China’s claim to the Spratly Islands emerged in first half of the 20th century(cimsec.org)
cimsec.org
China’s claim to the Spratly Islands emerged in first half of the 20th century
http://cimsec.org/chinas-claim-spratly-islands-just-mistake/36474
44 comments
He takes a wonderfully naive approach for someone who's historically knowledgeable. I'm sure he knows why and how territorial claims are made and how countries use and abuse historical data, archives, archeology, myths, narratives and make inflated claims from otherwise trivial facts (e.g. this document which has a stamp of a representative of the King on this trade document exchanging camels for figs shows the kingdom had economic representation in the region which under the cultural norms at the time was viewed as de facto political rule, traced all the way to now means the republic that succeeded the kingdom still has sovereignty here.)
None of these are mistakes, they're political claims.
The Aegean dispute is quite an interesting case study for anyone who wants to dive into how this all works. Due to the many islands in combination with international law (UNCLOS) it ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which unsurprisingly hasn't signed. In the south china sea this isn't as big a deal, but still important due to shipping, rare minerals, fishing rights etc.
None of these are mistakes, they're political claims.
The Aegean dispute is quite an interesting case study for anyone who wants to dive into how this all works. Due to the many islands in combination with international law (UNCLOS) it ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which unsurprisingly hasn't signed. In the south china sea this isn't as big a deal, but still important due to shipping, rare minerals, fishing rights etc.
Turkey owns 4 islands in the Aegean. Greece has over 6,000 in total. I don't see where you get the "screwing over" part. Is it because you think Turkey should have more territories than it does today?
Turkey should have signed UNCLOS a long time ago. 168 countries have. The only reason they postpone it is to maintain claims over Greece. Signing UNCLOS would also mean that their warships can no longer venture near Athens while claiming to be on international waters. And of course they'd finally have to stop pretending that the Greek-Cypriot EEZ connection doesn't exist.
I can see why Turkey and China are abusing historical data, archives, archeology, myths etc, just like you said, but I can't help but notice that they don't have any valid claims, and the moral thing to do (if there is one) would most likely be to drop those claims.
Turkey should have signed UNCLOS a long time ago. 168 countries have. The only reason they postpone it is to maintain claims over Greece. Signing UNCLOS would also mean that their warships can no longer venture near Athens while claiming to be on international waters. And of course they'd finally have to stop pretending that the Greek-Cypriot EEZ connection doesn't exist.
I can see why Turkey and China are abusing historical data, archives, archeology, myths etc, just like you said, but I can't help but notice that they don't have any valid claims, and the moral thing to do (if there is one) would most likely be to drop those claims.
When I say screwing over, I don't mean that as a value judgement on Greece's position. Greece's position makes sense, international law is on their side as is history. I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you agree with that.
i.e. if anything north of Antalya has no more connection to the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean (i.e. access to the sea) without going through Greek waters, that's an issue for Turkey. Greece already 'owns' about 50% of the Aegean, 12nm would extend that past 70%.
International law is the area of law least concerned with morality. Everyone disagrees but that's how it works because there's no such thing as a world court, world government, world police force. Just some semblance of it in our institutions that make a good effort but where political power is still key. Greece doesn't come close to Turkey's geopolitical power and has no explicit support from any major powers on this issue. That's why it hasn't changed from 6nm despite the law.
I would disagree by the way that they don't have valid claims. Perhaps under strict application of international law (which doesn't really exist) they'd lose. But they also make non-legal claims to equity and make claims about genuine concerns of the so called greek lake, which make quite a lot of sense.
i.e. if anything north of Antalya has no more connection to the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean (i.e. access to the sea) without going through Greek waters, that's an issue for Turkey. Greece already 'owns' about 50% of the Aegean, 12nm would extend that past 70%.
International law is the area of law least concerned with morality. Everyone disagrees but that's how it works because there's no such thing as a world court, world government, world police force. Just some semblance of it in our institutions that make a good effort but where political power is still key. Greece doesn't come close to Turkey's geopolitical power and has no explicit support from any major powers on this issue. That's why it hasn't changed from 6nm despite the law.
I would disagree by the way that they don't have valid claims. Perhaps under strict application of international law (which doesn't really exist) they'd lose. But they also make non-legal claims to equity and make claims about genuine concerns of the so called greek lake, which make quite a lot of sense.
I mean that it objectively is a bad deal for Turkey, I'm sure you agree with that.
Let's just assume that it is.
But you'd have to agree also that's hard to have much sympathy for Turkey as the victimized party in the region. Or to repurpose a quote from Apocalypse Now:
"What do you call it when the bully accuses the bully?"
Let's just assume that it is.
But you'd have to agree also that's hard to have much sympathy for Turkey as the victimized party in the region. Or to repurpose a quote from Apocalypse Now:
"What do you call it when the bully accuses the bully?"
It ends up screwing over Turkey massively, which unsurprisingly hasn't signed.
Turnabout is fair play, you know.
Unless one wishes to pretend that certain events in 1974 have no role to play in the equation.
Turnabout is fair play, you know.
Unless one wishes to pretend that certain events in 1974 have no role to play in the equation.
Of course they play a role (like a thousand other things), but if Cyprus didn't exist did you really think the Aegean dispute would be much different? No. Greece didn't draft the 12 nautical miles portion of UNCLOS which is at the heart of the issue, this isn't a Greek law, it's international law. And it's not workable for Turkey, regardless of the Cyprus question.
Either way Greek/Turkish relations are far too complex to link it to 1974 as a causal factor. They have territorial claims that are centuries old. e.g. take Lesbos, quite clearly Greek if you ask me, but also insignificantly, was in the hands of the Ottoman empire for 400-500 years. Compare that to a US history timeframe and it's pretty clear there's some basis for both positions. All of it is political, relatively recent events in Cyprus are but one facet of Greek/Turkish relations and to be precise it wasn't so much 1974 really... The Turkish intervention against the coup that year tends to be viewed as a legitimate action. It's what happened since in 1975 and beyond, the occupation of Cyprus, which is viewed as illegal.
Either way Greek/Turkish relations are far too complex to link it to 1974 as a causal factor. They have territorial claims that are centuries old. e.g. take Lesbos, quite clearly Greek if you ask me, but also insignificantly, was in the hands of the Ottoman empire for 400-500 years. Compare that to a US history timeframe and it's pretty clear there's some basis for both positions. All of it is political, relatively recent events in Cyprus are but one facet of Greek/Turkish relations and to be precise it wasn't so much 1974 really... The Turkish intervention against the coup that year tends to be viewed as a legitimate action. It's what happened since in 1975 and beyond, the occupation of Cyprus, which is viewed as illegal.
I agree that it's complex and political.
But this language that sees Turkey as the one being "massively screwed over" in the region - that I think we dispense with.
But this language that sees Turkey as the one being "massively screwed over" in the region - that I think we dispense with.
China's claims are weak, but the United States Government's complete inability to prioritize has hurt their ability to confront China. That being said, China is alienating it's neighbors and they will depend on the USG to guarantee freedom of navigation.
Most areas in the world would be improved by a reduction in USA interference, just as you describe having happened in the South China Sea. Our omnipresent bullying makes it too easy for potential rivals as well as potential allies. Without us as a foil they take more care in finding their own way. [EDIT: or, to say it less self-centered fashion, possibilities emerge when they can devote fewer resources to handling interference from afar].
Which Southeastern Asian countries, other than P.R. China, view the USA as a "bully"?
How many of them would consider P.R. China to be more of a bully than the USA?
How many of them would consider P.R. China to be more of a bully than the USA?
Why would such isolstionalism work now when it failed so horribly during the interwar era?
The only example I cant think of immediately, Iran, is not so much better off, nor its people.
I can tell if you’re joking or if I’m misunderstanding (there is a typo in there I assume?). You can’t name any other country that would be better off if the US hadn’t meddled? I can name more than that which my country meddled in and made a mess, and I’m from New Zealand.
I'm from Canada, and we suffer from U.S. nonsense and exploitation (which cost me a brother, actually), but you have to be next to somebody, and they're above average as neighbors, in this world.
> but you have to be next to somebody
Unless you are New Zealand :D
Unless you are New Zealand :D
If you prefer I'll change "next to" to "nearest", since I didn't mean to imply contiguity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93New_Zealand_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93New_Zealand_...
Thousands of kilometres is too close sometimes.
Everyone in Libya was better off before USA and some random Europeans interfered there.
There's been a lot of chaos, but it started before the U.S. intervened, as I remember. The U.S. and European footprint has been very light - maybe, as in Syria, way too light to create order.
Not the people in Qaddafi's prisons.
How about reduction of Chinese interference? Or Russian interference? Wouldn't there be a significant improvement in the world after that?
The research is interesting, and shows that a surprising amount of complexity around the claims was present for more than a hundred years. Legally, the 2016 arbitration was final and non-appealable, so absent some large shift in international jurisprudence, the letter of the law says one thing, yet the situation of the ground is different.
There's little reason the two will drift into alignment in the future, because of the reasons the Spratlys are sought in the first place: a prime spot for force projection, proximity to global shipping lanes, and credible rumours of hydrocarbon reserves, in descending order.
There's little reason the two will drift into alignment in the future, because of the reasons the Spratlys are sought in the first place: a prime spot for force projection, proximity to global shipping lanes, and credible rumours of hydrocarbon reserves, in descending order.
This is a fascinating and illuminating piece of history, but I have a hard time believing that these cartographic mistakes are the reason for China's posture in the South China Sea.
The first part of the article mentions the strategic and economic resources in the region. Do we think that China would be minding its own business if these mistakes had not been made? It seems more likely that we would simply be left with the "ancient and historical claim[s] to the reefs and rocks in the South China Sea" without the attendant maps from the early 20th century.
The first part of the article mentions the strategic and economic resources in the region. Do we think that China would be minding its own business if these mistakes had not been made? It seems more likely that we would simply be left with the "ancient and historical claim[s] to the reefs and rocks in the South China Sea" without the attendant maps from the early 20th century.
> I have a hard time believing that these cartographic mistakes are the reason for China's posture in the South China Sea.
Sure, these aren't China's motivation, but they are China's argument for the legitimacy of their claims. To the extent this research can be said to argue for a political outcome, it is less about dissuading China from its claims and more about reducing those claims from "legitimate" to simply "effective". (Which is more than enough for the Chinese, even if they accepted the research at face value -- which they won't.)
Sure, these aren't China's motivation, but they are China's argument for the legitimacy of their claims. To the extent this research can be said to argue for a political outcome, it is less about dissuading China from its claims and more about reducing those claims from "legitimate" to simply "effective". (Which is more than enough for the Chinese, even if they accepted the research at face value -- which they won't.)
Needless to say, they will find a reason for what they want to do. I'd guess they can find an historical reason because they are not the first Chinese regime to desire to control the territories around them.
No doubt, nearly every piece of real estate in the world has been controlled by multiple governmental parties at some point in history, and can thus be contested. Perhaps Mexico will want Texas back? But what about the Native Americans in the area? Maybe the French will contest that the Louisiana Purchase was illegitimate on a technicality? How about identifying all the potential claimants to the land in Israel - we can add religious claims to the standard legal and geopolitical claims. Claims are noise, omnipresent for everything, not signal of much significance.
On the other hand, we want the debate to stay in the legal realm. I was just reading that rule of law for international disputes dates back only to the early to mid-twentieth century (depending on how you date it). Before then, war was the 'legal' way to resolve it; it wasn't outlawed effectively until the UN was formed right after WWII.
No doubt, nearly every piece of real estate in the world has been controlled by multiple governmental parties at some point in history, and can thus be contested. Perhaps Mexico will want Texas back? But what about the Native Americans in the area? Maybe the French will contest that the Louisiana Purchase was illegitimate on a technicality? How about identifying all the potential claimants to the land in Israel - we can add religious claims to the standard legal and geopolitical claims. Claims are noise, omnipresent for everything, not signal of much significance.
On the other hand, we want the debate to stay in the legal realm. I was just reading that rule of law for international disputes dates back only to the early to mid-twentieth century (depending on how you date it). Before then, war was the 'legal' way to resolve it; it wasn't outlawed effectively until the UN was formed right after WWII.
Lets be honest here, all the countries fighting for these islands will use an origin myth but historicalities is not the real reason for the fight, these islands have likely never been populated by humans because they're too small, they're arguing for shipping and natural resources reasons and historicalities is just part of the bs added.
Exactly; it's an error (a deliberate error, now what's the word for that, again?) not a mistake.
Reminds me of a very old grammar joke, husband interrupts wife in bed with another. Wife: "You startled me." Husband: "No dear, I am startled. You were surprised."
Reminds me of a very old grammar joke, husband interrupts wife in bed with another. Wife: "You startled me." Husband: "No dear, I am startled. You were surprised."
I don't think anyone believes that these disputes are based on legitimate land claims.
This is a quite interesting story. Yet the piece one forgot to mention is that the government of Republic of China was founded in 1912, after the intense and long warfare. Meaning at most, the author's evidence could prove that during the times somewhat around 1912-1927. It wasn't on the government's official records, while they're trying to define its territory.
It does not affect evidence dated back before.
On the other hand, similar arguments could effectively be found for other countries who also land the claims. As their claims were only made more recently, as well as their governments, all after a long time of western colonization.
Different claims made by different countries must all be examined. Put one in the spotlight without examining others could only raise suspicions.
It does not affect evidence dated back before.
On the other hand, similar arguments could effectively be found for other countries who also land the claims. As their claims were only made more recently, as well as their governments, all after a long time of western colonization.
Different claims made by different countries must all be examined. Put one in the spotlight without examining others could only raise suspicions.
Don’t mistake the HN comment section for a place where you need to be concerned about one narrative or another bandying about sovereign claims to the Spratly Islands.
Does it really mean anything? I'm actually a bit surprised that the claim existed as far back as 100 years ago. The US had absolutely nothing to claim about Hawaii whatsoever, yet just marched in, drove out the original king and occupied the place.
Surely any "historical facts" have no importance whatsoever in geopolitical maneuvers.
Surely any "historical facts" have no importance whatsoever in geopolitical maneuvers.
Relatedly, the whole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... is complex and prone to corruption.
It's hell.
It's hell.
Dang, Its going to be really tough to ignore China. Especially on Hacker news.
I've recently read a book The China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post-American Era by the Chinese general Liu Mingfu and the country is by admission not a proponent of Human rights (but rather "Peace" and "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics")
Last year China VC funding grew tremendously [1]. China will surpass the US GDP in 15-20 years [2] or so (if not less), and dealing with China is difficult in the technology industry. Google, Facebook, the YC backed Airbnb [3], Uber and many more US companies have tried to enter the market with difficulty.
I understand nationalism is a problem especially in the Trump era but this issue will be with us for the foreseeable future and the tech community has a special responsibility to ensure the universal values of Human Rights are defended.
[1] https://www.eastwestbank.com/ReachFurther/News/Article/China... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-26/china-to-... [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/three-challenges-facing-airbn...
I've recently read a book The China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post-American Era by the Chinese general Liu Mingfu and the country is by admission not a proponent of Human rights (but rather "Peace" and "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics")
Last year China VC funding grew tremendously [1]. China will surpass the US GDP in 15-20 years [2] or so (if not less), and dealing with China is difficult in the technology industry. Google, Facebook, the YC backed Airbnb [3], Uber and many more US companies have tried to enter the market with difficulty.
I understand nationalism is a problem especially in the Trump era but this issue will be with us for the foreseeable future and the tech community has a special responsibility to ensure the universal values of Human Rights are defended.
[1] https://www.eastwestbank.com/ReachFurther/News/Article/China... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-26/china-to-... [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/three-challenges-facing-airbn...
"China’s Claim to the Spratly Islands Is Just a Mistake"
Actually, China's claim is political not historical.
Actually, China's claim is political not historical.
The claims will be, at worst, useful bargaining chips in future negotiations. There's no point in forcing them to drop them.
Good ol dang to the rescue. Never says a single word about subtle slandering of conservatives, white males, christians or Republicans; but, since Chinese are non-white, he leaps to defense of alternate points of view on HN.
Ask yourselves why each of you find disagreeable topics only acceptable in these cases.
When I say 'regardless' I do mean it: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
It always feels like the mods are against you. This is the Hostile Media Effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
It always feels like the mods are against you. This is the Hostile Media Effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
> white males, christians
It's not equivalent. At HN (and in the U.S. and Europe), white males and christians are strong and secure; the threat they face from discrimination is very little. They aren't going to be lynched, enslaved, deported; they won't be denied education or other public services, or be denied jobs or power (the few jobs and little power they don't already have).
Consider a room with 40 people who can't leave. 36 are blue-eyed people and 4 are green-eyed. There is a long history of many blue-eyed people enslaving, oppressing, lynching, discriminating against, and hating green-eyed people. If a green-eyed person says, 'blue-eyed people are scum and we should kill them all', they might get some looks and some people might take a few steps away, but there isn't much threat. If a blue-eyed person says it about green-eyed people ...
Or they could just say, 'don't hire green people'. Again, it's much different if the powerful or the disempowered say the same thing. Another example is if you are a woman working in SV in an entry-level job. If you say, 'we shouldn't hire men', it's just odd. If the CEO says 'we shouldn't hire women', it's a serious threat to your job.
It's not equivalent. At HN (and in the U.S. and Europe), white males and christians are strong and secure; the threat they face from discrimination is very little. They aren't going to be lynched, enslaved, deported; they won't be denied education or other public services, or be denied jobs or power (the few jobs and little power they don't already have).
Consider a room with 40 people who can't leave. 36 are blue-eyed people and 4 are green-eyed. There is a long history of many blue-eyed people enslaving, oppressing, lynching, discriminating against, and hating green-eyed people. If a green-eyed person says, 'blue-eyed people are scum and we should kill them all', they might get some looks and some people might take a few steps away, but there isn't much threat. If a blue-eyed person says it about green-eyed people ...
Or they could just say, 'don't hire green people'. Again, it's much different if the powerful or the disempowered say the same thing. Another example is if you are a woman working in SV in an entry-level job. If you say, 'we shouldn't hire men', it's just odd. If the CEO says 'we shouldn't hire women', it's a serious threat to your job.
Hacker News is a large community with people on all sides of all issues in all regions. Assume good faith, and check your matches, lighters, and brass knuckles at the door.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html