5 ms·

Crazy as it sounds, Western nations colonized the island of Taiwan, which had a native population, China didn't - it wasn't interested. But should China's lack

Crazy as it sounds, Western nations colonized the island of Taiwan, which had a native population, China didn't - it wasn't interested. But should China's lack of appetite for colonization back then be penalized? Rather than rewriting history now, I think China would do far better to blatantly object to any rules defining sea territories based on what small islands the nations who were eager to colonize managed to seize, back when; and instead argue that taking the population densities in the area is reasonable when divying up the sea. That's their real point, and it's a pretty good one. The trouble with inventing claims and shoving military forces into places you'd like to have now, is that there's no end to it. It's a promise of eternal war. Eternal irredentism and revanchism. Bound to make 'em unpopular. China could make a legitimate argument, in my view, but even now they aren't bothering to do that. Pity. I'd rather China invited other nations to discuss creating a law of the sea that's more reasonable than "small island theory" that comes down to us from colonial times.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
> That's their real point, and it's a pretty good one. I don’t think that is china’s point at all. China also defines national waters with a much larger buffer than most other countries, including the USA.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  It's not their stated point, but if there's another rationalization, I can't imagine it. They feel their large population entitles them to more - I don't think they're wrong about that.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Well, they think they should have more than their neighbors if the nine dashed line is any indication (we don't believe in 100 km, except for other countries so...). Note that those countries in the SCS are much more densely populated than China, and double especially where the conflicts occur (they have millions and millions of people living on the line, china has like a garrison on small artificially buffed islands). If they do claim that as a rationalization, the cognitive dissonance to dismiss the hypocrisy must be amazing. However, I've never heard them make such a rationalization before, and I don't think they have.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      Dense, not nec huge populations -but you're right re Indonesia, it has a huge population. But isn't much affected.
      - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia are all very populated and rather dense.
        Nomentatus 8y ago
        None of these are even in the top ten for population. So they're all dwarfed by China. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-...
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Philippines has 100 million people. Vietnam has 90 million people. Malaysia has 30 millions. None of these are big countries area wise, they are all located very close to the SCS, much closer than Hainan’s 8 million.
        Nomentatus 8y ago
        In other words, the Philippines has less than 10 per cent of China's population. Dwarfed. This doesn't contradict them not even being in the top ten. re SCS, I haven't mentioned or endorsed any precise boundary.
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        The population of all these countries is pretty much in the vicinity of seas disputed. The population of China is pretty much not (Hainan is one of the least populated provinces).
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > They feel their large population entitles them to more What do you base that on? > I don't think they're wrong about that. Should international law depend on what people think? In every situation, we can find people who think all sorts of things. I think law works better when it's based on fair rules. I don't think a large population gives anyone the right seize territory from others. I think that's an awful idea, and i can't think of one legal principle that agrees. Should the US get to seize parts of Canada? China parts of Russia?
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      Circling - as said above I base that on not knowing any alternative. Should we listen to what you think? I think even I get an opinion and fairness that ignores numbers needs some justification. Seizing is a different topic - I was the one who said following the seizing small islands theory of sea law was a bad idea, remember?
rqs 8y ago
> I'd rather China invited other nations to discuss creating a law of the sea that's more reasonable than "small island theory" that comes down to us from colonial times. How about "Set aside dispute and pursue joint development"[0]? I think one thing you are right about is besides "joint development", we do need a regional LAW (rather than just an agreement) to completely settle the whole South China Sea thing. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/3604_665547/t18023.shtml http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/36...
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Absolutely not. Condition 2 (bottom) insists any settlement of law NOT be undertaken, but "postponed" - indefinitely one assumes. Much less any new treaty for the law of the sea undertaken.
  - rqs 8y ago
    I assume the "postponed" in condition 2 at that time actually means no body should legalize the ownership for themself one-sided, until solution is found. Personally, I hope neighbors around the South China Sea can eventually found a way to share the area once and for all without causing new conflict. Many treasures has been turned into shitty hot potatoes because of that sea already, that needs to stop.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      It means de facto ownership and ignoring the legal determination of the United Nations that's already been handed down. It's a kind of "Give me your car and I'll let you borrow it sometimes." offer.
      - rqs 8y ago
        > "Give me your car and I'll let you borrow it sometimes." Maybe this is a little over-simplified? Too many histories need to be dig into before the problem can be explained and understood completely. Let's hope those politicians will figure out how to solve it.
forapurpose 8y ago
> Western nations colonized the island of Taiwan, which had a native population, China didn't - it wasn't interested. I don't think any Western country settled Taiwan, ever. The Netherlands controlled it for ~40 years in the 17th century, but that's as close as it comes. Taiwan was a frontier of China, with a native population, for much of history. Exiles of all sorts would set up there. Japan (not a Western country) effective forced China to cede it at the end of the 19th century, and ruled Taiwan until losing it in WWII. A few years later, the latest exiles, the Nationalists, fled there upon losing the civil war with the Communists. The government they created has controlled Taiwan since then.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Other Western nations came in after that. Interesting history. Then finally China and Japan got interested. I've read a book entirely devoted to the history of the island.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > Other Western nations came in after that. Which ones and when? I'm pretty certain that isn't the case.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      Spain had colonized it earlier still. But my point of course was that the Europeans were the first colonizers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Formosa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Formosa
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        It was at essentially the same time and they were driven out by the Dutch, and thus didn't seem worth mentioning. Regarding the rest, I stand by what I said above.
        8y ago

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

> That's their real point, and it's a pretty good one. I don’t think that is china’s point at all. China also defines national waters with a much larger buffer than most other countries, including the USA.

Nomentatus 8y ago
It's not their stated point, but if there's another rationalization, I can't imagine it. They feel their large population entitles them to more - I don't think they're wrong about that.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Well, they think they should have more than their neighbors if the nine dashed line is any indication (we don't believe in 100 km, except for other countries so...). Note that those countries in the SCS are much more densely populated than China, and double especially where the conflicts occur (they have millions and millions of people living on the line, china has like a garrison on small artificially buffed islands). If they do claim that as a rationalization, the cognitive dissonance to dismiss the hypocrisy must be amazing. However, I've never heard them make such a rationalization before, and I don't think they have.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    Dense, not nec huge populations -but you're right re Indonesia, it has a huge population. But isn't much affected.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      Phillipines, Vietnam, Malaysia are all very populated and rather dense.
      - Nomentatus 8y ago
        None of these are even in the top ten for population. So they're all dwarfed by China. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-...
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Philippines has 100 million people. Vietnam has 90 million people. Malaysia has 30 millions. None of these are big countries area wise, they are all located very close to the SCS, much closer than Hainan’s 8 million.
        Nomentatus 8y ago
        In other words, the Philippines has less than 10 per cent of China's population. Dwarfed. This doesn't contradict them not even being in the top ten. re SCS, I haven't mentioned or endorsed any precise boundary.
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        The population of all these countries is pretty much in the vicinity of seas disputed. The population of China is pretty much not (Hainan is one of the least populated provinces).
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > They feel their large population entitles them to more What do you base that on? > I don't think they're wrong about that. Should international law depend on what people think? In every situation, we can find people who think all sorts of things. I think law works better when it's based on fair rules. I don't think a large population gives anyone the right seize territory from others. I think that's an awful idea, and i can't think of one legal principle that agrees. Should the US get to seize parts of Canada? China parts of Russia?
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    Circling - as said above I base that on not knowing any alternative. Should we listen to what you think? I think even I get an opinion and fairness that ignores numbers needs some justification. Seizing is a different topic - I was the one who said following the seizing small islands theory of sea law was a bad idea, remember?

rqs 8y ago

> I'd rather China invited other nations to discuss creating a law of the sea that's more reasonable than "small island theory" that comes down to us from colonial times. How about "Set aside dispute and pursue joint development"[0]? I think one thing you are right about is besides "joint development", we do need a regional LAW (rather than just an agreement) to completely settle the whole South China Sea thing. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/3604_665547/t18023.shtml http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/36...

Nomentatus 8y ago
Absolutely not. Condition 2 (bottom) insists any settlement of law NOT be undertaken, but "postponed" - indefinitely one assumes. Much less any new treaty for the law of the sea undertaken.
- rqs 8y ago
  I assume the "postponed" in condition 2 at that time actually means no body should legalize the ownership for themself one-sided, until solution is found. Personally, I hope neighbors around the South China Sea can eventually found a way to share the area once and for all without causing new conflict. Many treasures has been turned into shitty hot potatoes because of that sea already, that needs to stop.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    It means de facto ownership and ignoring the legal determination of the United Nations that's already been handed down. It's a kind of "Give me your car and I'll let you borrow it sometimes." offer.
    - rqs 8y ago
      > "Give me your car and I'll let you borrow it sometimes." Maybe this is a little over-simplified? Too many histories need to be dig into before the problem can be explained and understood completely. Let's hope those politicians will figure out how to solve it.

forapurpose 8y ago

> Western nations colonized the island of Taiwan, which had a native population, China didn't - it wasn't interested. I don't think any Western country settled Taiwan, ever. The Netherlands controlled it for ~40 years in the 17th century, but that's as close as it comes. Taiwan was a frontier of China, with a native population, for much of history. Exiles of all sorts would set up there. Japan (not a Western country) effective forced China to cede it at the end of the 19th century, and ruled Taiwan until losing it in WWII. A few years later, the latest exiles, the Nationalists, fled there upon losing the civil war with the Communists. The government they created has controlled Taiwan since then.

Nomentatus 8y ago
Other Western nations came in after that. Interesting history. Then finally China and Japan got interested. I've read a book entirely devoted to the history of the island.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > Other Western nations came in after that. Which ones and when? I'm pretty certain that isn't the case.
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    Spain had colonized it earlier still. But my point of course was that the Europeans were the first colonizers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Formosa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Formosa
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      It was at essentially the same time and they were driven out by the Dutch, and thus didn't seem worth mentioning. Regarding the rest, I stand by what I said above.
      - 8y ago