4 ms·

This is one interpretation of a widely disputed issue. Many people like to underwrite this opinion with the Hague Tribunal findings, but unfortunately UNCLOS i

This is one interpretation of a widely disputed issue. Many people like to underwrite this opinion with the Hague Tribunal findings, but unfortunately UNCLOS itself (article 299) states that it has no authority to decide territorial cases. In any case, the claims to the islands in the South China Sea are hardly unilateral, as the United States recognized many of them including the Paracels and Scarborough during the Potsdam Declaration, Cairo Declaration, San Fransisco Treaty and others (at the time motivated to punish the imperial Japanese at the end of WWII). Hell the Cairo Declaration even declared Manchuria and Taiwan as owned by China. It's funny what the American media bubble does to history.

jwtadvice 10y ago
For the person/persons downvoting this, can you explain how it does not contribute to the conversation? I'm being very factual and on topic. If you'd like, we can go over the text of UNCLOS, Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and SF Treaty.
- elefanten 10y ago
  Could you actually elaborate a bit more about how any of those pertain to the Spratly Islands or waters 100 miles off the coast of the Phillipines? I'm genuinely asking, because my light familiarity with those documents is not sparking a connection.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    Sure. During WWII the Japanese occupied Pacific Islands including the Paracels and Spratlys. At the time it came to resolve the war, Japan was forced to remove itself from various occupied areas including but not limited to Korea, China, and Pacific Islands. For instance in the Cairo Declaration it was stated that: "Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent." Note that here the United States, Britain and China together recognized Manchuria, Taiwan and the islands off of Taiwan as Chinese. Japan would need to extricate itself from Korea. The Qing Dynasty, before the war, had explored and occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys - to a minimal degree, since it had never become a great naval power. Indeed, there are a number of instances of Vietnam and China 'trading' the Paracels back and forth to protect their ownership during the occupation of French Indochina. These islands had also been occupied by imperial Japan (such islands are useful in naval warfare), who was forced to remove itself. The Potsdam Declaration reads "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." These islands were very limited indeed, did not include the Paracels/Spratlys and it should be noted that they do not include the Kurils (something today that the Americans would like to revise history on). Similarly, section (f) of article 2 of the Potsdam Treaty reads of Japan: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands." What we have is a situation where the Philippines never had administration or territorial claims to these islands and where the Qing Dynasty had. In the post-war period, China was not only weak, but could not spend much patrolling the South China Sea - and focused primarily on it's Western Front during the Cold War. Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere. The United States had hoped, because of weak territorial enforcement during the postwar period, to make an issue over the ownership of the islands and waters as part of a geopolitical effort to limit the expansion of Chinese influence in an area historically militarily dominated by US projection (it's own National Security concerns pertaining to its continued naval access to potential adversaries and compeditors). The bulwark of that effort was an attempt to build an Asian consensus, centered around the Philippines (an important US ally and prior colony). However, the effort failed, with states in Asia fracturing in opinion and not willing to commit themselves to a United States led effort to persist its power projection in that way. This is still evolving of course, but the future looks rather dim with the Philippines (the keystone of the project) backing away.
    - majormajor 10y ago
      > Note that here the United States, Britain and China together recognized Manchuria, Taiwan and the islands off of Taiwan as Chinese. Japan would need to extricate itself from Korea. Doesn't this ignore a long-running civil war around the same time that has some relevance to Taiwan's situation? Namely, which Chinese government was Japan giving Taiwan back too?
      - jwtadvice 10y ago
        Yes absolutely the Taiwanese situation is complicated by inter-Chinese conflict. The official US position (shared by most of the world) is that Taiwan is Chinese territory. The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s (IIRC). The US (and most of the world) does not recognize Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. Think Puerto Rico.
        majormajor 10y ago
        Yes, but my point was that this wasn't all some simple thing going back to a post-WWII treaty that was now being complicated by a US imperialist media bubble. The current official position came about decades later and is additionally complicated by the unofficial relations between the US and the two being quite different. On a completely not-realpolitik-based personal side of things, having spent some time in all three of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, a forced eventual unification feels rather sad if it comes with the greater globalized monoculture that the mainland currently has.
        jwtadvice 10y ago
        All treaties, settlements and borders are subject to be changed. It's simply a fact. It is entirely possible that, in a war or as a settlement, or under pressure, or by sale/trade, or by volunteer Russia will give the Kurils to Japan, or the United States will revise its position on Taiwan or Hong Kong (you've already see a Trump Administration send the signal he's willing to do this). These relations are complicated, as various decisions made by different sovereignties will be replied to, can spoil relationships, can spoil trust, etc. A nation can also ruin its reputation by being 'too flippant' in recognizing territory until its not convenient to do so any more. There's a giant fuzzy 'you-have-to-be-able-to-tell-the-future' calculus that is done in simulating various choices on how to proceed with sovereign decisions, as effects can be quite wide ranging. America flipping its opinion on the sovereignty of the former British colony Hong Kong or on the civil war safehaven Taiwan, would represent a huge and damaging departure in relations with China. The United States may do such a thing, but would only do it if the 'realpolitik' calculus allowed it to risk - or wanted it to aggress - a war. There's never a simple thing in geopolitics. We can only look to history, to policies and treaties and to potential outcomes to explain and predict. The United States breaking with long standing treaties would be huge news in this regard.
EliRivers 10y ago
It seems that the Vietnamese media bubble does the same, then. As does the Philippine media bubble, the Malay media bubble, the Brunei media bubble, and everyone else in the region who has just watched China annex the ocean off their shore.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  This is a mischaracterization of the Vietnamese press, Malay press, Philippine press, etc. I've seen plenty of articles criticizing the Philippine and US behavior in the South China Sea from these countries, and indeed the Philippines has for the most part stopped pressing their claim. Mostly, Japan and the United States don't want it to happen. You'll see their bubble selectively translate and report on Thai, Vietnamese, etc press. I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. The United States had hoped to build a uniform front and accusation against China, with the Philippines at the center. That effort failed. And it's getting to be nearly a year. In any case, you seem to take exception with the 'bubble accusation'. We can talk about that, if you like, but I would be interested in talking about the various declarations and treaties at the end of WWII.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. I think you're lying. I don't think you're sorry. I think this is childish, passive-aggressive bullshit from someone who knows how to act like an adult but somehow can't resist acting like a child. Here's how a grown man states what you were trying to say; "There's not such a uniform voice as you think across the different nations you mentioned." For God's sake, grow up. You seem to have some actual facts to present, but a childish tone undermines everything.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      Here is a source, dated in the May of this year, in which policy wonks (Julian Ku, Fravel, Malcohm Cook) discuss the situation in the South China Sea and United States Freedom of Navigation Operations ("FONOPs"). http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-operations-in-the-south-china-sea-arent-enough-unclos-fonop-philippines-tribunal/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-op... This isn't an outlier in reporting on the situation in the South China Sea: reporting - and the diplomacy - emphasizes the need for the United States to find allies and to build a consensus of Asian countries. The response from those would-be-allied Asian countries, the policy wonks discuss, has been ambivilent at best. They link to an article in which the Indonesian government criticizes the US for power projection and calls on the US and China to 'restrain themselves'. The Indonesian response in this regard was not an outlier. Much of the advice to US diplomats was that the FONOPs needed to be changed because the aggressive nature of the military projection undercut the narrative that China was the bully. Advice on changing the operations included doing them silently without much public coverage, or trying to build a coalition so that the US wouldn't 'sail alone'. (The US was unable to build such a coalition.) There's a lot to say in this regard. I think your comment(s) are highly constructive, I take seriously what you say, and have been upvoting them.
lacampbell 10y ago
It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. And Formosa and the Pescadores are today governed by the by the Republic of China, at least.

jwtadvice 10y ago

For the person/persons downvoting this, can you explain how it does not contribute to the conversation? I'm being very factual and on topic. If you'd like, we can go over the text of UNCLOS, Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and SF Treaty.

elefanten 10y ago
Could you actually elaborate a bit more about how any of those pertain to the Spratly Islands or waters 100 miles off the coast of the Phillipines? I'm genuinely asking, because my light familiarity with those documents is not sparking a connection.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Sure. During WWII the Japanese occupied Pacific Islands including the Paracels and Spratlys. At the time it came to resolve the war, Japan was forced to remove itself from various occupied areas including but not limited to Korea, China, and Pacific Islands. For instance in the Cairo Declaration it was stated that: "Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent." Note that here the United States, Britain and China together recognized Manchuria, Taiwan and the islands off of Taiwan as Chinese. Japan would need to extricate itself from Korea. The Qing Dynasty, before the war, had explored and occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys - to a minimal degree, since it had never become a great naval power. Indeed, there are a number of instances of Vietnam and China 'trading' the Paracels back and forth to protect their ownership during the occupation of French Indochina. These islands had also been occupied by imperial Japan (such islands are useful in naval warfare), who was forced to remove itself. The Potsdam Declaration reads "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." These islands were very limited indeed, did not include the Paracels/Spratlys and it should be noted that they do not include the Kurils (something today that the Americans would like to revise history on). Similarly, section (f) of article 2 of the Potsdam Treaty reads of Japan: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands." What we have is a situation where the Philippines never had administration or territorial claims to these islands and where the Qing Dynasty had. In the post-war period, China was not only weak, but could not spend much patrolling the South China Sea - and focused primarily on it's Western Front during the Cold War. Today, China is trying to build infrastructure, shipping routes and naval security in this area. This is important to China because of its historical vulnerability to naval embargo, through the Strait of Malacca and elsewhere. The United States had hoped, because of weak territorial enforcement during the postwar period, to make an issue over the ownership of the islands and waters as part of a geopolitical effort to limit the expansion of Chinese influence in an area historically militarily dominated by US projection (it's own National Security concerns pertaining to its continued naval access to potential adversaries and compeditors). The bulwark of that effort was an attempt to build an Asian consensus, centered around the Philippines (an important US ally and prior colony). However, the effort failed, with states in Asia fracturing in opinion and not willing to commit themselves to a United States led effort to persist its power projection in that way. This is still evolving of course, but the future looks rather dim with the Philippines (the keystone of the project) backing away.
  - majormajor 10y ago
    > Note that here the United States, Britain and China together recognized Manchuria, Taiwan and the islands off of Taiwan as Chinese. Japan would need to extricate itself from Korea. Doesn't this ignore a long-running civil war around the same time that has some relevance to Taiwan's situation? Namely, which Chinese government was Japan giving Taiwan back too?
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      Yes absolutely the Taiwanese situation is complicated by inter-Chinese conflict. The official US position (shared by most of the world) is that Taiwan is Chinese territory. The settlement on that issue is that Taiwan will be fully and formally enveloped into the mainland, along with Hong Kong, the 2040s (IIRC). The US (and most of the world) does not recognize Taiwan as an independent sovereignty. Think Puerto Rico.
      - majormajor 10y ago
        Yes, but my point was that this wasn't all some simple thing going back to a post-WWII treaty that was now being complicated by a US imperialist media bubble. The current official position came about decades later and is additionally complicated by the unofficial relations between the US and the two being quite different. On a completely not-realpolitik-based personal side of things, having spent some time in all three of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, a forced eventual unification feels rather sad if it comes with the greater globalized monoculture that the mainland currently has.
        jwtadvice 10y ago
        All treaties, settlements and borders are subject to be changed. It's simply a fact. It is entirely possible that, in a war or as a settlement, or under pressure, or by sale/trade, or by volunteer Russia will give the Kurils to Japan, or the United States will revise its position on Taiwan or Hong Kong (you've already see a Trump Administration send the signal he's willing to do this). These relations are complicated, as various decisions made by different sovereignties will be replied to, can spoil relationships, can spoil trust, etc. A nation can also ruin its reputation by being 'too flippant' in recognizing territory until its not convenient to do so any more. There's a giant fuzzy 'you-have-to-be-able-to-tell-the-future' calculus that is done in simulating various choices on how to proceed with sovereign decisions, as effects can be quite wide ranging. America flipping its opinion on the sovereignty of the former British colony Hong Kong or on the civil war safehaven Taiwan, would represent a huge and damaging departure in relations with China. The United States may do such a thing, but would only do it if the 'realpolitik' calculus allowed it to risk - or wanted it to aggress - a war. There's never a simple thing in geopolitics. We can only look to history, to policies and treaties and to potential outcomes to explain and predict. The United States breaking with long standing treaties would be huge news in this regard.

EliRivers 10y ago

It seems that the Vietnamese media bubble does the same, then. As does the Philippine media bubble, the Malay media bubble, the Brunei media bubble, and everyone else in the region who has just watched China annex the ocean off their shore.

jwtadvice 10y ago
This is a mischaracterization of the Vietnamese press, Malay press, Philippine press, etc. I've seen plenty of articles criticizing the Philippine and US behavior in the South China Sea from these countries, and indeed the Philippines has for the most part stopped pressing their claim. Mostly, Japan and the United States don't want it to happen. You'll see their bubble selectively translate and report on Thai, Vietnamese, etc press. I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. The United States had hoped to build a uniform front and accusation against China, with the Philippines at the center. That effort failed. And it's getting to be nearly a year. In any case, you seem to take exception with the 'bubble accusation'. We can talk about that, if you like, but I would be interested in talking about the various declarations and treaties at the end of WWII.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. I think you're lying. I don't think you're sorry. I think this is childish, passive-aggressive bullshit from someone who knows how to act like an adult but somehow can't resist acting like a child. Here's how a grown man states what you were trying to say; "There's not such a uniform voice as you think across the different nations you mentioned." For God's sake, grow up. You seem to have some actual facts to present, but a childish tone undermines everything.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    Here is a source, dated in the May of this year, in which policy wonks (Julian Ku, Fravel, Malcohm Cook) discuss the situation in the South China Sea and United States Freedom of Navigation Operations ("FONOPs"). http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-operations-in-the-south-china-sea-arent-enough-unclos-fonop-philippines-tribunal/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-op... This isn't an outlier in reporting on the situation in the South China Sea: reporting - and the diplomacy - emphasizes the need for the United States to find allies and to build a consensus of Asian countries. The response from those would-be-allied Asian countries, the policy wonks discuss, has been ambivilent at best. They link to an article in which the Indonesian government criticizes the US for power projection and calls on the US and China to 'restrain themselves'. The Indonesian response in this regard was not an outlier. Much of the advice to US diplomats was that the FONOPs needed to be changed because the aggressive nature of the military projection undercut the narrative that China was the bully. Advice on changing the operations included doing them silently without much public coverage, or trying to build a coalition so that the US wouldn't 'sail alone'. (The US was unable to build such a coalition.) There's a lot to say in this regard. I think your comment(s) are highly constructive, I take seriously what you say, and have been upvoting them.

lacampbell 10y ago

It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. And Formosa and the Pescadores are today governed by the by the Republic of China, at least.