South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)

vided them in the article. If you don't agree with the facts you are at liberty to offer your rebuttal. You did not but inste
You asked for facts and I provided them in the article. If you don't agree with the facts you are at liberty to offer your rebuttal. You did not but instead repeat the same lines. In sovereignty disputes both law and facts need to complement each other to support the case. Whether Spain actually ceded that specific territory is not just a question of law but also of fact and the historical facts as offered by the article actually demonstrates actual administration and affirms that it included the Scarborough. In contrast you haven't offered anything to support China's case other than obfuscate.

So your fact is "These islands (meaning including Scarborough Shoal) and places were clarified to have also been transferred to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Washington of 1900.". Source is an article by the claimant. Good for you since it has been clarified, should be easy to clarify, Please show me source for this clarification.

John Foreman, An American Authority on the Philippines at this time created a map of the Philippines Island.
 

Attachments

  • 084a-0096-03132012_25.jpg
    084a-0096-03132012_25.jpg
    218.4 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
If countries like the US, UK, Japan and Australia are only willing to follow international law when it suits their purposes, why should China be expected to act differently? Why is China being held to a higher standard when it comes to international law compliance?
Why are you re-directing the conversation? In the last dozen or so posts, the conversation was about each country presenting their case in support of their respective claims. I have presented the Philippines' case and instead of you presenting China's case, you are offering excuses.
 

Brumby

Major
So your fact is "These islands (meaning including Scarborough Shoal) and places were clarified to have also been transferred to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Washington of 1900.". Source is an article by the claimant. Since it has been clarified, should be easy to clarify, Please show me source for this clarification.

John Foreman, An American Authority on the Philippines at this time created a map of the Philippines Island.
It looks like I am talking to a wall.
 
It looks like I am talking to a wall.

Show me where it was clarified in the Treaty of Washington of 1900. Your fact is it has been clarified that Scarborough Shoal has been ceded to the US by Spain as described on this article, right?
 
Last edited:

Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute.
No agreement, no arbitration.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The truth about the South China Sea issue
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 7:07pm Barbados1
By:
H.E. Wang Ke, Chinese Ambassador to Barbados


Recently, reports and stories relating to the South China Sea Issue seem to be more abundant, but some of them are biased and even misleading as opposed to factual information. To clarify, I would like to share some facts with local readers and observers.

First of all, The South China Sea Islands have been China’s territory since ancient times. The Chinese people were the first to discover, name and explore these islands including the Nansha Islands and exploit their resources. Until the latter half of the 19th century, only Chinese people lived and worked in Nansha Islands. Furthermore, China is the first country to continuously exercise sovereign jurisdiction over them, a practice that has been continued in a peaceful and effective manner without interruption.

During World War II, Japan started the war of aggression against China and occupied the Nansha Islands. It was explicitly provided in the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international documents that all the territory, naturally including the Nansha Islands, which had been stolen by Japan should be restored to China. When the war ended, the Japanese Government officially stated that it renounced all its “rights, title and claim to Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as Nansha and Xisha Islands”, thus formally returned the Nansha Islands to China.

For quite a long period of time after WWII, there had been no such a thing as the so-called South China Sea Issue, and it was widely recognised by the international community that the South China Sea Islands belong to China, and no country ever challenged this. In 1968, a survey conducted by an affiliate of the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) indicated rich oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. Starting from the 1970s, countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, breaking the UN Charter and the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, a basic norm governing state-to-state relations, have occupied part of the islands and reefs of the Nansha Islands by military means. This leads to the territorial disputes over the Nansha Islands, which is the core and origin of South China Sea Issue. Also, with the evolution of the new system of the law of the sea, there have also arisen the disputes on maritime delimitation.

Secondly, China’s non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines stand on solid ground in international law. China has long taken the stand that disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime rights should be peacefully resolved through bilateral negotiations between the countries directly concerned, which has proven effective. As a matter of fact, China has properly settled land boundary issues with 12 countries and completed the delimitation of maritime boundary in the Beibu Bay with Vietnam.

By taking advantage of some provisions of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and without informing China in advance or acquiring China’s consent, the Philippines unilaterally initiated the South China Sea arbitration in January 2013, which violated the agreement to settle disputes through friendly negotiations and consultations reached by China and the Philippines on multiple occasions such as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002 and the two countries’ 2011 joint statement. By unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines has negated its solemn commitment to its neighbours and the international community, and breached one of the core principles in international relations – Pacta
sunt servanda (“agreements must be kept”). Also, the unilateral initiation of arbitration is a violation of the right to seeking dispute settlement of its own choice that China enjoys as a State Party to UNCLOS. The Philippines’ requests are, in essence, about territorial sovereignty and maritime delimitation. Territorial issues are subject to general international law, not UNCLOS. The declaration on optional exceptions China made in 2006 in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS excludes disputes concerning maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, as well as military and law enforcement activities from the dispute settlement procedures provided in UNCLOS. About 30 countries, including China, have made similar declarations, which forms an integral part of UNCLOS. The Philippines, by packaging its claims, maliciously circumventing China’s declaration. It is the righteous act China has taken to defend the legitimate rights and interests of a State Party to UNCLOS and to uphold the authority and sanctity of this international instrument.

The Philippines’ unilateral initiation of arbitration is by no means aimed at resolving the dispute. Rather, it is a political farce and provocation under the pretext of law. The Philippines intends to use the arbitration to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, discredit China, and seek support for its own invasion and illegal occupation of some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha Islands. China will not accept or recognise the “award” whatever the arbitration might be.

Thirdly, China’s construction activities on the Nansha Islands and reefs are aimed at first and foremost improving the working and living conditions for the stationed personnel and better fulfilling China’s relevant international responsibilities and obligations. Upon the completion of the construction, China will provide more public services and products, such as maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and mitigation, meteorological observation, ecological conservation, navigation safety and may more to the international community, which will be beneficial to all countries.

Also, China deploys on relevant islands and reefs necessary and moderate facilities for military defence in an effort to enhance the defence capability of China’s own territory in accordance with the security environment and threats faced by China in the Nansha Islands. It is by no means so-called “militarization”. Up to now, there are still some 42 islands and reefs of Nansha Islands illegally occupied by countries like the Philippines and Vietnam. In fact, China is the main victim of the South China Sea Issue. Yet, with a view to upholding peace and stability in the South China Sea, China has exercised utmost restraint and seeks to peacefully resolve disputes through negotiation and consultation on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with International Law.

As the saying goes “Truth needs not many words”, all the observers with a rational sense will fully understand the efforts that China has made to uphold its own rightful interests and to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, and will surely have a clearer idea of why the waters there are troubled.
 

Brumby

Major
Show me where it was clarified in the Treaty of Washington of 1900. Your fact is it has been clarified that Scarborough Shoal has been ceded to the US by Spain as described on this article, right?
Philippines as a nation comprises more than 7000 islands. You are effectively saying that if it is not named in the treaty it is not included. For goodness sake, Scarborough would hardly qualify as an island under normal definition let alone specifically mentioned. The portion of the article that I presented to you talks of historical acts of administration of the Scarborough by US and that is prima facie evidence that it was part of the territories ceded. This are facts that would hold up in court. If you disagree you are free to offer a rebuttal and this is the third time I am suggesting.
 

Brumby

Major
Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute.
No agreement, no arbitration.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The truth about the South China Sea issue
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 7:07pm Barbados1
By:
H.E. Wang Ke, Chinese Ambassador to Barbados


Recently, reports and stories relating to the South China Sea Issue seem to be more abundant, but some of them are biased and even misleading as opposed to factual information. To clarify, I would like to share some facts with local readers and observers.
This would be the Philippines rebuttal.
China tries to justify its actions by asserting that it has sovereignty over the shoal, which it calls Huangyan Island. In April 2012, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China published the basis of its claim to Bajo de Masinloc, through a paid advertisement in the local newspapers. In sum, China argues that it is entitled to Bajo de Masinloc on the ground that it first discovered the island, gave its name and incorporated it into its territory, and had always exercised jurisdiction over it. A serious examination of these grounds, however, bears out severe internal inconsistencies. Examination of the evidence shows the basis to be largely published fiction.

As to the claim of first discovery, China asserts that Chinese explorers discovered the shoal in the 13th century during the Yuan Dynasty. But the Yuan Dynasty was a foreign dynasty, established by Kublai Khan, and China was at the time merely part of the great Mongol Empire. If Bajo de Masinloc was indeed acquired by virtue of discovery, then such discovery could only be in the name of the sovereign, the Mongol Empire. Perhaps it should therefore be claimed by the remnant of the Mongol Empire, which is Mongolia, not China.

Be that as it may, as Justice Carpio points out and as seen on some of the maps in the exhibit, any ordinary person can see how tenuous this claim is. “Huangyan Island” never appears as such in any of the ancient maps of China, even after the Yuan Dynasty. We have two examples. In the “Hun Yi Jiang Li Li Dai Guo Du Zi Tu” (Map of the Entire Empire and Frontier Countries) made by Quan Jin in 1402, based on maps from the Yuan Period, the Philippines is included in the lower part of the map. But, it appears as only as a collection of small vague patches, indicating only the largest islands of Mindoro and parts of Palawan. Huangyan Island is not indicated at all. (Figure 5)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Figure . The “Map of the Entire Empire and Frontier Countries” drawn in 1402 based on Yuan Dynasty maps. The Philippines appears as a small collection of spots in the lower right corner, west of the large patch that represents Japan. (Source: cartographic-images.net)

On the other hand, in the “Dong Han Hai Yi Tu” (Barbarian Countries of Southeast Seas) drawn by Lo Hsung-Hsien in the 15th century, again based on Yuan Dynasty maps, the Philippines appears as small blobs with markings for May-i (Mindoro) and Sansu (likely Calamian, Palawan, and Busuanga). Again, Huangyan Island is nowhere to be found.

Perusal of these maps of China based on information from the Yuan Dynasty period leads quickly to certain conclusions. One is that China of the Yuan period actually had very little information of the Philippines and its largest islands in terms of location, size, or shape. Chinese cartographers did not even give the Philippines much importance, as compared with Japan, Taiwan, and Hainan. Second, China at the time clearly did not have full and accurate knowledge of even the largest islands of our archipelago. If it could not even determine the location, size, or shape of Luzon, then much less could it identify the infinitesimal rocks and reef of Bajo de Masinloc. China could not possibly claim discovery in this period, since information from the period itself is non-committal.

Furthermore, Chinese records tend to indicate the reverse. According to them, as early as the 7th and 10th century, the ancestors of the Filipinos had established contact with China under the Tang Dynasty 700 years before the Yuan. Thus China knew very well that the islands of the Philippines were inhabited by coastal seafaring peoples. Chinese annals such as the “Chu Fan Chi” of Chau Ju Kuo even speak in fear of the slave-raiding expeditions of the Visayans, reaching as far north as the coast of Fujian Province. Thus, it was Philippine ancestors, not Chinese, who were the masters of the Southeast Asian seas.

Chinese records also speak of a lucrative trade in metals, weapons, musical instruments and jewellery reaching as far South as Butuan, one of the largest port polities of ancient times. These port polities were flourishing at a time when China withdrew into itself and abandoned trade with the outside world. It was the profitability of that trade that caused Chinese traders to lobby with their reclusive government to allow trade missions to and from Southeast Asia, and this eventually bore fruit.

So, if ever the Yuan Dynasty mariners came to the Philippines or any of its parts, it was because they knew that our ancestors were already there. These were not journeys of discovery of hidden places, but purposeful voyages to trade with known peoples and places.

As for the second basis of its claim, it bears noting that the name “Huangyan Island” was not on Chinese maps of the South China Sea until about 1983. The feature is reportedly indicated for the first time in the Chinese map of the South China Sea in 1935, and included as one of the features listed by the Water Mapping Committee in the original version of the now infamous 9 dashed lines map. The original map (containing 11 dashed lines), gave the reef the Sinicized name of Scarborough. Thus the very first name given for a place discovered in ancient times was the Chinese version of an English name given by English cartographers. This is stark evidence that as late as 1947, China did not even know of the shoal, and only became aware of it from British Admiralty charts.

In fact, Bajo de Masinloc does not receive any distinctly Chinese designation until it was renamed Minzhu Reef. The problem, however, is that it is listed as part of the Nansha Qundao, or the Spratly Islands. The Spratlys are a totally distinct group of islands some 260 nautical miles away from Bajo de Masinloc. It is difficult to conceive of a proper and effective naming of a place when its location does not even appear to be known. China did not call the place Huangyan Island until after 1983, nearly 40 years later, after it sent its first recorded hydrographic survey to the area without informing the Philippines. It is reasonable to surmise that the change in designation and grouping was a direct result of that modern survey; and that it was only in 1977 that China actually reached Bajo de Masinloc, and realized that it could be more than a reef.

The reason for its designation as an “island” is clear: it is the only feature above water in the imaginary Zhongshe Qundao that supposedly lies between the Paracels and the Philippines. As such, it is the only feature that can justify China’s claim to the existence of Zhongshe Qundao which includes the completely-submerged Macclesfield Bank.

If the location of what China now calls Huangyan Island was not even known and fixed until 1983, then it becomes eminently clear that the claim to continuous exercise of jurisdiction is unsubstantiated. For China, Huangyan Island only came into existence in 1983, and it was nothing more than a pinpoint on a map as far as its government was concerned. The only time it attempted to exercise any kind of jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc was in 1994, when it issued a permit to an amateur radio operator to set up an amateur radio station on the shoal, igniting the present day dispute over it.
 

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why are you re-directing the conversation? In the last dozen or so posts, the conversation was about each country presenting their case in support of their respective claims. I have presented the Philippines' case and instead of you presenting China's case, you are offering excuses.
The current system of international laws was decided in 1945 by the allied victors, primarily the US, UK, and Soviet Union. China didn't have a seat at the table since it was weak, divided and in the midst of a Civil War.

At the conclusion of WW2, international law legitimized and 'finalized' all territorial transfers before 1945, even those by coercion, to the great benefit of countries like the Soviet Union, at the expense of Germany. The allies' primary concerns were settling issues in Europe.

In Asia, they left a mess. At the time, they didn't have much interest in settling minor territorial issues in Asia, except for the legitimization of the seizure of Sakhalin and the Kuril islands by the Soviet Union. While the allies forced Germany to return all annexed territories to their original owners, they didn't do the same with all of the territories annexed by Japan. All of these islands are the subject of the territorial disputes that we see today - a mess left by the allied victors who were primarily concerned with securing their own major territorial gains in the post-WW2 order.

In this context, the annexation of the Senkaku islands by Japan is legitimate, since the annexation occurred before 1945. The re-annexation of Tsushima by South Korea is illegitimate, since it occurred after 1945. The status of the Paracel and Spratly islands is indeterminate, as the last legitimate title holder to the Paracel and Spratly islands is Japan, who relinquished both territories but didn't return them to China. The status of Scarborough Shoal is indeterminate, since it was not specifically mentioned in any treaty.

There are two cases here which are clearly unfair. Japan seized Tsushima as a prelude to the invasion of Korea. Japan seized the Senkaku islands as a prelude to the invasion of Taiwan. Neither island was properly returned by title to its original owner. However, since Japan was not forced to relinquish these territories specifically in any post-WW2 treaty, under international law, they technically both belong to Japan. There's a very good reason that Japan is keen to stress international law in resolving these territorial disputes - the allies (without Chinese/Korean representation) didn't do a proper, thorough job of returning territory to their original owners in Asia, and Japan was a great beneficiary of this oversight.

In all of the other cases (Paracels, Spratlys, Scarborough), a full treaty between disputant nations is necessary to legitimize full ownership under international law. Realistically, this just isn't going to happen. There's no point in discussing international law here, since none of the claimants are ever likely to sign away their sovereignty claims.

International law settled these 'historic' claims in 1945 - China was not present to defend its case. Post-1945, historic claims carry very little weight in international law. Is this fair? From the Chinese POV, it certainly isn't. Forcing international law on China is only going to force the Chinese people to view the current system of international law as being highly unfair. China isn't seeking to overturn the system, as some alarmists might claim - it just wants to right certain historical wrongs.

In the absence of full legitimacy under international law, the next best thing is de facto control. That's what South Korea did at Dokdo/Tsushima, and China at the Paracels. That's what the claimants are doing in the Spratlys.

Under international law, Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly islands are sovereignty disputes that require treaty agreements to reach a full resolution. This isn't going to happen, but the Philippines is trying to use creative lawfare to earn a technical victory under UNCLOS in its favor. Again, China is not going to give much weight to this sort of creative lawyering.
 

confusion

Junior Member
Registered Member
Philippines as a nation comprises more than 7000 islands. You are effectively saying that if it is not named in the treaty it is not included. For goodness sake, Scarborough would hardly qualify as an island under normal definition let alone specifically mentioned. The portion of the article that I presented to you talks of historical acts of administration of the Scarborough by US and that is prima facie evidence that it was part of the territories ceded. This are facts that would hold up in court. If you disagree you are free to offer a rebuttal and this is the third time I am suggesting.

This is where your anti-China bias truly shines. This is a line of argument taken straight from the Chinese and Koreans on the Senkaku/Diaoyutai and Dokdo/Tsushima disputes - they were islands that were too small to be specifically mentioned when more important territories were concerned. You apply one line of reasoning when it comes to China, and another for everyone else; a beautiful demonstration of Aussie hypocrisy - as Ramesh Shakur so aptly states "As the great Scottish poet Robbie Burns lamented, if only we had the gift ‘to see ourselves as others see us.’ If we want China to respect rules-based regional and global orders we had better learn fast to do so ourselves: no country has a God-given or self-proclaimed right to be the sole judge of both its own and everyone else’s compliance with rules, norms, and laws."
 

Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Backgrounder: Chinese live, work in South China Sea since ancient times
Source: Xinhua | 2016-04-26 16:21:30 | Editor: huaxia


135313726_14616679142471n.jpg

This photo taken on Dec. 11, 2015 shows uniquely beautiful winter scenery of the Zhaoshu Island in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. (Xinhua file photo/Zhao Yingquan)

BEIJING, April 26 (Xinhua) -- The history of Chinese people living and working on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
islands dates back to China's Han Dynasty some 2,000 years ago.

In several documents from the Han Dynasty and Jin Dynasty (266-420 AD), historians described scenes of ancient Chinese fishermen fishing and collecting coral and pearls in the South China Sea area.

In Brush Talks from Dream Brook, an encyclopedia written by Shen Kuo in China's Song Dynasty (960-1279 AD), the author referred to "Che Qu," a kind of unusually big and rare clam in the South China Sea.

By late Song dynasty about 1,000 years ago, the Chinese people had reached a relatively high level in the exploration of fish resources in the area.

Over a long period of time, fishermen from China's various coastal regions go fishing and carry out other exploration activities in the South China Sea in an organized manner.

The South China Sea, including the Nansha Islands, has been a traditional fishing ground for Chinese fishermen, who sail along the monsoon to go to the waters to fish every year, and have the islands in the Sea as their bases.

In recent years, archeologists have discovered on the Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands a large amount of relics of residences and household appliances from China's Tang (618-907 AD) and Song (960-1279 AD) dynasties, such as ceramics, iron knives and iron pots.

"Geng Lu Book," which was written between China's Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 AD) and Qing Dynasty (1644-1911 AD), recorded Chinese fishermen's fishing route at that time from the Qing Lan port and Tan Men port of China's Hainan Province to the islands and reefs of Xisha and Nansha.

In as early as the 15th and 16th centuries, Chinese fishermen from Hainan Island not only used the South China Sea islands as their fishery bases, but also built houses and reclaimed land for farming on the islands. Many relics of structures from China's Ming and Qing dynasties, including temples made of coral, wells and tombs, can be seen on those islands.

Also in that period of time, Chinese fishermen gradually achieved massive fishing operations in the region. And in the early 19th century, part of their sea products began to be shipped directly to Singapore for sale.

In the early 20th century, top shells and guano became important aviation and chemical materials. Since 1910, Chinese merchants have been engaged in large-scale production of top shells on the Nansha Islands and shipped them to Singapore for sale.

During the Republic of China period (1912-1949 AD), with permission from the then Chinese government, Chinese businessmen ran franchises on resources of the South China Sea islands, including bird droppings.

The South China Sea is home to the Chinese people. For thousands of years, Chinese people have used the South China Sea and the islands in it as their living and working place, and have undertaken various kinds of exploitation activities there. The Chinese people always cherish a fond feeling for the South China Sea, rely on it, love it and will continue live with it in coexistence.


Related:

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BEIJING, April 25 (Xinhua) -- China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and the adjacent waters surrounding them.
As a matter of fact, for quite a long period of time after World War II (WWII), no country had challenged China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands and related rights in the South China Sea, long recognized by the international community, including the United States, Japan and France.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top