|
On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote:You are actually right here. But we should also take note of ontologies. In history, it is counter-intuitive to discuss what did not/could have/should have happened. Though they are interesting, we only discuss what happened and is happening. Power is a big part of this. As it is, China has both historical claim and power, though it tries to wield only soft powers and saber rattling. I personally hope it doesn't get to war. I doubt Philippines or Vietnam or other countries in that region will be willing to really push and provoke China. They will exhaust all peaceful means, I hope. It will take the intervention of another big country to tip the scales. It's wrong though, Mongols are a late addition to China's history. And, the Nansha Islands are merely rock islands. The claim is over the resources in the region and the geopolitical implications of having control of that region. As someone said earlier, if it's going down to voting, China will simply send a city's worth of population their in the dark of the night before the election and win it once and for all. kidding 
Qi, from what I've read I understand that your thesis statement is "Nansha Islands (Spratlys) belongs to China". Now if you could define "belong" more clearly, we could steer this debate on a more determinable course. I do not agree that you based rightful claims on historical claims. I propose that "belong" in this case is "legitimate" and "ethical". But if we are talking about "what is happening/ will happen", I do not doubt the power of China over Spratleys/Philippines/any other country. There will be no outright war and from an Orwellian PoV, they would ultimately agree on the optimal (most profitable) cake splitting. Regarding the Mongols, I just added that to demonstrate that past absolute control does not equal current rightful claim.
|
On June 19 2011 05:37 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... If that was the case, Canada, the USA, Mexico, and many countries in South America would be very, very different than they are now..... There's undeniable evidence that native americans owned the land long before Europeans showed up and basically stole it. Even so at least that entails occupation of said territories there is no real occupation of the islands so even make such a claim. Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Well to that claim then all claims made in the past are 100% legit. Also previous agreements among governments are still in progress so the Germany of pre WWI pre WWII and post WWII are all the same under such an assumption. Furthermore they only made claim to the island by themselves? And that's okay becuase the surrounding civilians weren't are developed. So under such an assumption india is still part of the British empire oh yeah and the british empire still exists apparently it's just called the UK same king and queen as ever ruling the country.
The majority of islands are literally uninhabitable - so there has been no real 'occupation' of them throughout history.
This is a strategic matter pure and simple - there is no right or wrong. These islands belong to whomever has the will and force to 'defend' them.
|
On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons.
2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing?
I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim.
|
On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy.
maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast.
|
On June 19 2011 05:26 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:14 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 05:03 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:56 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:34 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these). When we discuss US policy on stem cell research do we bring up the Civil War or the massacre of the Native Americans? No. Same thing here. We may digress, but it bears nothing to the issue at hand. A better analogy is bringing up the history of US interventions during the cold war whenever a American diplomatic initiative is discussed. It can be taken too far, but it happens and it is relevant in some situations. You didn't address my other point though. Are you interested in a discussion or your ONLY goal is to declare your own position? US interventions during the cold was is DIRECTLY related to American diplomatic initiatives. How is territorial claim over an island against a foreign country/countries related to China's evil state policies? Answer that please. If there's no way to definitely decide who is right it ultimately comes down to the question whether Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not. And please do not ignore the other question this time. Are you interested in a discussion (based on considering others' position) or are you just here to advertise your position? You wont even answer a clearly worded question. To answer you clearly, I have been respectful and open so far. What I don't get is people like you who'd rather talk about off tangent things like the evils Chinese government than what this OP is about. Clear now? Write something that is actually related to the OP then we can have a discussion. And. to be clear again, the OP is: Nansha is historically, for more than 2000 years, part of China. Anything for or against that? Sorry I have to be frank, I can't stand bad logic, pretense, and ad hominem that you are doing calling me out to answer your impertinent question and pretending it's that most important thing in the world but when I call you out on an actually directly related to the OP question you come up with these "there's no way to definitely decide who is right" "Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not" obscurity.
I guess that does answer my question.
FWIW, I did make an honest attempt to answer your question. You might not like the answer but it's still an answer. Popularity matters.
And on a different matter, so does credibility. You had none when you started the thread and you did nothing to build it. Sorry if it sounds like an ad hominem but it's the truth. It's not the most important question in the world, but for me it is the most important question in this thread.
|
On June 19 2011 05:40 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:37 semantics wrote:On June 19 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... If that was the case, Canada, the USA, Mexico, and many countries in South America would be very, very different than they are now..... There's undeniable evidence that native americans owned the land long before Europeans showed up and basically stole it. Even so at least that entails occupation of said territories there is no real occupation of the islands so even make such a claim. On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Well to that claim then all claims made in the past are 100% legit. Also previous agreements among governments are still in progress so the Germany of pre WWI pre WWII and post WWII are all the same under such an assumption. Furthermore they only made claim to the island by themselves? And that's okay becuase the surrounding civilians weren't are developed. So under such an assumption india is still part of the British empire oh yeah and the british empire still exists apparently it's just called the UK same king and queen as ever ruling the country. The majority of islands are literally uninhabitable - so there has been no real 'occupation' of them throughout history. This is a strategic matter pure and simple - there is no right or wrong. These islands belong to whomever has the will and force to 'defend' them.
Yup this i'm just disputing that 2000 years of claims is crud as there is no legit reason for china to have it over country x y or z it's just a matter of the land is valuable? Oh i want it.
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast.
not really. Alaska and the British territories are different situations. They were either exchanged with agreement on both sides or there was an indigenous population to decide for themselves.
The history given in the OP clearly shows that the isles have been contested numerous times over hundreds of years. They were even named by the British, which seems strange.
|
On June 19 2011 05:43 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:40 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 05:37 semantics wrote:On June 19 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... If that was the case, Canada, the USA, Mexico, and many countries in South America would be very, very different than they are now..... There's undeniable evidence that native americans owned the land long before Europeans showed up and basically stole it. Even so at least that entails occupation of said territories there is no real occupation of the islands so even make such a claim. On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Well to that claim then all claims made in the past are 100% legit. Also previous agreements among governments are still in progress so the Germany of pre WWI pre WWII and post WWII are all the same under such an assumption. Furthermore they only made claim to the island by themselves? And that's okay becuase the surrounding civilians weren't are developed. So under such an assumption india is still part of the British empire oh yeah and the british empire still exists apparently it's just called the UK same king and queen as ever ruling the country. The majority of islands are literally uninhabitable - so there has been no real 'occupation' of them throughout history. This is a strategic matter pure and simple - there is no right or wrong. These islands belong to whomever has the will and force to 'defend' them. Yup this i'm just disputing that 2000 years of claims is crud as there is no legit reason for china to have it over country x y or z it's just a matter of the land is valuable? Oh i want it.
Well it is true that ancient China was probably the first to chart the islands.
But in my mind, the fact that no country has any legitimate claim to these islands is all the more reason that China shouldn't back down.
Better for China to have them than Vietnam or the Philippines.
|
On June 19 2011 05:40 zestzorb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote:You are actually right here. But we should also take note of ontologies. In history, it is counter-intuitive to discuss what did not/could have/should have happened. Though they are interesting, we only discuss what happened and is happening. Power is a big part of this. As it is, China has both historical claim and power, though it tries to wield only soft powers and saber rattling. I personally hope it doesn't get to war. I doubt Philippines or Vietnam or other countries in that region will be willing to really push and provoke China. They will exhaust all peaceful means, I hope. It will take the intervention of another big country to tip the scales. It's wrong though, Mongols are a late addition to China's history. And, the Nansha Islands are merely rock islands. The claim is over the resources in the region and the geopolitical implications of having control of that region. As someone said earlier, if it's going down to voting, China will simply send a city's worth of population their in the dark of the night before the election and win it once and for all. kidding Qi, from what I've read I understand that your thesis statement is "Nansha Islands (Spratlys) belongs to China". Now if you could define "belong" more clearly, we could steer this debate on a more determinable course. I do not agree that you based rightful claims on historical claims. I propose that "belong" in this case is "legitimate" and "ethical". But if we are talking about "what is happening/ will happen", I do not doubt the power of China over Spratleys/Philippines/any other country. There will be no outright war and from an Orwellian PoV, they would ultimately agree on the optimal (most profitable) cake splitting. Regarding the Mongols, I just added that to demonstrate that past absolute control does not equal current rightful claim.
Thanks zestzorb. This are the kind of post I appreciate and are valuable to the discussion.
This is my stand. Nansha has been in Chinese records for more than 2000 years, long before other countries are even aware of it. These records/claims are not merely nominal, they were made part of the state (or in this case, dynasty or whoever is ruling), both in terms of geography and politics. If not through historical means, is there actually any other way to legitimately/ethically claim a land as part of a country's territory? Proximity has been nuked already. What else. Honestly I'm curious. Power? I'm sure we all know what happens if that happens. (A side note, I agree with an earlier post saying that China's army is overrated. It's real power is economic.) Or if ASEAN with UN actually gang up on China and make it cease its claim and China obliged. Possible but unlikely. Honestly, how else, ethically and legitimately?
On the other hand, the way I see it, China will be saber rattling on this as long as it could. It will bank on the fact that US is too invested on China to actually side with Philippines and Vietnam. It also know ASEAN has nothing on it. So it will drag this as long as it could, and nothing happens while it maintains status quo control of Nansha and the surrounding waters.
|
I'll avoid getting drawn into this particular debate, but it must be said that saying "China" claims these islands back into the annals of history is a very questionable idea to bring up. That's projecting nationalism back centuries and centuries and implies a continuity that is contentious at best.
For the record, I have studied a great deal of Chinese history and find it absolutely fascinating to say the least, but, much like Balkan history for the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, etc on Team Liquid, stretching back an idea of a true Chinese nation thousands of years is always a "dangerous" point. On this note, such projection of nationalism is most often seen in east Asian history (China, Korea, Japan in particular) and the Balkans (especially the Balkans). Definitely a fascinating thing to observe ^^
|
2000 yr claim is just that. 2000. If you look at any land, pretty much any land was most likely owned by various different people at different times. You'd have to acquiesce some chinese bordered land that they own right now if they wanna go by "who owned this islands first". which is stupid and probably not the logic they wanna follow for obvious reasons.
I only care about who only de facto controls the land. Falkland in practice is owned by UK, Liancourt isle in practice owned by korea. Theres no arguing that. Now opposing side can try to legitimize their side and try to overturn that. whatever. But thats none of my concern. from my quick googling tho, in this case, islands are pretty much split in who admisters it. from cia factbook
Spratly Islands consist of more than 100 small islands or reefs of which about 45 are claimed and occupied by China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam
so just keep it the way it is? it doesnt have to be winner takes all after all.
also it seems like territorial dispute thread is in style. counting down till dokdo thread? this TL is very related to all things korean here after all. :p
|
As it seems as if there is not particularly strong evidence for any one party's ownership, I propose a solution!
1951
At the San Francisco conference, Japan renounces all rights to the Spratly Islands. No resolution is made on who owns them.
Let Japan decide!
|
Alright! I can't wait to start speaking Portuguese... or Dutch...
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons. 2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing? I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim.
Yes.
In Canada, the tribes/nations were around for 10000+ years. And physically living on the land. And it meant virtually nothing in the end.
|
anybody who thinks that China cares about these uninhabitated spits of sand in the middle of the sea because they "found" some old maps which indicate that these islands exist is naive at best.
There is exactly one reason why the countries in that region fight all the time over these small islands and that is because they hope to increase their seaborders because they hope that in these new regions are oil and similar resources.
So noone has to argue with stuff like "but 2000 years ago someone painted these islands" because even 2000 years ago noone cared about these islands either. They were pirate nests at best. So arguing based on a 2000 years history of not caring about these islands is just plain stupid in my eyes and just a desperate attempt at finding any reason to get your hands on the islands.
And to me the OP just sounds like someone who was send from the communist propaganda bureau
|
As if China would ever let Japan decide on something they consider chinese. Anyways, this thread is silly and this discussion will lead nowhere - anybody chinese will agree the islands are chinese, anybody from countries near the islands will agree that they belong to them and anybody not involved will just say whatever's on their mind towards an issue that can't be solved by arguing over the internet.
All I'm concerned about is the formerly russian aircraft carrier the chinese have acquired and that's almost about finished in reequipping etc. and the first chinese carrier-based plane, which seems as if it has stealth technology.
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast.
Answer my first question then.
|
On June 19 2011 06:08 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast. Answer my first question then.
"Undeniable" maybe have been a strong word to use, but a thesis must--of course--be clear-cut, and in this case, absolute.
To answer your question, I refer you to the "Why everone is interested in China's Nansha Islands" section of the OP.
+ Show Spoiler +
The islands are important, however, for strategic and political reasons, because ownership claims to them are used to bolster claims to the surrounding sea and its resources.
The South China Sea is rich in natural resources such as oil and natural gas. These resources have garnered attention throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Until recently, East Asia's economic growth rates had been among the highest in the world, and despite the current economic crisis, economic growth prospects in the long-term remain among the best in the world. This economic growth will be accompanied by an increasing demand for energy. Over the next 20 years, oil consumption among developing Asian countries is expected to rise by 4% annually on average, with about half of this increase coming from China. If this growth rate is maintained, oil demand for these nations will reach 25 million barrels per day - more than double current consumption levels -- by 2020.
Almost of all of this additional Asian oil demand, as well as Japan's oil needs, will need to be imported from the Middle East and Africa, and to pass through the strategic Strait of Malacca into the South China Sea. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region depend on seaborne trade to fuel their economic growth, and this has led to the sea's transformation into one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Over half of the world's merchant fleet (by tonnage) sails through the South China Sea every year. The economic potential and geopolitical importance of the South China Sea region has resulted in jockeying between the surrounding nations to claim this sea and its resources for themselves.
|
I am curious Qi, do you support Russia or Japan in the Kuril Islands dispute?
EDIT: If you don't know, they are islands that start immediately north of hokkaido (you can see the southern most islands from Japan quite clearly), Japan held the islands for almost 400 years before Russia even discovered them. After WW2 resolved (in 1952 I believe) the Allied Forces signed documentation saying that Japan couldn't hold the islands. Immediately after this, Russia moved in and took them. The documentation doesn't say anything about Russia having a claim to the island, and the only thing keeping it in their control was the cold war.
EDIT 2 for further clarification: I'm talking about the southern islands, colloquially known as "Northern Territories" that Russia annexed.
|
Actually stuff like this is kind of important.
Not being from there it's hard to make a case either way.
But I know from being a norwegian, that Svalbard is absolutely vital to norwegian claims of the sea and parts of antarctica. We actually have a huge sea claim mostly because that island is part of our territory.
Both the 20 and the 200 nautical mile limits are very important for nations economy and security. And they are pretty much universally accepted. Which makes it very important to know who actually have the proper ownership of the sea area - and the gas and oil resources beneath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
