10 ms·
China's Island Factory – New islands being made in disputed China Sea
- adventured 12y agoEvery time I see discussion about the nine dash line, I can't help but wonder how it can seem sane to anybody that China should have the water rights to an area ~600 km south of what is blatantly Vietnam's coastal waters (and the southern tip of their land) and just barely north of Malaysia's physical territory. I know the correct answer is: China doesn't care, and isn't concerned with reason when it comes to the nine dash line. It still boggles my mind. There is no valid Chinese claim on those waters, there is only who has the military power to dictate terms.
- anigbrowl 12y agoTo quote a Chinese official from a few years ago 'Vietnam is a small country and China is a big country and that is just a fact.'
- melling 12y agoSo, what you are saying is that every time we buy something that's "Made in China", we are fueling the next major military power, which in turn will lead to a major conflict in the area?
- paulrosenzweig 12y agoI'll still likely get the iPhone 6.
- anigbrowl 12y agoI meant it more as a summary of China's strategic philosophy, which seems to be that the weak must inevitably give way to the strong. I don't know about a major military conflict, but China certainly seems to to be adopting a more...experimental posture.
- melling 12y agoWeak is a relative term, right? Vietnam is "weak". How about the other countries in the region? Japan? Russia? I don't think it's called experimental when you flex your military muscle.
- anigbrowl 12y agoOther countries in the South China sea are mostly weak too, other than Japan. The big factor is the United States, due to its treaty relations with other countries in the area like Philippines, Japan and Taiwan. But you know that. I'm calling it experimental because they seem to be exploring their options rather than seeking head-on confrontation in the manner of Putin - I get the sense that China is not sure of its strategic position and is probing to see whether it could establish a 'new normal' without actual conflict. But that's just a hunch on my part, I have no special insight.
- josefresco 12y agoOr... you could say that every time you buy something "Made in China" you're solidifying the co-dependent relationship between the US and China, thereby reducing the chance of conflict in the future.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoVietnam fared fairly well against China the last time they fought over Cambodia.
- jonyt 12y agoIt wasn't that clear cut the last time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
- xnull2guest 12y agoAlmost exactly the tactic and politics Israel uses. If there's violent conflict, the lesser power is 'terrorist' and this justifies the use of greater militaristic power to squelch the rebellion. If there's no violent conflict the greater power continues to push into the area it wants and plays coy with the politics for recognizing the other state's legitimacy.
- fsiefken 12y agowhy was the above voted down? what's wrong with the parallel with Israel's settlement policy?
- philosophus 12y ago"there is only who has the military power to dictate terms." That's generally how these things work, yes. What were you expecting?
- adventured 12y agoThat's exactly what I was expecting.
- peteretep 12y agoDevil's advocate: if you say the Spratly Islands are Chinese, then the line makes pretty good sense.
- chj 12y agoJust think about Falkland Islands.
- ultraboy 12y agoTerritorial claims is NOT base on distance.Is Hawaii to far to be a state of the us?
- melling 12y agoDoes the US claim all the ocean between the west coast and Hawaii? No, because it's too far from land.
- akfanta 12y agoI am not sure where you are going here. China didn't claim all the ocean either, they want the islands.
- redguard 12y agoAre you Chinese red guard? China does claim the ocean area. See the hilarious map here: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54145000/gif/_54145268__48951920_south_china-sea_1_466-1.gif http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54145000/gif/_54145268...
- briandh 12y agoNo. They want the islands as a means to claim the surrounding waters, which which have a lot of real and potential value in fisheries, sea lanes, and offshore oil. The islands themselves are not very valuable.
- BrandonMarc 12y ago... also worth mention: they're not too happy with the US Navy operating freely within the South China Sea, even if the rest of the world calls it "international waters". The red line in the map is what they'd rather keep a powerful non-China navy out of, for both defensive and offensive reasons.
- mason240 12y agoWhat is being unsaid here is that the whole reason China needs those islands is because their territorial waters are completely surrounded by other countries. In order for Chinese ships to reach the open Pacific, they have to go through either Russian, Japanese, Philippine, or Vietnamese waters. Getting these islands mean they get an outlet to open seas.
- ekianjo 12y ago> there is only who has the military power to dictate terms. Yeah, just like the American invasion of Iraq in 2004. Just because they could, despite it being unlawful at all international levels. But hey, Russia also does it, so there's not really any good example out there of a country that does not seize opportunities.
- mikeyouse 12y ago> Yeah, just like the American invasion of Iraq in 2004. The US war in Iraq started in March, 2003.
- ekianjo 12y agoAlright, I was one year off.
- justin66 12y agoThe United States never made a territorial claim to any part of Iraq.
- ekianjo 12y agoWhen you come with a large army, invade the country, remove the local government, and replace it with puppets working for your country's interests, "territorial claim" is just a twist of words.
- justin66 12y agoSorry, but that's stupid on a number of levels. First, territorial claims can be made with or without war, the later of which is (thankfully!) what we're actually talking about with China and the islands. Second, anyone who thinks that the government in Iraq has been a puppet of the United States just isn't paying attention. I get it, you don't like the United States, but you're desperately trying to draw equivalencies that do not exist. It's been a really long time since the US annexed anything. That doesn't make the loss of life that occurs in its small wars any less serious but you cannot talk about international events if you lump everything bad that happens in the world into the same ill-defined category and then use whatever labels you have at hand to refer to that category. Annexation isn't invasion. They might be associated - Russia annexed Crimea after an invasion, after all - but they're not the same thing. If simply using terms properly doesn't move you, then there's this: you can tell a lot about a county's ambitions based on what its territorial disputes are and what it's trying to acquire. In this annexation = invasion world that you're inhabiting, you'd conclude that the United States wants to colonize the Middle East. I assure you that this is not the case. We just want to buy their oil, aside from that we don't give a damn about them. Not saying whether that's smart or ethical or not, but that's the reality.
- est 12y agoThe problem is not China, you should see everyone else's claims. Vietnam's claimed and occupied islands are just as ridiculous as China's. In fact ASEAN could not stand together against China in this case is exactly because every country around South China Sea has conflicting claims. BBC is trying to avoid this as much as possible. Facts are hard, Let's just blame bad China.
- JDShu 12y agoI was very surprised when I found this out. It makes sense though - just like in any negotiation, you don't start with what you're willing to settle for, you start with what you want. In general, there are always two sides to the coin. Where from an American perspective you see Chinese aggression outwards, if you flip the arrows on the map around, you might notice that from a Chinese perspective, the US is aggressively boxing China in.
- HowardMei 12y agoYou nailed the point. The continuous expansion of the Japan-US ADIZ(Air Defense Identification Zone) in east China sea in past decades could reflect a lot of things never will be mentioned in English media.
- akfanta 12y ago> In general, there are always two sides to the coin This exactly. Media blames China for everything that went wrong on this planet, and people believe it without thinking twice. It's funny because as a Chinese, I thought we were supposed to be the only one that got brainwashed.
- trhway 12y ago>there is only who has the military power to dictate terms. officially it is called "international law"
- HowardMei 12y agoSouth China sea had been the traditional 'naval silk road' of ancient Imperial China for hundreds years while both China and the neighboring tribes/countries under tributary system hadn't learned the concept 'nation' from the western colonists. Since 17th century, a few islands had been controlled by various western countries and more had been marked or renamed.But the pirates, armed merchants and provincial navy of imperial China were still the dominant power in the area for a long time. Chinese people totally lost control of it after the Sino-French war which changed the geopolitical status drastically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-French_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-French_War The nine-dash line stems from the eleven-dash line when ROC was the ally of the US after WWII and was accepted as the transferee of those islands from Japanese army who had acquired them from France/Great Britain. But the ROC were too eager to fight back to the mainland instead of sending naval troops to guard those islands.It just chose one island Taiping as a strong point. The unattended reefs and islands have been occupied by various countries in all kinds of sneaky/funny ways merely in past 30 years after the US-Vietnam war. The validity argument makes no sense in this 'occupy and claim to own' game. Every country is a thief and the biggest is Vietnam whose navy had been more powerful than China's with the support from the former USSR during the PRC-USSR conflict. Maybe the ROC in Taiwan should be the rightful owner according to the arrangement after WWII. But it is too weak to say anything now. The whole history of the area is a vivid example of military power dictates terms.
- anigbrowl 12y agoThat's just wild. The Economist has been covering this territorial dispute in detail for the last couple of years, worth keeping up with if you are interested in the subject.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- mje__ 12y agoFascinating article. I also really enjoyed the presentation - the mix of writing, video and images worked well together. This is the first time I've seen the "BBC Magazine", and the experience is great.
- chdir 12y agoMore than the article, I enjoyed the presentation. The whole design is very intricately woven together with various media elements. I loved the style but at the same time I was slightly annoyed by not being in control (probably the auto changing images with scroll was slightly over the top). I wonder how's the user experience with others.
- kissickas 12y agoI had the opposite experience; usually I can't stand when a website tries to do something novel with my scrolling, but here all they did was update to a more relevant map alongside the text, for example. I was a bit too ecstatic to see that.
- onethree 12y agoon mobile (android), it was absolutely awful, every few scrolls it took over my screen and started automatically playing a video. if i wanted to watch the video in your article, i would press play, don't force it upon me
- westiseast 12y agoThe software they used (shorthand.com) says it's in private beta - I'm sure they'd appreciate feedback. Otherwise on a laptop it was fantastic.
- oska 12y agoAre you using the stock Android browser? I found it presented well on Firefox for Android. And I didn't have trouble with the videos playing automatically, something which I also hate.
- 12y ago
- laoshuni 12y agoA nice and neutral report by British, Japanese, etc
- pankajdoharey 12y agoSouth China Sea Has oil , and china will do anything to take over the area. China has been making claims of Arunachal Pradesh India for years, since it has high concentration of gas and shale oil deposits.
- kissickas 12y agoI get that environmental concerns don't affect anything here, but are any of these coral reefs? Or are they just areas with shallow water?
- BrandonMarc 12y agoThey're all coral reefs.
- veidr 12y agoI've watched with fascination as the Japanese Senkaku islands slowly and gradually came to be labeled 'disputed' in the western media, after China's recent claims. It seems like China has figured out a way to hack the media (the free media outside of China, I mean -- the government there obviously has root on Chinese TV and newspapers). Japanese ownership of this territory is basically as settled under international law as anything of this nature can be; the islands have been held by Japan since the 1800s, then controlled by the USA for a time after it defeated Japan in WWII, and eventually returned to Japan along with the return of Okinawa.[1] But after China's slow and steady media campaign, it has somehow become widely reported as 'disputed territory'. (Which it is in a meaningless and pedantic sense only.) This island-building is another hack, and maybe a clever one. Killing 70 Vietnamese soldiers in the military action in the 1980s to seize a submerged reef didn't make China look good at all. But perhaps by building new 'islands' to buttress its aggressive and expansionist claims to the territorial waters of other nations, we may end up seeing the western media in ten years uncritically reporting that "China, which has 9 islands in the disputed waters, insists that it is merely defending its territory..." Which is very important, because none of the countries whose territories China is going after -- not even Japan -- would do well in a straight up military conflict. The Philippines only hope is American protection. So the way China's aggression is covered in the western media is actually very important. Interesting times. [1]: http://csis.org/publication/japan-chair-platform-senkaku-islands-and-international-law http://csis.org/publication/japan-chair-platform-senkaku-isl...
- sdrothrock 12y ago> because none of the countries whose territories China is going after -- not even Japan -- would do well in a straight up military conflict. I'm curious about why you don't think Japan would do well in a straight-up military conflict.
- veidr 12y agoJapan's self-defense force is better-equipped, I will grant, but there are a few reasons. One is that there is always a higher level China could escalate to. I mean, in the end game they have nukes and Japan doesn't. But even if it didn't get to that level, China is a totalitarian regime with a history of brutally suppressing dissent, and I also assume that China would be willing to lose a lot more lives to make gains. Japan is a high-functioning democracy, and has been one of the most peaceful advanced economies of the world since losing the war. Before that, yeah, they were a definite bad actor on the world stage. But they haven't committed any military aggression toward any country in more than 65 years. It is my personal opinion that there is almost no way that the people of Japan (where I live, though I am American) would support a war against China. Even if China just up and landed an occupying force on Japan's Senkaku islands. In a democracy, that public support really matters. In a totalitarian regime, not so much. I don't personally know that much about the military stuff -- how much would Japan's superior equipment matter in an actual conflict -- so I'd be interested to hear more knowledgeable people chime in. But in Japan, a war with China would be politically untenable unless China like, invaded Tokyo, or something. Which is highly unlikely. As with the Philippines, I think the USA is the main deterrent to Chinese aggression. And these days it's a pretty shaky deterrent.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Dolimiter 12y agoWhen did this type of website design become acceptable? I'm starting to see it more and more. It reminds me of when "Multimedia CD-ROMs" first appeared circa mid-1990s, where flashy interfaces were ranked much higher than useability. Please stop it. Give me a webpage with text, and images that I can enlarge when clicked. Thank you.
- knowaveragejoe 12y agoDon't read much BBC I take it? Rarely if ever do they have enlargeable images.
- kgabis 12y agoThis trend is terrible, not only those webpages are hard to read, but they're also hogging CPU. I had to close a tab with it, because it reduced my remaining time on battery from 50mins to 20 mins...
- gambiting 12y agoI for one disagree completely. I think this is great and I really liked the videos, they added depth to the article.
- knowaveragejoe 12y agoSame, though I think perhaps the ideal solution is somewhere in the middle. If built with it in mind, the page should gracefully degrade to something more basic, where the videos are all optional. I can see how this would put strain on mobile devices(as another comment responding to the parent pointed out)
- dublinben 12y agoNone of the videos even loaded for me, so I guess that's graceful degradation right there.
- teamonkey 12y agoAt least it doesn't break the scroll bar
- sixQuarks 12y agoI don't like where this is all going. I've seen too often how seemingly trivial things can lead to all-out wars. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has spent a lot of treasure. The population doesn't have the desire for more war. Now Russia and China are seeing how far they can push. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel like we're seeing the beginnings of things that lead to a major war between Russia & China on one side, and the US on the other. The Fermi paradox is a reminder that we are living in very dangerous times right now.
- afterburner 12y agoNow? Nuclear World War has been a possibility for 60 years now. And 60 years ago the US was actually fighting China.
- shangxiao 12y agoYes but the threat of a nuclear war has been considerably low for the past 20 years. Now we have generations of people not knowing what it was like to live under the threat of nuclear annihilation.
- adventured 12y agoNot to mention the world keeps acquiring more nuclear powers (India, Pakistan, N. Korea), rather than reducing them. Likely more will come on board in the next decade. Such as Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and so on. I would expect another country or two to go nuclear in Asia in response to China's mighty military.
- sixQuarks 12y ago60 years is merely an eyeblink in human history, and a nanosecond in life's history. Human nature hasn't changed in 100,000 years. How many brutal leaders has the world seen, Hitler being only one. It's not a question of if, but when we will see another one. The difference this time is that he/she can destroy the entire world.
- Silhouette 12y ago
- ck2 12y agoChina is going to pull a Putin with "just try to stop us".
- ellysetaylor21 12y agoIt is more than 800 nautical miles from the Chinese coast and yet Beijing claims that this submerged reef is an integral part of Chinese territory.
- cpursley 12y agoPolitics aside, what an environmental disaster.
- bwilliams18 12y agoThis is a shitty remake of a NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/ http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-s...
- matthewwiese 12y agoVery interesting article with good reporting, love the mix of video, text, and images. Great design for a page layout too imo, the BBC seem to have taken cues from Medium.