|
On June 19 2011 05:41 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:26 Qi wrote: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.
I must say, if I was Qi, I'd be unbelievably annoyed with you by now. Reading everything between you two thus far, you've done nothing but bring up irrelevant cases to the situation. He's fully open to admitting some what you're saying (that China has done terrible things, brainwashes its youth, censors things), but that's completely irrelevant to the discussion on the territorial claims at hand.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
1. who cares
2. the world takes care of itself. will the islands go explode if "china" whatever that means does not "own" it
ridiculous next thing you may try to tell me that you belong to yourself or some such amazing insight while punching an old lady('s cat) with the hand that you own.
|
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.
i wasn't the one that said "undeniable claims" so go ask Qi that. i believe he has been addressing that so once again read the thread?
|
On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:![[image loading]](http://www.spratlys.org/maps/1/China-claims-Paracel-Spratly-Islands.gif) So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. ![[image loading]](http://theora.com/images/Falkland%20Islands.gif) done
Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll
On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
|
On June 19 2011 06:11 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:08 Deja Thoris wrote: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 didn't question their importance at all. I did read the articles posted and understand their strategic value.
If you will indulge me once more. This is a gaming website. I get that people interested in the games at hand come here and soemtimes post about other matters. Thats fair and reasonable and why a "general" section exists on the forums. This very much reads like some Chinese propaganda ministry person coming here to wave a red flag. He has no history on the forums, save an obligatory one liner in an LR thread. Am I the only one that thinks Qi is here pushing an agenda and that its improper?
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. done Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
Read the OP, controlling the islands means they control the surrounding sea which is very rich in oil/natural gas.
|
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.
Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost.
|
On June 19 2011 06:19 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:11 Z3kk wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 Deja Thoris wrote: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 didn't question their importance at all. I did read the articles posted and understand their strategic value. If you will indulge me once more. This is a gaming website. I get that people interested in the games at hand come here and soemtimes post about other matters. Thats fair and reasonable and why a "general" section exists on the forums. This very much reads like some Chinese propaganda ministry person coming here to wave a red flag. He has no history on the forums, save an obligatory one liner in an LR thread. Am I the only one that thinks Qi is here pushing an agenda and that its improper?
I think this also, though I am quite skeptical when it comes to the Chinese government (My ex-gf was from Hong Kong, and a lot of Hong Kong and Beijing exchange students attended my high school, I also believe censorship, specifically internet censorship, is the most evil act a government can do).
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. done Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
because countries need resources and territories has them in some form or another.
countries must flex there muscles just like idra has to no gg leave XD. when you get strong you have a reputation to uphold and you cant let some punk little country boss you around.
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. done Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
From my fairly limited knowledge of the situation:
They get more natural resources, as well as a secure shipping lane for one of the largest shipping routes in the world. It's in their best interest to control that area, or at least as much as possible. The resources are just icing on the cake - the main interest is control of the shipping lanes.
At the same time, other countries also have interests in those same waters. Security of their own borders as well as secure shipping routes for themselves. Resources are secondary.
China having a monopoly of that shipping route is a bad thing imo. Same goes for any of the countries in the area, since there are so many different interests at stake. That's why I truly think the best solution is some kind of middle ground, where all parties can have their interests covered. And the only way I can see that happening is if there is some kind of binding arbitration, or outside influence to ensure that it is split up in a way that is beneficial for everyone.
|
On June 19 2011 06:22 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote: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. Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost.
well whoever claims those island can claim to have the water next to it which just happens to be close to the borders of phillipines and vietnam. so its not as much claiming the waters next to another countries border but control islands which comes with the maritime territory.
|
On June 19 2011 06:27 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:22 MethodSC wrote:On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote: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. Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost. well whoever claims those island can claim to have the water next to it which just happens to be close to the borders of phillipines and vietnam. so its not as much claiming the waters next to another countries border but control islands which comes with the maritime territory.
It's basically an IRL Xel'Naga watchtower /
|
China should just be more civil and reasonable and make some kind of a compromise. If they have legitimate historical claim over a piece of land or sea that is vital to the military and/or economic security of neighbouring nations, they should not expect history to go undisputed in light of what's going on presently. This is not the way diplomacy works. Honestly I'm not convinced that they're even trying to gain the approval of other nations though, so much as to stir up more nationalistic fervor among their own people.
|
Let me tell you a story, in a far away land, where no one has claimed, an exploration team was sent to start conquering the wild nature. Each explorer is free to claim their land to settle down and grow their plants. Dude A one day go pass this area that no one has claimed, he go back home and write down his note that this land is his territory. Other day he go pass, he saw dude B start enclosing the land with fences and grow his crops. A just passed by and doesn't say or do anything. When the crops ripen, A take his note to B's field, kick down the fence and said that he's claimed this land for long ago, as written in his note so B should just scram. What do you think ?
Bringing history from your side to claim the matter is doing little, cause it's probaby favourble to your pov as so does my history and my pov so i won't bring that up as I already agree with Damian's post in this.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 19 2011 05:02 Damian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:20 Qi wrote:Historical records that show why China owns Nansha Islands+ Show Spoiler +
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
You can add this May and June 2011 Show nested quote +The demonstrations in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City followed a confrontation between a Vietnamese ship and Chinese patrol boats last month.
Hanoi accused a Chinese patrol of cutting the cables of a Vietnamese ship conducting seismic research about 120km (80 miles) off Vietnam's coast.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Dung made his first comments on the row, saying Vietnam's sovereignty was incontestable in areas of the Paracel and Spratly island groups.
"We continue to affirm strongly and to manifest the strongest determination of all the party, of all the people and of all the army in protecting Vietnamese sovereignty in maritime zones and islands of the country," Mr Dung said in comments reported by the Thanh Nien newspaper.
Later, Vietnamese officials accused a Chinese fishing boat of once again intentionally ramming cables from an oil exploration vessel inside its exclusive economic zone. The claim for these small islands / mere rocks has to do with Exclusive Economic Zones (UN law, which all claimants acknowledge). These zones look like this when ignoring ownership of the mentioned islands: ![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48951000/gif/_48951920_south_china-sea_1_466.gif) Now if they are in fact Chinese islands it change the whole situation to this: ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/China_Exclusive_Economic_Zones.png) Colors: China's EEZ EEZ claimed by China, disputed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) EEZ claimed by China, disputed by others And if you compare the Chinese claim in the first picture with the one in the second, you will see that the Chinese claimed territorial waters are even against the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because "in 1947, China published a map drawing a U-shaped line of claim across South China Sea." To conclude my point: I think Chinas claim is unreasonable and is going to harm their diplomatic relations to their neighbors even more (hi @ building aircraft carriers and hi @ having territorial disputes with nearly all neighbors). And if we say that the older the historical mention the better, then why is the current Chinese territory bigger than the one under the first Emperor? ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EN-WarringStatesAll260BCE.jpg/651px-EN-WarringStatesAll260BCE.jpg)
But this attitude On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote: 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 
is what I can't agree with. With the same attitude, China has been giving reconciliation on the diplomatic table while continue to make aggression on the sea to provoke smaller country in the matter. If you believe your rightful claim over this, why trying to wage war and doing such underhand method and not reasoning?
|
On June 19 2011 06:34 Sd13 wrote:Let me tell you a story, in a far away land, where no one has claimed, an exploration team was sent to start conquering the wild nature. Each explorer is free to claim their land to settle down and grow their plants. Dude A one day go pass this area that no one has claimed, he go back home and write down his note that this land is his territory. Other day he go pass, he saw dude B start enclosing the land with fences and grow his crops. A just passed by and doesn't say or do anything. When the crops ripen, A take his note to B's field, kick down the fence and said that he's claimed this land for long ago, as written in his note so B should just scram. What do you think ? Bringing history from your side to claim the matter is doing little, cause it's probaby favourble to your pov as so does my history and my pov so i won't bring that up as I already agree with Damian's post in this. + Show Spoiler +On June 19 2011 05:02 Damian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:20 Qi wrote:Historical records that show why China owns Nansha Islands+ Show Spoiler +
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
You can add this May and June 2011 Show nested quote +The demonstrations in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City followed a confrontation between a Vietnamese ship and Chinese patrol boats last month.
Hanoi accused a Chinese patrol of cutting the cables of a Vietnamese ship conducting seismic research about 120km (80 miles) off Vietnam's coast.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Dung made his first comments on the row, saying Vietnam's sovereignty was incontestable in areas of the Paracel and Spratly island groups.
"We continue to affirm strongly and to manifest the strongest determination of all the party, of all the people and of all the army in protecting Vietnamese sovereignty in maritime zones and islands of the country," Mr Dung said in comments reported by the Thanh Nien newspaper.
Later, Vietnamese officials accused a Chinese fishing boat of once again intentionally ramming cables from an oil exploration vessel inside its exclusive economic zone. The claim for these small islands / mere rocks has to do with Exclusive Economic Zones (UN law, which all claimants acknowledge). These zones look like this when ignoring ownership of the mentioned islands: Now if they are in fact Chinese islands it change the whole situation to this: Colors: China's EEZ EEZ claimed by China, disputed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) EEZ claimed by China, disputed by others And if you compare the Chinese claim in the first picture with the one in the second, you will see that the Chinese claimed territorial waters are even against the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because "in 1947, China published a map drawing a U-shaped line of claim across South China Sea." To conclude my point: I think Chinas claim is unreasonable and is going to harm their diplomatic relations to their neighbors even more (hi @ building aircraft carriers and hi @ having territorial disputes with nearly all neighbors). And if we say that the older the historical mention the better, then why is the current Chinese territory bigger than the one under the first Emperor? But this attitude Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote: 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 is what I can't agree with. With the same attitude, China has been giving reconciliation on the diplomatic table while continue to make aggression on the sea to provoke smaller country in the matter. If you believe your rightful claim over this, why trying to wage war and doing such underhand method and not reasoning?
I guess it's too bad that China and Vietnam are BOTH 'dude A'.
|
On June 19 2011 06:32 zobz wrote:
China should just be more civil and reasonable and make some kind of a compromise. If they have legitimate historical claim over a piece of land or sea that is vital to the military and/or economic security of neighbouring nations, they should not expect history to go undisputed in light of what's going on presently. This is not the way diplomacy works. Honestly I'm not convinced that they're even trying to gain the approval of other nations though, so much as to stir up more nationalistic fervor among their own people.
diplomacy is just another word for "i have the bigger gun so fk off"
you have to realize that it goes both ways. China can argue it needs these lands for its people in one way or another. And vietnam / phillipines can say same thing. reasons in politic means nothing unless you can back it up.
but the xelnaga reference is good =D
|
On June 19 2011 06:27 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:22 MethodSC wrote:On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote: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. Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost. well whoever claims those island can claim to have the water next to it which just happens to be close to the borders of phillipines and vietnam. so its not as much claiming the waters next to another countries border but control islands which comes with the maritime territory.
That was my point exactly. Why should China have control over the waters next to these countries? It's really a ridiculous claim for China to make. They can't expect these other people to stand for that.
|
On June 19 2011 06:34 Sd13 wrote:Let me tell you a story, in a far away land, where no one has claimed, an exploration team was sent to start conquering the wild nature. Each explorer is free to claim their land to settle down and grow their plants. Dude A one day go pass this area that no one has claimed, he go back home and write down his note that this land is his territory. Other day he go pass, he saw dude B start enclosing the land with fences and grow his crops. A just passed by and doesn't say or do anything. When the crops ripen, A take his note to B's field, kick down the fence and said that he's claimed this land for long ago, as written in his note so B should just scram. What do you think ? Bringing history from your side to claim the matter is doing little, cause it's probaby favourble to your pov as so does my history and my pov so i won't bring that up as I already agree with Damian's post in this. + Show Spoiler +On June 19 2011 05:02 Damian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:20 Qi wrote:Historical records that show why China owns Nansha Islands+ Show Spoiler +
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
You can add this May and June 2011 Show nested quote +The demonstrations in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City followed a confrontation between a Vietnamese ship and Chinese patrol boats last month.
Hanoi accused a Chinese patrol of cutting the cables of a Vietnamese ship conducting seismic research about 120km (80 miles) off Vietnam's coast.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Dung made his first comments on the row, saying Vietnam's sovereignty was incontestable in areas of the Paracel and Spratly island groups.
"We continue to affirm strongly and to manifest the strongest determination of all the party, of all the people and of all the army in protecting Vietnamese sovereignty in maritime zones and islands of the country," Mr Dung said in comments reported by the Thanh Nien newspaper.
Later, Vietnamese officials accused a Chinese fishing boat of once again intentionally ramming cables from an oil exploration vessel inside its exclusive economic zone. The claim for these small islands / mere rocks has to do with Exclusive Economic Zones (UN law, which all claimants acknowledge). These zones look like this when ignoring ownership of the mentioned islands: Now if they are in fact Chinese islands it change the whole situation to this: Colors: China's EEZ EEZ claimed by China, disputed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) EEZ claimed by China, disputed by others And if you compare the Chinese claim in the first picture with the one in the second, you will see that the Chinese claimed territorial waters are even against the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because "in 1947, China published a map drawing a U-shaped line of claim across South China Sea." To conclude my point: I think Chinas claim is unreasonable and is going to harm their diplomatic relations to their neighbors even more (hi @ building aircraft carriers and hi @ having territorial disputes with nearly all neighbors). And if we say that the older the historical mention the better, then why is the current Chinese territory bigger than the one under the first Emperor? But this attitude Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote: 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 is what I can't agree with. With the same attitude, China has been giving reconciliation on the diplomatic table while continue to make aggression on the sea to provoke smaller country in the matter. If you believe your rightful claim over this, why trying to wage war and doing such underhand method and not reasoning?
that is too bad because practically every powerful country has been doing that since forever.
|
LOL so China is trying to claim the ocean until about 40 feet from the coasts of those other nations? Oh, dear. I don't think that will go over well.
Just think about it for a minute, man. There is no reason, even if the islands were yours, to be able to claim all that ocean.
|
On June 19 2011 06:39 Romantic wrote:
LOL so China is trying to claim the ocean until about 40 feet from the coasts of those other nations? Oh, dear. I don't think that will go over well.
Just think about it for a minute, man. There is no reason, even if the islands were yours, to be able to claim all that ocean.
Russia did this almost 50 years ago to Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
