South China Sea Forum

[cnleio]

All u r historian

 

[Rechoice]

Cantonese and Hakka are both Han.

You keep talking about slaves of Han, do you know that was you, right?

We regained our independence, Hans army went home. It's different.

Those people you call them "Baiyue", how come they were dressing like Han?

Here is another so-called "Baiyue" ruler, while much closer to Han than to Viet.

You are right, Cantonese are Nan Yue people and Wo Yue people so called "Baiyue". Viets people no ralated to Baiyue.

Viet King "Hung Vuong" dressing is different for "GauJian"

 

[jhungary]

First, you need to read more carefully what those articles pertained to.
"In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes"

States may choose not to abide or bound by the settlement of disputes provided by the articles. Just as exemplified by the recent case brought by the Philippines, China has the right not to abide the ITLOS decision (one of the procedure for settlement of dispute).

However, It does not equate that states may choose not to abide whichever articles in UNCLOS. China cannot in any case, as a signatory of UNCLOS, declared that reef/banks/rocks that cannot sustain economic/livelihood of human has EEZ enjoyed by ordinary islands. This is exemplifed by the case of Okinotorishima of Japan, which, in accordance to UNCLOS, was not an island, and hence does have any EEZ. Japan, as signatory of UNCLOS, cannot choose not to abide by this decision. It may unilaterally chose to ignore this decision, but it might undermine the comitment and honour of Japan towards international rules and convention.

The Chinese decision to claim nearly all south china sea by its U-shaped nine-dash line clearly does not comply with UNCLOS. China may reject the settlement of dispute regarding this claim, but this does not necessarily mean it can arbitrarily drawn any line that principally does not allowed by the UNCLOS.

China may claim historical rights over south china sea, but the claim itself is quite weak and will be easily challenged by neighboring parties in South-East Asia. Note that maritime south-east asian was predominated Austronesian, whose realm has long been sea travelling. If historical rights were to be brought upon UNCLOS, south-east asian and pacific islanders might be able to claim ridiculously large area of seas encompassing nearly all of the pacific ocean.

This is probably the most Sane agrument i have heard for a long long time in this forum

Unratify UNCLOS does not mean you are not bound by international court decision, you just choose to ignore what it said.
There are way to settle this dispute once and for all. But China for some reason do not want to use them

By the way dispute in UNCLOS does not mean a dispute to any landmass. UNCLOS is a law or standard that define 3 things

1.)International Waterway (Territorial water, Contigious Zone, and EEZ)
2.)What you can do with which
3.)and arbritation process

Claiming an island is neither one of the 3. So claiming an island far away from you is not something you can rely on UNCLOS to solve.....

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

In fact, Nanyue was even ruled by North Chinese, Zhao Tuo brought a lot of Qin soldiers there to marry with the local women.

And you expect to be closer to Viet?

 

[Viet]

Those people you call them "Baiyue", how come they were dressing like Han?
Here is another so-called "Baiyue" ruler, while much closer to Han than to Viet.

Vietnam landscape changed with the times and history, so the rulers.

2879–258 Hồng Bàng Dynasty (Hung Vuong)
257–207 Thục Dynasty
207–111 Triệu Dynasty (Nam Viet)
111–39 1st Chinese domination
40–43 Trưng Sisters
43–544 2nd Chinese domination
544–602 Early Lý Dynasty
602–938 3rd Chinese domination
939–967 Ngô Dynasty
968–980 Đinh Dynasty
980–1009 Early Lê Dynasty
1009–1225 Later Lý Dynasty
1225–1400 Trần Dynasty
1400–1407 Hồ Dynasty
1407–1427 4th Chinese domination
1428–1788 Later Lê Dynasty
1527–1592 • Mạc Dynasty
1545–1787 • Trịnh Lords
1558–1777 • Nguyễn Lords
1778–1802 Tây Sơn Dynasty
1802–1945 Nguyễn Dynasty
1858–1945 • French imperialism
from 1945 Republic
1975 Vietnam reunification

Hung Vuong, the ruler of Hong Bang

Chao To, the ruler of Nam Viet

Han´s influence began with the Trieu´s Dynasty.

 

[walle]

What he is saying is that if China go to war with Vietnam, China's economy would be crippled by the war itself.

A war with Vietnam will be a shooting match in the air and on the seas, there's no reason to occupy Vietnam, it wouldn't affect China as much as it would on Vietnam.

China really need a war to reassert itself in the region and maintain peace.

And with China's sea bound commerce so closely tied with rest of the world, Viets wouldn't dare to touch any chinese bound ships in the SCS.

 

[Rechoice]

Yes, you can read my comments posted above, Cantonese (Nanyue people) ruled by Hans whose came from North China.
Viets (Kinh people) are different from Cantonese, Hakka, Fujian_ren. I don't say that Viets are closer to Baiyue.

 

[Viet]

Hung Vuong

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

But Guangdong and Guangxi were never belong to Vietnam bro, there were local people non-Han aborigines lived there, but later the migrating Hans married and mixed with them, but not with Vietnamese.

So you have to make the clear distinction here, Cantonese have non-Han admixture, but it doesn't mean they are Viets.

We Han people are very patriarchal, as long as we have the homogenous Huaxia Y-DNA, we don't care much of having some exotic heterogeneous female lineages in our bloodline.

The more you wanna prove the Vietness of Cantonese, the more embarassing for your people, since it does show how Chinese men loved to screw your women since the ancient time, while you Viet men just watching aside and can do nothing about it.

 

[Viet]

@ChineseTiger1986

There are many small and big differences between the Viets and Han´s, not only in the DNA and other things. One important aspect is while the Han´s are patriarchal, traditionally the Viets women have more rights and equal to the men. This was one of the reasons leading to the split and independence of Vietnam.

Trung sisters, the first Queen´s of independent Vietnam (40-43)

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

ASEAN chief pushes RI to act on South China Sea dispute
Bagus BT Saragih, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | World | Tue, April 09 2013, 11:43 AM

ASEAN Secretary-general Le Luong Minh utilized his meeting with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on Monday to ask for Indonesia’s help to address the South China Sea territorial dispute which grew more tense following China’s move to allow tourists to visit the disputed Paracel Islands.

Minh, formerly Vietnamese deputy foreign minister, paid a courtesy visit to Yudhoyono at his office on Monday. It was the first formal meeting between the two leaders since Minh was inaugurated on Jan. 7.

“I appreciate Indonesia and President Yudhoyono for the strengthening of ASEAN, especially in progress towards the ASEAN community,” Minh told the press.

Minh’s meeting with Yudhoyono focuses on the establishment of the ASEAN community by 2015 and ways to reduce tension in the South China Sea, disputed by China, four ASEAN members (Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam) and Taiwan.

“To be able to achieve the ASEAN community and focus on progress, we need to have an environment of peace and stability and a standard code of conduct is very important in this context. We look forward to coordinating with member states especially Indonesia,” he said.

Presidential foreign affairs spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said that Yudhoyono highlighted the importance of a rule-based ASEAN with good policy coordination. “That is the fundamental condition we need for the ASEAN community. Peace and stability are the keys,” he said.

Faizasyah acknowledged that Indonesia had been expected to play a bigger role in helping to resolve the issue.

Early this year, Minh expressed his hope that ASEAN would speed up negotiations with China on a code of conduct on the South China Sea.

Disagreement on the South China Sea prevented members from issuing a joint communique after the 2012 ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in July, last year.

Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa emerged as a volunteer troubleshooter with a 36-hour round of shuttle diplomacy, meeting his counterparts in the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia and Singapore, which resulted in the Six-Points on the South China Sea

Minh applauded Marty’s effort to maintain ASEAN’s centrality and unity. “I especially appreciate the continuation by Indonesia in the maintenance of ASEAN and the strengthening of the regional grouping,” he said.

China and Vietnam are involved in row again regarding the Paracel Islands after a report on Sunday said that a Chinese cruise ship that can accommodate almost 2,000 passengers is ready to sail for the Paracels, known in Chinese as Xisha.

“Tourists will eat and sleep on the cruise ships and land on the islands for sightseeing” ahead of Labor Day on May 1, Tan Li, vice governor of China’s southernmost province of Hainan, said, according to Xinhua.

 

[Maxtini]

This is probably the most Sane agrument i have heard for a long long time in this forum

Unratify UNCLOS does not mean you are not bound by international court decision, you just choose to ignore what it said.
There are way to settle this dispute once and for all. But China for some reason do not want to use them

By the way dispute in UNCLOS does not mean a dispute to any landmass. UNCLOS is a law or standard that define 3 things

1.)International Waterway (Territorial water, Contigious Zone, and EEZ)
2.)What you can do with which
3.)and arbritation process

Claiming an island is neither one of the 3. So claiming an island far away from you is not something you can rely on UNCLOS to solve.....

Claiming reefs/rocks/banks on South China Sea is of course different matter, but claiming the sea surrounding them is the matter of UNCLOS. The problem with China is that their U-shaped claim does not simply based on the islands within SCS nor comply with UNCLOS. There are several studies that analyze and explore several scenarios of "what happen if spratly and paracel islands actually entitled EEZ". Their calculation showed that China's claim exceed what is entitled under UNCLOS.

 

[Raphael]

Vietnamese historical revisionists are so scary and misguided and revolting. You are not the successor state to Nanyue, because it was a state founded by a Qin dynasty military commander (Zhao Tuo). You are a rebel province which wanted to escape "Chinese imperialism", and then hypocritically decided to imperialize and annex the independent Champa Kingdom.

 

[JSCh]

First, you need to read more carefully what those articles pertained to.
"In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes"

States may choose not to abide or bound by the settlement of disputes provided by the articles. Just as exemplified by the recent case brought by the Philippines, China has the right not to abide the ITLOS decision (one of the procedure for settlement of dispute).

However, It does not equate that states may choose not to abide whichever articles in UNCLOS. China cannot in any case, as a signatory of UNCLOS, declared that reef/banks/rocks that cannot sustain economic/livelihood of human has EEZ enjoyed by ordinary islands. This is exemplifed by the case of Okinotorishima of Japan, which, in accordance to UNCLOS, was not an island, and hence does have any EEZ. Japan, as signatory of UNCLOS, cannot choose not to abide by this decision. It may unilaterally chose to ignore this decision, but it might undermine the comitment and honour of Japan towards international rules and convention.

The Chinese decision to claim nearly all south china sea by its U-shaped nine-dash line clearly does not comply with UNCLOS. China may reject the settlement of dispute regarding this claim, but this does not necessarily mean it can arbitrarily drawn any line that principally does not allowed by the UNCLOS.

China may claim historical rights over south china sea, but the claim itself is quite weak and will be easily challenged by neighboring parties in South-East Asia. Note that maritime south-east asian was predominated Austronesian, whose realm has long been sea travelling. If historical rights were to be brought upon UNCLOS, south-east asian and pacific islanders might be able to claim ridiculously large area of seas encompassing nearly all of the pacific ocean.

As is clear by the declaration of the respective claimants that none of them are willing to subject themselves to UNCLOS when they feels that their sovereignty is infringe upon.

The UNCLOS is not legal binding as long as one of the claimant is unwilling to subject themselves to it. Hence the UNCLOS look to me more like a political/propaganda tools that is used whenever it suit any of the claimant. And it is unlikely that UNCLOS is a practical solution to the problem.

 

[longyi]

The key here is Vietnam. If ASEAN can influence Vietnam to dismiss her claims on SCS, which are almost similar to China's, I think China will soften her stance. But it's an unlikely scenario though.