US rejects China's claims in South China Sea drawing Beijing ire

[Feng Leng]

They have tasted the power of our ASBM!

 

[antonius123]

Do I need to explain once more after my posts ?

Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippine are seen as same people with the banner nation called Nusantara. It is why there is Palapa oath

Palapa oath
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is about Gajah Mada's historical oath. For Indonesian satellite, see Palapa.

High relief at Monas in Jakarta, depicting Gajah Mada taking his Palapa oath.
The Palapa oath (Indonesian: Sumpah Palapa) was an oath taken by Gajah Mada, a 14th-century Prime Minister of the Javanese Majapahit Empire described in the Pararaton (Book of Kings). In this oath Gajah Mada swore that he would not taste any spice, as long as he had not succeeded in unifying Nusantara (the Indonesian archipelago). The oath was taken during his inauguration as Majapahit Amangkubhumi (Prime Minister) that took place in 1256 Saka (1334) or 1258 Saka (1336).[1]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Manchu was never seen as part of China for so long until Manchu controlled China (1600-1912) and even those rebellion in the end period ofQing just show how Chinese perceive Manchurian. Manchurian has different language and script.

China just like Indonesia is a nation concept. The concept of nation according to wikipedia:
Nation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A nation is a stable community of humans formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group;[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

So Gajah Mada concept of Nusantara nation is not based on common language, territory, history, and ethnicity, but political. Because as we know there are so many different ethnics, language, territory, and history within the Nusantara concept. Since it was political point of view of someone, it was subjective in nature. A different political ruler/figure could have different point of view. Gajah Mada saw Malaysia, Brunei, Philippine as 1 nation, while other political ruler of Majapahit/Sriwijaya/Demak/Ternate/etc could have different point of (political) view.

Same like China, a leader in China could see manchuria not as part of China, while other leader of China could even see Japan, Korea, and Vietnam as part of China.

I think the reason why chinese did not see manchu as chinese or part of China at that time could be due to Ming and other predecessor dynasty political point of view. @beijingwalker, please correct me if i am wrong.

 

[Zsari]

China accuses US of 'inciting confrontation' after Washington rejected expansive claims in disputed sea for first time.

3 hours ago

The United States on Monday rejected China's territorial claims in the South China Sea, drawing an angry response from Beijing, which claimed Washington was trying to inflame tensions in the disputed waters.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the there was no legal basis for China's claims on the sea and it accused Beijing of using intimindatory tactics against other claimant states.

"We are making clear: Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are competely unlawful, as its campaign of bullying to control them," Pompeo said in a statement.

"The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire."

In response, the Chinese Embassy in the US described the announcement as "completely unjustified" and accused the US of inflaming the situation.

"Under the pretext of preserving stability, (the US) is flexing muscles, stirring up tension and inciting confrontation in the region."

The relationship between the US and China has become icreasingly tense in recent months not only over the coronavirus - where the US is now the world's worst-affected country - but over China's actions in Hong Kong and Xinjiang.

China stakes its claim to the South China Sea on the basis of its so-called "nine-dash line" under which virtually the whole area would belong to China. Countries around the sea including the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia also claim parts of the area, as does Taiwan.

UN-backed arbitration

Previously, US policy had been to urge the dispute to be resolved peacefully through UN-backed arbitration, but the statement suggests a hardening of the US position.

"America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law. We stand with the international community in defence of freedom of the seas and respect for sovereignty and reject any push to impose 'might makes right' in the South China Sea or the wider region."

Although the US will continue to remain neutral in territorial disputes, the announcement suggests the administration is in effect siding with the littoral states, all of which oppose Chinese assertions of sovereignty over maritime areas surrounding contested islands, reefs and shoals.

"There are clear cases where [China] is claiming sovereignty over areas that no country can lawfully claim," the State Department said in a fact sheet that accompanied the statement.

The announcement was released a day after the fourth anniversary of a binding decision by an arbitration panel in favour of the Philippines that rejected China's maritime claims around the Spratly Islands and neighbouring reefs and shoals.

China has refused to recognise that decision, dismissed it as a "sham", and refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings. It has continued to defy the decision with aggressive actions that have brought it into regular disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia.

The US said China has no valid maritime claims to the fish- and potentially energy-rich Scarborough Reef, Mischief Reef or Second Thomas Shoal. The US has repeatedly said areas regarded to be part of the Philippines are covered by a US-Philippines mutual defence treaty in the event of an attack on them.

Words vs action

In addition to reiterating support for that decision, Pompeo said China cannot legally claim the James Shoal near Malaysia, waters surrounding the Vanguard Bank off Vietnam, the Luconia Shoals near Brunei and Natuna Besar off Indonesia. As such, the US said it would regard any Chinese harassment of fishing vessels or oil exploration in those areas as unlawful.

Malaysia's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday said it had no immediate comment to make on the US statement.

China has sought to shore up its claim to the sea by building military bases on coral atolls, and while the US has no claims itself to the waters but has deployed warships and aircraft for decades to patrol and promote freedom of navigation and overflight in the busy waterway.

Regional analysts say it is crucial to see whether other countries follow the US stance and what Washington will do to support its more assertive stance.

"This is basically the first time we have called it illegitimate." Chris Johnson, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC told Reuters news agency. "It's fine to put out a statement, but what are you going to do about it?"

Last week, China angrily complained about the US flexing its military muscle in the disputed sea by conducting joint exercises with two US aircraft carrier groups.

The US Navy said the USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan, along with their accompanying vessels and aircraft, conducted exercises "designed to maximize air defence capabilities, and extend the reach of long-range precision maritime strikes from carrier-based aircraft in a rapidly evolving area of operations".

China claims almost all of the South China Sea under its self-proclaimed nine-dash line, which gives it about nine tenths of the 3.5 million square kilometre sea.

Five other governments claim all or part of the sea, through which approximately five trillion dollars in goods are shipped every year.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.al...e-claims-south-china-sea-200713191231562.html

CNN link:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...outh-china-sea-pompeo-announcement/index.html

It's official now.

View attachment 650889

Funny it was the US navy that escorted the ROC troops in exercising these exact claims in the first place.

 

[Figaro]

LOL thousands of years. Dont spread lies here. Manchu started to rule China in 1600. They adopted Chinese language to make it easy for them to control China.

Manchu is seen as foreigners even until 1912, the end of their rule

Anti-Qing sentiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"Anti-Manchu sentiment" redirects here. For specific hatred against Manchu people, see Anti-Manchuism.

Sun Yat-sen, one of the leaders of the Xinhai Revolution which overthrew the Qing dynasty in 1912. Photo taken in 1907

Anti-Qing sentiment (Chinese: 反清; pinyin: fǎn Qīng) refers to a sentiment principally held in China against Manchu rule during the Qing dynasty (1636–1912), which was criticized by opponents as being barbaric. The Qing was accused of destroying traditional Han culture by forcing Han to wear their hair in a queue in the Manchu style. It was blamed for suppressing Chinese science, causing China to be transformed from the world's premiere power to a poor, backwards nation. The people of the Eight Banners lived off government pensions unlike the general Han civilian population.

The rallying slogan of anti-Qing activists was "Fǎn Qīng fù Míng" (simplified Chinese: 反清复明; traditional Chinese: 反清復明; literally: "Oppose Qing and restore Ming"), related to the Boxer Rebellion slogan "Revive the Qing and destroy the foreigners" ("扶清滅洋 fú Qīng miè yáng").

In the broadest sense, an anti-Qing activist was anyone who engaged in anti-Manchu direct action. This included people from many mainstream political movements and uprisings, such as Taiping Rebellion, the Xinhai Revolution, the Revolt of the Three Feudatories, the Revive China Society, the Tongmenghui, the Panthay Rebellion, White Lotus Rebellion, and others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-Manchuism (Chinese: 排滿) refers to sentiment which is held against the Manchus, or sentiment which was held against the Qing Dynasty's rule over Chinese civilization which was often resented for supposedly being a barbaric regime which ruled over Chinese civilization despite a high degree of cultural integration by the Manchus. This ethnic-based[citation needed] sentiment tended to be a subset of the greater anti-Qing sentiment. Some of the anti-Manchuists in the Qing dynasty stated "Fan qing fu ming" (simplified Chinese: 反清复明; traditional Chinese: 反清復明) to say they want to rebuild the Ming dynasty and overthrow the Qing dynasty.

Sun Yat Sen, who overthrew the Qing Dynasty and founded the Chinese Republic, proclaimed this when he launched his rebellion against the Qing Dynasty which was led by Manchus and ruled all of China from 1644 to 1911:

In order to restore our national independence, we must first restore the Chinese nation. In order to restore the Chinese nation, we must drive the barbarian Manchus back to the Changbai Mountains. In order to get rid of the barbarians, we must first overthrow the present tyrannical, dictatorial, ugly, and corrupt Qing government. Fellow countrymen, a revolution is the only means to overthrow the Qing government!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taiping Rebellion
Main articles: Taiping Rebellion and Taiping Heavenly Kingdom

A drawing of Hong Xiuquan as the "Heavenly King" (ca. 1860)

Hong Xiuquan (洪秀全, Hóng Xiùquán) was a Hakka Chinese who was the leader of the Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864) against the Qing dynasty. He proclaimed himself to be the Heavenly King, established the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and called Jesus Christ his brother.[citation needed]

Genocide and extermination of Manchus
Driven by their fierce hatred of Manchus, the Taiping launched a massive genocide campaign against the Manchus to exterminate their entire race.

The genocide of Manchus was incredible, in every area they captured, the Taiping immediately rushed into the Manchu fort in order to kill all the Manchus. One Qing loyalist observed in the province of Hunan of the genocidal massacres committed by Taiping forces against the Manchus and wrote of the "pitiful Manchus", the Manchu men, women and children who were exterminated by the Taiping with their swords. Once Hefei capitulated, the Taiping forces rushed into the Manchu quarter shouting "Kill the demons (Manchus)!" while exterminating all the Manchus living there. Ningbo's entire Manchu population was also annihilated.[12]

After conquering Nanjing, Taiping forces stormed the Manchu fort, killing some 40,000 Manchus, which was the city's entire population of Manchus.[13] On 27 October 1853 they crossed the Yellow River in T'sang-chou and butchered about 10,000 Manchus.[14] In Shaoxing 2,000 Manchus were also killed.[15]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Qing_sentiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Manchuism

But do note here that the Manchus heavily relied on Chinese administration, from the bottom to the top. The Qing government was ruled by both Manchus and Han, unlike the Yuan dynasty, which was ruled by foreigners. Also, the Manchus heavily assimilated into Chinese culture, unlike the Mongols. This is why their rule lasted for very long (although after the Qianlong Empire the Qing rule was very weak and relied on mostly warlords). Besides, the only way the Manchus even came to power was because of powerful Ming defectors (e.g. Wu Sangui who let the Manchus through the Shanhai Pass) ... otherwise they would have been blocked outside the Great Wall. By the time of the Xinhai rebellion, the Qing government's rule in China was basically just nominal ... the anti-Manchu hatred was to justify the final overthrow of the empire, even though it was basically sinicized at this point.