3 ms·

While China gets all the flak for this in the US media, they were actually kind of late to the game on the Spratly Islands. Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan

by exelius 11y ago

While China gets all the flak for this in the US media, they were actually kind of late to the game on the Spratly Islands. Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan have all been reclaiming islands in the same area on a smaller scale. China is just staking its claim alongside the rest, and while China is by far the biggest user of dredging to reclaim islands, they weren't the first. Russia invaded the undisputed, occupied territory of a sovereign nation (twice!) on trumped up reasons of "protecting ethnic Russians" -- as if "ethnic Russian" was a real thing. The Spratly Islands are the very definition of disputed territory; they're claimed by half a dozen countries and have no meaningful settlements on them. I'm not saying that China has a claim to them, but their claim is no less valid than Japan's or Vietnam's. Now, when they invade Taiwan, we can say they're like Russia. But they have not flexed their military might because they're not yet a modern military. That will change over the next 10-20 years; and when you have a strong military, you tend to come up with ways to make use of it to achieve your strategic goals (again, this was a central theme of the original article). Source for Spratly info: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/wha...

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
Which came first: China's huge territorial claim in the South China Sea, or Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan reclaiming islands in the area?
- exelius 11y ago
  China never would have resorted to dredging if they had been able to occupy an island big enough to put an airport on. But all of the islands of that size were already occupied by one of the other countries, so China decided to build one rather than take one by force. The alternative is to abandon their claim on the islands entirely, which would be stupid because nobody else really has a better claim on a bunch of barren, uninhabited islands. Honestly, this is one of those types of disputes where nobody has a clearly better claim than anyone else, so the nation with the biggest navy wins (the US did this all over the South Pacific, so we can't act all high and mighty). But there's nothing inherently important about those islands other than they grant territorial waters, so whoever has the biggest navy in the region will control them. Very different than what happened in Georgia or Ukraine (or Iraq, or Afghanistan...) The US media usually portrays this as 100% Chinese aggression, when the truth is that every country that claims the islands is doing the exact same thing (albeit on a smaller scale).
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    OK, and I agree with most of this, but that doesn't answer my question. Which came first, China's territorial claim, or other nations building up their islands? I know that sequence doesn't necessarily imply causation, but if there is causation, which one is the original cause?
    - exelius 11y ago
      If you want the original cause, you have to go back to WWII. Or the Boxer Rebellion. Or the colonial era before that. With territorial claims, if you go back far enough in history, you can find some justification. Territorial claims on uninhabited islands are even less cut and dry. China has claimed the islands since, well, ever - but until the last 10-20 years they lacked the resources/need/desire to exercise that claim. China claims that Japan's aggression in the area forced them to build up a military presence to defend their claim, but it's hard to know whether that's just anti-Japan propaganda or not because it's entirely plausible. What I'm saying is that a lot of countries have claimed these islands for a long time before the recent militarization/occupation of the area by all parties. No country has a truly better claim than the other, so it's a case where possession is 9/10ths of the law. China was late to the island base building game, so they had to take an island that was too small to build a base on and expand it. Does that make them the aggressors? Or are Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam aggressors because they built a military base there before China? The US media doesn't give you that nuanced view, because this is a case where morality is grey and there are no heroes or villains. Just a bunch of nations claiming some islands and then trying to justify their claim by building on said islands.

by exelius 11y ago

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

Which came first: China's huge territorial claim in the South China Sea, or Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan reclaiming islands in the area?

exelius 11y ago
China never would have resorted to dredging if they had been able to occupy an island big enough to put an airport on. But all of the islands of that size were already occupied by one of the other countries, so China decided to build one rather than take one by force. The alternative is to abandon their claim on the islands entirely, which would be stupid because nobody else really has a better claim on a bunch of barren, uninhabited islands. Honestly, this is one of those types of disputes where nobody has a clearly better claim than anyone else, so the nation with the biggest navy wins (the US did this all over the South Pacific, so we can't act all high and mighty). But there's nothing inherently important about those islands other than they grant territorial waters, so whoever has the biggest navy in the region will control them. Very different than what happened in Georgia or Ukraine (or Iraq, or Afghanistan...) The US media usually portrays this as 100% Chinese aggression, when the truth is that every country that claims the islands is doing the exact same thing (albeit on a smaller scale).
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  OK, and I agree with most of this, but that doesn't answer my question. Which came first, China's territorial claim, or other nations building up their islands? I know that sequence doesn't necessarily imply causation, but if there is causation, which one is the original cause?
  - exelius 11y ago
    If you want the original cause, you have to go back to WWII. Or the Boxer Rebellion. Or the colonial era before that. With territorial claims, if you go back far enough in history, you can find some justification. Territorial claims on uninhabited islands are even less cut and dry. China has claimed the islands since, well, ever - but until the last 10-20 years they lacked the resources/need/desire to exercise that claim. China claims that Japan's aggression in the area forced them to build up a military presence to defend their claim, but it's hard to know whether that's just anti-Japan propaganda or not because it's entirely plausible. What I'm saying is that a lot of countries have claimed these islands for a long time before the recent militarization/occupation of the area by all parties. No country has a truly better claim than the other, so it's a case where possession is 9/10ths of the law. China was late to the island base building game, so they had to take an island that was too small to build a base on and expand it. Does that make them the aggressors? Or are Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam aggressors because they built a military base there before China? The US media doesn't give you that nuanced view, because this is a case where morality is grey and there are no heroes or villains. Just a bunch of nations claiming some islands and then trying to justify their claim by building on said islands.