What's new

Why China Has the Right to 'Build Sovereignty' in the South China Sea

You knew more than this. You knew everyone who has power have do something on their controlled islands (even it is disputed). You knew all these is media sensational with certain agenda behind it.

I seriously don't see everyone ask USA to intervene except those western media. SG spoke out sometime just to maintain the power balance between east and west to secure their own interest. And you pretend don't know about this.

Pulau Layang-Layang (Shallow Reef) Swallow Reef - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
layang-layang-island-aerial-view-big.jpg

Is Malaysia bully Vietnam by building a resort on the island? Or they simply doesn't give a shxt because Malaysia defence force is not as strong as China? :coffee:

The Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) has maintained a presence on the reef since 1983, but as with all of the Spratly Islands, the ownership is disputed, and it is also claimed by the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Vietnam. The Philippines does not lay claim to Swallow Reef


I also said something like that to the chinese clowns last year, I told them that they have fallen into USA's trap. Everything that they've been doing in the region with their typical bullying and aggressiveness pushed everybody in the region into the welcoming arms of uncle Sam which is precisely what they wanted and now countries are asking USA and Japan to intervene. I expected that USA was going to turn up the heat after the UNCLOS resolution, but started early and there will be more to come. Congrats to China. Job well done.
 
.
Why do Western media still talk about freedom of navigation? Most people don't want to talk about what's really taking place.

Why did America try to stop our AIIB initiative? Why is America creating the TTP? Why did America make a fuss about BRICS Bank? Why is America getting into the South China Sea? Why is rejecting Chinese influence and trade in Africa? Why is America rejecting our proposal for Space? Why is America suspicious of our Antarctica moves? Why is it questioning our arms deals, when they know damn well who sells more to terrorists.

There's only one seat on that throne and it doesn't fit two.


I know this doesn't concern you, unless you are American, since you don't come from a country that can challenge for the crown. China and America will be on a collision course one way or the other. Building the islands, not building the islands, disputes or no, it doesn't really matter.

All that's changed is the venue, the conflict is still there. Once somebody emerges victorious, does it really matter what happens today.

Patrols can stop, but it's very difficult to take away hard power, once it's there.



Did you ever consider that the US CAN turn up the heat is something that doesn't sit well with us. Be honest, how much does Vietnam, Philippines and to some extent Japan really add to America's power, in relation to China.

Are you really going to say with these allies America can win now, or if and when China passes it in total GDP and inches ever closer to military spending, you are going to say Philippines and Vietnam is the difference in this.

The main problem is the power divide between China and America, that doesn't change with the ownership of a few islands and the friendship of a few minor powers, or even a great power, since America is in another stratosphere and China is inching towards that other stratosphere.

Or another question is IF China had no disputes, would America let China just keep on gaining on them unchallenged? Would they not find a way to do what they are doing now any way possible.

You don't get it, the point is not how much power these regional countries add to US, the point is that china's actions created the environment for USA to get involved.

You knew more than this. You knew everyone who has power have do something on their controlled islands (even it is disputed). You knew all these is media sensational with certain agenda behind it.

I seriously don't see everyone ask USA to intervene except those western media. SG spoke out sometime just to maintain the power balance between east and west to secure their own interest. And you pretend don't know about this.

Pulau Layang-Layang (Shallow Reef) Swallow Reef - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
layang-layang-island-aerial-view-big.jpg

Is Malaysia bully Vietnam by building a resort on the island? Or they simply doesn't give a shxt because Malaysia defence force is not as strong as China? :coffee:

The Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) has maintained a presence on the reef since 1983, but as with all of the Spratly Islands, the ownership is disputed, and it is also claimed by the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Vietnam. The Philippines does not lay claim to Swallow Reef

If you don't seriously see anybody asking USA to intervene then I suggest new eyeglasses.
 
.
Can someone post the latest development of our reclamation in the area please!?!

images
 
.
Biased opinion distorts real picture over South China Sea claims

As the territorial disputes in the South China Sea have been put in the limelight again lately, China has drawn a series of stinging rebukes. A typical opinion was delivered by US President Barack Obama when he accused China of "flexing its muscles" to advance its maritime claims against Asian neighbors.

Currently, I am in the Philippines as a visiting scholar of the Asian Center, University of the Philippines Diliman and heard very often the complaint that China is "bullying" the Philippines. Filipino scholars often ask me: Why as a signatory of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), why was China afraid of settling its disputes in the UNCLOS Arbitration Tribunal?

These accusations about China are ill-founded. In the international public opinion dominated by the Western hemisphere, China is on the defense in justifying its claims to the South China Sea. But this situation has been distorted and even turned the other way around by the US.

The latest example that indicates China's "flexing its muscles" is its reclamations of some islets and reefs that are under China's control in the South China Sea.

But it must be noted that China is not the first South China Sea claimant to build islands there. For decades, China has restrained itself by adhering to seeking common ground and shelving disagreements.

China's construction work is a signal that indicates it is about to reactivate its legitimate rights of developing its maritime territories, which, according to China's plans, will be beneficial to disaster prevention at sea and many other kinds of public good.

As one claimant, China has the right to defend its legitimate rights. Thus, scolding and complaints which deny China's legal rights are biased and have ulterior motives.

As for China's refusal to participate in the international arbitration of UNCLOS, Beijing is not to blame.

It is widely accepted in the international community that either political negotiations or international law can be used to resolve territorial disputes. In reality, because of the complicacy and sensitivity of territorial disputes, most successful solutions were achieved by political negotiations.


Although the Philippines claimed that it hasn't requested the international tribunal to demarcate the disputed area, its core and real purpose is to use the tribunal's ruling as a "lawful" challenge to weaken the legal status of the nine-dashed line claimed by China and then to jeopardize China's sovereignty in the region. Thus the arbitration will be a political matter rather than a legal case.

China has stated clearly that territorial disputes pertaining to it are not covered by the UNCLOS mechanisms, and this reservation was admitted by UNCLOS. On December, 2014, Chinese Foreign Ministry released a copy of China's position with regard to the Philippines' appeal for arbitration. This position paper has offered a justification for China's consistent stance.

So, the Philippine government has the right to appeal to the international tribunal, and China has the right to say no, which only shows different propensities to deal with territorial dispute. China has been open and pragmatic in its territorial policies. Since the founding of China, it has signed border treaties or agreements with 12 neighboring countries. 90 percent of the land border between China and its neighbors has thus been demarcated.

There is no reason to conclude that China has no intention to resolve the territorial disputes or the South China Sea issue cannot be dealt with by political negotiations.

The key is to restart direct negotiations between China and the Philippines, in case more misunderstandings and miscalculations are bred or caused due to a lack of effective communication. Verbal fights based on ill-considered accusations are of no avail. What is needed is rationality rather than emotionality, pragmatism rather than idealism, a far-sighted vision for solutions rather than a short-sighted approach to immediate interest.
 
.
I'm not saying no body, because your previous post said everyone not anybody.
Anyway back to topic, even Japan use this opportunity to score some point.

I prefer to say this issue for the region is 危机 (crisis and opportunity). It is inevitable that rise of panda will challenge the current 'rule' set by the western power. Therefore i see why not, if play the card right, everyone will be better in the future.

If you don't seriously see anybody asking USA to intervene then I suggest new eyeglasses.
 
.
Biased opinion distorts real picture over South China Sea claims

As the territorial disputes in the South China Sea have been put in the limelight again lately, China has drawn a series of stinging rebukes. A typical opinion was delivered by US President Barack Obama when he accused China of "flexing its muscles" to advance its maritime claims against Asian neighbors.

Currently, I am in the Philippines as a visiting scholar of the Asian Center, University of the Philippines Diliman and heard very often the complaint that China is "bullying" the Philippines. Filipino scholars often ask me: Why as a signatory of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), why was China afraid of settling its disputes in the UNCLOS Arbitration Tribunal?

These accusations about China are ill-founded. In the international public opinion dominated by the Western hemisphere, China is on the defense in justifying its claims to the South China Sea. But this situation has been distorted and even turned the other way around by the US.

The latest example that indicates China's "flexing its muscles" is its reclamations of some islets and reefs that are under China's control in the South China Sea.

But it must be noted that China is not the first South China Sea claimant to build islands there. For decades, China has restrained itself by adhering to seeking common ground and shelving disagreements.

China's construction work is a signal that indicates it is about to reactivate its legitimate rights of developing its maritime territories, which, according to China's plans, will be beneficial to disaster prevention at sea and many other kinds of public good.

As one claimant, China has the right to defend its legitimate rights. Thus, scolding and complaints which deny China's legal rights are biased and have ulterior motives.

As for China's refusal to participate in the international arbitration of UNCLOS, Beijing is not to blame.

It is widely accepted in the international community that either political negotiations or international law can be used to resolve territorial disputes. In reality, because of the complicacy and sensitivity of territorial disputes, most successful solutions were achieved by political negotiations.


Although the Philippines claimed that it hasn't requested the international tribunal to demarcate the disputed area, its core and real purpose is to use the tribunal's ruling as a "lawful" challenge to weaken the legal status of the nine-dashed line claimed by China and then to jeopardize China's sovereignty in the region. Thus the arbitration will be a political matter rather than a legal case.

China has stated clearly that territorial disputes pertaining to it are not covered by the UNCLOS mechanisms, and this reservation was admitted by UNCLOS. On December, 2014, Chinese Foreign Ministry released a copy of China's position with regard to the Philippines' appeal for arbitration. This position paper has offered a justification for China's consistent stance.

So, the Philippine government has the right to appeal to the international tribunal, and China has the right to say no, which only shows different propensities to deal with territorial dispute. China has been open and pragmatic in its territorial policies. Since the founding of China, it has signed border treaties or agreements with 12 neighboring countries. 90 percent of the land border between China and its neighbors has thus been demarcated.

There is no reason to conclude that China has no intention to resolve the territorial disputes or the South China Sea issue cannot be dealt with by political negotiations.

The key is to restart direct negotiations between China and the Philippines, in case more misunderstandings and miscalculations are bred or caused due to a lack of effective communication. Verbal fights based on ill-considered accusations are of no avail. What is needed is rationality rather than emotionality, pragmatism rather than idealism, a far-sighted vision for solutions rather than a short-sighted approach to immediate interest.

As the title of the article says, biased opinion.
 
.
Both South and North regime is not existed after 1976.

United Vietnam = North VN + South VN (included Islands Paracel and Spratly), there is new regime ruled the country now.
if a united vn claimed the island base on northerner once held would the agreement between northerner & china be binding?
 
.
You don't get it, the point is not how much power these regional countries add to US, the point is that china's actions created the environment for USA to get involved.

Then enlighten me, by answer my question that I posed.

Or another question is IF China had no disputes, would America let China just keep on gaining on them unchallenged? Would they not find a way to do what they are doing now any way possible.

Is it not

All that's changed is the venue, same conflict.

If not, would there be no conflict? Would China have the upper hand? Even though we are so much weaker right now?
 
.
China must insist on island-building
2015-5-31

During the just-concluded Shangri-La Dialogue, military representatives from China and the US did not engage in the bitter brawling predicted by the media. Both sides have reaffirmed their own stance. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter asked all claimants, especially China, to cease island-building in the South China Sea, and by cautiously skirting around the question of how the US will respond if China continues its construction activities, Carter didn't issue further threats against China.

But the US is still able to launch more provocations in this region, perhaps by sending surveillance planes and warships to the periphery of 12 nautical miles from China-controlled islands.

No matter how disturbing the US can be, China must not stop its construction, which is in line with China's sovereign integrity. If Beijing backs off due to Washington's threats and some Western countries' protests, this will create a horrific precedent, which will embolden US-led forces to set tougher positions against China. China should try its best to inject prosperity into the South China Sea, promoting regional economic development and enhancing its disaster resistance ability. Only in this way will the ongoing quarrels calm down.

If China can play its cards right, these expanded islands will not only prevent the South China Sea situation from becoming intensified, but initiate a new constructive thinking for regional development. China's construction activities will offer an opportunity to break the vicious circle that has been haunting the South China Sea for decades.

These expanded islands will allow China to acquire more initiative to carry out its South China Sea policies. For now, it is China that values regional peace more than any other state, because the stability of the South China Sea is a prerequisite for China to make use of this important period of strategic opportunities.

As of now, military confrontation is still the last choice for all stakeholders in the South China Sea. However, different desires and expectations have caused the complexity in the South China Sea issues. When China can set a firm foothold in the area, it will bring along more elements that can drive peace and stability.

China needs to make broad plans including countermeasures against more US intrusions. Beijing should be fully prepared, both mentally and physically, for possible military conflicts with the US. China needs to clearly express its unwillingness as well as fearlessness to fight. The more prepared China can be, the lower the possibility of military conflict.

This round of contest in the South China Sea is more like a strategic dialogue, through which China and the US can come up with a set of models and principles under which they can show mutual respect around China's offshore areas.

If China insists on its island construction, publicizes its peaceful purposes, and avoids making these expanded islands a focal point of Sino-US military competition, we believe it will be eventually accepted by the widest number of parties concerned.
 
.
Then enlighten me, by answer my question that I posed.



Is it not



If not, would there be no conflict? Would China have the upper hand? Even though we are so much weaker right now?

There is only space for 1 tiger in the mountain.
 
.
There is only space for 1 tiger in the mountain.

well put, then let's circle back to our original argument. Namely, Philippines and Vietnam's role in this.

You don't get it, the point is not how much power these regional countries add to US, the point is that china's actions created the environment for USA to get involved.

If there is only room for one tiger on the mountain, and looking at your post you agree Philippines and Vietnam adds little to America's power, what does it matter where the battlefield is? If there's going to be a battle either way, for supremacy.

Assuming you agree, America won't willingly give up the mountain and go home and die alone.
 
.
China’s “historical evidence” worthless to international law

VietNamNet Bridge would like to introduce several articles written by Hoang Huong during her trip to Hawaii (USA), Beijing and Hainan (China), Masinloc and Manila (the Philippines) and Singapore with journalists from 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific region to discuss the East Sea (South China Sea) conflict, held by the Jefferson Fellowships program of the East-West Center (USA).
The East Sea: Risk of conflict, opportunities for cooperation?

20150603133636-1.jpg

Dr. Li Guoqiang, a senior expert from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). Photo: Jim Gomez


China may show 'evidence' that Chinese sailors used to be present in the East Sea (South China Sea in international name), but according to international law, that does not prove its ownership.
In the perspective of China, the country with many plans to turn the East Sea into its own pond, Mr. Li Guoqiang, a senior expert from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), said that to face the new developments in the East Sea, all parties need to try harder. There is both the risk of conflict and opportunity for cooperation. When the parties cannot reach agreement on the issue of territorial sovereignty, why do they not prioritize cooperation and development and through collaboration and development to enhance reliability, eliminate hindrances and disagreement?
As a senior expert on administration and security from the East-West Center (USA), Mr. Denny Roy, commented: “It is safe to assume that Beijing carefully considers the potential impact of all Chinese moves on regional tensions and on China’s relations with other countries in the region. What is important is that Beijing seems less concerned about appearing aggressive, and more determined to force other countries to accept Chinese preferences.”
Meanwhile, Prof. Sherry P. Broder, a lecturer from the William S. Richardson School of Law, Hawaii University, was also not in agreement about the "increase of reliability” in theory of Mr. Li Guoqiang, saying that other Asian countries were quite wary about the aggressive attitude of the Chinese and their pressure to achieve the purpose of seeking to control the region, including the East China Sea and the East Sea (South China Sea).
Prof. Broder also indicated that China’s increasing investments in military shows that it wants to increase military pressure and tension in the region.
These concerns have been discussed publicly. In a statement issued after the 26th ASEAN Summit on April 27, 2015, ASEAN leaders expressed their serious concerns on the land reclamation being undertaken in the East Sea, which has “eroded trust and confidence and may undermine peace, security and stability in the sea.”


The nine-dashed line has no value to international law

20150603133636-2.jpg

Dr. Denny Roy. Photo: Jim Gomez


Mr. Li Guoqiang reiterated the view of the Chinese government as saying that "the nine-dashed line in terms of history does not only include nine but 11 segments. The nine-dashed line was formed 70 years ago after the World War II and China has a history of 2,000 years of discovering, naming and using this route. And in 1946 – under the principles in the Boston Cairo Declaration - China recovered the islands in the East Sea and the West Sea from Japan. And in December 1947, China "drew" the 11-dashed line on the map and determined the sovereignty over these islands.”
But the Chinese scholar also had to admit that as a member of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China will have to comply with the convention. So how can the "nine-dashed line” match the current Law of the Sea and how can this be resolved satisfactorily. It would require the effort of China and relevant countries, he said.
Based on his research, Roy analyzed the viewpoint of Chinese scholar Li Guoqiang: “The nine dashed line (actually it’s now the “ten dashed line”) is based on a traditional Chinese outlook but has no legitimate basis in modern international law. The Chinese argument is that China discovered and used the East Sea islands before anyone else, so therefore China has a kind of soft ownership of the ocean around the islands. This basically reflects the Chinese idea that as the historical and now returning great power of the region, China is entitled to a sphere of influence in the sea bordering China.”
Roy said that other Asia-Pacific countries should put strong pressure on Beijing to at least explain, if not to give up the claim suggested by the ten dashed line, which is that China owns almost the entire East Sea.
Sharing this view, Broder said that China is ambiguous about the precise meaning of the nine-dash line and China has never offered an official explanation and clarified its legal basis.
“Although the nine-dash line map was first circulated in 1948 or 1949, it was not used again until 1999. In 2009, China submitted a note verbal to the United Nations Attorney General citing the nine-dash line in defense of its claim over the East Sea. China asserts that the nine-dash line represents the limit of historic use and thus China claims historic title and has offered some historical documents in support from its long record of written history. Under UNCLOS it is a weak legal position,” she said.
“In addition, other countries in the region can also make claims based on their seafaring histories. Moreover the presence of fishermen and sailors would not seem to be sufficient to establish the claim of any of the China or any of its neighbors. Until very recently neither customary international law nor international practice recognized sovereign rights over maritime zones, beyond three nautical miles,” she added.
According to Prof. Broder, China also argues that these small features are islands and generate full EEZ territorial claims that actually can be said to correspond to the maritime region “delimited” by its nine-dash line. Article 121 of UNCLOS has been interpreted many times now in several cases before the international tribunals. It is clear that these features should not qualify as islands. Uninhabited islands can only claim a 12 mile territorial sea. Some of the features are on the seabed, do not qualify as islands and do not generate any maritime zone as all. Thus China’s argument on this point is also weak under UNCLOS.
* Dr. Denny Roy taught Chinese studies, the history of Asia, and Southeast Asian politics at the Navy School of Monterey, California, in 1998 - 2000; researched on security - defense at the University of Canberra, Australia; taught political science at schools in Singapore and England before becoming a senior researcher of the East - West Research Centre in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States. He is the author of many research works such as The Pacific War and Its Political Legacies; Taiwan: A Political Policy and China's Foreign Relations, and many articles in scientific - politics journals.
* Prof. Sherry P. Broder is a lecturer at the William S. Richardson Law School, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Her major teaching and research fields are is international law, ocean law, environmental law and human rights. Also, she is a media advisor and arbitrator for Hawaii’s government. She is the founder and executive director of the Jon Van Dyke Institute for International Law and Justice, which regularly organizes seminars and events related to the UNCLOS, the International Environmental Law and the International law on human rights.
* Dr. Li Guoqiang is a researcher in the field of philosophy and social sciences. He is working at the border research center of the CASS, China.


 
.
well put, then let's circle back to our original argument. Namely, Philippines and Vietnam's role in this.



If there is only room for one tiger on the mountain, and looking at your post you agree Philippines and Vietnam adds little to America's power, what does it matter where the battlefield is? If there's going to be a battle either way, for supremacy.

Assuming you agree, America won't willingly give up the mountain and go home and die alone.

The point is how and under what reasons the confrontation starts, China, by its actions conceded on that to USA. If China were to just be doing its thing peacefully as it was doing until Xe came to power, then USA is the one that has to break the normal order of things in order to take on China, but now China has given the reasons to USA, very big difference. That's why I said, it did what USA actually needed China to do.
 
.
You don't get it, the point is not how much power these regional countries add to US, the point is that china's actions created the environment for USA to get involved.



If you don't seriously see anybody asking USA to intervene then I suggest new eyeglasses.
The USA can intervene as they like,but they can't stop us.Sooner or later,we will intervene into North America affairs too,you stupid coward.
 
.
The point is how and under what reasons the confrontation starts, China, by its actions conceded on that to USA. If China were to just be doing its thing peacefully as it was doing until Xe came to power, then USA is the one that has to break the normal order of things in order to take on China, but now China has given the reasons to USA, very big difference. That's why I said, it did what USA actually needed China to do.
fair, then let's go further to the effects of such actions.

Would you say if the US had initiated it, however unjustified, would that be such an advantage for China, that with 1 trainer carrier to America's 11, 10 trillion and low mid income economy to America's 17 trillion and high income economy, a rising tech nation and THE leading tech nation, America being the leader of the advanced economies, and China being the leader of nobody and nothing, would that be such a difference that we wouldn't need to wait until the weight on the scale changed dramatically?

If the answer is we have to wait, what does it matter what we do right now? Unless you think it will stop China's growth in GDP and income, stop China's ability to advance our military prowess, stop China's ability to create new organizations and influence nations, and stop China from continue to advance on the technology ladder.

But if you think that we can take on the US without this dispute or that we would be stop dead in our tracks on the criteria that I have mentioned with this dispute then we are wrong.

If not what does it matter.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom