high moisture content), key infrastructure tenders (e.g., Huawei) et al..
A Chinese analyst said not so long ago, spurred by these very island disputes: “The Chinese are like a forest: They take a while to get there; but once they’re in, you’ll never get them out.” Baleful.
I’d say the terminology reveals Chomsky is an idiot but most people already knew that.
“The loss of China” had nothing to do with China becoming independent. China had already been independent. The “loss of China” was when the Chinese communists defeated the Chinese nationalists.
I think that the land buy-ups are just an indication that China is more advanced on this issue than other countries are. Western countries have always treated farmland as if it was a virtually infinite resource. China knows better. So they see the value of buying up farmland now while it’s still available for relatively cheap prices. It’s the equivalent of somebody buying up oil rights back in the twenties.
[QUOTE=Gorilla]
(Referring to bolded) Could he possibly have been serious when he made that statement? Was he not aware that his own government had already set (or at least followed) a precedent for that sort of thing a long time ago??? How does he think the US got Guantanamo Bay in the first place? And what does he think his own government has been doing in Latin America and the Pacific for the past century?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah…‘he’ is serious. And, no ‘he’ is not aware that this precedence has already been set for a long time. Feel free to provide a link for ‘him’ if you think it has been.
Oh, and ‘he’ can clear see you try and muddy the waters, shift the goal posts and wave your hands in the air like you don’t care wrt how the US got Guantanamo Bay, and ‘he’ is curious how you pulled this out of your ass as a good analogy. ‘He’ also would love to see how you connect the dots between what the US has done in Latin American and the Pacific in the last century and what China is attempting to do…again, feel free to go into some detail on this. As, feel free to actually use my name and when quoting me attribute it to me, so everyone knows in the future who ‘he’ is.
Just a bunch of uninformed blather that boils down to ‘don’t really know anything about any of this and just wanted to blather’. Appreciate it though.
So, to summarize…US bad, so ok for China to be bad too? That sum it up?
How do you “completely destabilize” a situation where six countries have competing, poorly founded claims and almost all of them (I’ll give you Brunei) are running military operations and engaging in cocassional clashes?
The options here, in descending order of probability, is:
Somebody eventually wins
Everyone just fights this forever
Those are the only ways this can play out.
I don’t think it’s my job to pick the winner. If Asia wants to figure out a way to pick a winner, let them do that. If they can’t muster it, then whoever is strongest is going to win. That’s just reality. Thankfully, these are uninhabited islands and there probably isn’t actually much oil there, so I’m not losing sleep over it.
[QUOTE=even sven]
How do you “completely destabilize” a situation where six countries have competing, poorly founded claims and almost all of them (I’ll give you Brunei) are running military operations and engaging in cocassional clashes?
[/QUOTE]
Because the situation has been pretty stagnant for quite a long while, and clashes have been few, so the situations status quo was the same…until China decided to ramp things up in the last few years. I’d say that this qualifies as ‘completely destabilize’ of the status quo, since it has rather obviously escalated the said situation.
Or, 2…a settlement is reached and they all get some of what they want but not all, including the US who basically just wants the open and free passage of commerce, trade and our military units in international waters and airways.
They certainly seem to be the excluded middle play out that most in this thread seem to think are all that’s possible. I guess we’ll see, since it seems unlikely that the US is going to cave on this, and unlikely that the other non-Chinese nations are going to just give up their own claims as long as the US doesn’t cave, and China is unlikely to cave either. So, I guess it will either be China wins (which seems to be what most folks in this thread want or at least feel is the only way it’s going to be) or we have all out war.
Well, glad we’ve settled the might verse right debate at least. So, you freely admit that he who has the biggest gun will and should win.
Of course, the US isn’t trying to pick a winner in this…we merely want to ensure that international water and airways stay international. Seems reasonable to me. And, of course, handwaving away the importance of this by simply calling them ‘uninhabited islands’, while true, is at this point a bit disingenuous since we’ve been over this. I’m glad you aren’t losing sleep over it though.
Except that I’ve not (nor do I think anyone else has) couched this in either or terms. Rather, it’s the uncertainty that is the key. Also, it’s not exactly a stretch that China could decide to play favorites, so to speak. I mean, it will be their waters, after all. Subject to their laws, regulations and enforcement. So, they could stop ships for inspection of cargoes or fire on ‘pirates’ as they have done against Vietnam…all on the up and up of course, no favorites being played at all. Whether they will or not will be entirely up to them.
And, as is obvious, they will impose definite exclusions for foreign (US, but also other nations in the region, nations that are actually much closer to the disputed area) military planes and ships. That will certainly happen, and the US would not be able to use it’s current stance that it’s international air and water ways, since it won’t be at that point.
[QUOTE=even sven]
I’m definitely not rooting for China to “win”, nor am I judging anything right and wrong.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t think you are and I’m not meaning to imply that you are either. I guess I’m a bit surprised by the attitude that we should all just give in because China wants this, as if that makes it a done deal…though, I come here to see a debate and to see different view points, and this one has certainly given me a lot to think about. It’s not the slam dunk I originally thought when I first saw this again (I had read about this years ago when the dust up with Vietnam happened, but hasn’t really kept up in the decade or so after to see where it was all going).
There is a lot of middle ground here, and as I said I think Obama et al are taking a good course for the US at this time. I think we are doing the right thing, even if it’s pissing off the Chinese (or, IMHO, they are SAYING it’s pissing them off, though my WAG is they really aren’t surprised by our reaction).
Legitimate question. How is China’s claim to these islands any different or weaker than the US claim of Wake Island or the UK’s claim to Diego Garcia?
Wake Island was claimed by the US in 1899, it’s nowhere near the US and the Marshall Islands dispute the US claim. When the UK aquired Diego Garcia the “native”* population was forcibly resettled and their descendants are still fighting to try and get the rights to live their again.
In the case of the Paracel Islands according to wiki there is evidence of temporary inhabitation by Chinese fisherman going back to 1200 AD and they were undoubtably a part of the Yuan empire in 1368.
I am not a fan of a lot of things that China does, but in this case their claims are not completely unfounded and it’s no different from what the US, UK and France has done: claiming islands huge distances from their home territory against the protests of nearer claimants.
OK Diego Garcia was “purchased” from Mauritius in 1965 but there is a very strong case that Mauritius had no right to sell it with no consultation with the population that had at the time been living there for almost 300 years.
Every Chinese government in the last 200 years has vocally claimed sovereignty over the Spratleys and Paraceles. The Qing did, so did its successor state the Republic of China and so did its successor states the PRC and ROC/Taiwan. China has fought multiple no-shit shooting wars with both the US backed South Vietnamese and the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam over the islands, involving substantial casualties and the sinking of warships. Chinese sovereignty over the islands has been consistently and vigorously asserted for the last 100 years, and has mostly not been challenged in the last 50 years.
If you only read the narrative being put forward by XT, you would be under the impression that the current Chinese government just woke up last month and decided to seize a bunch of islands out of the blue, and that without an immediate US military response (to the Chinese constructing infrastructure on what they have long considered to be Chinese territory), Chinese tanks will be rolling through the streets of Manilla and Hanoi.
If the US main concern is ‘freedom of the seas’ then the best way to approach this situation would be an offer by the US to recognise some of the claims in return for China guaranteeing free and unhindered passage to all commercial vessels through the waters regardless of country of origin. China would probably be willing to concede some of their claims on the ones currently occupied and under the control of Vietnam, the Philippines Taiwan etc in return for recognising their claims to the ones they currently hold.
Ok. But the non-interventionist position that’s been advanced by some on this thread including me is that a confrontational US stance, one that sends our planes into the air above these islands and dares China to shoot, carries a risk of getting out of control and potentially leading to war. There, too, it’s the uncertainty that is the key. The real question is whether the potential bad consequences of China’s actions outweigh the potential bad consequences of the US response.
That makes a great deal of sense to me. Insisting on an outcome where the US gets everything it wants and China gets none of what it wants is bound to cost the US more than it’s worth to us. What coremelt describes reflects a more realistic equilibrium outcome, and one that doesn’t carry a risk of armed confrontation.
I found your response extremely amusing. So amusing, in fact, that I’ve decided to play along. Enjoy.
Since you evidently have personal access to this man, feel free to invite him to this thread and I shall gladly oblige. As for you, I’m quite confident that you’ll be able to use those active fingers of yours to do a quick googoo search for the relevant information. If googoo proves to be too hard, try bebo instead.
Lol! I’m so embarrassed! Now I see where the mistake occurred. Please forgive me, I must have skipped over the part of the thread where you made that comment and I later misread** Lemmytheseal2**’s post. I thought Lemmytheseal2 was posting a quote from foreign policy expert John Feffer. (Though, the error should have been obvious to you from the way it was quoted.) But now it makes sense. I was scratching my head thinking that there there was absolutely no way he could have made such a profoundly dumb and ignorant statement. I apologize sincerely for the error.
Now that I know that it was you that made that statement, I can sleep better now. There’s still hope for the world. Whew!!!
By the way, those examples were not meant as “analogies”. That term wouldn’t do justice to the situation at all. What the US government did in acquiring Guantanamo Bay, and many of its activities in Latin America and the Pacific for the past century, were hundreds of orders of magnitude worse than anything China has recently done that you’ve spent this whole thread babbling about. If you can’t “connect the dots” as to how those examples are relevant to your China tantrums, I can’t be bothered to explain it to you. And no, ‘he’ obviously can’t see anything clearly other than the bug in front of ‘his’ nose. (Also, you need to be careful about using phrases like “pull it out of your ass” when you’re going around acting like you have a huge Chinese bug up yours. :p)
Just a bunch of uninformed blather that boils down to “haven’t the faintest clue how to respond to this (because there is no good response), so I’ll just stick my fingers in my ears and shout “aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhh :eek:" You’re welcome.
Since I anticipated your rather knee-jerk reaction to my post (though, the entertainment value has been a pleasant surprise), I actually went to the trouble of finding a video for you online which may help you understand exactly why the US should be concerned about China’s activities but which have absolutely nothing to do with everything you’ve been babbling about. This is a video of foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer giving a speech (or “uninformed blather”, as you might call it) about China and foreign policy. I could easily have just said “go and read some of this man’s books” but I’m aware that for many people it’s much easier to just watch a video. No thanks needed.
No…no…no. That is not the moral of the story. I shall be willing to go into a full elaboration as to what it is only after you’ve shown that you’re worth the time by completing the following tasks:
To prove that you can actually do online research (which is harder than just playing foreign policy hawk on the internet), go and find the exact year and location in which the US sat down with all the concerned countries in the East Asia region and they all agreed to certain set boundaries in terms of the “scale, scope and speed” at which the Spratly islands are to be occupied.
Finally (see how quick it is to count from one to two?), go and find out what the word “hyperpower” (not “superpower”) actually means and whether such a thing really exists in contemporary times outside of the imaginations of armchair internet warriors.
When you’ve done that (to my satisfaction) I will then explain the right conclusion that should be drawn (and the best way forward) as a way to “sum it up”. Make haste!
I hope you enjoyed that. It was the least I could do in return for your intriguingly amusing post. Again, you’re welcome.
