PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Guys ... I think You two can stop this discussion, since there won't be an agreement between You two, and as such it probably is a prime example how difficult to understand and resolve this issue is.

Anyway ... all arguments are on the table and even if I have also a preferred opinion or perception, to continue this issue is senseless if one don not accepts a certain argument that in return is most important for the other one.


Deino
 

Brumby

Major
[QUOTE="PanAsian, post: 400289, member: 382]
The most common include deliberately confusing military versus civilian "freedom of navigation", mischaracterizes the varied interpretations and piecemeal acceptance of different parts of UNCLOS by many countries, ignores or plays down aggression taken or threat posed by others at China's expense, and not demanding evidence or justification for others' claims.
You are raising a number of issues which had been debated extensively previously and so I will be brief given they had been discussed :
(I)Civilian vs military FON and selective interpretations.
If you wish to discuss such matters, the final arbiter should be the customary law of the sea and UNCLOS because without it, then it is merely a matter of opinion without any reference point.

FON is a fundamental right underlying passage within the global commons and there is no differentiation either in the law and in application between civilian and military. The decoupling is an emphasis of China to make a point to suit its argument, a point I will come back to. Prior to the agreement by the naval powers to the final provisions that we see in UNCLOS today I.e. the creation of the EEZ, very specific provisions were debated and legislated to address the issues over military activities both in the territory seas and in the EEZ. The legal argument that China is making is a minority position and is inconsistent with the proceedings leading to the final legislated text of UNCLOS; the collective provisions within UNCLOS; and customary international law. I had made these points on a number of occasions previously.
The decoupling effort by China is merely a rhetorical argument rather than a legal argument with standing.
(ii)Questionable activities of other claimants
I don't believe anyone is defending Vietnam's activities vis-à-vis reclamation and that those activities are contrary to agreement in the ASEAN code of conduct. The important point being the scale is so significantly different, a point that the pro China members simply try to ignore or downplay. If the pro China members are indignant over Vietnam's activities then by all means criticise Vietnam's actions. The problem appears to be somehow there is the unreasonable expectation of equal criticism.
(iii)Demanding evidence or justification for others' claims.
In regards to Vietnam I believe I have at least on two occasions engaged in a conversation regarding Vietnam's claim. In regards to the Philippines, I had recently discussed extensively on Scarborough. I think it is for the pro China group to push the envelope regarding the other claimant's claim if somehow it is felt that there is not enough scrutiny on the other claimants.
 
Last edited:

irischloe

New Member
Registered Member
for those interested in protection of coral reef in soth china sea may click the below link,sorry that i can’t find english version of the article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


few points to note:
  1. about 300,000 trees is sucessfully planted on three reclaimed reefs and birds starting to make home
  2. 100% rubbish recycling / package back to mainland and zero pollution and waste water discharge acheived, they are now targeting 100% power source from renewable energy
  3. by actively encouraging coral growth around reclaimed land,coral started to grow around the island and it is hoped to increase the landmass by continuous growth of coral reef
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Our ongoing conversation exemplifies the irrationality of a discussion that is just going round in circles. In my last post I had already provided a graceful exit for you but you seem to want to prolong a senseless conversation and so I will statisfy you.

You are right that the world doesn't resolve around me but isn't that point both useless and irrelevant. Can we just be rational like if you are making an assertion you that you provide the evidence to support it. If you are unable or unwilling, then your position is simply unfoundered. Whether there are tons of evidence out there is irrelevant. It is not my job to search for what might constitute the evidence you have in mind but for you to present your case.

It's not my job or anyone's job to search for you. As I have stated several times China is far a older continuous civilization therefore had more evidence and claims to those island than any of the other ASEAN claimers. This is by far the best legitimate claim for China, that's why China detractors such as yourself will ignore history and facts because it does not suit with your point of view and arguments.
 

solarz

Brigadier
for those interested in protection of coral reef in soth china sea may click the below link,sorry that i can’t find english version of the article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


few points to note:
  1. about 300,000 trees is sucessfully planted on three reclaimed reefs and birds starting to make home
  2. 100% rubbish recycling / package back to mainland and zero pollution and waste water discharge acheived, they are now targeting 100% power source from renewable energy
  3. by actively encouraging coral growth around reclaimed land,coral started to grow around the island and it is hoped to increase the landmass by continuous growth of coral reef

Thanks for posting that. Just a small correction, it's not necessarily 300,000 trees. The term used is 植株, which could include all kinds of plants. 300,000 trees sounds a bit unrealistic for the amount of real estate they have.
 

nfgc

New Member
Registered Member
It's not my job or anyone's job to search for you. As I have stated several times China is far a older continuous civilization therefore...

As Deino posted, others simply do not agree with your assumptions and worldview and never will; others do not agree with my assumptions and never will.

I do not equate a few acres of the Vietnamese reclaimed bases with 3500 acres of China making 3-5 small cities in the ocean.

I also do not accept your assumption that because China has a far older civilisation, they get anything because of this or special rights.

You will never get me to agree that this assumption is valid.

So let us return to the nice hi-res photos...
 

ahojunk

Senior Member
for those interested in protection of coral reef in soth china sea may click the below link,sorry that i can’t find english version of the article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


few points to note:
  1. about 300,000 trees is sucessfully planted on three reclaimed reefs and birds starting to make home
  2. 100% rubbish recycling / package back to mainland and zero pollution and waste water discharge acheived, they are now targeting 100% power source from renewable energy
  3. by actively encouraging coral growth around reclaimed land,coral started to grow around the island and it is hoped to increase the landmass by continuous growth of coral reef
.
The following is perhaps the closest to this xinhuanet article.

---------
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2016-06-02 08:27 | Global Times | Editor: Li Yan

China is simulating the natural process of coral reefs in the country's activities in the South China Sea, denying recent accusations of large-scale destruction of coral reefs.

China has applied for over 60 national patents in construction activities in the South China Sea, and construction work on the Nansha Islands has protected the biological system, afforested the land and improved the ecology, a Xinhua News Agency report said on Tuesday.

After two years of construction, the area has become a flora and fauna paradise. Over 300,000 tropical plants from twenty species are located there with a germination rate above 86.5 percent, and the salinity of coral sand has decreased to a safe planting level,according to the report.

However, some U.S. experts told a recent forum at the East-West Center in Hawaii that coral reefs in the South China Sea are being destroyed on a large scale, which was mainly caused by China's massive land reclamation activities.

Chen Xiangmiao, an assistant researcher at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, told the Global Times that the U.S. tried to use the environmental problem as an excuse to suppress China and hype the South China Sea issue.

We have taken everything into consideration and prepared contingency plans, said Chen, adding that he hopes China and the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) could cooperate protect and develop the South China Sea.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei also said that China's activities on the Nansha Islands strictly follow the principle of conducting a green project and building ecologically-friendly islands and reefs.

Based on thorough studies, China adopts dynamic protection measures along the whole process so as to combine construction with ecological protection and the sustainable development of islands and reefs, said Hong.

"China takes the approach of 'natural simulation'. The impact on the ecological system of coral reefs is limited. Once China's construction activities are completed, ecological protection on relevant islands and reefs will be notably enhanced and such action would stand the test of time," said Hong,

Hong added that the Nansha Islands are China's territory. China cares about protecting the ecology of relevant islands, reefs and waters more than any other country, organization or people in the world.

The South China Sea has different kinds of ecosystems including coral reefs, mangroves and seaweed beds. There are over 200 kinds of biological resources in the Nansha Islands, said Wang Xiaoqiang, a deputy director at the State Oceanic Administration.
 
according to NavalToday Old map collections shed new light on South China Sea dispute
Maps discovered at Yale University are posing a new challenge to China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries the maps show that neither Spratly nor Paracel islands, both claimed by Vietnam, belonged to China, Vietnamese Tuoi Tree News reported on Sunday.

According to the news site, Vietnamese historian Dr. Tran Duc Anh Son discovered the maps while he was visiting the American Yale University.

The maps reportedly illustrated which territories belonged to the Chinese kingdom during the rule of the Qianlong Emperor (1735-1796), from mainland China to islands and surrounding waters.

The maps did not recognize Nansha Islands or Xisha Islands, called Truong Sa and Hoang Sa by Vietnam, as Chinese territory. Furthermore, the southernmost Chinese territory, as illustrated in the maps, was the Hainan island.

“It is observable that Chinese maps in official atlases released during the Qing dynasty and the Republic of China period all specified that the southernmost point of China is Hainan Island”, Tuoi Tree News cited Son saying.

Beijing’s South China Sea claims and the militarization of some of the artificially constructed islands in the region have been a cause of tension in the region. The U.S. Navy started performing so-called freedom of navigation operations in the disputed areas to challenge excessive maritime claims of the nations involved.

These operations have sparked outrage with the official Beijing whose officials, on numerous occasions, reiterated that China would not accept any international ruling on the issue including the South China Sea arbitration case brought before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague by the Philippines.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
for those interested in protection of coral reef in soth china sea may click the below link,sorry that i can’t find english version of the article

Speaking of coral in the South China Sea, apparently the coral has a long history and remembers the Opium Wars and World War II:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
May. 31, 2016 , 1:45 PM
aaa%20corals.jpg


Mercury from explosives used during the First Opium War may have left their mark on local corals.
Edward Duncan (1803–1882)

On 7 January 1841, the U.K. iron steamer Nemesis exploded a Chinese ship with a rocket in a battle during the First Opium War—a conflict between China and the United Kingdom over trade. That shot, along with other explosions and gunfire, would have spewed the toxic metal mercury into the air. Now, a new study suggests that corals in the South China Sea may have taken up the metal, keeping a record of this and future wars locked in their skeletons. The finding provides a look at how humans have been polluting the ocean throughout history, and may help us understand how the metal travels in our atmosphere today.

The skeletons of hard corals are made of aragonite, a calcium carbonate mineral. As the organism grows, it pulls additional calcium out of the water to build its skeleton. Corals’ annual growth bands, like the rings of a tree,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. But because certain metal pollutants—like lead and mercury—can take the place of calcium in the coral’s skeletal structure, the rings can also be an archive of the metals floating in the seawater.

aaa%20corals%201.jpg

A Porites lutea coral.
Philippe Bourjon

A team of researchers led by Ruoyu Sun, a geochemist now at Trent University, Peterborough, in Canada, wanted to see whether corals could be a good record of mercury pollution, too. So they extracted a 200-year-old core from a Porites lutea coral in the South China Sea, expecting the record to match those gathered from remote ice and peat samples: a gradual increase over time due to mining, coal combustion, and later industrial production.

But the record they found was very different. In the oldest part of the core, dating to between 1800 and 1830, levels of mercury were low and relatively constant. But over the coral’s next 170 years of life, the amount of mercury incorporated into its skeleton spiked repeatedly, sometimes reaching concentrations four to 12 times higher than the baseline.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, including the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(1839–1842), the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(1856–1860), and World War II, according to a study published this month in Environmental Science & Technology. The baseline mercury level also rose throughout the 1900s—but that increase is dwarfed by the wartime spikes.

“We never expected [mercury] would come from the wars,” Sun says—but there’s a good reason why it would. The metal is used in the production of weapons and explosives, and their detonation could also release mercury into the air. When the elemental form of mercury in the atmosphere encounters reactive chemicals like bromine ejected from the ocean via sea spray, it forms what researchers call “reactive gaseous mercury” molecules. These then settle into the ocean, after which corals can take up the dissolved mercury into their skeletons.

For Hannah Horowitz, an atmospheric chemist at Harvard University who wasn’t involved in the study, this local effect of wars fits into the new picture that’s emerging of how mercury behaves in the atmosphere. Once considered a more long-lived chemical that travels vast distances as it drifts through the atmosphere for a year or more, the impacts of mercury are increasingly being thought of as more local. “We’re revising that down to the order of months,” Horowitz says. That would explain why the signal of mining and manufacturing in the West might not make its way to the South China Sea.

Others are more skeptical of the results. Seeing a signal of wars in coral, according to Carl Lamborg, a geochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, is “maybe not impossible, but would require enormous inputs of mercury over time.” One large source of uncertainty is that corals may not take up mercury at a constant rate, meaning that a record of mercury from coral skeletons wouldn’t faithfully track the amount of mercury in seawater. Research on how mercury is taken up by corals is still in the early stages, Lamborg stresses. But, he says, “their interpretation is as reasonable as any other.”

And, certainly, this isn’t the last step for Sun and his colleagues. To firm up the connection between coral mercury and wars, Sun next plans to look for specific mercury isotopes in the coral archive. Different sources of mercury in the atmosphere—including volcanoes, coal combustion, and explosives—contain different amounts of the element’s isotopes, Sun says. Liquid mercury derived from the mineral cinnabar—which, among other things, was used as an additive in many explosives in the 19th century—might have its own such fingerprint, he adds. “If that’s the same as the one in the corals then we’ll be sure.”
 
Top