Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Flipzi's.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you have a limited access. You can read the 'Announcements' and 'Society' sections but you need to register in order to view the rest. This is for security reasons. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free anyway. Register now instead. Thank you.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Chinese Scholars Call For The Elimination Of Baseless Claim Of U-Shaped Line; Various Chinese scholars criticize “9-dashed line”
Topic Started: Sun Apr 6, 2014 8:33 pm (1,371 Views)
Flipzi
Member Avatar
R.A.T.S.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Photo: A Chinese map drawn in 1904 doesn’t include the Paracel Islands and the Spratly's Islands as well as Scarborough Shoal. (photo: tuoitre.vn)

Chinese Scholars Call For The Elimination Of Baseless Claim Of 9-Dash Line

Note:

1. Kalayaan Islands (Ph) = Truong Sa (Vn), Nansha (Cn) or Spratly's Islands (intl)
2. Panatag Shoal (Ph) = Scarborough Shoal or Huangyan (Cn)
2. Paracel Islands (intl)= Hoang Sa (Vn) or Xisha (Cn)
3. Pratas (intl) = Dong Sa (Vn) or Dongsha (Tw)
4. Macclesfield Bank (intl) = Trung Sa (Vn) or Zhongsha (Cn)

The 9-dash line (or cow-tongue line) which China unilaterally draws in the East Sea has provoked not only Vietnamese scholars and researchers, but also Chinese scholars.

Recently, a Chinese scholar whose pen name is Li Woteng, posted on Sina, China’s biggest internet forum, an article entitled “The nine-dash line: keep or eliminate” to expose the irrational claim. The article shows that truth is still respected and China cannot arbitrarily announce sovereignty over territory it has never owned.

The article says international scholars have always said that the key issue in the East Sea isn’t sovereignty over the islands, but the “9-dash line”. Li says nations bordering the East Sea have arguments and evidence of their sovereignty over the islands. Only China’s “9-dash line” claim has no evidence. China has talked a lot about the “9-dash line” but has only a vague explanation of what the “9-dash line” is. The Chinese government has no original documents that clearly define the “9-dash line”. In fact, the “9-dash line” was drawn on the map arbitrarily. This shows the “9-dash line” has no concrete

Here is Li Woteng’s article:

“For the international scholar circle, the key issue in the East Sea is not the sovereignty of islands, but the “nine-dash line”, which should be resolved first to ensure peace in the East Sea. The elimination of the “nine-dash line” is of both theoretical and practical importance. Here is some analysis of the issue:

First, setting up the “nine-dash line” is baseless. All parties in the East Sea have arguments for their sovereignty over islands, but only China’s “nine-dash line” has no basis. In 1936, Bai Mei Chu drew the dashed line during China’s reconstruction without any justification. He wrote “those were the places that our fishermen earned their livelihood and they obviously belong to our sovereignty”.

There is no evidence that people conducted any investigation before drawing that line. So we can say that the line was drawn subjectively.

The “nine-dash line” was officially drawn on the Chinese map when the second map of the East Sea was drawn (at that time, it had 11 dashes). Since then, the “nine-dash line” has had no definition, no one knows what it is, and the government hasn’t got any explanation. There’s an assumption that an official in charge of home affairs Zheng Si Yue drew it on the map arbitrarily”.

Second, the “nine-dash line” is not the sea territory line of China and lacks any legal basis.

China has talked about the “nine-dash line”, but it has never clarified what the “nine-dash line” is. It is ridiculous that the “nine-dash line” has been on the Chinese map for more than 60 years, but Chinese experts still argue about it. The Chinese government has neither declared its opinions nor issued a document or a definition about the “nine-dash line”.

The 9-dash line has been adjusted several times on Chinese maps. The adjustment includes the omission of 2 dashes within the Tonkin Gulf (making the 11-dash line under Chinese Nationalist Party rule the 9-dash line of today) and some other minor changes. This suggests there is no clear legal origin for the 9-dash line. Legally, the 9-dash line does not define China’s territorial waters. The 1992 Law on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of the People’s Republic of China stipulated that China’s waters extend 12 nautical miles from the baseline. The 1996 Declaration on the Baseline of the Territorial Sea defined the Paracel Islands or Xisha archipelago (known in Vietnam as the Hoang Sa archipelago) as the baseline. So the waters 12 nautical miles out from this baseline do not belong to China but still are contained within the 9-dash line.

This proves that the 9-dash line is not China’s sea demarcation line. Chinese experts on maritime law have said the 9-dash line is neither a territorial line nor an indication of China’s territory. It just refers to islands claimed by China. So deletion of the line creates no legal difficulty.

This analysis by author Li Woteng from the perspective of history and national legacy was posted on China’s Sina online forum.

This is not the first time Chinese scholars have voiced an objection to the “9-dash line”. Li’s arguments echo many other opinions against the claim.

An article entitled “Erroneous war illusion” posted on China’s Global News publicly rejected the “9-dash line” and warned that “People who advocate war have weak minds. A fragile and deceitful self-respect cannot make success. Warlike minds will lead to injustice”.

Xue Litai, a famous scholar and commentator for Hongkong’s Phoenix online newspaper, pointed out 3 problems with the “9-dash line”.

First, China drew 11 dashes on the map without demarcating the marine boundary with neighboring countries and without international acknowledgement.

Second, China has never said whether the “9-dash line” is a national border line or a traditional demarcation in the sea. Beijing has not presented any definition, longitude, or latitude for the line, but has simply drawn the line on their maps. How can they persuade others? Xue said if Beijing affirms that the “9-dash line” is China’s national border line, why has China never mentioned this during diplomatic exchanges since Vietnam’s national unification and claim of sovereignty over scores of big and small islands within this sea area?

Thirdly, if Beijing stresses that the previous 11-dotted line was the national border line that could not be violated, why after the new China was born, Beijing itself removed two dots on the map in the Tonkin Gulf. Does China consider the fixing of national border line a joke?

Li Linghua, a prestigious scholar on law and marine law, has said that China cannot evade an international questioning of the legitimacy of the “9-dash line” and must abide by international law in the East Sea. Li Linghua agreed with the article “the 9-dash line: keep or eliminate” and once again called on the Chinese government to seriously consider Li Woteng’s proposal to abandon the unjust “9-dash line”, paving the way for a resolution of all East Sea disputes.

Li Linghua wrote in a preface “Mr. Li Woteng’s article is worthy of appreciation. Our country unilaterally intended to impose the “nine-dash line” on a large part of the 200- square mile- exclusive economic zone defined by the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and this has caused a series of conflicts and disputes. In an increasingly integrated global economy, our country needs to seriously consider Mr. Li’s proposal and promptly eliminate this “traditional” line to pave the way for resolving the East Sea dispute”.

It’s obvious that China’s “9-dash line” claim cannot persuade people who comprehend the issue. Considering the East Sea as its private bay, China seems to hope the world community will mistake the “9-dash line” for its marine border line.

But the truth must be respected, because in the globalization, people can not believe in unclear arguments in term of history, law, and reality.


Sources:

Some Chinese Scholars Call For The Elimination Of Baseless Claim Of U-Shaped Line
http://eyedrd.org/2013/05/some-chinese-scholars-call-for-the-elimination-of-baseless-claim-of-u-shaped-line.html

Various Chinese scholars criticize “9-dashed line”
http://119.15.167.94/qdndsubsite/en-US/75/72/306/306/306/200466/Default.aspx

Arbitrary sovereignty claim worthless
http://vovworld.vn/en-us/Current-Affairs/Arbitrary-sovereignty-claim-worthless/156272.vov
Edited by Flipzi, Sun Apr 6, 2014 9:14 pm.
Alfred Alexander L. Marasigan
Manila, Philippines
getflipzi@yahoo.com

http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi

" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them!"

" People don't care what we know until they know we care."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flipzi
Member Avatar
R.A.T.S.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Various Chinese scholars criticize “9-dashed line”

QĐND - Saturday, August 04, 2012, 21:20 (GMT+7)

PANO - On May 7th, 2009, China officially asked to circulate among the United Nations state members a map that reflects the “cow-tongue” line (or the “U-shaped line” or the so-called “9-dashed line”) in the East Sea, claiming not only the islands and reefs but also the whole sea area within this line. In response to China’s recent actions in the East Sea, the world opinion is raising a question whether China is on its way to claim its sovereignty over this dotted line despite international objection.

Various Chinese scholars with certain knowledge of international law have confirmed that there exist no legal documents to verify the existence of this illegal dotted line.


Posted Image

Incorrect points of the “cow-tongue” line

According to Chinese scholars, the “U-shaped line” first appeared on the Location Map of the South China Sea Islands (Nanhai zhudao weizhi tu) compiled by Fu Jiaojin and Wang Xiguang and was published by Geological Bureau under China Ministry of Home Affairs in 1947.

Some people tried to hold on to the origin of this line with an aim to have an advantegous explaination for China. According to them, the “U-shaped line” was drawn by one person named Hu Jinsui in 1914. Until December 1947, an official from the Republic of China, named Bai Meichu, re-drew this line in his individual map. The 11-dotted line covered Islands of Dong Sa (Pratas), Hoang Sa (Paracel), Truong Sa (Spratly) and Trung Sa (Macclesfield Bank). However, in 1953, the 11-dotted line was adjusted into 9-dotted line. Two dots in the Tonkin Gulf was removed with no clear reason. In fact, there has so far no document featuring the accurate co-ordinate and location of the “U-shaped line” or “the 9-dashed” line been found.

Scholar, famous commentator of the online Phoenix newspaper (Hongkong, China) Xue Litai warned that China will face various difficulties and challenges from international community if it claims sovereignty over the “9-dashed” line. This scholar pointed out some incorrect points of the “cow-tongue” line.

Firstly, China itself has drawn the 11-dotted line on the map without demarcation at sea with neighbouring countries and the dashed line has received no international recognition.

Secondly, to date, China has failed to make clear that the “cow-tongue” line is the national dashed border line or traditional demarcation line at sea. Beijing has given no definition and clear longitude and latitude relating to the geological location but just drawn the dotted line on their map. That is not convincing at all.

Thirdly, if Beijing stresses that the previous 11-dotted line was the national border line that could not be violated, why after the new China was born, Beijing itself removed two dots on the map in the Tonkin Gulf. Does China consider the fixing of national border line a joke?


No reliable legal evidence

Other Chinese scholars said that the “cow-tongue” line is only the unilateral claim of China with no firm legal foundation. These scholars also have disagreed with what China has interpreted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS 1982). This vague interpretation on the jurisdiction without mentioning geological elements of the coastal line or basic line is completely unconvincing.

Li Linghua, a researcher at China’s National Oceanographic Data and Information Centre, the author of more than 90 articles on maritime issues and the law of the sea, which were posted on different Chinese newspapers, frankly criticized wrong viewpoint on the issue relating to the East Sea and rejected the “cow-tongue” line at the seminar “The East Sea disputes, national sovereignty and international regulations” jointly organized by Tian Ze Economic Research Institute and online newspaper Sina.com on July 14th. Li Linghua stressed that “We-China had drawn the 9-dashed line with no specific longitude and latitude and legal basis”.

In his writing, “About 200-mile border map on the South China Sea (East Sea) drawn under UNCLOS” released on July 3rd, he made public a map demarcating 200-mile exclusive economic zone, concerned by nations bordering the East Sea, clearly features that areas that China has been claiming its sovereignty over basing on the “9-dashed line” are within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone of Vietnam. That article also rejected the establishment of what is called “Sansha” city by China and the international bid given by China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) for 9 blocks which entirely lie in Vietnam’s continental shelf and 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

Professor Zhang Shuguang from the University of Sichuan emphasized that the “cow-tongue” line claimed by China without any basis and international recognition is worthless. “Chinese interests need to be recognized by others. Without that recognition China has no right”.


Changes need to be made to advance together with the time

Some Chinese scholars have suggested using the UNCLOS 1982 to solve disputes in the respect of international law through peaceful negotiation under bilateral or multi-lateral mechanism to avoid the use of force and reduce the the risk of conflict.

On July 29th, Ji Jianguo, former Chinese Ambassador to Vietnam, who is present Head of Asia-Pacific Research Centre, in an interview given to the Global Times, criticized and rejected the stance of some Chinese people on launching a war to settle disputes in the East Sea.

Ji said that regarding the issue of the South China Sea (East Sea), some preferred to use violence but I think that posiblity is very little as both China and Vietnam want this region to be peaceful, stable and advocate settling dispute over territory via negotiations. To date, China’s standpoint has not changed.

Having recalled his participation in negotiations on border demarcation on land and in the Tonkin Gulf, Ji confirmed that since agreements were signed, the situations at borders of the two countries have been stable, practically benefiting people of the two countries, especially those who live along the border. He believed that though the two sides’ standpoint on the East Sea remains different, two sides could find acceptable basic and long-term solutions to it at last if both sides advocate peaceful negotiations.

Ji Jianguo also confirmed that allegations, such as “giving Vietnam one more lesson”, are only the viewpoints of some individuals and they do not represent Chinese Party and Government’s policies.

China’s international strategic expert Xue Li from Chinese Academy of Social Sciences completely rejected the possibility of the use of violence in the East Sea. He stressed peaceful measures and the enhancement of the confidence building to settle disputes instead of using military measures.

Li Linghua, in his article, “settlement of the East Sea dispute should not be delayed”, posted on Sina.com, emphasized that China needs to carry out peaceful negotiations and dialogues, to create peaceful atmosphere with neighbouring countries who shares the same sea on the basis of the UNCLOS 1982 because this convention is the existing “Charter of the Ocean”.

On his own website, Li Linghua clearly explained the nature of the issue. According to him, the introduction of the “cow-tongue” or 9-dashed line in the Chinese textbooks has engraved in Chinese generations’ mind that it is the national border line while it had not been recognized internationally. If that confirmation remains, tense in the East Sea will never end. He hoped that Chinese scholars and people could advance together with time and find out the truth and change their incorrect viewpoints.

Reported by Ngoc Ha

Translated by Mai Huong

http://119.15.167.94/qdndsubsite/en-US/75/72/306/306/306/200466/Default.aspx
Edited by Flipzi, Sun Apr 6, 2014 8:38 pm.
Alfred Alexander L. Marasigan
Manila, Philippines
getflipzi@yahoo.com

http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi

" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them!"

" People don't care what we know until they know we care."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flipzi
Member Avatar
R.A.T.S.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What could be the reason why China is trying to steal these areas?

One possible angle is the gang of corrupt Chinese businessmen who controls the politburo are using the govt. and the military to get their hands on Philippine oil.

The fishing operation is just a diversion and to fool the Chinese people that the govt, goaded by this corrupt gang, simply wants to give their Chinese people more fishing areas. Add to that their deceitful nationalistic rhetoric.


Read more:

China is Controlled by Corrupt Chinese Corporations
http://w11.zetaboards.com/NDSFP/topic/10174967/

Recto Bank (Reed Bank), the richest in gas and oil in the WPE
http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=508
Edited by Flipzi, Mon Apr 7, 2014 1:58 am.
Alfred Alexander L. Marasigan
Manila, Philippines
getflipzi@yahoo.com

http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi

" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them!"

" People don't care what we know until they know we care."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flipzi
Member Avatar
R.A.T.S.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Posted Image
PHOTO: 1735 Chinese Map: German Chancellor Angela Merkel presents Chinese President Xi Jinping with a map of China from the 18th century at the Chancellor's Office on March 28, 2014 in Berlin.

GERMAN LEADER MERKEL PRESENTS TO CHINESE LEADER XI JINPING A 18TH CENTURY MAP THAT DOENST INCLUDE TIBET, THE SPRATLYS, THE PARACELS, SCARBOROUGH AND THE REST OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

Maybe Heads of State Shouldn’t Give Maps as Presents

TIME MAGAZINE time.com,
Emily Rauhala / Beijing @emilyrauhala April 2, 2014

When German chancellor Angela Merkel gave Chinese president Xi Jinping an antique map of his country as a gift, during his recent visit to Berlin, she couldn’t have known what a stir it would cause

***

Chancellor Merkel probably meant well. In Berlin last week, she gave her guest, Chinese President Xi Jinping, a 1735 map of China made by esteemed French cartographer Jean-Baptiste Bourguignon d’Anville (1697–1 782). The map, part of a series by d’Anville, was based in part on information gleaned by Jesuit missionaries. It was well-regarded at the time and republished for decades to come.

A perfect gift for a visiting dignitary, right? You would think so. But ever since the exchange, China’s Internet has been buzzing about the gift. Why did Merkel choose this particular item? What was the message in the map?

For students of Chinese history, the date jumps out. This was the height of the great Qing Dynasty, specifically the year when the Qianlong Emperor ascended to power. He presided over a military expansion west and north, but his death, in 1799, is associated with the period of decline that followed.

And then there are the boundaries. Armed Forces of the Philippines 1735 d’Anville map shows “China proper” as a land mass separate from areas like Xinjiang, Tibet, Mongolia and Manchuria. The island of Hainan is drawn in a different color, as is Taiwan. This depiction is utterly at odds with how history is taught here.

Chinese students learn that these areas are inalienable parts of China, and that they have been for a long, long time. One netizen described the map as a “slap” from Merkel. “We always say some regions are inalienable parts of China since ancient times, but Merkel told us that even in 18th century those regions still did not belong to China.”

Another reasoned that it was the map-makers, not Chancellor Merkel, who messed things up. “Merkel has no special connotation,” they wrote. “At that time German priests [sic] were not allowed to travel in such areas.”

To complicate the matter, at least two different versions of the map have been circulating online. State news wire Xinhua seems to have published an entirely different version of the map, prompting an entirely different set of theories.

Tibetan activist and blogger Tsering Woeser spotted the difference and pointed it out on her Facebook page. To express her dismay at the deception, she used a Chinese idiom that might be translated as “they are so good at perpetrating fraud!” More literally, the phrase means “to steal the beams and pillars and replace them with rotten timber.”

The lesson: Maps mean different things to different people. And history is made of shaky stuff.

http://time.com/46414/angela-merkel-xi-jinping-china-germany-map/
Edited by Flipzi, Tue Apr 8, 2014 10:12 am.
Alfred Alexander L. Marasigan
Manila, Philippines
getflipzi@yahoo.com

http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi

" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them!"

" People don't care what we know until they know we care."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flipzi
Member Avatar
R.A.T.S.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Why Germany's Merkel Slapped China's Jinping and Why China Is Not Saying A Word Against Russia's Invasion of Crimea

March 4, 2014


Facepalm from Germany

German Chancellor Angela Merkel declined to accompany Xi Jinping on Holocaust memorial visit over fears it will be used as propaganda in China’s row with Japan over Second World War crimes.

Xi requested to visit the Holocaust Museum together with German President Joachim Gauck to demonstrate China's willingness to preserve the legacy of World War II as a member of the United Nations Security Council, which the Reuters report interpreted as an attempt to embarrass Japan, one of the Nazi Germany's major allies during World War II.

But the Chinese leader had been insensitive and disrespectful to the German host for stressing the grim memory of Nazi era.

"Germans are really uncomfortable with this kind of thing, and the country dislikes China constantly bringing up Germany’s painful past," said the German diplomat.

SO, CHANCELLOR MINI MERKEL GAVE THE CHINESE LEADER A RUDE AWAKENING by showing the Chinese leader Xi Jinping a 1735 Chinese map that does not show Tibet and the South China Sea cluster of islands including the Spratly's.


China Is Not Saying A Word Against Russia's Invasion of Crimea

German Chancellor Angela Merkel touched on human rights and the crisis in Crimea in a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Berlin. The two also presided over a series of business deals between their countries.

Both Merkel and Xi - China's first president to visit Germany in eight years - addressed the crisis in Ukraine, fresh from Thursday's United Nations General Assembly non-binding vote declaring the secession of Crimea invalid.

A regular ally of Russia, China abstained from a UN Security Council vote earlier in March on a draft resolution condemning the Kremlin-backed referendum that led to the annexation of Crimea. It also abstained in Thursday's UN General Assembly vote.

"China does not have any private interests in the Ukraine question," Xi said. "All parties involved should work for a political and diplomatic solution to the conflict."

Merkel said: "If I were Russia I would not be satisfied with the number of votes in favor of Russia."

WHY CHINA IS NOT SAYING A WORD AGAINST RUSSIA'S INVASION OF CRIMEA? SIMPLE. IT WILL TELL THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD THAT CHINA'S INVASION OF THE SPRATLY'S IS VERY VERY WRONG.


China helping preserve the legacy of the United Nations?

Xi requested to visit the Holocaust Museum together with Gauck to demonstrate China's willingness to preserve the legacy of World War II as a member of the United Nations Security Council.

PRESIDENT XI JINPING MUST TELL THAT TO THE TIBETANS THAT THEY FOOLED. Former Chinese leader Mao Zedong promised the Dalai Lama that it would leave Tibet after the liberation but the Chinese never left.

The Philippines has been trying to bring the case of China's illegal occupation of the areas controlled by the Philippines to settle the case peacefully and yet China simply ignored the UN's significance as a global arbiter-counsel and resorted to bullying maneuvers instead in a blatant disrespect of UN's existence. .

With China clearly abusing the UN and its powers as part of the UN Security Council, should China remain a part of the UN Security Council when it clearly displays today that it has already lost its conscience and credibility as a dependable, impartial, responsible and trustworthy member of the powerful UN council?

Remember, People of the world, the U.N. means United Nations and not China's United Nations.

Let's all keep the United Nation as a group of sovereign nations that are making decisions together for the interest of the greater good ..... and not of a single nation like what China seems to be doing these days.


REFERENCES:

Merkel highlights human rights, Crimea in meeting with China's Xi Jinping
http://www.dw.de/merkel-highlights-human-rights-crimea-in-meeting-with-chinas-xi-jinping/a-17529401

Angela Merkel declines to accompany Xi Jinping on Holocaust memorial visit over fears it will be used as propaganda in China’s row with Japan over Second World War crimes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573077/Angela-Merkel-declines-accompany-Xi-Jinping-Holocaust-memorial-visit-fears-used-propaganda-Chinas-row-Japan-Second-World-War-crimes.html

German president refuses Xi Jinping's request to visit Holocaust Memorial
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140328000042&cid=1101

Edited by Flipzi, Mon Apr 7, 2014 3:09 pm.
Alfred Alexander L. Marasigan
Manila, Philippines
getflipzi@yahoo.com

http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi

" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them!"

" People don't care what we know until they know we care."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flipzi
Member Avatar
R.A.T.S.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
17th century map debunks China's territorial claim

Carmela Fonbuena
Published 6:54 PM, Apr 09, 2014
Updated 9:37 PM, Apr 09, 2014
RAPPLER

The map, a gift from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Chinese President Xi Jinping, shows a smaller territory for China. It has led netizens to question Merkel's message behind the gift

MANILA, Philippines – The 17th century map of China was a gift from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Chinese President Xi Jinping during his recent visit to Berlin. But the gift offended many Chinese for it might as well have been Germany's gift to the Philippines and other countries caught in maritime disputes with China.

The ancient map debunks China's historical claim over several territories including the island of Hainan in the South China Sea, the southernmost province of China located just below the mainland.

The antique map drawn in 1735 by French cartographer Jean-Baptiste Bourguignon d’Anville sent China's Internet abuzz, leading netizens to question Merkel's message behind the gift, according to a Time.com article titled "Maybe heads of state shouldn't give maps as presents"

The Time article reads: "The 1735 d’Anville mapshows 'China proper' as a landmass separate from areas like Xinjiang, Tibet, Mongolia and Manchuria. The island of Hainan is drawn in a different color, as is Taiwan. This depiction is utterly at odds with how history is taught here."

It added: "Chinese students learn that these areas are inalienable parts of China, and that they have been for a long, long time. One netizen described the map as a 'slap' from Merkel."

The map was supposedly drawn with the help of Jesuit missionaries. (Here's another article from the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) that shows the ancient map: Angela Merkel's historical China map flap)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/angela-merkels-historical-china-map-flap-20140402-zqpje.html

The SMH writes: "The d'Anville map, at least visually, is a rejection of that narrative [in Chinese schools]. Unsurprisingly, China's official media outlets don't seem to have appreciated Merkel's gift. The People's Daily, which has given meticulous accounts of Xi's European tour, eluded any coverage of the offending map."


Different version

A different version of the map was apparently circulated by the local media in China. According to SMH, Chinese media reported that Merkel's gift was an 1844 map made by John Dower and published in London showing a bigger territory encompassing China's territory to include "Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia and large swaths of Siberia."

The 17th century marked the beginning of the expansionist Qing Dynasty, which eventually conquered more territories.

The 9-dash-line claim that China meant to delineate its maritime borders, however, was drawn in 1947 by the Kuomintang Government. (READ: South China Sea represents 'a new Persian Gulf'?)

http://www.rappler.com/%20http:/www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/3904-south-china-sea-represents-a-new-persian-gulf

It's a claim that overlaps with the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone of neighboring countries as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). (READ: 'No such thing as 9-dash-line' – US envoy)

http://www.rappler.com/nation/51422-goldberg-china-claim

In the Philippines, a map published as early as 1734 shows the now disputed Panatag Shoal (Scarborough) as part of the Zambales province in Luzon. The map was made by Spanish Jesuit Pedro Murillo Velarde. The shoal used to be called Bajo de Masinloc. (READ: Scarborough shoal according to Manila, Beijing)
http://www.rappler.com/nation/4173-scarborough-according-to-manila,-beijing

Manila has filed a case against Bejing before a United Nations-backed arbitral tribunal over China's claims in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea). – Rappler.com

http://www.rappler.com/nation/55048-ancient-china-map-controversy
Edited by Flipzi, Wed Apr 9, 2014 11:46 pm.
Alfred Alexander L. Marasigan
Manila, Philippines
getflipzi@yahoo.com

http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi

" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them!"

" People don't care what we know until they know we care."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flipzi
Member Avatar
R.A.T.S.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
photo credit to owners
bigger photo

"Ancient Chinese texts which mention the South China Sea islands mention those islands as foreign lands, not as China’s territories, and do not describe which activities the authority of ancient China exercised on the islands. Therefore, there is no proof of China’s jurisdiction over the islands. In the case of Scarborough shoal, China argued that Kublai Khan’s officials were the first to map out and to establish jurisdiction over those islands in 1279. However, Kublai Khan was the Great Khan of the Mongol Empire who conquered China. If any country can inherit Scarborough shoal from Kublai Khan, it is Mongolia, not China.

In 1279, Kublai Khan’s officials neither “discovered” nor “established jurisdiction” over Scarborough shoal because that place was already the historic water and traditional fishing ground of Filipino fishermen, descendants of the Austronesian sailors who navigated the South China Sea and populated the Philippines in 5000-2500 BC. Scarborough shoal was known as “bajio de Masinloc”, meaning shoal of Masinloc, in a Spanish-made map of the Philippines in 1734. Masinloc is not a Spanish word and is the name of a municipality on the Philippines’ main island, confirming that Filipino fishermen had been to and had named the islands after their own tongue for centuries."

Posted Image
Quote:
 
Eighth, official maps of the Yuan Dynasty and Ching Dynasty, including but not limited to Da Qing Zhi Sheng Quan Tu (published in 1862) and Huang Chao Yi Tong Yu Di Zen Du (published in 1894), show that the southernmost extent of China ends at Hainan islands (see below).

Finally, the Chinese empire originated on the Yellow river basin and eventually conquered many lands and peoples, including Tibet and Sinkiang, which is why China is a multiethnic, multi-languages country. At the time when China allegedly discovered the South China Sea islands, China’s border on the mainland was not what it is today, Tibet and Sinkiang were independent countries of the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, respectively. The Tibetans and the Uyghurs are demanding self-determination. Three dozens Tibetan monks have burned themselves to death to draw attention of humanity to the sufferings of their people under China’s rule. If China is serious about its historical claim, it should return to its historical border on the mainland, return Tibet and Sinkiang to the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, respectively.

China knows that her arguments for claiming sovereignty over the South China Sea and all the islands in that water are baseless, which is why China refused the Philippines’ invitation to submit the dispute to an international court.

- Rep. Roilo Golez, Co-Convenor of West Philippine Sea Coalition

Full Story
http://roilogolez.blogspot.com/2014/04/refuting-chinas-nine-dash-claim-oped.html
Edited by Flipzi, Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:00 am.
Alfred Alexander L. Marasigan
Manila, Philippines
getflipzi@yahoo.com

http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi

" Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them!"

" People don't care what we know until they know we care."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · War and Other Conflicts · Next Topic »
Add Reply