Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Weak Link in Beijing's Maritime Claims: A History
Topic Started: Aug 30 2013, 11:36 PM (1,221 Views)
MSantor
Member Avatar

PDFF Mod Group
It's ironic that the Chinese are using an American invention- the idea of maritime sovereignty- to justify their "historical claims" to the South China Sea.

*Consider what's stated below about Taiwan's aborigines. On a sidenote, on a visit to some place in Taiwan (Hualien/Taroko Gorge, I think) a couple years ago which had an aboriginal exhibit, I saw some of the locals actually performing a local dance with bamboo logs that is exactly the same as the "tinikling" from Leyte and other parts of the Philippines.

From The Diplomat site

Quote:
 


History the Weak Link in Beijing’s Maritime Claims

East Asia
August 30, 2013

By Mohan Malik

If the idea of national sovereignty goes back to seventeenth-century Europe and the system that originated with the Treaty of Westphalia, the idea of maritime sovereignty is largely a mid-twentieth-century American concoction that China and others have seized upon to extend their maritime frontiers. As Jacques notes, “The idea of maritime sovereignty is a relatively recent invention, dating from 1945 when the United States declared that it intended to exercise sovereignty over its territorial waters.” In fact, the UN’s Law of the Sea agreement represented the most prominent international effort to apply the land-based notion of sovereignty to the maritime domain worldwide—although, importantly, it rejects the idea of justification by historical right. Thus although Beijing claims around eighty percent of the South China Sea as its “historic waters” (and is now seeking to elevate this claim to a “core interest” akin with its claims on Taiwan and Tibet), China has, historically speaking, about as much right to claim the South China Sea as Mexico has to claim the Gulf of Mexico for its exclusive use, or Iran the Persian Gulf, or India the Indian Ocean. In other words, none at all. From a legal standpoint, “the prolific usage of the nomenclature ‘South China Sea’ does not confer historic Chinese sovereignty.” Countries that have used history to claim sovereignty over islands have had the consent of others and a mutually agreeable interpretation of history—both elements missing in the SCS.

Ancient empires either won control over territories through aggression, annexation, or assimilation or lost them to rivals who possessed superior firepower or statecraft. Territorial expansion and contraction was the norm, determined by the strength or weakness of a kingdom or empire. The very idea of “sacred lands” is ahistorical because control of territory was based on who grabbed or stole what last from whom. The frontiers of the Qin, Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties waxed and waned throughout history. A strong and powerful imperial China, much like czarist Russia, was expansionist in Inner Asia and Indochina as opportunity arose and strength allowed. The gradual expansion over the centuries under the non-Chinese Mongol and Manchu dynasties extended imperial China’s control over Tibet and parts of Central Asia (now Xinjiang), Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. Modern China is, in fact, an “empire-state” masquerading as a nation-state.

Even if one were to accept Beijing’s “historical claims” argument for a moment, the problem is that the Chinese empire was not the only empire in pre-modern Asia and the world. There were other empires and kingdoms too. Many countries can make equally valid “historical claims” to lands that are currently not a part of their territory but under Chinese control (e.g., the Gando region in China’s Jilin province that belongs to Korea). Before the twentieth century, there were no sovereign nation-states in Asia with clear, legally defined boundaries of jurisdiction and control. If China’s claims are justified on the basis of history, then so are the historical claims of Vietnamese and Filipinos based on their histories. Students of Asian history know, for instance, that Malay peoples related to today’s Filipinos have a better claim to Taiwan than Beijing does. Taiwan was originally settled by people of Malay-Polynesian descent—ancestors of the present-day aborigine groups—who populated the low-lying coastal plains. Noted Asia-watcher Philip Bowring argues that “[t]he fact that China has a long record of written history does not invalidate other nations’ histories as illustrated by artifacts, language, lineage and genetic affinities, the evidence of trade and travel.”

Unless one subscribes to the notion of Chinese exceptionalism, imperial China’s “historical claims” are as valid as those of other kingdoms and empires in Southeast and South Asia. The problem with history is where and when to draw the line, why, and more importantly, whose version of history is accurate. China laying claim to the Mongol and Manchu empires’ colonial possessions would be equivalent to India laying claim to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Malaysia (Srivijaya), Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka on the grounds that they were all parts of either the Ashoka, Maurya, Chola, or the Moghul and the British Indian empires. From the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, several of the Pallava and Chola kings in southern India assembled large navies and armies to overthrow neighboring kingdoms and to undertake punitive attacks on the states in the Bay of Bengal region. They also took to the sea to conquer parts of what are now Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia. In his study of India’s strategic culture, George Tanham observed: “In what was really a battle over the trade between China and India and Europe, the Cholas were quite successful in both naval and land engagements and briefly ruled portions of Southeast Asia.”

(...)
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." - Henry Ford

"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill


"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking"- Gen. George S. Patton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hong Nam
Member Avatar
Bought by China


True. The native (indigenous) Formosan people and language is austonesian in origin. Sidelined and pushed to the highlands by the Chinese. Sadly, quite common whenever a dominant group settles on a certain territory. They usually succumb to pressure upon contact or are assimilated by the cause of need.

Posted Image

The map above should make things clearer.

Posted Image
Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie - C Sword 90



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ayoshi
Member Avatar


Beijing denounces 'groundless' US remarks on South China Sea (interaksyon.com)
Quote:
 
The United States had urged Beijing to clarify or adjust its claims in the South China Sea, calling for a peaceful solution to one of Asia's growing flashpoints.

"Some US officials make groundless accusations against China," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters at a regular briefing.
<snipped>
Beijing claims the South China Sea almost in its entirety, even areas a long way from its shoreline, but portions are also claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.
<snipped>
"China's lack of clarity with regard to its South China Sea claims has created uncertainty in the region and limits the prospect for achieving mutually agreeable resolution or equitable joint development arrangements," Russel told a congressional committee.

One thing about CCP's propaganda is, they confuse the international community with all the twists and turns of details. It gets worse as Chinese leaders act very much like Hitler did, using nationalism and propaganda to convince the people towards conflict. The PRC feels that it is now strong enough to begin the mission it has been tasked, the re-founding of the Chinese Empire, and the reacquisition of all the territories that belonged to its former tributaries. Chinese people must be ashamed of being led by such greedy government. If they're not, then theyre effectively supporting theft and piracy.
Edited by Ayoshi, Feb 8 2014, 10:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · West Philippine Sea · Next Topic »
Add Reply