Imperial Chinese Court Regency

Advocacy via Regency for Constitutional Monarchy in China

Archive for the category “Wanli Shitang Archipelago”

News update from Huangyan Island District, Wanlishitang Archipelago 35th Province, People’s Republic of China

Chinese fishing boats leave Huangyan Island – Updated: 2012-04-14 19:28 (Xinhua)

MANILA – All the Chinese fishing boats left the lagoon in Huangyan Island in South China Seas on Friday night, after a five-day stalemate, according to sources from the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the military on Saturday.

Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said in a statement issued on Saturday that all the Chinese fishing vessels had left the lagoon, and only one Chinese surveillance ship remained there.

The standoff erupted when the Philippine Navy spotted some Chinese fishing boats sought refuge from bad weather at a lagoon off the Huangyan Island on April 8. The Philippines sent its largest warship Gregorio del Pilar there to block the entrance of the lagoon on April 10. Two Chinese Marine Surveillance ships near the area rushed to the scene to protect the Chinese fishermen from being harassed.

Del Rosario said that the Philippines side at first agreed to allow the Chinese boats to return to China after their harvest of endangered species were confiscated. But Chinese ambassador to the Philippines Ma Keqing insisted that the Chinese fishing vessels would be subject to inspection by relevant Chinese authorities.

Anthony Alcantara, Northern Luzon Command chief of the Philippine Armed Forces, said Saturday that seven Chinese vessels including their marine survey vessel left the area Friday noon. At around 7 pm local time, five more vessels pulled out accompanied by a Chinese fisheries law enforcement ship.

However, the standoff continues as a Chinese surveillance ship and a Philippine Coast Guard craft remain there, Alcantara said.

Huangyan Island is an integral part of the Chinese territory and its surrounding  waters have always been a traditional fishing ground for Chinese fishermen. China has abundant historical and jurisprudential evidence to support its exercising of sovereignty over the island and the surrounding waters, legal experts say.

Huangyan Island

Note : If the Phillipines wants to war over the islands, China should not take the war to the Phillipine shores and ONLY protect it’s own centuries old claimed territory. USA has overreached in the Middle East and will not want a war with China over a small island.

And if Phillipines wants to go to war with China, that might well be suicide when the first Phillipine landing force hits any Chinese shore, becoming merely an opportunity for China to colonize the Phillipines if that occurs (to rename the place Tagalog instead?). This will be a very short skirmish with China winning at a less than 1% deployment of Naval forces. Perhaps even Taiwan and North Korea could join in the fun and expand territory. The social and economic effects of insisting on keeping 1 small island compared with dragging USA and China to war the will be devastating to Phillipines. The USA and China could well ignore the Phillipines with the final result of China increasing troop presence in all claimed territories in this region to support ancient territorial claims. Phillipines is unable to take on China and is causing major diplomatic problems for USA. China is just maintaning a region that was long claimed centuries ago.

Several decades and USA has not finished playing Israel’s Gaza game yet. China is not Palestine and Huangyan Island is not as large as Gaza. Why would USA want to favour getting into a spat with 1000 times at least less land (physical terrritory to gain) than Gaza, 10 times more difficult than Vietnam (Vietnam lasted 30 years and then USA still failed, Vietnam though even respects China enough to at least play along for a win-win, so China being at least 10 times tougher than Vietnam, would take USA 300 years of conventional warfare to retreat from??? (Nukes are absolutely meaningless again . . . ) AND effectively destroy a major growth driver of the world economy to boot.

Do the math. China can militarily occupy the Island and USA should not bother. This is calculated common sense. It’s fun to impress a few LBSMs off and on but this is not worth fighting that bouncer bf for. GF Israel needs help with the laundry and taking out the trash . . .

Unless China tried invading Phillipines which is not likely except if Phillipines tries something very serious, the ‘war’ could be as localised as the one between Israel and Palestine, except that if the former 2 were annihilated out of existence, no difference would be made to the world. The world however could not do without a critical driver of growth China which is 100s of times larger than both mentioned examples Palestine AND Israel, as opposed to Phillipines as an advanced military base that is quite useless until Middle East issues (i.e. Israel and Palestine) are resolved, which looks increasingly unlikely in another Vietnam style withdrawal occuring just now in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not even completed yet!

Phillipines should withdraw and concede to China’s claim instead of dragging the world into WW3 via USA. Lets put things plainly in strategic terms, unless USA is able to take on Vietnam AGAIN and also *WIN* to reclaim face and actually occupy Vietnam successfully this time, USA should not set those hegemonist eyes on China (which Vioetnam at least respects and has ‘defeated’ USA) at all and leave Huangyan Island alone as a bilateral issue that Phillipines will have to concede on. Overreaching China is Russia AGAIN, though not the Soviet Union, could, unless USA gets South America on USA’s side (something that could take DECADES), make mincemeat of USA combined with China, so how about everyone focus on their own backyards and clearing up the economy first? Meanwhile Iran vs. USA potential battle is still unresolved. I’d say USA will ignore this China Phillipines dispute, chalking up the issue to being an inconsequential regional issue.

There is no issue of freedom of navigation, China is addressing sovereignty of Huangyan Island, sovereign resources, nothing else. Anyone can ‘navigate’ for all they want. The South China Sea Archipelago is the 35th Province and Sovereign Territory of China. Should Phillipines wish to withdraw the encroaching Fillipino Navy vessels and consider an invitation to be a dependency of China instead of a ASEAN turncoat (perhaps a renaming of Phillipines to The Tagalog Islands or something more local than indicative of a colonial controlled nation), Phillipines will be welcome to act accordingly. Or do fire that first shot Phillipines . . .

ICCR’s Suggestions for development and marking of limits of ownership :

Try a line of Oil Rig form platform homes (at 10km intervals perhaps?) for any who want to live an pelagic simulating lifestyle (without oil drill equipment) at the limits of China’s EEZ. Place oil rig type platforms/customs posts at intervals at the limits of claimed territory (China can afford to do this, might as well spend some money). At every 50li interval, a customs point with helipads, airstrips, hotels or series or individual homes perhaps, military outpost base and warehouse-port facility, could also be placed. This way the limits of China’s territory will be very clearly marked. China can afford to do this.

Example of private 50li platform community . . .

Since China has 20,000k worth of coast, this would mean 2000 projects or private luxury homes, much like or fashioned in the manner (excepting that there will be ocean around the tower instead) of :

A series of private or state funded maritime towers overlooking a few hundred acres of artificial reefs, and a series of atolls with deep sea fishery facilities should be quite pleasant to own as a get-away (fashioned after the Antilles perhaps?) and could be marketed to China’s billionaires if not the state itself to fund. An Oceanic Great Wall of China (‘Great Barrier Reef’ style) for the new millenium if you will.

At every 500li interval, a fully functional Seastead City (with Chinese characteristics as always) also with seaport and airport, with all the facilities and modern conveniences spanning 8km sq in size. For the most quake or tsunami prone areas (generally Southern Areas), such cities could be ‘closable’ FLOATING platforms of similar size (with air filtration capabilities) that could also act as CIVILISATIONAL life rafts in case of any massive world wide disaster (with flight modules added later – super struture considerations to be considered into building for this expansion which should be viable when Fusion technology makes energy free and unlimited) occurs. There should be 30 of these Seasteading Cities.

500li Seastead installation. This artwork is derived and edited from another source, ownership of original work is not intended for infringement upon as ‘Chinese Characteristics’ will be added to the rather drab and ‘corporatised’ form as seen here.

At every 1500li interval a major Oceanic Capital with fortress (with Chinese characteristics) based around 88 km square artificial islands could be built. As China’s coast stretches 20,000 km, only 13 of these artificial islands need to be built.

To be superlative, three Pacific Sea Capitals at – 4500km intervals (approx 2500li) of a size of 888 sq kms of platforms (under which massive eco-tourism reserve and diving reefs could be grown, rare species rehabilitated etc..) and reclaimed land, fashioned after microstates like Singapore (Singapore is located in a muddy and brackish water area unsuitable for eco-tourism which is about to be overtaken by the Isthmus of Kra Canal in Southern Thailand . . . ) and could also be built posthaste under cooperative by billionaires for a start. One only takes a look at the Gulf of Mexico and wonder what indeed truly happened there and stress how important this proposed Great ‘Oceanic Wall of China’ could turn out to be . . .

Advertisements

Something from 2010 to contrast the positive growth of relations between USA and China over the past 2 years

China’s Military Threatens America: ‘We Will Hurt You’ – The Pentagon finally takes the hint from China’s openly hostile flag officers. by Gordon G. Chang – June 14, 2010 – 12:02 am

“Every nation has a right to defend itself and to spend as it sees fit for that purpose, but a gap as wide as what seems to be forming between China’s stated intent and its military programs leaves me more than curious about the end result,” said Admiral Mike Mullen this Wednesday. “Indeed, I have moved from being curious to being genuinely concerned.”

It’s about time the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in public, expressed disquiet about the Chinese military buildup. For decades, American flag officers, many of them from the Navy, have remained optimistic about America’s military relations with China. And after every Chinese hostile act — even those constituting direct attacks on the United States, such as the March 2009 attempt to interfere with the Impeccable in the South China Sea — American admirals have either remained silent or said they were “perplexed” or “befuddled” by Beijing’s intentions.

Why the befuddlement? The assumption in Washington has been that America was so powerful that we could integrate hardline Chinese leaders into a liberal international system they had no hand in creating. To this end, successive administrations sought, among other things, to foster ties between the American and Chinese militaries.

The Pentagon, therefore, pushed for port calls, reciprocal visits of officers, a hot line, and an incidents-at-sea agreement, with varying degrees of success. Admiral Timothy Keating even went so far as to offer to help China build aircraft carriers.

Keating’s offer, made in May 2007 when he was commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, may have been extended with the knowledge the Chinese would reject it, but the apparent generosity was nonetheless in keeping with the general approach of the Navy during the Bush administration, an approach that President Obama has also adopted. So if there is any significance to Mullen’s recent comment, it is that the American military, at the highest levels, is beginning to voice in open forums its doubts about Beijing’s ultimate intentions. At this point, however, the expressions of “genuine concern” remain muted.

Senior Chinese officers, on the other hand, have no trouble telling us how they really feel.

In February, Colonel Meng Xianging promised a “hand-to-hand fight with the U.S.” sometime within the next 10 years “when we’re strong enough.” “We must make them hurt,” said Major-General Yang Yi this year, referring to the United States.

And last month, at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Beijing, a Chinese flag officer launched a three-minute rant that stunned the 65 or so American officials in the audience. Everything that is right with U.S. relations with China is due to China, said Rear Admiral Guan Youfei. Everything that is wrong is Washington’s fault. According to Guan, the United States sees China as an enemy.

A senior American official traveling on Secretary of State Clinton’s plane back to the United States said the admiral’s comments were “out of step” with the views of China’s civilian leaders. U.S. officials at the time also predicted that Beijing would soon welcome Robert Gates on his long-planned trip to China.

They were wrong. On June 3 the Chinese foreign ministry announced that the Defense secretary was in fact not welcome. Gates, who also thought he would travel to Beijing this month, said the turndown was just the military’s fault. “Nearly all of the aspects of the relationship between the United States and China are moving forward in a positive direction, with the sole exception of the military-to-military relationship,” he said on his way to Singapore. “The PLA is significantly less interested in developing this relationship than the political leadership of the country.”

Is that true? “Admiral Guan was representing what all of us think about the United States in our hearts,” a senior Chinese official told the Washington Post. “It may not have been politically correct, but it wasn’t an accident.” Chinese flag officers do not launch into polemical speeches at tightly scripted events, such as the once-a-year Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and it was reckless for American officials to assume, despite everything, that Admiral Guan was speaking only for himself.

Gates perhaps knows better now. After having his visit rejected at the last moment, he had to endure a series of hostile comments from Chinese flag officers at a security conference in Singapore at the beginning of this month. And that is just more evidence our officials and diplomats, even after more than three decades of close relations with their counterparts in Beijing, still do not understand China.

That, of course, is another “genuine concern.” So what, exactly, is the consequence of our miscomprehending the Chinese, refusing to hear what they openly say? It’s worse than the rejection of official visits to Beijing by overly eager Defense secretaries. Listen to former State Department analyst Robert Sutter: “China is the only large power in the world preparing to shoot Americans.”

Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World and The Coming Collapse of China.

Some selected responses :

Dave M. (now in S. Korea)

I’ll say it on behalf of the American people: China, you are our enemy. There, now that it is out in the open let’s prepare ourselves to make China hurt even more in our soon to come “hand-to-hand fight.” Oh, and when the missiles start firing, remember that it was Bill Clinton’s White House that provided the Chicoms with the technology. If Bush gave them anything, he needs to be called on it as well. – June 14, 2010 – 4:20 am

Master C

Stop obsessing about what an unknown Colonel says and focus on what Chairman Hu says. There will always be hawks and doves in any nation, so anyone should understand what harm such words can cause. Be sincere and consistent in actions as well. Respect the 1China policy and compare how China does not sell weapons to Cuba or other US unfriendly Latin American nations as opposed to the US selling weapons to Taiwan. – June 15, 2010 – 12:26 am

GreyLion

These would be good thoughts if they were true. As centralized as the Chinese communist government is the Premier sneezes and a colonel breaks wind. China has exported conventional arms to countries which include Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand, North Korea and Bangladesh. These weapons include submarines, various missile types, fighter and transport aircraft, radar intercept devices and artillery pieces. Taiwan IS the legitimate China, the one China. The other China would be remiss to assume that Taiwan will be an easy conquest, even without US help which is problematic given our current stupidity. Lastly, no one but no one really wants to confront the Japanese when their precieved national interest is at stake and anything involving Chinese “adventurism” involves the Japanese national interest. – June 15, 2010 – 5:41 am

@Master C

Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand and Bangladesh are not US unfriendly nations are they? And these are countries mostly in Central Asia and Asia. Does the US have more right than nations nearby to ‘project power’ in these regions when US does not even have the respect or goodwill of South American nations? As for North Korea, let us say that it is in China’s best interests to normalize their neighbours. And Iran is a likely a tit for tat response for US’s meddling in Taiwan. Try reversing the Taiwanese weapons sales policies and China will respond in kind on Iran.

Try making friends with parts of Europe to begin with instead of using the IMF to indebt them, and engaging the Middle East with more respect. Finish those wars in the Middle East (or quit the region), remove the Zionists back home to a state of reasonable democratic independence, and solve the multi-trillion dollar debts and dismantle the Federal Reserve before getting all paranoid on China. US has enough problems at home without wanting to make an enemy of China via irresponsible commentators who represent organisations that thrive on war and geo-political chaos.

China’s just doing it’s own thing AND does not have 101 military bases around the world poised to seize ‘rogue’ governments (aka not US/NWO/Zionist puppets). All this meaningless posturing while the unaccountability, irresponsibility and greed of some factions back home have reached unbelievable proportions is a sign of very deep rot, the world needs a peace-loving US reflected in policy and action as well . . .

June 17, 2010 – 4:47 am

@thought_criminal

BobN writes: “…China will attempt to conquer Taiwan during the Obama regime’s first term.”

Your otherwise solid analysis was sullied by the laughable use of the quantifier “first” in describing Obama’s length of time at the helm. Four years will be all that rational and sane people will be able to take. Now, do we have a lot of irrational and insane people? Sure. But by November 2012 the mask will be completely off and there won’t be another term for the current regime.

June 14, 2010 – 11:03 am

@Master C

The Taiwanese are Chinese as well, culturally and linguistically similar. There is no need for China to conquer anyone. It is political power mongers within local parties that have no regard for the lives on either side of the straits and that the Taiwanese would be far better off rejoining China than being a US(Illuminati/NWO) puppet.

Try getting the Zionists out of your own home nation first and getting out of the Middle East and closing down all those offensive military bases worldwide before even engaging the Far East in supposed friendly overtures. Having Japan by the throat in Okinawa is enough of a deterant to any development in friendly ties with any nation worldwide anytime soon.

Oh and what has the UN and Security Council done so far to punish the US/England for the unilateral war on Iraq that resulted in 100s of thousands killed? Nothing? And when Iran exercise it’s 2nd Amendment Rights in building nuclear deterants or asking for S300 defenses, the IAEA sanctions them? Why has Israel the right to own nukes but Iran has not? Racism and religious discrimination are ways of fascist regimes, which US increasingly looks set to become. At least stop projecting power via the 1000s of military bases around the world for a start, then talk.
June 15, 2010 – 12:59 am

@Mary in LA

Since when does Iran have “Second Amendment rights?” They’d have to be using the U.S. Constitution. They don’t. Under sharia, no one has rights — only obligations to submit to Islamic authority and kill infidels. “Islam” does not mean “peace”, but “submission”.

June 15, 2010 – 9:41 am

@Master C

They do not, but the US should extend all the democratic freedoms it believes in for itself to all other nations of the world. The world’s super power could do no less ! And in sharing these freedoms, the obligation to respect the US will come later . . .

Also, Islam is not all like you think. Under sharia, Muslims have obligations to submit to Islamic authority but non-Muslims do not. There are some very prominent Muslims who can make the distinction between both Muslim and non-Muslim and respect the rights as well as not impose the responsibilities on non-Muslims.

Speaking as if Islam was blindly oppressive does not make a case for better relations, nor encourage better behaviour and only re-affirms the wrong application of the religion for the lunatic fringe among Muslims. If properly studied, your understanding of Islam was not what the Prophet had intended in application, though in SOME (and only SOME) places what you say is true.

Talking like that is insulting, insensitive and provokes worse behaviour from Muslims, especially the less educated and emotional among them. How about a little apology to all Muslims reading here and a pledge to not label all Muslims like this in the future? It’s not helping the situation.

There are Muslims where I reside, and everyday is a struggle for quite a number them in trying to differentiate their rights and the rights of non-Muslims. Help them think clearly by being patient and polite, yet not conceding when they encroach on your rights (i.e. Stand your ground.).

There is no harm in engaging a fellow human being at their level if only to teach them what self determinism and the right to self expression is about, even while they themselves may choose to never experience it. Is this not supposed to be the American way, embrace of diversity? Or have I set too high a standard for ‘Superpower Nation’? Where is that positive aspect of exceptionalism that this exchange implies is required of USA?
June 17, 2010 – 5:33 am

@Paul

Master C – Iran’s 2nd Amendment Rights to develop nukes? Surely you don’t believe Iranians are bound by our United States Constitution, do you? The idiocy of the people like Master C never ceases to amaze me, and the sad reality is that Master C probably voted for Obamalamadingdong in reaction to “hope and change”. God Save Us!

June 15, 2010 – 10:39 am

@Mark Razak

Paul, I understand your sentiment, but I believe we must avoid the urge to characterize ‘Master C’ and ‘alex’ as idiots. Their comments serve to remind us that there are people out there who do not wish us well. And they are constantly working and struggling to achieve a level of power that will allow them to seriously harm us if we give them the opportunity. The problem with sites like this one, even as informative as this one, is that they run the risk of being echo chambers. That’s why as irritating as ‘Master C’ and his ilk may be, their comments give us a look into how our adversaries think. We need to evaluate their comments and act accordingly. We must never take our leadership in science, technology, medicine, etc, for granted; the moment we do will be the moment we surely begin to lose it. “A wise man is constantly seeking knowledge; but the moment he believes he has found it, he becomes a fool.” Our institutions, media, etc are infested with leftists and Marxists whose primary goal is the destruction of America. I agree with one of commenters above, that China is, as of now, the least of our worries. We need to concentrate on the fight at home.

June 15, 2010 – 12:32 pm

Master C
Breeding paranoia and distrust never benefited anyone and only shows a deprived upbringing. But if basing action on insecurity instead of sincere engagement with would be friends is necessary to the process of a nation growing up, it is the misfortune of the citizens of that nation then. But remember that the rest of the world will have closed ranks while ‘Superpower Nation’ arms itself to the teeth to militant agendas, oppresses it’s own citizens with idiot laws and becomes from unaccountable Capitalists sequestering wealth in third world tax-havens, makes enemies with it’s immediate neighbours, obsesses with Zionist cult theology, cuts of trade via useless sanctions, wages meaningless and unwinnable wars and angers local populations, and makes enemies of allies by imposing military bases and missile shields on continents 1000s of miles away (while the South American backyard or even Mexican immediate neighbour remains unfriendly at best.) It’s hard to be friends with nations like that, though the rest of the world and China (via the SCO Shanghai Cooperative Operation) can certainly try to contain these ills to their sources. Other than that US and Israel are absolutely the most well loved nations in the world.

June 17, 2010 – 5:04 am

ICCR does not support ethnic Chinese persons like Gordon G. Chang who author disparaging and ‘enemy propaganda-like’ books like ‘Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World’ and ‘The Coming Collapse of China’, and would advise all ethnic Chinese to boycott where possible where aware of any and all books published by Random House, Inc.. We hope all authors who might be affected by such a boycott to change publishers or get into self publishing and use Random House unaffiliated publishers instead. Any with the best interests of Mankind in mind will wish the best for ASEAN+3 (North Korea makes up 0.5 of the 3), instead of promotion of War in the Oriental Far East.

Wanli Shitang Archipelago, HQ at Nansha Island, South China Sea Isles, 35th State of China – posted by TE Yu – 4/10/12

What (did the) Chinese historical documents say?

China claims sovereignty over Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) islands based on the right of discovery and management.

1. There are about ten books speaking of the maritime route from Guangzhou to the South of the South Sea, or to places named Wanlichangsha, Qianlishitang, etc.But, the cited books not relating to the Xisha and Nansha or the knowledge of the Chinese people about these archipelagoes, are 3-4 times more ample. The reader cannot help asking why so many books cited when they are not necessary for the study? Would it be because of the necessity to pad the history of a question for which convincing documents are still lacking, or to make it impossible for the reader to discern what is right and what is wrong?

The question of the toponyms of the Xisha and the Nansha cannot be settled by unfounded affirmation, by simple deduction that this is the Xisha and the Nansha and that these archipelagoes have been known by the Chinese people from time immemorial and named by them, even the names are those of kings, mandarins, or generals…

And if the attribution of names to the archipelagoes and the islands was so early, one cannot understand why the map of China printed in 1935 used the names which are simply phonetic transcriptions of international names (such as Amphitrite, Crescent, Lincoln, Pattle, Dido, Bombay, Triton, Duncan), or the simple translation of international names (such as North Reef, Antilope, West island, etc.) Even the name of the Dongsha archipelago was a phonetic transcription of Pratas, and the Nansha archipelago previously was named Đoàn Sa.

Ans : ‘ . . . one cannot understand why the map of China printed in 1935 . . . ‘ This is likely due to the continual chaos and carte blanc that Western printers had since the Manchu Qing leaders were stricken with since the First opium War. This is not a very strong rebuttal of ownership. The only people in the area were Chinese.

2. All the authors have tried to affirm that the Xisha and the Nansha belong to Hainan to deduce that the Southern end of the Chinese frontier is constituted by the afore-said archipelagoes. But their efforts are contradicted by a great number of other Chinese documents.

The Zhongguo Dilixue Jiaokeshu (Manual of geography of China) compiled in 1905 and published in 1906 says in the chapter Generalities: “In the South at 18°13 latitude North, the terminus being the coast of Yazhou, island of Hainan; in the North at 53°50 latitude North, the terminus being the confluence of the Amour and the Oussouri rivers; in the West at 42°11 longitude East, the farthest end is the mount Tunglinh. From the South to the North, there are over 36° measuring 7,100 li, from the East to the West over 61° measuring over 8,800 li. The area is 32,605,156 square li or 1/4 of Asia, 1/10 of the continents, larger than Europe.”

This is in complete conformity with the Hoang Qing Zhi Sheng Xoan Tu, Hoang Chao Yi Tong Yu Di Zong Tu (General map of the unified Empire) under the reign Guangxi (1894); all of them are official maps, which did not represent the Xisha and the Nansha. In the Guangdong Yu Di Tu of the reign of Guangxi (1897) prefaced by the Governor of the two Guang, Zhang Renjun, there is a map of all the provinces of Guangdong and that of Qiongzhoufu which did not represent any archipelago of the Southern sea, in conformity with the legend saying that the southernmost point of the Chinese territory is constituted by “the mountain outside of the port Yulin, Yazhou 18° 9 10 .”

Ans : For the same reasons in the previous answer, also the authors could have intentionally omitted for their own purposes to exploit the area for themselves.

3. In spite of the scarcity of direct writings, it is believable that the Chinese people have known since remote times that there were coral islands in the Southern sea, because they have for a long time engaged in maritime navigation and fishing. But no writing says that they have occupied any island. However, there is a great difference between discovery and knowledge. Everyone knows that simple knowledge cannot establish the acquisition of territorial authority. The lengthy discussions on the problem of the priority of discovery, the dispute about Canada between Cabot, who had sailed along the Canadian coasts and Cartier who had explored that country, the rivalry between the Frenchman De Brazza and the Belgian Stanley about the question of the Congo, the convening of the 1885 Berlin Congress to determine the principles and the modalities of occupation of land show that discovery alone does not suffice. It must be followed by occupation and the consolidation of that occupation by actual continuous and peaceful performance of state functions.

Ans : Semantics in an era when colonialism was still unknown accounts for this lack of ‘possessiveness’ or formal ‘claim’. For all purposes, the sovereignty and ownership cannot be disputed in today’s context as much as people had no idea of the value of presence of oil and gas. The Chinese lived there, were active there when all other regional nations did not even know of the Isles, and now emboldened by Western powers and made aware of islands never claimed (which by living there already counted as the same, though no ‘official claims were made’), these nations suddenly want to dispute sovereignty of generations of families who relied on fishing grounds for their living there?

The argument is unprincipled and disregards the lack of interest in those times of nations to dispute the islands. If they wanted to they would have, but did not and only after the ‘West’ arrived and taught about oil then they do? Doesn’t count. If Vietnam wanted to fight over those Isles they would have done so long ago. Sadly the oil that all powers think they want to exploit will be outdated in as soon as a decade as clean fusion type energy or newer methods appear – this is a non issue and China has indeed effectively cemented it’s position via colonies, no matter how small or insignificant in the region.

A State expedition like that of the eunuch Zheng He, having an official title, a powerful armada did not occupy any island in the Bien Dong sea or in the Indian Ocean. What should we say then about the fishermen of Hainan 2000 years ago who could go to sea only when the weather was fine and who had, with greater cause, no possibility to go as far as the islands Nansha of an over 1000km distance from Hainan. In fact, only from the time of the Northern Song (960-1127) on– could the Chinese use the navigation compass for sea voyages.

Ans : For all purposes the Hainanese were the only people there for centuries. That should already speak for itself. The Vietnamese had no interest until recently, nor did they map or name any islands. Technically when the islands were named centuries ago, they were already claimed by Imperial China and are still part of China (neo-Imperial?) today. if Vietnam wanted to claim the islands, they would have named them BEFORE the Chinese, or at least mapped the region as a form of commitment. EEZ considerations came about later but much like the Great Wall was bilt in the past, the presence of ONLY the Hainanese in the region was already enough.

ICCR response to Dr. Nguyen Hong Thao/Luu Van Loi by TE Yu.

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/politics/12643/what-chinese-historical-documents-say-.html

 

Note : Vietnam and China have reaffirmed regional unity, resolved the above issue and will continue to resolve outstanding issues . . .

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-04/13/content_15044863.htm

Post Navigation