|
On June 19 2011 03:33 Fontong wrote:
So what do undeniable historical claims have to do with anything? I would say both Mexico and Britain have an undeniable historical claim over parts of the US. The difference is that the US is filled with Americans who have been living there for hundreds of years. From your historical timeline, the Nansha Islands have little to no Chinese population, and the Chinese have allowed foreigners to settle there are build strategic bases there for about a hundred years.
On one hand, people shouldn't build things(especially militarily significant things) on land someone else claims. However, I see this as only China's fault if they made no effort to prevent this occurrence, despite the fact that they a great deal of time to do so. Geographically, it looks as though the Philippines have a very logical claim over the area, as well as a national security interest in preventing China from claim islands right of their coast. You should know well that China already puts extreme military pressure on the nations around it, simply by existing.
The Mexican and British claims were both legally accepted and dealt with in the following way
Post the War of Independence, the main disputed lands lay in the Northwestern US, namely Oregon and in Northeastern US, namely Maine. In both cases both nations had laid claims over the same tracts of land at near simultaneous times with little cartography or mapping (in the case of the western part) or with statehood/provincial disputes (in the eastern part), both of the issues were resolved by treaties worked out by the parties
Mexican claims over land that is currently "American" were lost either during the Texan Revolution that made the settlers revolt, claim statehood, and join the United States, and by invasion of the US Army during the American Mexican war, at the end of which the lands were ceded to the United States for a sum of money
|
On June 19 2011 03:36 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:30 Mordiford wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters. On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? This goes back to my earlier statement though, if China made a claim to Korea or Japan, should we all get behind them since they have historical claim there? I feel this is kind of strange. If the Island's went undisputed, good for China, but since they are being disputed, I think their claim to Islands based on historical precedent is somewhat irrelevant. I do not understand why you think it is irrelevant. So I will try to illustrate. China has for more then 2000 years has record and claim of these islands. These records go all the way back even before some countries now are countries at all. Suddenly, one country claims that these islands are theirs simply because it's closer to them. I understand that this issue is not easy. But my logic tells me that between the two, I'd believe someone who has a (longer) record of being there and it being officially part of its geography.
I don't think historical claim is very relevant to this situation, I feel Fontong aptly elaborates on my feelings in this regard.
|
On June 19 2011 03:08 seaofsaturn wrote:
The only thing your Historical Records show is that the islands have always been contested by various countries (including Europeans) and that the only reason that China has maintained them is through its sheer power.
The difference from the Alaska example is that it hasn't been continuously contested. It was sold and obtained amicably, all sides were in agreement.
edit:
Also, how does the fact that Britain and other European countries still have territories everywhere make it right? The territories with any power at all(India, USA) have claimed their independence.
I am not taking either side, I am just pointing to the flaw in your logic in certain points.
This is always the problem with water lines, land that people live on becomes a bit simpler as they seeker their own independence or not. But countries always drew lines in the water to how ever they see fit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes
|
On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus.
Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory.
On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here.
On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans?
|
On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans?
You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast?
|
On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast?
Wikipedia summary
+ Show Spoiler +Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]
According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Bãi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[18] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[18]
From wikipedia
Basically, the islands were mapped and claimed by China since at least 1000 AD while any comparable Vietnamese claim occurs post 1800 at the earliest
|
On June 19 2011 03:50 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast? Wikipedia summary + Show Spoiler +Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]
According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Bãi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[18] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[18] From wikipedia Basically, the islands were mapped and claimed by China since at least 1000 AD while any comparable Vietnamese claim occurs post 1800 at the earliest
Yeah, but as people have drawn comparisons, people explored quite a bit throughout history, I'm wondering what the actual populace of the Islands consists of. I don't think the historical claim is that substantial, nor is it really relevant.
|
United States33475 Posts
|
On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast?
Please dont use "barbaric". It's loaded and not desired for our discussion. I am simply stating historical facts. Read the post by Kupon above for a start.
|
On June 19 2011 03:53 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:50 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast? Wikipedia summary + Show Spoiler +Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]
According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Bãi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[18] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[18] From wikipedia Basically, the islands were mapped and claimed by China since at least 1000 AD while any comparable Vietnamese claim occurs post 1800 at the earliest Yeah, but as people have drawn comparisons, people explored quite a bit throughout history, I'm wondering what the actual populace of the Islands consists of. I don't think the historical claim is that substantial, nor is it really relevant.
Way to completely fall back.
Someone questioned the legitimacy of the comment of Vietnam not exploring those islands before China. A source was given that says China explored them 800 years before Vietnam, and now you say "OH IT DOESNT MATTER"
|
The modern Chinese nation-state simply did not exist during the time period you are talking about. Furthermore these claims hinge on the definition of a "Chinese people" that has changed wildly over time. The arguments presented can be summarily dismissed.
|
On June 19 2011 03:55 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:53 Mordiford wrote:On June 19 2011 03:50 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast? Wikipedia summary + Show Spoiler +Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]
According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Bãi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[18] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[18] From wikipedia Basically, the islands were mapped and claimed by China since at least 1000 AD while any comparable Vietnamese claim occurs post 1800 at the earliest Yeah, but as people have drawn comparisons, people explored quite a bit throughout history, I'm wondering what the actual populace of the Islands consists of. I don't think the historical claim is that substantial, nor is it really relevant. Way to completely fall back. Someone questioned the legitimacy of the comment of Vietnam not exploring those islands before China. A source was given that says China explored them 800 years before Vietnam, and now you say "OH IT DOESNT MATTER"
I'm not "falling back" anywhere, go look at some of my first posts in this thread, I specifically mentioned that China had mapped out those regions hundreds of years prior, and mentioned I didn't think it was relevant. Nice try though.
|
How will this get settled, if not with violence?
All involved seem to have some rational and justification for the islands belonging to them, and don't seem to want to easily surrender their claim. I don't see how this issue can get resolved peacefully if no one will simply give up the islands.
|
On June 19 2011 03:59 TALegion wrote:
How will this get settled, if not with violence?
All involved seem to have some rational and justification for the islands belonging to them, and don't seem to want to easily surrender their claim. I don't see how this issue can get resolved peacefully if no one will simply give up the islands.
This is pretty much true, given China's current economical and political position, it would be hard to see the US actually actively intervening on the behalf of say, the Philippines, barring that, any war that breaks out will be pretty similar to
Falklands_War
(maybe not as one sided)
|
OP working for chinese governement.
|
Even if his information was accurate, it's just a long post building on the genetic fallacy.
|
On June 19 2011 03:59 TALegion wrote:
How will this get settled, if not with violence?
All involved seem to have some rational and justification for the islands belonging to them, and don't seem to want to easily surrender their claim. I don't see how this issue can get resolved peacefully if no one will simply give up the islands.
Let's just hope US doesn't intervene. China and the ASEAN seem respectful for now. They have to talk though.
|
For those who didn't study Chinese history, you have to understand china should not be able to get these islands, or anymore resources. Sadly the Chinese government is always fragile as has been for 1000's of years, a simple new leader can simply cause havoc to the rest of the world.
I have no problems with Chinese people, but I do have a problem with their leaders. There will probably be a WWIII and China will be the primary antagonist. Leaders cause wars nor individuals. If people had their way they wouldn't go to war.
|
That map is pretty ridiculous, poor Brunei, they must be feeling claustrophobic. With such vital sea lanes being claimed by China, noone is going to allow China to exercise such a huge chunk of sea. For Japan/Korea, if they want to import oil from the Mideast they will have to send their ships through "Chinese claimed" sea or go the long way around. That can't be good for their economy.
Chinese Taipei? This isnt the Olympics!
|
I agree with OP but the thing is why is this under discussion and not listed as fact? Taiwan also claims those islands which makes this case bullet proof. Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia surrender the islands or surrender in war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
