The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2024 AFPChina pushes rivals' limits in regional disputes
By Isabel Kua and Matthew Walsh BEIJING©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
Articles, Offers & Useful Resources
A mix of what's trending on our other sites
74 Comments
Login to comment
TaiwanIsNotChina
The Philippines needs to call in the US right now to put a stop to this piracy.
TaiwanIsNotChina
All you need to know, really.
Desert Tortoise
The US has publicly offered to do so several times including as recently as last week, but the Philippines so far has refused any US help. The claim they want to take care of the situation with their own resources and their defense chief last week said it would have to be a situation where their personnel on that beached ship were starving before they would ask for US assistance.
https://www.rappler.com/philippines/thumbs-down-united-states-help-west-sea-missions-august-2024/
obladi
You could almost say that is their policy in a nutshell. If you ask a person living in Beijing, they will tell you they feel surrounded by the U.S. If you ask a person living in Japan, China is expanding into sovereign territory. Both perspectives are true.
TaiwanIsNotChina
This has been "true" for 75 years. They should have learned to live with it by now.
Carl N Jpn Gcjp
Japan can look forward to the same increase in grinding pressure in the East China Sea. It's coming.... just a little more slowly while they watch the US reactions to their pressure tactics against the Philippines.
Makoto Shimizu
All crew of invading airplanes and vessels should be offered to receive asylum, instead of aggression they should be kindly offered to enjoy the hospitality of Japan, Taiwan, Philippines. May be there are potential defectors, who want to runaway as the Russian pilot some years ago. Viktor Ivanovich Belenko was a Soviet pilot who gained notoriety during the Cold War by defecting to the West. On September 6, 1976, Belenko flew his MiG-25 “Foxbat” fighter jet to Hakodate, Japan, where he requested political asylum.
Belenko’s defection was a significant event because it allowed Western experts to closely examine the MiG-25 for the first time, revealing many Soviet military secrets. After the defection, Belenko was granted asylum in the United States by President Gerald Ford and became a military consultant and aerospace engineer.
He also co-authored an autobiography titled “MiG-Pilot: The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko” and lived comfortably in the U.S., where he married and had two children.
mu-da
The headline is wrong. China doesn't push rivals limits. It continues its frequent hostilities by entering foreign territories. It is an act of war and should be treated as such. Chinese ships flagrantly entering other countries territorial waters and Chinese planes entering other contries airspace without permission should be sunk or shot down. If China doesn't respect internationally recognised borders it should be treated as the rogue state it is.
fallaffel
Time to rename East China Sea and South China Sea to East Asia Sea/South Asia Sea.
nik
If the United States did not interfere in disputes between Asian countries, then everything would be quiet and calm. The neighbors themselves would have agreed on all differences without warmongers. In this case, the dispute here is not between China and the Philippines, but a dispute between China and the United States. And everyone already understands this except those who are already in the status of an injured commentator.
fallaffel
Ask someone in the Philippines what they think about these incidents, and who is to blame. Heck, ask someone in Japan and you'll probably hear the same thing...
I find it strange when the one doing the attacking pulls the victim card, and someone actually believes them.
stormcrow
No respect for anyone.
Selfish is as selfish does.
Bellflower
The US is carrying out a "campaign of confrontation" against China.
Marcos Jr is a US proxy.
Marcos Jr is the son of the disgraced former dictator of the Philippines. The father was also subservient to the US and when he declared martial law in 1972, the Nixon administration supported him wholeheartedly.
Marcos Jr also pays no attention to the Philippine constitution which limits its territory at 118 longitude.
Are you concerned about the future of you family in Asia? You should think hard about the record and motives of the US government.
Fos
TaiwanIsNotChina
The Philippines needs to call in the US right now to put a stop to this piracy.
Yes, let’s call a producer from Netflix and a John Wayne or Rambo lookalike, and make a good propaganda movie, a pumped up action flick with a lot of US marines as heroes. They should invent another word for Naive in the dictionary.
Marcos JR is indeed a US proxy, just look up at what his father did. A was criminal saved by the US previous administrations. Talking about arrogance and the new imperialism of China in their own region. Perhaps history has been forgotten, if only in the last few years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and all the destabilization attempts by the US governments.
isabelle
They aren't, but sadly, those caught up in "Xi Jinping Thought Fantasy Land" think they are. What's actually happening is that they are making China a pariah, driving economic decoupling, and boosting alliances/cooperation amongst China's rivals, which is the opposite of what China needs.
Modern China developed by opening up and working with (and copying/stealing from, of course) other nations. Now, Xi's aggression is closing such opportunities off, and the country is suffering as a result, with its economy slowing, unemployment increasing, and markets and tech being denied. Even a country of China's size cannot prosper alone, but unfortunately, Xi's superiority complex makes him think it can.
Xi's hubris is very obviously bringing tensions and conflict to the region, but most of all it will bring ruin to China.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Well, yeah, you consider China having its way to be peace and everyone else does not.
TaiwanIsNotChina
If China wants to block or attack US ships in international waters, I am confident what the movies will say if there are any.
And funny how absolutely zero of that gives any license to China for piracy.
Desert Tortoise
This is very hard to accomplish when you have a large crew. It only takes a couple of loyalists to thwart a mutiny, and those ships have a CCP political officer on board who can over rule the ship's captain at any time. Their captains are also vetted for their political loyalty, though there are certainly factions within the Chinese military and Coast Guard that are not loyal to Xi Jinping and his faction of the CCP.
Victor Belenko could get away with defecting because it only involved him. Nobody else knew of his plans. He left his family behind and never saw them again. I met Victor Belenko once. I can't say where or when. Pretty much everything he told us was written in his book. He's an interesting fellow. Most fighter pilots are.
A suitable bounty might attract a defector with an interesting combat jet (that is how the US managed to acquire a MiG-15 during the Korean War, a DPRK pilot defected with one for the bounty and that MiG is now on display at the Museum of the US Air Force in Dayton Ohio. But getting a multi crew patrol plan with its crew or a whole Coast Guard ship to defect is probably fantasy land.
quercetum
Territories are drawn and can be redrawn but invariably there will be disputes.
In the early half of last century, the Republic of China, an ally of the United States or a lackey depending on your perspective, drew the 11 dash lines in the South China Seas in the 1930's. Japan attacked the ROC and took over the South China Seas during WWII and occupied the islands and reefs there. After Japan's defeat to China and the US (you can claim the US defeated Japan 100% by themselves but the fact is there was a war fought on mainland between the Chinese and the Japanese), Japan had to return the islands and reefs according to the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Postdam Proclamation which supported the Cairo Declaration.
Japan returned the island of Taiwan to China ROC and US warships accompanied Chinese warships to reclaim islands and reefs in the South China Sea from Japan. MacArthur was a instrumental and a part of this. How did the rest of the world respond?
With approval of the US, a winner in WWII and with no objections from imperialist colonizers in the South China Seas, Netherlands (Indonesia), UK (Malaysia & India), France (Vietnam) & Spain/USA (Philippines), the 11-dash line was officially established on international stage in 1947. Old maps from USA, USSR, UK, Japan, Germany, France also included 11-dash in the China territory. 11-dash is recorded and the sea territory is a part of the international rules based order. So how did this change?
The ally of the United States, ROC pocketed the US aid, became corrupt and incapacitated (many were packing up opium as they escaped to Taiwan after losing to the Communists.) The US looked at Chang Kai-shek with disdain the way some would look at the homeless in San Francisco and pulled the plug on Chang the the ROC: no more arms and no more aid.
Communist China was the enemy and the US embargoed China for 20 years but switched and threw Taiwan ROC out of the UN and recognize China and One China. The 11 dash line, which was drawn with the help of the US and recognize by the world, namely the imperialist colonizers, did not occur to them transferred to China as they recognized China mainland as China over Taiwan ROC.
Now if your view is that Taiwan is not a part of China, then you would still have to recognize that Taiwan ROC drew the 11 dash lines and Taiwan still claims the South China Seas as its territory and has also like China rejected any South China Sea arbitration rulings.
If your view is that Taiwan is a province of China and that in recognizing One China you are rejecting the ROC as China and recognizing the PRC as the one and only China, then you take possession of the government of ROC, its land which is the island of Taiwan, and the 11 dash line drawing in the South China Seas.
Some of you argue that the US acknowledged One China but does not mean that the island belongs to PRC. In this case you would have to perform a surgery of some kind to separate the government of ROC from the territory of the island of Taiwan. This argument where one recognizes the ROC as China (the name is Republic of China) and that there is only one China the PRC but the island does not belong to the ROC leaves heads spinning. What they are saying is RRC and the ROC is one as in One China but the island does not belong to the ROC therefore it does not belong to PRC. Governments usually rules over people of a particular land.
So the US has helped an ally draw great territory 11 dash lines in the South China Seas, gave up and abandoned the ally in its civil war which it lost, supported the ally to reconquered the continent but later backstabbed the ally to ally with the ally's enemy now is back to supporting the ally because the original ally's enemy PRC has gotten too strong.
What we are seeing here, and this is my opinion and disagreement with an opinion does not make that opinion disinformation - is that the US cannot count on Taiwan to fight against China or cannot wait for Taiwan to declare independence anymore or any longer. The Taiwanese elite wishes to maintain the status quo and invest in China, which means time is on China's side. China is getting stronger and stronger every 3-4 years or every US Presidential term. Look at China under Obama and Trump and China now, different on many metrics in the global forum. The US is now trying to get at China through the Philippines and as mentioned in previous posts, Myanmar is the next card to be played. Why won't the Philippines call on the US Navy?
The Filipinos unlike the Japanese fought off the Spanish and was able to decolonize from the United States or the US granted independence to the Philippines. There is a stigma which is that the country is an independent country and asking the US for help is tied to the presence of US military bases which they had worked so hard to get rid of. Japan has this consciousness. Those who wish to change the Article 9 and strengthen Japan's military, the so called Nationalists, also share this desire of not being indebted to the US that is only repayable by US military presence.
The South China Seas were drawn to belong to a US ally, ROC Taiwan. When things change, the South China Seas drawn previously and recognized by the world, are being redrawn.
This reminds one of the "Democratic" leader Aung San Suu Kyi. The West perhaps has forgotten: it was the West who made Suu Kyi “god of democracy” and a “freedom fighter” until she clamped down on rioters. They can make you a god (Aung San Suu Kyi) and draw 11 dash lines over almost all of the South China Seas when you (Chang Kai-shek ROC) do what they want. When you don't do what they want, they can also make you the devil or an aggressive bully.
Lastly, it is beyond the ways of the world to designate territory based on proximity. If it were so, Turkey has a right to all the Greek islands immediately off its coasts in the Aegean Sea and islands closer to Taiwan such as Yonaguni would belong to Taiwan ROC.
quercetum
Exactly. They contribute nothing to the dialogue. This is about the territory the US drew for ROC but wants China to agree to its redrawing of the SCS as the PRC and ROC fall under the One China US policy.
WA4TKG
They’re going to keep this up until it becomes a shooting match, then, they’ll blame everyone but themselves., and I predict, at the same time, use it as a pretext to finally invade Taiwan
BeerDeliveryGuy
China’s salami slicing strategy in action. Operate just below the threshold of military retaliation.
isabelle
I hope you enjoyed typing all that out, as absolutely none of it matters.
The 9/10-dash line has been invalidated by UNCLOS, which China has ratified and is bound by. Case closed.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China#Award
China's claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the 'nine-dash line' are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China's maritime entitlements under the Convention. The Convention superseded any historic rights or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction in excess of the limits imposed therein.
OssanAmerica
But Japan is doing absolutely nothing to surround China. If China feels that the US is doing so why don't they expand into Guam or Solomon Islands?
Fact is that China does not respect the sovereignty of other Asian nations and believes they are all expendable in China's quest to establish strategic regional domination.
quercetum
In the Cairo Declaration, the three Allies (China, UK USA) affirm “that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."
a) All islands belong to Republic of China; all islands include the Spratly Islands. Taiwan - ROC owns the islands and reefs in the South China Seas.
b) Republic of China Taiwan is part of the One China policy and that China is the PRC starting from 1972. Therefore, the Spratly Islands belong to the ROC which eventually fell under the People's Republic of China in 1972.
They either still belong to the ROC as they were originally intended or they fall under the PRC which was not originally intended.
Nothing here about the Philippines and the Spratly Islands, is there?
quercetum
Not the sharpest comment in the section. That would be like saying lawyer A is a member of the New York Bar. Lawyer B is also a member of the New York Bar. Case closed.
Look up the word "dispute" and "interpretation" of the law. I am not sure you understand the concepts.
Territories are not drawn and redrawn for the advantage of a country and its allies; this applies to China and the United States.
Attempts to define jurisdiction and the interpretation of international law, according to you is irrelevant and the case is closed.
Conventions on the Law of the Sea defines rights and obligations. It is not a judgement. What you are thinking is an agreement and an agreement is not the same as a convention on the law of the sea.
China has not agreed to anything remotely would close this case.
deanzaZZR
The real disappointment here is Japan going all in on the USA 3-letter-agency anti-China media campaign. Given all recent Japan PMs are Nippon Kaigi I guess we should not be surprised. Japan is desperately trying to cling to the vestiges of the 1980s when Japan was near the top of the heap along with the increasingly irrelevant G7 countries.
The Philippines is poor and corrupt with little agency so whatever.
You do you Japan.
isabelle
Historic rights still covered by UNCLOS; case still closed.
Yes, it has. It has ratified UNCLOS and is bound by it, as I have said many times.
However, I realize that your true intention here is not to discuss the ramifications of international law, but to push the CCP line at any cost, as always. Given that, any further debate is largely pointless.
Desert Tortoise
That is simply not true. Please stop these historical distortions! The US had nothing to do with what was originally an Eleven Dash Line drawn by the Koumintang in the mid 1930s in response to the French seizing and populating the Paracel Islands. Two of the original dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin were removed by Mao in 1956 because newly independent North Vietnam was a nominal ally of China. The revised map placed the first dash right off the coast of South Vietnam just south of the border with the north. The Chinese have recently renewed their claim to the Gulf of Tonkin btw and added those two dashes back. Vietnam is no longer a friend of China.
ROC made a claim to all the islands inside the Eleven Dash Line.. It was a claim but at the time other than one or two of the Paracel Islands deliberately populated by the French none were inhabited. If they were charted they were charted as navigation hazards to ships sailing the South China Sea. Many were submerged reefs of sandbars but in translating the European names to Mandarine many became islands in name but not in fact. Nonetheless no treaty signed at the end of WWII specifically supported those claims. China was entitled to the islands it controlled before the Japanese invaded. None of those islands had any population. Nobody controlled them except for the Paracels.
Prior to UNCLOS a nation's territorial waters extended no further than 22 km from their shore. It was UNCLOS that introduced the concept of an EEZ extending 370 km from shore in which a nation had the right to control the use of the waters and seabed including fisheries and any undersea minerals. China signed on to UNCLOS and thus is bound by those rules now, not claims dating to before WWII that were never recognized in international law or explicitly in any treaty.
Incidentally in the late 1990s the ROC in Taiwan re-wrote their maritime laws to align with UNCLOS and dropped any reference to the Nine Dash Line. They now comply with the terms of UNCLOS and recognize the EEZs of the nations surrounding the South China Sea.
ian
Ironically this attempt by the Philippines to assert jurisdiction over the shoal could be used as an excuse by China to build up and fortify it into an island
deanzaZZR
@isabelle That's nice. The Republic of China occupied Taiping Island and claimed that part of SCS in 1946 for China decades before UNCLOS was a twinkle in any UN bureaucrat's eye.
For all those history buffs, remember Japan following its defeat in WW2 gave up any of its illegal claims to islands other than the 4 main islands and any other minor islands granted to Japan by the victorious powers.
quercetum
No, I believe you misread and then made an accusation of distorting history. You might confirm whether I stated that the US was involved in the drawings in the 1930's. The answer is negative.
The 11 dash lines were published in 1947. China and the US were allies. Here is what I wrote:
There were no objections with the 11 or 9 dash line then. Territory drawn should not be changed based a third country's geopolitical interests and government change.
Based on the US objections, we see that it views the South China Seas boundaries one way if the country is governed by the ROC and another, decades later, when the country is governed by the PRC.
ian
Unclos has no authority at all in determining sovereignty claims.
Any and all claims made that contravene that is just an outright lie
Jijitsu
"Beijing says Taiwan is part of its territory and has refused to rule out using force to unify with it."
There's another form of propaganda that China has probably undertaken to make people believe that Taiwan is a part of China.
Watch the Netflix series "Fresh Off the Boat" . It's about a Taiwanese family who has made it big in the USA. However, throughout the series, the family members refer to themselves as 'Chinese' and not as 'Taiwanese'.
Hard to believe that it's not funded by someone related to the Chinese government... And surprisingly there is probably not protest from anyone as well.
Peter14
China will keep stretching the rubber band of hostility until it snaps back and hurts them in the process.
Slowing Chinese economy and rising youth unemployment means more soldiers for Xi's expendable military.
If China tries these things with US warships escorting Philippines ships, the US will defend themselves by firing on the hostile "pirate" Chinese ships. They wont allow themselves to be boxed in or rammed in open seas. China will say it is the victim and an armed conflict will ensue until diplomacy quickly tries to shut it down.
The future is bleak as China attempts to get its way and force others to give it what Xi wants. The US navy is unaccustomed to being intimidated and will face China with professionalism and determination.
A regional conflict is coming thanks to the aggressor China. It could well expand into WWIII.
Time to stock up on canned goods, portable water purification systems, rechargeable batteries and portable solar arrays. Make sure you can carry it amongst your families other essentials like sleeping bags, tents, strong outdoor clothes for winter and above all, strong hiking boots and a supply of critical medications. It can be weeks or months until you can get more medications in war time. Consider it a family insurance policy and if war doesnt come you can enjoy a camping vacation at some point in the future.
quercetum
You skip over the fact that not all countries do not agree to the law established by UNCLOS because in their perspective, it does not protect their interests. The United States objected to Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests. The U.S. claimed that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly.
I realize this is a challenge for you, but laws can be interpreted and applied in different ways. As a result, it leads to conflict views and disputes.
To give you an easy example, both China and the US are members of the World Trade Organization but they disagree on the interpretations of WTO rules and regulations. Your argument says in that situation, China signed up to be a member of the WTO and is a member of the WTO; therefore, the case is closed.
Just take a look at the picture of the coast guard boats and one can see the case is not closed.
To be honest, I am not sure you are able to debate. You stated "case closed" before even beginning to put forth an argument. You would need to have an argument and reasons to debate. Ad hominen is not actually debating because it is off topic.
The US objects to UNCLOS and is not a signatory nation or has not ratified. China disagrees with the jurisdiction (water surrounding land as opposed to land), interpretation and the application of the law.
Furthermore, a signatory nation can ratify a treat but later withdraw its ratification: case in the point, the United States in a series of treaties. Under these conditions, explain how the case in the South China Seas is closed?
ian
On the matter of sovereignty, the scs arbitration panel affirmed that it cannot rule on sovereignty claims so it's closed in that regard.
ian
But China does not acknowledge the scs arbitration ruling anyway so any ruling notwithstanding China will do whatever it wants within its territory
quercetum
Sounds like you are genuinely concerned, in that case it is unfortunate, the West uses the Philippines antagonize China by encroaching upon its territory and territory in dispute.
If you’re spreading propaganda, Chiba is not going to fall for that.
If you’re fear or war mongering, Xi is keeping it together. Without Xi, a military would have started already. Xi fights economic wars. He has to pay lip service to the PLA. Even JT posters have started wondering if parts of the Chinese military have gone rogue.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Oh look, it is historical nonsense that fails to explain why an allegedly indepedent PRC can direct its coast guard to not harass ships of other nations.
TaiwanIsNotChina
They can rule on China being a belligerant piece of stuffing, though, and not having any baselines south of Hainan.
quercetum
There were no objections when it was drawn by an ally of the US, the ROC.
The objections only came after 1972 when it was realized the PRC would have all the territory in the SCS.
Just because you don’t have an argument does not make these historical facts none sense.
owzer
Clever way to say "We rammed them."
Somebody's gonna take control measures and sink your boats.
TaiwanIsNotChina
That's because the ROC didn't block other nation's activities. You've been told it repeatedly but because it doesn't suit your narrative, it doesn't stop the nonsense.
Agent_Neo
Mao Zedong never said that the Senkaku Islands were Chinese territory, nor did he consider them to be Chinese territory.
The Arbitration Tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, determined that China's unique border line, the "Nine-Dash Line," over its maritime advancement in the South China Sea, has no basis in international law.
China is a country that does not follow international rules.
What's the counterargument? lol
quercetum
This is over your head. The ROC didn't have to conduct any activities, the drawing of the 11 dash lines itself conflicts with the EEZ of neighboring nations. When it is an ally of the US it is fine, but not when it is a superpower rival of the U.S.
quercetum
Another silly comment. Countries can follow rules by signing an agreement and being a signatory nation and ratifying international rules. They can also choose not to. Countries can also ratify a law and have a disgreement about the interpretation of thelaw. Countries can ratify a law but later back out of these "international rules."
The US signed the TPP, but later withdrew from the TPP; does that mean it is a country that does not follow internaitonal rules?
The US does not sign the UN treat banning mines. Does that mean the US does not follow internaitonal rules?
The US does not sign the Kyoto Protocol. Does that mean the US does not follow internaitonal rules?
The US does not sign the United Nation Convention ont he Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, does that mean it is a country that does not follow international rules?
The US is a member of the WTO but disagrees with the application of the rules, does that mean that it is a country that does not follow international rules?
China has ratified the UNCLOS, but disgrees on the legality of the application of one part of the law, does that make it a country that does not follow internationl rules?
The US backed out of the Paris Climate Agreement, UNESCO, Iran Nuclear Deal, UN Human Righs Council and so on. Need I go on?
TaiwanIsNotChina
But the fact remains they didn't enforce it. You can admit I was right anytime.
Not ratified. Also not a political or military treaty.
The PRC doesn't either. Is there a point somewhere in the firehose of nonsense?
And flagrantly ignores all of the provisions that matter, so yes it does make it such a country.
Isn't that funny how absolutely none of these leavings have anything to do with the PRCs relationship with Japan, the Philippines, or Taiwan.
kurisupisu
As quercetum has mentioned, it seems as if there truly is another faction operating within the Chinese government, interested in conflict.
Many times CCP members have spoken out against armed conflict and considering the effects of such a reality then it would be a major disadvantage for China’s economy to have such a dire situation.
Desert Tortoise
Again wrong. The Eleven Dash Line was first published in 1935. Get your history right please.
The rest of your post is a fiction based on an erroneous assumption. The Koumintang drew the Eleven Dash Line before WWII and the US had no involvement in that.
Desert Tortoise
In a word, yes.
Desert Tortoise
The ROC abandoned the claims of the Eleven Dash line in the late 1990s when the Taiwan government re-wrote its maritime laws to comply with UNCLOS. Remember the Eleven Dash Line predates the concept of the EEZ by 45 years. The ROCs current maritime law complies with UNCLOS.
Desert Tortoise
TPP was a trade pact among a group of nations. It was not international law.
Desert Tortoise
While the US follows the rules set fourth in UNCLOS with the exception of the provisions regarding sea bed mining and revenue sharing, that fact that the US has not ratified the treaty even after US Admiral Crowe was largely responsible for the resulting text, greatly diminishes US moral authority on matters that revolve around UNCLOS. It gives other nations an excuse to ignore UNCLOS when the US has not signed it.
Desert Tortoise
The original map showed a solid red line through the South China Sea, not eleven dashes, the so-called "U-Shaped Line". It was drawn by a nationalist geography teacher named Bai Meichu in 1936. I was a year off. Post war the ROC used that map to claim all the islands within. It never had the force of law and was never recognized by any treaty.
https://distilledhistory.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-the-nine-dash-line
deanzaZZR
Citation needed.
How odd then that ROC/Taiwan continues to occupy the largest of the Spratly Island, Taiping Island, which is far to the south not too far from the Palawan.
Desert Tortoise
Even the PRC didn't pay attention to the Nine Dash Line until Vietnam applied to the UN for an extended continental shelf so they could extend their EEZ beyond 370 km from shore to include claims of sovereignty over the Spratley Islands circa 2009. That got the attention of Vietnam's neighbors Philippines and Malaysia, and PRC. The PRC's 2011 response to Vietnam's extended continental shelf application included reviving claims associated with the Nine Dash Line.
None of this had anything to do with the US. But because the US has significant maritime trade through the region and regional allies affected by the PRCs claims the US becomes involved to protect freedom of navigation.
deanzaZZR
Please see Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of China
Article 4
The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly.
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/constitution01.htm#C001_
Desert Tortoise
And?
Did I not say the Taiwan government, meaning their National Assembly, re-wrote their maritime laws in the late 1990s to comply with UNCLOS. Taiwan cannot become a signatory to the treaty because PRC opposes but their national legislature revised their laws to align with UNCLOS. In doing so they have effectively renounced their former Eleven Dash Line or the earlier U-Shaped Line.
Desert Tortoise
That is an artifact of the Japanese occupation of the Spratleys and Paracels. During WWII the Japanese placed the Spratleys and Paracels under the administration of Taiwan. When WWII was over the armed forces of the ROC government in Nanjing accepted the surrender of the Japanese forces garrisoning Taiwan, the Spratleys and Paracels. Subsequently they were placed under the administration of Guangdong Province. When ROC forces were driven from the mainland they managed to retain control of Taiping Island.
The conclusion of WWII was not a neat and orderly process as various powers jockeyed for the control of territory and old scores were settled. Some territorial disputes, for example, between Italy and the former Yugoslavia around Trieste were not resolved until the 1970s.
Desert Tortoise
Btw, the Japanese gained control of the Spratleys and Paracel Islands by driving French forces out. The Chinese had previously gained control of these islands, after the French took them in the late 1800s, by accepting French colonial sovereignty over Vietnam. However in the mid 1930s, seeing China weakened by Japan's invasion of Manchuria, the French took the Paracel and Spratley Islands. It was this act that led to the original U-Shaped Line drawn in 1936. The Japanese subsequently took the islands from the French as the French were driven out of Indochina. ROC got them back after WWII as described above.
quercetum
Broad strokes. I am sure you understand interpretation. Have not you ever protested against a rule because you disagreed with interpretation and the application of the rule?
China can just not ratify or choose not to sign and carry on as it wishes. Superpowers do that. Provinces in the PRC are not able to.
quercetum
This is because you do not read. A country cannot be accused of not following "international rules" if it does not agree with the rules or the interpretation of the rules and thereby withdraw. There are many cases and examples I have given. You come back and say: China doesn't follow rules.
I overestimated you and your ability to discuss issues. We are here to find gems in posts that offer perspective. Your perspective is quite limited.
quercetum
This does not address the point. The Elven Dash line from 1947 to 1997 (around that time) existed and received the "blessing" of the US with none of the other international imperialist powers objecting. The point was how this was completely fine because it belonged to an ally of the US but expansionist when it is a part of the PRC by way of the One China policy.
That said whether ROC complies with UNCLOS maritime laws is also not the issue. Taiwan has disputes with the Philippines over an island stolen from them.
quercetum
Grant. The point is the US has not ratify the UNCLOS and if US actions conflict with the maritime law of UNCLOS the US should not be labeled as a country that fails to follow international rules.
The world as a whole needs to realize the limitations of rules and laws because a lot depends on who makes the rules and how the rules are interpreted and applied. Might is still right despite all the rules. Case in point: US and China.
Agent_Neo
It's clear that you have no understanding what an international treaty is.
To use an example from the United States, treaties that have been ratified should be abided by, but there is no need to abide by treaties that have not been ratified. This is something even a middle school student can understand.
Even if a treaty has been ratified, it can be revoked due to domestic circumstances.
China gets criticized for not abiding by treaties it signs.
That's only natural.
Desert Tortoise
You are wrong. If the US were to refuse to abide by UNCLOS then it very much deserves to be labeled as a nation that fails to follow international rules. In the case of UNCLOS the US abides by its terms with the sole exception of the rules governing revenue sharing of seabed mining revenues with land locked nations. So far the those provisions of UNCLOS have not gone into effect but when they do you can expect lots of loud, and maybe well deserved, complaining from other nations about the US refusal to abide by international law.
Desert Tortoise
This is not a black and white situation. If for example the US refuses to abide by an international law that every other nation is abiding by that puts the US in the position of being an international outlaw. It is not a good place to be if, as the US does, a nation wants to be a world leader. There is only so much international law the US can ignore or violate and maintain its leadership.
Desert Tortoise
Absolutely incorrect. The US never supported the Eleven or Nine Dash Lines. There is no historical record of this and it is in none of the treaties signed ending WWII. It was an invention of the Kuomintang that even the Chinese Communists ignored until 2009 when Vietnam applied for an extended continental shelf. To this day the PRC cannot point to any treaty or any other documents granting them any rights to the territories inside that Nine Dash Line, which incidentally was recently revised back to eleven dashes as the CCP is reinstating its claims to the Gulf of Tonkin.
You forget I was an officer in the US Navy and sailed those waters just a few times. I know that area. There was no reference to any Nine Dash Line. Heck the PRC was sort of an ally at the time. We hosted their officers at our bases They were buying Blackhawk helicopters from Sikorsky and looking at our SH-2F Seasprites for the PLAN. We never even heard of this Nine Dash Line unitl the 2010s when the PRC started to make a big deal about it.
Nifty
Brief summary of the 9-dash line dispute:
https://www.uscc.gov/research/south-china-sea-arbitration-ruling-what-happened-and-whats-next#:~:text=On%20July%2012%2C%202016%2C%20the,other%20activities%20in%20Philippine%20waters%E2%80%94
Desert Tortoise
The article doesn't address the origins of the Eleven Dash Line or Nine Dash Line.
deanzaZZR
You are suggesting that the ROC border was redrawn through some minor maritime law?
Please provide a link to the law you are pointing to. A Chinese language source is fine. I'll go out on a limb here and you will link to some USA defense related article and not the Chinese language source itself. Bonus points for the article being in Foreign Affairs or some other joke of a journal.
Also please explain why the ROC government and military forces continue to occupy Taiping Island that is roughly as far south as Ho Chi Minh City.
Here's a link from the municipality (Kaohsiung) telling the history and describing these islands. https://cijin.kcg.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=1758BD35FD68A922
Desert Tortoise
I already explained it. France seized the Spratley and Paracel Islands around 1932. They were nominally part of China then per an agreement reached in the late 1800s where China agreed to French sovereignty over French Indochina in exchange for the French releasing control of the Paracel and Spratley Islands which they had seized some years before. The Chinese however never garrisoned the islands and really, most were what are called "low tide features" that are submerged at high tide, or "rocks" meaning they have at least some land above high tide but are not inhabitable.
Early in WWII Japan took the Paracel and Spratley Islands from France and placed them under the occupation administration of Japanese occupied Taiwan. When WWII ended ROC forces accepted the surrender of the Japanese in Taiwan, and that included the Spratley and Paracel Islands. When the Communists drove the ROC government out of mainland China ROC forces maintained control of a number of small islands including Taiping.
UNCLOS is not a "minor maritime law" It is the overarching, all encompassing, set of rules governing global maritime law. With its passage earlier maritime laws that are not aligned with UNCLOS are null and void.
Desert Tortoise
Here is the full text of UNCLOS from the UN website. This is what China agreed to abide by by ratifying this treaty.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf