China Claims 90% of Spratly Islands, Actually Controls 13%

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
and why the heck american has to suffer economically in order for philippine to drill oil at their claim area.
Because oil backs the US dollar. Gold in turn backs the oil.



"Think now, if you are a person of "great worth" is it not better to acquire gold over years, at better prices? If you are one of "small worth", can you not follow in the footsteps of giants? I tell you, it is an easy path to follow!" --ANOTHER (THOUGHTS!) 1/10/98

[Follow contemporary writings of "ANOTHER" and "Friend of ANOTHER" at the Gold Trail] Another (Thoughts!): The Profound Story of Gold and Oil

"If ANOTHER's claims are true -- that a consortium of oil states has cornered the gold market (and given the impressive circumstantial evidence, this could very well be the case) -- these "footsteps of giants" become the most salient and persuasive case for gold ownership I have seen in the past decade, if not the full twenty-eight years I have been in the gold business." -- Michael J. Kosares, president of Centennial Precious Metals, Inc.; author of The ABCs of Gold Investing


Foreword
When the once highly secretive London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) -- its venerable membership comprising the world's largest gold dealers -- published its daily clearing volume for the first time in January 1997, it rocked the tight-knit world of international gold traders and analysts.

According to this first of many subsequent LBMA press releases, thirteen hundred tonnes of gold (representing more than 50% of the world's annual mine production) changed hands daily in this fog-shrouded center of the global gold market. This figure represented over $10 billion per day and $4 trillion per year in bullion banking activity!

The gold market had always stood in austere, quiet contrast to the highly charged, mega-volume world of stocks and bonds. Now this first LBMA report forced analysts, investors, and brokers to reassess their understandings of the gold market. While some revelled in the glow of the large LBMA numbers, others began to raise some very important and rather unsettling questions. First, Why was this much gold on the move? Second, Where was all this gold going? And third, Where was all this gold coming from?

Then, in October of 1997 at the internet's only gold discussion forum of the day (hosted by Kitco), a series of remarkable postings began appearing under the pseudonym "ANOTHER", offering plausible answers to those questions. What followed in a seemingly incongruous stream of thought over many months was, in the fullness of time, seen to blend into a logical whole by many astute readers following the complete text. If you are not similarly moved to at least reassess your own view of the international financial scene after reading what's revealed below, then you are either firmly entrenched in your world view, or you've been numbed by too many hours of Wall Street's cheerleader (CNBC) and too many Friday nights with Louis Ruykeyser.

What matters most to us here at USAGOLD is ANOTHER's educational value to all who would take the time to read and think through his (at times) arcane and cryptic commentary of international economic dealings behind-the-scenes. ANOTHER demonstrates a feel for and understanding of the gold and oil markets that indicates connections at the highest echelons of international finance, yet for reasons having to do with his "position," as he has indicated, he wishes to remain anonymous. If his "THOUGHTS!" are theory; they are good theory. If they are speculation; they are reasonable speculation. If they are supposition; they are well-grounded supposition.

In the final analysis, ANOTHER offers one of the more plausible hypotheses for why the financial markets have acted as they have in the past few years, and therein lies his immense value to the reader, no matter who he is. Again, knowledge as is conveyed in his series of "THOUGHTS!" is rarely to be found outside the highest levels of international finance, and is seldom to be seen bandied about on the front pages of The Wall Street Journal or your favorite financial newsletter.

As explained by ANOTHER, an opportunistic arrangement for massive physical gold acquisition among important petroleum producing and exporting nations could be comfortably facilitated within these astronomical trading volumes now being publicly revealed via the LBMA. For the oil states this meant receiving real money (as opposed to government-sponsored paper) in payment for their depleting oil reserves. For the industrialized countries, this meant a continuing supply of cheap oil to fuel the economic boom already in progress. These transactions were to be cleared through the bustling London gold market. Up until late 1996, the volumes were a tightly kept secret so "the deal" proceeded without the knowledge of the general public.

When the LBMA went public with its figures, it raised the shroud off "the deal." But by then, according to ANOTHER, it no longer mattered. The oil states had already (almost inadvertently) cornered the gold market. As implied by ANOTHER's own words, his motivation for these postings was the discovery by "big traders" in the Far East of this opportune facility to buy gold at ever lower prices. Their subsequent heavy purchases of physical gold upset the delicate balance. Now there was no longer a reason to keep it secret, and hence, the revelation of this extraordinary tale.

His choice to use an Internet forum to tell his story is surely a "story" in itself. Many who have read ANOTHER's "THOUGHTS!" speculate why he would choose this particular venue for his revelations. Why not a magazine article? Or a book? Rather than turning this Foreword into a treatise on the merits of the Internet, let it suffice to say that if ANOTHER and his motives are as implied, then there is probably no better venue than the Internet; allowing his "THOUGHTS!" to be disseminated rapidly, anonymously, and without editing by intermediaries. In addition, they could be efficiently targeted to go directly to the core market audience -- the gold analysts, brokers and investors who frequent such Internet sites as this, devoted strictly to the yellow metal. And after all, as a utility, isn't this capacity for specialization and instant communication what the Internet is all about?

We encourage you to find time to read and consider these remarkable postings of ANOTHER with an open mind. In the field of gold and international economics, these posts are sure to remain as fascinating and worthy of careful study as anything you will find on the web today.

A note on the text: No attempt has been made to correct typographical errors, misspellings, punctuation, grammatical and/or textual errors as originally submitted. This archive of ANOTHER's online commentary is presented here in its unedited entirety in the order his "THOUGHTS!" were posted via the Internet -- beginning at the Kitco website (from October 1997 to April 1998) then proudly hosted here at our expanded USAGOLD website (from May 1998 onward) through mutual agreement and cooperation with ANOTHER.


Date: Sun Oct 05 1997 21:29
ANOTHER ( THOUGHTS! ) ID#60253:

Everyone knows where we have been. Let's see where we are going!

It was once said that "gold and oil can never flow in the same direction". If the current price of oil doesn't change soon we will no doubt run out of gold.

This line of thinking is very real in the world today but it is never discussed openly. You see oil flow is the key to gold flow. It is the movement of gold in the hidden background that has kept oil at these low prices. Not military might, not a strong US dollar, not political pressure, no it was real gold. In very large amounts. Oil is the only commodity in the world that was large enough forgold to hide in. Noone could make the South African / Asian connection when the question was asked, "how could LBMA do so many gold deals and not impact the price". That's because oil is being partially used to pay for gold! We are going to find out that the price of gold, in terms of real money ( oil ) has gone thru the roof over these last few years. People wondered how the physical gold market could be "cornered" when it's currency price wasn't rising and no shortages were showing up? The CBs were becoming the primary suppliers by replacing openly held gold with CB certificates. This action has helped keep gold flowing during a time that trading would have locked up.

(Gold has always been funny in that way. So many people worldwide think of it as money, it tends to dry up as the price rises.) Westerners should not be too upset with the CBs actions, they are buying you time!

So why has this played out this way? In the real world some people know that gold is real wealth no matter what currency price is put on it. Around the world it is traded in huge volumes that never show up on bank statements, govt. stats., or trading graph paper.

The Western governments needed to keep the price of gold down so it could flow where they needed it to flow. The key to free up gold was simple. The Western public will not hold an asset that going nowhere, at least in currency terms. ( if one can only see value in paper currency terms then one cannot see value at all ) The problem for the CBs was that the third world has kept the gold market "bought up" by working thru South Africa! To avoid a spiking oil price the CBs first freed up the publics gold thru the issuance of various types of "paper future gold". As that selling dried up they did the only thing they could, become primary suppliers! And here we are today. In the early 1990s oil went to $30++ for reasons we all know. What isn't known is that it's price didn't drop that much. You see the trading medium changed. Oil went from $30++ to $19 + X amount of gold! Today it costs $19 + XXX amount of gold! Yes, gold has gone up and oil has stayed the same in most eyes.

Now all govts. don't get gold for oil, just a few. That's all it takes. For now! When everyone that has exchanged gold for paper finds out it's real price, in oil terms they will try to get it back. The great scramble that "Big Trader" understood may be very, very close.

Now my friends you know where we are at and with a little thought , where we are going.

The BIG TRADER mentioned there is Chinese sovereign wealth fund.

China tried to control the gold market by launching the PAGE

Pan Asia Gold Exchange

And it turned out to be a big flop because USA decided that was not acceptable that someone tried to muscle in on its territory.

OIL-US$-GOLD > The trinity which China tried to control.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,307
lol i'm not even chinese. where is your link of thies 2km island from china border control by vietnam. are you seriously lack the knowledge of chinese navy compare to vietnam/philippine, or just plain ignorant.
I mentioned that Matsu and Kinmen island are not controlled by China, which are located just 2km away, where did I mentioned they are controlled by Vietnam? They are indeed controlled by Taiwan, and China does not have the capability to them back, only it can squeal and beg for the control. A nation boasting about taking over islands located far away does not control islands located only 2km away :p:rofl:

Time for you to go to reeducation camp. Come up with something better next time
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,280
Country flag
cause it doesnt exist. i live in US. you are the one who should got back to education camp. PLA has the military ability to destroy, vietnam navy, the only thing stop china from doing so is political reason, period
Why did china lose to Vietnam in 1979? I think memories of that humiliating defeat still
Linger keeping the Chinese in fear and unable to act.
 
Last edited:

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
An interesting read on China Philippines' recent row over Huangyan (Scarborough Reef)
Some Basic Facts on China's soverignty over Huangyan Island by Chinese Embassy

Some Basic Facts on China's soverignty over Huangyan Island
(2012/04/13)
1. It is China who first discovered Huangyan Island, gave it the name, incorporated it into its territory, and exercised juristiction over it.



Huangyan Island was first discovered and drew into China's map in China's Yuan Dynasty(1271-1368AD). In 1279, Chinese astronomer Guo Shoujing performed surveying of the seas around China for Kublai Khan, and Huangyan Island was chosen as the point in the South China Sea.



In January 1935, Map Verification Committee of China, which consisted of representatives from Ministry of Interior Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education, and Navy, declared sovereignty over 132 islands reefs and shoals, Huangyan Island was included as a part of Zhongsha Islands into Chinese territory as the name of Scarborough Shoal. In October 1947, Chinese government announced the new namelist of South China Sea Islands, in which Scarborough Shoal was included and renamed as Democratic Reef as a part of Zhongsha Islands. In 1983, China Board on Geograpic Names released Geographic Names of Some of South China Sea Islands, which decided to use Huangyan Island as the standard name of the island and Democratic Reef as alternative name. All the official maps published by Chinese governments of different periods marked Huanyan Island as Chinese territory. Huangyan Island has been consistently under administration of China's Guangdong Province first and Hainan Province later. China's sovereignty over Huangyan Island have been declared in all the government announcements and statements on South China Sea. All of these happened long before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came into force in 1994.



2. China has long been developing and exploiting Huangyan Island.



Huangyan Island and its surrounding waters are traditional fisheries for Chinese fishermen. Since ancient time, the Chinese fishermen have been fishing in Huangyan Island and its surrounding waters. Many scientific expedition activities organized by China's State Bureau of Surveying, National Earthquake Bureau and National Bureau of Oceanography were held in the Island and around this area in various periods.



3. Some Comments on Philippine's claims



The Philippine territory is set by a series of international treaties, no of which involves Huangyan Island. The Treaty of Paris(1898), The Treaty of Washington(1900) and the Treaty with Great Britain (1930) state clearly that west limit of the Philippines territory is 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, while the Huangyan Island is obviously outside this limits(15º08'-15º14'N, 117º 44'-117º48'E). The 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the 1946 Treaty of General Relations between the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines, the 1952 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, the 1961 Repbulic Act No.3046 and the 1968 Republic Act. No. 5446 have reaffirmed the legal effects of the above-mentioned three treaties and once again expressively defined the Philippine territorial limits, the baseline points and baseline of the territorial waters, which had not included the Huangyan Island. The Philippine maps published in 1981 and 1984, just to name a few, also indicated that Huangyan Island is outside the Philippine territorial limits. The above facts fully prove that Huangyan Island is outside the scope of Philippine territory.



Until 1997, the Philippines has never put dispute on China's juristiction and development on Huangyan Island, while it repeatedly stated that the Huangyan Island was outside the Philippine territory. Then Philippine Ambassador to Germany indicated clearly in his letter to a Gernmany radio amateur on 5 February of 1990 that, Huangyan Island was not within the Philippine territory and sovereignty according to the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority of the Philippines. The documents issued by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority of the Philippines to the American Radio Relay League on 18 October and 18 November 1994 have also confirmed respectively that the Philippine territorial limits and sovereignty was stipulated in the Paragraph 3 of the Treaty of Paris of 1989 and Huangyan Island was outside of the Philippine territory boundaries.



It is the basic principle of the international maritime law that land rules water. UNCLOS allows coastal states to claim a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), but coastal states have no rights to harm the inherent territory and sovereignty of other countries. It is a violation of the principles of international laws, including that of UNCLOS, to change the ownership of the territorial sovereignty through UNCLOS.
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,032
Likes
883
Country flag
I believe most Indian members are gonna simply ignore amoy's informative post and carry on their trolling.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
Indians here talk a LOT about China when they know absolutely nothing about us. I got laughed once on this forum when I said China has had claim on the SCS since ancient times, when EEZ's didn't exist. Thanks for the post Amoy.
 

Oblaks

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
372
Likes
123
If the argument was as simple as that, there would have been no more discussion. Read below and think again

Why Parts of Spratlys Belong to the Philippines


In the March 27 issue of the Hong Kong–based English-language weekly HK Magazine, published by Asia City Publishing Limited, a columnist named Chip Tsao called the Philippines a "nation of servants," triggered by the Spratly Islands dispute. Here's a quote from the article, entitled "The War at Home," that Tsao wrote:

"Manila has just claimed sovereignty over the scattered rocks in the South China Sea called the Spratly Islands, complete with a blatant threat from its Congress to send gunboats to the South China Sea to defend the islands from China if necessary. This is beyond reproach. The reason: there are more than 130,000 Filipina maids working as [HK]$3,580-a-month cheap labor in Hong Kong. As a nation of servants, you don't flex your muscles at your master, from whom you earn most of your bread and butter."

He went on to say that some of his friends have gone so far as to intimidate their Filipina nannies to shout "China, Madam/Sir" loudly whenever they hear the word "Spratly."

In my lifetime, I've seen insolent people who resort to insults, cusses, and irrelevant rants to win an argument. Disputes over the ownership of land are settled soberly in a court of law; in the case of Spratlys, in an international court. Tsao may have gained the admiration of Chinese rednecks, but his reputation as a writer and dignity as a person is inching towards the level a bigot of the worst kind when he put out this drivel. (In the April 3 issue, the publisher and editors apologized unreservedly, stating that the column was meant to be satirical.)

So what about the Spratlys? The Spratly Islands are a group of over 650 reefs, atolls, and islets on the South China Sea about halfway between the Philippines and Vietnam. In total area, they are less than the area of Winnipeg, and they are spread over a seaspace two-thirds the size of Manitoba. The Spratlys are really small, but they have potential economic value (oil and gas reserves). They also establish international boundaries of independent territories. A few residents live there in addition to the number fisherfolk availing of the rich fishing grounds and the occasional military personnel stationed on the islands. A number of military forces from- China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam occupy some of the islands. The State of Brunei has a fishing zone in the area which includes a southern reef, but the country has made no formal claim.

While the Philippines' claim to Spratly Islands was first made in the United Nations in 1946, its involvement did not begin in earnest until 1956, when the Filipino adventurer Tomas Cloma proclaimed the founding of a new state, named Kalayaan. Cloma's view, which is in congruence with that of present-day government, is that the Spratlys are res nullius, or "nobody's property." Kalayaan encompassed fifty-three features spread on the eastern South China Sea, Itu Aba, Pag-asa, and Nam Yit Islands, not including Spratly Island proper. Cloma established a protectorate with Pag-asa as the capital and himself as Chairman of the Supreme Council. The other claimants lodged official protests and Taiwan sent a naval taskforce to occupy the islands and establish a base on Itu Aba, which it retains to the present day.

By 1968, the Philippines had troops posted on three islands on the premise of protecting the citizens of Kalayaan. In early 1971, the Philippines, on behalf of Cloma, sent a diplomatic note to Taipei, demanding their withdrawal from Itu Aba. In April 1972, Kalayaan was officially incorporated into Palawan by the Marcos government and was administered as a municipality with Tomas Cloma as the town council chairman. The Philippines attempted to land troops on Itu Aba in 1977, only to be repelled by the Taiwanese troops who were already there. There were no reports of casualties from the conflict. Today, Kalayaan (mainly its one barangay, Pag-asa) has a population of about 300, a 1.3-kilometer airstrip, a water-filtering plant, power generators, weather stations, a communication tower built by SMART Telecommunications, and its own elected mayor.

The Philippines bases its claims of sovereignty over the Spratlys on the issues of res nullius and geography. When Japan renounced its sovereignty over the islands in the San Francisco Treaty in 1951, the islands became res nullius and available for annexation. The Philippines' claim to Kalayaan on geographical grounds asserts that it is distinct from other island groups in the South China Sea because, in oceanography, the practice is to refer to a chain of islands through the name of the biggest island in the group. Distancewise, Spratly Island is roughly 210 nautical miles (nm) off Pag-asa Island. Therefore, they are not part of the same island chain. The Paracels, being 34.5 nm northwest of Pag-asa Island, is definitely a different group of islands.-

A stronger geographical argument that the Philippines use over its claim to the Spratlys is that all the islands it claims lie within the country's archipelagic baselines, in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states what are within one's territorial waters (out to 12 nm from the baseline).- Kalayaan is about 300 miles west of Puerto Princesa, truly a part of the Philippine Archipelago.

A coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource; and that exclusive economic zones (EEZs) extend 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within an EEZ, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. China, the Philippines, and Vietnam are all signatories to the UN agreement. The Philippines also argues, under Law of the Sea provisions, that China and Vietnam cannot extend their respective baseline claims to the Spratlys because neither of the two is an archipelagic state.
As I said, disputes are settled soberly at the World Maritime Tribunal in Hamburg, Germany; not through insults, cusses, and irrelevant rants.

Epilogue
In an interview aired over Hong Kong's ATV, Tsao has subsequently admitted his wrongdoing and apologized to the Philippine government and its people. He said, "I realized that I had crossed the line. I now offer my public apology."
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
As a nation of servants, you don't flex your muscles at your master, from whom you earn most of your bread and butter."

He went on to say that some of his friends have gone so far as to intimidate their Filipina nannies to shout "China, Madam/Sir" loudly whenever they hear the word "Spratly."
Aside from the territorial issue here, it makes me laugh that Americans can be so easily intimidated by being called racists and bullies. In fact, our Dear Reader 's first act after his election was to crawl around the world to apologize for the USA.

The unvarnished truth is that it's a big, ugly world, and everybody will have an opportunity to act badly.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
A stronger geographical argument that the Philippines use over its claim to the Spratlys is that all the islands it claims lie within the country's archipelagic baselines, in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states what are within one's territorial waters (out to 12 nm from the baseline).- Kalayaan is about 300 miles west of Puerto Princesa, truly a part of the Philippine Archipelago.
Damn that pesky law of the sea :-D
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
For the 1st time I came to know Itu Aba = Taiping Island the largest among Spratlys and Paracels

The name most commonly used in English[citation needed] is Itu Aba, which has 3 different origins: one from the Malay for "What's that?" (spelled itu apa in the current orthography); or from Hainanese of Huángshānmǎ (黃山馬) - Widuabe; or said to be named after two Vietnamese maids (Tu and Ba) of a French Indochina official charged with mapping the Spratly Islands.

The Chinese name Taiping Island is named after the Republic of China Navy vessel Taiping (Chinese: 太平號; literally "peace") which sailed to the island to re-claim the Spratlys after the Imperial Japanese Navy abandoned it in 1945. The islands were formerly called Huángshānmǎ Jiāo (黃山馬礁) or Huángshānmǎ Zhì (黃山馬峙) by Chinese fishermen.
Actually quite a few islands were named after ROC warships which sail to recover them immediately after WW2.
 

Oblaks

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
372
Likes
123
and i doubt ASEAN nation will use its navy to destroy those coast guard/fishing ship, the result will give china the excuse to deploy their much more powerful navy.

china might have much less occupy island, but it has much better deck of cards in its hand than ASEAN, economy/military etc.
Contrary to what you have said that ASEAN nations is unlikely to use their Navy forces, just a couple of days ago, a Philippine Navy ship was sent to apprehend 8 fishing boats in scarborough shoal (huangyan to Chinese) initially. These fishermen were not apprehended because of tresspassing but because they were poaching for endagered species in massive amounts (corals, sharks. sea turtles). Later a coast guard boat replaced it to ease tensions as the Philippines is also keen on avoiding an actual skirmish. As of this writing there is still a standoff between chinese and philippine coast guard ships in that area. Who ever backs down doesnt matter. This event only shows that ASEAN nations will show their presence on the West Philippine Sea (known to the world specially the chinese as the South China Sea). Any SEA nation would never push china in a corner.. neither could china push any SEA nation.


Now going to the original topic in this forum. Why China occupies only a few islands. That is because the other claimants would not allow China to. Remeber China is claiming almost the whole china sea up to the shores of some country. This would be a major security risk for most ASEAN nations. If China really wants it she has to take it by force..there would be no other way. if he takes it by force, he has to do that with several nations in SEA. That is the reason that China is only willing to talk about the issue with individual nations in the dispute. He does not want to trigger a cooperation between ASEAN about this when actually the security of the whole ASEAN is at risk! other SEA countries not involved in the dispute might not realize it but if indeed china takes the SCS they might regret it
 

Oblaks

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
372
Likes
123
For the 1st time I came to know Itu Aba = Taiping Island the largest among Spratlys and Paracels



Actually quite a few islands were named after ROC warships which sail to recover them immediately after WW2.
a few islands..that is right. So why is China claiming the whole SCS
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
CHINA'S CLAIM TO THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

An edited version of this Article was published in the South China Morning Post on November 24, 2010, under the title, "High stakes." It was published in Chinese in the China Times on November 25, 2010.

by Jerome A. Cohen and Jon M. Van Dyke

Of the many signs of China's increasingly assertive foreign policy, none has troubled its neighbors — and the United States –more than its claim to some form of jurisdiction over much of the South China Sea. Yet the People's Republic has never explained exactly what it is claiming or why regarding these strategically important waters so rich in mineral, fishery and other resources.

Determining sea boundaries is the name of the game in this huge area. Yet much of the attention of contesting states has revolved about their conflicting claims to sovereignty over two sets of tiny islets that, properly viewed under international law, should not significantly influence maritime delineation. The Paracels (Xisha), in the north of the South China Sea near China and Vietnam, have long been claimed by both. The Spratlies (Nansha), in the south near Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Brunei, are even tinier, but have long attracted claims by all those countries in addition to China.

China claims sovereignty over both sets of islets based on historical linkages to them during the past millennium, although traditionally it did not exercise "effective occupation and control" over them. The other coastal countries make similar claims. None of these islets had been inhabited historically, but in the recent half century the competing countries have put military garrisons on many of them. The People's Republic did not take an active interest in these islets until about 1970. By then, most of the features above water at high tide were controlled by others. In 1974, China used force to oust the South Vietnamese government from the Paracels shortly before its collapse, and in 1988, when China began to "occupy" some of the low tide elevations in the Spratlies, it forced Socialist Vietnam from Fiery Cross Reef.

The breadth of China's claim to the sea area is usually attributed to a map published in 1947 by Chiang Kai-sheks's Nationalist government, shortly before the Communist revolution chased it from the mainland to Taiwan. The map drew 11 dashed lines extending all the way to the southern part of the South China Sea. Later, Communist-era maps eliminated the two dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin, but the other nine lines have appeared repeatedly in a tongue-like configuration swinging deep through the South China Sea. Last year, China attached a version of this map to its official protest against a joint Malaysia-Vietnam claim to part of the continental shelf in the central-southern part of the area.

It seems that China is putting forward an "historic" claim to much of the South China Sea, but it has never clarified whether it is claiming these waters as internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, extended continental shelf, or some status unique to the region. It has merely published straight baselines for delineating the 12 nautical-mile territorial sea boundary to which the Paracels are entitled, but has never done so for the Spratlies.

Last year, the Philippines filed with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf a formal claim to shelf areas around those islets in the eastern part of the South China Sea that it claims, and Malaysia and Vietnam filed their unusual joint continental shelf claim. China vigorously protested both actions.

This year, after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's famous July 23 ASEAN Regional Forum challenge to China's broad but vague claims and Beijing's angry response, China provided symbolic support for its position by announcing in late August that its national flag had been planted in the seabed at one of the deepest points in the South China Sea. When, soon after, China applied fierce pressures against Japan for arresting a Chinese fishing captain offshore the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islets in the East China Sea, it alerted the world to the increasing danger of conflict in the South China Sea as well.

What can be done to improve the situation? China seems to prefer negotiating territorial and boundary claims with each of the other contending countries in a series of bilateral negotiations. Presumably, these would be similar to the Sino-Vietnam negotiation that in 2004 resulted in China's first maritime boundary agreement, a mutually satisfactory compromise that approximately divided jurisdiction over the adjacent Gulf of Tonkin. The other contending states, undoubtedly finding security and bargaining power in numbers, prefer a collective negotiation, which Secretary Clinton described as "a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion".

Although many have interpreted the 2002 "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea" signed by the ASEAN members and China as calling for a collective settlement, the Declaration only prescribed settling disputes "through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea". The parties further agreed to continue their consultations and dialogues "through modalities to be agreed by them". It should not strain the imagination of Chinese and ASEAN diplomats to find a formula that will take account of the virtues of both bilateral and collective negotiations.

Just as in the East China Sea, the first substantive step that should be taken is for the parties to agree on the unimportance, for purposes of sea boundary delimitation, of the disputes concerning sovereignty over the islands in question. The Spratlies are uninhabitable and incapable of sustaining economic life of their own, and hence they are not entitled to an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf under the Law of the Sea Convention. Although the Paracels may now be deemed habitable, parties bent upon compromise should be able to negotiate limits to the claims this status might generate. It will be much easier to compromise upon sea boundaries if all the neighboring countries agree, as China apparently has regarding the comparable Senkaku/Diaoyu problem, that these tiny islets and reef features should not become the tail that wags the dog in maritime delimitation.

Following this approach, a fair delimitation can take place drawn from the land boundaries of the continental and large island land masses of the adjacent states, recognizing the Paracels as relevant features and thus giving China substantial ocean space in the area nearest to it. This would permit the countries of the region to work together to exploit the mineral, fishery, and other resources of the South China Sea for the benefit of their citizens and bring about the "peace, stability, economic growth and prosperity" as well as the "freedom of navigation and overflight" that their 2002 Declaration endorsed.

CHINA’S CLAIM TO THE SOUTH CHINA SEA - U.S. - Asia Law Institute
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I believe most Indian members are gonna simply ignore amoy's informative post and carry on their trolling.
You have commenced the troll effect with this post!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Since I have got to go, just wondered how did the Chinese 'discover' the islands?

And how did they exercise 'jurisdiction'?
 

aerokan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,024
Likes
817
Country flag
Since I have got to go, just wondered how did the Chinese 'discover' the islands?

And how did they exercise 'jurisdiction'?
Have you ever played the put-a-blind-fold-and-point-a-finger-on-the-map-and-claim-it game? Chinese play it very well and still play it. That's why they don't have definite boundaries and type of boundaries which are clearly marked even in their claims to keep the ambiguity alive for further expansion. :hungry:
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
Have you ever played the put-a-blind-fold-and-point-a-finger-on-the-map-and-claim-it game? Chinese play it very well and still play it. That's why they don't have definite boundaries and type of boundaries which are clearly marked even in their claims to keep the ambiguity alive for further expansion. :hungry:
the put-a-blind-fold-and-point-a-finger-on-the-map-and-claim-it game is what British Indian and India today are good at !

British India claimed fingered Johnson line on one map and claimed Aksai Chin area ,although It never really controlled it and there has never been one Indian there.....

And independent India happily succeeded the claim and finger China as "invader", although CHinese is the first one who really controlled it and developed it.
 

aerokan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,024
Likes
817
Country flag
the put-a-blind-fold-and-point-a-finger-on-the-map-and-claim-it game is what British Indian and India today are good at !

British India claimed fingered Johnson line on one map and claimed Aksai Chin area ,although It never really controlled it and there has never been one Indian there.....

And independent India happily succeeded the claim and finger China as "invader", although CHinese is the first one who really controlled it and developed it.
First, if the Chinese still can't get hold of your colonial hangover, please mention your colonial masters as british chinese. If by accident, u guys are living in 2012 address them as british. If u want to blame british, be my guest. India is not the country who expands it's frontiers every other year based on the power we have. We stuck to the same argument from the start. If at all, we even had a bad track record of gifting islands out of good faith and lands to stupid ingrateful neighbours. On the other hand , despite maps properly demarcated and maps given to China in early 1950's, China didn't even object to it till they found out that it will be easy for road access if they control aksai chin. So they started claiming in 1959 or so and opened a front claiming arunachal just to sidetrack the army at aksai chin and capture which was not theirs. If China legitimately thought, it was theirs to begin with, why is there a need to keep silent saying there were no border issues and then ocupying the territories? I asked repeatedly before and i will ask again. Is the chinese claim at the formation and the current chinese claims the same? It just adds more and more to the territorial claims if they think they can bully and get it.

"Chinese controlled it and developed it" after occupying it. The chinese logic of chinese territory is based on claims like my 2000 old great great grandfather fished there once or my brother went there and took a dump while passing through the area. Do u know that size of centuries old china is far far less than as of today? It surprises me that somehow u guys fail to understand that u can't use the same logic for and against the same expansionist zeal of China. :confused:
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Chinese have still not got over their 100 years of Shame!
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
746
First, if the Chinese still can't get hold of your colonial hangover, please mention your colonial masters as british chinese. If by accident, u guys are living in 2012 address them as british. If u want to blame british, be my guest. India is not the country who expands it's frontiers every other year based on the power we have. We stuck to the same argument from the start. If at all, we even had a bad track record of gifting islands out of good faith and lands to stupid ingrateful neighbours. On the other hand , despite maps properly demarcated and maps given to China in early 1950's, China didn't even object to it till they found out that it will be easy for road access if they control aksai chin. So they started claiming in 1959 or so and opened a front claiming arunachal just to sidetrack the army at aksai chin and capture which was not theirs. If China legitimately thought, it was theirs to begin with, why is there a need to keep silent saying there were no border issues and then ocupying the territories? I asked repeatedly before and i will ask again. Is the chinese claim at the formation and the current chinese claims the same? It just adds more and more to the territorial claims if they think they can bully and get it.

"Chinese controlled it and developed it" after occupying it. The chinese logic of chinese territory is based on claims like my 2000 old great great grandfather fished there once or my brother went there and took a dump while passing through the area. Do u know that size of centuries old china is far far less than as of today? It surprises me that somehow u guys fail to understand that u can't use the same logic for and against the same expansionist zeal of China. :confused:
1. Johnson line,,which India's claim of Aksai china is based on, was a unilateral line . CHinese has never accepted it ,since it was drawn by Britishman during Manchurian Qing empire.

2. CHinese has no obligation to abide a unilateral line ,which CHinese never accepts .
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top