What's new

China 'has deployed missiles in South China Sea' - Taiwan

You keep on going in circles, even thou you have been shown the premise of the argument over and over. China has deployed SAM's on Woody Island which is very much within Chinese right, Woody island also happen to have it's EEZ and if China raises structure within these confines its perfectly legit as well, but this is not the topic of the discussion.
Please show the treaties where China agreed to relinquish it's rights over disputed territories? Don't make things up just because there are no logical grounds for you to further your distorted beliefs, the world powers don't care what posters on a defence forum think.
Yap yap yap. You can say 100x I'm going in circles, but that does not make it true. UNCLOS is very specific about sovereignty, EEZ, the role and place of islands in that context, what is and isn't an artificial structure or an island, what procedure to follow if EEZs overlap etc. Basic point is that the Chinese sovereignty over Woody island is disputed. Therefore, it is not automatic that it actually is Chinese terrritory. Therefor it is not automatic that China has a right to weaponize it.

If you claim that I make things up, you had better back that up with argument and evidence. Your statement about distorted ideas is a lame attempt to shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message (you wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic if you were truely convinced I am in the wrong here: it is a sign of weakness). If the world powers don't care about what posters on a defence forum think, why do you bother to post here yourself? It is not that you are any different from any other poster here.
 
Last edited:


That's editorial column

Opinion > View by columnist

Editorial Bangkok Post editorial column
936.jpg

These editorials represent Bangkok Post thoughts about current issues and situations.

 
Last edited:
Yap yap yap. You can say 100x I'm going in circles, but that does not make it true. UNCLOS is very specific about sovereignty, EEZ, the role and place of islands in that context, what is and isn't an artificial structure or an island, what procedure to follow if EEZs overlap etc. Basic point is that the Chinese sovereignty over Woody island is disputed. Therefore, it is not automatic that it actually is Chinese terrritory. Therefor it is not automatic that China has a right to weaponize it.

If you claim that I make things up, you had better back that up with argument and evidence. Your statement about distorted ideas is a lame attempt to shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message (you wouldn't need to resort to such a tactic if you were truely convinced I am in the wrong here: it is a sign of weakness). If the world powers don't care about what posters on a defence forum think, why do you bother to post here yourself? It is not that you are any different from any other poster here.
You think by pasting few links and pictures you can fool people who are privy to ground realities. It's funny how you say "China has no right to defend Woody Island" but at the same time when US says it's security guarantees extend to Senkaku Islands, which are also disputed then you prefer to stay quiet to mask your hypocrisy. Whoever has control calls the shots, that's the way it is--------------There is nothing to prove here--This is a well established fact that speaks for itself. Unlike you i am not trying to dictate any state, you think China should behave according to your wishes, which is absolutely ridiculous. Wherever China has established control on islands in SCS, they are Chinese territory and China has every right to defend it-----------You think it should not happen------Well then, cry China a river.
 
Thats shocking!!! I mean Japan was doing it for the Asians! Asians being mistreated and treated like second class citizens. Even not as a human by westerners. Japan was willing to fight for the Asians.
Mmm, fight for Asians, yes, but under Japanese colonial rule.
Korea under Japanese rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You think by pasting few links and pictures you can fool people who are privy to ground realities. It's funny how you say "China has no right to defend Woody Island" but at the same time when US says it's security guarantees extend to Senkaku Islands, which are also disputed then you prefer to stay quiet to mask your hypocrisy. Whoever has control calls the shots, that's the way it is--------------There is nothing to prove here--This is a well established fact that speaks for itself. Unlike you i am not trying to dictate any state, you think China should behave according to your wishes, which is absolutely ridiculous. Wherever China has established control on islands in SCS, they are Chinese territory and China has every right to defend it-----------You think it should not happen------Well then, cry China a river.

Where did I state China has NO right? Quote me if you can (I didn't say it). I said because sovereignty is contested, it does not automatically follow that China has such a right. In line with you own previous remarks about that we are and are not discussing here, we are not discussing the Senkaku Islands here (I am not going to let you sidetrack the issue, but introduction of another problem). Again you resort to attacking the messenger ('hypocrisy'). It is clear you adhere to the 'might makes right' principle. Just as e.g. Hitler and Stalin did.) As you indicated, the leadership of countries have no ear for posters on a forum. Hence, it is silly to suggest I am trying to dictate any state. Your post displays a fundamental lack of basic international relations and law. Occupation, while yielding effective control, does not mean transfer of sovereignty.

How very nice for you that you are 'privy to ground realities', which of course is a totally unverifiable claim that carries about .... ZERO ... weight here.
 
Occupation, while yielding effective control, does not mean transfer of sovereignty.
.

If occupation and effective control mean sovereignty then Taiwan is an independent country long time ago.
It's the international recognization that make the difference.
 
China should and will respond to any US provocations with more land reclamation activities in the SCS and further "militarization" of the reclaimed islands.

Our neighbours need to realize that the US is the sole and root cause of instability in the SCS.

Indeed the whole world need to realize that the US is the sole and root cause of instability the world over.

U.S. mulls selling weapons to Vietnam to stave off China military buildup in region - Washington Times
@Carlosa ; @William Hung
Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam veteran, who has long pushed for reconciliation between Washington and Hanoi despite the communist government in power in there, brought the weapons issue up during Tuesday’s hearing.
Do you think it’s important for us to lift restrictions on the sale of weapons to Vietnam?” the Arizona Republican and Armed Services Committee chairman asked.
Yes, senator, I believe that we should improve our relationship with Vietnam,” Adm. Harris responded. “I think it’s a great strategic opportunity for us, and I think the Vietnamese people would welcome the opportunity to work closer with us as their security partner of choice.”
 
Mmm, fight for Asians, yes, but under Japanese colonial rule.
Korea under Japanese rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Where did I state China has NO right? Quote me if you can (I didn't say it). I said because sovereignty is contested, it does not automatically follow that China has such a right. In line with you own previous remarks about that we are and are not discussing here, we are not discussing the Senkaku Islands here (I am not going to let you sidetrack the issue, but introduction of another problem). Again you resort to attacking the messenger ('hypocrisy'). It is clear you adhere to the 'might makes right' principle. Just as e.g. Hitler and Stalin did.) As you indicated, the leadership of countries have no ear for posters on a forum. Hence, it is silly to suggest I am trying to dictate any state. Your post displays a fundamental lack of basic international relations and law. Occupation, while yielding effective control, does not mean transfer of sovereignty.

How very nice for you that you are 'privy to ground realities', which of course is a totally unverifiable claim that carries about .... ZERO ... weight here.
So when a logical analogy is thrown your way, you dodge it by hiding under a convenient excuse. Not to mention you act completely ignorant to the fact that these SAM's have been placed after clear violations of territorial space by the US. Since you are so "accustomed" with International Relations do enlighten us all that which law prohibits states from weaponizing territory under their control? You are trying to speak about things which clearly are beyond under understanding.
The fact that China maintains control over these Islands is the verification enough that they are Chinese and they would seize to be when they will go in some one else's control, but we don't see that happening. It's amusing to see how you in your petty efforts are trying to prove that "These Islands don't belong to China and shouldn't be weaponized" Whereas in the real world China has weaponized them to the teeth and have it's antagonists up in jitters.
 
So when a logical analogy is thrown your way, you dodge it by hiding under a convenient excuse.
Nah, just doing what you yourself attempted to do earlier. Don't cry.

Not to mention you act completely ignorant to the fact that these SAM's have been placed after clear violations of territorial space by the US.
Oh? When did the US sail or fly within 12nmi of Woody Island, or any of the other Paracels?

Since you are so "accustomed" with International Relations do enlighten us all that which law prohibits states from weaponizing territory under their control?
UN Charter:

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles:
  1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
  2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
  3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
  4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
  5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
  6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
  7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
1 > Just because it is bigger, China is not more equal than any of the nation-states surrounding SCS
3 > international disputes including those over boundaries, sovereignty to be settled by peacefull means (i.e. not by military might), in a manner that does not endanger international peace (militarization brings one closer to military 'solutions' and conflict than demilitarization), security (SLOCs for Japan, South Korea) and justice (not unfair to one or another memberstate)
4> Refrain from the threat of use of force (e.g. by militarizing), or use of force (by shooting) against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (in this case, any of the nations with conflicing sovereignty claims)
OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE UN

The Purposes of the United Nations are
  1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
International law recognizes a right of self-defence. See article 51 of the UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Has China reported anything to the UNSC about radars, aircraft, SAMs?

Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). A more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right of self-defense, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted. It is also to be noted that not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack.
The ICJ has tried to clarify, in the Nicaragua case, what level of force is necessary to qualify as an armed attack.

So, let's be clear. Woody islands e.g. is disputed territory, which China took by force in the 1970s from Vietnam.
Battle of the Paracel Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Territory under your control is not necessarily your sovereign territory. And if it is not, then you have no right to put your military and weapons there whatsoever (unless so invited by whomever else's sovereign territory it is).

After all, according to Max Weber's definition of a state (which is the most commonly used definition), a state is as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of legitimate use of force within a certain territory. Emphasis on the word legitimate.

You are trying to speak about things which clearly are beyond under understanding.
Obviously.

(myohmy, another personal attack. such a weak proposition)

The fact that China maintains control over these Islands is the verification enough that they are Chinese and they would seize to be when they will go in some one else's control, but we don't see that happening.
Because others don't believe in 'might makes right', that doesn't validate de facto Chinese control of Woody Island, somehow making it legitimate.

It's amusing to see how you in your petty efforts are trying to prove that "These Islands don't belong to China and shouldn't be weaponized" Whereas in the real world China has weaponized them to the teeth and have it's antagonists up in jitters.
I'm glad you find it amusing. And again you resort to attacking the messenger rather than the message. Personally, that's what I find amusing. That, and the fact that you again let loose of even the pretense of giving one damn about international relations and -law and good neighbourship in the SCS.

Now, since you keep coming back for more, why don't you name the law(s) that allows states to weaponize territory under their control, when this is not necessarily part of their internationally recognized sovereign territory, while not putting their territorial issues with another nation/state or states before the UN and international court system.
 
Back
Top Bottom