South China Sea Forum

[mike2000 is back]

Ideologically there must be compromise in regards to these challenges since Japanese political economy is varied and eclectic with varying points of contention , especially in Government systems. The point is that as we move towards an integrated paradigm, there shall be greater joint cooperation, joint development schema , which will fundamentally change the context of territoriality for ever, in context to the East Asian Regional Praxis.

I suppose it is illustrative of the complex milieu that diplomacy and political reference leads one to appreciate. If i may draw to your own insular policies, it goes with the saying that British politicians are half way for integration with the EU , and halfway out of the EU for more inclusive multilateralism , as well as even secession ideologies, as in the case of recent Scotland-Referendum on Independence.

The EU referendum is already following the Scottish playbook, Project Fear 2.0 | Ruth Wishart | Opinion | The Guardian

Politic is not a white or black supra-spectrum, it is varied, complex, and has various sub-strata. It also requires one to appreciate each and every single independent variable of the over-arching praxis.


Regards.

Sincerely,
@Nihonjin1051

Dont really get what you mean my diplomatic friend.
Anyway as far as Japan doesnt cede the Senkakus islands to PRC or Taiwan and stop claiming Korean and Russian islands while attempting to side-step its past war crimes/revisit its comfort women issues alias 'prostitutes'/yasukuni visits etc, then I don't see the current situation changing much to be honest. These are all issues which Japan has to contend/deal with.

 

[Rechoice]

Well, every party here says SCS islands belong to them. To be honest there are just too many disputes/claimants in the region, Vietnam, China, Taiwan(who is also claimed entirely by China. Lol), Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. China vs Japan over senkakus(or Diayou some will say. Lol) , Japan vs S.Korea over Dockdo islands , Russia vs Japan over kurils islands, and recently I just found out that S.Korea also has a dispute with China over Socotra Rock(some say its also say its claimed by even Japan )..,..........old boyyyyyyy. Too compllicated...... Total confusion.

Vietnam is the first country has been taken Islands into official administration of Vietnam's Kingdom from time of Nguyen Dynasty Vietnam. There is different of our claimant over Paracel and Spratly from others parties here.

 

[ahtan_china]

Nine dashed claim is fabricated by KMT in 1948. China CPC has copied this idea from KMT. Vietnam has controlled Islands from long time ago in the past, without troubles with China.

The China + USA ally defeated Japan and wined the WWII. So the SCS was belong to China as winner. Nothing dispute

 

[dichoi]

The China + USA ally defeated Japan and wined the WWII. So the SCS was belong to China as winner. Nothing dispute

without intervention of Soviet Union who liberated Manchuria for you and two nuke dropped in Japan by USA, China is still in occupation of Japan now.

In Sans Francisco conference 1951 for treaty with Japan after WW II, claim of KMT over islands of Vietnam is rejected by voting.

Pls study more before you can troll craps here, kid.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Vietnam is the first country has been taken Islands into official administration of Vietnam's Kingdom from time of Nguyen Dynasty Vietnam. There is different of our claimant over Paracel and Spratly from others parties here.

Lol To each his own bro.

 

[ahtan_china]

without intervention of Soviet Union who liberated Manchuria for you and two nuke dropped in Japan by USA, China is still in occupation of Japan now.

In Sans Francisco conference 1951 for treaty with Japan after WW II, claim of KMT over islands of Vietnam is rejected by voting.

Pls study more before you can troll craps here, kid.

Sofar the China KMT/TAIWAN didn't gave up SCS.
Ok, It will up to your ability if the Viet will controlled SCS. Hope your Viet has enough economical/military ability to face China. Good luck.

 

[21stCentury]

Vietnam is the first country has been taken Islands into official administration of Vietnam's Kingdom from time of Nguyen Dynasty Vietnam. There is different of our claimant over Paracel and Spratly from others parties here.

"Sure, buddy"

 

[Penguin]

So a country should not have any capability to defend itself beyond its 12 nmi waters? Can you tell us where do you get this this idea from. Here in NW coast, there are hundred of 100 year old fortress that hosted cannons that had range of beyond that. Are you saying they were illegal in the first place? US has Pac -3 or THAAD with range hundreds of miles, all over the world including in the lower 48, are you telling us they are all illegal?

Being dispute is precisely the reason that need to be defended. Falkland is the dispute island between UK and Argentina, so all the defense in the islands that UK set up are illegal?

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Do you know what you're talking about. Because I don't see you showing anything in your replies that indicates you've researched the topic and treaties etc.
Again, back to basics: the sovereignty of China over Woody Island is disputed. That means that the right to put military there 'in defence of "your" territory' is in dispute.

What specific threat is there against Woody Island to warrent a 200km range SAM there? If the argument is 'its our territory and we want to be able to stop incursions in the our territory', remember that your territory ends at 12nmi at best.

Where has Thaad been operationally deployed by the US? Where has US stationed Patriot PAC-3 outside its own territory? Where has US stationed Patriot PAC-3 in disputed territoy? Also, by definition, defence against ballistic missiles demands a different kind of interception scenario (and hence range) than e.g. defence against aircraft and cruise missiles. Who'se ballistic missiles are threatening Woody island?

 

[Penguin]

Let me remind you that international law (UNCLOS) allows any country to build artificial islands as long as it is within their administrative rights to do so.

Nowhere did I say that was not the case.

A natural island or artificial is an asset, a property of a sovereign country, and that sovereign country has the right for self-defense. Whether it is subject to 12nm entitlement requires negotiation and international laws where it is allowed. We have not yet make any claim on 12nm of artificial islands. Let us remind you of that.

Article 60
Artificial islands, installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) artificial islands;
(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
(c) installations and structures which may interfere with the
exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
2. The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such artificial islands, installations and structures, including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety and immigration laws and regulations.
3. Due notice must be given of the construction of such artificial islands, installations or structures, and permanent means for giving warning of their presence must be maintained. Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation, taking into account any generally accepted international standards established in this regard by the competent international organization. Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of other States. Appropriate publicity shall be given to the depth, position and dimensions of any installations or structures not entirely removed.
4. The coastal State may, where necessary, establish reasonable safety zones around such artificial islands, installations and structures in which it may take appropriate measures to ensure the safety both of navigation and of
the artificial islands, installations and structures.
5. The breadth of the safety zones shall be determined by the coastal State, taking into account applicable international standards. Such zones shall be designed to ensure that they are reasonably related to the nature and function of the artificial islands, installations or structures, and shall not exceed a distance of 500 metres around them, measured from each point of their outer edge, except as authorized by generally accepted international standards or as recommended by the competent international organization. Due notice shall be given of the extent of safety zones.
6. All ships must respect these safety zones and shall comply with generally accepted international standards regarding navigation in the vicinity of artificial islands, installations, structures and safety zones.
7. Artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation.
8. Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic
zone or the continental shelf.

PART VIII
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Our position is always consistent with international norm and laws. There should be no double standard regarding to any state interest. An analogy to jumping of a cliff is a false statement. That is essentially telling us to watch other claimants building up islands while we stand and watch.

Just because others do brake the law, doesn't mean it is ok for you to brake the law. If that were the case, we'ld all be making money pushing dope and getting away with it.

It is never about the resources. This accusation is unacceptable. It is about protecting our sea lane from subject of intimidation on blockage, forming an intelligent network to defend national security, and to provide humanitarian aid to civilian commercial ships. I'm sure you know that too well.

So, your sea lanes are more important than those of South Korea of Japan?
And it is not about resources? Rich Resources in the South China Sea

List of your artificial islands: Category:Artificial islands of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of which well inside the 12 nmi territorial waters, as measured from mainland.
I.e. not the kind of thing we are discussion here (artificial islands in the EEZ).

 

[dichoi]

Sofar the China KMT/TAIWAN didn't gave up SCS.
Ok, It will up to your ability if the Viet will controlled SCS. Hope your Viet has enough economical/military ability to face China. Good luck.

Paracel and Spratly is Island groups in sea territory of Vietnam from long time ago . Vietnam is the first Country set up state's official administration on Islands without dispute with China in the past.

China has stolen our Islands with force recently. We have right to claim it forever. Greedy Chinese can not swallow Islands of Vietnam.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Your world maybe..

So European major powers France and U.K have a far more favourable view of China than Japanese,Vietnamese and some other Asian countries do?? @Nihonjin1051 , seems western evil propaganda backfired on its own citizens instead? Lol.
Guess there will be a eurochina union before an Asian one. Lol

 

[waz]

Lol@the EU. The place is falling apart and they are ranting on about something thousands of miles away.

 

[xunzi]

Nowhere did I say that was not the case.

Article 60
Artificial islands, installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:
(a) artificial islands;
(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;
(c) installations and structures which may interfere with the
exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.
2. The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such artificial islands, installations and structures, including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety and immigration laws and regulations.
3. Due notice must be given of the construction of such artificial islands, installations or structures, and permanent means for giving warning of their presence must be maintained. Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation, taking into account any generally accepted international standards established in this regard by the competent international organization. Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of other States. Appropriate publicity shall be given to the depth, position and dimensions of any installations or structures not entirely removed.
4. The coastal State may, where necessary, establish reasonable safety zones around such artificial islands, installations and structures in which it may take appropriate measures to ensure the safety both of navigation and of
the artificial islands, installations and structures.
5. The breadth of the safety zones shall be determined by the coastal State, taking into account applicable international standards. Such zones shall be designed to ensure that they are reasonably related to the nature and function of the artificial islands, installations or structures, and shall not exceed a distance of 500 metres around them, measured from each point of their outer edge, except as authorized by generally accepted international standards or as recommended by the competent international organization. Due notice shall be given of the extent of safety zones.
6. All ships must respect these safety zones and shall comply with generally accepted international standards regarding navigation in the vicinity of artificial islands, installations, structures and safety zones.
7. Artificial islands, installations and structures and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation.
8. Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic
zone or the continental shelf.

PART VIII
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

This only applied to artificial island out of thin air. We build upon existing feature. That feature may be above water during high tide, which entitle to 12nm zone.

Just because others do brake the law, doesn't mean it is ok for you to brake the law. If that were the case, we'ld all be making money pushing dope and getting away with it.

You're wrong. If nobody condemn the Vietnam and Philippines for breaking the law, then why should we concern about breaking the accord? You would be in a high ground position to preach, but since you didn't condemn their action, it shows double standard and that cannot be allow in a fair international environment.

So, your sea lanes are more important than those of South Korea of Japan?
And it is not about resources? Rich Resources in the South China Sea

South Korea and Japan are your allies and do not need to be fear of a blockage in case of conflict. We are different than them, so you can't compare us with them. Our concern is you. Let make that clear, shall we?

All of which well inside the 12 nmi territorial waters, as measured from mainland.
I.e. not the kind of thing we are discussion here (artificial islands in the EEZ).

No. Some of those artificial islands were build hundred of miles away from US mainland. Some were near the coast of Latin America.

 

[EastSea]

US navy plans more patrols of South China Sea to 'remind' Chinese of rights
US military’s operational announcement affirms commitment to their right to freely navigate in the region, officials say

.

Navy sailors participate in an exercise on the deck of the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Lassen (DDG 82) with an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter, in the South China Sea last week. Photograph: US navy/Reuters

The US navy plans to conduct patrols within 12 nautical miles of artificial islands in the South China Sea about twice a quarter to remind China and other countries about US rights under international law, a US defense official said on Monday.

“We’re going to come down to about twice a quarter or a little more than that,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about navy operational plans.

“That’s the right amount to make it regular but not a constant poke in the eye. It meets the intent to regularly exercise our rights under international law and remind the Chinese and others about our view,” the official said.

On Monday Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security adviser, said there would be more demonstrations of the US military’s commitment to the right to freely navigate in the region.

“That’s our interest there … It’s to demonstrate that we will uphold the principle of freedom of navigation,” Rhodes told an event hosted by the Defense One media outlet.

Rhodes’s comments came a week after a US guided-missile destroyer sailed close to one of Beijing’s man-made islands in the South China Sea last week.

China’s naval commander last week told his US counterpart that a minor incident could spark war in the South China Sea if the United States did not stop its “provocative acts” in the disputed waterway.

The USS Lassen’s patrol was the most significant US challenge yet to the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit China claims around artificial islands it has built in the Spratly Islands archipelago.

Neither China nor the US will give way in this South China Sea showdown | Jonathan Fenby

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which more than $5tn of world trade transits every year. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan all have rival claims.

Rhodes said the goal in the dispute was to come to a diplomatic framework to resolve these issues.

Vice-Admiral John Aquilino, US deputy chief of naval operations for operations, plans and strategies, declined to comment about when the next patrols would take place.

“We do operations like that all the time around the world. That will continue for us,” he told Reuters after his remarks at the same conference. “We’ll just keep going.“

The defense secretary, Ash Carter, may visit a US navy ship during his upcoming visit to Asia, but is not expected to be on board during any navy freedom of navigation operations, the US defense official said.

http://syndication.theguardian.com/...patrols&type=article&internalpagecode=2400073

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

US navy plans more patrols of South China Sea to 'remind' Chinese of rights
US military’s operational announcement affirms commitment to their right to freely navigate in the region, officials say

.

Navy sailors participate in an exercise on the deck of the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Lassen (DDG 82) with an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter, in the South China Sea last week. Photograph: US navy/Reuters

The US navy plans to conduct patrols within 12 nautical miles of artificial islands in the South China Sea about twice a quarter to remind China and other countries about US rights under international law, a US defense official said on Monday.

“We’re going to come down to about twice a quarter or a little more than that,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about navy operational plans.

“That’s the right amount to make it regular but not a constant poke in the eye. It meets the intent to regularly exercise our rights under international law and remind the Chinese and others about our view,” the official said.

On Monday Ben Rhodes, the US deputy national security adviser, said there would be more demonstrations of the US military’s commitment to the right to freely navigate in the region.

“That’s our interest there … It’s to demonstrate that we will uphold the principle of freedom of navigation,” Rhodes told an event hosted by the Defense One media outlet.

Rhodes’s comments came a week after a US guided-missile destroyer sailed close to one of Beijing’s man-made islands in the South China Sea last week.

China’s naval commander last week told his US counterpart that a minor incident could spark war in the South China Sea if the United States did not stop its “provocative acts” in the disputed waterway.

The USS Lassen’s patrol was the most significant US challenge yet to the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit China claims around artificial islands it has built in the Spratly Islands archipelago.

Neither China nor the US will give way in this South China Sea showdown | Jonathan Fenby

China claims most of the South China Sea, through which more than $5tn of world trade transits every year. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan all have rival claims.

Rhodes said the goal in the dispute was to come to a diplomatic framework to resolve these issues.

Vice-Admiral John Aquilino, US deputy chief of naval operations for operations, plans and strategies, declined to comment about when the next patrols would take place.

“We do operations like that all the time around the world. That will continue for us,” he told Reuters after his remarks at the same conference. “We’ll just keep going.“

The defense secretary, Ash Carter, may visit a US navy ship during his upcoming visit to Asia, but is not expected to be on board during any navy freedom of navigation operations, the US defense official said.

Do what ever they want, just don't cry that we're doing on our soil.