| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| China's Claim to the Spratly's Is Invalid; being a greedy bully is the sole reason | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:51 pm (920 Views) | |
| Flipzi | Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:51 pm Post #1 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() photo: West Philippine Sea / Scarborough Watch page Historical Fiction: China’s South China Sea Claims Mohan Malik The Spratly Islands—not so long ago known primarily as a rich fishing ground—have turned into an international flashpoint as Chinese leaders insist with increasing truculence that the islands, rocks, and reefs have been, in the words of Premier Wen Jiabao, “China’s historical territory since ancient times.” Normally, the overlapping territorial claims to sovereignty and maritime boundaries ought to be resolved through a combination of customary international law, adjudication before the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, or arbitration under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While China has ratified UNCLOS, the treaty by and large rejects “historically based” claims, which are precisely the type Beijing periodically asserts. On September 4, 2012, China’s foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there is “plenty of historical and jurisprudence evidence to show that China has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters.” As far as the “jurisprudence evidence” is concerned, the vast majority of international legal experts have concluded that China’s claim to historic title over the South China Sea, implying full sovereign authority and consent for other states to transit, is invalid. The historical evidence, if anything, is even less persuasive. There are several contradictions in China’s use of history to justify its claims to islands and reefs in the South China Sea, not least of which is its polemical assertion of parallels with imperialist expansion by the United States and European powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Justifying China’s attempts to expand its maritime frontiers by claiming islands and reefs far from its shores, Jia Qingguo, professor at Beijing University’s School of International Studies, argues that China is merely following the example set by the West. “The United States has Guam in Asia which is very far away from the US and the French have islands in the South Pacific, so it is nothing new,” Jia told AFP recently. China’s claim to the Spratlys on the basis of history runs aground on the fact that the region’s past empires did not exercise sovereignty. In pre-modern Asia, empires were characterized by undefined, unprotected, and often changing frontiers. The notion of suzerainty prevailed. Unlike a nation-state, the frontiers of Chinese empires were neither carefully drawn nor policed but were more like circles or zones, tapering off from the center of civilization to the undefined periphery of alien barbarians. More importantly, in its territorial disputes with neighboring India, Burma, and Vietnam, Beijing always took the position that its land boundaries were never defined, demarcated, and delimited. But now, when it comes to islands, shoals, and reefs in the South China Sea, Beijing claims otherwise. In other words, China’s claim that its land boundaries were historically never defined and delimited stands in sharp contrast with the stance that China’s maritime boundaries were always clearly defined and delimited. Herein lies a basic contradiction in the Chinese stand on land and maritime boundaries which is untenable. Actually, it is the mid-twentieth-century attempts to convert the undefined frontiers of ancient civilizations and kingdoms enjoying suzerainty into clearly defined, delimited, and demarcated boundaries of modern nation-states exercising sovereignty that lie at the center of China’s territorial and maritime disputes with neighboring countries. Put simply, sovereignty is a post-imperial notion ascribed to nation-states, not ancient empires. China’s present borders largely reflect the frontiers established during the spectacular episode of eighteenth-century Qing (Manchu) expansionism, which over time hardened into fixed national boundaries following the imposition of the Westphalian nation-state system over Asia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Official Chinese history today often distorts this complex history, however, claiming that Mongols, Tibetans, Manchus, and Hans were all Chinese, when in fact the Great Wall was built by the Chinese dynasties to keep out the northern Mongol and Manchu tribes that repeatedly overran Han China; the wall actually represented the Han Chinese empire’s outer security perimeter. While most historians see the onslaught of the Mongol hordes led by Genghis Khan in the early 1200s as an apocalyptic event that threatened the very survival of ancient civilizations in India, Persia, and other nations (China chief among them), the Chinese have consciously promoted the myth that he was actually “Chinese,” and therefore all areas that the Mongols (the Yuan dynasty) had once occupied or conquered (such as Tibet and much of Central and Inner Asia) belong to China. China’s claims on Taiwan and in the South China Sea are also based on the grounds that both were parts of the Manchu empire. (Actually, in the Manchu or Qing dynasty maps, it is Hainan Island, not the Paracel and Spratly Islands, that is depicted as China’s southern-most border.) In this version of history, any territory conquered by “Chinese” in the past remains immutably so, no matter when the conquest may have occurred. Such writing and rewriting of history from a nationalistic perspective to promote national unity and regime legitimacy has been accorded the highest priority by China’s rulers, both Nationalists and Communists. The Chinese Communist Party leadership consciously conducts itself as the heir to China’s imperial legacy, often employing the symbolism and rhetoric of empire. From primary-school textbooks to television historical dramas, the state-controlled information system has force-fed generations of Chinese a diet of imperial China’s grandeur. As the Australian Sinologist Geremie Barmé points out, “For decades Chinese education and propaganda have emphasized the role of history in the fate of the Chinese nation-state...While Marxism-Leninism and Mao Thought have been abandoned in all but name, the role of history in China’s future remains steadfast.” So much so that history has been refined as an instrument of statecraft (also known as “cartographic aggression”) by state-controlled research institutions, media, and education bodies. China uses folklore, myths, and legends, as well as history, to bolster greater territorial and maritime claims. Chinese textbooks preach the notion of the Middle Kingdom as being the oldest and most advanced civilization that was at the very center of the universe, surrounded by lesser, partially Sinicized states in East and Southeast Asia that must constantly bow and pay their respects. China’s version of history often deliberately blurs the distinction between what was no more than hegemonic influence, tributary relationships, suzerainty, and actual control. Subscribing to the notion that those who have mastered the past control their present and chart their own futures, Beijing has always placed a very high value on “the history card” (often a revisionist interpretation of history) in its diplomatic efforts to achieve foreign policy objectives, especially to extract territorial and diplomatic concessions from other countries. Almost every contiguous state has, at one time or another, felt the force of Chinese arms—Mongolia, Tibet, Burma, Korea, Russia, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan—and been a subject of China’s revisionist history. As Martin Jacques notes in When China Rules the World, “Imperial Sinocentrism shapes and underpins modern Chinese nationalism.” If the idea of national sovereignty goes back to seventeenth-century Europe and the system that originated with the Treaty of Westphalia, the idea of maritime sovereignty is largely a mid-twentieth-century American concoction China has seized upon to extend its maritime frontiers. As Jacques notes, “The idea of maritime sovereignty is a relatively recent invention, dating from 1945 when the United States declared that it intended to exercise sovereignty over its territorial waters.” In fact, the UN’s Law of the Sea agreement represented the most prominent international effort to apply the land-based notion of sovereignty to the maritime domain worldwide—although, importantly, it rejects the idea of justification by historical right. Thus although Beijing claims around eighty percent of the South China Sea as its “historic waters” (and is now seeking to elevate this claim to a “core interest” akin with its claims on Taiwan and Tibet), China has, historically speaking, about as much right to claim the South China Sea as Mexico has to claim the Gulf of Mexico for its exclusive use, or Iran the Persian Gulf, or India the Indian Ocean. Ancient empires either won control over territories through aggression, annexation, or assimilation or lost them to rivals who possessed superior firepower or statecraft. Territorial expansion and contraction was the norm, determined by the strength or weakness of a kingdom or empire. The very idea of “sacred lands” is ahistorical because control of territory was based on who grabbed or stole what last from whom. The frontiers of the Qin, Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties waxed and waned throughout history. A strong and powerful imperial China, much like czarist Russia, was expansionist in Inner Asia and Indochina as opportunity arose and strength allowed. The gradual expansion over the centuries under the non-Chinese Mongol and Manchu dynasties extended imperial China’s control over Tibet and parts of Central Asia (now Xinjiang), Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. Modern China is, in fact, an “empire-state” masquerading as a nation-state. If China’s claims are justified on the basis of history, then so are the historical claims of Vietnamese and Filipinos based on their histories. Students of Asian history know, for instance, that Malay peoples related to today’s Filipinos have a better claim to Taiwan than Beijing does. Taiwan was originally settled by people of Malay-Polynesian descent—ancestors of the present-day aborigine groups—who populated the low-lying coastal plains. In the words of noted Asia-watcher Philip Bowring, writing last year in the South China Morning Post, “The fact that China has a long record of written history does not invalidate other nations’ histories as illustrated by artifacts, language, lineage and genetic affinities, the evidence of trade and travel.” Unless one subscribes to the notion of Chinese exceptionalism, imperial China’s “historical claims” are as valid as those of other kingdoms and empires in Southeast and South Asia. China laying claim to the Mongol and Manchu empires’ colonial possessions would be equivalent to India laying claim to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Malaysia (Srivijaya), Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka on the grounds that they were all parts of either the Maurya, Chola, or the Moghul and the British Indian empires. China’s claims in the South China Sea are also a major shift from its longstanding geopolitical orientation to continental power. In claiming a strong maritime tradition, China makes much of the early-fifteenth-century expeditions of Zheng He to the Indian Ocean and Africa. But, as Bowring points out, “Chinese were actually latecomers to navigation beyond coastal waters. For centuries, the masters of the oceans were the Malayo-Polynesian peoples who colonized much of the world, from Taiwan to New Zealand and Hawaii to the south and east, and to Madagascar in the west. Bronze vessels were being traded with Palawan, just south of Scarborough, at the time of Confucius. When Chinese Buddhist pilgrims like Faxian went to Sri Lanka and India in the fifth century, they went in ships owned and operated by Malay peoples. Ships from what is now the Philippines traded with Funan, a state in what is now southern Vietnam, a thousand years before the Yuan dynasty.” And finally, China’s so-called “historic claims” to the South China Sea are actually not “centuries old.” They only go back to 1947, when Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist government drew the so-called “eleven-dash line” on Chinese maps of the South China Sea, enclosing the Spratly Islands and other chains that the ruling Kuomintang party declared were now under Chinese sovereignty. Chiang himself, saying he saw German fascism as a model for China, was fascinated by the Nazi concept of an expanded Lebensraum (“living space”) for the Chinese nation. He did not have the opportunity to be expansionist himself because the Japanese put him on the defensive, but cartographers of the nationalist regime drew the U-shape of eleven dashes in an attempt to enlarge China’s “living space” in the South China Sea. Following the victory of the Chinese Communist Party in the civil war in 1949, the People’s Republic of China adopted this cartographic coup, revising Chiang’s notion into a “nine-dash line” after erasing two dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1953. Since the end of the Second World War, China has been redrawing its maps, redefining borders, manufacturing historical evidence, using force to create new territorial realities, renaming islands, and seeking to impose its version of history on the waters of the region. The passage of domestic legislation in 1992, “Law on the Territorial Waters and Their Contiguous Areas,” which claimed four-fifths of the South China Sea, was followed by armed skirmishes with the Philippines and Vietnamese navies throughout the 1990s. More recently, the dispatch of large numbers of Chinese fishing boats and maritime surveillance vessels to the disputed waters in what is tantamount to a “people’s war on the high seas” has further heightened tensions. To quote commentator Sujit Dutta, “China’s unmitigated irredentism [is] based on the...theory that the periphery must be occupied in order to secure the core. [This] is an essentially imperial notion that was internalized by the Chinese nationalists—both Kuomintang and Communist. The [current] regime’s attempts to reach its imagined geographical frontiers often with little historical basis have had and continue to have highly destabilizing strategic consequences.” One reason Southeast Asians find it difficult to accept Chinese territorial claims is that they carry with them an assertion of Han racial superiority over other Asian races and empires. Says Jay Batongbacal of the University of the Philippines law school: “Intuitively, acceptance of the nine-dash line is a corresponding denial of the very identity and history of the ancestors of the Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Malays; it is practically a modern revival of China’s denigration of non-Chinese as ‘barbarians’ not entitled to equal respect and dignity as peoples.” Empires and kingdoms never exercised sovereignty. If historical claims had any validity then Mongolia could claim all of Asia simply because it once conquered the lands of the continent. There is absolutely no historical basis to support either of the dash-line claims, especially considering that the territories of Chinese empires were never as carefully delimited as nation-states, but rather existed as zones of influence tapering away from a civilized center. This is the position contemporary China took starting in the 1960s, while negotiating its land boundaries with several of its neighboring countries. But this is not the position it takes today in the cartographic, diplomatic, and low-intensity military skirmishes to define its maritime borders. The continued reinterpretation of history to advance contemporary political, territorial, and maritime claims, coupled with the Communist leadership’s ability to turn “nationalistic eruptions” on and off like a tap during moments of tension with the United States, Japan, South Korea, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines, makes it difficult for Beijing to reassure neighbors that its “peaceful rise” is wholly peaceful. Since there are six claimants to various atolls, islands, rocks, and oil deposits in the South China Sea, the Spratly Islands disputes are, by definition, multilateral disputes requiring international arbitration. But Beijing has insisted that these disputes are bilateral in order to place its opponents between the anvil of its revisionist history and the hammer of its growing military power. Mohan Malik is a professor in Asian security at Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, in Honolulu. The views expressed are his own. His most recent book is China and India: Great Power Rivals. He wishes to thank Drs. Justin Nankivell, Carlyle Thayer, Denny Roy, and David Fouse for their comments on this article. Shared by: West Philippine Sea / Scarborough Watch https://www.facebook.com/westphilippinesea....ugh.sabah.watch Related issue: RP Fishers Will Starve If We Can't Defend Our Seas http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=389 Choosing Between Two Masters http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=484 Danger of Doing Business In China http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=481 Ban Chinese Products To Fight Hacking & Cybertheft http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=405 Beware of Products Made in China http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=164 Danger of Using China-made Products http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=430 Mere Xenophobia or Sinophobia? fear of Chinese control on their economy http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=426 Strategic Defense To Defeat China, US-ASEAN-Japan-India-Australia Alliance http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.ph...view=getnewpost |
|
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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:39 pm Post #2 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() photo credit: Filipino's Patriotism A Washington Lawyer Helps Manila Challenge Beijing's Sea Claims Philippines Takes China's Sea Claims to Court Paul Reichler, a Washington-based lawyer, has spent much of his career representing small countries against big ones: Nicaragua versus the U.S.; Georgia versus Russia; Mauritius versus the U.K., Bangladesh versus India. His first big victory made headlines in the 1980s when the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that U.S. support for Contra rebels trying to overthrow the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua violated international law. That is one reason to pay attention to the case he launched this year at a United Nations arbitration body: the Philippines versus China. Mr. Reichler is the lead lawyer representing Manila in its legal challenge against China's claim to almost all of the South China Sea, signified by the "nine-dash line"—a U-shaped protrusion on Chinese maps that brushes the coastlines of smaller states, including the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam. Philippine cadets jump from a navy ship during exercises near Manila. Reuters The Philippines brought the case in January under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs the world's oceans. China is a signatory. The heart of the case is that the line has no basis under the U.N. convention, which states that coastal states are entitled to a territorial sea extending 12 nautical miles as well as a 200-mile economic exclusion zone in which they have rights to fish and extract undersea resources. "Of course we're aware of the enormity of taking on a country like China," says Mr. Reichler, a litigator with the U.S. law firm Foley Hoag. The Arbitral Tribunal has appointed a five-person panel of judges and issued a timetable for handling the case, including a deadline for the Philippines to submit its evidence by March 30 next year. It's the first time that Beijing has been taken to a U.N. tribunal and China is furious. It showed its displeasure by making clear that Philippine President Benigno Aquino III wouldn't be welcome at a trade event in southern China in August. Beijing has said it will ignore the legal proceedings, without giving any reasons. The Chinese Foreign Ministry didn't respond to requests for comment on the arbitration action. China insists that territorial disputes over islands in the South China Sea should be settled through bilateral negotiation. The sea contains potentially vast reserves of oil and natural gas. In addition, Beijing maintains that the nine-dash line presents no obstacle to freedom of navigation in a stretch of water that carries a third of global trade—a major U.S. concern. Beijing's refusal to participate hasn't stopped the case going ahead. It could even speed its resolution: Mr. Reichler says that if China doesn't take part, the case could wrap up by the end of 2014. Such cases can otherwise drag on for up to five years. To some skeptics, Manila's challenge is quixotic. Even if the tribunal decides it has jurisdiction over the case, and then finds in Manila's favor, Beijing could simply ignore the verdict. Yet there are more than legal considerations at stake. The case is also significant for what it will signify about the way that China views the world. Lawyer Paul Reichler, who specializes in international public law, is taking China to court on behalf of the Philippines over a dispute in the South China Sea. Melissa Golden for The Wall Street Journal China's self-image is wrapped up in its own sense of victimhood at the hands of imperialist powers led by Britain starting in the mid-19th century. That, in turn, has driven a Chinese foreign policy that professes to treat all countries equally, large or small, rich or poor. But now that China is a global player, and dominates its own backyard, neighbors are asking anxious questions. Will it seek to work within existing international laws, or try to bend them to suit its purposes? As it acquires a blue-water navy to project power far from its own shores, will it be more tempted to use force to settle territorial disputes? And how will it treat smaller countries, like the Philippines, that feel bullied by China's growing military might? Mr. Reichler is counting on international opinion to sway China's response toward any judgment that doesn't go China's way. "It's a terrible blow to a state's prestige to defy a tribunal's decision," he says. From the Philippines' point of view, legal action was the last option after diplomacy failed. China wouldn't budge from its claim to "indisputable sovereignty" over the whole sea, say officials in Manila, and it was steadily encroaching on Philippine territory. Last year, Chinese ships fenced off the Scarborough Shoal, a fishermen's haven just west of Manila. China says the Philippines navy was harassing Chinese fishermen. Manila conducted a global search for legal counsel before settling on Mr. Reichler. "We wanted the best," says one high-placed Philippine official. China uses history to support its claims to the South China Sea and all its land features. These date back to its own imperial days centuries ago, when China treated its neighbors as mere vassals. However, the nine-dash line itself was first published on a map in 1947 by the Chinese Kuomintang government, and the Communists inherited it after the civil war that brought the Communists, led by Chairman Mao, to power. The line extends almost to Indonesia, some 900 miles from China's southernmost territory, Hainan Island. Such a far-reaching claim has no parallel anywhere in the world. As for the islands, rocks and reefs that fall within the line, Mr. Reichler makes a technical argument in the Philippines' case. The convention rules that a habitable island is entitled to a 200-mile economic exclusion zone. A rock that juts out of the sea gets 12 miles. A semi-submerged reef gets nothing. Mr. Reichler's argument is that all the sea features that the Philippines disputes with China are either rocks or reefs. And, therefore, even if China owns them, it has only limited rights to the surrounding resources.His legal team is pulling together a massive document to support that contention consisting of aerial photographs, naval charts, hydrology reports and geographical findings. "I'm not in a position to say how China will react," he says. "My job is to say [to the Philippines]: 'This is a good case for you to win or not.'" SOURCE: THE WALL STREET JOURNAL |
|
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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:04 am Post #3 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
China didn’t know where the Spratlys were By John Nery Philippine Daily Inquirer 12:06 am | Tuesday, April 29th, 2014 In 1933, the French flexed their colonial muscles and annexed nine of the Spratly Islands. When the news spread, the fledgling and troubled Chinese republic faced a basic problem: It didn’t know where the Spratlys were. A year earlier, the French had staked their claim to the Paracel Islands as part of their colony in Vietnam. The second French claim to part of the Spratlys befuddled the Chinese. As the scholar Francois-Xavier Bonnet of Irasec, the Research Institute on Contemporary Southeast Asia, noted: “These two claims of the French government confused the minds … not only of the Chinese public and the media, but also the official authorities like the military and the politicians in Guangdong Province and Beijing. In fact, the Chinese believed that the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands or Xisha were exactly the same group, but that the French had just changed the name as a trick to confuse the Chinese government. To ascertain the position of the Spratly Islands, the Chinese Consul in Manila, Mr. Kwong, went, on July 26, 1933, to the US Coast and Geodetic Survey and discovered, with surprise, that the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands were different and far apart.” I was led to Bonnet’s much-read discussion paper, “Geopolitics of Scarborough Shoal” (something on the order of 100,000 downloads of the PDF version, I understand, since it was first posted in November 2012), by BBC journalist Bill Hayton. I found his map-based lecture on the origins of China’s South China Sea claims last Friday at the University of the Philippines thought-provoking. When I asked Hayton to expand on his point, that in 1933 the Chinese government did not even know where the Spratlys were, he referred me to Bonnet, who happened to be sitting in the audience (right beside Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio). Bonnet and Hayton have since provided me copies of and links to the essential literature. (Hayton’s “South China Sea: Dangerous Ground” is due from Yale University Press later this year; the title is a play on another name for the Spratlys.) They make for fascinating reading; to be sure, much of the information has been readily available online. Even the delicious irony of a Chinese consul consulting the offices of the US colonial administration in Manila to determine the location of the Spratlys has been knocking about in academic circles and on the Internet for at least a decade. In 2004, Bonnet wrote “The Spratlys: A Past Revisited” for World Bulletin, a publication of the UP’s Institute of International Legal Studies. His paper already includes a section on “the Chinese confusion” about the location of the nine annexed islands in the Spratlys. Still, this particular moment in history remains under-known. Some passages from Bonnet’s 2012 paper are perhaps worth repeating. First, the following footnote. “The Consul submitted, on August 1, 1933, his report to the Chinese Foreign Affairs Department, which said: ‘The islands [in the Spratlys which the French annexed] are collectively known as Tizard Bank and are situated at 530 miles from Hainan, 350 miles from the Paracels and 200 miles from Palawan … The reports mentioning that the 9 islands were part of Xisha [the Paracels] are incorrect’.” Second, this quote from a letter written by Wang Gong Da, director of the Peiping News, to the foreign affairs secretary: “Don’t make a diplomatic blunder; these islands are not part of Xisha. Triton Island [in Xisha] is the southernmost part of our territory [this was written before China’s absurd obsession with James Shoal]. South of Triton Island, there is no connection with the Chinese territory. Our so-called experts, geographers, Navy representatives, etc. are a shame to our country.” And third, this passage from a secret report of the Military Council, dated Sept. 1, 1933: “In conclusion, we have only one piece of evidence, our fishermen from Hainan [who are present in parts of the Spratlys], and we have never done anything on these islands. We need to cool down the game with the French, but let our fishermen continue their activities to protect our fishing rights. Our Navy is weak and these nine islands are not useful for us now…” I’ve tried to look for additional information about the 1933 annexation and the Chinese reaction. There is a news story in (of all places) the Salt Lake Tribune, highlighting what was surely the geopolitical reality of the early 1930s. Datelined Manila, the report began: “The occupation by French dispatch boats of nine islets 200 miles west of the Philippines [the report got this fact right] in the South China Sea was the signal for a race between the Japanese and Chinese consulates here to obtain authentic information about the group.” There is an internal memorandum of the US Department of State, which noted that “A press dispatch dated July 28, 1933 from Manila stated that Chinese Consul Kwong was instructed by his government to investigate the occupation of the islands by the French and report as the Chinese government intended to oppose French occupation. The Chinese Consul had already sent a preliminary report.” And who was K. L. Kwong? We learn from a copy of Who’s Who in China (1934) that he was a career diplomat, who once represented China at the League of Nations in Geneva, and who served as Chinese consul-general in the Philippines from November 1930 to June 19, 1934; his next assignment was San Francisco. * * * On Twitter: @jnery_newsstand Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/74027/china-didnt-know-where-the-spratlys-were#ixzz30Ey8NIlB Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook |
|
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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:05 am Post #4 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
MORE HERE: http://z6.invisionfree.com/flipzi/index.php?showtopic=483 Edited by Flipzi, Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:06 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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Wed May 7, 2014 9:41 pm Post #5 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
China, Vietnam, Philippines face off in South China Sea By: Reuters May 7, 2014 7:27 PM BY MANUEL MOGATO AND MICHAEL MARTINA (Reuters) - China has demanded the Philippines release a Chinese fishing boat and its crew seized in the disputed South China Sea on Wednesday, the latest flare-up in the oil and gas-rich waters that are claimed wholly or in part by six nations. Tensions are also brewing in another part of the sea, where China has warned Vietnam not to disturb activities of Chinese companies operating near disputed islands. Earlier, Hanoi condemned the movement of a giant Chinese oil rig into what it said was its territorial waters. Dozens of patrol boats and other navy and coastguard vessels from both countries are in the area, Vietnamese officials say. Some collisions have taken place, said a navy official, but he did not give details and they appeared to be minor. "No shots have been fired yet," said the official, who could not be identified because he was not authorized to speak to media. "Vietnam won't fire unless China fires first." Chief Superintendent Noel Vargas of the Philippine National Police Maritime Group said a maritime police patrol apprehended a Chinese fishing boat around 7 a.m. on Tuesday off Half Moon Shoal in the Spratly Islands on the South China Sea. The boat has 11 crew and police found about 350 turtles in the vessel, some of which were already dead, a police report said, adding that a Philippine boat with crew was also seized, and found to have 70 turtles on board. Several species of sea turtles are protected under Philippine law. Maritime police are now towing the boats to Puerto Princesa town on the island of Palawan where appropriate charges will be filed against them, Vargas said. China, which claims almost the entire South China Sea, rejecting rival claims from Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei, said the Philippines had to release the boat and the fishermen. "China's Foreign Ministry and China's ambassador to the Philippines have made representations to the Philippines side, demanding that it provide a rational explanation and immediately release the people and the vessel", ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a daily news briefing. "We once again warn the Philippines not to take any provocative actions," she said, adding that China had "indisputable sovereignty" over the Spratly Islands. There are frequent tensions in the South China Sea between China and the other claimant nations, particularly Vietnam and the Philippines, both of which say Beijing has harassed their ships in the waters there. While there are frequent stand-offs between fishermen and the various claimant states in the South China Sea, the actual detention of Chinese fishermen or the seizure of a boat is rare. An oil industry official in China said the deployment of the rig owned by China's state-run CNOOC oil company to waters near Vietnam appeared to be a political decision rather than a commercial one. "This reflected the will of the central government and is also related to the U.S. strategy on Asia," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "It is not commercially driven. It is also not like CNOOC has set a big exploration blueprint for the region." Hua, responding to U.S. criticism of the movement of the oil rig into waters that Vietnam says are its territory, said the issue had nothing to do with the United States, or Vietnam. "The United States has no right to complain about China's activities within the scope of its own sovereignty," she said. The incidents come days after U.S. President Barack Obama visited Asia to underline his commitment to allies there, including Japan and the Philippines, both locked in territorial disputes with China. Obama, promoting a strategic "pivot" toward the Asia-Pacific region, also visited South Korea and Malaysia, but not China. Half Moon Shoal is within the Philippines' 200-mile exclusive economic zone and near to Second Thomas Shoal, where a small Philippines garrison is based, much to China's displeasure. A second Philippine source, a senior naval officer, said there were two Chinese boats but the other one escaped. China's official Xinhua news agency said contact had been lost with 11 fishermen after they were intercepted by "armed men" in waters not far from the Philippines. They were on board the fishing boat Qiongqionghai 09063, which was intercepted by an unidentified armed vessel at about 10 a.m. (0200 GMT) in waters off Half Moon Shoal, Xinhua said, citing a fishing association in Qionghai on China's southern island province of Hainan. The shoal is some 100 km (60 miles) from the Philippines' Palawan island. "Several armed men forced themselves onto the boat and fired four or five shots in the air. They then took control of the boat," Xinhua said, adding that the crew were all Chinese citizens, ranging in age from 19 to 64. |
|
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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Fri May 9, 2014 7:26 pm Post #6 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
China blames US for stoking tensions in S.China Sea By: Reuters May 9, 2014 6:23 PM BEIJING - China's foreign ministry blamed the United States on Friday for stoking tensions in the disputed South China Sea by encouraging countries to engage in dangerous behavior, following an uptick in tensions between China and both the Philippines and Vietnam. China this week accused Vietnam of intentionally colliding with its ships in the South China Sea after Vietnam asserted that Chinese vessels used water cannon and rammed eight of its vessels at the weekend near an oil rig. The United States has called China's deployment of the rig "provocative and unhelpful" to security in the region, urging restraint on all sides. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying repeated that the waters the rig was operating in, around the Paracel Islands, were Chinese territory and that no other country had the right to interfere. "It must be pointed out that the recent series of irresponsible and wrong comments from the United States that neglect the facts about the relevant waters have encouraged certain counties' dangerous and provocative behaviour," Hua told a daily news briefing. "We urge the United States to act in accordance with maintaining the broader picture of regional peace and security, and act and speak cautiously on the relevant issue, stop making irresponsible remarks and do more to maintain regional peace and stability," she added. Tensions are also brewing in another part of the sea, with Beijing demanding that the Philippines release a Chinese fishing boat and its crew seized on Tuesday off Half Moon Shoal in the Spratly Islands. Philippine police said the boat and its crew were seized for hunting sea turtles, which are protected under local laws. Hua said the Philippines' actions were illegal as they had entered Chinese waters to seize the boat and its crew. "We once more demand the Philippines immediately release them unconditionally ... China reserves the right to take further action," she said, without elaborating. China claims almost the entire South China Sea, rejecting rival claims to parts or all of the oil and gas rich waters from Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei. Source: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/86444/china-blames-us-for-stoking-tensions-in-s-china-sea China must realize that even your own pet cat will bite you if you step on its tail. We urge China to act in accordance with maintaining the broader picture of regional peace and security, and act and speak cautiously on the relevant issue, stop making irresponsible remarks and do more to maintain regional peace and stability. |
|
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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Fri May 9, 2014 11:20 pm Post #7 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() Photo: Vietnamese ship being bullied by this much bigger Chinese ship (credit to owners) CHINA IS BLAMED FOR STOKING TENSIONS IN SOUTH CHINA SEA The whole world blamed China for stoking tensions in the disputed South China Sea by bullying its neighbors and illegally occupying the territories of these peace-loving nations. It must be pointed out that the recent series of irresponsible, provocative and dangerous actions and comments made by China that neglect the facts about the relevant waters have encouraged many countries to respond in great disappointment to China’s arrogant, selfish and dangerous behavior. We urge China to act in accordance with maintaining the broader picture of regional peace and security, to act and speak cautiously on the relevant issue, to stop making irresponsible remarks and do more to maintain regional peace and stability instead. China must stop claiming the Spratly’s islands and the Scarborough shoal. Also, China must respect Vietnam’s rights on the Paracel islands. China must stop their baseless claim on these territories and it must respect UNCLOS being a signatory. Tensions are also brewing in another part of the sea, with Beijing threatening the Philippines to release a Chinese fishing boat and its crew seized by law enforcement units on Tuesday off Half Moon Shoal in the Spratly Islands for poaching. Half Moon shoal is just 60 miles off Palawan mainland and well within its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone. China on the other hand is 4,000 kilometers away and is just so obsessed with stealing it despite the fact the Philippines has indisputable rights over these areas. Philippine police said that the boat and its crew were seized for hunting sea turtles, which are protected under local laws. The Philippines' actions were clearly legal as these Chinese poachers had entered Philippine waters to illegally gather endangered species of turtles. We once more demand China to immediately order its people to stop trespassing in Philippine waters including Half Moon Shoal and to stop poaching in these areas to prevent the repeat of this conflict. China being a superpower and a signatory to UNCLOS must learn how to respect international law. If it wants to be respected as a just and reasonable neighbor and not the arrogant greedy bully that many label China today, then it must learn how to respect its neighbors’ rights too and be compassionate about these smaller nations. China’s baseless claim on almost the entire South China Sea, and even rejecting rival claims to parts or all of the oil and gas rich waters from Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei is clearly an arrogant and irresponsible act and definitely not the character of someone aspiring to be a respected and admired global leader in this modern world. More: http://w11.zetaboards.com/NDSFP/topic/9151714/ Related story: Chinese Scholars Call For The Elimination Of Baseless Claim Of U-Shaped Line http://w11.zetaboards.com/NDSFP/topic/10183853/ Edited by Flipzi, Fri May 9, 2014 11:22 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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Sun May 11, 2014 2:19 pm Post #8 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() ENOUGH OF CHINA'S DOUBLE-TALK and its dirty TALK and TAKE tactics! South China Sea issue not problem between China, ASEAN, says FM spokeswoman Editor: zhenglimin 丨Xinhu 05-11-2014 08:42 BJT BEIJING, May 10 (Xinhua) -- The South China Sea issue is not a problem between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said here on Saturday. Hua made the remarks after ASEAN foreign ministers issued a statement in Myanmar on Saturday, in which they expressed "serious concerns" over the ongoing developments in the South China Sea and called for a peaceful resolution. "The Chinese side is always opposed to one or two countries' attempts to use the South Sea issue to harm the overall friendship and cooperation between China and the ASEAN," said the spokeswoman. Hua said China stands ready to work together with the ASEAN to continue implementing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) comprehensively and effectively to safeguard peace and stability in the region. China and the members of the ASEAN signed the DOC in 2002 and pledged to maintain restraint and not conduct activities that might complicate or escalate disputes in the region. The Chinese side also hopes that ASEAN countries concerned will sincerely respect and implement the DOC and make positive contribution to peace and stability as well as maritime security in the sea, she added. The ASEAN groups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Source: http://english.cntv.cn/2014/05/11/ARTI1399768841853195.shtml China and the members of the ASEAN signed the DOC in 2002 and pledged to maintain restraint and not conduct activities that might complicate or escalate disputes in the region..... BUT THIS CHINA KEEPS ON ENCROACHING OTHER AREAS. It says nations must adhere to the code by not developing the areas but they do the opposite by building and expanding their structures and reason out by saying China's sovereignty shit. ASEAN must not lay victim to China's lies and deception. This abuse has to end. ASEAN is for helping each other in times of troubles and that includes the South China Sea disputes. Enough of China's double-talk, deception and its "talk and take" strategy. Edited by Flipzi, Sun May 11, 2014 2:37 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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Sun Jun 8, 2014 2:58 am Post #9 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() Justice Carpio debunks China’s historical claim of South China Sea JUNE 7, 2014 By ELLEN T. TORDESILLAS USING China’s very own ancient maps, Justice Antonio T. Carpio debunked the Asian superpower’s ownership claims of almost the whole of South China Sea based on “historical facts.” In lecture at De La Salle University “Historical Facts, Historical Lies and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea,” Carpio took up China’s invitation to look at the “historical facts” by examining not only Chinese ancient maps but also maps of Philippine authorities and other nationalities. Carpio said “All these ancient maps show that since the first Chinese maps appeared,the southern most territory of China has always been Hainan Island, with its ancient names being Zhuya, then Qiongya, and thereafter Qiongzhou. “ “Hainan Island was for centuries a part of Guangdong Province until 1988 when it became a separate province,” he added. Carpio said that after the Philippines filed in January 2013 its arbitration case against China before an international tribunal, invoking UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ) to protect the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines, China stressed “historical facts” as another basis for its maritime claims in the South China Sea. Carpio said Chinese diplomats now declare that they will not give one inch of territory that their ancestors bequeathed to them. He quoted General Fang Fenghui, Chief of Staff of the People’s Liberation Army, during his recent visit to the United States saying, “territory passed down by previous Chinese generations to the present one will not be forgotten or sacrificed.” Carpio said “Historical facts, even if true, relating to discovery and exploration in the Age of Discovery (early 15th century until the 17th century) or even earlier, have no bearing whatsoever in the resolution of maritime disputes under UNCLOS. Neither Spain nor Portugal can ever revive their 15th century claims to ownership of all the oceans and seas of our planet, despitethe 1481 Papal Bull confirming the divisionof the then undiscovered world between Spain and Portugal. The sea voyages of the Chinese Imperial Admiral Zheng He, from 1405-1433, can never be the basis of any claim to the South China Sea. Neither can historical names serve as basis for claiming the oceans and seas. The South China Sea was not even named by the Chinese but by European navigators and cartographers. The Song and Ming Dynasties called the South China Sea the “Giao Chi Sea,” and the Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China as well as the People’s Republic of China call it the “South Sea” without the word “China.” India cannot claim the Indian Ocean, and Mexico cannot claim the Gulf of Mexico, in the same way that the Philippines cannot claim the Philippine Sea, just because historically these bodies of water have been named after these countries.” Carpio said in the early 17th century, Hugo Grotius, the founder of international law, wrote that “the oceans and seas of our planet belonged to all mankind, and no nation could claim ownership to the oceans and seas. “ This revolutionary idea of Hugo Grotius later became the foundation of the law of the sea under international law. To download Carpio’s complete speech please go to :https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18010607/The%20Historical%20Facts%20in%20the%20WPS.pdf - See more at: http://verafiles.org/justice-carpio-debunks-chinas-historical-claim-of-south-china-sea/#sthash.PqbtT7hz.dpuf |
|
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." | |
![]() |
|
| Flipzi | Sun Jun 8, 2014 2:59 am Post #10 |
|
R.A.T.S.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Noy: China ‘reclamation ships’ in 2 other reefs By Aurea Calica (The Philippine Star) | Updated June 6, 2014 - 12:00am MANILA, Philippines - The Chinese have expanded their activities in disputed areas in the West Philippine Sea and South China Sea, possibly including reclaiming land on Gavin Reef and Cuarteron Reef in the Spratly Islands, President Aquino said yesterday. Aquino made the revelation when asked about the status of the ongoing reclamation work by the Chinese on Mabini Reef, which he first mentioned in Myanmar at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders’ summit in May. “We are again bothered that there seems to be developments in other areas within the disputed seas. Amongst them there seems to be movement of ships,” Aquino said in an ambush interview with reporters on the sidelines of the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) on disaster risk reduction and management in Manila. Some of the ships, he said, were capable of undertaking reclamation functions. Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said Manila would definitely file a protest if the reports turn out to be true. “Well, we’re not saying that they are exactly the same ships that were used in Mabini, but there seems to be similar ships at the very least,” Aquino said. Cuarteron is called Calderon Reef by the Philippines. “The pictures that I saw were just ships that can be used for reclamation… unlike in Mabini where from really nothing, a geographical feature now exists,” he said. Photos of Chinese activities on Mabini Reef showed the stages of reclamation and construction, first monitored by the Philippines in February. The Department of Foreign Affairs released the photos on May 15 and described China’s actions as “destabilizing.” Manila is contesting China’s claim to nearly the entire West Philippine Sea and South China Sea before a United Nations arbitral tribunal based in The Hague. As required by the arbitral court, Manila submitted a memorial or written argument of its position against Beijing’s claim. On Tuesday, China rejected the tribunal’s directive that it submit by Dec. 15 evidence to support its position. Aquino said that while he cannot speak for China on how the latter should respond to the tribunal’s order, countries are expected to conform to international accords. He also declined to speculate on the implications of China’s snub of the directive from the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Aquino said a UN decision would clarify the rights and obligations of every country. “And if they are responsible, and they always say they are a responsible member of the international community, one would hope that they would conform to all the treaties, covenants and agreements that they have entered into, not just with us but with so many other countries, especially UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) where there are many signatories,” Aquino said. Asked about China’s refusal to participate in the UN proceedings, Aquino said it was up to China to explain. “I am not the spokesman for China,” he said. He stressed that the country’s seeking UN help was made in consultation with leaders of Congress – Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile. Aquino said a UN ruling is needed because China is insisting on the “indisputable fact of their unquestioned sovereignty.” “The arbitral track is one of the solutions because both of us and others have said let us conform to international law. So that is embodied in the UNCLOS as a method to settle the dispute,” the President said. “So at the very least, what we can get if they rule in our favor… then it will be clarified, what really are the rights and obligations of every state,” he said, adding “that’s the minimum.” Aquino said a ruling “hopefully, will clarify all of the disputes and will lead to… a clear determination of the rights and obligations (of countries).” Gaven Reef, controlled by the Chinese, is located close to Itu-Aba, the biggest island in the Spratlys where the Taiwanese operate a garrison. Nearby is the Vietnamese-controlled Namyit Island. Calderon or Cuarteron Reef is near the Malaysian maritime territory. Nearby are Central Reef, East Reef and Pearson Reef, all under the control of Vietnamese troops. All these reefs in the Spratlys are located within the Philippines’ 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The Filipinos have naval detachments on seven islets and two reefs in the Spratlys. Irrelevant For Del Rosario, China’s rejection of arbitration is irrelevant as proceedings will continue with or without Beijing’s participation. “If China refused to participate, I don’t think that’s relevant as far as the outcome is concerned because the case will proceed with or without China and an award will be handed down final and unappealable,” Del Rosario told reporters on the sidelines of the ASEM conference. “We’ve invited them as I mentioned many times. The decision for them not to participate is their own decision and I think they’ve taken a good look at what serves their national interest,” he said. “It’s our position, as you know, that China should participate and the object of the whole exercise is to be able to clarify entitlements for everyone,” Del Rosario said. The DFA chief admitted he is not very optimistic about China working for the adoption of a Code of Conduct (COC) with the ASEAN, saying Beijing’s actions are in pursuit of its expansionist agenda. “We’ve been working very hard in terms of the expeditious conclusion of the COC, just as we were working on full and effective implementation of the DOC and I don’t see any desire on China’s part,” Del Rosario said. – With Pia Lee-Brago, Jaime Laude http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/06/06/1331663/noy-china-reclamation-ships-2-other-reefs Edited by Flipzi, Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:14 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." | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · War and Other Conflicts · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)









8:41 AM Jul 11