South China Sea Forum

[Viet]

China controls the Spratlys and the rest of the South China Sea. See the two video citations below from "Russia Today." Surely, your eyes can see the proof. No amount of text from you Viets can change the truth. The PLA Navy is the master of the Spratlys and the South China Sea.

----------

Two critical facts

1. The islands and seas within China's nine-dashed-lines map were discovered and claimed by China 2,000 years ago. China was the first discoverer and claimant of the South China Seas.

You can read about China's historical claims to the South China Seas over the last 2,000 years in the Chinese imperial dynastic records. There are also plenty of Chinese shipwrecks, buried bones, and buried artifacts (including wells) within the nine-dashed-lines map. China was there first and it belongs to them.

2. Among the South China Sea claimants, only one of the countries has a real navy (see videos below).

Combining points #1 (e.g. only China is the legitimate owner) and #2 (e.g. only China has the naval power to back its claims), it is clear that only China can claim sovereignty over the South China Seas.

-------....

I am telling you facts here:

First, Vietnam doesn´t care of your lawless claim. We continue to exploit oil and gas within our EEZ waters, while China not anything in your so-called 9-dash-line. China navy does not control the SC sea. Your vessels sail through usually for 1 week or 2 and return home. Our navy and aircraft units patrol regulary the region.

Second, you are free to fire the first shot.

pic from economist.com

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Vietnamese historical revisionists are so scary and misguided revolting. You are not the successor state to Nanyue, because it was a state founded by a Qin dynasty military commander (Zhao Tuo). You are a rebel province which wanted to escape "Chinese imperialism", and then hypocritically decided to imperialize and annex the independent Champa Kingdom.

Zhao Tuo was born in Hebei province in northern China.

No amount of historical revisionism could possibly turn him into a Vietnamese.

 

[Rechoice]

The key here is Vietnam. If ASEAN can influence Vietnam to dismiss her claims on SCS, which are almost similar to China's, I think China will soften her stance. But it's an unlikely scenario though.

Islands belong to Vietnam from long time in the past without troubles with neighbors, The Complete Map of the Unified Dai Nam indicated that "Hoang Sa" and "Van Ly Truong Sa" are Vietnamese territories. These islands were depicted to be further offshore compared to those near the Central coast.

 

[Rechoice]

Zhao Tuo was born in Hebei province in northern China.

No amount of historical revisionism could possibly turn him into a Vietnamese.

In June 1776, Thomas Jefferson declared "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", he was English in native, but he is founder of USA and USA became independence state splited from UK, England.
It's nothing wrong here, if Zhiao Tuo was Han chinese, Nanyue should be independence state and became member of UN.

 

[Raphael]

In June 1776, Thomas Jefferson declared "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", he was English in native, but he is founder of USA and USA became independence state splited from UK, England.

Thomas Jefferson was (one) founder of the USA, a sovereign state which, from the perspective of international law, still exists 2.5 centuries later. So we don't even need to talk about succession of states here. But you can't connect Nanyue to any subsequent Viet state. Nanyue was completely annexed by the Han dynasty, and any Viet state that emerged centuries later did so from a Chinese dynasty.

And the other important distinction is that Jefferson (and other Founding Fathers) wanted to create a new country with that was culturally and philosophically distinct from Britain. Zhao Tuo's Nanyue was intent on sinicizing the region. His most important policy achievement was introducing Chinese culture, language, writing, agriculture, bureaucracy. It's so absurd and masochistic for you to claim a state that was intent on erasing the primitive tribal "Viet" culture of the natives.

 

[Viet]

The key here is Vietnam. If ASEAN can influence Vietnam to dismiss her claims on SCS, which are almost similar to China's, I think China will soften her stance. But it's an unlikely scenario though.

Have you heard the latest news?

Kim Jung Un wants to US to cede Guam to N. Korea. So pls feel free and do it, I think Uncle Kim will soften the tone against the United States.

 

[Maxtini]

As is clear by the declaration of the respective claimants that none of them are willing to subject themselves to UNCLOS when they feels that their sovereignty is infringe upon.

The UNCLOS is not legal binding as long as one of the claimant is unwilling to subject themselves to it. Hence the UNCLOS look to me more like a political/propaganda tools that is used whenever it suit any of the claimant. And it is unlikely that UNCLOS is a practical solution to the problem.

Once ratified, a treaty/convention/agreement will be legally binding regardless of what individual country intrepret. A country may choose to ignore the treaty, but with consequences that might tarnish its commitment and honour.

You also need to differentiate between valid dispute arising from overlap EEZ permissible under UNCLOS with that dispute of arbitrary claim of non complaiant with UNCLOS (China's U-shaped claim). The former is legally compliant with UNCLOS, while the later isn't.

As far as i know, most signatory parties of UNCLOS have been so far complied with UNCLOS in laying their EEZ claim. Dispute arises where two countries EEZ overlap with each other, but both claim are stil valid under UNCLOS. The Malaysian, philippines, and Bruneian claims are valid under UNCLOS, although the claims overlap each other. In fact they are no known countries that try to claim EEZ beyond what is permissible under UNCLOS with the exception of China's and Vietnam's claim. Even US has been so far does not claim beyond UNCLOS 200 nm EEZ limit despite its non ratifying status.

Seeveral countries have been successful in resolving EEZ dispute under UNCLOS. Examples are: India/Bangladesh/Myanmar dispute over Bay of Bengal, Vietnam/Indonesia EEZ dispute over north Natuna Sea, Indonesia/Australia EEZ boundaries, Norway/Russia Svalbard dispute. I dont think with this ample examples could you say that UNCLOS is not legally binding.

 

[terranMarine]

at the end of invasion of Chinese, your ancestors ran away, forget It ? let Mongolian and Mancus rule you, it was enough.

Still can't explain why you can't grab Xisha back eh after your many victories eh?

 

[jhungary]

Claiming reefs/rocks/banks on South China Sea is of course different matter, but claiming the sea surrounding them is the matter of UNCLOS. The problem with China is that their U-shaped claim does not simply based on the islands within SCS nor comply with UNCLOS. There are several studies that analyze and explore several scenarios of "what happen if spratly and paracel islands actually entitled EEZ". Their calculation showed that China's claim exceed what is entitled under UNCLOS.

You are right, but from what the Chinese Claim, the UNCLOS present a double Jeapordy case here.

Chinese claim the land are theirs or the land are the extension of their seabed, so it's obiviously the 9 *** line is the extent of what all that island expanded. (If the landmass are their's, then each island would have an extended EEZ on each and every island they claim.)

For UNCLOS to work, China need to first proof the island are there in the first place, if so, then the EEZ expansion is legally under internatonal law defined. If not, if the island does not belong to the Chinese, then Chinese cannot have the EEZ extented over these island chain.

However, UNCLOS only come into play when China extented their intention to expand their EEZ by more than 200nm, say they want to set their EEZ to 400nm, then they are bounded by UNCLOS, otherwise it's a matter of international border dispute.
Bear in mind, EEZ still consider "International Water" there are no national boundary in one's EEZ. You cannot claim the EEZ is yours unless you have a land mass that mark the coastal boundary, that's where those rock are coming in to plays.

YOU CANNOT OWN AN EXCLUISIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AS IT COUNTED AS INTERNATIONAL WATER UNDER UNCLOS

If you look at the EEZ of the Philippine you would know the Northern island Chain of Philippine serve as the extension of the EEZ with them marked as national boundry. Without those island chain, their EEZ cannot exceed 200nm (It's nearly 400 with the island chain). It's the same case in SCS, if they can proof the Island is theirs, then they can proof that was their EEZ, it's simple as that.

Notice how Cordillera Administrative region in philippine expanded their EEZ beyond 200nm? It's the same claim the Chinese are using. It's always about the land, not about the EEZ. If you have the land, you WILL have the EEZ

 

[jhungary]

The key here is Vietnam. If ASEAN can influence Vietnam to dismiss her claims on SCS, which are almost similar to China's, I think China will soften her stance. But it's an unlikely scenario though.

i wonder why ASEAN want to influence Vietnam to dismiss their claim?? China wasn't even part of ASEAN to begin with...

 

[jhungary]

In June 1776, Thomas Jefferson declared "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", he was English in native, but he is founder of USA and USA became independence state splited from UK, England.
It's nothing wrong here, if Zhiao Tuo was Han chinese, Nanyue should be independence state and became member of UN.

Thomas Jefferson was (one) founder of the USA, a sovereign state which, from the perspective of international law, still exists 2.5 centuries later. So we don't even need to talk about succession of states here. But you can't connect Nanyue to any subsequent Viet state. Nanyue was completely annexed by the Han dynasty, and any Viet state that emerged centuries later did so from a Chinese dynasty.

And the other important distinction is that Jefferson (and other Founding Fathers) wanted to create a new country with that was culturally and philosophically distinct from Britain. Zhao Tuo's Nanyue was intent on sinicizing the region. His most important policy achievement was introducing Chinese culture, language, writing, agriculture, bureaucracy. It's so absurd and masochistic for you to claim a state that was intent on erasing the primitive tribal "Viet" culture of the natives.

Technically speaking, Thomas Jefferson was STATELESS when he founded America. The moment he fought British Troop, he is committing treason, he stopped being a Briton the moment he fired on his own man. Hence he is not a Brits for about a year before or immediately before he founded United States....Depending on how you defined "Treason"

Not much value into this but just making things right and try to preserve history

 

[longyi]

i wonder why ASEAN want to influence Vietnam to dismiss their claim?? China wasn't even part of ASEAN to begin with...

Isn't it obvious? One of the most important reason China is sticking to the 9-*** line claim is because Vietnam is claiming almost the same and occupies most of the rocks in the area. This action shows Vietnam's motive on SCS is not benign. These sea lanes are, unarguably, the most important sea routes for Chinese merchant fleets and there's no way China's going to allow Vietnam, oe any country for that matter, to have hegemony by building military assets over this area. The claim will allow China options to take actions if she feels anyone is taking over SCS.

If ASEAN countries want peace in these water, in which is coincide with China's aim, they must deal with one of their ambitious member first. If Vietnam gives up on her SCS claim I'm sure China will follow suit. For China those oil under the seabed is not as important as having good relationships with ASEAN. Frankly I think most of them know what the situation is but no one wants to be the bad guy to talk with the Viets.

 

[Rechoice]

Still can't explain why you can't grab Xisha back eh after your many victories eh?

Islands are part of Vietnam territory, China can't swallow our Islands, we will take back with force if peaceful negotiation is fail. It's clear for you.

 

[NiceGuy]

Still can't explain why you can't grab Xisha back eh after your many victories eh?

Paracel is just a group of small rocks,no strategic position,as long as China cant drill oil there,then u can keep controling those useless rocks

 

[NiceGuy]

Isn't it obvious? One of the most important reason China is sticking to the 9-*** line claim is because Vietnam is claiming almost the same and occupies most of the rocks in the area. This action shows Vietnam's motive on SCS is not benign. These sea lanes are, unarguably, the most important sea routes for Chinese merchant fleets and there's no way China's going to allow Vietnam, oe any country for that matter, to have hegemony by building military assets over this area. The claim will allow China options to take actions if she feels anyone is taking over SCS.

If ASEAN countries want peace in these water, in which is coincide with China's aim, they must deal with one of their ambitious member first. If Vietnam gives up on her SCS claim I'm sure China will follow suit. For China those oil under the seabed is not as important as having good relationships with ASEAN. Frankly I think most of them know what the situation is but no one wants to be the bad guy to talk with the Viets.

Want us to give up our claim?so,try to defeat us....but China's amry is too weak,you Chinese only win VN with Ah Q's 'spiritual victory'

The fate of ur economy is in our hand now,accept it,no choice for u