Chinese Geopolitics

SamuraiBlue said:

Simply because Japan cannot become the plaintiff for Senkaku since Japan already administrate them.



Stop acting as if PRC is a victim of some conspiracy. The 193 member nations of United Nations is not try to confine PRC and the US does not hold some ultimate control over IJC.
As I had posted before PRC simply does not have a leg to stand on in a court of law to justify their claim so they are trying to evade it as if it was the plague.
Pathetic attitude from a nation that claims they are the next global power.

Click to expand...

A conspiracy is a 'hidden plot'; given that the US doesn't even try to hide their attempts to contain China's influence, it hardly qualifies as a 'conspiracy'. Indeed, the IJC is a plague which, as you have pointed out, is not under the 100% influence of the US - but plagues don't need a 100% fatality rate to be deemed hazardous.

You allege China has no claim over Diaoyu Islands despite concrete historical evidence to indicate Chinese ownership prior to Japan's robbing of them. Who would have thought a Japanese would be so blatant in selectively disregarding historical facts... oh wait... I take that back, no surprise there.

Containing and constraining China rise is an inevitable conclusion. Here anti China forces are plotting and the best strategic move for China is to counter plot the downfall of these forces. Building up good alliances and spreading their naval might further. They have to bring the firepower to their enemies doorstep to cause the hurt most. A rising empire that challenges the "status quo"

jobjed said:

You allege China has no claim over Diaoyu Islands despite concrete historical evidence to indicate Chinese ownership prior to Japan's robbing of them. Who would have thought a Japanese would be so blatant in selectively disregarding historical facts... oh wait... I take that back, no surprise there.

Click to expand...

Sorry but there is not a shred of evidence that China had administered those islands whatsoever. No written registration that a Chinese had lived their no written record of settlement and no remains of long term residency.
Sea chart showing the island has no relevance in claim since it just show the islands were used as land marks.
Imperial Japan spent ten years doing research if there were any written records of the mentioned above before concluding that the islands were terra nullius claiming as Japan's sovereign territory.

SamuraiBlue said:

Sorry but there is not a shred of evidence that China had administered those islands whatsoever. No written registration that a Chinese had lived their no written record of settlement and no remains of long term residency.
Sea chart showing the island has no relevance in claim since it just show the islands were used as land marks.
Imperial Japan spent ten years doing research if there were any written records of the mentioned above before concluding that the islands were terra nullius claiming as Japan's sovereign territory.

Click to expand...

It is delusional to think that inhabiting is the only method of legitimately claiming territory. The nature of territory-claiming is such that the first to lay eyes on a piece of land - and have evidence for it - have legitimate claim to said land. Consensus have been reached as to who'd first set eyes on Diaoyu Islands; thus, an obvious corresponding consensus awaits as to who's the legitimate claimant.

With Japan's track record of 'research', its validity is dubious at best and painfully laughable at worst - see Russia's current narrative on Ukraine - as numerous whales would attest. Chinese seafarers have used and exploited Diaoyu Islands' existence for centuries; settlement thereupon or lack thereof is irrelevant. As a historical parallel, note Captain Cook's claiming of Terra Australis for the English crown; he did not settle on the new continent, he only needed to provide evidence that he was the first to set eyes upon it and it was recognised as English territory. The plight of Australian Aborigines is inapplicable to the topic at hand.

jobjed said:

It is delusional to think that inhabiting is the only method of legitimately claiming territory. The nature of territory-claiming is such that the first to lay eyes on a piece of land - and have evidence for it - have legitimate claim to said land. Consensus have been reached as to who'd first set eyes on Diaoyu Islands; thus, an obvious corresponding consensus awaits as to who's the legitimate claimant.

With Japan's track record of 'research', its validity is dubious at best and painfully laughable at worst - see Russia's current narrative on Ukraine - as numerous whales would attest. Chinese seafarers have used and exploited Diaoyu Islands' existence for centuries; settlement thereupon or lack thereof is irrelevant. As a historical parallel, note Captain Cook's claiming of Terra Australis for the English crown; he did not settle on the new continent, he only needed to provide evidence that he was the first to set eyes upon it and it was recognised as English territory. The plight of Australian Aborigines is inapplicable to the topic at hand.

Click to expand...

That is why PRC's claim is laughed at worldwide and no nation takes PRC's claim seriously.
Seriously how many nation actually acknowledges PRC's claim? LoL

Jeez, sometimes it's embarassing fighting over reefs & islands...entire continent was lost to invaders (America, Australia, Canada etc) and nobody cries bucket.

Even someone claim administration or control over period of time, you can see until now the land the jews occupied call Israel is also being contested daily and not recognized by vast majorities in the arab muslim world.

So who to say? If according to majority, "international law" the jews living in Israel need to give up their land given by the departing\declining british empire. UN assembly even voted to side with the Palestinian but still.....America vetoed the resolution.

All these basically tells one thing about "international law or order" and a state military capability to resolve a topic. In this sense, for the Diayu\Senkaku issue is a topic that need military resolve. It's a question of timing this decade? or another 50 years...but high chance it will be resolve via military means. Japan knows that, and is the right thing to prepare. It's either you submit or don't and thus Japan need US power to back them.

In this eastern sphere China do need prepare to as the cost for US action will be so prohibitive that, that US will not seek to enter the dispute when military action flares up. Therefore China need means to deliver the hurt to America if they intervene. All options.

SamuraiBlue said:

That is why PRC's claim is laughed at worldwide and no nation takes PRC's claim seriously.
Seriously how many nation actually acknowledges PRC's claim? LoL

Click to expand...

Acknowledgement comes naturally with power. No one paid a newly-founded US any attention until they established themselves as the world's premier economic and thereafter, military power. Your needing to resort to international opinion to support your allegations as opposed to objective examination speaks volumes as to yours and your country's lack of credibility, but we already know that - Japan's neighbours know that better than anyone else.

jobjed said:

Acknowledgement comes naturally with power. No one paid a newly-founded US any attention until they established themselves as the world's premier economic and thereafter, military power. Your needing to resort to international opinion to support your allegations as opposed to objective examination speaks volumes as to yours and your country's lack of credibility, but we already know that - Japan's neighbours know that better than anyone else.

Click to expand...

Gentlemen, we are all mature here, so go easy with the personal attacks et al. We can now see that there is a very clear encirclement happening around China led by very serious state actors. While provocative and under the guise of subtle diplomacy, China needs to respond to such encirclement aggressively, if it is to gain currency as a world super-power. What will China do to retort back?

SamuraiBlue said:

Simply because Japan cannot become the plaintiff for Senkaku since Japan already administrate them.



Stop acting as if PRC is a victim of some conspiracy. The 193 member nations of United Nations is not try to confine PRC and the US does not hold some ultimate control over IJC.
As I had posted before PRC simply does not have a leg to stand on in a court of law to justify their claim so they are trying to evade it as if it was the plague.
Pathetic attitude from a nation that claims they are the next global power.

Click to expand...

PRC is not yet a victim of conspiracy at UN. By submitting itself to ICJ, PRC believes it might become a victim of biased judgment or using your word, conspiracy. But it doesn't really matter as port_08 has pointed out, veto wielding members can tell ICJ to take it hike anyway. Still Japan knows that and believes bad publicity resulting from this would further strengthen its case. So why should PRC bother? On the other hand, one can see why Japan is so keen on it.

As for PRC's claim, many other members have already explained in a detailed manner so I don't have anything else to add.

This might be a bit off topic. Public opinions does not matter as much when it comes to crucial issues involving great powers such as US, PRC, Russia. Great power with significant military, economic and resource capability will still carry out their international agenda despite negative press from rivals and rivals' allies. US has disregarded bad publicity from shielding Israel from criticisms again and again. Russia carried out Georgia and Crimean intervention against a backdrop of criticism from western press. Hoping to use bad publicity to bolster one's position only demonstrates implied insecurity and weakness of the claimant as powerful nations have done whatever they liked throughout human history. However, this doesn't mean nations will actively look for bad publicity when they can avoid it.

SamuraiBlue said:

That is why PRC's claim is laughed at worldwide and no nation takes PRC's claim seriously.
Seriously how many nation actually acknowledges PRC's claim? LoL

Click to expand...

Even the US doesn't acknowledge Japan's claims on Diaoyu islands, so pray tell what nations say Japan owns them? Diaoyu Dao belongs to China, and America illegally gave the administrative rights to Japan through right of might, not rule of law.